Nuss 1

Todd Nuss

Rebecca Goossens

Senior Seminar

23 February 2018

The Evolution of Arms and Armor

Since the time of Cain and Able, man has always tried to kill his fellow man. Throughout

history, man has developed better systems and technology to either kill someone else with

greater ease, or protect himself from being killed. In simple terms, man developed arms and

armor. The technologies of war have since been developed from older technologies dating back

to the first stone used to break open another man’s head. The way arms and armors have adapted

to overcome one another on the battlefield is similar to that of how competitive Darwinism

works in nature.

Through various fictional interpretations, and the modern public’s distance from the matter,

there has been many misconceptions about warfare, especially medieval warfare. Before one can

understand information about the development of warfare technology, one must rid themselves

these misconceptions.

The first misconception about warfare is that warfare is a game. In movies and TV,

audiences see a warrior charging onto a battlefield, flashing his skills in the face of incredible

danger in search of glory. In reality, warfare is a frightful experience, and most of the warriors

are conscripts who would rather not be on the battlefield[CITATION whe08 \l 1033 ]. Foot

soldiers would be very reserved and less likely to act as rashly as their fictional counterparts.
 Nuss 2

Every action they take has the practical purpose of either killing someone else, or keeping

themselves from dying[CITATION Mat07 \l 1033 ]. Any aesthetics to the armor to make them

look more fearsome that would hinder their ability would be passed over in favor of more

practical options[CITATION Met13 \l 1033 ]. That is why things like horns and spikes on armor

or abnormally large weapons were extremely uncommon.

Another misconception is that a foot soldier can get cut as much as he wants as long as no

vital parts of his body are injured. In reality, a foot soldier would not want himself injured at all

for multiple reasons. First, is that getting hit with a weapon is very painful and debilitating, even

with armor[CITATION Mat07 \l 1033 ]. If one of the important arteries that run throughout the

body is cut, then the soldier will either bleed to death or lose motor capacity to the point where

his enemy can kill him easily[CITATION Lin07 \l 1033 ]. The third reason is that earlier

medicine was very poor, and the smallest cuts could get infected and could cost the soldier his

limb or even his life[CITATION Lin07 \l 1033 ]. For these reasons, much of medieval armor put

its priorities towards coverage.

A third misconception that comes from modern military practices is that armor and

weapons were uniform across the military. For the most part, the type of equipment a soldier had

depended on the soldier’s wealth[ CITATION Med18 \l 1033 ]. Poor foot soldiers either bought

the cheap equipment that they could afford, or if they survived a battle, they would scavenge

better armor off the battlefield[CITATION Rob10 \l 1033 ]. The rich would purchase the cutting

edge technology, and when the cutting edge technology became outdated, they sold it to poorer

soldiers. As a result the cutting edge technology became common place within 50 years of it

being introduced[ CITATION Med18 \l 1033 ].

 Nuss 3

There are also a lot of misconceptions about articulated plate armor; the proper term for the

full body armor that most people associate with knights. First off, King Arthur would have never

worn this kind of armor, because the 7th century Welsh stories depicting him take place long

before the development of this kind of armor at the end of the 14th century. Many believe this

type of armor was cumbersome to the point where a knight couldn’t get up after being knocked

down, this idea is a fallacy. Articulated Plates were specially designed by master craftsmen, and

custom made for their commissioners to allow the best movement on the battlefield[CITATION

Arm18 \l 1033 ]. Also unlike public perception, not every soldier had articulated plates. This

kind of armor was mostly worn by the very wealthy who could afford to commission the

specially fitted gear from special guild blacksmiths. These guild blacksmiths highly regulated the

amounts of armor that could be made; driving the price for the armor up, making it relatively

unavailable to common foot soldiers[CITATION Arm18 \l 1033 ].

As always there are exceptions to the rules. There were psychopaths who enjoyed the heat

of battle, there were cases of soldiers getting cut up bad and surviving, and some historical battle

groups like the Spartans had uniform equipment[CITATION Met13 \l 1033 ]. Many of these

exceptions were extremely rare and happened very differently from how modern society

commonly thinks they happened.

When animals go through a Darwinist changes overtime, it is called evolution. When

intellectual ideas change overtime and adapt to the current time through Darwinist natural

selection it is then called memetics[CITATION Sus08 \l 1033 ]. Weapons and armor

memetically change in a style similar to competitive Darwinism.

Weapons and armor may be material objects, but they are made by man and are born as

ideas. Before a sword is wielded, it needs to be forged. Before it is forged, it needs to be a

 Nuss 4

designed from a idea. For example, a cave man sees a stone and wonders what ways he can

modify it for killing someone, He figures out if he breaks it so that one end is more pointed, it

can more easily break through hard tissue like skulls. when it works he, creates more pointed

stones and teaches others to do so. The caveman’s son figures out if he uses flint to shape the

sides to be thinner, it can cut through flesh, thus the birth of a knife. His son decides to tie a knife

to the end of a stick to strike animal or man at a distance, thus the birth of the spear.

