Article about advantages and disadvantages of early firearms

[mavyalex]

Hi,

I found this interesting article:


http://www.alderneywreck.com/index.p...-disadvantages


I would like your opinion about this passage!

One of the main advantages of firearms was that almost anybody with reasonable eyesight could be turned, fairly quickly, into a marksman, more or less regardless of age and health. Also, even when wounded, most harquebusiers and musketeers could still pull a trigger bar. A good archer, by contrast, was the product of many years of training and had to be in top physical condition (which, in protracted overseas campaigns, they were often not because of cold, hunger and disease) to be able to draw their bow again and again with accuracy. The importance of good health can be seen from the following comment by the Hertfordshire militia that would only take archers who were ‘… Lustye in bodye, & able to abyde the wether & and canne shoote a good stronge Shoote’, because before they had made a mistake and ‘alowed manye Simple & Weake archers’ into their company.

I am also interested in the psychological effects of early firearms (like arquebuse and later muskets) compared to crossbows and longbows.

[Alwyn]

Thank you for the link, it is an interesting article.

You wrote that you are interested in the psychological effects of early firearms, including muskets. I remember reading that at the Battle of Talavera, General Cuesta's line of infantry fired a volley at French Dragoons. The French Dragoons were out of range. The sound of the volley was so terrifying that General Cuesta's men reportedly fled in panic, even though they had not been attacked or threatened with attack. My source is the Wikipedia page on the battle (see under the heading 'Preliminary movements'). I wonder if anyone with access to proper historical sources can confirm that or provide similar examples to illustrate the psychological effects of early firearms (to be fair to this Wikipedia page, it does include citations to historical sources).

[mavyalex]

Also in the Warpath Campaign in Empire Total War when playing the Native Americans in a battle, they don't seem affraid when the colonists fire at them. They go forward like robots, and the stress/fear factor doesn't weigh in...


This very good movie depicts quite well the encounter of early colonists in Virginia with the native tribes: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402399/ ("The New World" (2005)) ...It's also the story of Pocahontas...

[apostrophefz]

This may illustrate a bit more, although the focus is explaining the usage of the sling, and why it disapeared military usage.
http://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Research/Sling

[mavyalex]

This may illustrate a bit more, although the focus is explaining the usage of the sling, and why it disapeared military usage.
http://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Research/Sling

Thank you for this interesting article. But I think I will stick with bows :-) I know how to use a bow, but a sling would take me even more years...:-)

[apostrophefz]

I absolutely adore slings and slinger units. Used a lot in Rome Total Realism mod. I love the mix of high caliber damage coupled with light armor and stamina.
I'm a footman myself...

[apostrophefz]

Arquebuses were a component in the conquest of the americas; Pizarro owns a lot to these thunderous things. Below, not a thorough report, but still, interesting to read.

Pizarro set sail for South America in January 1531 with 265 soldiers and 65 horses. Most of the soldiers carried spears or swords. At least three had primitive muskets called arquebuses, and twenty more carried crossbows.

[...]

... Upon arrival at the village of Cajamarca on a plateau on the eastern slope of the Andes, the Spanish officer invited the Incan king to a meeting. Atahualpa, believing himself a deity and unimpressed with the Spanish force, arrived with a defensive force of only three or four thousand.

Despite the odds, Pizarro decided to act rather than talk. With his arquebuses and cavalry in the lead, he attacked on November 16, 1532. Surprised by the assault and awed by the firearms and horses, the Incan army disintegrated, leaving Atahualpa a prisoner. The only Spanish casualty was Pizarro, who sustained a slight wound while personally capturing the Incan leader.

taken from here http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/topten/

[poa]

definitely easy picking from the natives then,
snatching a country from natives easier than snatching candy from children

[apostrophefz]

the south america conquest is really a mystery to me, as far as the actual conquesting is concerned. reading cortez' letters he doesn't report on many guns among his troops, only a handful. as for the opposing natives, he writes of tens of thousands swarming on his position, in multiple occasions (if that's true or not, only god knows).
were they afraid of the guns? of the horses (which also weren't numerous)? of the moustaches? or is it a matter of disorganization from the natives?

but this is offtopic.

[Didz]

I remember reading that at the Battle of Talavera, General Cuesta's line of infantry fired a volley at French Dragoons. The French Dragoons were out of range. The sound of the volley was so terrifying that General Cuesta's men reportedly fled in panic, even though they had not been attacked or threatened with attack.

I've read various reports of this incident, but it tends to get exaggerated in the telling.

The explanation that the Spanish fightened themselves with the sound of their own volley is usually attributed to Wellesley himself and seems to be his offhand comment on the incident, and may actually have been intended as a witty aside. Wellesley seems to have been prone to such dismissive responses to questions he considered pointless or trivial.

The more detailed information on the incident rapidly puts it into clearer perspective.

First of all the panic was quite limited. Best estimates suggest that only 2,000 out of a total of 35,000 spanish troops present were actually involved, and most of these were quickly rallied or rounded up by the Spanish themselves and returned to the line.

Secondly the idea that they were frightened by the sound of their own volley whilst amusing doesn't fit all the evidence. The French for example claim repeatedly that by provoking an enemy to fire at them too early they were able to spread panic and demoralisation amongst their opponents. The British also state that infantry with empty muskets are much more easily panicked by enemy cavalry, indeed the whole British policy of delaying their fire was based on the premis that men are more confident with a loaded musket in their hand. It is also generally recognised that troops who fire into an enemy and see no visible effect tend to panic, which again is a reason why the British were careful not to risk it. So the phenomenon itself was well recognised as a morale factor by officers on all sides during the period.

Finally, it's worth noting that most of the men in the Spanish ranks were raw recruits and may never have fired their musket before, or faced French cavalry. They may also have been reluctant recruits and suspiscious of their British allies. Some reports state that the panic began not when the Spanish fired but shortly afterwards when there were cries of 'Treason', and 'We are betrayed' amongst some of the Spanish troops who immediately threw down their weapons in disgust and fled.

It is possible for example that when the recruits saw how little effect their fire had produced on the French they assumed that they had been issued with substandard weapons or powder and decided to run. This also ties in more reasonably with the fact, that most of these men didn't actually run away and hide, but headed straight for the British baggage train where they set about looting it. The other interesting thing that is overlooked is that several hundred British troops joined them.

I'm not sure whether they were issued with sub-standard powder, but its possible that Spanish supplies were less reliable than the British, and it would make sense to issue the best powder to the more reliable troops. It's also dubious given the normal French tactical doctrine that they would have done nothing to provoke the Spanish to fire at them, as there are numerous testiments that this was standard practice especially amongst their cavalry.