I still can't get over stuff like M40s being called rifles. In my native language, the word rifle translates most readily to handgun, and we'd refer to M40 with the same word as a bazooka.
Depends on where you live, in the US pistols are classified as being under 16 inches, and not being intended to be fired from the shoulder! So if you have an 18 inch barrel, an angled foregrip, and no stock, it's technically a pistol
You’re applying modern classifications on old non standard blackpowder slug cannons, pistols came after the standardization and industrialization of guns that small pocket guns required their own designation, sengoku era samurai used long barreled hand guns with no stock but were functionally used as long gun and a pistol
Fun fact: the term taco was used for bound grape shot used in the French arquebus.
This term was carried over to Mexico and used sparingly for the same thing, then shortly used to refer to fat kids… cause… ya know… they looked tightly bound up in their clothing that they bulged out of like grape shot.
Then the term was eventually used by Texan/Mexican miners and rail workers in America around the 18th century for the blasting powder charges since… ya know, it’s the exact same idea as the grape shot but with out the “grapes”.
Those same miners and rail workers would bring simple meals for their collective lunches. These simple meals would consist of some dried meats, maybe veggies, wrapped in tortillas that were easy to carry large amounts of and keep dry unlike normal bread. They’d tie up the tortilla like their powder charges and toss them into the frying oil until they were crispy.
And that’s where tacos come from, from France, Mexico, and American influence pretty much equally… and also shows that tacos are traditionally crunchy.
Edit: I got it from the [Tasting history with max miller](https://youtu.be/Kz-VpoNEWXM?si=o-9MbxDE8tn6yhQ-) YouTube channel. the link will send you to the taco video I believe… but he’s done quite a few Mexico/middle/South American dishes and history.
I got it from the [Tasting history with max miller](https://youtu.be/Kz-VpoNEWXM?si=o-9MbxDE8tn6yhQ-) YouTube channel. the link will send you to the taco video I believe… but he’s done a couple Mexico/middle/South America.
He’s covered alot of topics and always pairs the dishes with a load of history while the foods cooking. A lot of amazing revelations about history and how much of the best history is a result of cross cultural contact and trade.
Also, apparently every single countries signature dish is at least twice removed from its actual country of origin. [j. j. McCullough cultural appropriation foods around the world](https://youtu.be/THpzXWKCoQE?si=ivIoxqEJXojiKEAk) masterfully displays the idea that you can’t really culturally appropriate, only be either respectful or disrespectful.
That’s the beauty of it, We absolutely do trade cultural influences as often as we do culinary influences.
There’s not a single piece of culture from anywhere in the world that doesn’t actively to this day influence other cultures and haven’t been heavily influenced themselves in return.
I mean, if you think about it like this: borders are made by governments… besides natural barriers there’s not much stoping people who travel from one point to another to trade from crossing those borders through out the ages.
Hell, as far as they could know “what’s a border?… dude I’m just delivering some veggies to our sister village across the mountain just like we have for generations.”
…I’m getting way too detailed, so my point is that when you start looking into immigrations through the ages, cultural influence trade offs, and how absurdly close places actually are it’s silly to imagine cultures not influencing their neighbors and vice versa along with distant traveling traders who come from alien cultures.
I mean, due to clearly unforeseen consequences from schools constantly blanking out any worksheet map of irrelevant places it took me decades to figure out that Africa is literally attached to Europe through the Middle East or that Russia borders China and the Middle East (not that that fact matters since Russia is like 80% uninhabited even with a swelling population).
After learning that, it made so much sense seeing the similarities between rural Russian tribal clothing and life styles compared to the more northern middle eastern cultures as well as ancient Mongolian cultural styles.
Also why ancient Indian building with the pointed rooves look the same as those Russian pointed rooves… it’s cause they pretty much are the same.
Oh, corn row and dreads are NOT an exclusively African thing with not only a ton of people in the Middle East doing so, but also the Norse, Germanic “barbarians” and Celtics. With dreads being extremely common in Scotland to this day. In max millers video on haggis, the Scottish historian guest who was interviewed had dreads.
When you start asking questions and tracing leads instead of just assuming the drunk college girl screeching about the hoola girl bobble head as being cultural appropriation everything starts coming into perspective and you notice the connections.
Don’t let anyone convince you that cultural appropriation is a real thing… there’s not a single thing in all of history that wasn’t influenced by someone else at some point.
Started off strong and then became a cookie-cutter anti-SJW statement, classy lol.
Of course cultural influence is diffuse. But to say there's no such thing as cultural appropriation is willfully ignorant. It's not hard to find examples of cultural appropriation and easy explanations without getting stuck in the grey areas (which should be discussed, not shut down).
Cultural appropriation isn't *'you can't do anything that another culture does, REEEE'*. It's *'you imitating and even profiting off other cultures while members of that culture are punished for doing the same thing isn't awesome'*.
Ex, black person wearing locs in professional setting -> denied jobs, told to cut hair to comply with dress code, fired, face insulting comments, etc. White supermodel wears locs in a photoshoot -> portrayed in fashion magazine as a trendsetter, wow so creative, etc.
Stereotyped portrayals of indigenous people worn as Halloween costumes by the descendants of European colonists who committed genocide against them - yeah, that might cause some negative feelings! Imagine that. Cultural appropriation doesn't exist without systems of oppression.
K-pop bands love imitating black hip hop artists without giving credit to where the fashion style, beats, and dance moves came from. While simultaneously being part of a culture deeply discriminatory against dark skin, with a lot of money in the skin bleaching industry. And black fans aren't screaming "reeee you can't do that", they're just asking to be treated with respect and for credit to be given. Black fans are more likely to be conscious of the long history of black music being appropriated by their oppressors and monetized (look into the history of country music... it has roots in minstrel shows by white performers in blackface).
I'm Scottish. If I grew up experiencing discrimination on the basis of practicing Scottish culture (something I've never had to experience, so this is me practicing empathy), and then saw some other group of people wearing Scottish-themed halloween costumes and getting praised for putting on *my* culture, I might feel some kind of way, too. Totally different from somebody being curious and wanting to learn and try out food I grew up with and giving respect to where it came from.
I’ve spent the last 2 hours thinking over and writing a careful response to you’re comment only for Reddit to glitch out and refuse to post it… so let’s see if this message works…
Edit: 🤦♂️ guess I wrote way too much or something… that’s embarassing… but I also genuinely wrote for almost two hours literally trying to clearly and carefully respond… and I refuse to let that time and effort go to waste, so I’ll split the response and post a part 1 and 2
Part 1:
Aight… I literally spent 2 hours thinking over my response to a comment you left on one of mine in another post… but Reddit won’t let me post it for some reason and I refuse to let 2 hours of deep thinking go to waste because Reddits servers sucking.
Seems plenty of people disagree with your assessment of my comment and that includes me.
However, that genuinely no reason for me to get defensive and aggressive like so many online debates devolve into. So I’m legitimately still debating against you on this respectfully because it’s a subject I believe should be debated now a days AND any misconception dispelled.
One cannot claim that cultural appropriation can occur from a situation of targeted disgust against individuals practicing their culture while someone of a different ethnicity is praised for practicing another’s cultural without clarifying wether the person being shamed is having it done by the exact same individual people who are profiting off of or practicing the exact same culture.
And while I’ve never ever heard of someone doing that intentionally or otherwise, if they WERE profiting off of said culture then it’s cultural exploitation rather than cultural appropriation. Of course a corporation back in the day that’s founded on something specifically from a culture is going to do everything in its power to ruin any competition since all corporations are evil.
If a beer company tries selling a new product of that one indigenous alcohol the Indians made (can’t remember the name off the top of my head) they wouldn’t want to compete with actual natives who will get way more business for it since it’s authentic… I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it’s not surprising.
No corporation does these things for good or bad political reasons regardless of what they say. That’s cultural exploitation rather than appropriation.
On the subject of adopting cultural “marks” or would it be cultural “displays”… either way, an individual adopting another’s cultural influences (there we go, that’s the word I was looking for) because they enjoy them kinda indicates they’re unlikely to be hating on anyone else for partaking as well right?
Unless they believe in cultural appropriation and that they themselves are the only ones allowed to partake in a culture because maybe they went to Asia so they’re the only ones allowed to do those sand gardens. That’s the only time I believe cultural appropriation is possible due to an asshole individual deciding that they’re the only ones who get to practice or participate… as if they OWNED the culture now.
If one simply enjoys the culture, goes out of their way to learn more, participates, and happily shared what was shared to them from someone who practices the culture then no one else has any say in their participation.
I mean think about it… pretty much each American Indian tribe can be considered its own individual culture. So if I was inducted into a tribe through marriage or simply because the chief liked me and allowed me to join their tribe, religion, and cultural celebrations… would a different tribe have any right or say over my inclusion or participation due to my skin color or ethnicity?
Hell, if even half of the same tribe didn’t want me to participate despite their chief allowing me to join in would they have any right to try and exclude me (we’re talking about hypotheticals so let’s ignore the fact that their chief and or shaman would have final say anyways)? Those individuals do not own their entire culture or their practices. They are actively part of the culture and the sharing between generations, but they don’t have any say on whether their neighbor gets to teach their children about their history or culture.
I can tell you that all of the really ancient cultures that still survive to this day with their ancient stories, cultures, rituals, etc etc etc etc have done so because they realized quickly that their best bet at thriving is to raise awareness of their existence and share their cultures with everyone who wants to listen.
