Comparative Weights of Armor
Daniel P. Duffy
late middle ages. Someone demonstrated that the knight's armor wasn't as
heavy as popular imagination has it by performing cartwheels while in a
full suit of armor. So how much did a fully protected knight's armor weigh
(assuming no shield) compared to say an imperial Roman legion soldier with
segmented armor *with* a large protective shield? Who had the heaviest
overall protection?
Matthew Harley
"Daniel P. Duffy" wrote:
> Remember seeing a show on TLC on suits of plate armor worn by knights in the
> late middle ages. Someone demonstrated that the knight's armor wasn't as
> heavy as popular imagination has it by performing cartwheels while in a
> full suit of armor.
That's nuthin' Didn't you know they regularly swam the English Channel to do
battle with the enemy on the other side? ;-)
See Knights and Knighthood: http://www.rahul.net/starwolf/shm/shm-p2.html
Matt Harley
Tim O'Neill
"Daniel P. Duffy" wrote:
Others may be able to add some information about the weight of Roman
armour, but I've collected some information about the weights of armour
at various stages of the medieval period here:
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Salon/2385/armour.html
PS This page was once part of my Ancient Sites home page.
The Ancient Sites community has since closed down, so the links at the
bottom of my page no longer work.
Cheers,
Tim O'Neill
Mitchell Coffey
My understanding is that the reason for the comfort and flexibility of
full suit armor from the middle ages had much to do with it's balance
of weight and design of joints.
Mitchell Coffey
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Daniel P. Duffy) wrote:
> Who had the heaviest
> overall protection?
I do not have figures but the average weight of infantry equipment
has stayed fairly constant. Infantry seem able to function carrying a
total weight of 80 to 120 lbs. Field plate ran to 60 or 70 lbs and
relied for resistance more on the way the plates were shaped rather
than the thickness.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Daniel P. Duffy
actually had heavier armor protection than a knight in plate armor (who
didn't carry a shield)?
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9raiev$bpf$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
Craig Levin
Daniel P. Duffy <thed...@fuse.net> wrote:
>So a Roman legionnaire or Greek hoplite (with the weight of his shield)
>actually had heavier armor protection than a knight in plate armor (who
>didn't carry a shield)?
No. He had a different kind of protection, but still had to lug
the same range of poundage onto the field. With a shield, a
person can block or knock away an oncoming blow or projectile,
but it means that one arm is always tied down, and shields are
always bulky, to one extent or another (true, a roundshield about
twenty inches in diameter isn't as cumbersome as one of those
Roman barn doors, but...). Plate is expensive, must be fitted
fairly well to the individual, and a joint that's really dinged
impairs mobility, but the way plate's built deflects those blows
and projectiles without needing a shield to do the job. That lets
a person wield a weapon with both hands, which can deliver more
powerful blows, or a crossbow or bow.
Craig Levin
--
http://pages.ripco.net/~clevin/index.html
cle...@rci.ripco.com
Craig Levin Librarians Rule Oook!
Michael W Cook
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote on 26/10/01 3:40 am:
I'd dispute such high figures Ken.
120 lbs is maybe around the weight a Special Forces soldier like the British
SAS going behind enemy lines would carry for an initial drop, but your
average grunt would not carry more than between 40-60 lbs.
The Royal Marines do their 40 mile training 'Yomp' carrying 40 lb Bergans.
This is the optimum weight a modern soldier could be expected to carry into
combat and perform.
I saw an Open University programme on the BBC a couple of years ago, they
maintained that throughout history this 40lb mark is pretty regular,
although it will increase for a chap wearing armour, but not significantly
so to the extent they were weighed down. Then, as now, you had to be pretty
damn fit to be able to perform carrying such loads for long periods.
Regards
Michael
Michael W Cook
mwc...@crusader-productions.com
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
======================================
William Black
Daniel P. Duffy <thed...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:ttib5le...@corp.supernews.com...
> So a Roman legionnaire or Greek hoplite (with the weight of his shield)
> actually had heavier armor protection than a knight in plate armor (who
> didn't carry a shield)?
Well the Greeks used bronze armour which is a bit soft, and the Roman stuff
wasn't fully articulating and didn't cover the arms or legs and the medieval
used better quality iron/steel as well.
In modern terms each or these people became part of a 'weapon system' with a
platform, and defensive armour and offensive weapons.
The platform for the Greeks and Romans was their unit, and they had a
specific doctrine which told them how to fight. However, how medieval
armoured men fought is something of a mystery. We don't know how cohesive
their units were or how their tactical command systems (below the level of
'battalion') worked.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
So it's not as simple as that, not that it ever is...
Paul J Gans
I would argue that modern troops are more fit than the
medievals, at least on average. That allows the modern
soldier to go for far longer periods of time than the
medieval soldier. But, as you say, the load carried has
tended to remain constant.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Daniel P. Duffy <thed...@fuse.net> wrote in message
>news:ttib5le...@corp.supernews.com...
>> So a Roman legionnaire or Greek hoplite (with the weight of his shield)
>> actually had heavier armor protection than a knight in plate armor (who
>> didn't carry a shield)?
>Well the Greeks used bronze armour which is a bit soft, and the Roman stuff
>wasn't fully articulating and didn't cover the arms or legs and the medieval
>used better quality iron/steel as well.
>In modern terms each or these people became part of a 'weapon system' with a
>platform, and defensive armour and offensive weapons.
>The platform for the Greeks and Romans was their unit, and they had a
>specific doctrine which told them how to fight. However, how medieval
>armoured men fought is something of a mystery. We don't know how cohesive
>their units were or how their tactical command systems (below the level of
>'battalion') worked.
It isn't quite as bad as that. Lots of work has been done
on this since WWII. Good starting places are Contamine,
Verbruggen, and France.
---- Paul J. Gans
Kel Rekuta
>
> Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote:
> >in article 9raiev$bpf$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk at
> >ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote on 26/10/01 3:40 am:
>
> >120 lbs is maybe around the weight a Special Forces soldier like the British
> >SAS going behind enemy lines would carry for an initial drop, but your
> >average grunt would not carry more than between 40-60 lbs.
> >The Royal Marines do their 40 mile training 'Yomp' carrying 40 lb Bergans.
> >This is the optimum weight a modern soldier could be expected to carry into
> >combat and perform.
>
> >I saw an Open University programme on the BBC a couple of years ago, they
> >maintained that throughout history this 40lb mark is pretty regular,
> >although it will increase for a chap wearing armour, but not significantly
> >so to the extent they were weighed down. Then, as now, you had to be pretty
> >damn fit to be able to perform carrying such loads for long periods.
>
> I would argue that modern troops are more fit than the
> medievals, at least on average. That allows the modern
> soldier to go for far longer periods of time than the
> medieval soldier. But, as you say, the load carried has
> tended to remain constant.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Interesting comment. How did you determine that modern
troops were more fit than medieval troops. Does "on average"
mean from commander down to grunt, or by comparing examples
of specific types of troops?
Regular infantry soldiers are typically more fit than
civilians of the same age and health. This is simply due to
regular exercise during training. However, compare modern
infantry to fireman or rescue workers and you might find the
civilians in better shape. Soldiers don't train all day
every day. (Except for specialized combat units required to
remain at a high state of readiness.)
Likewise, medieval professional troops like Genoese
crossbowmen or condotteri in 14th C Italy or the German
landsknechts would likely be fit, active men accustomed to
hard marches, poor food and rough treatment. Heavy manual
labour tends to weed out the weak in any population. These
men would be the strongest and perhaps the toughest drawn
from the available pool of manpower. You might be quite
surprised at their comparison to modern troops.
I found The Blood Red Roses a particularly interesting read
because of the details of the size of the skeletons. These
were not puny, stunted men displaying symptoms of chronic
malnutrition and disease. I very much doubt I'd have enjoyed
facing them on the field. :-0
But then, I really have no idea whether medieval men were
more or less fit than modern men. It is not my area of
study.
YMMV,
Kel
John Kane
I cannot find a ref. but I think this 40 lb figure was from someone like
Keegan in the 70's? (Not disputing the RM figure BTW) He (whoever it was and
I am pretty sure male) was just commenting that the approximate maximum weight
seemed to remain the same over centuries even when the objects carried changed
from pila and shields to radios and machine guns. Possibly a basic physical
limit for most infantry?
I think the SAS in Iraqi considered 120 lb packs (Chris Ryan's book _One got
out_ possibly ?) But clearly not realistic for normal activities by anyone
other than Superman). I've carried 100 lb bags of flour and cattle feed for
short distances (i.e. metres) . Even with better rigging etc., I cannot see me
(at the time a fit 17 or 18 year old) making much more than 1-2 mph and with a
max. of maybe 5-6 miles a day, may be 8 miles in a real emergency.
------------------
John Kane
The Rideau Lakes, Ontario Canada
Michael W Cook
on 26/10/01 7:20 pm:
You haven't seen some of the British Guards Regiments ;-)
Or perhaps even a puffing Housing Officer after walking a flight of stairs !
Seriously though, there is a large lobby who maintain the British should
never have sent the Welsh Guards down to the Falklands. They were just not
fit enough for the task after several tours doing ceremonial duties.
