Mixing
Historical evidence of military force deliberately refusing to use firearms without practical reasons
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Well, I know the title is quite a common question when building fantasy world involving gunpowder, and it falls under the well known "Don't bring a gun to a sword fight" trope.
I'm well aware there can be plenty of reasons to prefer a sword over a gun, especially in the earliest stages of gunpowder use in warfare.
But the power to kill an opponent from a distance with less skills involved (compared to bows, spears, crossbows) is, without a doubt, a great advantage for military leaders who can now equip less trained men with deadly weapons.
I have trouble finding examples of military faction that would have refused to use gunpowder on the battlefield.
Quick note about the boshin war : Hollywood decided to remember this
as a "tradition versus modernity" conflict, but there's no evidence
that samurai from both sides refused any strategic advantage at
their disposal. From what I know, they used guns and cannons and
whatever fell into their hands.
Are there examples, through history, of military forces who deliberately refused to use strategical advantages, such as more advanced weapons, and still won some battles, at least?
Why?
How?
reality-check warfare
asked 3 hours ago
Zaa
798
New contributor
Zaa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
 |Â
show 11 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Well, I know the title is quite a common question when building fantasy world involving gunpowder, and it falls under the well known "Don't bring a gun to a sword fight" trope.
I'm well aware there can be plenty of reasons to prefer a sword over a gun, especially in the earliest stages of gunpowder use in warfare.
But the power to kill an opponent from a distance with less skills involved (compared to bows, spears, crossbows) is, without a doubt, a great advantage for military leaders who can now equip less trained men with deadly weapons.
I have trouble finding examples of military faction that would have refused to use gunpowder on the battlefield.
Quick note about the boshin war : Hollywood decided to remember this
as a "tradition versus modernity" conflict, but there's no evidence
that samurai from both sides refused any strategic advantage at
their disposal. From what I know, they used guns and cannons and
whatever fell into their hands.
Are there examples, through history, of military forces who deliberately refused to use strategical advantages, such as more advanced weapons, and still won some battles, at least?
Why?
How?
reality-check warfare
asked 3 hours ago
Zaa
798
New contributor
Zaa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
I'm much too lazy to reseach at this moment, hence just a comment: ranged weapons were deemed unacceptable by european knights (for a time). And if i remember right, the same was true for japanese samurai. Plus: early guns were single shot. a sword does not need reloading.
– Burki
3 hours ago
5
This is more of a history.stackexchange.com question than world building. What first come to mind is Australians versus Emus and Battle of Isandlwana
– SZCZERZO KÃ…ÂY
3 hours ago
1
You're looking for the Anglo-Zulu war where the Zulus had some victories and vastly superior numbers.
– Separatrix
3 hours ago
2
Also note that a crossbow required less skill than early firearms, it was the original "no skill required" weapon.
– Separatrix
3 hours ago
1
@Separatrix however the Zulus did used captured British Martini-Henry rifles when they were available at Rorkes Drift for example. Before that they used smooth bore muskets at Isandlwana.
– Sarriesfan
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 11 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Well, I know the title is quite a common question when building fantasy world involving gunpowder, and it falls under the well known "Don't bring a gun to a sword fight" trope.
I'm well aware there can be plenty of reasons to prefer a sword over a gun, especially in the earliest stages of gunpowder use in warfare.
But the power to kill an opponent from a distance with less skills involved (compared to bows, spears, crossbows) is, without a doubt, a great advantage for military leaders who can now equip less trained men with deadly weapons.
I have trouble finding examples of military faction that would have refused to use gunpowder on the battlefield.
Quick note about the boshin war : Hollywood decided to remember this
as a "tradition versus modernity" conflict, but there's no evidence
that samurai from both sides refused any strategic advantage at
their disposal. From what I know, they used guns and cannons and
whatever fell into their hands.
Are there examples, through history, of military forces who deliberately refused to use strategical advantages, such as more advanced weapons, and still won some battles, at least?
Why?
How?
reality-check warfare
asked 3 hours ago
Zaa
798
New contributor
Zaa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Well, I know the title is quite a common question when building fantasy world involving gunpowder, and it falls under the well known "Don't bring a gun to a sword fight" trope.
I'm well aware there can be plenty of reasons to prefer a sword over a gun, especially in the earliest stages of gunpowder use in warfare.
But the power to kill an opponent from a distance with less skills involved (compared to bows, spears, crossbows) is, without a doubt, a great advantage for military leaders who can now equip less trained men with deadly weapons.
I have trouble finding examples of military faction that would have refused to use gunpowder on the battlefield.
Quick note about the boshin war : Hollywood decided to remember this
as a "tradition versus modernity" conflict, but there's no evidence
that samurai from both sides refused any strategic advantage at
their disposal. From what I know, they used guns and cannons and
whatever fell into their hands.
Are there examples, through history, of military forces who deliberately refused to use strategical advantages, such as more advanced weapons, and still won some battles, at least?
Why?
How?
reality-check warfare
reality-check warfare
asked 3 hours ago
Zaa
798
New contributor
Zaa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
Zaa
798
New contributor
Zaa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 13 mins ago
asked 3 hours ago
Zaa
798
New contributor
Zaa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
Zaa
798
asked 3 hours ago
Zaa
798
798
New contributor
Zaa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Zaa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Zaa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
I'm much too lazy to reseach at this moment, hence just a comment: ranged weapons were deemed unacceptable by european knights (for a time). And if i remember right, the same was true for japanese samurai. Plus: early guns were single shot. a sword does not need reloading.
