Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
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