Results 661 to 690 of 2635
-
2010-01-07, 05:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
In a 9th Century campaign, you would not have two handed or bastard swords, polearms (with a few exceptions), plate armor, or rapiers or sideswords as mentioned.
I'll take a stab at what arms and armor would break down like around the world, something like this:
Western Europe
Heavy Armor: Mail hauberks (pretty rare) or more commonly byrnies (short sleeved shirts) with helms and light textile armor underneath.
Light Armor: Aketons (quilted textile armor) with helms
Shields center grip, kyte type or Viking roundshield type, or small (targe) type. Shields would be very common
Main weapon: Spear
Sidearm: Spatha type or counterweighted 'viking type' single handed swords, battle axes (typicaly single handed, the two-handed 'huskarl' type came a little later though there may be some around), Sax (long knife), Short Sword, light mace, strait dagger
Missile weapons (in order of ubiquity): Spear, javelin, Fransisca (Throwing axe), 'Angon' (an armor-piercing javelin based on the Roman pilum), light crossbow (uncommon), sling (rare),longbow (very rare except in certain areas like Wales and some parts of Scandinavia)
Byzantium
Heavy Armor: Klibanion, lamellar over mail (would be perhaps roughly equivalent to "splint mail" in most RPGs)
Main Weapon: Spear
Sidearm: Spatha type sword, light mace, dagger
Missile weapons: Recurve bow, light crossbow, gastrophetes (a type of heavy crossbow), , plumbata (a sort of super lawn dart), javelins
Special: Greek fire including both greek-fire flamethrower (usually mounted on warships) and naptha hand-grenades, quicklime, "artillery" (small portable siege engines)
Middle East
Heavy Armor: Mail, Lamellar, Scale
Light Armor: Quilted textile armor
Shields: Kyte type shield
Main Weapon: Recurve bow, spear
Sidearm; Spatha type sword, battle axe, war-hammer, or Chinese dao type saber (much more rare), jambiya type curved dagger.
Special: Greek fire including naptha hand-grenades similar to molatov cocktails
Central / East Asia
Heavy Armor: Lamelar, Scale
Light Armor: Quilted textile armor
Shields: Small buckler type shields (very common), roundshields (for infantry)
Main Weapon: Recurve bows, spear
Sidearm: Chinese Dao type short Saber, light mace, dagger
Other Missiles: Javelins, thrown light mace
Special: Lasso, Noisemakers, Bee hives,
Eastern Europeans (a mix of Scandinavians, Balts, Finns and Slavs) would have a mix of Western and Eastern type weapons and armor, plus heavy maces.
I didn't include Japanese, Persian or South-Asian kit.
Armor in general would be fairly rare in this period, though the western cavalry and heavy infantry would have more 'heavy' armor generally speaking than in the other parts of the world.
G.Last edited by Galloglaich; 2010-01-08 at 12:16 AM.
-
2010-01-07, 05:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Kanagawa, Japan
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
For the medieval period in particular it has been common in the past to start talking about really "professional" armies coming into being at the end of the thirteenth century, in particular the "household" of Edward I being cited. In fact, though, it is possible to trace the Anglo-Norman household as the "core" of the military right back to its inception in the eleventh century, with its size fluctuating depending on the fortunes of the king, and the organisation reflected in the households of his vassals. Possibly most surprising, and at the heart of J. O. Prestwich's important article "The Military Household of the Norman Kings" are the 1,000 Flemish knights contracted as mercenaries by Henry I in 1101 from the Count of Flanders.
As with most things military, and as I am sure you are aware, money and necessity brings increased professionalism, so you begin to see the formation of professional military forces whenever they can be systematically raised and retained for protracted periods, which happens sporadically on various scales all through history.
Indeed, though, it has been occasionally pointed out that their marching speeds were not as remarkable as sometimes made out. It was their organisation and scale that was impressive.
My view of this subject is that people initially tend to apply what they have learned with one weapon to another, and then gradually learn the nuances of the new. So somebody who knows how to use a mace would likely apply the lessons he had learned to an axe and meet with more success than if given a spear, or whatever. I agree, though, axes, picks, hammers, maces, and so on all have important differences that must be mastered to achieve their full potential.
Ah, I think I know the anecdotes you are referring to; I know Anna Komena comments on the couched lance technique, and I am pretty certain that the Memoirs of Usamah Ibn-Munqidh also mentions it. Definitely worth posting both of those. Although the Great Stirrup Controversy has rightly marginalised the impact of the stirrup on the development of feudalism, it is noticeable that the "couched" technique appeared at around the same time as its introduction, and were uniquely placed to allow the rider to "rise" in his stirrups when delivering the charge. I think that this probably has a lot to do with why the couched technique appeared when it did.
Unfortunately, we just do not really know what actually caused (or exactly when) Roman military discipline reached the breaking point. Many causes have been suggested, such as exemption from military service for the inner provinces, extension of universal citizenship, internal religious problems, population decimating plagues, and so on and so forth. It does seem likely that discipline went into decline sometime in the second century AD, and, though arrested on numerous occasions, never really recovered to levels achieved in the first century.
Originally Posted by Fhaolan;7601404
I do wonder how much real damage was done at a great distance. Military archery was definitely all about volume and "aiming" seems to have not been much of a consideration in that regard, but it is a complicated question as to what range they really were effective at versus what sorts of targets. It must have been a really taxing decision for commanders on the ground.
Yikes! That is one ugly mug! I should add to the helmet discussion that there is some controversy over the Roman cavalry masks and whether they were anything more than parade pieces. I suspect that is true of a lot of helmets with masks, though, that is to say they are more about image than protection.
This is an oft-repeat myth. The pilum is clearly designed to kill. What it does as a by product of being an extremely effective armour piercing weapon is encumber the shields of the enemy. Being designed to bend on impact by the first century BC it became an increasing annoyance. However, this is very much the secondary function (or happy by product) of a deadly weapon. Likely the propensity of shields to catch thrown spears is where the Old English "spear net" appellation comes for shields.
Hard question. A lot of fairly sophisticated technology would have been available in the near east by way of Byzantium, most elusively some sort of flame throwing device and possibly hand held incendiaries of a naphtha type. Basically, you can run the gamut of early medieval weaponry, including various sorts of axes, maces, and hammers - though not as common as they later seem to have become. Plate armour is pretty much out, as would be most pole-arms as "common military" weapons, knightly lances, and long bows, though that might depend on military organisation and economy.
A lot depends on exactly what you are going for. Once you know what military forces are in the area you will probably have a good idea of what weapons and armour are most common.It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one’s own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.
– Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350), Tsurezure-Gusa (1340)
-
2010-01-07, 05:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Very good point... that is one of those myths which seems to always come back. Pilums were designed to 'break' so they couldn't be thrown back and would encumber shields, but first and foremost they were armor piercing weapons. Modern tests indicates how effective they were as such (very).
G.
-
2010-01-07, 05:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
With respect to polearms in the 9th century: As Matthew alluded to, a lot would depend on demand. Plate armor required technical advances in armor-making that hadn't occured yet, but the lack of polearms was mostly social and due to the lack of suitable infantry formations; you don't really need to do anything all that exotic to make a halberd if you already know how to make spears and axes.
If civilization is regularly threatened by big ferocious monsters as well as by rival human(oids), then polearms will be more popular as a way of cancelling out the reach advantage.
-
2010-01-07, 05:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- Duvall, WA
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
No, Yes, No, possibly, No.
Maille can't help you much against impact. All it's really good for is cuts, and a limited amount against chops and stabs by spreading the impact a bit, basically turning the edged attack into a blunt-force attack. Usually you've got padded or quilted cloth or something similar underneath to spread impacts further.
As long as the force of the blow against you would break bones/kill, it still will. It just reduces or eliminates penetration, providing the blow isn't geared specifically for penetrating maille. Bodkin arrows and bodkin stilletos, for instance, can be small enough to go right through some rings, or spread the rings so that the attack can get through.
It's the same basic principle as modern kevlar vests and the like. Its still a bad thing to get shot even when wearing a vest, because you still get the full impact of the bullet. It's spread over a somewhat larger area so that it reduces the penetration, but a good chunk of the power still transmits through. People have died from being shot even when the bullet hit the vest, because the *impact* killed them despite there being no effective penetration.Fhaolan by me! Raga avatar by Mephibosheth!
-
2010-01-07, 06:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
I don't disagree with you, and, now that you mention it, I may remember that the Roman military was starting to show cracks even before the Anarchy (I'm used to calling it just "the Anarchy", although wikipedia prefers the "Crisis of the 3rd Century"). The Anarchy went on for a long time (wikipedia says 50 years, again I thought it was longer -- probably depends upon who you ask). So it's not really a "point" in history. Anyway, what I remember is that after the Anarchy there was no going back to the "good old days" for the Roman military. The army was one of the casualties of the Anarchy, and while it may not have been a simple turning point, the decline was irreversible after then. -- I should really find my notes for that class.
-
2010-01-07, 06:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Pike thrusts are performed with the legs, and not the arms. The way a pike is held (at least during the late Renaissance), means that the arms are primarily used to "aim" the pike. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway, I've heard that when the Japanese went up against Chinese cavalry during one of the 16th century invasions of Korea, they found their katanas to be useless against the heavy mail armor that the Chinese wore.
-
2010-01-07, 10:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Laughing with the sinners
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Plus, the Thompson existed during the era of the Banzai charge, and was in the arsenal of Us, UK and Australians who were likely to need to repulse one.
The Tommy gun is a nice weapon. It's heavy, but all WWII era guns are, compared to more modern ones. It throws a nice heavy round, it's accurate enough in a short burst, and it feels good fired from the shoulder. In a close quarters fight in concealing terrain or bad visibility, it's a very good choice.
-
2010-01-07, 10:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Thompsons are very nice guns IMO. Expensive these days, but a very nice weapon. Hard to believe you used to be able to get one from the Sears catalog for $30.
I fired a Thompson full auto once at a gun store in Las Vegas where you can rent them. After that I could understand why it's so heavy. Most controllable full auto weapon I ever shot that wasn't on a tripod. Much easier to hold down than an M-16 which doesn't kick at all but will rise and move all around at 'rock and roll'.
I think in the hands of a trained / skilled gunner, like some of Al Capones hit men in the 20's, this was one of the most effective full auto weapons, due to the large magazine capacity, 'stopping power' (I know an overused term but I think applicable) accuracy at short to medium range and full auto controlability in relatively short bursts.
It's interesting that the Russians seem to have gone back to heavy subsonic calibers with the excellent new weapons they made for their new 9 x 39 mm caliber, and now the Americans have followed suit with the .458 retrofit for the M-16 / M-4.
G.Last edited by Galloglaich; 2010-01-07 at 10:37 PM.
-
2010-01-07, 10:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
I have an opportunity to pick up a mini-14 from a buddy of mine, and was wondering how reliable they are? I've had to use fullsize m14's many times when I was in the military, and never really had any issues with them other than an occasional feed issue, but it is still a different weapon, and I just wanted to get some outside input.
I was wanting to pick it up as a "survival rifle" of sorts. Something that I can stash away and that would require less maintainence than an AR-15 or their variants. I live in California so my sources of rifles are severely limited, and plus the price is right on this thing, so I was definitly considering picking it up.Last edited by Crow; 2010-01-07 at 10:47 PM.
Avatar by Aedilred
GitP Blood Bowl Manager Cup Record
Styx Rivermen, Feets Reloaded, and Selene's Seductive Strut
Record: 42-17-13
3-time Division Champ, Cup Champion
-
2010-01-07, 11:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- Duvall, WA
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Depends on the pike and the formation the pike wielder is in. Some had pikes large and heavy enough that the user doesn't thrust at all. He just stands still and takes the impact.
Yep, because katanas are mostly cut-based weapons, with the edge being drawn along the target. While they can get quite good penetration that way it's highly dependant on the slicing motion, which maille is exceptionally good at counteracting.Fhaolan by me! Raga avatar by Mephibosheth!
-
2010-01-07, 11:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
-
2010-01-08, 12:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
On Mail armor, from tests I've seen, Mail is almost impossible to cut through and I don't think (though this is hotly debated) you would be that hurt underneath from most hand weapons like swords, axes etc. since most hand weapons are not that heavy like crow-bars (or their equivalent farm-tools). I spar with blunt steel swords all the time without much protection and they don't break my bones.
Swords can't pierce mail easily with their points either if the mail is worn with a gambeson underneath, though the very pointy (Oakeshott type XV etc.) do better.
Mail and a gambeson is also actually pretty good protection against arrows too. This is another 'internet fault line' and I'm not going to wade into that, but most of the tests I've seen with relatively realistic riveted mail (not thin galvanized stuff) show powerful bows with armor-piercing arrows piercing through mail at very close range (under 10'-15') but not from much further out than that, and putting a gambeson over the mail (as was done in period) seems make the target almost invulnerable.
