Hangunners - as early as the 1180s in China and 1220+ in Europe - Small front loading cannons of a sort in several sizes and able to kill any ware from 300 to 20 meters out (max range) depending on the gun type. Highly inaccurate and effected by weather greatly. Because of this handgunners had to be well trained in close combat. At best these units were millita swords men who could fire volleys into crowds of charging enemies and killing 1/3rd of what is charging them at best.

They were not as good as good archers or crossbowmen at the time. But good side arms for millita swordsman.




Arbures - 1400s - The earliest true musket capable of penetrating nearly any armor. Highly effected by the weather. (mainly rain) Yet so are crossbows (the best alternative for penetrating very heavily armored opponent's armor)
Both the crossbow and the Arbures require little training, but they were still outclassed by Longbowmen and Composite bowmen of the day. Seeing as how using bows took years to learn how to use effectively. They remained part of elite and expensive units while Arbures and Crossbowmen roles were filled by millitas and levis.



Matchlock musket: - 1360ish in china and 1380s in Europe. Though not entirely more effective than Archers and Crossbowmen it did have longer range when the weather was right. + again you have the factor of little training being needed. Slowly more and more countries adapted them along with the pike to counter Knights. Eventually armies began to be comprised of Pikemen with halberd carriers mixed in for melee with musketeers firing on the
wings and retreating within to their pikemen when they faced a *cavalry rush.
*They were rare there were some armorless (since armor was usless against a musket shot for the most part)
Also there were some cavalry units that used pistols muskets called Reiters. Some of which rather than reloading on their horse would carry 20 or more pistols and just fire once. (I.E. 4 guns strapped to each leg, 8 on the torso,2 on each arm etc etc)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_and_shot




Flint lock - 1630 - A musket that improved on the flint lock in many ways. It signaled the end for pikeman. Think American revolutionary war era




Rifling guns - 1820, with bullets shaped like bullets rather than ammo they flew farther and more accurately. A good example of a war that heavily featured this style of war fare is the American Civil War



Repeating/breach loaded rifles - I am not entirely sure when they were invented.


Automatic - Again not entirely sure


Modern 1960s till today - Most infantrymen today around the world carry gas powered assault rifles such as the M16 or AR15.


All of my knowledge of this stuff is from Medieval total war 2 which ends in 1530 - then of course I know about late 1600s American colonies and how they defended themselves. I felt like there was a big gap in time where knights became useless and guns became totally dominant.

From what I've read *today I feel like the match lock musketmen in Medieval total war 2 are not as good as they were historically in game and I am going to mod that in accordingly.

*(all most entirely wiki ... which you could have done yourself, but this is more compact ;) )

Can anyone with knowledge on the subject fill in a few blanks?

The use of Rifled guns in regular army units predate 1820. They were used in the British army during the Napoleonic wars in such units as the 95th Rifles, 60th Foot and the King's German Legion. The Portugese and Spanish armies also had units who used the weapon. I believe the rifle was also in military use during the American Revolution.

The rifle wasn't in universal use in the British army during those periods but then neither was the flintlock in universal use from 1630 since many troops in the English Civil Wars were still using matchlocks

Originally, rifles were sharpshooter weapons, while the regular infantry made use of the greater firepower of massed muskets, which fired round musket balls of calibers up to 19 mm (0.75 inch). Benjamin Robins, an English mathematician, realized that an elongated bullet would retain the mass and kinetic force of a musket ball, but would slice through the air with much greater ease.[1] The innovative work of Robins and others would take until the end of the 18th century to gain acceptance.



Ahh I see, I suppose it just wasn't widely used till the end of that century though

Well not entirely complete. The wheel-lock was the first mechanically stored energy trigger system I believe (trigger and sear) which feeled the gap between matches and flint locks. This was derived from a De Vinchi invention that was meant to light kindling (like a modern lighter).

Snaphance and snaplocks were the next development which "hen pecked" the frizzen like later flintlocks. (Wheel-locks rotated toward the butt rather than the muzzle).

Then from the 16th century onward there was a development of breechloading guns. (not repeaters) where the ball and powder was loaded at the breech instead of the muzzle. The advantage was they could be loaded faster and could be loaded while the shooter was lying on the ground behind cover which was practically impossible to do with a muzzle loader.

"Repeaters" as in revolving barrel weapons date back to the 1500s but where never very popular.

