Physiological effects of wearing armour and heat

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by katana

Hi Miguel ,
surely, Henry V chose this defensive position for the very reason it would 'restrict' the advancing French. Perhaps I have 'read' your comment wrongly ...but saying 'little' things that conspired to....suggests that this happened by 'chance'. The French were surely aware of this 'tactical' position, if not they must have forgotten the old saying...."he who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it".... or were unaware of the Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae

Regards David

Hi David,

I agree with you 100%

Yes indeed, the bottleneck thing was intentional.

I've not studied Agincourt that extensively, but based on the materials I've browsed, I believe that Henry V exhibited superb generalship before, during, and after the battle.

Hence factor no. 3 [the bottleneck] was not an accident but it happened by design.

Along the same vein, the flipside of factor no. 4 [the cocky French] was the English's careful preparation on the eve of battle, and that wasn't an accident, too.

Whereas the French on that eve were celebrating their anticipated victory, we read of the English quietly preparing their armor and weapons, confessing to the priests [as 'Plan B' in case they do get wiped out!] ... and they must have all slept early as Henry V (and presumably everybody) "rose early" on the day of the battle.

On the other hand, de Wavrin also said that on the side of the French "those who could had their breakfast" ... implying that there were many who weren't able to (hey, with the partying the night before, it's obvious). Thus de Wavrin also said that "most of them [the French] were troubled with hunger and want of sleep.""

Back to the English side, we also read that before the battle, Henry V exhorted his troops to do their best again and again, for the love of their king, country, and kin (the "carrot"). And if they fall into the enemy's hands, they should know that the French threatened that all the archers will have their three fingers cut off, etc. (the "stick").

They say that before any battle, generals look at the eyes of their men to assess whether the will to win is there.

I'm sure that when Henry V looked at the eyes of his knights and men, he saw that indeed he has the chance to pull it off.

Back to the bottleneck thingy, if we will review the position of the troops on both sides right after the English archers on both flanks rushed to meet the French (after the English archers ran out of arrows), it is apparent that the French at the forward edge of the battle area were enveloped.

And with the French troops at the rear pushing forward, the French frontliners were then trapped in a vise-grip such that again quoting de Wavrin, "kept them [the French] as if immovable, so that they could raise their clubs with great difficulty".

What happened next was for sure a slaughter more than a battle.

In summary, it is agreed that while on the one hand there are factors that occur at random (rains, etc.), there are also variables on the other hand that can be controlled.

[Pukka Bundook]

Hi David!

I too saw a program where the conclusion was reached that the knights took turns up front, but I remain unconvinced.
The thing that bothers me, is the fact that because a modern day "knight" got tired quickly, and couldn't fight for long, then neither could the knights "back then".
I find this reasoning floored, as it is putting our 21st century stamina levels on people from a different realm, where there were very few office jobs, and most ran a shovel or whatever for a living, and knights trained every day, not once in a flood.

To put it in a friends Scottish terms, "they were tough wee sods!"

( Another example is the warbow, who now, apart from a very few, can draw 150 lbs?...with some going up to 190 lbs?) "tough wee sods" sounds about right.....

What worries me David, is that such a test can be done in television or whatever, and it soon becomes "truth" by repetition.
I think it's best to just go with first-hand accounts, and I'd love to read some of "how it was" in battle.

Miqueldiaz,
I think it was just two fingers the French were going to cut off the English bowmen, as the bow was drawn with just the two, not with three as we do today.... and hence the English "V" salute....(!)

Best wishes,

Richard.

[katana]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Hi David!

I too saw a program where the conclusion was reached that the knights took turns up front, but I remain unconvinced.
The thing that bothers me, is the fact that because a modern day "knight" got tired quickly, and couldn't fight for long, then neither could the knights "back then".
I find this reasoning floored, as it is putting our 21st century stamina levels on people from a different realm, where there were very few office jobs, and most ran a shovel or whatever for a living, and knights trained every day, not once in a flood.

To put it in a friends Scottish terms, "they were tough wee sods!"

( Another example is the warbow, who now, apart from a very few, can draw 150 lbs?...with some going up to 190 lbs?) "tough wee sods" sounds about right.....

What worries me David, is that such a test can be done in television or whatever, and it soon becomes "truth" by repetition.
I think it's best to just go with first-hand accounts, and I'd love to read some of "how it was" in battle.

Best wishes,

Richard.

Hi Richard ,
I should have made the point more clearly. I totally agree that these men were 'physically conditioned' to cope with the demands of battle.....afterall being unfit was potentially lethal However, some accounts state that hand to hand fighting could last for hours, due to the dehydration it was physically impossible to maintain that level of effort ...no matter how well 'conditioned .... it would be suicide to continue fighting whilst suffering dehydration....not only do you have muscular cramps....it also affects the 'clarity' of the mind. Let me put it this way....in any survival situation....drinkable water is a priority....you could survive for days without food or shelter.

