World Building...(TLG PR)

[mythusmage]

One small point:

Armor was not quite so disregarded as Alan suggests. Rather less complex sort that full field plate used in the 15th centure was retained all the way to the early 19th century, as is evident from troops of the Spanish in the 16th century, the armies fielded in the 17th--notably the English Civil War and the 30 Years War, and so on down to the cuirassiers of the Napoleonic Wars.

Cheers,
Gary

Indeed, some form of metal cuirass was used as late as the First World War. But, such were purchased by the individual involved, they were not part of the assigned equipment. Come the Second World War and nylon flak jackets were provided in an attempt to improve bomber crews' chances, which would lead to the body armor of today. Matter of fact, the typical American soldier of today is better protected than his 15th century counterpart.

Now, while his point is correct, so far as it goes, it doesn't cover everything. Things were in a state of flux during the Renaissance. Europe's population was starting to expand, the economy was switching over from an agricultural base to a monetary one, and new things were being discovered. Spain would enjoy a brief moment in the Sun, then fade away. The Netherlands would have her chance to lead, but would fail because she simply didn't have the resources. France would falter thanks to some vicious religious wars, leaving the field to England.

In case you were wondering, Germany and Italy never had a chance, and Sweden wasted her opportunities through misuse of her resources. Given a number of monarchs the caliber of Gustaf Adolphus the history of Central Europe and North America would've been much different.

During all this turmoil and tumult warfare changed. it stopped being the private domain of nobles and became the realm of the nation state. England became a nation before any other European polity because the English monarch had a strong standing army. For that we can thank Queen Margaret (mother and regent of King Stephen) and King John. After the latter especially, English kings were determined that never again would they be held ransom by English nobility. Other Western European countries took longer to learn that lesson, but learn it they did.

Which meant the power of the upper class would fade as time went by, and national armies were established. But, running an army costs money. Spain tried equiping their army on an agrarian economy, and went bankrupt. England, France, and Holland tried it with a monetary economy, and learned they couldn't afford everything they wanted. They had to economize.

England did it by going for a small, professional army, and by building a navy that could protect her shores from possible invasion, and her merchant fleet. All three also economized by eliminating unneccesary gear. Such as armor except for certain elite units.

Armor of course would not disappear entirely. Helmets for one. But men in armor would rarely determine the fate of nations, and then only in far off climes where the European held a nigh insurmontable edge over his foes. Mexico and the Andes are examples of this.

Armor has been around for a long time. Ever since the day the Sumerians started weaving reeds into primitive breastplates against enemy spears and axes. But the day when armored combatants dominated the field of battle ended centuries ago.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Generally so, Alan, but...

National armies fielded in the 16th and 17th centuries were all armored to a greater or lesser degree--light/skirmishing units excepted, of course Cost? I think not. It was rather the fact that with the proliferation of gunpowder weapons, especially small arms, full armor was useless, so the troops had helments, various forms of upper body armor, and possibly sone leg protection meant mainly os defense against striking weapons when fighting occurred at close quarters.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[mythusmage]

Hold overs, and largely for elite units. As gunpowder weapons became cheaper, more reliable, and tactical doctrine changed to account for this, armor pretty much disappeared from the battlefield. By the 30 Years War armor was the province of leaders, the rich, prestige formations.

I must also add that the Renaissance was also the heyday of the mercenary. Private armies were going out of style, while national armies were just getting started. It should be noted that England used few mercenaries at this time. Later, during the early Modern Period, the Swedes and French adopted the English model and were successful doing such.

By the invention of the bayonet (mid 17th century) armor was relegated to decoration, ceremonial duties, and elite formations.

By and large the economic revolution of the time meant a change in the distribution of wealth. No longer was society divided into the very poor and the very rich. Life was now more complicated, and wealth was more evenly spread across societal strata. Which meant the very rich no longer had the resources necessary to maintain a full knight's regalia. Those that could were the Renaissance equivalent of Bill Gates. Anybody below that rarefied stratum of society had to make do with less.

Over all it was cheaper to outfit the local men with leather jacks, axes, and pikes than a single man with the latest armor and weapons out of Milan. And a well trained pike square could do more. Which are you going to use.

