Okay there's a whole thread about how "boring" and "unimaginative" warfare was between the turn of the 18th century and the development of the Maxim gun in the late 19th century.
Well let me offer a whole counter thread where we can explain exactly why this style of warfare became prominent, and why it was in no way stupid to fight in massed infantry formations with gunpowder weaponry.
Let's go through this point by point:
>How did this stupid warfare come about?
Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries gunpowder became increasingly featured in wars waged by European monarchs. From the Battle of Ravenna in 1512 to the Battle of Breitenfeld in 1631, gunpowder demonstrated its ability to defeat both heavily armed and armored infantry and cavalry with ease.
By 1700 the majority of a military's resources were put towards the purchase, maintenance, training and ammunition for gunpowder armies.
>Why would they just stand there like idiots?
>Why didn't they spread out?
Gunpowder weapons were terribly inaccurate until the development of machined rifled barreling in the latter part of the 1800s.
In order for smoothbore muskets to be effective as a battlefield weapon, they need to be fired en masse against a large target. Initially they were deployed as elements of larger combined arms units with pikemen, until eventually becoming the main element of a fighting unit, where discipline was taught to maximize reload speed and therefore unit firepower. This was demonstrated in the Swedish army's victory over the Germans at Breitenfeld.
>Still, why would they stand so close together? That makes them a huge target to be shot.
One word: Cavalry.
A unit of horsemen will literally stampede through a dispersed group of men. There will be almost 100% casualties.
Arm the men with bayonets and discipline them to withstand heavy enemy fire in tight formation, and they can become practically invulnerable to cavalry attacks from the front.
A gunpowder army from this era is a giant machine designed to send rounds down range. The best way to do this is by standing close together and using discipline and drill tactics to absorb more fire than the enemy.
Simply put, these soldiers were not only fighting in the most modern and effective technological manner possible, they were also some of the bravest warriors to ever wear a uniform. It took a true man to stand tall on battlefields such as those.
XVII century guns weren"t nearly as accurate as XVIII century guns, thus the linear formations weren't that common nor that effective as demonstrate in the annihilation of the Swedes by the Spanish Tercios in the battle of Nordlingen.
XVIII saw the general introduction of standing national armies as well, which along the more accurate and bigger range muskets allowed for the supremacy of linear infantry shooting en masse, usually at short range to maximize effectiveness, against another linear infantry formation. It was, in short, technology what precipitated this kind of stupid warfare, that for the first time in history, neglected individual skill, bravery and personal initiative as factors incurring in the outcome of a battle.
An ancient greek guy armed with his sword and shield, f.i, depended entirely on his own skill to prevail and survive in a battle; in the XVIII on the contrary a guy in the first line of infantry was there to shoot and get shot helplessly, irregardless of his bravery, skill and initiative.
Tl; dr; sheeps.
Coming form an entirely ignorant standpoint, I'd like to know how the hell a mass of men, no matter how compact and organized, could take a full-speed cavalry charge in the face and not be trampled anyway. Bayonets are relatively small, seems to me you'd need pikes to half their momentum
>>376156
Fire a volley at 100 yards to kill the momentum of the charge.
And then that's where the discipline comes in. You'd need to stand firm with the butt of your weapon planted firmly on the ground to brace for the impact.
And a typical musket with a good sized bayonet is around 6 feet long. It can definitely be used as a spear.
>>376226
Thank you for the clarification Anon
>>376116
>An ancient greek guy armed with his sword and shield, f.i, depended entirely on his own skill to prevail and survive in a battle
Do you even into phalanx?
If anything, line infantry with gunpowder is more similar to phalanx combat than high medieval or modern combat. You need a good commander and extraordinary discipline to survive.
The Hoplon next to you is just as important as your own.
>>376156
You should look into the square formation, that shit was pretty tight
>>376156
They couldn't, if the horses ran into them they would knock down the bayonets, the first row of horses may be killed, but the bulk would push straight through. Horses are huge, heavy and powerful.
Except this doesn't usually happen because horses aren't fucking retarded and don't run into spike walls.
>>376245
>Do you even into phalanx?
>he thinks the phalanx was a relevant military formation in wars fought by the genos
hahahah just end it all already family
>>375995
>Gunpowder weapons were terribly inaccurate until the development of machined rifled barreling in the latter part of the 1800s.
