Justifying firearms in a fantasy setting

[wordwalker]

Weapon power does change the shape of fighting. Breech loaders let an army put a lot of power in one place (yes, mostly because archers were harder to train) but with limited accuracy at first, hence the short-range volley fire. Repeating rifles (eg bolt-action) in the later 19th century gave snipers more value, and true semi-automatics (bang bang bang, not yet dakkadakkadakka) let some troops give sustained cover fire while others moved forward-- very different from earlier tactics.

 

[Nobby]

Phew. I think the key problem is this, are firearms easier to come by than magic missiles. Which is better is up to you!

 

[SeverinR]

Why have firearm in fantasy?
Because they're a blast.
***RIMSHOT***

 

[Firekeeper]

I dunno, to me firearms just seem out of place in fantasy. I like what you're doing here, and I think you're doing it as well as anyone can, certainly better than I could, but I still don't like the idea of guns in fantasy. Dunno why, I guess they just seem out of place, like a dark elf would be in a modern crime-drama setting.

Kudos for try though.

 

[Shockley]

My thought is that you don't really have to justify anything, as long as it meshes with the story. Reading your first post, I got a very clear idea of your world and I think it works - it just depends on how well you write your story and how well you smooth over any inconsistencies. I would be interested in seeing how such a war would develop, as people would adapt to new tactics and new generals rise up who are better equipped to handle the power imbalance.

I think your world has promise, and it would be interesting to see someone like a Cochise or Shaka operate against the Imperium.

---

As to the bow issue, T. Allen Smith is absolutely 100% correct. Longbows might be more simple than guns, but the reason the gun overtook the arrow is because you could mass peasants with guns in a way you couldn't mass longbowmen. A few historical examples, since those are my forte:

- The battle of Nagashino, which is really the textbook example of poorly trained peasant soldiers taking on a well trained, well equipped military elite and winning.

- The battles of Crecy, Poiters and Agincourt, where the presence of English long bowmen turned the tide of battle and paved the way for major English victories. Significant because the French just didn't have the ability to mass bowmen.

- The long string of edicts produced in medieval England banning soccer, operating under the idea that it was preventing the peasants from training with the bow.

 

[Firekeeper]

I absolutely agree with Shockley; if your story meshes well then you don't have to justify anything, and if you tell it well that will overcome any minor inconsistencies so long as they aren't glaring or jarring. I said earlier that I don't think I'd like guns in a fantasy setting but I would be open to it if it meshes well.

Garth Nix did a bit of that in his Old Kingdom series. Now, granted the guns and other technology wouldn't work the closer to the Old Kingdom they get, but it meshes well and I actually don't mind the guns, even though it's technically a fantasy work.

So, in the end, follow your gut and if you do it well, you don't need to justify anything. Focus on the story. Everything else is just fluff

 

[Nobby]

But if you ask the question, even if everyone here would go to their graves to defend his right to write as he sees fit, well, he sort of wants dissenting voices to...well, round off the edges...

Or am I just a hopeless romantic?

 

[Nobby]

Of course he could just want to pointy up the points