This showed especially after the bombing of the assault ship HMS Sir
Galahad. But saying that, the Paras, Royal Marines and Ghurka's all found it
pretty tough terrain too, not helped by the ancient standard issue footwear
they wore and a lack of chopper support, but they managed it.
Footwear is as important as fuel/food for any army on the move, from ancient
times until today.
Daniel P. Duffy
scutum shield vs. knightly plate armor sans large shield)?
Mitchell Coffey
But wouldn't the medieval fellows with the heavy kit also be they guys
who got to ride a horse? The foot soldiers would have carried
precious little by way of defensive armor, right?
Mitchell Coffey
Dick Wisan
>
>
>Michael W Cook wrote:
>
>> in article 9raiev$bpf$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk at
>> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote on 26/10/01 3:40 am:
>>
>> > In article <ttel565...@corp.supernews.com>, thed...@fuse.net
>> > (Daniel P. Duffy) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Who had the heaviest
>> >> overall protection?
>> >
>> > I do not have figures but the average weight of infantry equipment
>> > has stayed fairly constant. Infantry seem able to function carrying a
>> > total weight of 80 to 120 lbs. Field plate ran to 60 or 70 lbs and
>> > relied for resistance more on the way the plates were shaped rather
>> > than the thickness.
>>
>>
>> 120 lbs is maybe around the weight a Special Forces soldier like the British
>> SAS going behind enemy lines would carry for an initial drop, but your
>> average grunt would not carry more than between 40-60 lbs.
>> The Royal Marines do their 40 mile training 'Yomp' carrying 40 lb Bergans.
>> This is the optimum weight a modern soldier could be expected to carry into
>> combat and perform.
>>
>> I saw an Open University programme on the BBC a couple of years ago, they
>> maintained that throughout history this 40lb mark is pretty regular,
>> although it will increase for a chap wearing armour, but not significantly
>> so to the extent they were weighed down. Then, as now, you had to be pretty
>> damn fit to be able to perform carrying such loads for long periods.
>
>Keegan in the 70's? (Not disputing the RM figure BTW) He (whoever it was and
>I am pretty sure male) was just commenting that the approximate maximum weight
>seemed to remain the same over centuries even when the objects carried changed
>from pila and shields to radios and machine guns. Possibly a basic physical
>limit for most infantry?
>
>I think the SAS in Iraqi considered 120 lb packs (Chris Ryan's book _One got
Hanson ("The Western Way of War") says of early (7th Century) hopelite
arms,
Heavy, uncomfortable, unbearably hot, the panoply was especially
poorly suited for the Mediterranean summer; it restricted even
simple movement and in general must have made life miserable..."
He accepts estimates of 50-75 pounds, "an incredible burden for the
ancient infantryman, who himself probably weighed no more than some
150 pounds."
Apparently, they _didn't_ carry it themselves, postponed putting it
on until the last possible moment, and removed it at the first oppor-
tunity. Further,
There was a definite trend over some 250 years not to augment
defensive armor in an effort to enclose the entire body like
some medieval knights, but, rather to lighten or omit some
pieces altogether.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan Email: wis...@hartwick.edu
Snail: 37 Clinton St., Oneonta, NY 13820, USA
Just your opinion, please, Ma'am. No fax.
Michael W Cook
kre...@sympatico.ca wrote on 26/10/01 9:09 pm:
Hi Kel
Nor my area, but some interesting points you've raised.
I'd have thought it would be pretty obvious that your average 'Grunt' would
be fitter than say, a unit commander. This principle I would have thought
stands good throughout time, especially in the MA.
Lets look at the MA seeing as this is what the group is about.
In the MA, all of the higher rank would have travelled on horseback, and all
of them would have servants to cater to their most basic tasks. Your average
Bowman/Crossbowman/Infantryman, unless of the mounted variety, would have
marched into battle.
An example of this which immediately springs to mind would be the Battle of
Bauge, where Clarence dashed off on horseback and ignored the pleas of his
commanders to wait for the Bowmen and men-at-arms before engaging the
French/Scots force.
By the simple fact that they had to march to battle, and spent most of their
time carrying all they owned, I would have said made them fitter than the
Noblemen. Although, they wouldn't have been so well fed and suffered more
more hardships, thus making them far more susceptible to disease and
sickness.
For the English in the Hundred Years War, those who were perhaps not quite
up to the task fitness wise, could and would have been weeded out while
marching to ports and in the subsequent drilling etc before embarkation.
Once they had arrived at their destination, further marches over
considerable distances would have raised this fitness level further, as long
as sufficient and consistent fodder could be supplied.
As far as the archaeology goes, bones from the dead at Towton show the usual
signs of badly healed bones and disease etc, but they also showed that those
who they thought to be Bowmen, would have had considerable muscle power in
the legs, arms and shoulders and were of a 'stocky' appearance.
So, I'd say that your average medieval 'grunt' would have been fitter and
able to withstand more hardship than your modern equivalent.
Special Forces like the British Paras and Royal Marines excepted.
Modern soldiers are too pampered and rarely have to suffer any hardship,
they kill from a distance and cold steel is rarely used these days.
Most are confined to barracks and would have to suffer hardship rarely while
on exercise maybe a couple of times a year.
This is my argument, but I'm quite happy for someone to rip it to shreds.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
> But, as you say, the load carried has
> tended to remain constant.
Sorry to piggy back but I have not got Mr. Cook's post here. The
weight I mentioned is total equipment weight. In fact the 80 to 120
figure is for a fully equipped British WW1 soldier. A large part of
this weight was not carried into combat. The same applies to the
Romans they were not called Marius's mules for nothing. However a lot
of this equipment was not for use in combat.
William Black
Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
news:B80073AF.32CF5%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
> So, I'd say that your average medieval 'grunt' would have been fitter and
> able to withstand more hardship than your modern equivalent.
> Special Forces like the British Paras and Royal Marines excepted.
> Modern soldiers are too pampered and rarely have to suffer any hardship,
> they kill from a distance and cold steel is rarely used these days.
> Most are confined to barracks and would have to suffer hardship rarely
while
> on exercise maybe a couple of times a year.
Well I don't think cold steel was ever used by anyone much, people tend to
run away rather than fight it out face to face.
And fitness (in short duration bursts anyway) is a function of diet rather
than condition.
The distances travelled by medieval armies are much shorter than more modern
but horse drawn armies went, how far did the light didvision march to that
battle in Spain?
Paras and Marines are not good examples either, they are both forms of
mobile raiding forces that get used for other stuff because they are elite
units.
Kel Rekuta
>
> in article 3BD9C2E9...@sympatico.ca, Kel Rekuta at
> kre...@sympatico.ca wrote on 26/10/01 9:09 pm:
>
> >
> > Interesting comment. How did you determine that modern
> > troops were more fit than medieval troops. Does "on average"
> > mean from commander down to grunt, or by comparing examples
> > of specific types of troops?
> >
>
> Hi Kel
>
> Nor my area, but some interesting points you've raised.
>
> I'd have thought it would be pretty obvious that your average 'Grunt' would
> be fitter than say, a unit commander. This principle I would have thought
> stands good throughout time, especially in the MA.
>
This wasn't my original direction, but it does lead this
way.
> Lets look at the MA seeing as this is what the group is about.
>
> In the MA, all of the higher rank would have travelled on horseback, and all
> of them would have servants to cater to their most basic tasks. Your average
> Bowman/Crossbowman/Infantryman, unless of the mounted variety, would have
> marched into battle.
Hmm. True to an extent. The upper classes spent more time on
horseback, which is not exactly light exercise. Regular
riding, whether at leisure or hunting, let alone training
for tourney, is very physical. Just in a different way than
slogging a pack and arms down a cobbled road.
>
> An example of this which immediately springs to mind would be the Battle of
> Bauge, where Clarence dashed off on horseback and ignored the pleas of his
> commanders to wait for the Bowmen and men-at-arms before engaging the
> French/Scots force.
A tactical error brought on by limited experience in war.
Clearly, he was experienced in tourney. Clarence wanted to
attack, win glory, et cetera, with little regard for the
strategic implications of his actions.
I'm a little unclear as to how this relates to the fitness
argument. Please enlighten me.
>
> By the simple fact that they had to march to battle, and spent most of their
> time carrying all they owned, I would have said made them fitter than the
> Noblemen. Although, they wouldn't have been so well fed and suffered more
> more hardships, thus making them far more susceptible to disease and
> sickness.
Agreed.
>
> For the English in the Hundred Years War, those who were perhaps not quite
> up to the task fitness wise, could and would have been weeded out while
> marching to ports and in the subsequent drilling etc before embarkation.
>
> Once they had arrived at their destination, further marches over
> considerable distances would have raised this fitness level further, as long
> as sufficient and consistent fodder could be supplied.
Nothing makes you tougher than experience with hardship!
>
> As far as the archaeology goes, bones from the dead at Towton show the usual
> signs of badly healed bones and disease etc, but they also showed that those
> who they thought to be Bowmen, would have had considerable muscle power in
> the legs, arms and shoulders and were of a 'stocky' appearance.
