| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - No Gunpowder?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


No Gunpowder?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 8>
Author
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2010 at 05:53

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Carch when faced with significant evidence of the contray why do you hold onto your beliefs even tighter?

 

What evidence? Your words? Have you some more specific numbers of the armaments in India? 

What types of guns did they have? How much longer range had the Indian guns compared with European guns at that time and so on.

How many guns where there in India compared with in Europe? 

And also remember that Britain did not take all the guns they had in the whole of Britain to India. They were forced to fight with limited resources. The Indians were on their own turf so they had advantages of that too.

Do not also forget that Indians took some help from the French in the wars at the late half of 18th century.

Also the Brits were many times heavy outnumbered which ofcourse also contributed to their difficulties. 

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Really? At exactly what point? Seriously, at which date did England exceed India in technology?
In fact, after 1850 how do you even separate England and India? They are the same country. I could say that in 1900 Calcutta University was leading its field in physics, but the university and its students were obviously British subjects.

 

If one look at them as the same country then one could not exceed the other, but already at some time before that (in the 18th century) England surpassedpassed India in technological achievements. Both in military technology and other fields. In the 18th century Europe was even on the verge to pass China.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Prove it. 
I don't think you'd heard of Bornu before I mentioned it. I certainly don't know of any source that you can make that claim from.

 

On the contrary I have actually read about Kanem Bornu and also the old kingdoms and empires of Ghana, Mali and Songhay.

But to think that Bornu had larger industrial capacity than Europe I think is wrong. Especially during the 18th century (as you know its decline started already in the 17th century) and later.

Even a little country like Sweden had relatively large capacity concerning guns and other fields of production at that time. 

But if you have some good sources that shows that Bornu had larger military and industrial capacity in the 17th and 18th century than Europe then you can perhaps name those sources, since I am no expert in Bornus industrial and military capacity.

How much own weapons production had Bornu (it seems that much of their musquets were bought by the Turkish, at least in the 16th and early 17th centuries). How much artillery did they have and how much could they produce??

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

So? Many of the whites were killed with spears. Its an irrelevat point. Of course the English were using guns and the Pallwah spears. 
 

But how is it if we compare the outcome of the clashes in Tasmania? Did the Tasmanians kill more brits (in combat, musquet against spear) than the other way around? How would these clashes had ended if the English have had no firearms at all?

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

The Black War was the most successful Aboriginal resistance in all of Australia. It lasted 4 times longer than other movements.
 

Still the aborigines lost. Dont you think they had been able to withstand even longer if the British have had no firearms?

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Same point regarding your post to Dr G. You merely showed the Spanish had guns. You didn't show that if they didn't have guns they would've lost.
 

To  prove how the outcome would have been without guns is ofcourse difficult since the Spaniards did have guns. 

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

You don't know what you're talking about. In my district the Walgalu, Ngunawal, and Ngarigo fought no battles with Europeans yet the vast majority were all dead within 60 years. The only wars fought with Europeans involved around here was when the Wiradjuri invaded the Tumut district and the white settlers took sides in the fight between Walgalu and Wiradjuri.
 

In Australia  there is a whole long list of killings and massacres, and most of them seem to have had guns involved. In several of those cases aborigines had spears, still they were massacred. 

And concerning Natives in America do you not think that smaller groups of natives, often in difficult terrain, and armed with many times very effective bow and arrows, would not have been even more effective against an enemy without guns? Also do you think that some of these groups fortified villages, like the ones that existed in eastern North America in the 17th and 18th centuries would not have been harder to penetrate without guns?

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Prove it don't claim it.
 

How do you prove something that never happened? But one can perhaps use some common sense. If it took centuries with guns, why should it not take even longer time without guns?

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Last I checked 300 years of guns didn't conquer the west. Industrialisation is not gunpowder.
 

Well, as I said warfare with guns became different from warfare without. Also Native Americans got guns (and ofcourse horses as I mentioned before) and thus the conquering of the west took longer time. But still in the end the Europeans and their descendants had most guns and other resources.

But try to instead imagine the fights fought without any guns.

And about industrial revolution, it has even been argued that gunpowder was one of the factors that made it possible, or at least helped it on its way.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Events post 1850 are beyond the scope of thread.
 

The thread starter did not say that.




Edited by Carcharodon - 12 Jul 2010 at 17:54
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
warwolf1969 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 08 May 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 38
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote warwolf1969 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2010 at 18:34
My one question is if gunpowder did nothing to aid the European conquests, how did such a small group of nations conqure nearly the whole world.  There had to be a reason, in all the arguements against gunpowder effecting things I have not seen one for why gunpowder was not needed.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2010 at 20:55
Originally posted by warwolf1969 warwolf1969 wrote:

My one question is if gunpowder did nothing to aid the European conquests, how did such a small group of nations conqure nearly the whole world.  There had to be a reason, in all the arguements against gunpowder effecting things I have not seen one for why gunpowder was not needed.
 
