Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TerraDave" data-source="post: 2306106" data-attributes="member: 22260">Having skimmed through the previous threadsI think a lot of the main points have been made:-cannons eventually changed the relationship between the sovern and his lords-guns where not great weapons, but they where easier to use and could be effective when massed-firearms where more effective against armored opponents--on average-the overall effect was to encourage greater central control over larger armed forces-another effect was to change the role of "skill" on the battlefield: individual martial skills declined in importance, the ability to lead others (as there were more to lead) became more so. It is worth clarifying the following:It would take about 300 years for firearms to become the dominant battlefield weapon. During that time you have a real mix of forces. And things like lances and swords would still be used on the field for many decades after.Also worth noting:Firearms would become the basis of a number of large empires (based in the east as well as the west), and play a role in the first era of "globalisation". They weren't the only factor,  but they were a factor.</blockquote>