SolomonBlack t1_irtrfss wrote on October 10, 2022 at 11:49 PM

To get a sense of the sort of resource/labor limits pre-industrial societies had to work around consider that it was by no means uncommon for the curtain walls of a castle to NOT be solid stone but a contain hollow space filled in with whatever debris and dirt was handy. An architectural 'trick' that goes back thousands of years to Egypt where the swap from solid stone is why there are only like six proper pyramids because the dozens made after the switch all collapsed over the millennia.

Next technologically speaking the heyday of castles didn't even have the technology to put plate on a man. Plate was developed in response to early firearms making earlier mail worthless. And never that common, what you'd spend armoring a single wall could outfit an sizable unit of troops instead.

Tableau t1_irtsrw9 wrote on October 11, 2022 at 12:00 AM

“ Plate was developed in response to early firearms making earlier mail worthless.”

That doesn’t sound quite right. Plate got going in earnest by the late 13th century, and was highly developed by the end of the 14th. Firearms show up around the mid 14th century, but don’t develop a serious battlefield presence until the 15th.

Thanatikos t1_iru2r1p wrote on October 11, 2022 at 1:17 AM

It was always my understanding that plate armor was made obsolete by firearms, not because of them. If anything made earlier mail “worthless” it was the advents of the longbow and crossbow. Also, the other claim that they didn’t have plate armor during the “heyday” of castles is inaccurate.

SolomonBlack t1_iru72l6 wrote on October 11, 2022 at 1:49 AM

I should probably have said something about crossbows and of course plate is great against a lot of other things on the battle field so clearly would be invented anyways. However while the timeline is not super clear we can find potential use of gunpowder in Europe as early as 1241 by the Mongols and guns by the 1320s. For plate armor, well technically it is ancient so gets into "define plate armor" with things like old Roman lorica to brigadines and coats of plates but I don't think I've ever seen the classic "full" plate sourced before 1400s.

Tableau t1_iruic4s wrote on October 11, 2022 at 3:19 AM

Yes, gunpowder may have been hanging around for a while, but it didn’t become a significant force on the battle field until the 1400s.

On the other hand, Europeans knights were routinely covering their entire bodies with plate armour by the 1340s. And that’s after a half century or so of gradually adding more renforcements to the traditional maille. The 14th century is a wild time for the development of armour but by the 1380s, it starts to settle into the standard arrangement that you would think of for “classic full plate”.

That’s at least a solid century of rapid development without gunpowder as a main driver.

SolomonBlack t1_irup8ft wrote on October 11, 2022 at 4:22 AM

You hardly need massed lines of matchlock infantry to start taking precautions against all the new hotness that's been flying around the post-Crusades battlefields. Also consider that we're still in a period of history where having records at all suggests they were not all that rare. Or that this race for the beginning is a bit besides the point for technologies that would go on to exist and therefore continue developing side by side for another few centuries.

Also that this is all getting a far from the actual point since none of this leave much of a medieval castle period or getting anywhere near enough good metal production to start armoring a curtain wall.

Tableau t1_irw2eav wrote on October 11, 2022 at 2:01 PM

I guess so, it’s just that references to guns in that time span are so rare while references to armour are so ubiquitous. Like we have mountains of references to armour from that time period, and several for guns.

Thanatikos t1_iry3iej wrote on October 11, 2022 at 10:03 PM

I’m sorry, but I think your understanding of the advent of firearms is off by two hundred years or so. A few examples of early use does not constitute evidence that they were widely used or that armor was initially a response to them. Their design and use was limited. Gunpowder was not readily available. Crossbows we’re still the preferred ranged weapon of Conquistadors through most of the 16th century. Gunpowder use prior to the 15th century would have been unreliable and usually uncompetitive with bows unless conditions were ideal. There just isn’t anywhere enough evidence to support your position. From 1000-1400 AD the chances of being killed on a European by a gunpowder weapon versus edged weapons or bows would have been minute.

HDH2506 OP t1_irx212c wrote on October 11, 2022 at 5:59 PM

I mean…dirt and debris is much better anyway