– Burki
3 hours ago
5
This is more of a history.stackexchange.com question than world building. What first come to mind is Australians versus Emus and Battle of Isandlwana
– SZCZERZO KÃ…ÂY
3 hours ago
1
You're looking for the Anglo-Zulu war where the Zulus had some victories and vastly superior numbers.
– Separatrix
3 hours ago
2
Also note that a crossbow required less skill than early firearms, it was the original "no skill required" weapon.
– Separatrix
3 hours ago
1
@Separatrix however the Zulus did used captured British Martini-Henry rifles when they were available at Rorkes Drift for example. Before that they used smooth bore muskets at Isandlwana.
– Sarriesfan
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 11 more comments
1
I'm much too lazy to reseach at this moment, hence just a comment: ranged weapons were deemed unacceptable by european knights (for a time). And if i remember right, the same was true for japanese samurai. Plus: early guns were single shot. a sword does not need reloading.
– Burki
3 hours ago
5
This is more of a history.stackexchange.com question than world building. What first come to mind is Australians versus Emus and Battle of Isandlwana
– SZCZERZO KÃ…ÂY
3 hours ago
1
You're looking for the Anglo-Zulu war where the Zulus had some victories and vastly superior numbers.
– Separatrix
3 hours ago
2
Also note that a crossbow required less skill than early firearms, it was the original "no skill required" weapon.
– Separatrix
3 hours ago
1
@Separatrix however the Zulus did used captured British Martini-Henry rifles when they were available at Rorkes Drift for example. Before that they used smooth bore muskets at Isandlwana.
– Sarriesfan
2 hours ago
1
1
I'm much too lazy to reseach at this moment, hence just a comment: ranged weapons were deemed unacceptable by european knights (for a time). And if i remember right, the same was true for japanese samurai. Plus: early guns were single shot. a sword does not need reloading.
– Burki
3 hours ago
I'm much too lazy to reseach at this moment, hence just a comment: ranged weapons were deemed unacceptable by european knights (for a time). And if i remember right, the same was true for japanese samurai. Plus: early guns were single shot. a sword does not need reloading.
– Burki
3 hours ago
5
5
This is more of a history.stackexchange.com question than world building. What first come to mind is Australians versus Emus and Battle of Isandlwana
– SZCZERZO KÃ…ÂY
3 hours ago
This is more of a history.stackexchange.com question than world building. What first come to mind is Australians versus Emus and Battle of Isandlwana
– SZCZERZO KÃ…ÂY
3 hours ago
1
1
You're looking for the Anglo-Zulu war where the Zulus had some victories and vastly superior numbers.
– Separatrix
3 hours ago
You're looking for the Anglo-Zulu war where the Zulus had some victories and vastly superior numbers.
– Separatrix
3 hours ago
2
2
Also note that a crossbow required less skill than early firearms, it was the original "no skill required" weapon.
– Separatrix
3 hours ago
Also note that a crossbow required less skill than early firearms, it was the original "no skill required" weapon.
– Separatrix
3 hours ago
1
1
@Separatrix however the Zulus did used captured British Martini-Henry rifles when they were available at Rorkes Drift for example. Before that they used smooth bore muskets at Isandlwana.
– Sarriesfan
2 hours ago
@Separatrix however the Zulus did used captured British Martini-Henry rifles when they were available at Rorkes Drift for example. Before that they used smooth bore muskets at Isandlwana.
– Sarriesfan
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 11 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
The only examples I am aware of are the Samurai after the establishment of the Tokugawa Shogunate, and to a limited extent, the Ottoman Janissary armies into the 1500's, but these were results of particular circumstances.
The Samurai were actually very enthusiastic in their adoption and use of firearms. Perhaps the most striking example was the Battle of Nagashino, where the traditional armies of Katsuyori Shingen were destroyed by mass volley fire from the forces of Tokugawa Ieyasu and Oda Nobunaga.
These sorts of battles were early examples of the "Infantry Revolution" in Japan, where weapons and tactics were being introduced to allow relatively untrained Infantrymen to take the field and contend with highly trained Samurai warriors. In Europe, the process eventually swept away knights and the Feudal system, but Japan was more isolated and insular due to the island nature of the country. Once the Tokugawa Shogunate was firmly established, a process of disarming the peasants was rapidly undertaken to prevent the overthrow of the established social and political order, and firearms essentially passed from Japanese history until the arrival of the Americans and the Meiji restoration.
The Ottoman Janissaries are a slightly different case. The Ottoman Empire, dispite its size and resources, was actually rather poor in terms of deploying resources. While the Ottomans were well aware of gunpowder, artillery and firearms, they did not have the same ability to actually make cannon and firearms, often buying them from their Western rivals like Genoa or Venice (through black markets or renegade Western traders). During the Battle of Lepanto, the Christian fleet was armed with cannon and the boarding parties armed with the match and wheel locks common to the period, while the Janissaries embarked on the Ottoman fleet were armed with the deadly recurve bow.
