Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIV

[wolflance]

Probably quite significantly. But when we're talking military equipment, we usually don't mean singular curiosities. For a technology to become common, you need to be able to equip armies. There might very well be much tougher leather than cattle, but I don't think any of those would be available in anywhere near the quantities of cattle leather.

While this is indeed true, ancient people sometimes went great length to make their equipment better. I.e. rhino was hunted to extinction in China because they made leather armor.

Also, i wonder how many eagles and other birds they had to kill to be able to produce like fifty million arrows yearly...

[Haighus]

While this is indeed true, ancient people sometimes went great length to make their equipment better. I.e. rhino was hunted to extinction in China because they made leather armor.

Also, i wonder how many eagles and other birds they had to kill to be able to produce like fifty million arrows yearly...

Geese and other domestic fowl were favoured in Europe I think, so probably not much more than were being killed anyway.

[Mutazoia]

Geese and other domestic fowl were favoured in Europe I think, so probably not much more than were being killed anyway.

A goose feather shaft was highly prized in medieval England

[snowblizz]

There might very well be much tougher leather than cattle, but I don't think any of those would be available in anywhere near the quantities of cattle leather.

I think it was on a nature programme they mentioned the toughness of hippo hide, apparently sometimes musketballs (or rifle shots, I forget) could glance off. Some of it is the natural thickness of the hide, which you can probably "fix" by alyeirng coehide.

I wonder how different leather from different animals can be. If some animal's e.g. worked better against certain weapons.

Maybe. Some animals had very thick hides, e.g. Rhinos and hippos. But the 17th century buffcoats woudl also be mad eof game such as elk and moose, at least where they were more plentiful.

But I do think a lot has to do with availability. Cowhides comes naturally as part of farming/husbandry activities after all. The more exotic and mostly thicker hided animals tend to be wild or rare.

The only authentic purely leather armor I've seen so far is from Asia, mainly Central Asia but also Japan and Korea. They have armor made of out of Elephant, Rhino or Crocodile hide in South Asia, and in Europe there is a lot of armor made of combinations of leather with textile and / or iron.

A book on weapons I just read had an Roman Egyptian crocodile armour pictured. Inluding helmet. Says it's a parade armour though, but still.

Spoiler

Show

[Galloglaich]

i think part of the people is a classic case of "little bit of knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge".

in this case, "experts" have been explaining to people form RPG background that historically, leather armour wasn't worn, at least not in the style that DnD used it, during the medieval period, that its become received wisdom that Leather Armour Was Not A Thing, despite growing evidence to the contrary as the internet allowed non European sources greater audiences. Now, as these sources get more known, the answer changes again, this time to Leather Armour Was Sometimes A Thing.

Actually I don't agree- I think those with some knowledge of this, like for example some of the regulars over at Myarmoury, said from the outset that Leather Armour Was NOT A Thing In Europe. We know, and have always known, that it was sometimes used in Central and East Asia. But even there it doesn't seem to have been all that common, iron lamellar was used for the heavily armored troops, most of the others didn't wear any armor at all.

. Then, better more accurate info on the real medieval Europe got shared about and the tall tales of Japanese super-samurai were picked apart and shown to be myths or exaggerations, so the pop culture consensus swung to a more neutral position.

It's a good analogy but I don't think it fits here.

Leather armor wasn't really a thing in medieval or Migration-era or Classical Europe, though there can be a few exceptions to the rule, it's very rare at best before the 17th Century. Same for "Splint Mail" and "Studded Leather" and "Banded Mail" which are all basically D&D-isms which originate with Gary Gygax and Co., and got repeated by lazy game designers until they became embedded in the pop culture, like all those other myths about knights being winched into saddles - which started out as a satirical anecdote about a crippled Henry VIII, was elaborated upon as a joke by Mark Twain, and then irresponsibly repeated in a movie or two in the 20th Century.

G

[Galloglaich]

@Galloglaich

What do you know about the role and effectiveness of handgunners in the Hungarian Black Army?

