Not unlike modern soldiers. The US military has ~1.4m enlisted and spends about half a million a year per capita of enlisted members.

Too drunk and I thought you were talking about the music. Started thinking too hard about how maybe

Don't forget metal-plated castle gates and portcullis.

And the comparison with armor is a bit unfair, as making armor is all about strength at low weight and mobility. A knights gauntlet was bleeding edge technology back then. Something a static thing like a wall would not require.

I think they crossed multiple thoughts...

A sheet of metal in the civil war has nothing to do with arrows...

[removed]

Also some of the older walls in Cambridge, to stop students sneaking out.

They do it in Europe and the Caribbean as well from what I’ve seen.

We had two ironclad ships in the US civil war. Plus many cannons. I’m not sure what you mean.

No, metal was too expensive. Having a metal pot was a status symbol, like having a Mercedes now.

Trebuchets and cannons weren't accurate, it would take days or weeks of bombardment to breach the walls of a masonry fort.

All that changed at Fort Pulaski in 1862. The new rifled cannons were accurate enough to hit the fort at the same point repeatedly. The walls were breached within 30 hours, the fort surrendered (very sensible). Masonry forts became obsolete.

Completely off topic but instead of razor wire in India the put big shards of glass in the tops of their walls.

Flavor Flavor.

Glad I wasn’t the only one thinking this.

Walls no. Gates and doors with various metal fittings yes. As well as windows, drains, bridges.

[deleted]

It still has to be smelted and forged and at the time in pieces small enough to be man handled. Even during the American civil war when metals were easier to source no one tried that because it had far more value used in other places in the fight. What would you rather have a four foot by 8 foot sheet of metal or an extra thousand arrows.

>城堡有一些铁配件，例如闸门钉、壁灯等。为了在墙壁上镀上可以承受例如投石机或弩炮的金属，你说的是战舰的厚度。
>
>石头和木材更便宜，更容易运输进行维修。
>
>同样考虑到一套盔甲在今天的价格中会花费 100,000 美元，因为金属不是大

Not so exaggerated, we calculate a set of armor according to the price of the Tang Dynasty about 30K

Knights would be rich as to be a knight, a king/queen will have given the knight or much more likely their family in the past the title and land which they would lease out to farmers. Lots of armour was passed down and refitted the knight would generally do 40 days service to the king/queen per year (gaining favour would come with the possible chance of new titles and land etc) The knight would also need a horse, squire (knight in training) and various other staff to fulfil his duties. There was also sports events that would bring in cash, popularity and maybe a rich bride with a dowry too

I'm not sure the exact numbers, but yes, very expensive. There's a reason run-of-the-mill soldiers used at most chain-mail, because it was easier and cheaper to produce than plate armor. The Samurai were also similar in that regard; they would serve a lord and they were elite warriors, and being elite the lord would invest in equipping them with expensive gear. Even so, they still didn't wear full plate, because A. It's expensive and B. Wasn't practical, as it was cumbersome. They would wear some interleaved plating and some leather pieces, all bound together with cordage.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Flavortown?

How very American of us

[removed]

[removed]

the etymology for names in europe are always so fascinating