Physiological effects of wearing armour and heat
 

Since we have brought in some great discussion on armour, and we at last have this forum to discuss and archive material for further research, I thought this might be interesting.

While the most typical thoughts concerning armour in the medieval period focus toward either weight of the armour, and of course the old 'chestnut' about knights being hoisted onto thier horses (false), and of course the dreaded rust, it seems that there must have been issues with heat as well.

Some time ago Jens brought this subject up, and it led to some interesting findings, and I have just found my notes so thought I would share them here.

One problem was physiologically, that of either apoplexy or heat prostration, as noted by Dr. F. Kottenkamp in "The History of Chivalry and Armour" (1850, p.89) stating that "...the heat of summer made the armour insupportable and exposed the wearer to the dangers of suffocation and apoplexy or produced at least, such a debility as to disable him from wielding his weapons".

*apoplexy is noted as a sudden usually marked loss of bodily function due to a rupture or occlusion of a blood vessel (brain hemorrhage).

An interesting illustration of this is quite possibly related in the example found in "Brasseys Book of Body Armour" (Robert Wasasnam-Savage, 2000, p.70);
"...the real problem with armour was not its weight, but the way it trapped heat. Body heat resulting from battle exertion could prove fatal. At the Battle of Agincourt (1415) the Duke of York seems to have died of a 'heart attack' brought on by the heat of battle".
While this assumption is made without proper medical protocol of course, it well illustrates that the concerns on these matters were at hand.

"...it is one of the mysteries in the history of armour how the Crusaders can have fought under the scorching sun of the east in thick quilted garments covered with excessively heavy chain mail".
-Brittanica p.392

The subject may have been best summed up by Shakespeare;

"Art thou not fatal vision,
sensible to feeling as to sight?
Or art thou a dagger of the mind,
a false creation...proceeding
from heat oppressed brain?
-MacBeth II, i33
(Brewers, p.237, 13)


Just an aspect of the study of armour not often discussed.

Best regards,
Jim

Certainly the weight/heat was a contributory element to the loss at Hattin which wrote finis to the First Crusade. But isn't this sort of a given? I mean to say that even a modern soldier, if fully burdoned and exposed to the heat, would doubtless cease to be an effective fighter.

This little snippit shows that serious heat related disorders have 3 times the incidence of wounding in Iraq. And that is within a modern army!

BTW, I read in my searches that the load amedic carries is 65 lbs(!)

http://www.cdi.org/program/document....intversion.cfm

Serious stuff indeed.

ETA I just noticed that heat related illness is one of the disorders counted among the 17000.

What a great idea for disucssion.

I wonder, we know the details of the armour itself, the construction the articulation, joints, vents etc.
Has there been any studys of the evolution of the undergarments/padding and whether there were deliberate differences in materials or construction for summer/winter/ warm and cold climates?
Wearing metal armour in a hot sunny climate when you've come from wet cold ole England must have been unbearable.
I wonder what the surface temperature of the shiny metal must have been?
Would they have tried to shade the knights? Cloaks? Umberellas? ;-)
Would the metal be painted even?

Hi Jim,

Great question, with a bunch of angles to explore.

The problem isn't just the metal, it's the quilted gambeson that was often worn under the mail or plate to act as cushioning against impacts.

I suspect there's something we're not getting. I'm not disputing Ed's numbers at all, but there's something we're not understanding. For one thing, the season for wars was typically the warm season, not the cool season. If overheating was a critical problem, why weren't they fighting in the fall after the harvest? The other things was that, so far as I remember, the heaviest plate was worn in Italy, because they needed protection against crossbow snipers in urban warfare (sound similar to Iraq?).

While the medievals placed less value on human life than we do, the patterns of armor wearing make me think that either a) conditioning allowed the warriors to deal with the heat load imposed by their armor, or b) there's something we're missing in armor design that allowed the warriors to be cooler than expected. I'd specifically note that we should be looking at the padding, as well as the metal.

Perhaps we should also check in with the SCA folks? They've been fighting in replica armor for years.

Great topic!

F

Alow me to put my empyrical spoon on this plate :o .


I was a medic in the Mozambique guerilla warfare. In our case the gear, a nurse bag, weighed no more than some 10 lbs. Even so we were lucky to be provided with a native servant to carry it. All we had to bear was the rifle and ammunition, like the other troopers.
The heat in campaign is terrible, specially for 'civilized' guys out of their usual tempered habitat.
I saw tactical operations being interrupted, due to fatigue caused by heat. I even saw a nc sargent criticaly handing his gun and ammunition belt to the servant, to resist marching under heat fatigue.
Thirst comes along; when you finaly find a puddle, with suspect whitish water full of tadpoles, you don't even give the medic time to desinfect it.
But human condition, after intense training, can endure the hardest accomplishments; in the same manner military comandos or rangers can resist infinitely worse conditions than ordinary troops, so certainly the medieval knights trained themselves quite hard before going into battle inside those iron cans.


Sometimes things work in the inverted way. I have read that:
To counter the heat, many knights wore a surcoat underneath their armour to insulate against the metal which under the heat of the Sun, would have literally burned their skin.
Still is a riddle for the contemporaneus common man, how those guys resisted critical heat endurance. Maybe many a times they droped down before the job had ended :shrug: .
Fernando

Thank you very much guys! I really appreciate your comments and observations, and it does seem this is a subject we could give some attention to.
While certainly this is not a problem isolated to armies of any certain period, and of course is certainly a problem in modern armies in qualified degree, but I wanted to address how much attention was given to it in the period of our studies.

My son in law fought in Iraq, and he is particularly susceptible to heat, and upon returning actually never even mentioned the heat, though he was in considerable combat situations. As far as I recall from the military (its been over 40 yrs!), the general full pack was around 60 lbs. The specific command I recall hearing most was 'take your salt tablets!' and I did see a number go down with heat prostration in training with temperatures well over 100 degrees. It is my impression that in modern times, the technology has offered not only awareness of these issues, but made efforts to use various resources to help alleviate the problem.

I know that armour was often burnished, russeted or even painted in order to prevent rust and corrosion, but I am not certain of those being applied to reduce heat. It does seem that, as Atlantia mentioned, cloaks or draped coverings were worn over armour as seen in illustrations, but again, I do not know whether this was artists license, fashion enhancement or indeed intended to reduce heat.

In desert regions, it is known in relatively modern times armies did cover the hilts of swords in leather to prevent glinting steel revealing positions and the heat from suns glare in handling the weapon. I once had a British M1908 cavalry sword (called the Allenby sword for the Commander in the Palestine campaign in WWI)with the huge bowl hilt covered in leather. In early Mexico, the sabres on the frontier had hilts and scabbards covered entirely in leather.

But back to the medieval armour, I think Fearn has a great point, the heavy padding that was worn, seems certainly to not only comfortably (?) support the heavy mail, but protect the wearer from the incredible heat it must have carried. I know that out here in the desert southwest, during the summer, I have burned my hands in inadvertantly grabbing items that have been in the sun (learned quick to wear gloves!).
I recall a rather grim story of a British officer who survived the tragic and immortal 'Charge of the Light Brigade' but later died in India of a heatstroke from the metal plate placed in his skull.

Best regards,
JIm

Hi Jim and all,

This is quite an interesting topic!

Still on Agincourt and this time viewing it from the side of the French, we read this eyewitness account from one Jehan de Wavrin, son of a Flemish knight (his father and older brother fought on the side of the French, and both died at Agincourt that day) --

"The place was narrow, and very advantageous for the English, and, on the contrary, very ruinous for the French, for the said French had been all night on horseback, and it rained [the whole night and for several days before], and the pages, grooms, and others, in leading about the horses, had broken up the ground, which was so soft that the horses could with difficulty step out of the soil. And also the said French were so loaded with armour that they could not support themselves or move forward. In the first place they were armed with long coats of steel, reaching to the knees or lower, and very heavy, over the leg harness, and besides plate armour also most them had hooded helmets; wherefore this weight of armor, with the softness of the wet ground, as has been said, kept them as if immovable, so that they could raise their clubs with great difficulty, and with all these mischiefs there was this, that most of them were troubled with hunger and want of sleep."

From Wikipedia, we read of more details. And as noted from many sources, it was not really the heavy armour per se that was the problem. Rather simplistically, it was allegedly the mud:

"Such heavy armour allowed them to close the 300 yards or so to the English lines while being under what the French monk of Saint Denis described as 'a terrifying hail of arrow shot'.[26] However they had to lower their visors and bend their heads to avoid being shot in the face (the eye and airholes in their helmets were some of the weakest points in the armour), which restricted both their breathing and their vision, and then they had to walk a few hundred yards through thick mud, wearing armour which weighed 50–60 pounds.[27]

"The French men-at-arms reached the English line and actually pushed it back, with the longbowmen continuing to fire until they ran out of arrows and then dropping their bows and joining the melee (which lasted about three hours), implying that the French were able to walk through the fire of tens of thousands of arrows while taking comparatively few casualties. The physical pounding even from non-penetrating arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armour through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armour with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers, meant they could 'scarcely lift their weapons' when they finally engaged the English line however.

