- This topic has 5 voices and 4 replies.
-
Posts
-
It is a given that gunpowder weapons changed warfare when they were introduced in the late Middle Ages. To what extent do you think the advent of Gunpowder changed warfare? Even more important, do you think that the introduction of gunpowder was revolutionary or evolutionary?
To be honest, I don't think it changed warfare all that much because both sides were still the same. If both sides used just swords, it was still a level playing field (that's taking into consideration the same number of men and weaponry on each side).The only difference would be if one side didn't have gunpowder and the other did.
I would say it was evolutionary (if I'm understanding your meaning of the word correctly). The continued use of castles and swords for hand-to-hand combat suggests as much. It gradually became a more and more significant element in warfare but it was hardly a huge game-changer at the beginning. I think that the introduction of aircraft in warfare brought about a more immediate change than the introduction of gunpowder did.
I would say it was evolutionary (if I'm understanding your meaning of the word correctly). The continued use of castles and swords for hand-to-hand combat suggests as much. It gradually became a more and more significant element in warfare but it was hardly a huge game-changer at the beginning. I think that the introduction of aircraft in warfare brought about a more immediate change than the introduction of gunpowder did.
If by gunpowder weapons you mean only muskets, rifles and such I agree eith you. But if you include cannons in gunpowder weapos I'd say it changed warfare dramatically. The single biggest example is the fall of constantinople/conquest of Istanbul, depending on your view 🙂 , without gunpowder that city was impossible to sack.
I am of the evolutionary camp when it comes to the introduction of gunpowder to warfare. Its advent significantly changed the deadliness of ranged weapons but it did not materially affect the actual conduct of operations until centuries after gunpowder weapons were first used.The introduction of cannon however, did change siege operations and changed them radically. You are correct that without cannon Constantinople was essentially impregnable. Cannon had an effect on the building of fortifications that was nothing short of dramatic. When cannon were introduced traditional castles became obsolete almost instantly. Curtain walls simply cannot withstand bombardment by high velocity stone and iron projectiles. One of the most amazing things to me is the rapidity with which fortress construction adapted to the new reality. In less than 100 years castle and fortress construction adapted to the new weapons and fortresses had regained their former defensive capabilities. Witness the extensive and mostly futile sieges of the War of the Spanish Succession in the Netherlands.
Turkish massive cannon fired on the walls of Constantinople for weeks, but due to its imprecision and extremely slow rate of reloading the Byzantines were able to repair most of the damage after each shot, limiting the cannon's effect.The Ottoman fleet could not enter the Golden Horn due to the boom the Byzantines had laid across the entrance.The Turks had made several frontal assaults on the land wall, but were always repelled with heavy losses.The Ottomans even planned to overpower the walls by sheer force, knowing that the weak Byzantine defense would be worn out before they ran out of troops.The second final assault focused on a section of the Blachernae walls in the northwest part of the city, which had been partially damaged by the cannon. This section of the walls had been built much more recently, in the eleventh century, and was much weaker; the crusaders in 1204 had broken through the walls there. The Ottoman attackers also managed to break through, but were just as quickly pushed back out by the defenders. Some historians suggest that the Kerkoporta gate in the Blachernae section had been left unlocked, and the Ottomans soon discovered this mistake. The Ottomans rushed in. Around the same time, the defenders were being overwhelmed at several points in Constantine's section.I agree about the way gunpowder slowly but continuously arrived in Europe via the Muslim civilization which was playing as an intermediate between Europe and China in many fields. However, prior to the invention of gunpowder, many incendiary and burning devices had been used, including Greek fire (Constantinople).The oldest written recipes for gunpowder in Europe were recorded under the name Marcus Graecus or Mark the Greek between 1280 and 1300.The Battle of Cr?cy in 1346 was one of the first in Europe where cannons were used. In 1350, only four years later, Petrarch wrote that the presence of cannons on the battlefield was 'as common and familiar as other kinds of arms'. When you consider how armies and strategies evolved after gunpowder, nothing much changed, fortifications adapted, tactics as well.I state that one of the main consequences of gunpowder is more about the demise of cavalry at the beginning of the XXth century than warfare itself. Air Force has brought another significant evolution as well.In both case, the importance of industrial production (e.g. WWI and WWII) was the main element that could determine wars issue. Not the strength or the number of soldiers.Nowadays, it seems that traditional war are not won on traditional battlefields but more in a diffuse, overall threat e.g. Al-Qaeda.