After the flintlocks there was still a whole other family of muzzle loaded firearms to be fielded before modern cartridge firing weapons came along which were the percussion types (US civil war) used tiny "caps" placed on a nipple which ignited the powder.

From the mid 19th century to the first years of the 20th there was an explosion of firearm development that pretty much any modern firearm can trace its beginnings. I don't feel like making a pargragh on each topic (since there is so many) so instead I'll list them.

Self-contained Cartridges (the modern ammunition cartridge; case, primer, propelent, projectile)
"Bolt-action" system
"Needle-fire" system
Internal magazines
Smokeless powder
The pointed bullet or spitzer bullet
Detachable spring-fed magazines (Lee-metford)
Recoil or gas powered operation

The use of Rifled guns in regular army units predate 1820. They were used in the British army during the Napoleonic wars in such units as the 95th Rifles, 60th Foot and the King's German Legion. The Portugese and Spanish armies also had units who used the weapon. I believe the rifle was also in military use during the American Revolution.

I take it he means the "minie bullet" rather than rifling its self which doubled the accuracy and range of rifles to modern distances. Balls fired from rifles where not as efficient. Rifled weapons date back to the 16th century but there is some debate as to whether they were rifled to minimize fouling or to increase accuracy (possibly both).

I felt like there was a big gap in time where knights became useless and guns became totally dominant.

I believe there was a lot of factors that caused the downfall of knights besides firearms such as professional and conscript armies and mercenaries. Firearms could be blamed on the abandoment of personal armor though.

Thanks! That is a lot of info!



I believe there was a lot of factors that caused the downfall of knights besides firearms such as professional and conscript armies and mercenaries. Firearms could be blamed on the abandonment of personal armor though.

It was firearms that made armor useless, but there was a large space of time where knights could easily run down unprotected musketmen. My main goal was to figure out when Musketmen (along with some artillery and cavalry mounted gunmen of some sort) could become the main force.

I don't know how accurate the games I play are, but if they are any indication
Knights were really only 20% of a medieval army.

*Edit my mom's highschool Spanish History book put Leon-Castile at having only 30% pro knights in a majority of the battles in the reconquista.

My main goal was to figure out when Musketmen (along with some artillery and cavalry mounted gunmen of some sort) could become the main force.

Not sure but by 1700 most armies where entirely focused around formations of men armed with firearms supported by artillery. What made these armies effective was new tactics developed around firearms rather than the weapons themselves.

Cavalry still prefered sabres and lances with some pistols as back up. Firing a musket from horseback was not very effective and forget about trying to reload.

My main goal was to figure out when Musketmen (along with some artillery and cavalry mounted gunmen of some sort) could become the main force.

As Bugfatty said, true cavalry mounted gunmen were never that effective.

As for musketmen, they probably edged out pikemen sometime in the late 17th century. This development was significantly aided by the use of the socket bayonet, which allowed musketmen to withstand cavalry on their own (fairly well, at least) and still be able to keep up a good rate of fire.

As Bugfatty said, true cavalry mounted gunmen were never that effective.

As for musketmen, they probably edged out pikemen sometime in the late 17th century. This development was significantly aided by the use of the socket bayonet, which allowed musketmen to withstand cavalry on their own (fairly well, at least) and still be able to keep up a good rate of fire.
That's the way I've understood it too.

About "cavalry" one might add that at various points in early modern wars it became standard practice to mount as much of your infantry as possible for mobility purposes. For instance in the later stages of the 30 Years War in Germany the armies shrank in size, but became mounted to a high degree. They would move on horseback, and then dismount to fight.

It's a type of troop at least later referred to as "dragoons". The bulk of the French cavalry in the Napoleonic wars were made up by such dragoons iirc, wielding sabres if fighting mounted, but usually dismounting when making contact with the enemy and using carbines.

The use of Rifled guns in regular army units predate 1820. They were used in the British army during the Napoleonic wars in such units as the 95th Rifles, 60th Foot and the King's German Legion. The Portugese and Spanish armies also had units who used the weapon. I believe the rifle was also in military use during the American Revolution.

The rifle wasn't in universal use in the British army during those periods but then neither was the flintlock in universal use from 1630 since many troops in the English Civil Wars were still using matchlocks
From what I've seen rifles were used for sniping at least seince the early 17th c. Good weapon for defenders at a siege.

