Good day to you gents,

I have recently watched this video by Mr. Matt Easton, a HEMA instructor and part-time historian on what arms and armor historical people would and could carry when travelling, and his opinion (supported as always by a lot of historical evidences) seemed to be that in general they didn't carry and wear a whole lot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llPAuGy6XvQ

Now I could understand that civilian travelers would definitely concern themselves with too much heavy gear for the simple reason of hassle, but what about soldiers?

Mr. Easton made a point that there was only a limited amount of weight that a man could carry on travel, which was carrying a lot of arms or wearing too much armor did not make sense. Now I know that in general historical foot soldiers has been known to carry 60-70 lbs on extended distances for a few days, certainly Roman foot soldiers did so, special forces soldiers these days could carry as much as 150 lbs. Ditto the Sherpa porter of Nepal, who were recently measured to carry on average 93% of their body weight, often uphill!!!

Given these facts, was it impossible for a man in top physical condition and used to his armor to wear a set of full field plate walking all day long, and remain combat ready? From your practical experiences with plate would there be any other hindrances, such as overheating and dehydration? Or perhaps simply exposing the expensive plates to the elements?

I recently read an article that wearing as set of full plate greatly increased the bodily exertion its wearer, by a factor of nearly two. It seemed that human beings could carry a lot of weight on their backs or their heads (!) without much trouble, given training, but put some weights on their lower limbs and they'd in a lot of trouble.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1729/640

Of course it could simply be the fact that Medieval men-at-arms were not used to heavy continuous physical labor for hours on end. I read once that the leg armor of a lot of extant historical pieces would not fit modern humans of similar height and shoulder width, simply because the nobility back then did not walk as much as we did and hence has much smaller leg muscles than us today. That was an un-scholarly article and it could be utter poppycock, but those Medieval greaves do look mighty tiny for me! I'd expect bigger calf muscles on men who called themselves warriors. If this was true then battles like Agincourt and Sempach would make even more sense.

Any thoughts from those of you who regularly wore armor for reenactment? Was it extremely hot and stifling in slightly warm climate? Thanks!

My own armor is still a work in progress right now, but while I was being fitted, I asked my armorer about it (I've only worn more modern stuff, but I found flak jackets to be bearable even at the peak of summer in Alabama - maybe not fun, but bearable). What he told me was that if your armor fits well, and you're used to wearing it, it isn't very difficult to carry about for long spans of time. He recalled wearing armor for periods of 8 hours or so without difficulty. I think that a big part of it would be acclimation to the armor - getting used to having it on. Maximilian I's "Theuerdank" includes a section where the titular character (based on himself) wears full armor while he sleeps, anticipating treachery during the night.

I also don't trust the conclusions drawn from the RS:B study. What the study does give us is a bit of information on how much energy a 30-40 year old reenactor's body will burn if he's wearing full plate armor, walking, jogging, or running on a treadmill. This, in turn, allows us to extract that yes, wearing armor is less energy efficient than not wearing armor. What it doesn't give us is the delta in efficiency for a trained warrior, who has been wearing some form of armor since about age 6, first fielded in combat 10 years later, and by 26, already has 20 years of wearing, training, and fighting in armor, in combat, with the intent to kill other people and survive himself at close quarters.

The conclusions drawn are far over-reaching. It's the old theory that "heavy armor" was a chief reason for the failure of the French at Agincourt and other battles. This disregards the lack of centralized command for the French army, the fact that the field itself funneled the army, making its size a disadvantage (no room to fight or maneuver), the fact that the field was sodden North French soil which clings to smooth metal surfaces regardless of weight (it could have been anachronistic aluminum armor and would still have caused problems), and that the armor was necessary just to reach the English lines! In an arrow storm that heavy, had they worn no armor, the French wouldn't have had a single kill that day, as they'd all have died in the advance. Some of these factors, which were much more important to the failure of the French, are thrown in at the very end almost as an afterthought in that study.

Also, while today's athletes may have more muscle thanks to better nutrition, the average man today probably wouldn't fit into similarly sized plate armor because we're heavier and in worse shape than our historic predecessors. We sit all the time these days - go to work sitting in a car, get to work, sit, go home sitting in a car, get home, sit watching TV, sit and use a computer, sit, sit, sit, sit! Even being on horseback is much more effort, physically and mentally, than driving a car. A car can achieve faster speeds, but it isn't another living creature you're trying to control at fast pace. Add to the fact that these were men training and fighting in close combat, where endurance and skill were tantamount to living, and I'd say that at least the class who could afford armor was probably in better shape than most people today. They may not be able to bench 350 pounds, but at the same time, they don't need to: they need to be able to sustain combat with a 3 pound sword or mace, in about 50 pounds of armor for minutes on end, and potentially many times over several hours.

Something else for consideration, Dr. Tobias Capwell found that in England at least, dismounting and fighting on foot was so common for knights, that a unique form of greave and sabbaton evolved there during the 15th century. The greave has a small gap between it and the sabbaton to allow for more free foot movement, while the sabbaton is constructed to allow dirt and debris to fall out without jamming the articulations in the plates. If fighting on foot were so troublesome, it wouldn't have been so popular a tactic, and armor probably wouldn't have changed to allow for better combat capabilities in a region so rarely used. He talks about this during one of his presentations currently on youtube ("Building Medieval Plate Armor: An Operator's Guide"); I'd highly recommend checking them out; his "Operator's Guide" is a wonderful presentation on myriad aspects of armor, and can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COAIQPsgZWY.

