Would /tg/ think this is a good idea?
I think it's pretty cool, and there is no reason why, with their technology, they couldn't have developed AT LEAST matchlocks. They're pretty basic. I don't mean exactly romans, but some fantasy dudes with the same tech as them and all of the ancient world.
The only problem I see is that I think matchlock weapons were actually useful at their time, because of the armor advancements. The only way to kill a knight at the time would be to make him fall to the ground and then putting a sharp point through his visor, using a warhammer or other polearms, so having a boomstick which could kill them with none of that work was pretty good. Even if it lacked range, fire rate and was more expensive than a crossbow.
So, what are your thoughts?
>>44105897
>roman era tech
>knight
Oh, you're in for a shitstorm.
>>44105945
Read op again, anon. He isnt saying there were knights in the roman era.
>>44105897
So, OP, a couple facts you can check yourself with a bit of research:
>Full plates made with exact specifications of the medieval plates that co-existed with muskets have been known to even withstand rounds from modern firearms, such as 9mm and .38. This doesn't happen reliably but they resit penetration more often then one would think.
>Plate armor coexist with firearms for over 500 years. In the late napoleonic age, cuirassiers, as the name suggest, would still have breastplates that could, often, stop a bullet from advanced rifled weapons or muskets. Medieval plate could reliably, although not all the time, stop a musket bullet (See origin of the term bulletproof yadda yadda)
>Heavy crossbows can pierce things modern firearms sometimes cant and old firearms often couldn't, like a car door. They are, though, extremely slow to reload as they require a cranking mechanism that has to be attached and detached between reload and firing.
>Ancient age armies had many different types of armors, and not rarely they would field people with no armor, just clothes or a simply cotton shirt. But shields were always a strong presence in ancient warfare. A thick oaken shield can stop a couple musket bullets, perhaps even more, without shattering.
But tower shield/scutum and muskets sound like good match
>>44105897
Would they be able to make the barrel thin enough?
You look at early firearems, the ones that are literally hand cannons, and you see they're seriously thick barrels - given that you don't start seeing matchlocks until these have been around for a few hundred years, and given that roman metallurgy is around (depending on the point in time) a thousand years behind the point hand cannons first developed, I don't know they had good enough metalworking for it to be a reality, even before the issue of developing gunpowder comes up
>>44106006
Maybe if two hands are required for firearms they could develop a bigger shield that would function more like a Pavise? Hell, you could even use it as the stabiliser stick thing early muskets needed
>>44106206
That's technically an obus. But I get what you mean
>>44106059
Even with primitive metallurgy, a relatively thin gun barrel can be made durable enough by wrapping it tightly in a cord or wire.
>>44106006
Didn't know about the armors that protected against even modern firearms. That's pretty cool.
I had heard that somewhere during WW1 the germans made armor for their machine gunners, and I believe it was called "lobster armor" or something like that.
I know about shields, but I mean, you can actually do that, and more effectively with javelins.
The thing I'm not seeing too well is, even after they're developed, I don't see how they could stay useful given that nobody at that time would wear plate armors. I mean, chainmail sure, but plate was just a reinforcement, or mostly bronze plating, which isn't exactly a resistant metal.
But I'm seeing the big shields defending against a barrage of musket fire and then charging forward with swords drawn. I believe it could fit. But the development of thick shields would have to be first in the timeline I guess, therefore muskets could be useful at penetrating them, something that bows, javelins and slings cannot do.
Because if we do not count this in, a bow remains much more useful than an early and crude matchlock musket
>>44106059
Maybe not, but I can stand a little suspension of disbelief I guess. Celtic metalworking was really developed for it's time, but could not make up with quality what the romans had in quantity. Maybe a mix of both? Still insufficient but...
>>44105960
Which there was, they were just different from their medieval counterparts. The Equites were a social class distinct with certain privileges and responsibilities, including military service.
>>44106255
Suggestions:
Muskets could have a traditional value, either because of religion or they are just the traditional ranged weapon of choice of hunters, so they cannot for the life of them figure bows and crossbows out. Muskets are considered scrub-tier ranged weapons and laughed at by the bow-inclined cultures.
or! Fantasy beasts with thick hides mean both tougher to kill cavalry, and that elite enemy units might have armors that cant be pierced by arrows and javelins
>>44106316
The problem with the technological solution is that I want the setting to remain in the Iron Age, I mean... I want chainmail to be the best armor there is. I hate how silly generic fantasy plate armor look. Real life counterparts look better, but still, iron age has some charm.