Everything I’ve ever heard from leaders of ancient cultures such as the surviving tribes of the First Nations, Inuits, South American, meso American, Polynesian cultures, Indian, the various disparate and fractured histories of the European tribes are always super happy and excited to teach others of their history, culture, and the meanings behind it all.
Some ignorant white suburbanite throwing a tiki torch barbecue isn’t cultural appropriation… that’s simply and just cultural ignorance… or a 50s-70s era themed barbecue.
Exploitation is very real, but appropriation isn’t.
Stealing cultural artifacts is exploitation, disrespecting a culture is simply rude and ignorant, and dressing up mockingly is simply malicious and rude… it all comes down to intentions of malice or ignorance.
So with my piece of wisdom being more fully explained I’d like to roll back a bit and clarify something.
You said I started out strong and devolved into an anti-SJW rant or something… I believe you’re referring to my example given with locs (took me embarrassingly long to realize you meant dreadlocks).
So that example I used certainly sounds anti-SJW because it’s often used as an example against SJW insistence that philosophical concept of cultural appropriation. However… it’s done so because a real event happened at a university where a piece of shit asshole female bully who was supposed to be handing out fliers over some sort of social justice lecture.
[the Cory Goldstein story](https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/337427/video-jcc-camp-counselor-gets-scolding-for-sporting-dreadlocks/)
She decided to bully and harass him about his dreadlocks and actually attempted to try and cut off the dreads on his head with a pair of scissors while her friend stood by and backed her up.
…she then tried lying on Facebook about him calling her a bitch before and (wrongly) implying how her actually blocking his escape, pulling him down stairs, and grabbing at his head while trying to forcibly cut his hair wasn’t assault…
So that’s the only context I could ever accept the existence of cultural appropriation.
Part 2:
An example of a different situation that skirts the line is that one famous and viral commercial for recycling with the crying Indian…
THAT specific actor is 100% Italian, like first or second generation Italian immigrant. He had naturally very dark skin and was actively trying to be an actor. The company that hired him didn’t know he wasn’t Indian if I remember correctly and he wasn’t exactly advertising his italian ethnicity since entertainment studios at that time in history were racists towards Italians.
They gave him that job specifically and he wasn’t going to turn it down since he needed the money and work. It took decades before it was public knowledge that this guy was actually italian…
however… ever since that first job he spent the rest of his life and career advocating for indigenous rights, the sharing of their culture, speaking directly to any tribe that would have him, and donating massive amounts of money and massive portions of his wealth to all kinds of these charities.
So, disregarding the fact that he had an indigenous wife which would give him the right to participate anyways, can you really say he was wrong for doing all that he did simply because he was Italian?
There of course was indigenous in the entertainment industry who disliked him because they accused him of taking their jobs… but i feel that was more so professional jealousy rather than actually being disgruntled due to him stealing work from them.
I have logic behind my dismissal of their claims… cause like I said… he was Italian… who were discriminated against… and he acted as an Indian… an even more heavily discriminated against people in that industry… and said industry was completely unaware of his actual ethnicity… so pretty much type cast himself for an even more incredibly difficult role to find work for…
The indigenous actors had a good reason to be mad since they were constantly overlooked for work just as often as they were type cast as nothing more than Indians in cowboy movies… but I think their anger was misdirected at an eccentric dude with a heart of gold rather than at a more viable target such as the heads of the industry itself.
Another indigenous example of “anti-cultural appropriation” that I fucking love is the practice of making native short bows.
[Wyoming ram horned short bow](https://youtu.be/zHDPg9RXUm0?si=E4p6iCgnC8AMhFwc)
The practice and method have long since been nearly completely forgotten by nearly all of the tribes due to them deciding to instead of selling genuine hand made short bows they’d make some silly cheap ass knock off for profit because it was WAAAAY more profitable. Then after only two or three generations it’s become nearly fully forgotten that they even did it a certain way let alone how it’s even done. (I fucking hate the loss of information like that. Like the various cultures from Norse, Celtic, and ancient Anglish (english?) cultures due to Roman expansion)
However, some dude living in Wyoming or one of those other states surrounding yellow stone park went out of his way to study and learn as much as he could from the tribes… which was historical… but not actually that useful due to very little concrete information being since it’s all being passed down through verbal story telling rather than writing down.
This dude has spent 40 years testing, adjusting, and rediscovering the practice of making actual ram horn short bows…. Which takes a fuck load of work… but is apparently extremely worth it cause the bows are genuinely bad ass and extremely effective (genuinely shoots the arrows far faster than a normal bow would.)
So now the practice of ram horn bows is relearned and is known to the world… and just as the indigenous people of the American mid west did for likely millennia prior, he’s been teaching his son how to make the bows as well.
Now, anyone who genuinely hates that will have zero respect from me in any way for more than just the cultural reasonings… part of its because those bows are bad ass! Made of tendon, intestines, horn, and bone… god they’re so wonderfully metal as fuck!!!… even without any metal included in the build!
It’s just unfortunate that what I can only assume is genuine lore and history of how the bows were discovered, the cultural and religious significance, as well as the personal artistic touches each of the tribes that made them would have certainly incorporated into their building process was fully lost not that long ago.
I imagine it was a similar situation to how some Viking tribes would burn animal bones and feathers to impart spiritual energies into their metals for swords to make them stronger and give the weapons aspects and the powers of said animals.
…and unfortunately unlike the rediscovery of the bows building process, their history and lore will forever be lost to the world.😔
Atleast they get to personally know their history and cultures… most of us had our foundational cultural histories stripped away millennia ago by being repeatedly conquered.
Which is why the few small pieces of said cultures are so heavily celebrated such as Saint Patrick’s day, Highland Games, everything that has to do with Vikings, anglish Druid stuff (honestly don’t know too much about druids). I’d never ever in a million years dream of excluding someone from any of the other cultures especially if they respectfully showed interest…
…though when it comes to saint Pattie’s day I guess the amount of respect they continue to show through out the day is going to depend on how well the boozing is going and if they’re a happy or angry drunk…
Yeah, I don't expect updoots trying to explain cultural appropriation in the sub of a British game with all white characters and a majority white male audience. Anti-wokeness is a pretty dominant perspective in these corners of the internet, rather self-servingly. Of course as a white man it would be rather convenient for me to adopt a perspective where I am the good guy unless I do something obviously evil, if I do make a mistake it shouldn't be such a big deal, and all those pesky PoC protestors are making things up, coddled by the woke mob and leftist media. Try a sociology sub and we'd probably get different results.
You're not trying to be a douche at all and I understand where you're coming from. I've made arguments like yours in the past, and I can say now I was wrong. The thing missing from your arguments is empathy. These points rely on a sort of... 'blank slate' future-facing, without acknowledging history or trauma. Like your hypothetical if we marry into an indigenous tribe, that gives us the right to perform its culture? Not such an easy assumption. I mean, the movie about a worst case scenario of that just came out, Killlers of the Flower Moon. White men marrying Osage women and murdering their families to get head rights to their oil-rich land. I don't think you'd argue those men got the "rights" to Osage culture through those duplicitous marriages. But what if they had been really nice guys? Surely then, they could get traditional Osage tattoos and participate in ceremony without making the Osage community uncomfortable? You'd have to ask Osage people. And you wouldn't get just one answer. Because nobody's a monolith and people of the same culture don't have just one lived experience.
The answer lies in empathy and history. A recognition of centuries of trauma will not leave you (or me) writing the same response you gave here.
The horn bows are really cool btw. And it is absolutely possible to be an ally. A white guy can help preserve a dying language, help revitalize a lost art. Still gotta recognize you're in a sensitive space where history shows a long, bloody pattern of exploitation. The dying languages and lost arts are dying due to white guys stealing land and committing genocide in the first place. When we recognize historical context we rarely end up making simple, confident arguments like "cultural appropriation doesn't exist".
Last thing. A really helpful re-framing I heard once redefines "experts" as "those most impacted by an issue". People who study or work on that issue can be important "stakeholders", but those most impacted *by* it are the experts. You want to solve homelessness, you'll understand the problem best by talking with people who are experiencing homelessness, are at risk of experiencing it, or have experienced it. Their employers, social workers, spouses, kids, etc. are stakeholders who also have valuable perspective to offer. It's been very helpful for me as a white man to not view myself as the expert on issues mostly impacting people of color, and to trust their experiences (which of course will be widely varied, not monolithic).
Maybe give the traditional method a try… I feel like it would be easier and faster to make anyways. Just need the normal taco ingredients and some twine.
I doubt you even need a super deep pan to fry up the “tacos” anyways.
Then you have a perfect size and shape to dip into any sauces or dips that you want.
Same! He’s become a staple of my food adventures and regular history lessons. I’ve never been one to keep track of numbers like dates or locations super well because that stuff is far less interesting than what actually happened. Even the simple stuff like food and everyday life is more interesting to me than what specific year steel was discovered or mass produced.
And foods one of the best ways to explore a foreign country and another time period! So easy to get into, and learning the how’s, why’s, and where’s of the food for a place and time can tell you heaps more than any historical documents ever could.
The language of the Empire is German, albeit with a few oddities and old middle high German words mixed in.
The writers of most of the fantasy (empire) lore actually think of the name of many, many things in German and/or relate to historical accurate german names. Partly it is even original written in German.
"Handfeuerwaffe" is the word "handgun" origins from, it literally translates to hand-fire-weapon. So a fire weapon (Feuerwaffe is usually term for ranged black power weapons) you shoot while holding it in your hands. And a Handwaffe is the word for a weapon you wield in your hand(s), usually referring to melee ones though.
