# How would a knight in full armour climb down from the top of a mountain?



## Ruby

How would a knight wearing full armour climb down from the top of a mountain? Would he need to leave some, or all, of his armour behind on the summit?

Obviously, he hasn't climbed up the mountain (this is a Fantasy story). But if he took off the armour he wouldn't be able to carry it with him when he climbed down, would he?


----------



## CupofJoe

Are we talking full plate armour? All shiny and bright?  If he could get out of his armour, then he could tie the pieces together [on a rope or in a bag/net]. At that point he could probably hang it below him as he climbed down. Some parachutists [fire jumpers and paratroopers etc] do this with a drop bag they carry their gear in [100kg]. It hangs below them a few feet to let them jump free but carry extra gear. You don't want land with the extra weight on your back.
I can't see it being easy and there would almost certainly be damage to the armour as well as a lot of noise! 
I think scrambling down a mountain side would be just as hard, possibly harder. The knight would have to carry his armour and that would be awkward, painful and a constant threat to knock him over or throw him off balance.
My initial thought is that a knight couldn't take off his armour without help or without ruining the various buckles or clasps. Is the an urban I meant fantasy legend that a knight can't take off his own armour?
I can see that climbing in chain mail would be tiring hot work but do able.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

I was so tempted to say very carefully!

However taking the armour off isn't so hard. Putting it back on generally requires an assistant (squire). So if he takes it off he's not going to be getting redressed in a hurry.

Still my best guess would be to strip, tie the armour together in some way, throw it down the mountain and then climb down after it. Hanging it from your feet like a fire jumper isn't a winner for me. You have to have the rope and all he'd likely have would be the ties holding the chest and back plate together. Plus it could get snagged on a rock, trapping him or worse tripping him. For that reason the sword would have to go down with the armour as well.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Guy

What kind of climbing are we talking about? Going down sheer cliffs, hanging on by the fingers and toes, or are we talking about negotiating steep slopes? I've never done any mountain climbing, but I have hiked a few steep trails. Full plate armor weighed around 60 pounds, so hiking, even on steep trails, could certainly be done in full armor. There's a historical source - I can't remember who it was - that wrote of all the activities a knight should be able to do in full armor - run, jump up into the saddle. climb ropes, and all sorts of other things. And I've watched re-enactors in full plate armor do cartwheels. Plate armor was designed to conform to the human body, so generally the easiest way to carry it yourself was to wear it. So I would say the armor would be a problem if he had to to what we typically see rock climbers doing, but if it was something like walking down the mountain through passes or along trails, it would be entirely possible to do it in armor.

Another consideration is temperature. Is it cold up on this mountain? If so, wearing metal armor would make the person wearing it freeze that much quicker.


----------



## Ruby

Hi CupofJoe, I'm not sure whether he would be wearing full plate armour. He's on a quest and his opponent, who is arriving by sea (ha ha) is dressed in a doublet and hose and one of those pointy shoes that curl up at the toe.(He's lost the other one). This suggests to me that this is a medieval type of fantasy. So I need to find out what type of armour was available. I was once shown chain mail and it was really heavy. It just occurred to me, today, that the knight might have some difficulty climbing down the mountain.
I also have seen armour in the Tower of London and remember being told that knights couldn't dress themselves and that if they fell over they were unable to get up again unaided. Battles must have been a lot of fun!


----------



## Ruby

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> I was so tempted to say very carefully!
> 
> However taking the armour off isn't so hard. Putting it back on generally requires an assistant (squire). So if he takes it off he's not going to be getting redressed in a hurry.
> 
> Still my best guess would be to strip, tie the armour together in some way, throw it down the mountain and then climb down after it. Hanging it from your feet like a fire jumper isn't a winner for me. You have to have the rope and all he'd likely have would be the ties holding the chest and back plate together. Plus it could get snagged on a rock, trapping him or worse tripping him. For that reason the sword would have to go down with the armour as well.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.


Hi psychotick/Greg, yes I wondered if you might find this amusing.  However, this is for the Reaver challenge, and it occurred to me that it would be a good idea to find out how to get the knight down the mountain at the first draft stage of writing the story.
I thought if he climbed down wearing armour he might fall off a precipice. Also, wouldn't armour be rather noisy and put him in danger from predators?
On the other hand, if he throws the armour down the mountain he might damage it or injure the hero who's just landed on the beach. (I'm not giving the plot away here, it's in the brief for the challenge.) Have you read a story before where the knight just throws his armour down the mountain?


