Plate Armor: Myths vs. Reality

We've all heard the myths. Knights couldn't stand up, knights were slow and cumbersome, and more recently, the counter-myth of plate armor made you invincible. We've also seen dozens, if not more, videos refuting these myths, such as people dancing or sprinting in plate armor, as well as movies and articles showing that weapons such as the longbow could, in fact, punch straight through plate. But has it occurred to anyone to really break down these myths? Where did they get started, and is there any truth to them? After all, we have contemporary sources that talk about knights being unable to rise or defend themselves quickly, and we have plenty of evidence that fully armored knights did, in fact, suffer injuries and death. Today on the Warfighter Archives, we're going to examine these three most common myths regarding armored combat because there is a reason behind each myth, it's just not the reason that many people think of. So let's go ahead and get started. Myth number one, knights couldn't stand up if knocked down. We've seen this across popular movies and literature, where a knight gets knocked to the ground and can't rise again because of the weight of his armor. First of all, a suit of armor would weigh somewhere in the region of 15 to 28 kilograms, or 30 to 60 pounds. This is not at all heavy for a trained user who would have been able to not just get back up, but run and even vault over obstacles while fully armored. For comparison, in Iraq, my full kit minus my assault pack weighed in at around 50 pounds and was probably on the heavy side since I carried a small radio and also had my camelback attached to the vest. But even with all of this weight, I could easily sprint, dive prone, get back up, and vault over most obstacles. So where does this myth come from? Well, there are three reasons that I can think of. First, medieval battles often devolved into a press of men, and in this press, there are two key factors. If you fell down, you had a real risk of being trampled, crushed, or simply held down by the press of men behind you. Anyone who has ever watched a large crowd and heard mentality knows exactly what I'm talking about. Also, this large press of men might prevent you from getting time to rest. If the army isn't well organized with a system to rotate men in and out of the front line, you might find yourself in a position where you are fighting for an extended period of time. To get an idea of this type of strain, put on 30 to 60 pounds of weight and do an intense crossfit workout. You might be able to do burpees and other exercises with no problem in the first five minutes or so, but after 30 to 45 minutes, you'll probably start to struggle a lot more. If you don't start to struggle, let me know and also forward me a copy of your fitness program so I can get myself back into shape. The second reason that this myth exists might be because some plate armor was substantially heavier. Late medieval and early renaissance jousting armor was often much heavier than the plate armor worn in battle. The reason was that jousting by this period was highly ritualized. Armor designed specifically for these competitions was made heavier to absorb high impacts without as much concern for the knight's mobility. The third and final reason is that some knights just weren't in very good shape. In modern times, we seem to have this romanticized view that all knights were hearted warriors who lived by this strict 300 Spartan-like regimen. The reality is much different, as demonstrated by the fact that some nobles and knights were known by names such as The Fat. Knights were not trained in a centralized facility on a strict curriculum. There was no Paris Island Recruit Depot for knighthood. We have many accounts of even the best warriors such as Edward IV going to seed even in their middle age. The reason for this is that a lot of medieval knights had a penchant for alcohol and good food, which during the middle ages often included dishes that were smothered in rich sauces. The combination of rich food and high sugar intake catches up with almost everyone at some point in time. Trust me, I just turned 40 years old and I am experiencing that firsthand right now. If a knight was overweight or even obese, he'd have trouble getting back up even if he wasn't wearing a full suit of armor. With a suit of armor on, especially if he hasn't been training consistently to move in it, he would in fact struggle to rise from the ground. Thus, we can see that while the basic myth is just that, there is a reason that it exists. Medieval chroniclers were not lying when they said that knights suffocated on the ground or couldn't rise back to their feet. These knights were either out of shape, crushed by the press of men, or more likely, both. It's also worth noting that some of these knights might not have gotten back up because they were knocked unconscious by the blow that knocked them to the ground. This is why it's important to consider all the different angles to a myth before dismissing it out of hand or labeling it as quote-unquote impossible. But with that done, let's move on to… Myth number two. Knights were slow and cumbersome. We've all seen it in movies such as Game of Thrones where the armored knight is slow and cumbersome and everyone knows that in a video game, you have to sacrifice speed and agility in order to wear heavy armor, right? Wrong. