Polemology Positions

Share this post
Firepower Beats Armor Over Time
www.polemology.net

Firepower Beats Armor Over Time

Fundamentals of military revolution

Matt Osborne
Jan 16, 2022
1
Share this post
Firepower Beats Armor Over Time
www.polemology.net

Antoine Favreau was a young cuirassier at Waterloo in 1815, taking part in one of the grandest cavalry defeats of all time, when a cannonball killed him instantly. Favreau could not have imagined the internet, or Twitter, or that two centuries after his death a Turkish academic would accidentally send a viral tweet about his cuirass (breastplate).

Twitter avatar for @TheFigen
Figen @TheFigen
Armor of a soldier wounded by a cannonball at the battle of Waterloo in 1815.
7:39 PM ∙ Jan 3, 2022
84,801Likes11,194Retweets

Of course, there were silly and hilarious reactions to the word “wounded” being used in this context. My serious point, however, is that Favreau’s devastated breastplate serves as an excellent demonstration of a key principle for studying military revolutions: firepower always defeats armor over time.

A human body simply cannot wear a suit of armor that would protect them from a cannon; it would weigh literal tons. Humans are simply better at imparting lethal energies than material physics is at stopping them. The compound bow defeated light bronze armors, necessitating heavier breastplates. The crossbow defeated early, thin steel armors, so breastplates thickened and steel quality improved. Handguns soon became reliable and powerful enough to penetrate cheap steel, and cannons were impossible to stop.

Thus, the unarmored soldier was frequently able to defeat the armored soldier while costing less, and after the 15th Century this was always to be the case. As you might expect, the cavalier class in Western Europe resisted these changes. One sign of this is how long armor lasted on horseback. Cavalry being more expensive than infantry in every era, armor had become a kind of status symbol for Napoleon’s cuirassier.

Which is not to say it was worn entirely without rational justification. The breastplate was helpful against the close-in threats of saber-cuts and bayonets that cavaliers are supposed to seek out. No one tried to convince Favreau that his armor was proof against bullets or cannonballs, nor was it just a show of equestrian class values.

However, by that point almost everyone else on the battlefield had given up on body armor because it was no longer economical in terms of money or energy. There was no reason for the state to provide it. Individual foot soldiers did not want to pay for quality steel armor, and it was another heavy thing to carry on the march, anyway. So if it was not effective against bullets or cannonballs — the chief threats foot soldiers faced as the 17th Century progressed, and pikes gave way to bayonets — why bother? Call it the wisdom of crowds.

Polemology Positions
Brain Bucket: A Series on the American Game of War
Another season of tackling and blocking is almost over. The autumnal ritual of American football and mass fire warfare produce the same characteristic form of brain injury. This is not really an accident, for the game has always been a cultural celebration of the values and tactics of modern battle — one that has traditionally denied or minimized the ha…
Read more
a year ago · Matt Osborne
Share this post
Firepower Beats Armor Over Time
www.polemology.net
Comments
TopNewCommunity

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2023 Polemology Positions
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start WritingGet the app
Substack is the home for great writing