[Johan Gemvik]

Of course armour affects endurance. This is nothing new.

But aren't those weights used of typical parade armour rather than the often considerably lighter field armour? I've heard of full body field armours weighing around 15 kg (with full Armet and maille voiders no less). Why use parade armour for foot endurance tests? Still interesting from a foot combat tourney viewpoint though where parade armour thickness might be used to be extra safe for royals.

The table shows the monster heavy 53 kg churburg 19 armour to have an 18.3 kg breast and back plate. This rivals the WWI bulletproof Trench armours. I've fought in 2 mm thick breast and back curiasses and they weighed about 6-7 kg or so. This would be something like 5 mm thick all over then? Clearly parade or jousting thickness, not the lightweight field armours of the same time period normally used in war.

Another question one might raise is if these armours were really individually tailor made to fit the test persons. This would affect wearability and thus endurance quite a bit as you'd fight the armour all the way instead of it feeling like a part of your body.

Another thing to wonder about is how the garment worn under the armour can weigh over 6 kg, a pourpond (aka arming doublet) could be fairly thin depening on armour type and exact historical period and style and more to fasten armour with points and lessening wear sores rather than adding any serious weapon penetration protection. Doesn't this 6 kg thing better represent a standalone 12 layer jack?

I'd like to see another test made with the lightest types of full armour also. This doesn't mean I can't appreciate the test. It's great that scientist are giving this a go and it shows some very interesting results. More please!

Certainly the results support my theory of the main reason why conqustador sword & bucklermen wore half armour -so they could run down opponents. Though the climate would have had some part also.

[Nathan Quarantillo]

I think it may have more to do with tactics than anything else. During the era that this kinda plate is being worn, you're solidly into the late 15th century, when for infantry, pikes were really picking up steam. The Swiss ( the guys everyone with a pike wanted to be) depended on enormous overwhelming speed and steamrolling the oppositional forces, whilst keeping them at a nice comfy distance with a pike. Not really supposed to even be in a close melee where the enemy can get at the legs.
And Longbowmen on the other side of Europe, where you're not even supposed to get into melee combat in the first place!

And BTW, who said that all infantry, or even the majority ditched the leg harness? Most art I've seen depicts infantry in full harness for the most part.

[Randall Moffett]

Does there arming doublet really weight 14 pounds? Now I am a bit confused but even my stand alone textile armours weight a tad less to much less. My fairly heavily padded aketon that I wear under my armour only weighs some 7 pounds and is something that to me could be used as stand alone armour in my opinion. Something strange is afoot here..... 14 pound arming garment????

As well it seems that most of their original suits indicate a range should more be topping out closer to 30 as a full 50% are 30kg or less and all but one of the remainders are in the 30s. 5 in the 30s, 3 in the 20s and one in the 50s. Very odd way to make a standard to use armours that are one the heavier end of your own research and not anything really close to what represents some 50%.

Is not Churburg 19 the 7 foot plus harness for bearman?

RPM

[Jared Smith]

The heavier weights correspond to the heaviest harness that I saw on display at the Higgens Armory, labeled as "specialized joust armor", close to 92 lbs or 42 kg. Parade armor I saw there, where weights were given, was comparatively light.. on the order of 35 to 40 lbs or 16 to 18 kg. "Field" duty armor that I saw had weights in the range of 45 to 65 lbs (20 to 30 kg) with surprising consistency across a broad range of times and styles. It does not seem that surprising to me that they studied the heaviest and most complete coverage of armor styles most likely specialized primarily for "mounted" duty and found that it was strenuous to use if for running a marathon.

[Josh Warren]

[Randall Moffett]

Josh,

Yes that would sound about right. Guess I was simply taking what they said at face value. It might help their testing if such information was available in some detail.

Thanks again Josh

RPM

[Michael Curl]

Timo, I don't know how to access it, do you have to pay or can you just make an account?

Also Nathan, do you have any images for infantry with full harness, the ones I know of don't have them in full harness

[Michael Curl]

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w285/drkguy3107/crecy.jpg

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w285/drkguy3107/bruges.jpg

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w285/drkgu...ray_01.jpg

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w285/drkguy3107/Agincour2.jpg

I see infantry with leg armour very rarely in 15th century pictures. The only ones I can think of that do have leg harness seem to me to be the least representative.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Dan Howard]

It would be interesting to find out whether these leg armours were custom fitted to the wearer or were the cheaper "mass produced" variety. There is also the problem caused by later fighters chosing to not wear proper arming garments under their armour. Sir John Smythe wrote this in 1588:

"…..and because that no man can conveniently and fitly be armed, unless he be first properly appareled for his armor and also for the use of his weapon and that in the camp and army of Tilbury in 1588 whereas there were regiments of diverse shires with diverse bands both of demi-lances and lighthorsemen I did see and observe so great disorder and deformity in their apparel to arm withal, as I saw but very few of the army that had any convenience of apparel and chiefly of doublets to arm upon, whereof it came to pass that most of them did wear their armor very uncomely, uneasily…"

Leg armour, not correctly fitted, would be difficult to walk or fight in.

[Lonnie Colson]

After scanning through the several pages of posts, I find that everyone is trying to break down the weights of armor, clothing, etc., in an attempt to argue that the knight or man-at-arms would have been a few kg/lb lighter than the tests. It's obvious that a limb that is encumbered will expend more energy to move than one that is not. It doesn't take an academic with access to some spare re-enactors and treadmills to prove that hypothesis. It's common sense. The problem is that some of their other assumptions are flawed. It was stated that a 15th century soldier wearing 125 pounds of kit would be at a greater disadvantage than a modern soldier carrying 125 pounds of gear in a backpack as the modern man has his arms and legs free to swing unencumbered. (I don't speak kilograms, so I just went with the average modern combat load in pounds.) A critical factor not considered is that the modern soldier on the battlefield will have a rifle in both hands preventing the arms from freely swinging and field gear on the legs (gas mask pouch, drop leg holster, etc.) that will likewise add weight there as well. Load bearing vests (LBE) with ballistic inserts constrict breathing as much as a properly fitted cuirass. The Medieval soldier has his load spread much more evenly than the modern soldier whose ruck sack and LBE make him top heavy. What about NBC gear ("gas masks", etc.) that the modern soldier must sometimes wear on the battlefield? Even if they didn't ask the military for input they could have at least Googled some photos of troops serving in Irag or Afghanistan.

I hate reading long posts, so I'll try to wrap up my argument quickly. The factors in the equation were skewed toward the 'modern' soldier. The basic statement presented by the paper was that armor affected the outcome of battles. I agree to a point. In the same way that a modern army wearing gas masks in the desert would be at a severe disadvantage against an army that didn't wear them--until a chemical agent is introduced and the other side suffered mass casualties. If there is no need for the pro-mask, who would wear it and be at a disadvantage? Likewise, Medieval armor would slow down and thus be considered a disadvantage to the army outfitted in heavy harness--until you factor in the slings and arrows of warfare. Then, just as today, a soldier wouldn't wear something on the battlefield if it wasn't to his advantage to have it on.

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

Bottom line; a PROPERLY shaped and fitted breastplate simply does not interfere with breathing. Period. And I am now going to zip my lips...

[Jean Thibodeau]