| Author |
Message |
|
Nick Tolimieri
|
 Posted: Thu 20 Mar, 2008 8:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
You might see if the US military or some other military has stats. Modern combat loads of 40-60lbs are similar to a well armored medieval soldier or knight. Generally when you see soldiers or marines runnning around on TV they seem to do it at a very fast trot at the most, but that's just my impression.
21st centry soldiers would run a bit faster due to being taller and having a longer gait...I would imagine.
NT
|
|
  |
 |
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Mar, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There was a unit of distance measure (believe it was related to the furlong) that originally derived from middle period medieval racing. I just thought I would throw that in, since the post was supposed to be about speed, and the very units of land measure basically derived from sport interested in speed. I would assume that they were competitive in terms of speed, unless some sort of contradictory period evidence suggested it.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kelly Powell
Location: lawrence, kansas Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Mar, 2008 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what country is he from? Is he from a physical stereotype that is more lithe and long limbed? or is he from a culture that has a longer trunk and shorter legs? This question is like asking were knights better hung then peasants(if you are in the sca the answer would most likely be yes!  ...contrary to any evidence of the contrary)
On to a joke....Aman walks up to traveling salesmen who just pulled his wagon into town and says"Hey mister, I bet you 20 dollars I can make your horse laugh and then cry. ...The salesmen says"Sure son I'll take that money"....Walking up to the horse the man whispers in his ear....The horse breaks out into laughter.....the man then proceeds to throw a blanket over him and the horse. A bout a minute passes and the man pull off the blanket, sure enugh the horse is sobbing...As the man collects his money, the salesmen asks him how he did it.."Easy, the man says...First I told him a was hung better then him....then I proved it!" .....That is about the cleanest joke I know.
|
|
|
|
|
R D Moore
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Mar, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Man, that's a great question. As competitive individuals I can't imagine our ancestors not engaging in some sort of speed test. If a pace is about 3 feet then the forty would be about 13 paces. Lets see, 13 paces in 8 seconds... Reminds me of a Scot relative some time ago. The lad had a wee bit too much whiskey one day and lay down by the roadside for a bit to nap it off. Well, along comes this bonny lass, seeing the lad sleeping it off and having always been curious about the garments worn under a kilt, lifted the kilt and took a wee look. Always an appreciative lass, she took a blue ribbon from her hair and tied it round the lad's...... Some hours later he awoke, stood up to wee, and looking at the ribbon he exclaimed: "Well, Willie! I dunno where you've been nor what you've done, but keep it up, Lad, you've took first place!"
|
|
 |
|
R D Moore
|
|
|
|
|
Chistof C.
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Mar, 2008 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nick Tolimieri wrote: | | 21st centry soldiers would run a bit faster due to being taller and having a longer gait...I would imagine. |
I agree. I think that 21st century man's height would give him an advantage over a medievill man.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Mar, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Unless the difference of height to gait changes drastically per inch or half inch I doubt the change from an average of 5'8" would increase drastically from 5'6"... Though I really do not know. All the best sprinters I knew at school did not have to be very tall... I'd wager height helps much more in long distance runs.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Mar, 2008 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| B. Fulton wrote: | | Also, are you talking about a medieval KNIGHT (used to riding on horseback pretty much everywhere, or at least moving most of his stuff on one) or an infantryman? Since most of the infantry are far more used to both wearing their armor while running around, and running (to or away), they'd be a bit faster. |
I'm not sure that the infantry would be "more used to wearing their armor while running around," since men-at-arms were usually trained for combat on foot as well as on horseback. When some German mercenaries in French service refused to dismount in the 15th or 16th century, the French gave these Germans a strange look--which meant that most (if not necessarily all) men-at-arms were expected to be able to fight dismounted. Not to mention that these men-at-arms, coming from the gentry and/or nobility as they were, were much more likely than ordinary peasants to receive the kind of physical strength and endurance training that was geared for the specific needs of combat.
Note that the average medieval infantryman was more likely to have left his baggage with the baggage train (wagons and/or pack animals) than lugging it himself, so his situation wouldn't have been much different from the men-at-arms in this respect.
| Shahril Dzulkifli wrote: | | It's quite hard to tell, since medieval warriors prefer to ride horses rather than running on the ground. |
I guess my words above have sufficiently expressed my opinions about this.
| Quote: | | What's more, they even wear heavy body armour which makes them quite difficult to run or get up after falling. |
Hardly so! A well-made suit of mail or plate would have been fairly closely fitted to the wearer, so the weight would have been rather evenly distributed throughout the body and wouldn't have encumbered the warrior half as much as modern people think it did. Moreover, any man-at-arms worth his salt would have had endurance training both with and without armor, so by the time he was considered qualified for battle he wouldn't have had much problem running around or getting back to his feet even in full battlefield armor. The accounts of knights being unable to run can almost always be ascribed to exhaustion--and it doesn't take heavy armor to render you unable to run when you're physically worn out. And the ones about them not being able to get back up in their armor can usually be linked to the presence of mud, which would have hampered an unarmored man as well (though probably not as much as an armored one).
