A industrial society that lags in military tech (RAR!)

[Zor]

This scenario is somewhat inspired by Tokugawa Japan.

Lets say we have a continent in a world populated by Humans, about the size of South America. This continent is ruled, in it's entirety by an Empire. Said Empire came to rule this continent about 500 or so years ago. They did so by developing matchlock firearms and pike and shot tactics and the creation of a well organized and administrated professional standing army which beat the feudal levies, warrior classes, local militias and mercenaries employed by other kingdoms. Thus bringing in a new age of peace and prosperity. To keep order a set of laws were introduced: private ownership of weaponry is illegal.

In this age, agriculture improved, the population increase, people moved more and more to the cities, science flourished and eventually a full blown industrial revolution happened. Factories emerged, rail lines crossed the Empire, ships had steam engines and eventually electricity is applied, radio is used and people have cars with IC engines (think 1910 as far as technology goes). Even so, weapons technology stagnates. The government sees no need to improve on what they have. Their military becomes more and more ceremonial and is at most used to deal with a few riots. At most they make use of industrial processes to streamline production.

Then something happens and it causes a civil war to break out. Maybe a general or political faction tries a coup, maybe it is an uprising of oppressed workers, maybe some provincial leader gets the support of some soldiers and does not want to put up with the Imperial government any more. What matters is now the country is up in arms. They have a fair amount of new technology available to them, including planes, trains, automobiles, steamships and radios. But their weapons are limited to short swords, cavalry sabers, pikes, halberds, composite bows and arquebuses, cannons are muzzle loading affairs, uniforms include breastplates and helmets and all their tactics involve the positioning of blocks of pikemen, halberdiers and arquebusiers with swift moving formations of mounted archers/pistoliers and lancers for cavalry.

The lands outside the Empire's boarders are inhabited, but they are populated by primitive peoples at an medieval level of technological development at best. The people of the Empire view them as Barbarians best left to their own devices. In any case, they are separated from them by at least a thousand kilometers of ocean in any direction.

How would things unfold in such a scenario?

Zor

[Borgholio]

Probably the same way weapons tech evolved in the real world with the advent of the industrial revolution. People asking, "How can I improve this weapon so that I can kill more people with it?"

[energiewende]

The best weapons designs would quickly match the technology. There's no special genius in the development of rifles or cannon; mostly it is a question of materials strength and tolerances which have been improved by the civilian industry anyway. The chemical industry's development of propellants may be the main bottleneck, but even then, some explosives were developed for civil purposes such as mining.

In the meantime, the most powerful weapons would likely be improvised flamethrowers, which would not require any more technology and resources than what is available. Mounted in an armoured car these would be practically invulnerable to the stated military weapons at least within cities, and such a thing should be buildable even by moderately wealthy private individuals, or small groups.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Humans are incredibly adaptive and inventive creatures. When the war breaks out, it won't be long before military technology explodes. What will lag behind is the actual doctrine to utilize the new technology properly - ageing generals, traditionalists and conservative policy makers will undoubtedly keep trying to line soldiers up with their pikes alongside newfangled Cars What Have Armor Plates And A Cannon.

Enterprising soldiers and forward-thinking generals will be the geniuses of the day as they figure out new doctrines like Hey Guys Let's Spread Out And Crawl In The Dirt, and I'm Going To Equip All Of My Men With These Here Repeating Breech Muskets.

How ready and well-thought-out those doctrines are will depend a lot on how long tensions brew before all out war. If it's a sudden thing, the pikemen may get slaughtered for years under improvised chemical explosive and incendiary weapons before properly engineered prototypes become real equipment and generals figure them out. If things have been simmering for a decade, then the smarter generals will probably have good plans and new equipment ready to go, and whichever side has the more inventive generals will likely see a lot of early gains in the war.

[energiewende]

The outcome would probably be even more radical - I wouldn't be surprised if in the early days private militias simply expelled the regular armies from the main population centres entirely. It would be difficult for them to get back into the game at that point, because they would have lost access to centres of industrial production. This is a problem with the whole scenario though: states don't tend to stagnate their weapons development even just for policing their own population. The Tokugawa Shogunate's (ineffective) attempt to ban muskets was precisely intended to prop up an obsolete feudal class that knew it couldn't compete as a governing authority in the new world. It was a last gasp of desperation, not a symptom of strength and security.

