Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Olden days knights carried more than just the plate armor around. Of course, they also had serfs and squires for the rest of that stuff.

 trexmeyer wrote:


Medieval plate armor typically only weighed about 45-55 pounds. That's not exactly extremely heavy.

Still not something most people could just strap on and fight in, although that's a good point - people tend to forget how good the armourers and smiths of the time were at churning out high quality steel.

As Nuggz pointed out soldiers today are ruck marching with twice that.

From my limited military experience, we would march with a whole load of kit on our back but the general principle was to ditch that when it came to combat as theoretically you could live and fight from what you had in your pouches and pockets for a couple of days, depending on the situation of course.

Also, IOTV weighs about 30 pounds fully outfitted and soldiers can maneuver fine with that. Consider the fact medieval warriors weren't much smaller than men today. The armor weight shouldn't have greatly reduced movement, but I can't speak to how restrictive it may or may not have been.

Never had the dubious pleasure of wearing a full ballistic vest for anything longer than a minute or two, never mind plate armour. Personally I think it's remarkable that knights and men at arms in full armour - and modern soldiers - can maneuver as well as they do in combat, even with our kit on (body armour, cuffs, baton etc) it's difficult to perform some tasks that would otherwise be pretty simple, ie taking off a seatbelt before rapidly de-bussing a vehicle, climbing over walls etc. Although maybe that says more about our generally crappy issue kit than anything else....

 trexmeyer wrote:

Also, IOTV weighs about 30 pounds fully outfitted and soldiers can maneuver fine with that. Consider the fact medieval warriors weren't much smaller than men today. The armor weight shouldn't have greatly reduced movement, but I can't speak to how restrictive it may or may not have been.

Not much smaller, but certainly not as well trained or fed either; meaning less proportional muscle mass.

As to restriction: it is pretty damn. I remember going to a ren-faire in France and having all the performers laugh at me when I tried to tie my shoe with a breastplate on. Plate takes away a lot of the flexibility people are accustomed to.

 trexmeyer wrote:

Also, IOTV weighs about 30 pounds fully outfitted and soldiers can maneuver fine with that.

No... It weighs that with just the plates/carrier portions. Depending on the individual load out, and what gubbins are put onto the vest, you're looking at closer to 40-50, maybe even 60-70 (in rare cases)

 dogma wrote:

Not much smaller, but certainly not as well trained or fed either; meaning less proportional muscle mass.

You'd be surprised.
The knights wearing the armour were extremely well trained, and were the social elite of the time, meaning that they were well fed too.
From the skeletal remains we have, and forensic examination thereof, we know that they were fit and strong, probably as fit and strong (if not stronger) than a modern infantryman.
Archers certainly were stronger, this we know from the remains of warbows, some of which have 200lb draws.

 Hordini wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I guess they use to call them Marius' Mules for a reason.

There's no Roman equipment in the photo series though, is there?

Far too early, these photos only cover approx 1000 years.

I find WW1 kit fascinating, it's like the crossover between the medieval and the modern soldier. You have what seems like modern equipment, bolt action rifles, machine guns, grenades... mans then there's all the awful kit for fighting close quarters in the trenches, knives, clubs, maces and armour like this that seems from a different century. WW2 seems much closer to modern warfare.

 marv335 wrote:

The knights wearing the armour were extremely well trained, and were the social elite of the time, meaning that they were well fed too.

Still not as well fed as contemporary soldiers. I mean, hell, comparing modern rations to those issued as early as Vietnam leaves the baseline wanting.

Your points about training and strength are well taken, though.

marv335 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Not much smaller, but certainly not as well trained or fed either; meaning less proportional muscle mass.

You'd be surprised.
The knights wearing the armour were extremely well trained, and were the social elite of the time, meaning that they were well fed too.
From the skeletal remains we have, and forensic examination thereof, we know that they were fit and strong, probably as fit and strong (if not stronger) than a modern infantryman.
Archers certainly were stronger, this we know from the remains of warbows, some of which have 200lb draws.

Yeah. I doubt you had monsters running around, but there were probably a fair few at 160+ eating a ton of meat and veggies. I think we underestimate them far too much.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

Also, IOTV weighs about 30 pounds fully outfitted and soldiers can maneuver fine with that.

No... It weighs that with just the plates/carrier portions. Depending on the individual load out, and what gubbins are put onto the vest, you're looking at closer to 40-50, maybe even 60-70 (in rare cases)

Thanks for the correction! That further proves the point that the "immobile" knight is a bit of an exaggeration.

 trexmeyer wrote:


Thanks for the correction! That further proves the point that the "immobile" knight is a bit of an exaggeration.

What I usually find rather amusing in these sorts of discussions is that people dont often think of Feudal Japanese warriors... The samurai wore much the same style of get up as their European equivalent (multi-layered clothing, armor plates/woven armor, etc) but people just sort of assume, because theyre samurai, they are naturally more mobile than the European knight. Truth is, a fully armored warrior would have had pretty close to the same level of mobility, whether he's wearing a European style kit, or Japanese style kit. Of course, if you're talking later medieval armor, yes, Europeans had less mobility, due to having various bits of armor interlocking with each other (as far as fighting mobility, not running/jumping), but that particular style of armor was used exclusively for knights who started a battle mounted on horseback.

