Jag antar att jag kommer bli idiotförklarad....
men vad var egentligen föredelarna med krutvapnen, om man jämför med tidigare projektilvapen, såsom pilbåge och armborst? De tidiga musköterna med lunt-, hjul- och snapplås klickade ju väldigt ofta och var dessutom vad jag förstår tämligen farliga för skytten. Så varför kom krutvapnen att bli så dominerande?
Fördelar med krutvapen?
-
SuperPalle
- Medlem
- Inlägg: 1532
- Blev medlem: 9 oktober 2002, 17:57
- Ort: I19
jag hoppas inte att du blir idiot förklarad för din fråga är faktiskt väldigt bra.
till och börja med så blev inte krutet dominerande direkt.
krutet började användas lite smått redan på tolvhundratalet men vapnen var för dåliga för att kunna användas effektivt. på 1300talet började man använda kanoner lite smått och dessa var ju möe bättre i befästnings strider och belägringar än vad de stora sten slungorna etc. var.
sedan när väl musköten långsamt gjorde sitt intrång så tror jag att anledningen till att den vann över armborstet var nog att på nära håll så var det ohyggligt starkt och den hade en hög skrämsel effekt,
100 armborst låter mest "swish" medan 100 musköter dundrar till ordentligt och får förhoppnings vis (i kombination med fiende förlusterna) en tillräkligt stor effekt för att fienden ska rygga tillbaka.
de var särskilt effektiva mot hästar.
men som sagt. detta var inget som hände över en dag, så sent som under trettioåriga kriget så ersattes musköter med armborst som en tillfällig lösning tills man fick bättre don så att säga.
hoppas det var tillräkligt med svar.
//Palle
till och börja med så blev inte krutet dominerande direkt.
krutet började användas lite smått redan på tolvhundratalet men vapnen var för dåliga för att kunna användas effektivt. på 1300talet började man använda kanoner lite smått och dessa var ju möe bättre i befästnings strider och belägringar än vad de stora sten slungorna etc. var.
sedan när väl musköten långsamt gjorde sitt intrång så tror jag att anledningen till att den vann över armborstet var nog att på nära håll så var det ohyggligt starkt och den hade en hög skrämsel effekt,
100 armborst låter mest "swish" medan 100 musköter dundrar till ordentligt och får förhoppnings vis (i kombination med fiende förlusterna) en tillräkligt stor effekt för att fienden ska rygga tillbaka.
de var särskilt effektiva mot hästar.
men som sagt. detta var inget som hände över en dag, så sent som under trettioåriga kriget så ersattes musköter med armborst som en tillfällig lösning tills man fick bättre don så att säga.
hoppas det var tillräkligt med svar.
//Palle
Mycket intressant fråga!
Hittade lite på Internet:
I militära samanhang började skjutvapen träda in i organisationerna, detta skedde givetvis gradvis och det var de vapen som fanns var i början få till antalet.
Under 1500-talet ersattes långvågen med slaglås musköter i olika utföranden. Dessa tidiga skjutvapen var i det stora hela en tillbakagång i precision och inte lika effektiva som långbågen. Det fanns dock andra mekanismer som gav högre precision som tillexempel hjullås mekanismen, men denna var i det flesta fall för dyr att serie tillverka. När hjullåset väl fans tillgängligt för massproduktion till acceptabla kostnader hade ett annat billigare och bättre alternativ dykt upp. Flintlåset.
Trotts den brokiga vägen hade gevären kommit för att stanna och istället för att invänta att industrin kom i kapp i avseendet precision så anpassade man sig efter det man hade och ändrade sin taktik. Man började helt sonika att låta sina täta enheter manövreras fram över slagfältet och på order skuta in i motståndarens led, den som sköt snabbast och flest gånger brukade stå som herre på täppan när dagen var över.
Framme mot 1700 talet i Amerika hade nyinflyttade Européer upptäckt att avstånden till de tilltänkta måltiderna var större i det nya landet. Man behövde högre precision i vapnen man hade för att öka chansen att få mat på bordet. Man tittade bakåt i tiden, på bågskyttarna som hade fått sina pilar att snurra runt sin egen axel med hjälp av styrfjädrarna. Genom att göra detta hade dom vunnit så väl precision som verkansavstånd, och detta gjorde man sitt bästa att försöka efterapa.
Männen som först lyckade var troligtvis bröderna Heinrich och Peter Leman, och som anses vara skaparna bakom vad som kom att kallas ”The Kentucky Rifle”. I kort kan man säga att det var en flintlås musköt med grova räfflor i slutet av pipan som laddades på ett speciellt sätt. Man hällde helt sonika ner fasta mått av krut i pipan, la en infettad tygbit över pipan, la dit kulan och tryckte ner hela paketet med laddstaken i geväret.
Källa: http://www.hvprsk.nu/historik.htm
Hittde detta på en annan sida:
Gunpowder made the beautifully crafted armor that had protected knight, king and soldier a thing of pure decoration by the beginning of the seventeenth century, an ineffective defense against the new perils of battle. Armorers had faced the threat of armor-piercing weapons before, but advances in hand gun construction like a better mix of gunpowder, the Spanish invention of the arquebus (matchlock) that improved aim and the general popularity of the hand gun proved triumphant. Like the castle and much of medieval weaponry, cannons and guns sentenced the suit of steel to a forgotten corner in a dusty museum.
