I had always thought that the end of medieval armored knights was ordained by the advent of firearms…the introduction of gunpowder (ca 1400?) meant that armor was useless-it could be penetrated by a bullet. But, reading about the early firearms…they were pretty lousy! For example, the matchlock arquebus-it had a barrel of 2-3 ft in length, and had an effective rance of perhaps 100 yards. It was slow to fire, perhaps a skilled soldire could fire his piece once every 2 minutes. Accuracy was questionable, and after the first volley, the smoke from th black powder made visibility impossible.
The more accurate musket, with flintlock firing mechanism,did not become common until around 1600-and was also slow to fire.
So was it other factors? Perhaps the erosion of the fuedal system made the life style of an armored knight impossible to sustain?
Or was it the longbow? A skilled longbow archer could fire 2-3 arrows a minute, with an effective range (against armored men) of around 200 feet. Yet, on the English were able to train large numbers of men as longbowmen.
So waht was it that doomed armor?
No, you were pretty much on the money to begin with. Gunpowder was one of the major downfalls of the knight. Another was the rise of disciplined formations of pikemen, who were highly effective counters to heavy calvary. Not just because heavy armor was vulnerable to gunfire and pikes, but also for the ancillary reason that it was vastly easier and cheaper to train and equip musketeers and pikemen than it was to do the same with knights ( longbowmen were less of an issue, because in their own ways they were also a training intensive investment ). Other factors were also at work, like the decline of the feudal/manorial system in general, but those two were the killers. They didn’t eliminate calvary of course, not even in terms of their shock value ( for example the Swedish calvary was still the arm of decision in the Great Northern War in the early 18th century ), but they did cause a shift to more generalized “medium” calvary, more lightly armored and mobile, that could also function as a screening force and scout. However you seem to be assuming a premature end to the full-plate armored knight. They didn’t really die out until the early 16th century.
- Tamerlane
You said it first - firearms. At least they were the main instigator; other factors, like cost - as you discussed, contributed as well.
Incidentially, The longbow was not more powerful than the crossbow (or the later composite bow) - its main advantage in warefare was indirect fire (that and the fact it could be un-strung to protect or replace the string).
Early firearms were lousy by today’s standards, but still deadly in a volley.
Archery, crossbows, improvements in hand weapons such as picks and axes (though these had been around for a while) all had a significant impact in the demise of the armored knight. Also, as Tamerlane suggests, improved tactic by infantry.
But probably the two largest reasons were less visible.
The first was the loss of peasants (and nobles) due to the Black Plague. When 1/4 to 1/3 (depending on which book you read) of the population died, the economies of Europe fell also, bringing an end to the riches of many of the nobles.
The second was the noble’s loss of power in some regions of Europe. Britain had a Parliment that was usurping power from the nobles (1265), France’s Estates General began in 1302, and the Catholic Church was schisming and losing it’s hold on the nobility of Europe. The Peasants Revolt of 1381 is one example of the chafing the peasants felt under their nobles yokes.
This is not to say that the knight ended immediately. Even into the 16th Century, the Spanish conquistidors (sp?) were still wearing steel breastplates.
Tamerlane has it.
I believe there are examples of articulated plate armor as late as the early 16th century.
This was also the time where articulated plate was being designed to protect against the firearms of the time. In fact, breastplates of quality would have a small circular depression on them. This was to prove that it could withstand a musket round (the indentation was made by a musket ball).
Of course, eventually firearms became powerful enough to pierce through just about anything, and that spelled the end of articulated plate armor.
When I toured Hampton Court several years ago, it had several sets of articulated full plate armour that had been made for Henry VIII (i.e. ~1510-1530). That doesn’t necessarily meanplate armour was still in common use, but it does suggest that skilled armourers were still around at that time.