Now add in the changes in society. The common man was no longer dependent on the man on a horse for protection. Authority no longer had the "cachet" it once had, what with the Protestent movement, the reformation, and (late in the period) the rise of rationalism and the coming of the Age of Reason. People were more willing to rely upon themselves for protection, as could be seen in the rise of Switzerland and the Netherland. It is this which made possible the English Civil War and Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate. Only in unsettled Germany would the nobility retain its power.

Folks, you'll note that the Renaissance and early Modern Period was a complicated time, with more happening than is accounted in your history books. Why is this so, because sociology, economy, politics are boring subjects (at least to read about). So we concentrate on warfare and great thinkers. The same will hold true for our times. In four hundred years most folks won't give a damn about any US presidential peccadillos.

Which as it should be.

 

[Nathal]

I don't know about that...Monica Lewinsky had a great deal of interest in Clinton's peccadillo.

Forgive me my jejuneness, as it is late and I must retire.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Hold overs, and largely for elite units. As gunpowder weapons became cheaper, more reliable, and tactical doctrine changed to account for this, armor pretty much disappeared from the battlefield. By the 30 Years War armor was the province of leaders, the rich, prestige formations.

Just so! The ones that were the most effective and broke the enemy, or held the line against attack

[/QUOTE]I must also add that the Renaissance was also the heyday of the mercenary. Private armies were going out of style, while national armies were just getting started. It should be noted that England used few mercenaries at this time. Later, during the early Modern Period, the Swedes and French adopted the English model and were successful doing such.[/QUOTE]

This is true, although the Swiss, for example, did serve the French through much of the forepart of the Renaissance, and there were English mercenaries too--and of course the Italians and Germans.

A good part of the decline in noble forces forming national armies was their ineffectiveness as tactics developed, the pressure from the Ottoman Turks in Eastern Europe, that moving westwards, However, the Polish-Lithuanian Kindgom did indeed rely on such forces through much of the 17th century.

[/QUOTE]By the invention of the bayonet (mid 17th century) armor was relegated to decoration, ceremonial duties, and elite formations.[/QUOTE]

Armored formations were effective through the 16th and 17th centuries, bayonet or no. The plug bayonet simply allowed firearm-equipped foot formations to have a chance to stand against cavalry charges without recourse to pike-armed formations nearby. Indeed, armored attackers against plug bayonets were in good shape, relatively speaking. It was the ring bayonet that ended that advantage, as the infantryman could then both shoot and stab.[/B][/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]By and large the economic revolution of the time meant a change in the distribution of wealth. No longer was society divided into the very poor and the very rich. Life was now more complicated, and wealth was more evenly spread across societal strata. Which meant the very rich no longer had the resources necessary to maintain a full knight's regalia. Those that could were the Renaissance equivalent of Bill Gates. Anybody below that rarefied stratum of society had to make do with less.[/QUOTE]

In pary, but it is more a matter of national units being better trained and thus more effective. The rich could still field small groups of armored and armed men, but theu were not trained as were the regulars, so such forces were of less and less value in combat. Why bother with "full knight's regalia" for oneself and a lance when infantry armed with arquibuses or matchlocks or wheel locks could cut them down? So they went to armor along the lines of that used in the ACW, added their own firearms.

[/QUOTE]Over all it was cheaper to outfit the local men with leather jacks, axes, and pikes than a single man with the latest armor and weapons out of Milan. And a well trained pike square could do more. Which are you going to use.[/QUOTE]

Right, for the early Renaissance. Arms quickly broke down into two basic sorts for infantry, gunpowder muskets or pikes. Then, as you note, the plug bayonet brought the pike formation into obsolence.

[/QUOTE]Now add in the changes in society. The common man was no longer dependent on the man on a horse for protection. Authority no longer had the "cachet" it once had, what with the Protestent movement, the reformation, and (late in the period) the rise of rationalism and the coming of the Age of Reason. People were more willing to rely upon themselves for protection, as could be seen in the rise of Switzerland and the Netherland. It is this which made possible the English Civil War and Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate. Only in unsettled Germany would the nobility retain its power.[/QUOTE]

Okay, although the timeline there is pretty broad, what with the Swiss "commoners" becoming independent in the 13th century, Netherlands a couple of hundred years later. The ECW was mainly fought by nobles raising local forces against "roundhead" ones likewise raised...

Cheers,
Gary