Medieval Armour was Heavy

Users who are viewing this thread


In simple terms - you just get used to moving in it, the body adapts. Sure, they might have eaten worse food than athletes eat today, but somehow they still managed to wear armour into battle repeatedly. I guess it simply worked, despite our ridiculous attempts to claim otherwise.


Sergeant Knight at Arms
Archonsod said:
Papa Lazarou said:
Especially true for modern running styles which I suspect were not used historically by those in heavy armour.

I doubt anyone would be running that much on the battlefield in the first place, at least not towards the enemy anyway. There's a reason they had formations.

On the ancient battlefields, the hoplite phalanx would close at a run. The romans often closed at a run. The saxon and norse formations are from what what I have read meant to be used with the close at a run.  Formation != static or slow moving.


Im not sure about this but at the end of 16th Century the armour of a Knight was so heavy, that when he got knocked down from his horse he couldnt get up. Ouch


Cleomenes said:
Im not sure about this but at the end of 16th Century the armour of a Knight was so heavy, that when he got knocked down from his horse he couldnt get up. Ouch



Sergeant Knight at Arms

Oh, and the original academic article was just 'Turns out, weight evenly distributed across the body takes more energy to walk and run in than an equal weight that is being carried in specially designed equipment for those tasks'. Nothing about moving more dexterously, or in combat. It's interesting, but a sideshow that doesn't even affect interpretations of historical battles, as the dodgy press releases suggest.

The only interesting bit was how they affect breathing, limiting the amount that the chest can expand and so needing 'deep breathing' techniques. But that's not really ground breaking either.

...Continue Thing Hatred.


Grandmaster Knight
@Lord of Shadows: 'closing at a run' is something I'm sure Archonsod wasn't trying to discount at all. But it is not an extended period of running, is it. The point is, any given person is going to tire more when they are carrying more weight, and having weight on one's limbs makes them tire faster. Obviously people were keen to wear armour almost whenever it was available, but that is because having protection against sharp blades and forceful blows is essential, not because wearing armour a lot makes anyone invulnerable to the limitations it puts on your exertions. People would be potentially able to fight for longer without armour, but glancing blows would be far more likely to cause debilitating injuries and stop you before endurance becomes a factor.

I'm sure soldiers of today get used to wearing their combat harnesses and backpacks, but they still have better endurance without it on. They wear it because they need it to be effective soldiers, not because it is possible to make the weight insignificant to them through training.
Top Bottom