Weapons that changed the course of History

[Nicholas]

What happens have dramatically altered the course of history?

[Little Shepherd]

Metal Fans:
For ages, the courtesan population was a poor source of assassins. An ingenious man thought to work sharp metal into the fans one day, and this opened up a whole new world of possibilities. Sure, the women had to adjust -- their wrists weren't used to carrying something so heavy. Once trained, though, a handful of courtesans could bring entire continents to their knees.

[Vigilante]

Propaganda machines

[JusticeMachine]

What happens have dramatically altered the course of history?

I think it is who ever invented the really big stick. Which was futher refined by Teddy when he discovered that it is good to walk softly with it.

[Nicholas]

Metal Fans:
For ages, the courtesan population was a poor source of assassins. An ingenious man thought to work sharp metal into the fans one day, and this opened up a whole new world of possibilities. Sure, the women had to adjust -- their wrists weren't used to carrying something so heavy. Once trained, though, a handful of courtesans could bring entire continents to their knees.

Interesting, but I was thinking more of weapons that had a major impact on the battlefield.

[Nicholas]

Propaganda machines

Any particular form of propaganda? Or just anything that hurts the enemies morale?

[Nicholas]

I think it is who ever invented the really big stick. Which was futher refined by Teddy when he discovered that it is good to walk softly with it.

I suppose sticks, being among the first weapons, were important.

[Vigilante]

Any particular form of propaganda? Or just anything that hurts the enemies morale?

Actually, anything that keeps your OWN team dedicated to the fight. Making them think the enemy is the devil, that the sky will fall on the heads of your family if you don't kill as many as possible.


Another weapon is women. Just look what happened when Mossy took the Spartans to fight the Persians! They would have never lasted so long!
Then there is:
Xena
The chick from Kill Bill
The chicks in Hidden Dragon

And so many more. Ever since women began beating men over the head with a club and dragging them back to the cave, they have secretly been running the world.

[JusticeMachine]

I suppose sticks, being among the first weapons, were important.

I've watch many history channel & military channel shows regarding weapons and their invention.

I would say that tactics, more that a specific weapon is what shaped human history and changed warfare.

The spear, for instance, as a throwing weapon, has been around for 1000's of years, but was perfected by the romans, in the pilum. However, it was perfect, only in so far as it fit the tactics they used perfectly. The same spear in the hands of the Gauls would have been much less effective as the tactics the Gauls used wouldn't have fitted what the spear was designed for.

As for advances in weapon tech, I think the first major advance was metal working, next, would be gun powder......etc

[Cowthulu]

Not necessarily a weapon but the stirrup dramatically altered the tactics of warfare.

[Gideon Brown]

It's an interesting question - to look not only at the ways in which weapons were decisive on the battlefield, but also how history itself might have been different without them.

Weapons that changed the course of history:

1) Machine gun: without the machine gun's ability to quickly kill large masses of men, creating the stalemates of the trenches, World War I would have unfolded far differently. It's hard to say for sure who would have won, but it seems likely that the war might have been much shorter or victory might have been much more decisive for the winners.

World War I, as one of the main causes of World War II, really helped shape the course of the entire twentieth century, and so, if the war had been different because the machine gun hadn't been invented yet, the whole twentieth century might well have turned out differently.

(For example, it's quite plausible that had World War I ended quickly - as it likely would have without the machine gun - World War II might not have happened. And if WWII hadn't happened - well, lots of subsequent events might very well not have occurred. Heck, think of it - if WWI had ended in 1915 or 1916 instead of 1918, the USA might never have turned away from isolationism! The Russian Revolution might not have succeeded! And all because of this weapon.)


I'm not so knowledgeable about ancient or medieval history, so I dunno about bows, swords, polearms or such things. And this is all I have time for anyway. :blush:

[JusticeMachine]

It's an interesting question - to look not only at the ways in which weapons were decisive on the battlefield, but also how history itself might have been different without them.

Weapons that changed the course of history:

1) Machine gun: without the machine gun's ability to quickly kill large masses of men, creating the stalemates of the trenches, World War I would have unfolded far differently. It's hard to say for sure who would have won, but it seems likely that the war might have been much shorter or victory might have been much more decisive for the winners.

World War I, as one of the main causes of World War II, really helped shape the course of the entire twentieth century, and so, if the war had been different because the machine gun hadn't been invented yet, the whole twentieth century might well have turned out differently.

(For example, it's quite plausible that had World War I ended quickly - as it likely would have without the machine gun - World War II might not have happened. And if WWII hadn't happened - well, lots of subsequent events might very well not have occurred. Heck, think of it - if WWI had ended in 1915 or 1916 instead of 1918, the USA might never have turned away from isolationism! The Russian Revolution might not have succeeded! And all because of this weapon.)


I'm not so knowledgeable about ancient or medieval history, so I dunno about bows, swords, polearms or such things. And this is all I have time for anyway. :blush:



That is an interesting thing about the machine gun, but it seem weapons, are nearly always trumped by tactics. WW1 vs WW2 is a classic example of how the machine guns role changed as better tactics emerged.

The Tank atributed to that, but even that is an example of tactics defining/refining the weapon.

[Cowthulu]

That is an interesting thing about the machine gun, but it seem weapons, are nearly always trumped by tactics. WW1 vs WW2 is a classic example of how the machine guns role changed as better tactics emerged.

The Tank atributed to that, but even that is an example of tactics defining/refining the weapon.

You seem to be arguing that tactics shape the weapons? That confuses me because it is sometimes both ways. Am I reading you incorrectly?

For example the M1 Garand was dropped as rifle of choice partially due to the human wave tactics of the chinese in the Korean war. Conversely the stirrup allowed cavalry to play a much larger role in war because it became so much harder to unhorse someone.

[Vigilante]

The gut-wrenching question is, have mankind always USED the weapons they've invented?
So far, it seems, they have. If I'm not wrong, only one nuke, and not a terribly big one, was used in war. But are we really safe in thinking the thousands of others will never ever be used?

Mankind has always used the weapons it has built. Get ready for nuclear war!

[JusticeMachine]

You seem to be arguing that tactics shape the weapons? That confuses me because it is sometimes both ways. Am I reading you incorrectly?

For example the M1 Garand was dropped as rifle of choice partially due to the human wave tactics of the chinese in the Korean war. Conversely the stirrup allowed cavalry to play a much larger role in war because it became so much harder to unhorse someone.



Maybe it would be better to say, a new weapon changes tactics and tactics refine and redefine the weapon.

But there have been plenty of new weapons, so what goes into deciding whether or not a weapon is used and capitalized upon are tactics.

So if you look at two side armed similarly, tactics will decide the weapons, not the weapon. In fact, tactics can overcome weapon superiority in many cases.

How the allieds used the Sherman to defeat the panzers and tigers is a good example of that.

[Pilgrim]

Weapons of mass destru....err...disappearance. They sure affected recent history. And its all the more interesting because they weren't actually there.

[Faramir]

The stirrup (which has already been mentioned) and the cross bow, were the two that came to mind.

[JusticeMachine]

The gut-wrenching question is, have mankind always USED the weapons they've invented?
So far, it seems, they have. If I'm not wrong, only one nuke, and not a terribly big one, was used in war. But are we really safe in thinking the thousands of others will never ever be used?

Mankind has always used the weapons it has built. Get ready for nuclear war!

Two actually, Heroshima and Nagisaki (sp?)

[JusticeMachine]

Weapons of mass destru....err...disappearance. They sure affected recent history. And its all the more interesting because they weren't actually there.

No, they weren't when we final went it. However, he had had them at some point, we know because he used them on his own people. And of course he certianly obstructed weapsons inspectors as if he was hidding them, or something.

[Vigilante]

Plus they had a good two years to get rid of them before we went looking. They aren't dummies. Thank our news media for telling the world all our secret battle plans and strategies. Spies aren't even necessary any more, they just turn on cable.

[Nicholas]

Pilgrim, JusticeMachine, and Vigilante. I would like to politely request that we keep the discussion on topic.

[rogue06]

The sling. Even the poorest peasant could be effective on the battlefield.

The sword. Looked how it shape cultures from Medieval Europe to Japan.

The axe. Cheaper than a sword and some versions are effective throwing weapons.

[JonLanceBarker]

whatever Cain used (probably a club-like stick) to kill Abel. :whistle:

[rogue06]

The rock. Fashioned into clubs, axes, daggers, arrowheads and spearheads, or thrown. Along with the stick, it is the oldest weapon known as was used for thousands of years before metal came along.

Fire. Everything from a burning branch used to keep a predator out of your cave to thermite and napalm.

[woodyster]

What I find interesting is not what tactics or weapons changed ar, but the fact that tactics were always one step behind technology. Hence human-wave attacks in WWI against machine guns and barbed wire. I think a persuasive arguement for weapons like the machine gun or breech-loading rifled artillery can be made, but really it is information in the end which ifluences the outcome of war. From this perspective, I think that things such as the radio or the telegraph are pretty far up there.

