| Guilherme Dias Ferreira S wrote: |
| You're in accord with this?: the maximilian armour came after the gothic armour, so the maximilian was better; the peascod armour came after the maximilian, so the peascod was better.
|
I'm not in accord with that statement at all. Arms and armour were adapted to advances in technology, changes in fashion, changes in the availability of materials, changes in tactics, etc. Each was appropriate for its uses during its heyday. Some styles evolved from others out of necessity, some out of fashion. Is one "better" than another?
To say "anything later is better" implies that a machine gun is better than a sword or a car is better than a horse. It all depends on your perspective.
You've asked similar questions to this one before. I'm not sure why there's a focus on what style is better. To really answer that you'd have to define: Better at what? Better looking? Better for foot soldiers? Better for mounted soldiers? Better for the tourney? Better against firearms? Swords? Impact weapons? Polearms? Etc. etc.
But does it matter? Are we comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges when we try to compare styles that come from different eras?
In general, it's difficult, at best, to apply the standards (aesthetic or functional or whatever) of one era/locale to another. Needs could have been different. Materials (or their availability) could have been different. Battlefield tactics could have been different.
We modern folks have the luxury of ruminating about our ancestors. For them, though, they went with what worked at the time. Their lives and livelihoods depended on it.
Attachment: 114.67 KB
