French knights were unfit?

[admin]

And they never pointed out that cap-a-pied armor was usually worn by cavalry...

That doesn't really apply to this period though. English men at arms traditionally fought on foot in the French wars and English armour of that period is specifically design to fight on foot. It is not lighter or less protective though - in fact English armour for fighting on foot is heavier and more protective than mid-15thC German armour, for example (which was designed primarily for mounted combat). Look at a foot armour from the 16thC - they are often heavier than armour for mounted combat.
In other words, you can't make generalisations about 'light' and 'heavy' in regard to infantry v cavalry combat. In the early-15thC a man at arms usually only owned one harness and expected to fight both mounted and unmounted in it.

[Thearos]

The Agincourt reference in the article is a crowd-pleaser, but not completely relevant, because, as Matt points out, many other factors came to play in that battle (did the French men-at-arms walk up the hill ?)

Most interesting, I thought, were the points about leg armour being a real drag (flagged by BD), and the difficulty of deep breathing in armour. The latter must have been true for other types of armour too-- e.g. the Greek (etc) type "linothorax", which is basically a box worn around the body (and can in fact be made of iron, as in the Vergina example) or the Roman "lorica segmentata", the metal hoops laced around the body.

Did someone write that the fighters at Leeds Royal Armoury have received P 45s ?

[Thearos]

Aerobics in harness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCvOC2VwDc

[Dan Howard]

The main problem with the test is that it is impossible to tell whether the increased energy consumption was caused by extra weight on the legs or restricted breathing caused by armour on the chest, since there was no control for this. A second control with armour on the upper body but not the legs would have helped with this.

Other problems include:
The excessive weight of the armour. Reenactment armour is usually "over engineered" so that it doesn't need repairing after every weekend.

Anyone with the money to wear this armour would have multiple horses to get them to the battle. Even if they fought on foot, fatigue caused by walking would have little effect on the outcome of most battles.

The armour was at least half a century too late to be relevant for Agincourt

[admin]

Anyone with the money to wear this armour would have multiple horses to get them to the battle. Even if they fought on foot, fatigue caused by walking would have little effect on the outcome of most battles.

Hi Dan, I don't agree that this point is valid in the case of Agincourt though. The fact remains that the French armoured men-at-arms had to walk at least 300 yards (probably much further, as the horses must have been kept somewhere out of the way), up hill in muddy conditions, as part of a great heaving mass of people, whilst being pelted with arrows and other projectiles. That might only be mildly tiring (I would argue it would be more than that), but it would nevertheless place the attackers at notable disadvantage to the defenders at the top of the hill behind their barricade.

It's irrelevant to this study precisely, but it is also worth mentioning for those who don't know that there was a cavalry charge of about 800 men at Agincourt as well. This failed miserably, probably because of a combination of the landscape (uphill and unable to flank due to woodland), the mud, the wooden stakes and the arrows. What is evident is that some of the men involved in this charge (eg. Boucicault) survived and were taken prisoner, so they must have ended up fairly close to the English lines (it is also good evidence that their armour protected them from the hundreds of arrows pointed their way - but maybe their horses weren't so lucky).

[David Welch]

it is also good evidence that their armour protected them from the hundreds of arrows pointed their way - but maybe their horses weren't so lucky

The first hand accounts I have read usually claim the archers did two things that were pretty importaint to the outcome.

The arrows rained down on them, and got the horses from the top through the barding. This upset the horses and made the charges impossible.

The second major thing it did was to force the French to make the slog with their visors down to protect them from the arrows. Because of this, by the time they made it to combat range the French were short of breath and over heated.

[admin]

The arrows rained down on them, and got the horses from the top through the barding. This upset the horses and made the charges impossible.

The original sources do mention problems with the horses, however we know that certain notable members of the cavalry force ended up as English prisoners, so they got to the English lines one way or another.
It's also worth mentioning that at Crecy, where the archery was equally formidable and the armour not as good, there were several notable people found dead by their horses very close in front of the English lines (eg. the blind King of Bohemia), so their horses got them pretty close and some cases almost certainly got them right up to and into the English lines. Horses can take quite a lot of damage before they drop and medieval bits and spurs were brutal (see the blood on the sides of the horses where the spurs dug in, in medieval art). There are 19thC accounts of horses being shot several times and still serving well before eventually dying from blood loss.

The second major thing it did was to force the French to make the slog with their visors down to protect them from the arrows. Because of this, by the time they made it to combat range the French were short of breath and over heated.

Yes, having a closed helmet does make a difference I think (it does to me anyway!). In fact it was pretty normal to advance with visors down and to raise them once in hand to hand combat - again, this is shown quite often in period art.

The real kick in the teeth for the French was that they did have pavises in wagons at Agincourt (there are records of hundreds being ordered), but the commanders were so eager to wipe out the English force that they didn't bother waiting to unpack them.... If the entire French force had waiting to assemble and advanced with pavises then I can't help think that things would have turned out differently.

[bigdummy]

And they never pointed out that cap-a-pied armor was usually worn by cavalry...

