This article leaves me with a lot of questions.
The article implies the use of armor dropped because it became more expensive to create armor that could resist firearms and armies grew too big to be fully equipped with it. But he shows that some soldiers could still afford it and that smaller armies with armor could defeat much larger ones with out it.
He lists several instances where a force of armored heavy cavalry defeated armies several times its size. He also shows that it would take about a month of average soldier pay to afford a cuirass or 1.5x years of average soldier pay to afford full plate armor. If an army in full plate can defeat a force > 2x its size, it would seem economically viable to cut it in half and armor it.
So then, why did the size of armies grow? If a smaller armored force could route a much larger unarmored force in spite of firearms... why didn't more armies stay smaller and armored? Armor is an occasional expense -- purchased once, repaired infrequently. Soldiers are a constant expense -- they have to be paid, fed, housed, etc.
If firearms were ineffective against proper armor, why did their use spread? I've always understood that the advent of firearms and their effectiveness led directly to knight's loss of dominance on the battlefield but this article strongly implies otherwise. So if it wasn't the firearms, what was it?
I'm sure there are answers and a ton of nuance, but this article didn't communicate them clearly. It provided a bunch of counter-examples to undercut the previous understanding and then vaguely hand waved at a new understanding with out fleshing it out convincingly.
The article implies the use of armor dropped because it became more expensive to create armor that could resist firearms and armies grew too big to be fully equipped with it. But he shows that some soldiers could still afford it and that smaller armies with armor could defeat much larger ones with out it.
He lists several instances where a force of armored heavy cavalry defeated armies several times its size. He also shows that it would take about a month of average soldier pay to afford a cuirass or 1.5x years of average soldier pay to afford full plate armor. If an army in full plate can defeat a force > 2x its size, it would seem economically viable to cut it in half and armor it.
So then, why did the size of armies grow? If a smaller armored force could route a much larger unarmored force in spite of firearms... why didn't more armies stay smaller and armored? Armor is an occasional expense -- purchased once, repaired infrequently. Soldiers are a constant expense -- they have to be paid, fed, housed, etc.
If firearms were ineffective against proper armor, why did their use spread? I've always understood that the advent of firearms and their effectiveness led directly to knight's loss of dominance on the battlefield but this article strongly implies otherwise. So if it wasn't the firearms, what was it?
I'm sure there are answers and a ton of nuance, but this article didn't communicate them clearly. It provided a bunch of counter-examples to undercut the previous understanding and then vaguely hand waved at a new understanding with out fleshing it out convincingly.