The response is obvious unless you are willing to posit that the Macedonians of the 4th century BC had gunpowder. Further, you are permitting the illusions of the 19th century to color the definition of "conquest".
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
SPQR View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 917
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SPQR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2010 at 21:24
Apart from Gunpowder... The Europeans also spread diseases which did most of the dirty deed.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2011 at 23:23
Wow!  What a thread, so many good and bad points made!  Thanks to all of you.
 
But, have any of you ever considered the bad points of gun-powder, expecially in areas of the world where the nature of the area is wet and humid, or seasonally hit with long periods of heavy rains? Did any of you ever consider water, and flint, and sparks, etc.?  Did any of you ever hear the term "Keep the Powder dry!"
 
Did any of you ever look up the history of "Salt-petre" or "Salt-peter?"  Did any of you ever look up the history of the discovery of the correct ratio of material that makes reliable "black powder?"
 
Did any of you realize that the real gold in S.A. was its vast quanties of natural and easily available "salt petre'"?  It is some times called "Guano!"
 
 
England, and other nations, in the desire to keep up with its neighbors, actually hid "salt petre'" in the holds of its shipping fleet, as merely ballast, to keep it from being discovered by the enemy.
But, you all can find out all about the above if you choose.
 
But the point is, during a drizzle or during very damp conditions, the early use of gunpowder weapons, was chancey at best!  That is could the average troop actually get the ignition of the powder during such conditions?  But, bows and arrows, or bolt/dart firing weapons like the "cross-bow" were not so hampered!
 
Some people even consider that the early outposts of the Church in Europe, and other places, where food and cover was kept available to travellers, often provided the world of the church with this valuable "rock!", which was meticulously gathered from the stall wherein horses, etc. were tethered and fed and watered.  The resulting "salt rocks" were eventually gathered by the Monks/ Orders, for use in gun powder production.
 
The "Salt Tower" of London, was reserved for "Salt", whether for the storage of regular salt, or salt petre' is up to discussion.  But, if you search you will also find the "Flint Tower!"  So, just what do think these places were built to defend?
 
Any way, I tend to run on, and on!
 
Regards,
 
Ron


Edited by opuslola - 17 Mar 2011 at 23:57
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 00:07
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 Balderdash! These ridiculous assertions have no factual basis in history! In the Americas, the Spanish and the Portuguese of the 16th century were not dragging artillery in to the interior and the supposition that it was gunpowder that proved the mainstay of the bandeirantes in the Amazonian rainforest during the 17th century can only be posited by someone entirely ignorant of the Portuguese experience in Brazil.  

Actually without guns and other technological superiority both Spanish and Portuguese had not reached much further. 



And the Mapuches in Chile or the plain indians in North America would probably still going on fighting today if it had not been for firearms.
 
Let us remember that both Mapuches and some plain Indians (Sioux, for instance) addopted horses firearms!
 
 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 00:08
Originally posted by SPQR SPQR wrote:

Apart from Gunpowder... The Europeans also spread diseases which did most of the dirty deed.
Baloney.
Europeans also died like flies with the  same diseases.
Africans like in mass as well.
The difference is that these people were continuously replaced while the small native populations lacked replacements.
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 07:25
I think its ridiculous to suggest that "guns didn't change anything" especially with flint lock pistols at close range. Such an improvement; no long a bulky huge bow, you can kill a fully armored knight no problem in a situation where you could have otherwise died or change into battle with several pistols fire the shots and then take out a sword? Rifles might not have been "amazing" but still the potential was there and was not as "accurate as a cross bow or a regular bow" but never the less still amazing especially when you think about the relative ease of a pistol even though the timing was a couple of seconds. You press the button a couple of seconds later it fires. Still crazy though I mean it must have been such an up grade to a horse archer situation. I think bows were still carried but why would you? Do you have any idea how hard it is to draw a crossbow? Or how long it takes to get awesome with a bow? Even a 30 pound draw weight bow which most horse archers used, couple that with the ability to have to draw and not hold on to the horse and ride at full gallop. So a couple of pistols or a pistol and small rifle must have been ridiculous from that perspective. A crossbow with a 100 pound draw weight only takes a second to pull back standing regular but on horseback not so great or on foot it was really accurate especially with an amateur. It aims like a gun but works with the principle an arrow flys by if that makes sense if you've never shot one cause their pretty awesome. I own both weapons I own a re curve bow and my family member owns a shotgun I can shoot both pretty good mainly the bow as I like to use it more cause theres something about a broad head I think is awesome. Still though in any confrontation with a gun would have to be in the bushs but with an ancient gun I'd probably be able to win every time. Even with a 30 pound bow which sounds ridiculous but its really not I've shot the thing like 6 inches into trees the arrow wouldn't come out for like 20 minutes and that was like 30-40 yards away. This albeit is a modern take down recurve but thats besides the point.

