myArmoury.com - Wearing Armor and Carrying Weapons on the March

Posts: 104

Mon 16 Feb, 2015 8:31 pm

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.

Profile PM

Pieter B.

Quote

Posts: 645

Tue 17 Feb, 2015 1:44 am

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.

Profile PM

Alexis Bataille

Quote

Posts: 95 Location: montpellier

Tue 17 Feb, 2015 2:49 am

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 ?

Profile PM

Matthew P. Adams

Quote

Posts: 462 Location: Cape Cod, MA

Tue 17 Feb, 2015 9:03 am

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

Profile PM

Lafayette C Curtis

Quote

Posts: 2,698 Location: Indonesia

Fri 13 Mar, 2015 2:01 am

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.

Profile PM

Graham Shearlaw

Quote

Posts: 151

Fri 13 Mar, 2015 9:32 pm

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.

Profile PM

Harry Marinakis

Quote

Posts: 818

Sat 14 Mar, 2015 4:58 am

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,

Profile PM

Philip Dyer

Quote

Posts: 507

Sat 14 Mar, 2015 7:58 am

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

Profile PM

Harry Marinakis

Quote

Posts: 818

Sat 14 Mar, 2015 8:02 am

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.

Profile PM

Neil Bockus

Quote

Posts: 26

Sat 14 Mar, 2015 10:31 am

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.

Profile PM

Dan Howard

Quote

Posts: 3,636 Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia

Sat 14 Mar, 2015 2:16 pm

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.

Profile PM