re: Celebrim
First of all, allow me to apologize if I have misused the quotes, but...
Celebrim said:
Dr. S.: What, are you Austrian? German? An heir to the Hapsburg dynasty?
If only I were any of those.... ...mmmm, strudel. No I got turned on to the Hapsburgs as a result of studying the behavior of large imperialist states and super-powers. That, Machiavelli, Early Modern, and Spanish history. I find them interesting both as an oft neglected but nonetheless foundational component of modernity, a bridge to the middle ages, a dynasty with nice aesthetics, and an empire that endured a lot of phenomena that are very instructive to current super-powers such as the US.
Celebrim said:
"1.) guns means common troops gain a comparative advantage to elite troops which means more infantry which means vastly more expensive armies."
Guns mean that troops can be trained faster. Ok, we agree. But I don't agree that lacking gunpowder, large armies wouldn't be fielded, nor do I agree that gunpowder armies were less professional of infantry (less elite) than armies that preceeded them. If anything, they were more elite and more professional. Professionalism was on the rise with or without gunpowder. Larger armies were as much the result of larger populations, larger more unified states, better logistics, better food production, and better civil protection as anything else. Armies would have continued to swell in size with or without gunpowder.
And as far as arguing that gunpowder mitigated the professional advantage between armies, you are totally ignoring military history _after_ the introduction of gunpowder. Better trained armies _still_ dominated battlefields, so much so that there was at one time the strange belief that the smaller army had the advantage in a battle.
I did not mean to give the impression that firearms created large undisciplined poorly trained national levies. Nor did I mean to imply that firearms prevent elite formations from carrying the field.
My main point is that without firearms the military revolution is a lot cheaper for the powers involved.
We disagree over degree not premises. Without firearms, armies would still grow as the powers of Europe began reincorporating professional infantry formations. But, without firearms the most successful infantry formations are much smaller and more difficult to form.
The Swiss model is IMHO the best non-firearms infantry formation and it is comparatively much smaller than the armies of later periods. And much of its power comes from the mobility and coordination that makes your last point on the benefits of small armies so true. In a post firearms world the Swiss cannot function against arquibussiers nor can they incorporate them into their small, swift, and incredibly trained model.
In battlefields dominated by the Swiss model or models reacting to the Swiss there is less advantage to creating the large armies of the firearms period.
The benefits to the Hapsburgs are two fold:
first, the firearms model was economically cripling to the states of the period, particularly the Hapsburgs who found their huge advantage in wealth drained away. Any model other than the firearms model allows the Hapsburgs to use their wealth to greater effect.
second, the Hapsburgs were comparatively very good at creating elite troops of pre-firearms models. In real history this allowed them to attain military dominance since it also allowed to create elite firearms formations. But other nations, such as Sweden, also discovered the means to create elite firearms formations, which lessened the Hapsburgs comparative advantage. without firearms the Hapsburgs get to develop their prior advantage and exploit to attain far greater dominance than they did.
Celebrim said:
2.) "Without Cannons the Armada is an unstoppable force which overwhelms England..."
You believe to much English propaganda. Go look at the actual order of battle some time. The English had as many ships as the Spainish (if not more), and had about equal tonnage especially when comparing the largest vessels of each fleet. The English are all the time building heroic myths about themselves. If you look, you'll find that the English actually outnumbered the French at Agincourt. Shakespeare's populist propaganda was just that.
I can speak less confidently about France, but you don't think that perhaps French nationalism had something to do with it do you?
Well, I've never read any sources that contradicted a Spanish or French superiority of numbers, particularly at Agincourt, also I hesitate to call Shakespeare mere propaganda. I would like to read your sources as I am open to the possibilites.
What I am sure of is that the Spanish had far superior troops to the British and that the tactics of the British heavily relied on superior firearms. Without any firearms at all it would be nearly impossible to stop a naval invasion of that magnitude in those waters. The British would have had to have been damn good at boarding actions. Another factor is that the Spanish were very demoralized by the superiority of English cannons, not fearing them they might have made better decisions.
The French were very reliant on cannons as their means to come back into prominence after the 100 years war. This is a very good example of the effect I am generally referring to as the Elite English infantry formations found they could not adapt to or meet French artillery supremacy. Later the Spanish had a very hard time meeting them though their ability to adapt infantry formations and training meant they never did poorly.
French nationalism is pretty poor through this period. A lot of the patter for these wars was that a border territory would declare allegiance to another state or traditional lord and the national power would come in with guns and besiege them with their big guns. The Hapsburgs actually had the allegiance of a lot of 'French' territory. Their fall is what allows the French monarchy to begin creating nationalism.
Celebrim said:
"With the Hapsburgs in charge and super strong the world becomes a happier place..."
*raises eyebrow* Justify yourself. What makes you love the Hapsburgs so?
This was a great deal in jest, but obvious Hapsburg supermacy means that it doesn't get as contested in the brutal wars that characterize this period. Swift victories mean longer periods of peace. Stronger Hapsburgs would also have moderated the religious conflicts of the period through promoting religious tolerance and/or discouraging strong anti-Catholic powers. They followed both policies at various times and for various reasons so it's hard to tell what their 'true' feelings were, but in even the worst scenario swift victory means longer peace.
Another 'benefit' would have been stronger colonial policy in South America. Might be terribly immoral, but a South America that enjoyed the benefits of a really interested home power as North America did would probably be in a more materially strong position now.
Though it should be noted that a lot of these benefits would also have resulted from a swift and obvious Hapsburg failure.
Also Europe would have been filled with even more beautiful Hapsburg model cities. How much better would life be with even two or three more Barcelonas, Palermos, and Viennas.
Also, much as I like modern Turkey, I do have a soft spot for the idea of Constantinople surviving even for a few centuries longer.
Celebrim said:
"I still think the Conquistadors would have taken out the Aztecs and Incas. Horses are a HUGE advantage as is the innate super crazy mad gutz of guys like Cortes and Pizarro."
Well, an even bigger advantage than the horses and the zeal and the pschopathy and even the gunpowder, was that the Aztecs were sincerely loathed by thier subject states and rallied behind the Conquistadors as saviors. The Incans were still gelling as an empire at the time, and were because of that somewhat fragile. Plus the terrain maximized the advantage of small better equipped units. Ultimately, maybe the biggest advantage was small pox. I think between that and the advantage of steel over stone weapons, the Conquistadors would have done pretty well.
I am in total agreement here. Though I recently attended a lecture that provided pretty convincing evidence that the worst of the plagues didn't hit the populations of the former Aztec empire until well after Spanich colonization. Saw some amazing slides of architecture and art from the period. Really tragic.
, I wouldn't want my entire city guard outfitted with gothic or Italian plate. But I would want to get all of my best melee fighters and officers in it. This means they can bust through doors really effectively and generally not worry as much about snipers all without sacraficing so much maneuverability that a squad of more lightly armed troops with some levels of rogue among them wouldn't be able to compensate. 