I would argue that at least as important as rifling - and we have rifled firearms from South Germany dating back to the Renaissance period - was the invention of the aerodynamic bullet by Minié.
>>376263
Rifled exist from around 1500. They were just not popular outside of hunting and marksmen.
>>376116
This isn't entirely accurate. 16th century firearms were sometimes more accurate, sometimes less. There's a lot of discussion on the subject. Some historians claim that accuracy was sacrificed in early pattern flintlocks for reload speed. Others say there were general improvements.
>>375995
I think this period of warfare is really cool because guns were "balanced" with hand to hand weapons in a way, or at least a few centuries before it. Bows also had their own advantages - more quiet, a potentially faster rate of fire with better accuracy, but took more skill to use. Powder was also much more vulnerable to getting wet, a problem the Spanish had when fighting the Aztecs with matchlocks in humid areas, although this is earlier than the period you mentioned.
>>376263
Rifles made for a reload speed that was around half of muskets in muzzle-loaded weapons iirc, although obviously they had more range and accuracy but required more skill to use.
>>376263
That is an excellent point. Indeed rifling was possible by hand before the 19th century but it was a difficult and lengthy process, and therefore expensive. You'll make a handful of smooth bore muskets before you can make just one rifled barrel. Industrial grade machinery changed that.
>>376252
Uhm, you do realize that a Greek hoplite phalanx, the precursor to the Macedonian pike phalanx perfected by King Philip II, existed on the exact same principle as an offensive/defensive line in American football and rugby?
Success in battle was decided by unit cohesion, not necessary individual martial prowess. When there are two opposing groups of people pushing each other back and forth, the side with better discipline comes out on top.
The Spartans weren't the crazy martial artists of 300. They were more like a professional NFL team in a league of college level teams. Better conditioned, of course, but primarily better disciplined.
>>376291
>I think this period of warfare is really cool because guns were "balanced"
this. its interesting to see the different tactics and how different nations and generals focused more on firepower or shock tactics, and to see the evolution in drill, organisation and artillery
>>376156
>>376249
>Except this doesn't usually happen because horses aren't fucking retarded and don't run into spike walls.
this
even a trained warhorse will show reluctance running into a solid object at full speed. once the momentum of a cavalry charge is broken, cavalrymen sitting atop stationary horses make very easy targets
>>376308
I forget horses aren't cars sometimes.
>>375995
Another interesting point on this topic is why did Bows never make a comeback?
The heavy use of gunpowder meant that armour was next to useless, so to save resources troops simply wore standard clothing.
While using a bow required vastly more training, and from a young age, surely with its superior rate of fire, accuracy and potentially range in the case of the English longbow, would have been a very capable element of an army.
Not to mention the mobility of horse archers combined with the rate of fire would easily be able to defeat dragoons or assist in pursuing broken forces.
If not bows due to the training, perhaps crossbows instead. They only fell out of use due to armour becoming too sophisticated.
>>376252
>>>/reddit/
>>376303
And more practiced. I believe it was Thucydides who said that the single biggest Spartan advantage of their training on the field of battle was that in that initial clash, which caused a lot of the casualties since you have the momentum of the charge behind you, the Spartans would all run at the same speed and slam into the opposing phalanx as one whole group; whereas other, more amateur Greeks tended to make contact with the enemy piecemeal.
>>376315
>Crossbows come back
>people wear armour again
>people go back to guns
>armour comes off
And repeat
>>376328
Not at all, armour would be massively expensive, especially to equip many more troops than previously armoured. As an elite element of surprise, it entirely makes sense. Even if the enemy did react and wear armour, the damage done purely by cost alone would be worth it.
>>376315
>While using a bow required vastly more training, and from a young age, surely with its superior rate of fire, accuracy and potentially range in the case of the English longbow, would have been a very capable element of an army.
I think you underestimate the significance of being able to readily mass musketeers within a few weeks vs yeomen which take years. Imagine how outnumbered those archers would be and how heavy the loss of an individual archer would be vs a single musketeer in terms of being expendable.
>If not bows due to the training, perhaps crossbows instead. They only fell out of use due to armour becoming too sophisticated.