An interesting thing about bows is the wound it creates it doesn't kill the animal right away sometimes they run or attempt to walk but if you hit them good and deep with a strong blade and by strong blade I mean a broadhead that will go through both ends of a steel barrel.


Edited by Joe - 18 Mar 2011 at 07:33
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 11:39
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Baloney.
Europeans also died like flies with the  same diseases.
Africans like in mass as well.
The difference is that these people were continuously replaced while the small native populations lacked replacements.
 
Actually, Europeans had a higher degree of immunity against many of the epidemic diseases they brought with them.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 13:18
But those were relative terms. Europeans weren't fully immune at all.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 13:22
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

But those were relative terms. Europeans weren't fully immune at all.

 
Not fully immune, but still much more immune than many indigenous peoples. It could ofcourse vary depending on which disease we are talking about and also which European people and which indigenous people. But the phenomena is rather well known from for example the Americas or the Pacific or the Andamans, just to mention some areas.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 13:55
Just remember the disaster of the European attempt to colonize the capital of disease worldwide: Africa.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 13:57
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Just remember the disaster of the European attempt to colonize the capital of disease worldwide: Africa.
 
Yes, parts of Africa had a set of diseases not suitable for Europeans.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 14:00
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Just remember the disaster of the European attempt to colonize the capital of disease worldwide: Africa.
 
Yes, parts of Africa had a set of diseases not suitable for Europeans.


So did many areas of the Americas.  The assertion that Europeans brought in all the diseases (an assertion that has P.C. roots) is a crock.


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 14:02
The diseases that killed Europeans in the Americas was also carried by Africans.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 14:07

That is a simplification. Europeans also brought their own diseases, which killed themselves. But the indigenous Americans were more effected by both European and also some African diseases.



Edited by Carcharodon - 18 Mar 2011 at 14:10
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 14:22
Some African diseases? The more deadly came from Africa.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 14:30
Many of the epidemics that the Europeans brought had been around for centuries and even millennia in Europe. Many of them are also hard to track concerning their origin. What is evident for many of them though is that they spread in the old world in conjunction with agriculture, especially animal husbandry.
 
But to the colonies it was mostly Europeans that spread these diseases. For many indigenous peoples Europeans where walking petrie dishes and spreaders of pestilence.


Edited by Carcharodon - 18 Mar 2011 at 14:32
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 14:50
If European military success hinged on 16th century firearms they'd be in dire straits indeed. At this point, war was still very much about metal, horses and organisation, which few of their New World adversaries excelled at. *Awaits rant on the brilliant organisation of Native American armies and how it would be undefeatable without firearms*
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 15:19
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

If European military success hinged on 16th century firearms they'd be in dire straits indeed. At this point, war was still very much about metal, horses and organisation, which few of their New World adversaries excelled at. *Awaits rant on the brilliant organisation of Native American armies and how it would be undefeatable without firearms*
 
Perhaps one can pose the question of how successful the conquest of America had been without any firearms at all. It is ofcourse hard to answer, but a guess is that it at least had been slower.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 15:30
The Scandinavians tried to conquer the Americas without firearms. They received a kick at the back.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 16:05
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

But those were relative terms. Europeans weren't fully immune at all.

 
Not fully immune, but still much more immune than many indigenous peoples. It could ofcourse vary depending on which disease we are talking about and also which European people and which indigenous people. But the phenomena is rather well known from for example the Americas or the Pacific or the Andamans, just to mention some areas.
If you aren't exposed to a disease you can't develop an immunity to it. That's what vaccination is all about. and, invertedly, it's why the continual redevelopment of antibiotics (a 'disease' that affects bacteria) is necessary.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 18:55
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The Scandinavians tried to conquer the Americas without firearms. They received a kick at the back.
There are numerous reasons they did not, I think, if we discuss the early, pre - 1500 "scandinavian expansion"
1:They may not have been very motivated to "conquer" or "colonise" what they saw, since the areas they saw where rather harsh, and did probably not appear that rich.
2: In contrast to later western expansion, their "lands of origin" had rather small populations, available ressources and probably organisation and some technologies(Norway and Iceland are still much less densely populated than other European countries, probably bellow even the average of American countries).
3: Many did not even start from mainland Scandinavia (or Norway) itself, but from former "colonised" parts of the North Atlantic, Greenland, Iceland, and smaller islands(Faeroes, hebrides, Shetlands, etcetera). The combined populations there rather low(in the ten thousands I think).
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 20:23
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The Scandinavians tried to conquer the Americas without firearms. They received a kick at the back.

