| 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  <12345 8>
Author
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: 19 Mar 2011 at 03:06
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

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

A bow made a thousand years ago and beyond wasn't that great in the rain they weren't made out of modern materials with modern chemicals to withstand the elements most of the time they were really well put together and DID perform better in the rain than a gun but an arrow is an arrow it is not comparable to a bullet out of a modern or old style gun and a recurve bow goes about 150 miles per hour or about 200 feet per second and back in the day that was powerful but now a days its a joke compared to some compounds or crossbows the tac 15 crossbow made by pse goes like 450 feet per second. So back in the day the bows killed but not as good and did not perform as well. An arrow flys so much different than a bullet that its ridiculous I mean they are a weird projectile and one that isn't comparable to a bullet. When it rains and if were stalking "serious storm" and not just a drizzle the wind can divert the arrow alot if the fletchings are weak it'll go off track if you release it funny it'll go off track.

Now I shoot the European way like this

 

I often hit on target and get good kills. Now I tried a different style of pull and released it weird and it went flying into the woods and now i have to get a machete to hack it out cause the bushes are to dense to wade through. This is a "mongol draw or muslim draw really just a thumb release"




Some archers would like to argue that its a "cleaner shot" especially when they like to use the muslim and mongol style bows. I personally don't use either in the normal sense but a variation of the Mediterranean draw with three fingers below the arrow and nocking point being my top finger instead of one above and two below. A knocking point however is a modern invention and not to be a basis for ancient or medieval archery.


The difference between a bow and a gun is this simple and we all should know this.

1. it takes a lot of skill to become good with a bow unless its a crossbow

2. all the power of a bow is stored in its limbs and upon release is put into the arrow and this is the same for both cross bows and regular bows. Guns however use a series of guns and mechanical devices to move its weapon a small metal item that travels at speeds a bow cannot match. This goes for guns from 300 years ago or today.





Albeit this is a ten minute video but this guy explains in detal how this flint lock pistol works. So compare what i just said about a bow and what he says about that gun.







Edited by Joe - 19 Mar 2011 at 03:14
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


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: 19 Mar 2011 at 04:44
Well we'll soon find out what is meant by "wet powder".

Edited by drgonzaga - 20 Mar 2011 at 23:31
Honi soit qui mal y pense
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: 19 Mar 2011 at 11:35
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

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.
 
Well, Europeans had been exposed to a lot of diseases that many indigenous peoples not had any contact with before. And in the time of early contact in the Americas there were no antibiotics or vaccinations. And even today when people with no immunity come in contact with new diseases they have not always access to vaccinations (or sometimes there is no vaccinations or suitable medicines developed for that specific disease at all).


Edited by Carcharodon - 19 Mar 2011 at 11:56
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: 19 Mar 2011 at 14:34
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?
 
 
Rain affected bows as much s firearms. And rain means mud, which affect both infantry and cavalry in different ways. Or you get mud hen the rain has stopped, and indeed rain which hasn't yet created much mud.
 
Moreover, read almost any account of a battle, ancient, medieval or modern and you'll find weather mentioned in the analysis. Above all of course you can'tread more than a paragraph or two about naval battles without considering the weather.
 
Even D-Day had to be put back 24 hours because of the weather.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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

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: 19 Mar 2011 at 14:54
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

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! 
It isn't a question of the arrow, but of the bow. A wet bowstring doesn't work.
 
More generally about the weather, obvious examples are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
 
Quote
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!"
Battles aren't silent. And never were. If you're talking about assassination that's different.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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

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: 19 Mar 2011 at 15:11
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*


But that's based in yours prejucide that the native tactics didn't evolve with the first battles.
The fact is far from the truth. Amerindians learned from theirs invaders the technologies and tactics as well. That's why before the railroads, massive artillery and the proffesional armies of the 19th centuries, large parts of the Americas were still in Amerindian hands.

And don't forget that the Amerindian tactics of the North American Indians influenced the American revolutionaries as well, and eventually European wars as well Confused.

Intead of ranting I suggest you study the topic.
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: 19 Mar 2011 at 21:13
Re., hunting or killing with a bow in the rain, etc.
 
"Hunting Deer in Rain

It is a well known fact that deer activity seems to intensify before or after a big storm.  Just like people deer seek out shelter when heavy rain and snow are coming down but in his hunters opinion light rain doesn't seem to effect deer movements as long as the wind isn't wiping, and light rain can have some big advantages for the hunter. 

