What have been decisive weapons?

[Fragony]

I'd say the bayonette was a bigger departure from the old ways then the machine-gun, see WW1 which was the old (bayonette) way of fighting a new war, didn't so much change tactics just the amount of deaths, while the bayonette instantly made the old ways absolete making the brittish unbeatable untill others adapted.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well the tactics Cumberland used with the Bayonet where each man protected the one to his right were limited in their usage. Plus, it required a lot of discipline for the troops to hope the man to their left would protect them. Despite the boggy ground hampering the Jacobite charge, the Hannoverian right flank still very nearly broke at Culloden. Thankfully it didn't.

[Fragony]

Well the tactics Cumberland used with the Bayonet where each man protected the one to his right were limited in their usage. Plus, it required a lot of discipline for the troops to hope the man to their left would protect them. Despite the boggy ground hampering the Jacobite charge, the Hannoverian right flank still very nearly broke at Culloden. Thankfully it didn't.

Well yes but that is because other nations adaptod the bayonette later on, it really is an end of an era that just can't be denied.

[Husar]

I keep wondering why the bayonette supposedly changed so much?
I mean once you fired the shot in the rifle you're basically left with a short spear.

[Fragony]

I keep wondering why the bayonette supposedly changed so much?
I mean once you fired the shot in the rifle you're basically left with a short spear.

Well the melee tigers come close and you give them a full shot, people fall etc it slows down, hold them of, rotate formation reload blam.

[The Wizard]

I'd say the bayonette was a bigger departure from the old ways then the machine-gun, see WW1 which was the old (bayonette) way of fighting a new war, didn't so much change tactics just the amount of deaths, while the bayonette instantly made the old ways absolete making the brittish unbeatable untill others adapted.

The bayonet did not give European armies the ability to conquer vast swaths of land with minimal forces. The machine gun did. The time when the machine gun and the repeating, bolt-action rifle were only available to European forces was probably the only time in history where tactics and strategy didn't matter. Once the opposing forces gained the technology, of course, that advantage rapidly disappeared (like in the Rif War, for instance).

Nor have I heard of the British being the first to use bayonets. As far as I know it was the French, and the idea was rapidly adopted by all major European powers in turn, making it widespread by the 1660s.

There had been projectile weapons on ships before that, and people had been experimenting in trying to fit as many and as big guns as they could on deck.

Not on the scope and scale that early modern Europeans did it, nor with the same reach and mobility, nor with the same firepower. European naval power allowed them to usurp world sea trade by the 17th century, long before they became economically dominant following the Industrial Revolution.

P.S. Army B would win. Army A cannot sustain a war effort on the same level that Army B can. Take the conquest of the Americas by the Spanish as example -- had disease not crippled indigenous society and had internal conflict not been properly exploited by the Spaniards, there would have been none.

[Fragony]

Yeah I guess you are right, indeed isn't as significant as the machine gun and, and it is a bit much to call it tactics it was more like a massacre.

[Kraxis]

Nor have I heard of the British being the first to use bayonets. As far as I know it was the French, and the idea was rapidly adopted by all major European powers in turn, making it widespread by the 1660s.

True the French were the first to use it, but it was a very different weapon to the British, or should we call it the 'modern' bayonet (the really modern one is basically just a long knife) as I don't think the British actually invented it, but merely adopted it.

The French, initial, bayonet was a simple on the spot device. It was a blade with a handle you put into the barrel of the gun. Obviously that presented certain problems for the user, such as when is it prudent to use it, how can I shoot with it in place etc. The modern bayonet removed such problems and gave the user a readily useable short range defensive weapon, which later became a highly offensive weapon as tactics developed.

The modern bayonet was a quantum leap in effectiveness over the old French bayonet. But indeed it was hardly as important as the MG or repeating rifle.

I will personally say the machinegun, though the howitzer certainly does make a powerful case, being the most deadly weapon ever (it has the highest single toll of human life from human generated means, with about 60% of WWI casualties and another 40% from WWII), and it has only existed for around 150 years. Though the precursor, the bombard, is pretty old.

[Lord Winter]

What about the cannon. There abillity to knock down all but the most expensive fortifications plus there cost firmly shifted helped develop the nation state by shifting the power to the kings. Laying the groundwork for the modern professional standing army. It also had a massive amount of social effects in addition to centralization, for example spawning the rise of the middle class.


and Welcome back Kraxis

[seireikhaan]

The chariot and gunpowder.

The chariot, because it introduced the idea of mobile warriors capable of rapid encirclement, with the concept eventually carried over to regular horseback cavalry.

Gunpowder- Need I even say? As Lord Winter pointed out, the ability to knock out a fortification essentially rendered castles mostly pointless. Additionally, particularly in Europe, the abolishing of knighthood as a prime means of warfare- it was rather pointless to spend years and years practicing swordmanship, lancing, horseback riding, all while encased in a heavy suit of armor, when a lowly peasant could pick up an arquebus, train for a few weeks or a month, and kill you not only much cheaper, but with much less effort. And of course, all of the inventions that would eventually be spurred from guns and gunpowder- cannons, artillary, gatlings, etc...

[Fragony]

I believe the spanish first used something that resembles a bayonette, even named a hill after it.

[PanzerJaeger]

and Welcome back Kraxis

You've missed so many good WW2 threads...

[Oleander Ardens]

Artillery was cleary a weapon of ever increasing importance even in field battles, starting to make their mark in the first part of the 15th century, like in the battle of Castillion. A large numbers of guns became a conditio sine qua non for a strong army, as victory without strong artillery support seems to have been possible only if aided by surprise and terrain. See the Swiss confederation against Burgund.

[Mangudai]

Horse archers are the ultimate warriors. They trounce combined arms of the pre-gunpowder period.


English longbow... puh-leese.