Napoleons Cannons would have torn Hannibal's Army apart
I'm afraid muzzle velocity for both musket and cannon canister projectiles would be large enough to penetrate Hannibal's time body armor. Moreover, canister projectile will chop the unprotected body parts of Hannibal's soldiers. It would be terrifying weapon and destruction.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.
What about effective distance of muskets and bow'n'arrow? What if muskets have significantly greater distance than bow'n'arrow?perseus said: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.
Did concept of organized guerilla warfare existed in time of Hannibal?perseus said:how long does it take to set up cannon, what about guerrilla warfare?
What about effective distance of muskets and bow'n'arrow? What if muskets have significantly greater distance than bow'n'arrow?
Did concept of organized guerilla warfare existed in time of Hannibal??
One final point, both leaders final defeat was by their own hand. Both leaders had so far over-extended themselves that their armies had simply become skeletons of their former selves and that they were simply beaten by exhaustion. Napoleon was permanently weakened by the Russian Campaign, and similarily Hannibal by his endless campaigns in Italy.
Wasn't Hannibal betrayed by his own government refusing to send supplies and help? The lack of supply across the sea was also a serious limitation, since the Romans 'ruled the waves' by the later stages.
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.
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.
AussieNick
My understanding is that bows were replaced by muskets in view of the improvement in armour in the 15th century. However, then armour is rendered redundant, so bows become effective again. I think this is an interesting situation analogous to natural selection in nature where a population can oscillate. Perhaps the optimum weaponry is a mixture of muskets and bows, at least until the fast breech loading weapons became available?
The main reason why muskets displaced bows is that it takes a lifetime to train a good archer and you need to be fairly strong to use it effectively. Musket training is easy and it doesn´t matter at all how strong you are.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.