Though gunpowder would make armor obsolete, plate armor was originally developed in the fourteenth century as protection from the longbow and crossbow. Previously, the ultimate standard for personal defense had been a full mail (made of little circles of steel riveted together almost like knitted cloth) outfit consisting of a coif (head covering), coat and leggings topped with a great helm (see appendix A). The longbow was the national weapon of England and the main element in military training, consisting of a six-foot staff of elm that could move five or six yard long arrows a minute over a range extending a little beyond four hundred yards. Legends of the longbow's power are told concerning the 1182 siege of Abergavenny, where Welsh arrows are reputed to have pierced an oak door four inches thick and left as souvenirs with the points sticking through to the other side. When a knight of William de Braose was hit by a longbow arrow, it pierced the skirts of his mail shirt and his mail breeches, went through his thigh, then continued through a mail layer and his wooden saddle to bury itself in his horses' flank. Although hand guns were in use as early as 1375, they were dangerous to fire, expensive, weighed ten pounds and were more effective as noisemakers than weapons. Crossbows and longbows kept their position of superiority until 1425, when bullets first began to pierce armor regularly and were becoming capable of some precision.
Armor in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was brought to the peak of defensive innovation. Suits of full plate armor had to be carefully engineered so that the knight retained his mobility in battle and was still invulnerable to artillery, arrows and weapons of close combat. Hands and feet were covered by articulated gauntlets and sabatons; elbows, shoulders, knees and legs were given extra protection as they were the main vulnerable points on a mounted man (see appendix B). Tassets of layered plate were extended from the edge of the breastplate to cover the upper thigh, and helmets evolved into a myriad of styles and shapes, including the bassinet, the sallet, and the armet. Mail became a second level of protection, worn beneath plate armor to protect gaps and chinks in the suit. The great helm of the past was smoothed and refined as well as body armor, to eliminate ridges or exposed rivets that could catch a weapon's edge, and therefore its momentum. Artillery leapt ahead in power, condemning armor as it changed the way wars were fought, since armor could only be made so much thicker without compromising the ability of the wearer to hack, thrust and slice. La Noue said in his Discours Politiques et Militaires, "For where they had some reason in respect of the violence of harquebuzes and dagges [muskets and pistols] to make their armor thicker and of better proofe than before, they have now so farre exceeded, that most of the [them] have laden themselves with stithies [anvils] in view of clothing their bodies with armor . . . Neither was their armor so heavie that they might wel bear it twenty four hours, where those that are now worne are so waightie that the peiz [weight] of them will benumme a Gentleman's shoulders of thirty five yeres of age." To make more metal available for the breastplate in the seventeenth century, the greaves, sabatons and cuisses that had protected the legs were abandoned in favor of extended tassets that ended at the knee (see appendix D). Despite all the innovations of the armorers, the hand gun won the arms race, punching through the thickest armor. In the seventeenth century, armor was abandoned in favor of greater mobility, except for occasions of pomp and show, to remember a time when figures in steel had ruled the battlefield.
Armor was doomed once the hand gun was perfected, and with it, a way of life. This new weapon forced the knight from his position of supremacy in battle and put the power of the deadliest weapon into the hands of simple peasants and craftsmen. By eliminating the armor, gunpowder eliminated the man. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, most of the advances in armor were specifically for jousting in tournaments and showing off the wealth of the nobility. War became a profession instead of a sport, where daring heroics would only result in loss of life. Knights, with their armor and trappings, were confined to tournaments and parades and spent their life at court instead of in the army, like dusty relics of a lost time. Gunpowder killed the knight in shining armor, forever impacting medieval life.
Unlike the hand gun's slow defeat of armor, which took nearly three centuries, the damnation of the castle was swift. Castles had stood tall against previous weapons like the catapult, and had thwarted the tunneler and the sapper, but the thundering might of the cannon was the final note in siege after siege. Cannons prompted defensive and offensive alterations in castle design, but the damage was done, and another piece of feudalism was reduced to rubble. Gunpowder made the lord's stronghold a thing of the past.
Before the invention of the cannon, the castle was a place of safety. A typical castle consisted of an outer curtain surrounding a keep, with walls ten to twelve feet thick. Defenses included the familiar moat or deep ditch, a heavily guarded gatehouse before the actual castle and drawbridges, all designed to discourage enemies from reaching the castle. In the castle's walls were arrow loops for archers, narrow openings that widened so that a person could shoot from many directions, crenellations on the tops of the walls to give cover for the soldiers and machicolations that gave defenders the opportunity to drop rubble, boiling oil, coals or refuse down on the attackers through openings in the floor. If the defenders were caught off guard, and the attackers managed to penetrate to the gate, they could be trapped between multiple barricaded doors and portcullises and killed from the murder holes in the ceiling. In short, conquering a castle was not an easy thing to do by force, requiring a large number of expendable men to succeed. It was much easier to simply set up camp outside, lob things at the walls or inside the walls, and wait for the castle to run out of food. Many castles had a well within their towers for just such an occasion. Before the refinement of the cannon, these sieges could last years before defender or attacker ran out of food or the castle walls were breached. Cannons could concentrate on a specific wall, pounding it to rubble from a distance with greater might and accuracy than siege engines like the catapult. Monster cannons were specifically developed to frighten defenders, like Basilica, used in the Siege of Constantinople by Mohammed II. Basilica had a 36 inch bore capable of propelling a ball of stone 1600 to 800 pounds for over a mile. Another giant was Mons Meg, named after a smith's noisy wife, which had a bore of 20 inches and could fire a ball weighing 300 pounds. Legend says that a woman was got with child inside it. If castles were to stand against these weapons, they had to be designed with artillery in mind.