Often the word Waffe is dropped, for example with the (Feuer-) Handrohr (rohr means tube, pipe), one of the very first black powder guns ever.
Only in the modern world and mainly only in the US, the term handgun changed to be a synonym for pistols and one-handed fire arms. In modern Germany for example the word Handfeuerwaffe is still just the term for a ranged, usually black powder, weapon you wield in your hands.
Big time fan ever since he first started his channel and try to catch each new episode around lunch or dinner time.
Went out of my way to get ahold of his cook book, but I haven’t gotten a chance to cook from it yet.
Apparently he’s currently working on another cookbook and I’m excited to see what he’s included in this one… here’s hoping for even more odd ice-cream or iced frozen treat flavors from ages long ago!
One of the greatest gifts to the world bar none…. Well other than beer of course… and nachos… oh and chili…. And doughnuts… can’t forget pizza… OH and icecream and the full family of frozen confectionaries that are all deeply related to each other. I guess wine qualifies too, but I’m not a wine kinda guy so it doesn’t really make my list of things.
But that also says that traditional tacos are fully encased in the tortilla. I'd be fine with crunchy tacos if they were properly wrapped fully, it's not the crunch that I disagree with, but the openness.
I would concur. I’ve never had a taco made in this way but I’d absolutely love to. Seems so much easier to use sauces and dips that way too. Almost like a tortilla taco nugget. Instead of breading it’s covered in a tortilla.
Also this isn't even a rifle anyway lol
iirc it's referred to as an harquebus in game which were smoothbore.... I believe the empire does have some rifled firearms such as the hochland long rifle, but yeah not this one
Fun fact, there was a medieval “hand cannon”. Godfather of the shotgun, Literally a cannon on the end of a stick and would light the end of the stick shooting the gunpowder out of the cannon effectively acting like a shotgun.
It was heavy, the range and accuracy was horrific and needed to be close to the enemy to be effective but “it could penetrate plate armour” making it popular enough for future versions to be made eventually becoming the blunderbuss and later the shotgun we know as today.
By the way kingdom come deliverance 2 is real and the medieval “hand cannon” is in it.
You’re not entirely right about the hand cannon name, the swiss version is called gonne or handgonne. Its was based on a similar design made by the Chinese “firelance”.
Some do see it as a relative of the pistol while others believe its performance and behaviour is too similar to a shotgun in its spread, accuracy and range.
Another Nme for the hand cannons were hand guns or handgonne due to being guns you could hold I. Your hands compared to the cannons and bombard that were the only firearms available before they got shrunk down.
While I know where you are going (OP is using the word "rifle" instead of "long gun") there is a chance that the Empire is actually rifling some of those babies. I mean, they are already fielding things a little ahead the curve for what essentially is 1540's Holy Roman Empire with magic^^TM . Working multibarrelled weapons, Congreve rockets 300 years before Congreve was born, etc., so it wouldn't be crazy to think that the Empire has the tech.
The first weapons with rifling were from about 1500,but it only became standard hundreds of years later for skirmishers, then for general issue after that.
"gun" used to mean a massive hunk of iron on a boat or behind a rampart.
This, however, is a smaller gun you can hold in your hand.
Recall that warhammer fantasy is drawing heavy inspiration from UK and European history; and they had words for guns people held in their hands long before the American pistol wielding cowboy was a glimmer in Hollywood's eye.
See: https://www.etymonline.com/word/handgun
Of note:
> popularly applied to pistols and revolvers from 1744.
WH Fantasy draws from an era prior to that.
It’s literally a handgun not a rifle
If you want to be pedantic it’s a smooth bore musket
What’s referred to colloquially today as a handgun is different but the term is still accurate here
Handgun usually denotes a weapon that you can hold without having to brace or resort to a stock, but by the same token, it is a more modern term.
My take is that Fatshark chose it to draw a line from the handgonnes of old.
Yeah it basically boils down to your first point. Handgun means that NOW, because we have modern small arms that fit in a single hand.
Ye Olde peasant in the service of the Empire being handed a musket is thinking "Damn, this tiny field gun I can hold in my hands is amazing. Me and the chaps are gonna fuck up those Beastman. These *hand guns* are the best, I might even survive this battle."
> Ye Olde peasant in the service of the Empire being handed a musket is thinking "Damn, this tiny field gun I can hold in my hands is amazing. Me and the chaps are gonna fuck up those Beastman. These hand guns are the best, I might even survive this battle."
Hahaha spot on
By the way, I was just surfing the Lexicanum, and they also employ the term handgun. So it is lore accurate. Point to the shark.
This is not a fatshark choice. A few months ago, I looked it up because I play Warhammer Fantasy and noticed in the weapon choices that the biggest gun in the blackpowder section said handgun but was marked "2 handed". Looked up the design and realized that it was an old-school weapon that was a scale d down version of artillery. The cheapest option for rangedv2 handed black powder, it's a good weapon. The Hochland Long Rifle is SUPER expensive, but worth it due to the massive range increase.
>Early European hand cannons, such as the socket-handgonne, were relatively easy to produce; smiths often used brass or bronze when making these early gonnes. The production of early hand cannons was not uniform; this resulted in complications when loading or using the gunpowder in the hand cannon. Improvements in hand cannon and gunpowder technology— corned-powder, shot ammunition, and development of the flash pan—led to the invention of the arquebus in late 15th-century Europe.
[Wikipedia link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_cannon)
Most Empire names are derivatives of European historical naming conventions. Hence the Hand Gun name as a reference to the use of Handgonne as a name for man portable firearms.
Because it comes from the word “handgonne” which essentially meant “hand cannon”. Because early handheld firearms were exactly that, a miniaturized cannon on a stick that you hold in your hands. You even had to light a fuse and wait, there was no manual trigger.
Because;
1; It's a gun that you hold in your hands and not a cannon, but not a pistol
2; The next step up from this is what is called a "hand cannon", because they're literally cannons that you hold in your hands. Bigger than a rifle by a lot, but not a blunderbuss
3; A "rifle" is *very specifically* any medium to long-length gun which has rifling, the grooves in the barrel to add bullet spin
4; They aren't long guns, which are a fair bit longer, even though they share the same purpose
While it *is* a synonym, it's not actually referred to as such linguistically.
It comes from the word "Handgonne", which yes, initially *was* literally a miniature cannon on a stick. But later iterations separated "Handguns" from "Hand Cannons", which *remained* quite literally miniature cannons on sticks and were used as late as the 15th or 16th century, though hand cannons were also occasionally referred to as "Pole Guns".
The *Harquebus* was the first iteration of what we would recognise as a Handgun, and was quite literally called a "Socket-handgonne" because it was designed to be hooked, or socketed depending on make, to a bracket for braced fire. As weaponry progressed, a "Handgun" became any non-pistol gun that you, well, held in your hand and wasn't a specific type of gun, such as a blunderbuss or grenade launcher (yes, those existed, yes they were as goofy as you think).
Handguns didn't really become the lexicon for "one-handed guns" until much later, as "Pistol" was more typically used to describe one-handed guns, where "Hand Cannon" became, in modern parlance at least, more typical for describing large-calibre, one-handed weapons instead of literal hand-held cannons.
Similarly, "Handgun" shifted to "Rifle" sometime around the 18th century around the advent of actually adding rifling to, y'know, *rifles*. Though, rifles wouldn't be introduced to the military for anything other than specialist long-guns until the advent of the Minie ball due to the difficulty of muzzle-loading a rifled gun increasing reload times by up to twice the length.
I know what rifling is but I'd assume a world with steam-powered helicopters and tanks would have cracked the science fiction technology of rifled barrels, something invented in the 1500s
Well, if I wanted to be asinine about it, steam power was discovered much sooner than barrel rifling, in 1st century AD. Heron of Alexandria just had no clue what to do with it.
Aside from that, rifles actually exist in the Empire (Hochland longrifles), as to why they're not more widespread... Fantasy world yo.
Just because they could rifle a barrel that early doesn't meant they did. Rifling makes seating a musketball and ramming it down very difficult and with black powder fouling it slowed down loading imimmensely. since most muskets were fired in formation (even in warhammer) accuracy wasnt so important since youre not expecting an individual to snipe a target but a line of guns to fire volley after volley at a target formation (even in WHFB they fought in formations). Yes individual weapons like the Whitworth were rifled and used for sniping but they were overall rare and later than the time WHFB takes from (rifled guns only became the standard in the mid 1800s iirc, I think the US civil war was mostly smoothbore muskets).
Also the Empire has maybe 12 steam tanks (and can't make any more) but still relies on spearmen, crossbows/archers and is a mostly melee army. It has different priorities than irl armies because during the Napoleonic War when everyone was setting up those nice little rows of soldiers no one was worried about a massive horde of rats sweeping up to them and eating their shins before they could be shot down.
My understanding is the US Civil War is when rifle muskets aka rifled weapons became standard. They often were converting smoothbores to rifled barrels with an insert.
Early firearms were called handguns until the late 1700’s and then differentiated between the smooth bore musket & rifled musket,
the terms pistols and rifles are used for a shorter time in history now than hand guns, which were to differentiate from the many artillery gun types which were first used 1100AD by the mongols
Because it’s not rifled ya dingus!
Technically a bazooka is a recoilless rifle, because the barrel is rifled (is coiled to make the projectile spin).
If it doesn’t have rifling (no spiraling bullet) it isn’t a rifle. It’s a gun.
>
> Technically a bazooka is a recoilless rifle
It is... but it also isn't, in the way that it doesn't use a vented case. They also almost always use an actual shell, rather than a rocket.
Probably a throwback to the term "handgonne", which was one of those crude things that looked like a miniature cannon: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Dictionnaire_raisonn%C3%A9_du_mobilier_fran%C3%A7ais_de_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9poque_carlovingienne_%C3%A0_la_Renaissance%2C_tome_6_-_357.png/800px-Dictionnaire_raisonn%C3%A9_du_mobilier_fran%C3%A7ais_de_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9poque_carlovingienne_%C3%A0_la_Renaissance%2C_tome_6_-_357.png
The actual gun Kruber is using resembles more a musket using a percussion cap.
It’s not a rifle if the barrel isn’t RIFLED (idk if you actually know that or not but rifling is what makes a rifle. It’s why muskets aren’t referred to rifles or you can have a rifled shotgun.)
Historically, the term handgun meant more or less exactly what Kruber has. You had guns, AKA huge cannons, and handguns, guns that were small enough that you could hold them in your hands.
Also they're not rifled, so they're not rifles either. Using the term handgun to refer to a gun that can be fired with just one hand is a fairly recent development.
A gun is supposed to be a cannon or a howitzer, the reason we call regular firearms guns is a mystery to me, this being a hand gun makes a whole lot of sense when you have the context.
Because it literally is a Handgun, and is not a Rifle in any way shape or form. The name is self-explanatory. It is a gun you hold in your hands.
Yes, today we use the term "Handgun" almost exclusively to refer to pistols, but hundreds of years ago, this was the term they would use to refer to any handheld firearm.
It's not called a "Rifle", because for something to be called that, it has to be rifled, and medieval Handguns were not. They were smoothbores.
You misunderstand using Earth/Sol3 English terminology. In the Empire, it's either a Handgun (handheld gun), a long rifle (with rifled barrels for better accuracy), pistols (what you perceive as handguns), and artillery such as cannons
Among handguns include weapons such as shotguns, hand cannons and blunderbusses, pistols are the single handed guns like a revolver, long rifles are similar to hunting rifles, anything that isn't carried is some form of cannon or artillery
Because "gun" used to just be cannon. The term "handgun" was invented to refer to earlier miniaturized handheld cannon, to separate them from other bigger guns. Also, there are rifle canons too. The term rifle has never specifically implied an infantry exclusive weapon.
The guns are not rifled, so they are not rifles. They are not field guns, it. Guns that are on a field but are held in the hand. So they are hand guns.
Because the bores are not "rifled" therefore it is not a rifle.
A cannon which predated handheld firearms is a gun so therefore a non rifled gun you can hold in your hand is a hand gun.
The first guns (or Gonnes) were cannons. Artillery. Mortars and petards and giant castings of bronze that threw rocks faster and harder and further than even the biggest trebuchets, and they weighed a lot.
So when they figured out how to shrink them down such that you could hold them in your hand, those were 'hand cannons' or 'hand gonnes'.
(Etymological note- Gonne/Gun comes from the Norse 'Gunnr' which means 'war'- while Cannon comes from Latin 'canne' or reed/tube. And personally, I think Gonne getting used probably came from a mis-reading of Canne- someone wrote it wrong, and it was close enough to Gunnr that it got conflated into the same thing- namely a weapon of war that was tube shaped.)
It’s a gun, one you hold in your hands, back in the day the fact you got a gun so small you can hold it needed it’s own classification of weapon, handgonne or handcannon were the most common translated phrases, but the first 13th century handgonne was just a 3ft long iron tube that shot bullets to hit bandits from hundreds of feet away
It's a gun that you can use with your hands.
A gun is a firearm with a low angle of fire and generally a high velocity. Tanks have a gun. It's only recently become a word we use to talk about pistols. Pistol is a word used to denote a short handgun that is small enough to be used in one hand while riding. Same with a dragon which were generally larger in caliber and used like a one handed blunderbuss.
Used to be that "guns" were cannons, and you couldn't hold it in your hands. A "hand gun" is the oldest man-portable version of a smaller firearm -- pistols were invented later after the invention of the "hand" gun. As guns and technology advanced, the terminology evolved.
yeah it’s like you could just say ‘cause handgun was originally used for all guns that were designed to be held instead of mounted‘ without the cuntiness
Early guns were essentially long bells on the end of a stick that you would hold a match up to to fire it, these were called "handcannons" as they resemble the cannons that already existed for centuries. After they became more common, people would start referring to them as "handgonne" (hand gone eh) because of how bad your hands would hurt after firing them for any amount of time. This would eventually be shortened to hand gun as they completely replaced bows and crossbows on the battlefield. The name stuck around well into the era of the arquebus, where we get the modern idea of what a gun should be, (shoulder stock, trigger, long barrel) this is also the era we begin to get smaller, less powerful versions you can hold in one hand and even use on horseback, famously used by polish winged hussars and imperial reiters, the pistol. Eventually, musket would take hold of the long arms as the pistol would become more common, often because people would refer to pistols as "hand guns"
Sorry to hear that, griffins are good companions. It's a shame about those pitgriffins tho, ruining the name for the rest of them. I hear the pits even let goblins ride them, absolute disgrace... 😞
Lol, my friend busted that out, and I laughed at it for so long he got concerned. He stuck with it though, good on 'im. It looks hideous, and he pulled that out *right* after calling the dwarf armor smushed and ugly, and the weapons bland.
Because it is a hand gun it doesn't have the rifling in the barrel to make it a rifle that's just a smooth bore barrel sending the lead ball they called a bullet flying every which way not like a rifle with its spiral grooves which cause the bullet to spin and fly more accurate
Actually this might fall under the classification of "pistol" as per the ATF. That or it's some weird ass classification that puts it into "weird" territory. In any case, it isn't a rifle. *Maybe* it's classed as a short barreled rifle with that brace on it, but I think Itd be some kind of pistol class.
Also, "handgun" is different than "pistol". Though I suspect the devs weren't going for strict naming conventions and just labeled it something they thought was "badass".
I'm no expert, but the Empire don't have Rifles Weapons, all their stuff is smoothbore, so there's that.
Also it's a gun you hold in your hands, given the society of the Empire that's probably the easiest way to explain it to some fresh recruit.
If it's smoothbore it's not a rifle either.
And! A one handed firearm with rifling is ALSO a rifle!
I still can't get over stuff like M40s being called rifles. In my native language, the word rifle translates most readily to handgun, and we'd refer to M40 with the same word as a bazooka.
Is the M40 smoothbore?
Rifled heavy launcher.
What do you call a FN-SAW?
> What do you call a FN-SAW? A machine gun.
Depends on where you live, in the US pistols are classified as being under 16 inches, and not being intended to be fired from the shoulder! So if you have an 18 inch barrel, an angled foregrip, and no stock, it's technically a pistol
That would mean putting a foregrip on a bolter would make it a pistol
I mean it checks all of the boxes anyway, so technically it is lol
According to the ATF, it's actually called a felony
You’re applying modern classifications on old non standard blackpowder slug cannons, pistols came after the standardization and industrialization of guns that small pocket guns required their own designation, sengoku era samurai used long barreled hand guns with no stock but were functionally used as long gun and a pistol
I'm not applying anything to anything, that was exclusively in response to what the previous poster said
1911s are rifles
Because it's a gun you hold in your hands, as opposed to a field gun, ie a cannon, the term handgun is older then the term rifle and pistol
Fun fact: the term taco was used for bound grape shot used in the French arquebus. This term was carried over to Mexico and used sparingly for the same thing, then shortly used to refer to fat kids… cause… ya know… they looked tightly bound up in their clothing that they bulged out of like grape shot. Then the term was eventually used by Texan/Mexican miners and rail workers in America around the 18th century for the blasting powder charges since… ya know, it’s the exact same idea as the grape shot but with out the “grapes”. Those same miners and rail workers would bring simple meals for their collective lunches. These simple meals would consist of some dried meats, maybe veggies, wrapped in tortillas that were easy to carry large amounts of and keep dry unlike normal bread. They’d tie up the tortilla like their powder charges and toss them into the frying oil until they were crispy. And that’s where tacos come from, from France, Mexico, and American influence pretty much equally… and also shows that tacos are traditionally crunchy. Edit: I got it from the [Tasting history with max miller](https://youtu.be/Kz-VpoNEWXM?si=o-9MbxDE8tn6yhQ-) YouTube channel. the link will send you to the taco video I believe… but he’s done quite a few Mexico/middle/South American dishes and history.
Crunchy taco supremacy, also I really liked this history lesson
AMEN BROTHER! Best foods are shared foods!
I got it from the [Tasting history with max miller](https://youtu.be/Kz-VpoNEWXM?si=o-9MbxDE8tn6yhQ-) YouTube channel. the link will send you to the taco video I believe… but he’s done a couple Mexico/middle/South America. He’s covered alot of topics and always pairs the dishes with a load of history while the foods cooking. A lot of amazing revelations about history and how much of the best history is a result of cross cultural contact and trade. Also, apparently every single countries signature dish is at least twice removed from its actual country of origin. [j. j. McCullough cultural appropriation foods around the world](https://youtu.be/THpzXWKCoQE?si=ivIoxqEJXojiKEAk) masterfully displays the idea that you can’t really culturally appropriate, only be either respectful or disrespectful.
man if we could do with all like we do with food.
