TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » General & Current Events

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 20-07-11, 01:40 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default Treadmill shows medieval armour influenced battles

No Shit Sherlock!

Although interestingly enough the guys wearing that stuff for real were in pretty damn good shape, especially in the 14-15th C. What's more just how much stronger they were can be seen in their skeletons, teh muscle scars on the bones of any "professional" soldier of the time are more like those of a chimpanzee than a normal human of any modern time.

Properly fitted armor made for the wearer does not restrict the mobility as much as one might think. Also the field armor was different than a tournament armor, it was considerably lighter for a start. Armor worn in the field was as much for protection from accidental hits from your own side as it was for hits from the enemy.

Most armor in collections is tournament and display armor not field armor. Field armor was used till it wore out and then got recycled into other things, whereas fancy display and tournament armor was polished and kept in the corner to show off. That's why most of the armor in these collections is NOT field armor, but tournament armor.

Quote:
"But no-one wears stuff on the battlefield if it isn't useful."
Quite.

F


Treadmill shows medieval armour influenced battles
By Rebecca Morelle Science reporter, BBC News

With the help of a treadmill, the team was able to assess how much energy someone wearing armour would have used (Footage: University of Leeds)

* Medieval battle records go online
* Royal Armouries leads the charge
* Henry VIII armour to be exhibited

Medieval suits of armour were so exhausting to wear that they could have affected the outcomes of famous battles, a study suggests.

Scientists monitored volunteers fitted with 15th Century replica armour as they walked and ran on treadmills.

They found that the subjects used high levels of energy, bore immense weight on their legs and suffered from restricted breathing.

The research is published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

The effect of the heavy armour was so great, that the researchers believe it may have have had an impact on the Battle of Agincourt.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

It is a huge fraction of the wearer's body weight”

End Quote Dr Graham Askew University of Leeds

In this famous Anglo-French conflict of 1415, French knights were defeated by their English counterparts, despite the fact that they heavily outnumbered them.

The researchers say their study suggests that the armour-clad French, who had to trek through a muddy field to meet the stationary English line, were so slowed and exhausted by their march that they would have stood little chance.

Lead researcher Dr Graham Askew, from the University of Leeds, said: "You look at these suits of armour, and they weigh between 30 and 50kg, so it is a huge fraction of the wearer's body weight."

Running battle

In the 15th Century, as the arms race progressed with the development of new and powerful weapons such as the longbow and crossbow, armour too evolved.
Medieval armour Researchers always suspected the armour would have been tough to wear

In late Medieval Europe, these bulky battle suits were principally constructed from interlocking steel plates, covering the soldier from head to toe.

But with the added protection came extra weight and cumbersomeness - and while researchers have always realised that this would have impaired a soldier's performance, nobody until now has quantified by how much.

To study this, researchers asked four participants, who regularly re-enact battles for the Royal Armouries in Leeds, to don their exact-replica armour from England, Gothic Germany and Italy and get onto a treadmill.

By recording how much oxygen they took in and carbon dioxide they produced, the team was able to calculate how much energy they were using. High-speed cameras also helped the researchers to study how the volunteers were using their limbs.

Dr Askew, who carried out the research with colleagues from the University of Oxford and the University of Milan, said: "Our main finding was that it was extremely expensive in terms of the amount of energy used to move in the armour."

The team found that walking and running with the armour used up twice as much energy as doing the same thing without any armour.

The breast and back plates of the medieval armour also affected breathing: instead of being able to take long, deep breaths while they worked up a sweat, the volunteers were forced to take frequent, shallow breaths, and this too used up more energy.

Leg pains
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

No-one wears stuff on the battlefield if it isn't useful”

End Quote Thom Richardson Royal Armouries, Leeds

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."

The team said their findings had given an insight into the battlefield trade-off between added protection alongside increased manoeuvrability and fitness to fight.
Medieval crossbow Weapons such as the cross bow changed the design of armour

Dr Askew explained: "Yes, they could have removed the leg parts of the armour, but it might have meant they would have been cut on the leg and killed that way."

He added though, that this may not have been such a problem in the 16th Century.

With the advent of guns, hand-to-hand combat decreased, and this too affected the design of the armour.

He said: "It is interesting to see though that as armour developed into the 16th Century, the part of the armour that was lost was the lower leg - the thing that we found increases the cost of movement."

Thom Richardson, keeper of armours, from the Royal Armouries in Leeds added: "It is interesting to use scientific method to answer these questions, and it confirms what we have always suspected - heavy armour would very much reduce your ability to run around.

"But no-one wears stuff on the battlefield if it isn't useful."
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36

Last edited by FredFredson; 20-07-11 at 01:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 20-07-11, 01:57 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default

Quote:
Lead researcher Dr Graham Askew, from the University of Leeds, said: "You look at these suits of armour, and they weigh between 30 and 50kg, so it is a huge fraction of the wearer's body weight."
That's not bad. Our future soldier gubbins weighs about 25/30kg all told, and that's light compared to all the junk the Americans haul around with them. I suppose it's not strapped to your feet, which is something to be grateful for.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 20-07-11, 03:06 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,149
Default

Yeah, and frankly I'd be surprised to find 50kg was at all common. Roman armour was in the same sort of ballpark. Not surprising, the human body is the constant.

Bit weird this article though, especially the bit about Agincourt. I mean to conclude that the armour "may have made a difference" is to come to exactly the same conclusion that the people who were there came to, and everyone who has written about it since. So while the quantification work is interest enough, that seems to have been tacked on to make it newsworthy.

I mean "what we have always suspected" turns out to be exactly the reason the the Romans hired light-armed auxiliaries.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 20-07-11, 03:29 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

I am not exactly a great great specialist but, from all the things I read, yeah, armours were damn useful and their wearers were good with them...


I recently read that the muslim guys they face in the Crusades, who used lighter armour, called the Western knights "IronMen"... And my own experience, however limited, show that, if you're wearing an armour, you can kill a pretty much limitless number of unarmoured soldiers as long as you're not swamped by them...

Recently, Game of Thrones made that point - Ser Jorah Mormont, in an armour suit, fight a nomadic warrior. The nomad is faster but that's pointless coz his slashing weapon is useless against the armour and Ser Jorah kills him without much problem...

Historically, heavy armour started to be defeated by swiss pikemen in precise square formation in the late 15C - And then as pike-and-shot combos appeared. IIRC, those required extensive training so armoured knights and men-at-arms still found it useful to keep their armour for a couple of extra centuries...

The main problem with armour is that it's hard to go and have a drink at the pub with your mates in one...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 20-07-11, 03:46 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default

For me the best thing about modern armour is suddenly-reduced-gravity-effect when you take it off - it's like being a spaceman or something, you just bounce around the place like you're on drugs.

I guess if you've just spent 36 hours being shot at in Helmand you may see things differently from me pissing about at a trade demo day.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 20-07-11, 04:21 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

You get the same effect when you remove skiing boots after a day on the slopes. It feels magic...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 20-07-11, 10:25 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

Quote:
Bit weird this article though, especially the bit about Agincourt. I mean to conclude that the armour "may have made a difference" is to come to exactly the same conclusion that the people who were there came to, and everyone who has written about it since. So while the quantification work is interest enough, that seems to have been tacked on to make it newsworthy.
It wasn't the armor that made the difference at Agincourt, the English Knights had armor too, as did many of the archers and men at arms. It was the longbow which was able to put a 3 foot long arrow through the French armor long before they could come to grips with the English.

Even if the longbow was not the "machine gun equivalent" it traditionally was always thought to be, it bunched the French up into columns so tight they couldn't really move. Their armor didn't help them there either.

The armored knights greatest value was his mobility and speed of maneuver on the field. At Agincourt the French dismounted after the first disastrous charge, thus neatly negating that advantage. Then instead of trying to roll up the weaker lines of archers they concentrated on the English knights and men at arms allowing the archers to shoot into their flanks further bunching them up for slaughter.

None of that is in anyway the result of their armor being too hard and exhausting to wear and fight in.

F
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 20-07-11, 10:28 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

Quote:
For me the best thing about modern armour is suddenly-reduced-gravity-effect when you take it off - it's like being a spaceman or something, you just bounce around the place like you're on drugs.
That's how I felt when I took my 70lbs of armor off after fighting all afternoon

F
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 20-07-11, 10:32 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

Quote:
The main problem with armour is that it's hard to go and have a drink at the pub with your mates in one...
Tournament armor yes.

Field armor not so much...
Although it does wreak havoc with the chairs in the bar.

F
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36

Last edited by FredFredson; 20-07-11 at 10:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 20-07-11, 10:51 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,149
Default

Originally Posted by FredFredson View Post
It wasn't the armor that made the difference at Agincourt, the English Knights had armor too, as did many of the archers and men at arms. It was the longbow which was able to put a 3 foot long arrow through the French armor long before they could come to grips with the English.
I wasn't saying that the armour crippled them or lost them the battle. But the English knights didn't have to advance across a couple of hundred yards of freshly ploughed, recently rained on, muddy field. That was made all the worse, of course, by the arrows and then piles of bodies. Accounts do say that when the archers set upon the French knights, most of them were too exhausted to defend themselves, and some had drowned in the mud. So this is a particular concatenation of circumstances, and foot knights were used in other times and places without running into these difficulties. But it was observed at the time that the French knights armour had contributed to their difficulties. The much lighter archers had been able to manoeuvre over the same field without hassle.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 4
contracycle, FredFredson, Gilles de Rais, Zichao
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0