"When the English archers, using hatchets, swords and other weapons, attacked the now disordered and fatigued French, the French could not cope with their unarmoured assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud). The exhausted French men-at-arms are described as being knocked to the ground and then unable to get back up.

"As the battle was fought on a recently ploughed field, and there had recently been heavy rain leaving it very muddy, it proved very tiring to walk through in full plate armour. The French monk of St. Denis describes the French troops as 'marching through the middle of the mud where they sank up to their knees. So they were already overcome with fatigue even before they advanced against the enemy'.[21] The deep, soft mud particularly favoured the English force because, once knocked to the ground, the heavily armoured French knights struggled to get back up to fight in the melee. Barker (2005) states that several knights, encumbered by their armour, actually drowned in it [some sources say that the Duke of York was one of them]. Their limited mobility made them easy targets for the volleys from the English archers. The mud also increased the ability of the much more lightly armoured English archers to join in hand-to-hand fighting against the heavily armed French men-at-arms."

As to what happens to those tons of armour in the aftermath of the battle, we refer back to this firsthand account of Jehan de Wavrin:

"And the English archers busied themselves in turning over the dead ... and they carried the armour of the dead by horseloads to their quarters ....

"When evening came the King of England [Henry V], being informed that there was so much baggage accumulated at the lodging places, caused it to be proclaimed everywhere with sound of trumpet that no one should load himself with more armour than was necessary for his own body, because they were not yet wholly out of danger from the King of France [the French were reported to be regrouping, and Henry V was fearing another attack; and it must recalled that the English were vastly outnumbered, anywhere between 1-6 to 1-10] ... the King further ordered that all the armour that was over and above what his people were wearing, with all the dead bodies on their side, should be carried into a barn or house, and there burned altogether ....

"Next day, which was Saturday, the King of England and his whole army ... passed through the scene of the slaughter [the killing of the French prisoners]... and King Henry stood there, looking at the pitiable condition of those dead bodies, which were quite naked, for during the night they had been stripped as well as by the English as by the peasantry."

Agincourt is not exactly about the the effects of wearing armour and heat. But I thought that the effect of wearing armour in a muddy battlefield is as interesting academically as well.

This has become quite a long post. Thanks for reading this far!

PS - Some say that the the Duke of York actually died from drowning while stuck in mud in his heavy armour. Overall in the battlefield, the mud was reportedly anywhere from ankle-deep to waist-deep. And then the Duke of York who was no longer a spring chicken at the time, was reportedly fat, too. Would there be authoritative sources that support this? Thanks.

Rummaging through my old pics, I found these which I snapped at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York) when I went there last year.

Now I have no idea as to the era and as to which countries these armours are from! :D

Just the same, I thought I can post these pics, in order for us to better visualize the subject.

PS - I have many other pics of the armours displayed in that museum. Now if only I can find them ...

Miguel, absolutely beautifully done! Thank you so much for the outstanding detail on Agincourt, which gives us even more perspective. Actually, in reading these accounts I can almost visualize all of this much more vividly.
I had not even taken into the account mud and field conditions.

The lack of oxygen in closed helmets I had heard of, and I think if one placed one of those iron buckets over your head and then tried to complete something with any degree of exertion it would be minutely an example.

I think that one of the best books I have read that describes these battle conditions is "Face of Battle" by John Keegan. He too adds this kind of depth, and understanding of the human experience endured. While we can view and admire armour in static collections, it is often difficult for many to think of what it was really like for the man inside.


Fernando, thank you so much for the notes on these conditions in combat zones, which also more clearly gives us perspective as well, and I can only say I admire you and all the men who served as medics. The thin thread of life was well guarded by medics in unbelievable conditions, at the risk of thier own, and you all deserve the highest gratititude and respect.


Miguel, nice shots of the Met!! Thank you!


All best regards,
Jim

Aye, a good thread and one that brings home realities of combat equipment and environment.