The castle was the ultimate defense from one's enemies, a product of a thousand years of evolution in medieval warfare, rendered impotent by this newest weapon. Still, the castle lived on. Castles built in the fourteenth century had gunports and sighting slits to facilitate artillery, as well as thicker walls. Keeps and towers were arranged to present as little a target to enemy cannon as possible, like Bonaquil in France and Deal Castle, built by King Henry VIII of England in the sixteenth century, which was a collection of low, round towers sunk into a hollow. In the late sixteenth century, elaborate earthworks were created around the castle to keep attackers at bay, including wide moats lined with brickwork and large pointed bastions around towers. The location of a castle became more important, especially if it could be built out of range of any possible artillery sites, or on a position that was difficult or impossible to reach with the as many as six wagons and one hundred horses needed to transport a single large cannon.
New castles could be designed with artillery in mind, but older castles were at the mercy of the cannon. As their defensive value plummeted, many castles became abandoned and fell into ruin by simple neglect, rather than the brutal pounding of cannons. People no longer wanted to live in a cold, drafty stone fortress isolated from society, especially if they weren't safe from their enemies. Many left their castle for a fashionable home in town, or built a comfortable manor home fortified with gunports to live in. People no longer needed or wanted gigantic stone fortresses for homes. "By the end of the fourteenth century, the building of military structures had practically ceased in England."
Cannons eliminated the need for castles, changing the way people waged wars. Sieges were no longer the long, drawn out affairs of the past, since a castle could be brought to its knees quickly with a few cannons. Like armor, castles became the tangible remains of the Middle Ages, put on the shelf of history by the invention of gunpowder.
The weapons used in warfare were also affected by gunpowder. Hand guns and cannons made many weapons obsolete, especially those used in close combat, since warfare was no longer the domain of the knight. By giving a person the ability to kill from a distance, gunpowder eliminated much of the popular medieval weaponry, including siege engines.
Until the refinement of the handgun, the projectile weapons of choice were the crossbow and the longbow. The Welsh longbow struck fear in French knights and caused much loss of life at the Battle of Crecy and Agincourt. The English clung stubbornly to this powerful weapon, but it was eventually replaced by the handgun in the seventeenth century. The crossbow was five times slower to load and fire than the longbow, with a shorter range, but the soldiers who used it did not need the training or frequent practice of a longbow archer. It, too, was replaced by the handgun, since it was more powerful and combined the crossbows' talent for turning ordinary footsoldiers into marksmen without the rigorous practice needed by the longbow. Weapons like swords, maces, axes and pikes were still used, but weren't nearly as relied upon in battle with the introduction of companies of artillery and the elimination of the knight, for which they had been designed. Cavalry units were still important to the modern army, but they were no longer made up of noble knights. Most did not wish to risk life and limb when they might be shot out of the saddle by anyone. As the knight declined in importance, so did the sword. Pikes, staff weapons and lances were still in use by the infantry, but the killing power of the gun and the cannon were beginning to take precedence.
The weaponry used to combat castles had also changed. Catapults, ballistas, trebuchets, and battering rams that had terrorized castles for centuries were swapped for cannons, which could throw heavier missiles with greater force at a castle wall, and made a terrific noise as well. Still, the cannon lacked the imagination of catapults and trebuchets, which could hurl dead cows, heads of the enemy, and other offal as well as rocks in a kind of primitive germ warfare. Catapults had a range of 500 yards and could throw 60 pounds, and trebuchets could hurl rocks of 100 to 200 pounds up to 980 feet. They were also easier to transport from site to site than cannons, since they could be constructed from natural materials wherever they were needed. Cannons made for a slow army, especially on the poor medieval roads, and they had a nasty habit of blowing up in one's face. King James II of Scotland was killed in 1460 by his interest in large cannons when a bombard called The Lion exploded. They required supplies of gunpowder and cannon balls and many horses to drag them wherever they were needed. Still, when the smoke of the middle ages parted, cannons were the favored weapons for a siege.
Guns and cannons eliminated many medieval weapons because they were more powerful and more impressive than traditional weaponry that had been used for centuries. As the importance of cavalry declined in the new army, so did the use of those weapons developed to combat the mounted knight. Siege engines were replaced by cannon, which made the medieval castle a thing of the past. Gunpowder was the instrument of change in the revolutionization of weaponry.
Gunpowder was responsible for the elimination of a way of life. By punching through the knight's armor and demolishing the lord's castle, gunpowder brought an end to the Middle Ages and paved the way for the Renaissance. Cannons and hand guns weren't just weapons, they were the voices of change echoing over Europe. Since the social and political structure of the Middle Ages was linked so closely to warfare, gunpowder changed the social structure of entire countries, simply by making war a profession, instead of a sport for nobles. By redistributing wealth and serving as inspiration for creative minds, guns and cannons smashed a way of life forever and created the base for the world people know now.
Källa: http://delusionland.dreamhost.com/medieval/paper.html
Hittade lite på Internet:
I militära samanhang började skjutvapen träda in i organisationerna, detta skedde givetvis gradvis och det var de vapen som fanns var i början få till antalet.