Plate armor, or segments of plate, wasn't really perfected until the late middle ages when guns were starting to take off anyway. If bows came back they would have just been met with the return of armor. Not sure about mass producing bolts vs shot, or training crossbowmen.
>>376328
>he thinks armour protected people from arrows
Shoot a crossbow at a metal armour of the time, see what happens.
Protip: don't be inside the armour plate.
>>376338
By 1400 armour was not massively expensive and entire units of men who weren't knights would wear full plate.
The native americans used bows and look how well it turned out for them
>>376346
Most armour is much more effective against a crossbow than a musket or pistol. The crossbows which will go straight through armour are so powerful that they take almost as long to reload as a musket.
>>376323
What? Wouldn't the horses run into each other?
>>376338
Wouldn't arrows and bolts be more affected by negative weather conditions?
>armour would be massively expensive
I don't think armour and a chestplate really would be. Not compared to medieval armour.
>>376359
No that's why they have a rider. They weren't totally blinded, i think they could see below, just not far in front. By the time they see the mass of men in front of them its too late to stop.
Grenadiers were pretty fly
they were shock troops trained for assaults into hostile fortifications and for punching holes in infantry lines. early units actually carried throwable explosive charges, their units namesake. due to the physical demands of their battlefield role, grenadiers were typically drawn from the largest and strongest men of an army, and were given some pretty baller uniforms.
>>376360
I mean "helmet and a chestplate", or breastplate or pauldron or whatever the accurate term is.
>>376366
Didn't the development of primitive grenades bring back slings for a while?
>>376346
Armor hugely protected people from arrows. Go look up the battle of Agincourt, one of the "great triumphs of the longbow".
You know how many confirmed men at arms were killed by bow fire? 0. Solid armor made you virtually immune to bows.
Even crossbows, big massive ones with 1000+ pound draw weights, had trouble penetrating steel plate at anything but point blank range, and had absolutely shit accuracy and reload times to boot.
>>376342
As purely an elite element then. Several hundred yeomen kept as a retinue/standing army. A surprise element that could necessitate an enemy to equip his forces with armour, or instead be decimated. Perhaps even to act as artillery.
>>376349
Regardless, the cost would still be very large initially, and it would be a very successful surprise tactic.
>>376365
Never heard of that, got a source?
>>376349
Fairly well iirc, the Indian Wars continued well into the late 19th century.
>>376389
Because they adopted guns and horses, although diseases did most of the work.
>>376389
First of all, the Indians by the 18th century onward were almost universally using bows. Secondly, they were mostly facing settlers, not actual army units, and they lost often enough to those. Lastly, the Indian wars were one continual pushing of the colonists further west, and driving the Indians before them. Said advances were mostly halted by insufficient drive for further expansion at the time, not because the Indian resistance meant a damn.
>>376386
>, the cost would still be very large initially,
Not really there were tons of munitions armour lying around. It's just simple steel plates, not custom made fully fitted plate armour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munition_armour
>>376366
Prussian Grenadiers are literally some of the most terrifying troops to ever fight on the battlefield.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rossbach#/media/File:Schlacht_bei_Ro%C3%9Fbach.jpg
>>376346
>he thinks armour protected people from arrows
It did.
There are countless accounts of people being well protected from arrows and the vast majority of events I am aware of when someone important died from an arrow were freak accidents, e.g. when they were wearing no helmet to catch air and then caught an arrow in the face or through their throat.
>>376448
bolts are a different story, and it depends on the armor and arrow/bolts used
Why were pikemen phased out? It seems to me that musket volleys were not that effective, and most of the combat was still done in melee. Pikes would have a strong advantage there, wouldn't they?
>>376527
Long musket+bayonet=spear
>>376366
Why didn't they carry shields or at least something to prevent them being shot when it was their turn to be shot at?
Seems retarded having the biggest and strongest guys just stand there like a kid in highschool playing that game where you punch each other in turn until one kid quits.
>>376542
Not that long.
>>376550
You'd need a really thick shield, which would hinder maneuvers on the field and would need to be lugged around outside of battle, straining logistics. Every frontline man at least would need one for it to be worth anything, so take a multi-thousand man army and divide it by three or four. That's how many heavy-ass steel plates you need to carry around, all day, every day. Which doesn't even go into the cost of it.
