Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In terms of the OP, yes, guns were very common prior to the cold war. Depending on the period of interest, you may want to read Alexandre de Tocqueville's Democracy in America to get a better sense not just of ownership rates, but the society in which they fit into.
Guns were very expensive, so not all households would have had them. They tended to be one of the most valuable purchases one made at the time. As such, the degree of knowledge the average owner had for their weapon was likely much higher than today's owners.
Guns were considered necessary when moving into the frontier or for the defense of a town. After the frontier closed, there was still lawlessness at times but from there on gun control started to become more acute. Still, customs can be vistigle a long time before they go away entirely.
Americans have always owned a lot of guns. The history is interesting. The common debate now is not. Most Americans will simply not comply with any edict that takes away their weapons...so direct our leaders to work on something that actually might happen.
I think at least from a Western perspective there was a long standing requirement going back to at least the Middle Ages that households were legally required to have weapons. Wars of that era were mostly fought by peasant armies who were called up during times of crisis.
The male head of the family would have had the military grade weaponry of the time. Bows and arrows, spears and pikes. Competency in archery was highly prized and wars were won or lost on the skills of ordinary people who were called up for service.
Apart from competency in archery - and that was mostly a Welsh and English thing - this is not supported historically. Well-armed peasants get ideas.
The French disbanded their longbow unit because it became so deadly, it could have upset the order of things - the order being, very much, that the rich landowners who could afford warhorses and armor were on top. Professional warriors in their retinue would enforce that.
Different for freemen. At times of war, they would be expected to take up arms and were expected to have equipment commensurate with their rank. Though not necessarily impressive gear, either. Henry IIs highest-ranking freemen were expected to have chainmail, helmet, shield and lance.
The rank and file could be issued pikes, shields and crossbows when called up. (Crossbows upset the order very much indeed. Armor-piercing bolts in the hands of a barely-trained commoner? Not cricket. Some commanders would kill captured crossbowmen out of hand, although have no qualms with employing their own. War.)
Obviously different in sieges, where the defenders would press anyone into service who could be taught to fire a crossbow or hold a pike.
That would be weather dependent. They were pretty useless in the rain or high wind. The reason they fired in volleys was that they were highly inaccurate, but in volleys, they were bound to hit something. At the time of the American Revolution, the weapon which inspired fear in the Continental Army was the British socket bayonet.
Aiming a musket was a novel idea in 1775. Rogers’ Rules of Ranging, written in 1757, changed the way many colonial militias engaged the enemy. But an Easy Plan of Disipline for a Militia, by Thomas Pickering was published in Massachusetts in 1775 is the first known military instruction book on how to actually aim a musket. And aiming a musket after the 10 or 12 steps one used - there were different methods - had to be done carefully, not to help the shooter hit the target but to ensure the shooters shoulder was not dislocated.
We confounded the British at Breed's Hill and after, more in how we changed how volley fire was delivered than marksmanship By changing the rules of engagement, for lack of a better term, we were able then to break their ranks and with a bit of luck, reduce their sword and bayonet deadliness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Can't find the source now, but you're dead on that bayonets actually worked by inspiring fear. Massed ranks of soldiers advancing with the clear intent of bayoneting the defenders when they reach their position tends to have the effect of making the defenders not wait around for that eventuality. (This is where the attacking force will release their cavalry in pursuit, if they have it.) Most battles fought in the heyday of bayonet warfare - say, 1750-1870 - had pretty low bayonet casualties, under 10%.
European observers of the US Civil War commented that neither side seemed to carry home the charge with bayonets. Quite often, both sides would simply keep firing at each other until attrition in ranks took its toll on one side. Then again, neither side had a lot of cavalry that could exploit a rout - as most were mounted infantry.
But that so odd. Both sides will have bayonets. Was it just a game of chicken? Maybe one side should arm themselves with shields, or wear old school armor to render self immune to bayonet stab.
Apart from competency in archery - and that was mostly a Welsh and English thing - this is not supported historically. Well-armed peasants get ideas.
The French disbanded their longbow unit because it became so deadly, it could have upset the order of things - the order being, very much, that the rich landowners who could afford warhorses and armor were on top. Professional warriors in their retinue would enforce that.