Under 1500-talet ersattes långvågen med slaglås musköter i olika utföranden. Dessa tidiga skjutvapen var i det stora hela en tillbakagång i precision och inte lika effektiva som långbågen. Det fanns dock andra mekanismer som gav högre precision som tillexempel hjullås mekanismen, men denna var i det flesta fall för dyr att serie tillverka. När hjullåset väl fans tillgängligt för massproduktion till acceptabla kostnader hade ett annat billigare och bättre alternativ dykt upp. Flintlåset.
Trotts den brokiga vägen hade gevären kommit för att stanna och istället för att invänta att industrin kom i kapp i avseendet precision så anpassade man sig efter det man hade och ändrade sin taktik. Man började helt sonika att låta sina täta enheter manövreras fram över slagfältet och på order skuta in i motståndarens led, den som sköt snabbast och flest gånger brukade stå som herre på täppan när dagen var över.
Framme mot 1700 talet i Amerika hade nyinflyttade Européer upptäckt att avstånden till de tilltänkta måltiderna var större i det nya landet. Man behövde högre precision i vapnen man hade för att öka chansen att få mat på bordet. Man tittade bakåt i tiden, på bågskyttarna som hade fått sina pilar att snurra runt sin egen axel med hjälp av styrfjädrarna. Genom att göra detta hade dom vunnit så väl precision som verkansavstånd, och detta gjorde man sitt bästa att försöka efterapa.
Männen som först lyckade var troligtvis bröderna Heinrich och Peter Leman, och som anses vara skaparna bakom vad som kom att kallas ”The Kentucky Rifle”. I kort kan man säga att det var en flintlås musköt med grova räfflor i slutet av pipan som laddades på ett speciellt sätt. Man hällde helt sonika ner fasta mått av krut i pipan, la en infettad tygbit över pipan, la dit kulan och tryckte ner hela paketet med laddstaken i geväret.
Källa: http://www.hvprsk.nu/historik.htm
Hittde detta på en annan sida:
Gunpowder made the beautifully crafted armor that had protected knight, king and soldier a thing of pure decoration by the beginning of the seventeenth century, an ineffective defense against the new perils of battle. Armorers had faced the threat of armor-piercing weapons before, but advances in hand gun construction like a better mix of gunpowder, the Spanish invention of the arquebus (matchlock) that improved aim and the general popularity of the hand gun proved triumphant. Like the castle and much of medieval weaponry, cannons and guns sentenced the suit of steel to a forgotten corner in a dusty museum.
Though gunpowder would make armor obsolete, plate armor was originally developed in the fourteenth century as protection from the longbow and crossbow. Previously, the ultimate standard for personal defense had been a full mail (made of little circles of steel riveted together almost like knitted cloth) outfit consisting of a coif (head covering), coat and leggings topped with a great helm (see appendix A). The longbow was the national weapon of England and the main element in military training, consisting of a six-foot staff of elm that could move five or six yard long arrows a minute over a range extending a little beyond four hundred yards. Legends of the longbow's power are told concerning the 1182 siege of Abergavenny, where Welsh arrows are reputed to have pierced an oak door four inches thick and left as souvenirs with the points sticking through to the other side. When a knight of William de Braose was hit by a longbow arrow, it pierced the skirts of his mail shirt and his mail breeches, went through his thigh, then continued through a mail layer and his wooden saddle to bury itself in his horses' flank. Although hand guns were in use as early as 1375, they were dangerous to fire, expensive, weighed ten pounds and were more effective as noisemakers than weapons. Crossbows and longbows kept their position of superiority until 1425, when bullets first began to pierce armor regularly and were becoming capable of some precision.
Armor in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was brought to the peak of defensive innovation. Suits of full plate armor had to be carefully engineered so that the knight retained his mobility in battle and was still invulnerable to artillery, arrows and weapons of close combat. Hands and feet were covered by articulated gauntlets and sabatons; elbows, shoulders, knees and legs were given extra protection as they were the main vulnerable points on a mounted man (see appendix B). Tassets of layered plate were extended from the edge of the breastplate to cover the upper thigh, and helmets evolved into a myriad of styles and shapes, including the bassinet, the sallet, and the armet. Mail became a second level of protection, worn beneath plate armor to protect gaps and chinks in the suit. The great helm of the past was smoothed and refined as well as body armor, to eliminate ridges or exposed rivets that could catch a weapon's edge, and therefore its momentum. Artillery leapt ahead in power, condemning armor as it changed the way wars were fought, since armor could only be made so much thicker without compromising the ability of the wearer to hack, thrust and slice. La Noue said in his Discours Politiques et Militaires, "For where they had some reason in respect of the violence of harquebuzes and dagges [muskets and pistols] to make their armor thicker and of better proofe than before, they have now so farre exceeded, that most of the [them] have laden themselves with stithies [anvils] in view of clothing their bodies with armor . . . Neither was their armor so heavie that they might wel bear it twenty four hours, where those that are now worne are so waightie that the peiz [weight] of them will benumme a Gentleman's shoulders of thirty five yeres of age." To make more metal available for the breastplate in the seventeenth century, the greaves, sabatons and cuisses that had protected the legs were abandoned in favor of extended tassets that ended at the knee (see appendix D). Despite all the innovations of the armorers, the hand gun won the arms race, punching through the thickest armor. In the seventeenth century, armor was abandoned in favor of greater mobility, except for occasions of pomp and show, to remember a time when figures in steel had ruled the battlefield.