In practical terms, once the ships were closing in, the Ottomans could unleash hails of arrows with greater speed and accuracy than the Christian soldiers could reply. The problem was while the Christian soldiers could be shielded by light wooden barriers, coils of rope and so on, their shot could penetrate similar protective barriers on the Ottoman ships. An arquebus could deliver 1000j of energy with each shot, while a typical arrow delivered between 100-200j of energy.
The other issue (which plagued the Samurai and European knights) was it took a lifetime of training to prepare Jamissaries, and the massive casualties from the battle of Lepanto would take a generation to make good, you could train people to use firearms in a matter of weeks. (English Longbowmen also took a lifetime of training, which explains why despite their fearsome reputation in the 100 years war, longbows were not commonly adopted by European armies).
So in order to suppress the use of firearms, crossbows and pikes (the ,major enablers of the Infantry Revolution), you would need to have the existing Feudal social order which supported kKnights, Samurai, Janissaries or similar classes of highly trained fighting men, an understanding of the danger firearms and simplified but effective mass infantry tactics posed to their military and social status, and the ability to limit or effectively ban the use of firearms (lie the Japanese) or the inability to create them on a mass scale (like the Ottomans).
answered 2 hours ago
Thucydides
78.7k676231
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Cost and maintenance.
Since you know how to maintain a sword keep it oiled and such its low cost of ownership would make it attractive.
Guns on the other hand have quite a few moving pieces and then you have to buy bullets which are costly if this were restricted and costly it would make me favour my sword.
edited 1 hour ago
a4android
30.9k340121
answered 2 hours ago
JamesD
633149
1
This doesn't answer the question. The OP asks for "examples, through history, of military forces who deliberately refused to use strategical advantages, such as more advanced weapons, and still won some battles, at least". This post is about the advantages of swords over guns, not historical examples.
– John Locke
2 hours ago
1
@John Locke: In the title OP asked a different Question, which this Answer tries to answer. I requested OP to clarify ...
– Daniel
1 hour ago
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Frostfyre
54 mins ago
I agree that my title can be misleading. I'll change it. Thank you.
– Zaa
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
A frequent case
A frequent case of nearly-battlefield situation where non-lethal weapon are used is riot control. Policemen don't want to kill the rioters, so they shoot with underpowered weapons, rubber bullets and the likes. Sometimes it really looks like warzone, and members of both camp get injured.
Regulations
Another reason why we are not using more advanced weapons is regulation. Some weapons might (arguably) provide an advantage on a battlefield, but they are prohibited by an agreement between the belligerent parties.
For instance poisoned bullets were prohibited by the Stasbourg Agreement of 1675 between France and the Holy Roman Empire.
answered 29 mins ago
Legisey
2,5791422
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Because you're a badass
Historically there's the famous example of Jack Churchill, a Scotsman that fought in WW2 that famously said "Any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed". He utilised a sword, bow and arrow and bagpipes only. Perhaps a code of honour, but for all intents and purposes, Jack Churchill used the sword to great effect, capturing a German outpost and, to quote: "taking 42 prisoners including a mortar squad". This wasn't his only successes, and testament to his skill, he wasn't killed during the war, either.
It was reported (not on Wikipedia) that Jack captured the outpost by using the sword as a close range weapon to force the German soldiers to get their comrades to come out without their weapons, which is perhaps a more effective weapon at close range psychologically than a long rifle with a bayonet attached (if it even had one attached at all) because the only thing you could effectively grab was the blade.
Guns are problematic, and unreliable
It's worth noting that guns suffer from numerous issues, including (common during WW2, for example) jamming unexpectedly, misfiring and running out of ammo. Bullets, if wet, can also fail to fire, and you cannot cut things like wood or jungle leaves with a gun.
It's also worth noting that guns are extremely noisy, and even with silencers can emit a very loud 'pop' sound, where-as bladed weapons are noticeably silent and can be used in the element of stealth. At close range, few gun owners will have any sort of effective close range weapon handy (bayonets are unwieldy and more akin to spears).
Although practically impossible for a human to achieve, some swords like the Katana, given how good their steel is, are able to slice bullets in half, even up to .50 cal (however a .50 bullet seriously damages the edge and can destroy the sword). With such precision, it's even possible to slice bb pellets and rice in mid-air.
There's no contingent of troops armed with swords, but it's worth bearing in mind organisations like the SAS regularly carry knives (effectively mini-swords) as standard kit.
answered 6 mins ago
SSight3
1472
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
The only examples I am aware of are the Samurai after the establishment of the Tokugawa Shogunate, and to a limited extent, the Ottoman Janissary armies into the 1500's, but these were results of particular circumstances.
The Samurai were actually very enthusiastic in their adoption and use of firearms. Perhaps the most striking example was the Battle of Nagashino, where the traditional armies of Katsuyori Shingen were destroyed by mass volley fire from the forces of Tokugawa Ieyasu and Oda Nobunaga.
These sorts of battles were early examples of the "Infantry Revolution" in Japan, where weapons and tactics were being introduced to allow relatively untrained Infantrymen to take the field and contend with highly trained Samurai warriors. In Europe, the process eventually swept away knights and the Feudal system, but Japan was more isolated and insular due to the island nature of the country. Once the Tokugawa Shogunate was firmly established, a process of disarming the peasants was rapidly undertaken to prevent the overthrow of the established social and political order, and firearms essentially passed from Japanese history until the arrival of the Americans and the Meiji restoration.
The Ottoman Janissaries are a slightly different case. The Ottoman Empire, dispite its size and resources, was actually rather poor in terms of deploying resources. While the Ottomans were well aware of gunpowder, artillery and firearms, they did not have the same ability to actually make cannon and firearms, often buying them from their Western rivals like Genoa or Venice (through black markets or renegade Western traders). During the Battle of Lepanto, the Christian fleet was armed with cannon and the boarding parties armed with the match and wheel locks common to the period, while the Janissaries embarked on the Ottoman fleet were armed with the deadly recurve bow.
In practical terms, once the ships were closing in, the Ottomans could unleash hails of arrows with greater speed and accuracy than the Christian soldiers could reply. The problem was while the Christian soldiers could be shielded by light wooden barriers, coils of rope and so on, their shot could penetrate similar protective barriers on the Ottoman ships. An arquebus could deliver 1000j of energy with each shot, while a typical arrow delivered between 100-200j of energy.
The other issue (which plagued the Samurai and European knights) was it took a lifetime of training to prepare Jamissaries, and the massive casualties from the battle of Lepanto would take a generation to make good, you could train people to use firearms in a matter of weeks. (English Longbowmen also took a lifetime of training, which explains why despite their fearsome reputation in the 100 years war, longbows were not commonly adopted by European armies).
So in order to suppress the use of firearms, crossbows and pikes (the ,major enablers of the Infantry Revolution), you would need to have the existing Feudal social order which supported kKnights, Samurai, Janissaries or similar classes of highly trained fighting men, an understanding of the danger firearms and simplified but effective mass infantry tactics posed to their military and social status, and the ability to limit or effectively ban the use of firearms (lie the Japanese) or the inability to create them on a mass scale (like the Ottomans).
answered 2 hours ago
Thucydides
78.7k676231
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
The only examples I am aware of are the Samurai after the establishment of the Tokugawa Shogunate, and to a limited extent, the Ottoman Janissary armies into the 1500's, but these were results of particular circumstances.
The Samurai were actually very enthusiastic in their adoption and use of firearms. Perhaps the most striking example was the Battle of Nagashino, where the traditional armies of Katsuyori Shingen were destroyed by mass volley fire from the forces of Tokugawa Ieyasu and Oda Nobunaga.
These sorts of battles were early examples of the "Infantry Revolution" in Japan, where weapons and tactics were being introduced to allow relatively untrained Infantrymen to take the field and contend with highly trained Samurai warriors. In Europe, the process eventually swept away knights and the Feudal system, but Japan was more isolated and insular due to the island nature of the country. Once the Tokugawa Shogunate was firmly established, a process of disarming the peasants was rapidly undertaken to prevent the overthrow of the established social and political order, and firearms essentially passed from Japanese history until the arrival of the Americans and the Meiji restoration.
The Ottoman Janissaries are a slightly different case. The Ottoman Empire, dispite its size and resources, was actually rather poor in terms of deploying resources. While the Ottomans were well aware of gunpowder, artillery and firearms, they did not have the same ability to actually make cannon and firearms, often buying them from their Western rivals like Genoa or Venice (through black markets or renegade Western traders). During the Battle of Lepanto, the Christian fleet was armed with cannon and the boarding parties armed with the match and wheel locks common to the period, while the Janissaries embarked on the Ottoman fleet were armed with the deadly recurve bow.
In practical terms, once the ships were closing in, the Ottomans could unleash hails of arrows with greater speed and accuracy than the Christian soldiers could reply. The problem was while the Christian soldiers could be shielded by light wooden barriers, coils of rope and so on, their shot could penetrate similar protective barriers on the Ottoman ships. An arquebus could deliver 1000j of energy with each shot, while a typical arrow delivered between 100-200j of energy.
The other issue (which plagued the Samurai and European knights) was it took a lifetime of training to prepare Jamissaries, and the massive casualties from the battle of Lepanto would take a generation to make good, you could train people to use firearms in a matter of weeks. (English Longbowmen also took a lifetime of training, which explains why despite their fearsome reputation in the 100 years war, longbows were not commonly adopted by European armies).
So in order to suppress the use of firearms, crossbows and pikes (the ,major enablers of the Infantry Revolution), you would need to have the existing Feudal social order which supported kKnights, Samurai, Janissaries or similar classes of highly trained fighting men, an understanding of the danger firearms and simplified but effective mass infantry tactics posed to their military and social status, and the ability to limit or effectively ban the use of firearms (lie the Japanese) or the inability to create them on a mass scale (like the Ottomans).
answered 2 hours ago
Thucydides
78.7k676231
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
The only examples I am aware of are the Samurai after the establishment of the Tokugawa Shogunate, and to a limited extent, the Ottoman Janissary armies into the 1500's, but these were results of particular circumstances.
The Samurai were actually very enthusiastic in their adoption and use of firearms. Perhaps the most striking example was the Battle of Nagashino, where the traditional armies of Katsuyori Shingen were destroyed by mass volley fire from the forces of Tokugawa Ieyasu and Oda Nobunaga.
