Where We Have Gone Wrong

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, at great cost and risk.  Sailing in a 16th-17th century merchant was not for the faint of heart.  But the profits made it worthwhile and the reason for the profits was that the Indians' failure to keep breathing created a serious labor shortage for the capitalists of the day.  And then as now, the capitalists can't stand anything that hurts the bottom line.

"Human capital" is still a thing, yeah.

[Minimalist]

....

[Minimalist]

I wanted to circle back to this:

Surely. The conjunction of invasive species, invasive diseases, and invasive technology had native Americans on the short end of the stick.

The guns were overrated in the argument.

This gentleman demonstrates the arquebus.



I wonder how many arrows a reasonably competent archer could loose in the time it takes him to load and fire?

But as Mann makes clear - and I don't remember if Diamond did or not - most native americans died of the plague long before they ever saw a European.  Early coastal contacts and the uniqueness of European trade goods led to the rapid spread of disease along the internal trade routes as one infected Native-American passed the disease on to another and another and so on.  Had the Indians not been softened up by disease those guns wouldn't have helped all that much.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wanted to circle back to this:

Surely. The conjunction of invasive species, invasive diseases, and invasive technology had native Americans on the short end of the stick.

The guns were overrated in the argument.

This gentleman demonstrates the arquebus.



I wonder how many arrows a reasonably competent archer could loose in the time it takes him to load and fire?

But as Mann makes clear - and I don't remember if Diamond did or not - most native americans died of the plague long before they ever saw a European.  Early coastal contacts and the uniqueness of European trade goods led to the rapid spread of disease along the internal trade routes as one infected Native-American passed the disease on to another and another and so on.  Had the Indians not been softened up by disease those guns wouldn't have helped all that much.

It's been a long time since I've read GGS, but iirc, Diamond claims that somewhere around 90% of all native deaths between 1492 and 1876 were due to introduced disease. I'm certainly open to correction, given the intervening years.

I wasn't just referencing guns when I mentioned technology, either. Something as simple as the Conestoga helped the eradication along.

[Minimalist]

Mann would agree with that figure.  

It was Diamond who titled his book "Guns, Germs and Steel."  Amusingly the first "G" could have equally stood for "God" or "Gold."

Religion and greed have forever been driving forces in mankinds apparently singular drive to dominate and destroy.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Mann would agree with that figure.  

It was Diamond who titled his book "Guns, Germs and Steel."  Amusingly the first "G" could have equally stood for "God" or "Gold."

Religion and greed have forever been driving forces in mankinds apparently singular drive to dominate and destroy.

Well, he didn't dive that deeply into the cultural side of that equation.

[Minimalist]

Nobody's perfect!  

[GenesisNemesis]

By never being satisfied with anything, but maybe that's human nature.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I wonder how many arrows a reasonably competent archer could loose in the time it takes him to load and fire?

The standard for being considered an "expert archer" was to have three arrows IN THE AIR at the same time. Obviously that will exhaust the archer rather quickly but it harkens back to the old Q&A between sergeant and recruit:

Sarge: How fast can you run?

Recruit: How scared am I?

[Minimalist]

The thing with a bow is that the re-loading "drill" is rather simple and if you mess up a step it is unlikely to result in a mis-fire.  The same can't be said with a primitive firearm.  There are several critical steps which, if you fuck one of them up because you are hurrying (or just inept) , you end up with a weapon which has been reduced to a fairly awkward club until you can go back and fix it.

[airportkid]

... The standard for being considered an "expert archer" was to have three arrows IN THE AIR at the same time ...

Poor standard.  Seems to me a better standard is two arrows embedded in the intended target and a third enroute for every three released.  Lots of arrows aloft is not as good as making most arrows puncture targets.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... The standard for being considered an "expert archer" was to have three arrows IN THE AIR at the same time ...

Poor standard.  Seems to me a better standard is two arrows embedded in the intended target and a third enroute for every three released.  Lots of arrows aloft is not as good as making most arrows puncture targets.

Suppressive fire is a thing. And I'm pretty sure that among bunched-up infantry, at least, many of those arrows found a target. Keeping three aloft was the goal. Killing the enemy is the mission. They're not mutually-exclusive.

[Chas]

... The standard for being considered an "expert archer" was to have three arrows IN THE AIR at the same time ...

Poor standard.  Seems to me a better standard is two arrows embedded in the intended target and a third enroute for every three released.  Lots of arrows aloft is not as good as making most arrows puncture targets.

It is continuous fire at a rate that keeps 3 arrows in the air at any one time.

[Minimalist]

Of course they can stop when the target looks like a pin cushion.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course they can stop when the target looks like a pin cushion.

Ask the French, I bet they still remember six hundred years later.

