Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 2305112" data-attributes="member: 19675">As others have pointed out, early firearms were cheaper than longbows and easier to train with, more than offsetting the higher accuracy and rate of fire of a skilled longbowman.  And the individual gunman could carry much more ammo than a longbowman as well.But what really killed armor wasn't sidearms, it was artillery.  In addition to eventually making battlements obsolete, cannon were more effective against infantry and cavalry than any other heavy weapon.  Sure, a catapult or trebuchet could be used against troops, but they were much more useful against battlements.  Used against troops, they'd crush a few people and make a crater.  In contrast, the more mobile cannon could be fired directly AT troops, making a 20+ yard trench with solid shot (or a cone of death with grapeshot), killing and maiming as it went.How did this make armor obsolete?  Because it suddenly became more important to be mobile than to avoid injury.  Dropping 30 or so pounds of metal armor goes a long way to doing that, and lets your soldiers carry more firepower (or any other kind of supply) to the point of attack.</blockquote>