These sorts of battles were early examples of the "Infantry Revolution" in Japan, where weapons and tactics were being introduced to allow relatively untrained Infantrymen to take the field and contend with highly trained Samurai warriors. In Europe, the process eventually swept away knights and the Feudal system, but Japan was more isolated and insular due to the island nature of the country. Once the Tokugawa Shogunate was firmly established, a process of disarming the peasants was rapidly undertaken to prevent the overthrow of the established social and political order, and firearms essentially passed from Japanese history until the arrival of the Americans and the Meiji restoration.
The Ottoman Janissaries are a slightly different case. The Ottoman Empire, dispite its size and resources, was actually rather poor in terms of deploying resources. While the Ottomans were well aware of gunpowder, artillery and firearms, they did not have the same ability to actually make cannon and firearms, often buying them from their Western rivals like Genoa or Venice (through black markets or renegade Western traders). During the Battle of Lepanto, the Christian fleet was armed with cannon and the boarding parties armed with the match and wheel locks common to the period, while the Janissaries embarked on the Ottoman fleet were armed with the deadly recurve bow.
In practical terms, once the ships were closing in, the Ottomans could unleash hails of arrows with greater speed and accuracy than the Christian soldiers could reply. The problem was while the Christian soldiers could be shielded by light wooden barriers, coils of rope and so on, their shot could penetrate similar protective barriers on the Ottoman ships. An arquebus could deliver 1000j of energy with each shot, while a typical arrow delivered between 100-200j of energy.
The other issue (which plagued the Samurai and European knights) was it took a lifetime of training to prepare Jamissaries, and the massive casualties from the battle of Lepanto would take a generation to make good, you could train people to use firearms in a matter of weeks. (English Longbowmen also took a lifetime of training, which explains why despite their fearsome reputation in the 100 years war, longbows were not commonly adopted by European armies).
So in order to suppress the use of firearms, crossbows and pikes (the ,major enablers of the Infantry Revolution), you would need to have the existing Feudal social order which supported kKnights, Samurai, Janissaries or similar classes of highly trained fighting men, an understanding of the danger firearms and simplified but effective mass infantry tactics posed to their military and social status, and the ability to limit or effectively ban the use of firearms (lie the Japanese) or the inability to create them on a mass scale (like the Ottomans).
answered 2 hours ago
Thucydides
78.7k676231
The only examples I am aware of are the Samurai after the establishment of the Tokugawa Shogunate, and to a limited extent, the Ottoman Janissary armies into the 1500's, but these were results of particular circumstances.
The Samurai were actually very enthusiastic in their adoption and use of firearms. Perhaps the most striking example was the Battle of Nagashino, where the traditional armies of Katsuyori Shingen were destroyed by mass volley fire from the forces of Tokugawa Ieyasu and Oda Nobunaga.
These sorts of battles were early examples of the "Infantry Revolution" in Japan, where weapons and tactics were being introduced to allow relatively untrained Infantrymen to take the field and contend with highly trained Samurai warriors. In Europe, the process eventually swept away knights and the Feudal system, but Japan was more isolated and insular due to the island nature of the country. Once the Tokugawa Shogunate was firmly established, a process of disarming the peasants was rapidly undertaken to prevent the overthrow of the established social and political order, and firearms essentially passed from Japanese history until the arrival of the Americans and the Meiji restoration.
The Ottoman Janissaries are a slightly different case. The Ottoman Empire, dispite its size and resources, was actually rather poor in terms of deploying resources. While the Ottomans were well aware of gunpowder, artillery and firearms, they did not have the same ability to actually make cannon and firearms, often buying them from their Western rivals like Genoa or Venice (through black markets or renegade Western traders). During the Battle of Lepanto, the Christian fleet was armed with cannon and the boarding parties armed with the match and wheel locks common to the period, while the Janissaries embarked on the Ottoman fleet were armed with the deadly recurve bow.
In practical terms, once the ships were closing in, the Ottomans could unleash hails of arrows with greater speed and accuracy than the Christian soldiers could reply. The problem was while the Christian soldiers could be shielded by light wooden barriers, coils of rope and so on, their shot could penetrate similar protective barriers on the Ottoman ships. An arquebus could deliver 1000j of energy with each shot, while a typical arrow delivered between 100-200j of energy.
The other issue (which plagued the Samurai and European knights) was it took a lifetime of training to prepare Jamissaries, and the massive casualties from the battle of Lepanto would take a generation to make good, you could train people to use firearms in a matter of weeks. (English Longbowmen also took a lifetime of training, which explains why despite their fearsome reputation in the 100 years war, longbows were not commonly adopted by European armies).
So in order to suppress the use of firearms, crossbows and pikes (the ,major enablers of the Infantry Revolution), you would need to have the existing Feudal social order which supported kKnights, Samurai, Janissaries or similar classes of highly trained fighting men, an understanding of the danger firearms and simplified but effective mass infantry tactics posed to their military and social status, and the ability to limit or effectively ban the use of firearms (lie the Japanese) or the inability to create them on a mass scale (like the Ottomans).
answered 2 hours ago
Thucydides
78.7k676231
answered 2 hours ago
Thucydides
78.7k676231
answered 2 hours ago
Thucydides
78.7k676231
answered 2 hours ago
Thucydides
78.7k676231
78.7k676231
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Cost and maintenance.
