Why GUNS Really Took 300 Years to Replace SWORDS (They Were Worse) скачать в хорошем качестве

Why GUNS Really Took 300 Years to Replace SWORDS (They Were Worse)

For 300 years after firearms were invented, they were objectively the worst weapon on European battlefields. Slower than bows, less accurate than crossbows, more expensive than pikes. So why did they eventually dominate warfare? In this video, we break down the real reason guns replaced swords and traditional weapons. This isn't about superior firepower or technological advancement. It's about a fundamental shift in how states calculated military power. You'll learn: Why early muskets failed in rain, took a full minute to reload, and couldn't hit targets at 100 meters How English longbowmen required 10 years of training that literally rebuilt their skeletons Why a random peasant could be combat-ready with a musket in 2 weeks How training time, not weapon quality, determined which armies could scale Why states chose inferior weapons that enabled unlimited soldier production By the end, you'll understand that the firearm revolution wasn't about ballistics. It was about scalability destroying skill as a military requirement. Guns didn't win because they were better weapons. They won because they made warriors obsolete. If you're interested in how economic forces shape military history beyond simple "better technology wins" narratives, subscribe for more deep dives. What surprised you most about early firearms? Drop your thoughts in the comments.