I used to take part in late C15th re-enactment some years ago. The largest annual UK medieval re-enactment was and I believe still is Tewksbury.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h1.../Tewksbury.jpg


This was a great adventure to partake in and could also be a fair test of fitness and endurance given the conditions.

A couple of years saw it in sweltering heat, which saw many dropping like flies with heat exhaustion and/or blacking out. I threw up myself once in full kit, but to be fair, the combination of a hard battle under hard conditions after a hard night in the beer tent lead to my momentary tactical retreat.

One year, I remember one fellow in a pig face bascinet -

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h1...igfacehelm.jpg

Conditions - Decidedly wet underfoot following rain during the night and morning.
Situation - He falls face down with one or two others on top of him.
Result - His pig face stuck firmly in the mud, water rapidly filled in through the vent holes and he nearly drowned in a few inches of muddy puddlewater.

These served as stark reminders that it wasn`t all just about going out there and having a jolly good time, but that all eventualities had to be accounted for given the effects of armour in various atmospheric conditions.

Thanks Paul,

Great story and good warning. I'm not sure what's wrong with drinking hard the night before a battle. Sounds properly medieval to me! :D :D :D

Incidentally, that story about the mishap with the bascinet (along with the story of Agincourt) also answers why they didn't fight in the cool season unless they could help it. That reason is mud. Mud was one of the great enemies of infantrymen. That probably trumps the need to get crops planted and harvested.

F

Hi Jim, Paul, & Fearn,

Thanks for the additional insights given!

I always watch those Discovery Channel and National Geographic programs analyzing plane crashes and other aviation disasters. For me the lesson invariably is that a catastrophe is always due to the confluence of little things, which little things by themselves singly would not be such a big deal.

Seldom does a disaster occur that can be attributed to just a single big factor ... it's always the simultaneity of those little factors.

Agincourt is a total disaster for the French. And I agree with everybody's observation that it was a catastrophic defeat because it was similarly a confluence of those little problems ... which then pushed things to the so-called tipping point.

For me those 'little' things that conspired to the French's ruin that day would be:

[1] the successive days of rains, which created the muddy battlefield;
[2] the heavy armour of the French men-at-arms;
[3] the terrain that created the bottleneck [in the French troop's deployment], such that the French's numerical superiority was rendered useless; and
[4] the cocky attitude of the French.

It was said that the English archers' longbow played a key role in the defeat of the French at Agincourt. I think it was in the TV series 'Battlefield Detectives' that such notion was debunked (if I recall correctly the results of the simulation, it was demonstrated that the longbow arrow does not really penetrate the French's armour).

On item '4' above, we must have all read the accounts that the French knights were jostling over one another for the vanguard position, in eager anticipation of crushing their English foes that day.

And de Wavrin's account of what the French were doing on the eve of the battle seems to support the idea that the French were overconfident:

"... the King of England lodged in the said town of Maisoncelles, so near his enemies that the foremost of his vanguard saw them quite plainly, and heard them call each other by name, and make a great noise; but as for the English, never did people make less noise, for hardly did one hear them utter a word, or speak together.

"... and there continued a great noise of pages, grooms, and all kinds of people; such that , as it is said, the English could hear them plainly, but those on their side were not heard; for during this night all that could find a priest confessed themselves ....

" ... And to the royal banner of the Constable [d' Albret] all the great lords of the gathering gladly joined their own; namely, marshals, admirals, and other royal officers; and this night the French made great fires round the banner under which they were to fight ...."

And thus we read of accounts that some (or many??) of the French were lacking sleep on the day of the battle.

So Paul and Fearn, can we surmise then that the French had been partying all night :D on the battle's eve, such that physically and mentally they did not prepare themselves for the battle?

Then again, factor no. 4 singly cannot be it. Other things have to conspire as well, to have that perfect storm.

PS - Jim, I have read John Keegan's book, The Face of Battle. I was actually trying to look for my copy, before making the posts, but I seemed to have misplaced the book. Yes, it's a great reading :)

Beautifully put Miguel! that is the most concise summary of this battle I have seen, and I agree, factors that brought the results came together in the analogic situation that has in recent years been described as 'the perfect storm'.
Thank you again for the well written detail.