I think they were very effective, so do most serious military historians who know anything about it, going back to Hans Delbruck and before. This is why the Hunyadi's put so much emphasis on them, hired so many of them, and paid them so much. And put up with their misbehavior and antics in the case of a lot of the Czech ones in particular. Matthias Corvinus gets into this in a lot of letters which have survived to this day.

It seems like most sources tend to focus on the Italian Wars as the turning point for small arms, glossing over eastern Europe, perhaps mentioning the hussites as a possible exception. Often the defeat of Charles the Bold gets used to suggest that technology and tactics hadn't quite caught up to where massed handgunners were a viable strategy yet.

It's worth noting that many of the handgunners in the Black Army were actually Hussites.

I think this is kind of the bias of the Western and English oriented perception of history in the Anglophone sphere. I think the historiography is a little different in other languages, though the rebound effect of American pop culture is strong and sometimes influences people who should know better.

There is a general lack of understanding about anything in the middle ages which is why we never knew about European Martial Arts or fencing manuals (outside of a small group of scholars in the know) until the late 20th Century. The middle ages is hard to understand, harder for us today to get our heads around than Roman or Early Modern combat.

Also, what do you think of the statement that cannons and handguns were mostly just effective in sieges or from stationary defensive positions in the 15th century? I know you've pointed out before that war wagons could be used offensively as well as defensively, do you know any examples where handgunners were used effectively as light skirmishers or otherwise going on the offensive?

I think handguns were mostly used in sieges in the 14th Century. But by the 15th they were clearly moving into the open field. At first with the war wagons and other strange war machines, (which incidentally persisted in significant numbers all over Europe until at least the 1480's) but by the second half of the Hussite wars, the increasing ubiquity of crude match-locks, priming pans and other innovations, not to mention corned and crumbled powder, meant infantry was clearly moving into the open field in the more advanced armies of Europe. In addition to the Hungarian Black Army which is the most famous, the Italians, Flemish, Germans, Bohemians of course, Poles, and also Spanish and Croatians and others, were making wide-use of hangunners. They were typically paid double that of ordinary mercenaries (same as the heavy crossbowmen) frequently fought with 1 or 2 servants (often to carry a pavise) and also operated various war machines like volley guns / ribauldaquin.

German cities spent a fortune on shooting contests which were turned into huge festivals and major diplomatic events, and had clearly shifted toward handguns over crossbows (though crossbows still persisted as well) by the 1440's - 1450's.

I would go so far as to say that it was handgunners, in part, which basically stopped the Mongols and slowed the Ottomans advance into the Balkans by 100 years (this was why Venice gave the Hunyadi's so much money to finance the Black Army). Of course the Ottomans themselves were also rapidly adopting handguns at this time of course and the famous Janissaries switched from bows to firearms in the 15th Century. Some people attribute the development of the true musket to the Ottomans, other say the Spanish, but it was clearly something which arose in the midst of their rivalry.

I also think it's quite obvious that the Swiss themselves, incidentally, used quite a lot of handgunners both as skirmishers and as main troops as you can see them depicted all over the Swiss chronicles in large numbers. Including at the time of the Burgundian Wars. I don't think Charles the Bold's problem was that handgunners weren't ready for prime time, his longbowmen failed just as miserably.


Generally speaking, I think the ubiquity of firearms (and cannon, grenades, mines, flares, fireworks, and all sorts of crazy, bizarre war machines featuring pyrotechnic devices or guns) is one of the hardest things for us to get our heads around regarding the Late Medieval period. By the time you have plate armor you should also have guns. Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings - the tech level of Gondor or the Lannisters should include firearms and cannon.

But our myths are dark and full of terrors!

G

[Galloglaich]

I wonder if there is a consensus among historians for why the small crossbows were not being used by ancient Greek soldiers.

I don't think their crossbow prods were efficient enough. The composite and later steel prods of late medieval Europe seem to be (though we still don't understand precisely how they worked) much more powerful than anyone anywhere else, with the possible exception of some in China which also seem to have had remarkable properties.

And could the reason for the lack of a sight be because early crossbows shot with so little force that bolts tend not to land straight where the sight would indicate anyways? Or maybe because it would cause the crossbowman to have to put his eye way too close to a potentially dangerous string?