On the other hand, a really powerful bow like a heavy Arbalest (crossbow) or a real English Warbow at the maximum estimated strength, or the heaviest known examples of a Mongol Recurve Composite can probably punch through mail even at medium range, and we have seen the armor piercing points on pole-axes and war-hammers can go right through mail with no problems.
Essentially what Fhaolan said upthread is pretty accurate, Mail is good protection against anything but armor piercing weapons (like two-handed poll-hammers and very heavy Composite bows). Two other powerful armor-piercing weapons that you don't see in RpGs (as such) are daggers and spears.
But I would lean a little more on the side of mail armor being really good protection, with the caveat that it's used as historically with padding underneath.
An interesting (though completely amateur) vid, you can see the dramatic difference in the effectiveness of (in this case, really cheap galvanized) Mail with and without padding underneath.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGu4b...eature=related
G.Last edited by Galloglaich; 2010-01-08 at 12:11 AM.
-
2010-01-08, 03:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- Duvall, WA
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Yeah, the weapons being presented as part of the question were mostly the *really* heavy two-handed choppers like pollaxes, bardiches, and so on. And while the blows from axes, maces, and the like (the one-handed crushers/choppers), might not *kill* you, they definately will hurt if you take a full-on blow. Hurt a lot. Part of wearing armour of any kind is trying *not* to take that straight-on blow. You want the blow to deflect off the armour, which means hitting you at angles. Anyone who just stands there and lets the opponent wail on them isn't going to do very well very rapidly.
Fhaolan by me! Raga avatar by Mephibosheth!
-
2010-01-08, 09:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Agreed, and I think a mace is particularly effective against armor. That is the purpose of a mace really.... if you think about it I suspect it's why kings carry maces (a kings sceptor is really a mace).
http://vamsikarra.files.wordpress.co...lord-visnu.jpg
G.
-
2010-01-08, 10:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
The British are introducing the LM7 semi-automatic 7.62 mm x 51 mm 'sharpshooter' for marksmen, as the 5.56 mm doesn't have the stopping power at ranges needed in Afghanistan. Contacts tend to be either very close or out at 500-900m - beyond effective range for 5.56 mm. Interesting how things swing back and forth. Horses for courses I guess.
-
2010-01-08, 10:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Bristol, UK
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Interesting.
I was under the impression that marksmen would already be using a 7.62mm x51 weapon, even if it was just a modified World War II Lee Enfield (there is something slightly more modern than that, but I forget the name).
The switch from bolt action is also an interesting move.
-
2010-01-08, 02:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Switzerland
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
A question from something I've seen on a movie...
Assuming a soldier, ca world war II, wore a backpack of stiff-looking, water-proof cloth, about 30cm thick, filled with more or less normal clothing, would that be able to stop a rifle bullet, or would it penetrate that?Resident Vancian Apologist
-
2010-01-08, 03:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
-
2010-01-08, 03:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- In his throne room.
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
It could impair a handgun round, mattering on the caliber and the velocity of the round, as well as the tensile strength of the cloth involved. You'd still have a nasty injury on your hands, but it would probably save your life.
A rifle, though, fires a much thinner and sharper bullet at much higher velocity. Most rifle rounds punch through a standard kevlar vest without a hiccup, unless the thing's got a class IV trauma plate inserted. I couldn't imagine that a backpack of waterproofed canvas is going to do much, no matter how much clothing is stuffed inside. Maybe if you filled the backpack with concrete. . .Minstrel Emeritus of the Elan Fan Club
Elan.
He's useful!
Join, join, join, join the Elan Fan Club!
-
2010-01-08, 03:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Switzerland
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Yeah, that's what I assumed as well. Hollywood logic, then.
Resident Vancian Apologist
-
2010-01-08, 03:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
I think you're confusing Designated Marksmen with the good old snipers. Designated Marksman are a concept that originated amongst the Russians, that consisted of every squad including a guy with a slightly higher-powered, longer-ranged rifle. The past couple of years, there has been a real scramble for militaries to adopt this concept, with many recent weapons being purposefully designed to fill this role.
It's kind of silly, really. The Soviets/Russians (and associated Warschaw Pact countries) have employed this kind of soldier since the early 60's, and only recently has everybody else seen the light. Only Israel and some special forces have been using it too since before 2000.
