From duel to fencing

[VELISARIOS]

Thank you very much! And yes! That article is by far one of the best sword related myth-busters available in the free world! Seriously, anyone who has even a passing interest in anything sword related should read, memorize and preach that thing. Mr. Clements work is second to none. In fact the vast majority of my knowledge comes from his research.

Nice work AllenJ. Thank you very much for your search!

[AllenJ]

Part 5

Mr. Worsfield starts off the next paragraph with yet another of his generic, non-documented statements, “The metal construction technology of the time was to a stage where they could make strong but relatively heavy blades, which were unable to hold a particularly sharp point or cutting edge.” First, we really have no idea what “time” he’s talking about. You can’t just lump a generic ‘medieval times’ on there and call it good. There were many changes in various European regions during these years. He needs to be specific. Equally as generic, is his comment about strong but “relatively heavy blades”. How much does “relatively heavy” weigh? What may be heavy to one may not be to another. To someone who has only lifted sport fencing tools, everything is heavy- even some pocketknives. Regardless, longswords did not tip the scales at 10, 15 even as much as 50 lbs as some suppose. 2.5 -5 lbs is the average. Even the largest two-handers weren’t much more than 5-7 lbs. To someone with any kind of fitness level, this is hardly heavy. Check out these articles which are far better written and with more specific info than what I have here: http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html

The second half of the above quoted statement is the really bad one. Followed by his next sentence which states, “They would basically still bludgeon each other to death.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, he demonstrates his ignorance of any real swords. Swords were sharp and they could cut and thrust. Observe:
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0155.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0156.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0160.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0164.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0183.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0188.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0249.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0250.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0253.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0255.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0256.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0257.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0158.jpg No edge indeed!
And that’s just a few examples from ONE manual. This same stuff can be seen in almost all of them. If you need more proof check out these books on battlefield forensics.
Blood Red Roses: Battle of Towton 1461- http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/184...Fencoding=UTF8
Battle of Wisby 1361- http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/189...lance&n=283155
Mr. Worsfield is seriously mistaken on this matter. It’s true that swords CAN bludgeon, but that is not its primary function. Just like you can clock a guy in the face with your rifle- you are able to do that, but it is not what it was made for.
In his next vague statement he even contradicts his own statement from the previous remark, “It was primarily Offensive in nature with Simple fencing Attacks (cuts) in composition.” I thought he said swords couldn’t have an edge and were for bludgeoning- not cutting? Oh well. Swordplay is inherently offensive in nature, you can not win by constantly defending. Even in sport fencing this is the case. The second you riposte, you are being offensive. Same goes for historical fencing. The Germans called it the “vor” or the initiative. Most techniques are designed around seizing the “vor”. You can not win with out attacking.
Mr. Worsfield continues in this vein as he incorrectly states, “Due to the heavy weight of both sword and the protective armor, fencing-type controlled movement of over the sword, along with the mobility of the body was near impossible.” By now you should be able to see how absolutely absurd this statement is. The myth of a knight being knocked down and not being able to get back up, or a knight in full plate being hoisted into his saddle via winch and pulley system is so horribly inaccurate that it’s a wonder that people ever believed it in the first place. Here is a brief how-to on armored longsword combat. It’s obviously not an immobile activity: http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html
Mr. Worsfield remains to be incorrect on almost every point he attempt to make.

[Inquartata]

The myth of a knight being knocked down and not being able to get back up, or a knight in full plate being hoisted into his saddle via winch and pulley system is so horribly inaccurate that it’s a wonder that people ever believed it in the first place.

Mark Twain has much to answer for.

[VELISARIOS]

Part 5

Mr. Worsfield starts off the next paragraph with yet another of his generic, non-documented statements, “The metal construction technology of the time was to a stage where they could make strong but relatively heavy blades, which were unable to hold a particularly sharp point or cutting edge.” First, we really have no idea what “time” he’s talking about. You can’t just lump a generic ‘medieval times’ on there and call it good. There were many changes in various European regions during these years. He needs to be specific. Equally as generic, is his comment about strong but “relatively heavy blades”. How much does “relatively heavy” weigh? What may be heavy to one may not be to another. To someone who has only lifted sport fencing tools, everything is heavy- even some pocketknives. Regardless, longswords did not tip the scales at 10, 15 even as much as 50 lbs as some suppose. 2.5 -5 lbs is the average. Even the largest two-handers weren’t much more than 5-7 lbs. To someone with any kind of fitness level, this is hardly heavy. Check out these articles which are far better written and with more specific info than what I have here: http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html

