Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dougmander" data-source="post: 2303517" data-attributes="member: 14375">Armor was still being worn in 1650, 300 years after guns appeared on the battlefield, so it can't be that simple. The true relation between guns and the decline of armor is a little more complex. Armorers could easily make suits of armor that could stop bullets. In fact, the armor was "proofed" by shooting a pistol or longarm at it. The resulting dent was proof that the armor could protect you from guns.My suspicion is that rank-and-file soldiers began to tire of wearing armor because it was heavy and uncomfortable, not because it was useless against guns. The economics of war was changing too, with much larger armies that would have been ruinously expensive to put in full armor. Fresh conscripts were much cheaper.Firing a longbow has three steps: nock, draw, and shoot. Don't leave it strung for long periods, don't get the string wet, and that's about it for maintenance.Firing a matchlock gun has at least half a dozen steps, depending on how you define a step, and has to be maintained on a daily basis unless you want to foul it the next time you shoot. Easier?It's not that guns were easier to use, it's that compared to longbows, they did not require constant physical/ conditioning in order to be effective, because the force driving the projectile was coming from a low explosive rather than from muscle power. Sunday afternoons, traditionally reserved for archery practice, became open to other amusements, much to the dismay of contemporary moralizers.</blockquote>

Verification