How much did medieval suits of armor weigh?

I don’t think the know how has really been lost. There aren’t that many ways that you can work a piece of steel. And we do have specimens that have survived, even if most were ceremonial in nature. I believe the real difference comes in quality control and consistency. Back then a suit of armor, much like a sword would have been forged in one of numerous large scale facilities through out Europe, Passau in Germany for example, then passed through other experts before the final products were sold and traded.

But the quality of any particular piece varied greatly. Some was excellent stuff: properly thick and narrow at various strategic points and might have even received heat treatment in specific locations. Other was not so good and the vast rest fell somewhere in the middle.

With modern equipment and techniques I’m confident we could whip up suits of good to great quality armor very consistently.

Modern replicas however ran the gamut. Some stuff is really only meant for decoration, others are reinforced or designed a-historically for the stage, re-enactment, or modern sport (SCA, etc.) and yet others are of great quality made by people who studied originals and know their craft. Some of these replicas are found in museums, private collections, or in the hands of lucky Historical European Martial Artists, SCA people, and re-enactors.

No doubt this was St. Michan’s in Dublin. While I can’t now dig up a cite, there was a study of the mummies a few years back that concluded that they’re only early modern rather than medieval. As is the crypt, though there were older churches on the site. Indeed on my last visit the guide was readily explaining all this and admitting that the tableau of the four open coffins is probably a relatively recent (19th century?) creation intended for convenient sightseeing.

To throw another cite into the height argument, in their survey of the archaeology of Health & Disease in Britain (Sutton, 2003), Charlotte Roberts and Margaret Cox conclude (Table 8.1) that the male mean height in Britain was 172 cm in the early medieval period and 171 cm for the late.

Argent Towers:
Cost is really dependent on the type, quality, and amount of personal work put into the suit. I have built three suits of armour - a late 15th century suit of plate (first attempt, not very functional), a mid 15th century transitional kit (not fully plate - the body armour was a brigandine), and my current suit, which is late 14th century (I seem to be working backwards through time!) - the total cost in materials is about $200. If I had my current suit built for me, it would likely have cost me in the neighborhood of around $5000 (all stainless steel, custom fit). Some higher end suits, by some of the real masters of the craft, can cost upwards of $50,000. A standard grade suit, one that would get you on the field to fight in, however, could be had for under $500.

Evil Economist:
Function-wise, my suit is easily the equivalent of the original; in fact, the articulations of my knees actually bend a lot further than the medieval equivalent, because medieval knights didn’t have to drop to their knees to fight, as I have to do in the SCA. Material-wise, my suit is made of stainless steel, which is tougher than the mild steel most often used in medieval suits, and has the lovely benefit of not rusting! Living in the humid state of Georgia, this is an excellent benefit.

In regards to lost-knowledge, I believe there is still a position of Master Armourer in England’s Royal Guard - a position for which there have been armourers and apprentices since the Guard has been around.

For a few examples of truly masterful armourers located here in the US, check out Robert MacPherson, Ugo Serrano, and Jeffrey Hedgecock.

All three fall under my “if I ever have a ridiculous amount of free cash, I would commission them” list. :slight_smile:

We are not extroplati8ng in any way. The authors state quite clearly that their data can be considered representative of Northern (ie non-Mediterranean western) Europe and go into great detail about why it is representative. So I wills ay for the umpteenth time:we are not asking anybody to extrapolate. We are asking people to use data that is representative of northern Europe to represent western Europe.

Sheesh.

Since 1850, not since 1650. There has been no significant increase in height sionce 1650. Since this thread concerns only 1650 heights I can’t see any relevance at all in what has happened in the last 100 years.

Did you actaully read the paper? There is no assumption involved. This is a fat.

You said that base donn your observation of the armour these men would have been the height of the average modern woman. That is a 5” height decrease. Your words, not mine.

But what this al comes down to is the facts. The fact is that knights were less than an inch shorter than modern men, probably less because nobility tended to be taller than average.

That is what the good, solid evidence says, and there has so far been no evidence forthcoming to support your contention that they were shorter. So for GQ purposes we can consider this question closed.

Unless you have some actual evidence to add I suggest taking your debate concerning the author’s methodology over to GD.

If my before and after heights comes from the Medieval/1400-1600 dates in your PDF, and the modern day heights (~2009), where in the world do 1850 and 1650 come in? :confused:

I can’t quite grab 1400-1600 (and I don’t have modern day heights for Iceland), so taking everything that is Medieval or includes up to 1600, gives:

Denmark 172.0
Denmark 172.6
Denmark 175.2
Holland 172.5
Holland 176.2
Norway 172.1
Norway 167.2
Sweden 170.4
Sweden 170.4
Sweden 172.8

Average 172.1

Modern day heights for the male populations of these same regions are:

Denmark 180.6
Holland (Netherlands) 180.8
Norway 179.7
Sweden 181.5

Average 180.7

That’s a difference of 8.6cm, which is equivalent to 3.3".

I’ll say it one final time: the region the paper discusses is northern Europe. According tot the authors there has been a negligible male height decline between the late medieval/reformation period and today. Not a three inch decline,a decline of less than 1 inch.

Unless you have some actual facts to support your contention that there has been a height change of three inches your comments really don;t belong in this forum, do they?

No, they weren’t huge and yes, most knights were useless when unhorsed, among other things because usually the horse would fall on the knight, trapping him.

Knights had to be strong, but not particularly tall or big: after all, the armor was made for them (specially if it was plate), no “one size fits all.” But most knights, at least in Spain, were also farmers. Spending a lot of your peaceful days moving rocks around, chopping wood and hoeing was quite good for keeping a man in good physical shape.

Don Carlos, first Prince of Viana (it’s the title of the Heir of Navarra ever since), spent a lot of time writing a history of Navarra, back in the XV century. He is considered a very modern scholar in that he always indicates who his sources are. He has very little access to Navarrese court chronicles, as the Kings of Navarra saw those as a waste; among his common sources are Parliament records, chronicles from neighboring countries and “what the women say.” At the time, women were the teachers; among other things, they taught History to children, but it was all oral tradition.

About 15 years ago, a group of historians got permission from Institución Príncipe de Viana (yes, named after D. Carlos) to verify something that “the women said” and which modern historians thought those women had been smokin’ something funny; specifically, the stories about Sancho VII The Strong at the Battle of Las Navas.

Some of the items mentioned by D. Carlos had sources other than the women: chronicles from the Aragonese, Castillian and Muslims. The historians had been able to find some of these chronicles, but when they matched “what the women say,” they once more figured that it was exaggeration.

So they exhumed King Sancho and his wife (who had been picked by a delighted ambassador in the court of France, due to her exceptional height) and had a forensics team examine them.

C. 1212 (the time of Las Navas), the average height for the Castillians (according to other archaeological studies) was about 5’4". Sancho was, exactly as the women had said, almost 7’ and his wife was 6’, with neither of them displaying any signs of gigantism. So the modern historians had to admit that hey, maybe the rest of the “tales” about the Navarrese army wearing all-mail because there was no horse strong enough to carry Sancho plus any bits of plate; about Sancho being unhorsed but not trapped and going on a rampage that had the Moors running out of his way; about the Mamluks (soldier slaves, the only people in Spain whose only job was war, at the time) being impressed by his strength and nobility and laying down their weapons… maybe they were also true.

If every knight out there had been two heads taller than the peasantry, Sancho wouldn’t have been called The Strong, you know :slight_smile:

Useless when unhorsed ? I think not.

Knights would often fight dismounted should the tactical situation call for it. Scaling a keep wall is the most evident one, but broken terrain, heavy slopes & woods would also call for footmen rather than horsemen. I don’t think it would have been very smart to ride into an enemy city either - especially a medieval city, those mazes of twisting, narrow streets, all alike.

And when they did opt to fight on foot, they didn’t ditch their armour, although they probably switched their small cavalry shields for something larger/more convenient, or switched to a polearm alltogether.

Strictly speaking, there isn’t a square inch of Japan that’s tropical or even all that close to it, really. But that’s getting a bit technical.

Knights unhorsed were most definitely not useless - the majority of the English armoured forces at Agincourt were not mounted - and they didn’t do too bad. Granted, they had a lot of help from the archers, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t get in a fair amount of useful combat.

Just to nitpick here, but there’s a difference between being not mounted, meaning you’re not on a horse, and being unhorsed, meaning you were on a horse until a second ago when you fell off it.

Totally true! Still, I’ve known a number of professional jousters - they get unhorsed all the time, and seem pretty adept at bouncing back up and being quite active - granted, they aren’t fighting for their lives!

True. I’ll use the “English not first language moi be sir, pardon” cop out, then :smiley:

And of course, any guy roughly unhorsed is in for some pain, battle or not, armoured or not. I don’t think the armour made much of a difference either way.

Woeg That $200 total cost can be a bit misleading. I am willing to bet that it doesn’t include the cost of the tools you used to make them.

I haven’t finished the thread yet but I just wanted to say it was worth it because I didn’t know Ugo had a website up. Thanks!

I think Ugo is the one that is promoting the medieval knight as a Superman.

Just something more important, their paycheck!

Mine cost $300 for the plackard, spalders (shoulders) and arms, from a friend who made most of it. $100 for the gaunlets ( I think I was overcharged ) the legs and helmet were a gift, so add in the cost of the leather to strap it and the odds and ends, $500 sounds about right.

Finger gauntlets, Bmalion? I just finished beating out a pair of wisbys, you if bought a pair for 100 you got a steal.

Unless the guy cheated with a stamp and die set… :smiley:

Not finger gaunlets, clamshell gauntlets, I had to do some work on them and they still don’t fit perfectly, oh well, they look good on my stand in the living room!

Boo clamshells, boo.

My fingers get claustrophobic in those.

Justrob, you are mostly right - I didn’t include cost of tools, and over the years I have acquired some dandies! But I built my first suit, a full, head to toe set of Milanese plate, for about $50 in scrap steel (it was a bit fugly), using a $20 jigsaw with metal cutting blades (owned before I started armouring), about $10 in hammers I picked up at swap meets and Goodwill, a free chunk of old railroad track as an anvil, an ancient angle grinder that I inherited, and some hardwood stumps from a neighbor’s fallen tree in which I had ground out dishing forms.

Even my current shop wasn’t too extraordinarily pricey, mainly because I’m good at making friends and finding strange items to make into tools. My anvil is a 600 lbs piece of scrap armour plating from a tank (army variety!) that a buddy I made in an army machine shop acquired for me. It’s massive and awesome; the master armourer whom I study with swears that I must bequeath it to him in my will! All of my hammers and such are things I found in the one and two dollar bins of flea markets and what not. The only really pricey tool I have is my B-3 Beverly metal shear, which I got off eBay for $300, with a spare set of blades. All my forms, stakes, and other such things I built myself or reimagined uses for when finding cool metal junk at scrap yards.

Glad you like his page! Ugo is one of my armour gods - I wish I had a tenth of his talent!