Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Plate Armor Endurance study
#1
Treadmill shows medieval armour influenced battles

In a recent study, scientists put volunteers on a treadmill in full plate armor in order to quantify how much it affected the wearer's endurance.

This last part is pretty interesting.

Leg pains

The scientists also looked at how the volunteers performed while wearing armour compared with carrying the equivalent load on their backs, which is similar to the weight a modern soldier might carry in their backpack.

Dr Askew said: "We found there was a big difference: it is much more 'expensive' to carry the load as a suit of armour than it is to carry the load in a backpack.

"We were interested to find out why that was - and one of the main reasons is that if you wear a suit of armour, a lot of the weight is carried on the legs - about 7-8kg of it.

"And this means when you walk and you swing your legs, you are requiring a lot more muscular effort, and that costs you a lot more energy."


Perhaps this is why so many warriors throughout history, including the Romans, seemed to prefer leaving their legs completely bare.
Henry O.
Reply
#2
Yeah, especially if you have to march 17- 20 miles a day and build a camp!
Definately makes sense.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#3
The majority of fighters who could afford this type of armour could afford multiple horses to get them to the battle. Those who walked were not wearing this armour so the outcome of most battles would not be affected at all. One also suspects that if the armour was custom-fitted to the wearer as it was historically then the energy expenditure would not be so great. It definitely helps explain why infantry discarded leg armour ("half plate") before anything else. It also seems counterintuitive since wearing armour is a lot more comfortable than carrying the same weight on your back because the load is more evenly distributed.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#4
I can't remember whether this was stated in the strategikon or elsewhere but it was a rule (and common sense) that you don't march in greaves.I would hazard a guess that it was a military wisdom handed down over centuries (almost a pun) of experience. I concur with this view.
Regards
Richard
Reply
#5
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.
Reply
#6
While endurance is almost certainly a factor, I think cost is a very strong contender as well. But then again, it's very dangerous to overgeneralize about anything.

For example, if you're lugging a giant scuta around, your legs are already pretty well protected, so leg armor is kind of redundant.

A similar example - if you're garrisoning some kind of fortification, there will generally be a wall protecting at least everything below the waist.
--------
Ross

[url="http://galeforcearmoury.blogspot.com"] Working on a segmentata.[/url]
Reply
#7
Quote:The majority of fighters who could afford this type of armour could afford multiple horses to get them to the battle. Those who walked were not wearing this armour so the outcome of most battles would not be affected at all. One also suspects that if the armour was custom-fitted to the wearer as it was historically then the energy expenditure would not be so great. It definitely helps explain why infantry discarded leg armour ("half plate") before anything else. It also seems counterintuitive since wearing armour is a lot more comfortable than carrying the same weight on your back because the load is more evenly distributed.


Whilst this research falls into the "No shit Sherlock!" category I'd just make a couple of comments to the above.

1. This was the sort of armour that men did fight on foot in during the 2nd half of the C15th - not the majority in that specific sort of armour as it is pretty top of the range stuff Big Grin
2. The armour tested was that made for the interpretors at the Tower Armouries and is made to measure for them.
Reply
#8
Fighting on foot is completely different to walking to the battle. Those who wore this armour and fought on foot had horses. Fatigue would not be an issue in most circumstances.

I seriously doubt that you'll find any historical examples of this type of armour that weigh as much as the replicas. Reenactors don't like to continually fix their armour after each weekend of activity and so they tend to "over engineer" it. You definitely will not find 7-8kg of armour on the legs.

The armour in the test is dated at least half a century too late to be relevant to Agincourt.

There is no way to tell whether the armour on the legs caused the additional energy expenditure or whether it was the restrictiveness of armour on the chest, since they did not have a control for this. Likely it was a combination of both.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#9
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.

Quote: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.
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#10
"Fighting on foot is completely different to walking to the battle. Those who wore this armour and fought on foot had horses."

And probably pack animals as well to carry their heavy kit when they were on the march.


Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers.  :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Reply
#11
Being a college student at a large campus, I easily can say I walk a good mile or so each day with a 30lb backpack, sometimes more depending on what books and if I have my laptop on me, and I hate it. After a 1/3 mile march or 1/2 march I start to feel it on my back.

I am also into staying in shape, and I have a weight vest that has 20lbs of weights distributed evenly, with 2 the jacket weighing a few pounds itself, and I can wear that thing all day. I'm not saying that it doesn't get to me, but it never causes pain like the backpack does.

Regardless of where you carry the weight, if you weigh 180lbs and you have 30lbs of armor or backpack, your leg still has the lift your body weight plus your armor/backpack weight, its just easier to carry it some weighs more than others
Quintus Furius Collatinus

-Matt
Reply
#12
This would be because of your centre of gravity. When wearing the vest, the weight is distributed fairly evenly around your natural centre of balance, whereas the same weight in a pack on your back will pulled your centre of balance off-centre. An analogy would be that loading weight onto a wheel hub would not cause it to turn, but placing a load on any point on the tyre will disrupt the balance with undue leverage and cause immediate movement in the wheel.

Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers.  :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Reply
#13
Matt: I hope I don't sound jocular, but you might want to look into a better backpack! I've been doing that for ten years now and I find a 10-15 kg pack isn't a big deal compared to a week's groceries in hand bags.
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#14
I think you're right Sean, I suppose it doesn't help how the load is distributed, as Crispus pointed out. My bookbag when fully loaded expands probably to 2 feet, and wearing a 2 foot object off my bag would throw off my center of gravity.

On the same token though, the legionaries carried how much on their T-pole? As well as their shield on their back at times?
Quintus Furius Collatinus

-Matt
Reply
#15
From what we can gather from the Mainz column base, the arch at Puteoli and Trajan's column, it would seem that soldiers distributed their equipment fairly evenly, with the shield on a strap resting around the left shoulder (not the man's back), the loculus, cooking gear and tools on the carrying pole resting on the left shoulder and hugging the upper back, and shafted weapons resting against and helmet carried on the right shoulder. Add to that the wearing of the body armour and I doubt that you could distribute the weight much more evenly than that with the equipment they had at their disposal. There is no guarantee that all soldiers carried their kit like this of course, and it would be easy enough to swap the shafted weapons and carrying pole over, but I think that if we can believe what these monuments show, they certainly knew how to distribute weight.

Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers.  :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Question When Did The Roman Army Standardize Using Plate Armor? TerminusFarseeR 21 2,208 08-27-2021, 09:07 AM
Last Post: Hanny
  Roman Full Plate Armor? SigniferOne 75 23,377 01-16-2013, 02:39 AM
Last Post: Burzum
  Plate-mail hybrid armor FlaviusCrispus 31 6,860 06-28-2006, 04:21 PM
Last Post: MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS

Forum Jump: