Re: (TFT) Firearms

[raito@raito.com]

Quoting Sgt Hulka <hulkasgt@yahoo.com>:
> There has been a lot of opining by historical miniatures enthusiasts 
> as to why
> firearms replaced muscle-powered projectiles (especially the longbow 
> or compound
> bow). A claim is often made that in the early days of black powder 
> guns weren't
> that much more effective than a crossbow or longbow. Maybe, I don't 
> know. I do
> know that in the Spanish Conquest the role of the gun is exaggerated. 
> It was the
> horse, more than the gun, that awed and defeated the native american. 

(I think you mean composite bow. Compund bow is the one with the cams 
and stuff.)

Bows require skill and practice. Pulling a longbow requires practice, 
both because you need certain muscles, and because there's a lot of 
technique to pulling a hundred pound bow. 

Anyone who can lift a firearm can be taught to load it in a couple 
weeks. (Yeah, I know about the Civil war finds with the mis-loaded 
weapons. But in general...)

> But that's the really early days of firearms. Flashing forward, the
> heavily-armored knight disappears. By the Napoleonic wars you still have some
> cuirass-wearing cavalry, but for the most part armor is an after 
> thought. Melee
> weapons are still an important part of warfare, however, since the deciding
> moment in most battles is the bayonet charge, not the musket volley. 

There's a lot of factors working there. It's as much the fall of 
feudalism and the rise of nation-states that contributes to the fall of 
the mounted knight as the gun. The entire economic structure changes, 
and the reasons for wars change. Rhe reasons for a particular man to go 
to war changed. 

> Looking at that limited evidence, it seems the biggest effect 
> firearms had was
> getting rid of armor. That, in turn, revolutionized warfare since 
> "knights" were
> pointless and equipping a soldier became far less expensive. The 
> nobility had to
> find a new role for themselves, so they decided to become "officers" and stop
> risking their butts on the firing line. Armor didn't come back, really, until
> the combustible engine made tanks practical at the end of world war I. 

The whole 'officer' thing had as much to do with the rise of the 
nation-states as anything else. Armies got big once the nations began. 
A small army of elites won't win against the sort of mass that became 
in vogue. The most effect a single, intelligent warrior could ahve was 
to be in a position of not only giving orders, but maintaining morale. 

> So this is all a long winded way of saying that in my humble opinion both the
> shotgun and the battleaxe do 3d6. But chainmail won't do squat against a
> shotgun. That's the difference. (admittedly, a shotgun is a poor 
> example in this
> case, since chainmail actually might help...a .30-06 rifle is a 
> better example). 

There are examples of plate armour proofed against gunpowder weaopns of 
their day. 

Neil Gilmore
raito@raito.com
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"