Physiological effects of wearing armour and heat

[Paul Macdonald]

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.




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 -



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.

[fearn]

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!

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

[migueldiaz]

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 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

[Jim McDougall]

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

[kronckew]

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.

[migueldiaz]

Hi Jim, thanks for the compliment!

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.

[Pukka Bundook]

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.

[katana]

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

......
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.

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

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by katana

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

Regards David

Hi David,

I agree with you 100%

Yes indeed, the bottleneck thing was intentional.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pukka Bundook]

Hi David!

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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes,

Richard.

[katana]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Hi David!

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

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

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

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

Best wishes,

Richard.

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

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

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

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

Kind Regards David

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

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

Best wishes,

Richard.

Hi Richard

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

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

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

Hmm, so is it really two or three?

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

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

Best regards.