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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheAuldGrump" data-source="post: 2304452" data-attributes="member: 6957">Not 'wholly so' by any means - the breastplate remains in use for over 200 years following the use of gunpowder on the battlefield - that is a long time for obsolete equipment to remain in use. And while not easily made bullet proof back and breast proofed armor was not uncommon. (Heck, I have worn a proofed back and breast... it is heavy, but the arms and legs are not overly encumbered, had I wanted I could have worn the tassets as well, but the thing already weighed over thirty pounds between helm and B&B.)But the full musket does not see common use until the mid to late 17th century. Before then the hackbut was more common. Crude, innefficient, and not altogether accurate. Good armor could deflect or even stop (at range) the shot from an harquebus. The longer arms of the jezzail and the musket did in fact make the armor less effective, having a tighter tolerance between ball and barrel and a resultingly higher muzzle velocity. (And the Brown Bess is a joy to fire, you can actually hit what you are aiming at!) But the musket is a relative latecomer, well after the Renaissaince is over, let alone the Middle Ages.Most armor was actually proofed against cavalry pistols, not the longer arms, if you could afford good armor then the odds were that you were not in a tercio. (And I still think that the caricole of pistol cavalry is the stupidest manuever ever invented!)Grapeshot and glancing shot made the cannon hideously effective against massed infantry. And if you could get in some enfilade or semienfilade fire then it would rip the unit to shreds. Cannister shot added range to the concept of grapeshot.The Auld Grump</blockquote>

Verification