[Paintbucket]

Well, I'll give it a go:

The iron spear. Cheaper and easier to mass produce than bronze.
Greek Fire. Chemical warfare at its earliest.
The mounted warrior. Move faster, deal more damage.
The Welsh longbow. The beginnings of superior ranged firepower.
The arquebus/musket. The start of equipping troops with guns.
Bombards and cannons. Walls are no longer keeping a city safe.
The rifle. More accurate than the musket.
The aircraft. Assault from the sky.
The Nuke. The most devestating weapon ever.
Cruise missiles. One click, and a target half a world away is destroyed.

There's a few for you. What's next?

[Ratnat]

Well, I'll give it a go:

The iron spear. Cheaper and easier to mass produce than bronze.
Greek Fire. Chemical warfare at its earliest.
The mounted warrior. Move faster, deal more damage.
The Welsh longbow. The beginnings of superior ranged firepower.
The arquebus/musket. The start of equipping troops with guns.
Bombards and cannons. Walls are no longer keeping a city safe.
The rifle. More accurate than the musket.
The aircraft. Assault from the sky.
The Nuke. The most devestating weapon ever.
Cruise missiles. One click, and a target half a world away is destroyed.

There's a few for you. What's next?

Poison and cryptography

[jesusfreak]

I would have to say the weapon that shaped the battlefield the most was Napalm during the Vietnam war. It was both physical and phycological or how ever you spell it. anyway it was big because we droped one of those things. It cleared forest and burned people alive. It was also phycological for the same reason. People saw other people buring alive and there was nothing they could do about it. Just the sight of seeing somebody covered in that burning Napalm was enough for some people to go crazy.

[Storico]

Ironically enough, gunpowder. As far as we know, it was invented by Chinese alchemists in the mid 9th century, and it was part of their quest for the elixir of immortality. Many think it was used JUST for fireworks, but it was also used for military reasons at the same time. I can't help but think how differently several wars and conflicts would have turned out if we didn't have the knowledge of gunpowder and hadn't built on it. It spread from China to other parts of Asia and Europe only a couple centuries after it was first made.

[Jezz]

I could say things like iron working and gunpowder, but these were not actual weapons - they were technologies that enabled certain weapons.

Iron working enabled swords and heavy armour, which definitely made a difference.

Gunpowder enabled cannons and muskets/rifles, which likewise changed the face of warfare.

The machine gun. It was the first weapon that made it easy to kill a whole lot of people in a very short time. This fact took a while to sink in and was the cause of the high casualty rates during WWI.

Aircraft. Air dominance has become a key factor in modern warfare, and was the reason that the allies eventually won WWII. If WWII had been a surface war only, Germany might have won.

Nuclear weapons. The first weapon that made it frighteningly easy to wipe out an entire country. Their advent definitely changed the course of history, and has been at least partly responsible for a long period of relative world peace since WWII (all of the world's major powers are too scared to go to war with each other now).

[historic salve]

Ironically enough, gunpowder. As far as we know, it was invented by Chinese alchemists in the mid 9th century, and it was part of their quest for the elixir of immortality. Many think it was used JUST for fireworks, but it was also used for military reasons at the same time. I can't help but think how differently several wars and conflicts would have turned out if we didn't have the knowledge of gunpowder and hadn't built on it. It spread from China to other parts of Asia and Europe only a couple centuries after it was first made.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_warfare) places its use in Europe in the 15th century, which is still a bit late.

[Teallaura]

The mortar - which is the reason the US has no true castles. The mortar rendered them obsolete.

[One Bad Pig]

The Gatling gun (first machine gun) and breech-loaded rifles both effected decisive increases in rate of fire.

The aircraft carrier forever changed naval warfare, as did the submarine.

Greek fire.

[JonLanceBarker]

um...what's Greek fire? :huh:

[Littlejoe]

um...what's Greek fire? :huh:

Sorta like a manually operated flame thrower. Spewed flaming liquid out about 6- 10 feet. IIRC it used naptha as the combustable agent.

LJ

[Nicholas]

um...what's Greek fire? :huh:

Think ancient napalm.

[freethinker]

The laminated bow. The Egyptians used it to defeat the Sea People. The Parthians defeated the Romans with it. The Mongols terrorized a whole continent with it.
And Rambo conquered the whole world with it.

[almightydollar]

What happens have dramatically altered the course of history?
The atlatl. Suddenly Mr. Early Man could hurl spears and other pointy-stick-type-hings faster and farther and harder than ever before.

They're still around too, in fact. I've got a weird little plastic variant that allows me to hurl tennis balls for my dog to fetch. It gets pretty good distance, much better than I could manage on my own.

A link explaining a bit more about it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl)

[historic salve]

Sorta like a manually operated flame thrower. Spewed flaming liquid out about 6- 10 feet. IIRC it used naptha as the combustable agent.

LJ
Huh, I didn't know it was used for anything other than sea battles.

