u/Sea-Ride-4893

Reading through some older answers here there's much emphasis on bayonets in Napoleonic warfare and earlier conflicts that used muskets. Usually the fear of large numbers of men charging often lead the opposing force to flee from the sight of such charge. Some go as far to state that muskets were really spears first and guns second especially given the inaccuracy of muskets with General Suvorov even remarking:

>Bullet is stupid, bayonet is bold.

Yet, large numbers of men charging with bayonets seemed to have been rare among soldiers who actually fought in the wars. For example General Jomini stated he never witnessed large bayonet charges on the battlefield save for assaulting fortifications and urban areas. More bizarrely it seems bayonet related casualties seemed rare? I'm using this source as reference, but musket fire always seemed to have been the primary way to inflict casualties followed (surprisingly) by swords and artillery.

Why do bayonet charges seem so extensively stressed among military thinkers of the time and capture popular imagination of the way the weapons were used when it seemingly produces very little casualties instead of relying on more voluminous volley fire?

Test in question: https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/17669/22312

I've seen this test referenced pretty heavily throughout works related to gunpowder history and is often shown as proof on how wildly inaccurate and inefficient early firearms could be (by early firearms it means Early Modern firearms). However, looking at the ballistic test tables the test seems to fly in face of accounts and older tests that showcase early firearms being much more accurate. Many even cite the superior range and accuracy of the firearms over traditional weapons.

This is mostly pedantic, but in the conclusion section it states:

>The inaccuracy and lack of penetrating power in such firearms must have encouraged soldiers in this primordeal — but utterly necessary — act of self-deception.

Idk, but it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth as it seemingly implies that people were too stupid back then to realize the inefficiency of these weapons?

How reliable are these tests to indicate the (in)effectiveness of early firearms? Has there been any other recent test showcasing early firearms?

I'm fully aware that "guerrilla warfare" isn't actually the ultimate win condition against a superior force and more often has a mixed record when it comes to achieving said group's goals.

My question is that do "restrictions" on military conduct actually contribute to the success of a guerrilla/rebelling group? In some corners of the internet it's been asserted that had the US taken a "gloves off" approach and just bombed everything to stone age they would've won the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Some claim the reason why large empires like Rome and Mongols managed to carve such huge empires is that back then there was no such thing as the Geneva convention and therefore are able to carry out war crimes and genocide to subdue rebelling regions and groups.

This sentiment also seems to have been echoed by some military leaders/politicians of the time. General LeMay is infamous for his calls to annihilate North Vietnam's fighting capability through bombing campaigns. Political cartoonist, Art Buchwald, even made fun of militant politicians in US such as Goldwater for trying further escalate the Vietnam war and calling for a more gloves off approach. I'm not going name names, but there are politicians today that echo similar statements.

Hopefully, I'm not breaking rules 1 & 3, but how true is the claim that guerrilla groups can be easily dealt with through a "gloves off" approach in pre-gunpowder and modern times?

Hello, I'm trying to find a good CDL school and there seems to be a bunch around Fresno. I'm trying to get other endorsements (preferably as many I have plenty of time on my hands) for the CDL so I can hopefully find a job quicker after obtaining one. Any CDL licencors out there that could recommend a proper place or are all of them more or less the same?

In the account by General Marbot he remarked on the poor effectiveness of the horse archers by the horse-archers employed by the Russians observing how many seem to miss their shots and weren't as deadly as musket fire.

My question is basically is that if the horse archers were ineffective in battle, why did the Russians continue to employ them? I would imagine they would've been useful for light cavalry work such as raiding and recon, but I've recently read that many of the Steppe groups apparently were deliberately forbidden to own firearms under Russian laws due to rebellions they've engaged in the past and hence were pushed into service using just their traditional weapons.

Finally, did any other groups such as the Russians themselves or their allies/enemies have a similar opinion on the effectiveness of the horse archers during the Napoleonic Wars? Thanks in advance!

In the account by General Marbot he remarked on the poor effectiveness of the horse archers by the horse-archers employed by the Russians observing how many seem to miss their shots and weren't as deadly as musket fire.

My question is basically is that if the horse archers were ineffective in battle, why did the Russians continue to employ them? I would imagine they would've been useful for light cavalry work such as raiding and recon, but I've recently read that many of the Steppe groups apparently were deliberately forbidden to own firearms under Russian laws due to rebellions they've engaged in the past and hence were pushed into service using just their traditional weapons.

Finally, did any other groups such as the Russians themselves or their allies/enemies have a similar opinion on the effectiveness of the horse archers during the Napoleonic Wars? Thanks in advance!

Muskets and flintlock pistols are famously inaccurate and take longer to reload, so why didn't any pirates from the Golden era seemingly not decided to have some bows/crossbows on deck?

By early firearms I mean 15th to 19th century, basically with handgonnes, arquebusses, muskets, flintlock pistols, carbines, etc.

Now early firearms from my reading tend to be cumbersome to reload on horseback. I can understand knights or other mounted users utilizing various pistols in quick succession, but I can't seem to understand why groups began experimenting with other firearm weapons like using muskets and carbine variants on horseback. It's basically a bow, but worse with a longer reload, worse accuracy and fire-rate? I feel like a horse archer would've been better in that role and yet nobody seems to use it large scale.

And yet there seems to be many depictions of long-barreled firearms being utilized from horseback.

1430 illustration of handgonner on horseback

Qing(?) soldier with bows and firearm

Rajput Camel Gunner 1905 demonstration

What made them so effective over a standard horse archer?

There are several good answers out there that already discusses why linear musket tactics were pretty much needed to win battles. My question focuses on the title's specific statement. Was musket fire inaccuracy really a reason on why linear tactics were used or is it a post-rationalization response given our perceptions of modern firearms compared to smooth-bore weapons? Do any military theorists of the time even make that point when discussing linear tactics?

Whenever you look at Medieval manuscripts the depictions of soldiers using polearms, spears, or swords is much more common than maces and axes. I would expect the maces and axes to become more common as armor becomes more prevalent, but that change never seems to occur instead there seems to be more usage of polearms and swords. Are mace and axe effectiveness against armor exaggerated or is there something else at play?

There are several good answers out there that already discusses why linear musket tactics were pretty much needed to win battles. My question focuses on the title's specific statement. Was musket fire inaccuracy really a reason on why linear tactics were used or is it a post-rationalization response given our perceptions of modern firearms compared to smoothbore weapons?

Quotations before someone complains that they're actually feudal states rather than nation-states.

By the siege of Orleans practically half of France was occupied by the English and Burgundians with major regions such as Paris, French Flanders, Normandy, etc., basically much of Northern France and Bordeaux region under English-Burgundy control. How did the French somehow managed to recover from major defeats like Agincourt, and not only win the siege of Orleans, but proceed to go on a seemingly endless win streak from Patay, to Formigny, to Castillon reclaim their lost territories.

Sounds almost like a fantasy trope with Joan of Arc providing a morale booster that marks a turning point in the war, but I would like an analytical point of view.