[Peter Bosman]

[Jared Smith]

[Jared Smith]

I went into work today, and a co-worker who rides a Paso Fino showed up this very morning with his arm in a sling and two broken ribs. He is an accomplished rider, but, in my experience falls happen! Another dad I know has more than 2 hours of video footage (edited to be examples of falls, riding mishaps) collected from just a few years of Eventing competition experience. A couple of the incidents captured were ones in which rider or horse died later from the complications. Allow for the fact that this was agressive riding, mixed terrain, very similar to what melee tournament ground period descriptions remind me of.

We also know that there were distinct breeding programs (Teutonic Knights had several stables) for larger horses specialized for war. I'd allow that there were some 16 to 17 hands tall horses around before the 19th century. It is hard to say what size they were century by century going backwards. 10th century, most horses were probably small by modern expectations, but some good Andulasians and Arabians of weight similar (1000 to 1200 lb) to what Peter quotes were more than likely around as these had been bred for almost 1000 years by that point. Godfrey of Bouillon brought a very large Belgian breed on crusade, that elicited comments on its size. Also, this was not what he rode for most of the 2500 miles covered on horse in route to Jerusalem, conserving the horse for battle and show. This resulted in some resentment as it consumed a lot of resources while people were literally starving, thirsting, and walking. I have forgotten the specifics, but believe it stumbled and fell at one point, and crushed both another man and his horse together. I would have to check back on the source I dug up when posting about horse breeds used by medieval knights.

Nearly all of you are in better condition than I. Most are pretty young. Enjoy it, but in moderation. Extended repetitive exposure to some stresses is different than occasional exposure. I used to jog up to 50 miles, occasionally. I avoided exceeding a weekly running average of 10 miles per day (70 miles in a single week), My knees and joints are all still healthy. I could run if I wanted to. Several similar aged runners I know who over indulged have been told by their doctors not to run ever again. A friend of mine who is solidly built, and amazingly, also a good marathon runner (won Kentucky derby marathan 2003 I believe, has won significant others) just returned from two years service in Iraq. The constant toll of 70 lbs of gear in his early 40's gave him back problems, and he left just short of a full two years volunteer service with honorable discharge due to the back problems. He was fit. But, it is hard to be fit enough to do that daily after you are no longer young. I could believe in subjecting young squires to frequent travel and excercise in full gear as a way of conditioning them. Alternatively, there were knights in their 40's, and several legendary ones referred to as "flower of chivalry" who were commanding battles into their 60's. Some of these could have had an appreciation for conserving their health, and energy.

[Scott Eschenbrenner]

You bring up a good point, Jared, concerning your friend's tour in Iraq. There are enough people wearing armor and carrying heavy load-bearing gear day after day, to show that it would have certainly been possible for knights to wear their armor more frequently than we assume. And your average 11B is in no better shape than we might assume a knight was.

Now, there are certainly much stricter regulations in effect in the Army and USMC regarding the wear of protective equipment, and I would imagine that 500 years ago it was left up to personal preference. If personal preference was allowed today I think you would generally see less armor worn and less equipment carried, except in some high-threat environments. But it goes to show that bearing the weight for long periods of time, even in extreme heat during daytime foot patrols in the Middle East, is possible. An IBA doesn't breath any more than a steel cuirass.

Additionally, there is more than one way to wear armor, and this was as true then as now. Many in this thread have mentioned lighter weight, reduced coverage, or concealed armor for certain situations. And we have the equivalent today. Big difference between the vest an undercover cop might wear, and the crap you have to put on to ride in the turret of a Humvee.

I haven't read enough primary sources to form an opinion on how commonly armor was worn outside of battle. But at least with a few modern parallels, I can make some reasonable assumptions on what was possible.

[Eric Myers]

I've just skimmed this thread, please excuse me if I'm repeating something already brought up. I think another consideration about the need to wear armor is the number of friends around you. In many of the old stories in which someone is kidnapped, assassinated, etc, the assailants are waiting for them to be alone, like going out to the privy or something. In town, and especially when traveling, the need to be in a group is frequently mentioned. Sorry, no sources of the top of my head except Chaucer, I'm just generalizing from memory. Anyway, my point is that being in a group increases safety and reduces the need for armor.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Jared Smith]

A little 12th century history. William Marshall spent two years touring France , going as far West as Cologne Germany, mostly wandering between tournaments. He had a full time partner, but it was not generally a matter of two individuals wandering about. They would generally agree to team with others (around 10 to 20 + squires) arranged by agreement following a tournament before journeying to another. A typical group of knights and esquires traveling then figures to be something like 30 to 50 battle competent individuals traveling together. This is pretty typical of 12th through 13th century era. There were larger groups (200 to 300+), but those were the exceptions in terms of teams that are known to have arrived together following travel to participate in tournament occurring in foreign lands.

[Randall Moffett]

Peter,

Yeah this is a pretty big debate right now that I will not get into on this thread but for fairness here is the opposite side of the coin. 900 pounds is fairly low according to Ayton's book on Warhorses, which is usually looked at as the standard on this subject by most of the people I know that study the topic. Keen puts the 14th and 15th century war horse much higher than 1000 as well. There is no way a 900 pound horse would allow for a man in full armour of the 15th century and its own armour according to the weight loads they are to carry. That would be close to if not more than half its body weight, which according to the Heavy Riders guide by Whittington and Hart-Poe from 1999, they can carry 1/4 their weight, meaning that to carry 200-400 pounds of man, arms and armour for them both you'd need 300-400 times 4 which is 1200-1600 pounds. It also should be said that the manual also states this as an upper end of the carry capacity, advising larger horses for longer periods of time and better use. Though horses can pull much greater weights behind them, usually many times their own weight especially on wheels. John by the way seems to be one of the few historians arguing that warhorses continued that low so you should likely look into the counterarguments against him as they seem more convincing but that is my own opinion. In fact even Prestwich which is the next lowest in weight I can think of states 1000 as a low figure and up to 1500 as an average weight.

I have been around horses quite a bit, not likely as much as you but a fair deal and can appreciate what you are saying but think you maybe missing the context of them being hundreds of thousands on a field close together which more or less makes it involuntary for them. We also know that horse could be trained to trample and bit men in combat during period so this also would have an effect as they likely avoid trampling in part from fear of stumbling as well. People get trampled by horses even today. I knew a person at my high school that was thrown and stepped on a few times so clearly not impossible. I am sure most people who have spent any time around horses know of a few people.

OK sorry for the brief detour.

RPM

[Peter Bosman]

[Peter Bosman]

[Randall Moffett]

Peter,

I get the hazards of horse riding. I have had some accidents of my own to give me a fair deal of caution regarding it. My point is exactly that the horse does not have the agility to avoid everything when it is blocked side to side by other horses. I never said the fear of taking a fall would keep someone from riding only that a fall COULD cause injury. I never even said it often caused injury only that it could. If you have an issue with that I am sure I could dig up the national statistics of such accidents to show you it COULD and DOES happen but really do not see a point.

RPM

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[James R.Fox]

Sirs-It seems to me that an arming sword, or heavy dagger, steel cap and doublet of defence would be used as much as possibe in these situations, and that things like Sir John Paston's doublet of defence disguised by a velvet cover to look like a winter doublet were (See the Paston Letters for the attempt on Sir John's life )

[Jared Smith]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Well, "skirmish" refers to a single tactical action, which differs from a pitched battle because it's either smaller in scale or it's not brought to a final conclusion (i.e. both sides had the choice of engaging in a decisive battle but one or both chose not to do so).

The "raid," on the other hand, refers to a strategic action against the enemy's resources--the entirety of the action, that is, from the time the raiders left their staging area until they arrived back on friendly ground. So a raid may include one skirmish, several, or none (if the raiders were particularly timid or particularly good at avoiding the enemy--or both). And the chevauchee generally fits better with the description of the raid than the lone skirmish.