study on armour

[BigMac]

Something of interest

http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/home/news/template/news_item.jsp?cid=408088

TTFN
Bigmac

[??Questions??]

Makes sense but still unsure if the would have taken into account life training.
the way I have always seen it is that you could go naked and be faster (defiantly if you have trained in armour for so long) but would lasting longer (please no joke about how long someone Can last) would be of no consequence if you take a blow to an exposed limb.

You CAN move your arm faster without holding a shield but I like to block arrows =D

but seriously it is a side of the historic knights mind I hadn't taken into account: does a knight wear heavy so he can survive hits to return to his wife and kids, with the chance of growing weary only to perish from exhaustion. or go light as to doge and weave only to be struck down from an unseen blow?

[Katlin Hytonen]

Bottom line we die from exaustion or a wound. I'd go for maricle with the chace for survival, Katlin.

[Mad Jim]

Gotta remember though that these knights spent alot more time outside proberly doing alot manual labour and were far more accustomed to the art of killing and wearing of armour for long periods of time, than our modern day man, so I'd say the stamina would have been higher. For Agincourt, mud, rain, a mass of troops packed into a narrow swampy area would have led more to die than from being tired....but then there was an account [A battle I can't recall at this time] where the French were ordered off their mounts and the army marched to battle, for some silly distance in full arms and armour towards the waiting English, so to say the French lost due to the walk!

[JohnF]

What this study proves is that a man wearing a harness will use more
energy to run or walk than a man with a pack. The conclusions that are
made in the article are speculative. Even without a study you can find
many people with experience of wearing a pack and armour who could tell
you this.

If I am armed with medieval weapons I would rather have the armour
than the pack. If I can afford a harness I can afford a horse or two. I
would only dismount when I had to, and I would do so as close to the
front line as I could. Cavalry are vulnerable to disciplined infantry. The
infantry of the 14th C were becoming increasingly professional.

This study maybe more useful for modern generals. Some body armour
is used by modern soldiers. An important question is, would more, or
different armour, reduce the operating cost of an army. It maybe cheaper
to invest in armour than to pay medical staff and train new troops. There
are some modern materials which are awesome for reducing the trauma
that can occur in war. Lightweight and strong ones, both man made, such
as silicon carbide, kevlar, silk, spider web, ceramics, plastics, and foam.

The people taking part in that study are fit men who fight in armour as a
job. They do displays at the Royal Armoury of Leeds. They did the study
wearing armour made for them. Whilst it is a useful belief that the
average man of the industrialised world isn't as fit or strong as the
average man of the medieval era. There are many who are vastly
superior. Modern training techniques used by elite athletes have produced
the strongest, fastest, and most accurate humans in the history of
humanity. For example a man who spends hours every day doing manual
labour can be beaten in feats of strength by a man who spends 1 hour a
day lifting weights in the gym. Scientific study has allowed us to train
specifically for the desired result. Think of the rugby players of a hundred
years ago. Frequently they did manual work, such as farming, and played
in the weekends. They were good players, but would be outclassed by the
teams of today.

That study tells us how much performance is effected by armour. It does
not tell us whether we should, or should not, wear it.

[Chevalier]