Weasel | 30 Dec 2016 11:39 p.m. PST |
What is the first war where a majority of soldiers on both sides carried a firearm, as opposed to a pike or polearm? |
Cerdic | 30 Dec 2016 11:46 p.m. PST |
Good question! Thirty Years War maybe? Or ECW? |
Weasel | 30 Dec 2016 11:58 p.m. PST |
Thirty years was my initial hunch but I am far from an expert at the era. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 31 Dec 2016 2:30 a.m. PST |
Possibly later than these. Between 1670 and 1700. |
Martin Rapier | 31 Dec 2016 3:41 a.m. PST |
I'd go with TYW as well, although it was a series of interlinked conflicts rather than one single war. Many of the participants (certainly later on) had a greater proportion of shot to pike, and in fact of you count all the cavalry firearms, shot may have been preponderant from the start. |
14Bore | 31 Dec 2016 5:00 a.m. PST |
Would guess also 1670 – 1700 |
Mike Target | 31 Dec 2016 5:37 a.m. PST |
If we assume that during the TYW and ECA that around a half to 2 thirds of the infantry had a musket and that all the Horse had pistols and/or carbines than that would put firearms very much in the majority. So we'd have to be looking for a war a little earlier, but probably not quite back as far as the elizabethan period where bows were still in more or less regular use. |
basileus66 | 31 Dec 2016 5:49 a.m. PST |
I would say that the Eighty Years War, between the Spanish Monarchy and the Netherlands. Force returns from the Low Countries show that even the supposedly 1:2 shot to pike ratios in the Tercios were not that usual, with 1:1 being rather common. Add artillery -siege warfare was dominant in the Low Countries, in the EYW- and it is possible that it was the first war were fireweapons were prevalent. |
Weasel | 31 Dec 2016 9:03 a.m. PST |
Interesting stuff guys. I had originally not thought of cavalry with firearms but that does change the odds a fair bit. |
Kevin C | 31 Dec 2016 9:50 a.m. PST |
During the French Wars of Religion, Huguenot armies often contained many more soldiers armed with firearms than armed with pikes. |
Weasel | 31 Dec 2016 10:36 a.m. PST |
Kevin – was that typical on both sides or were the huguenots better equipped than typical? |
PJ ONeill | 31 Dec 2016 10:56 a.m. PST |
According to Depuy in "Numbers Predictions and War" it was not the number of guns but the training and organization of the men who used them. He awards the first use of a trained group using guns to Gustavus Adolphus. |
Kevin C | 31 Dec 2016 1:52 p.m. PST |
Weasel, I am only certain concerning the Huguenots. I don't know about their opponents. |
Weasel | 31 Dec 2016 5:02 p.m. PST |
Gotcha. Well, still a good data point :-) |
wminsing | 31 Dec 2016 8:27 p.m. PST |
Kevin – was that typical on both sides or were the huguenots better equipped than typical? Also as point, the Huguenots were actually not considered better equipped, since pike was regarded as taking more training and discipline. A lot of the Huguenots would have classified as 'loose shot', ie skirmishers. -Will |
Weasel | 31 Dec 2016 10:38 p.m. PST |
Appreciate the correction. |
vtsaogames | 01 Jan 2017 8:30 a.m. PST |
Huguenot infantry was more a case of making do with what they had. They fielded ferocious cavalry and fragile infantry. The Catholics had decent cavalry and sturdy foot, with a core of good pikes. |
Royal Marine | 02 Jan 2017 5:41 a.m. PST |
Has anyone heard the phrase during an Ancients game: "I will now fire my arrows"? |
Griefbringer | 02 Jan 2017 6:48 a.m. PST |
I would say that the Eighty Years War, between the Spanish Monarchy and the Netherlands. I also tend to recall that the late 16th century Dutch forces had a majority of shot. Would need to do some digging to find out how their organisation progressed during the war. That said, the late 16th century French Wars of Religion are also a strong contender. |
Gunfreak | 02 Jan 2017 9:30 a.m. PST |
I too would think EYW/TYW. Not only was there lot of firearms in the battles. But for every major engagement you had dozens or hundreds of smaller raids and skirmishes that mostly only had firearms armed soldiers. For first war with near universal firearms usage I would say War of Spanish succession |
Griefbringer | 04 Jan 2017 4:29 a.m. PST |
I did some more digging into the Dutch forces of the late 16th century (Eighty Years War), and it seems that latest by 1600 or so they should have fielded a majority of firearms. However, the situation is a bit complex since there were multiple Dutch company organisations existing in parallel (not to mention that each Dutch province could in theory have their own), but there were also regiments of foreign mercenaries in the Dutch service, and burgher guards of varying compositions could be found serving in the defense of the towns. The opposing armies of the Spanish Netherlands are also a bit on the complex side, featuring not only Spanish but also local forces drawn from Walloons etc. and mercenaries drawn from a variety of sources (including even Albanians and Irish). On a more general level, who all should be taken into account when calculating the numbers of soldiers variously armed? For example, Dutch infantry companies fielded rather sizeable command elements (officers, sergeants, corporals, drummers etc.) that were likely not armed with firearms (though officers could possibly have some personally acquired pistols) and even a few non-combatants (scribes etc.). Are these taken into accounts in the calculations?
And what about artillery gunners? They may be serving a very big firearm (artillery piece) together, but do not necessarily have personal firearms. Do they count? And what about the various supporting personnel found in the artillery train (wagoneers, engineers etc.) that were not primarily intended to fight but were important for getting the guns into and out of action. Are they taken into consideration in calculations? |
Weasel | 04 Jan 2017 11:31 a.m. PST |
Good questions Grief. My gut feeling would be to only look at "front line infantry", since otherwise I fear modern armies may in fact no longer count as having majority guns :-) |