Since you know how to maintain a sword keep it oiled and such its low cost of ownership would make it attractive.
Guns on the other hand have quite a few moving pieces and then you have to buy bullets which are costly if this were restricted and costly it would make me favour my sword.
edited 1 hour ago
a4android
30.9k340121
answered 2 hours ago
JamesD
633149
1
This doesn't answer the question. The OP asks for "examples, through history, of military forces who deliberately refused to use strategical advantages, such as more advanced weapons, and still won some battles, at least". This post is about the advantages of swords over guns, not historical examples.
– John Locke
2 hours ago
1
@John Locke: In the title OP asked a different Question, which this Answer tries to answer. I requested OP to clarify ...
– Daniel
1 hour ago
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Frostfyre
54 mins ago
I agree that my title can be misleading. I'll change it. Thank you.
– Zaa
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Cost and maintenance.
Since you know how to maintain a sword keep it oiled and such its low cost of ownership would make it attractive.
Guns on the other hand have quite a few moving pieces and then you have to buy bullets which are costly if this were restricted and costly it would make me favour my sword.
edited 1 hour ago
a4android
30.9k340121
answered 2 hours ago
JamesD
633149
1
This doesn't answer the question. The OP asks for "examples, through history, of military forces who deliberately refused to use strategical advantages, such as more advanced weapons, and still won some battles, at least". This post is about the advantages of swords over guns, not historical examples.
– John Locke
2 hours ago
1
@John Locke: In the title OP asked a different Question, which this Answer tries to answer. I requested OP to clarify ...
– Daniel
1 hour ago
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Frostfyre
54 mins ago
I agree that my title can be misleading. I'll change it. Thank you.
– Zaa
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Cost and maintenance.
Since you know how to maintain a sword keep it oiled and such its low cost of ownership would make it attractive.
Guns on the other hand have quite a few moving pieces and then you have to buy bullets which are costly if this were restricted and costly it would make me favour my sword.
edited 1 hour ago
a4android
30.9k340121
answered 2 hours ago
JamesD
633149
Cost and maintenance.
Since you know how to maintain a sword keep it oiled and such its low cost of ownership would make it attractive.
Guns on the other hand have quite a few moving pieces and then you have to buy bullets which are costly if this were restricted and costly it would make me favour my sword.
edited 1 hour ago
a4android
30.9k340121
answered 2 hours ago
JamesD
633149
edited 1 hour ago
a4android
30.9k340121
edited 1 hour ago
a4android
30.9k340121
edited 1 hour ago
a4android
30.9k340121
30.9k340121
answered 2 hours ago
JamesD
633149
answered 2 hours ago
JamesD
633149
answered 2 hours ago
JamesD
633149
633149
1
This doesn't answer the question. The OP asks for "examples, through history, of military forces who deliberately refused to use strategical advantages, such as more advanced weapons, and still won some battles, at least". This post is about the advantages of swords over guns, not historical examples.
– John Locke
2 hours ago
1
@John Locke: In the title OP asked a different Question, which this Answer tries to answer. I requested OP to clarify ...
– Daniel
1 hour ago
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Frostfyre
54 mins ago
I agree that my title can be misleading. I'll change it. Thank you.
– Zaa
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
This doesn't answer the question. The OP asks for "examples, through history, of military forces who deliberately refused to use strategical advantages, such as more advanced weapons, and still won some battles, at least". This post is about the advantages of swords over guns, not historical examples.
– John Locke
2 hours ago
1
@John Locke: In the title OP asked a different Question, which this Answer tries to answer. I requested OP to clarify ...
– Daniel
1 hour ago
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Frostfyre
54 mins ago
I agree that my title can be misleading. I'll change it. Thank you.
– Zaa
15 mins ago
1
1
This doesn't answer the question. The OP asks for "examples, through history, of military forces who deliberately refused to use strategical advantages, such as more advanced weapons, and still won some battles, at least". This post is about the advantages of swords over guns, not historical examples.
– John Locke
2 hours ago
This doesn't answer the question. The OP asks for "examples, through history, of military forces who deliberately refused to use strategical advantages, such as more advanced weapons, and still won some battles, at least". This post is about the advantages of swords over guns, not historical examples.
– John Locke
2 hours ago
1
1
@John Locke: In the title OP asked a different Question, which this Answer tries to answer. I requested OP to clarify ...
– Daniel
1 hour ago
@John Locke: In the title OP asked a different Question, which this Answer tries to answer. I requested OP to clarify ...
– Daniel
1 hour ago
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Frostfyre
54 mins ago
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Frostfyre
54 mins ago
I agree that my title can be misleading. I'll change it. Thank you.
– Zaa
15 mins ago
I agree that my title can be misleading. I'll change it. Thank you.
– Zaa
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
A frequent case
A frequent case of nearly-battlefield situation where non-lethal weapon are used is riot control. Policemen don't want to kill the rioters, so they shoot with underpowered weapons, rubber bullets and the likes. Sometimes it really looks like warzone, and members of both camp get injured.
Regulations
Another reason why we are not using more advanced weapons is regulation. Some weapons might (arguably) provide an advantage on a battlefield, but they are prohibited by an agreement between the belligerent parties.
For instance poisoned bullets were prohibited by the Stasbourg Agreement of 1675 between France and the Holy Roman Empire.
answered 29 mins ago
Legisey
2,5791422
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
A frequent case
A frequent case of nearly-battlefield situation where non-lethal weapon are used is riot control. Policemen don't want to kill the rioters, so they shoot with underpowered weapons, rubber bullets and the likes. Sometimes it really looks like warzone, and members of both camp get injured.
Regulations
Another reason why we are not using more advanced weapons is regulation. Some weapons might (arguably) provide an advantage on a battlefield, but they are prohibited by an agreement between the belligerent parties.
For instance poisoned bullets were prohibited by the Stasbourg Agreement of 1675 between France and the Holy Roman Empire.
answered 29 mins ago
Legisey
2,5791422
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
A frequent case
A frequent case of nearly-battlefield situation where non-lethal weapon are used is riot control. Policemen don't want to kill the rioters, so they shoot with underpowered weapons, rubber bullets and the likes. Sometimes it really looks like warzone, and members of both camp get injured.
Regulations
Another reason why we are not using more advanced weapons is regulation. Some weapons might (arguably) provide an advantage on a battlefield, but they are prohibited by an agreement between the belligerent parties.
For instance poisoned bullets were prohibited by the Stasbourg Agreement of 1675 between France and the Holy Roman Empire.
answered 29 mins ago
Legisey
2,5791422
A frequent case
A frequent case of nearly-battlefield situation where non-lethal weapon are used is riot control. Policemen don't want to kill the rioters, so they shoot with underpowered weapons, rubber bullets and the likes. Sometimes it really looks like warzone, and members of both camp get injured.
Regulations
Another reason why we are not using more advanced weapons is regulation. Some weapons might (arguably) provide an advantage on a battlefield, but they are prohibited by an agreement between the belligerent parties.
For instance poisoned bullets were prohibited by the Stasbourg Agreement of 1675 between France and the Holy Roman Empire.
answered 29 mins ago
Legisey
2,5791422
answered 29 mins ago
Legisey
2,5791422
answered 29 mins ago
Legisey
2,5791422
answered 29 mins ago
Legisey
2,5791422
2,5791422
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Because you're a badass
Historically there's the famous example of Jack Churchill, a Scotsman that fought in WW2 that famously said "Any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed". He utilised a sword, bow and arrow and bagpipes only. Perhaps a code of honour, but for all intents and purposes, Jack Churchill used the sword to great effect, capturing a German outpost and, to quote: "taking 42 prisoners including a mortar squad". This wasn't his only successes, and testament to his skill, he wasn't killed during the war, either.
It was reported (not on Wikipedia) that Jack captured the outpost by using the sword as a close range weapon to force the German soldiers to get their comrades to come out without their weapons, which is perhaps a more effective weapon at close range psychologically than a long rifle with a bayonet attached (if it even had one attached at all) because the only thing you could effectively grab was the blade.
Guns are problematic, and unreliable
It's worth noting that guns suffer from numerous issues, including (common during WW2, for example) jamming unexpectedly, misfiring and running out of ammo. Bullets, if wet, can also fail to fire, and you cannot cut things like wood or jungle leaves with a gun.
It's also worth noting that guns are extremely noisy, and even with silencers can emit a very loud 'pop' sound, where-as bladed weapons are noticeably silent and can be used in the element of stealth. At close range, few gun owners will have any sort of effective close range weapon handy (bayonets are unwieldy and more akin to spears).
Although practically impossible for a human to achieve, some swords like the Katana, given how good their steel is, are able to slice bullets in half, even up to .50 cal (however a .50 bullet seriously damages the edge and can destroy the sword). With such precision, it's even possible to slice bb pellets and rice in mid-air.
There's no contingent of troops armed with swords, but it's worth bearing in mind organisations like the SAS regularly carry knives (effectively mini-swords) as standard kit.
answered 6 mins ago
SSight3
1472
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Because you're a badass
Historically there's the famous example of Jack Churchill, a Scotsman that fought in WW2 that famously said "Any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed". He utilised a sword, bow and arrow and bagpipes only. Perhaps a code of honour, but for all intents and purposes, Jack Churchill used the sword to great effect, capturing a German outpost and, to quote: "taking 42 prisoners including a mortar squad". This wasn't his only successes, and testament to his skill, he wasn't killed during the war, either.
It was reported (not on Wikipedia) that Jack captured the outpost by using the sword as a close range weapon to force the German soldiers to get their comrades to come out without their weapons, which is perhaps a more effective weapon at close range psychologically than a long rifle with a bayonet attached (if it even had one attached at all) because the only thing you could effectively grab was the blade.
Guns are problematic, and unreliable
It's worth noting that guns suffer from numerous issues, including (common during WW2, for example) jamming unexpectedly, misfiring and running out of ammo. Bullets, if wet, can also fail to fire, and you cannot cut things like wood or jungle leaves with a gun.
It's also worth noting that guns are extremely noisy, and even with silencers can emit a very loud 'pop' sound, where-as bladed weapons are noticeably silent and can be used in the element of stealth. At close range, few gun owners will have any sort of effective close range weapon handy (bayonets are unwieldy and more akin to spears).