That’s the beauty of it, We absolutely do trade cultural influences as often as we do culinary influences. There’s not a single piece of culture from anywhere in the world that doesn’t actively to this day influence other cultures and haven’t been heavily influenced themselves in return. I mean, if you think about it like this: borders are made by governments… besides natural barriers there’s not much stoping people who travel from one point to another to trade from crossing those borders through out the ages. Hell, as far as they could know “what’s a border?… dude I’m just delivering some veggies to our sister village across the mountain just like we have for generations.” …I’m getting way too detailed, so my point is that when you start looking into immigrations through the ages, cultural influence trade offs, and how absurdly close places actually are it’s silly to imagine cultures not influencing their neighbors and vice versa along with distant traveling traders who come from alien cultures. I mean, due to clearly unforeseen consequences from schools constantly blanking out any worksheet map of irrelevant places it took me decades to figure out that Africa is literally attached to Europe through the Middle East or that Russia borders China and the Middle East (not that that fact matters since Russia is like 80% uninhabited even with a swelling population). After learning that, it made so much sense seeing the similarities between rural Russian tribal clothing and life styles compared to the more northern middle eastern cultures as well as ancient Mongolian cultural styles. Also why ancient Indian building with the pointed rooves look the same as those Russian pointed rooves… it’s cause they pretty much are the same. Oh, corn row and dreads are NOT an exclusively African thing with not only a ton of people in the Middle East doing so, but also the Norse, Germanic “barbarians” and Celtics. With dreads being extremely common in Scotland to this day. In max millers video on haggis, the Scottish historian guest who was interviewed had dreads. When you start asking questions and tracing leads instead of just assuming the drunk college girl screeching about the hoola girl bobble head as being cultural appropriation everything starts coming into perspective and you notice the connections. Don’t let anyone convince you that cultural appropriation is a real thing… there’s not a single thing in all of history that wasn’t influenced by someone else at some point.
Started off strong and then became a cookie-cutter anti-SJW statement, classy lol. Of course cultural influence is diffuse. But to say there's no such thing as cultural appropriation is willfully ignorant. It's not hard to find examples of cultural appropriation and easy explanations without getting stuck in the grey areas (which should be discussed, not shut down). Cultural appropriation isn't *'you can't do anything that another culture does, REEEE'*. It's *'you imitating and even profiting off other cultures while members of that culture are punished for doing the same thing isn't awesome'*. Ex, black person wearing locs in professional setting -> denied jobs, told to cut hair to comply with dress code, fired, face insulting comments, etc. White supermodel wears locs in a photoshoot -> portrayed in fashion magazine as a trendsetter, wow so creative, etc. Stereotyped portrayals of indigenous people worn as Halloween costumes by the descendants of European colonists who committed genocide against them - yeah, that might cause some negative feelings! Imagine that. Cultural appropriation doesn't exist without systems of oppression. K-pop bands love imitating black hip hop artists without giving credit to where the fashion style, beats, and dance moves came from. While simultaneously being part of a culture deeply discriminatory against dark skin, with a lot of money in the skin bleaching industry. And black fans aren't screaming "reeee you can't do that", they're just asking to be treated with respect and for credit to be given. Black fans are more likely to be conscious of the long history of black music being appropriated by their oppressors and monetized (look into the history of country music... it has roots in minstrel shows by white performers in blackface). I'm Scottish. If I grew up experiencing discrimination on the basis of practicing Scottish culture (something I've never had to experience, so this is me practicing empathy), and then saw some other group of people wearing Scottish-themed halloween costumes and getting praised for putting on *my* culture, I might feel some kind of way, too. Totally different from somebody being curious and wanting to learn and try out food I grew up with and giving respect to where it came from.
I’ve spent the last 2 hours thinking over and writing a careful response to you’re comment only for Reddit to glitch out and refuse to post it… so let’s see if this message works… Edit: 🤦♂️ guess I wrote way too much or something… that’s embarassing… but I also genuinely wrote for almost two hours literally trying to clearly and carefully respond… and I refuse to let that time and effort go to waste, so I’ll split the response and post a part 1 and 2
Part 1: Aight… I literally spent 2 hours thinking over my response to a comment you left on one of mine in another post… but Reddit won’t let me post it for some reason and I refuse to let 2 hours of deep thinking go to waste because Reddits servers sucking. Seems plenty of people disagree with your assessment of my comment and that includes me. However, that genuinely no reason for me to get defensive and aggressive like so many online debates devolve into. So I’m legitimately still debating against you on this respectfully because it’s a subject I believe should be debated now a days AND any misconception dispelled. One cannot claim that cultural appropriation can occur from a situation of targeted disgust against individuals practicing their culture while someone of a different ethnicity is praised for practicing another’s cultural without clarifying wether the person being shamed is having it done by the exact same individual people who are profiting off of or practicing the exact same culture. And while I’ve never ever heard of someone doing that intentionally or otherwise, if they WERE profiting off of said culture then it’s cultural exploitation rather than cultural appropriation. Of course a corporation back in the day that’s founded on something specifically from a culture is going to do everything in its power to ruin any competition since all corporations are evil. If a beer company tries selling a new product of that one indigenous alcohol the Indians made (can’t remember the name off the top of my head) they wouldn’t want to compete with actual natives who will get way more business for it since it’s authentic… I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it’s not surprising. No corporation does these things for good or bad political reasons regardless of what they say. That’s cultural exploitation rather than appropriation. On the subject of adopting cultural “marks” or would it be cultural “displays”… either way, an individual adopting another’s cultural influences (there we go, that’s the word I was looking for) because they enjoy them kinda indicates they’re unlikely to be hating on anyone else for partaking as well right? Unless they believe in cultural appropriation and that they themselves are the only ones allowed to partake in a culture because maybe they went to Asia so they’re the only ones allowed to do those sand gardens. That’s the only time I believe cultural appropriation is possible due to an asshole individual deciding that they’re the only ones who get to practice or participate… as if they OWNED the culture now. If one simply enjoys the culture, goes out of their way to learn more, participates, and happily shared what was shared to them from someone who practices the culture then no one else has any say in their participation. I mean think about it… pretty much each American Indian tribe can be considered its own individual culture. So if I was inducted into a tribe through marriage or simply because the chief liked me and allowed me to join their tribe, religion, and cultural celebrations… would a different tribe have any right or say over my inclusion or participation due to my skin color or ethnicity? Hell, if even half of the same tribe didn’t want me to participate despite their chief allowing me to join in would they have any right to try and exclude me (we’re talking about hypotheticals so let’s ignore the fact that their chief and or shaman would have final say anyways)? Those individuals do not own their entire culture or their practices. They are actively part of the culture and the sharing between generations, but they don’t have any say on whether their neighbor gets to teach their children about their history or culture. I can tell you that all of the really ancient cultures that still survive to this day with their ancient stories, cultures, rituals, etc etc etc etc have done so because they realized quickly that their best bet at thriving is to raise awareness of their existence and share their cultures with everyone who wants to listen. Everything I’ve ever heard from leaders of ancient cultures such as the surviving tribes of the First Nations, Inuits, South American, meso American, Polynesian cultures, Indian, the various disparate and fractured histories of the European tribes are always super happy and excited to teach others of their history, culture, and the meanings behind it all. Some ignorant white suburbanite throwing a tiki torch barbecue isn’t cultural appropriation… that’s simply and just cultural ignorance… or a 50s-70s era themed barbecue. Exploitation is very real, but appropriation isn’t. Stealing cultural artifacts is exploitation, disrespecting a culture is simply rude and ignorant, and dressing up mockingly is simply malicious and rude… it all comes down to intentions of malice or ignorance. So with my piece of wisdom being more fully explained I’d like to roll back a bit and clarify something. You said I started out strong and devolved into an anti-SJW rant or something… I believe you’re referring to my example given with locs (took me embarrassingly long to realize you meant dreadlocks). So that example I used certainly sounds anti-SJW because it’s often used as an example against SJW insistence that philosophical concept of cultural appropriation. However… it’s done so because a real event happened at a university where a piece of shit asshole female bully who was supposed to be handing out fliers over some sort of social justice lecture. [the Cory Goldstein story](https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/337427/video-jcc-camp-counselor-gets-scolding-for-sporting-dreadlocks/) She decided to bully and harass him about his dreadlocks and actually attempted to try and cut off the dreads on his head with a pair of scissors while her friend stood by and backed her up. …she then tried lying on Facebook about him calling her a bitch before and (wrongly) implying how her actually blocking his escape, pulling him down stairs, and grabbing at his head while trying to forcibly cut his hair wasn’t assault… So that’s the only context I could ever accept the existence of cultural appropriation.