This story of change adaptations and advancement to better kill stems all the way back to

Cain and sprouts all the way to modern man. In that time, man has learned how to fashion blades

from metals instead of rock, how tying a string to a piece of wood could launch projectiles.

At some point, an ancestor of modern man discovered that not only could he use technology

to kill a man, but he could also use it to keep himself from getting killed as well. The invention

of armor could have been as simple as a cave man realizing that it was harder for a knife to cut

him if he double-layered his fur and hide coat. In that time man has developed shields designed

to stop arrow[ CITATION Dir04 \l 1033 ], as well as creating armors made from stronger

materials like leather and metal that developed into the Kevlar vests of today[ CITATION

Dir04 \l 1033 ].

The development of armor kick started the first arms race, some men started creating

weapons that could pierce through this new form of protection ,while others were adapting better

forms of armor to defend against these new weapons[CITATION And17 \l 1033 ].

Through this gruesome process of testing one set of weapons and armor against another,

weapons and armor had many adaptations. This process also made weapon adaptations and
 Nuss 5

experiments that failed less likely to be used again[CITATION Lin07 \l 1033 ]. These changes

mainly happened in three ways.

The first is simple adaption: cultures learned how to make their equipment better. For

example the Celts wanted a weapon that would be better at hacking through hard tissue, so they

developed the Falcatea; a blade with a larger width that slopes forward to move its center of

gravity higher to deal harder blows[CITATION Rob10 \l 1033 ]. The Scythians needed a bow

strong enough to strike enemies from a distance while still being small enough to use on

horseback, so they created a recurve bow that put more stress in a smaller area making the bow

much stronger[CITATION whe08 \l 1033 ].

Most of the time, adaptation is used when a culture experiments with its technology when

either facing a new enemy or fighting in a new environment. If a new enemy fights on

horseback, the culture would start making their weapons longer so they could strike a cavalier on

a high horse. This linear path allows the genealogy of these warfare technologies more easy to

track.

The second change is adoption, when one culture starts developing their own version of what

their enemies were using against them. After being conquered by the Danes, the Saxons adopted

many of their weapons including the Danes’ axe[CITATION Mat07 \l 1033 ]. The Romans were

a perfect example of this as well with their most common armor in earlier times being chainmail,

which they adopted from their Celtic enemies[CITATION Rob10 \l 1033 ].

Adoption often happens when another culture is conquered. Either the conquered adopts the

weapons and armor of the ruling class, and keep them after the conquering culture is driven out,

such as the case of the Saxons[ CITATION Mat07 \l 1033 ]. Sometimes if a conquering army
 Nuss 6

notices how effective the technology is and integrates into their own forces, or just use the enemy

force as mercenaries, such as the case of the Romans[ CITATION Rob10 \l 1033 ].

The third change is absolute removal following the introduction of a superior technology,

where a culture gives up on a certain technology all together after it fails to hold up against

modern technology. The most famous example was the First World War, where entire warfare

concepts like Calvary were rendered obsolete by barbed wire, machine guns, and

trenches[CITATION Pet18 \l 1033 ].

Often times absolute removal comes with a major innovation of technology or tactics. Some

could argue the biggest innovation in warfare is black powder for its highly destructive uses as

well as its domination on the modern battle field. One can also argue that the biggest warfare

innovation could be the industrial revolution that allowed nations to create massive amounts of

higher quality equipment to out match replaced the more expensive traditional technologies.

This process of warfare memetics is still working today, but the way we currently conduct

war changes how warfare memetics is currently operating. A big change is todays more efficient

campaign funding and logistical practices.

Most armies throughout human history have been coalitions of independently ran militias and

raiding parties who were contracted by a high monarch to wage war. In the early modern era

however, nations started to develop centralized armies that are directly controlled by a internal

hierarchy under the control of a national leadership. Today all the major armies of the world

operate by this centralized model.

Campaign wise, this model has the advantage of a centralized point of command which is

less likely for generals and lords to switch sides for better profit[CITATION Sat06 \l 1033 ]. This
 Nuss 7

also allows for armies to become more uniform and predictable that takes pressure off of

campaign commanders by allowing them not to calculate the differences in discipline among

their men at arms.

Centralized armies also had an easier time diverting resources into warfare inovations.

Centralized armies started to specialize campaign funding to incorporate more expensive war

machines and specialize men to more crew served equipment[CITATION Ric18 \l 1033 ]. Crew

served equipment originally came in the form of artillery and battle ships, but with the advent of

the industrial revolution came to include other more destructive crew served advancements like

armored vehicles and combat aircraft[CITATION Smi15 \l 1033 ]. These new advancements

changed the dynamic of early modern warfare.

When Centralized armies began to form they became nearly impossible to beat by non-

centralized coalition armies who were outmatched by their superior technology, logistics, and

funding. As a result, other nations either created their own centralized armies, or were absorbed

into the centralized army who defeated them.

Uniformity became essential to modern warfare for its ability to support modern weapon

systems like firearms that require a steady flow of ammunition. If today’s armies operated on

medieval model, along with the logistical strain of transporting food, would come the strain of

transporting ammunition. In a technologically heterogeneous army there could be up to 70 kinds

of firearms that would take 70 different types of ammunition, that could need 70 different

recourses for proper maintenance[CITATION Ric18 \l 1033 ]. This vast amount of factors would

severely strain logistics of a campaign and be fatal if unavoidable problems arise.

 Nuss 8

This logistical strain is why all major armies have standard issue weaponry and armor, they

are also more uniformly trained to properly use standard issue gear, especially when they are

dealing with dangerous explosives, which can easily become hazardous to friendly forces if

misused[CITATION Ric18 \l 1033 ].

This efficiency of logistics for uniform operators is also used heavily in most domestic

paramilitary forces like local police and counter terrorism units. 40 years ago police had to

purchase their own gear, weaponry, belt, hand cuffs, all different styles and uses[CITATION

som18 \l 1033 ]. At this time most of the technology police used were geared towards reactive

practices by less educated operators[ CITATION som18 \l 1033 ]. This strained police resources,

and made police tactics slightly inconsistent. Today American police are a lot more educated, and

have state issued equipment that is better calibrated for proactive practices that require more

comprehensive training[CITATION Dav18 \l 1033 ].

Much of today’s memetic applications for law enforcement focuses on fine tuning the

equipment they have against more non predatory threats like petty criminals and resisting drug

addicts who tend to react in an unrefined panicked manner, as apposed to counter terrorism

unites who actively upgrade their equipment to better overcome more dangerous threats like

terrorists or trained enforcers. Police technological improvements focus on making Kevlar vests

lighter and less debilitating to wear[CITATION Dav18 \l 1033 ].

Human history and culture is always changing, and warfare along with it. This has been

happening for many years and will continue to do so till man learns how to live in peace with his

fellow man. Until then all one can do as an individual, is hope when their time comes to go to

war that they manage to survive it.

Nuss 9
 Nuss 10

Works Cited
"Armour." n.d. Medieval Warfare. 12 Febuary 2018.

<http://www.medievalwarfare.info/armour.htm>.

Blackmore, Susan. "Memetics does provide a useful way." January 2008. susanblackmore.co.uk.

16 Feburary 2018. <https://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/chapters/memetics-does-provide-

a-useful-way-of-understanding-cultural-evolution/>.

Breiding, Dirk. "Arms and Armor—Common Misconceptions and Frequently Asked Questions."

October 2004. metropolotan museum of art(US).com. 16 Feburuay 2018.

Easten, Matthew. "Scholagladiatoria." 8 April 2007. Youtube. web. 16 Febuary 2018.

<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt14YOvYhd5FCGCwcjhrOdA>.

history, Military. "Satsuma rebllion:Satsuma clan samuri against japonese imperial amry." 12

June 2006. history.net. web. 28 Feb 2018. <http://www.historynet.com/satsuma-rebellion-

satsuma-clan-samurai-against-the-imperial-japanese-army.htm>.

Knighton, Andrew. "develupment of armor: from ancient times to modern warfare." 5 July 2017.

war history.com. web. 21 Feburary 2018. <https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-

ii/hans-joachim-marseille-german-ace-officially-shot-158-planes-m.html>.

Leighton, Richard. Logistics. n.d. 28 Feb 2018. <https://www.britannica.com/topic/logistics-

military/Historical-development>.

"Lindybeige." 23 Feburay 2007. YouTube. web.

<https://www.youtube.com/user/lindybeige/featured>.

Masoor, Peter. "armour PROTECTIVE CLOTHING." n.d. britannica.com. web. 21 Febuary

2018. <https://www.britannica.com/topic/armour-protective-clothing>.
 Nuss 11

Medieval spell. n.d. 22 Feburary 2018. <http://www.medieval-spell.com/Medieval-Army.html>.

"Metatron." 24 September 2013. YouTube. web. 2016.

<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIjGKyrdT4Gja0VLO40RlOw/about>.

OConnel, Robert. Ghosts of cannae. Random house publishing group, 2010. Print.

Sanders, Lesaly. Interview. Todd Nuss. 19 Feburary 2018.

Skadison, David. Interview. Todd Nuss. 26 Febuary 2018.

Smith, Gordan. INTRODUCTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF WARSHIP ARMOUR. 27 July

2015. web. 28 Feb 2018. <http://www.naval-history.net/WW0Book-USN-

Armour1937.htm>.

Wheatcroft. Enemy at the gates. basic books publishing group, 2008. print.