Another thing I have noticed is that armour evolution increased the thickness and hardness of the plate and increased the number of 'parts' to increase mobility and protection. To lessen gaps in the armour would increase the 'heat up' factor. Helmets became more 'enclosed' and the 'breathing' holes / slits became smaller to prevent 'stabbing' to the area, which again would increase 'heat' and restrict oxygen intake. It suggests to me that designers had protection as the critical factor, not the conditions suffered by the wearer. Men at arms would have to 'work around' the problems.....short 'breaks' to rest and take on water would be the obvious remedy ....in a 'drawn out' battle.

I also have to agree about the war bow situation, English archers were well trained and exhumed bodies of archers have significantly larger bone mass in their draw arm (through repetition, the bone structure would 'enlarge' as the muscle mass increased) ....I doubt this physical 'abnormality' would occur in a 'modern' archer.
This is an interesting link...

http://www.companionsofthelongbow.co.../Page27783.htm

Kind Regards David

[katana]

Hi Miguel,
thanks for the added information. Interestingly Agincourt is a hotly debated subject..... a number of French historians have suggested that Henry V should be regarded as a 'war criminal' due to the slaughter. They also suggested that the French army was similar in numbers to Henry's. I am sure, due to politics, propaganda, bravado etc Henry and his men would exaggerate the number they fought.....afterall history tends to be written by the victors But, the conclusion by some French historians that the armies were similarly matched (ie number of men) seems flawed.......
If they were....why did the bottle neck work so well surely the front line of each army would almost be equal (if they are right)

Strangely..... apparently these French historians got together to discuss Agincourt......but no British historians were invited.....I always thought there were two sides to every story Surely, searching for the 'truth' would require information from both sides

Kind Regards David

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by katana

A number of researchers have discovered that knights fighting in the melee, would take turns at the front....returning after a rest and the intake of much needed water.

Originally Posted by katana

However, some accounts state that hand to hand fighting could last for hours ...

Hi David,

How true. In this article, More Cannae, 216 BC, we read of how ancient ancient battles are actually fought --

"More lull than actual fighting -- 'Fuller (1965, p. 91) estimated a period of fifteen minutes' fighting before men became exhausted, and Kromayer (in Kromayer and Veith, 1912, p. 354) and Goldsworthy (1996, p. 224) estimate even less. After a certain period of fighting it would have been necessary for the lines to draw apart perhaps by only a few metres, in order to allow both sides to rest. Meanwhile, wounded troops might be brought to safety and line replacement could occur. Sabin argues that these rests were the natural state of the fighting, with the troops standing a distance apart, hurling insults at each other or simply catching their breath, before advancing once more . Any single combat which may have taken place would have happened during such lulls ... Successive advances would have lacked the power of the initial charge, primarily because troops would have tired, and pauses would have begun to last for longer than the fighting itself (Goldsworthy, 1996, p. 224; 1997, p.21). It was under such circumstances that battles could go on for hours.' "

Note the 'hurling insults' part!

[Pukka Bundook]

Thanks for the reply, David.
You are probably on the mark with breaks having to be taken to avoid real danger of dehydration. The program I saw was more to do with rests after just a few minutes from exhaustion, without mention of dehydration.

Maybe capturing the baggage train was important because it also held the drinks cabinet!

I'll have a dekko at your link when I get done here.

Many thanks,

Richard.

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

You are probably on the mark with breaks having to be taken to avoid real danger of dehydration.

Hello Richard,

Rehydration is key indeed. If boxers in lightweight clothing carrying no weapons and fighting indoors need to guzzle down lots of water every 3 minutes, I can imagine how thirsting it would be for warriors in action in full battle gear.

Hence modern day soldiers have a Camelback. And a few decades ago, it was the canteen. So the question is, how did the warriors of old rehydrated themselves in the middle of the battle?

The last illustration below shows a medieval guy drinking while on the move. But while in action, did he carry water with him?

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by katana

Strangely..... apparently these French historians got together to discuss Agincourt......but no British historians were invited.....I always thought there were two sides to every story Surely, searching for the 'truth' would require information from both sides

Hi David,

I think you are making an assumption ... I mean how sure are we that they are after the truth?

Levity aside, thanks for the additional interesting points you brought out.

Best regards.

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Miqueldiaz,
I think it was just two fingers the French were going to cut off the English bowmen, as the bow was drawn with just the two, not with three as we do today.... and hence the English "V" salute....(!)

Best wishes,

Richard.

Hi Richard

Two fingers rather than three makes more sense, I agree.

Jehan de Wavrin in his account did say "three fingers" though:

"... and he [Henry V] begged that this day each one would assist in protecting his person and the crown of England, with the honour of the kingdom. And further he told them [his army] and explained how the French were boasting that they would cut off three fingers of the right hand of all the archers that should be taken prisoners to the end that neither man nor horse should ever again be killed with their arrows."

Hmm, so is it really two or three?

On a related matter, it appears to me now that the discrepancy in the estimation of the armies' size at Agincourt can probably be accounted for by the fact that both sides do not actually know how to count!

Kidding aside, the fact of the matter is that the threat was made, and Henry V was able to capitalize on that, to further motivate his archers to try harder. Henry V would make a fine CEO if he lived in today's times.

Best regards.