How did guns change medieval societies?

[Steel_Wind]

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.[/Indent]

This is exactly so - and why the Brown Bess was a better weapon of war than a longbow - notwithstanding the fact that your average infantryman armed with a musket had an accuracy that could be summed up with : had trouble hitting a cow in the ass with a shovel (as compared to the longbow).

I m not so sure on the ease of manufacture argument though. It took the British 22 years to manufacture all the brown bess' muskets used in the wars of the French Revolution. It was not a mass production effort - these weapons were the creation of artisans.

(Samuel Colt changed all of that)

Still - when it came to training musketry, anyone's son would do, and could be trained rapidly.

Oh - for the guy who suggested armour was easily made firearm proof - you've been mislead. The cuirass was made mostly obsolete by the crossbow - and wholly so by gunpowder.

It was - however - mighty useful against a sabre, pike, lance or a bayonet. Muskets still had trouble sustaining a rate of fire. They were worn mostly by cavalrymen. They were also a sign of rank and social class. The cuirass was in use at Waterloo. That does not mean it was much protection against a whizzing piece 'o lead though.

By the time the musket was common - armour was useless as a real defence against missile fire. They did little to withstand grapeshot either - which is what tended to kill most people on the black powder battlefield.

John Keegan's Face of Battle is really the best work for this discussion. It compares Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme and shows you the similarities and the differences in each. Excellent book and probably the best book on military history ever written (and that's saying a lot).

 

[Steel_Wind]

Feudal society was marked by relatively expensive weapons of war, expensive weapons of defence and protracted periods of time to learn how to use them.

They were a product of and reinforced feudal society.

As weaponry changed to ranged weapons, the process of "democratization of the battlefield" followed. From bow to cross bow to arquebus, cannon, musket and rifle - the weapon kept getting easier to use and more deadly.

The situation is pretty easily summed up by taking an Enworlder at random and passing a sword or spear into his hands and getting him to fight the average knight in the backyard.

You've got one dead ENworlder.

Arm the same enworlder with a musket vs yonder knight - still probably a dead Enwolder (but maybe not).

Put 30 enworlders with muskets and a few weeks training against 10 mounted knights? And give us a cannon with grape as well?

I'm happier to be on the Enworlders side of the battle. No guarantees, but I'm very happy to be near the side of the cannon when the grapeshot starts flying at the charging knights.

Gunpowder was the great equalizer among men. It brought into focus technology and strength of the industrial society who created and fielded the weapons. It made total war (and popular revolutions) possible in a way that could never happen in the medieval period.

The more technological your battlefield, the more broad based it is, from a social perspective.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

This is exacly so - and why the Brown Bess was a better weapon of war than a longbow - notwithstanding the fact that your average infantryman armed with a musket had an an accuracy that could be summed up with : had trouble hitting a cow in the ass with a shovel (as compared to the longbow).

When it came to training musketry, anyone's son would do, and could be trained rapidly.

Oh - for the guy who suggested armor was easily made firearm proof - you've been mislead. The cuirass was made mostly obsolete by the crossbow - and wholly so by gunpowder.

Not 'wholly so' by any means - the breastplate remains in use for over 200 years following the use of gunpowder on the battlefield - that is a long time for obsolete equipment to remain in use. And while not easily made bullet proof back and breast proofed armor was not uncommon. (Heck, I have worn a proofed back and breast... it is heavy, but the arms and legs are not overly encumbered, had I wanted I could have worn the tassets as well, but the thing already weighed over thirty pounds between helm and B&B.)

It was - however - mighty useful against a sabre, pike, lance or a bayonet. Muskets still had trouble sustaining a rate of fire. They were worn mostly by cavalrymen. They were also a sign of rank and social class. The cuirass was in use at Waterloo. That does not mean it was much protection against a whizzing piece 'o lead though.

By the time the musket was common - armor was useless as a real defence against missile fire. They did little to withstand grapeshot either - which is what tended to kill most people on the black powder battlefield.

John Keegan's Face of Battle is really the best work for this discussion. It compares Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme and shows you the similarities and the differences in each. Excellent book and probably the best book on military history ever written (and that's saying a lot).

But the full musket does not see common use until the mid to late 17th century. Before then the hackbut was more common. Crude, innefficient, and not altogether accurate. Good armor could deflect or even stop (at range) the shot from an harquebus. The longer arms of the jezzail and the musket did in fact make the armor less effective, having a tighter tolerance between ball and barrel and a resultingly higher muzzle velocity. (And the Brown Bess is a joy to fire, you can actually hit what you are aiming at!) But the musket is a relative latecomer, well after the Renaissaince is over, let alone the Middle Ages.