>>376577
Means you can maneuver more efficiently. Besides, what good is a guy with a 5 yard pike and no gun when the enemy with no pikes is picking you off from 50 yards?
Yeah I agree with OP. People, when deciding how to fight aren't that stupid, they use the most effective methods with the tools they have at the time. It's not like someone out there decided that "hey let's just line everyone up so they get shot huurrr" and this technique was then adopted by every western nation
>>376595
Okay, fair point.
Why didn't some soldiers go full pirate and use multiple pistols? Could have worked wonders in close combat.
>>376550
It wasn't about taking turns firing, it was about firing faster and more effectively than the other side to maximize casualties. The reason they didn't wear armor is because it became obsolete since it turns out that bullets are very good at going through metal. It seems like armies only recently started wearing armor again since they started using kevlar.
>>376637
They did. Cavalry of the period quite often carried multiple pistols.
>>376226
Adding to that
Horses aren't idiots, they just won't charge into a wall of 100 bayonets with 100 men holding them making as much noise as possible.
>>375995
WAR WILL ALWAYS BE TERRIBLE AND BORING AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD
WHAT KIND OF FAAGOLLI TRIES TO DEFEND BATTLE TACTICS FROM THE 17TH CENTURY, LIKE THEIR ALL FUCKING DEAD AND EVEN IF YOU SOMEHOW MAKE ME GIVE A SHIT IT WONT HELP ME SO GET A BETTER HOBBY FUC JUST GET OUTSIDE INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DEFEND A BUNCH OF DEAD SOLDIERS AND THEIR GREEDY GENERALS
>>376736
Why are you even on this board?
There are a lot of falsehoods and myths being posted in this thread.
>>375995
>Gunpowder weapons were terribly inaccurate until the development of machined rifled barreling in the latter part of the 1800s.
Smoothbore weapons are imprecise relative to a rifle, but they are much more accurate than most people think. Hit rates did not improve during the ACW when rifled muskets were common. The truth is that soldiers are just terrible shots in general, especially under battlefield conditions.
https://sellsword.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/firearms/
>>375999
>Still, why would they stand so close together? That makes them a huge target to be shot.
Defense against charges, from infantry or cavalry, is only part of the answer. The more important factor is maximizing firepower. Ever since guns were invented the trend had been to put more of them closer together, and in shallower formations. The benefit of maximizing the number of guns per yard of frontage outweighs the slightly higher chance of being hit by enemy bullets.
>>376249
>Except this doesn't usually happen because horses aren't fucking retarded and don't run into spike walls.
Nonsense. There are plenty of historical examples of horses charging into spear walls. At Dreux the cavalry even charged into a pike block and emerged out the other side.
>>376527
Pikemen were phases out because they weren't very useful for anything but defending against cavalry in a set battle.
Pikemen couldn't skirmish, couldn't raid, couldn't ambush, couldn't forage. They had to stay in camp uselessly while the musketeers went out and did those things.
Donald Lupton wrote on the pike's many deficiencies as early as 1642 in A Warre-like Treatise of the Pike. I highly recommend giving it a read.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A49473.0001.001?view=toc
>>376424
Molotov cocktails are made with gasoline, not alcohol. Early modern grenades were made of clay balls filled with gunpowder.
>>376806
He may not like war while liking HIstory.
I read somewhere that the use of volleys was somewhat for psychological purposes, but also and mostly because guns of the time were very loud and very smoky, and thus a bunch of soldiers firing sporadically would have completely cut off sight of the battlefield and compromised the ability to give orders. All guns firing at once somewhat alleviates the vision problem and almost completely eliminates the sound problem.
I know the use of volleys certainly predates gun warfare, but I always thought that was an interesting note.
>>376386
>As purely an elite element then. Several hundred yeomen kept as a retinue/standing army. A surprise element that could necessitate an enemy to equip his forces with armour, or instead be decimated. Perhaps even to act as artillery.
If bows and arrows were truly a wonder weapon superior to muskets that just happened to require decades of training, then what you've proposed would be a very good idea. But what you're proposing never happened. The reason why is that bows and arrows didn't disappear because of training, but because they were outclassed by muskets.
