Exactly how restrictive was plate armor?

Great Debates
1

One the one hand you hear people claiming that it was so heavy that knights had to be hoisted onto their horses with cranes, or if they fell face down in a puddle they would drown, or other blatant nonsense like that. On the other hand you hear claims that it wasn’t restrictive at all, which while not quite as ridiculous still doesn’t seem right. Obviously the protective benefits outweighed whatever drawbacks it had, but surely there were some. What I’m looking for is some sort of quantifiable data on armored vs. unarmored performance. I propose that you take various athletes, trained in the proper use of plate armor, and have them do their thing both with and without armor and see how they do. Possible events:

100m, 200m, 400m dash
110m, 400m hurdles
800m, 1600m run
high jump
long jump
throwing stuff (javelin, hammer, shot put, discus, maybe caber toss for the hell of it)
gymnastic floor exercise

Any other suggestions on events that might have something to do with battlefield performance? Better yet, anybody have data?

2

This was briefly mentioned on a documentary about weapons of war in the UK.

Discussing swords, the Battle of Barnet was mentioned. The fog and smoke of battle prevented arrows and artillery being used to full effect so swords were used heavily in hand to hand fighting.

A student of medieval fighting was exhausted by a few minutes of fencing in armour, whereas the battle went on for a few hours. From this, the medieval weapons expert of the show suggested that soldiers may have fought in a sort of tag team effort.

3

Brainiac researched it:

Just yesterday, I saw a rerun of that episode. A guy in a replica of full plated armor tried to put a duvet cover over a duvet in 30 seconds. He succeeded, but looked pretty exhausted afterwards.

4

I only have my own experience to offer here.

I’ve often worn roman segmented plate, and It’s not restricting at all. The structure works like a lobsters tail, you can bend, do jumping jacks, run around in circles, whatever. The wole thing (Torso+shoulder plates and overarm cover) weighs something like 7-8 kilos and the weight rests on your whole upper body, so it doesn’t feel heavy. Granted, day two feels like death warmed over, but that’s something else.

On unarmored versus armoured performance…well, personally, little to no difference, since I don’t have much combat talent to speak of. The plate makes it easier, actually, since there is no fear of pain (which would not be true in real combat). Running is more difficult, simulated combat, not so much.

I’ve never worn medieval plate armour, but I’ve seen people wear it in simulated combat (admittedly not as exausting as the real thing), and keep at it all day, smiling and laughing. Not much in the way of scientific proof, though. Guess I could ask them.

5

I’ve been fighting in the SCA (medieval hobbyist group) for a quarter century; I believe there are several others on the SDMB with similar experience. Not many of us wear full plate, but my understanding (backed up by my own experience wearing articulated plate armor on my legs) is that the weight isn’t really a problem. A full suit of 15th century battle armor (as opposed to specialized jousting armor) would weigh around 80 pounds. Properly distributed on the body, this much weight isn’t very restrictive for a healthy man.

Of course, hard fighting with hand-to-hand weapons is exhausting in itself. I’m 46, though, and still at it.

What’s of overriding importance is: 1) how well the articulated joints are made; and 2) how well it fits your particular body.

Making articulated plate armor (so that leg or arm protection will bend as you do) is a tricky thing; if the pieces are sized just right, and fastened together at the right points, the joint will either bind up or gap open. From what I’ve seen of actual medieval pieces in museums (and the one 16th century arm harness I got to play with), the professional armorers (living in a time when this stuff was used in actual battles) had this art down to near perfection.

But even the best-made plate armor will be a hindrance if it doesn’t fit your body. Wealthy knights would have armor made to their precise measurements, even leaving wax casts of their limbs with the armorer.

So, well-made, properly-fitted armor isn’t very restrictive – especially not if you’ve been wearing it almost every day for years of training, as would be true of the professional knights of the 15th century. This is when full plate armor reached its peak – the archetypal “knight in shining armor” that people think of. Of course, it’s also when the mounted knight was becoming less and less important as a military force in real battles, thanks to a variety of social and technological developments.

The ridiculous image of an armored knight being hoisted onto his horse with a crane probably comes from a particular Victorian music hall comedy. A fairly young man in good physical condition, in well-made, well-fitted plate armor, can run, turn cartwheels, and generally move about pretty easily. I don’t know about a 1600-meter run; I know I can’t do that with or without armor, but some of the slender, athletic young guys I know in the SCA could probably do a respectable job.

If you’re talking about previous centuries of warfare, say the 13th century, then the main form of armor – for those who could afford it – would be a long shirt of mail (“chainmail”). Lighter than you might think, and not really restrictive or burdensome if worn over a good padded undergarment. My feeling, based on my experience wearing just that (and on contemporary first-hand accounts), is that the thick padding did most of the protection from blows, with the mail preventing a weapon’s edge from getting through. You need pretty sturdy padding, and I really think overheating would be a more common problem than the weight.

Always fun to talk about this stuff. If you want some really exhaustive discussions, try www.armourarchive.org.

6

Posted by me:

Sorry – make that, if the pieces aren’t sized right.

7

I suppose one way of looking at it is: ‘how useful are tanks ?’

Not very useful with the right weopons, but very handy against a poorly armed mob.

Unlike the duvet unfolder, anyone wearing heavy plate would have been totally accustomed to the weight - and would have used it to his advantage.

