Plate Armor Endurance study

[Sean Manning]

I'm a bit confused about Dan's use of "walking to the battle." Of course men at arms would walk to the battle in armour, if they were fighting on foot; they would usually wear less armour when riding on campaign, but the infantry would take off their armour too if they could help it. I am about to read the original study.

Throughout history there has been a remarkable consistency in the armor of foot soldiers - a helmet, armor for the torso, and let the limbs take their chances. From Egypt to Assyria to Greece and Rome, Migration-era and medieval Europe, and the last armored infantry of the 17th century pike formations, into the revival of armor in modern times, you always see the same - a helmet and body armor, with armor for the legs, usually just the knees, on special occasions. Only horsemen, and in modern times vehicle-mounted and helicopter troops, wore full armor.

The obvious counterexample is the Greeks, who sometimes wore greaves, a helmet, and no body armour. But their willingness to protect the shins (like the 14th century European interest in infantry sleeves and gauntlets) is unusual. One of the thighs, shins, and upper arms seems to have been the third place most people armoured after the skull and body.