Agreed. These folks were not malnourished, sickly villagers
pressed into service as fodder, as some people would
believe. They were solid warriors, if only for forty days
per years. Daily life in an agrarian society made them
strong and hardy.
>
> So, I'd say that your average medieval 'grunt' would have been fitter and
> able to withstand more hardship than your modern equivalent.
If nothing else, they were more prepared mentally and
emotionally to endure hardship. They didn't have
expectations of an easy life. Many of them would be happy to
have a roof over their heads, a warm cot near a fire and a
bit of meat every day. Try to convince a modern soldier that
is his retirement package!
> Special Forces like the British Paras and Royal Marines excepted.
> Modern soldiers are too pampered and rarely have to suffer any hardship,
> they kill from a distance and cold steel is rarely used these days.
> Most are confined to barracks and would have to suffer hardship rarely while
> on exercise maybe a couple of times a year.
Exactly.
>
> This is my argument, but I'm quite happy for someone to rip it to shreds.
>
> Regards
>
> Michael
Won't be me.
Cheers!
Kel
Kel Rekuta
your comments. I think you might be having a bad day.
William Black wrote:
>
> Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
> news:B80073AF.32CF5%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
>
> > So, I'd say that your average medieval 'grunt' would have been fitter and
> > able to withstand more hardship than your modern equivalent.
> > Special Forces like the British Paras and Royal Marines excepted.
> > Modern soldiers are too pampered and rarely have to suffer any hardship,
> > they kill from a distance and cold steel is rarely used these days.
> > Most are confined to barracks and would have to suffer hardship rarely
> while
> > on exercise maybe a couple of times a year.
>
> Well I don't think cold steel was ever used by anyone much, people tend to
> run away rather than fight it out face to face.
>
The general populace, yes. Trained troops, no. Routs
occurred regularly in the Middle ages as in any other period
you might study. Routs were often the outcome of bad
tactics, poor leadership, unfortunate weather or choice of
terrain. Combat units are made up of men, whose primary
desire to survive is only slightly overcome by training and
experience. When things go badly, it is natural to try to
escape. Psychologists call it "fight or flight" decisions. I
think you generalize inappropriately in this instance.
> And fitness (in short duration bursts anyway) is a function of diet rather
> than condition.
Ha! Can you provide any supporting evidence for this
opinion?
If I could eat myself to better fitness, I'd be tucking in
right now. I'll have to stick to the work outs.
>
> The distances travelled by medieval armies are much shorter than more modern
> but horse drawn armies went, how far did the light didvision march to that
> battle in Spain?
Didn't the Black Prince have a little romp through western
Spain? Surely his army wasn't all cavalry. AFAIK, Spain
hasn't gotten any bigger in the last few centuries.
Medieval armies had wagon trains, camp followers, sutlers
and provisioners just the same as Wellington's did. They
didn't have decent roads as a rule, but still, the troops
didn't have to carry their camps as well as their arms.
>
> Paras and Marines are not good examples either, they are both forms of
> mobile raiding forces that get used for other stuff because they are elite
> units.
>
> --
> William Black
> ------------------
> On time, on budget, or works;
> Pick any two from three
We haven't used them as examples. In fact, both myself and
Michael made a point of noting the exception.
Interesting thread. It's nice to be back on something
medieval in this list.
Cheers,
Kel
Deogarh
> This is my argument, but I'm quite happy for someone to rip it to
> shreds.
My purpose isn't to shred, but to give another perspective. See what
you think.
> By the simple fact that they had to march to battle, and spent most of
> their time carrying all they owned,
********
> 120 lbs is maybe around the weight a Special Forces soldier like the
> British SAS going behind enemy lines would carry for an initial drop,
The distinction that needs to be made here is the difference between
what's called "battle order" and "marching order." 30 lbs is fairish
for battle order, (e.g., what one takes when one _expects_ to go into
battle) and 90+ lbs is a generous figure for the rest of the kit one is
required to have any other time ("marching order.")
While the modern infantry soldier may not carry "everything he owns"
while in marching order, he certainly does carry into the field
"everything he needs to live for an extended period" (read: months.) So
the situation isn't all that different (even for the the most untrained,
modern "grunt") then it was for his Medieval counterpart.
> Modern soldiers are too pampered and rarely have to suffer any
> hardship, they kill from a distance and cold steel is rarely used
> these days. Most are confined to barracks and would have to suffer
> hardship rarely while on exercise maybe a couple of times a year.
I'm special forces, but I daresay you're speaking of the American army,
which is the only one I've seen that sort of thing go on in, across
NATO. It used to be an SF reward, but now it's general treatment; the
others simply don't have the money (and aren't nice enough) to treat
their soldiers in such a fashion.
The load of the basic line infantryman that is carrying more than his
own kit (e.g., a radio, ammunition for a platoon-level support weapon,
a GPMG, mini, mortar, mines, antiarmour weapons, etc.) easily passes 100
lbs. The only ones that don't carry extra kit are the recons and those
on primary assault team, in a line infantry platoon. For the marching
order situation you describe above for the SFs, you need to almost
double the figures you're giving (all of the above kit, in addition to
materials for bunkers, observation posts, cover and concealment, etc.
This is due to the fact that SFs operate in small teams, which doesn't
mean there is less kit to carry -- just less men to carry it. There's a
reason SFs spend a full quarter of their time in physical conditioning,
and why there are scales in the exercise compounds.)
> but your average grunt would not carry more than between 40-60 lbs.
The weight of fully loaded web-gear (pistol belt and suspenders with
food, shelter, minimum amount of ammo, bayonet, combat dagger, 9mm, two
canteens, spade, meds, four grenades, etc.) for someone who isn't recon/
light infantry. This corresponds to battle order, so it is this that is
being spoken of when a modern comparison is made to Medieval plate.
This doesn't mean however that a modern infantry soldier only carries
"40-60 lbs."
> The Royal Marines do their 40 mile training 'Yomp' carrying 40 lb
> Bergans.
Oh my, to see their faces... No, it isn't that simple, see above. I
think my mini with 200 round box and a teaser was 40 lbs. To an SF, a
total of 100 lbs is a light day.
> This is the optimum weight a modern soldier could be expected to carry > into combat and perform.
The pistol belt and suspenders may weigh ~30 lbs, and it is centered on
the bone structure, but all this does is assist to reduce muscle fatigue
over time -- by no means does it make the weight "disappear." It
doesn't matter how well distributed the weight is, (or how excellent
one's physical condition) the point remains that the weight is *there;*
it inherently affects your dexterity, speed, and your stamina, so only
someone who has never done it could possibly say it wasn't encumbering.
I'd love to see such a person go through ten minutes of mock combat
in battle order and not drop dead -- then get up and do it with the
above, much more realistic infantry bergan + web gear (+ incidentals?)
figures I gave. Let's face it, how often do you get to "choose" when
you are to engage?
The point is that I imagine the same is the case for plate armour,
perhaps to a much greater extent; and my basis for experience doesn't
involve my limbs being encased in charcoaled iron-steel.
Plate exists that weighs close to and over 100 pounds in weight, but
most of these are for the joust-of-war (Rennet) and weren't worn into
"actual" field combat. This type of armour isn't the exception either:
one of Henry VIII's armour garnitures at the Tower of London weighs
about 95 lbs, and was primarily for foot combat (albeit in the tourney.)
While Henry was no small man (6'2") the weight of the armour makes it
roughly analogous to line infantry (non-SF) marching order.
The relatively lesser protective armour (e.g., "field armour" for actual
warfare) was around 60-70 lbs on average for a *good* suit, slightly
more in the later period Maximilian style, due to the fluting. I know
the lines: "armour was exquisitely articulated and its weight was
marvelously dispursed around the body," and certainly plate didn't
cripple, but again: neither did the /weight evaporate./
Let us also recall that the majority of the surviving armour is late
15th to 16th century+, (i.e., the period of the pinnacle of the
armourer's craft) with earlier examples being particularly rare. Not
to argue from silence, but let's keep in mind that the armour attested
is exorbitantly best-case scenario.
It was, after all, eventually the *weight* that led to the decline in
the use of plate armour, which first led to the shedding of the defenses
for the limbs, and then the cuirass entirely in the armourer's attempt
to provide protection against gunpowder weapons.
Cheers,
Chris
Dick Wisan
black_...@hotmail.com says...
>
>Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
>news:B80073AF.32CF5%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
>
>> they kill from a distance and cold steel is rarely used these days.
>> Most are confined to barracks and would have to suffer hardship rarely
>> while on exercise maybe a couple of times a year.
>
>Well I don't think cold steel was ever used by anyone much, people tend to
>run away rather than fight it out face to face.
Depends on how long is "ever". I should think that when the normal
infantry weapons were muscle powered, the phrase "cold steel" would
not have made sense. To fight at all, you had to get close enough &
cut or stick something into your enemy, so you seem to be claiming
that they didn't actually use their weapons at all.
The position is very different for modern armies --say 18thC forward.
Once the normal infantry weapon is a firearm, it makes sense to ask
whether soldiers use their bayonets much, and the phrase "cold steel"
now makes sense as the alternative to "hot lead".
