Huh. I’ve always been under the impression that for on-foot combat, a full suit of plate armor was very encumbering. If you’ve got a horse to carry you around, that extra weight (I think 60 lbs is a bit on the light side) wasn’t such a problem, and the armor protected you pretty well from swiping adversaries. It also gave you a better chance of getting back on your horse alive. But, as the saying goes, “my country for a horse!”
These folks seem to agree that plate armor was tough to lug around:
There’s plenty of historical and modern re-enactment evidence to refute that article.
Mind you their not completely wrong. Footsoldiers did fight in plate armor, but typically not the complete articulated plate of the 15th and early 16th century. A suit of plate meant for the footsoldier wasn’t much different though, with usually a bit less plate protection on the legs to reduce fatigue on long marches.
But yes, a complete suit did not hinder the soldeir all that much. They could fight in it for hours, and they certainly did not prevent soldiers from getting up off the ground. In fact, the typical kit a soldier wore in WWII was heavier, and much more unmanageable since the wieght rested almost completely on the shoulders (plus it was bulky).
starting to veer off topic a bit on this armour thing, but you’re both a little bit right and a little bit wrong.
The armour of the time wasn’t restrictive, it allowed almost perfect unrestricted movement of the limbs etc, but it WAS heavy, there’s no way you were fighting for hours in it. Battles lasted hours, certainly, but each knight combatant in a full suit of armour couldnt have put in more than a couple of minutes actual slogging away without frequent much longer pauses for a breather.
I’ve seen video footage of martial arts experts (fit young males) slogging away in medieval armour. They didnt last more than 10 minutes before they had to be unsuited, purple in the face and gasping for air.
So, why did soldiers don all this stuff? Truth is they didn’t, not your actual footsoldier at least - a bit of chain, bit of plate maybe a bit later, maybe nothing, because they had to be able to move relatively long distances and fight when they got there, and theyweren’t worth spending lots of cash on (armour was pricey).
Knights, in contrast, were higher up the feudal pecking order. Although there are exceptions to every rule, a lot of the warfare was ritualised even in Europe, not all-out slaughter. The footmen had it tough, but knights of the era were as likely to be captured and ransomed back - even right up to the level of kings - as they were killed. So, go unarmoured, take an arrow in the face and buy it, or suffer not being able to do much fighting, get knocked over by people who’d have a hard time actually stabbing you through your steel shell, get treated well, and then ransomed back? Tough choice, huh?
Dan
Not comparable, you’re comparing kit used on the march to actual kit taken into battle, two very different things indeed. Roman soldiers had to carry massive packs every mile of the way on marches, but you think they took it into battle with them? Like every soldier, you go into combat, you dump all your unnecessary kit, something that continues to today. Not a liberty you have with a suit of platemail.
Dan
What martial arts experts? There are few medieval and renaissance martial artists I would consider “experts”. The art is such that we’re all learning.
I also don’t know how well made the suits were, and if they were the correct size for them. Plate mail had to fit right otherwise you will run into problems.
BTW I’ve sparred in a suit of plate and have lasted for over 40 minutes a good twenty of which were spent fighting. And I’m not a medieval knight who has learned to fight in the stuff for years.
That’s not entirely it. You’re right, most soldiers wore chain, leather and some plate. But that was BECAUSE full suits of plate were expensive. But if you had the money, you would have worn it. Why?
it’s your turn to be a little bit wrong here. I’ve worn full plate armour, and fought in it all day, in the Victorville Ca. desert in the summer no less. Granted it’s a sport, but I wore it all day with some helmet-off breaks and lunch break, call it 6-7 hours in armour with lots of running around. Exhausting but do-able.
Here’s a photo of me and my friends doing the same thing in Fresno. Lots of plate armour and lots of running around.
Wimps. 
I agree with you here about the price restrictions. But you’re mixing economy with physical limitations.
Not much of a “choice” in a feudal society. There was almost no upward mobility and you chance of starting out poor and ending rich were very slim.