You say things without researching them first. Risky.
 
The Norse didn't try to conquer anything in America. There were two incidents of conflict with the natives related to two small groups of explorers, one consisting of 30 men and one of 60 men, who ran into the Skraelings by pure chance. Relations were mostly peaceful and mercantile for the short while they lasted, and on the two occasions when conflict did arise the natives were not able to do much else than frighten the Norse with possibility of returning in great numbers, which is why they left.

Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 21:25
Does no one know the problems with the ignition of our early form of firearms, in wet conditions?  I  made a long post concerning it, but it appears no one really read it.
 
Perhaps none of you are "firearms instructors?"
 
Lighting the old firearms, was a sometime thing, if the weather did not prevent it!  If, during the midst of a battle, a large rainstorm hit, then the forces with the older technology, would likely prevail!
 
But, that is just my opinion, since it seems, almost no account of ancient battles ever mentions the weather!
 
To me, at least, that means that the account was not "first hand", but merely second or third hand!
 
But, I could well be uninformed?
 
Regards,
 
Ron


Edited by opuslola - 18 Mar 2011 at 21:27
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 21:33
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The Scandinavians tried to conquer the Americas without firearms. They received a kick at the back.
There are numerous reasons they did not, I think, if we discuss the early, pre - 1500 "scandinavian expansion"
1:They may not have been very motivated to "conquer" or "colonise" what they saw, since the areas they saw where rather harsh, and did probably not appear that rich.
2: In contrast to later western expansion, their "lands of origin" had rather small populations, available ressources and probably organisation and some technologies(Norway and Iceland are still much less densely populated than other European countries, probably bellow even the average of American countries).
3: Many did not even start from mainland Scandinavia (or Norway) itself, but from former "colonised" parts of the North Atlantic, Greenland, Iceland, and smaller islands(Faeroes, hebrides, Shetlands, etcetera). The combined populations there rather low(in the ten thousands I think).
That's a good point. It has no relation at all with the massive invasion that West Europeans made during the 15th and early 16th century.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 21:34
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The Scandinavians tried to conquer the Americas without firearms. They received a kick at the back.

You say things without researching them first. Risky.
 
The Norse didn't try to conquer anything in America. There were two incidents of conflict with the natives related to two small groups of explorers, one consisting of 30 men and one of 60 men, who ran into the Skraelings by pure chance. Relations were mostly peaceful and mercantile for the short while they lasted, and on the two occasions when conflict did arise the natives were not able to do much else than frighten the Norse with possibility of returning in great numbers, which is why they left.

Indeed.
Besides, as the matter of fact, firearms were very rearly used during the Spanish invasion either. Iron, horses and large numbers were the tricks of the invaders.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 21:44
Maybe it was the result of the "Weather?"
 
Look, I am somewhat an "expert" when it comes to "firearms"!
 
Regards,
 
Ron


Edited by opuslola - 18 Mar 2011 at 21:45
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 21:46
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

Does no one know the problems with the ignition of our early form of firearms, in wet conditions?  I  made a long post concerning it, but it appears no one really read it.
 
Perhaps none of you are "firearms instructors?"
 
Lighting the old firearms, was a sometime thing, if the weather did not prevent it!  If, during the midst of a battle, a large rainstorm hit, then the forces with the older technology, would likely prevail!
 
But, that is just my opinion, since it seems, almost no account of ancient battles ever mentions the weather!
 
To me, at least, that means that the account was not "first hand", but merely second or third hand!
 
But, I could well be uninformed?
 
Regards,
 
Ron


Your totally right but sometimes it depended on the bows used as they also were hampered in the rain. If the materials were good and the string good it could be used effectively in the rain but you have remember an arrow is an arrow now a bullet.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2011 at 21:52
Au contraire!, my friend!  Hunters have hunted with bows and the arrows for thousands of years, and it seems that the arrow is mostly very little constrained by weather!  Rather, it seems that the sounds made by rainfall, makes bow and arrow hunting even easier!
 
Perhaps the same existed on the battle field?
 
They were, essentially, "Silent Death!"
 
Regards,
 
Ron
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.