  • When the ground is wet in the woods it is much easier for the hunter to move quietly. after a good rain the leaves on the forest floor don't crunch and crackle like they do on a dry day.
  • In the rain you are often one of the only hunters in the woods
  • Scent doesn't seem to carry as far on a rainy day.

As a general rule of thumb as long as it isn't pouring buckets and the wind isn't blowing to hard deer still move around in the rain. So next tim it is a rainy day consider grabbing your bow and head for the woods. With today's new rain gear you can remain dry while whitetail hunting in the rain.

Need another reason to hunt in the rain?

Leading whitetail deer researcher Leonard Rue III says that rain helps dissipate human odor molecules making it harder for a deer to smell you!  Rain also makes it easier for you to walk quielty in the woods so.... Less scent no noies what's a guy to do??? Try a stock or walk and stop type of hunt.  You may just walk right up on a trophy deer."

So, entertain this thought, in the past, soldiers kept their powder (and flint) in a pouch, which I would expect was as water-proof as they could produce, and the rest of their needs seperate.  So, suppose your enemy, which was heavily armed with bows and cross-bows, determined their actions related to weather?  Thus, whilst it was dry, they might well avoid battle, but they might well attack during a heavy rain, or a shower, or fog, etc., knowing that their more heavily armed opponents, were basically trying to "keep their powder dry!"
 
So, just go outside in a drizzle or rain, and try to prime and light your "flint lock."  Especially if the enemy was just 100 yards away, and firing their arrows and darts, all the time.  But, the flint-lock" was a later additon to the field, before then, we  might wll consider that this was the weapon of choice;
 
 
 

From the above site we read;
 
"Disadvantages
  1. It was difficult to use in wet weather because of the problems of the powder in the pan getting damp and the slow match going out in heavy rains.
  2. It was quite dangerous to have around large quantities of gunpowder. For instance, when a group of soldiers were loading their weapons from their powder horns (i.e. a large container that hangs from the waist and carries extra gunpowder), there was always a chance that the open flame from one person's matchlock could set off another person's supply.
  3. Since the slow match was always lit, the glow could give away a person's position at night time. The slow match also had a pretty distinct smell that could let people know that a person carrying a matchlock was nearby.
Nevertheless, matchlock technology stayed alive for a very long time. The Janissary troops of the Ottoman empire were using these weapons in the mid 1400s. By 1526, they were introduced into India by the invasion of Babur, the first Moghul ruler of India. In 1543, a Portuguese vessel was wrecked off Tanegashima island in Japan and some of its crew showed the local Shogun their matchlock weapons, which the Japanese were very quick to clone and use for their own local wars. Well into the 19th century, matchlock weapons were still being used in India, China and Japan. There were even some records of rebels using matchlocks in East Timor well into the 20th century.
Posted by The Editor at 10:32 PM "
 
Thus, whould you want to be firing one of these in a battle where rain was falling?
 
Regards,
Ron
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: 20 Mar 2011 at 11:42
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

Re., hunting or killing with a bow in the rain, etc.
Hunting deer has nothing to do with battlefield fighting. for instance:
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

When the ground is wet in the woods it is much easier for the hunter to move quietly. after a good rain the leaves on the forest floor don't crunch and crackle like they do on a dry day.

In the rain you are often one of the only hunters in the woods

Scent doesn't seem to carry as far on a rainy day.

Nothing in there has the slightest relationship to fighting armies on a battlefield.
And no-one, as far as I can see, has suggested anything other than matchlocks were clumsy and needed dry powder.
 
Neverless, as you may perhaps never have noticed, the were eagerly seiozed upon by virtually everyone with any experience of medieval warfare as superior to bows.
 
Of course for all I know in Fomenko's chronology Waterloo was fought between opposing ranks of bowmen. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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

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: 20 Mar 2011 at 20:46
Doctor, it is known that enemy armies of the past, also sent out skirmishers, and for all we know, scouts, to get  information about the enemy!  Certainly the stealth situation of a rainy day, would aid in these endeavours?
And, unless you have never been there, most armies can literally "smell" their enemies, during times of war, etc.!  Even Napolean, reportedly ordered  his mistress "not to bathe, since he would be with her in a week, or two weeks, etc.!  BO, is mostly non-existant today however, but not with an army on the march!  More than likely cabbage eaters (Germans) would likely smell different from the French who were not known for their like of cabbage, etc.  Cabbage heads, was just one of the insulting words created for Germans.
 
