How did guns change medieval societies?

[mmadsen]

From The Age of Projectile Weapons:

Once individual gunpowder weapons were introduced and widely distributed (ca. 1600), the evolution of close-range, interpersonal weaponry subsequently moved along a single, simple path of perfecting this weapon. The early, crude, primitive, smoothbore, muzzle-loading, gunpowder weapons were pathetically ineffective. They were almost impossible to aim, very slow to fire, and useless in any kind of damp conditions. And yet their posturing (i.e., their noise) combined with their absolutely overwhelming force (when they could hit something) was so great that they soon came to dominate the battlefield.

Gunpowder was invented in China, but China was under a comparatively centralized government that appears to have seen gunpowder weapons as a threat to the established order and made a conscious decision not to develop this weapon. (Over a millennium later the Japanese would do something similar.) A powerful argument can be made that this single decision in weapons development resulted in the eventual subjugation of the east and the inevitable domination and colonization of the world by western Europe. In Europe there were constant wars and turmoil and a complete absence of centralized authority, which created an environment that pursued a continuous development and refinement of gunpowder weapons. This process led to weapons that could be fired in wet weather (percussion caps), fired accurately (rifled barrels), loaded from a prone position (breech loaders), fired repeatedly without loading (repeaters), and fired repeatedly with no other action than pulling the trigger (automatics).​

 

[mmadsen]

From Infantry Missile Weapons in the Renaissance:

By 1500 infantrymen had three different missile weapons available to them. There was the arquebus, a relatively light firearm manageable by one man, as well as the very common crossbow, and the longbow, which was mostly limited to use by the English. Technically the arquebus was inferior to both the other two weapons in range, accuracy, and rate of fire, while the longbow was generally superior to the crossbow.
[...]
But the arquebus possessed several advantages over its two rivals.

Relatively speaking the arquebus was cheaper than either the longbow, which had to be meticulously handcrafted from yew, and the crossbow, which required equally meticulous workmanship and rather expensive steel as well. The arquebus could be mass-produced by a foundry in fairly cheap cast iron. In addition, while the range, accuracy, and effectiveness of an arquebus round were inferior to those of the other weapons, an arquebusier could carry more ammunition than either of his competitors. Arquebus ammo weighed less than arrows or crossbow bolts, even after adding in the powder charge.
[...]
As a result of this difference in ammunition weight, an arquebusier could sustain fire longer than either a crossbowman or a longbowman. And ultimately it was sustained fire that won battles, more than accurate fire.
[...]
A few weeks training was all that was necessary to turn out a fairly capable arquebusier. In contrast, it took years to properly train a the bowman, who had to develop considerable musculature before being able to use his weapon to its fullest capacity. This was particularly true of longbowmen, of whom there was a saying that in order to a good one you had to start with his grandfather.​

 

[mmadsen]

Really early firearms aren't much more than noisy crossbows. The militaries of the time often had equal numbers of arquebusiers and crossbowmen; the Spanish conquistadors, for instance, did.

The biggest differences between early firearms and crossbows are that:

• Firearms make a lot of noise and a lot of smoke. (Do not underestimate the importance of being really, really loud and scary.)
• Firearms can punch through plate armor (at close range) and cause gruesome injuries -- when they hit.
• Firearms have light, compact ammo.

They're both easy to use, but slow to reload.

With that in mind, you might give firearms an attack bonus (only to offset armor and natural armor).

The real issue is that D&D's combat system makes it easy to hit, but hard to hurt your opponent, and that doesn't match the feel we want for firearms, where you may not be likely to get hit, but if you do get hit, you're hurt.

 

[mmadsen]

An early arquebus shoots a 45-gram lead ball at 300 m/s (~1000 ft/s). A crossbow shoots a 125-gram bolt at 45 m/s (~150 ft/s). That's 2000 joules of kinetic energy versus 127. And that's why soft, blunt, lead balls can go right through a steel breastplate (at short range).

 

[Ace]

You know I forgot the light weight ammo and intimidation factor -- mmadsen was spot on about that

 

[mmadsen]

From Art of Warfare, which discusses 16th-century warfare:

Armies of this time period often had more chaplains than doctors. Given the state of field medicine, this may have been just as well. Contemporaries certainly felt that war had become a more bloody business in their day. The wounds dealt by the traditional edged weapons, pikes and swords, separate muscle tissue but are often stopped by bone. They tend to be relatively clean, and if the wound isn't immediately fatal (e.g. a cleft skull), the odds of recovery are fairly good. Wounds from lead shot are another story. They cause a great deal more trauma with their percussive force (one of the common field injuries was being hit by flying pieces of bone and teeth from the guy next to or in front of you), and are more likely to become infected. Maimed soldiers had no Veterans Administrations to provide for them -- they were likely to become beggars and thieves and a source of public shame and disorder.​

Again though, early firearms aren't accurate, especially at range, and a crossbow bolt is certainly enough to take most soldiers out of the fight. The gun's chief advantages are that it's really freakin' intimidating (flash, BANG!, guy's head explodes) and it can blast through armor (at close range).

 

[deltadave]

By the time the gun came into wide use, the medieval period was almost over. The renaissance began in italy as early as the mid 13th century. The change in outlook on the world the renaissance represented was much more revolutionary for society than the gun ever was.

As far as the gun being easy to use, compared to the lifetime of training that a serious longbowman required, guns were relatively easy to learn. guns came to replace crossbows as they became less expensive and more practical to manufacture.

 

[mmadsen]

Actually cannon changed Medieval society a lot more than guns. They rendered the castle a much less effective defensive structure and took away a lot of the knights command and control advantage

Excellent point. The local lords' investments in castles became almost worthless overnight.

In terms of hitting power a decent matchlock was roughly equal to a longbow -- both had an effective range against armored target of 20 yards. The longbow had a greater maxium range (200 yards vs 100 yards for musket) but neither weapon was worth anything much past 100 feat

Against armored targets, the longbow lacked penetrating power at range. Against any target, the arquebus lacked accuracy at range. At close range though (e.g., defending a breach in the wall), firearms were absolutely devastating.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

It's not that guns were easier to use, it's that compared to longbows, they did not require constant physical/ conditioning in order to be effective, because the force driving the projectile was coming from a low explosive rather than from muscle power. Sunday afternoons, traditionally reserved for archery practice, became open to other amusements, much to the dismay of contemporary moralizers.

Further to that, those same constant physical conditioning demands also required a substantial amount of time (leisure, usually) to maintain, and it was rare for most western European societies at the time for people to have that kind of time to devote to the calling. Due to socioeconomic conditions, most people were constantly working to make ends meet for their feudal lords or whatnot. England, which was arguably one of the most well to do European countries at the times in question, was one in which people had more time to commit to what were (at least up till that point) the leisurely activities of archery. Which is partially why the most (and most deadly) longbowmen came from England- their society was simply better conditioned to the creation of such troops, and the time required.

 

[mmadsen]

My suspicion is that rank-and-file soldiers began to tire of wearing armor because it was heavy and uncomfortable, not because it was useless against guns. The economics of war was changing too, with much larger armies that would have been ruinously expensive to put in full armor. Fresh conscripts were much cheaper.

Armor of proof was much thicker and heavier than armor merely good enough to stop swords and spears. So your choice was to wear heavy, uncomfortable, expensive armor, or to wear armor that helped in hand-to-hand combat, but which wouldn't stop a bullet.

It became cheaper to simply get more soldiers than to armor the ones you had.