Physiological effects of wearing armour and heat

[katana]

Hi Miguel,
thanks for the added information. Interestingly Agincourt is a hotly debated subject..... a number of French historians have suggested that Henry V should be regarded as a 'war criminal' due to the slaughter. They also suggested that the French army was similar in numbers to Henry's. I am sure, due to politics, propaganda, bravado etc Henry and his men would exaggerate the number they fought.....afterall history tends to be written by the victors But, the conclusion by some French historians that the armies were similarly matched (ie number of men) seems flawed.......
If they were....why did the bottle neck work so well surely the front line of each army would almost be equal (if they are right)

Strangely..... apparently these French historians got together to discuss Agincourt......but no British historians were invited.....I always thought there were two sides to every story Surely, searching for the 'truth' would require information from both sides

Kind Regards David

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by katana

A number of researchers have discovered that knights fighting in the melee, would take turns at the front....returning after a rest and the intake of much needed water.

Originally Posted by katana

However, some accounts state that hand to hand fighting could last for hours ...

Hi David,

How true. In this article, More Cannae, 216 BC, we read of how ancient ancient battles are actually fought --

"More lull than actual fighting -- 'Fuller (1965, p. 91) estimated a period of fifteen minutes' fighting before men became exhausted, and Kromayer (in Kromayer and Veith, 1912, p. 354) and Goldsworthy (1996, p. 224) estimate even less. After a certain period of fighting it would have been necessary for the lines to draw apart perhaps by only a few metres, in order to allow both sides to rest. Meanwhile, wounded troops might be brought to safety and line replacement could occur. Sabin argues that these rests were the natural state of the fighting, with the troops standing a distance apart, hurling insults at each other or simply catching their breath, before advancing once more . Any single combat which may have taken place would have happened during such lulls ... Successive advances would have lacked the power of the initial charge, primarily because troops would have tired, and pauses would have begun to last for longer than the fighting itself (Goldsworthy, 1996, p. 224; 1997, p.21). It was under such circumstances that battles could go on for hours.' "

Note the 'hurling insults' part!

[Pukka Bundook]

Thanks for the reply, David.
You are probably on the mark with breaks having to be taken to avoid real danger of dehydration. The program I saw was more to do with rests after just a few minutes from exhaustion, without mention of dehydration.

Maybe capturing the baggage train was important because it also held the drinks cabinet!

I'll have a dekko at your link when I get done here.

Many thanks,

Richard.

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

You are probably on the mark with breaks having to be taken to avoid real danger of dehydration.

Hello Richard,

Rehydration is key indeed. If boxers in lightweight clothing carrying no weapons and fighting indoors need to guzzle down lots of water every 3 minutes, I can imagine how thirsting it would be for warriors in action in full battle gear.

Hence modern day soldiers have a Camelback. And a few decades ago, it was the canteen. So the question is, how did the warriors of old rehydrated themselves in the middle of the battle?

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

[Pukka Bundook]

Miqueldiaz,

I like the way this thread is progressing!

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

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

Re. Agincourt, Two points;

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

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

Please forgive if this is slightly OT.

Richard.

[katana]

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

Regards

.

[katana]

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

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



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


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

Regards David

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by katana

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

David, how about the French? Champagne perhaps?

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

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

Hello Richard,

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

Thanks for sharing and regards.

[katana]

A true indicator of the problems of heat and armour would be the solutions the crusaders utilized whilst on campaign.
Some sources state that the Saracens used a form of surcoat that covered the armour, a reasonably loose garment, of light coloured material which helped to reflect some of the sun's heat. This would also help trap an insulating layer of cooler air between the surcoat and armour. This was soon adopted by the crusaders, whom introduced it to Europe after the 1st crusade.
Helmets also evolved the visor, which could be raised quickly to survey the battle ......release heat.....or to improve breathing and quickly 'dropped' again. This was a necessary but dangerous practice.....skilled archers were always looking for raised visors so that they could target the face


Regards David

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by katana

Strangely..... apparently these French historians got together to discuss Agincourt......but no British historians were invited.....I always thought there were two sides to every story Surely, searching for the 'truth' would require information from both sides

Hi David,

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

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

Best regards.