In conclusion, I think these people would only have been marginally slower than the modern soldier, or maybe not at all--remember that, while modern people have much better nutrition, a modern soldier in full kit also has to carry a lot more weight than even the most fully-armored man-at-arms on the battlefield, not to mention that no rucksack can distribute its weight as evenly over the whole body as a well-fitted suit of armor!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sjouke de Jong
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Mar, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: Re: How fast was the medievel warrior? |
|
|
A trained medieval warrior would have probably bin a pretty fast runner.
This duo to the fact that many knights were trained in fitness from the age of seven.
This included running to train there speed and especially there endurance.
While wearing a full plated armour, a well trained English knight was usually able to run at an equal speed as an archer (who hardly had any kind of armour)
There are accounts of French knights in full plate armour, who had proven they where able to swim in there suit of armour.
Also another French knight preformed an acrobatic stunt by standing on the back of his horse
(facing the same way the horse was) and make a backflip, landing on the ground right behind his horse.
He repeated this many times to show off about just how mobile he was in his full plate armour.
This might give you an idea of how fast and mobile they would have bin without wearing armour.
There are no records of times that where made ate runs of a certain amount of feet that I know of.
I hope this helps,
Sjouke
|
|
 |
|
|
Tomm Skotner
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Mar, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Lafayette C Curtis"] | B. Fulton wrote: | | In conclusion, I think these people would only have been marginally slower than the modern soldier, or maybe not at all--remember that, while modern people have much better nutrition, a modern soldier in full kit also has to carry a lot more weight than even the most fully-armored man-at-arms on the battlefield, not to mention that no rucksack can distribute its weight as evenly over the whole body as a well-fitted suit of armor! |
Actually, a full suit of plate armour weighs about 30-35 kg. The ordinary NATO soldier carries over 40 kg. of equipment on his body, and some even as much as 60 kg. So it is clearly more than possible to be fully functional with that kind of weight on your body. And I do not think plate armour hampered movement very much on account of its weight.
And, as you have mentioned, suits of armour were built to allow nearly the same degree of articulation of the limbs as you have got without armour. However, that is not to say that they always lived up to that intention. The more articulated you want your suit of armour, the more mechanically complicated the joints would have to be to get the same kind of protection. The more gadgetry needed to keep them working as they should, the more vulnerable they would be to some kind of malfunction. And I suppose sometimes they would get bent or break so that they lost that articulation. If that happened, I cannot imagine a knight would be able to run, for instance. Firstly, it would be uncomfortable. And secondly, I should think it would force him to have to adjust his movements to compensate for the loss of articulation.
I do not know if this sort of thing ever happened, really. And even if it did, how likely was it? Also, the full plate eventually fell out of favour. The plate covered knight was replaced by the light infantry, who wore a steel breast plate, but did not cover his limbs in steel. I have long assumed that was mostly a matter of cost efficiency calculations when financing the army. But maybe it has got something to do with dissatisfaction with the reliability of those articulated joints, too? But maybe somebody else have got information of that sort out there? ;-)
How reliable were those articulated joints? Did they ever malfunction? If so, what caused them to break? And what could it mean for the man inside?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan Downs
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Mar, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boucicault was famous for his fitness regimen which including running and doing pull ups in armour.
As has been mentioned most men-at-arms were trained to fight on foot as well on horseback.
It's not that hard to get up off the gorund in armour.
for God's sake strike true, man!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kelly Powell
Location: lawrence, kansas Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Sat 22 Mar, 2008 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
It had more to do with fire arms....you couldnt make limb armor that would stop a bullet....but the breast plate may stop a glancing shot or extreme range...and you still had people trying to kill you the old fashion way 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kyro R. Lantsberger
|
| Posted: Sat 22 Mar, 2008 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I like this topic. Very lighthearted conjecturing with some historical backing. I agree that the invention of the stopwatch makes answering the sprint time question nearly impossible. As former military, I like the talk of ruckmarching......it does seem that the best open field runners dont have the same skillset necessary to move quickly with a pack.
That being said.....maybe the best answer to the question might come from field notes and battle accounts of units. I know that the Romans had a standard in place for how far a group should be able to march in a day. How did that compare with people from Medieval/Renaissance times? This is partly a question of trained endurance, and partly a question of logistical management, but it may provide us with the hardest data in terms of figuring out the fitness level of men under arms during this period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 27 Mar, 2008 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tomm Skotner wrote: | | Also, the full plate eventually fell out of favour. The plate covered knight was replaced by the light infantry, who wore a steel breast plate, but did not cover his limbs in steel. I have long assumed that was mostly a matter of cost efficiency calculations when financing the army. But maybe it has got something to do with dissatisfaction with the reliability of those articulated joints, too? But maybe somebody else have got information of that sort out there? ;-)? |
Most of the people I've asked said that it's firearms that brought armor down, though only by a circuitous route. The logic goes that for protecting the wearer against a pistol, arquebus, or musket ball the armor would either have to be very carefully heat-treated (very expensive) or made a lot thicker. The latter choice became the dominant one because it was a lot easier and cheaper to do, but its side effect was that armor became a lot heavier for the same amount of coverage. The armorers tried to deal with this by reducing coverage but this partial solution didn't work too well because the power of firearms kept increasing and the weight of armor required to hold them off became quite unmanageable. (EDIT: found a quote about this from a primary source in this thread: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...highlight= )
The infantry armors were a different matter--they were not the direct descendants of knightly suits of plate, being instead the plate successor to the haubergeon and brigandine and other sorts of (relatively) light armor worn by ordinary foot soldiers in the Middle Ages.
Anyway, that's the highly simplified picture (maybe an oversimplified one, but there you go).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Speed
|
| Posted: Fri 28 Mar, 2008 7:58 am Post subject: Re: How fast was the medievel warrior? |
|
|
Hi Sjouke,
You wrote, "There are accounts of French knights in full plate armour, who had proven they where able to swim in there suit of armour."
"Yeah, down! Sorry, I couldn't resist. I have to admit I'm having a tough time with this one. I just can't see this as physically possible. Buoyancy is buoyancy, I don't think you can train for it and I just don't think it would be possible to swim in full plate armor. It wouldn't be the same thing as a lifeguard pulling someone through the water, they would have their own natural buoyancy, it would be like swimming with a sack of cement on your back or worse. Are there any Navy Seal types or physics teachers out there that can comment on this? Anyone want to send this to Mythbusters?
Sjouke, look, I'm sure the account exists, I just can't believe the account.
Ken Speed
|
|
|
|
|
R D Moore
|
| Posted: Fri 28 Mar, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to agree with Ken here, Sjouke. I do believe the statement exists, but I too find it difficult to comprehend. If we consider a kit of plate armor weighing in at around 65 to 80 pounds, plus maile, gambeson, and any weaponry the swimmer may be carrying in direct opposition to any buoyancy offered by gasses in this unfortunate person's body, it's easy-for me at least-to realize he doesn't have much time left on this earth. Unless, of course, the water was shallow enough to allow him to get some air. Or if, perhaps, he was having gastro-intestinal distress problems of great proportion. It's sort of like throwing an anchor overboard expecting the rope to keep it afloat. It probably wont happen. Some men being as they are, I imagine even back then that some stories were embellished a bit.
Take care.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 28 Mar, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vigourous and very tiring threading of water might make it possible to stay above water for a couple of minutes when in armour but it would be only a very short time where one would HOPE that some friends would pull you out or throw you a rope. If the shore was only a small distance away maybe walking on the bottom of a stream would be easier that trying to swim out ? Very very close to shore in not very deep water with an easy slope to climb !? One would have 30 seconds to a minute tops I think before one ran out of air considering the great exertion needed to move under water.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Fri 28 Mar, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| R D Moore wrote: | If we consider a kit of plate armor weighing in at around 65 to 80 pounds, plus maile, gambeson, and any weaponry the swimmer may be carrying in direct opposition to any buoyancy offered by gasses in this unfortunate person's body, it's easy-for me at least-to realize he doesn't have much time left on this earth.
Take care. |
These weight figures dont match the average of actual field (not joust) armours at Higgins Armoury. A fair range of field plate (3/4 and 1/2 harness) weigh around 35 to 55 lbs. It still sounds like a big ....stretch to manage swimming more than 30 seconds with that kind of ballast though! If someone did it, I'd like to think they left their oiled sword on dry ground.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
R D Moore
|
| Posted: Sat 29 Mar, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I stand corrected. I'll do some research on actual field weights of the armor of the period. I embelilshed the facts a wee bit. Having spent the money to buy a suit of armor makes me think the Knight may have had a nice sword. I hope he oiled it, too. I wonder how fast he could run?
|
|
|
|
|
R D Moore
|
| Posted: Sat 29 Mar, 2008 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Vigourous and very tiring threading of water might make it possible to stay above water for a couple of minutes when in armour but it would be only a very short time where one would HOPE that some friends would pull you out or throw you a rope. If the shore was only a small distance away maybe walking on the bottom of a stream would be easier that trying to swim out ? Very very close to shore in not very deep water with an easy slope to climb !? One would have 30 seconds to a minute tops I think before one ran out of air considering the great exertion needed to move under water. |
Interesting thoughts, Jean. If the weight scuba divers use to neutralize their buoyancy is in the 10 to 15 pound range (pure conjecture on my part here). It certainly seems possible that a fit and trim warrior of the period could tread water for a short period while encumbered with around 35 pounds or so of additional weight. Excellent physical strength and endurance combined with the adrenaline pumping through the Knights system in his fight for survival could make this all plausible. Anyone have any facts on the total weight of the equipment a diver uses?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic