This phase of the influence of the gun on history is clearly marked. Not so clearly marked, but really more important, has been its influence in deciding wars; for the ways in which wars have been decided have been the turning points in the march of history. The issue of Alexander's wars, for instance, had decided that Greek civilization should not perish, but survive; the issue of Cæsar's wars in Gaul had decided that Roman civilization should extend north over Europe, and that the western incursion of the savage Germans should be stopped; the issue of the wars between the vigorous Goths and degenerate Rome had decided that Rome must die; and so forth, and so forth. So, after the invention of the gun, the issue of every succeeding war supplied a new turning point for history to follow. Naturally, those nations that took the most skilful, prompt and thorough advantage of the power, range and accuracy of the new invention gained in almost every case the victory over their opponents. So long as no weapons existed, struggles between men had to be decided by physical strength and cunning and quickness only. When the first flint fist-hammer was invented, a man who was sagacious enough and industrious enough and skilful enough to make one, could gain the victory over many another man of greater physical strength and quickness, but who had not the sagacity, industry and skill to provide himself with a flint fist-hammer. Supposing the flint fist-hammer to be the first invention ever made, as many think it was, we see here the first instance of the influence of invention on history; because this first invention influenced the course of history in favor of men possessing sagacity, industry and skill, as against men not possessing those qualities. By doing this, it not only decided that such men (and tribes composed of such men) should prevail, but did even more to influence history; _it induced men and tribes to make and develop and utilize inventions_. This resulted in what we call civilization. As each improved weapon followed its predecessor, a new demand was made;--not only for a new kind of skill on the part of the man making the weapon and on the part of the soldiers using it, but also for foresight on the part of the tribe or nation that would supply the weapon to its troops. It is easily realized that, if there were two contiguous tribes about to go to war against each other, one of which was ruled by a sagacious, energetic and far-seeing chief, while the other was ruled by a dull, slothful and short-sighted chief, the former chief would probably provide his warriors with the newest weapon (say, the bow and arrow) and train them in its use; whereas the other would ignore it and go to battle with clubs and javelins only. As between two tribes otherwise equally matched, the result would be obvious; and doubtless it was exceedingly obvious in hundreds of tribal battles, before the dawn of history.