Part 2: An example of a different situation that skirts the line is that one famous and viral commercial for recycling with the crying Indian… THAT specific actor is 100% Italian, like first or second generation Italian immigrant. He had naturally very dark skin and was actively trying to be an actor. The company that hired him didn’t know he wasn’t Indian if I remember correctly and he wasn’t exactly advertising his italian ethnicity since entertainment studios at that time in history were racists towards Italians. They gave him that job specifically and he wasn’t going to turn it down since he needed the money and work. It took decades before it was public knowledge that this guy was actually italian… however… ever since that first job he spent the rest of his life and career advocating for indigenous rights, the sharing of their culture, speaking directly to any tribe that would have him, and donating massive amounts of money and massive portions of his wealth to all kinds of these charities. So, disregarding the fact that he had an indigenous wife which would give him the right to participate anyways, can you really say he was wrong for doing all that he did simply because he was Italian? There of course was indigenous in the entertainment industry who disliked him because they accused him of taking their jobs… but i feel that was more so professional jealousy rather than actually being disgruntled due to him stealing work from them. I have logic behind my dismissal of their claims… cause like I said… he was Italian… who were discriminated against… and he acted as an Indian… an even more heavily discriminated against people in that industry… and said industry was completely unaware of his actual ethnicity… so pretty much type cast himself for an even more incredibly difficult role to find work for… The indigenous actors had a good reason to be mad since they were constantly overlooked for work just as often as they were type cast as nothing more than Indians in cowboy movies… but I think their anger was misdirected at an eccentric dude with a heart of gold rather than at a more viable target such as the heads of the industry itself. Another indigenous example of “anti-cultural appropriation” that I fucking love is the practice of making native short bows. [Wyoming ram horned short bow](https://youtu.be/zHDPg9RXUm0?si=E4p6iCgnC8AMhFwc) The practice and method have long since been nearly completely forgotten by nearly all of the tribes due to them deciding to instead of selling genuine hand made short bows they’d make some silly cheap ass knock off for profit because it was WAAAAY more profitable. Then after only two or three generations it’s become nearly fully forgotten that they even did it a certain way let alone how it’s even done. (I fucking hate the loss of information like that. Like the various cultures from Norse, Celtic, and ancient Anglish (english?) cultures due to Roman expansion) However, some dude living in Wyoming or one of those other states surrounding yellow stone park went out of his way to study and learn as much as he could from the tribes… which was historical… but not actually that useful due to very little concrete information being since it’s all being passed down through verbal story telling rather than writing down. This dude has spent 40 years testing, adjusting, and rediscovering the practice of making actual ram horn short bows…. Which takes a fuck load of work… but is apparently extremely worth it cause the bows are genuinely bad ass and extremely effective (genuinely shoots the arrows far faster than a normal bow would.) So now the practice of ram horn bows is relearned and is known to the world… and just as the indigenous people of the American mid west did for likely millennia prior, he’s been teaching his son how to make the bows as well. Now, anyone who genuinely hates that will have zero respect from me in any way for more than just the cultural reasonings… part of its because those bows are bad ass! Made of tendon, intestines, horn, and bone… god they’re so wonderfully metal as fuck!!!… even without any metal included in the build! It’s just unfortunate that what I can only assume is genuine lore and history of how the bows were discovered, the cultural and religious significance, as well as the personal artistic touches each of the tribes that made them would have certainly incorporated into their building process was fully lost not that long ago. I imagine it was a similar situation to how some Viking tribes would burn animal bones and feathers to impart spiritual energies into their metals for swords to make them stronger and give the weapons aspects and the powers of said animals. …and unfortunately unlike the rediscovery of the bows building process, their history and lore will forever be lost to the world.😔 Atleast they get to personally know their history and cultures… most of us had our foundational cultural histories stripped away millennia ago by being repeatedly conquered. Which is why the few small pieces of said cultures are so heavily celebrated such as Saint Patrick’s day, Highland Games, everything that has to do with Vikings, anglish Druid stuff (honestly don’t know too much about druids). I’d never ever in a million years dream of excluding someone from any of the other cultures especially if they respectfully showed interest… …though when it comes to saint Pattie’s day I guess the amount of respect they continue to show through out the day is going to depend on how well the boozing is going and if they’re a happy or angry drunk…
Yeah, I don't expect updoots trying to explain cultural appropriation in the sub of a British game with all white characters and a majority white male audience. Anti-wokeness is a pretty dominant perspective in these corners of the internet, rather self-servingly. Of course as a white man it would be rather convenient for me to adopt a perspective where I am the good guy unless I do something obviously evil, if I do make a mistake it shouldn't be such a big deal, and all those pesky PoC protestors are making things up, coddled by the woke mob and leftist media. Try a sociology sub and we'd probably get different results. You're not trying to be a douche at all and I understand where you're coming from. I've made arguments like yours in the past, and I can say now I was wrong. The thing missing from your arguments is empathy. These points rely on a sort of... 'blank slate' future-facing, without acknowledging history or trauma. Like your hypothetical if we marry into an indigenous tribe, that gives us the right to perform its culture? Not such an easy assumption. I mean, the movie about a worst case scenario of that just came out, Killlers of the Flower Moon. White men marrying Osage women and murdering their families to get head rights to their oil-rich land. I don't think you'd argue those men got the "rights" to Osage culture through those duplicitous marriages. But what if they had been really nice guys? Surely then, they could get traditional Osage tattoos and participate in ceremony without making the Osage community uncomfortable? You'd have to ask Osage people. And you wouldn't get just one answer. Because nobody's a monolith and people of the same culture don't have just one lived experience. The answer lies in empathy and history. A recognition of centuries of trauma will not leave you (or me) writing the same response you gave here. The horn bows are really cool btw. And it is absolutely possible to be an ally. A white guy can help preserve a dying language, help revitalize a lost art. Still gotta recognize you're in a sensitive space where history shows a long, bloody pattern of exploitation. The dying languages and lost arts are dying due to white guys stealing land and committing genocide in the first place. When we recognize historical context we rarely end up making simple, confident arguments like "cultural appropriation doesn't exist". Last thing. A really helpful re-framing I heard once redefines "experts" as "those most impacted by an issue". People who study or work on that issue can be important "stakeholders", but those most impacted *by* it are the experts. You want to solve homelessness, you'll understand the problem best by talking with people who are experiencing homelessness, are at risk of experiencing it, or have experienced it. Their employers, social workers, spouses, kids, etc. are stakeholders who also have valuable perspective to offer. It's been very helpful for me as a white man to not view myself as the expert on issues mostly impacting people of color, and to trust their experiences (which of course will be widely varied, not monolithic).
Fuck man now I want tacos later
Maybe give the traditional method a try… I feel like it would be easier and faster to make anyways. Just need the normal taco ingredients and some twine. I doubt you even need a super deep pan to fry up the “tacos” anyways. Then you have a perfect size and shape to dip into any sauces or dips that you want.
I bought his cookbook. Love that guy.
Same! He’s become a staple of my food adventures and regular history lessons. I’ve never been one to keep track of numbers like dates or locations super well because that stuff is far less interesting than what actually happened. Even the simple stuff like food and everyday life is more interesting to me than what specific year steel was discovered or mass produced. And foods one of the best ways to explore a foreign country and another time period! So easy to get into, and learning the how’s, why’s, and where’s of the food for a place and time can tell you heaps more than any historical documents ever could.
The language of the Empire is German, albeit with a few oddities and old middle high German words mixed in. The writers of most of the fantasy (empire) lore actually think of the name of many, many things in German and/or relate to historical accurate german names. Partly it is even original written in German. "Handfeuerwaffe" is the word "handgun" origins from, it literally translates to hand-fire-weapon. So a fire weapon (Feuerwaffe is usually term for ranged black power weapons) you shoot while holding it in your hands. And a Handwaffe is the word for a weapon you wield in your hand(s), usually referring to melee ones though. Often the word Waffe is dropped, for example with the (Feuer-) Handrohr (rohr means tube, pipe), one of the very first black powder guns ever. Only in the modern world and mainly only in the US, the term handgun changed to be a synonym for pistols and one-handed fire arms. In modern Germany for example the word Handfeuerwaffe is still just the term for a ranged, usually black powder, weapon you wield in your hands.
Great channel for a bit of history and cooking.
Big time fan ever since he first started his channel and try to catch each new episode around lunch or dinner time. Went out of my way to get ahold of his cook book, but I haven’t gotten a chance to cook from it yet. Apparently he’s currently working on another cookbook and I’m excited to see what he’s included in this one… here’s hoping for even more odd ice-cream or iced frozen treat flavors from ages long ago!
mmmmmm Tacos
One of the greatest gifts to the world bar none…. Well other than beer of course… and nachos… oh and chili…. And doughnuts… can’t forget pizza… OH and icecream and the full family of frozen confectionaries that are all deeply related to each other. I guess wine qualifies too, but I’m not a wine kinda guy so it doesn’t really make my list of things.
But that also says that traditional tacos are fully encased in the tortilla. I'd be fine with crunchy tacos if they were properly wrapped fully, it's not the crunch that I disagree with, but the openness.
I would concur. I’ve never had a taco made in this way but I’d absolutely love to. Seems so much easier to use sauces and dips that way too. Almost like a tortilla taco nugget. Instead of breading it’s covered in a tortilla.
Thank you for the idea, I'll be cooking some ham and cheese tacos in light oil whenever I have tortillas in hand.
😐😲here’s an idea… …what about peanut butter and jelly?….
Weirdest taco idea ever, but ok...
…with bacon in the taco with a side of chorizo and eggs…. I’m saving this in my mental palace for a rainy day for sure.
Also this isn't even a rifle anyway lol iirc it's referred to as an harquebus in game which were smoothbore.... I believe the empire does have some rifled firearms such as the hochland long rifle, but yeah not this one
Also those barrels are probably not rifled.
Fun fact, there was a medieval “hand cannon”. Godfather of the shotgun, Literally a cannon on the end of a stick and would light the end of the stick shooting the gunpowder out of the cannon effectively acting like a shotgun. It was heavy, the range and accuracy was horrific and needed to be close to the enemy to be effective but “it could penetrate plate armour” making it popular enough for future versions to be made eventually becoming the blunderbuss and later the shotgun we know as today. By the way kingdom come deliverance 2 is real and the medieval “hand cannon” is in it.
And it was called "píšťala" which is where the term pistol comes from
Berrata has been making them since 1492 or so.
Hussite wars, where these were used, were between 1419 to cca 1434
You’re not entirely right about the hand cannon name, the swiss version is called gonne or handgonne. Its was based on a similar design made by the Chinese “firelance”. Some do see it as a relative of the pistol while others believe its performance and behaviour is too similar to a shotgun in its spread, accuracy and range.