At any given time the current weapon of choice was mostly what you were accustomed to untill you found something more effective or to your liking.
I have allways been impressed with the English Long Bow and the Yeoman Bowers who wieled it. Pierced chain mail and the wearer easily or drive a shaft into the heart of a horse. A rather fearsome weapon.
It was the principal factor that put knights on horesback out of business and consequently knighthood.
Is there anyone today that can handle a 70 # pull long bow. Seems like all the so called ‘archers’ today have to have compound bows.
I’m never going to know for sure, am I, but I would suggest that the suit of armour you used was an innacurate repro made of far lighter material (probably a lot thinner) than that used historically. THis stuff was thick enough and hard enough to turn most swords and to only be slightly dented by most that bit it. I’m sure yu’ll leap to the defense of your repro armour, but you’ve got your experiences and I’ve got mine, and I saw a fit young male used to physical fighting pouring with sweat and exhausted after a few minutes of fighting.
Battles simply could not last all day in the sense that you describe them for any number of reasons. Battles drift, skirmishes form and break up, there is ebbing and flowing and I maintain that a medieval knight in full plate armour could not keep up the physical act of fighting for more than a few minutes. As I say in my OP, I’m not denying they were on the battlefield for hours, but slogging it out for more than a few minutes at a time? I respect your evident esxperience but remain unconvinced.
I wasn’t suggesting that, I was suggesting that those who could afford armour - nobles etc - chose it for the reason that they preferred survivability and ransom over death, not because they thought it would greatly aid them in the actual fighting.
Dan
The charge of cavalry was not obsolete until the advent of machine guns in eg WWI, and plate armour became obsolete only with the advent of gunpowder. Cavalry charges still had immense tactical value right throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.
Dan
Eh, no, first of all calvary continued to exist well into the 19th century.
And no, the longbow was not the principle cause of the decline of plate armor. That was the improving firearms of the renaissance.
The longbow was around for a long while in Europe, even as plate armor continued to improve.
To make these assertions you have to ignore military history of the time, fencing manuals of the 14th century, and modern re-enactment and archeologiocal research.
Ofcourse it was beneficial to wear armor in combat! Preventing damage to you while you cut your opponent to ribbons is the essense strategy of all combat.
If plate armor was nothign more than a status symbol as you suggest then why did it conmtinue to be improved upon? Why do fencing manuals mention it’s use in combat if, according to you, you would not do much fighting in it?
The more I’ve thought about it, the more I think that a fit and strong man on horseback and suited in full plate armor would be a terrible foe to have to face as a footsoldier.
Chances are the armored knight would be on a powerful horse, and having that dude bear down on me, poor footsoldier, with at best some lightly-plated chainmail, would probably be no fun at all.
BUT, if said knight were weilding a hand weapon like a sword, I could conceivably knock the guy down with a spear and be out of reach of a blow. It this a practically feasible tactic? If I could not somehow plant the spear in the ground and have it reach up to the rider, I’d have to be holding the thing. I might have to absorb a good portion of the force of a 200lb suited knight on a charging horse to unmount my adversary. I might get pretty badly pounded or even trampled myself in so doing.
Say the worst that happens is I get knocked over, and he falls off his horse. I’ve got maybe 30lbs of armor on, and he’s got 70lbs. Maybe I can get up faster? Maybe I can jump on him and stab between some plates, or just try to bash him on the head a couple times first before I go for a killing stab?
Still, I’d get, at best, one chance at the guy. I fail to knock him down, I get trampled by a huge horse or cut down by a fast-moving sword. And if he’s got a lance, he could run me through if I sit still too long.
What would I rather have in my hands against such an adversary? I’m not sure anymore.
How much faster do you think you’d be?
I never timed anyone, but I can’t remeber seeing any difference whatsoever. I’m thining on it now and getting up from the ground after some grappling excercises took a normal amount of time.