-
2010-01-08, 03:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
-
2010-01-08, 04:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
I suspect that this is a bit of an oversimplification; you might be better advised to read the books for that class.
Among other things, the Romans rallied after that and had some quite effective armies (witness Julian's* campaigns in the mid-300s)
*Also known as Julian the Apostate for being the last (one of the last?) Roman emperor to adhere to and promote the worship of the Greco-Roman gods, some fifty years after the empire had formally gone over to Christianity. Interesting guy.
Also interesting when you compare this to the kind of cartridges they used to use back in the day... when one of the most common places for the British Army to wind up fighting in was Afghanistan.
Realistically there should be a fair amount of stuff in there made of wood and iron, so it becomes a bit more plausible that the backpack could stop a bullet in that case, or start it tumbling so that it comes to a halt in short order even in low-density material. Stuffed with cloth, there's no chance, though.
The Soviets were the first to go to "spray and pray" full automatic fire for their average front-line infantry, though, starting as early as World War II with the mass use of submachine guns on the front line. They needed the designated marksman to offset the long range inaccuracy of the rest of the unit.
The rest of the world kept flattering themselves that they could train their regular infantry to shoot accurately at long range with automatic rifles... with varying degrees of success.
-
2010-01-08, 05:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Bristol, UK
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
-
2010-01-08, 06:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
On firearms how were the very first ones used?
I understand that the early handcannons were in some respects fancy noismakers that were more dangerous to the user than the target and required the shooter to be a highly paid specialist to have any chance on not blowing themselves up.
What was the timespan or turning point between niche novelty to reliable mainstream weapon?
-
2010-01-08, 06:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Actually, it was initially meant as a fully automatic light support weapon; the Dutch Marines used a Diemaco-type thing (that looked really ugly IRL, I might add) in much the same way; the military figured out that it ofcourse, wouldn't really work, but with its heavy barrel it could operate as a stand-in DMR. Only two weeks ago, the British army adopted a dedicated DMR of its own.
-
2010-01-08, 06:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
On firearms how were the very first ones used?
I understand that the early handcannons were in some respects fancy noismakers that were more dangerous to the user than the target and required the shooter to be a highly paid specialist to have any chance on not blowing themselves up.
What was the timespan or turning point between niche novelty to reliable mainstream weapon?
In fact, AFAIKN "decent" handgonne was usually cheaper than solid crossbow, and especially ammunition wa cheaper - good bolt is quite elaborate piece of work, while round lead ball is, well, just round lead ball. It's also easier to carry around.
Here the process of shooting from handgonne. It's not something nice to do in the middle of the battle, in this respect I would rather hav a crossbow. Generally, this site is very informative, check it.
And I won't believe those "more dangerous to user" thing, really. As you can see on the site, those guys are shooting them for fun just like that, and I don't believe that common XVth century guy would like to carry a suicide weapon. AFAIR, problems with getting a good shoot could be common, but nothing too drastic.
As for " time to mainstream weapon" - well, as mentioned, hussites were already using them commonly (as well as other primitive guns, in few modern firearm terms come from Czech). Closer to 1500, guns were getting better and more common, although this was certainly fluid process, archers with crossbows or sometimes bows were used along well into the XVI century.Avatar by KwarkpuddingThe subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.
Whoever makes shoddy beer, shall be thrown into manure - town law from Gdańsk, XIth century.
-
2010-01-08, 07:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
Spiryt in the video he mentions the hangonne is 15th century. I thought the very earliest handheld firearms were 13th century. So of course it would be safer than the guns I was talking about it had 200 years of refinement.
-
2010-01-08, 09:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI
What he said. I think guns were like the other missile weapons, some people knew how to use them, some didn't. The Czechs were the among the first really effective early innovators with guns in Europe, though it's worth noting the Hussite rebellion wasn't until the 15th Century and firearms had been around since at least the early 14th, maybe earlier. Then again the Czechs made all this famous because they were so successful nobody could beat them, five Crusades were launched against them only to break like waves on a rocky shore, then they went on a rampage through Germany until they basically got bored of it. Such spectacular success really changed the game, but there were smaller examples in other places much earlier.
I think early firearms were tricky and somewhat dangerous to use (especially if you didn't understand them!) but potentially very useful, I think primarily used in the early days in sieges and to bust up cavalry charges at short range like the Hussites did.
Also as swivel mount guns on boats like you saw in the Ukraine and Russia pretty early on...
G.