NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 2303703" data-attributes="member: 3146">Actually, what's worth looking at here is the way that firearms and other weapon developments changed armor. Firearms and crossbows didn't make armor useless immediately. Rather, they forced people to wear different kinds of armor if they wanted it to be effective.At the beginning of the sixteenth century, a good Greenwich or Milanese armor would have been a suit of fullplate covering its wearer from head to toe leaving only the joints exposed. (Henry VIII had a number of ingenious tournament and field armors and pretty much all of them were head to toe protection). Later developments in response to the increasing power of firearms and other weapons included half-plate which generally left the legs under the knee to be protected by thick leather boots. By the time of the English civil war (mid seventeenth century), King Charles' armor was just a buff coat, helmet, gauntlets, and a breastplate. As the power of weapons increased, armor kept pace for quite some time, but it did so by becoming heavier and the end result of that was that the less vital sections of the armor were discarded entirely in order to make the breastplate, etc. proof against bullets.For more common armors, someone else will have to answer definitively. I know that the standard spanish armor of the fifteenth century and the war of Spanish succession was a breastplate, Morion, and buckler. I'm not sure what happened with the common man's protection in between that era and the Colonial era though.</blockquote>

Verification