Why exactlly did Medieval armies become obsolete?

[kozakk]

After the discussion in this thread here, http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=294712, i really got thinking about this issue.

Considering the inaccuracy and limited killing power of colonial muskets and even more so earlier guns, it makes little sense to me that the colonial army would be superior or even able to hold their own against a medieval one. I know that gunpowder allowed easy penetration of heavy armor but it seems to little of an advantage in practice.

Again considering the discussion in the thread imagine a battle between the 2 armies. A unit of line infantry at medium range will get at best 3 kills per volley, now imagine a few knights and sergeants charging at them they will at best get 2 or 3 volley off within a range that is at all effective, killing lets say generously 10 men in the opposing unit (not even considering the armor). When the melee engagement starts all i can see is a massacre knights and spear men cutting through unarmored colonials, and god forbid they engage a unit with no bayonets (not much you can do against a knight with a rifle butt). I mean in general considering how many ranged kills these guys get it seems destroying a medieval enemy at range would be infeasible and in melee they are no match.


So currently i have 2 remaining theories on why the medieval style warfare dissolved. One is what i call the crossbow principle, because you can give any peasant a gun (particularly these inaccurate guns) and have them be as effective with it as a trained officer. So this allowed nations to field 100 s of times the gunners then they would be able to field trained medieval soldiers, and at those numbers even though inferior 1 to 1 there is little chance for victory against armor piercing pellets, so thus everyone was forced to field these kinds of armies effectively not increasing the quality or killing potential of the units but rather the pure numbers involved in engagements.

The other theory is simply gradual shift. Perhaps limited and particular use of gunpowder allowed a significant advantage if implemented into medieval armies (basically assuming it gives the advantage provided you still have plenty of spears to hold the line and heavy cav), thus making commanders slowly favor more and more gun focused armies eventually converting the entire concept of warfare.

What do you guys think?

Do you think a colonial army against a medieval army of equal size would be superior?

Is numbers what maters most?

And does plate armor not provide at least some decent defense against round rattling musket balls that don't nearly reach the velocity of modern bluets, or are they as lethal against heavy plate as against colonial wool?

[Staffen]

It's not just the guns themselves, nor the fact that they're 'easy to use' (as a matter of fact, most handguns were quite tricky and some even downright unreliable).

First, it's also logistics. Try marching for 6 hours in an armored suit, carrying a heavy sword and an even heavier shield. Next, march for six hours carrying some bullets and a musket. Note the difference in ground you can cover. Gunpowder-based armies have huge logistical advantages. Less weight means you cover more distance each day. Your soldiers will be better rested when they do battle after a march. They'll even have more capacity for carrying munitions, food, etc. It also allows for more mobility on the battlefield, a deciding factor in combat (which is, amongst others, why Roman flexible / maniple formations we're able to defeat Greek phalanxes).

Second, gunpowder enables you to win a siege assault much, much faster. Cannons bring down walls in significantly smaller amounts of time than catapults and trebuchets.

Third, bullets, blasts, smoke, cannon balls and muzzle flames have effects on enemy morale that cannot be underestimated.

Fourth, as gunpowder weapons became more advanced, rate of fire increased far beyond that of traditional ranged weapons.

All these factors can be seen to have contributed to European military successes in the conquest (rape might be a better term) of Africa and the Americas.

[betto]

Give a look on that

http://www.princearmory.com/pages.php?pageid=19

[beerin]

just look how the medieval army evolved into the 1600s "pike and shot" type of army that was used in the thirty years war-gradual change! for an example of small gun/cannon armies vs huge hand weapon armies look at the British vs Indian princes in the 1700s or Napoleons battles vs the Mamelukes in the egyptian campaign. I think in the use of firearms vs troops with mostly melee weapons there is a big big morale hit the melee side takes when they have to try to stand up versus those types of weapons

[Caesar Clivus]

And does plate armor not provide at least some decent defense against round rattling musket balls that don't nearly reach the velocity of modern bluets, or are they as lethal against heavy plate as against colonial wool?

Against the early handguns, yes plate armour provided some protection. Against muskets though plate armour was pretty much useless. That is why armour fell out of use. Why lug around heavy armour that won't even protect you in battle? In Napoleonic times, cavalry often still wore a cuirass (and were called Cuirassiers) but these didn't really protect against muskets. They did though protect against enemy cavalry swords and pistols.

[betto]

at short distance a musket bullet will penetrate a plate ,but at medium or long range probaly not . at least the plate would increase the survival ratio and this would increase the morale of the horseman.

the early firearms evolved ,but metalurgy too.

[kozakk]

Yes cannons made high walls useless this is pretty clear cut to me, if they can blast through your walls in a few hours holding up in a castle for years while besieged is impossible making them useless. The case is not so clear cut with armies composition though.

Yes the logistical and tactical maneuverability of unarmored units is superior, however though pierced by bullets it still provides protection while in melee and considering the effectiveness of the muskets the casualties they would incur while getting to the enemy line would be minor, and again once engaged no contest. It would seem that a mix of colonial style muskets and medieval style infantry and cavalry would be ideal.

And as far as ability to march longer distances quickly, yes the lighter the better, but colonial armies lugged around huge heavy cannons that were no joke to move (especially in the mud) but they managed that, something tells me that if they wanted to retain medieval style armored troops they would have found a way to transport the armor without loosing too much maneuverability over long distances.

The morale effect is the only factor that seems clear cut to me, explosions smoke gun volleys, definitely dampen morale significantly , no question.

As far as firearms improving over time, of course that is clear in general firearms are the superior weapon. However medieval armies are the pinnacle of the style of war that has been around since before history, spears, swords, bows, shields. There have been milenia of improvement in this style of warfare, colonial style warfare however is the first of its kind, it is the most primitive version of firearm style combat, while medieval is the most advanced of its kind. So im comparing only these 2 particular periods, the best of the old, and the worst of the new which is better. Because of course an improved firearm (automatic) would cut down anything before it.

