Interesting facts you know about medieval warfare?

Currently viewing this thread:

VuK_VuK

Recruit
alkoaine said:
From what I've heard a medieval soldier armoured from head to toe would still be carrying less weight than a modern infantry man, and the medieval soldier would have his burden better distributed. It varies of course by what type of armour he is wearing, but especially later full plate armours could be fairly light, and made in such a way as to allow very much freedom of movement.

All in all, the equipment was lighter than we usually think, but of course swinging a sword that weighs not much more than a kilogram gets tiring more quickly than we expect also.

Actually no. Full plate wasn't one piece of armour. It was made of a cloth padded armour, with chain mesh and steel plate on that. So it weighted allot and was hard to move in, just try putting on two pants. You cant wear just metal on your skin, so the combination of those layers made them almost invincible. But as i wrote, the full plate came almost at the end of the middle ages.
As most army's in the middle ages where equip with padded armour with some chain and later breast plates that was light. And it didn't encumber the farmer on a campain.
The good equipment was reserved for noble knight who would pay for it from there own pockets, also for army's going on crusades, that's why they where so expensive, and the economy in the middle ages was on human races all times low.

Also, for them it was easier as our body were a bit different back then, but that's another story.
 

The_Hound

Sergeant
Gambino said:
the fact is that knights used to **** in their armour because it was hard to put it on and take it off and needed help from squires and servants.
that's a myth. Unless they didnt battle for days clad in plate armor, there was no reason why they would **** or piss in it. And even in this very unlikely case, it would be a very, very non-desirable option as you would probably get skin diseases considering the sanitation standards back then.
 

saerossaeros

Sergeant
WB
In extreme situations, it's very common for people to soil themselves out of fear. Some high profile athletes and dancers take pills in order to don't do that in very important competitions.

So I'd guess that, if the soldier were neither drunk nor an elite fighter, used to the battlefield, the sight of the enemy charging at him would make him frightened enough for that.

Also, fear is chemically contagious. So the more you fellow soldiers became scared, the quickier fear would spread.
 

The_Hound

Sergeant
well of course if you were scared to death you could **** yourself but it applies equally to plate armor and modern trousers. Don't try to tell me that seeing a charging enemy would make a ww2 soldier squat in a comfortable position and ****.  :lol:
What the OP implied though was that knights ****ted themselves on regular basis while clad in heavy plate, because, you know, taking it off was hard. Actually, as someone already stated above, platemails were not one piece and usually the lower piece covering the genitals and anus was most easy to open. Most mounted knights didnt use it at all as armored horses and steel saddles would cover it equally effective while being no nuissance to riding.
I can not believe we are talking about knight-****ting.  :grin:
 

noosers

Grandmaster Knight
M&BWB
saerossaeros said:
Always a pleasure to have you here, Noosers  :wink:

Vikings were medieval. Romans were mentioned for the warfare part of the thread. Some extra knowledge can always be useful for someone. :smile:

Thank you for reminding me that the early medieval period is considered to start in the 6th century, so extra knowledge can be useful for someone indeed. What most people depict though when they hear medieval is after 1066. Sorry me for beeing one of them.

So many lies, myths and halfmyths posted in this thread, it´s almost as Ancalimon was here.
 

zekic

Regular
So many lies, myths and halfmyths posted in this thread, it´s almost as Ancalimon was here.
Well in my opinion half of what we know about medieval is lies and myths taken as facts ^^
 

Fulkram

Recruit
WB
About the crapping in armor....

You might notice that heavy armors tend to have no butt save for a lamellar or mail drape over it..... You could crap while wearing it, but you didn't have to crap IN it. Codpiece was also a "separate" affair that you could remove by itself OR lift depending on the design. But thank you for the mental image.
 
zekic said:
So many lies, myths and halfmyths posted in this thread, it´s almost as Ancalimon was here.
Well in my opinion half of what we know about medieval is lies and myths taken as facts ^^

History is written by the conqueror. Even history has lies.

It must suck to have diarrhea and be in a full suit of armor charging into the thick of battle.
 

Rpground

Sergeant at Arms
WB
pericles_plato said:
zekic said:
So many lies, myths and halfmyths posted in this thread, it´s almost as Ancalimon was here.
Well in my opinion half of what we know about medieval is lies and myths taken as facts ^^

History is written by the conqueror. Even history has lies.

