Ten Weapons That Changed History

[Elok]

This was a special on Discovery a while back. I tuned in eagerly, only to learn that "to make it easier to choose, we limited it to weapons from the second half of the twentieth century," or some such. Laaaame! I turned off the TV before they could show a parade of fancy fighter jets and handheld missile launchers. If I wanted to jerk off over how far away we can kill people from today, I could visit the U.S. Army website. I was looking for something more long-term historical, such as (going from my limited knowledge of history, in no particular order):

-The atlatl spear-thrower, which made mammoth-hunting fun and easy rather than insanely dangerous
-The chariot, which not only broke Civ1 but also conquered just about all of the ancient world under one invading horde or another
-The atomic bomb, for obvious reasons
-Gunpowder, which put an end to castles and helped put an end to heavy cavalry
-Probably others but that's all I can think of.

I guess it depends how you define a "weapon." If you could consider stirrups a weapon, indirectly, they certainly played a major part. What do you say, O history wonks of Poly? I'm thinking of revolutionary arms that changed the whole way wars were fought, and politics as well, not just improved versions of the same old thing.

[Alexander I]

I might include the respective advents of bronze, iron, and steel weaponry, the composite bow, the stirrup, and the rifled musket.

Oh, and Greek fire. Yes.

[Proteus_MST]

-The Plane
Making it possible to bypass fortified positions
by just flying over them
Also totally changed the warfare at sean from LOS gun battles to battles of carrier flets which couldn´t directly see each other

-Guided Misiles
Not having to risk any soldier; just send an unmanned rocket deep into enemy territory with the press of a button.

Or, instead of guided missiles:
-The computer
Instead of manual skills (for example to aim your gun) you have to be an able user of your tanks/planes/ships computers to let it calculate the correct firing solution. Manual calculations like before aren´t become less and less necessary and war more and more becomes like a computergame.

-Bow & Arrow
The first true ranged weapon with a range and accuracy unmatched by slings/spears/spear slings

[Andemagne]

weapon = hurting tool



-Tank. reintroducing heavy cavalry.

-Machine Gun. increased infantry's firepower considerably.

[Dr Strangelove]

Was the chariot really that big of a deal?

How about the saddle? Saddles gave Mongol cavalry a huge advantage over others.

The Persian compund bow should be mentioned too. It was a major factor in the demise of the Roman Legion.

[Cyclotron]

The chariot was certainly a big deal. The Persians had composite bows, not compound bows. Compound bows have pulleys and are a modern invention.

My list of 10 weapons or vehicles before the 20th century would be:
- Chariot
- Compound bow
- Sarissa (more aptly, pike tactics, but this will do)
- Falcata/Gladius
- Crossbow
- Greek Fire (debatable)
- Cannon
- Flintlock Musket
- Repeating Rifle
- Maxim Gun

[Dr Strangelove]

Yeah, you're right about the composite bows.

Let's not forget the A-bomb, which probably prevented World War III.

I'd add also the flintlock musket. The flintlock made firearms reliable enough that infantry could use them as their sole weapon.

Oh, you did add the flintlock musket.

[BeBMan]

I think it can be a bit misleading to look only at a certain weapon for much of history. Things like the bomb represent certainly a drastic change, but most often we have to count in a number of factors instead of looking only at a certain type of weapon. For example, lance or later sarissa in Hellenic warfare are hardly thinkable as the decisive thing without hoplon and phalanx tactics.

[GePap]

In that TV show, the one weapon that I thought trully appropriate was the AK-47. Cheap atumotic rifles have done more for warfare in the last 50 years than any billion dollar weapon system.

[Cyclotron]

BeBro, I agree in part - pike tactics are obviously necessary for pike use - but in this case I think it's one of the more straightforward examples. Hoplite and phalanx tactics weren't invented by Philip, even if he did adapt them to the sarissa. A generation before, Epaminondas used complex phalanx tactics at Leuctra, including deep formations and precise maneuver that Alexander would later utilize. I would call the sarissa "history changing" because, though it (like all weapons) is only as revolutionary as the tactics it requires, it made big changes after those tactics had, for the most part, already been developed.

There seem to be two types of weapons here - those like the sarissa or the flintlock, where existing tactics are improved drastically by a new weapon or weapon technology without the tactics themselves undergoing much change, and those like the chariot or cannon, where tactics are forced to change radically to deal with a new invention. The latter are are the more "revolutionary" inventions, but it doesn't mean that they were necessarily more "history-changing" than the former type.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
BeBro, I agree in part - pike tactics are obviously necessary for pike use - but in this case I think it's one of the more straightforward examples. Hoplite and phalanx tactics weren't invented by Philip, even if he did adapt them to the sarissa. A generation before, Epaminondas used complex phalanx tactics at Leuctra, including deep formations and precise maneuver that Alexander would later utilize.

Yep. I shouldn't have written "hellenic" - I meant it in the sense of generally Greek. The point I was after was rather the change in Greek warfare to the phalanx at all, probably in the 7th century BC (of course with much shorter, non-sarissa types of lances initially). Because lances/spears were certainly used widely elsewhere too, but a Greek phalanx meant a much more effective use.

That is why I think it may be often difficult to separate the weapon from, hm, call it "war technologies" around, because it could sound as if the weapon alone is the main reason for "changing history", which I think is rather the exception found in some truly revolutionary developments than the rule.

For example the Gladius may have been a very effective weapon, but Roman military success (and the history "resulting" from it) of course was a result of much more then using this type of sword, and the main factors here were rather things like organization, logistics, or strategy&tactics...

There seem to be two types of weapons here - those like the sarissa or the flintlock, where existing tactics are improved drastically by a new weapon or weapon technology without the tactics themselves undergoing much change, and those like the chariot or cannon, where tactics are forced to change radically to deal with a new invention. The latter are are the more "revolutionary" inventions, but it doesn't mean that they were necessarily more "history-changing" than the former type

Yup, agreed.

[Elok]

I thought a gladius was just a short double-edged sword. Is there some special property to it other than its use by the almighty Roman legions?

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
In that TV show, the one weapon that I thought trully appropriate was the AK-47. Cheap atumotic rifles have done more for warfare in the last 50 years than any billion dollar weapon system.

I didn't watch the show once I learned it didn't involve ancient military history, but from what I know of the subject, I just might agree. Some guy (forget his name) recently wrote a book on the fiftieth anniversary of the AK, called "Weapons of Mass Destruction" IIRC. Like half the third world now has ready access to a weapon that can hose down a room. There are plenty of eight-year-olds in Afghanistan who know how to strip, clean and load an AK, and could operate it if they were big enough to handle the recoil. Crazy.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by GePap
In that TV show, the one weapon that I thought trully appropriate was the AK-47. Cheap atumotic rifles have done more for warfare in the last 50 years than any billion dollar weapon system.

Yep, If you want a weapon of Mass Destruction, look at the PLA Type 56(Chinese AK-47)

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lonestar


Yep, If you want a weapon of Mass Destruction, look at the PLA Type 56(Chinese AK-47)

Given that the AK-47 and it's derivatives are so decisively superior I wonder why NATO doesn't adopt it or a NATO knock off as their standard infantry weapon? If the weapon is clearly superior then any considerations of cost to convert would seem to be secondary.