After looking at this a story I read online a while back makes a heck of a lot more sense. There was a combat engineer in the Marines who wanted a pistol as his issue weapon (i.e. the thing he had to carry whenever he was outside the designated "secured area") but couldn't get one since the officers grabbed them all. He was in a pretty bad spot since he had to carry around all the extra engineering gear as well as all your regular stuff, and then I'm pretty sure someone issued him a SAW. He was righteously pissed about that.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I guess they use to call them Marius' Mules for a reason.

There's no Roman equipment in the photo series though, is there?

Far too early, these photos only cover approx 1000 years.

Well yes, I'm aware from when Roman equipment dates from, and what it looks like. I was more trying to make sure I hadn't missed a photo, since Easy E had made a comment about Marius' Mules.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:


Thanks for the correction! That further proves the point that the "immobile" knight is a bit of an exaggeration.

What I usually find rather amusing in these sorts of discussions is that people dont often think of Feudal Japanese warriors... The samurai wore much the same style of get up as their European equivalent (multi-layered clothing, armor plates/woven armor, etc) but people just sort of assume, because theyre samurai, they are naturally more mobile than the European knight. Truth is, a fully armored warrior would have had pretty close to the same level of mobility, whether he's wearing a European style kit, or Japanese style kit. Of course, if you're talking later medieval armor, yes, Europeans had less mobility, due to having various bits of armor interlocking with each other (as far as fighting mobility, not running/jumping), but that particular style of armor was used exclusively for knights who started a battle mounted on horseback.

A properly fitted suit of war plate is pretty much the best armor you can have. Full stop - it is better in almost every way than even the best suits of Japanese armor. It provided better protection and better mobility. The only advantage Japanese armor provided was that it was easier to put on. And it was functionally identical to styles of armor Europeans had, and were of course surpassed by plate. Everything else that glorifies Japanese armor and/or weapons is pure nerd fantasy. Japanese weapons and armor simply weren't that great - they benefited by being isolated from the rest of the world.

 dementedwombat wrote:
After looking at this a story I read online a while back makes a heck of a lot more sense. There was a combat engineer in the Marines who wanted a pistol as his issue weapon (i.e. the thing he had to carry whenever he was outside the designated "secured area") but couldn't get one since the officers grabbed them all. He was in a pretty bad spot since he had to carry around all the extra engineering gear as well as all your regular stuff, and then I'm pretty sure someone issued him a SAW. He was righteously pissed about that.

That's just downright cruel. At least he didn't carry alternate barrels and additional ammo for the SAW? Right?

 Bromsy wrote:


A properly fitted suit of war plate is pretty much the best armor you can have.

Agreed... I was just pointing out the fallacy that I've seen previously of Samurai being some kind of super soldier, able to do all kinds of crazy Crouching Tiger bullgak in their full battle armor.... I will say though, that a folded steel samurai sword is pretty damn good considering the materials that the smiths were using. They were very good at their purpose, and used in their proscribed style for that purpose, however, I'd say that even a middling quality longsword from the armories of England, France or Germany would be of a higher quality metal overall than a folded Japanese sword.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:


A properly fitted suit of war plate is pretty much the best armor you can have.

Agreed... I was just pointing out the fallacy that I've seen previously of Samurai being some kind of super soldier, able to do all kinds of crazy Crouching Tiger bullgak in their full battle armor.... I will say though, that a folded steel samurai sword is pretty damn good considering the materials that the smiths were using. They were very good at their purpose, and used in their proscribed style for that purpose, however, I'd say that even a middling quality longsword from the armories of England, France or Germany would be of a higher quality metal overall than a folded Japanese sword.

I'm pretty sure only weebs believe that and the rest of the internet either ignores them or trolls them back.

I think it is surprising just how small your average knight actually was. Whenever I see armor from the medieval periods they look like they were designed for 12-15 year olds. Your average modern American or European soldier would struggle to get those suits on.

I own a picture of the average soldier that fought in WWI and the American/British/Australian soldiers towered over all the others. There are accounts of German soldiers complaining about being over powered and out matched by British and American infantry in trench combat.

As for heavy combat loads. I've had the pleasure of dismount patrolling a M240B with 1200 rounds. That doesn't stop being heavy or cumbersome. You do however feel like a BAMF.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

I've had the pleasure of dismount patrolling a M240B with 1200 rounds. That doesn't stop being heavy or cumbersome. You do however feel like a BAMF.

Been there as well.. (the one mission I had this way was such a cluster feth, it really wasn't even that funny). I did have to jokingly bitch at my CO that he wouldn't give me a bayonet for my 240. I always maintained that I needed a bayonet that I could mount on there

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I think it is surprising just how small your average knight actually was. Whenever I see armor from the medieval periods they look like they were designed for 12-15 year olds. Your average modern American or European soldier would struggle to get those suits on.