Muskets had a longer effective range, inflicted far more serious wounds, and penetrated armor and light cover. They could also be used from within trenches, ditches, from behind trees and walls, without exposing the musketeer, while the archer had to reveal himself to shoot.
See the following period sources describing the deficiencies of the longbow.
Robert Barret:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A04863.0001.001/1:8.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext;q1=
Humfrey Barwick:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A05277.0001.001?rgn=full+text;view=toc;q1=
Sir Roger Williams:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A15466.0001.001/1:4.18?cite1=Williams;cite1restrict=author;rgn=div2;view=fulltext;q1=
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A15466.0001.001/1:4.18?cite1=Williams;cite1restrict=author;rgn=div2;view=fulltext;q1=
>>376909
Accidently posted the same link twice on Williams. Here is the section where he talks about bows.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A15466.0001.001/1:4.21?cite1=Williams;cite1restrict=author;rgn=div2;view=fulltext
>>376584
I have read a book by one English captain from the 1700's who proposed equipping the front ranks with leather shields. It would take two overlapping shields to stop a bullet, by his own reckoning.
So it's not like the idea never occurred to them. It just didn't happen. And desu senpai that's probably because it isn't a great idea.
>>376323
>This is why most heavy shock cavalry has their eyes cover.
I have only seen this happen in a movie.
Horses are more likely to panic when they're blind, and lose their footing. If covering horse's eyes was a good idea then everyone would have done it.
>>376315
>Not to mention the mobility of horse archers combined with the rate of fire would easily be able to defeat dragoons or assist in pursuing broken forces.
Russian horse archers fought French cavalry at the battle of Liepzig, 1813. The French beat them easily. Baron Marbot wrote about the incident in his memoirs.
>>376964
>I have only seen this happen in a movie.
When have you ever seen shock cavalry elsewhere?
Warhorses are trained. They aren't totally blinded, they're blinded from whats in front. All shock cavalry seem to have eye covers.
>>377013
>When have you ever seen shock cavalry elsewhere?
In hundreds of contemporary illustrations where they never have their eyes covered. I can't remember a single time. If you have any period picture of cavalry with covered eyes then please post it. Google image searches for the same is showing me nothing but horses with a full range of vision.
>>376372
It did but due to problems with standing in tight formation and using slings,training in use of slings and general shenanigans with grenades falling out of slings into your own lines slings were used mainly in single man or small unit hit and run attacks where distance and stealth were of the essence, I think I remember reading of forts being attacked by sling launched grenades followed by artillery. That may have been a hist-fiction book don't quote me on any of that.
>>376416
Interesting read Anon,
Thanks.
>>377040
Most war paintings are aiming for spectacle, not realism.
>>377069
If you can't produce a single contemporary image of cavalry that has been deliberately blinded, then at least produce archeological (eg a museum piece like my pic) or written evidence of horses being blinded for the charge.
>>377040
>talking about shock cavalry
>Posts horse archers
you dun goofed
>>377105
Predicabtly, you've complained about my picture, while producing none of your own showing cavalry being blinded for a charge. I don't even care if it's "shock" cavalry. If you can produce any picture of a warhorse having its vision deliberatly blocked for battle, I'll be "shocked" enough already.
>>376116
>neglected individual skill
Yeah you don't know what you're fucking talking about. Skill was very important in the speed of reloading and in hand to hand fighting that often occurred.
>sheep
No fuck off.
>>376409
bane?
>>376315
>superior accuracy and range
Boy I am loving this meme.
>>376892
It shouldn't be. You retards ought to leave.
>>376268
The barrels would foul easily and they took a longtime to reload. Napoopan didn't use them for a reason.
>>377129
Stop assuming you're only arguing with one guy. My only post in this argument was that of the accuracy of war paintings, and in the futility of using them as a valid argument. I don't give a damn about the horse argument.
But really, why did you post Mongols?
>>377262
In other words, you're a pedantic faggot.
>>377276
And you're getting embarrassingly mad over a discussion of horses on a Sumerian cuneiform discussion tablet.
>Rifles took a long time to load
I wish this meme would die
Yes when loaded with loose powder, patch and ball they took a long time to load
But British riflemen carried cartridges like the line infantry too, which could be used to load the baker rifle just as fast as a musket. There are instances of British riflemen outshooting French line infantry in line in close quarters.
