7 Weapons that changed warfare

[The Dark]

and don't stop working in the rain (if stringed with linen).

Question: Were the bows of the Mongols strung with linen? I seem to remember that their bows didn't work as effectively in moist environments...

Mongols used animal hide, usually horseskin, IIRC.

[CJvR]

Pike - Dominated warfare for centuries, was around for ever.

Stirrup - Transformed the cavalry from a side show to the main event for centuries to come.

Gunpowder - The great revolution, the beginning of the end for both nomadic light cavalry and heavy cavalry.

Galleon - Prototype to the warships what would rule the seas for half a milennea.

The Tank - Did for mobility what gunpowder did for firepower.

The Aircraft - Added a new dimension to the battlefield.

[Prozac the Robert]

Ignored because it isn't a weapon* I guess, but rather important: the shield. It isn't just a bonus to your armour save, it allowed for a shield wall. A big bunch of people each offering each other vastly increased protection.

Lines or blocks of infantry armed with just a shield and some sort of one handed weapon dominated battlefields for an awful lot of history.

*So why mention it you ask? Well, radios, tanks and horses aren't strictly speaking weapons either. And as a last resort you can always bash someone in the face with a shield.

[Adrian Laguna]

and don't stop working in the rain (if stringed with linen).

Question: Were the bows of the Mongols strung with linen? I seem to remember that their bows didn't work as effectively in moist environments...

Mongols used animal hide, usually horseskin, IIRC.

The reason Mongol bows didn't work in wet environments is that they used composite bows. The glue that held them together didn't like water.

[Vendetta]

The Springfield 1903 has no place on that list, considering it was a Mauser 1898 rip-off.

The program wasn't about the Springfield 1903, it was about the 58 Springfield Rifled Musket. A weapon that had a vast impact on the course and tactics of the American Civil War, and was largely responsible for the advent of defensive and trench based warfare..

[Adrian Laguna]

In that case I agree with its inclusion. It's just that the 1903 is the first Springfield that comes to mind (it is a very good rifle, after all), and the list didn't specify which one it was.

[The Yosemite Bear]

let's not forget the venerable "Martini" (Martin-Henry) rifle.

[Darth Wong]

It seems better to focus on technological advancements than specific weapons. The way the list focuses on the culverin rather than the development of gunpowder seems silly to me. The culverin is nothing more than a slightly refined model of a technology that became possible only after the advent of gunpowder. It's like saying that fuel-injection was a more important development than the advent of the internal combustion engine.

My list of most important weapons:

1) The spear. The weapon that allowed mankind to achieve dominion over the animals, and the single most long-lived primary infantry weapon in all of human history. What other weapon dominated the battlefield for tens of thousands of years?

2) The bow. The first truly long-ranged weapon. Further refinements such as the longbow or crossbow may have improved the concept, but the great leap was to think of a way to use tension as a weapon.

3) Large naval vessels. The ability to carry large numbers of troops and weapons on a ship added an entire new dimension of warfare.

4) Gunpowder. Whether it be in the form of bombs or cannons, gunpowder totally changed the face of warfare. Wrangling over which particular gunpowder weapon was most significant is pointless.

5) Mass-manufacturing. By far the most critical element of modern warfare is the overwhelming industrial output made possible by mass-manufacturing techniques such as component standardization and assembly-line manufacturing.

6) High explosives. Not everyone realizes how much different high explosives are when compared to gunpowder. They're like night and day in terms of their behaviour. High explosives took us from musket fights to the nightmarish hellscape of World War I.

7) Flight. Like the first capable naval vessels, flight added an entire new dimension to warfare.

8) Weapons of Mass Destruction. First pioneered in World War I with chemical weapons, the spectre of WMD now casts a long shadow over the battlefield, and indeed, over the entire world.

[CmdrWilkens]

Honestly number 9 would need to be the Radio, the co-ordination and employment of the armies we see int he 20th century along with the utilization of aircraft all depend heavily upon the benifits of the radio. Simply put the lack of effective radios versus the availability of regularly usable radios is the difference between WWI and WWII.

[wolveraptor]

I noticed you discluded cavalry, and the subsequent refinements of it (tanks etc.) from that list. Was that purposeful?

Another advance I think is revolutionary is the development of battlefield formations. Prehistoric "armies" must've consisted of a few hundred Cro-Magnon running at each other with clubs and spears as fast as each individual's legs could carry him. It must've taken damn near forever for people to adjust to the idea of walking calmly into a band of armed-to-the-teeth enemies.

[Adrian Laguna]

2) The bow. The first truly long-ranged weapon. Further refinements such as the longbow or crossbow may have improved the concept, but the great leap was to think of a way to use tension as a weapon.

Both the atlatl and the sling are older than the bow. For thousands of years, the sling was both longer ranged and deadlier than the bow and arrow. In the Americas bows never became superior to slings, and it was the only weapon that truly gave the Spaniards any pause or cause for worry.

[Darth Wong]

2) The bow. The first truly long-ranged weapon. Further refinements such as the longbow or crossbow may have improved the concept, but the great leap was to think of a way to use tension as a weapon.

Both the atlatl and the sling are older than the bow. For thousands of years, the sling was both longer ranged and deadlier than the bow and arrow. In the Americas bows never became superior to slings, and it was the only weapon that truly gave the Spaniards any pause or cause for worry.

Did slings ever play such a major part in battles as the bow?

Of course, there's also the fact that the sling is not a tension-based weapon so it's a relatively minor change in terms of technology; it's basically a piece of cloth acting in the same manner as a person spinning and hurling a projectile.

[wolveraptor]

But did either of those inventions have the staying power of the bow, especially in countries where military advancements were constantly accumulating (i.e. not the West).
Let's face it: slings are just a way of extending the arm, making throwing more efficient. The process is essentially the same when you chuck a baseball.
The bow requires an entirely different thought-process. That's what makes it more "revolutionary".

EDIT: Damn, I was late. Obviously, I was referring to Adrian Laguna's post that I thought would be directly above mine, not Darth Wong's.

[Knife]

Without sounding too 'me too-ish'; I agree with the notion that saying various actual brands or models is ridiculous. In most cases it's the underlying concept behind a particular weapon that is truely revolutionary.

Bows in all their form must be in the list. Composite bows were an important refinement, as was the crossbow. But for thousands of years the bow was the primary ranged weapon.

As would gunpowder for the exact same reason as the primary ranged weapon with a new mechinism. Rifling was just a refinment of the concept.

Stirup, though calvary was around before it, the stirup allowed for maxinum power along with maxinum manuverability. Tactical mobility wins battles.

Naval warships. All the ancient and modern societies rely on trade and for most of mankinds history, it's been by sea that most of it happened. Whether it be the war galleys, or the race built frigate, the submarine or the aircraft carrier.

Airplane. Like the warship, new direction.

Industrialization. Nothing changed warfare like being able to out produce, out equip your enemy. To be able to fight at any time and not just between planting and harvesting. The ability to put out many times more weapons and troops than your enemy, even if they are not quite as good as he is, let alone be able to feed and maintain said army.

Nuclear weapons. Nuff said.

[Sam Or I]

The good old Rock Mrk. I.

(edit: I added Mrk. I)

[Adrian Laguna]

Did slings ever play such a major part in battles as the bow?

As a whole, no. Though mostly because by the Early Middle Ages they were obsolete. However, in ancient and classical times they did play a major part, very often giving hell to armies armed with only bows and javelins due to the range advantage. It did have less of an impact in the East were missile troops were often mounted on horses.

Of course, there's also the fact that the sling is not a tension-based weapon so it's a relatively minor change in terms of technology; it's basically a piece of cloth acting in the same manner as a person spinning and hurling a projectile.

True, and the sling did not have the same room for advancement that the bow had.

What I'm mostly disputing is "The bow. The first truly long-ranged weapon." In fact the first truly long ranged weapon is the sling, and it had double the bow's range for thousands of years. It was when someone took the tension concept and refined it, leading to composite and recurved bows, that the sling was left behind in the dust.

[Sarevok]

Adrian Laguna

Did the sling have as much impact as the bow ? The fact that the sling was used in the same era as the bow does not make it equal. The bow had much more impact on history by being used by more soldiers than slings and it remained the best ranged weapon till guns became practical. The sling was a novel concept but it did not revolutionize warfare like the bow.

[Sarevok]

By the way the original list is the "infotainment" bullshit that pervades so many publications today. They consider Saddam's penis size compensating orbital artillery cannon, a weapon that belongs more in a Austin Powers movie, as having revolutioned warfare.

The worst offender is the trojan horse. How the fuck did a dozen guys hiding in a wooden horse change warfare ? Why does not history books list the feared wooden horses that won so many battles besides a war that is more fiction than reality. And what on Earth does the B-2 stealth bomber have to do with trojan horses, nevermind that stealth bombers have yet to become a decisive weapon.

[The Grim Squeaker]

The list proposed by D.Wong looks good to me, though I'd make one addition as no3:
The Horse, AKA the Tank before there was a Tank, against societies unprepared for it it was almost as devastating as guns.
Just look at the Inca & Azteks, apart from the gargantuan population loss due to Germs (The greatest weapon of them all and arguably no 1.5 due to it being genuinely effective only after food production and mass animal domestication) and being hard pressed to hurt the Spanish with their steel armour they were constantly routed by the Spanish on fast moving horses that slaughtered them on open ground).

(And yes, I did read "Guns, Germs & Steel" over my vacation in Chile )

[wautd]

The good old Rock Mrk. I.

paper > rock

Ontopic:
The list on that sit looks like it's been made by a forteen year old. As if the list isn't bad enough, half of his modern equivalents are laughable

[brianeyci]

Well how far back are we going.