Armor was doomed once the hand gun was perfected, and with it, a way of life. This new weapon forced the knight from his position of supremacy in battle and put the power of the deadliest weapon into the hands of simple peasants and craftsmen. By eliminating the armor, gunpowder eliminated the man. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, most of the advances in armor were specifically for jousting in tournaments and showing off the wealth of the nobility. War became a profession instead of a sport, where daring heroics would only result in loss of life. Knights, with their armor and trappings, were confined to tournaments and parades and spent their life at court instead of in the army, like dusty relics of a lost time. Gunpowder killed the knight in shining armor, forever impacting medieval life.
Unlike the hand gun's slow defeat of armor, which took nearly three centuries, the damnation of the castle was swift. Castles had stood tall against previous weapons like the catapult, and had thwarted the tunneler and the sapper, but the thundering might of the cannon was the final note in siege after siege. Cannons prompted defensive and offensive alterations in castle design, but the damage was done, and another piece of feudalism was reduced to rubble. Gunpowder made the lord's stronghold a thing of the past.
Before the invention of the cannon, the castle was a place of safety. A typical castle consisted of an outer curtain surrounding a keep, with walls ten to twelve feet thick. Defenses included the familiar moat or deep ditch, a heavily guarded gatehouse before the actual castle and drawbridges, all designed to discourage enemies from reaching the castle. In the castle's walls were arrow loops for archers, narrow openings that widened so that a person could shoot from many directions, crenellations on the tops of the walls to give cover for the soldiers and machicolations that gave defenders the opportunity to drop rubble, boiling oil, coals or refuse down on the attackers through openings in the floor. If the defenders were caught off guard, and the attackers managed to penetrate to the gate, they could be trapped between multiple barricaded doors and portcullises and killed from the murder holes in the ceiling. In short, conquering a castle was not an easy thing to do by force, requiring a large number of expendable men to succeed. It was much easier to simply set up camp outside, lob things at the walls or inside the walls, and wait for the castle to run out of food. Many castles had a well within their towers for just such an occasion. Before the refinement of the cannon, these sieges could last years before defender or attacker ran out of food or the castle walls were breached. Cannons could concentrate on a specific wall, pounding it to rubble from a distance with greater might and accuracy than siege engines like the catapult. Monster cannons were specifically developed to frighten defenders, like Basilica, used in the Siege of Constantinople by Mohammed II. Basilica had a 36 inch bore capable of propelling a ball of stone 1600 to 800 pounds for over a mile. Another giant was Mons Meg, named after a smith's noisy wife, which had a bore of 20 inches and could fire a ball weighing 300 pounds. Legend says that a woman was got with child inside it. If castles were to stand against these weapons, they had to be designed with artillery in mind.
The castle was the ultimate defense from one's enemies, a product of a thousand years of evolution in medieval warfare, rendered impotent by this newest weapon. Still, the castle lived on. Castles built in the fourteenth century had gunports and sighting slits to facilitate artillery, as well as thicker walls. Keeps and towers were arranged to present as little a target to enemy cannon as possible, like Bonaquil in France and Deal Castle, built by King Henry VIII of England in the sixteenth century, which was a collection of low, round towers sunk into a hollow. In the late sixteenth century, elaborate earthworks were created around the castle to keep attackers at bay, including wide moats lined with brickwork and large pointed bastions around towers. The location of a castle became more important, especially if it could be built out of range of any possible artillery sites, or on a position that was difficult or impossible to reach with the as many as six wagons and one hundred horses needed to transport a single large cannon.
New castles could be designed with artillery in mind, but older castles were at the mercy of the cannon. As their defensive value plummeted, many castles became abandoned and fell into ruin by simple neglect, rather than the brutal pounding of cannons. People no longer wanted to live in a cold, drafty stone fortress isolated from society, especially if they weren't safe from their enemies. Many left their castle for a fashionable home in town, or built a comfortable manor home fortified with gunports to live in. People no longer needed or wanted gigantic stone fortresses for homes. "By the end of the fourteenth century, the building of military structures had practically ceased in England."
Cannons eliminated the need for castles, changing the way people waged wars. Sieges were no longer the long, drawn out affairs of the past, since a castle could be brought to its knees quickly with a few cannons. Like armor, castles became the tangible remains of the Middle Ages, put on the shelf of history by the invention of gunpowder.
The weapons used in warfare were also affected by gunpowder. Hand guns and cannons made many weapons obsolete, especially those used in close combat, since warfare was no longer the domain of the knight. By giving a person the ability to kill from a distance, gunpowder eliminated much of the popular medieval weaponry, including siege engines.
Until the refinement of the handgun, the projectile weapons of choice were the crossbow and the longbow. The Welsh longbow struck fear in French knights and caused much loss of life at the Battle of Crecy and Agincourt. The English clung stubbornly to this powerful weapon, but it was eventually replaced by the handgun in the seventeenth century. The crossbow was five times slower to load and fire than the longbow, with a shorter range, but the soldiers who used it did not need the training or frequent practice of a longbow archer. It, too, was replaced by the handgun, since it was more powerful and combined the crossbows' talent for turning ordinary footsoldiers into marksmen without the rigorous practice needed by the longbow. Weapons like swords, maces, axes and pikes were still used, but weren't nearly as relied upon in battle with the introduction of companies of artillery and the elimination of the knight, for which they had been designed. Cavalry units were still important to the modern army, but they were no longer made up of noble knights. Most did not wish to risk life and limb when they might be shot out of the saddle by anyone. As the knight declined in importance, so did the sword. Pikes, staff weapons and lances were still in use by the infantry, but the killing power of the gun and the cannon were beginning to take precedence.
