Cheap weapons let untrained commoners overcome heavily armored elites

Evidence

The genius of Lanchester’s models was his realization that the capacity to concentrate fire—to have multiple soldiers confronting a rival simultaneously—utterly changed the formula for victory. Based on his models, military strategists quickly recognized that investing substantially in the training and arming of individuals was not cost-effective, because the fighting effectiveness of each man was less likely to determine the outcome of battle than the numbers of men brought to the fight. Obviously, some training and equipment were needed, since soldiers armed more poorly than their opponents would be less effective. But given the choice of allocating resources to weapons and training, on the one hand, or to adding more soldiers on the other, the winning strategy was clear. Add more soldiers. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 236 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

We’ve identified two of the three critical ingredients for arms races: intense competition, generally arising among males as they battle for access to females, and ecological situations that cause resources to be localized and economically defensible. There’s one final ingredient, and it involves the details of the fights themselves—the way that males face each other in battle. Males must face each other one on one, rather than all together in a scramble. For bigger weapons to perform better than smaller ones, the battles must be matched and “symmetrical,” with comparably armed contestants challenging each other face-to-face. Oddly, this last ingredient has been almost entirely overlooked by biologists. To appreciate its significance, we must turn instead to attrition models of military forces, and to the century-old insights of an eclectic automotive and aeronautical engineer. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 226 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Weapon-poor insurgents compensated with deception and improvised protective gear; Weaponless insurgents compensated with ruses and improvised armor; Each advance in weapon metallurgy forced a corresponding advance in protective armor — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 59 (+7 more)

Related

• Cheap long-range weapons eroded the battlefield value of expensive armor. (similarity 0.85)
• Symmetrical one-on-one fights are a neglected prerequisite for weapon arms races (similarity 0.85)
• Concentrating simultaneous fire disfavors large weapons while duels favor them (similarity 0.83)
• An inexpensive weapon made elaborate armor a deadly liability rather than protection. (similarity 0.83)
• Concentrated fire makes quantity of soldiers beat individual weapon quality (similarity 0.82)
• Weapon expense is what keeps signals of fighting ability honest (similarity 0.82)
• Medieval combat structured even battlefield clashes as ritualized one-on-one duels (similarity 0.81)
• Fortification-artillery escalation mirrors predator-prey arms races, not rival contests (similarity 0.81)
• State arms races mirror single male-male animal contests, not evolutionary turnover (similarity 0.81)
• Cheap asymmetric weapons can topple vastly more expensive military investments. (similarity 0.80)
• Specific conditions are required before weapons escalate into an arms race (similarity 0.80)
• Weapon growth widens the gap between the best- and worst-armed males. (similarity 0.80)
• Weapon escalation ends when costs outweigh benefits and cheaters invade (similarity 0.80)
• Weapons primarily deter rivals rather than inflict harm in actual fights (similarity 0.80)
• Human and animal arms races follow parallel evolutionary dynamics (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Weapon-poor insurgents compensated with deception and improvised protective gear #expands (0.75)
• Concentrated fire makes quantity of soldiers beat individual weapon quality #corroborates (0.65) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 236
• Symmetrical one-on-one fights are a neglected prerequisite for weapon arms races #corroborates (0.45) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 226
• Each advance in weapon metallurgy forced a corresponding advance in protective armor #qualifies (0.40) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 59
• Weaponless insurgents compensated with ruses and improvised armor #contradicts (0.35)