----------



## Guru Coyote

Guy said:


> There's a historical source - I can't remember who it was - that wrote of all the activities a knight should be able to do in full armor - run, jump up into the saddle. climb ropes, and all sorts of other things. And I've watched re-enactors in full plate armor do cartwheels.



I would be very interested in seeing that historical source! From what I've seen of full plate armor, even the modern re-enacter type... I'd say that the weight is the least of the issues. Far more of a problem is dexterity, simple things like reaching up higher than your shoulders etc.
It's possible we are talking about very different styles of armor though, but I'd weigh in with the "a fallen knight can't rise on his own' train of thought.

But as Ruby states, it's not clear if we are talking full-plate anyway. Full-plate was a rather short lived thing anyway, usually only worn by knights on horse back and soon made obsolete by crossbow and firearm. Why wear a tin if anyone can fire a hole into it?


----------



## Malik

Here's the source.






It depends on the definition of climbing. 

Climbing down a rope in armor -- any kind of armor -- would be possible if you knew the technique; you would do a fast-rope with the rope around one leg and your other foot as a brake. This is really more of a slide than a climb, but it's not impossible. The trick would be explaining how he learned it. 

Any type of technical rock climbing, anything more than a scramble up or down an incline over fist-sized hand- and footholds, would be pretty much out in almost any kind of armor.

Simply walking down a mountainside in armor? Even in full harness, there's nothing to it. The problem with armor wasn't that it hampered mobility, it's that it took a lot of energy out of you. There was a Popular Mechanics article with guys in 15th-Century armor on a treadmill, testing their oxygen usage with a respirometer. They found that wearing full harness takes about twice as much energy and oxygen as not wearing it. 

It's the same problem with modern ballistic armor, today. It's hot, it's heavy, it chafes. You're worn to a frazzle at the end of the day and all you can think about it getting out of it. I've run obstacle courses in the IOTV, which with all its plates weighs more than a shirt of mail. It sucks, but it's doable.


----------



## Ruby

Guy said:


> What kind of climbing are we talking about? Going down sheer cliffs, hanging on by the fingers and toes, or are we talking about negotiating steep slopes? I've never done any mountain climbing, but I have hiked a few steep trails. Full plate armor weighed around 60 pounds, so hiking, even on steep trails, could certainly be done in full armor. There's a historical source - I can't remember who it was - that wrote of all the activities a knight should be able to do in full armor - run, jump up into the saddle. climb ropes, and all sorts of other things. And I've watched re-enactors in full plate armor do cartwheels. Plate armor was designed to conform to the human body, so generally the easiest way to carry it yourself was to wear it. So I would say the armor would be a problem if he had to to what we typically see rock climbers doing, but if it was something like walking down the mountain through passes or along trails, it would be entirely possible to do it in armor.
> 
> Another consideration is temperature. Is it cold up on this mountain? If so, wearing metal armor would make the person wearing it freeze that much quicker.


Hi Guy, having read the very helpful advice above, I think that there will have to be mountain passes, or the knight is not going to make it. I think it is usually cold at the top of a mountain, but I believe he has landed on a tropical island. However, that would mean he is exceedingly hot when on the beach. Thank you for the information about the different things knights were trained to do in full armour. I am going to do some more research about types of armour, now.


----------



## Ruby

Hi Malik, Wow! Thank you so much for posting this video.


----------



## Guy

Guru Coyote said:


> I would be very interested in seeing that historical source! From what I've seen of full plate armor, even the modern re-enacter type... I'd say that the weight is the least of the issues. Far more of a problem is dexterity, simple things like reaching up higher than your shoulders etc.
> It's possible we are talking about very different styles of armor though, but I'd weigh in with the "a fallen knight can't rise on his own' train of thought.


French knight Jean de Maingre (ca. 1366—1421), also known as MarÃ©chal Boucicault. 