The improvement of infantry tactics was probably as much of a factor as the development of firearms. Early firearms probably weren’t accurate or powerful enough to threaten armored knights – but closely-packed formations of well-trained infantrymen with very long pikes certainly were. The combination of pikemen and musketeers meant that infantry could counter anything that threatened it, whether on foot or mounted. (The next evolution in warfare, apparently, was the development of artillery sufficiently powerful to threaten this pike/musket combination.)
Northern Piper: There was a tradition of building full plate armor even many years after it became obsolete in warfare. Some of the most elaborate and well-built suits of plate were built meant for sport, not combat. Jousting remained popular long after armored knights had been superseded, and suits of full plate continued to be made for that purpose.
As you observed, when firearms were first introduced, they were pretty lousy. As they got better, armour was improved. After a few centuries, guns won the arms race. I seem to remember hearing that part of the reason armour lost out was that they just couldn’t breed horses strong enough to support the weight & thickness of armour required.
Projectile weapons had proven more effective than armor in the 14th century, when English longbowmen were massacring French knights at Crecy. A longbow could punch through heavy armor and blow a fully armored man spang off his horse.
However, the ability to mass effective projectile weapons en masse was never very easy. Longbows were hard to learn to use; crossbows were expensive and hard to use and fired slowly. If you lost 500 skilled bowmen in a poorly executed battle you might never be able to replace them. Only the biggest royal armies had large contingents of longbowmen. Consequently, the armored knight was still usually an effective weapon in most battles and against most enemies. If you read accounts of the Hundred Years War you will find that even though they were massacred in the big battles, French knights were deadly effective in other engagements, especially in hunting down and killing straggling units, or attacking English rearguards or what have you. Between Poitiers and about 1380 the French wouldn’t fight the English in open battles at all; they would stay in cities and then their mounted units would fan out behind English columns and kill anyone that strayed from the main force, attacking whenever the English couldn’t array bowmen in formation. A French knight was still a ruthlessly effective warrior.
Musketry ended the age of armor not because muskets were all that effective - for quite some time a musket wasn’t as good as a longbow. They ended the age of armor because they became very commonplace - they weren’t that expensive, and they were relatively VERY easy to learn to use. It was easy to field large armies of musketmen, much easier than fielding longbowmen. Eventually everyone carried muskets. Anywhere you went, no matter how small the force, they’d have guns. Once everyone had muskets, armored cavalry were useless.
As mentioned above it was the English Longbowman that brought the French knights on horesback to there knees and started the end of armour. It would also do in a horse quite readily.
Chain mail was also being used both under plate and then by itself.
Chain mail was less confining and more flexible that plate armour and would turn a blade. The arrow from a long bow would go through it with ease and finish the knight off.
Everybody is pretty much on the mark. However it looks like folks forgot to mention pike and shot combined tactics. While the matchlock is nowhere near as spiffy as the longbow, to train a longbowman, you begin with his grandfather. To train a musketeer, you show a guy how to load, point, and not accidentally blow himself up.
Likewise, while horribly inaccurate, the pike could fend off more primitive shock troops at a range the shot could be effective at. Armor could protect against shot, but it had to be fairly heavy–and expensive. Thus, better soldiers went down to breastplate and helmet, protecting the vitals. Very wealthy leaders would wear full armor, but it was as much a mark of status as anything by that time.
As mass musket tactics and muskets got better, armor became more of an expense that could be dispensed with, altogether. In WWI, there were attempts at reintroducing body armor, but anything effective was too cumbersome.
With regards to the longbow, it is important to note that it was the bowman’s rate of fire and numbers that played a great role in ensuring superiority in the field of battle.
Plate armor did not only rely on the strength of the steel of which it was made, but also on its design as it was made specifically to deflect incoming blows.
To strike a moving knight in full articulated armor a telling blow (one that will bite into the steel rather than be deflected off), would mean three things:
- Incredible skill and discipline.
- A large rate of fire combined with…
- A large number of archers.
In this way a concentrated volley of missiles can be sent against a unit of knights and in such a high concentration the projectiles are much more likely to inflict some damage.