This depends on the specifics of the scenario of course. If there's a clean territorial break then the war may simply bog down in sort of proto-trench warfare, since civil engineering projects to build fortifications can use the civilian technology for military purposes with pretty much no time delay.

[Lolpah]

The outcome would probably be even more radical - I wouldn't be surprised if in the early days private militias simply expelled the regular armies from the main population centres entirely. It would be difficult for them to get back into the game at that point, because they would have lost access to centres of industrial production.

How would this happen? Remember, at the start of the scenario the militias would be no better equipped than the professional army. Sure, if the government has been breaking down for some time better equipped(or at least more organised and disciplined) private forces would have sprung up, but the scenario seems to indicate a rather sudden change. The specifics would depend on the type of the civil war in question, and how long was the government sliding into chaos.

Tokugawa Shogunate's (ineffective) attempt to ban muskets was precisely intended to prop up an obsolete feudal class that knew it couldn't compete as a governing authority in the new world. It was a last gasp of desperation, not a symptom of strength and security.

Wtf? The Tokugawa Shogunate lived in peace and stability for over 200 years despite being ruled by an "obsolete feudal class". I'd hardly call that a "last gasp of desperation". They never even banned guns - matchlocks were produced for the whole Edo period by state-regulated gunsmiths.

[energiewende]

The outcome would probably be even more radical - I wouldn't be surprised if in the early days private militias simply expelled the regular armies from the main population centres entirely. It would be difficult for them to get back into the game at that point, because they would have lost access to centres of industrial production.

How would this happen? Remember, at the start of the scenario the militias would be no better equipped than the professional army. Sure, if the government has been breaking down for some time better equipped(or at least more organised and disciplined) private forces would have sprung up, but the scenario seems to indicate a rather sudden change. The specifics would depend on the type of the civil war in question, and how long was the government sliding into chaos.

If the strongest weapon available is an armoured car with a flamethrower, the fire brigade or a hardware rental place is actually better equipped than the regular army, not just in terms of immediate access to materials, but having the right skills and mindset to be able to utilise them.

Tokugawa Shogunate's (ineffective) attempt to ban muskets was precisely intended to prop up an obsolete feudal class that knew it couldn't compete as a governing authority in the new world. It was a last gasp of desperation, not a symptom of strength and security.

Wtf? The Tokugawa Shogunate lived in peace and stability for over 200 years despite being ruled by an "obsolete feudal class". I'd hardly call that a "last gasp of desperation". They never even banned guns - matchlocks were produced for the whole Edo period by state-regulated gunsmiths.

They presided in peace over a backward country and were blown over by a gust of wind.

[Simon_Jester]

The thing that subverts Zor's idea the most here is that firearms in this era aren't just military weapons, and innovation in them isn't just a military phenomenon. People who go hunting in the woods and might encounter, say, a bear, have a practical problem (bear) and need a practical tool to solve it. They would really appreciate a gun that fires more than once, which uses a trigger mechanism that works in a light drizzle. Therefore, if the technology exists to build something like a caplock pistol, or better yet a caplock revolver, the incentive will be there for someone to build it.

This CAN (and did) result in situations where forces that equip themselves privately are marginally better equipped than a national military, but the gap is unlikely to be all that great.

[Zor]

The thing that subverts Zor's idea the most here is that firearms in this era aren't just military weapons, and innovation in them isn't just a military phenomenon. People who go hunting in the woods and might encounter, say, a bear, have a practical problem (bear) and need a practical tool to solve it. They would really appreciate a gun that fires more than once, which uses a trigger mechanism that works in a light drizzle. Therefore, if the technology exists to build something like a caplock pistol, or better yet a caplock revolver, the incentive will be there for someone to build it.

But private ownership of firearms is illegal in this Empire.