A lot of re-enactor armor isn't historically accurate. Historical armor wasn't a uniform thickness. The armor for the limbs was typically thinner than the front of the breastplate, for example. A lot of re-enactment armor is uniform thickness and therefore heavier than historical armor. Get Dressed For Battle sells a suit of Gothic plate that weighs about twice what it should. Like I said, historical plate armor weighed around sixty pounds, far less than what a contemporary soldier carries into battle. If we know that wearing armor too heavy for the wearer to get up was a bad idea, why wouldn't the professional fighters, the men who actually used this equipment, whose lives depended on it, also know that? The idea that a man in plate who fell over is erroneous. I think there are several reasons for this belief:

There was plate armor that was designed specifically to withstand the impact of jousting. This armor could get very heavy, but it was never intended for the battlefield. It was intended solely for jousting. One way to distinguish such armor from battle armor is if the helmet had to be bolted onto the cuirass, it was jousting armor.

In the race between gun makers and armorers, armorers did end up crafting some heavy armor that could withstand gunfire, but this stuff was rare and never widely used. Armor that's so heavy it makes movement impossible is counterproductive.

After hours of fighting, exhaustion could make it difficult to move in armor, leading to the idea that a man in armor couldn't get up without help. My mail shirt only weighs about twenty pounds, but it doesn't take long to feel those extra twenty pounds

The idea that battle armor was so heavy comes from the Victorians, the same people who said the medieval sword was heavy and clumsy. Anyone who's handle such a sword can attest to how wrong this belief is.

Arms and ArmorÃ¢â‚¬”Common Misconceptions and Frequently Asked Questions | Thematic Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

There's even the urban myth that a knight in full plate couldn't get on his horse without a crane or pulley. That's rubbish of course. Imagine an army of knights saddling up for battle!

Tournament armor was a lot thicker than normal armor because you didn't need much mobility (except in your arms) to joust. A joust didn't take long either, unlike some battles. 

Demi-lancers often had reinforced plate armor to protect from gunfire but by that time, most professional soldiers choose a thick, reinforced breastplate over a full suit of armor. It was cheaper and because they didn't carry the extra weight of a full suit of armor, they could carry a thicker breastplate.


----------



## Guru Coyote

Very good points about jousting and battle-armor.
There is the idea of foot-soldiers going about after a battle and killing off the knights who coulsn't rise out of the mud... but that could well be explained by exaustion and injury.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

Guru Coyote said:


> Very good points about jousting and battle-armor.
> There is the idea of foot-soldiers going about after a battle and killing off the knights who coulsn't rise out of the mud... but that could well be explained by exaustion and injury.



Highly unlikely they did that. If you capture them alive, they're worth a fortune in ransom. In the (faulty) hypothesis that armor is so heavy you can't get up, it would be the ideal scenario for capturing knights. They can't fight back. 

Foot-soldiers were sometimes sent out on the battlefield to stab knights (and other footmen) with the misericorde. Mercy duty would be a good name for it. Basically you stab everyone who's too injured to be saved. If your skull is fractured, your chances of survival are nada so it's best to avoid a painful death with a quick stab from the misericorde.


----------



## CupofJoe

Ruby said:


> Hi CupofJoe, I'm not sure whether he would be wearing full plate armour. He's on a quest and his opponent, who is arriving by sea (ha ha) is dressed in a doublet and hose and one of those pointy shoes that curl up at the toe.(He's lost the other one). This suggests to me that this is a medieval type of fantasy. So I need to find out what type of armour was available. I was once shown chain mail and it was really heavy. It just occurred to me, today, that the knight might have some difficulty climbing down the mountain.


From what you and others have said, I would guess that climbing/scrambling down a  mountain could be done but the risk of tripping and falling would be  heightened. If you've ever hiked with a rucksack, then you will know  what I mean. You can walk, climb styles, run even, but if you trip then  you find yourself face first in the dirt. Every mistake is amplified. I've always found going down  worse than going up. Gravity lends it's helping hand and things tend to  happening faster and get worse if you make a mistake going down a slope.
I've worn chain mail [at a re-enactment day] and it was heavy but it is a distributed loan close to the body so apart from getting tired fairly quickly [I've not trained to wear it] it was easy to forget about. But without a good layer of padding between me and it I can only thing that it was uncomfortable if not out-rightly painful to wear for long.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

CupofJoe said:


> I've worn chain mail [at a re-enactment day] and it was heavy but it is a distributed loan close to the body so apart from getting tired fairly quickly [I've not trained to wear it] it was easy to forget about. But without a good layer of padding between me and it I can only thing that it was uncomfortable if not out-rightly painful to wear for long.



