[Michael Mercier]

There are a lot of rumor caused by movies and tv that haunt our hobby as you all well know and one of them, so I thought, was the one about those in armor needing to be hoisted onto their horse. Just last night I was doing a fight demonstration and one of the individuals mentioned that exact rumor and she said she saw some suits of armor in the British Museum that had hooks on the back just for that purpose. Now I didn't want to argue since she seemed convinced about what she saw which made me think. What in the world did she actually see that made her think that the fighter had to be hoisted? She said she read it there at one of the displays. She was there probably 25 years ago so I don't know if things were accidentally labelled then or not.

The Met Museum has a nice myths page and mentions this:

"This notion appears to have originated during the late nineteenth century as a joke. It entered popular fiction during the following decades, and the image was finally immortalized in 1944 when Sir Laurence Olivier used it in his movie Henry V—despite the protestations of his historical advisors, who included the eminent authority Sir James Mann, Master of the Armouries at HM Tower of London.

As outlined above, most armor is neither so heavy nor inflexible as to immobilize the wearer. Most men-at-arms would have been able to simply put one foot in a stirrup and mount their horse without assistance. A stool or perhaps the help of a squire would have made the process even speedier; a crane, however, was absolutely unnecessary."

Mike

[Dan P]

I heard this one in elementary school when they were teaching us about the middle ages. It was right alongside the "fact" about armor being so heavy that a knight could barely walk, and couldn't get up if he fell on his back. And also that the average longsword weighed 30 pounds. For the longest time I actually thought this was true. If I didn't know better now, I still would believe it. After all I learned it in school so its got to be correct, right?

I wouldn't be surprised if some armor, especially tournament or high-quality pieces, had hooks or attachments to make the suit easier to display. It just seems a logical thing to do.

[Dan Dickinson]

[Jeffrey Hedgecock]

There are a couple of styles of jousting armour that have attachments on the backplate to stabilize the helmet in a strike. Perhaps these were misinterpreted as hooks for winching the rider on. I get questions all the time about the weight of my jousting armour, but luckily comments about being hoisted onto the horse are few.

When i get the questions, I usually ask them "How much good would a knight be on the battle field if his armour was so heavy and immobilizing that he had to be hoisted onto his horse?" That usually sends them off to ponder the theory.

[Hugh Fuller]

Would it not be possible that some of the later period jousting armor might be heavy enough to require some sort of assistance in mounting a horse? I am asking as I do not know, not to pick a fight.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Jeffrey Hedgecock]

Most jousting armours that are -really- heavy, that is over 100 #, don't have any appreciable leg armour, at least none that would hinder mounting. They usually rely on tilt sockets to cover the legs. Leg sockets hang from the saddle. Yes, their wearers may be a bit top-heavy, but hardly locked into a fixed position.

Remember, you MUST be able to move when riding, and must especially be able to do so when tilting to adjust your weight when receiving a strike from a lance. Jousters aren't some big immoveable block of steel covered flesh & bone.

Even the heaviest tilt armours MUST allow the rider reasonable use of their arms for mounting and lance-handling. Yes, they'd be more restrictive than field armour, BUT not so restrictive that their wearer would require being hoisted onto his horse. That would just be TOO undignified, and these guys were the "studs" of their age. They wouldn't be caught dead not mounting a horse under their own power.

[Steven H]

[Gordon Frye]

[Peter Fuller]

(excerpt from Shakespeare's Henry IV);

"I saw young Harry, with his bevor on,
His cuisses on his thighs, gallantly arm'd,
Rise from the ground like feather'd Mercury,
And vaulted with such ease into his seat,
As if an angel dropp'd down from the clouds,
To turn and wind a fiery Pegasus,
And witch the world with noble horsemanship."

'nuff said...

[Andreas Auer]

a few exaples i saw at schloß Ambras, showed clearly that the really heavy parts of a sport-armour was put on when already on the horse...helmets where screwed on breast and backplates...footarmour was scrweded on horsearmour and so on, but no crane for the knight...