Zor

[Formless]

The outcome would probably be even more radical - I wouldn't be surprised if in the early days private militias simply expelled the regular armies from the main population centres entirely.

How would private militias arise when private ownership of weapons is illegal under (lets call them) neo-Roman law? That kind of establishment could only arise in the buildup towards the civil war(s) or during them. But beforehand it seems rather obvious that "no private weapon ownership" implies "and no private mercenary armies either".

If the strongest weapon available is an armoured car with a flamethrower, the fire brigade or a hardware rental place is actually better equipped than the regular army, not just in terms of immediate access to materials, but having the right skills and mindset to be able to utilise them.

How does that even follow? Firefighters aren't trained to fight men armed with swords and pikes, and certainly won't approach an area filled with musket balls and cannon shells flying through the air. They are trained to put out burning buildings and/or wildfires, not flamethrowers and other battlefield weapons specifically designed to kill folks.

How ready and well-thought-out those doctrines are will depend a lot on how long tensions brew before all out war. If it's a sudden thing, the pikemen may get slaughtered for years under improvised chemical explosive and incendiary weapons before properly engineered prototypes become real equipment and generals figure them out. If things have been simmering for a decade, then the smarter generals will probably have good plans and new equipment ready to go, and whichever side has the more inventive generals will likely see a lot of early gains in the war.

It may also depend on what technologies and tactics were used in the last great war, which could be up to 500 years ago according to Zor. Think of how things might deviate from the expected Napoleonic tactics if 500 years prior repeating crossbows similar to the Chinese design were used, but the states that had them still lost due to limited resources? They might see a resurgence, or even inspire the first repeating firearms. Thus you may see something similar to the machinegun nest come about far earlier than otherwise expected, even if they start with a modernized repeating crossbow or catapult.

Also, I imagine the first person to invent the bayonet or a similar pike-musket combination will be considered a genius in his time. It could help give the traditionalists a transitional weapon that allows for formation warfare while simultaneously keeping the flamethrower armed jeeps at bay, reducing casualties.

Some modern technology will necessarily lead to pseudo-modern doctrines, though. For instance, weapons technology has stagnated but not industrial technology or vehicle technology. Aviation was specifically mentioned in the OP, and that may lead to the same conclusions as modern warfare about the fluidity of the front lines. Civil war is likely to break out over colonial and historical divisions: conquered city states and kingdoms for instance may decide to try and break apart from the empire, and attempt to take all of their former territory with them. In that context, Zeppelins and early aircraft could easily fly above the range of artillery and thus over cities, where incendiaries would suddenly become a very devastating strategic weapon for punishing revolutionaries and destroying factories.

Paratroopers too-- in fact, in the context of the OP, they may be preferred as a method of taking control of cities without destroying them. I can imagine their use being a logical outgrowth of naval concepts like marines. Arms wise, they may find very similar weapons to be as useful in an urban environment as a naval one: pistols, cutlas, gladius or other short swords, and grenades. Maybe even the cutlas pistol if the above innovations in firearms comes about! This, energiewende, is where a mindset (though not training) similar to firefighter may come in handy for militias-- quick response units for close combat with air dropped combatants.

Speculating further, on the subject of weapons this may lead to political concepts after the war for less stringent weapons laws. Even if the empire can successfully put down revolts, local militias may be a necessary counter to this new kind of warfare. This could increase the lifespan of certain types of weapon like the sword and other blades that on the open battlefield were being obsoleted by pikes anyway. Every weapon has to evolve to fit the needs of the times, and its going to take a while for firearms to catch up with aviation. You don't just invent the submachinegun overnight.

The thing that subverts Zor's idea the most here is that firearms in this era aren't just military weapons, and innovation in them isn't just a military phenomenon. People who go hunting in the woods and might encounter, say, a bear, have a practical problem (bear) and need a practical tool to solve it. They would really appreciate a gun that fires more than once, which uses a trigger mechanism that works in a light drizzle. Therefore, if the technology exists to build something like a caplock pistol, or better yet a caplock revolver, the incentive will be there for someone to build it.

Maybe, maybe not. If they have hot peppers, its a small leap to discovering capsaicin; from there, pepper spray (hell, burn a hot pepper and you are in for a nasty surprise from the smoke); and then bear spray. Bear spray is notably more effective at deterring bears then modern firearms.

Now, where speculation on this scenario really breaks down is when we start asking what will happen as this civilization begins investigating nuclear physics...

[energiewende]

The outcome would probably be even more radical - I wouldn't be surprised if in the early days private militias simply expelled the regular armies from the main population centres entirely.

How would private militias arise when private ownership of weapons is illegal under (lets call them) neo-Roman law? That kind of establishment could only arise in the buildup towards the civil war(s) or during them. But beforehand it seems rather obvious that "no private weapon ownership" implies "and no private mercenary armies either".

The "army" technology is so backward that private groups would improvise technology as soon as the war broke out that would be superior to those possessed by the "army". I didn't assume these groups formed before the civil war.

If the strongest weapon available is an armoured car with a flamethrower, the fire brigade or a hardware rental place is actually better equipped than the regular army, not just in terms of immediate access to materials, but having the right skills and mindset to be able to utilise them.

How does that even follow? Firefighters aren't trained to fight men armed with swords and pikes, and certainly won't approach an area filled with musket balls and cannon shells flying through the air. They are trained to put out burning buildings and/or wildfires, not flamethrowers and other battlefield weapons specifically designed to kill folks.

No specific training is required. They can easily construct a vehicle that's simply immune to all those weapons except perhaps the cannon balls, and those can't be accurately aimed or practically deployed within cities.

The specific push-of-pike soldier training will be a disadvantage in this scenario because it will inculcate a desire to use this training, rather than adopting other methods. Experience as a blacksmith of vehicle technician is more valuable than military training.

[Formless]

The "army" technology is so backward that private groups would improvise technology as soon as the war broke out that would be superior to those possessed by the "army". I didn't assume these groups formed before the civil war.

That's a leap in logic if I ever saw one. The problem isn't technology, but conceptual thinking. How do I use new technology? What gear should I bring with me on campaign? What strategy am I using going into this war? How am I paying for all this anyway? Where am I getting the training for my soldiers?

If the neo-Roman Imperial armies are still answering these questions based on 500 year old data, so too will the militias, revolutionary groups, separatists and mercenary armies that come about, at least initially. They are equally inexperienced as their enemies, or more so.

No specific training is required. They can easily construct a vehicle that's simply immune to all those weapons except perhaps the cannon balls, and those can't be accurately aimed or practically deployed within cities.

You are amazing, simply amazing. How the hell does a firefighter do his job while confined to an armored vehicle? Firefighters are highly trained, not simple jackasses. You are like an onion of ignorance.

The specific push-of-pike soldier training will be a disadvantage in this scenario because it will inculcate a desire to use this training, rather than adopting other methods. Experience as a blacksmith of vehicle technician is more valuable than military training.

They have muskets and cannons; armor is heavy as shit and slows vehicles down. They have men trained in close combat; the firefighters are not conditioned for the stresses of combat. And the greatest irony is that if your vehicle is powered with a combustion engine (which it certainly is), then it too is vulnerable to incendiary weapons. The fuel tank, the exhaust, the crew inside (smoke inhalation)-- the Fins made mincemeat of Russian tanks using Molotov Cocktails. The Fins named them, even. And you can try as you like to run over soldiers (assuming the armor doesn't weigh you down until this is impractical), but in no era did soldiers stand in one place to be run over by cavalry because they aren't complete idiots like you. They surround the pseudo-tank, climb on top, open the hatch, and drag the crew of civilians outside to be murdered with swords and daggers. Just as infantry did back in the days of horsemen. Even today, if you can believe it, infantry are the bane of tanks. The best solution to that is marching troops alongside the armored vehicles to shoot other infantry who dare try approach the armor division with RPGs and satchel charges.

Your understanding of combat and war, regardless of the time period, is childish. Simply ignorant. Go back, learn something, and try again.

[energiewende]

The "army" technology is so backward that private groups would improvise technology as soon as the war broke out that would be superior to those possessed by the "army". I didn't assume these groups formed before the civil war.

That's a leap in logic if I ever saw one. The problem isn't technology, but conceptual thinking. How do I use new technology? What gear should I bring with me on campaign? What strategy am I using going into this war? How am I paying for all this anyway? Where am I getting the training for my soldiers?

If the neo-Roman Imperial armies are still answering these questions based on 500 year old data, so too will the militias, revolutionary groups, separatists and mercenary armies that come about, at least initially. They are equally inexperienced as their enemies, or more so.

War is a zero sum game, and everyone else is at least as incompetent as you at modern military technique. The difference is that while you have training that is incidentally relevant (how to build and operate machines) the army has training that is irrelevant and therefore diverts its effort in the wrong direction. Improvised armoured cars are contemporary to this period in actual history, but there they were just one weapon on a battlefield full of mobile steel guns, machineguns, and repeating rifles. In this universe, they're the most powerful weapon on any battlefield.

No specific training is required. They can easily construct a vehicle that's simply immune to all those weapons except perhaps the cannon balls, and those can't be accurately aimed or practically deployed within cities.

You are amazing, simply amazing. How the hell does a firefighter do his job while confined to an armored vehicle? Firefighters are highly trained, not simple jackasses. You are like an onion of ignorance.

My point is that these people would make good militiamen, not that they would continue to do their civilian jobs. Have I misinterpreted this question?

The specific push-of-pike soldier training will be a disadvantage in this scenario because it will inculcate a desire to use this training, rather than adopting other methods. Experience as a blacksmith of vehicle technician is more valuable than military training.

They have muskets and cannons; armor is heavy as shit and slows vehicles down. They have men trained in close combat; the firefighters are not conditioned for the stresses of combat. And the greatest irony is that if your vehicle is powered with a combustion engine (which it certainly is), then it too is vulnerable to incendiary weapons. The fuel tank, the exhaust, the crew inside (smoke inhalation)-- the Fins made mincemeat of Russian tanks using Molotov Cocktails. The Fins named them, even. And you can try as you like to run over soldiers (assuming the armor doesn't weigh you down until this is impractical), but in no era did soldiers stand in one place to be run over by cavalry because they aren't complete idiots like you. They surround the pseudo-tank, climb on top, open the hatch, and drag the crew of civilians outside to be murdered with swords and daggers. Just as infantry did back in the days of horsemen. Even today, if you can believe it, infantry are the bane of tanks. The best solution to that is marching troops alongside the armored vehicles to shoot other infantry who dare try approach the armor division with RPGs and satchel charges.

Your understanding of combat and war, regardless of the time period, is childish. Simply ignorant. Go back, learn something, and try again.

If I have molotov cocktails they may have a good chance against your armored cars, but that's a modern weapon. How does training for push of pike help me to deploy a molotov cocktail? Won't being encumbered with a lot of heavy metalwork that I don't want to abandon rather impede my efforts? Won't I want to use my training and obey the orders of my officers, to maintain a tight formation with my pike and breastplate where I become an obvious and largely defenceless target for improvised armored cars and molotov cocktails? Which is precisely my point - private militias are more likely to adopt effective techniques like using molotov cocktails than the army, which is encumbered with all sorts of outdated doctrines and methods.

[Formless]

Why am I even bothering...

War is a zero sum game, and everyone else is at least as incompetent as you. The difference is that while you have training that is incidentally relevant (how to build and operate machines) the army has training that is irrelevant

Their training conditions them for the stresses of combat. A firefighter or technician has no such conditioning. You lose, sir. You have no idea what you are talking about or the purpose of combat training, whether its training with a gun or with a sword. You can not simply throw people with civilian skills into combat and expect them to live. They will simply shit themselves and run the other way as soon as they hear the booming of cannon fire or the battlecry of pikemen charging. We are talking about a culture who sees muskets as legitimate weapons of war, and "obsolescence" in the eyes of the populace is relative to that fact. As it should be. Swords and daggers are as deadly today as they were a thousand years ago. Pikes are fucking frightening to attack without good firearms. Flamethrowers... those practically hijack one of our most basic survival instincts and makes anyone not specifically trained to fight fire clam up and freeze. The Imperial armies have obsolete technology and tactics. Their training however is directly relevant to their job even despite that. A firefighter's is not.

Technicians have a place in war, but that place is as far from the fighting as feasible unless they are expected to fight as regular soldiers. Unfortunately for you, in this scenario the training of a regular soldier is what it is-- based on wars fought 500 years ago. There is no other warfighting model for them to fall back on until the next war is fought and new methods are invented for them.

Here's the ignorance. Greek Fire was invented thousands of years ago, and it was waterproof. The recipe is lost because it was kept a secret by the byzantine empire (iirc), but its easy for a society with chemical knowledge to duplicate that property-- elemental phosphorus. So your firefighters would be screwed. That's just for starters. The armor quip was directed at your proposed fire-tank. Not the soldiers. Its the tank that is slowed down by its armor. And it needs that armor to survive musket fire and cannon shells. This isn't an instant win super-weapon. The fact that you are trying to look for one indicates just how little understanding you have of warfare. No weapon short of an atomic bomb can win a war all by itself (and even that can be debated once you get into subtypes of nuke). Third point of ignorance: pikemen always had to deal with cavalry. Vehicles are just the next evolution of cavalry, but without the horse. Anti-tank tactics are conceptually identical. Just because a vehicle is new to these people doesn't mean the solution won't be obvious. Draw the cavalry into the formation on purpose so that they can't escape and you can drag them off their horse and kill them with daggers. To take vehicles, surround them so they can't escape, and then do... pretty much the same thing, but with bombs and guns. Tactics like this are blood ancient, going as far back as the real life Romans. You've just have never heard of them because you are convinced that all effective tactics were invented in the 20'th century.

[energiewende]

I am quite confident that most effective tactics against 20th century weapons were invented in the 20th century. Having ignored the discussion, however, I'm not sure what else to say except refer you again to my previous post. No one has any experience of or relevant training for the type of fighting that will occur. Civilians, however, will have the least-useless technicial skills to take advantage of the crushing technological superiority that is available.

[Formless]

I see. You have no willingness to actually correct your chronological snobbery or admit that warfare evolved gradually rather than in sudden leaps like you want it to. I gave the examples, you ignored them. You have no argument, so I ask you: concede. Suck it up, and stop being stubborn.

[energiewende]

Evolution is a selection process. You're arguing we should back the creature that has extensively adapted into a niche that just ceased to exist, versus one that can survive less well in that niche but much better elsewhere.

[Formless]

Evolution =! natural selection. I guess we should put biology on the list of things you are ignorant of? Or perhaps language skills?

Evolution means change over time. Nothing more, nothing less. It can and is applied to things besides biological evolution. In this case, the evolution of warfare means the change of tactics and strategy both in the invention of new technologies and techniques needed to fight them, and also the process by which one technology that fulfills a certain role is replaced by another that fulfills the same role, and can be defeated using adaptations of tactics used against the predecessor technology. Cavalry was replaced by tanks, but both are beaten by the same method: surround and trap them with infantry, then move in for the kill. Its the same principle, different technologies.

[Grumman]

Their training conditions them for the stresses of combat.

Their training is delivered by men who wouldn't know the stresses of combat if it kicked them in the arse. Five hundred years is a long time for doctrine to atrophy.

[SMJB]

They presided in peace over a backward country and were blown over by a gust of wind.

Two hundred years later. By a "gust of wind" from outside their empire. In the form of Commodore Peary.

Now, where speculation on this scenario really breaks down is when we start asking what will happen as this civilization begins investigating nuclear physics...

Oh, now that is truly evil. XD

You are like an onion of ignorance.

I admit it, I lol'd. Onion of ignorance. Classic!

If I have molotov cocktails they may have a good chance against your armored cars, but that's a modern weapon. How does training for push of pike help me to deploy a molotov cocktail?