It is also possible that later heavy plate was not the sort of thing people really used, there is a museum in Malta containing a fair amount of Turkish armour, which reminded me of the Romans but with a few embellishments - it looked pretty practical.

Most likely what we have preserved is ceremonial or experimental armour.

8

Well, we have that too. There are some extremely heavy pieces made specifically for formal jousting that would have been less than useful in real warfare, and there are later pieces of “parade armor” made strictly as artwork in metal, and covered with fancy engraving and etching – some of it would be useless in battle because of raised decoration that would limit flexibility.

But we also have a lot of stuff that was definitely used in real battles, or was intended for that purpose. It tends to have a different kind of beauty, derived from completely functional forms. (I prefer the Italian style to German, myself.)

9

That’s about as much as the heaviest model of the Xvest. It’s not something that just anyone can put on and wear comfortably, but people do walk around in the heaviest model.

10

A friend of mine was in the SCA and ran the Bay To Breakers in his plate armor. That’s 8+ miles in SF terrain (hills). I’ve seen a video called something like “How A Man Shall Be Armed” which demonstrates medieval weapons and armor, they show a fellow suiting up in plate and running around, doing summersalts and whatnot.

So it’s not like wearing armor is the same as toting a 200lb anvil on your shoulders, it’s far less restrictive than some people might think, however I’m sure that after a few minutes of actual combat you’d be pretty sweaty.

11

I’ve seen a few demonstrations of medieval fighting wearing battlefield plate (remember that most folks who could afford armor had at least two sets…one for tournaments and such and one to actually fight in) and it looked to me as if they moved easily enough in it. According to a friend of mine (a marine) who was in one of those medieval re-enactment groups, wearing plate armor is less restrictive/heavy than wearing a full combat kit in the marines. No idea if he was putting me on (or exaggerating) but I’ve worn full kit (in the Navy during boot camp) and he might have a point. Of course, physical hand to hand combat even wearing a karate gi is physically demanding so perhaps its more the type of fighting than what they were wearing.

-XT

12

Eighty pounds is the standard load for a soldier today, and in fact it’s been around that for centuries. My field load, including weapon, ammo, pyrotechnics, and my full field kit - a spare uniform, underwear, sleeping bag, water, two days of rations, notebook, combat helmet, cookware, toiletries, and various and sundry items you needed in the field - weighed between 70 and 80 pounds. I certainly could move around in that.

13

That’s not too much unlike what the WW1 infantryman was toting around, too. It’s amazing what practice will accustom you to - didn’t the old English (Welsh) longbow have something like a 100lb draw weight? Sounds tough, but start with a kid’s bow from the age of six and practice every day for a decade, gradually stepping up the pull…

14

Most everything has already been summarized by Baldwin and others, so I’ll just add a few foot notes.

Fully articulated armor came in not only different styles but also different configurations and quality levels. A good suit meant for a knight fighting in “the English style” (on foot) might weigh in at 40 to 60 pounds. 50 to 80 pounds would be a common range for plate armor for a mounted knight.

There is some restriction in terms of full body motion but overall speed, specially over short distances is not drastically affected. Restrictiveness is negligible, and the incredible protection the armor would offer a knight was worth the slight discomfort (specially in hot weather).

15

Nitpick: didn’t they have mail leggings by the 13th century? I seem to remember images of knights of the period (late Crusades) wearing “full” mail, often with small plate reinforcements.

16

Good point – yes, a well-armed soldier in the 1200’s would be wearing full-length stockings of mail; forgot about that. The guys I know who wear those (usually called “chausses”, although I’ve seen lengthy arguments about the nomenclature) usually hold them up by lacing them to a belt or some kind of suspenders arrangement, and also put a strap around the top of the calf muscle, just below the knee. I don’t know how they are for a long march. (I just wear padded thigh coverings with attached steel knee “cops”, and separate greaves strapped over my shins.)

Now, during the transitional period between all-mail and all-plate, in the latter half of the 14th century, guys were wearing full-length mail shirts and leggings under their breastplates or brigandines (on the torso) and under their articulated plate leg protection. But as plate got more extensive, they started having just a little mail covering the inside joints – under the arm, inside the elbow, and back of the knee.

17

Well before the end of either of these the race would become a fast walk, I expect.

18

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned (I was just talking to my friend about this thread) is the restriction of vision. I don’t think movement was really impaired a lot, but vision was VERY restricted (according to my friend anyway…I seem to recall though that there were different types of helms, some of which didn’t look like they would be all that bad to see out from).

-XT

19

In addition, I’m not sure how much of a knight’s physical training regimen would concentrate on cardio. If the American Army were to go back to plate I’m sure they’d be running 10 (okay, one :slight_smile: ) miles in it every day – knights, not so much. Leaving out the feeling that walking was beneath them as nobles, they concentrated more on horsebound combat for obvious reasons.

20

I doubt it. Treatises from the period are incredibly detailed when it comes to combat on foot. Regardless such martial training would have certainly acted as a nice cardio workout.

On Visibility: I’ve seen some speculation that visors would have been raised in a large combat situation and would be closed when on a duel (or judicial combat), or when approaching infantry (to defend against missiles). Ahh, I wish I had more info on this interesting theory.