Armour problems

[dieseltaylor]

BBC. Interesting.

Treadmill shows medieval armour influenced battles

By Rebecca Morelle Science reporter, BBC News 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.

In this famous Anglo-French conflict of 1415, French knights were defeated by their English counterparts, despite the fact that they heavily outnumbered them.

The researchers say their study suggests that the armour-clad French, who had to trek through a muddy field to meet the stationary English line, were so slowed and exhausted by their march that they would have stood little chance.

Lead researcher Dr Graham Askew, from the University of Leeds, said: "You look at these suits of armour, and they weigh between 30 and 50kg, so it is a huge fraction of the wearer's body weight."

Running battle

In the 15th Century, as the arms race progressed with the development of new and powerful weapons such as the longbow and crossbow, armour too evolved.

In late Medieval Europe, these bulky battle suits were principally constructed from interlocking steel plates, covering the soldier from head to toe.

But with the added protection came extra weight and cumbersomeness - and while researchers have always realised that this would have impaired a soldier's performance, nobody until now has quantified by how much.

To study this, researchers asked four participants, who regularly re-enact battles for the Royal Armouries in Leeds, to don their exact-replica armour from England, Gothic Germany and Italy and get onto a treadmill.

By recording how much oxygen they took in and carbon dioxide they produced, the team was able to calculate how much energy they were using. High-speed cameras also helped the researchers to study how the volunteers were using their limbs.

Dr Askew, who carried out the research with colleagues from the University of Oxford and the University of Milan, said: "Our main finding was that it was extremely expensive in terms of the amount of energy used to move in the armour."

The team found that walking and running with the armour used up twice as much energy as doing the same thing without any armour.

The breast and back plates of the medieval armour also affected breathing: instead of being able to take long, deep breaths while they worked up a sweat, the volunteers were forced to take frequent, shallow breaths, and this too used up more energy.

Leg pains

The scientists also looked at how the volunteers performed while wearing armour compared with carrying the equivalent load on their backs, which is similar to the weight a modern soldier might carry in their backpack.

Dr Askew said: "We found there was a big difference: it is much more 'expensive' to carry the load as a suit of armour than it is to carry the load in a backpack.

"We were interested to find out why that was - and one of the main reasons is that if you wear a suit of armour, a lot of the weight is carried on the legs - about 7-8kg of it.

"And this means when you walk and you swing your legs, you are requiring a lot more muscular effort, and that costs you a lot more energy."

The team said their findings had given an insight into the battlefield trade-off between added protection alongside increased manoeuvrability and fitness to fight.

Dr Askew explained: "Yes, they could have removed the leg parts of the armour, but it might have meant they would have been cut on the leg and killed that way."

He added though, that this may not have been such a problem in the 16th Century.

With the advent of guns, hand-to-hand combat decreased, and this too affected the design of the armour.

He said: "It is interesting to see though that as armour developed into the 16th Century, the part of the armour that was lost was the lower leg - the thing that we found increases the cost of movement."

Thom Richardson, keeper of armours, from the Royal Armouries in Leeds added: "It is interesting to use scientific method to answer these questions, and it confirms what we have always suspected - heavy armour would very much reduce your ability to run around.

"But no-one wears stuff on the battlefield if it isn't useful."

[Thomm]

I thought that the guys in full armor were supposed to ride on horses, anyway?

And when they went to the ground they were dead meat (as the report indicates).

On the other hand, I remember that knights in defensive positions were inflicting terrible casualties on the attackers during the Siege of Malta.

The had to be rotated out of the front line frequently, due to the exhaustion mentioned. And guess what they drank to recover: WINE!!!! (according to the book I read)

Best regards,

Thomm

[womble]

I thought that the guys in full armor were supposed to ride on horses, anyway?

And when they went to the ground they were dead meat (as the report indicates).

On the other hand, I remember that knights in defensive positions were inflicting terrible casualties on the attackers during the Siege of Malta.

The had to be rotated out of the front line frequently, due to the exhaustion mentioned. And guess what they drank to recover: WINE!!!! (according to the book I read)

Best regards,

Thomm

The "news" here is that they've used exercise science to do some measuring, not "armour was heavy and tiring to wear" - the reenactment community could have confirmed what everyone would have guessed a long time ago

Yes, full harness was meant to be worn by mounted troops, but knights often fought dismounted, too. The Wars of the Roses springs to my mind as one significant conflict where I think knights fought dismounted as often as mounted (parochial Shire knights... ). I expect that was mostly because horses were the most vulnerable part of the mounted knight, and when every opponent has some longbowmen, the mounted charge tended to turn into a bit of a debacle...

On the Continent, there's at least one example of the Chivalry trying to take on Swiss pikemen by dismounting and going block-to-block, and as you say, any defense of fortifications, being well armoured is going to be a Good Thing, and being mounted is unnecessary.