Dude, it is a Molotov cocktail. It is, literally, a bottle of incendiary fluid with a wick, that when you throw at things, the bottle breaks, the fluid ignites, and the thing catches fire. This is not the most difficult concept in the world to grasp! It is pretty much as low-maintenance as weapons get short of picking up a rock and throwing it at somebody, and it will be apparent from the first use that it's a fiendishly effective weapon, at that.

Their training conditions them for the stresses of combat.

Their training is delivered by men who wouldn't know the stresses of combat if it kicked them in the arse. Five hundred years is a long time for doctrine to atrophy.

True, but that at worst puts them in the same boat as the rebels.

[energiewende]

Evolution =! natural selection. I guess we should put biology on the list of things you are ignorant of? Or perhaps language skills?

Evolution means change over time. Nothing more, nothing less. It can and is applied to things besides biological evolution. In this case, the evolution of warfare means the change of tactics and strategy both in the invention of new technologies and techniques needed to fight them, and also the process by which one technology that fulfills a certain role is replaced by another that fulfills the same role, and can be defeated using adaptations of tactics used against the predecessor technology. Cavalry was replaced by tanks, but both are beaten by the same method: surround and trap them with infantry, then move in for the kill. Its the same principle, different technologies.

At first I took your claims to be knowledgeable about military science at face value; it's after all taught to some pretty mediocre people and this question touches on much broader matters. But if you think that tanks "replaced cavalry" in "the same role", or that an effective strategy against them was to "surround and trap them with infantry", it seems you're clueless about all matters of relevance to this thread.

Taking your absurd claims at face value: pikemen are not adapted or trained to trap tanks and destroy them with molotov cocktails. Their training and equipment in fact makes them highly ineffective if employed in this way.

Two hundred years later. By a "gust of wind" from outside their empire. In the form of Commodore Peary.

What other nation of 30 million suffered radical upheaval from the arrival of four frigates? The anti-colonialists like to build it up as some dreadful calamity, while the US right of course likes to make out they were tremendously strong. But Perry's squadron would have run out of gunpowder having killed perhaps a fraction of a percent of the population of Edo, then sailed away. Never was so little force applied to such great effect.

Dude, it is a Molotov cocktail. It is, literally, a bottle of incendiary fluid with a wick, that when you throw at things, the bottle breaks, the fluid ignites, and the thing catches fire. This is not the most difficult concept in the world to grasp! It is pretty much as low-maintenance as weapons get short of picking up a rock and throwing it at somebody, and it will be apparent from the first use that it's a fiendishly effective weapon, at that.

You're missing the point as you trip over yourself to be childishly condescending. The fact that the Molotov cocktail is, 1. one of the most powerful weapons available and 2. easily manufactured by anyone, is precisely why the army will be at such a disadvantage. It's as if market stalls were handing out ballistic missiles on the streets of Baghdad, and the passers-by knew exactly where to point them to hit DC. Well, that and the US suddenly forgot what radar is, dispatching Paul Revere to shout "The missiles are coming!" from his look-out post on the Chesapeake.

[SMJB]

Two hundred years later. By a "gust of wind" from outside their empire. In the form of Commodore Peary.

What other nation of 30 million suffered radical upheaval from the arrival of four frigates? The anti-colonialists like to build it up as some dreadful calamity, while the US right of course likes to make out they were tremendously strong. But Perry's squadron would have run out of gunpowder having killed perhaps a fraction of a percent of the population of Edo, then sailed away. Never was so little force applied to such great effect.

This doesn't change the fact that it was stable for the previous two centuries, and that it took an outside force to destabilize it. An outside force which it doesn't appear to have any equivalent in the world we're discussing.

As to so little force being used to such effect, the conquest of the Inka comes to mind. It was, like, twenty or so conquistadors vs. the greatest empire in the New World, and the conquistadors won!

Dude, it is a Molotov cocktail. It is, literally, a bottle of incendiary fluid with a wick, that when you throw at things, the bottle breaks, the fluid ignites, and the thing catches fire. This is not the most difficult concept in the world to grasp! It is pretty much as low-maintenance as weapons get short of picking up a rock and throwing it at somebody, and it will be apparent from the first use that it's a fiendishly effective weapon, at that.