The weaponry used to combat castles had also changed. Catapults, ballistas, trebuchets, and battering rams that had terrorized castles for centuries were swapped for cannons, which could throw heavier missiles with greater force at a castle wall, and made a terrific noise as well. Still, the cannon lacked the imagination of catapults and trebuchets, which could hurl dead cows, heads of the enemy, and other offal as well as rocks in a kind of primitive germ warfare. Catapults had a range of 500 yards and could throw 60 pounds, and trebuchets could hurl rocks of 100 to 200 pounds up to 980 feet. They were also easier to transport from site to site than cannons, since they could be constructed from natural materials wherever they were needed. Cannons made for a slow army, especially on the poor medieval roads, and they had a nasty habit of blowing up in one's face. King James II of Scotland was killed in 1460 by his interest in large cannons when a bombard called The Lion exploded. They required supplies of gunpowder and cannon balls and many horses to drag them wherever they were needed. Still, when the smoke of the middle ages parted, cannons were the favored weapons for a siege.
Guns and cannons eliminated many medieval weapons because they were more powerful and more impressive than traditional weaponry that had been used for centuries. As the importance of cavalry declined in the new army, so did the use of those weapons developed to combat the mounted knight. Siege engines were replaced by cannon, which made the medieval castle a thing of the past. Gunpowder was the instrument of change in the revolutionization of weaponry.
Gunpowder was responsible for the elimination of a way of life. By punching through the knight's armor and demolishing the lord's castle, gunpowder brought an end to the Middle Ages and paved the way for the Renaissance. Cannons and hand guns weren't just weapons, they were the voices of change echoing over Europe. Since the social and political structure of the Middle Ages was linked so closely to warfare, gunpowder changed the social structure of entire countries, simply by making war a profession, instead of a sport for nobles. By redistributing wealth and serving as inspiration for creative minds, guns and cannons smashed a way of life forever and created the base for the world people know now.
Källa: http://delusionland.dreamhost.com/medieval/paper.html
Nu skummade jag bara den långa engelska texten så jag kan ha missat något.
Krutvapens (liksom armborsts) fördel jämfört med pilbågar är att det krävs förhållandevis låga kunskaper för att kunna hantera vapnet någorlunda effektivt. Att bli en duktig bågskytt kräver år av träning och (i fallet med långbågar) ordentlig styrka för att kunna spänna bågen. Att få i väg en kula (eller lod) i rätt riktning går ganska fort att lära sig.
Är det någon som vet när krutvapens penetrationsförmåga började överstiga armborsts och pilbågars dito?
Krutvapens (liksom armborsts) fördel jämfört med pilbågar är att det krävs förhållandevis låga kunskaper för att kunna hantera vapnet någorlunda effektivt. Att bli en duktig bågskytt kräver år av träning och (i fallet med långbågar) ordentlig styrka för att kunna spänna bågen. Att få i väg en kula (eller lod) i rätt riktning går ganska fort att lära sig.
Är det någon som vet när krutvapens penetrationsförmåga började överstiga armborsts och pilbågars dito?
-
Olof Larsson
- Medlem
- Inlägg: 1739
- Blev medlem: 25 mars 2002, 19:08
- Ort: Östergötland
Musköten gav fyra fördelar över armborstet (långbågen ser jag mer som en företrädare till fältkanonen):
De var:
-Enkla att använda.
-Demoraliserande.
-Det gjorde det möjligt att koncentrera fler vapen per meter frontavsnitt (en 4 till 6 dubbling jämfört med armborst).
-De var enklare att bära vid strid med blanka vapen, till skillnad mot det ganska klumpiga armborstet.
Dessutom så gick vapnet att använda som ett tillhygge. Vid bajonettens införande så blev de ännu effektivare.
Detta gjorde musketören mer flexibel än kombinationen armborstskyttar/svärdsbärande soldater.
Mer information finns på: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
Klicka på All uppe i vänstra hörnet.
Skrolla därefter ner till General Discussion och ämnet why did hand guns replaced longbow
De var:
-Enkla att använda.
-Demoraliserande.
-Det gjorde det möjligt att koncentrera fler vapen per meter frontavsnitt (en 4 till 6 dubbling jämfört med armborst).
-De var enklare att bära vid strid med blanka vapen, till skillnad mot det ganska klumpiga armborstet.
Dessutom så gick vapnet att använda som ett tillhygge. Vid bajonettens införande så blev de ännu effektivare.
Detta gjorde musketören mer flexibel än kombinationen armborstskyttar/svärdsbärande soldater.
Mer information finns på: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
Klicka på All uppe i vänstra hörnet.
