Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yuan-Ti" data-source="post: 2083266" data-attributes="member: 4483">Just to add to what Wulf said, there were a couple of other issues going on, in addition to the economies of gunpowder weapons...One is that the stopping power of firearms increased to the point in the early 1600s that wearing cumbersome armor did not appreciably increase your chances of survival against firearms. Pikemen wore metal armor longer than did musketeers and both gave it up in favor of various leather armors by 1650 (before giving it up for cloth by the mid- to late-1600s). Even cavalry, during this time, went through a period where they often wore only leathers -- but that was because European cavalry stopped using shock weapons and instead relied mostly on pistols. Once charging with sword drawn came back into fashion, cavalry started wearing breastplates again. The other issues, I recall, were supply and marching. Warfare became more and more expensive, involving larger armies, and requiring more maneuver. States were less interested in issuing armor, soldiers were less interested in humping it around the countryside, and generals preferred armies that could move quickly. But to sum it up -- as melee combat became less important on the battlefield and firearms became more effective against armor, armor went away. Cavalry kept it longer because they were primarily engaged in melee combat (again, except for the period when they relied on pistols).</blockquote>