[Robert Fullerton]

I have been seeing the postings on the site about people needing to be hoisted up in armour for tournements. i know a lot of you say that it's not true, but i aman armourer and have lived and trained in Europe for 20 years and it's not a myth but true acutally. I've been to many sites and castles who still have the originally equipment for it and it is not only well documented in old manuscripts but in also carvings and wood block prints and such of the proceders beig done. there was a type of armour used in the first jousting events that was designed to be super heavy and that had everything bolted on, even the helmet that did require a person to be hoisted up on the horse. this is true. it was mainly before craftsmen had the ability to make metal a lot thinner and stronger or having the understanding of fluting, which later allowed fo rlighter and better fitting armour that wa stronger. It only was used for a certain period of time and the armour did weigh inat an average of 200 pounds on the wearer. plus, the average size for a european oin those days was 5 feet and the chargers they used then were sometimes up to 18 hands in height and weighted in at easily 1500 pounds. plus, the horses also had heavy barding or even armour on them too, so gettin up on one was simple to do. this kind of jousting also was usually one with sharpened lance soetimes which of course most of the time resulted in death or bad injury, thus needing such heavy armour. so, a hoist was used to raise the men onto the horse, yet there was no hooks on the armour. they actually used a sling that wet under the arms and around the torso usually to do this. But all this is actually true but it was in the far earliest types of jousting.. the list wasn't even actually used to seperate the horses when they charged at each other. .. later, due to injuries and better advances in armour did the list come in effect seperating the horse and the armour got better.. the horses used less barding and sometiems had no armour and then the armored legs were attatched to the horses to make it easier to the knigt and the armour got bette designed and lighter. to the point where a person in one of the British musuems actually puts on a full suit of armour and does back flps init to show visitors how good the armour became.. a wonderful transition isnt it from heavy and cumbersome to light and deadly..

[Nathan Robinson]

I do not believe the previous post is accurate.

I would like to see sources that cite:

1) Armour weighing 200 pounds or more
2) Armour requiring hoisting and
3) The average size of a European person being 5 feet tall.

Thank you.

[Randall Pleasant]

[Robert Fullerton]

most certainly. as soon as i can go thru my storage to find some of my study material that i have retained from the times i studied in europe under the masters there , i will gladly provide it. otherwise, Rothenbug has a great deal of info in it's musuems in this subject among many other cities in europe and there has been numerous studies on how the average eupopean was 5 feet on average while the scandinavians tended to be much larger in height. there is an excellent full suit of armour for a squire in one castle, possible heidelburg, that shows how small a 5 year old was then but also how mature in ability they had as by age 5 they were able to do the full job required of a squire... somthing that 5 year olds of this day really couldnt do. most of these studies are in europe and are harder to find in the states and one has to visit many museumsand universities across europe to find a lot of this also. there are great exhibits over there that show many finds from archeological dige tht sow very well preserved clothes, shoes, armour, beds, dwellings, you name it that show the sizes of people using calculations, not to mention the skeletons. the excitment of that one grave thought as king arthurs was a good example casue the excitment was over the fact the skeleton was tall (easily 6 feet or more) and the article went in lenght how the average person was never that tall. also there are numerous manuscripts, books, carvings, etc of how armour looked, was made and even the measurments of them and weights.

[Randall Pleasant]

Bear

I take that the masters you studied under were masters of classical fensing, which means they know little or nothing about the arts and armor discussed on this forum. Based upon the research by many many scholars in America and Europe who are actaully studing these arts and actual armour it is more than clear that this myth is completey false. It is my guess that you will never provide any actual references because it is my guess that there are none but good luck never the less.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW

[Nathan Robinson]

[Robert Fullerton]

A bit casutic arent we? I actually studied under masters who made armor of all kinds, specifically field combat and plate armour, besides all weapons and who had been doing so for generations. since i saw the items and information personally and also lived among it and been part of the archeoligal digs for 20 years of my life over there, i do think i am a bit more knowledgeable than scholars in their white towers. i will get the info then to just at least make u eat crow and so that the genreal person can at least get some knowledge that is at the least lacking. eveyday there are new and different things dicovered about the past, especially about armour, one just has to watch the discovery or history channel to jsut see some of them and learn, yet it is no wxcuse to ignore the past or of things that were true. to dismiss them as untrue casue someone who thinks he might know better says so. there is plenty of info on the subjects i talked and if others want to turn a blind eye to it, that's their problem. A scholar is no better than a layman in terms of education or knowledge unless they get ot of the tower or the ditch and actually be part of what they talk about or educate themselves about. I will even gladly head over to europe in the future and personally take copies of the carvings, manuscripts, etc of the hoisting the knight situations for you, if you happen to have the patience to wait til i get over there and do it. unlike many others inthis day and age, i am a man of my word.

[Nathan Robinson]

Gentlemen, I caution you about the tone used in some of these posts.

I encourage you each to challenge one another and ask for references; however, I must ask that this by done professionally and without a defensive or attacking tone.

Thank you.

[Robert Fullerton]

I do understand and humbly appologize to anyone I might have offended. This is a wonferful site and will continue to help make it so with gentlemanly poise.