Quote:
|
Originally Posted by perseus Interesting point. Although I'm changing the subject a bit, I have often wondered whether ancient/medieval weapons would have been superior to early 19th century weapons in practice.
First of all we have the cannons as you say whose purpose was partly to shock the enemy (like Hannibal's elephants) but most effective practical effect was to shower grapeshot or shrapnel on the enemy. However few infantry wore armour in the 19th century yet quite a few of Hannibal's men must have had armour protection which would have provided some protection against low velocity projectiles.
Secondly we have the effectiveness of the slow firing musket against the fast firing bow and arrow. Consider again the lack of armour in the 19th century.
Thirdly we have he effectiveness of 19th century cavalry against the phalanx type structure prevalent at the time of Hannibal.
I would guess that Hannibal would wait until a time when the cannon and muskets may be ineffective, do they work when raining? is range important in fog or the dark? how long does it take to set up cannon, what about guerrilla warfare?
I doubt if in a 'head to head' of technology the result would have been inevitable. |
First point. The cannon was of most effect with round shot against infantry, not canister, which was effective only in the last moments of an advance. Round shot would smash through the ranks and could kill and maim many men at a time. Secondly, they weren't low velocity at all, even the canister. The balls in canister rounds could punch through armour plate easily. A good example is the effect of canister on the French Cuirassiers and British Life Guards (who both wore armour) at the battle of Waterloo in 1815.
The range of a musket was reduced in comparison to a long bow, therefore it dictated the tactics used. It would be a case of moving to close the distance as quick as possible. Once the distance was closed to approx 60 yards the rate of effective musket fire from a well trained unit (eg. British line infantry) would have overwhelmed archery easily. Plus you need to also account for the accuracy and range of riflemen (eg. 95th Rifles).
Cavalry could not break an ancient "phalanx".... Horses won't charge into an obstacle like that. Just as 1800's cavalry would not charge an infantry square. Simple
Cannon would still work in the rain, and muskets could be used if they had percussion caps.
Look at it this way, technology would not have evolved unless it was an improvement. Something worse does not replace something better.
Note: I've addressed my answer towards the British Army of the Napoleonic era as I'm not a great devotee of the Napoleonic army, but the issues remain the same.