The second half of the above quoted statement is the really bad one. Followed by his next sentence which states, “They would basically still bludgeon each other to death.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, he demonstrates his ignorance of any real swords. Swords were sharp and they could cut and thrust. Observe:
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0155.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0156.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0160.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0164.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0183.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0188.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0249.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0250.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0253.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0255.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0256.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0257.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0158.jpg No edge indeed!
And that’s just a few examples from ONE manual. This same stuff can be seen in almost all of them. If you need more proof check out these books on battlefield forensics.
Blood Red Roses: Battle of Towton 1461- http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/184...Fencoding=UTF8
Battle of Wisby 1361- http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/189...lance&n=283155
Mr. Worsfield is seriously mistaken on this matter. It’s true that swords CAN bludgeon, but that is not its primary function. Just like you can clock a guy in the face with your rifle- you are able to do that, but it is not what it was made for.
In his next vague statement he even contradicts his own statement from the previous remark, “It was primarily Offensive in nature with Simple fencing Attacks (cuts) in composition.” I thought he said swords couldn’t have an edge and were for bludgeoning- not cutting? Oh well. Swordplay is inherently offensive in nature, you can not win by constantly defending. Even in sport fencing this is the case. The second you riposte, you are being offensive. Same goes for historical fencing. The Germans called it the “vor” or the initiative. Most techniques are designed around seizing the “vor”. You can not win with out attacking.
Mr. Worsfield continues in this vein as he incorrectly states, “Due to the heavy weight of both sword and the protective armor, fencing-type controlled movement of over the sword, along with the mobility of the body was near impossible.” By now you should be able to see how absolutely absurd this statement is. The myth of a knight being knocked down and not being able to get back up, or a knight in full plate being hoisted into his saddle via winch and pulley system is so horribly inaccurate that it’s a wonder that people ever believed it in the first place. Here is a brief how-to on armored longsword combat. It’s obviously not an immobile activity: http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html
Mr. Worsfield remains to be incorrect on almost every point he attempt to make.

Nice work Allenj. I like your work.
I have only on objection in the final part of your post.
Some full plate armors were very heavy and there are documents which said that many knight lost their lives or surrender in battlefield because they can not move when the pikeman throught them from their horses and then a mob of light armor warriors catch them or killed them.

[Teme]

Great read, AllenJ!

I have a small note to make, though...

Viking History
Right off, he makes the mistake of calling Vikings, “primarily sword warriors”. It is true that they had and used swords- and that swords made up a good portion of their arsenal, but it was not their primary weapon.

It's my understanding that according to grave findings, battle-axe was the preferred close combat weapon of "western" vikings (Norway and Denmark) while sword was more popular in Sweden and most popular in Finland (which is not "viking" at all). In almost every viking-age male grave in Finland one can find a short (15-25 inch blade), single edged 'sword' (spread over to Sweden, too), spear and javelin. In addition there can be a 'proper' sword (or two), or sometimes an axe.

And, naturally, remains of a keg of beer...

[AllenJ]

Nice work Allenj. I like your work.
I have only on objection in the final part of your post.
Some full plate armors were very heavy and there are documents which said that many knight lost their lives or surrender in battlefield because they can not move when the pikeman throught them from their horses and then a mob of light armor warriors catch them or killed them.

I have 'heard' these documents exist. But no one has been able to give me a source. It's always, "I read somewhere..." Also being thrown from a horse can really hurt- with or without armor. I think a surrender or a kill from this has more to do with the physical trauma of being thrown and not due to the weight of the armor. Again, "very heavy" is a subjective term. Also, I dont care how light your armor is, if you get overtaken by a mob of anything, you are pretty much screwed. I'd be really interested in seeing any period documentation you have on this.

[Allen Evans]

I have never seen proper documentation on this either. I have often wondered (and had a professor make the same speculation once) how much of this "inablity to move because of the weight of armor" had to do with heat exhustion or dehydration on the part of the wearer.

Even on a cool day, 40 - 60 lbs of armour, with its associated padding and undergarments, would probably lead to the raising of the core body temperature if the soldier was actively exerting himself. Add that to poor hydration practices, and I could easily see a soldier suffering from all the effects of heat exhustion: nausa, dizziness, and fatigue, with eventual collapse.

[VELISARIOS]

I have 'heard' these documents exist. But no one has been able to give me a source. It's always, "I read somewhere..." Also being thrown from a horse can really hurt- with or without armor. I think a surrender or a kill from this has more to do with the physical trauma of being thrown and not due to the weight of the armor. Again, "very heavy" is a subjective term. Also, I dont care how light your armor is, if you get overtaken by a mob of anything, you are pretty much screwed. I'd be really interested in seeing any period documentation you have on this.

It is a litle difficult to sent you this article. It is in Greek language. But I try to find it in English.

[AllenJ]

Great read, AllenJ!

I have a small note to make, though...


It's my understanding that according to grave findings, battle-axe was the preferred close combat weapon of "western" vikings (Norway and Denmark) while sword was more popular in Sweden and most popular in Finland (which is not "viking" at all). In almost every viking-age male grave in Finland one can find a short (15-25 inch blade), single edged 'sword' (spread over to Sweden, too), spear and javelin. In addition there can be a 'proper' sword (or two), or sometimes an axe.

And, naturally, remains of a keg of beer...

Very true that in the western Scandinavian countries there seems to be a bit more evidence of axe use. Indeed, its is also technically impropper to refer to all Norsemen of pre- medieval times as a generic "Viking". I had intended to mention this but it slipped my mind. So many errors so little time! Thanks for pointing that out though!

PS- the single edge sword you refer to it quite similar to the a single edged knife called a Scramasax. These could get quite long and resemble small swords.

[AllenJ]

I have never seen proper documentation on this either. I have often wondered (and had a professor make the same speculation once) how much of this "inablity to move because of the weight of armor" had to do with heat exhustion or dehydration on the part of the wearer.

Even on a cool day, 40 - 60 lbs of armour, with its associated padding and undergarments, would probably lead to the raising of the core body temperature if the soldier was actively exerting himself. Add that to poor hydration practices, and I could easily see a soldier suffering from all the effects of heat exhustion: nausa, dizziness, and fatigue, with eventual collapse.

These are all very good points. Getting the wind knocked out of you from falling from a horse and then trying to gasp for air from within a close helm could very well keep you from functioning for a few seconds.

[AllenJ]

Mark Twain has much to answer for.

Haha! Yes, and so do countless others!

[Gav]

Vel',

In your post regarding plate (people not getting up etc), yuo present some misconceptions that have been around for some time. It is a myth that is thoroughly debunked.

In defensive system you have a trade off between movement, and protection. Plate [or rather what we think of as plate - i,e, medieval knight's armour - I'm going to take a couple of liberties because I do not have time to write a full essay) armour was a very specialised piece of kit that existed over a very narrow narrow band of time. In any case, full plate, was bespoke-made and quite sophisticated. The weight is distributed across the body so that it is still possible to move. Only an idiot would suggest that there was no no encumberance however the difficulties are nowhere near the levels commonly described. For example; there is one account of a german lord (can't remember his name offhand) who, when he saw his castle being overran, jumped into his moat and swam for it - in plate. Now this seems to be an extreme example and may be apocryphal but I can only take the word of the curator of Kelvingrove's armoury that it's true. Putting that story to one side there are many examples of unhorsed knights falling off their horses getting up and running into battle. We are talking full italian and german plate. These guys trained hard, a lot of them were highly professional fighters who took their job seriously - if you are on a battlefield it is your life on the line.
Additionally I have seen - with my eyes - a demonstrator doing cartwheels in his suit of bespoke full plate.
The problem with plate was that: you baked in the heat, if you wore a full helmet you couldn't see or hear very well and the attacking weapons superceded the effectiveness of it.*

In summary: you would not wear armour if the trade-off was that you could not move and fight in it. There was no point in being a sitting target. History bears this out - read up on it. I suggest that you look again at your sources - the reasons for deaths and surrender were very unlikely to be down to restricted movement.

* e.g. The poniard, improved gunpowder weapons, various types of arrows.

[AllenJ]

Vel',

In your post regarding plate (people not getting up etc), yuo present some misconceptions that have been around for some time. It is a myth that is thoroughly debunked.

In defensive system you have a trade off between movement, and protection. Plate [or rather what we think of as plate - i,e, medieval knight's armour - I'm going to take a couple of liberties because I do not have time to write a full essay) armour was a very specialised piece of kit that existed over a very narrow narrow band of time. In any case, full plate, was bespoke-made and quite sophisticated. The weight is distributed across the body so that it is still possible to move. Only an idiot would suggest that there was no no encumberance however the difficulties are nowhere near the levels commonly described. For example; there is one account of a german lord (can't remember his name offhand) who, when he saw his castle being overran, jumped into his moat and swam for it - in plate. Now this seems to be an extreme example and may be apocryphal but I can only take the word of the curator of Kelvingrove's armoury that it's true. Putting that story to one side there are many examples of unhorsed knights falling off their horses getting up and running into battle. We are talking full italian and german plate. These guys trained hard, a lot of them were highly professional fighters who took their job seriously - if you are on a battlefield it is your life on the line.
Additionally I have seen - with my eyes - a demonstrator doing cartwheels in his suit of bespoke full plate.
The problem with plate was that: you baked in the heat, if you wore a full helmet you couldn't see or hear very well and the attacking weapons superceded the effectiveness of it.*

In summary: you would not wear armour if the trade-off was that you could not move and fight in it. There was no point in being a sitting target. History bears this out - read up on it. I suggest that you look again at your sources - the reasons for deaths and surrender were very unlikely to be down to restricted movement.