I own a picture of the average soldier that fought in WWI and the American/British/Australian soldiers towered over all the others. There are accounts of German soldiers complaining about being over powered and out matched by British and American infantry in trench combat.

As for heavy combat loads. I've had the pleasure of dismount patrolling a M240B with 1200 rounds. That doesn't stop being heavy or cumbersome. You do however feel like a BAMF.

Any idea where I could find those accounts? Google is not being friendly to that search.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I think it is surprising just how small your average knight actually was. Whenever I see armor from the medieval periods they look like they were designed for 12-15 year olds. Your average modern American or European soldier would struggle to get those suits on.

I own a picture of the average soldier that fought in WWI and the American/British/Australian soldiers towered over all the others. There are accounts of German soldiers complaining about being over powered and out matched by British and American infantry in trench combat.

As for heavy combat loads. I've had the pleasure of dismount patrolling a M240B with 1200 rounds. That doesn't stop being heavy or cumbersome. You do however feel like a BAMF.

Any idea where I could find those accounts? Google is not being friendly to that search.

I can't remember source either, but I do recall reading repeatedly that Gaius Julius (aka, Julius Caesar) was a "giant" among men... By more modern estimations, he was around 5'4"-5'6" where the average Roman man in those days was around 4'8" (and to think, a mere few hundred years, you'd have gigantic barbarians from the North who averaged around 6 foot even ransacking most of Europe)

4'8"? That's not right at all lol. Shortest number I could find for them was 5'2" and other sources put them at 5'6".

Why is there a huge skip from the 100 years war to WW1? What about Cromwell's new model army?

ATXMILEY wrote:
Why is there a huge skip from the 100 years war to WW1? What about Cromwell's new model army?

The pictures in the linked article are only a portion of the actual collection. There are links at the top of the article to both the origional artist's homepage as well as the news article that Slate shamelessly stole...er creatively recycled their story from.

@trexmeyer

This is the picture. Found in Dorling Kindersley Limited's World War I.

The American is clearly taller than the British, look at the eye and shoulder level. The British man is only first because he has a tall hat.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The American is clearly taller than the British, look at the eye and shoulder level. The British man is only first because he has a tall hat.

Ah, the mighty pith helmet; saving egos since the 19th century.

Nice little nod to Sharpe in there.

 Albatross wrote:
Nice little nod to Sharpe in there.

Where? The inclusion of a rifleman's kit instead of a regular line infantry's?

 motyak wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Nice little nod to Sharpe in there.

Where? The inclusion of a rifleman's kit instead of a regular line infantry's?

Pretty much. Not sure how intentional a nod it would have been though.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:


A properly fitted suit of war plate is pretty much the best armor you can have.

Agreed... I was just pointing out the fallacy that I've seen previously of Samurai being some kind of super soldier, able to do all kinds of crazy Crouching Tiger bullgak in their full battle armor.... I will say though, that a folded steel samurai sword is pretty damn good considering the materials that the smiths were using. They were very good at their purpose, and used in their proscribed style for that purpose, however, I'd say that even a middling quality longsword from the armories of England, France or Germany would be of a higher quality metal overall than a folded Japanese sword.

I'm pretty sure only weebs believe that and the rest of the internet either ignores them or trolls them back.

To become a Samurai Master (or whatever the higher ranks are called) you have to be able to deflect an arrow with no armour on.

Its pretty amazing to see really. They actually fire from a pretty short distance.

While its near impossible to do in actual combat, it goes to show the dedication and skill required to be a Samurai. Things like having to block attacks using the back of their sword and the quickly striking using the sharp edge.

I personally think they are pretty cool. But very different style of fighting to Europeans and so on.

Seeing the full range of kits in the original blog is well worth it. It's interesting to see how much kit lightened up from the Bosworth field to Tilbury, before slowly becoming heavier again over time. The obvious reason is the introduction of blackpowder weapons, but the steady increase in kit over the blackpowder era indicates other factors are at play as well.

 Inquisitor Gonzo wrote:
What a lot of people forget - and what I've had endless arguments with folks about over the old Ninja and Samurai vs Knight arguments - are two quite important points.

Firstly, most knights had been training to fight in full armour from an early age. As such they knew what they could and couldn't do in it and their bodies had grown up used to these demands.

Secondly, the armour itself was usually custom-made for a particular knight. So they fit that knight really well and that makes a massive difference as some guys have already commented here - I luckily don't have to wear a full ballistic vest with plates but our body armour is fitted, and having used a 'spare' set for a few weeks the difference is noticeable.

I think the other point that gets missed in these conversations is that whatever the disadvantage in mobility might be, it was nothing compared to the advantage of being able deflect strikes that would kill an unarmoured man. That's why, you know, soldiers went to the great expense of acquiring and training in all that armour