Even as far back as the Romans (who didn't wear Greaves until they faced the Dacians with their leg-chopping Falx - they were a marching army) troops wearing heavy armour have been rotated out of front line engagement. Being well-drilled enough to switch a fresh second rank into place of the front rankers was one of the advantages they had over the Gallics.

[gunnergoz]

One thing they do not seem to take into account is the fact that most warriors in those days were really heavily muscled and toned from a lifetime of rigorous exercise. Diet was different and nutrition spotty, although most knights came from wealthy families that ate better than the peasantry.

I recently watched a documentary about supposed gladiator skeletons being examined in the UK and it was clear that these men were very heavily muscled.

Melee warfare like this was probably some of the most physically demanding exertion ever experienced by warriors of any age.

Most reenactors I've seen depicted don't have anywhere near that level of physical conditioning. Probably true of the volunteers in this study as well.

Ideally they should have used special forces-caliber soldiers and olympic athletes for this trial - they are the only equivalents we have to the ancient warrior's physical prowess and stamina. (Even then, we have few modern warriors who are inured to riding horses for days on end (builds up the legs and thighs enormously) or who have had experience wielding swords and similar weapons for hours at a time in sustained combat.) But if you can handle daily combat in the Middle East with a 75 pound load (or more), you are no slouch, either. That's as close as we come today to what ancient warriors were conditioned to deal with.

[Affentitten]

I recall also a study done on the soil of the Agincourt area, which was a glutionous clay. When it's wet, it takes something like 250% of normal effort to pull your foot out of it. More I guess if you've got 40kg of steel on your back!

Gunnergoz, not all knights were at the peak of their prowess. Knighthood was a status, not a career choice. And the ranks at Crecy and Agincourt were not made up exclusively of 22 year old males who ran half marathons for fun and could get down and give 300 press ups. King John of Bohemia comes to mind. Gladiators fought regularly and would have had plenty of training. Medieval knights would go years between real battles.

[Stalins Organ]

The English more-or-less started the practice of knights dismounting to fight, often using them to stiffen the levy of militia spearmen in the era betwen the Norman conquest and the arrival of the massed longbows.

It became "formalised" in the Scottish wars when mounted men-at-arms repeatedly failed to make any impression on the Scots schiltrons (blocks of pikemen), but the archers wrought havock - as Warwick had done first against the Welsh spearmen at Maes Mydog.

It took a while to catch on fully - Bannockburn in 1314 was an obvious abject failure, despite the earlier success at Falkirk on a nearly identical battlefield.

By the time of the 2nd war of independence (1332 start) the english had fought a rebellion, and the idea of dismounting knights combined with massed archery on the wings as a defensive formation had appeared - Dupplin Moor was a signal victory by a small number of English & Scots rebels that was in large part due to archery from the first (AFAIK) use of such a formation.

and after that it essentially became the English way of war - Englisyh mercenaries & allies took it to all sorts of places - including Spain & Gemany.

The French copied it because their mounted knights had been hammered at Crecy and Poitiers & they figured if they can't beat them they should join them! And to be fair spearmen and men at arms on foot did defeat English archery in some battles during the 100 Years War - although IMO it seems having large shields made quite a difference!

However a major difference betwen the 2 sides is that the English tried very hard to ensure they were in a defensive positions that had to be attacked, so their men-at-arms did not have to move long distances in all that armour! the French remains an "attacking" army that could be forced to move due to archery.

It is perhaps noteable that 2 major English defeats that pretty much ended the HYW occured when they had to attack - Formigny in 1450 where French artillery outranging the English archers may have goaded them to attack, and Castillon in 1453 where the French commander constructed fortification and sat on eth defence with greater numbers

[Affentitten]

To some extent it also seems to reflect a difference in the 'professionalism' of the two forces. The French seem to have persisted for a long time with the elan vital approach of a bunch of nobles pretty much fighting individually, with great glory to be won by the people in the front of the fray. The English seem to have worked out earlier on a more 'combined arms' approach with better formation discipline.

[dieseltaylor]

http://www.b3ta.com/links/DADS_WITH_SWORDS

Interesting and amusing!

[ironbar]

http://www.b3ta.com/links/DADS_WITH_SWORDS

Interesting and amusing!

That is just too freaking funny!

[Stalins Organ]

Hey I resemble that remark!!

[gunnergoz]

I recall also a study done on the soil of the Agincourt area, which was a glutionous clay. When it's wet, it takes something like 250% of normal effort to pull your foot out of it. More I guess if you've got 40kg of steel on your back!

Gunnergoz, not all knights were at the peak of their prowess. Knighthood was a status, not a career choice. And the ranks at Crecy and Agincourt were not made up exclusively of 22 year old males who ran half marathons for fun and could get down and give 300 press ups. King John of Bohemia comes to mind. Gladiators fought regularly and would have had plenty of training. Medieval knights would go years between real battles.