Different for freemen. At times of war, they would be expected to take up arms and were expected to have equipment commensurate with their rank. Though not necessarily impressive gear, either. Henry IIs highest-ranking freemen were expected to have chainmail, helmet, shield and lance.
The rank and file could be issued pikes, shields and crossbows when called up. (Crossbows upset the order very much indeed. Armor-piercing bolts in the hands of a barely-trained commoner? Not cricket. Some commanders would kill captured crossbowmen out of hand, although have no qualms with employing their own. War.)
Obviously different in sieges, where the defenders would press anyone into service who could be taught to fire a crossbow or hold a pike.
Professional warriors kept on retainer will also get ideas. Look at the Mamelukes, Jannissaries, and Ghulams and all the empires they carved out from their masters domain.
In Europe the warriors were paid in land. Land was the most valuable commodity. In turn, they had peasants living on their land to work the land. They were also required to answer the call of the lord above them, and had to raise a small army.
Maybe these minors lords kept the arsenal locked away in the keep, but I think it be prudent they let their peasants train once in while. But the peasants must have had bow and arrows for hunting. They could just make themselves.
I remember there is manual out there dating back to the middle ages for peasant weapons training.
But that so odd. Both sides will have bayonets. Was it just a game of chicken? Maybe one side should arm themselves with shields, or wear old school armor to render self immune to bayonet stab.
Pretty much so. But the attacking force on "the charge" keeps coming and some will want to break and run away. Then the attackers flow there as they naturally exploit any break in the defender's line. And once the formation breaks individuals are at the mercy of the cavalry
But that so odd. Both sides will have bayonets. Was it just a game of chicken?
As weird as it sounds, that was what happened. Bayonet-on-bayonet fighting was rare (did happen), one unit breaking ranks and retreating happened much more often. The importance of well-drilled troops (who wouldn't break and run when on defense, and who'd keep marching forward as their lines thinned on offense) came into its own in that sort of fight.
I'd suspect gun ownership is very dependent on rural vs urban populations. In the former, people have hunted for game since forever, and still do, and guns have been the weapon of choice for centuries although bow ownership is still common. Besides hunting for food, they're used against predators and nuisance animals. In urban/suburban areas, gun ownership is dependent on many other factors (political, criminal, self-defense etc.).
And once the formation breaks individuals are at the mercy of the cavalry
If you have well-trained cavalry at the ready. Ney's premature cavalry charge at Waterloo achieved nothing and robbed Napoleon of his capacity to exploit any later break in the line. One bad decision that changed history.
ETA: Not that I mind, Napoleon was a right bastard.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 06-13-2021 at 12:44 PM..
I think at least from a Western perspective there was a long standing requirement going back to at least the Middle Ages that households were legally required to have weapons. Wars of that era were mostly fought by peasant armies who were called up during times of crisis.
The male head of the family would have had the military grade weaponry of the time. Bows and arrows, spears and pikes. Competency in archery was highly prized and wars were won or lost on the skills of ordinary people who were called up for service.
It was my understanding that for most of English history since the time of William the Conquerer, there was no militia system except for about 150 years starting with Henry VIII. England had one but William did away with it and replaced with a feudal system.
in 1511 King Henry reformed the defense of England and that is what started what might be loosely called a militia system. But those reforms required the Commissioners of Array to ensure the citizens were armed. The 1522 & 1535 muster surveys for Cornwall are online, but I am not posting a link since it includes advertisements for some reason. But they show how unarmed they actually were. Eventually, the Militia Act of 1558 passed; it was intended to improve the system, but was not too effective. The militia muster at Tilbury was only about 4,000 and the system remained mostly unused. The militia was called up during the English Civil War, but it performed miserably.
Farm implements: axes, sickles, and shovels make more for a mob than a fighting force and most people were peasants. Even a candle was a luxury.
It would be interesting to learn the makeup of the Scottish army at the Battle of Falkirk. Were the pikemen trained? Who had pikes? William Wallace used sharpened saplings at the Battle of Sterling, not pikes.
Last edited by webster; 06-13-2021 at 12:30 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
