Do you have knights running about killing your peasants? We'll here's the solution to all your knight related problems. Just load this weapon, point it at a knight within fifty meters of you and BLAM! No more knight.
>Results may vary, weapon's performance may be compromised by rain, ammunition, powder and slow match sold separately
>>44101028
Moshi Moshi, Baito Desu?
AHAH, BAITSAABBIIIIIII!
obligatory full plate was actually bullet proof and knights existed alongside muskets for decades until advancing tactics including pikes and professionalized armies made them obsolete NOT the gun post
>>44101116
>implying that guns were not part of it.
>>44101028
Guns didn't really obsolete knights, professional armies did. Heavy armored cavalry remained viable in war until the 19th century, knights as a social class declined in military importance because the increasing surplus wealth of the 15th century made it more practical to train and maintain standing armies than to rely on an aristocratic warrior class.
Even then, these same people continued to function as officers and elite troops for many centuries after the development of the gun, more or less unhindered by its existence.
In other words, if you want to get rid of knights, advance your economy to the point where your society can maintain a standing army. There are no magic weapons.
>>44101631
Not really. If you look at other feudal societies, like Japan, who got guns far more advanced relative to their society at an era far more feudal than Europe's, the effect was predictable: The warrior-aristocracy loved them and started using them. Why wouldn't they? A knight with a gun is still more dangerous than a peasant with a gun, so the relationship stays more or less the same.
Meanwhile in Europe, by the time firearms reached that level of sophistication, knights had basically already faded from the battlefield because of economic and social pressures.
>>44101028
See, swarms of knights is a sign of the inexperienced knightkeeper. If the castle's queen knights too many, you'll have a big clanking castle packed with the lil buggers. You need to isolate the princess and about half the knights and move them to a new castle so the process can start over.
With enough practice, you can have several healthy castles without knight swarms making a mess of the neighbors' place.
>>44101775
Not diputing that, but giving your professionalized standing army an easy to use ranged weapon that hits harder than a crossbow is a useful asset.
>>44101028
But we still have knights to this very day.
The last guy to get a battlefield knighthood was in WW1, an Aussie called John Monash.
>>44101892
>The warrior-aristocracy loved them and started using them. Why wouldn't they?
The whole 'they banned them to preserve the social order' thing.
>>44101116
because they were way weaker then. Even "Wild West" guns are quite weak to their modern counterparts. Trust me if you try using those proofed "Bullet Proof Armor Suits", ya you're gonna be dead. Even 9mm.
>>44103578
This steel plate could stop 9mm parabellums.
>>44103578
most ballistic armors use metal plates dude.
>>44101028
>kills knights the same way as a longbow
>except its less accurate, has less range, costs more, is less reliable, harder to get a hold of, slower firing rate
>RIP in Peace knights!!11!1
>>44104653
Longbows didn't kill knights.
>>44104672
there are a lot of ways to approach this and point out what an idiot you are but its really not worth the trouble and wont change your mind anyway
i mostly just like these threads to be reminded what a joke /tg/ is and not to take things so seriously
>>44104697
In all the chronicles of the Hundred Years Wars you will not find ten knights that were directly killed by a longbow.
What you will find are that a lot of knights on the french side were captured and then ransomed, because so many made it out alive.
But I bet you are to good to response to that.
>>44103083
>The whole 'they banned them to preserve the social order' thing.
Except that never actually happened.
>>44104697
>i mostly just like these threads to be reminded what a joke /tg/ is and not to take things so seriously
ebin
>>44101028
Implying peasants have enough money, logistics and support to have groups of musketeers...
"Knights" were using firearms on peasants when they were rare, and let peasants shoot each others while commanding them "safely" from the back when they were common.
>>44104697
Tobias Capwell, curator of Arms and Armor at the Wallace Collection, called. He says you're a faggot and that longbows aren't anti-armor weapons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukvlZcxNAVY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yewwhjUYEPQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHqo4syIqD8
>>44105300
I'm really glad these videos exist.
>>44103711
From every distance?
Also, didnt muskets use much more powder and bigger bullets than most modern firearms?
![Maximillien+Robespierre%252C+Labille-Guiard[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/vT5roIh.jpg "Maximillien+Robespierre%252C+Labille-Guiard[1].jpg")
>>44101028
>Fighting knights
>Not abolishing them altogether
>>44103083
Collecting weapons had been a normal part of Peace politics since antiquity.
>>44103814
Ceramic, actually. At least most man portable ballistic armour.
>>44105337
At much lower velocity though
>>44103083
>The whole 'they banned them to preserve the social order' thing.
In the Nihons, that happened AFTER the Sengoku Jidai, mostly as a way to prevent all those angry warriors who now had guns from starting shit and robbing peasants. This was also why after the Sengoku Jidai the disastrous invasion of Korea was launched: for the sole purpose of redirecting all these angry men with guns.
>>44105462
They didn't get "banned to preserve the social order" though, they got "heavily limitations in terms of stockpiles and manufacture placed on them in order to prevent potential rivals and upstart daimyo from having enough to raise effective armies to stand up to your own and your closest and most loyal allies."
Yes, that's actually a HUGE fucking difference.
>>44101116
>pikes
Lel no, if it wasnt a charge a pike couldnt do shit against a standard full plate.
Thankfully, armies are usually diverse and heavy armor the minority.
>>44105452
A musket ball was fucking massive, though. Today, it'd be something close to a .75 calibre.