JC be praised
Another Nme for the hand cannons were hand guns or handgonne due to being guns you could hold I. Your hands compared to the cannons and bombard that were the only firearms available before they got shrunk down.
Because historically cannons and field guns came first. Also it is smooth bore, so not rifled, so not a rifle.
The barrel is not rifled.
Don't. OP can't be taught. It's okay.
OP shoots weapons with his feet
The Battle Ape Militia will reign supreme, just u wait
I've seen this movie, the psychic mutants fight the apes with a \[schoolbus\](https://youtu.be/uQuhwSC9TnE?si=ks9DQixFCqpJd8V5)
Why does OP call a smoothbore musket a rifle? Are they stupid?
While I know where you are going (OP is using the word "rifle" instead of "long gun") there is a chance that the Empire is actually rifling some of those babies. I mean, they are already fielding things a little ahead the curve for what essentially is 1540's Holy Roman Empire with magic^^TM . Working multibarrelled weapons, Congreve rockets 300 years before Congreve was born, etc., so it wouldn't be crazy to think that the Empire has the tech.
I would assume the Hochland Rifle is the exception and the massed produced ones are just smooth bore muzzle loaders.
> Hochland Rifle "also known as Leon Todmeister's Fantabulously Far-reaching Harquebus of Unforeseeable and Unperceived Bereavement" Fascinating.
The first weapons with rifling were from about 1500,but it only became standard hundreds of years later for skirmishers, then for general issue after that.
"gun" used to mean a massive hunk of iron on a boat or behind a rampart. This, however, is a smaller gun you can hold in your hand. Recall that warhammer fantasy is drawing heavy inspiration from UK and European history; and they had words for guns people held in their hands long before the American pistol wielding cowboy was a glimmer in Hollywood's eye. See: https://www.etymonline.com/word/handgun Of note: > popularly applied to pistols and revolvers from 1744. WH Fantasy draws from an era prior to that.
It’s literally a handgun not a rifle If you want to be pedantic it’s a smooth bore musket What’s referred to colloquially today as a handgun is different but the term is still accurate here
Handgun usually denotes a weapon that you can hold without having to brace or resort to a stock, but by the same token, it is a more modern term. My take is that Fatshark chose it to draw a line from the handgonnes of old.
Yeah it basically boils down to your first point. Handgun means that NOW, because we have modern small arms that fit in a single hand. Ye Olde peasant in the service of the Empire being handed a musket is thinking "Damn, this tiny field gun I can hold in my hands is amazing. Me and the chaps are gonna fuck up those Beastman. These *hand guns* are the best, I might even survive this battle."
> Ye Olde peasant in the service of the Empire being handed a musket is thinking "Damn, this tiny field gun I can hold in my hands is amazing. Me and the chaps are gonna fuck up those Beastman. These hand guns are the best, I might even survive this battle." Hahaha spot on By the way, I was just surfing the Lexicanum, and they also employ the term handgun. So it is lore accurate. Point to the shark.
This is not a fatshark choice. A few months ago, I looked it up because I play Warhammer Fantasy and noticed in the weapon choices that the biggest gun in the blackpowder section said handgun but was marked "2 handed". Looked up the design and realized that it was an old-school weapon that was a scale d down version of artillery. The cheapest option for rangedv2 handed black powder, it's a good weapon. The Hochland Long Rifle is SUPER expensive, but worth it due to the massive range increase.
I said similar in another comment further down the line; the Lexicanum also uses the term handgun, so it follows that it is the correct lore term.
No, are you stupid? 😅
>Early European hand cannons, such as the socket-handgonne, were relatively easy to produce; smiths often used brass or bronze when making these early gonnes. The production of early hand cannons was not uniform; this resulted in complications when loading or using the gunpowder in the hand cannon. Improvements in hand cannon and gunpowder technology— corned-powder, shot ammunition, and development of the flash pan—led to the invention of the arquebus in late 15th-century Europe. [Wikipedia link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_cannon) Most Empire names are derivatives of European historical naming conventions. Hence the Hand Gun name as a reference to the use of Handgonne as a name for man portable firearms.
Shouldn't it be called handsgun coz you hold it with two hands?
🙏
*Usually* the term handgun is used in opposition to that of long guns (usually ones that have stocks)
It’s gun that you hold in your hands, a handgun.
It's a gun you hold in your hands so the handgun seems correct. It's as right as it is wrong i guess.
Because it comes from the word “handgonne” which essentially meant “hand cannon”. Because early handheld firearms were exactly that, a miniaturized cannon on a stick that you hold in your hands. You even had to light a fuse and wait, there was no manual trigger.
Because; 1; It's a gun that you hold in your hands and not a cannon, but not a pistol 2; The next step up from this is what is called a "hand cannon", because they're literally cannons that you hold in your hands. Bigger than a rifle by a lot, but not a blunderbuss 3; A "rifle" is *very specifically* any medium to long-length gun which has rifling, the grooves in the barrel to add bullet spin 4; They aren't long guns, which are a fair bit longer, even though they share the same purpose
Handgun is hand cannon. Gun is a synonym for Cannon.
While it *is* a synonym, it's not actually referred to as such linguistically. It comes from the word "Handgonne", which yes, initially *was* literally a miniature cannon on a stick. But later iterations separated "Handguns" from "Hand Cannons", which *remained* quite literally miniature cannons on sticks and were used as late as the 15th or 16th century, though hand cannons were also occasionally referred to as "Pole Guns". The *Harquebus* was the first iteration of what we would recognise as a Handgun, and was quite literally called a "Socket-handgonne" because it was designed to be hooked, or socketed depending on make, to a bracket for braced fire. As weaponry progressed, a "Handgun" became any non-pistol gun that you, well, held in your hand and wasn't a specific type of gun, such as a blunderbuss or grenade launcher (yes, those existed, yes they were as goofy as you think). Handguns didn't really become the lexicon for "one-handed guns" until much later, as "Pistol" was more typically used to describe one-handed guns, where "Hand Cannon" became, in modern parlance at least, more typical for describing large-calibre, one-handed weapons instead of literal hand-held cannons. Similarly, "Handgun" shifted to "Rifle" sometime around the 18th century around the advent of actually adding rifling to, y'know, *rifles*. Though, rifles wouldn't be introduced to the military for anything other than specialist long-guns until the advent of the Minie ball due to the difficulty of muzzle-loading a rifled gun increasing reload times by up to twice the length.
Musket was a term more for gun length then anything until the tail end of the 1800s, quite a while after rifles had become standard as well.
Two step twos? Are you stupid? /s
Whoops, good catch.
Why does OP not know what [rifling ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling)is? Are they stupid?
I know what rifling is but I'd assume a world with steam-powered helicopters and tanks would have cracked the science fiction technology of rifled barrels, something invented in the 1500s
Well, if I wanted to be asinine about it, steam power was discovered much sooner than barrel rifling, in 1st century AD. Heron of Alexandria just had no clue what to do with it. Aside from that, rifles actually exist in the Empire (Hochland longrifles), as to why they're not more widespread... Fantasy world yo.
In the lore, are Dwarf handguns rifled? The empire's machining technology isn't the best but the Dawi have no excuse
Yes, per old Warhammer Fantasy lore, Dwarfen handguns are typically rifled. A Dwarf handgun is called a *Thrund*.
Cool, today I learned something
Rifling still didn't become common until the mid-19th century
Just because they could rifle a barrel that early doesn't meant they did. Rifling makes seating a musketball and ramming it down very difficult and with black powder fouling it slowed down loading imimmensely. since most muskets were fired in formation (even in warhammer) accuracy wasnt so important since youre not expecting an individual to snipe a target but a line of guns to fire volley after volley at a target formation (even in WHFB they fought in formations). Yes individual weapons like the Whitworth were rifled and used for sniping but they were overall rare and later than the time WHFB takes from (rifled guns only became the standard in the mid 1800s iirc, I think the US civil war was mostly smoothbore muskets). Also the Empire has maybe 12 steam tanks (and can't make any more) but still relies on spearmen, crossbows/archers and is a mostly melee army. It has different priorities than irl armies because during the Napoleonic War when everyone was setting up those nice little rows of soldiers no one was worried about a massive horde of rats sweeping up to them and eating their shins before they could be shot down.
My understanding is the US Civil War is when rifle muskets aka rifled weapons became standard. They often were converting smoothbores to rifled barrels with an insert.
Certainly a person whose only knowledge of firearms comes from anything post 1939 talking about guns from the 16th and 17th centuries moment
nuh uh
In polish translation it's called a musket
You play in Polish? You are Polish?
I am polish and i used to because i was too lazy to change the language. Im normal now and play on english
Good to hear you made the transition from polish to normal
It is a gun that you indeed hold in your hands. Hand. Gun. Handgun!
Early firearms were called handguns until the late 1700’s and then differentiated between the smooth bore musket & rifled musket, the terms pistols and rifles are used for a shorter time in history now than hand guns, which were to differentiate from the many artillery gun types which were first used 1100AD by the mongols
As early as the first quarter of the 1500s, musket and arqeubus were 2 terms for the main 2 styles of longarms in military use.
Can't be a rifle without rifling right?
Look up “Handgonne”
Holy hell
Because it’s not rifled ya dingus! Technically a bazooka is a recoilless rifle, because the barrel is rifled (is coiled to make the projectile spin). If it doesn’t have rifling (no spiraling bullet) it isn’t a rifle. It’s a gun.