Knights usually wore a gambeson under their chainmail. That would definitely alleviate the chafing and the pressure.


----------



## Ruby

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> There's even the urban myth that a knight in full plate couldn't get on his horse without a crane or pulley. That's rubbish of course. Imagine an army of knights saddling up for battle!
> 
> Tournament armor was a lot thicker than normal armor because you didn't need much mobility (except in your arms) to joust. A joust didn't take long either, unlike some battles.
> 
> Demi-lancers often had reinforced plate armor to protect from gunfire but by that time, most professional soldiers choose a thick, reinforced breastplate over a full suit of armor. It was cheaper and because they didn't carry the extra weight of a full suit of armor, they could carry a thicker breastplate.


Hi Abbas-Al-Morim, thank you for this. Is it an urban myth then that a knight could not stand up again once he was knocked down in battle?


----------



## Ruby

CupofJoe said:


> From what you and others have said, I would guess that climbing/scrambling down a  mountain could be done but the risk of tripping and falling would be  heightened. If you've ever hiked with a rucksack, then you will know  what I mean. You can walk, climb styles, run even, but if you trip then  you find yourself face first in the dirt. Every mistake is amplified. I've always found going down  worse than going up. Gravity lends it's helping hand and things tend to  happening faster and get worse if you make a mistake going down a slope.
> I've worn chain mail [at a re-enactment day] and it was heavy but it is a distributed loan close to the body so apart from getting tired fairly quickly [I've not trained to wear it] it was easy to forget about. But without a good layer of padding between me and it I can only thing that it was uncomfortable if not out-rightly painful to wear for long.


Hi CupofJoe, I was at a Steamfair once in a London country park where they were staging a re-enactment of knights fighting and some bright spark dressed as a knight gave me some chain mail to hold. I had a shock when I discovered how heavy it was and immediately dropped it! Presumably, when we see actors playing knights on stage or in films, they are not wearing real armour?


----------



## Ruby

Apparently the idea about a knight needing a pulley and a crane in order to mount his horse, came from Mark Twain who wrote about this in his book A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.
Have any of you looked at Malik's video of the man in armour? He seems to have a normal range of movement despite the armour. However, I can see from the small amount of research I've done so far into this, that armour varied a lot in different ages and cultures.
The armour I've seen in the Tower of London looked heavier than this. I think it was worn in Tudor England. Would the armour worn by medieval knights have been lighter?


----------



## Guru Coyote

From all that has been said here, I'd think it's very important to see what the armor was worn FOR. Tournament or actual warfare? To impress or to fight?

Also, the point about different times and cultures is a good one. What do we mean by 'a knight' wnyway?

Then there is also the question of the knight being cavalry or on foot. Did they have a gaggle of aids or just a squire? All that would very much define what kind of armor was practical.

In any case, my own idea of 'knightly armor' has been expanded by this discussion


----------



## Malik

Armor was not a thing; it was a process. People wore as much as they could afford or as much as they thought they needed.

Fantasy writing is research. There are entire books written on armor. There's also a ton of information on the Internet but if you get your information from LARP or RPG enthusiasts, you're going to be wrong. A lot. 

For starters, though, look up Poul Anderson's essay "On Thud & Blunder."

Also, I have a blog post on armor. I should probably do another one, though.

Armor is heavy. It sucks. But it works. That's why soldiers wear it, even today. If I knew my armor wouldn't work, I'd leave it in my tent. This, I believe, has not changed throughout history. I believe that Vendel-age warriors shucked off their mail with a groan at the end of the day and wanted to hurl it across the room the same way that we do with our military body armor today.

A shirt of iron mail weighed 20-30 lbs. Mail was worn over quilted padding and sometimes over a vest or jerkin of thick leather.

The kind of armor that we see in the video I posted is a man-at-arms harness, what people call "full plate" armor. It was extremely expensive and was the mark of exceptional wealth, on par with having a private jet today. 