You're missing the point as you trip over yourself to be childishly condescending. The fact that the Molotov cocktail is, 1. one of the most powerful weapons available and 2. easily manufactured by anyone, is precisely why the army will be at such a disadvantage.

Except, you know, they can make them too? And I do believe the point the other poster was making was that Molotov cocktails would make short work of those armored fire engines you were proposing would give the rebels such an advantage.

It's as if market stalls were handing out ballistic missiles on the streets of Baghdad, and the passers-by knew exactly where to point them to hit DC. Well, that and the US suddenly forgot what radar is, dispatching Paul Revere to shout "The missiles are coming!" from his look-out post on the Chesapeake.

...
...
...

What???

No. It is not equivalent to that at all. To use a Molotov, you have to be present at the scene. Giving the enemy the opportunity to kill you back, or even before you've managed to throw it. Who can totally see the Molotov coming in the few seconds/split seconds of its trajectory, by the way, so I don't even know where you're going with this Paul Revere shit. And by the way, it's not a "Fuck You, I Win!" button, either--it is best used on things that can't maneuver out of the way fast enough to avoid them.

[energiewende]

This is becoming tedious.

The army can only utilise weapons like molotov cocktails and armored cars by completely abandoning all its equipment, doctrine and tactics. The army therefore has, at best, no clear advantage over the general population. But in practical terms, all these weapons need to be built, and the army is worse than sizable fractions of the civil population at doing that. Worse still, the army's equipment, doctrine and tactics are likely to be used by the army, at least at first. The army is less likely to utilize novel techniques than civil "entrepreneurs".

The effect is to give the civil population, or any random subsection of it with its own grievances, equivalent warmaking potential to the army, and possibly even more.

[SMJB]

The army can only utilise weapons like molotov cocktails and armored cars by completely abandoning all its equipment, doctrine and tactics.

Oh, please! They still have to get out of the car to do any real fighting. It's basically a motorized chariot. What are you going to do, run enemy soldiers over? Better to have than not have, certainly, but not ZE UBERWEAPON UV DOOOOM. And Molotov cocktails are mainly useful against said cars!So yeah, old tactics will have to be rethought and updated, but the rebels are at best operating out of the same playbook when the war starts--they'll be making it up as they go along at least as much as the army is as things continue.

The army therefore has, at best, no clear advantage over the general population.

Correction: that's the worst case scenario, which assumes that discipline has completely rotted in the five hundred years since the last war beyond anything even remotely useful.

But in practical terms, all these weapons need to be built, and the army is worse than sizable fractions of the civil population at doing that.

Firstly, it don't take a whole lot of skills to throw together a Molotov cocktail. As for cars, any worker who is working on building them isn't fighting in the field. Thirdly, if the rebellion is widespread enough to deny the army every manufacturing base in the continent, or at least enough of the most important ones to fatally hamstring their materiel effort, fuck all this new tech bullshit, they've already won!

Worse still, the army's equipment, doctrine and tactics are likely to be used by the army, at least at first. The army is less likely to utilize novel techniques than civil "entrepreneurs".

Based on what do you make this rather bold assertion? Even if the rebels are more adaptable at first...um, don't you think the army will eventually notice that it's getting its ass kicked? Tactics evolve in response to what the other guy is doing.

The effect is to give the civil population, or any random subsection of it with its own grievances, equivalent warmaking potential to the army, and possibly even more.

Equivalent, maybe--assuming, once again, that the deterioration of the army's discipline in the last 500 years was terminal. Because they will be using the exact same sort of tech, and in that case the side that's more disciplined will win. Well depending on the respective sizes of the sides and other such factors.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The OP stated that the army had occasionally been used to quell small(ish) uprisings, so fighting a rebelling civilian population will be what they are most familiar with.

On the other hand, given these uprisings happening, I think weapons such as Molotovs might already exist. They're a popular weapon in riots today and the idea would probably have occurred to someone in those uprisings as a way to fight against the Army without firearms.

This does of course mean the Army would expect such weapons and would have at least a notion of how to deal with them.