The latter. Same is true for a lot of early firearms where many sparks and fire comes out of the priming pan. Tricky to aim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkbSTyT1COE


As for the other question about different animals hides for leather, one thing I keep seeing all the time in primary sources is reference to some kind of buffalo hide.

G

[Vinyadan]

Does anyone know how large the largest pauldrons in history were?

[Max_Killjoy]

Generally speaking, I think the ubiquity of firearms (and cannon, grenades, mines, flares, fireworks, and all sorts of crazy, bizarre war machines featuring pyrotechnic devices or guns) is one of the hardest things for us to get our heads around regarding the Late Medieval period. By the time you have plate armor you should also have guns. Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings - the tech level of Gondor or the Lannisters should include firearms and cannon.

But our myths are dark and full of terrors!

If we're talking a historical or "heavily based on history" setting, I'm in absolutely agreement here.

For LotR or GoT, I'm less of a stickler, because it's not our world or history, and who knows, maybe gunpowder is still waiting to be discovered -- the Chinese stumbled on it looking for immortality elixirs, right?

[Yora]

Plate armor was not a consequence of the emergence of guns. Guns are not a neccessary precoursor to the development of plate armor, so you can either have it or don't. It doesn't make a difference.

Having plate armor alongside rifles would be a different story though.

[Vinyadan]

For all we know, Saruman might have discovered gunpowder 1000 years before L.R. and decided to keep it secret, to use it as a secret weapon when the time came (against Rohan).
Gandalf also possibly used it for his fireworks.
It's never confirmed that that's real gunpowder, however, instead of magic stuff.

[Vinyadan]

Tolkien also never talked about full plate, I believe. All my memories of the books are with chain mail.

[Galloglaich]

Tolkien also never talked about full plate, I believe. All my memories of the books are with chain mail.

Tolkein's Hobbit / LOTR books are much closer to the Migration Era Volsunga Saga (cursed ring with invisibility powers, magic sword, evil dragon, elves, dwarves etc.) which is based on events around the 4th Century, so the tech level is mail etc., I was referring to the (today better known) Peter Jackson movies though where the people of Gondor have 14th-15th Century style plate armor.

Plate armor was not a consequence of the emergence of guns. Guns are not a neccessary precoursor to the development of plate armor, so you can either have it or don't. It doesn't make a difference.

Actually I think you are wrong - plate armor was at least in part, developed due to guns, (and heavy crossbows and recurve bows).

They were proofing plate armor with test-dents from crossbows in the 14th Century and started using firearms in the 15th, which I think is a pretty good indication of the link.

Having plate armor alongside rifles would be a different story though.

I think that would be pretty pointless.

G

[Galloglaich]

If we're talking a historical or "heavily based on history" setting, I'm in absolutely agreement here.

For LotR or GoT, I'm less of a stickler, because it's not our world or history, and who knows, maybe gunpowder is still waiting to be discovered -- the Chinese stumbled on it looking for immortality elixirs, right?

I just mean our default late medieval fantasy setting "Frog DNA" needs to be updated to include firearms for most civilizations that also have plate armor, two-handed swords etc.

I don't think you would see the rapid development of plate armor without the emergence of firearms. Maybe crossbows and powerful bows would be enough to spur it on but I kind of doubt it. There seems to have been an arms race between missiles and armor in which gunpowder played a significant part.

And sure you can take this or that element out of it, but it's a bit like jenga, you take the wrong piece out and the whole thing can start to fall apart.

G

[Max_Killjoy]

I just mean our default late medieval fantasy setting "Frog DNA" needs to be updated to include firearms for most civilizations that also have plate armor, two-handed swords etc.

I don't think you would see the rapid development of plate armor without the emergence of firearms. Maybe crossbows and powerful bows would be enough to spur it on but I kind of doubt it. There seems to have been an arms race between missiles and armor in which gunpowder played a significant part.

And sure you can take this or that element out of it, but it's a bit like jenga, you take the wrong piece out and the whole thing can start to fall apart.