Although practically impossible for a human to achieve, some swords like the Katana, given how good their steel is, are able to slice bullets in half, even up to .50 cal (however a .50 bullet seriously damages the edge and can destroy the sword). With such precision, it's even possible to slice bb pellets and rice in mid-air.
There's no contingent of troops armed with swords, but it's worth bearing in mind organisations like the SAS regularly carry knives (effectively mini-swords) as standard kit.
answered 6 mins ago
SSight3
1472
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Because you're a badass
Historically there's the famous example of Jack Churchill, a Scotsman that fought in WW2 that famously said "Any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed". He utilised a sword, bow and arrow and bagpipes only. Perhaps a code of honour, but for all intents and purposes, Jack Churchill used the sword to great effect, capturing a German outpost and, to quote: "taking 42 prisoners including a mortar squad". This wasn't his only successes, and testament to his skill, he wasn't killed during the war, either.
It was reported (not on Wikipedia) that Jack captured the outpost by using the sword as a close range weapon to force the German soldiers to get their comrades to come out without their weapons, which is perhaps a more effective weapon at close range psychologically than a long rifle with a bayonet attached (if it even had one attached at all) because the only thing you could effectively grab was the blade.
Guns are problematic, and unreliable
It's worth noting that guns suffer from numerous issues, including (common during WW2, for example) jamming unexpectedly, misfiring and running out of ammo. Bullets, if wet, can also fail to fire, and you cannot cut things like wood or jungle leaves with a gun.
It's also worth noting that guns are extremely noisy, and even with silencers can emit a very loud 'pop' sound, where-as bladed weapons are noticeably silent and can be used in the element of stealth. At close range, few gun owners will have any sort of effective close range weapon handy (bayonets are unwieldy and more akin to spears).
Although practically impossible for a human to achieve, some swords like the Katana, given how good their steel is, are able to slice bullets in half, even up to .50 cal (however a .50 bullet seriously damages the edge and can destroy the sword). With such precision, it's even possible to slice bb pellets and rice in mid-air.
There's no contingent of troops armed with swords, but it's worth bearing in mind organisations like the SAS regularly carry knives (effectively mini-swords) as standard kit.
answered 6 mins ago
SSight3
1472
Because you're a badass
Historically there's the famous example of Jack Churchill, a Scotsman that fought in WW2 that famously said "Any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed". He utilised a sword, bow and arrow and bagpipes only. Perhaps a code of honour, but for all intents and purposes, Jack Churchill used the sword to great effect, capturing a German outpost and, to quote: "taking 42 prisoners including a mortar squad". This wasn't his only successes, and testament to his skill, he wasn't killed during the war, either.
It was reported (not on Wikipedia) that Jack captured the outpost by using the sword as a close range weapon to force the German soldiers to get their comrades to come out without their weapons, which is perhaps a more effective weapon at close range psychologically than a long rifle with a bayonet attached (if it even had one attached at all) because the only thing you could effectively grab was the blade.
Guns are problematic, and unreliable
It's worth noting that guns suffer from numerous issues, including (common during WW2, for example) jamming unexpectedly, misfiring and running out of ammo. Bullets, if wet, can also fail to fire, and you cannot cut things like wood or jungle leaves with a gun.
It's also worth noting that guns are extremely noisy, and even with silencers can emit a very loud 'pop' sound, where-as bladed weapons are noticeably silent and can be used in the element of stealth. At close range, few gun owners will have any sort of effective close range weapon handy (bayonets are unwieldy and more akin to spears).
Although practically impossible for a human to achieve, some swords like the Katana, given how good their steel is, are able to slice bullets in half, even up to .50 cal (however a .50 bullet seriously damages the edge and can destroy the sword). With such precision, it's even possible to slice bb pellets and rice in mid-air.
There's no contingent of troops armed with swords, but it's worth bearing in mind organisations like the SAS regularly carry knives (effectively mini-swords) as standard kit.
answered 6 mins ago
SSight3
1472
answered 6 mins ago
SSight3
1472
answered 6 mins ago
SSight3
1472
answered 6 mins ago
SSight3
1472
1472
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Zaa is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Zaa is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Zaa is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Zaa is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127844%2fhistorical-evidence-of-military-force-deliberately-refusing-to-use-firearms-with%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
I'm much too lazy to reseach at this moment, hence just a comment: ranged weapons were deemed unacceptable by european knights (for a time). And if i remember right, the same was true for japanese samurai. Plus: early guns were single shot. a sword does not need reloading.
– Burki
3 hours ago
5
This is more of a history.stackexchange.com question than world building. What first come to mind is Australians versus Emus and Battle of Isandlwana
– SZCZERZO KÃ…ÂY
3 hours ago
1
You're looking for the Anglo-Zulu war where the Zulus had some victories and vastly superior numbers.
– Separatrix
3 hours ago
2
Also note that a crossbow required less skill than early firearms, it was the original "no skill required" weapon.
– Separatrix
3 hours ago
1
@Separatrix however the Zulus did used captured British Martini-Henry rifles when they were available at Rorkes Drift for example. Before that they used smooth bore muskets at Isandlwana.
– Sarriesfan
2 hours ago