It is almost universal effect. Almost all cultures exchanged their traditional weapons for firearms at the first opprotunity. Japan is rather unique in this regard because only they managed to ban the guns from use.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
They never really banned the guns. Tokugawa government simply monopolised their posession and production after unifying the country and there was no need to use them during peace time. And because there was no need to use them, Japan also fell behind in developing them as well, so when they did find them useful again, they practically had to start all over again.
Was the sword ever the primary weapon? The only real example I can think of would be the roman legions, and even they used (throwing) spears (later darts) as wrll.
The various types of polearms (including spears) seems to have been the major weapon for... Pretty much all time. (with swords/axes/maces serving mainly as side-arms and only occasionally coming to the fore)
I might have the wrong impression, but I thought the chinese had already largely replaced the bow with the crossbow really early on, and that it was the primary missile weapon. (and massed crossbow fire being the main reason for the times chinese armies actually managed to defeat steppe armies like the Xiongnu)
Depends on timeframe and what you consider the "primary" weapon. Swords were almost always useful for cavalry as a primary weapon, though often used as the main weapon after the initial shock from a lance or similar weapon.
Heavily armored troops used it as well, the Roman legions being one example, the throwing spears relegated to a skirmish or initial shock weapon there too.
But there's also the 2 handed sword in some cases during the early stages of musket formations, where it was surprisingly effective.
Cavalry during the age of gunpowder. Yes, there were variations such as lancers. But looking at the Napoleonic era for example, the average cavalryman would use the sword as his primary weapon.
They did? Well, that's me wrong again them. I suppose I should adjust my theory to 'Crossbows don't seem to be a middle eastern phenomenon'...
Though I don't think the bow was ever actually replaced with the crossbow. However, given my previous track-record in this thread I would take that with a pinch of salt...
very interesting topic... I'm pretty much subbing so that I don't forget to read it when I feel better
From c.1800BC to c.1100BC, middle eastern infantry (Babylon, Assyria, Hatti, Mitanni, NK Egypt, and others) mostly fought with sickle-swords and javelins. Or were a variety of missile troops, archers or slingers, but the close-fighters threw javelins and then closed in with their swords or other weapons. Originally an Amurru (Amorite) fighting style, I believe.
Eastern variants of composite bow were very good at penetrating armor. However, a composite bow was very expensive to produce, both in materials, and manhours to produce and maintain it. Not to even mention the arrows, which also required many man-hours. Which was why it was used by elite troops or nomads for whom the bow was literally their life.
In Europe, the bow essentially died as soon as mass unarmored levies started to be equipped with something better that their clothes for protection. The longbow (or rather the English system of longbowen) allowed archers to remain a force. The longbow was relatively cheap to produce, and the requirement for peasants to learn the bow was a effective combination, that allowed the English kings to raise a large, and relatively cheap, powerful ranged force (at the hidden cost of the productivity of the fields at home).
So handguns, even the earliest were cheap tubes of metal and shots were simple metal balls. Extremely cheap to make in comparison.
I'm pretty sure handguns were much more expensive than bows, but the good point was that if you had the money you could have as many of them as you want. While for longbowmen the limiting factor was not the money but the availability of men.
Usually, before professional armies, equipped by the state, the levies tried to get something affordable. A shield and helmet would be higher in priorities over weapons as it helps keep you alive. And most levies were most keen on staying alive, as opposed to "glorious achievements". In many areas, adapted hunting equipment was used (spear/bow). The axe was next for similar reasons. The sword, being a purely military weapon with no peacetime use, was often a status symbol.
Well afaik Crossbows while looking more complicated been also cheaper then (good/war)bows. Also blackpowder was horrible expensive.
You underestimate the cost of good bows. The materials, the man-hours required, the rarity of artisans, the requirement for fletchers to constantly resupply the army with arrows.
Early handguns were maybe more expensive than simple shortbows, but certainly not more expensive than composite bows.
Well unless one of us brings hard proof the discussion is meaningless but anyway, I strongly doubt bows were bought by the king. He just hired the bowmen, who brought their own weapons. While handguns were bought by the state and given to the troops.
Hey! They still used guns! But they were just seen as a hobby of noblemen.
Longbows were cheap in a couple of ways. They were made of common materials, and while they required specialized skills to make, they weren't any more difficult to make than other weapons of the era. The expensive parts
Have to do with time. When the wood is selected after the tree is cut, it has to spend something like 3-5 years seasoning before it's ready to make a bow out of. Then once it's made, you can really only expect it to last 15-20 years before it rots/decomposes enough that it's not a top grade war weapon anymore. In active use (ie if actually issued to archers at war as opposed to being carefully out away after training) they might only last 1-3 years. So you have two problems:
You can't make them 'on demand' however many you have at the start of the war is about all you will have, as new production will only probably keep up with replacements for ones used up in the field. And when the war is over you can't save them for next time, because they won't last that long. This ties in with the need for constant practice by the archers. The English rules requiring constant bow practice existed for two reasons; to get the archers practiced ( of course) but also to ensure that more bows were continually being made.
In wartime many methods were tried to get more bowstaves faster. None of them really worked. You either continually made them in army sized quantities, or you weren't going to have any long bowmen when a war popped up.
Crossbows and guns are different. They can be made on demand, and store better too.
Have to do with time. When the wood is selected after the tree is cut, it has to spend something like 3-5 years seasoning before it's ready to make a bow out of. Then once it's made, you can really only expect it to last 15-20 years before it rots/decomposes enough that it's not a top grade war weapon anymore. In active use (ie if actually issued to archers at war as opposed to being carefully out away after training) they might only last 1-3 years. So you have two problems:
You can't make them 'on demand' however many you have at the start of the war is about all you will have, as new production will only probably keep up with replacements for ones used up in the field. And when the war is over you can't save them for next time, because they won't last that long. This ties in with the need for constant practice by the archers. The English rules requiring constant bow practice existed for two reasons; to get the archers practiced ( of course) but also to ensure that more bows were continually being made.
In wartime many methods were tried to get more bowstaves faster. None of them really worked. You either continually made them in army sized quantities, or you weren't going to have any long bowmen when a war popped up.
Crossbows and guns are different. They can be made on demand, and store better too.
Yew longbow staves had to be imported from Italy or Spain, and the English government went so far as to pass laws requiring anybody importing Italian wine to bring in bow staves as well. They also imposed export restrictions - anybody trying to export longbows from England was subject to arrest.
Incidentally, at the time of Crécy, a sheaf of 24 arrows cost 16d. An archer was paid 3d per day, so 24 arrows were a week's wages. In preparation for major wars the English government placed orders for millions of arrows to be prepared.
Incidentally, at the time of Crécy, a sheaf of 24 arrows cost 16d. An archer was paid 3d per day, so 24 arrows were a week's wages. In preparation for major wars the English government placed orders for millions of arrows to be prepared.
IIRC that was due to overharvesting though. (they also imported from Germany, IIRC)
Sure, they used them to hunt pheasants and the occasional peasant if they got uppity.