While it would penetrate less, it would break ribs and knock a man down when it hit armor. While movies make breaking a rib seem like it's nothing, most people would decide its time to throw in the towel once it gets very painful to breathe.
>>44105532
A musket ball isn't going to break things any more than a modern bullet because of size. No matter how big it is, that ball is travelling at a much slower velocity and has a lot less energy than a modern bullet.
>>44101028
This is as stupid as the
>get a gun
>kill king so ez
>lel magical revolution, fuk u burgoise hon hon hon
Threads
>>44105717
I mean, that technically happens in my setting, but it's as a result of the use of large commoner standing armies and the institution of the middle class rather than a direct result of having magic!guns.
>>44101775
hmm, standing armies is more of a centralizing power issue, isn't it? Letting the central government enforce it's rule and guarantee funding, preventing territories from revolting.
The ability of a state to raise large citizen armies (because of... nationalism? Not well versed in this) was more what lead to the reduced importance of a professional warrior class, I think? So you move into the more napoleonic style where states could field armies in the tens or even hundreds of thousands.
>>44105337
well at short distance you would use your trench-knives you stupid frog
>>44106355
The move away from a warrior class to professional standing armies already happened in the late Hundred Years War (in France, at least). The power of kings or other leaders being centralized was more important than nationalism, that only came later.
The Revolution was related to this though, as due to professionalization of the army the previous warrior-elite (the nobility) became a leisure class with nothing left to justify their power. Of course the bourgeoise (who could in some cases be richer than the nobility!) demanded equal rights to the old nobility, which they didn't get. Hence the revolution. Which could've ended well if it weren't for the Flight to Varennes.
>>44105548
force = mass x (velocity / time)
1500 ft/sec
A Lyman Trade Rifle is a recreation of an old style musket, using black powder and pewter balls for ammunition. A 50 cal. Trade Rifle with a 50 grain charge has a muzzle velocity of 1545 ft/sec.
http://possibleshop.com/s-s-ball-bullet.html is selling .50 cal shot that weighs 177-183 grams.
9mms range from tiny 54g things that travel at 2000 ft/sec, to big honkers at 158, going at 980.
The issue is entirely size. Larger shot would slow down faster in the air, and had a larger surface area.
>>44101028
Or, you know, you could take a bunch of long pikes instead that don't run out of ammo, don't vanish in a fine red mist as soon as the enemy gets into charging range, don't take forever to re-load and aren't expensive as shit?
Better trained, professional armies; successive weakening of hereditary rights and powers; a stronger central state; assurance of position on birth alone rather than merit. These are the things that lead to the fall of knights, far more than just being able to beat a heavy cavalry charge.
>>44101116
"Bullet Proof" isn't an absolute term. The "Reiter" cavalry tactic was based around firing pistols at point blank range so they would penetrate armour, and 17th century Harquebusier armour which was just a front and back piece with faulds weighed about the same as a full suit of earlier armour, since it had to protect against that.
Something like Haselrig's musketproof full suit was far heavier than anything earlier lancers would wear.
>>44101775
However pistols did obsolete lancers, at least until improved artillery tactics and technology, as well as more powerfull firearms and the popularity of salvo tactics, made armour less attractive
>>44105337
Powder was less efficient, both chemically and in that through the 17th century uncorned powder was used, which didn't ignite as quickly. There was also the issue of smoothbore firearms having a looser seal than rifled weapons, which meant energy was lost
>>44107930
>smoothbore firearms having a looser seal than rifled weapons
what
>>44107970
Maybe I'm misremembering, but weren't smoothbore barrels usually wider for a particular caliber than rifled ones to make loading quicker and allow for soot buildup?
Here's a question for those who have some idea what they are talking about: how come armour for the rider seems to have been considered a big deal, but plenty of knights seem to have gone into battle with poorly armoured horses? Surely the horse is a bigger target and if it gets injured you are fuck-all use as a cavalryman anyway?
>>44108054
Money?
>>44105380
>not sending them on pointless quests in foreign lands to satisfy their bloodlust and regular lust
>>44108107
Armies always needed more horses, and this would usually be encouraged in the renaissance and early modern era by giving away bonuses for capturing enemy horses.
>>44108162
I always hear about cavalry just running back for a new horse, too. That's just something I've read a few times though, not from any reliable source.
>>44108054
A heavy warhorse could handle it, but you
>Need a heavy warhorse (they're NOT CHEAP)
>Need to afford full barding for your warhorse (that's also not cheap, though not warhorse not-cheap)
So regular household knights might only be able to get themselves covered up and have a rouncy or the like.
Barding was also quite heavy (there's also YOU on there) and slowed the horse down; lighter faster horses would be fucked over by this, and that's if they can even handle the mass.
A heavy warhorse is like buying an antique ferrari. It costs a literal fortune. Barding for one, assuming you're warhorse is strong enough to carry it, is like buying a Ferrari for your Ferrari.
>>44108212
Depends on the era and the situation. In the middle ages, knights would usually bring several warhorses (and possibly a riding horse with an ambling gate which was more comfortable over long distances) for that reason.
This wouldn't necessarily be true for the men at arms in their lance, who might only have the one, but if you could afford it you'd definitely do it.
I'm not sure, but I think this mostly changed with armies becoming larger and more professional, so concern about getting enough fodder and pasture meant officers didn't want horses just standing around idle. Also you would be there as part of a regiment or other military group rather than on your own terms from a feudal obligation.