From what I understand it wasn't a good solution for the battlefield due to doctrinal reason. Rifles are much more accurate but slower to reload compared to smooth-bore muskets. Rifling a barrel is tricky, hence expensive, and the musket in Europe developed as a mass-effect weapon. The European firearm musketry doctrine was geared towards increasing the rate of fire, not accuracy. You want your muskteteers to fire volleys for mass effect, and then reload aqap to do it again.
There was a race on to drill your men more than the competition, to develop more effective drill-patterns, and by the mid-18th c. the Prussian army even shortened the musket to gain that helf-second or so when swinging the musket around to reload.

By comparison the Japanese musketry doctrine seems to have relied rather on making the muskets more accurate, despite also independantly inventing volley fire ahead of Europe (battle of Nagashino 1575).

Generally I think the OP would be helped by looking into the doctrines involved here, not just the technical solutions.:)

Also to be considered is that the gun didn't immediately obsolete armors. At least nowhere near as early as you suggest. In fact they inspired the improvement and advancement of armors for quite some time, eventually approaching the heavily armored suit that the popular image of the medieval armored might use. (as I said, a popular image...and an incorrect one given the time most people would choose to place such heavy suits of armor.)

Fact is, these better armors successfully deflected gunshots. Unless it was at close range, the rounds would bounce off more often than not. Firearms didn't clearly start to overcome armor until the late 1600's and even than, it took a long time dying out.

Also to be considered is that the gun didn't immediately obsolete armors. At least nowhere near as early as you suggest. In fact they inspired the improvement and advancement of armors for quite some time, eventually approaching the heavily armored suit that the popular image of the medieval armored might use. (as I said, a popular image...and an incorrect one given the time most people would choose to place such heavy suits of armor.)

Fact is, these better armors successfully deflected gunshots. Unless it was at close range, the rounds would bounce off more often than not. Firearms didn't clearly start to overcome armor until the late 1600's and even than, it took a long time dying out.
Indeed!
This is my problem in modding medieval total war 2. There is no option to make the shots stronger at close range. So I am stuck having to mess around with the accuracy numbers and leaving it at max damage...... it's not working out and is not very realistic. I am starting to think maybe they are just not meant to be in this particular game. There is only so much you can do with a locked source code :(


@ everyone, thanks! lots of stuff I don't know here! :)

P.S. what is the most famous battle of the late 1600s between two European powers?

- That way I can look at a battle of the era with lots of info on it and study it.

P.S. what is the most famous battle of the late 1600s between two European powers?

- That way I can look at a battle of the era with lots of info on it and study it.

you have the thirty year war in the beginning of the 1600's (1618-1648)

and you have a long history of Swedish wars in that era.

I take it he means the "minie bullet" rather than rifling its self which doubled the accuracy and range of rifles to modern distances. Balls fired from rifles where not as efficient. Rifled weapons date back to the 16th century but there is some debate as to whether they were rifled to minimize fouling or to increase accuracy (possibly both).

The minie ball wasn't invented until the 1840s and the minie rifle or similar weapons weren't in widespread use until the late 1850s or 1860s. Certainly early 19th century rifles were a great deal more accurate than most muskets, but that wasn't exactly difficult.

From what I understand it wasn't a good solution for the battlefield due to doctrinal reason. Rifles are much more accurate but slower to reload compared to smooth-bore muskets. Rifling a barrel is tricky, hence expensive, and the musket in Europe developed as a mass-effect weapon. The European firearm musketry doctrine was geared towards increasing the rate of fire, not accuracy. You want your muskteteers to fire volleys for mass effect, and then reload aqap to do it again.
There was a race on to drill your men more than the competition, to develop more effective drill-patterns, and by the mid-18th c. the Prussian army even shortened the musket to gain that helf-second or so when swinging the musket around to reload.

Rifles weren't just a bad weapon under this doctrine because of speed, but because of the training required to make them effective. A Baker rifle in the hands of one of the 95th could often be accurate up to 400 yards, but its effective range was listed at 200. Riflemen were trained to operate in small groups and think for themselves. They were permitted independence in how they loaded their weapons, and were generally the best marksmen in the army. The Baker could be a very accurate weapon in the hands of a rifleman, but it would be no more than a liability if it was issued en masse to men who were drilled and flogged until they were more afraid of their own officers and NCOs than they were of the enemy.

