Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
Well said Ed! that is indeed the short and popularly held version. If I have understood correctly however, the development of firearms and various explosives was rather a long and tedious path. In its infancy, it is my impression that firearms themselves were considered almost a novelty, obviously with great potential, but regarded as quite secondary in many ways in the business of war.
Even by the time of Frederick the Great, who held considerable disdain for the firearm in battle, it was well known that after the shock effect of the first shot...guns were spent, and combat in melee was focused on swords and hand held weapons.
I think the development of armor still continued, as David has noted, with consideration for impact of these weapons such as axes and hammers, and others despite firearms arrival on the scene. If multiple shot guns and machine guns were present in earlier times it would be one thing, but the slow development confining to single shot and reloading difficulty remained until the 19th century.
Best regards,
Jim
|
Yes Jim
, my sentiments exactly.
There came a point where armour was almost totally arrow proof and swords were much less effective. The war hammer and associated weapons became more popular, even with the padding worn under the armour, impacts from such weapons could have devestating affects to the victims body. The shafts of the 'hammer' were later extended and a hardened spike fitted to the 'butt' (15th Century). This allowed greater 'leverage' and power in the strike and the point butt allowed use as a short spear to jab at the enemy. Old manuscripts detailing the use of these, also employed techniques whereby the shaft was used to gain 'leverage' on an opponent, to 'throw' them to the ground....with a quick follow up of the hammer strike (full force) to the now 'fallen' (momentarily defenceless) knight.
In Cameron Stone's 'A Glossary...of arms and armour'... he states that the war hammer was "never as popular in the East as in Europe, as the armour was generally lighter and more flexible and covered the body less completely, making a smashing weapon less essential....."
Tests have been carried out on a 'ballistic gel' torso encased in breast / back plate with quilted material between the two. (ballistic gel is a material that has the same qualities as human flesh) Slow motion footage of the 'full bloodied' blow from a 15th C war hammer demonstrated , (clearly visible) the 'shock waves' passing through and rebounding back within the torso. Because our body's have a large percentage of water content, the effect is similar to an explosion underwater. It is common that 'modern' naval warfare (with exploding shells) have decimated the fish swimming nearby during the battle....killed (internal injuries) or stunned by this shockwave effect.
It is likely the internal injuries suffered by the 15th C knights were not fully understood at the time as there was little external symptoms/ signs....I also suspect that a number 'survived' the battle only to die later due to organ damage/failure.
As a footnote.....thinking about gunpowder......why didn't someone invent the 'limpet' mine or 'sticky' bomb ..... I'm sure a fast runner could have 'planted' a few to the backs of enemy knights......the medieval 'tank'
Regards David