That suit in the video is from the 1300's. In the 1400's and 1500's field harnesses got even more elaborate. 

Each suit was custom-made and would only fit one person. It weighed anywhere from 40 to 60 lbs, including the mail that went under it. That weight was very well distributed, as you can see. And weight is not a concern.

Anybody who fights for a living will want as much protection as he can get; whatever he can afford and whatever he can transport to the battle site, whether he wears it, packs it on a second horse, or has a wizard teleport it along with a team of valets who will work on him like a pit crew once he gets there. He will want it as light and comfortable as possible and he won't wear any more than he thinks he has to, but he will wear as much as he possibly can get away with. He might -- might -- forgo a degree of protection for convenience, but as a professional soldier myself I don't know anyone who would do this if he knew that enemy contact was certain or even likely. 

My first thought, if I receive a mission with expected enemy contact, isn't "Boy, my armor's gonna slow me down." My first thought -- and every soldier's first thought -- is "Now, where did I put that extra armor?" Followed by "I need to attach every single plate, flap, and auxiliary piece on my armor, and I hope I get to carry the SAW. I wonder how many grenades I can fit in this pouch?" I don't care if it adds 40 lbs. to my load-out; if there are gonna be badguys, I want as much armor as I can get and whatever weapons come closest to being "excessively injurious or having indiscriminate effects" according to the laws of war without technically going over the line. I'm convinced that mindset has not changed throughout human history. 

Even if the armor is heavy, he'll use it if he can, along with a great big honker of a shield and a massive helmet and the biggest weapons that he can wield effectively, if he has any instinct for self-preservation.

Last point: Mark Twain was a satirist. He wrote A Connecticut Yankee making fun of the great Arthurian legends. It wasn't supposed to be historically accurate.


----------



## SeverinR

Guy said:


> Another consideration is temperature. Is it cold up on this mountain? If so, wearing metal armor would make the person wearing it freeze that much quicker.


 All that metal holds in heat in warm times, but the metal displaces heat extremely fast in winter. Basically there is a small window when the armor is comfortable.



Ruby said:


> Hi CupofJoe, I'm not sure whether he would be wearing full plate armour. He's on a quest and his opponent, who is arriving by sea (ha ha) is dressed in a doublet and hose and one of those pointy shoes that curl up at the toe.(He's lost the other one). This suggests to me that this is a medieval type of fantasy. So I need to find out what type of armour was available. I was once shown chain mail and it was really heavy. It just occurred to me, today, that the knight might have some difficulty climbing down the mountain.
> I also have seen armour in the Tower of London and remember being told that knights couldn't dress themselves and that if they fell over they were unable to get up again unaided. Battles must have been a lot of fun!


I think a knight could get into armor without assistance but would take a long time and probably couldn't tighten things down properly. Its hard to feel the buckle that another person can see, and then the angles to tighten the straps are different when you do it yourself.



Ruby said:


> Hi Abbas-Al-Morim, thank you for this. Is it an urban myth then that a knight could not stand up again once he was knocked down in battle?


I think with the jousting plate it could happen, also exhaustion and fatigue could leave a fallen knight to weak to get himself back on his feet.



Ruby said:


> Hi CupofJoe, I was at a Steamfair once in a London country park where they were staging a re-enactment of knights fighting and some bright spark dressed as a knight gave me some chain mail to hold. I had a shock when I discovered how heavy it was and immediately dropped it! Presumably, when we see actors playing knights on stage or in films, they are not wearing real armour?


I hope you didn't drop the chain in dirt or mud, picking out the chain would be time consuming.
I have made chain maille items, they are heavy. I use 14 gauge galvanized wire to make mine, the weight builds quickly. Chain is good against a slashing weapon, but worthless for blunt force. A heavy sword might not penetrate the chain, but the person could still die of internal injuries from blunt force trauma. Chain on the head was more dangerous then helpful imho.

Just a note on Plate armor. The armor everyone is talking about is specially fitted to the person and the straps adjusted to fit just right. If you pick up plate on the run, it probably won't fit right.  For example, most peoples arms aren't the same length, the hinge bends at the elbow, if your elbow and the elbow piece aren't in the right spot, you won't be able to use them or some spot on your arm might be exposed.
Chain bends everywhere, so chain isn't as important to have just the right length.

Sorry, didn't quote you Guru,
The knight would have as many assitants as his money could support. Usually one squire minimum, but I believe they could have many other assistance. Paiges were Squire's in training.(squires were Knights in training.)

Middle Ages for Kids - Knights, Squires, Pages


----------



## Guru Coyote

Ah, wait. Was the OP about a knight going to battle or about a knight climbing down a mountain?


----------



## Malik

I thought it was climbing down a mountain after a battle.


----------



## Butterfly

Malik said:


> Here's the source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the definition of climbing.
> 
> Climbing down a rope in armor -- any kind of armor -- would be possible if you knew the technique; you would do a fast-rope with the rope around one leg and your other foot as a brake. This is really more of a slide than a climb, but it's not impossible. The trick would be explaining how he learned it.
> 
> Any type of technical rock climbing, anything more than a scramble up or down an incline over fist-sized hand- and footholds, would be pretty much out in almost any kind of armor.
> 
> Simply walking down a mountainside in armor? Even in full harness, there's nothing to it. The problem with armor wasn't that it hampered mobility, it's that it took a lot of energy out of you. There was a Popular Mechanics article with guys in 15th-Century armor on a treadmill, testing their oxygen usage with a respirometer. They found that wearing full harness takes about twice as much energy and oxygen as not wearing it.
> 
> It's the same problem with modern ballistic armor, today. It's hot, it's heavy, it chafes. You're worn to a frazzle at the end of the day and all you can think about it getting out of it. I've run obstacle courses in the IOTV, which with all its plates weighs more than a shirt of mail. It sucks, but it's doable.



I'm looking at this and I'm thinking that's not really armour fit for battle. I mean gaps at the shoulder, no neck protection, thigh protection, no helmet, no backplate. It's pretty lightweight for the job so, to me, doesn't really seem to be a true test of battle armour capabilities.


----------



## Butterfly

Guru Coyote said:


> Very good points about jousting and battle-armor.
> There is the idea of foot-soldiers going about after a battle and killing off the knights who coulsn't rise out of the mud... but that could well be explained by exaustion and injury.



Somebody did a documentary on the battle of Agincourt.

Basically it was the depth and type of mud found on the battlefield that caused the problems in getting back up when a man in plate fell into it... was sticky mud.

The plate armour guys were stuck in the mud, the archers, in leather weren't. Plate armour created an air seal, and greater air suction when submersed, whereas leather and cloth armour being porous didn't. So the archers were free to move through it, while the fellas in plate struggled to pull their boots out of the mire, and if they had fallen face down, or submerged they basically drowned because they couldn't break the suction seals.


To answer the question though...

If he has enough rope, he could strip it off and lower it down before he makes the descent. Once on the bottom dress only in the most important bits... Breastplate, helmet.

The other suggestion I had... tying it to his belt has already been done.


----------



## Guy

Ruby said:


> Hi CupofJoe, I was at a Steamfair once in a London country park where they were staging a re-enactment of knights fighting and some bright spark dressed as a knight gave me some chain mail to hold. I had a shock when I discovered how heavy it was and immediately dropped it! Presumably, when we see actors playing knights on stage or in films, they are not wearing real armour?


I have a shirt of riveted mail. The sleeves come down to the elbow and the hem comes down to mid thigh. The shirt weighs about twenty pounds. It doesn't sound like much but, as you found out, you feel it. I'm 5'10", 185 pounds, 43 years old and in reasonably good condition, but doing any activity while wearing that shirt is significantly different than when not wearing that shirt. I tire out more quickly, I feel it in my thighs sooner, I lose my snap and some of my agility sooner.


----------



## Malik

Butterfly said:


> I'm looking at this and I'm thinking that's not really armour fit for battle. I mean gaps at the shoulder, no neck protection, thigh protection, no helmet, no backplate. It's pretty lightweight for the job so, to me, doesn't really seem to be a true test of battle armour capabilities.



This is authentic 14th-century armor. Armor was an ongoing process. Given the weaponry used in the 1300's, this was plenty.

This is 15th-century armor:








Except he'd have gloves. Overall, though, much better coverage, comparable maneuverability, but heavier.

There's a full post on armor, from simple linen jacks to full 15th-century harness, on my blog; basically an expansion on my earlier post, with pictures. The link's in my sig.