Olduwan choppers, making and improving your weapons of war compared to just picking something up and using it as a club is a significant advancement. Rock Mk. I can be a serious addition to the list, with stone weapons spanning hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of years if you go all the way back to primates.

I wonder if you could do a similar top ten list for science fiction franchises. I'm betting a lot of people would add lightsaber for Star Wars, when lightsabers are actually of extremely limited use. I'm also betting a lot of people would add phaser . Shields would make the list for sure.

EDIT: I can't help myself .

Faster than Light Travel : The first step to establishing an interstellar tyrrany!

Powered Armor : For dealing with those primitives who insist on using projectile weapons, and stepping into Grook's slime pit without an arm melting off.

Energy Weapons : Fast, reliable and comes in a dozen different colors.

Shields : Warships just aren't warships without shields. Shields up.

Teleportation : Beam a bomb into their basement.

Time Travel : Why kill them if you can make sure they were never born?

And of course the King : Walking Robots. Even the hardest of hard science fiction fans have to appreciate walking robots. Battle Godzilla on equal terms!

[Cos Dashit]

The list proposed by D.Wong looks good to me, though I'd make one addition as no3:
The Horse, AKA the Tank before there was a Tank, against societies unprepared for it it was almost as devastating as guns.
Just look at the Inca & Azteks, apart from the gargantuan population loss due to Germs (The greatest weapon of them all and arguably no 1.5 due to it being genuinely effective only after food production and mass animal domestication) and being hard pressed to hurt the Spanish with their steel armour they were constantly routed by the Spanish on fast moving horses that slaughtered them on open ground).

(And yes, I did read "Guns, Germs & Steel" over my vacation in Chile )

While smallpox and the such did devastate many non-Europeans, it wouldn't be considered an advancement in weaponry, and therefore wouldn't belong on this list.

[CmdrWilkens]

The list proposed by D.Wong looks good to me, though I'd make one addition as no3:
The Horse, AKA the Tank before there was a Tank, against societies unprepared for it it was almost as devastating as guns.
Just look at the Inca & Azteks, apart from the gargantuan population loss due to Germs (The greatest weapon of them all and arguably no 1.5 due to it being genuinely effective only after food production and mass animal domestication) and being hard pressed to hurt the Spanish with their steel armour they were constantly routed by the Spanish on fast moving horses that slaughtered them on open ground).

(And yes, I did read "Guns, Germs & Steel" over my vacation in Chile )

While smallpox and the such did devastate many non-Europeans, it wouldn't be considered an advancement in weaponry, and therefore wouldn't belong on this list.

Except that Alexander the Great intentionally used the tactics of biolgical warfare just not with smallpox. The Spaniards didn't deliberately infect their opponent but Alexander did. Thus the smallpox decimating the Aztec and the Inca isn't so much a weapon but the effect is in the same vein of biological warfare that is a weapon and has been since the 300 BCs when Alex was chucking the rotting corpses of cows into besieged cities.

[Zor]

I would have figured:

1) Catapult. Great siege weapon.
2) Longbow. No more nearly immobile, iron-clad knights.
3) Breach-loading rifle. Can you say, "Firepower Gap"?
4) Maxim Gun. The main cause of trench warfare.
5) Tank. No more trench warfare.
6) Planes/Missiles. Recon, stealth, bombing, etc.
7) Nuclear Bombs. Mutual Assured Destruction.

Longbows and crossbows had nowere near the effect that the Aquebus had. Sure a Longbow had longer range than an Aquebus, but to get that you needed to be trained from childhood in its use. To get someone proffisient in the use of a Knightslaying Aquebus, all it took was a few weeks of drilling.

Zor

The part about training is true. However, the deathblow to the longbow was industrialization and the rise of mass conscription. An English/Welsh longbow had roughly the same range and lethality as a Brown Bess musket of the 1700s, with six times the rate of fire. Until the development of the bolt-action rifle, gunpowder firearms were statistically inferior to the bow - only the simplicity of use by conscripts made gunpowder more appealing. To give an idea of the difference in rate of fire, arquebusiers (and musketeers) required pikemen to defend them while they reloaded. Archers put stakes in the ground to slow down cavalry, and did not require a bodyguard unit their own size to protect them.

However the Aquebus did have a revolutionary effect on warfare because of its ease to use and stopping power. It made gunpowder weapons the primary weapon of warfare insted of a footnote, as well as shifting the empisis to ranged fighting. Longbowmen were also limited in there users to a few areas.

Zor

[The Yosemite Bear]

no because they were insanely innaccurate. not until industrialization did guns become something very dangerous. In short it was the Mass of people firing guns, pell mell that had an impact, you had to actually close to point blank range to hope and hit something, wilst the bow was capable of giving accurate fire.