Be that as it may, I'll still wager that most of medieval combatants (knights and otherwise) under 30 were far fitter than their modern descendants (excepting active duty modern infantry.) You are probably correct about how extended periods of peacetime can corrode a warriors fitness; but there were plenty of eras in European history where a fighting man likely got to see lots of action.

[Stalins Organ]

Be that as it may, I'll still wager that most of medieval combatants (knights and otherwise) under 30 were far fitter than their modern descendants (excepting active duty modern infantry.)

So you're saying the professional soldiers then were fitter than everyone except professional soldiers now - bit of a non-sequiter really I think:rolleyes:

Of course these days we also have professional athletes, amateur athletes, gym bunnies, better nutrition, anti-biotics, and a much longer expected life span.

The sort of fitness ppl had back then was the sort of fitness that kills you young - unremitting hard work year in and year out.

And what did the rich do if they could afford it?? Henry VIII turned from a fit young noble into a massive fat slob.

There were times when you could be a professional mercenary -

You are probably correct about how extended periods of peacetime can corrode a warriors fitness; but there were plenty of eras in European history where a fighting man likely got to see lots of action.

Again you're comparing things that are not equal - the modern era is what - the last 50 years - whereas "European history" gives you a couple of thousand...even just "medieval europe" gives you 500....and being a mercenary in the 30 yrs war or any of the wars of the next 150 years when mercenaries were still very common (think "Hessians" in the AWI!) wasn't a recipe for fitness and long life!

I think you have an unjustifiably romantic view of the situation.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The education of the young knight was in reality for the most part physical education. Petrus Alfonsus (1062-1140) was probably the first to define the aristocratic curriculum by introducing the septum probitates as the knightly equivalent of the septum artes liberales1. These probitates or knightly arts which formed a compendium of the noblemen’s education are admirably described in Johannes Rothe’s (1936) Der Ritterspiegel (Knight’s Mirror), near the beginning of the 15th century. (The poem describes riding, swimming, shooting, climbing and dancing as well as these, which apply more directly to our image of chivalry):

“The fifth part I shall speak of

Is that he (the knight) is good in tournament,

That he fights and tilts well,

And is honest and good

In the joust.

The sixth art is wrestling,

Also both fencing and fighting,

Beat others in the long jump

From the left as well as from the right.”

It is not difficult to see in this program of knightly education the reflection of the feudal ideals of chivalry in which physical prowess played a major role. From a practical point of view, the nobleman’s life depended on his physical skills and endurance. As Jusserand2 remarks, dressing in a harness (armor) in these days was a physical exercise in itself. The reports of the chroniclers leave little doubt that the medieval knights were indeed in excellent physical condition. According to his biographer, Bousciacaut, famous chevalier and Maréchal of France, could in his youth turn a summersault in full armor, except for his helmet, and scale the inside a ladder equipped in harness by pulling himself up by the arms3.

Link

[Stalins Organ]

Which is all fair enough - but that's the very top elite of society - saying they were fitter than today's average jo blo is like saying Billionaires are richer than the average!

[Dietrich]

You are probably correct about how extended periods of peacetime can corrode a warriors fitness; but there were plenty of eras in European history where a fighting man likely got to see lots of action.

The infrequentness of battles in the High Middle Ages (besides, medieval warfare was characterized far more by despoiling raids and sieges of castles than by pitched battles) was one of the main reasons why tournaments caught on and became so popular and so prevalent (despite the determined efforts of kings and princes to keep such from taking place). Contrary to modern popular conception, tournaments in the 11th, 12th and early 13th centuries were not "courtly" affairs consisting entirely of one-on-one jousts but were mock cavalry battles in which the goal for any individual knight was to capture a counterpart on the opposing "team", exact a ransom (arms/armor/horseflesh/etc.) from him, and thereby enrich himself and increase his status and reputation.

[Michael Emrys]

Which is all fair enough - but that's the very top elite of society - saying they were fitter than today's average jo blo is like saying Billionaires are richer than the average!

But those were the very men who could afford to buy a suit of armor, which after all is what sparked this discussion. So it is perfectly natural to try to establish their attributes...or had you forgotten about that?

Michael

[Stalins Organ]

It was probably their fathers who bought the armour.......dads with swords in fact

[Affentitten]

I think it's fair to say that the number of knights did not equal the number of super-fit and highly trained knights. Just like any period of military history there were the old, the young, the inept and those whose families had bought them their entry to the club regardless of merit.

Tournaments were indeed a reflection of the relative rarity of real combat. But I suspect that tourney fighting had about as much to do with battlefield combat as fencing does to real swordplay or boxing does to a viking tavern fight.