Keegan described the situation well, and yours seals the deal!! :)

All the best,
Jim

i do recall somewhere that the french had a plan to deal with the english archers that in fact would have worked had they followed it, but they did in fact celebrate their upcoming victory the night before. after all they overwhelmingly outnumbered the english, were fit and hearty, where the english were rife with dysentry and lack of supplies - of course they were going to win, it was only logical. the plan wasn't used as they didn't need it against so few opponents of such poor caliber. and thus was made history.

Hi Jim, thanks for the compliment! :) :D

It's a very interesting topic you opened up and I guess we all but can't help contribute.

Hi Kronckew, that's one aspect of the battle I'm not aware of. Thanks for sharing the info!

Going back to the armour aspect, the King of England's opulent armour almost caused him his life.

And once again, de Wavrin's account provides us with a wealth of information:

"Then when it came to be early morning [day of the battle], the King of England began to hear his masses; for it was his custom to hear three every day, one after the other; and he had on every piece of his armour, except for his head gear; but after the masses were said he had brought to him his helmet, which was very rich, and had handsome crown of gold around it like an imperial crown ....

xxx

"... Among the arrangements made on the part of the French, as I have since heard related my eminent knights, it happened that, under the banner of the Lord of Croy, eighteen gentlemen banded themselves together of their own choice, and swore that when the two parties should come to meet they would strive with all their might to get so near the King of England that they would beat down the crown from his head, or they would die, as they did; but before this they got so near the said King that one of them with the lance which he held struck him such a blow on his helmet that he knocked off one of the ornaments of his crown. But not long afterwards it only remained that the eighteen gentlemen were all dead and cut to pieces; which was a great pity; for if every one of the French had been willing thus to exert himself, it is to be believed that their affairs would have gone better on this day. And the leaders of these gentlemen were Louvelet de Massinguehem and Garnot de Bornouille ..."

I'm sure that that lavish helmet of Henry V became a very convenient focal point for the band, in a sea of bobbing heads and helmets!

And in the 2nd to the last sentence of the quote above, we can see that de Wavrin also attributed the defeat to the lack of political will (or perhaps the lack of trying hard enough, or maybe just being too complacent) on the part of the French.

PS - On a positive note, I also realize though that the lavish helmet provides a visual cue for the English knights as to where their king is at any point in time.

I don't know where now, but somewhere I read of a battle where nearly as many passed out or died through heat-stroke as became casualties by other means. It was in Europe but the details escape me.

I suppose if in the middle east one can fry an egg on a tank, the armour would be just as bad....except the egg might slip off the sloping bits!

Re. the longbow and things like battlefield detectives, I see the findings as quite flawed at times.
As in, a 60 lb longbow was used in one set of trials and it isn't surprising it wouldn't do what a 150 lb war-bow would!

Very interesting subject!

Richard.

Excellent and interesting post Jim :cool: ,

due to a number of experimental archaeologists many of the the 'Victorian made' views of armour have been radically changed.

Although heat 'build up' was a problem.......dehydration was the true enemy. To cool down, the body sweats...the evaporation of this cools the skin surface reducing body temperature. However, within the 'confines' of the armour the moisture 'transferred' to the air space within ...creating humidity. Sweating actually increases in an effort to counteract these conditions and the loss of water increases significantly.

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.

Knights also improved their physical health with various routines often in full armour. This conditioning helped to increase their 'heat stroke' tolerance.
Also their physical weight made a difference, excessive body fat actually increases the 'heat up' factor.

Knights also had to learn to breath deeply and freely to counter the restrictive 'breathing holes' in their visors .....slightly less oxygen would have a massive affect on the body's performance.

Regards David

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.

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.

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 :eek: 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

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 :shrug: surely the front line of each army would almost be equal (if they are right) :shrug: :shrug:

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 :rolleyes: Surely, searching for the 'truth' would require information from both sides :shrug:

Kind Regards David

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! :)

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.

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! ;) :p :D

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.

Hi David,

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

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

Best regards.

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? :confused:

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

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.

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....... :D :D

Regards

.

Another battle during the "100 years war" was at Verneuil in northern France. The English had to face Italian 'heavy cavalry' whom were wearing the latest Milanese armour, (as were their horses,) ... far superior to most armour plate due to the skill of the hardening and tempering. This made them 'arrow proof'.....but although they did not 'penetrate' ..the constant 'battering' of high velocity arrows must have been un-nerving.

Due to the long period of battle, knights rested .....



http://www.channel4.com/history/micr...s/armour2.html


A little more regarding armour
http://www.channel4.com/history/micr...s/armour1.html

Regards David