The real problem with European battles, in the past, was the everpresent control of the "gentlemen" who commanded the armies, and thus they all supposedly fought by the same rules of engagement.  For a real gentleman could be expected to do no less.
 
Too many of these gentlemen, those men of lower class, were no more than a paper target for the enemy to kill.  There was no "brother-hood" or respect for those of basic rank and file.  They were, for the most part, merely "cannon fodder."
 
But, again just what were the conditions at Agincourt?  There is no doubt that the field'reavine in front of the Brits, was muddy, as is about the best information I seem to remember concerning the situation the French Knights found themselves stuck in.
 
You must think that if the field of battle was not in the best interests of a "chess board" battle between two opposing forces, fought in the sunshine, upon a dry field, the the two sides would, as gentlemen, merely pospone the activities until conditions warrented a resumption of the hostilities.
 
Sometimes, it seems those hard-headed Franks seemed unable to control themselves however, and made their famous charge no matter what.
 
Any way, regards,
 
Ron


Edited by opuslola - 20 Mar 2011 at 20:47
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: 20 Mar 2011 at 23:52
Say what? Cannons at Agincourt? What next the pot-de-fer decided all issues at Crecy? I suppose Henry Tudor awaited "fair weather" so as to play fair with Richard of Gloucester in 1485...but hey now that we are treating the endangered status of B.O., where the cries of outrage over the "stink' raised by all of today's obnoxious fragrances that make the smell of corned beef and cabbage an utter delight! 
 
being a metrosexual does not make one a gentleman...Evil Smile
Honi soit qui mal y pense
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: 21 Mar 2011 at 00:21
Just look at the skys over the battle field that one artist presented;
 
 
Since cannon are not mentioned in the accounts of this battle, there is no reason to assume they were there, unless the weather kept them from being used.  But, I did not use this battle to make prey of anyone, concerning "explosives", rather it was predicated upon the weather, and the recently tilled land, over which the French still insisted upon attacking upon!
 
Only you  would throw out cannons, as a demarkation line between your reasoning (if any) and mine, which was already well formed and complete.Confused
 
Regards doctor!
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: 21 Mar 2011 at 00:46
And, last but not lease, is the concept of "keeping up with the Jone's!"
 
Well, it is most simple, after the first few pitiful examples of these weapons failing to fire during a light sprinkle or deluge of water from the sky, or even a very heavy fog, then the builders or makers of these weapons made improvements!  Thus the dis-advantages, were in the space of 50 or so years, mostly taken care of!  And, rain or shine, there would exist ways to fire these weapons for effect!  Perhaps, at first, it took a two man crew to make sure of the result, but it seems that these guns were rapidly aquired by all parties involved.  Multiple loaded barrels were produced to make these weapons "repeaters", as such.  With a team, of loaders, and one firer and multiple weapons, then rapid shots could be made from just one trained man.
 
And, perhaps this is or was, exactly what happened?
 
Regards,


Edited by opuslola - 21 Mar 2011 at 00:47
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: 21 Mar 2011 at 11:31
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

Just look at the skys over the battle field that one artist presented;
 
I don't see how the imagination of an artist nearly 500 years later provides any evidence whatsoever. But even if it did it shows cavalry dispirited and demoralised by storms and rain (just look at all the water on the ground) which isin line with traditional views of the battle. 
Originally posted by Will Will wrote:

"Big Mars seems bankrupt in their beggar'd host
And faintly through a rusty beaver peeps:
The horsemen sit like fixed candlesticks,
With torch-staves in their hand; and their poor jades
Lob down their heads, dropping the hides and hips,
The gum down-roping from their pale-dead eyes
And in their pale dull mouths the gimmal bit
Lies foul with chew'd grass, still and motionless;
And their executors, the knavish crows,
Fly o'er them, all impatient for their hour.
Description cannot suit itself in words
To demonstrate the life of such a battle
In life so lifeless as it shows itself. "

Presumably that's what Gilbert had in mind.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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

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: 21 Mar 2011 at 11:35
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

And, last but not lease, is the concept of "keeping up with the Jone's!"
 
Well, it is most simple, after the first few pitiful examples of these weapons failing to fire during a light sprinkle or deluge of water from the sky, or even a very heavy fog, then the builders or makers of these weapons made improvements!  Thus the dis-advantages, were in the space of 50 or so years, mostly taken care of!  And, rain or shine, there would exist ways to fire these weapons for effect!  Perhaps, at first, it took a two man crew to make sure of the result, but it seems that these guns were rapidly aquired by all parties involved.  Multiple loaded barrels were produced to make these weapons "repeaters", as such.  With a team, of loaders, and one firer and multiple weapons, then rapid shots could be made from just one trained man.
 
And, perhaps this is or was, exactly what happened?
Sure. Everybody knows firearms had bows beaten easily as battlefield weapons..
 
When you change your mind and argue the opposite point to what you were first making, don't you mention it normally?
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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

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: 21 Mar 2011 at 19:26
Have I ever suggested that my ideas are like "hardened cement?"  I merely made a statement!  Nothing more, nothing less, and I suspect that you are looking too hard, in your attempt to belittle me.
And, it is possible that the artist had available to him at that time, material much more related to the actual events that happened in the past, than have made their way into our times?
 
Of that, none of us can be sure!
 
But, it sure would be more likely!


Edited by opuslola - 21 Mar 2011 at 19:28
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: 21 Mar 2011 at 20:14
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

Have I ever suggested that my ideas are like "hardened cement?"  I merely made a statement!  Nothing more, nothing less, and I suspect that you are looking too hard, in your attempt to belittle me.
And, it is possible that the artist had available to him at that time, material much more related to the actual events that happened in the past, than have made their way into our times?
 
Of that, none of us can be sure!
 
But, it sure would be more likely!
Since Gilbert and Shakespeare obviously agree, it doesn't matter very much, does it? I don't know if there is documentary evidence, but it certainly looks as though Gilbert had Shakespeare in mind. We can be pretty sure (but I don't know about Fomenko) that Shakespeare wasn't describing Gilbert's painting.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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

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: 21 Mar 2011 at 20:59
So, is the "olive branch" accepted?
 
My brain is almost exausted.
 
Regards,
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: 11 May 2011 at 17:58
Yes, of course Graham, it does appear most apparent that Gilbert had read the account of Shakespeare, and possibly the words of others. There existed numerous other accounts of this battle, possibly in the original form, and there is every reason for a painter of historical scenes to have possibly investigated as many sources as possible.

Whether any extant original reports still existed during the time of Gilbert, is information that I do not have,but there does exist a chance, no matter how unlikely it is.

It seems though, that the morass of mud, has affected numerous other battles, such as Crecy, as mentioned above.

Perhaps I will present a list of likely candidates?

Ron
Back to Top
Tashfin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tashfin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 May 2011 at 21:29
Firearms in themselves did not give the Europeans the edge, as has been stated in this thread their opponents extensively used firearms, and in some cases deploying equal and even superior firepower. The primary factors were related to improved tactics, discipline, military organisation and the effective development and use of naval power. For example right up until the 19th and 20th centuries, there have been instances where 'native' forces have utilised firepower to defeat European armies.
 
As previously posted by Omar the Maharatas contested the EIC fiercely, using disciplined infantry combined with artillery and 'traditional' cavalry tactics. For example Wellesley, the future Duke of Wellington, stated that the Battle of Assaye in 1803 against the Maharatas was the 'hardest fighting for numbers' in his career. He achieved victory only once the Maharatta artillery had been silenced..it should be noted he lost almost a third of his army killed or wounded.
 
The Sikh Wars are another example, Chilianwala was a tactical defeat for the EIC, with British cavalry failing to break Sikh infantry squares, and the EIC would have been routed at Ferozeshah, had there not been treachery in the Sikh command.
 
Even the Gatling gun did not give a complete edge since it had a habit of jamming (Abu Klea is a good example) and in 1880 at Maiwand the British forces, albeit heavily outnumbered, were routed by an Afghan force using Krupp artillery. It was probably the arrival of the Maxim in 1885 that did tip the scales in the 'scramble' at least.
 
These are only a few examples.
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: 12 May 2011 at 01:43
Indeed. Even the Sioux used gunpower to defeat Custer.


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: 12 May 2011 at 01:54
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

5) When the Spanish and Portugese landed in America they hardly possessed guns themselves. If there was any major technological contribution to this conquest then it was Iron, not gunpowder.


You shouldn't forget that the Spanish Tercios were the best army in Europe at the times of Charles V.
With respect to gunpower, although existed, it wasn't too common during the conquest, but was widely spread during colonial times.