Under these conditions, there does seem to be something funny about
the bayonet. Soldiers not hardened to it do seem to avoid it. In the
American Revolution, it's apparently the bayonet that semi-trained
militia couldn't be got to face. In the US Civil War, everyone had a
bayonet, but it seems the soldiers were very reluctant to use them;
they clubbed each other with the butt ends of their (empty) rifles.
One of the nastier Japanese atrocities in WWII was the use of Chinese
prisoners as bayonet targets. They did this on the theory, probably
true, that until a soldier actually stabs his bayonet into a living
human target, he will be slow to do it, even in combat. Therefore,
it was a standard part of infantry training --presumably, when there
was a suitable supply of prisoners..
David Read
<black_...@hotmail.com> writes
<snip>
>The distances travelled by medieval armies are much shorter than more modern
>but horse drawn armies went, how far did the light didvision march to that
>battle in Spain?
I posted this information to s.h.m back in March 2000.
BEGIN QUOTE
On 29th July 1809, Sir Arthur Wellesley's victorious army was
reinforced by the arrival of the Light Brigade, (an élite infantry
formation of three battalions), under the command of General Craufurd.
(The Light Brigade was to later become the kernel of the Light Division,
created on 22nd February 1810).
The Light Brigade missed taking part in the battle of Talavera by some
13 hours after a march of "forty-three miles in twenty-two hours."
[Oman]. Colonel Leach of the 95th, who took part in the forced march,
reckoned it at 50 miles in 24 hours. Napier, in his History, has it at
62 miles in 26 hours. Oman's figures are undoubtedly the ones to be
preferred.
It was a remarkable feat of forced-marching across central Spain in the
blistering heat of high summer. The Brigade only lost 17 stragglers on
this march, and went straight to work on the Talavera battlefield,
undertaking the burial of the dead and rounding up wounded French
prisoners.
END QUOTE
cheers,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Read "If I attempted to answer the mass of futile
correspondence that surrounds me, I should be
debarred from all serious business of
campaigning..."
The Duke of Wellington [1769-1852]
William Black
Kel Rekuta <kre...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BDB519E...@sympatico.ca...
> I'm sorry William, I usually have the utmost respect for
> your comments. I think you might be having a bad day.
Probably, we've just changed the clocks and I always find that difficult.
However it's really nice weather and I'm going out soon.
> >
> > Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
> > news:B80073AF.32CF5%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
> >
> > > So, I'd say that your average medieval 'grunt' would have been fitter
and
> > > able to withstand more hardship than your modern equivalent.
> > > Special Forces like the British Paras and Royal Marines excepted.
> > > Modern soldiers are too pampered and rarely have to suffer any
hardship,
> > > they kill from a distance and cold steel is rarely used these days.
> > > Most are confined to barracks and would have to suffer hardship rarely
> > while
> > > on exercise maybe a couple of times a year.
> >
> > Well I don't think cold steel was ever used by anyone much, people tend
to
> > run away rather than fight it out face to face.
> >
>
> The general populace, yes. Trained troops, no. Routs
> occurred regularly in the Middle ages as in any other period
> you might study. Routs were often the outcome of bad
> tactics, poor leadership, unfortunate weather or choice of
> terrain. Combat units are made up of men, whose primary
> desire to survive is only slightly overcome by training and
> experience. When things go badly, it is natural to try to
> escape. Psychologists call it "fight or flight" decisions. I
> think you generalize inappropriately in this instance.
Nope. As a rule people don't fight to the death with edged weapons. A
really good example is the English Civil Wars where nobody seems to be able
to find a single example of a pikeman killing another pikeman.
> > And fitness (in short duration bursts anyway) is a function of diet
rather
> > than condition.
>
> Ha! Can you provide any supporting evidence for this
> opinion?
> If I could eat myself to better fitness, I'd be tucking in
> right now. I'll have to stick to the work outs.
Something to do with sugar in the blood and lactose (?) forming in the
muscles. I'm sure someone here knows the biological details.
>
> >
> > The distances travelled by medieval armies are much shorter than more
modern
> > but horse drawn armies went, how far did the light didvision march to
that
> > battle in Spain?
>
> Didn't the Black Prince have a little romp through western
> Spain? Surely his army wasn't all cavalry. AFAIK, Spain
> hasn't gotten any bigger in the last few centuries.
The makeup of 100 Years War armies and the 'all horsed option' for the
Agincourt campaign is a matter of some controversy.
I veer towards the 'all horsed' option.
> Medieval armies had wagon trains, camp followers, sutlers
> and provisioners just the same as Wellington's did. They
> didn't have decent roads as a rule, but still, the troops
> didn't have to carry their camps as well as their arms.
Again, we're back at the 100 Years War army makeup controversy..
Michael W Cook
kre...@sympatico.ca wrote on 28/10/01 12:13 am:
>> An example of this which immediately springs to mind would be the Battle of
>> Bauge, where Clarence dashed off on horseback and ignored the pleas of his
>> commanders to wait for the Bowmen and men-at-arms before engaging the
>> French/Scots force.
>
> A tactical error brought on by limited experience in war.
> Clearly, he was experienced in tourney. Clarence wanted to
> attack, win glory, et cetera, with little regard for the
> strategic implications of his actions.
> I'm a little unclear as to how this relates to the fitness
> argument. Please enlighten me.
Sorry Kel, I should have made the point clearer.
By this example I meant that Clarence's Foot troops were out foraging, it
would have required mounted men to search for them and arrange a re-muster
at a rendezvous point. But the fact that the majority of these 'missing'
troops were foot soldiers, would have greatly increased this time of
re-muster, and ultimately have 'slowed' the whole process down - hence
Clarence dashed off to seek his glory.
Fitness wise, it was more advantageous, perhaps in Clarence's eyes only,
that he not wait for his slow foot soldiers to re-muster, although this
probably has nothing to do with fitness and was a bad example.
>> As far as the archaeology goes, bones from the dead at Towton show the usual
>> signs of badly healed bones and disease etc, but they also showed that those
>> who they thought to be Bowmen, would have had considerable muscle power in
>> the legs, arms and shoulders and were of a 'stocky' appearance.
>
> Agreed. These folks were not malnourished, sickly villagers
> pressed into service as fodder, as some people would
> believe. They were solid warriors, if only for forty days
> per years. Daily life in an agrarian society made them
> strong and hardy.
Agreed
>
>>
>> So, I'd say that your average medieval 'grunt' would have been fitter and
>> able to withstand more hardship than your modern equivalent.
>
> If nothing else, they were more prepared mentally and
> emotionally to endure hardship. They didn't have
> expectations of an easy life. Many of them would be happy to
> have a roof over their heads, a warm cot near a fire and a
> bit of meat every day. Try to convince a modern soldier that
> is his retirement package!
Again I agree :-)
Cheers
Michael W Cook
black_...@hotmail.com wrote on 27/10/01 8:47 pm:
> Paras and Marines are not good examples either, they are both forms of
> mobile raiding forces that get used for other stuff because they are elite
> units.
But they are a good example of a group of trained modern soldiers whose
fitness levels are far higher than you average infantryman.
A Para or a Marine is far better equipped mentally and physically than say a
Guardsman or a Greenjacket Infantryman.
Michael W Cook
wrote on 28/10/01 12:38 am:
> Michael W Cook wrote:
>> This is my argument, but I'm quite happy for someone to rip it to
>> shreds.
>
> My purpose isn't to shred, but to give another perspective. See what
> you think.
>
Thanks for your excellent reply.
>> By the simple fact that they had to march to battle, and spent most of
>> their time carrying all they owned,
> ********
>> 120 lbs is maybe around the weight a Special Forces soldier like the
>> British SAS going behind enemy lines would carry for an initial drop,
>
> The distinction that needs to be made here is the difference between
> what's called "battle order" and "marching order." 30 lbs is fairish
> for battle order, (e.g., what one takes when one _expects_ to go into
> battle) and 90+ lbs is a generous figure for the rest of the kit one is
> required to have any other time ("marching order.")
>
> While the modern infantry soldier may not carry "everything he owns"
> while in marching order, he certainly does carry into the field
> "everything he needs to live for an extended period" (read: months.) So
> the situation isn't all that different (even for the the most untrained,
> modern "grunt") then it was for his Medieval counterpart.
Agreed, but by giving a figure of 40-60lb, I meant this is the likely load
they would carry in their Bergan, without 'other' pieces of equipment like
nightsights, spare ammo etc.
Having done such work, I expect you are fully aware of the 'ton' of weight
even a full water bottle would seem like on top of this, let alone having
spare rounds for your GPMG etc dumped on you as well.
>
>
>
>> Modern soldiers are too pampered and rarely have to suffer any
>> hardship, they kill from a distance and cold steel is rarely used
>> these days. Most are confined to barracks and would have to suffer
>> hardship rarely while on exercise maybe a couple of times a year.
>
> I'm special forces, but I daresay you're speaking of the American army,
> which is the only one I've seen that sort of thing go on in, across
> NATO. It used to be an SF reward, but now it's general treatment; the
> others simply don't have the money (and aren't nice enough) to treat
> their soldiers in such a fashion.
I should imagine it's similar for any country who has a large standing army.
