Not a Chapter but extra: Armor

Picture Image: Entrée de Jeanne d'Arc à Orléans. Jean-Jacques Scherrer, 1887. 

Previous Release

This is just a condensed reply to the comments, but I think others might find it useful. 😅

You can treat this like a bonus chapter or you can skip to the Next Chapter  

So what does Joan of Arc has to do with armor? Well, let's start with two common misconceptions:

1. There's a sudden changes once gunpowder was introduced. 

This is false. Moreover, many believe that cannons were first used by the Ottomans against Constantinople, but that is also incorrect.

The first and oldest usage of cannon in the west:

"Gunpowder weapons were first used at the Battle of Crécy in 1346, but were crude in design and didn't greatly influence the English victory." 

That was 107 years before the final siege of Constantinople, where the Ottomans famously used a massive cannon. However, it was not very effective, as it could only be fired about three times a day before eventually exploding, killing its creator and his crew.

Such facts are not well known except to history enthusiasts, as early gunpowder weaponry did not bring sudden or significant change.

In reality, cannon development took so long that many historical figures traditionally unassociated with them, like Joan of Arc, actually used them.

"Joan of Arc used cannons effectively during the Hundred Years' War, especially in the Loire campaign in 1429. She was a skilled military leader who knew how to use gunpowder artillery to direct armies.

... relied on experienced artillerymen, such as Jean and Gaspard Bureau, who were responsible for the effective use of cannons in her campaigns. This led to French victories (that made her famous)."

Again this facts are rarely known because it's not a big deal. 😅

What I want to mythbust is this: Castles did not simply collapse against cannons. This is why medieval people did not stop building castles and walls despite witnessing gunpowder weapons. And knights certainly did not start removing armor pieces just to wear a heavier breastplate to counter muskets.

Moreover:

"The English used artillery, including cannon fire, during the siege of Orléans in 1429. The siege began on October 12, 1428, with an artillery bombardment on October 17.

The English assaulted the Boulevart on October 21, but were held back by French missile fire, rope nets, scalding oil, hot coals, and quicklime.

The English suffered a setback when the Earl of Salisbury was struck in the face by debris from cannon fire." 

So, from the Battle of Crécy to the Siege of Orléans at the end of the Hundred Years' War, traditionally seen as the height of the sword-and-knight era, early cannons were already in use. However, their impact was so minimal that few made much noise about them.

Contrary to the myth that armor development stopped when it faced gunpowder weapons, in reality the finest plate armor, whether Italian or Gothic, styles we admire today, continued to progress vigorously in this era.

The Gothic style of plate armor peaked in a form known as Maximilian armour, produced during 1515–1525. 

So, the fact is: cannons existed from 1346. And the knights don't just toss their plate armor pieces. But instead, armor keep getting better and more beautiful until the gothic armor peaked during 1525 and then... firearms forced them to change? 

Oh, no, no, they simply changed style.

Armorer: Kolman Helmschmid (German, Augsburg 1471–1532) 🤓

After 200 years of wars, the knightly Houses sort of figured out how to make money by doing business and these new generation of wealthy aristocrats needed armor less for battles, that they fought rarely, but as costume and for parades.

Knowing the above, we can be sure that gunpowder for 2 centuries doesn't really change things suddenly or significantly.😋

From that era they still needed another century of guns advancement until they thought: I need better fortification or maybe we can do with less armor since we don't really charge into formation like our great grandfather did.

As we can see, there's no instant upgrade or instant obsolete/ irrelevancy, especially in medieval era. It took at least, 3-5 or more generations before an object of change is maturing and began to force changes.

But what about the Ottoman?

Well, even before the last siege of Constantinople (1453), the Ottoman was already using cannons.

"Battle of Nicopolis (1396): One of the earliest recorded uses of artillery by the Ottomans occurred during the Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, where they deployed bombards (early cannons) against the European Crusaders." 

"Before the siege of Constantinople, it was known that the Ottomans had the ability to cast medium-sized cannons, but the range of some pieces they were able to field far surpassed the defenders' expectations.[65] The Ottomans deployed a number of cannons, anywhere from 12 to 62 cannons. They were built at foundries that employed Turkish cannon founders and technicians, most notably Saruca, in addition to at least one foreign cannon founder, Orban (also called Urban). "

So for 50 years the Byzantine know about cannons and their reaction? "Meh... we'll do just fine." 😬

So the assumption that the nobles simply freak out once they learn about guns and raced to produce them wholesome = totally false. For 50 years, imagine, 50 years with plenty of sieges with cannons, and many different Emperors in Byzantine, and they did... nothing. ╮ (. ❛ ᴗ ❛.) ╭

2. The misconception that knights of latter era need to remove parts of their armor just to add thicker breastplate against bullet shot. 

The picture above shows a complete sets of plate armor, with no parts removed, and two bullet dents. While it could be battle damage, it is more likely "proof" marks, indicating that the armor is tested and proven bullet-proof.

Just like with crossbows (arbalests & windlasses), armor of that era often included such "proofs" to signify its quality and higher price.

Historically, with or without gunpowder threats the knights already began to transition to a thicker plate. They simply abandon ringmail underneath the plate or even shield because plate armor alone is protective enough. If one has concern about close range bullet shot, there's plenty of armorer featuring "proof" marks as a guarantee of quality.

We have additional data:

https://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html

• Normal cuirass with pauldrons 26s 8d

• Cuirass of proof (likely heavy crossbow) with pauldrons 40s

• Cuirass of pistol-proof with pauldrons £1 6s

So, 26 silver coins for the most basic cuirass on the market. 40 silver for crossbow-proof cuirass. And 1 gold, 6 silver for bullet-proof cuirass. The rest of the part can be mix and match depending on the customer's needs and money pouch depth.

For latter era, we're speaking 150-200 years after first introduction of musket, knights did wear front-side armor also known as: demi-armor, half-armor, cuirassier armor.

However, this is not due to weight, but due to cost vs use vs risk, and the changing of military situations and doctrines.

The main issue is how cavalry of later era isn't expected to charge against wall of spears formation. So, there's less of injuries from sharp edges weapons compared to their great grandfather era.

This new generation of mounted gentlemen are generally expected to use their carbines and pistols, and ideally only use their swords if the opponent break formation.

That is... until someone invented bayonets, and then Napoleon brought back the cuirass for his cavalry. So it's like a chase. Someone did a thing and another countered. Remember that in WW 1 and 2, nobody wear armor but helmet, but look at US army now with its 1/2 inch steel plate carrier and kevlar.

Ok, I better stop, this is getting too long.😅

Next Chapter