Special delivery from the Song!
(midwest.social)
PugJesus
History MemesExplanation: The formula for gunpowder was invented by alchemists near the end of the Tang Dynasty of China, seeking an elixir of eternal life (a classic of alchemical pursuits).
The subsequent Song Dynasty of China discovered that the novel substance had more... martial uses, expanding into incendiaries, explosives, and projectile propellant.
Reverse elixir of life. Just add fire.
Did it go to shit? I don't know about Song specifically, but the next centuries were a lot like the previous few in general.
Right after being invented it still had major limitations - tendency to form an airborn explosive dust, massive expense relative to mechanical yeeting of projectiles, the difficulty of building and moving big cannons, the difficulty of loading and aiming small ones...
An army only needs a few I guess, because like you say, they were pretty shit at first, so more just psychological terror at knowing what they could do if someone wealthy enough really wanted to make you get hit by one and managed to hit you.
Imagine being in your first war and the enemy has fucking firemagic. You've no idea what it is, but it's loud and flashy and you saw a dude/object get hit and saw what it does. Your army doesn't have anything remotely like it. Your faith in winning might get shook. Faltering troops fight worse. Etc etc
Edit oh just like a tangentially related video. Spoilers for Shogun show:
I mean, word spreads fast, but even if it's totally new you were already being shoved towards a wall of enemies with pointy sticks. What does a little more fear matter? The real psychological tricks you see showing up in ancient warfare (like in The Art of War) have more to do with what happens before and after battle.
The first big impact gunpowder made on combat was diminishing the importance of things like city walls. Apparently a cannon did damage in a way no catapult did. That was a long, slow-moving period; shot and pike only appears in the 1400's Europe/Eurasia with the matchlock, which could be aimed and fired by one person, and which took less-dangerous corned gunpowder. Later on the wheel and flintlocks brought more reliability, and then the bayonet brought in the age of firearms in the early 1700s.
Even if you know about it, the loud banging and flashing still has an effect. There's a reason PTSD was called "shell-shock" at first, but I realise it's every different enduring bombings for days as opposed to a single fight against some firelances.
Apparently the first ones were pretty much firethrowers at the end of spears, with sometimes some shrapnel or pellets in there.
Most people who died in medieval fighting died during the rout, as in when one side gives up and runs away. I'm just saying that if one side has firespears, and the other doesn't, if all things were equal, I'd bet on the side with the fiery things.
We have a word in Finnish: "tulenavaus" from "tulen" (of/from) and "avaus" (opening), meaning just yeah, "opening of fire", but the concept is drilled still to this day in military guidelines. And when it was being taught to me, it was heavily emphasised it's not about accuracy, but about the shock factor. So when you're sitting in your trenches with your squad/company and see an enemy company approaching, you don't just have one guy shoot the first enemy he sees, but cooperate with your unit and either set a line at which the fire will be opened, or a command, but a vocal command could give a slight warning if they hear, but eh. The point being that it's about the shock effect. Getting the enemy to shit their pants. And these would be trained modern soldiers we were told to do this against, so it's not just about not having heard such things exist, I may have emphasised that too much.
Although in the modern context it's more about "getting the drop" on the enemy, but an advancing hostile force would know to expect enemies. Which makes a concurrent and powerful tulenavaus even more important.
IIRC that's an especially big deal in Finnish doctrine. Other nations emphasise marksmanship more, although massed fire and suppression always has it's place. Back when standoffs were too short for concealment and cover to play a major role, I don't know if it had any parallel.
I guess it could start a route sooner than a known threat, that's true. It's a fact that adoption of hand cannons (literally a tiny cannon tied to a straight stick BTW) was minimal, though.
No no, that doesn't excludes marksmanship at all.
The emphasis on a burst but not necessarily an accurate burst is only for the opening of fire. First few shots. A few seconds. Afterwards you use double-shots, center mass, and make the bullets count as much as you can. But like the time that takes should last longer than it would for you to spook a friend by hiding behind a corner. Or in this case as there's lots of people, that sort of surprise party shock where eveyone jumps up and shouts "surprise". But they won't keep yelling and trying to surprise you after that, you know?
Our services rifles have 150m, 300m and night-sights. Well the newer ones RK95 do I don't think the 62 had night-sights iirc. I did serve with both but a limited time with the 62. (And got an A for shooting with both in testing, and once with my left side with the 95)
It's a big deal because the sort of war were most preparing for is a defensive one, where you do often get the drop on the enemy advancing on you. Then you make them shit their pants and then pick off the ones who didn't make it to cover.
. It's a fact that adoption of hand cannons (literally a tiny cannon tied to a straight stick BTW) was minimal, though.
Oh yeah I think they would've been rather niche. But I can see how they might give an advantage in some situations. But had I been fighting in said armies with my current knowledge, I probably wouldn't pick one as my go to weapon, that's fosho. Hell, bows were pretty usable still in the 18th century. Ben Franklin argued for war-bows in 1770. But ofc they became rather redundant, but even to this day in very niche situations a mechanical bowtype weapon might be superior. For silence for instance. Or something else I'm not currently considering. At least they're rather regulatory free still even in places with somewhat tight firearm laws.
Also also, would you count an airpistol as a firearm or a mechanical weapon? Obviously it's mechanics compression. But what about when you use airguns with those small co2 cylinders. Then it's a compressed gas, still, yah, but also there's technically liquid fuel. As "Fuel is any material—solid, liquid, or gas—that releases energy (usually through combustion or nuclear reaction) to produce heat or power"*, granted it would be more usual if it burned but not necessary by that definition. But eh...
They're firearms under Canadian law, if they fire reasonably fast or have high muzzle energy, at least. And they can - Lewis and Clarke took them as weapons on their expedition. Before precision machining you would have needed quite the craftsmen to make one, though!
Nice castle you have there. I’d be a shame if someone were to…blast iron balls at it.
That's why it says "don't point fireworks at people"
Shit
