MattE
Warlord
You left dynamite out of your list.
Best Military invention?
- Thread starter Sarevok
- Start date
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
Muskets, the begining of gunpowder, which leads to a lot of the more deadly weapons of today.
Androrc
Prince
Actually the arquebuses are the beggining of gunpowder... which is why I voted in it.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
that is true 
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
but were horses 'Invented'?
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Plane. Only because of that modern warfare could develope as they did with all consequences.
Adler
Adler
Androrc
Prince
Well, they were bred selectively to be more fast and have a higher endurance, just like cows have been bred to have more milk. They have been improved, but I don't really think we can say 'we' invented the horses.
.:KNAS:.
Civfanatic
Not all of it. (early) Machine guns were used against the Zulu and other tribes in Africa. A few machine guns was all that was needed to tip the scale of battle then.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
I voted Machine Gun, since that was the impetus of the invention of the tank and later the blitzkrieg and all that entailed - dive bombers, mechanized units, etc.
Planes had a huge impact, but they would have been kind of worthless without machine guns...zeppelins would probably still be used.
But the musket was obviously revolutionary.
Spears were more important as a tool for early man's survival.
Also of vast inpact was the French Artillery piece that didn't have to be re-sighted after every shot. I forget the name of it.
Electricity has a claim to it as well. It ran the factories that enabled mass production.
What's interesting to me is how there were so few innovations in warfare up until the renaissance. I mean, the Romans ruled Europe for centuries, but were still using crude steel swords when the empire collapsed. They had not grasped the importance of cavalry, even after suffering horrendous defeats precisely because of it. China actually had gunpowder, but failed to grasp the supreme advantage in warfare it could bring. When Europeans finally saw the value of a force of cavalry and infantry combined, it was still several centuries before they used organized formations as complex as Alexander used.
Planes had a huge impact, but they would have been kind of worthless without machine guns...zeppelins would probably still be used.
But the musket was obviously revolutionary.
Spears were more important as a tool for early man's survival.
Also of vast inpact was the French Artillery piece that didn't have to be re-sighted after every shot. I forget the name of it.
Electricity has a claim to it as well. It ran the factories that enabled mass production.
What's interesting to me is how there were so few innovations in warfare up until the renaissance. I mean, the Romans ruled Europe for centuries, but were still using crude steel swords when the empire collapsed. They had not grasped the importance of cavalry, even after suffering horrendous defeats precisely because of it. China actually had gunpowder, but failed to grasp the supreme advantage in warfare it could bring. When Europeans finally saw the value of a force of cavalry and infantry combined, it was still several centuries before they used organized formations as complex as Alexander used.
Amenhotep7
Spartiate
The reflex bow. Developed by the Huns (I think.
) it revolutionized warfare, as an archer didn't have to spread his legs far apart to generate hitting power. It led an army that almost went to Rome. Of course, Attila couldn't have marched to northern Italy if the General Aetius didn't go soft on his old friends, the Huns, at the bettle of Orleans.
) it revolutionized warfare, as an archer didn't have to spread his legs far apart to generate hitting power. It led an army that almost went to Rome. Of course, Attila couldn't have marched to northern Italy if the General Aetius didn't go soft on his old friends, the Huns, at the bettle of Orleans.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
The Celts did go to Rome with swords and spears. The huns and their bows had even less of an influence.
Europe conquered the world with guns.
Europe conquered the world with guns.
Horseback or cavalry-based warfare shld be a more accurate term.
A)the Romans fully understood the importance of cavalry- the problem was, the economy had collaspsed, and by the time they needed it, only the westenr Empire could afford- and what do you know, we have the development of the almight cataphract
- to note, Rome had been developing a strong cavalry arm since th ereign of the first emperor Agustus, only it never gets any creditB)Roman tactics were FAR more complex then alexanders- and the imperial army far more balenced- the problem is, the imperial army was long gone, due to being to damn expensive for lete Rome to maintain
C)saying "srude stell; is like saying a low tech laser- it was an age in which iron was till the common metal,a nd to have a steel blade- let alone an army with steel blades was an incredible achivement for the time
Ægir
Rhône Warrior
I gotta go with tanks.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Originally posted by Xen
A)the Romans fully understood the importance of cavalry- the problem was, the economy had collaspsed, and by the time they needed it, only the westenr Empire could afford- and what do you know, we have the development of the almight cataphract
Should it get any credit?
Yes, there is the cataphract, but it came along after the western empire had collapsed.
I know, I was saying that the Europeans didn't use tactics that approached what Alexander used, let alone the Romans.
I though that other cultures had developed much superior steel than what the Romans used...even within the Roman Empire. I could be wrong, though.
No, they just appear, it's horseback riding which is invented
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
The plane was the most revolutionary invention of military technology. The MG was also revolutionary but not in the extent og the plane. With the plane the military was revolutionized in an extent hardly believeable. You had now the ability to spy the enemy without being in danger. Or to bomb enemy targets. On the other hand you needed a defence against them. Fighters. The first air combats were indeed fights with rifles! Successes were rare. In early 1915 the French pilot Roland Garros had the first plane with a MG. This made it deadly. Although I must admit the MG had a big influence but at least now the MG would have been invented. Nevertheless the first real fighter was not a French one but a German. When Garros was shot down he had to make an ermergency landing behind German lines. He was captured at once before destroying his plane. His plane was captured nearly intact. The MG shot through the propeller. But the Germans had better ammo than the French which destroyed the prpeller immediatly. So they gave a MG to the Dutch Anthony Fokker who made the first real fighter Fokker E I. This was the beginning of the first real fighter pilots and aces like Max Immelmann and Oswald Boelcke and the Fokker sourge.
The MG was invented in the 1860s. The USA had the gatling as the very first MG. In the French German war of 1871 the French had the Mitrailleuse. This was a secret invention, so nobody knew really what this was. So because it looked like a cannon they used it as artillery, with minimal success. Only a few times they used it as MG- with outstanding success. But the Germans won the war.
In Africa the MG had the first real success. The colonial wars were mainly fought with MGs. When the British landed near Tanga in 1914 the German defence line was full of MG nests. The British soldiers were slaughtered running against a heavily fotified German position. Because of the unable command they lost the battle (and because of patriotic bees ).
The MG was a revolutionary invention indeed making the cavalry entirely obsolete. But the plane discovered an entire dimension of warfare. That´s why the plane was the most revolutionary invention of warfare.
Adler
The MG was invented in the 1860s. The USA had the gatling as the very first MG. In the French German war of 1871 the French had the Mitrailleuse. This was a secret invention, so nobody knew really what this was. So because it looked like a cannon they used it as artillery, with minimal success. Only a few times they used it as MG- with outstanding success. But the Germans won the war.
In Africa the MG had the first real success. The colonial wars were mainly fought with MGs. When the British landed near Tanga in 1914 the German defence line was full of MG nests. The British soldiers were slaughtered running against a heavily fotified German position. Because of the unable command they lost the battle (and because of patriotic bees
).The MG was a revolutionary invention indeed making the cavalry entirely obsolete. But the plane discovered an entire dimension of warfare. That´s why the plane was the most revolutionary invention of warfare.
Adler
cataphracts begin use in the very middle of the imperial era, as they were simply the older Contarius troops (initiasted by the Agustian military reforms) with armoured cavalry0 the Byzantines simply made a good troop even better
that said, how many times do you hear of eneymy cavalry pverrunnign a early or mid imperial Roman army?- never- Romes cavalry arm was amoungst the best in the world at the time
as far as know, the best stell at the time wa smore or less the same of the rather soft (for the standards of stell that is) stell developed by Ro,e- the big thing is that Rome was able to mass produce the stuff on a reguler basis- provided there enough funding to do it
Similar threads
