Do firearms require strength and stamina to use? Were they really revolutionary tools allow unfit people to fight as equals to professional warriors?

[LegateLivius]

Saw this post now on Reddit.

The cliff notes version: Melee weapons are hard to use and require a significant amount of time to train in their use. Also the longer the user uses that weapon in combat the less effective they are because if you get fatigued you can’t stab as hard. Once firearms became the main weapon any peasant could become effective in their use after a few hours. Also the firearm works no matter how strong or weak you are. Moving into the 1970s after solider portable anti-tank and anti-air weapons were available then everything on the battlefield could be killed with one shot.

It reminds me of a debate I once saw on MyArmoury.com about how much strength a crossbow required to use and one poster wrote something along the lines that giant war bows required the most raw strength to use, crossbow requires a moderate amount of fitness, and guns required the least amount of strength and stamina to use effectively. To the point in some battles riflemen refused to bring swords with them because they felt swords were too heavy to transport around and it felt more comfortable just having rifles (reflecting their relative lack of athleticism compared to other unit types). Unfortunately MyArmoury.com is down right now so I can't get and quote the specific comments from that thread.

But I have often seen the cliche that the real reasons guns revolutionized warfare into a completely whole new level basically reflect the above statement with the more specific tidbit that it was much faster to train troops in mass numbers quite quickly because it was both easier and less physically demanding to whip them into combat states teaching them how to use guns and the military formations and other tactics that come with it unlike say long bow and arrows or mass rectangular square blocks or interlocked swords and shields walls. That an person of teenager years or older who's decently fit can bet sent to bootcamp and within a few weeks be ready to sent out to fight a town's defenders from pirates, American Indian raiders, wandering banditos in the deserts of Mexico, and other threats. Which in turn led to much larger armies than in the past.

Now I finally got around to using guns yesterday. I went to a Turkey shooting contest where shotguns where the stuff being used......... I was able to shoot as a contestant because my state has pretty loose gun laws even though I'm below 18 and have no gun permits or whatever. Hell in fact there were kids 10 ears old and younger who were shooting in the tournament!

When I got to finally shoot, the guns where very hard to hold! I could feel the kick back lift the front barrel upwards a few inches despite holding it very tight! In addition the gun moved back and hut my right shoulder and it hurt like hell! In fact My right arm esp the shoulder still hurts today from shooting in several rounds int he contest!
So I really have to ask is it true that guns were so revolutionary because they required far less strength, agility, and endurance to use than earlier weapons like halberds and crossbows? Because I swear using the shotguns required all my strength to prevent it from being knocked around a dangerous manner. God despite holding tightly as possible the force of each shot was so tremendous it was terrifying! Oh did I mention the kickback which hit my shoulder and also sort of did a kick that made an ouch sensation in my elbow area?

And I must add its not just me alone. I could see a lot of 6 feet tall adults also experiencing the kickback despite being far more experienced than I am on top of being much stronger and larger people with obvious muscular and big biceps!

So I'm now really skeptical of the claim guns needing less physical fitness especially raw strength to use than longswords and other weapons before the Renaissance. Can anyone clarify whats meant by these often repeated cliches?

[guidoLaMoto]

Bored today, so I'll bite--

Really two aspects to your question....Sixty yrs ago there was a best seller in the psycho-babble popular press, On Agression. One point the author made was that doing injury to an opponent with one's bare hands was more personal and psychologically difficult than causing injury with a handheld weapon, and that still more difficult than impersonally  inflicting harm from a distance with a projectile. Today, warriors can sit at a computer station half way around the world and kill with an index finger on a keyboard in a completely dehumanized way.

While a certain amount of strength and coordination may be required to fire a gun, it still doesn't compare to lugging around a 40 lb scutum on your left arm while flailing a 10 lb gladius for 8 hrs a day with your right arm....and don't forget that those heavy, cumbersome first firearms were only single shots, so the warrior still had a good deal of hand to hand activity to contend with. The evolution from swords to keyboard has taken a long time.

Personally, I hold a black belt in the ancient martial art of Ki-Chi-Ku, wherein one takes his index & middle fingers and strategically places in them on the opponent's upper ribs near the axilla and rapdily alternates them in flexion/extension while calling out "Kitchy-Coo! Kitchy-Coo!".... It doesn't take long for the opponent to giggle himself into a helpless bowl of Jello and surrender by calling "Uncle! Uncle!"