AHC; Make weapons a bigger killer in war than disease?

Weapons didn't become the biggest killer in war until very late in the game somewhere like the American Civil war or even later, before that disease was the biggest killer of armies. How can it come about that weapons become the biggest killer in wars considerably earlier?

I imagine a bit more nous about hygiene could reduce the impact of disease, and better supply arrangements could provide better nutrition which would further knock down the impact of disease.

More lethal weaponary would also contribute, perhaps the Puckle gun and Ferguson rifle gain more acceptance.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
The Ferguson would make it impossible to supply a large army because it costs three times as much to make, and ten times the time. It's also a technological deadend and fouls significantly. Its battlefield performance was nowhere near the miracle of the tests.

That said: smaller armies are less of a supply drain.
Higher hygiene concern: however this is overstated in many cases.
Earlier professionalization of armies and "nationalization" of the supply lines (which well into the 18th century were run by private businesses and an enormous pit of corruption that makes the modern DoD look clean)

Less siege oriented warfare.
 
More difficult and impossible are very different things.

Apparently in it's original form the Ferguson not only fouled but the wood near the gripstock was too thin/weak so when you tried to cave someone's head in with the butt it would break off. I imagine that the MkII version could be a bit simpler to make, foul less and be physically tougher, and the MkIII version better again. The same goes for the Puckle gun, the MkII & MkIII versions would be better than the original version.
 
Armies based on the idea of highly trained and specialized men with quality in mind over quantity might do the trick. This could come about from less war overall and more worry about an insurgency, in which case a small well trained force does much better than a large unmotivated, prone to defection one.

Soooo early on we need political instability, but in medium sized kingdoms that have no reason to war against each other.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Armies based on the idea of highly trained and specialized men with quality in mind over quantity might do the trick. This could come about from less war overall and more worry about an insurgency, in which case a small well trained force does much better than a large unmotivated, prone to defection one.

Soooo early on we need political instability, but in medium sized kingdoms that have no reason to war against each other.

Or smaller than medium even. Basically a form of equilibrium that goes for something less than OTL, that much is agreed.

I still think less sieges is key, or at least if siege warfare happens something akin to what the Prince de Ligne suggested, where cities are unfortified and strategic fortifications are countryside depots all over the place, thus reducing the pain of war on the civilian population when sieges happen.
 
Perhaps city states could lead the way with advanced weaponry for their small forces when under siege. They could develop the Puckle Gun as a defensive weapon able to kill apporaching assault forces in large numbers, and then the Feguson Rifle as the weapon of their sallying out troops.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Perhaps city states could lead the way with advanced weaponry for their small forces when under siege. They could develop the Puckle Gun as a defensive weapon able to kill apporaching assault forces in large numbers, and then the Feguson Rifle as the weapon of their sallying out troops.

The problem is that anything involving sieges will lead to deaths being largely due to disease unless the attack is stronger than the defense. And even then sieges will lead to large casualties having nothing to do with weapons.
Small arms don't make the attack stronger, artillery does, and neither the Puckle gun nor the Ferguson rifle are anything like the miracle weapons implied.
 
I'm just thinking of these weapons as potential development paths, to get started in the 1700s what actually started in the 1800s with more and more powerful weapons killing more and more people.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I'm just thinking of these weapons as potential development paths, to get started in the 1700s what actually started in the 1800s with more and more powerful weapons killing more and more people.

I know, I just mean small arms aren't going to be your killer weapons for what you're hoping.
 
Earlier antibiotics or earlier germ theory or perhaps both?
I agree, it's not weapons that you should be focusing on. One can kill several hundred men with a sword and shield.

Try to find a way to lessen the impact of disease.

Perhaps an Ancient Nation (Egypt, the Harrapans, or Romans) discovers Alcohol can be used to disinfect wounds, and it is brought along through the ages. Big butterflies, but it fufills your want.
 
But artillery doesn't seem to have the false starts, and therefore development potential in the 1700s, that small arms had.
 
More chivalrous type warfare, one were the vanquished nations less the ruling class would be immediately incorporated into the winning nation's infrastructure.
Another idea would be a more champion based warfare. Were a small group of warriors would battle it out someplace neutral. The outcome would decide the winners.
 
I'm thinking earlier exposure to the Vedic Texts from India leads to greater understanding and scientific advancement in the west and deminished deaths from small pox(inoculation), typhoid and cholera(hydration therapy).
 
Top