Doh! Didn’t finish my post yet 
I’ve read (and seen re-enacted, though not with the 100+ pull bows of the era! ) that an experienced group of archers could fire two arrows and have them land on the target at roughly the same time. One volley would be shot in a curved path (as it was fired upwards) while the other was sent on a more straight path.
Nasty. A group of 100 archers could land 200 arrows on your unit at roughlyt the same time. And with a rate of fire of aprox 12 arrows per minute that’s downright deadly.
One final note about articulated armor:
Do not be fooled by hollywood fantasy. Just like the swordfights you’d see in the latest summer blockbuster is in no way representative of actual historicla fencing styles, so too are most representations of articulated plate armor historically inacurate.
They are not the encasements of 2 inch thick steel that make one look like a lumbering tank.
They did not prevent knights from getting up from the ground.
They did not make the knight a turtle-paced sitting duck on the battle field.
These stereotypes were probably based on stories from the late renaissance period where JOUSTING armor was the main use of articulated plate.
The armor that would have been worn on the battle field was simply not the same.
All very good GUESSES as to the demise of armor. The REAL player was the 1620’s style death ray.
You have to remember that ther were many different types of arrowhead, the “Bodkin” was designed to punch through armour but tests show that this was an extremely rare occurence unless the knight was wearing just chain mail in which case the arrow would go straight through him and in some instances actually emerge out the back.
The rate of fire of a longbow far exceeded that of the crossbow and contrary to what has been said above the longbowman trained from aged 5…this was law!!
The muscle developement in the upper arms and back of a longbowman was phenomenal and a skilled archer could loose off 20-25 arrows per minute compared with the crossbow rate of maybe 2-3.
Another contribution to the demise of the armoured knight was the introduction of the “Flechette” which was a type of steel dart thrown by infantry at the knights horse, these were actually used in WW1 and dropped from aircraft on enemy troops and would easily pierce a steel helmet.
Yet another invention (the knight was getting really pissed by now) was a nasty little device similar to something like a “jack” (you know the game, rubber ball) only this little beauty had spikes, they were thrown onto the ground, the knight horse trod on them, spike went into foot, horse reared up, knight fell off, infantryman cut his throat…scratch one knight.
Of course as matchka says the 1620s style death ray also played its part.
One might also point out that armor, before the age of mass production and modern metalworking…
…was HELLACIOUSLY expensive.
Why invest that kind of money in something that was dicey against longbows and crossbows, and suicidal against volleys of musket fire?
The word you’re looking for would be caltrop.
HOLY EFFIN SHNIKES! STUPID BOARD EATS MY POST!!!
Short version: guns had little to nothing to do with the demise of armor, save indirectly, via tactical changes. Longbows were not used in sufficient quantities to afect armor. Crossbows were the real reason, because they were affordable, easy to use (as in, not hard!) and you could field a mass of troop with them quickly. Armor was quite effective against any of the three noted weapons at range; the closer you got the less useful armor was. However, as time went on on, massed armies meant that commanders (who had the money for good armor) were exposed to less and less combat anyway.
As was touched on, the whole system of knighthood was quite an eleaborate social custom. To become a knight you had to:
-work as a pageboy, attending a knight’s horse, polish armor, etc.
-become a squire (till around age 18?)
It was only then that you could become a knight. My guess is, that as the Middle Ages waned, and other fields became more attractive to young men (like becoming a merchant or banker), the attractiveness of apprenticing yourself to a knight became less and less. One would suppose that as a page boy, your life would be pretty rough…bythe late middle ages. a career as a banker probably was much more attarctive!
Maybee the whole knighthoodthing just died out because nobody wasinterested in it anymore?
Because it kept you alive. Even in the later period it could deflect an arrow or a musket ball, and save your hide. Eventually it would become less useful, but while it was still being worn, it certainly helped in the battlefield.
Also, most combat was still hand to hand in the battlefield, and not all combat was restricted TO the battle field.
When it came to personal, melee combat, articulated plate couldn’t be beat as the protection to have.