Even so, the Spaniards, Portuguese and British never conquered the whole lands during colonial times. There were large sections of the Americas were natives resisted sucessfully, and even made European to go back. It was only in the 19th century, with modern armies and rifles, that the westernized states subjugate all Indigenous peoples of the Americas.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

The European advantage came from organisation, determination, self-confidence, and brutality - both to themselves and their enemies.


Organisation, writing, discipline and logistics tools, such as large fleets.

Back to Top
Yanko bin Madyan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Yanko bin Madyan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2011 at 18:40
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

You shouldn't forget that the Spanish Tercios were the best army in Europe at the times of Charles V.


'You shouldn't forget'? That's really arrogant given your ignorance. Unless, of course, you end Europe at Vienna. If that's the case, I apologise. :)

Because the Imperial Guard of Charles V's Imperial Lord was the best army in Europe at the time:  the Janissary Corps of Suleiman the Magnificent.

I'll grant you that later on the Janissaries declined and the Tercios improved, but during Charles V's reign, Janissaries (also the Kapikulu Cavalry) were superior.

As to firearms, in the 16th century bows were superior to firearms. If you had a proper bow and a trained archer, that is. I agree with those who wrote that European success in invading other places were mostly due to superior military organisation and civil administration. Gunpower and indeed guns came from China in the first place anyway.


Edited by Yanko bin Madyan - 12 May 2011 at 18:44
Perdedari mikoned der kasr-i Kayzer ankebut,
Bum nevbet mizedend der trem-i Efrsiyb.
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: 12 May 2011 at 18:58
Turks weren't Europeans, no matter they tried to invade Europe. I didn't think on them at all. And I said the Tercios were the best EUROPEAN army. Sure, probably Mongols in Russia were better preppared as well, but who cares?
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: 12 May 2011 at 19:00
Is this a "who's got the biggest" type of discussion? The Tercios are of little relevance to either the defence of Vienna in 1529 nor were they ever constituted as an "Imperial Guard" to Charles V (Carlos I of the Spanish kingdoms). Or is everyone forgetting that between 1521 and 1529, these soldiers were deployed in Italy and France following the interests of the crowns of Aragon and Castille. Austria was the domain of Ferdinand I and when he forwarded a request for assistance to his brother, Charles simply sent a Landesnecht force accompanied by several hundred "Spanish" musketeers--no, not a Tercio. Further, no Tercio ever set foot in the Indies!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
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: 12 May 2011 at 21:44
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

...Further, no Tercio ever set foot in the Indies!


LOL... Not as Tercio, of course. But people that participate as soldiers among the Tercios, went to the Americas, too. Some as Spanish colonial soldiers.
Back to Top
Yanko bin Madyan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Yanko bin Madyan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2011 at 22:21
Originally posted by Penguin Penguin wrote:

Turks weren't Europeans, no matter they tried to invade Europe.


Turks are European just as they are Asian and Middle Eastern. They've constantly 'tried to invade' Europe since days of Attila the Hun. And they were successful. That's 1500 years of history. They are more European than you are American (you've been only 500 years in America). Deal with it.

The Ottoman state was founded within 100km of Constantinople so it is a local entity to the Balkans.

But it doesn't matter. Because that is not what you wrote.

Quote I didn't think on them at all. And I said the Tercios were the best EUROPEAN army.


Of course you didn't 'think on them'. That's why you shouldn't be so arrogant. Like some guy or other said, better to stay silent and let others think that you are an idiot than to speak about something you have no idea about and remove all doubt.

Also you could be suffering from dementia, or lying like a four year old, because you did not say that the Tercios were the best EUROPEAN army. You said they were the 'BEST ARMY IN EUROPE'. It is quoted in TWO posts just above your post... Pathetic, really.

Quote Sure, probably Mongols in Russia were better preppared as well, but who cares?

Suleiman rules half of Europe, but who cares? Charles V did, for instance. When he paid his Lord Emperor Suleiman yearly tribute.

Originally posted by Dr Dr wrote:

Is this a "who's got the biggest" type of discussion? The Tercios are of little relevance to either the defence of Vienna in 1529 nor were they ever constituted as an "Imperial Guard" to Charles V (Carlos I of the Spanish kingdoms).


This is not a who's got the biggest type of discussion, because there is nothing to discuss. Charles has already signed documents saying that Suleiman has the biggest. Charles was, by his own admission, equivalent of an Ottoman vizier. Heroic 'defence of Vienna' in 1529 consisted of refusing to fight and cowering in fear behind the city walls until the Ottoman army, already delayed by some of the heaviest rains in European history, retreated.