That doesn't really apply to this period though. English men at arms traditionally fought on foot in the French wars and English armour of that period is specifically design to fight on foot. It is not lighter or less protective though - in fact English armour for fighting on foot is heavier and more protective than mid-15thC German armour, for example (which was designed primarily for mounted combat). Look at a foot armour from the 16thC - they are often heavier than armour for mounted combat.
In other words, you can't make generalisations about 'light' and 'heavy' in regard to infantry v cavalry combat. In the early-15thC a man at arms usually only owned one harness and expected to fight both mounted and unmounted in it.

I think it is actually relevant because the French, who allegedly wore themselves out simply due to the weight of their armor, were cavalry.

I think we all know the mechanics of what happened at agincourt pretty well, (or at least the current understanding of it) the weight of the armor probably played some role, but I don't think the depiction in the press coverage of this study is accurate.

BD

[admin]

I think it is actually relevant because the French, who allegedly wore themselves out simply due to the weight of their armor, were cavalry.

I don't believe that they were inherantly less fit than the English though, and they weren't wearing heavier armour (as far as we know). Also, as I mentioned before, the majority of the French force were not fully armoured men-at-arms, but rather relatively lightly armoured militia infantry.

[bigdummy]

The second major thing it did was to force the French to make the slog with their visors down to protect them from the arrows. Because of this, by the time they made it to combat range the French were short of breath and over heated.

That is a good point I suspect. in foot combat in period art you often if not usually see the visors open. Heat was sited at towton as well wasn't it? It was cited in as the major problem with armor, not surprisingly, in Malta as well but Towton was fought during snow flurries. I think heat was one of the primary issues with armor.

I wonder if the breathing issue was to do again more with modern re-enactor armor. I used to wonder why some late medieval plate harness seemed to be so bulbous or gloubous in the torso area, seemingly larger than necessary. I had assumed it was for textile armor underneaht, but maybe this is so you can breathe when you are going flat out, something modern smiths may not take into account.

BD

[bigdummy]

I think it is actually relevant because the French, who allegedly wore themselves out simply due to the weight of their armor, were cavalry.

I don't believe that they were inherantly less fit than the English though, and they weren't wearing heavier armour (as far as we know). Also, as I mentioned before, the majority of the French force were not fully armoured men-at-arms, but rather relatively lightly armoured militia infantry.

I don't thnk they (the heavy cavalry) were inherently less fit than the English either, but I think they may have been wearing heavier armor for the very reason you cited, namely the English men-at-arms were already starting to adapt themselves to fight as infantry. so they may have already started using lighter armor. The French still very much preferred to fight as cavalry.

On a related note, a guy on another forum wrote this long essay in which he claims the English were using longswords as primary weapons for heavy infantry in the 100 years war? Does this seem likely to you? My understanding is that longswords are always sidearms like every other sword other than cavalry sabers at a much later date, and infantry two-handers from the 16th C onward.

BD

[admin]

From a personal perspective, one of the problems is that your arming doublet needs to be tight in order to hold the armour in place. I am not remotely constricted by my harness in terms of breathing, but the arming doublet makes me hot and constricts my chest and stomach to some degree. In fact it has to - if I wear it loose then the armour which is attached to it moves about in the wrong way.

[admin]

I think they may have been wearing heavier armor for the very reason you cited, namely the English men-at-arms were already starting to adapt themselves to fight as infantry. so they may have already started using lighter armor. The French still very much preferred to fight as cavalry.

But as I stated in my first post, the evidence does not support this. In fact to the contrary, foot armour was sometimes heavier than cavalry armour. At the very least there is no evidence that it was 'lighter' at this time. In fact French and English armour of 1415 was not very different - only differing in details really. English armour of 1415 is easy to examine from the many brasses and monuments from that time and it is very full and encompassing, often with a great bascinet (the helmet of choice for later pollaxe combats). The only possible weight differences I can think of with French armour of the same date is that great bascinets with fixed (rather than articulated) necks were more common in France, and also larger pauldrons occasionally. But by and large French and English armour was not very different (perhaps not that surprising given that huge parts of France were English...).

On a related note, a guy on another forum wrote this long essay in which he claims the English were using longswords as primary weapons for heavy infantry in the 100 years war? Does this seem likely to you?

No. All the evidence I know of from Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt agree that the short spear (as shown in Fiore) was the primary weapon for most English men-at-arms. The sources specifically* mention lances being shortened by the French to fight on foot as well. Longswords were however popular as secondary weapons in England from about 1360, as a lot of the monuments of the time show swords with fairly long hilts (ie. bastard swords). However they never predominate, always being about equal in number or less common than one-handers.

[bigdummy]

But as I stated in my first post, the evidence does not support this. In fact to the contrary, foot armour was sometimes heavier than cavalry armour. At the very least there is no evidence that it was 'lighter' at this time. In fact French and English armour of 1415 was not very different - only differing in details really. English armour of 1415 is easy to examine from the many brasses and monuments from that time and it is very full and encompassing, often with a great bascinet (the helmet of choice for later pollaxe combats). The only possible weight differences I can think of with French armour of the same date is that great bascinets with fixed (rather than articulated) necks were more common in France, and also larger pauldrons occasionally. But by and large French and English armour was not very different (perhaps not that surprising given that huge parts of France were English...).