Most armor was actually proofed against cavalry pistols, not the longer arms, if you could afford good armor then the odds were that you were not in a tercio. (And I still think that the caricole of pistol cavalry is the stupidest manuever ever invented!)

Grapeshot and glancing shot made the cannon hideously effective against massed infantry. And if you could get in some enfilade or semienfilade fire then it would rip the unit to shreds. Cannister shot added range to the concept of grapeshot.

The Auld Grump

 

[Steel_Wind]

Not 'wholly so' by any means - the breastplate remains in use for over 200 years following the use of gunpowder on the battlefield - that is a long time for obsolete equipment to remain in use. And while not easily made bullet proof back and breast proofed armor was not uncommon. (Heck, I have worn a proofed back and breast... it is heavy, but the arms and legs are not overly encumbered, had I wanted I could have worn the tassets as well, but the thing already weighed over thirty pounds between helm and B&B.)

But the rennaissance battlefield still saw as many attacks being delivered by muscle power as it did by gunpowder. It is not surprising that the armor was still useful on such a bttlefield.

The French, Prussian and the British lancers at Waterloo still used them too.

To say the armor was wholly ineffective on that battlefiled would not be true - but effective agasint what? That's my point. To say it was not much use against a massed rank of arqubusiers firing into you at 30 paces is balls on accurate. Change that up to muskets and a line of Red Coats - even more true.

They were bulky, restricted movement and were retained as much for social status as they were anything else. Their effectiveness against missle fire was pretty iffy.

Someone who is up on their American Civil War history might be able to shed some light on this: were there any cuirasses in use at First Manassas and afterwards? My theory is that the social structure in Europe favored them long after they were really useful - but those same structures did not exist in America.

The interesting thing is how body armour is making a comeback in the late 20th early 21st centuries using ballistic cloth. Of limited use overall - but a lot handier than it was in the 60s. Combined with advances in medicine and I suppose it does give you a real chance where without it - you'd have much less of a chance.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

But the rennaissance battlefield still saw as many attacks being delivered by muscle power as it did by gunpowder. It is not surprising that the armor was still useful on such a bttlefield.

The French, Prussian and the British lancers at Waterloo still used them too.

To say the armor was wholly ineffective on that battlefiled would not be true - but effective agasint what? That's my point. To say it was not much use against a massed rank of arqubusiers firing into you at 30 paces is balls on accurate. Change that up to muskets and a line of Red Coats - even more true.

They were bulky, restricted movement and were retained as much for social status as they were anything else. Their effectiveness against missle fire was pretty iffy.

Someone who is up on their American Civil War history might be able to shed some light on this: were there any cuirasses in use at First Manassas and afterwards? My theory is that the social structure in Europe favored them long after they were really useful - but those same structures did not exist in America.

The interesting thing is how body armour is making a comeback in the late 20th early 21st centuries using ballistic cloth. Of limited use overall - but a lot handier than it was in the 60s. Combined with advances in medicine and I suppose it does give you a real chance where without it - you'd have much less of a chance.

But again, the massed fire was generally used against massed troops. And the folks who could afford proofed armor were unlikely to be among the masses. Add to that the fact that both the French and the Spanish tended to hang their own soldiers if they fired at the other sides nobility and in some ways having that good armor did in fact make you bullet proof! (Better not shoot him, I might just hit.) The Austrians did as well, but not as often. Shooting nobles with cannon was somehow okay however... If I recall properly the English just plain didn't care, their soldiers would shoot anybody.(And had a reputation for the foulest mouths on the battlefield!)

For that matter the leaders of those massed foot units were often mounted, despite being higher and easier to pick out from the crowd it was amazing how often they survived.

And even when shot by massed fire the injuries to an armored curassier were more often to the legs and arms than the torso - it was the parts not covered with armor that remained vulnerable, not a matter of the armor being penetrated. A single shot was more likely to hit an amored portion of the target than not, massed fire is a bit like monkeys and typewriters, eventually they manage to kill Shakespear. (How is that for a well mangled metaphor?) And people being people, it was not unknown for an officer or noble to take off his helmet because of the heat... and one headshot is one too many.

The Auld Grump

 

[sword-dancer]

I suspect guns were favored beacuse they were many times more deadly and accurate than bows.

Definetely not!

This is very short put together

The first ahem guns were the handgonne, a barrel of metal on a stick, to fire it you mustr use a hot coal or burning twig.

Then we come to thearquebuse, which was heavy clumsy and so on, you must lay it on something and mybe you had a matchlock.

Then comes the matchlock musket...

Fact one, it takes days maybe weeks to train an musketer in this weapon,loaduing, right end toward enemy, fire, repeat, that was theeasy part IMHO, the difficult part of it was drill to march, took and change formation and fire as unit.

