Physiological effects of wearing armour and heat

[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?

[Pukka Bundook]

Miqueldiaz,

I like the way this thread is progressing!

In "the Great Warbow" Robert hardy states that the archers of the period drew with only two fingers and shows illustrations as well, but maybe the French drew with three fingers, and presumed the English did as well.

Re how a knight got re-hydrated in battle....(I like your last illustration!)
A knight had a groom, or squire or whatever to attend him, and I gather to re-supply him with arms as he broke them. maybe he also had a few gallons of water or something for refreshment.

Re. Agincourt, Two points;

1, Your quote re. the French boast, of cutting off the fingers, ..." so that man or horse would never be killed by arrows again"
Says quite a lot.
Some now play down the part that the archers had in the defeat of the French at this period, but this statement shows vividly that the French viewed the longbow as a terrible weapon, ..and not at all sporting....and it was a sore point with them. A sure sign of its effectiveness.

2. the English were a pretty sick bunch when they drew up for battle...outnumbered as well, and had a "backs against the wall" mentality,
This I see as the key to their success,..."if we lose, we are dead men".
Because of this, the resolve was there to Not lose. The rest's history.

Please forgive if this is slightly OT.

Richard.

[katana]

Miguel,
nicely done....the pictures clearly illustrate the 'fighting man's' need for water ...... although in Medieval England, ale was drunk ...even by children as the water was not often purified.......suggesting that perhaps the 'king' would prefer to 'murder' a cool pint of beer.......

Regards

.

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Miqueldiaz, I like the way this thread is progressing! ...

Hello Richard,

Same here, sir. And I definitely agree with the insights you shared.

Thanks for sharing and regards.

[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.