Did firearms render armour obsolete in the late Middle Ages/Renaissance?

February 26, 2024 8:07 AM

The short answer is… It’s complicated.
posted by AlSweigart (20 comments total)

I expected that I would read this and think 'huh, armor was used much longer than I thought' but actually it was more 'huh, firearms were invented way earlier than I thought'.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:33 AM on February 26 [6 favorites]

jacquilynne, yep artillery/guns etc., came around pretty early (late Medieval) but they were quite unreliable for a long time, so the standard horse-charges, melee hand-to-hand stuff also was still very prominent. big paradigm shifts like that didn't happen overnight in the past, changes tended to filter more slowly than they do today.
posted by supermedusa at 9:00 AM on February 26 [1 favorite]

Did firearms render armour obsolete in the late Middle Ages/Renaissance?

Ned Kelly says "nope."
posted by Dip Flash at 9:17 AM on February 26 [10 favorites]

I feel like the phrase "And then The Winged Hussars Arrived" should be in more things.
posted by mhoye at 9:29 AM on February 26 [25 favorites]

I get the impression that for a long time firearms were just not very good. Balky, bulky, extremely slow to reload, inaccurate, and with lower muzzle velocities that limited lethality and range.Good old-fashioned pikes and spears, the mainstay of heavy infantry since antiquity, remained effective long after the invention of the firearm. AFAICT it wasn't until the development of the wheel-lock that anyone expected a musketeer to get off more than a single shot in an entire battle. Compare that to a pikeman who can charge into the fray and keep on fighting, or an archer whose (less lethal, but comparable effective range) weapon typically had a reasonable likelihood of getting off more than one shot.
posted by jackbishop at 9:34 AM on February 26 [1 favorite]

I was half hoping the "battle maps" would be historical conflicts with firearms and hussars etc. But this history seems to be in service of TTRPG stuff, which is also fine and fun. Now I suspect the article was researched and written to win an argument over whether an armored character would take a lot of damage or almost none after being shot with an old-timey gun :)
posted by SaltySalticid at 9:40 AM on February 26 [2 favorites]

It is also a question of caliber.
posted by MonsieurPEB at 9:40 AM on February 26 [1 favorite]

In Civilization II, discovering gunpowder immediately means you can no longer train Archers, Pikemen, or "Legion," who have explicitly iron-based armor. I feel deceived.
posted by one for the books at 9:43 AM on February 26 [13 favorites]

As with all historical armor discussions, I pose, "What does acoup say about all of this?"
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 9:52 AM on February 26 [16 favorites]

Gunpowder did a fucking number on castle building at some point. Your castles in England and Scotland and there’s basically two kinds - ones that are fake ass non defensive structures and ones that Oliver Cromwell wholey or partially blew up.
posted by Artw at 10:21 AM on February 26 [3 favorites]

In Civilization II, discovering gunpowder immediately means you can no longer train Archers, Pikemen, or "Legion," who have explicitly iron-based armor. I feel deceived.

Anyone who has ever lost a tank to a spearman in Civ knows just how lethal pointy sticks can be to modern armor.
posted by briank at 10:24 AM on February 26 [10 favorites]

Have for reals lost a fighter to a cavalry unit in OG Civ. I think from Civ II on there was a "tech epoch" characteristic of units that made this kind of thing not happen anymore.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 10:36 AM on February 26 [1 favorite]

"Pan shot!"
posted by PresidentOfDinosaurs at 10:38 AM on February 26 [6 favorites]

And of course we learn that the reason for armor going out of use was that recruiting new soldiers was cheaper than saving the current ones.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 10:40 AM on February 26 [6 favorites]

A lot of the "arms and armor" exhibits I loved walking through as a kid was full of the stereotypical full plate, the sort of thing I imagined questing knights in. And it was filled with items created in the 16th century examples, which was also firmly the age of pike-and-shot.

It focuses on the firearms side of the equation and China, not armor, but Andrade's The Gunpowder Age is great reading for people who like technical history. Firearms were effective in battle much earlier than I had thought; one of the limiting factors in early Renaissance Europe was the lack of a strong drill tradition. Firearms are better when you can keep up some sort of steady series of volleys, which means rotating in and out of firing positions. The tercio was a somewhat sophisticated formation but it wasn't until Maurice of Nassau (around 1600) that Europeans were really doing full on effective drill again. The Chinese had a longer continuous tradition, and is one reason they used infantry firearms earlier (which Western historian used to assume were ineffective, based on the European experience.)

AFAICT it wasn't until the development of the wheel-lock that anyone expected a musketeer to get off more than a single shot in an entire battle. . Compare that to a pikeman who can charge into the fray and keep on fighting, or an archer whose (less lethal, but comparable effective range) weapon typically had a reasonable likelihood of getting off more than one shot.