----------



## Ruby

Malik said:


> Armor was not a thing; it was a process. People wore as much as they could afford or as much as they thought they needed.
> 
> Fantasy writing is research. There are entire books written on armor. There's also a ton of information on the Internet but if you get your information from LARP or RPG enthusiasts, you're going to be wrong. A lot.
> 
> For starters, though, look up Poul Anderson's essay "On Thud & Blunder."
> 
> Also, I have a blog post on armor. I should probably do another one, though.
> 
> Armor is heavy. It sucks. But it works. That's why soldiers wear it, even today. If I knew my armor wouldn't work, I'd leave it in my tent. This, I believe, has not changed throughout history. I believe that Vendel-age warriors shucked off their mail with a groan at the end of the day and wanted to hurl it across the room the same way that we do with our military body armor today.
> 
> A shirt of iron mail weighed 20-30 lbs. Mail was worn over quilted padding and sometimes over a vest or jerkin of thick leather.
> 
> The kind of armor that we see in the video I posted is a man-at-arms harness, what people call "full plate" armor. It was extremely expensive and was the mark of exceptional wealth, on par with having a private jet today.
> 
> That suit in the video is from the 1300's. In the 1400's and 1500's field harnesses got even more elaborate.
> 
> Each suit was custom-made and would only fit one person. It weighed anywhere from 40 to 60 lbs, including the mail that went under it. That weight was very well distributed, as you can see. And weight is not a concern.
> 
> Anybody who fights for a living will want as much protection as he can get; whatever he can afford and whatever he can transport to the battle site, whether he wears it, packs it on a second horse, or has a wizard teleport it along with a team of valets who will work on him like a pit crew once he gets there. He will want it as light and comfortable as possible and he won't wear any more than he thinks he has to, but he will wear as much as he possibly can get away with. He might -- might -- forgo a degree of protection for convenience, but as a professional soldier myself I don't know anyone who would do this if he knew that enemy contact was certain or even likely.
> 
> My first thought, if I receive a mission with expected enemy contact, isn't "Boy, my armor's gonna slow me down." My first thought -- and every soldier's first thought -- is "Now, where did I put that extra armor?" Followed by "I need to attach every single plate, flap, and auxiliary piece on my armor, and I hope I get to carry the SAW. I wonder how many grenades I can fit in this pouch?" I don't care if it adds 40 lbs. to my load-out; if there are gonna be badguys, I want as much armor as I can get and whatever weapons come closest to being "excessively injurious or having indiscriminate effects" according to the laws of war without technically going over the line. I'm convinced that mindset has not changed throughout human history.
> 
> Even if the armor is heavy, he'll use it if he can, along with a great big honker of a shield and a massive helmet and the biggest weapons that he can wield effectively, if he has any instinct for self-preservation.
> 
> Last point: Mark Twain was a satirist. He wrote A Connecticut Yankee making fun of the great Arthurian legends. It wasn't supposed to be historically accurate.



Thank you, Malik for this post. I have read your blog and shared it in other media. I recommend it for anyone who wants to learn about real warfare. Your comment that "Fantasy writing is research" is also true and often requires much more research than some other genres.
I am going to have a look at works of writers I admire and see how they described the armour worn by knights and warriors.
Btw I did realise that the Mark Twain book was a satire.


----------



## Malik

Hey, Ruby, thanks. Did you read the blog post I linked in that quoted post above, or did you read the most recent post on armor? 

Happy New Year!


----------



## Ruby

SeverinR said:


> All that metal holds in heat in warm times, but the metal displaces heat extremely fast in winter. Basically there is a small window when the armor is comfortable.
> 
> 
> I think a knight could get into armor without assistance but would take a long time and probably couldn't tighten things down properly. Its hard to feel the buckle that another person can see, and then the angles to tighten the straps are different when you do it yourself.
> 
> 
> I think with the jousting plate it could happen, also exhaustion and fatigue could leave a fallen knight to weak to get himself back on his feet.
> 
> 
> I hope you didn't drop the chain in dirt or mud, picking out the chain would be time consuming.
> I have made chain maille items, they are heavy. I use 14 gauge galvanized wire to make mine, the weight builds quickly. Chain is good against a slashing weapon, but worthless for blunt force. A heavy sword might not penetrate the chain, but the person could still die of internal injuries from blunt force trauma. Chain on the head was more dangerous then helpful imho.
> 
> Just a note on Plate armor. The armor everyone is talking about is specially fitted to the person and the straps adjusted to fit just right. If you pick up plate on the run, it probably won't fit right.  For example, most peoples arms aren't the same length, the hinge bends at the elbow, if your elbow and the elbow piece aren't in the right spot, you won't be able to use them or some spot on your arm might be exposed.
> Chain bends everywhere, so chain isn't as important to have just the right length.
> 
> Sorry, didn't quote you Guru,
> The knight would have as many assitants as his money could support. Usually one squire minimum, but I believe they could have many other assistance. Paiges were Squire's in training.(squires were Knights in training.)
> 
> Middle Ages for Kids - Knights, Squires, Pages


Hi SeverinR. No, I didn't "drop the chain in dirt or mud", but just on dry grass in summer. It was an enormous bundle of chain mail and the "knight" had been talking to me about the armour he was wearing. He didn't say how heavy it was and gave it to me as some kind of joke. He expected me to drop it. He said people don't realise how heavy it is! If he'd just told me I'd have believed him.
I've done some more research today, and learned that knights were often from rich families and had to work their way up the ranks, starting as pages as you say in your post. Their armour and weapons were very expensive to buy and the armour was "made to measure". I think the knights were one rank below nobility. It's quite strange that people are knighted in the UK now for things that have nothing to do with fighting eg pop stars, actors. It used to be as a reward for loyalty to the monarch, warfare and for land. There was also a notion of chivalry.


----------



## Ruby

Guru Coyote said:


> Ah, wait. Was the OP about a knight going to battle or about a knight climbing down a mountain?



Hi Guru Coyote, it was about a knight climbing down a mountain. I won't reveal how he got up there as I'm writing it for the Reaver challenge on here. I'll give you a clue though, think of The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Ruby

Malik said:


> I thought it was climbing down a mountain after a battle.


Hi Malik. No, he's just arrived on the mountain and has to climb down in order to do battle. He's on a quest. (There's magic involved).


----------



## Ruby

Butterfly said:


> Somebody did a documentary on the battle of Agincourt.
> 
> Basically it was the depth and type of mud found on the battlefield that caused the problems in getting back up when a man in plate fell into it... was sticky mud.
> 
> The plate armour guys were stuck in the mud, the archers, in leather weren't. Plate armour created an air seal, and greater air suction when submersed, whereas leather and cloth armour being porous didn't. So the archers were free to move through it, while the fellas in plate struggled to pull their boots out of the mire, and if they had fallen face down, or submerged they basically drowned because they couldn't break the suction seals.
> 
> 
> To answer the question though...
> 
> If he has enough rope, he could strip it off and lower it down before he makes the descent. Once on the bottom dress only in the most important bits... Breastplate, helmet.
> 
> The other suggestion I had... tying it to his belt has already been done.


Hi Butterfly. I find your post very interesting because you say that a fighter who was not wearing metal armour would have an advantage over the knight, if they were fighting in a muddy place. I may use this as the knight's opponent is not wearing metal armour. He does, however, have a weapon.
Also, would the knight be able to put armour on his arms and legs unaided?


----------



## Ruby

Malik said:


> Hey, Ruby, thanks. Did you read the blog post I linked in that quoted post above, or did you read the most recent post on armor?
> 
> Happy New Year!


Hi Malik, Happy New Year!
I read several of your blogs and shared your post on "Master Class: Desert Warfare." I found the two photographs of contrasting views of the same mountain fascinating, how's that for propaganda! That could also be used in a fantasy context, couldn't it- well I have a mountain on the island that's becoming central to the plot (ha ha!) I've also just read your latest post on "Armor Basics" which I'd imagine everyone whose contributed to this thread would find extremely useful. I have just shared that, too. I shall be using it for reference in my WIP.


----------



## Ruby

I just want to say thank you to everyone who gave me advice on this post. If you want to find out how the knight climbed down from the top of a mountain (or not!) you can now find my story on the entry post for the Reaver Challenge.  Thanks, again!


----------

