How much did medieval suits of armor weigh?

Factual Questions
121

In regards to:

“No one is seriously asserting that people in armor were like turtles or couldn’t walk, or were useless on the ground.”

There were two posts:

“Someone will be in with more detail but they were indeed heavy as fuck (at least the plate-type stuff)-- you would not walk around in it, but would be basically lowered onto a horse with a crane mechanism. People were know to fall off into puddles and drown, unable to lift themselves.”

and

“No, they weren’t huge and yes, most knights were useless when unhorsed”

Definitely not true, as shown in the videos I posted. An unhorsed knight could recover nearly as quickly as someone without any armor, assuming no additional variables (ie “peasants with sticks”), which aren’t really relevant to a knight wearing armor or not as they would pose a problem to anyone unhorsed.

“Compared to modern man, they would not be as capable physically, as is evidenced by the steady forward progress of sports records just over the last century.”

How is a modern athlete who has access to ridiculous amounts of performance enhancing drugs in any way relevant to a knight? Since knights were compared to marines, did I miss the part where all of the sports records being set and broken are done by someone in the armed forces every time?

“And your assertion that they were in terrific shape is just wrong.”

Where is the proof that knights were in terrible shape? I find it hard to believe someone in terrible shape would have the mobility and endurance to fight in a suit of armor; especially for the duration of a medieval battle. There’s quite a difference between having a boil, std, whatever, and being in poor shape. Presence of an STD is not always equivalent to physical capabilities; and nothing has been cited to show that knights were ravaged by STDs either.

“Then there is a group of people claiming that people during the middle ages were shorter, many had health problems, and that armor does create a penalty to mobility and endurance. All of these points are backed up by reputable historical sources and modern investigation.”

What?

The references cited by others earlier in the thread, in addition to the physical size of existing pieces of armor, do indeed show that there is a negligible difference in height among people today and people from the 14th-16th century (when heavy armor was most prevalent).

I don’t think anyone is saying that 75 lbs of armor doesn’t cause a penalty to mobility or endurance. It certainly does. What is under dispute is that it doesn’t cause such an immense penalty that one is not able to stand up on their own, unable to mount a horse, or unable to get up after falling from a horse.

I’ve yet to see ANY proper cites to support that knights were disease-ridden, unhealthy, unskilled, peasant-killing baboons. It seems that many have made good references as to the skills and physical prowess required to battle under the constraints that armor creates, and yet, it is refuted by wild claims that claim to come from “reputable historical sources and modern investigation”, yet specific cites to exactly WHAT or WHERE that may be seems to be eluding us.

Seems like the guys who strap on armor over their beer guts and beat each other with sticks in a similar fashion to those on a battlefield have a better insight as to what is or isn’t possible for someone in armor than somebody who is making wild claims with zero supporting evidence. :confused:

122

The Metropolitan Museum of Art has some guys who specialize in armor throughout history. They have created the following URL about some facts and myths surrounding armor.

From my own studies, the Tower of London collection has a suit from the 15th century for a guy who was around 6’10’'. Henry VIII was close to six feet, so the average knight or nobleman might have been a bit larger than the average guy.
The armor collection at Gratz in Austria is one of the few that was a complete arsenal for fighting the Turks in the late 1600’s. Many such arsenals were scrapped during the 1700’s. In includes things like simple back and breast armor for foot soldiers that you hung over your shoulders like modern vests, and were secured by tying a band around the whole thing.

123

Zombie Knights!!!

Good link though :slight_smile:

124

Although this is old, I wanted to add I’ve read about another factor that might account for existing suits of armor seeming to be small. Young men of the appropriate class had suits made for them before they were fully grown (perhaps when they were squires?). Although they went into battle shockingly young, some of them were probably too young to fight, and it wouldn’t be implausible for older knights to hold back (out of combat) the young scions of important people. Later, these guys would have to have new armor made once they’d filled out.

The armor of adult knights would get used for years and years, and get worn or dented, not to mention occasionally filled full of holes. Or lost on campaign. By contrast, the shiny, well-cared-for armor they had worn in their youths was back at home. When it came time to decide what was pretty enough to keep for display, which armor looked better? The “selection pressure” would have been in favor of the unused armor.

So it’s possible that a lot of the suits we have left over were built for young men who had not finished their growth, which might account for their appearing unusually small to us.

125

I said this three years ago. :smiley:

126

Epoch fail.

127

As one of those armored beer guts (amusingly enough I see very little beer at Sca events, mostly liquor)

My kit weights about 50 pounds and is mostly leather. Well constructed armor is heavy, but well distributed and even supportive. I am especially proud of my lower leg armor. Once strapped on it actually feels good. I don’t feel like I am wearing something, more like my body has been reinforced.

sadly, the average Sca fighter is actually wearing better armor than most of the soldiers who fought and died for real 500 years ago

128

Amen! they hadn’t invented WD-40 yet.

129

We’ve had numerous posts saying that the weight of heavy armour is much less burdensome than the similar weight a modern soldier is expected to carry on his back, because the weight is distributed evenly around the body.

This study says the exact opposite is true

130

Great contribution. Thanks.

131

That makes sense about weight on the legs, I can’t think of any kind of exercise or training normal people today would do that would prepare you for that. I’ve lifted weights basically my entire adult life (30+ years) and while I’ve always done things like squats and dead lifts and etc that target the legs, that isn’t the same as actually have weights on your legs and then walking/running around.

Something any weight lifter knows is even if you currently do a full body lifting regimen, slight changes in which specific lifts you do can be a change in difficult. For example if I’m doing a specific back-targeting lift and have been doing it for weeks or months I’m very unlikely to get delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) in that area. But if I change it to a lift with different motion, even if it is still targeting the same muscle groups I’ve always been targeting, the different motion definitely causes me to experience DOMS the next day.

So essentially what I’m saying is if we consider walking around with heavy armor on your legs a type of “lift”, even someone who does a lot of leg lift exercises would not be conditioned to do that. A medieval knight could probably handle it better than the guy in that video just because of conditioning for that specific activity, but I don’t doubt it could still be worse than carrying the weight on your back in a pack.

132

Good knight, everybody!

133

I’m not so sure. This

indicates that the armour wasn’t fitted properly, with no room for the chest to expand.

134

That wouldn’t change the point about the weight on the limbs however.

The way i was thinking about it. We can’t actually drop you into a medieval melee so instead imagine you’re playing a vigorous game of tennis. Lot’s of running about and swinging arms.You have a choice of 60lbs on your back. Or 20lbs strapped to each leg and 10lbs to each arm. I know which i’d choose.

135

I saw this article when it first came out and wondered about their methodology as it did seem to contradict the experience of those that wear armour as a hobby and of accounts of medieval battles.

I haven’t got access to the full paper but one point in the abstractmade me sit up. The abstract say:

Can this be right? All the numbers in this thread and I have read elsewhere talk about 50/60/70 pounds. 30-50 kg is 66 to 110lbs!

Any of those more knowledgable than me able to comment on this?

136

I suspect the weight is incorrect.

137

Yes we can
www.youtube.com/watch?v=02NcGTVqj6Y

I am in there. :smiley:

Medeival combat is about one word, endurance. Your average footsoldier was also often a farmer of some kind at home so long days of hard labor were the norm. The problem is almost never carrying the armor, its exerting yourself 110% for more than a few minutes. Many SCA battles will fall into static pokefests because everyone is too winded to mount a real attack rush.

138

That was beautiful!

I was at the first and second Great Western War, good times.

139

They should try the Roman method.

140

Yeah I don’t think the SCA uses any type of period combat or tactics.

Do they?

Do they use formations, switch out fresh men, flank and maneuver, etc?

Tactics are probably what separated the winners from the losers most of the time.