This strikes me as somewhat misinformed. Try reading Michael Neiburg's "Warfare in World History." It's a great ~100 page summary of the history of warfare. Fir

This strikes me as somewhat misinformed. Try reading Michael Neiburg's "Warfare in World History." It's a great ~100 page summary of the history of warfare. Firearms are a very important component. Not all battles were decided by close combat... not by a long shot. Musketmen were an integral part of combat, though pikemen and cavalry were as well. Then again, artillery, too, played a big role in European warfare. On the other hand, as Kenneth Chase's "Firearms: A Global History to 1700" will point out, the use of firearms in a given region depended on a variety of factors, ranging from terrain to materials available, but mostly depending on what style of warfare was prevalent (nomadic vs. agrarianate) and what style a given state's neighbors chose. An excellent counterpoint to the melee-centric theory of battle prior to the 1850s is the "wagon laager," used by several nations, but most effectively used by the Ottomans. Chase begins describing the Ottoman wagon laager on p86. It relied on firearms (muskets and cannons, not rifles) and was used to great effect as early as the 1400s. The janissary infantry relied on firearms so much that they were not equipped with pikes; the Ottoman army used a combination of this wagon laager and cavalry to fight their battles... melee infantry simply weren't used. In summary, firearms were overwhelming combat weapons well before the introduction of breach-loading rifles.