 |
| Artists depiction of an English knight in full combat gear |
Today I'm going to be talking about a few misconceptions about armor, particularly in Europe in the late middle ages and renaissance. Much of this applies to earlier periods and other geographic regions, but for simplicity's sake I am going to stick to plate-type armors. I am not going to do an in-depth study of this kind of armor, as numerous books are available on the subject. Instead, I am just going to briefly discusses a few misconceptions about it. If you like this format, or have any constructive criticism, let me know!
 |
| 16th Century Maximilian Armor. You can see from this image that the wearer was relatively thin, and the armor fitted closely to his body. |
1. It was heavy
This is pretty much entirely false. Weight depended upon the height of the wearer, level of decoration, and level of protection afforded, but in general combat armor weighed between 40 and 60 pounds, including helmet, with another few pounds added for weapons. At first glance this may seem like a lot, but remember that it was worn with weight evenly distributed across the body. Individual pieces were were held in place with small loops called arming points worn on the under padding and clothing of the wearer. This meant that each pieces was carried on a different part of the body, instead of all of the weight being on the wearer's back or shoulders as you might expect. Also keep in mind that this total weight isn't bad; modern American infantryman are expected to carry around 80 pounds of gear each, and sometimes much more. Firemen, hikers, and even some long-suffering college students all routinely carry as much weight or more than a medieval knight in a full suit of plate armor. When I backpack overnight, I am usually carrying a 40 pound pack, plus at least several more pounds of clothing including my boots.
 |
| Modern servicemen are expected to be able to carry around 80 pounds of gear while on the march in all weathers. |
2. It limited mobility
I see this a lot, and the misconception ranges from knights being unable to get up after being knocked down to men in armor having to be lifted onto horses with cranes. In movies and tv armored men are often seen widely slashing with weapons and unable to keep up with more lightly armored opponents. This is a big plot point in both the Game of Thrones television series and the book series which it is based on, where smaller, lightly armored opponents outmaneuver plate-armored knights who are quickly exhausted by their armor.
 |
| Plate rerebrace (upper arm armor) being attached to an arming point. |
Think about this for a second; a man going into combat might be expected to fight mounted or on foot, may expect to be knocked down, might have to retreat (on foot or mounted) quickly, and more. Would any person willingly put themselves in any of these situations wearing a bulky suit that keeps them from moving easily?. Full suits of plate were usually made custom for the wearer, and could be tailored (with time) for the wearer just like clothing. Due to their mountings to arming points, each piece of armor moved like the body part of the wearer underneath. Late period plate armor acted like a second skin. It allowed a full range of movement, and wasn't particularly tiring to wear, especially considering that most of the men wearing it had been trained at least since their early teens to wear it on a daily basis. See the video below to see the range of movement available to a plate armored fighter.
3. Armor disappeared because it could be easily pierced by gunfire
This is mostly false. It is true that as firearms became more advanced they could pierce armor more and more easily, reducing its effectiveness. That said, it wasn't until the 19th century that guns were created that were both accurate and powerful enough to pierce armor plate reliably. Medieval and Renaissance firearms had a comparatively lower piercing capability, and medium to long range shots and even close range glancing hits could be deflected by the best suits of plate. Cavalry in the British army continued to wear steel breastplates until after the Napoleonic period, and some French and German units actually took their armor with them to battle in 1914. Ballistic steel plates were reintroduced towards the end of the First World War, and the armor worn by American and other NATO forces overseas are essentially breastplates made with modern materials.
 |
| Reenactors dressed as French cuirassiers as they would have appeared in 1815 |
What really led to the demise of plate was a combination of economy, social changes, and changes to army organization. Full plate suits were expensive, and required to wearer to have a large income to purchase and maintain. As the knightly and lower noble classes declined, the ability to buy expensive armor became rarer. Alongside this, armies were becoming larger and more professional. For the cost of hiring or equipping a plate-armored heavy cavalryman who took years to train effectively, commanders could train many pike or musket men relatively cheaply in just a few weeks. Had firearms totally wiped out armor, cavaliers in the English Civil War (1642 - 1651) wouldn't have worn it, as musket-equipped infantry made up the bulk of the armies fighting one another even at this relatively early date.
 |
| Armor pieces worn during the English Civil War |
And that's it for today! If you liked this short article and want to see more like it, please let me know!
No comments:
Post a Comment