* e.g. The poniard, improved gunpowder weapons, various types of arrows.

Very good points Gav. Its true that there is some emcumbrance- but certianly not of the disabling type.

on to the next Part:

Part 6

Lack of research continues in Mr. Worsfield’s work as he continues on with the statement, “The dagger was brought into use in the middle ages.” Some of the earliest evidence of weapons we have from the beginning of time are short, sharpened stones with handles on them. Indeed the dagger or knife certainly preceded the sword. There are examples of daggers from Assyria, Byzantium, Egypt, Roman and countless of other early cultures. One would think that this is almost common sense. He goes on to explain that its use was to “give the mercy stroke to the adversary, or to induce him to beg for his life and hence the name misericorde given to the dagger by the French.” It is a weapon, it purpose is to hurt, maim and kill (used in a combat situation- it can also be a non-lethal tool). Daggers were in use far before the French language even existed. Such a narrow view of the weapon is a major flaw of Mr. Worsfield’s work. He continues by saying, “The dagger may have originally been used in an Offensive manner however from the earliest books on the sword or rapier invariably refer to the dagger as a Defensive weapon, held in the left hand in the same manner as the sword was in the right.” Again, we run into the argument of having a weapon be offensive or defensive. Any defense in this vein is done so you can be offensive. The “earliest books” he talks of aren’t until around the mid 1500’s where we sword and dagger work. It should be obvious by now that dozens of manuals existed prior to that. Most of which have dagger use in them. Not only that, it is portrayed as a single weapon not used as a defensive tool for the sword. A few examples:
http://www.varmouries.com/wildrose/fiore/section2.html - this is a complete section from Fiore de Liberi’s book, ‘Flos Duellatorum’ on the use of dagger.
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0127.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0128.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0129.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0138.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0146.jpg
the point is made. The dagger was in use far before the medieval ages, and there are plenty of books that prove it. It is an offensive tool that can be used as defense. This concept was firmly in place hundreds, upon hundreds of years before 1500’s as Mr. Worsfield proposes.

[VELISARIOS]

I do not dissagre for all what you said. Offcourse there wer great armors like Italians armor and most knights were training to be effective for foot combat as Gav said but not all of them. And this armors were expencive and they can not took them from all the knights, exept if the knight was rich or he was under the protection of a great lord.

I found the following:

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mh/blba...rn/index1.html

In the Battle of Bannockburn English lost the field because they can not win the light armored warriors of Scottland.

Other example is the Battle of Crécy. Here almost all the knights of France killed from the English archers and from the peasants of English army.
This give to us the idea how heavy was the armor. The knight cannot stand again easy and fight against their enemies effectevly. The result was the following:
French and Genoese casualties are estimated to have been from 10,000 to 30,000. The most likely figure is 12,000. Of these, eleven were princes, and 1200 were knights.
The English lost from 150 to 250 men. (This is probably a low estimate; and quite unreliable.) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crecy

Look now the following it is from the battle in Liegnitz:

'The knight was supported by a feudal lord, or by the king, for the purpose of fighting. He was trained for close contact with his enemy, and his chief weapons were the heavy lance and the broadsword. The lance was held with the hand and couched under the arm in order to transmit the weight and force of both horse and rider as they charged the enemy. Likewise, the heavy broadsword swung from the saddle could inflict awful cuts. To protect himself in hand-to-hand combat of this sort, the knight wore elaborate, heavy armor. A long-sleeved chain-mail coat, or hauberk, protected his body. The knight might also wear a mail coif or hood over his head, and he would certainly wear an iron helmet as well. He wore mail gloves and leggings and carried a shield on his left arm. The entire panoply might weigh 70 or more pounds, and the knight rode a horse specially bred to be strong enough to bear him and his armor. His weight was a weapon in itself--he hurtled through an enemy formation, then the foot soldiers ran up and dispatched those whom the knights had unhorsed, struck down, ridden over or brushed aside.

Mongol armies were made up entirely of cavalry, but the Mongol, in contrast to the European knight, depended primarily on his bow, and usually did not favor close-quarters combat on horseback. His protection lay in speed and maneuverability, not in armor, and he often wore no armor aside from an open metal helmet with a leather drop behind the neck and a silk shirt under his coat that followed an arrowhead into a wound and allowed it to be withdrawn without tearing the flesh. There were more heavily armored Mongols, but even those heavy cavalrymen generally wore relatively light and flexible lamellar armor, consisting of a multitude of overlapping leather or iron plates. The Mongol bow was a recurved composite bow, a lamination of wood, horn and sinew that could cast an arrow more than 300 yards. The Mongols shot their arrows with great accuracy while riding at a fast pace and could even shoot accurately backward at a pursuer. Each warrior carried 60 arrows of different weights for shooting different distances and often carried more than one bow.

The Mongol rode a pony that was considerably smaller than the war charger of the Western armies. The Asiatic animal, however, had superb endurance and survived by grazing in the wild. Each Mongol soldier had two, three or even four ponies so that he could spell them on a march and save them from exhaustion. That practice allowed Mongol armies to travel 50 or even 60 miles in a day, several times the distance that a Western army of the period could travel. It also gave the Mongol the edge in speed on the battlefield. They were, then, two utterly different armies that faced each other at the Wahlstadt.'

There was great different between those type of warriors and the article follows :

'Things were not as they seemed to the European knights, however; they had fallen victim to one of the oldest tricks in the Mongols' book--the feigned retreat. The riders of the steppes, unlike the knights, had been taught to retreat as a tactical move, and in so doing, they drew the knights away from their infantry. Once that was accomplished, the Mongols swept to either side of the knights, who had strung out and lost their own measure of order, and showered them with arrows. Other Mongols had lain in ambush, prepared to meet the knights as they fell into the trap. Whenever the Mongols found that the knights' armor afforded effective protection against their arrows, they simply shot their horses. The dismounted knights were then easy prey for the Mongol heavy cavalrymen, who ran them down with lance or saber with little danger to themselves. The Knights Templar made a determined stand, only to be killed to a man.'

The result was the complete destruction of the heavy mounted knights, again because they had very heavy armors and cannot stand against the Mogols:

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mh/bl-m...ion/index.html


We have the same and in the Teutonic knights invation in Russia when they lost battle from Alexander Niefski.

Now The Later Medieval Armor was:

'The fully articulated plate armor developed in the first half of the 15th century is called Gothic, because of its emphasis on vertical lines and its spiky silhouette reminiscent of Gothic architecture. About 1500 the style changed, with the more rounded shapes characteristic of Renaissance style dominant; a variant favored in Germany for its additional strength (the so-called Maximilian armor, after the emperor Maximilian I) had fluted surfaces, like corrugated iron.

In the construction of armor the weight problem was crucial; armor was supposed to give maximum protection with minimal weight. A full suit of battle armor was not to exceed about 29 kg (about 65 lb); such a suit, well articulated and fitted to the body, was expected to give a knight full mobility so that he might mount a horse without stirrups in an emergency. TOURNAMENT, (q.v.) armor was up to twice as heavy, safety rather than mobility being the prime consideration.'

http://www.historychannel.com/thcsea...ncyc_id=201501

So what I say is the following. The knights with their heavy armor were effective against their foes when and only when they charge with their horses and they were so close each other as a moving humman wall. If this rule occured then the knight was the most effective machine in the field. When for some matter disband or fall from their horse became innefective and their ememies can win them.

Kind regards..............
Vel

[cfaustus]

I really don't wish to add anything since many points have already been made.

I simply found the following phrasing interesting...

Again, we run into the argument of having a weapon be offensive or defensive. Any defense in this vein is done so you can be offensive.

[AllenJ]

I do not dissagre for all what you said. Offcourse there wer great armors like Italians armor and most knights were training to be effective for foot combat as Gav said but not all of them. And this armors were expencive and they can not took them from all the knights, exept if the knight was rich or he was under the protection of a great lord.

I found the following:

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mh/blba...rn/index1.html

In the Battle of Bannockburn English lost the field because they can not win the light armored warriors of Scottland.

