The myth that knights could barely move in their armor has finally been dispelled by Thrillist
(darkest dungeon) reynauld’s 2.0 speed is such bullshit i tell you aghhh
(laughter) Hey @petermorwood, show them the video from the Royal Armouries that’s, what, pushing a decade older than this? Thrillist was asleep at the wheel.
This one surfaces every couple of years and, to go by some of the disparaging Facebook comments, any claim of “has finally been dispelled” remains wishful thinking.
The full knight-soldier-fireman obstacle run is here and Thrillist wasn’t that slow off the mark (their post was 2017) since the run took place in October-November 2016.
I can’t find the Royal Armouries video @dduane mentioned (I think it’s LITERALLY a video, i.e. a VHS tape) but here’s a short film, also from 8 years ago, with the armoured guy from the obstacle run…
…a compilation posted 9 years ago, circa 2015, meaning that all the clips are that old or older…
…and here’s Mike Loades in a clip posted on YouTube 16 years ago…
…from a series called “Weapons That Made Britain”, originally broadcast in 2004. The complete episode on armour is here.
Loades has been
busting armour-immobilty myths since the 1990s (once again, I have VHS tapes somewhere…)
I’ve also got several posts tagged #mobility in armour
about it on my Tumblr blog, but here are a couple of things about armour in general which nobody seems to consider.
If knights could barely move in armour, why did they – and everyone else who could get some – wear so much of it for so long?
A knight who couldn’t move effectively was no more use in battle than a tank without an engine, which suggests they could move in it just fine.
*****
All of that refers to armour for serious kill-or-be-killed battle, known as “field armour” or “field harness”. Incidentally, if you read about someone who “died in harness” (i.e. while still working at their job rather than retired) it implies the sort of harness worn by draft horses, but AFAIK is not the original meaning at all.
It’s also what’s meant when a knight who lost a joust forfeited “horse and harness” – not just his mount, its saddle and bridle, but all his armour as well.
Losing was an expensive business, but profitable for winners (some men, like William Marshal, made a career out of it) because, since that armour was almost certainly made to measure and since making another would take months, the loser would be more inclined to buy it back so as to quickly re-equip and perhaps be the winner next time.
*****
Tournament armour wasn’t field armour, which had to balance the advantages of protection against the disadvantages of weight and fatigue during
the several hours of a battle.
It started out as the same armour worn for war, but gradually developed into specialised sports kit worn in closely monitored, tightly rule-bound contests. It was often so specialised that an armour worn for one style of jousting…
…was different to the armour worn for another style, so great lords, princes, kings and emperors would own several armours built for whichever were the most popular jousting styles of their region.
Horses were also specially trained. The jousting horse or “destrier” (a word derived from
“dexter”, right) was trained to always swerve right, not left, in other
words away from not into any potential risk, and of course every jouster needed more than one horse.
*****
Tournaments had become a sport for the rich and the royal.
Before François I of France met Henry VIII of England in a formal foot-combat at The Field of Cloth of Gold (a 1520 diplomatic bunfight in Calais) he invoked a “my country, my rules” privilege and changed them.
This forced Henry to abandon his specially
built armour – among other features, the gauntlets could lock shut around a weapon so he couldn’t be disarmed
– in favour of less impressive armour thrown together in a hurry from existing parts.
It really annoyed him, which was almost certainly François‘s intention. There was no love lost between them…
Here’s a Royal Armouries video about it.
*****
Because tournament armour wasn’t meant for wear for protracted periods it could be – and was – made heavier and more rigid for safety.
Most jousting helms were screwed or bolted to the breastplate, to prevent a head-strike slamming it backwards and breaking the knight’s neck.
It didn’t matter that the only view was forward through a narrow slot. Forward was where the action happened, and that narrow slot kept it from coming inside.
The trick was to lean forward when charging in order to see out and aim, then lean back
at the last instant before impact. It was a game of chicken, with the one who leaned back last being the one with final
best aim.
However as happened to another king of France, Henri II, getting the timing wrong could be literally fatal.
Other armours had extra reinforcement plates (”pieces of advantage”) fixed in place over the main armour, with a very limited range of motion because more wasn’t required.
This one even has a head-brace in case the other fastenings weren’t enough, and it, the extra face protection and doubled breastplate /shield (”buffe” and “grande garde”) are held in place by very modern-looking wingnuts…
These armours have right arms with only two positions, either holding the lance…
…or not holding the lance.
A knight encased in something that inflexible really couldn’t get up unaided, but he wasn’t wearing it in the sort of battle situation where being able to get up, and indeed mount up, was a matter of life or death. This wasn’t typical combat armour any more than a Formula One or Indy 500 racer is a typical vehicle for going to the supermarket.
These tournament armours often belonged to important, wealthy people who kept them as decoration after their working life was done – “bruiséd arms hung up for monuments”, as Shakespeare puts it.
Because of that, more heavy, inflexible tournament kit has survived than light, nimble battle armour, and I’m pretty sure – thanks probably to the Victorians, originators of so much other “everyone knows” medieval nonsense – that’s the source of most claims about excess weight and minimal movement.
