Bombers evolved like castles, adding all-around defenses against attackers

Evidence

Artillery and fortifications are manufactured structures, yet they evolve just like the weapons of animals do. Advances in the effectiveness of artillery select for new and better designs of fortresses, and vice versa, in a back-and-forth cycle that can spiral into an arms race. Because fortresses are fixed in place, rivals in these races have defined roles as attackers and defenders, much like animal predators and prey. The final examples pit attacker against attacker, in matched contests more reminiscent of battles between beetles or elk. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 525 (#expands, via linked claim)

As weapons get bigger they select for increasingly elaborate deterrence, and deterrence, in turn, selects for bigger and bigger weapons. Arms races and deterrence push each other forward, escalating in an evolutionary spiral. Like a figure skater pulling her arms to her chest, the evolution of extreme weapons gets faster and faster. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 390 (#expands, via linked claim)

Fortification styles evolved in tandem with ever more effective artillery. Early structures relied on square-sided, protruding towers to provide flanking fire along the walls, but corners proved vulnerable to flying boulders. Below: Later castles had round towers to deflect artillery. Even when struck directly, these towers were less likely to shatter. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 972 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Fortification style evolved in direct response to artillery effectiveness — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 972; Human fortifications and artillery evolve via the same arms-race logic as animal weapons — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 525; Weapon evolution and deterrence form a self-accelerating spiral. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 390

Related

• Fortification style evolved in direct response to artillery effectiveness (similarity 0.90)
• Human fortifications and artillery evolve via the same arms-race logic as animal weapons (similarity 0.89)
• Fortification-artillery escalation mirrors predator-prey arms races, not rival contests (similarity 0.87)
• Pushing siege weapons to longer range only drove artillery growth (similarity 0.85)
• Siege artillery evolved to exploit the fragility of fortress wall corners (similarity 0.85)
• Artillery ended the castle arms race and forced the rise of star forts (similarity 0.85)
• Weapon evolution and deterrence form a self-accelerating spiral. (similarity 0.85)
• City fortification walls evolved progressively from palisades to layered battlement systems by 1500 BCE. (similarity 0.85)
• Explosive artillery ended the era of fortified structures above ground. (similarity 0.83)
• Fortified architecture lets termites negate an enemy’s numerical superiority (similarity 0.82)
• Round towers replaced square ones because corners were vulnerable to artillery (similarity 0.82)
• Each advance in weapon metallurgy forced a corresponding advance in protective armor (similarity 0.82)
• Trebuchets made square castle towers disappear in favor of round ones (similarity 0.81)
• Comparisons of animal and human weapons have a long scholarly tradition. (similarity 0.81)
• Siege equipment grew enormous, with towers pushed by thousands of men (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Human fortifications and artillery evolve via the same arms-race logic as animal weapons #expands (0.70) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 525
• Weapon evolution and deterrence form a self-accelerating spiral. #expands (0.60) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 390
• Fortification style evolved in direct response to artillery effectiveness #exemplifies (0.50) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 972