Can You Move in Medieval Armour? An Experiment in Mythbusting - Medievalists.net
Many believe the myth that medieval armour was hard to move in. However, with Boucicaut as an example, our video proves that late medieval armour allowed for surprising mobility.
I'm more a proponent of the idea that humans were physically more robust in earlier times, and that we have slowly been purposefully degraded in this aspect.
Every once in a while, if you're alert, you'll pick up examples of human physical prowess that simply do not seem possible even for the stoutest humans today. Native Americans were said to be able to run 50 miles and fight a battle at the end. Vikings could build complete sailing vessels with hand tools. Pioneers showed up in virgin territory with basic implements, built shelters and started farming. Who could do any of these things today?
There's an existing indigenous tribe in Northern Mexico where many can run over 300 miles. I thought it was some kind of Internet hoax when I first read about them. One can also read about the capabilities of Wim Hof, who says he's no one special and teaches his skills to many.
So maybe wearing full plate armor was actually no big deal at the time, and such a fact is part of the knowledge about our true capacities that is carefully kept from us.
No, we have surviving examples of plate armor, and wearing armor built to the same specs is no big deal now. Maybe the older generations were stronger, but regardless of if they were, the design distributes the weight of the armor across your body in a way that makes it easy to manage even for modern people.
I, too, read the article.
I didn't bother. The headline made it clear it was just stuff I already knew.
My mistake replying. As a rule, I try to avoid engaging with anyone about anything they "already know".
I already know because I already studied that stuff years ago, smartass.
I just have to observe I'm not the one so insistent and persistent in telling the group about how smart he is. Maybe that was the point all along, and not much to do with armor or knights.
You don't have to be any sort of genius to read up on antique armaments and remember what you learned, dude. Not sure why you're interpreting something an average man should be able to do as bragging.
Just because you can't or down't know how to do it, doesn't mean it's impossible.
The armour was custom fit to the wearer.
The knights and men-at-arms were very athletic and well trained professional soldiers similar to today's Marines.
Strong and fit from lots of physical labor and training. Not made soft and weak from all the modern conveniences we have today.
You can go to any Renaissance Fair and watch them joust and duel in their armour and see how they move.
And these modern "knights" still aren't as hardy and rugged as the men who wore it centuries ago.
I wore some chain mail once ---- heavy as shit.
Sources are saying 60 lbs.
So strap a 50 lb bag of feed to your back and go practice.
I could see this only working with a small guy who is stout as shit.
The video is of late medieval chain mail, which was more evenly distributed. Chainmail's weight is mostly on the shoulders.
Also: https://hyperwear.com/collections/weight-vest
It's heavier than you think it would be --- a lot of weight is on your head too.
Go try some on.
An average person today would have trouble getting up out of a chair.
Best way to get the full understanding of the problem.
Not like that really. Problems will began around 10 minutes of wearing chainmail. At the beginning it is just heavy, but more than acceptable. Humans have relatively high limit of load. Problem is that this can't last long. Most people will have no problems lifting 50kg weight, but carrying that load for some time is completely another thing. I estimate average person will be unable to scratch a nose after an hour or two in chainmail.
You need months of training to adapt and be able to wear armor without exhausting. And still it will noticeably make you slower.
It is not surprising that you could shoot a video of how you can move in heavy armour for few minutes, but imagine you have to wear it all day long. :)
The average person is also weak and fat.
An average person who doesn't do regular manual labour would not be able to carry a trained soldier's gear.
Doesn't mean that soldiers are some superhumans. It's all about training.
You wore ill fitting overly heavy maille and not fitted and properly made one.
Yep, and even that poorly made replica is lighter than the loads a lot of modern soldiers are given to destroy their knees and spines with.
19th century writers who wanted to portray former eras as primitive.
That's it.
Such an exhaustive review of the literature, I'm totally convinced. lol
It's "enlightenment" era writers and philosophers who are most at fault for this really.
I happen to be very knowledgeable about European armour and its history.
How about yourself?
I'm sure you are, and so am I.
ok cool. So you are aware that the chivalric literature of the high middle ages make absolutely no mentioning of overly heavy amour, that the romantic medievalist revival of the 19th century with novels like Invahoe or A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court very clearly depicted medieval arms and amour as extremely heavy for the first time even though the types of arnour described didn't even exist during the time of Arthur or the 12th century?
Here's a sample from Mark Twain:
Completely nonsensical but Mark Twain was one of the most read authors of his time, his works were incredibly popular, so his description of arms and armour reached literally millions who until then had learned little to nothing about medieval arms and armor. .
Cool. I expected you espouse being a HEMA practitioner.
I loved Ivanhoe, and while it mentions armor in any specificity, the most interesting point is how the arrows of the men of the Sherwood Forest bounced off the plates of the opposing knights, as Richard the II leads them in a siege against a castle. Ivanhoe goes much against the myth of the longbow. It doesn't depict armor as cumbersome per se, as much as protective, and the physical ferocity of Richard is well noted.
As for CT Yankee, well, I saw the movie years ago. I will leave your quote as it is, but I can only surmise that you've not read much Mark Twain, because he uses comedic hyperbole in both that quote and as one of his comic tropes.
As for my assertion that the "enlightenment" portrayed all those who came before them as, well, "unenlightened," the primary evidence alone is in the name they gave their age.
Except of course that English knights didn't wear plate in the 12th century and longbows would have been very efficient against the maille that they would have worn.
I'm not debating the historicism of Ivanhoe, but rather the origin of the idea that plate armor (specifically high medieval) was cumbersome and the knights were unable to move well in it.
And depending on the range, and draw weight of the bow, mail is somewhat effective. Plenty of Youtube vids on this.
Anyway, you may be right, it could be 19th century fiction...but the origin came from a number of sources high disconnected with both the time period and martialism.