Fireweapons maybe more efficient against plate than longbows, but that says more over the inefficency of the longbow.

I think most of the chances had be made.
1 the englisch Longbow & billmen had demonstrated they could stood against knights in the defense
2 The swiss had butchered a few knightly armies from theaustrian to Charles the bold from burgundy.
Short said IMHO the main nails against the knights was the Pike Hedge, supported by hellbardiers(who would hack through plate ) and the economic, the knight was to expensive for his effecrt and good destriers, were hard to come by, to much horseswere slaughtered in wars, and thefarms were they were bred destroyed plundered.

 

[Coredump]

Heh, I thought "hey, I know stuff about historical gun usage, I can contribute." boy am I outclassed by some of you.

So I will opine on how to represent this in the game.

Keep damage low, but have an insane crit multiplier. 1d6 x6

Or have damage be mid, but a negative to hit -4 to hit d10 x3

Just my thoughts.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Heh, I thought "hey, I know stuff about historical gun usage, I can contribute." boy am I outclassed by some of you.

So I will opine on how to represent this in the game.

Keep damage low, but have an insane crit multiplier. 1d6 x6

Or have damage be mid, but a negative to hit -4 to hit d10 x3

Just my thoughts.

I wouldn't go that high, but maybe 20/x4 or 19-20/x4 for the crits. What happened to bone when hit by those big rounds was not pretty... fortunately all that I have seen have been bones (and long dead), but I gather the tissue damage is also pretty darned grim.

Accuracy very much depends on period.

The Auld Grump

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

OK, I know this has been discussed before. I've found some great sources for how to introduce guns into D&D, but very little about how guns change a fantasy world.

So I ask you, oh great ENWorlders: How did the introduction of gunpowder change real-world societies? What was so great about an unreliable, clumsy, expensive rifle? Why was it better than the good old longbow?

I've heard that China was one of the first societies to develop guns. And I've heard that early guns essentially made armor obsolete.

I suspect guns were favored beacuse they were many times more deadly and accurate than bows. But it's difficult to model that in D&D, given that it's a HP-based system. The only way I can see to reflect their increased deadliness and accuracy would be to have guns do huge amounts of damage (like 6d6 per shot), and have big circumstance bonuses to hit (+5 or more). Who knows, maybe even make them ranged-touch attacks and simple weapons. But before we start talking house-rules, I'd love to get some feedback on the real-world history of firearms and how they changed the world.

Thanks,
Spider

I don't know about the Orient, but I can tell you about Europe.

The first use of gunpowder on the Western European battleground was the use of cannons c.AD1320. This coincided with people beginning to use larger quantities of plate mail, and resulted in the beginning of the end for the Crusader period in which heavy cavalry charges dominated the battlefield.

It came at roughly the same time as the Bubonic Plague, of which there were two important outbreaks during this period: the plague of Justinian (which petered out around 1340), and the Black Death (which ran from 1346 to around 1351). Between these two outbreaks more than 25 million people - at least a quarter of the population of Europe, and some estimates say a third - was wiped out, with the result that the population was less in 1350 than it had been when the feudal system had been established, and a disproportionate number of the deaths had been among the serfs. There was inflation, economic recession, a horrible shortage of labour, and peasant strikes culminating in the Statute of Labourers in 1351. Ultimately the collapse of feudality and the end of serfdom can be traced back to this event.

(The same kind of plague that broke out in London in 1665, but was fortunately controlled and virtually eradicated by the Great Fire of London in 1666 after killing only around 70,000 people.)

Thus, it is safe to say that a vast number of changes took place in European society in the first half of the fourteenth century, but it is difficult to say which of the changes are attributable to the first battlefield uses of gunpowder.

 

[Turhan]

I house ruled guns in One game as follows:

Armor class still counts in full, to simulate how inaccurate guns were.
The attack roll was normal, not a ranged touch.
Range increments for pistols were 5 feet, and ten feet for long guns.
Damage was 3d6 for a pistol or 4d8 for a long gun.
Criticals were on any natural roll of 12 or higher.
Improved Crit can never be applied.
If a critical hit is rolled, then roll your damage dice and keep rolling any die that comes up with an even number. Then mulitply by 2. (Can be very deadly.)
Reload time is 5 rounds, but the loader cannot move or take any other action. (I considered but never used a feat called 'Gunner' that would allow the person to move normal speed, but take no other action while loading.)
The long reload time has a huge impact in a DnD battle.
(I made firearms rare and 2 to 3 times the cost of a MW or +1 crossbow, - though that wasn't a rule so much as a circumstance.) As a foot note, we don't use guns in our present campaign.