When my armor gets done (and so long as nothing else goes wrong), I'll be able to relate my own experiences with it, bearing in mind, of course, that I haven't trained since age 6 to use it, and will (probably) never use it in combat of any form apart from sparring.

I fought in, then wore and walked around in my armor for about 3 and a half hours this afternoon. Personally my biggest problem is how much my back and shoulders are killing me from the breastplate/ gambeson supporting the legs/arms., but the last time I wore my kit for a long stint was halloween.

If I was in the habit of wearing it 3-5 times a week, I doubt I'd have much issue walking, marching, or fighting in a full suit of plate for extended periods of time.

I've found that the most important thing is proper arming garments for weight dispersion and mobility. I use a form fitting 15th century styled arming jacket with points for attaching the arms and legs. Internal belts to support leg armor are a killer; they slip and wrack up your knees while making it increasingly harder to walk.

id also add thaty in general, the load someone carries on campaign always stays roughly the same, whether you're a legionary or imperial rome in gaul, a redcoat, a ww1 soldier, or a modern infantryman whether you carry armour, or a big pack or sometimes both it usually averages out at abot the same weight

Fewer multi story buildings so fewer stairs, maybe?

Muscle size (for instance size of the calf) is not clear determinant for strength. You can have very strong person with long muscles - wiry build - instead of todays pumped muscle, that can give more explosive strength but rarely good stamina.

I have seen very skinny professional removers, that can carry enormous weights and for a long time.
People were generally way shorter and more skinny then, but that doesn't mean they didn't have strength and stamina.

I think especially Roman soldiers were drilled to insane stamina levels (they also carried around 40 kg around on marches), so when meeting Germanic and Celtic warriors they could take them out in prolonged fights, if they could survive the initial shield smash of these comparatively larger and more muscular people.
Germanic warriors thought that the Roman soldiers were midgets and thus probably underestimated them initially.

It seems Celtic and Germanic battles were over much sooner than roman battles. Everything gambled on a wedge formation breakthrough of the King with his comitatus/hird around him. So they weren't drilled to the same stamina level, and emphasized individual boldness and daring when engaging the enemy (later viking Berserkers with no regard to their own life as the extreme example), though they also had discipline, just not drilled to the extent of the Roman soldiers.

Especially Roman centurions also believed in “Virtus“ (manliness) and it was hard for roman commanders to hold them back if calling for defensive (cowardly) measures.
It is speculated that Caesar lost control of his troops at Gergovia and his centurions rallied the men for a further attack on the Gallic fortification. 46 centurions died in that attack.

Both Roman and Germanic people had “virtus“ and “disciplina“, but Romans had more stamina and Germanic people had greater individual size and weight.

I think there is a common fallacy that people in the middle ages were much smaller than they are now. Those living in the 11th-13th centuries were maybe an inch or two shorter than today's man.

The height of a society is determined largely by the overall health of a society and what stress people are under, stress meaning the broad look of how the societies survival is being threatened.

Prior to the agricultural revolution prior to recorded history, man was taller than after the revolution. European height came back to close to today's standards until the 14th-18th centuries, when stress, which was probably a combination of the plague, the little ice age and the industrial revolution again reduced average height by almost 6 inches. Then up until modern times height increased again as to what he have today.

As far as strength and mass go, I'd agree that modern man is in general "thicker", a combination of fat and muscle making this the case.

Man's body will morph to what it is needed to do. Which is why frequent swimming makes it difficult to get under 10% body fat, as fat is needed to float. If endurance is required, man will lose excess weight to get the physique that is needed.

Which is one reason I think Middle Ages warriors did not have the bulging muscles of modern weight lifters. Talk to a weight lifter who is looking to gain mass - most will tell you that extensive cardio even low impact cardio such as walking makes it difficult to build mass, even to retain mass. The body tries to makes itself morph towards a body that is good for low impact cardio. Man's natural state is more cardio related and there is little need for heavy weight lifting - which is why it would be tough to be a real massive warrior in the middle ages. A fat one possibly for a lethargic type, bu tmuscle mass is different.

Niels Just Rasmussen - the various "revolutions" were not as good for man as a general rule than often given credit for :D

Sad to say, the Hunter-gatherers lived in a much more egaltarian way. The agricultural revolution made it easier to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of the few.

Not sure of the social impacts of the industrial revolution, but it seemed again it was not good for the common man as height again suffered.

My guess is the nobility during both of these periods kept a fairly good average height.in comparison.

Where I come from the late Neolithic Early Bronze age is most commonly lauded as the safe and healthy era. Little to no sign of warfare, reasonably aged people and short work days since people could still subside on a mix of farming and hunting/fishing/trapping.

The thing about greaves being the one item that modern people could seldom wear was mentioned in a video by an armorer. It could be Capwell or D. Wasson or someone else.

Really? I follow Toby Capwell's and Jeff Wasson's screen and online appearances fairly closely, and the closest thing I can remember would be the explanation in one of Toby's videos that greaves and sabatons often had a greater range of motion than the shins and feet they protect. Nothing to the effect that medieval and Renaissance armour-wearers' calves were smaller than ours.