Anyway this is not an argument, i basically agree with you guys on the reasons, just some points to think on.

I would also like to hear your answer to my Medieval vs colonial army question, average composition for both periods man for man who would win and why?

[Warmaster Tibs]

I would also like to hear your answer to my Medieval vs colonial army question, average composition for both periods man for man who would win and why?

This is kinda like what you mean but with pirates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0MyK...929322&index=1

sorry for quality, only one i could find.

[kozakk]

Hahaha i actually watched this show while drinking with my buddies one night, even though the show is quite ridiculous, it is to the point of being funny
African war expert :"SHAKA!! SHAKA!!, Shakazullu will rip Wallace a new one you Scottish bastards"

Scotsman with big sword: "Nay! Wallace will have ye fer brekefast ye dirty African, look at what my mace did to that side of beef"

Medical expert "well i can see that this weapon managed to decimate the dummy head, and this one managed to destroy it, so in my professional medical opinion, mace looks like it hurts more"

But its always interesting to see how much damage a morning star does to our frail bodies. Anyway the interesting thing is that me and my friends had a similar discussion and all put our money on the Knight, for the very reasons i described above, but alas i guess technology is the most important factor, although what does Deadliest Warrior know anyway, haha.

best line in the show

African war expert holds up primitive completely wooden spear "This is the infamous zulu spear, one of the deadliest weapons in zulu arsenal" (something like that anyway)

Large sword wielding Scotsman "O ye back in Scotland we call that a wee pointy stick"

[betto]

In the early years of pistol and muskets, firearms were relatively low in velocity. The full suits of armour, or breast plates actually stopped bullets fired from a modest distance. The front breast plates were, in fact, commonly shot as a test. The impact point would often be encircled with engraving to point it out. This was called the "proof". It was not uncommon for a man in armour, mounted on a horse, to ride up closer to the enemy, wheel in a tactical manoeuvre called a caracole , and discharge his hand-cannon or later, pistols, right into the faces of the adversary at close range. Crossbow bolts, if still used, would seldom penetrate good plate, nor would any bullet unless fired from close range. In effect, rather than making plate armour obsolete, the use of firearms stimulated the development of plate armour into its later stages. Hence, guns and cavalry in plate armour were "threat and remedy" together on the battlefield for almost 400 years. For most of that period, it allowed horsemen to fight while being the targets of defending arquebuseers without being easily killed. Full suits of armour were actually worn by generals and princely commanders right up to the second decade of the 18th century. It was the only way they could be mounted and survey the overall battlefield with safety from distant musket fire.

[Staffen]

Huh .... cool. Thanks for the info and +rep

[Black_ice_Spain]

cannons for sieging? -_-

in early eras (and not that early), cannon were useless versus walls, they were only usefull (and not that lot, but they were a feared factor) versus infantry.

You couldnt destroy a well-formed wall with a cannon :/, they were not tanks.


anyways spanish tercios was the perfect combo of this powers, which made everything else useless. And also the army which made the transiction between medieval and colonial armies.

They were a really OP professional trained soldiers, which formed an square. with pikes allaround, and professional musketeers in the middle, no1 could get close trough the pikemen, and muskets would rape em. In the end the best way to rape em, was cannons (pikemen armor would stop enemy bullets too).
In fact, in 100years they didnt lose any battle, and in 200years they only lost in the battle rocroi where they were in lesser number(aka the whole army wasnt there) and their perfect square was spotted by enemy cannons which were in a "mountain".


http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercio
more info (altho in spanish, english wikipedia says a crap)


http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo...smarchando.jpg
their formation...

The way it works was... pikemen surround a square of musketeers, musketeers "sit down", and when they reload, they just put their weapon over the pikemen and shoot the enemy. This combined with years of training and a lot of discipline... was perfect, because musketeers "couldnt" get hitted by enemies and i suposse pikemen were heavy armored. Until spanish empire "died" and also 18th century cannons started to be really effective versus infantry (square full of men= perfect target for cannons).

I always think at those squares as tanks on their time xD

[kozakk]

cannons for sieging? -_-

in early eras (and not that early), cannon were useless versus walls, they were only usefull (and not that lot, but they were a feared factor) versus infantry.

You couldnt destroy a well-formed wall with a cannon :/, they were not tanks.

Well perhaps early cannons were not so effective, but we are talking about the general conversion of the style of warfare, which refers to the period of better improved widely used cannons.

They really did break through walls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon_...he_Middle_Ages

On a side note in light of this info, were trbuchets at all usefull against stone walls? If earlly canons could not break these massive fortifications what could a few boulders do. In a campaign if i have a unit of trebuchets i can walk up to a fortress with a superior force auto resolve and take it, if i have a few units of them i can actually fight the battle and bring down the walls, should this be changed?

[luciferleigh]

good read, basically confirms why i usually end my campaigns once the higher lvl guns come out, and most probably the reason why i dont even want to think about E:TW yet, theres something about seeing your troops fighting hand to hand, well, at least after the arrows and javelins are spent xD

[talknight2]

good read, basically confirms why i usually end my campaigns once the higher lvl guns come out, and most probably the reason why i dont even want to think about E:TW yet, theres something about seeing your troops fighting hand to hand, well, at least after the arrows and javelins are spent xD

Empire has amazing close combat.

[Massive_attack]

Empires close combat is fascinating to watch and all, but lacks basically everything that was cool about watching Medieval 2 CQC, namely watching your plate armored zweihanders rip some pathetic frenchies a new one ! Ah man that never gets old ! I could do it all day, and sometimes, I do !