A very well thought out and performed test and video. Not really 'scientific' but a good start, and definitely a big step above many I see on youtube and the like.

I would say it is quite scientific. Why is not scientific in your eyes, exactly? Is it not applied experimentation the way science goes?

And sorry if I sound aggressive when I say this. I mean no such thing. I am merely curious as to what would constitute a scientific test in the eyes of our fellow forum colleague.

It seemed pretty scientific to me as well - to the extent that Michael also stated the possible weaknesses of his test and various factors that might affect the phenomena (strength and practice of the knights etc.).

Of course, it was a "case study", rather than a large scale experiment with tens or hundreds of subjects, but still scientific.

IMO, it is not really scientific because it can only draw conclusions on what the person performing the test could do with the harness he has (which he addressed in the introduction as another poster said and I had to watch the video again to recall... so this whole thing is somewhat moot) and therefore is limited in applicability. If he did it with more subjects and more types/conditions of harness, as well as looking at some varying conditions (longer swims, flowing water, etc) it would become more than anecdotal. Perhaps a theoretical investigation based on some basic ideas of buoyancy, human anatomy and information from the armour to help extrapolate the data he did get. Also, it was unclear what a negative result would have been, or how the swimming distance was measured (the test I would have liked to see would have been to start from a stand still in the shallow end and swim until he began to sink despite the use of his hands and feet, indicating his motion and breathing could not counteract negative buoyancy).


That said, I mean what I said originally: it was a very well done test and he drew some very reasonable conclusions, but I wouldn't hold it up as 'proof' (but neither would the guy who made it). I would hold it up as an example of what someone today can do in a modern approximation to period harness (actually sent it to a mailing list already) and use it to refute some myths. Kind of like the videos showing how someone can do somersaults and cartwheels in a properly fit harness... not exactly science, but certainly still useful.

Depends on how you define science, of course, but in qualitative research even a single subject is enough. On the other hand, a real scientific study would need the theoretical groundwork to support it, which is naturally lacking here, but makes the experiment no less interesting.

ah, excellent ... I had been thinking about crunching those numbers myself (I was curious what kind of fat and lung capacity would be needed to counterbalance the harness beyond a nude swimmer) :D

The entire 'Sigismund German gothic' harness c. 1485 weighed about 48 pounds (it was made for someone about 5' 7" and of very athletic build), and if one ditched the sallet and the bevor (the gauntlets would be hard to shake off, being very tight fitting), would have weighed about 37 pounds. If one did not wear leg armour, and if memory serves the biography of Don Pero Nino, for example, talks about not wearing legharness at sea (the gunwales of the ships would have helped with missile fire, ,methinks), that would have knocked it down to about 24 pounds. Tassets would have been normal, however, for most armour, so that would bump it up a couple pounds. Of course, armour weight is heavily determined by surface area, so the larger the man the weightier the armour (a cube 2" across has a surface area four times that of a 1" cube).

Another big factor would be the fact that limb armour simply was not 16 gauge in thickness, and was more like 19 or 20 gauge. This would, of course, make moving one's arms and legs far less fatiguing. Most of the weight of armour was in the helm(et), cuirass, and pauldrons (spaudlers are only about 18 gauge or so, in my experience, and pauldrons maybe a bit thicker, but much bigger).

I'm not sure if it's the weight that's causing so much trouble and the not the lack of mobility. I don't mean the ability to move to full range but armor does slows down at what speed that full range can be reached. Yeah it's not that much slower I know...but it doesn't have to be to be drastically effect your swimming abilities. One of the training that the water polo team at my high school did was to swim around with some fairly heavy weights in the wrist, ankle and waist...and they didn't have nearly as much issues as what I'm seeing from the armor. Just a theory anyways.

Michael,

As others have said, thanks for taking one for the team. I think this is part of why I love myArmoury: it's not that so many of us here are fanatics (er, sorry, 'enthusiasts'), or widely-read, but are also willing to get out there and 'do stuff'.

My guess is that this video will come to hold the iconic status of Michael Edelson's test-cutting on mail, and the 'cartwheeling in plate' video ... and, hopefully, some of the 'but what about this', and 'I wonder if that' comments will lead to even more tests.

If I can take a slightly different track, Michael, it seems in the video that the only swimming stroke viable for swimming in armour is the front crawl. You say that the armour didn't give you the range of mobility required for the breast-stroke, and the backcrawl seems to lead to an instant sinking. Does this mean you would say that any knights who were forced to swim in armour would most likely use a front crawl, or something similar?
I ask because I was under the impression that the front crawl isn't native to Europe. According to Wikipedia, it was introduced to Europe in 1844 by Native Americans.
Amazing video by the way. I've only joined myArmoury recently, and already I'm finding really interesting information.