Apparently medieval armour was heavy and restricted movement. Whodathunkit? They get money to research this stuff?
Then they go on about Agincourt:
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.
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.
Yes, we know this. We have known this since 1415. The combination of mud and the weight of their armour slowed down both the men at arms and the cavalry as they advanced on the English lines. Also, the French felt that ordinary men shouldn’t have access to bows, hence they were subjected to the medieval equivalent of the thermonuclear device without a means of counter attacking it. The rain of arrows on a slow moving force consisting of heavily armoured men at arms and horse had a devastating effect on the French before they had a chance to engage in hand to hand combat.
We know this. We have known this since 1415. So what’s new here?
Add to that the armour piercing “bodkin” arrow heads (dipped in whatever animal poo was available for good measure) and that the French thought it unsporting to shoot at horses, whilst we made a point of it (an injured horse going wild amongst the enemy doing our job for us) and the french had lost before they got within 400 yards of us.
Ah, but now it’s been measured and to certain people that’s important.
Not to me, but ‘certain’ people
Pointless academics. They have been proving the bleeding obvious at the taxpayers expense for decades.
Hear hear all round.
Ah, but the Frenchies had to move in closer and closer in their own ranks as the topography squeezed them together. then the poor bastards at the front couldn’t turn or move back. They were sitting ducks. These chaps were very well trained and superbly equipped with the best armour and weapons. They just couldn’t use them or their skill at arms. Also Henry was attacked directly by the Duke of Brabant and someone fetched him a clout on the helm which damaged his crown circlet. He fought his way out with his bodyguard. He also, unsportingly, had most of his prisoners killed in case they overpowered their guards and attacked from the rear.
These boys wouldn’t have worn the armour unless it gave them a significant advantage. It was very expensive too.
The pointless academic should at least get the name right. In spite of what a lot of people think it was not Agincourt but Azincourt. No museam or history of the conflict at Agincourt, but there is at Azincourt.
What kind of researchers were they? Chemistry or physics ones? Cos any kid of my generation had that in their History textbooks.
The armour was so heavy that Knights of this period had to be winched onto their horses. If you knocked them off they were completely fucked, couldn’t even sit up let alone stand. They just lay there waiting for someone to come round and casually slit their throats.
And talking of Bodkin arrowheads, yep they were armour piercing and covered in poison. The canny Arabs though used to wear a layer of silk underneath their chain mail. The arrow would penetrate the mail but would pull the silk into the wound unpierced, so they were protected from any contagon.
RAB
I’m no expert on Medieval armour but I distinctly recall watching a documentary some years back , Channel 4 I think, which showed that the armour wasn’t as heavy as generally thought, as a lot of fighting was actually done on foot it couldn’t be. I think the winching onto horses bit is mostly myth too, can’t back that up but again I have vague recollections of reading that this was largely done at tournaments where everyone was extra protected. It’s intriguing though that a battle fought so long ago still has such resonance today, is this largely the influence of Shakespeare or is there something about the sheer full on savagery of Medieval warfare that we all find rather exciting ?
Yes, I think you are correct about tournaments. I was at the Azincourt re-enactment last year and they were demonstrating the armour used by men at arms and it was fairly light and manoeuvrable for men on foot – relatively speaking, it was still heavy for men to walk and move in difficult terrain. Less so for the cavalry.
Azincourt resonates with both the English and the French curiously enough. There are a number of reasons, I suspect. Not least the sheer audacity of Henry and his happy few beating the odds. David and Goliath will always be popular – even for those who were on the losing side. The French loved the re-enactments even though they lost this one.
Also, anyone who has ever drawn a longbow will feel something for these battles and the decisive effect the weapon had. Crecy and Poitiers are likewise evocative.
I think they’re starting history over again.
Having googled around a bit, I think you are right Thorn, it wasn’t as heavy as it was told to us kids in the sixties History lessons. I was thinking of the Knights only though, they being on horseback and all. The poor bloody infantry were always poorly armoured, unless you go all the way back to Roman Legions.
It’s odd, isn’t it, that as weapons became more sophisticated and penetrative (firearms etc) the less armoured, troops became. Oh they now have flak jackets and helmets but they really arn’t that much use, more comfort blankets.
There’s a logic to that. If the armour is of limited use, why not do away with it and the downsides of limited manoeuvrability. If you are going to be killed if hit anyway surely it makes sense to have the advantages of not being weighed down?
LR
I take it from your comment that you have actually drawn a longbow, I don’t think I could manage that, being a seven stone weakling with a bad back ! I believe they take something like 150 pounds of draw, gives you some idea of just how physical pre industrial life was.
There was always a bit of an “arms race” going on between armour and arrow heads with the armour getting thicker as time went on (as well as harder as metallurgy progressed).
I think the arabs eventually dropped armour because Saladin saw the advantage of his cavalry being able to move in swiftly, strike with bows and arrows, then get out of there sharpish. Faster horses because they carried less weight and riders who could twist and turn quickly while in the saddle.
Digressing a little, my musket making mate once told me about English naval archers – these guys had bows with such heavy pulls that they actually became deformed over the years of using them.
I took up archery in my teens and shot regularly until my mid twenties when self employment, buying a house and marriage seemed to get in the way. Although I’ve drawn a traditional longbow, my own is a modern composite recurve with a draw weight of 40lbs. These days a modern longbow will have a draw weight of around 80lb – 120lb. At least that was what we saw being offered for sale by bowyers at Azincourt last year and I expect they will be there again this coming weekend. That trip did rather reignite my interest – so when I’ve secured proper employment, I’ll be rejoining my local archery club and getting myself a decent take-down bow and same new arrows.
As for deformity, yes, the archaeological evidence does support that comment.
Well having used replica armour I can assure you that the “Top of the Shop” Gothic/Italian Plate is amazing! Almost full range of motion but limited visibity (I use a Sallet – not used at Agincourt) and eventually the weight will become a factor. From balistic tests a “Bodkin” arrow will actually have difficulty penetrating good quality armour (i.e. most of the time it will not) the problem comes from the amount of arrows and the conditions underfoot. Once you have a “crowd problem” like lots of closely packed people on poor footing then lightly equipped archers and men-at-arms can go a great deal of damage, and they did!
Armour can’t have been that heavy. After all, Uther Pendragon was capable of rogering Igrayne while wearing full plate. At least, according to John Boorman’s film ‘Excalibur’… 🙂