>>376315
One of the many reasons muskets succeeded bows is that they are louder and therefore scarier
What sort of bullets were used in the Franco-Prussian war, senpaitachi?
>>378622
French Chassepots used paper cartridges like pic related.
The Prussians used the Dreyse needle gun which was inferior in basically every aspect including ammunition.
>>378622
>>378645
Here's a comparison of Ch - D boolits.
>>378645
senpai is that brass?
>>378660
No it's paper.
>>378660
Scroll down for a couple more pics:
http://www.armorypub.com/2002/4-02.htm
>>378486
But the rate of fire slows as the rifle gets fouled, which would mean muskets can sustain the rate of fire for longer
>>378791
I've been trying to figure out why rifle barrels apparently foul quicker than musket barrels,
I know generally smaller charges of powder are used in rifles (Baker rifles anyway)
6 grams (Or it may be 6 drams, which is a specific measurement of powder, i always get it confused)
Whereas a brown bess musket used 8 (grams/drams)
Is it the fact that the rifled grooves provide a recess for fouling to sit in, which means more fouling can form easier on top of it?
>>376550
because a decent shield is more expensive than a soldier
>>378860
>Is it the fact that the rifled grooves provide a recess for fouling to sit in, which means more fouling can form easier on top of it?
Yea it's pretty much that, more surface area for fouling to accumulate
I own a .50cal hawken rifle, and after shooting for a while it does take a fair bit of force to ram the ball down the barrel (I do use patch and ball though)
>>378860
I would argue that including some riflemen would be beneficial though
>your pic related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZVpwlMCd6M&t=16m15s
>line formation
>>375995
>Gunpowder weapons were terribly inaccurate
'no'
Rifling existed, patching as well, but the military decided rof was much more important, hence why they issued paper cartridges. The paper wadding wasn't very good and often they would pack a little less than the proper amount of powder to make it easier to load, but at the same time sacrificing accuracy
In fact, the in the Netherlands, skirmishers were used incredibly effective, they'd do what you'd expect. Take cover behind trees or in forests and use their arquebus to combat the enemy. The Thirty Years War was far from just tercio, skirmishers were crucial as well as cannon (the thing which beat it).
>>376829
This post has it all down
>>378919
Well the 500+ french officers and 8 generals the 60th rifles killed in just over a month during the peninsular war definitely proves that they were more than useful.
>>375995
The only reason that period has a reputation for boring warfare is because It doesn't fit society's romanticized notion of close combat very well
The reality is military tactics though out history until WW2 were largely based on the idea of massed soldiers forming units and fighting together but in popular imagination you have ancient and medieval warriors cutting down countless foes alone and lone gunmen shooting his adversaries in quick succession
>>378486
A rifleman might be able to load as quickly as a musketeer by using undersized ball, but rifles were already considerably smaller caliber than muskets, and the rifling wouldn't work unless the ball was tight-fitting (and therefore slow to load)
>>376156
Because most horses, regardless of how well trained, will not run at a solid wall, no matter how fleshy it may actually be. The power of cavalry in the entirety of history has been it morale effect. By charging at the less experienced infantry, you have the chance of making them break formation and run, ending in a slaughter. More experienced troops seeing this will still become unnerved and may end up doing the same thing. Every single time a cavalry charge met with infantry that didn't break at the sight the cavalry was either cut down, or more likely, the cavalry never made the charge because the horses wouldn't allow themselves to make contact.
>>375995
I actually really like this period. There was a lot less death and destruction, especially on the home front. Could it ever make a comeback?
>>379697
The balls in cartridges were the same size as the loose ball they carried, it was the patch that made it grip the rifling. loading without patch wouldn't be as accurate but pretty much took the same time as a musket
>>379697
>but rifles were already considerably smaller caliber than muskets
Does this mean they'd be less damaging than a musket shot, accuracy notwithstanding?
>>376388
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=horse+blinders
Not that guy, but come on.
>>380198
this.
a horse isn't a car.
plus, horses are pretty delicated being; for example, in order not to be killed men being charged when alone could lay on the ground pretending to be dead, if a horse saw them it would leap on top of them if they could, if they couldn't they would simply stop moving since horses refuse to trample on bodies laid on the ground.