Other example is the Battle of Crécy. Here almost all the knights of France killed from the English archers and from the peasants of English army.
This give to us the idea how heavy was the armor. The knight cannot stand again easy and fight against their enemies effectevly. The result was the following:
French and Genoese casualties are estimated to have been from 10,000 to 30,000. The most likely figure is 12,000. Of these, eleven were princes, and 1200 were knights.
The English lost from 150 to 250 men. (This is probably a low estimate; and quite unreliable.) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crecy

Look now the following it is from the battle in Liegnitz:

'The knight was supported by a feudal lord, or by the king, for the purpose of fighting. He was trained for close contact with his enemy, and his chief weapons were the heavy lance and the broadsword. The lance was held with the hand and couched under the arm in order to transmit the weight and force of both horse and rider as they charged the enemy. Likewise, the heavy broadsword swung from the saddle could inflict awful cuts. To protect himself in hand-to-hand combat of this sort, the knight wore elaborate, heavy armor. A long-sleeved chain-mail coat, or hauberk, protected his body. The knight might also wear a mail coif or hood over his head, and he would certainly wear an iron helmet as well. He wore mail gloves and leggings and carried a shield on his left arm. The entire panoply might weigh 70 or more pounds, and the knight rode a horse specially bred to be strong enough to bear him and his armor. His weight was a weapon in itself--he hurtled through an enemy formation, then the foot soldiers ran up and dispatched those whom the knights had unhorsed, struck down, ridden over or brushed aside.

Mongol armies were made up entirely of cavalry, but the Mongol, in contrast to the European knight, depended primarily on his bow, and usually did not favor close-quarters combat on horseback. His protection lay in speed and maneuverability, not in armor, and he often wore no armor aside from an open metal helmet with a leather drop behind the neck and a silk shirt under his coat that followed an arrowhead into a wound and allowed it to be withdrawn without tearing the flesh. There were more heavily armored Mongols, but even those heavy cavalrymen generally wore relatively light and flexible lamellar armor, consisting of a multitude of overlapping leather or iron plates. The Mongol bow was a recurved composite bow, a lamination of wood, horn and sinew that could cast an arrow more than 300 yards. The Mongols shot their arrows with great accuracy while riding at a fast pace and could even shoot accurately backward at a pursuer. Each warrior carried 60 arrows of different weights for shooting different distances and often carried more than one bow.

The Mongol rode a pony that was considerably smaller than the war charger of the Western armies. The Asiatic animal, however, had superb endurance and survived by grazing in the wild. Each Mongol soldier had two, three or even four ponies so that he could spell them on a march and save them from exhaustion. That practice allowed Mongol armies to travel 50 or even 60 miles in a day, several times the distance that a Western army of the period could travel. It also gave the Mongol the edge in speed on the battlefield. They were, then, two utterly different armies that faced each other at the Wahlstadt.'

There was great different between those type of warriors and the article follows :

'Things were not as they seemed to the European knights, however; they had fallen victim to one of the oldest tricks in the Mongols' book--the feigned retreat. The riders of the steppes, unlike the knights, had been taught to retreat as a tactical move, and in so doing, they drew the knights away from their infantry. Once that was accomplished, the Mongols swept to either side of the knights, who had strung out and lost their own measure of order, and showered them with arrows. Other Mongols had lain in ambush, prepared to meet the knights as they fell into the trap. Whenever the Mongols found that the knights' armor afforded effective protection against their arrows, they simply shot their horses. The dismounted knights were then easy prey for the Mongol heavy cavalrymen, who ran them down with lance or saber with little danger to themselves. The Knights Templar made a determined stand, only to be killed to a man.'

The result was the complete destruction of the heavy mounted knights, again because they had very heavy armors and cannot stand against the Mogols:

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mh/bl-m...ion/index.html


We have the same and in the Teutonic knights invation in Russia when they lost battle from Alexander Niefski.

Now The Later Medieval Armor was:

'The fully articulated plate armor developed in the first half of the 15th century is called Gothic, because of its emphasis on vertical lines and its spiky silhouette reminiscent of Gothic architecture. About 1500 the style changed, with the more rounded shapes characteristic of Renaissance style dominant; a variant favored in Germany for its additional strength (the so-called Maximilian armor, after the emperor Maximilian I) had fluted surfaces, like corrugated iron.

In the construction of armor the weight problem was crucial; armor was supposed to give maximum protection with minimal weight. A full suit of battle armor was not to exceed about 29 kg (about 65 lb); such a suit, well articulated and fitted to the body, was expected to give a knight full mobility so that he might mount a horse without stirrups in an emergency. TOURNAMENT, (q.v.) armor was up to twice as heavy, safety rather than mobility being the prime consideration.'

http://www.historychannel.com/thcsea...ncyc_id=201501

So what I say is the following. The knights with their heavy armor were effective against their foes when and only when they charge with their horses and they were so close each other as a moving humman wall. If this rule occured then the knight was the most effective machine in the field. When for some matter disband or fall from their horse became innefective and their ememies can win them.