Skrolla därefter ner till General Discussion och ämnet why did hand guns replaced longbow
-
Anckarström
- Medlem
- Inlägg: 186
- Blev medlem: 8 september 2002, 05:35
- Ort: Marestad, Suecia
Som jag ser det så vann krutvapen mark främst p.g.a deras demoraliserande effekt på motståndaren. Att stå i slutna led framför fienden och ta emot en muskötsalva krävde nog ganska mycket mod. Att smällarna även skrämde hästar var nog också en stor fördel då kavalleriets främsta vapen var chockverkan som ofta bröt fiendeleden och skrämde dem i flykt, ställ dig framför en skenande häst så förstår du nog vad jag menar. 
Förlusterna i drabbningar skedde oftast inte i den direkta konfrontationen utan när en sida blev såpass demoraliserad att de flydde fältet då de blev lätta mål för jagande kavalleri.
Jag tror att detta var den främsta anledningen till att KXII's karoliner var såpass framgångsrika. Att regementena var indelta efter geografisk tillhörighet hjälpte moralen oerhört då den gemene soldaten slogs med folk han kände och som delade hans bakgrund. Detta samt det faktum att den karolinska doktrinen var anfall, anfall och åter anfall säkrade säkerligen många segrar mot en numerärt starkare men 'moraliskt' svagare motståndare.
Förlusterna i drabbningar skedde oftast inte i den direkta konfrontationen utan när en sida blev såpass demoraliserad att de flydde fältet då de blev lätta mål för jagande kavalleri.Jag tror att detta var den främsta anledningen till att KXII's karoliner var såpass framgångsrika. Att regementena var indelta efter geografisk tillhörighet hjälpte moralen oerhört då den gemene soldaten slogs med folk han kände och som delade hans bakgrund. Detta samt det faktum att den karolinska doktrinen var anfall, anfall och åter anfall säkrade säkerligen många segrar mot en numerärt starkare men 'moraliskt' svagare motståndare.
-
SuperPalle
- Medlem
- Inlägg: 1532
- Blev medlem: 9 oktober 2002, 17:57
- Ort: I19
Jag tar ett utdrag ur mitt tidigare inlägg:
Although hand guns were in use as early as 1375, they were dangerous to fire, expensive, weighed ten pounds and were more effective as noisemakers than weapons ( ). Crossbows and longbows kept their position of superiority until 1425, when bullets first began to pierce armor regularly and were becoming capable of some precision.
Although hand guns were in use as early as 1375, they were dangerous to fire, expensive, weighed ten pounds and were more effective as noisemakers than weapons (
). Crossbows and longbows kept their position of superiority until 1425, when bullets first began to pierce armor regularly and were becoming capable of some precision.Efter som jag har erfarenhet från både musköt och båge så kan jag lova dig att musköten är enklare att använda. En normal människa lär sig att hantera musköten effektivt efter ett par timmar. För att nå motsvarande nivå med båge tar veckor om inte månader.super_palle skrev:enkla att använda?
inte då! en musköt från början av 1600talet krävde 60 olika handgrepp för att ladda...inte lätt!
//palle
De flesta klarar att hantera en musköt medan bågen kräver styrka och uthållighet vilket tar år att lära. En bågskytt vigde sitt liv och övade sedan barnsben för att bli mästerskytt. Så krutvapnen slog igenom för att det var krigsekonomiskt riktigt. Sedan så är musköten mycket roligare att skjuta
Tycker inte att det är självklart att 1600-tals musköten är överlägsen långbågen.
Vill bara peka på det faktum att långbågen var effektiv uppemot 200 m, medan 1600-tals musköten tappade sin verkan över 100 m. Ingen av arméerna under 30-åriga kriget hade utrustning för att möta pilskurar från medeltiden (iof räknade de inte med att möta dem). Räknar man dessutom den mycket trögrörliga taktik som katolikerna använde i krigets början, tror jag faktiskt att långbågen fyllt en plats i den tidens strid, som ett demoraliserande vapen för indirekt eld.
Vill bara peka på det faktum att långbågen var effektiv uppemot 200 m, medan 1600-tals musköten tappade sin verkan över 100 m. Ingen av arméerna under 30-åriga kriget hade utrustning för att möta pilskurar från medeltiden (iof räknade de inte med att möta dem). Räknar man dessutom den mycket trögrörliga taktik som katolikerna använde i krigets början, tror jag faktiskt att långbågen fyllt en plats i den tidens strid, som ett demoraliserande vapen för indirekt eld.
-
Olof Larsson
- Medlem
- Inlägg: 1739
- Blev medlem: 25 mars 2002, 19:08
- Ort: Östergötland
Dalmas skrev:
då långbågen är ett vapen för yteld,
och musköten är ett vapen för punkteld.
Det är rättvisare att jämföra långbågen med fältartilleriet
och armborstet med musköten.
(Samt kastmaskiner med belägringsartilleri.)
Om man gör den jämförelsen så framstår krutvapnen som överlägsna de mekaniskt drivna vapnen.
Att 1600-talets arméer ej hade sköldar kan jag förstå,
då rustningarna hade blivit bättre än under medeltiden.
Att man sedan sällan utnyttjade denna förbättring av rustningarna genom att klä in soldaterna i stål torde bero på flera faktorer:
-De nya större härarna gjorde det för dyrt.
-Eldkraften hos krutvapnen (f.f.a. kanonerna) gjorde att rustningarna gjorde mindre nytta.
-Rustningarna försämrade rörligheten, både under march och på slagfältet.
Jag tycker nog att man inte ska jämföra långbågen med musköten,Tycker inte att det är självklart att 1600-tals musköten är överlägsen långbågen.