>>380198
>Every single time a cavalry charge met with infantry that didn't break at the sight the cavalry was either cut down, or more likely, the cavalry never made the charge because the horses wouldn't allow themselves to make contact.
See this article for many examples of cavalry charging unbroken pike squares.
http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/141888.html
>>381790
>If they were also using a proportionally smaller amount of powder, yes.
Did early modern soldiers ever add extra powder for a bit of oomph?
>>381907
Yes. They also loaded multiple bullets pretty frequently. Sir Roger Williams said that a musketeer only got 8-12 shots with a pound of powder. That's 583 grains of powder for 12 shots. A modern reproduction musket will recommend no more than 75-90 grains, so the amount of powder they were using was insane already. Caliver, the next step down in size from muskets, were said to get 20 or 30 shots from a pound. That's still 233 grains for 30 shots.
>>382005
Loaded multiple bullets into rifles?
The barrel would burst.
>>382407
it was a common practice to shovel everything you could find in your muzzle during wars...
i remember reading about portuguese marines protecting a trading ship (if i'm not wrong) tossing out their own (fake) teeth to fire using the musket and sometimes soldiers added glass, small pebbles and shit that could inflict damage on the enemy and fire at will.
also, kinda related but not the same, a few years ago researchers found a musket loaded with something like 20 bullets iirc in waterloo - probably belonging to some newbie who forgot some step during the reloading process...
>>381823
that didn't happen very often; but when it happened it was usually because the troops were still green, some even fled before the initial charge leading to panic among all the ranks.
>>382740
But not multiple lead balls down the barrel, the thing would explode.
I heard the same story with the overcharged musket about a union musket found discarded at gettysburg
As for loading random stuff, in times of shortage and necessity it did happen
the british 62nd Foot were know by the rest of the army as "The splashers"
> the Regiment had to use their buttons for ammunition when they ran out of ball at the defence of Carrickfergus; their buttons thereafter had a dent or 'splash' in them in commemoration
>>375995
I like the spirit of this thread but there are a few things that need to be noted.
>From the Battle of Ravenna in 1512
Do you mean Cerignola?
>Gunpowder weapons were terribly inaccurate until the development of machined rifled barreling in the latter part of the 1800s.
60-80 yards, not much worse than longbows or crossbows when trying to hit man-sized targets.
>practically invulnerable to cavalry attacks from the front.
except when you have to deal with Prussian cavalry from Frederick the Great.
>XVII century guns weren"t nearly as accurate as XVIII century guns
Matchlocks could be more accurate than flintlocks because the latter was often built to emphasize rate of fire.
>>376156
It's more a matter of reforming and remaining compact while you stab horses. If the formation breaks in the charge or ensuing melee all is lost.
That said the skill and quality of cavalry declined from the 16th century onward.
>>376308
>"While the difficulty of finding suitable horses could inhibit the formation
and maintenance of the heaviest cavalry, many commentators remarked on
the power of the heavier mounts. A light cavalry officer, William Hay,
observed the charge of the Union Brigade at Waterloo at close hand:"
>"They came down the slope … like a torrent, shaking the very earth,
and sweeping everything before them … the heavy brigade from their
weight went over [the infantry] and through them … it struck me with
astonishment, nor had I till then, notwithstanding my experience as a
cavalry officer, ever considered what a great difference there was in
the charge of a light and heavy dragoon regiment, from the weight and
power of the horses and men."
>>376313
There is a difference, these cars got minds of their own.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ7td1vpBCk
>>376527
Maurice of Nassau made muskets the majority (60%) of his infantry blocks because guns got more widespread and efficient while simultaneously the cavalry declined.
>>382407
Into muskets. I don't know about rifles since they are very rarely mentioned. Sometimes the guns did burst from being loaded with multiple bullets. Nonetheless, it was a common practice. A load of buck and ball was even standard for the US army until the ACW.