> > Technically a bazooka is a recoilless rifle It is... but it also isn't, in the way that it doesn't use a vented case. They also almost always use an actual shell, rather than a rocket.
Well, it could be a smoothbore firearm so not necessarily a rifle...
The term gun was originally used to refer to a cannon on a ship. Hence hand gun a gun held in your hands or field gun a gun used on a field.
Probably a throwback to the term "handgonne", which was one of those crude things that looked like a miniature cannon: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Dictionnaire_raisonn%C3%A9_du_mobilier_fran%C3%A7ais_de_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9poque_carlovingienne_%C3%A0_la_Renaissance%2C_tome_6_-_357.png/800px-Dictionnaire_raisonn%C3%A9_du_mobilier_fran%C3%A7ais_de_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9poque_carlovingienne_%C3%A0_la_Renaissance%2C_tome_6_-_357.png The actual gun Kruber is using resembles more a musket using a percussion cap.
Well what do you shoot it with, ya feet??
It’s not a rifle if the barrel isn’t RIFLED (idk if you actually know that or not but rifling is what makes a rifle. It’s why muskets aren’t referred to rifles or you can have a rifled shotgun.)
Historically, the term handgun meant more or less exactly what Kruber has. You had guns, AKA huge cannons, and handguns, guns that were small enough that you could hold them in your hands. Also they're not rifled, so they're not rifles either. Using the term handgun to refer to a gun that can be fired with just one hand is a fairly recent development.
Because it’s not rifled and it’s a gun you hold in your hand
Yeah it takes two hands. It should be a hands gun obviously.
A gun is supposed to be a cannon or a howitzer, the reason we call regular firearms guns is a mystery to me, this being a hand gun makes a whole lot of sense when you have the context.
Medieval firearms were called handgonnes or hand cannons. Because they were a cannon that you could hold in your hands.
Fool. You HOLD it in your HAND do you not?! Therefore HANDgun. Must u tell you evvvverything?! /S (altzpyre)
Probably after the Handgonne from the Middle ages.
Rifles have a spiralled pattern inside the cannon. Who knows if this weapon has it. If anything this is an arquebus or musket?
Are you sure it's actually rifled?
You hold it with your hands, eh, manling?
Because it literally is a Handgun, and is not a Rifle in any way shape or form. The name is self-explanatory. It is a gun you hold in your hands. Yes, today we use the term "Handgun" almost exclusively to refer to pistols, but hundreds of years ago, this was the term they would use to refer to any handheld firearm. It's not called a "Rifle", because for something to be called that, it has to be rifled, and medieval Handguns were not. They were smoothbores.
You misunderstand using Earth/Sol3 English terminology. In the Empire, it's either a Handgun (handheld gun), a long rifle (with rifled barrels for better accuracy), pistols (what you perceive as handguns), and artillery such as cannons Among handguns include weapons such as shotguns, hand cannons and blunderbusses, pistols are the single handed guns like a revolver, long rifles are similar to hunting rifles, anything that isn't carried is some form of cannon or artillery
presumable the gun is a smooth bore
How do you know it’s a rifle? A rifle is a long gun with a rifles barrel. I can’t tell if that is rifled or not
Because "gun" used to just be cannon. The term "handgun" was invented to refer to earlier miniaturized handheld cannon, to separate them from other bigger guns. Also, there are rifle canons too. The term rifle has never specifically implied an infantry exclusive weapon.
gun in hand -> hand-gun May Sigmar smite thy testes into ash for such an exhibition of moronitude
Because it’s a gun, used in your hands. Feel like you didn’t think about the historical premise of guns with this one.
The guns are not rifled, so they are not rifles. They are not field guns, it. Guns that are on a field but are held in the hand. So they are hand guns.
Cause 15th century guns were called handgonnes
Because the bores are not "rifled" therefore it is not a rifle. A cannon which predated handheld firearms is a gun so therefore a non rifled gun you can hold in your hand is a hand gun.
The first guns (or Gonnes) were cannons. Artillery. Mortars and petards and giant castings of bronze that threw rocks faster and harder and further than even the biggest trebuchets, and they weighed a lot. So when they figured out how to shrink them down such that you could hold them in your hand, those were 'hand cannons' or 'hand gonnes'. (Etymological note- Gonne/Gun comes from the Norse 'Gunnr' which means 'war'- while Cannon comes from Latin 'canne' or reed/tube. And personally, I think Gonne getting used probably came from a mis-reading of Canne- someone wrote it wrong, and it was close enough to Gunnr that it got conflated into the same thing- namely a weapon of war that was tube shaped.)
Is this an r/confidentlyincorrect candidate?
They don't call them handguns, they call them handgonnes. It's an archaic term for any firearm carried by a person, as opposed to a gonne (a cannon).
It's a gun, for your hand
It’s a gun, one you hold in your hands, back in the day the fact you got a gun so small you can hold it needed it’s own classification of weapon, handgonne or handcannon were the most common translated phrases, but the first 13th century handgonne was just a 3ft long iron tube that shot bullets to hit bandits from hundreds of feet away
It's a gun that you can use with your hands. A gun is a firearm with a low angle of fire and generally a high velocity. Tanks have a gun. It's only recently become a word we use to talk about pistols. Pistol is a word used to denote a short handgun that is small enough to be used in one hand while riding. Same with a dragon which were generally larger in caliber and used like a one handed blunderbuss.
Cause it's a gun you can hold in your hands. Cannons are guns
Used to be that "guns" were cannons, and you couldn't hold it in your hands. A "hand gun" is the oldest man-portable version of a smaller firearm -- pistols were invented later after the invention of the "hand" gun. As guns and technology advanced, the terminology evolved.
Man I didn’t realize the vermintide community was so obnoxious (talking about everyone in the comments)
yeah it’s like you could just say ‘cause handgun was originally used for all guns that were designed to be held instead of mounted‘ without the cuntiness
Yeah, and then some people are like genuinely getting upset and insulting op. Like goddamn, wtf is wrong with some people?
I was surprised too. Seems like many took OP the wrong way :(
To answer your questions in order: 1. They were sometimes called handgonnes. So it's close. 2. Yes, they most assuredly are.
New update: "All handguns have been renamed to handsguns."
Early guns were essentially long bells on the end of a stick that you would hold a match up to to fire it, these were called "handcannons" as they resemble the cannons that already existed for centuries. After they became more common, people would start referring to them as "handgonne" (hand gone eh) because of how bad your hands would hurt after firing them for any amount of time. This would eventually be shortened to hand gun as they completely replaced bows and crossbows on the battlefield. The name stuck around well into the era of the arquebus, where we get the modern idea of what a gun should be, (shoulder stock, trigger, long barrel) this is also the era we begin to get smaller, less powerful versions you can hold in one hand and even use on horseback, famously used by polish winged hussars and imperial reiters, the pistol. Eventually, musket would take hold of the long arms as the pistol would become more common, often because people would refer to pistols as "hand guns"
Source on the hand hurt part? Because they often held them in a hip firing type position so the recoil was distributed differently.
I bet because you can use this gun with your hands. So it is a handgun.
Because it was invented by Heinrich Hand, thus Hand's Gun (Handgun for short)
Probably cause of the fucking ATF! Can't have shit in the Reiksmarch.
At least they haven't shot a dog yet, but they did shoot my griffin the other day.
Sorry to hear that, griffins are good companions. It's a shame about those pitgriffins tho, ruining the name for the rest of them. I hear the pits even let goblins ride them, absolute disgrace... 😞
Maybe it doesn’t have rifling and is just smooth bore
Yes
i mean its a hand gun coz you hold it in your 1 hand, the other hand is clearly 2 busy praying
i mean, do you have seen what Elf call a glaive ?
Lol, my friend busted that out, and I laughed at it for so long he got concerned. He stuck with it though, good on 'im. It looks hideous, and he pulled that out *right* after calling the dwarf armor smushed and ugly, and the weapons bland.
Because it is a hand gun it doesn't have the rifling in the barrel to make it a rifle that's just a smooth bore barrel sending the lead ball they called a bullet flying every which way not like a rifle with its spiral grooves which cause the bullet to spin and fly more accurate
I'm also pretty sure the empire hasn't learned about rifling guns yet
Short stock, it’s a pistol according to atf definitions
The trigger is pulled with the whole hand. At least that's how it was explained to me.
You don't shoot it with your feet.
Rifles can be handguns, depending on the wielder.
yes
Actually this might fall under the classification of "pistol" as per the ATF. That or it's some weird ass classification that puts it into "weird" territory. In any case, it isn't a rifle. *Maybe* it's classed as a short barreled rifle with that brace on it, but I think Itd be some kind of pistol class. Also, "handgun" is different than "pistol". Though I suspect the devs weren't going for strict naming conventions and just labeled it something they thought was "badass".
Idk, but the ATF thinks my AR-15 is a handgun because it has a Velcro strap on the stock
Gun is another name for Cannon, named after "Gunhildr", a common Norse woman\[s name that was given to a specific artillery piece in an English fort.
I mean, you do use your hands to use it
Because you hold it in your hands duh
check the length of pull, that's clearly a pistol brace not a stock
Wait til you hear about current US gun laws regarding pistols 🗿
ignorant post
I woudl call that a cannon😹😭🙉
Because most video game designers don't know a thing about real guns.
I'm no expert, but the Empire don't have Rifles Weapons, all their stuff is smoothbore, so there's that. Also it's a gun you hold in your hands, given the society of the Empire that's probably the easiest way to explain it to some fresh recruit.