In fact, it was the British I was particularly using for this, through my
own experience.
Like any army throughout time, every army has to be given time for R & R or
an 'easy' posting to recuperate. It's impossible for a unit to remain in
peak physical condition and maintain operational awareness over long periods
of time without such 'easy' postings.
I've served with Special Forces units and am fully aware how these 'easy'
postings are used to boast the moral of the troops, yet still keep them at a
high level of fitness and condition. (British Paras and Royal Marines) But
these are Special Forces, your average infantry has it far easier for most
of the time and are likely to be based in one area, at home or overseas, for
much longer periods, thus diminishing their tactical awareness and ability
to function at peak condition, even with several exercises a year to try and
keep them focused.
>
> The load of the basic line infantryman that is carrying more than his
> own kit (e.g., a radio, ammunition for a platoon-level support weapon,
> a GPMG, mini, mortar, mines, antiarmour weapons, etc.) easily passes 100
> lbs. The only ones that don't carry extra kit are the recons and those
> on primary assault team, in a line infantry platoon. For the marching
> order situation you describe above for the SFs, you need to almost
> double the figures you're giving (all of the above kit, in addition to
> materials for bunkers, observation posts, cover and concealment, etc.
> This is due to the fact that SFs operate in small teams, which doesn't
> mean there is less kit to carry -- just less men to carry it. There's a
> reason SFs spend a full quarter of their time in physical conditioning,
> and why there are scales in the exercise compounds.)
Again agreed, but there are conditions whereby one would have a full Bergan,
plus accessories fully laden, and other times where it becomes marching
order and battle order.
When one initially moves into an area which is expected to be occupied for a
long period, the whole shooting match has to be carried in by the 'grunt',
big pack, lots of spares etc, then one might dig-in.
However, if a unit is then required to move forward to perform a certain
task, most of this excess is dumped and only necessary equipment will be
carried, some food, spare ammo weapon etc, thus bringing the combat weight
down to your 40-60lb.
It all really boils down to your 'marching order' when they first arrive and
the subsequent 'battle order' for the later.
>
>> but your average grunt would not carry more than between 40-60 lbs.
>
> The weight of fully loaded web-gear (pistol belt and suspenders with
> food, shelter, minimum amount of ammo, bayonet, combat dagger, 9mm, two
> canteens, spade, meds, four grenades, etc.) for someone who isn't recon/
> light infantry. This corresponds to battle order, so it is this that is
> being spoken of when a modern comparison is made to Medieval plate.
> This doesn't mean however that a modern infantry soldier only carries
> "40-60 lbs."
Sure, my answer above I think covers this
>
>
>
>> The Royal Marines do their 40 mile training 'Yomp' carrying 40 lb
>> Bergans.
>
> Oh my, to see their faces... No, it isn't that simple, see above. I
> think my mini with 200 round box and a teaser was 40 lbs. To an SF, a
> total of 100 lbs is a light day.
I can well believe it, but the above example is training for the recruits
towards obtaining the Green Beret.
>
>
>
>> This is the optimum weight a modern soldier could be expected to carry > into
>> combat and perform.
>
> The pistol belt and suspenders may weigh ~30 lbs, and it is centered on
> the bone structure, but all this does is assist to reduce muscle fatigue
> over time -- by no means does it make the weight "disappear." It
> doesn't matter how well distributed the weight is, (or how excellent
> one's physical condition) the point remains that the weight is *there;*
> it inherently affects your dexterity, speed, and your stamina, so only
> someone who has never done it could possibly say it wasn't encumbering.
>
> I'd love to see such a person go through ten minutes of mock combat
> in battle order and not drop dead -- then get up and do it with the
> above, much more realistic infantry bergan + web gear (+ incidentals?)
> figures I gave. Let's face it, how often do you get to "choose" when
> you are to engage?
Exactly.
But the first thing one would do in an ambush or coming under fire is to
find cover and ditch anything that isn't going to help save your life, ie
most of your kit apart from weapons and ammo.
Thanks again for your reply Chris.
Brian M. Scott
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Kel Rekuta <kre...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:3BDB519E...@sympatico.ca...
[...]
>> > And fitness (in short duration bursts anyway) is a function of diet
>> > rather than condition.
>> Ha! Can you provide any supporting evidence for this
>> opinion?
>> If I could eat myself to better fitness, I'd be tucking in
>> right now. I'll have to stick to the work outs.
>Something to do with sugar in the blood and lactose (?) forming in the
>muscles. I'm sure someone here knows the biological details.
There are two kinds of fitness involved here, aerobic and anaerobic; I
think that William is thinking primarily of the latter. Both can be
conditioned, though most people find one easier to develop than the
other. Aerobic fitness comes fairly easily to me; SCA fighters, on
the other hand, tend in my experience to be the sort to whom anaerobic
fitness comes more easily. Diet affects both, in both the long and
the short term. For a given level of fitness (of either kind), the
right diet in the day or so immediately preceding the activity does
make a difference, but baseline condition is more important.
[...]
Brian
Deogarh
> I should imagine it's similar for any country who has a large standing
> army. In fact, it was the British I was particularly using for this,
> through my own experience.
I've never seen this for the Brits at all, and I've spent time among
Para, SAS, Royal Marines. Maybe you guys held out on us for how we
couldn't treat you!
> However, if a unit is then required to move forward to perform a
> certain task, most of this excess is dumped and only necessary
> equipment will be carried, some food, spare ammo weapon etc, thus
> bringing the combat weight down to your 40-60lb.
This is accurate for example of occupying line-infantry operating out of
a biv, base or fire camp. The reason I extrapolated on the SF instance
is because they often can't afford to drop their bergins, because they
contain materials vital to whatever mission they're on. Lose the ruck,
mission fails. So the only time they drop their bergins really is if
they have the element of surprise, which means the probability is high
they will be able to return for them. Only in dire straights would they
be abandoned. Hence my comparison of marching order to jousting plate,
armour garniture, etc. although these weren't actual battle-dress. The
comparisons to the modern situation are clunky at best.
I should have made your above clarifications more obvious, that they
are in fact the case for general infantry. They don't carry rucks into
the field from their base camp = 40-60 lb figure, unless they are out
for an extended period = marching order = 100+ lbs.
I also should have outlined more clearly that like modern battle and
marching orders, plate armour did exist for both "light" and "heavy
duty," so to speak. It is the plate for "light duty" that is spoken of
as "not being heavy," and which is discussed when comments are made
about armour for war. Field armour could be said to sacrifice
relatively, (or perhaps more accurately, "optimize") manoeuvrability
and protectional capability, while managing overall weight.
So, my point was to contrast plate for war and line-infantry, and SF
soldiers and plate for the tourney. Perhaps this could be taken a
step further, and described alongside the relative fitness levels of
line-infanrty and SFs, and the peasantry and those capable of attending
a tourney?
I'm not familar with the sources that discuss it, (and if you'll excuse
me briefly raising what I know to be a taboo subject in this NG) but is
it indeed the "heavy duty" armours for jousting that are being worn when
the sources describe a knight being raised and lowered via crane? (Said
armours sometimes have fixed limbs, and again also approach 100 lbs at
times, so the idea may be reconciled after this example.)
> But the first thing one would do in an ambush or coming under fire is
> to find cover and ditch anything that isn't going to help save your
> life, ie most of your kit apart from weapons and ammo.
Not to split hairs, (I'm enjoying the armour discussion) but finding
cover when a competent ambush is initiated is practically impossible,
and what you do in that case is charge and fight-through, (in full
marching order) not seek cover.
But yes definitely, if one has the option one sheds the weight
immediately, but often one doesn't -- and as you have doubtless
experienced, dropping it is "not allowed" in training.
Cheers,
Chris
D. Spencer Hines
surrounds me, I should be debarred from all serious business of
campaigning..."
The Duke of Wellington [1769-1852]
-------------------------------------------
What an *excellent* description of USENET.
Deus Vult.
"You're the top! - You're a Waldorf salad. - You're the top! - You're a
Berlin ballad. You're a baby grand of a lady and a gent, You're an old
Dutch master, You're Mrs. Astor, You're Pepsodent. You're romance,
You're the steppes of Russia, You're the pants on a Roxy usher. I'm a
lazy lout that's just about to stop, But if, baby, I'm the bottom -
You're the top!" - [Cole Porter, Yale '13 - 1934. The sixth sentence
supra was reportedly Cole's favourite in the entire song. ---- DSH]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"David Read" <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3nHgfFAI...@dreadful.demon.co.uk...
Paul J Gans
There really is no way to tell directly. However, while
malnutrition was really not a factor, disease was. So
was size, which often directly correlates to strength.
Trained mercenary units might well have been very fit.
But I still wonder about a very fit fellow say 5 and a half
feet tall and a moderately well fit fellow four inches
taller and 30 pounds heavier.
Disease matters because the casualty rate from disease in
any pre-20th century campaign was very high--indeed it
accounted for most of the casualties. Folks did not
come into a medieval army sick. They got sick *in*
the army.