>>382834
Roger Williams
"If any great troupes of horse or foote, offers to force them with multitude of smaller shot, they may discharge foure, fiue or sixe small bullets being de∣liuered in volley, the which pearceth al they strike, vn∣lesse the enimie bee heauely armed"
Humfrey Barwick
"If it be a Musket, so much the better for my purpose, and this is to be doone in great incounters, whereas armies cannot marche but easilye, for that the numbers are great, and being a Musket, I would firste deliuer a single Bullet, at 24. score off or there abouts, by that time they had marched fourescore neerer, I would deliuer* another Bullet, and at 12▪ score two, and at eight score three, at forescore 6. Pistoll Bullets, with lesse pouder thē at the first by the third part, for alwaies the more lead the lesse pouder, and yet shall the force be neuer the lesse."
In Grimmelshausen's novel Simplicius, Simplicius also loads his musket with two bullets to give him better odds in a duel. Grimmelshausen must have learned that trick during his own career as a soldier. The French explorer Samuel Champlain once loaded his musket with four bullets, with which he killed two Indian warriors and wounded a third with one shot. The English explorer John Smith on several occassions defeated Indians by having his men load their muskets with multiple bullets. There are also several mentions of muskets being loaded with two bullets in Purchas, His Pilgrims part 4.
>>382857
>That said the skill and quality of cavalry declined from the 16th century onward.
What evidence do you base that on?
>>383145
Prices of horses, armor and soldiers wage/background dropping by multiple factors while the numbers increased with roughly the same factor.
And cavalry was kinda meh from 1590-1640ish until that Swedish lad had them charge with swords again.
Napoleon took this to another extreme and increased the cavalry arm of his army even more. He remarked how mamluks were better horseman and the Brits and Germans also reckoned that French cavalry were horrible horseman. Though they noted that they acted really good in regimental groups. However Napoleons cavalry tactic usually amounted to sending in cavalry until the enemy lost, European horse stock still suffers to this day from the amount of horses he sent to their death.
Another interesting article on the transition: http://myarmoury.com/feature_lancepistol.html
>>376376
Arrow fire wasn't meant to kill on its own, it was meant to soften enemy formations and to make it easier for infantry.
I remember reading about how devestating english archers were againt scottish infatry because they didn't wear helmets and so their faces were open targets. A warrior with an arrow in his eye won't be dying immediately but he won't last long in a melee.
based OP
>>376637
Pistols are expensive.
>>383948
They were in wheellock times, but soldiers sometimes did storm enemy defenses armed with multiple pistols during the Thirty Years War and English Civil War.
>>383218
When it was five or six bullets they'd be undersized, as small as pistol bullets or smaller, but the sources make it clear that the guns could handle two, three or even four regular sized bullets without automatically bursting.
>>376291
>Bows also had their own advantages - more quiet
Please enlighten me. Why would noise matter on the battlefield?
>Hullo General, sir, would we have permission to use bows instead of our muskets in this coming battle? My ears are terribly sore today, you know?
>>384949
Hey as we ambush the enemy column they won't immediately know the positioning of our forces, also the lack of noise could help in general skirmishing and foraging, the battlefield is only one aspect of war
So, the reason grenades fell out of use is because you needed a very strong guy, and they did not have much range. And it was nigh impossible for cavalry to break an infantry square. Why did they not have grenadier cavalry to punch holes in the squares and allow penetration of the other horsemen?
>>378989
Riflemen and skirmishers are great supporting units, but their main flaw is that they can't hold an open position the way line infantry can. People have mentioned cavalry, but also enemy line infantry would be able to push skirmishers out of any open ground easily and if it's a valuable position, like a flank or a hill, a general would prefer to get a good position than to kill officers: an enemy regiment without a CO may be less effective, but an enemy regiment caught in a bad position is gonna leg it.
>>385680
like you said
the range
>Pierre, dont drop your grenade on our formation
>Monsiour, ive been shot!
>BOOM
>>385680
grenadiers were always very strong guys
they needed to be tall (1.75m if i remember correctly - 1.80m if you want to apply for the XXI "grenadiers") for the time and be physically powerful.
but as far as i know grenades were mostly used by siege forces during sieges - usually by the besieged.
but they where quickly forgotten even if the grenadier units lived one but as elite units of imponent large men to be used as shock troops...
(also, grenadiers à cheval existed and i seriously doubt mixing horses and grenades is a good idea)
>>384949
Poaching.
Some people say that bows could be used to pick off sentries. I don't believe it. It would have to be a very well-placed shot to kill a sentry before he can scream.