[Minimalist]

Limey propaganda.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world...court.html

Historians Reassess Battle of Agincourt

Besides, the French won the war.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Limey propaganda.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world...court.html

Historians Reassess Battle of Agincourt

Besides, the French won the war.

I wasn't saying the English were outnumbered, just that the English volleys were pretty withering:

That trust must have come in handy after Henry, through a series of brilliant tactical moves, provoked the French cavalry — mounted men-at-arms — into charging the masses of longbowmen positioned on the English flanks in a relatively narrow field between two sets of woods that still exist not far from Mr. Renault’s farm in Maisoncelle.

The series of events that followed as the French men-at-arms slogged through the muddy, tilled fields behind the cavalry were quick and murderous.

Volley after volley of English arrow fire maddened the horses, killed many of the riders and forced the advancing men-at-arms into a mass so dense that many of them could not even lift their arms.

That's nowhere I want to be.

[Minimalist]

just that the English volleys were pretty withering:

Yes, and yet within a century they were using guns.

[Thumpalumpacus]

just that the English volleys were pretty withering:

Yes, and yet within a century they were using guns.

Progress has no patience ...

[Minimalist]

Yes, but was it progress or merely fashion?

Did firearms become the "in-thing" because they were new?  You can't even make the argument that the generally lousy climate of Europe was a driving factor.  Wind and rain impacted early guns every bit as much as it impacted archery.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, but was it progress or merely fashion?

Did firearms become the "in-thing" because they were new?  You can't even make the argument that the generally lousy climate of Europe was a driving factor.  Wind and rain impacted early guns every bit as much as it impacted archery.

I think a big part of the early impact of firearms was not the deadliness, but the "bang!" that was a new experience for many men-at-arms on the other end. "Shock and awe" is not a new approach to warfare.

There was also the fact that it could puncture plate armor, and drop a horse from under a rider. I know square-head arrows could do that, but aside from the fright factor of noise and flame, a gun is a bit more aimable, no?

[Minimalist]

There was also the fact that it could puncture plate armor, and drop a horse from under a rider. I know square-head arrows could do that, but a gun is a bit more aimable, no?

Not so true with a smoothbore.


On your first point I recall  some historian recounting an episode from First Bull Run where a general rode up to a battery commander and told him to fire on a wooded area.  The battery commander said that his shells would do "poor execution" in the woods to which the general replied, "damn the execution, sir, it's the sound we want."

So yeah.  There might be something to that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

O'Connell writes at some length about how gunners were killed on the spot in the 16th century because their guns could reduce a noble cavalier to a broken foot-soldier, which eliminated the class difference on the battlefield; they were seen as subversive to social order because it was much easier to train a gunner than an archer.

[Cavebear]

Yes, at great cost and risk.  Sailing in a 16th-17th century merchant was not for the faint of heart.  But the profits made it worthwhile and the reason for the profits was that the Indians' failure to keep breathing created a serious labor shortage for the capitalists of the day.  And then as now, the capitalists can't stand anything that hurts the bottom line.

OK, I'm skipping over some comments, but back to the Native Americans and original European colonies on the East Coast of NA...

The original British ship that arrived limping and possibly barely afloat in Jamestown in 1619 was carrying African slaves. And JUST in time for John Rolfe's locally-bred tobacco (more productive AND it was milder) needing harvesters. So the colony bought the (19?) slaves. According to Smithsonian, there is debate about whether they were actually slaved or indentured, but the future was slavery.

Regardless, most kidnapped Africans (captured and sold by other Africans - no one is free of the stain of slavery in this) were indeed enslaved for the production of tobacco. There is a certain irony that that the tobacco caused the deaths of many Europeans. Many European doctors remarked of the bad effects of lung congestion.

And a few diseases and food problems went back to Europe. Syphilis and gonorrhoea seem to have come from local people the Europeans had sex with, so it wasn't all one-sided. And the potatoes that became the staples of some cultures (because they couldn't be destroyed by burning like wheat) all went bad from diseases a few times.

So the "Columbian Exchange" often thought to be a "one-way" benefit, was not entirely so.

Nothing is all great for one side and totally bad for the other. But we still pay for that slave ship in 1619... If anything could be changed in history, that would be a good one.

[Ausländer]

Guns VS Archery: indeed it looks reasonable the question "why if bow&arrow was so fast people started to use fireweapons?", but it is wrongly posed question.
To make an archer it took several years of training to build up the strenght for the english longbow and on top of that archers were well paid.
To recruit a cheap peasant and to make him able to shoot with fireweapon was a matter of few weeks of training. On top of that fireweapon improved their technology and tactic quite quickly, just think before to the pike & shot (the spanish tercio) and then the "dutch discipline"