The matchlock arquebus was absolutely a force to be reckoned with and proved itself against older arms repeatedly. The rate of fire was very slow compared to later muskets, but it wasn't once per battle. I think sometimes the mental image is that two armies lined up a hundred yards apart and you only got to fire while one side closed the gap, which for sure would be a single shot. But obviously that's not how battles actually played out; they'd last many hours or often days.

The point of something like the tercio was that you could have pikemen defend you while you reloaded. I'm simplifying horrifically, but "charge into a bunch of people who are holding really long pikes, or stay where you are and take gunfire all day" made fighting the Spanish an unpleasant task.
posted by mark k at 10:48 AM on February 26 [3 favorites]

The Napoleonic cuirass with a great cannon-shot hole it is always good for proving that some units wore armour into the early 19th century.

I think the point above on the effect of gunpower on castles is more important really. The change from relying on the material strength of stone to the geometrical placement of cannons in the star forts really marks the change from castles to manor houses. But people in breastplates were charging up the firing plains of those forts, fighting wars of the renaissance and later for centuries. It wasn't until the higher-power rifles, especially in cartridges and then the machine gun made personal armour impractical.

And then or course, at the end of the 20th century, shrapnel and IEDs made personal armour essential again.
posted by bonehead at 11:25 AM on February 26 [7 favorites]

And of course we learn that the reason for armor going out of use was that recruiting new soldiers was cheaper than saving the current ones.

And unfortunately we've been watching this play out again in Ukraine, except this time it's armed drones armed with improvised mortars and grenades vs. mechanized armor.

And like the topic of the article - it's not an instant change, either. Russia's forces are starting to improvise with putting nets or screens on top of their mobile armor to try to catch falling munitions and keep them away the same way the US and other forces started putting up latticed screens around Humvees and MRAPs to catch RPGs before they reach the actual armor. Meanwhile Russia just keeps throwing conscripts into the meat grinder.

And on the drone and improvised munitions side things are rapidly advancing. I've seen a number of YouTube videos popping up of people developing 3D printed solutions for carrying and deploying munitions on drones and even more advanced projects like DIY shape charges.

These changes in the balance of force and asymmetrical warfare aren't just on land. The whole concept of very small aquatic drones that aren't much more than hobbyist RC boats with FPV and GPS carrying ship-sinking explosive payloads has to be keeping naval warfare folks up at night. A CIWS or other active ship defenses can't really do much if the incoming threat is so small, so slow and so low in the water that you can barely see it in daylight much less at night or with radar.

And combat ready lasers are starting to get deployed, which is about the only way I can think of that someone could effectively and efficiently counter cheap, small drones whether airborne or surface/water craft - if you can see them.
posted by loquacious at 12:23 PM on February 26 [1 favorite]

I don't think body armor was ever made obsolete with increasing use of bombardment, only that it became cost prohibitive to supply the increasing number of soldiers used in nation warfare, and likely deemed too heavy for infantry mobility. In contrast, trench warfare was a way to protect troops from bombardment and volley fire, since it became a main strategy in the American civil war, peaking in WW1. Body armor was privately purchased during the American civil war, and the Japanese army once developed an entrenching tool or small shovel that was designed to use as either armor or cover. The immediate downside to armoring soldiers is that it increases their likelihood to become cannon fodder by the Jevons paradox.
posted by Brian B. at 12:28 PM on February 26 [2 favorites]

Napolean brought back armoured cavalry with his Cuirassiers. Prior to that, the cuirass (breastplate and backplate) had dropped out of favour for either the half-cuirass, or mostly just cloth or leather for heavy cavalry. Several armies readopted it after as well, including the Prussians, Russians and Austrians. Obviously it came at a cost, and was heavy and hot, so wasn't practical for musket armed infantry.

The steel cuirass wasn't generally proof against a flintlock musket at close range, but it could, and did stop long range shots, ricochets and pistol balls, as well as it's effective defence against bayonet armed infantry and fellow cavalry in the melee. Musket accuracy dropped sharply beyond 100 yards or so.

Cuirassiers could be the death of a musket-armed infantry unit caught in line formation (and often were) while one in a square formation with bayonets fitted was nearly invulnerable to the charge - but then was more vulnerable to cannon fire. So armoured cav lurking in dead ground, able to better withstand long range musket fire remained a threat up to and beyond Waterloo.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 3:17 AM on February 27 [1 favorite]

And combat ready lasers are starting to get deployed, which is about the only way I can think of that someone could effectively and efficiently counter cheap, small drones whether airborne or surface/water craft - if you can see them.

I only just realized I should mention that I was once the PI on a project trying to do something similar, many years ago. I can't say much about it, other than that it never went far, as far as I know. I am really glad I don't work on that stuff anymore. It's all weather satellite work for NASA for me now, and that makes me very happy.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 3:33 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]