Longer than that - a roman legionary carried ca. 35 kilos of equipment while marching - that would be something like 80 pounds (right?). I believe that’s the maximum weight an average man can carry all day and still be effective.
Total weight of combat equipment would be something like 20 kilos, by rough guesstimation.
I heard that they also carried a ruddy great stake that was used to build a fortress at night.
From the documentary I watched, an account was given of men stabbed in the face when they lifted their visors to get a better look at the battlefield.
I suppose there were also instances of knights getting hit by flank attacks they couldn’t see because their visor was down. It’s like modern tank commanders - keeping your head out of the hatch makes you vulnerable to snipers, but buttening up reduces your situational awareness enormously. Just like tankers, knights probably followed a variety of doctrines when it came to visor use (or helmet use - according to contemporay illustrations, in pre-visor days knights would often remove their bucket helms and fight just with their coifs).
They probably worked in formation - especially on foot.
I’ve vague memories that people would carry a stilletto and poke that through the visor.
Also it sounds as if ransom was a lucrative source of income, a flashily armoured knight was generally worth a lot more alive than dead - here I’m thinking of overseas scraps rather than domestic rebellions.
Depends where they were, but yeah, two each. It’s not that big a stake, it is used to top an earthen wall. We folled around with a reproduction wall once, the stakes weren’t heavy.
Bear in mind that most people who could afford a well-fitted suit of plate would likely regard skill at arms as being their raison d’etre, and train accordingly. 30 seconds of boxing/sparring would leave most people pretty exhausted, but those who train at it hard can do round after round. Ditto for breaking concrete, wrangling steers and most other strenous physical skills.
In medieval times, how often were battles bloody massacres and how often were they standoffs where the armoured soldiers just backed off or fled? I just thought of the naval battles of the 1700s where ships battered each other into submission and were more likely to sink due to adverse weather or poor navigation. Is there any sort of an equivalence between the two?
Very rarely were they either, actually. Field battles tended to occur by accident, with some exceptions. It was rarely advantageous to undertake the risk of a large confrontation. Medieval warfare consisted largely of raiding, property destruction, and sieges.
Typical overstatement of casualties by medieval chroniclers should be tempered by the ideal that hostage-taking was a significant source of wealth for medieval warriors.
I was looking around on Wikipedia and found this article on the mordhau technique:
Was the idea to give your opponent a concussion? I can’t see how the pommel of a sword would actually penetrate a helmet.
Pretty much - concussion, break bones, whatever. Warhammers, clubs, warpicks (some had a blunt head opposite the sharpened pick) did the same thing. One description I read of warhammers and warpicks described them as “the height of brutal efficiency”.
Imagine putting on a good safety helmet and then having a strong guy swat you in the head as hard as he can with a 3lb pipe, or a 3lb hammer. It might not crack the helmet but it’ll do some serious damage to what’s underneath.
As Valgard said. But also remember that swords were not optimal weapons for hurting sdomeone in full plate anyway. Swords were so useful and eventually came into universal use because they were versatile. Good for slashing lightly armored and unarmored foes and later, properly tapered and cross-sectioned for rigidity, could be used to penetrate joints on heavier armor. Drawings of guys in plate fighting with later period two-handed swords tend to resemble two crabs trying to pry each other’s shells open.
But jack-of-all-trades doesn’t mean best at everyting - they weren’t good for hammering on steel plate. The sword pommel for rattling skulls would beat the edge for that, hence the technique. Much better would better would be an axe or mace, which are, however, less versatile overall than a sword.
I am astonished by the amount of first hand information that has turned up here.
After hearing about the staves, I wondered whether a Century could carry enough to enclose a circular encampment.
I’m not so sure that guns were the end of armored knights. Rather, I see the end of plate armor caused the the adoption of pikemen. Think about it-you have alarge group of soldiers equipped with very strong, 11 foot pike poles. An armored knight trying to charge a array of pikmen? The pike would either penetrate the armor (and likk the knight), or knock the man off his horse (where he was helpless). Trained pikemen were probably more of a factor (in the decline of plate armor) than guns.
Pike formations and similar use of spears were used long before the decline of plate armor and the end of the knight as the premier force on the battlefield.
Knight’s could no longer charge straight at infantry on the onset of battle as they had once done, instead other units were used to soften up or break up the lines of the enemy and then the knights came in and did their thing.
The Mortchlag or muder stroke is recommended on the forward extremities of your opponent, and is indeed mentioned as a “second point” to be used on the head as well to cause damage even through a helm.
Hmm, found some video of the Mortschlag thanks to Zonrhau from Germany on you tube. Several comes towards the end of the clip when the two guys switch to the half-sword.
Current thought is that the sudes (stakes) possibly weren’t hammered into the ground like your classic log fence, but rather were used as giant caltrops - more like spiky impediments than actual fences. They weren’t your classic pointy pencil stake shape, either, more like elongated bipyramids joined by a narrower bit. You can read a little more, and see pictures, here
Remember that your average legion travelled around with an entire baggage train, a team of assistants like carpenters and masons, etc. Using the sudes was probably a last-ditch defence or a supplement to the standard castra, not the primary component.
Also, no century (around 80 men by the time of standardization) would be setting up camp by themselves. Camps were usually the whole legion or a couple legions - 6-12 000 men + auxillaries and camp followers.
And Roman camps were based off a standard square design, not circular.
Common knowledge suggests that guns ended the platemail era. This is false. Oddly, platemail ended the platemail era: a very well made suit could be quite resistant to bullets (and still can be), but they wound up pricing themselves out of existence. A Napoleonic army could theoretically have done much better with platemailed soldiers. But by this time, even nobles could hardly afford the stuff, and no nation in Europe could actually armor its armies. Imagine buying a small tank for every soldier in the U. S. army.
I read somewhere that a suit of plate could stop a musket ball at long range, and so army commanders wore them until the advent of rifles. Plate armor that could stop a rifle bullet would be too cumbersome.