[Teallaura]

...And Rambo conquered the whole world with it.

:rofl:

[Littlejoe]

Huh, I didn't know it was used for anything other than sea battles.

It was originally devised and used for naval battles because the early compound ignited when it came into contact with air and couldn't be put out with water. But individual "siphons" were later used for land battles. The land versions had a "pilot light" similar to a gas stove. When the liquid was forced out of the nozzle, the pilot light lit the liquid sending a burning stream of liquid into the enemy ranks. Exactly like the modern day flame throwers. Except they use stored air pressure, unlike the ancient versions which were hand operated and functioned similar to a bicycle pump.
According to several sources:

"[Greek fire]...was devastating to wooden ships in naval warfare (http://www.bookrags.com/Naval_warfare) and also very effective on land as a counter-force suppression weapon used on besieging forces. There are many accounts of the Byzantine Empire (http://www.bookrags.com/Byzantine_Empire) driving off attacks on the walls using this devastatingly frightful secret formula."
Two Sources for above quote: http://www.bookrags.com/Greek_fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire


LJ

[Paintbucket]

There's a pretty great computer game called Medieval II: Total War, and in one of the expansions there are units with Greek Fire. Yes it is a game and has a number of inaccuracies, but on the whole it's fairly realistic. And those units are pretty sweet...

[Meta Knight]

There's a pretty great computer game called Medieval II: Total War, and in one of the expansions there are units with Greek Fire. Yes it is a game and has a number of inaccuracies, but on the whole it's fairly realistic. And those units are pretty sweet...
Oh cripes, now I've REALLY gotta get the expansion...

[Paintbucket]

It's the Kingdoms expansion. That's on the Crusades Campaign. That's the only mini-campaign I haven't beaten yet, but I'm working on it with the Byzantines, who are the hardest faction on that episode. I've beat the other 3 mini-campaigns though.

[Meta Knight]

It's the Kingdoms expansion. That's on the Crusades Campaign. That's the only mini-campaign I haven't beaten yet, but I'm working on it with the Byzantines, who are the hardest faction on that episode. I've beat the other 3 mini-campaigns though.
Ugh, be quiet, I don't want to hear about the awesomeness until I can play it myself.

Oh well, guess I'm resigned to assassinating French Royals for the time being...

[Paintbucket]

It's worth the money, it kept me entertained for a good while. It still holds my interest, even after having it for a few months.

French Royals? Let me guess, you're England. When I was England, I'd always marry the French princess to Rufus, and then use assassins to kill off France. It was a little slow, but it worked.

[thecompletegeek]

Most of the good answers have already been taken, so I'm left with the zero-point energy manipulator, a.k.a. the gravity gun...

Well, it did remove the Combine's presence from Earth... :wink:

[Meta Knight]

It's worth the money, it kept me entertained for a good while. It still holds my interest, even after having it for a few months.

French Royals? Let me guess, you're England. When I was England, I'd always marry the French princess to Rufus, and then use assassins to kill off France. It was a little slow, but it worked.
Yeah, I'm England. Until this afternoon, I had a 10 skill level Assassin (the poor man died on a mission against the Prince) who had, to his credit, 11 (French) family member kills, including the previous prince, 3 assassin kills, 2 diplomat kills, a merchant kill...

...and a Portugese princess.

Unfortunately, though, I'm now relegated to using military might...such a shame, it's only already bought me Rennes (three times, one conquering and two siege repellants), Granada (yeah, I was allied with the Portugese against the Moors for awhile), and Paris (okay, okay, I crusaded against Paris after the Pope excommunicated France, but still...).

I don't know if I'll be able to manage it, after all, I did lose almost a full tenth of what my enemies did in the last few battles...

[Sheepdog]

i'd second the cruise missle, and in general the tactic of the surgical strike. you can bring a nation back to the stone age with only minimal civilian casualties.

i'll add the only weapon more accurate than surgical strike weapons: the suicide bomber.

[Raptor]

As Jezz and Storico stated, gunpowder is the choice. It revolutionized the way battles are fought and removed the large expense of knights from the battlefield. Anyone could fire a gun.

The control of large stores of gunpowder also reduced the threat of rebellion against the European monarchs.

(And as much as I would like to take credit for this, I have to thank my Early Modern Europe professor for providing the information.)

[Teallaura]

You would think a raptor would mention the development of claws...


:whistle:

[Paintbucket]

Ah, you got lucky. The pope would never excommunicate France for me so I could just go in and wipe them out with out taking a hit to my reputation. That's a pretty good assassin you had there, no doubt you have a Master guild by now. Your options seem to be running low right now, especially at the rate at which the armies are decreasing. Yeah, I think you might be in a little trouble...