Hey guys. My European history professor was doing his lecture and essentially said that a knight's armor weighed more than he did, and if he fell down he was pretty much useless and required people to help him up.

Of course this set the armor enthusiast in me twitching but I waited til the end of class to let him know that it was a myth, armor was actually very practical, I had seen people run, cartwheel, somersault in armor, as well as tapestries of fully armored men mounting horses on their own, etc.

He immediately disagreed and said that was modern armor I had seen, and old armor pre-alloys was extremely heavy, that he had researched it a lot and read old english accounts where men had to be helped up by multiple people. The next class was coming in so I didn't get much of a chance to present my arguments (armor that heavy is impractical and no one would sacrifice that much mobility, the gradual change from mail to full plate etc.)

Anyway, is there any truth to his claims or is he just very convinced about a myth? All I can think of is that maybe he was thinking of the heavier, purely for tournament jousting armor.

I have observed that people fight to not let go of what they believe. Logic and fact become useless. The trick is to not let your life be changed by someone else's beliefs.

Spotlight topic: Medieval armour weights.

This lists weights pulled from published sources by noted authorities and museum catalogues.

After that class I sent him a link to the very nice MET video debunking the heavy armor myth but haven't heard back :lol:

Is ~90lbs about the heaviest joust armor would get (what I'm seeing in above link)?

I am mostly curious what he is on about with pre-alloy armor. Steel was well established by the transition to full plate, yes?

As I recall in 1965 every dinosaur was green to greygreen and slow moving . The holders of PhD told me so.
I have seen a picture in history books of an engraving showing an armored man being winched up to and on his horse.
Much of what was thought is now known to be not so. I simply said that some folk do not what to let go of what they believe.
The answer for a test may be one thing while the reality might be another in these cases.

The origin of the myth of armour so heavy people needed help to mount their horse has a core of truth.
By the time armour was abandoned in the 17th century, the armour was not made to withstand melee weapons but bullets. These bulletproof armours where so heavy as to be impractial.
And predictably prompted them to fall from use.

In the middle ages and early renaisance, however, armours where made to withstand melee attacks. Thus it could be made much lighter, and was practical for both foot and mounted combat. Promting its continued use, untill circumstances changed.

If you feel like trolling your professor, find a local reenactment group and see if you can borrow a kit from a guy of similar dimensions. Then wear it to class one day.

In a recent trip to Higgins Armory Museum, I personally saw several suits of three-quarter and full plate and the heaviest was listed at about 60 pounds, give or take a few. So nothing terribly burdensome; far less than a modern soldier's gear load. As others have said, it's part ego and part reluctance to let go of what one believes to be true. And when I say ego, I'm not putting the guy down. If I worked my butt off for 8+ years on a Ph.d only to have a student come tell me I'm wrong, I might be reluctant to admit it myself. ;) I'm not saying it's right, but there it is. There's nothing wrong with admitting you're wrong, especially if you've simply been misinformed. The question is whether one has the class to admit it or not.

If he is a good teacher he will double check his info if it has been called into question or he is unsure. No man, PhD or not, can know everything. The real show of a wise man (person) is to keep developing education whether BA, MA PhD or without professional degree.

The issue is that many people, even if they studied the medieval period may not know that much about armour. This really is a nitchie we are in here. Military historians of the period are much more likely to know over some one who studies something like lit., like poetry. I could not tell you everything about Gower as I did not specialize in that. I know more than the average gent on the street though.

And if he feels the info need come from a PhD on this subject send him my email. I love to discuss this and have a PhD in Medieval Hist. and Arch.

Do keep in mind he still is your teacher. I think you handled it well after class but do not make the issue a big one, just not worth it.

RPM

I don't have a PhD in History, but I have been a research professor for 18 years, and have headed some university programs.

What you describe is really unforgiveable; you are likely paying a lot for your education and deserve to be taught by people who know their material. I don't know anything about the fellow and what his area of expertise is, but once he claims to know a lot about armour, then he should know what he is talking about.

Its not always obvious to undergrad students, but there is a huge variation between people who call themselves professors. What are his qualifications? Does he indeed have a PhD? What has he done since then? Does he publish regularly in good journals? Collaborate with top people? Does he supervise graduate students, hold grants, prestigeous awards, etc? Not all Profs are equal.

Quite often, unfortunately, universities don't have enough research professors to teach all their courses and end up hiring contract faculty who may sometimes be excellent, but other times may be poorly qualified and/or simply do not know the course area very well at all. Another situation I have observed is some people who have been around a long time - many are outstanding, but a minority lost the fire long ago, and arejust going through the motions until retirement comes.

Unfortunately there is a power imbalance between a student and any professor. You can try showing him some facts, even offer to write your course essay on the topic, but if he does not respond well you don't want to piss him off. Better to wait until you do the course evaluation and then provide honest feedback.

Bottom line is that you can't take anything anyone tells you at face value. Do your own research and think for yourself. That's the only really important thing you will get out of a university education.

We're getting off-topic in debating the expertise and qualifications of someone not known to this forum who may have no chance to defend himself. It's not wise to do so. Let's get back to the more important subject: educating people who hold fast to incorrect ideas.

I remembered one story with my art teacher when we were on excursion in gothic churches in Slovakia. There was huge painting with knights. I said thats not really a painting from gothic era and she asked me how did i know that. I told her about those knights wearing outdated and post-gothic armours and weapons. She was surprised, because that was really a neogothical painting from romantism era and she thought i realized the art style :D :cool: :D

You should ask your teacher about weight of two-handed swords too. I recall i heard in one local museum from attendant, that two-handed swords weights from 10 - 15 Kilograms and normal swords around 5 kg... :evil:

Late medieval full plate field armour - Not excessively heavy! You could jump on and off horses, climb ladders even do cartwheels. Pretty amazing really but still all true.

Modern made plate armour is usually heavier, not lighter because most armourers don't have the skillset or for those few who do, the luxury of getting paid enough to put the effort in to move the metal around during forging to make weak spots thicker and excessively strong points thinner to save weight.

Yes, Iron is softer than steel and will give a somewhat lower protection to weight ratio. That doesn't change the fact that a man can only wear so much weight and be practical in battle.