[Dietrich]

Tournaments were indeed a reflection of the relative rarity of real combat. But I suspect that tourney fighting had about as much to do with battlefield combat as fencing does to real swordplay or boxing does to a viking tavern fight.

Those analogies would correspond if tournament fighting was conducted with blunted weapons and astride ponies. But it wasn't. The participating knights wielded the same weaponry, wore the same armor, and rode the same destriers they did in actual combat; the difference was that in a tourney the aim was to capture a knight on the opposing team rather than kill him. Despite the non-lethal goal, injuries were typical, even for the knights that came out on top, and deaths weren't uncommon.

[Magpie_Oz]

So you're saying the professional soldiers then were fitter than everyone except professional soldiers now - bit of a non-sequiter really I think:rolleyes:

Of course these days we also have professional athletes, amateur athletes, gym bunnies, better nutrition, anti-biotics, and a much longer expected life span.

The sort of fitness ppl had back then was the sort of fitness that kills you young - unremitting hard work year in and year out.

And what did the rich do if they could afford it?? Henry VIII turned from a fit young noble into a massive fat slob.

The level of fitness of a medieval Knight would have been well in excess of the peasants but not even close to modern people, even average ones and certainly no where near soldiers.

Wiki says that the average suit of armour weighed in at about 20 to 30kg. which is less than a modern soldiers combat load out which is sometimes twice that. Standard Australian Army fitness levels, for non combat is to able to cover 15klm in 2hrs 45m carrying 20kg (combat is the same but with 35kg). Can't see Sir Bollocksalot keeping up my self.

The diet of noble folk in the middle ages was appalling, lacking in nutrition and vital vitamins, they were a sickly lot. If exercise was pretty much limited to practising for bouts they could have had a reasonable level of Anaerobic fitness but very little Aerobic fitness. How many 4 miles runs did they do much less "sprinting" across and open field under fire.

They ate almost exclusively meat with only a scant few vegetables, drank wine over water (generally safer in those days but not good for fitness) and very little cereals.

Their lifestyle as well was not conducive to fitness, cold and damp with no medicines or cures for even minor ailments. Lung capacity was particularly bad.

They was a program on the BBC awhile a go which was a humorous look at cuisine in Britain through the ages, up until very recent times people where generally subsisting just above malnutrition.

[Wicky]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7148534.stm

The average medieval peasant however would have eaten nearly two loaves of bread each day, and 8oz of meat or fish, the size of an average steak.

This would have been accompanied by liberal quantities of vegetables, including beans, turnips and parsnips, and washed down by three pints of ale.

Crucially, there was little refined sugar in their food, while modern eating habits are dominated by biscuits, cake and sweets.

"If you put this together with the incredible work load, medieval man was at much less risk of coronary heart disease and diabetes than we are today," said Dr Henderson.

However, he did acknowledge that people today did have one advantage over their ancestors when it came to staying alive.

"If you got to 30 in those days you were doing well, past 40 and you were distinctly long in the tooth," he concedes.

MODERN LIFESTYLE

Calories: 2,700

Fat intake exceeds recommendations

Less than 20 minutes exercise each day

Greater risk of heart disease and diabetes

MEDIEVAL LIFESTYLE

Calories: 3,500 - 4,000

Nearly two loaves of bread

Three pints of ale

Up to 12 hours labour each day

[Magpie_Oz]

The average medieval peasant however would have eaten nearly two loaves of bread each day, and 8oz of meat or fish, the size of an average steak.

How many of them wore suits of armour ?

The comparison is between the Medieval Knights and modern "Joe Average"

[Michael Emrys]

Presumably the knights and members of the nobility ate better than peasants most of the time. Except for knights in training, they probably did not get nearly the strenuous regular exercise though.

Michael

[JonS]

How many 4 miles runs did they do much less "sprinting" across and open field under fire.

How many 20 mile horse rides cross country do you go on, just to get to the pub or visit a friend.

Their lifestyle as well was not conducive to fitness

Are you kidding? There was no call for gyms because their entire life was a fitness regime, from dawn to dusk. Lifting heavy things, walking everywhere, riding horses, going on hunts ... even just having a bath or taking a dump.

[Magpie_Oz]

How many 20 mile horse rides cross country do you go on, just to get to the pub or visit a friend.

Are you kidding? There was no call for gyms because their entire life was a fitness regime, from dawn to dusk. Lifting heavy things, walking everywhere, riding horses, going on hunts ... even just having a bath or taking a dump.

Horse riding, while tiring is not a really good fitness activity, well not for you, the horse maybe.

Busy or labour intensive lifestyle is not conducive to battle fitness in particular but also has little to no impact on your Aerobic fitness and don't forget I am talking nobility here who were, in general, pretty idle.

Sure there maybe some examples of individuals who were particularly fit, there are always stand outs, but viewed overall I cannot see any reason to suggest that they would have been fitter then than now.