Kind regards..............
Vel

Thank you for taking the time to look those up. I feel it is somewhat hasty to blame those defeats exclusivley on the weight of armor. In every single one of those situations there are other contributing factors that I feel took presedence over the weight. Almost all of these are cavalry situations. Let's be realistic in that in a full charge an extra 60 pounds of armor is going to matter very little vs someone charging with little to no armor. The power is in the speed and the animal. 60 lbs is going to matter very little in that instance.
In the Scots victory at Bannockburn, the weather and soggy landscape was the key (as well as the schiltron tactic). Again, a horse charge is going to be much less effective in that situation with or without armor.
At Crecy, it was the longbow that was the biggest factor. In fact, if the French had lighter armor, the casulties would have been even worse! Once a charge is stopped and the horse is standing, that is where its the most vulnerable. Again, lighter armor would have just meant that the pesants would have wiped the cavalry out even faster.
At Liegnitz it was Mongolian tactics, faster animals, and their bows, that played the biggest role. There were many blunders that day on the side of the Templars. Their armor had little to do with their defeat.
In the case of Tournament armor, yes it is heavier. I did not include that into my notes as it is basically a sporting event with special rules and considerations and not for battlefield use. it would be like saying a guy would be a great soldier because he does well at paintball. He COULD be, but there are so many things about the sport that arent included or a part of a real gunfight that the comparison is almost silly.

We sometimes make the mistake of thinking guys with armor are only kinghts and always on horseback. People tend to think that once they get on the ground they become ineffective. If we look to the period manuals, then we can see quite the opposite is true. There is far more evidence of armored fighting on foot than in that saddle.

I thank you for submitting your sources but I think it is less accurate to attribute all those military losses to the armor weight issue. If it was really so inefective then it would not have lasted.

[VELISARIOS]

Thank you for taking the time to look those up. I feel it is somewhat hasty to blame those defeats exclusivley on the weight of armor. In every single one of those situations there are other contributing factors that I feel took presedence over the weight. Almost all of these are cavalry situations. Let's be realistic in that in a full charge an extra 60 pounds of armor is going to matter very little vs someone charging with little to no armor. The power is in the speed and the animal. 60 lbs is going to matter very little in that instance.
In the Scots victory at Bannockburn, the weather and soggy landscape was the key (as well as the schiltron tactic). Again, a horse charge is going to be much less effective in that situation with or without armor.
At Crecy, it was the longbow that was the biggest factor. In fact, if the French had lighter armor, the casulties would have been even worse! Once a charge is stopped and the horse is standing, that is where its the most vulnerable. Again, lighter armor would have just meant that the pesants would have wiped the cavalry out even faster.
At Liegnitz it was Mongolian tactics, faster animals, and their bows, that played the biggest role. There were many blunders that day on the side of the Templars. Their armor had little to do with their defeat.
In the case of Tournament armor, yes it is heavier. I did not include that into my notes as it is basically a sporting event with special rules and considerations and not for battlefield use. it would be like saying a guy would be a great soldier because he does well at paintball. He COULD be, but there are so many things about the sport that arent included or a part of a real gunfight that the comparison is almost silly.

We sometimes make the mistake of thinking guys with armor are only kinghts and always on horseback. People tend to think that once they get on the ground they become ineffective. If we look to the period manuals, then we can see quite the opposite is true. There is far more evidence of armored fighting on foot than in that saddle.

I thank you for submitting your sources but I think it is less accurate to attribute all those military losses to the armor weight issue. If it was really so inefective then it would not have lasted.

I thank you too my friend because you post so many usefull articles and I learn much more.
Thank you very much

[Teme]

Indeed, its is also technically impropper to refer to all Norsemen of pre- medieval times as a generic "Viking". I had intended to mention this but it slipped my mind. So many errors so little time! Thanks for pointing that out though!

Oh, you can call 'em Scandinavian folks Vikings as much as you like. I merely wanted to make the distinction while dragging the Finns (and Estonians, Carelians, Curonians and Letts, too) in to the argument
I'm quite confident that my ancestor gave the ever nastier names before allowing enough to escape to put up all those runestones telling about loved ones lost in Finland...


Conserning agility in armor, I've seen people making somersaults in full armor (provided it was moder day replica), so they couldn't be too limiting 600 years ago.
A nice episode og "Battlefield detectives" managed to cinvince me that at at Crecy it was the fact that French attacked on foot, in sucking mud that doomed them. And the longbowmen didn't shoot those knights, but run to them (having no iron boots helped a lot in the mud) and knifed them (which was, of course, something a decent gentilhomme wouln't do).

Besides, Mongols had heavy infantry, and heavy cavalry, too. The lighter units wore the enemy down, lured them into ambushes, or gave chase. The heavy units finished off enemy unit driven into disorganisation and separeyted from others. I'm quite certain that this was the case in Leignitz, too. The lighter units lured Templars too fart away from the main line, and then lighted the grass on fire to hide the separate battle from the main force while the heavy units closed in on the poor knigths and did a short work of them.

[Gav]

I do not dissagre for all what you said. Offcourse there wer great armors like Italians armor and most knights were training to be effective for foot combat as Gav said but not all of them. And this armors were expencive and they can not took them from all the knights, exept if the knight was rich or he was under the protection of a great lord.

I found the following:

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mh/blba...rn/index1.html

In the Battle of Bannockburn English lost the field because they can not win the light armored warriors of Scottland.

This is complete rubbish.

The english lost at Bannockburn through a combination of training (Robert managed to train his troops to use the schiltron formation effectively), poor fore-planning (they arrogantly presumed that a heavy cavalry charge would wipe the scots from the field*), poor morale, poor weather and luck (they confused a rabble with well-trained troops). This is all on record. This actually has nothing to do with knights being unable to move or get up if they fell over. Complete rubbish.

* They had some reason, shiltrons had been employed by Wallace ineffectively. There is a lot of debate about whether Wallace could have won the battle of Falkirk had he been able to get the tactic to work. The Bruce learned from Falkirk. In any case a better example of how heavy cavalry could beat light troops.

Other example is the Battle of Crécy. Here almost all the knights of France killed from the English archers and from the peasants of English army.
This give to us the idea how heavy was the armor. The knight cannot stand again easy and fight against their enemies effectevly. The result was the following:
French and Genoese casualties are estimated to have been from 10,000 to 30,000. The most likely figure is 12,000. Of these, eleven were princes, and 1200 were knights.
The English lost from 150 to 250 men. (This is probably a low estimate; and quite unreliable.) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crecy

First of all you quote wiki - poor poor research.

Secondly, and do I have to point this out again? Whether the loss was down to poor maneuvaribility (due to weight) is extremely debatable. Look again at the reasons why they lost. The simple fact was that the French chose poor tactics. They did not bother to learn the lessons from elsewhere. At this point the Longbow was the premier weapon of the battlefield. It doesn't matter whether you were on foot or not - shot by enough arrows you are probably dead. Knifed, bludgeoned, drowned in mud - you are dead.

etc etc etc etc

So what I say is the following. The knights with their heavy armor were effective against their foes when and only when they charge with their horses and they were so close each other as a moving humman wall. If this rule occured then the knight was the most effective machine in the field. When for some matter disband or fall from their horse became innefective and their ememies can win them.

Kind regards..............
Vel

There are other examples of foot-knights in plate fighting effectively. The italian cities made use of extensive mercenary units - many of whom fought in heavy armour on foot - and there are examples from the cursades of foot knights being employed effectively.

As I pointed out earlier the period during which Heavy plate armour was effective was very small. To use it properly you had to choose your ground (this goes for any cavalry), plan your battle (same as any other: pick your terrain, your time of engagement, use your troops effectively) and maintain discipline. The examples you list demonstrate how not to use it. They also demonstrate how quickly people thought of ways to counter the armour - none of this says anything about the individual knights and how they fought.

The simple fact was that the cost vs benefits of heavily armoured knights against lightly armed troops (properly deployed) demonstrate that you were better off with suitable armed peasants. Even the Samurai learned this lesson when they went up against the musket (although to be fair they managed to find a way of dealing with that: toss the foreigners out and ban gunpowder weapons).

The end of plate came about because the enemy learned how to counter it. They learned how to defeat the massed charge, how to penetrate the armour, how to deal with an unhorsed knight (typically with a dagger in a vulnerable area) - but make no mistake these men were fearsome warriors. The idea that they couldn't get up if they fell over, or that they were unable to even get on a horse, or that this idea was anywhere near a normal occurrence*, is just stupid.

* I'm surprised you didn't bother with Agincourt. French heavy cavalry were indeed beaten here because they couldn't move. Many made contact with the English but in: so few numbers as to be ineffective; so encumbered with arrows they resembled a spiky metal hedgehog; slipping slimy mud, that they were quickly captured and killed (then or later).

[Gav]

Can we also stop quoting each other's full posts? Unless necessary, it is enough to do this. This thread is becoming unreadable.