About the traditional value, sure, we discussed this yesterday with a friend and he told me there could be political reasons for it. But I mean... it's such a big investment in both time and money, that having this weapon mean NO advantage at all just seems stupid.
I guess heavy shields are the way to go?
>>44106266
Roman cavalry sucked balls though.
I'd say Hetairoi or some other elite eastern cavalry are much more akin to knights, except in their social order or standing, of course. Hell, any ancient world heavy cavalry could beat the crap out of roman cav
>>44106358
Well, the problem you are posing us is "How can I make this technology be the reasonable thing to do in a situation where it isnt." And the only answer is to change that situation. Musket main advantage over the bow and crossbow is the heavy impact, which is not needed in low tech armor. So you either make the impact necessary, or you make muskets better, or you can make them the only solution a civilization knows for ranged warfare.
Fantasy alternatives would include battlemages that can block arrows but not lead, or a magical component on gunpowder that bypass enemy's warpaint ward.
>>44106358
Roman cav died due to the shitty funding scheme and their general hidebound backwardness.
>>44106383
But weren't ancient bows generally shit? If the Romans needed an alternative to light skirmishers with shitty bows musket might not be such a bad idea.
Also a well done musket volley would break a cavalry attack easily if supported properly. would do a lot to offset the late Roman army's weakness versus cavalry dominated forces like the Huns and Persians.
>>44106931
Depends on the culture.
I mean, some of the (reported) exploits of Mongols with their bows would mean that they had some ballin' shit (assuming any of it is true).
The Romans really weren't archers - I mean, sure, they used them, but their big thing was heavy infantry. Which might be the reason that ancient bows catch shit.
Fun note, India had a brief stint with steel bows. They worked about as well as you'd expect.
>>44106931
Bows picked up a fair bit pretty quickly, and even in Roman times weren't completely awful. The Testudo wasn't made up because it was a nice way to avoid being rained on (and it was for more than just javelins, as well).
Although thinking about it, you could get some nice mileage out of firearms being a replacement of the pilum, used for opening volleys before the lines clash.
Hell, imagine a fight consisting of legionnaires with firearms against horse archers from eastern lands.
>>44106931
Well they did have crossbows remarkably similar to a style that survived into the Late Middle Ages adopted from that one time they ran into some Han Chinese guys in Central Asia. The exact extent of the Roman use of crossbows is unclear, but they did at least experiment with units of skirmishing cavalry armed with them, and the Roman introduction of the crossbow popularized it in Europe and eventually made it the dominant ranged weapon in the High to Late Middle Ages until guns actually did take over. They did know about them before then and even had their own designs, but these were mostly based the somewhat clunkier and less powerful Greek version.
It might be an idea to instead have your not-fantasy Romans instead encounter not-fantasy Han Chinese who figured out how to make easily portable and efficient individual guns early and have the not-Romans go "oh shit we need some of those" instead of crossbows.
>>44106963
>I mean, some of the (reported) exploits of Mongols with their bows would mean that they had some ballin' shit (assuming any of it is true).
It is and they did, but they're exceptional.
When Temujin united the various tribes under the Mongol banner he basically combined the badassery of a nomadic warrior tribal culture with the drilling and military of an organized army found more often in sedentary cultures, merging the strengths of both and creating their weird hybrid culture.
It's not something you see much of, though Shaka Zulu actually did something similar on a smaller scale.
>>44107047
>It might be an idea to instead have your not-fantasy Romans instead encounter not-fantasy Han Chinese who figured out how to make easily portable and efficient individual guns early and have the not-Romans go "oh shit we need some of those" instead of crossbows.
This is relatively plausible, actually.
The Chinese wrote an entire book on military doctrine and usage of some remarkably sophisticated gunpowder weapons in the 12th century, though later their country was manufacturing so much steel and they suffered from an overproduction crisis and traditional Confucianists pushed for reforms to "simplify" things since they claimed they didn't need so many technological advances, especially in the military which from a traditional Confucian viewpoint is sort of a second-class group below the scholar-bureaucracy.
Cue the Mongols a century later steamrollering them into the ground with their own weaponry, of course....turns out MAYBE things like fire lances and arquebusiers have uses after all.
>>44106006
>Heavy crossbows can pierce things modern firearms sometimes cant
Nah mate that's complete utter bullshit.
