Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Tableau t1_irtsrw9 wrote

Reply to comment by SolomonBlack in Has metal ever been used in ancient/medieval fortifications or any equivalent by HDH2506

“ 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.

3

Thanatikos t1_iru2r1p wrote

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.

2

SolomonBlack t1_iru72l6 wrote

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.

0

Tableau t1_iruic4s wrote

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.

3

SolomonBlack t1_irup8ft wrote

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.

−1

Tableau t1_irw2eav wrote

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.

2

Thanatikos t1_iry3iej wrote

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.

1