The myth that knights could barely move in their armor has finally been dispelled by Thrillist
(darkest dungeon) reynauld’s 2.0 speed is such bullshit i tell you aghhh
(laughter) Hey @petermorwood, show them the video from the Royal Armouries that’s, what, pushing a decade older than this? Thrillist was asleep at the wheel.
This one surfaces every couple of years and, to go by some of the disparaging Facebook comments, any claim of “has finally been dispelled” remains wishful thinking.
The full knight-soldier-fireman obstacle run is here and Thrillist wasn’t that slow off the mark (their post was 2017) since the run took place in October-November 2016.
I can’t find the Royal Armouries video @dduane mentioned (I think it’s LITERALLY a video, i.e. a VHS tape) but here’s a short film, also from 8 years ago, with the armoured guy from the obstacle run…
…a compilation posted 9 years ago, circa 2015, meaning that all the clips are that old or older…
…and here’s Mike Loades in a clip posted on YouTube 16 years ago…
…from a series called “Weapons That Made Britain”, originally broadcast in 2004. The complete episode on armour is here.
Loades has been
busting armour-immobilty myths since the 1990s (once again, I have VHS tapes somewhere…)
I’ve also got several posts tagged #mobility in armour
about it on my Tumblr blog, but here are a couple of things about armour in general which nobody seems to consider.
If knights could barely move in armour, why did they – and everyone else who could get some – wear so much of it for so long?
A knight who couldn’t move effectively was no more use in battle than a tank without an engine, which suggests they could move in it just fine.
*****
All of that refers to armour for serious kill-or-be-killed battle, known as “field armour” or “field harness”. Incidentally, if you read about someone who “died in harness” (i.e. while still working at their job rather than retired) it implies the sort of harness worn by draft horses, but AFAIK is not the original meaning at all.
It’s also what’s meant when a knight who lost a joust forfeited “horse and harness” – not just his mount, its saddle and bridle, but all his armour as well.
Losing was an expensive business, but profitable for winners (some men, like William Marshal, made a career out of it) because, since that armour was almost certainly made to measure and since making another would take months, the loser would be more inclined to buy it back so as to quickly re-equip and perhaps be the winner next time.
*****
Tournament armour wasn’t field armour, which had to balance the advantages of protection against the disadvantages of weight and fatigue during
the several hours of a battle.
It started out as the same armour worn for war, but gradually developed into specialised sports kit worn in closely monitored, tightly rule-bound contests. It was often so specialised that an armour worn for one style of jousting…
…was different to the armour worn for another style, so great lords, princes, kings and emperors would own several armours built for whichever were the most popular jousting styles of their region.
Horses were also specially trained. The jousting horse or “destrier” (a word derived from
“dexter”, right) was trained to always swerve right, not left, in other
words away from not into any potential risk, and of course every jouster needed more than one horse.
*****
Tournaments had become a sport for the rich and the royal.
Before François I of France met Henry VIII of England in a formal foot-combat at The Field of Cloth of Gold (a 1520 diplomatic bunfight in Calais) he invoked a “my country, my rules” privilege and changed them.
This forced Henry to abandon his specially
built armour – among other features, the gauntlets could lock shut around a weapon so he couldn’t be disarmed
– in favour of less impressive armour thrown together in a hurry from existing parts.
It really annoyed him, which was almost certainly François‘s intention. There was no love lost between them…
Here’s a Royal Armouries video about it.
*****
Because tournament armour wasn’t meant for wear for protracted periods it could be – and was – made heavier and more rigid for safety.
Most jousting helms were screwed or bolted to the breastplate, to prevent a head-strike slamming it backwards and breaking the knight’s neck.
It didn’t matter that the only view was forward through a narrow slot. Forward was where the action happened, and that narrow slot kept it from coming inside.
The trick was to lean forward when charging in order to see out and aim, then lean back
at the last instant before impact. It was a game of chicken, with the one who leaned back last being the one with final
best aim.
However as happened to another king of France, Henri II, getting the timing wrong could be literally fatal.
Other armours had extra reinforcement plates (”pieces of advantage”) fixed in place over the main armour, with a very limited range of motion because more wasn’t required.
This one even has a head-brace in case the other fastenings weren’t enough, and it, the extra face protection and doubled breastplate /shield (”buffe” and “grande garde”) are held in place by very modern-looking wingnuts…
These armours have right arms with only two positions, either holding the lance…
…or not holding the lance.
A knight encased in something that inflexible really couldn’t get up unaided, but he wasn’t wearing it in the sort of battle situation where being able to get up, and indeed mount up, was a matter of life or death. This wasn’t typical combat armour any more than a Formula One or Indy 500 racer is a typical vehicle for going to the supermarket.
These tournament armours often belonged to important, wealthy people who kept them as decoration after their working life was done – “bruiséd arms hung up for monuments”, as Shakespeare puts it.
Because of that, more heavy, inflexible tournament kit has survived than light, nimble battle armour, and I’m pretty sure – thanks probably to the Victorians, originators of so much other “everyone knows” medieval nonsense – that’s the source of most claims about excess weight and minimal movement.
amhrancas 