Treadmill shows medieval armour influenced battles

[Kosmo]

"Medieval suits of armour were so exhausting to wear that they could have affected the outcomes of famous battles, a study suggests.

 

Scientists monitored volunteers fitted with 15th Century replica armour as they walked and ran on treadmills.

 

They found that the subjects used high levels of energy, bore immense weight on their legs and suffered from restricted breathing.

 

The research is published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

 

The effect of the heavy armour was so great, that the researchers believe it may have have had an impact on the Battle of Agincourt."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14204717

 

Would have they spent so much money and trouble on armor if it had no effect? I realize that this is not the point but the wording of the title of this article is weird and they kept being weird.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sonic]

I saw this on the local news this morning (I live in Yorkshire) and at the end the newsreader said 'Wearing armour tires you? Who'd have guessed that?', which sums up my opinion. The chances of wearing armour all day affecting battles is probably minimal. Do you think that the 'researchers' took into account that the armour wearers in the Middle Ages began to wear such armour at the age of about 10, and so would have developed the muscles necessary to wear heavy armour for long periods?

[Melvadius]

Personally I would have thought that not wearing armour would have had a greater negative impact on the chances of Medieval knights surviving battle than wearing it.

 

As Sonic has already pointed out they were trained to do so.

[Northern Neil]

In my younger and fitter days, I spent a lot of time with Regia Anglorum, the Anglo - Norman re enactment group. Frequently I would wear a full mail hauberk, sometimes for an entire day, and spend much of that time on my feet either walking or 'fighting'. We became tired at the end of the day, but hardly exhausted, and of course the more we did it the easier it became. Occasionally we would join up with re enactment societies from later medieval periods to provide a large spectacle, with some modification to our kit to fit in. On encountering some of the 15th century re enactors, we of course expressed the old chestnut 'how do you function with all that weight of armour' or something similar. Asked this probably 1000 times already, the man at arms in full plate rolled his eyes heavenward, and told me that his plate armour was very well made, and also very light. It actually weighed only 2/3 what my full chain mail rig weighed ( about 30 pounds ). He then did a very convincing display in which the full movement of the articulated plate was demonstrated, finishing off by doing a cartwheel.

[Melvadius]

Having just read this article correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that the main French attack at Agincourt was initially mounted?

 

I've also spent some time in full armour and would agree that for most purposes the weight distribution is quite good and with practice not that much of a burden - especially if fighting from horseback. The other thing to consider is that mounted armour of the period tended to differ somewhat from that intended to be used mainly on foot.

 

They specifically mention Agincourt in the article and although their volunteers are regular re-enactors that particular battle with the impact of the longbowmen was probably atypical of warfare in the period.

 

In the reported conditions of boggy ground anyone who came off their horse suddenly due to it being 'shot' out beneath them is liable to have suffered significantly from landing on the ground and then trying to reach their enemy no matter what armour they were wearing.

[caldrail]

Isn't 'heavy armour' a misnomer? Knights were more practical than reputation suggests, and it's the chivalric fantasy that took hold in the late medieval period that's responsible. One of the tests of knighthood that had been in place a long time before was the ability of a fully armoured man to vault onto a horse unaided. The sort of crane that's sometimes visualised isn't likely to have been used outside of a tourney and even then for men who couldn't get aboard with or without armour of any kind.

 

Is armour restrictive? Up to a point, yet we know people fought for long periods. There is a tale of one battle where the local hero, William Marshal, had gone missing. His men feared for the worst. They were relieved to find him the next day at a blacksmits shop having his distorted helmet removed.

 

There are also some other aspects to this. French knights in the 14th century particularly enjoyed a fashion for flowing ribbion of coloured cloth to be attached at various points to armour, such as under the armpit and so forth. I don't remember which battle this was, but at one engagement these decorations got caught up in thick mud during the fighting and rendered these armoured men helpless and vulnerable.

Edited July 29, 2011 by caldrail

[Northern Neil]

Isn't 'heavy armour' a misnomer?

Indeed so. Unfortunately, Wargaming and military modelling seems to have its own glossary of terms, often unrelated to proper academic forms, which occasionally seep into common usage. At times ( usually when selling my models on Ebay!) I am required, in order to make myself understood, to use totally different and inaccurate terms. So, Legionaries become 'heavy infantry', Auxillia ( despite wearing armour roughly the same weight) become 'medium infantry', milecastles become 'Mileforts' and turrets become 'watch towers'. The list is endless. Rant over.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Northern Neil

[Kosmo]

...On encountering some of the 15th century re enactors, we of course expressed the old chestnut 'how do you function with all that weight of armour' or something similar. Asked this probably 1000 times already, the man at arms in full plate rolled his eyes heavenward, and told me that his plate armour was very well made, and also very light. It actually weighed only 2/3 what my full chain mail rig weighed ( about 30 pounds ). He then did a very convincing display in which the full movement of the articulated plate was demonstrated, finishing off by doing a cartwheel.

 

But was that armor a realistic copy of an 15th century armor ? I have no doubt modern metallurgists can make a very nice armor out of paper thin lightweight steel but i wonder about the real thing.

[Melvadius]

But was that armor a realistic copy of an 15th century armor ? I have no doubt modern metallurgists can make a very nice armor out of paper thin lightweight steel but i wonder about the real thing.

 

On several occasions I've seen the equipment made by members of the White Company who are generally reckoned on being just about the most 'authentic' group around for period detail and could well believe it was possible.

 

The main issue, which people often forget or are unaware of, is that the best armour was tailored for an individual so even if you wear 'authentic' period armour if it hasn't been tailored for you then it will not function correctly.

[caldrail]

The problem with 15th century armour was that it was affected by cultural trends. On the one hand, tourneys were common, since nobles were keen to show off and please their local population with fine martial displays, but also because the professional tournament was well established. Further, the increasingn ifluence of arthuiran mythos created a desire among the nobility to identify themselves with such tales and almost 'live the dream'. Certainly chivalry was becoming less of an ideal and more of an 'Knights In Shining Armour For Dummies'.

 

We have then a commercial need for display armour, either for the tourney or simply to impress visitors. I daresay some less well informed warriors wore decorative armour in the field in order to make the same impression upon their soldiers as the peasants back home, but the existence of a heavier decorated set of armour does not necessarily mean that a knight actually wore it into battle.

Edited August 1, 2011 by caldrail