Science Breakthrough: Plate Armor is Heavy

[Justin1221]

Wow, no shit knight armor is heavy.

 

[Xariat]

what theese people didnt account for is that opposite to marines or modern armies, knights began their training at an age of 7, and trained non stop for their entire life. they were also cavaliry, not infantry, so they barley had to run at all.

obvious and poorly done science was obvious and poorly tested.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

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.

Exactly. This is BAD science. The scientific method requires controls on the conditions of the experiment so that one can isolate the factor that one is looking for. First off, there needs to be a much larger sample group than three people. Secondly, they would need to replicate the training and nutrition of ancient knights. In addition to this, they would need to find people who came close to the actual size of the nights. Remember that people were much shorter back then (I think the average height was probably closer to 5 feet) and this would have affected the way they carried the armor.

In addition to this is the fact that A) Knights mostly rode on horseback on only got off to fight, B) They all had squires who helped them with their equipment, and C) they never had to run far, once they were on the ground they would be fighting, not running. Once the experimenters added more controls so that they had people who would physically come close to medieval knights they should have tested them for how long they could swing a sword, not how long they could run.

Bad science.

 

[s0p0g]

Breaking news: snow is cold!

ololol, some "researches" are just hilarious ^^

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

You'd think if they were going to do a study about something so mind-numbingly obvious they'd at least make sure to do it right, but as others have pointed out they don't seem to be taking into account that the wearer of such armour would be trained and experienced in its use. There's no denying it's heavy, I mean really a bloody scale can determine that, but if you want to somehow judge how it effected battlefields and combat conditions you've got to take the human element into account as well.

You wouldn't just randomly send a group of people into a tank expecting them to have the knowledge and experience to use it right, if at all. Same for their medieval counterparts.

A more appropriate study would be to have selected groups wearing the armour and exercising in it on a regular basis over the course of a few months then have a control group that are brought in for testing without the same experience. Ideally you would even have different groups in different types of armour over different amounts of time.

But then that would also be expensive and time consuming, so I guess they decided to go with the more obvious approach.

SCIENCE

No, it's bad science. I don't know what degrees the people who ran the experiment had, but they should have had kinesiologists who consulted medieval martial artists (yes there are such people). Instead they probably had average joes run on a treadmill in armor that wasn't made to fit them. This is a travesty of not only history and anthropology but the sciences as well.

 

[subtlefuge]

In the 2nd grade, I did a science project to find out if model rockets carrying more weight wouldn't fly as high.

Back then, I would have thought this was stupid.

 

[Jake the Snake]

Birds crap. There are starving children in Africa. Heavy Armor is Heavy. Obvious study is obvious.

 

[Giest4life]

The scientists probably all went to the pub and had a jolly time; they only pulled out this report to show for the "research" grant they received. Who says scientists are without humor?

 

[Tischfuss]

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.)

 

[soren7550]

Spoiler: I don't know which to go with so you guys choose:

 

[drewson]

Well shit now i know

 

[Dangerious P. Cats]

I kind of question how scientific a study of 4 people is. One would assume that different people can be worn out at different rates by wearing/carrying things. I can, for example, carry much more than a number of people I know of equivalent size, shape and strength (though this is anecdotal). I would also suggest that the reason why modern soldiers have fewer problems with backpacks is that they train to run in backpacks in much the same way that medieval knights trained to run and fight in full plate armour.

 

[Gottesstrafe]

Can't say for certain, but I would also think that a good old fashioned english longbow or a crossbow bolt wouldn't have too much difficulty penetrating leather either.

Considering the British longbow could pierce plate, I doubt leather really is going to stop it.

At point blank range yes however it's more likely to leave a nasty dent and knock over the knight. Most of them where more likely to be hit in the openings between the plates.

Leather(hardened) would reduce the damage it did to the wearer ^.^

Well i'm not arguing it would reduce the damage.

HOWEVER, I still think that damage would kill the wearer unless it hit it at an angle and deflected off. I THINK...

These scientists should do this next.

The leather armor Romans used (2 layers of hard leather with a section of plate armor in between) might work, although I would think the lack of plating along the sides would present a few problems.

Oh, and as for that bit about how plate armor would fare against a longbow...



Edit: Did a quick bit of research online. The heavier selections of plate armor in medieval times could weigh up to 100 lbs. A fully decked out marine fighting in the middle east carries on average around 90 lbs. of gear (40 lbs. in body armor, clothing, boots, helmet, etc. and 50 lbs. in ammo, batteries, food, water, etc.), not including personal items or supplementary gear. Although I'm sure that the modern counterpart is much better in terms of weight distribution, I wouldn't necessary rule out that a knight that had a properly fitted set of plate mail who had also trained in it most of their life would find it THAT bothersome in terms of mobility.

 

[kasperbbs]

Heavy armor is heavy? Who knew? Well it still beats getting stabbed.

 

[plugav]

Good God, what a startling discovery!

 

[marurder]

This report sucks. It isn't what the scientists worked on at all. They were QUANTIFYING how much harder it was. How about you keep your sarcasm to yourself and make wise cracks when NOT delivering something that could be interpreted as news?

 

[WolfThomas]

A small price for living longer.

Also it's interesting stuff, but in no way proper research. A sample size of four for four different catergories with no control is in no way good science.

In addition to this, they would need to find people who came close to the actual size of the nights. Remember that people were much shorter back then (I think the average height was probably closer to 5 feet) and this would have affected the way they carried the armor.

I don't think a Knight would actually be that short, people on average were indeed much shorter, but someone of noble birth would not have been affected by malnutrition and protein deficiency like the peasants and commoners who'd drag the averages down. They'd probably be around the high 5's.

It's a similar misconception to the one with average life expectancy. People didn't just die in their 30-40s (well except for violence), the infant mortality rate dragged the numbers down.

 

[Jyggalag]

"A material is heavier when wearing it than carrying the same weight in a backpack."

I think it's safe to say that we are all happy to have a firm grasp on the obvious. Is this seriously a "Science Breakthrough" or is this a joke?

 

[Ryokai]

I'm actually surprised that it wasn't heavier. As an Israeli soldier, I'm expected to carry up to 60 percent of my weight into battle. What, have we made no progress in the last couple centuries that we're still lugging everything around?

 

[Jason Danger Keyes]

In all fairness, somebody important enough to be able to afford full plate armour would probably be more interested in staying alive than actually being an effective combatant, so armour over fighting ability makes sense.