---- Paul J. Gans
William Black
> in article 9rf38g$60h$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com, William Black at
> black_...@hotmail.com wrote on 27/10/01 8:47 pm:
>
> > Paras and Marines are not good examples either, they are both forms of
> > mobile raiding forces that get used for other stuff because they are
elite
> > units.
>
> But they are a good example of a group of trained modern soldiers whose
> fitness levels are far higher than you average infantryman.
>
> A Para or a Marine is far better equipped mentally and physically than say
a
> Guardsman or a Greenjacket Infantryman.
They are not 'better equipped they are 'differently equipped, especially
mentally.
The British have, since WWII, used fairly sophisticated techniques in
training to 'task specify' different troop types, which is why, for
example, line British infantry regiment soldiers make up relatively few of
the UK's special forces recruits. They are conditioned to look at their
circumstances with a view to survival. Special forces with their projected
90% loss rate in the access phase (Predicted loss rate for operations
against the USSR in the eighties) made ordinary infantry soldiers with their
training based on 'fight, run away, fight some more' think this wasn't a
really good idea.
Again, Paras may be fitter, may be tougher, but they have had problems
with radio equipment from Anthem to Bosnia. Problems which no-one else
seems to have. Perhaps the ability to jump from an aircraft, land on your
head and keep fighting preclude correct operation of communications
equipment.
Marines also have problems. They seem to be able to break things other
soldiers can't. This is great when it's something that belongs to the bad
guys, but when it's your own stuff it's not too wonderful. Marines also
tend to assume that all equipment is fully weather proof, even, no,
especially, when it isn't.
Michael W Cook
wrote on 28/10/01 5:39 pm:
> Michael W Cook wrote:
>> I should imagine it's similar for any country who has a large standing
>> army. In fact, it was the British I was particularly using for this,
>> through my own experience.
>
> I've never seen this for the Brits at all, and I've spent time among
> Para, SAS, Royal Marines. Maybe you guys held out on us for how we
> couldn't treat you!
Perhaps not your SAS, as they are always on standby, but there are still
easy postings even for them. After the Falklands, many of the units went on
'easy' duties, the Paras and Ghurka units both did stints overseas in the
sun. Yes, they were operational duties still, but the relaxation aspect was
evident, with time off for R & R. However, both were still training in a
different terrain, in this case Jungle warfare and survival.
>
>> However, if a unit is then required to move forward to perform a
>> certain task, most of this excess is dumped and only necessary
>> equipment will be carried, some food, spare ammo weapon etc, thus
>> bringing the combat weight down to your 40-60lb.
>
> This is accurate for example of occupying line-infantry operating out of
> a biv, base or fire camp. The reason I extrapolated on the SF instance
> is because they often can't afford to drop their bergins, because they
> contain materials vital to whatever mission they're on. Lose the ruck,
> mission fails. So the only time they drop their bergins really is if
> they have the element of surprise, which means the probability is high
> they will be able to return for them. Only in dire straights would they
> be abandoned. Hence my comparison of marching order to jousting plate,
> armour garniture, etc. although these weren't actual battle-dress. The
> comparisons to the modern situation are clunky at best.
Perhaps we are on cross lines here, I was referring to regular units not SF.
But I agree with what you say, a SF soldier would never, unless under
extreme circumstances, drop his Bergan for the very reasons you mention.
>
> I should have made your above clarifications more obvious, that they
> are in fact the case for general infantry. They don't carry rucks into
> the field from their base camp = 40-60 lb figure, unless they are out
> for an extended period = marching order = 100+ lbs.
Again I agree, the weight would depend on the operation undertaken.
>
> I also should have outlined more clearly that like modern battle and
> marching orders, plate armour did exist for both "light" and "heavy
> duty," so to speak. It is the plate for "light duty" that is spoken of
> as "not being heavy," and which is discussed when comments are made
> about armour for war. Field armour could be said to sacrifice
> relatively, (or perhaps more accurately, "optimize") manoeuvrability
> and protectional capability, while managing overall weight.
> So, my point was to contrast plate for war and line-infantry, and SF
> soldiers and plate for the tourney. Perhaps this could be taken a
> step further, and described alongside the relative fitness levels of
> line-infanrty and SFs, and the peasantry and those capable of attending
> a tourney?
>
> I'm not familar with the sources that discuss it, (and if you'll excuse
> me briefly raising what I know to be a taboo subject in this NG) but is
> it indeed the "heavy duty" armours for jousting that are being worn when
> the sources describe a knight being raised and lowered via crane? (Said
> armours sometimes have fixed limbs, and again also approach 100 lbs at
> times, so the idea may be reconciled after this example.)
>
Perhaps some of those who wear this armour today would be more qualified to
comment on this, but I see where you are coming from.
Something which has always interested me is how the rules of Chivalry come
into this. Perhaps one which is a good example is when Henry V was on his
march from Harfleur - Calais. He passed the area where they were to supposed
to camp for the evening, but as he had donned his armour for battle, he
couldn't retrace his footsteps and turn back.
Michael W Cook
black_...@hotmail.com wrote on 28/10/01 7:29 pm:
William
With the greatest of respect, I was talking about physical fitness, and I
mentioned mental ability, not equipment.
So, to recap, I said that your average medieval infantryman would be far
fitter than your average modern infantryman. SF being perhaps the exception.
Paul J Gans
No. All armies loaded their stuff onto a baggage train.
As combat neared, folks armed themselves, carrying what
they had to for the battle. Most medieval battles were
short, an hour or so at the most. One explanation of this
is that the grunts would get tired. As I think the
re-creationists here will tell you, it is hard work slogging
away for an hour, and in re-creation there is little of
that gut-gnawing fear that must have been present in the
real thing.
Today we do the same thing. It is only when moving out
into position that one carries a full pack. Otherwise
it gets carried in a truck.
But combat today often requires folks to carry significant
amounts of material for days--which the medievals rarely
had to do. It also tended to limit them to following roads
and paths that the baggage train could follow.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Michael W Cook wrote:
>> This is my argument, but I'm quite happy for someone to rip it to
>> shreds.
>My purpose isn't to shred, but to give another perspective. See what
>you think.
>> By the simple fact that they had to march to battle, and spent most of
>> their time carrying all they owned,
>********
>> 120 lbs is maybe around the weight a Special Forces soldier like the
>> British SAS going behind enemy lines would carry for an initial drop,
>The distinction that needs to be made here is the difference between
>what's called "battle order" and "marching order." 30 lbs is fairish
>for battle order, (e.g., what one takes when one _expects_ to go into
>battle) and 90+ lbs is a generous figure for the rest of the kit one is
>required to have any other time ("marching order.")
>While the modern infantry soldier may not carry "everything he owns"
>while in marching order, he certainly does carry into the field
>"everything he needs to live for an extended period" (read: months.) So
>the situation isn't all that different (even for the the most untrained,
>modern "grunt") then it was for his Medieval counterpart.
The medievals did not do this. The major gear was carried in
the baggage train. The nobles supplied the carts for their
own use and for their men's use. People were assigned to
run the train and to protect it. Often the train moved in
the middle of the forces to best protect it.
It was only at the prospect of battle (or the possibility
of ambush) that folks armed themselves and made themselves
ready.
But the medievals never had to carry food on their persons
except under very special circumstances. They expected to
eithe be fed from the train, or, if awaiting the enemy, not
fed at all.
The relevence to a fitness comparison between then and now
is that I do not think that the medievals *could* carry such
major loads for any length of time.
[rest of an excellent and informative post deleted]
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
I think you have to be careful here. Things don't extrapolate
so easily.
The medieval period runs from, roughly, 500 AD to 1500 AD. Full
plate was a specialized development that came in only toward the
end of this period.
>I'm not familar with the sources that discuss it, (and if you'll excuse
>me briefly raising what I know to be a taboo subject in this NG) but is
>it indeed the "heavy duty" armours for jousting that are being worn when
>the sources describe a knight being raised and lowered via crane? (Said
>armours sometimes have fixed limbs, and again also approach 100 lbs at
>times, so the idea may be reconciled after this example.)
I don't think so. As far as I know, NOBODY ever needed to be
hoisted by crane. Pity the poor horse!
Besides, jousting is not "wartime", but as you know a highly
artificial setup. The tournament on the other hand was originally
(12th century or so) a melee-type encounter that ran through the
neighborhood. People weren't *supposed* to be killed, but were.
It got so bad that this type of tournament was banned, especially
in England. Eventually "rules" were developed and more formal
rules of engagement devised. Still, people got hurt.
>> But the first thing one would do in an ambush or coming under fire is
>> to find cover and ditch anything that isn't going to help save your
>> life, ie most of your kit apart from weapons and ammo.
>Not to split hairs, (I'm enjoying the armour discussion) but finding
>cover when a competent ambush is initiated is practically impossible,
>and what you do in that case is charge and fight-through, (in full
>marching order) not seek cover.
>But yes definitely, if one has the option one sheds the weight
>immediately, but often one doesn't -- and as you have doubtless
>experienced, dropping it is "not allowed" in training.
I just want to post a reminder of what I've said in an earlier
post. The medievals did not carry "packs" as do modern
soldiers. Their gear was moved by cart. Knights travelled
out of armor and even bows would be stowed. The entire
notion of an army moving cross-country was a bit alien
to them. Armies moved by road and stayed more or less on
those roads. Otherwise their baggage could not keep up
with them.
