u/Sea-Ride-4893

By gunpowder era I mean 15th-19th century.

Reading through some accounts from various wars during gunpowder weaponry I'm surprised by how "modern" some soldiers would be fighting/training with supposedly inaccurate weapons. During the 7 Years War there is an account by Hugh Boscawen writing how British troops were practicing their aim with muskets by firing at man-sized targets. During the Imjin War the Japanese firearm troops worked in small teams utilizing cover and escaping cannon shots while using the superior range and accuracy of their matchlock muskets to strike Korean archers behind fortresses. By the Napoleonic Wars skirmishing becomes widespread with entire battalions being ordered to engage in skirmishes when needed.

I've read that militaries of the time actually struggled to provide their troops sufficient amount of powder and shot to practice so "marksmanship" training wasn't much of a thing (unless they had the resources for it) which seemingly goes against the idea that such weapons were easy to produce and train with.

Very broad question, but how were skirmishers or very adept marksmen chosen/trained during their time?

By hand cannons I'm talking tube on a stick (regarded as the first early firearm). In most works related to hand cannons they seem to be derided as woefully inaccurate, short ranged, and slow to reload weapons that had no change on late Medieval warfare apart from scaring enemy soldiers and being easy to train with. Of course this begs the question why anyone bothered to use this horribly made weapon at all especially considering it gives way to modern day firearms as we know it? Usually the counterpoint is the ease of training, but wouldn't crossbows fill that niche better than hand cannons (I've also read recently that apparently nobody even cited ease of training as an advantage for early firearms)? What value did various regions from China, Middle East, India, and Europe see the value in this weapon considering it's supposedly inferior to other ranged weapons such as bows and crossbows (until arquebuses/muskets were developed)?

By hand cannons I'm talking tube on a stick (regarded as the first early firearm). In most works related to hand cannons they seem to be derided as woefully inaccurate, short ranged, and slow to reload weapons that had no change on late Medieval warfare apart from scaring enemy soldiers and being easy to train with. Of course this begs the question why anyone bothered to use this horribly made weapon at all especially considering it gives way to modern day firearms as we know it? Usually the counterpoint is the ease of training, but wouldn't crossbows fill that niche better than hand cannons? What value did various regions from China, Middle East, India, and Europe see the value in this weapon considering it's supposedly inferior to other ranged weapons such as bows and crossbows?

The Ming Dynasty was one of the earliest and earnest users of gunpowder weaponry that might've rivaled contemporary European armies of the time. Yet, when the Qing (well they weren't proclaimed yet though I'll refer to them for simplicity) began their conquests they seemingly manage to routinely defeat Ming armies with little to no gunpowder weaponry, for example the battle of Sarhu using traditional weapons such as bows and sabres. As far as I know the Ming was actually attempting to fit their armies with arquebuses seeing the utility of the weapon during the Imjin War used by the Japanese. Korea also falls suit, but also seemingly can't couldn't stand up to the Qing.

Why did the Ming/Korea perform so poorly against the Qing despite being early gunpowder adopters?

It seems to be repeated everywhere from history journals and online forums that the "minimum range" of longbow training is about 220 yards (200 meters) per the 1542 English Archery Statute implying that the English longbowmen were capable of long ranged accurate shooting capable of outranging firearms of the time. I find that hard to believe especially considering the mythologized status of the weapon. From what I've read even modern day Olympic archery targets don't go beyond 100 meters. How are longbowmen shooting farther and more accurately than modern day bows and Olympic archery shooters? The actual law doesn't even seem to state the minimum range for practice stating:

>no-one under 24 shall shoot at any mark of eleven score or under with any prickshaft or flight under penalty of six shillings and eight pence

Likewise, there are actually previous archery laws mandating training, but don't give a minimum practice distance until 1542. I'm reading it as lighter arrows can't be used for closer ranged targets, but you can do it with heavy grain arrows. Am I misinterpreting something?

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?