Nope, what would be the fun of that? It’s not like the original specs of armour are hard to come by. If you are interested I’ll see if I can find the link to my armorer’s site later. You can always email him and hash it out.
Ok, if it makes you feel better I will again admit that I was not fighting for life and death and that I was not pushing myself as hard as King Richard on the crusades. Happy?
My only point was that since I’ve tried to get a feel for what wearing plate armour, I may have a slightly more accurate, hands-on, personal feel for the experience over someone who has only read books and/or watched a video. That’s what historical re-enactment is all about.
I concur that medieval nights were perfectly capable of fighting all day in plate. Sure it was heavy, but if you train in full armor almost every day of your life, your endurance and strength would become nearly godlike by today’s puny standards. The professional plate-armored knights of the day were the terrors of the battlefield, and easily slaughtered scores of rank and file soldiers (usually conscripted peasants). There are stories of them fighting from dawn to dusk as well.
Thank God we have guns.
Ummm. No.
I own a recurve bow that pulls at about 60 pounds. Since this is not a compound bow, I’ve got to hold all of sixty pounds with three fingers while aiming. No problem.
A modern compound hunting bow has a maximum draw weight somewhere way the hell over 100 pounds, but lets off to something much lower thanks to the cams. I don’t own one and don’t fool with them much.
Olympic archers use low draw weight bows and carbon fiber arrows. These guys will probably max out at 30 pounds.
This is not because they are wimps. It is simply for better accuracy. Lower draw weight means less mass all around, less work for the muscles so less jitter, and the lighter bows don’t torque as much as the heavier ones do.
A little stright dope on the English longbow:
http://www.archers.org/default.asp?section=History&page=longbow
What was the armor-piercing capability of the English longbow? I seem to remember reading that a direct hit could shoot right through the strongest practical plate armor, but that glancing strikes could be effectively deflected. Can’t find a good cite. Could a bow, sword, and buckler-armed soldier be a match for an armored knight on horseback with a lance and sword? Any place for spears in here?
Slight hijack here, but I have a vague memory of reading about the strength of knights on the battlefield during the middle ages. I mean fully armored, trained, decked out units with armored horses, lances, and swords.
Anyway, around the time BraveHeart came out, I read that a typical spearwall would have a very difficult time holding against an unbroken charge by knights, and an almost impossible time defending with just long tree logs/stakes, as in BraveHeart. Better then soldiers with say, axes, but it still would be a very undesirable situation to be in.
Anyone know if this is true/false?
Ahhh, but at the very end of the age of the knight, the arms race of armor versus arrows had progressed to the point that armor had to be so thick that there are documented cases of knights having fatal heart failure in battle due to the tremendous weight of the armor.
Then the gun of course came along which rendered all of that moot in a slugfest. (OTOH up until the Rifle Era, IMHO, the average medieval knight would do better than the average foot soldier, but not worth at all the decades of training and man-years of equipment. Same case could be made, to a weaker degree, for the archer.)
I think maybe we are overestimating the ability of the English longbow here against plate armour.
Yes it could prove to be an annoyance, finding an articulation here, a visor slit there, but in general plate armour was fairly effective against the Longbow, even with the bodkin arrow, except at very close range where the archer would not have had much time at all to draw more than once before the charge was upon him.
What it could do was cause serious problems for horses, its difficult to adequately protect one and maintain enough mobility for any great length of time.
Against chain mail and lesser protection the longbow was pretty devastating, a charge on foot would be in a longbow killing zone for up to three hundred yards, and if placed so that the charge was recieved uphill it would allow more time for the foot charge to be disrupted.
What did for the armoured French knights at Agincourt was a sea of mud along with a fairly constrained field along which to attack.
The battle pretty much resembled the worst crowd crush you could ever imagine and it was in these special conditions that armour proved a liability, the longbow just started the medieval traffic jam off.
The lesson, of just how dangerous mud could be, had to be relearned at an even more terrible price five hundred years later in the very same arena.