----- Paul J. Gans
William Black
> William
>
> With the greatest of respect, I was talking about physical fitness, and I
> mentioned mental ability, not equipment.
>
> So, to recap, I said that your average medieval infantryman would be far
> fitter than your average modern infantryman. SF being perhaps the
exception.
Again, I doubt it, there were too many congenital defects, dietary
diseases and general bad health care around those days.
Agricultural peasants from 3rd world countries are not noticeably fitter
than modern urban European soldiers.
Michael W Cook
black_...@hotmail.com wrote on 29/10/01 5:59 pm:
> Agricultural peasants from 3rd world countries are not noticeably fitter
> than modern urban European soldiers.
>
> --
> William Black
> ------------------
> On time, on budget, or works;
> Pick any two from three
Good point :-)
MWC
Paul J Gans
>Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
>news:B8021CFD.32E93%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
>> William
>>
>> With the greatest of respect, I was talking about physical fitness, and I
>> mentioned mental ability, not equipment.
>>
>> So, to recap, I said that your average medieval infantryman would be far
>> fitter than your average modern infantryman. SF being perhaps the
>exception.
>Again, I doubt it, there were too many congenital defects, dietary
>diseases and general bad health care around those days.
>Agricultural peasants from 3rd world countries are not noticeably fitter
>than modern urban European soldiers.
But they are often notably smaller.
---- Paul J. Gans
sophia
<ga...@panix.com> writes
<interesting discussion snipped>
>
>
>I don't think so. As far as I know, NOBODY ever needed to be
>hoisted by crane. Pity the poor horse!
I think we can probably blame Lawrence Olivier for the enduring
popularity of this myth.
>
>Besides, jousting is not "wartime", but as you know a highly
>artificial setup. The tournament on the other hand was originally
>(12th century or so) a melee-type encounter that ran through the
>neighborhood. People weren't *supposed* to be killed, but were.
>It got so bad that this type of tournament was banned, especially
>in England. Eventually "rules" were developed and more formal
>rules of engagement devised. Still, people got hurt.
Most famously King Henri II of France who, in 1559, was killed when
a splinter from his opponent's broken lance entered the eye slot of his
helmet and did him in. By his time jousting was a gorgeously
elaborate ritual with specialised armour and strict rules and probably
as safe as charging at each other on horses with spears ever can be.
I wonder when jousting finally died out? In England James I was a big
fan, both for the sport and the eye candy, as was Queen Elizabeth,
but I don't remember hearing of it in the reign of Charles I. France
seems similar as far as I can tell, it peters out pretty much after the
Religious Wars. Does anyone know about other nations?
--
Sophia
Faith in Fabulousness
www.arxana.demon.co.uk/
icq: 93834408
Michael W Cook
on 29/10/01 10:50 pm:
So where would you put the Sherpas of Nepal in all this ?
Paul J Gans
>in article 9rkmg9$kvo$4...@news.panix.com, Paul J Gans at ga...@panix.com wrote
>on 29/10/01 10:50 pm:
>> William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
>>> news:B8021CFD.32E93%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
>>>> William
>>>>
>>>> With the greatest of respect, I was talking about physical fitness, and I
>>>> mentioned mental ability, not equipment.
>>>>
>>>> So, to recap, I said that your average medieval infantryman would be far
>>>> fitter than your average modern infantryman. SF being perhaps the
>>> exception.
>>
>>> Again, I doubt it, there were too many congenital defects, dietary
>>> diseases and general bad health care around those days.
>>
>>> Agricultural peasants from 3rd world countries are not noticeably fitter
>>> than modern urban European soldiers.
>>
>> But they are often notably smaller.
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>>
>>
>So where would you put the Sherpas of Nepal in all this ?
Strong and tough and high-altitude adjusted. But the
ones we know are the ones who climb mountains. I
don't know about the average Sherpa or how they'd
compare to the average, hmmm, overweight and out
of shape American..... ;-(
----- Paul J. Gans
Lblanch001
>
>The relevence to a fitness comparison between then and now
>is that I do not think that the medievals *could* carry such
>major loads for any length of time.
I don't know about that, Paul. I suspect that the general level of fitness was
much higher then than now. After all, one walked or rode on horseback
everywhere, and both take some effort.
--
Laura Blanchard
lblan...@aol.com (or lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu)
http://www.r3.org/
(see http://orb.rhodes.edu/ to reach major medieval gateway sites)
Paul J Gans
>Paul Gans writes:
>>
>>The relevence to a fitness comparison between then and now
>>is that I do not think that the medievals *could* carry such
>>major loads for any length of time.
>I don't know about that, Paul. I suspect that the general level of fitness was
>much higher then than now. After all, one walked or rode on horseback
>everywhere, and both take some effort.
I agree that the general level of fitness then was higher than
the average American of today. But I think it was not true
in my youth.
----- Paul J. Gans
David C. Pugh
I often discuss things like this with people I meet in the forests and
mountains. There are an awful lot of Norwegians of Paul's age and
upwards who have done a serious hike every day of their lives, rain or
shine. Both country folk, some of whom climb their local mountain
every day before dinner, and city folk, for it is very difficult to
get out of range of decent terrain here -- Bergen has rocky mountains
separating the suburbs from one another, like Rio! There are many
people who couldn't walk every day while they were at work, but do so
after retirement, which in Norway is 67. Even ten years ago, I found
myself being passed by octagenarians.
If you walk on a Saturday here, you will hardly meet a young person,
they all seem to be shopping. Everyone agrees that when this
generation gets old, they won't be remotely like their parents and
grandparents. A guy I met in the woods a week or two ago even told me
that someone did a study of employees in a big company, and found that
the 60-year-olds were in better shape than the 20-year-olds!
David
John Kane
You are not that old! Just boosting.! Perhaps you mean our grandfathers'
tiime? I still doubt it.
--
------------------
John Kane
The Rideau Lakes, Ontario Canada
Lblanch001
>
>You are not that old! Just boosting.! Perhaps you mean our grandfathers'
>tiime? I still doubt it.
I was actually thinking in terms of the pre mass transportation era, i.e.,
pre-trolley (tram?). But especially now that we have sedentary knowledge
workers sitting in their cars or on trains and buses to get to and from work,
we're not as fit as we once were. Speaking as a U.S.-ian, of course -- I was
pleasantly surprised to find how many folk in England walk as much as or more
than my husband and I do.
Paul J Gans
I think that the general fattening of Americans began in the
60s along with the spread of fast food restaurants and the
new prosperity. Heck, I was already at NYU by then...
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>John Kane wrote:
>>
>>You are not that old! Just boosting.! Perhaps you mean our grandfathers'
>>tiime? I still doubt it.
>I was actually thinking in terms of the pre mass transportation era, i.e.,
>pre-trolley (tram?). But especially now that we have sedentary knowledge
>workers sitting in their cars or on trains and buses to get to and from work,
>we're not as fit as we once were. Speaking as a U.S.-ian, of course -- I was
>pleasantly surprised to find how many folk in England walk as much as or more
>than my husband and I do.
Perhaps that's one advantage we have in New York. Folks walk
a lot here. You almost have to. Driving is usually out
of the question since there is usually no place to park,
taking a taxi is expensive, and often the subways simply
won't get you from here to there.
--- Paul J. Gans
Gilmore, Phyllis
lblan...@aol.com (Lblanch001) wrote:
> I was actually thinking in terms of the pre mass transportation era, i.e.,
> pre-trolley (tram?). But especially now that we have sedentary knowledge
> workers sitting in their cars or on trains and buses to get to and from work,
> we're not as fit as we once were. Speaking as a U.S.-ian, of course -- I was
> pleasantly surprised to find how many folk in England walk as much as or more
> than my husband and I do.
According to dieticians I know and love, one of our two greatest
collective health problems is that we expend much, much less engergy on
a daily basis than our great grandparents did.
Consider, for a moment, what it took to clean the average house a
hundred years ago. My mother's grandmother considered a woman's work
merely to start with dusting and such--she also milked the cows, took
care of the kitchen garden, canned various fruits and veggies, helped in
the fields at harvest, cooked three meals a day from scratch for as many
as ten or twelve people (including children and farmhands), baked her
own bread, etc. And all that was in the early 20th century, not the
19th--she did have *some* technological assistance and the occasional
aid from a child. The washing machine and its wringer were lifesavers
in her book. My grandmother, her next-to-youngest child, grew up around
that and was hard to slow down--if she didn't have "real" work, she
*made* some work to do. And we won't even discuss the physcial labor
great-grandfather put in to keep the farm running.
My mother, in contrast, went to work at a relatively sentendary job
right out of high school, and I grew up with the television (and spend
more time inside and alone than even my mother ever did).
So, yes, walking or not walking is part of it. But most of us also
don't engage in highly physical activities for fun and profit on
anything like the scale of just a couple of generations ago--and even
they were doing less than a couple of genrations before them. With some
exceptions, even what those of us do in health clubs doesn't take up the
slack.
Phyllis
(I have a sudden urge to make jelly and bake bread. Some one knock some
sense into me, please?)
