Disagree on both points.
Mutual adaptation of blades and armor ( including shields, helmets, body defense etc) is as old as warfare itself. Take for example the transition of Japanese swords post encounter with the Mongolian army sporting thick leather/ mail armor. Straight swords virtually disappeared, the blades became thicker and stronger and differential hardening became a norm. Also, tanto became a real fighting weapon as a result of widespread hand-to- hand infantry combat.
As to battleships and tanks, the list is bigger by orders of magnitude and this is true from times immemorial till now. How about anti-tank hedgehogs? Land mines? Calthrops? Misericords? Estocs? First-strike nuclear attacks and missile defense? Submarines and sonars? Simple bows were sufficient for unprotected opponents, but the invention of metal armor was rapidly followed by the manufacture of crossbows. Large simple bows of the early infantry were replaced by the small composite ones for the use by cavalry.this was true about military architecture as well: the attacker uses battle towers, rams and ladders? The defender builds a glacis.
As to the Brits vs. Indians, katars preceded Wellington by centuries. Daggers and katars were irreplaceable for hand-to-hand fights. Starting to view military value of mail-piercing daggers from Assaye is a big mistake.
|