Well, if not in weight, which I'm still not convinced of, there is a difference in that horsemans armor could have very different sabatons and I'm sure other types of emphasis in articulation than armor for a footman.

No. All the evidence I know of from Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt agree that the short spear (as shown in Fiore) was the primary weapon for most English men-at-arms. The sources specifically* mention lances being shortened by the French to fight on foot as well. Longswords were however popular as secondary weapons in England from about 1360, as a lot of the monuments of the time show swords with fairly long hilts (ie. bastard swords). However they never predominate, always being about equal in number or less common than one-handers.

Yeah that is what I figured, this guys essay has a lot of problems, I'll post a link to it in another thread. I wonder did they use other polearms like bills or sparth axes and so on?

BD

[admin]

The written texts for English at that time (early-15thC) suggest that the predominant primary for men-at-arms was the shortened spear, perhaps closely followed by the pollaxe. That is supported by the period art work. But the English army make up was not typical in Europe and seems more black and white, between men-at-arms and archers. As you know, armies in other parts of Europe often contained more varied types of infantry and many of those probably carried things like halberds and glaives etc.

[bigdummy]

Could you possibly provide me with some (written) sources for this (primary arms of English heavy infantry) so I can help this guy out?

BD

[MugginsToadwort]

From a personal perspective, one of the problems is that your arming doublet needs to be tight in order to hold the armour in place. I am not remotely constricted by my harness in terms of breathing, but the arming doublet makes me hot and constricts my chest and stomach to some degree. In fact it has to - if I wear it loose then the armour which is attached to it moves about in the wrong way.

That's very true- my pourpoint is very constricting, and it has to be to hold the legs up but not get in the way of movement. To a certain extent, while my legs are suspended (i.e. I stand straight up), the weight is distributed across my torso. While in a fighting stance, the thighs take a larger portion of the weight.

As far as breathing goes, I normally need a couple of minutes with the visor down to get used to rebreathing my own CO2- I can either drop the visor late and try to get the fight over and done with, or keep it down for a while as my system adjusts.

[admin]

BD,
At Poitiers the French King was advised by the Scot William Douglas to dismount his men at arms and shorten their lances to 5 foot. The implication is that this was the Scottish (and English) way of fighting.
There really is very little in the way of detail about the weapons used by English men-at-arms on foot in this period, but there is quite a lot of artwork showing blocks of 'knights' with short spears in the front couple of ranks (with other hand weapons mixed in).

Here is a nice little article, mostly mentioning French use of shortened lances:
http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... -foot.html

Looking at it logically, what advantage would a longsword give fighting en masse in armour? You'd be using it halfsword most of the time, so essentially you'd just be using a spear substitute that wasn't as good as a spear.

[bigdummy]

I agree, I'm just looking for something clear and succinct to show this guy, but it's probably pointless anyway.

Thanks for the link

BD

[Wolfgang Ritter]

From a personal perspective, one of the problems is that your arming doublet needs to be tight in order to hold the armour in place. I am not remotely constricted by my harness in terms of breathing, but the arming doublet makes me hot and constricts my chest and stomach to some degree. In fact it has to - if I wear it loose then the armour which is attached to it moves about in the wrong way.

That's very true- my pourpoint is very constricting, and it has to be to hold the legs up but not get in the way of movement. To a certain extent, while my legs are suspended (i.e. I stand straight up), the weight is distributed across my torso. While in a fighting stance, the thighs take a larger portion of the weight.

As far as breathing goes, I normally need a couple of minutes with the visor down to get used to rebreathing my own CO2- I can either drop the visor late and try to get the fight over and done with, or keep it down for a while as my system adjusts.

That's pretty much my experience as well - the arming doublet (just like the hoses) fit very tight in the late 14th and throughout the whole 15th century. That's by the way one of the main problems with today's reenactors bouting: ususally the doublet and hoses do not fit as they should - leading to restrictions in movements or simply uncomfortable armour.

I usually wear an open sallet and a bevor on reenactment events (as my visored sallet doesn't fit to the period I'm portraying - yep, I know, reenactors are...anal....).
But even with the open sallet breathing does get difficult. as I happen to breathe out against the bevor, thus having rebreathing my own CO2. I usually try to blow my breath somehow over my bevor which certainly leads to a strange facial expression which gladly noone sees.....

I used my visored sallet occasionally for HEMA purposes, it's more the restricted view than the restricted breath why I prefer the open sallet.

As it has been discussed: it does seem, that at least from the second half of ther 15th century onwards, certain armour-parts were astoundingly light: guantlets, vambraces, rerebraces, cuisses and greaves seem to be in general a lot thinner and lighter compared to breastplates and helmets.
Of course that's a wide field as there was quite a range of armour AND I don't know enough about the late 14th/very early 15th century, i.e quality of steel, heat treeatment etc..