The training provided by Moore and others during the Napoleonic wars produced great benefits and even an independent doctrine for light infantry but at the time could never replace the overall training received by the majority of the army. Even during the American Civil War more emphasis was often placed on speed rather than accuracy despite the greater accuracy of the minie ball over the earlier rifles.

Generally I think the OP would be helped by looking into the doctrines involved here, not just the technical solutions.

If he wants an overview of what was the most common weapon for the period and why that was the case then yes. Its also important to point out the origins of certain weapons as well. This shows that there isn't one date when armies suddenly stopped using muskets and adopted rifles out of the blue.

P.S. what is the most famous battle of the late 1600s between two European powers?

- That way I can look at a battle of the era with lots of info on it and study it.

you have the thirty year war in the beginning of the 1600's (1618-1648)

and you have a long history of Swedish wars in that era.

There was the British Civil war as well, numerous English/Dutch wars. I can't think of any major conflict in the late 1600's though.

I spose you could look at the battle of White Mountain but thats in the early half of the period.

How about the Battle of the Boyne?

There may be some major battles in the War of the Grand Alliance too, I'm not sure.

There's always the War of the Holy Leagure 1683-1698, between the Habsburgs and allies and the Ottomans, starting out with the Turks coming close to the capture of Vienna itself in 1683, very famous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Turkish_War
The second Battle of Mohács (1687) might be the most famous of battles from this time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Mohács

The Scanian War 1675-79, between Sweden and Denmark. Serious Danish bid to regain that third of the country lost to the Swedes in 1658 repulsed. Includes the bloodiest battle in Swedish-Danish military history, the battle of Lund 1676 (9000 Swedes against 15000 Danes, with 3000 Swedes killed to 6000 Danes).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanian_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lund

The Franco-Dutch War 1672–78, with the French AND the English dogpiling the Dutch initially, before the Habsburgs, Austria AND Spain jumping to stop the Anglo-French alliance from chewing it up (i.e. Spain as a Dutch ally, which is also weird).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Dutch_War
As for noteworthy battles (on land), there's the Battle of Seneffe (1674), which was pretty big, pretty bloody, but inconclusive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Seneffe

For a slightly weird, small, and militarily inconclusive battle which was nevertheless considered majorly important at the time, try the Battle of Fehrbellin (1675), in an odd little war involving Sweden, preassured by it ally France to declare war on Brandenburg (yet to become Prussia).
The Swedes made a fighting retreat and the Brandenburgers remained on the field. The importance accorded to this was due to the fact that it was the first time a German/Prussian army hadn't been slapped silly by the Swedes. A big brouhaha was made about this "Glorious Victory" in Berlin, with medals comemmorating it being struck etc., while in Sweden it was always regarded as more of a souting mission running into the enemy, and having located him, retreating. This battle sort of inaugurated all the rest of Prussian military history to come...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fehrbellin

There's one significant military power that hasn't been mentioned yet [crosspost]. They, before those mentioned so far*, adopted and I believe were responsible for crucial developments in firearms as we now recognise them. I don't have time to go into detail now, so grab the names from this entry and go for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#Introduction_of_fir earms

* The Chinese, and later Mongols carrying their technology westwards, seemed more interested in hand held rockets than anything like guns as we would know them today.

They, before those mentioned so far*, adopted and I believe were responsible for crucial developments in firearms as we now recognise them.

Well, if the Ottoman army only began using guns between 1444 and 1448 then they were behind most others. Guns were known and in use in Europe by the 1300s.

Though Muslims (not the Ottomans) were using firearms earlier than the Europeans and the Islamic world did make a lot of early developments in gunpowder and firearm technology though the crucial developments in firearms as recognised by most people today IMO were developed in Europe.

They were in use sure but they were hardly used that much in the fourteenth century. The Longbow and crossbows were still the weapons of choice in the early Hundred Years war. Most armies for at least a century following the 1400's still had a large portion as non gunpowder, so just having gunpowder units in a force does not mean that the force was anymore advanced than others.

The ottomans were quicker to take advantage of gunpowder to a greater extent than most other empires of the day, the Janisseries quickly predominantly used gunpowder weapons on a far greater scale than any contemporary. Highlighted by the massive empire very quickly acquired (in relative terms).

