| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
| Hi Neil! Thanks for the link to the latest version of your study. I used your numbers for the earlier post, assuming about 10lbs of arming clothes (including mail gussets and the like).
It's worth emphasizing that people who wore head-to-toe armor typically had horses to ride to the battlefield and also commonly fought mounted (this varied depending on the period and region). In the Hundred Years' War, an iconic conflict of where dismounted men-at-arms fought in large numbers on both sides, one line of strategic thought was that attacking constituted a decided disadvantage because of the disorder and fatigue that went along with advancing heavily armored infantry. That's only one historical period, and of course in other periods you had units that included some considerably armored troops who excelled at attacking (the Swiss, the Landsknechts, etc.). However, on the whole I think we sometimes go too far in downplaying the encumbrance of ancient/medieval/Renaissance armor. Various 15th- and 16th-century sources stress the importance of using heavily armored troops carefully so as not to exhaust them. You have this (in)famous study that found early 15th-century armor quite fatiguing for the four test subjects and notably more fatiguing than a backpack of the same weight because of the burden on the limbs. The test armor may not have been properly fitted and the test subjects may not have been properly trained, but the results still merit consideration and support the 15th-century English approach for forcing the French to attack whenever possible. So, regardless of the exact weight, based on my reading of 15th/16th-century sources it's fair to say that head-to-toe and three-quarters harness was heavy. That's certainly how lots of period authors described it. Such kit provided considerable advantage (full armor granted nigh invulnerability from non-gunpowder weapons according to Fourquevaux) but likewise imposed limitations (primarily fatigue). |
Also there is the fact that these soldiers lacked helicopters, cars, planes etc,all of which take means for soldier today doesn't have to do near as much walking than Medieval infantry did. So want can constituted heavy for Modern infranty was probably backbreaking heavy for Ancient infantry because they didn't have the luxury of being helicoptered into a combat zone. 90 percent of the they were probably walking to the engagement designation, repelling raids, and lugging around various equipment, not fighting in their armor. So, for just fighting in armor, based or many reactors experience and tons of others, I would say it is surprisingly light. If we had to walk where we want to slug it out, the armor worn would take it's toll. My helmet and avential I wear is almost the weight in the average of full cap and pie (20 pounds for my head protection to 50 pounds average) . I'm a shrimp and fight just fine wearing that wieght. If I had to march in the blazing sun wearing that helmet, I would probably pass out mid march. Has Sherman and Grant said, war is 90 percent boredom and ten percent hell.