Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Wearing Armor and Carrying Weapons on the March Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
Tyler Jordan





Joined: 15 Mar 2004

Posts: 104

PostPosted: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 8:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
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.


I don't think it was because of the range of motion, it's that adding that sort of weight to the lower legs and feet adds a great deal to the fatigue factor of armor, and it take a lot of conditioning to get past that.
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Tue 17 Feb, 2015 1:44 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
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.


I can't seem to find it now but the video where I heard it mentioned had one guy (an armorer) talking about greaves and mentioning how most museum examples wouldn't fit modern people while the rest of the harness is more or less fitting to our stature.
View user's profile Send private message
Alexis Bataille




Location: montpellier
Joined: 31 Aug 2014

Posts: 95

PostPosted: Tue 17 Feb, 2015 2:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Tyler Jordan wrote:
Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
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.


I don't think it was because of the range of motion, it's that adding that sort of weight to the lower legs and feet adds a great deal to the fatigue factor of armor, and it take a lot of conditioning to get past that.


Ok, so for example, hoplite greaves don't slow movement but on a long day of march you get more fatigue ?
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew P. Adams




Location: Cape Cod, MA
Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Likes: 8 pages

Posts: 462

PostPosted: Tue 17 Feb, 2015 9:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This goes right into hiking and camping. The rule of thumb is every pound of weight added to the foot is the equivalent of five pounds in your pack. So if you have a choice between a boot that weighs 2 lbs and a boot that weighs 3, the three pound boot is like putting ten pounds in your pack (you've got two feet).

Ten pounds in a back pack wouldn't affect a quick sprint as far as top speed, but after a sprint you'd be more winded, and it sure affects how you feel at the end of a full day hiking. But you feel that weight the most going up hill. Then you are lifting that weight.

And think about walking and legs. All the big muscles are for pushing your body up and forward, adding weight to your legs means the weight is being lifted with each stride by all the smaller muscle groups that are used to lifting just the legs and feet.

http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-ac...f-back.htm

"We do not rise to the level of our expectations. We fall to the level of our training" Archilochus, Greek Soldier, Poet, c. 650 BC
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Fri 13 Mar, 2015 2:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I don't have any problems with the concept that weight on the limbs tires out the wearer faster. The real problem is: since the weight of armour makes the limbs harder to move, it means the wearer will have to be stronger in order to move effectively with limb armour on, so it doesn't make much sense that they'd have smaller calves than we do.
View user's profile Send private message
Graham Shearlaw





Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 151

PostPosted: Fri 13 Mar, 2015 9:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Philip Dyer wrote:

Good point, and as Arnold found when he was doing the Conan movies, there is such thing as two much bulk for a fighter, to much bulk can actually limit motion in your joints and in Arnold's case, his massive pecs inhibited from using a two handed sword. If you look at Professional Martial artists, they are usually extremely cut with extremely dense bodies instead of extreme bulk because enormous bulk can inhibit complicated fast fine motor motion.


There are limits to just who much muscle the human body will put down with out drugs, now size and build do let some people put down more muscle but it is still constrained to the same template.

Add in drugs and your body's template is ignored, form no longer follows function, how much Arnold used steroids is debatable, but he did use them.

Ignoring modern drugs, just the added bulk of large muscle will be draining as it has to be caryed and fed.
View user's profile Send private message
Harry Marinakis




PostPosted: Sat 14 Mar, 2015 4:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Neil Bockus wrote:
...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...

I strongly disagree with this statement. Anyone who has worn armor for a long period of time will tell you that the weight wears you down.

Put on 50-70 pounds of armor and spend a day wearing it. You'll see,
View user's profile Send private message
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Sat 14 Mar, 2015 7:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Harry Marinakis wrote:
Neil Bockus wrote:
...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...

I strongly disagree with this statement. Anyone who has worn armor for a long period of time will tell you that the weight wears you down.

Put on 50-70 pounds of armor and spend a day wearing it. You'll see,

I honestly disagree Neil Bockus but I think you can condition yourself to make carrying 50 to 70 pounds of armour over a long period of time not difficult, it just takes extremely deicated and rigorous conditioning to do it. http://www.thearma.org/essays/fit/RennFit.htm#.VQRKnuGqmSo here is a list period exercises designed to get a knight used to wearing armour for long periods of time and other combat activites. This may just be me, but he sounds sentence makes in sound like conditions yourself to bear 50 to 70pounds of wieght all around your body for long periods of time is a easy thing to do.


Last edited by Philip Dyer on Sat 14 Mar, 2015 8:03 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Harry Marinakis




PostPosted: Sat 14 Mar, 2015 8:02 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I used to run 10 miles a day as a matter of routine. Then one summer I spent 13 weeks back-packing in the High Sierra. My backpack weighed anywhere from 70 to 100 pounds on any given day.

I was in tip-top shape.

Walking around with 70 pounds never got easy, no matter how physically fit I was.

Likewise, carrying 70 pounds of armor is never easy.
View user's profile Send private message
Neil Bockus





Joined: 14 Dec 2010

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sat 14 Mar, 2015 10:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Harry Marinakis wrote:
Neil Bockus wrote:
...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...

I strongly disagree with this statement. Anyone who has worn armor for a long period of time will tell you that the weight wears you down.

Put on 50-70 pounds of armor and spend a day wearing it. You'll see,


Well, that's fine to disagree, I was relating what I was told. When my armor is complete, you're right, I will see for myself and can then make an educated statement based on personal experience.

"The Sword of Freedom is kept sharp by those who live on its edge." - Scott Adams
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sat 14 Mar, 2015 2:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The heaviest armours were rarely, if ever, worn by infantry. You'd never have to worry about marching for hours because you'd be riding horses. Another point is that, in a lot of cases, armour wasn't worn on the march at all; it was carried by servants until just before the battle. In Europe it seems that those with the heaviest armours had other armour such as brigandines that they wore while travelling.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Wearing Armor and Carrying Weapons on the March
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum