Science Breakthrough: Plate Armor is Heavy

ultrachicken

New member
Dec 22, 2009
4,303
0
0
Kysafen said:
I once tried putting weights into a backpack, and special weights on my legs, for training purposes. That particular session did not exactly go well.

The thing about the experiment was that the test subjects were probably not USED to the weight of the armour. I spend days at a time with my leg weights on, and find that after a couple of days my body adjusts accordingly, almost as if I'm not wearing them at all. I wouldn't second guess that getting a feel for their armour was a regular part of a knight's training.
Agreed. Not to mention that it's possible to make use of momentum to help reduce the amount of force you have to exert to keep moving forward. Flawed study is flawed.
 

Ashoten

New member
Aug 29, 2010
251
0
0
Soooooooooo did the scientists have the armor custom made for the testers? and if so did they then have them train in the custom fitted armor for days or weeks before the testing began?
Cause you know I always look forward to the summer Olympics weightlifting for people that have never done it before in there life but its so fun to watch them strain muscles and hurt themselves competition(SARCASM).

Did they use actual armor that saw combat as their reference or did they unknowingly use display pieces that were never intended to be worn? I would never accuse scientists of being lazy and only using the most convenient data on hand instead of researching the subject in full and just assuming their smarter then everyone else to know what to look at but I guess I just did.

These are things I want answered before I believe one word of the findings.
 

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
Major Tom said:
Mail certainly had flexibility over plate, but there's no real weight saving with mail and mail can be rather ineffective against a piercing strike (say, from an arrow or a lance).
Hairsplitting aside, quilt and leather were actually very good at stopping arrows.
You might get some penetration and a shallow wound, but full on penetration with enough energy left over to keep penetrating into your body was exceptionally hard to achieve with anything but a powerful crossbow.
 

Gamblerjoe

New member
Oct 25, 2010
322
0
0
Well that must have been one of the most pointless things iv read. Of course wearing plate mail sucked. Fighting in a war sucks in many many ways. Its already been proven by science that exerting yourself in ways that you are not accustomed to requires more energy. Its called muscle memory. Its been proven that higher weight requires more force and therefore more strength and energy to move. Its also been proven that exerting yourself more causes your muscles to require more respiration, and therefore more blood. When your muscles require more blood your heart beats faster. When your muscles are using more oxygen, they are producing carbon dioxide faster.

Full plate was a very potent form of protection. It was nearly impossible to harm someone in full plate until you got them into a helpless state. Like anything else that has ever proven effective on a battlefield, people started finding ways to counter it. The same can be said for horses, phalanxes, chariots, castles, and many other things.
 

Vankraken

New member
Mar 30, 2010
222
0
0
I do think this study ignores the work arounds that knights used to avoid the pitfalls of wearing heavy plate mail. Even with how heavy plate armor is the knights would be entering the battle in a far better state of rest and energy than the common soldier they would be facing. They had pages to carry their gear, set up camp, prepare them for battle, do normal logistical stuff, etc. They also would receive better rations of food so they would be better fed and have more energy to utilize. Also knights would almost always be mounted which is the most effective way to utilize full body plate armor (you don't have to walk).

Its cool that they tested how wearing heavy armor impacted the physical condition of a person but I don't put a lot of credit into the findings unless it looked accurately unto the manner that knights utilized the armor and the pros and cons of wearing full plate. If you want to do a study on wearing heavy armor then just as a soldier how they feel about wearing full body class IV armor (that's armor with the ceramic plates inserted) and I'm sure they will tell you its heavy as shit, hot, and makes moving difficult.
 

Gottesstrafe

New member
Oct 23, 2010
881
0
0
Major Tom said:
Gottesstrafe said:
Oh, and as for that bit about how plate armor would fare against a longbow...

As much as I love that series (seriously, if you can find The Weapons That Made Britain, watch it. It's quite informative), I always get the feeling people come away with the wrong conclusion from that clip. That 'the long bow penetrated steel breastplate, therefore armour sucks' rather than 'the longbow penetrated steel breastplate, but the process of doing so robbed the arrow of any lethal force whatsoever leaving a very much alive and probably very angry knight bearing down on you, therefore armour has done its job and worked'.
They said as much in the clip, I was very much surprised to see the arrowhead flattened when they retrieved it. I doubt it would hold up long against the continuous fire you'd see in movies that would blot out the sun, but for the stray arrow I'm sure it would be a life saver (especially considering medieval surgical practices).