G

All fair points.

[Roxxy]

Are there any documented cases of somebody from the Warsaw Pact during their mandatory military service, managing to immigrate to a NATO country, and then serving in that country's military? I'm wondering if there are any written accounts from people who have served on both sides of the curtain.

[Blackhawk748]

Are there any documented cases of somebody from the Warsaw Pact during their mandatory military service, managing to immigrate to a NATO country, and then serving in that country's military? I'm wondering if there are any written accounts from people who have served on both sides of the curtain.

Sabaton has a song called Soldier of t
Three Armies, which is about a man who fought for the Nazis, then the communists and then America iirc.

[Storm Bringer]

Sabaton has a song called Soldier of t
Three Armies, which is about a man who fought for the Nazis, then the communists and then America iirc.

I believe he was eastern European, was conscripted by the Germans and sent to fight in Russia, was captured by the Russians, dragooned into the Red Army and sent off to the far east, where he was captured by the Chinese, who dragooned him into the PLA, and was finally captured by the Americans in Korea, to the utter confusion of all involved.

[Batou1976]

I just mean our default late medieval fantasy setting "Frog DNA" needs to be updated to include firearms for most civilizations that also have plate armor, two-handed swords etc.

I don't think you would see the rapid development of plate armor without the emergence of firearms. Maybe crossbows and powerful bows would be enough to spur it on but I kind of doubt it. There seems to have been an arms race between missiles and armor in which gunpowder played a significant part.

And sure you can take this or that element out of it, but it's a bit like jenga, you take the wrong piece out and the whole thing can start to fall apart.

G

FWIW, gunpowder weapons and armored knights existed alongside each other for longer than most people realize- about 300 years altogether before firearms became developed to the point of obviating the protective value of steel plate armor, IIRC what I've read before. The development of medieval war equipment was an arms race between weapons and armor, to be sure, but there's another factor in the rise of plate harness and decline of mail I've read of which doesn't have anything to do with weapons at all, and that's the Black Plague.

By the mid-14th century when the Plague hit Europe, they were already beginning to add plates to the ubiquitous full suit of mail, as they had attained the metallurgical skill to craft them and found their protective value surpassed that of mail. In the aftermath of the Plague, with so many millions dead, the pool of skilled mail makers had of course significantly shrunk; since mail was already so time consuming to make, it wasn't cheap to begin with and with fewer people making it, the price of their labor went up even more. Steel plates, OTOH, don't take quite so much time to craft. According to the piece where I read this (I wish I could remember where, but I've lost track of the article ), all this meant by the early 15th century, a breastplate could be made in, I think, a week, and cost the equivalent of two cows, while providing superior protection to a mail haubergeon which took months to make and cost several times what the breastplate did.

This may be an even bigger factor than the rise of gunpowder weapons in the decline of mail, but I'll leave that to the historians to argue over.

[Blackhawk748]

I believe he was eastern European, was conscripted by the Germans and sent to fight in Russia, was captured by the Russians, dragooned into the Red Army and sent off to the far east, where he was captured by the Chinese, who dragooned him into the PLA, and was finally captured by the Americans in Korea, to the utter confusion of all involved.

So i was right Nazi-> Communists -> America

[Vinyadan]

Gen. Dmitri Polyakov, the head of Soviet intelligence, was actually an American spy. Does that count?

[Clistenes]

I believe he was eastern European, was conscripted by the Germans and sent to fight in Russia, was captured by the Russians, dragooned into the Red Army and sent off to the far east, where he was captured by the Chinese, who dragooned him into the PLA, and was finally captured by the Americans in Korea, to the utter confusion of all involved.

That was more common that people believe nowadays...

During the Spanish Civil War both sides of he conflict forcefully pressed into service all able males they could seize. Many of those tried to desert and change sides.

Afterwards, dictator Francisco Franco wanted to join he Axis, but not until he was sure Germany would win the war, so, until then, he claimed neutrality while selling tungsten and other stuff to Germany and sent a group of "volunteers" to help Germany in the Russian Front, the Blue Division. That way he could help Germany without officially taking a side, and without provoking US, UK and France too much (he didn't give a damn what Russia thought of him).

Many of the soldiers of the Blue Division were in fact prisioners of war, soldiers from the Republican army and militias who were offered a pardon in exchange for joining (the other option was forced labor under horrid conditions...).

Some of those soldiers were later captured by the Russians and forced to join their army, or they deserted, and joined the Red Army on their own...

However, Stalin was really paranoid about spies, and many who deserted or were pressed into service received very bad treatment because they were suspected to be spies...

I know of a man who deserted the Blue Division and joined the soviets, but he later regretted his decision and escaped, joining back the Blue Division. He claimed to have been captured by the Russians, so he was allowed back into the Blue Division...

[Storm Bringer]

So i was right Nazi-> Communists -> America

well, National Socialist-Marxist Socialist-Maoist Socialist-Capitalist, to be more accurate.

[Haighus]

well, National Socialist-Marxist Socialist-Maoist Socialist-Capitalist, to be more accurate.

Hmm, I am either missing something, or there must have been a small window of Chinese Nationalist for the poor sod to be captured from the Russians, before Maoist Socialist took over China.

[rrgg]

I think they were very effective, so do most serious military historians who know anything about it, going back to Hans Delbruck and before. This is why the Hunyadi's put so much emphasis on them, hired so many of them, and paid them so much. And put up with their misbehavior and antics in the case of a lot of the Czech ones in particular. Matthias Corvinus gets into this in a lot of letters which have survived to this day.



It's worth noting that many of the handgunners in the Black Army were actually Hussites.

I think this is kind of the bias of the Western and English oriented perception of history in the Anglophone sphere. I think the historiography is a little different in other languages, though the rebound effect of American pop culture is strong and sometimes influences people who should know better.

There is a general lack of understanding about anything in the middle ages which is why we never knew about European Martial Arts or fencing manuals (outside of a small group of scholars in the know) until the late 20th Century. The middle ages is hard to understand, harder for us today to get our heads around than Roman or Early Modern combat.



I think handguns were mostly used in sieges in the 14th Century. But by the 15th they were clearly moving into the open field. At first with the war wagons and other strange war machines, (which incidentally persisted in significant numbers all over Europe until at least the 1480's) but by the second half of the Hussite wars, the increasing ubiquity of crude match-locks, priming pans and other innovations, not to mention corned and crumbled powder, meant infantry was clearly moving into the open field in the more advanced armies of Europe. In addition to the Hungarian Black Army which is the most famous, the Italians, Flemish, Germans, Bohemians of course, Poles, and also Spanish and Croatians and others, were making wide-use of hangunners. They were typically paid double that of ordinary mercenaries (same as the heavy crossbowmen) frequently fought with 1 or 2 servants (often to carry a pavise) and also operated various war machines like volley guns / ribauldaquin.

German cities spent a fortune on shooting contests which were turned into huge festivals and major diplomatic events, and had clearly shifted toward handguns over crossbows (though crossbows still persisted as well) by the 1440's - 1450's.

I would go so far as to say that it was handgunners, in part, which basically stopped the Mongols and slowed the Ottomans advance into the Balkans by 100 years (this was why Venice gave the Hunyadi's so much money to finance the Black Army). Of course the Ottomans themselves were also rapidly adopting handguns at this time of course and the famous Janissaries switched from bows to firearms in the 15th Century. Some people attribute the development of the true musket to the Ottomans, other say the Spanish, but it was clearly something which arose in the midst of their rivalry.

I also think it's quite obvious that the Swiss themselves, incidentally, used quite a lot of handgunners both as skirmishers and as main troops as you can see them depicted all over the Swiss chronicles in large numbers. Including at the time of the Burgundian Wars. I don't think Charles the Bold's problem was that handgunners weren't ready for prime time, his longbowmen failed just as miserably.


Generally speaking, I think the ubiquity of firearms (and cannon, grenades, mines, flares, fireworks, and all sorts of crazy, bizarre war machines featuring pyrotechnic devices or guns) is one of the hardest things for us to get our heads around regarding the Late Medieval period. By the time you have plate armor you should also have guns. Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings - the tech level of Gondor or the Lannisters should include firearms and cannon.

But our myths are dark and full of terrors!

G

Thanks! you've made a lot of good points :)

It's interesting you should mention the mongols and ottomans. Spain's widespread adoption of the arquebus seems to have mainly taken off during the fighting in Granada in the late 15th century, which did consist of a lot of sieges, but also a lot of small-scale skirmishes involving light horsemen and light infantry. In 1495 the Spanish army arrived in italy with a lot of flexible jinetes, rodeleros, and crossbowmen/arquebusiers which perhaps struggled to stand up against pikemen or gendarmes in the field at first, but proved extremely effective at harassment and "small war" tactics.

According to tonio Andrade the, Ming similarly considered their handguns to be very effective weapons against nomadic cavalry forces in the north. Perhaps constant raids and skirmishes against tartars and turks is what accelerated the development of handgun technology in eastern europe?

I agree that there seems to be quite a lot of anglo bias among english-language historians. It's telling that descriptions of gunpowder's history in europe tend to start with Roger Bacon, even though england was about as far away from gunpowder's origin point as possible. There's also all the constantly repeated myths about the english longbow, which have sometimes turned into myths about archers in general.

In particular I've noticed that a lot of historians, Bert Hall included, tend to focus way too much on the use of small arms in large formations delivering massed volleys, with some even claiming that this was the only way early firearms could be used effectively. In reality even english primary sources tend to make it clear that matchlocks were fantastic skirmishing weapons, it was figuring out how to use them in large numbers that was the hard part:

"A small number of targetters if once they come to reach shot with their swordes, put great numbers of them out of the field. Put case that some come shorte; yet sure not manie, considering that onely the first rankes of shot can discharge, and that all doe not hit, and few mortally, especially if the first targets be of proofe, and the men march resolutely to the charge. Neither can shot retire where many of them are in the field, nor save themselves in any place, but targetters wil come to them. . . The force of shot is greater in skirmish, then in set battelles. For shot if they bee driven to stand thicke have no use. As the unprofitable number number of shot at the battell of Moncontour, and Dreux: and other incounters in the late warres of France, declare sufficiently."

I've suspected that handguns were being used in skirmishes more and more often in the 15th century as well, although perhaps early handguns were a bit more troublesome to carry around, aim, and reload with than the "classic" matchlock mechanism that was eventually introduced?

---

Anyways, I know many have problems but are there any english-language sources or translations in particular that you would recommend?

[Deepbluediver]

FWIW, gunpowder weapons and armored knights existed alongside each other for longer than most people realize- about 300 years altogether before firearms became developed to the point of obviating the protective value of steel plate armor, IIRC what I've read before.

Damn, now I feel compelled to start working out stats for guns in my setting.

I figured that magical weapons might necessitate the production of magical armor, so the "arms race" could continue and produce plate and such without firearms and it would still feel valid, but all this is really interesting and hard to argue against. Especially since I like high-magic settings, and it wouldn't be to hard to imagine an alchemical gunpowder analogue.
Maybe I'll stat guns like I was thinking about an Arbelast- large damage but with a long reload time, so it's really only attractive to people in siege-situations and maybe massed-combat. Definitely not the sort of thing adventurers in small-group or solo-combat situations would favor.

[rrgg]

Re: the development of plate armor

I think the other common argument is that plate armor required first developing blast furnaces which could produce a single piece of iron or steel large enough to make a breastplate out of.

Plate armor seems to have originated some time in the 1200s as a supplement to existing armor, with plates worn either over or underneath mail. This is the same century that gunpowder seems to have arrived in europe so it might have had some infulence, although other possibilities include a reaction to stronger crossbows, the growing popularity of jousting or heavy lances (in the 16th century Humphrey Barwick seemed to think that a lance could still sometimes work its way through a coat of brigandine), or even a declining cost of armor leading to more experimentation and knights able to afford more protection.

In either case China was using blast furnaces, high-powered crossbows, and gunpowder weapons for far longer than europeans were and didn't seem too interested in full suits of plate armor, so no, technology doesn't necessarily follow some sort of linear progression.

edit: Also, rifles were used alongside plate armor as well in the 16th century, possibly earlier.

[Blackhawk748]

Re: the development of plate armor

I think the other common argument is that plate armor required first developing blast furnaces which could produce a single piece of iron or steel large enough to make a breastplate out of.

Plate armor seems to have originated some time in the 1200s as a supplement to existing armor, with plates worn either over or underneath mail. This is the same century that gunpowder seems to have arrived in europe so it might have had some infulence, although other possibilities include a reaction to stronger crossbows, the growing popularity of jousting or heavy lances (in the 16th century Humphrey Barwick seemed to think that a lance could still sometimes work its way through a coat of brigandine), or even a declining cost of armor leading to more experimentation and knights able to afford more protection.

In either case China was using blast furnaces, high-powered crossbows, and gunpowder weapons for far longer than europeans were and didn't seem too interested in full suits of plate armor, so no, technology doesn't necessarily follow some sort of linear progression.

Though, to be fair, China had way more people under a single government that any European power, so they could just bury the problem in people. And i certainly wouldnt want to try and equip an entire Chinese army in plate armor.

[rrgg]

Damn, now I feel compelled to start working out stats for guns in my setting.

I figured that magical weapons might necessitate the production of magical armor, so the "arms race" could continue and produce plate and such without firearms and it would still feel valid, but all this is really interesting and hard to argue against. Especially since I like high-magic settings, and it wouldn't be to hard to imagine an alchemical gunpowder analogue.
Maybe I'll stat guns like I was thinking about an Arbelast- large damage but with a long reload time, so it's really only attractive to people in siege-situations and maybe massed-combat. Definitely not the sort of thing adventurers in small-group or solo-combat situations would favor.

As we were discussing, if anything it's sort of the opposite. A handgun or arquebus could be made into good cooperative weapon in small groups. For instance if you have a couple of guys with shields or good armor and polearms to protect him or bottle up enemies at a choke point during his lengthy reload or in case he misfires. You could also give the gunner multiple ammo options, for instance a single bullet which can do massive damage/potetially overpen at point blank range vs. loading the barrel with a handful of pebbles/pellets which makes him very likely to hit even a small target but perhaps doesn't do as much damage or only causes a debuff. It would also be good if you played enemies a bit more cautious about being one-shotted or maimed by firearms rather than starting every encounter with "if we all charge at once then he can't kill us all". That way you could use the gun to set up a standoff or force a dialog, or if there were two gunners in a party could potentially make the enemy very reluctant to charge if they make sure that only one gunner fires his weapon at a time.

[Clistenes]

I agree that there seems to be quite a lot of anglo bias among english-language historians. It's telling that descriptions of gunpowder's history in europe tend to start with Roger Bacon, even though england was about as far away from gunpowder's origin point as possible. There's also all the constantly repeated myths about the english longbow, which have sometimes turned into myths about archers in general.

Nowadays most books acknowledge that gunpowder was invented in China and it was brought to Europe by Muslims, but it still frustrates me to no end when Roger Bacon is said to be the "inventor of gunpowder in Europe" or the "introductor of gunpowder to Europe...".

By the time Roger Bacon wrote Opus Major, his contemporary, king Alfonso X of Castile describes cannons being deployed Spain!

Roger Bacon obviously learnt about gunpowder either in the University of Paris, or maybe in Oxford, from either a master trained in Paris or from a text brought from Paris. Spanish and Italian scholars had translated latin and greek texts about philosophy, medicine and science adquired from the Muslims, and that's how Aristotle was reintroduced in Europe (mostly through the University of Paris). Rober Bacon was a lecturer greek philosophy, on Aristotle, both in Oxford and in Paris, so he probably was interested in science and alchemy Arab books (because Arab books were the main source of Ancient knowledge) ... the link is there...

He most probably read about gunpowder in some text about alchemy translated from Arab.

By the time Bacon learned about gunpowder, there probably were thousands of people in southern Europe who were making it and using it for war...