Redpill me on 15th and early 16th century battles /his/. Were

>>2975198
15th century was largely medieval warfare, albeit cannons for sieges and handguns became common during the later half of the century.
Arquebuses didn't became common until the mid 16th century. I think the Spanish pioneered that and warfare swiftly changed to pike and shot warfare. Also cannons became more versatil as field artillery.

File: evolution of armor.jpg (162KB, 1600x478px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1600x478px

>>2975198
Guns had already played a part in European warfare in the 14th century, and as you can imagine they grew in importance. For a while, gunners functioned basically as improved archers, and they still needed help from pikemen. I'm pretty sure the bayonet came around in the 1600s, thus combining the gun and spear into one.

Armor was also getting better, so I don't think mortality rates went up considerably until the 1600s when gun technology effectively rendered armor worthless.

>>2975217
>Guns had already played a part in European warfare in the 14th century,
only a small part and only stationary during sieges and likes.

16 the century armies began to be based more around guns and protecting gunners. The Hussites showed peasants with guns could beat knights.

Armies got more professional in the 17th century due to the need for speed. The Reformation made warfare super brutal with mass executions, witch craft trials and hanging whole villages or drowning priests by the literal boat load because you couldn't kill them quick enough by burning or beheading.

>>2975276
The Reformation was in the 16th century. And warfare was brutal before and after.

>>2975279

The Reformation lasted a long time. It includes the 30 Years War.

Of course war was always brutal but the European religious wars were far more brutal on civilians. Wars in the Middle Ages didn't kill 8 million people/ a third of the populace like they did in the Reformation.

>>2975287
Mongols wasted many more people, so did Timur.
The 30 years war is not part of OP's question and came long after firearms became the main weapon.

It wasn't just the 30 Years War either. The Hugonaut Wars killed 4 million in France. It's not really comparable with previous European wars.

Yeah, you might loot and rape the preasants, but you didn't hang the entire town as heretics.

>>2975294

Really? I thought pike formations and the push of the pike were still major parts of battles through the English Civil War.

>>2975198
>Redpill me on 15th and early 16th century battles /his/.

What would be the Bluepill answer to this question?

>>2975198
arquebusses were too expensive to make, too inaccurate and took too long to reload to be effective in combat...

File: Hausbuch_Wolfegg_51v_52r1_Heerzug.jpg (2MB, 4179x1504px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4179x1504px

>>2975198
The Hausbuch Wolfegg shows a late 15th century (probably after 1580) army. One can actually see lots of firearms there.

>>2975319
And thats why they where widely used and adopted by every major European force in great numbers.
>>2975316
Pikes where still in use in mixed pike and shot formations. I never heard of an actual push of the pike in that war, got a source on this?

>>2975342
>15th century (probably after 1580
You know, 1500-1599, thats 16th century.

>>2975342
Wolfegg is 1480, not 1580!

>>2975217
>1600s
>render armor useless
Do your research please

>>2975367
>>2975370
I mistyped. 1480 is correct of course. The fact that I wrote late 15th century should indicate that, as well as the distinctively Gothic armour being worn which would be rather atypical for the 16th century.

>>2975317
Maybe something retarded about stone weapons?

>>2975319
Nah. If that was the case why were they so sought after? Literally all major powers wanted them including nations like Nippon and England.

Huge amounts of Reislaufer, or Swiss mercenaries. Several Swiss cantons even passed ordinances saying Swiss couldn't fight other Swiss because of how many Swiss infantrymen were fighting around Europe, especially in Italy.

>>2975198
>>>2975317
>Maybe something retarded about stone weapons?
What about that video by Lindybeige in which he says when two spear/pile formations clash in combat, both sides will raise their weapons because they don't want to get hurt. His source: his LARP buddies.

File: Screenshot_2.png (152KB, 281x652px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 281x652px

This is the moment when all started to change

>>2975310
>hang the entire town as heretics
this never happened. what next, you're going to post the tree picture with all the people being hanged without knowing what it is from?

File: 18403545_1411421382282100_9097897290230714244_n.jpg (157KB, 960x954px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 960x954px

>>2976613
This, the turning point was the battle of Pavia. (Pic related, the spanish imperial troops armed with arquebus at Pavia, Italy)

>>2975198
In my understanding, pikes were still widely used to fend off cavalry attacks, but the most developed armies would probably use more guns.
Typical Spanish battalions would be a mixed unit of pikemen, musketeers and other infantrymen

>>2976646
I know the image you're talking about, but what is it actually from?

The way I see it, late 15th century was - they shot each other for a while, did some minimal losses then converted to full on medieval shizle. It wasn't until just 100 years ago when the sword as a sidearm became obsolete, so that's really saying something.

>>2975276
>Hussites
>peasants with guns

>>2975382
Armor certainly wasn't common in the 1700s.