Deogarh
> It was only at the prospect of battle (or the possibility
> of ambush) that folks armed themselves and made themselves
> ready.
> is that I do not think that the medievals *could* carry such
> major loads for any length of time.
I suppose my clarification has not been too clear. I never suggested
otherwise; rather, I was comparing relative loads carried.
I actually baulk under the modern infantry vs. Medieval plate
comparison, (as I think it is totally invalid) but was attempting to
explain its context.
Armour crafted specifically for war within said example is being
compared to the "battle load" of a modern infantryman. This, like most,
is a loaded analogy, since the commentary herein and within most of the
secondary sources consequently ignores that heavy plate existed, and the
infantry of today carries much more than 40-60 lbs regularly.
The load a modern infantryman carries in marching order is analogous to
a heavier plate *when* it was worn at the tourney; the modern infantry
battle order is analogous to field armour, *when* it is worn for war.
Both groupings of weight are comparable; this was my point in posting,
in addition to raising the totally ignored former analogy to supplement
the latter.
I was not suggesting that Medieval infantry carried or wore their
armour etc. on the march as a modern infantryman does all his kit! You
are however correct that the Medieval infantryman did not regularly
carry anything anywhere near the load we do today. Having said that, I
remarked that we must not short change the Medieval infantryman, since
functioning in even a field armour, (to say nothing of a garniture,
etc.) would undoubtedly be more difficult than any modern infantry
counterpart.
The two simply aren't comparable in anything other than poundage.
Cheers,
Chris
John Kane
> John Kane wrote:
>
> >
> >You are not that old! Just boosting.! Perhaps you mean our grandfathers'
> >tiime? I still doubt it.
>
> I was actually thinking in terms of the pre mass transportation era, i.e.,
> pre-trolley (tram?). But especially now that we have sedentary knowledge
> workers sitting in their cars or on trains and buses to get to and from work,
> we're not as fit as we once were.
I am not sure that outside of some fairly manual labour occupations (farmer,
stokers?) that this is all that true. I think that this reduction in phiscial
labour may be partly balanced by much more deliberate exercise? I don't have any
evidence though. I do see a lot of people jogging, doing aerobics, cycling etc.
and even playing golf which is rumoured to have an exercise component. It may
offset the more manual efforts of splitting kindling, stoking the family furnace
etc.
I think that undoubtedley we have the opportunity to be much more sedentary :(
An old friend died last year. For about 40 years he lived in a small town and
always drove the two blocks to work. Heart disease and diabetes.
> Speaking as a U.S.-ian, of course -- I was
> pleasantly surprised to find how many folk in England walk as much as or more
> than my husband and I do.
------------------
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Lblanch001 wrote:
>> John Kane wrote:
>> >You are not that old! Just boosting.! Perhaps you mean our grandfathers'
>> >tiime? I still doubt it.
>> I was actually thinking in terms of the pre mass transportation era, i.e.,
>> pre-trolley (tram?). But especially now that we have sedentary knowledge
>> workers sitting in their cars or on trains and buses to get to and from work,
>> we're not as fit as we once were.
> I am not sure that outside of some fairly manual labour occupations (farmer,
>stokers?) that this is all that true. I think that this reduction in phiscial
>labour may be partly balanced by much more deliberate exercise? I don't have any
>evidence though. I do see a lot of people jogging, doing aerobics, cycling etc.
>and even playing golf which is rumoured to have an exercise component. It may
>offset the more manual efforts of splitting kindling, stoking the family furnace
>etc.
In general it doesn't. What we increasingly have, at least in the
U.S., is a two-class society, with a large class that is unfit and a
smaller class that spends quite a bit of time and energy on exercise.
54% of U.S. adults are overweight; in the early 60s the figure was
43%. One out of eight schoolchildren is obese; this is double the
figure from 20 years ago.
[...]
Brian
Paul J Gans
>>Lblanch001 wrote:
>>> John Kane wrote:
And, I suspect, a heck of a lot larger than it was 40 and
60 years ago. Almost all of the kids I went to high school
with would today be considered rail thin. That's not just
memory, I took a look at my old High School yearbook to check.
---- Paul J. Gans
Tony Jebson
[snip]
> In general it doesn't. What we increasingly have, at least
> in the U.S., is a two-class society, with a large class that
> is unfit and a smaller class that spends quite a bit of time
> and energy on exercise. 54% of U.S. adults are overweight;
> in the early 60s the figure was 43%. One out of eight
> schoolchildren is obese; this is double the
> figure from 20 years ago.
Hah! You're assuming that the fit class and the not
overweight class are the same. I can assure you
they ain't ;-)
I'm overweight (but much less so than at K'zoo) but I
swim ~2 km four times a week . . . on second thoughts
"swim" isn't entirely accurate: the best that can be said
for my 'fly is that I can get from one end of the pool to the
other without drowning (much).
I finally decided to take advantage of the olympic sized
neighbourhood pool (complete with olympic class coach)
--- Tony Jebson
See: www.circlecswimming.com
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Brian M. Scott wrote:
>[snip]
>> In general it doesn't. What we increasingly have, at least
>> in the U.S., is a two-class society, with a large class that
>> is unfit and a smaller class that spends quite a bit of time
>> and energy on exercise. 54% of U.S. adults are overweight;
>> in the early 60s the figure was 43%. One out of eight
>> schoolchildren is obese; this is double the
>> figure from 20 years ago.
>Hah! You're assuming that the fit class and the not
>overweight class are the same. I can assure you
>they ain't ;-)
Actually, I thought about pointing that out and then decided that the
correlation was good enough that I needn't bother.
>I'm overweight (but much less so than at K'zoo)
By the standards used in the article from which I drew those figures
you actually might not have been overweight at K'zoo.
> but I
>swim ~2 km four times a week . . . on second thoughts
>"swim" isn't entirely accurate: the best that can be said
>for my 'fly is that I can get from one end of the pool to the
>other without drowning (much).
Hard to loaf if you're swimming 'fly.
>I finally decided to take advantage of the olympic sized
>neighbourhood pool (complete with olympic class coach)
Impressive facility! And quite a program, too.
Brian
Tony Jebson
[snip]
> those figures you actually might not have been overweight
> at K'zoo.
Now that's a scary thought. I was at least 2 stone
overweight then . . .
> > but I
> >swim ~2 km four times a week . . . on second thoughts
> >"swim" isn't entirely accurate: the best that can be said
> >for my 'fly is that I can get from one end of the pool to the
> >other without drowning (much).
>
> Hard to loaf if you're swimming 'fly.
But very easy to drown ;-) I hate the sets that include
the deadly phrase "IM order" i.e. 'fly, back, breast, free.
> >I finally decided to take advantage of the olympic sized
> >neighbourhood pool (complete with olympic class coach)
>
> Impressive facility! And quite a program, too.
Not bad for a community pool . . . I guess it's one
advantage of being a capitalist running-dog ;)
In the summer it's quite odd to see one end of the pool
full of families just lazing around while the other end is
full of people pounding up and down to the tick of a race
clock.
Fortunately for my self-esteem the olympic class
swimmers don't deign to practise with us mortals ;-)
--- Tony Jebson
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Brian M. Scott wrote:
>[snip]
>> By the standards used in the article from which I drew
>> those figures you actually might not have been overweight
>> at K'zoo.
>Now that's a scary thought. I was at least 2 stone
>overweight then . . .
I think that it was probably based on BMI (body mass index), which is
weight in kilos divided by square of height in metres. Current
guidelines are that an adult is underweight with a BMI under 18.5,
overweight with a BMI between 25.0 and 29.9, and obese with a BMI of
30.0 or more. I believe that these numbers have been in use since
1997, slightly different ones having been used before then.
[...]
>> >I finally decided to take advantage of the olympic sized
>> >neighbourhood pool (complete with olympic class coach)
>> Impressive facility! And quite a program, too.
>Not bad for a community pool . . . I guess it's one
>advantage of being a capitalist running-dog ;)
>In the summer it's quite odd to see one end of the pool
>full of families just lazing around while the other end is
>full of people pounding up and down to the tick of a race
>clock.
Might give some of the kids ideas about exercise, which wouldn't be a
bad thing.
>Fortunately for my self-esteem the olympic class
>swimmers don't deign to practise with us mortals ;-)
And in my sports (distance running and cycling) they couldn't, unless
they were taking an easy day: they'd be up the road and out of sight
in no time.
Brian
Dave Forth
>
>Michael W Cook <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
>news:B8021CFD.32E93%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
>> William
>>
>> With the greatest of respect, I was talking about physical fitness, and I
>> mentioned mental ability, not equipment.
>>
>> So, to recap, I said that your average medieval infantryman would be far
>> fitter than your average modern infantryman. SF being perhaps the
>exception.
>
>Again, I doubt it, there were too many congenital defects, dietary
>diseases and general bad health care around those days.
>
>Agricultural peasants from 3rd world countries are not noticeably fitter
>than modern urban European soldiers.
The bows from the Mary Rose strongly indicated the archers of the period
were very strong and no doubt had to very fit to maintain a reasonable
rate of fire.
-- dave
Dave