About the "Armour worn on the battlefield would weigh no more than 60 pounds" part, I was under the impression that soldiers dressed in full plate armor were usually mounted on horses. I won't pretend to know the total weight a war horse back then could carry (also factoring in the weight of the rider and his weapons), but I would think that alone would give a little more leeway to the rider in terms of heavier pieces of armor.

Still, I suppose there's the eventuality of being dismounted from the horse if it were to be injured or if the rider were to be pulled off by a polearm to take into account...
 

Puzzlenaut

New member
Mar 11, 2011
445
0
0
Xiado said:
Wrong, it's not science. Like Martial artists, Knights were trained since their youth in armor. They wore it like a second skin from childhood. I carry a 50 pound pack while hiking long distances, and after a few days, it feels like less than half the weight. People don't understand today the meaning of "bred for battle", but the Knights spent a ridiculous amount of time training to be soldiers. US Marines, on the other hand spend a few months. Try to understand the difference.
You forget that knights weren't necessarily particularly good soldiers, and they rarely even fought -- they were just aristocrats who "led" the armies and acted as figureheads, wearing huge expensive armour to preserve their measly hides.
Knights were never an elite order, they were just rich kids sitting in for the people who really knew what they were doing.
 

Life_Is_A_Mess

New member
Sep 10, 2009
536
0
0
In other news: Water is wet. The Sun shines. Most fish are known to execute a muscular task that in combination with their hidrodynamic structure creates a movement called swimming.
 

LondonBeer

New member
Aug 1, 2010
132
0
0
Hmmmmm I dont need to point out that 4 modern day 'researchers' (AKA Tarquin and Farqhuar probably Etonians) are zero zip nada representative of a medieval knight. In fact youd have to go get a rugby player to even get close to the correct body mass & then youd have to find a really short one.

Even if Tarquin & Faruqhuar play with swords all day long they wouldnt have the physical regimen required from childhood to pass muster.
 

LondonBeer

New member
Aug 1, 2010
132
0
0
LivingInTheSixties said:
It was an experiment to see what factors affected the battle of Agincourt and enabled England to win against the French, as there were considerably less British soldiers than there were French knights. Because the British archers were armed in light armour, whilst the French knights were in plate it gave the archers an advantage. That's what it was about not to see whether armour is heavy, as it was so eloquently put.
I dont think it is based in Agincourt, if it was running a treadmill doesnt really create any kind of scientific sense or rigour since Agincourt was a muddy field. Common sense & basic material sciences tells you running through mud requires more effort than running across a flat surface.
 

LitleWaffle

New member
Jan 9, 2010
633
0
0
Kysafen said:
I once tried putting weights into a backpack, and special weights on my legs, for training purposes. That particular session did not exactly go well.

The thing about the experiment was that the test subjects were probably not USED to the weight of the armour. I spend days at a time with my leg weights on, and find that after a couple of days my body adjusts accordingly, almost as if I'm not wearing them at all. I wouldn't second guess that getting a feel for their armour was a regular part of a knight's training.
Most likely, but Knights still had problems with their heavy armor...



1. Lack of Sight
2. Slower movement than the average person
3. If you fall over, you're screwed.

Sure I agree with the whole training business, but regardless, a knights armor was still a burden when facing an unarmored foe.
 

Abize

Resident Codicier
Dec 16, 2008
40
0
0
Tischfuss said:
I think this video is very much needed in here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4
Yes, it's lengthy, but it's worth it (at least if you're interested in this kind of stuff). But to summerize this in context of this study: The study is not only very poorly done "sciencemanship"-wise, but also very, very inaccurate.

(Seriously though, watch the video.)
Loved the vid, a bit long but still very interesting ^.^


P.S;embeded for the terminally lazy
 

noahd

New member
Sep 21, 2010
26
0
0
what's next, fire is hot, rain is wet, and some day soon we'll find out real science. because those who JUST discovered plate armor is heavy. isn't getting anywhere anytime soon. they've been doing mideval type reconstructions for many years. all you had to do was go ask one of the fellas interested in those things. or ask the museum.

it's almost to the point they don't know that there was other things that people died from back then that the suit could never protect from.

it's like asking someone to carry a bag of bricks for you and walking a long distance and discovering he got tired faster. "researchers" my ass. those rich boys need to get their noses back into books rather than into their parents wallets.