The Ottomans were the forerunners of the so called 'military revolution' with their development of gunpowder cores. But other aspects of it, Trace Italiene (special castles to defend against cannons) and later standadised drill in the early seventeenth century by the Dutch were indeed invented by Europe. It goes without saying the impact Adolphus and Maurice of Massau had on tactics.

So allthough the majority of gunpowder advances occured in Europe the Ottomans shouldn't be discounted, perhaps not technologically but their implementation of them.

The minie ball wasn't invented until the 1840s and the minie rifle or similar weapons weren't in widespread use until the late 1850s or 1860s. Certainly early 19th century rifles were a great deal more accurate than most muskets, but that wasn't exactly difficult.

In either case the true potential of the rifle was not realized until the advent of conical shaped bullets. Rifles themselves wheren't put into mass use until the same time period which was a result of the minie bullet. For intance the minie-bullet-firing Enfield rifles replacing the Brown Bess and later model muskets as the general infantry weapons.

Round-ball firing rifles were more accurate than smooth-bores but never very practical due to the problem of bullet caliber vs barrel bore. Ie the ball had to be larger or extremely tight fitting inorder for the rifling to work which made reloading (especially after several shots) quite a challenge. Minie bullets solved that problem (along with breech loading) as well as doubling accuracy.

My points about early rifles were not to suggest that they were mass-use weapons but to demonstrate that mass produced rifles didn't emerge from out of thin air in the mid 19th century, and that individualistic training based on the ability to hit a target rather than fire faster than the enemy didn't either.

The arbitary date of 1820 fits no criteria that I can see and certainly not the one you suggested since its at least 20 years too early.

My points about early rifles were not to suggest that they were mass-use weapons but to demonstrate that mass produced rifles didn't emerge from out of thin air in the mid 19th century, and that individualistic training based on the ability to hit a target rather than fire faster than the enemy didn't either.

The arbitary date of 1820 fits no criteria that I can see and certainly not the one you suggested since its at least 20 years too early.

Knights stopped being effective at around 1500.

In 1600, the longbow was still a very effective weapon. In 1700 it was not.

Besides cavalry and artillery crews, non-gunpowder weapons stopped being used sometime in the 17th century. I think the English Civil War would be the turning point.

Besides cavalry and artillery crews, non-gunpowder weapons stopped being used sometime in the 17th century. I think the English Civil War would be the turning point.
Only in Britain. Anything done there was already well established on the continent and the turning point was the Thirty Years War.

Besides cavalry and artillery crews, non-gunpowder weapons stopped being used sometime in the 17th century.

Air guns were used up to the Napoleonic wars. Nasty little guns. Technological wonders also. The French executed any soldiers caught with one.

My points about early rifles were not to suggest that they were mass-use weapons but to demonstrate that mass produced rifles didn't emerge from out of thin air in the mid 19th century, and that individualistic training based on the ability to hit a target rather than fire faster than the enemy didn't either.

The arbitary date of 1820 fits no criteria that I can see and certainly not the one you suggested since its at least 20 years too early.

I wasn't focused on 1820 since it was just an approximation by the OP as far as I can tell. "with bullets that look like bullets" led me to believe he was talking about minie bullets in conjunction with rifling.

It's a type of troop at least later referred to as "dragoons". The bulk of the French cavalry in the Napoleonic wars were made up by such dragoons iirc, wielding sabres if fighting mounted, but usually dismounting when making contact with the enemy and using carbines.
Not correct, French army of Napoleon had up to 14 regiments of Cuirassiers, 2 of Carabiniers, 30 dragoons, 31 chasseurs, 6 Chevaux Legers and 10 hussars (lancers), so technically the bulk of the French cavalry were chasseurs, not dragoons... Well, I'm nitpicking: the chasseurs were initially 24 regiments, increased later to 31, while the Dragoons remains 30.

So that's a total of 71 cavalry regiments in the French army (excluding the guard).

By comparison, the British had 25 regiments (excluding the guard), almost all of them dragoons (a few light dragoons were converted to hussars), Russia had 65 line regiments (including 36 dragoons) + 10 cossacks regiments.

Not correct, French army of Napoleon had up to 14 regiments of Cuirassiers, 2 of Carabiniers, 30 dragoons, 31 chasseurs, 6 Chevaux Legers and 10 hussars (lancers), so technically the bulk of the French cavalry were chasseurs, not dragoons... Well, I'm nitpicking: the chasseurs were initially 24 regiments, increased later to 31, while the Dragoons remains 30.

So that's a total of 71 cavalry regiments in the French army (excluding the guard).

By comparison, the British had 25 regiments (excluding the guard), almost all of them dragoons (a few light dragoons were converted to hussars), Russia had 65 line regiments (including 36 dragoons) + 10 cossacks regiments.

Whilst you're correct in that they are the overall totals how much they were used varied depending on the campaign. In Russia for example only 4 complete and 1 composite Dragoon regiment were used. In Spain however they formed a much larger percentage of French cavalry, at Vittoria for example Dragoons alone represented over 55% of the Franco-Spanish horse. The peninsula campaign of course was almost unuiqely suited to Dragoons since their abilities suited anti-guerilla campaigns.

Unlike the French the British didn't tend to define the roles of each type of cavalry very well so dragoon in our army was used for anything from the Heavies like the Dragoon Guards to Light Dragoon regiments. Even the regiments converted into hussars retained the title "Light Dragoon" throughout the wars. All types of dragoons were expected to be able to perform outpost, scouting and shock duties, and none received any specialist training. What training they did recieve was limited and didn't tend towards practical work useful whilst on campaign, so most regiments learnt their trade "on the job" so to speak. Notable exceptions to this were German units like the Kings German Legion who had radical notions like training cavalry to do more than look pretty and hunt foxes...

British cavalry also made up a smaller percentage of the army on campaign, the highest it ever got in the Peninsula for example was 10.2% during the Vittoria campaign compared to 18% in the Army of the North in 1815, 21% of Napoleon's force at Aspern-Essling or 20% at Wagram.

I wasn't focused on 1820 since it was just an approximation by the OP as far as I can tell. "with bullets that look like bullets" led me to believe he was talking about minie bullets in conjunction with rifling.

Fair enough, I stand by my comment on the importance of evolution of weapons rather than arbitary cut off dates however.

No need to argue gentlemen ..... you are all ranks and ranks above me in this subject. :lol:
+ you are both right I meant minie bullets and yes there were not arbitrary dates and battlefield tactics were a very important part of combat as well.


This thread makes me so excited for Empire Total War ! :D

Sadly I think the pike era will be skipped :(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire:_Total_War

There's always the War of the Holy Leagure 1683-1698, between the Habsburgs and allies and the Ottomans, starting out with the Turks coming close to the capture of Vienna itself in 1683, very famous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Turkish_War
The second Battle of Mohács (1687) might be the most famous of battles from this time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Mohács

The Scanian War 1675-79, between Sweden and Denmark. Serious Danish bid to regain that third of the country lost to the Swedes in 1658 repulsed. Includes the bloodiest battle in Swedish-Danish military history, the battle of Lund 1676 (9000 Swedes against 15000 Danes, with 3000 Swedes killed to 6000 Danes).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanian_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lund

The Franco-Dutch War 1672–78, with the French AND the English dogpiling the Dutch initially, before the Habsburgs, Austria AND Spain jumping to stop the Anglo-French alliance from chewing it up (i.e. Spain as a Dutch ally, which is also weird).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Dutch_War
As for noteworthy battles (on land), there's the Battle of Seneffe (1674), which was pretty big, pretty bloody, but inconclusive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Seneffe

For a slightly weird, small, and militarily inconclusive battle which was nevertheless considered majorly important at the time, try the Battle of Fehrbellin (1675), in an odd little war involving Sweden, preassured by it ally France to declare war on Brandenburg (yet to become Prussia).
The Swedes made a fighting retreat and the Brandenburgers remained on the field. The importance accorded to this was due to the fact that it was the first time a German/Prussian army hadn't been slapped silly by the Swedes. A big brouhaha was made about this "Glorious Victory" in Berlin, with medals comemmorating it being struck etc., while in Sweden it was always regarded as more of a souting mission running into the enemy, and having located him, retreating. This battle sort of inaugurated all the rest of Prussian military history to come...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fehrbellin

Thanks! :goodjob:
I am looking into all of these affirms and getting every liabrary book I can find.

p.s. sorry mods, I didn't intend to bump this so much, I just started thinking about stuff after I posted allready.

If I post again I'll make an edit.