>>44107223
We have in our medieval warfare study group a replica of a germanic heavy crossbow with a reloading crank. One of our tests was firing it agaisnt a car door we bought from the local junkyard. Iron tipped bolt went through the alluminium and broke the plastic on the inner side, getting then stuck there. The same car door was shot 3 times with a 9mm beretta. None of those projectiles broke through the plastic, although they did get into the chassis.
So, obviously when I say "modern firearms" i don't mean "all moderns firearms." Many caliber rifles and even stronger pistols will have more impact and/or penetration than a heavy crossbow, but not all of them.
>>44106006
Fun fact tower shield had come back into use in the form of the pavise. In the 15th century as soon as the arquebus became some what common it fell back out of use because it was ineffective against that weapon.
>>44107548
Though, it also has to do with evolution in artillery, since not only the arquebus became common but we had forged cannons replacing bombards, and they were much more accurate and therefore, more effective agaisnt infantry that couldn't move. The pavise was a good counter-ranged tatic. Reload behind it, safe from arrow, then rain pain on the enemy.
>>44105897
>Even if it lacked range
True, early firearms were out ranged by war bows and crossbow. The muzzle energy is a bit over that of a .44 mag based on German testing. However is bleeds off its energy very fast and at 82 m it is under the level of energy that a 7.62x39 needs to to be likely to cause a incapacitating wound barring shot placement. In all honesty the handgonne likely becomes ineffective before that point because it has a far cruder bullet shape.
>fire rate and was more expensive than a crossbow.
If we are talking about handgonne v. crossbow then it was the other way around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD6SbAzdvc8
Note that far for the fastest I have seen. That would 8 shots inside a minute.
>>44107616
>forged cannons replacing bombards
Do you mean casted? Because bombard were forged. Casting cannons became a thing in the 1460s. Pic is a of a early example from 1464. From what I understand pavises became a lot less common starting around the 1440, being full phased out in the 1480s in western ¢ral Europe. Better field atrillerty could of been one of the reasons why it fell out of use, but then why did pikes become a lot more then during that same time frame? They have the same issue of poor mobility that pavise user have.
>>44105897
>I think it's pretty cool, and there is no reason why, with their technology, they couldn't have developed AT LEAST matchlocks.
With their technology they didn't develop matchlocks. There's your answer.
>>44105897
I thought Age of Decadence was pretty cool too
>>44107223
Low calibre firearm with soft bullet as opposed to hardened iron spike from a relatively absurd tension device.
Put an armour piercing or other non-mushrooming round in and the firearm will punch through easily.
Standard ammo, not so much, it's designed to warp and tumble, not Pierce hard cover.
>>44108046
Pike's don't have anywhere near the mobility issues of someone hauling a portable wooden wall with them.
>>44107081
>Cue the Mongols a century later steamrollering them into the ground
It took the mongols 74 years to conquer china. I would not call that steamrolling. When they used their gunpowder weapons in the middle east it did not really help them all that much. Heck, by the time they got to the mamluks had already copied the design as used them at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260.
>turns out MAYBE things like fire lances and arquebusiers have uses after all.
That hurt them, but what REALLY hurt the chinese war effort was the military examinations in order to become a officer. Namely to even take the first military examination the test taker must of passed 3 levels of civil service examinations. Then there is the issue of the material that was need to be mastered to pass the test. It was very heavily weighted to the strategic level, very light on the tactical level, and still had elements of civil exams in it. Makes sense for large scale campaigns, but far smaller scale events it left it officers with the wrong skill set and acted as a glass ceiling for rank & filed soldiers on becoming a officer.
>>44108174
I dont know why people think a device build on tension has to necessary be weaker in kinetic impact than a device build with tiny ammounts of explosive. You can put diamond tipped bullets in a .22 revolver, it wont pierce more than a heavy crossbow. But if you have a .50 pistol, then it's a whole different story.
>>44108405
Also didn't helped that northen china was a logistic nightmare if you didn't had your whole supply train riding along with your main force like nomads did. Chinese had extremely organized armies but those had extremely complex needs to function. Not only specialists blacksmiths and arrow smiths, but it took something like six months to fully train a chinese soldier with the basic spears drills necessary to move in formation. Imagining needing to resupply an army in campaign in a mountainous or desert terrain far away from big population centers when it takes you six months to field a batch of soldiers that wont be a hinder to the army.