Vill bara peka på det faktum att långbågen var effektiv uppemot 200 m, medan 1600-tals musköten tappade sin verkan över 100 m. Ingen av arméerna under 30-åriga kriget hade utrustning för att möta pilskurar från medeltiden (iof räknade de inte med att möta dem). Räknar man dessutom den mycket trögrörliga taktik som katolikerna använde i krigets början, tror jag faktiskt att långbågen fyllt en plats i den tidens strid, som ett demoraliserande vapen för indirekt eld.
då långbågen är ett vapen för yteld,
och musköten är ett vapen för punkteld.
Det är rättvisare att jämföra långbågen med fältartilleriet
och armborstet med musköten.
(Samt kastmaskiner med belägringsartilleri.)
Om man gör den jämförelsen så framstår krutvapnen som överlägsna de mekaniskt drivna vapnen.
Att 1600-talets arméer ej hade sköldar kan jag förstå,
då rustningarna hade blivit bättre än under medeltiden.
Att man sedan sällan utnyttjade denna förbättring av rustningarna genom att klä in soldaterna i stål torde bero på flera faktorer:
-De nya större härarna gjorde det för dyrt.
-Eldkraften hos krutvapnen (f.f.a. kanonerna) gjorde att rustningarna gjorde mindre nytta.
-Rustningarna försämrade rörligheten, både under march och på slagfältet.
Du ligger mycket i det du säger men fördelen låg inte i vapnet utan i soldaterna. I och med det gick snabbare att få fram soldater med musköt så var det billigare. Man slapp att bekosta dyra soldater under fredstid utan det räckte att låta dom repitera lite då och då som i det svenska indelningsverket. Eller som polen och tyskland m.m. Bonden bytade lien mot musköten och efter en veckas övning var han en soldat.Dalmas skrev:Tycker inte att det är självklart att 1600-tals musköten är överlägsen långbågen.
Vill bara peka på det faktum att långbågen var effektiv uppemot 200 m, medan 1600-tals musköten tappade sin verkan över 100 m.
Dess utom så var hoper av bågskyttar ett tacksamt mål för kanoner. Så 1600-1700 talets nyckel till framgång i fält var rörlighet.
Musköten var dödlig upp till 400 meter rent tekniskt, men på det avståndet träffade man inte ens en ladugård. En mycken duktig skytt med ett bra vapen kunde träffa en stående figur på 100-150 meter. Men den riktiga styrkan låg i ett sammtidigt eldöppnande på 75-30 meter.
Men ni har ju missat det viktigaste , Poltava.
En av anledningarna till att det gick så illa för Karolinerna verkar ha varit att dom hade dåligt krut som gjorde musköterna betydligt mycket svagare och tvingade svenskarna till kostsamma anfall.
Hade Kalle varit smart så hade han utrustat sin här med långbågar och skjutit ner ryssarna på avstånd och använt musköter i närstrid.
Luntlås gevären som Conquistadorerna använde när dom invaderade Sydamerika måste också varit ganska usla med tanke på det fuktiga klimatet i regnskogen.
En av anledningarna till att det gick så illa för Karolinerna verkar ha varit att dom hade dåligt krut som gjorde musköterna betydligt mycket svagare och tvingade svenskarna till kostsamma anfall.
Hade Kalle varit smart så hade han utrustat sin här med långbågar och skjutit ner ryssarna på avstånd och använt musköter i närstrid.
Luntlås gevären som Conquistadorerna använde när dom invaderade Sydamerika måste också varit ganska usla med tanke på det fuktiga klimatet i regnskogen.
-
SuperPalle
- Medlem
- Inlägg: 1532
- Blev medlem: 9 oktober 2002, 17:57
- Ort: I19
det där med poltava är faktiskt fel.wreezig skrev:Men ni har ju missat det viktigaste , Poltava.
En av anledningarna till att det gick så illa för Karolinerna verkar ha varit att dom hade dåligt krut som gjorde musköterna betydligt mycket svagare och tvingade svenskarna till kostsamma anfall.
Hade Kalle varit smart så hade han utrustat sin här med långbågar och skjutit ner ryssarna på avstånd och använt musköter i närstrid.
Luntlås gevären som Conquistadorerna använde när dom invaderade Sydamerika måste också varit ganska usla med tanke på det fuktiga klimatet i regnskogen.
krutet hade lite verkan men när de väldigt ut-tunnade leden av karoliner soldater bröt in i ryssarnas tjock välordnade två led så började de vackla bakåt i alla fall. karolinerna erövrade till och med några av ryssarnas kanoner. tyvärr så var det svenska kavalleriet i oordning pga. brist på tid och plats. om kavaleriet hade gått till attack nu så hade det blivit ett nbytt narva trots det dåliga krutet. men nu han ryssarna hämta sig och besegra karolinerna.
konkreta förluster (som man ådrog sig genom en löång eldstrid) vägde faktiskt väldigt lätt i jämnförelse med de psykiska. för när karolinerna anföll så var det sällan fienden stod kvar. och om fienden greps av rejäl panik så var det bara att hugga ned fienden i ryggen. det var nämnlige under flykten som man torskade mest mannar.
det var säkrare för en soldat att vara kvar i striden än att lämna den.
//Palle
-
SuperPalle
- Medlem
- Inlägg: 1532
- Blev medlem: 9 oktober 2002, 17:57
- Ort: I19