I didn't say that Tercios were Charles' 'Imperial Guard'. Read more carefully. I wrote that the Imperial Guard of Charles' Imperial Lord was a superior army to any Tercios. Suleiman was Charles' Imperial Lord by his own admission. Janissaries were Suleiman's 'Imperial Guard'.

On more than one occasion Suleiman marched deep into Austrian territory to draw Charles out for a battle. Charles never showed up. His advisor said it was because 'he remembered what happened to the King of Hungary in Mohacs'. Despite being inbred Charles was no fool. He also knew what happened to his invincible armada in Preveza.



Edited by Yanko bin Madyan - 13 May 2011 at 23:57
Perdedari mikoned der kasr-i Kayzer ankebut,
Bum nevbet mizedend der trem-i Efrsiyb.
Back to Top
Yanko bin Madyan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Yanko bin Madyan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2011 at 22:26
Here you see clearly that Suleiman had the biggest:



hat. :)
Perdedari mikoned der kasr-i Kayzer ankebut,
Bum nevbet mizedend der trem-i Efrsiyb.
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: 12 May 2011 at 22:34
Interestingly enough, it is incorrect to speak of professional "soldiers" much less armies in the Spanish Americas prior to the 17th century. Yes during the latter decades of the 16th century with the establishment of garrisons and fortresses along the principal sea lanes of communication, defensive perimeters raised by engineers and requiring expertise in artillery saw the emergence of paid soldiers and military retainers but, if we are going to speak of any "professionalism" we must address naval rather than land military. For example, Pedro Menendez de Aviles consolidated his position as a naval officer and not as a land commander. Further, the early colonists were expected to have a capacity to defend themselves but more in line within the traditions of the reconquista than any notion of career soldiering. In a way it is incorrect to speak of "regular" army officers in the Americas prior to the 18th century and the introduction of peninsular regiments as happened in Louisiana with the Regimento de Infanteria in 1765. Often, people forget that during the years 1492-1536 while the adelantados were busy making their fortunes, the emerging professional armies characterized as the Tercios were undergoing organization in the Italian campaigns. The one element that has to stand out during the epoch of early colonization it that such occurred absent any professional organization that could properly be called an "army".  What there was in the sense of a defensive posture could best be identified as "marines" and then only in association with the despatch of great fleets as with the recapture of Bahia in 1625. For example, in Brazil the military titles such as capitao-mor or sargento-mor were "more" often than not administrative titles rather than military distinctions. Yes, they did raise "armed companies" but more often than not these were drawn from the colonials themselves.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
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: 12 May 2011 at 22:58
Originally posted by Yanko bin Madyan Yanko bin Madyan wrote:

Originally posted by Penguin Penguin wrote:

Turks weren't Europeans, no matter they tried to invade Europe.


Turks are European just as they are Asian and Middle Eastern. They've constantly 'tried to invade' Europe since days of Attila the Hun. And they were successful. That's 1500 years of history. They are more European than you are American (you've been only 500 years in America). Deal with it.



Fellow, at least from my grandmom's family tree, we have been here 12.000 years, since her ancestors arrived walking along the coast! Wink

Now, Turks (the real Turks, not the Ottomans, I guess) were Central Asians.

But, anyways, the Spaniards blow up the Turks at Lepanto. Shocked


Edited by pinguin - 12 May 2011 at 23:04
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: 12 May 2011 at 23:17
Yanko, Charles had other "fish-to-fry" and Austria was more-or-less his brother's concern. Besides, if you want to "pick-and-choose" then one would have to explain the capture of Tunis in 1535, and after all the see-sawing come to Lepanto and 1571. Such gamesmanship informs little since we are discussing borders that would remain fluid for a century and also become embroiled in the Reformation quagmire that was "Royal Hungary".  Sulemayn Kanuni is an interesting figure in his own right but the fact remains he could not take Vienna either in 1529 or in 1532 and if we are to consider him in terms of the rivalries in the Mediterranean then it is true that we are discussing the intricacies of European diplomacy in the 16th century (after all it is impossible not to consider the Ottomans as Europeans since it is in the Balkans where they consolidated their dynasty and not Anatolia--I think that is the point that riled you). However, we must recall that Charles V's heir was Philip II while poor Sulemayn had Selim "the Sot"!Wink  Object lesson: Never fall in love with a Ruthenian!

Edited by drgonzaga - 15 May 2011 at 13:20
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 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 0.109 seconds.