Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
Agreed on all points, but this point specifically brought another possibility to mind: there was a comment in an early episode of the Revoutions podcast of the English civil war that their cannons were not just expensive and hardly reliable, it also slowed the armies way down - the things weight far more than the roads could take, so they frequently slowed down the army trains to a standstill while they dug them out of this or that mud puddle. And yet, they kept using the damn things, and dragging them everywhere regardless of how often they were more a liability than an asset.

The Revolutions podcaster didn't really offer an answer as to why, as far as I can remember (he's more interested in the politics than the tactics), but there was a heavy hint of "boys and their toys". Not saying he was right; I'd argue that, like with the elephants, it probably came down to "the army'd take a big hit to morale if they were the side without the big loud beast/cannon", but, well, I might be wrong and he might be right: it might be that the people in charge really were like "this is the shiniest toy, and we're taking it to battle, because how else are we going to prove our manhood otherwise?". I'd have dismissed that as unrealistic a few years ago but these days it looks a hell of a lot more plausible.

Grey Wolf
Battles in the pike and shot era could be decided by who had their artillery deployed (even going along into the Napoleonic era). Pike blocks are desperately vulnerable to cannon fire actually. They rip enormous holes in the rank in a way musketry won't do (and if they do you can charge them). An army that has to deploy under fire of their enemies cannon is in trouble because they have no answer of it. If I have guns and my enemy has not I will stand at range and blast until morale and cohesion of the enemy is starting to fray.

There are a couple of famous battles in the 30YW effectively decided by cannon. One prominant Swedish commander of the era had it as a bit of a speciality having sort of rises from the artillery arm.

And in most cases if you want to have any lasting impact you have to be able to assault towns and fortifications. This is why you drag the artillery along as insane it may seem to those with 20/20 hindsight vision armchairing the whole thing.

There's a really nasty tactic in Napoleonic warfare where your cavalry threatens the infantry so it must form squares. As it has done so your artillery pounds the now massed group of soldiers killing and wounding in a manner a line formation would never have to endure. Which is half the reason you actually have cavalry on the field.

If we generalise extremely broadly in the 1500-1800+a bit era you needed all three branches of an army, infantry, cavalry and artillery because if you lacked any one piece of the puzzle the military system of the time just didn't function properly. You would be unable to perform certain vital tasks which would invalidate everything you did up to that point. You can't just send for the guns if turns out Carlisle wasn't ready and willing to join up on your team when you show up with the army.

Similarly elephants seem to work in ancient warfare. There are several battles where effectively the elephant corps are mutually cancelling each other (so eg if you look at the battle elephants do not even seem to matter), but woe betide the army who shows up without the elephants.

Dig hard enough and there will be examples of grossly overblown deployment of something, be it artillery (e.g. I seem to recall an Ottoman invasion of the Balkans that failed as they brougth too big and too heavy an artillery train along and the weather turned on them) or elephants. But generally speaking most of it tends to be appropriate for the time and place. Even the comically overblown Ottoman artillery turned out to be exaclty the thing you needed as they besieged Constantinople in 1453.