It must suck to have diarrhea and be in a full suit of armor charging into the thick of battle.


dont eat the soap...
 

Rpground

Sergeant at Arms
WB
alkoaine said:
Rpground said:
heavy armors were actually VERY hard and cumbersome to move and fight in. it required both high strength and high endurance. not to mention falling in one of these made it near impossible to get up no matter how strong you were. this was why everyone wasnt running around in a set of full plate,not to mention how expensive it was on top of that.

From what I've heard a medieval soldier armoured from head to toe would still be carrying less weight than a modern infantry man, and the medieval soldier would have his burden better distributed. It varies of course by what type of armour he is wearing, but especially later full plate armours could be fairly light, and made in such a way as to allow very much freedom of movement.

All in all, the equipment was lighter than we usually think, but of course swinging a sword that weighs not much more than a kilogram gets tiring more quickly than we expect also.

if you looked at what a set of this armor in-tales you would see just how much you would be wearing,and just how heavy it would be. just walking in it was extremely tiring,much less fighting in it. it would be like what your wearing normally,but 3 times as much and each layer was heavier then the last. now add a sword and a shield maybe a lance. why do you think they were mounted most of the time? lol
 

Shire

Sergeant
I love topics like this because you never know who you can believe!

Some say the armor was so heavy you're like a turtle, some say the armor weighs about the same as modern combat kit, although the weight is distributed differently.

Like say here, heaviest 90 lbs for joust armor.
 

DrSane

^ i saw that video, **** it was cool

Humans where ALOT smaller in the dark and middle ages, since food was scarce and generally poor quality. How much something wieghs can quite easily have been lost in translation as humans have evolved larger. What everyone considers a kilogram to weigh now might not have been the same as back then.

Armour was by no means insanely heavy, it couldnt be in combat, if it was so heavy that you couldn't jog a few metres without having a heart attack then it would be impractical to wear it. Armour was certainly heavy, and you would need to be at the peak of physical endurance to wear and fight in it, but to put it in perspective, some knights could mount horses by themselves in armour. Its a relitively thin piece of steel, a couple of centimetres tops. As for it maneuverability, armour became better with time, at the start of the renaissance it was almost perfectly maneuverable in.
 

Suspicous Pilgrim

Grandmaster Knight
Only peasants were shorter. Lords generally ate better then the commoners because they, you know, took their food. Charlemagne was 6"8, for example.
 

DrSane

But was the feet they were measuring with then the same as the ones you do now?
 

omegaweapon

Sergeant at Arms
DrSane said:
^ i saw that video, **** it was cool

Humans where ALOT smaller in the dark and middle ages, since food was scarce and generally poor quality. How much something wieghts can quite easily have been lost in translation as humans have evolved larger. What everyone considers a kilogram to weigh now might not have been the same as back then.

now this is too much. evolution of humans take a lot more than any history book can remember, and except if gravity changed in 1000 years witch i really doubt, kilogram is kilogram, (if there was a real kilogram to begin with.)
too much fantasy can hurt sometimes.
 

DrSane

Nobles certainly ate better, but were shorter than the average hieght of people today.

nothing to do with evolution, but basic diet and nutrition.

What is a kilogram? 1000 grams? then what is a gram, who decided it was that much, is there anything in the universe that is a perfect kilogram? No, we can only work with rough estimates. Im not saying the gravity changes, im saying what people considered to be a kilogram changes, as in someone might consider it to be more than you or i do etc.
 

omegaweapon

Sergeant at Arms
why do you defend something that is certainly false? just see the middle and dark age houses,
in that time people didn't live in rabbit holes, and don't tell me they liked to live in big houses, because poor people, lived in a house as big as themselves, you know they couldn't have a better house.

if u say there was a lot of small people in that time i may agree with you, but to say people were ALOT smaller in that time is nonsense.

do u even know what is the meaning of kilogram? there is a something that we say its weight is 1 kilogram, its comparison, its how unit works.

there should be such a system in that time too, (they find a stone and said well its 1 kilogram (actually pond), and this stone would survive until now. ) because there was a trade system in that time too.
 
Top Bottom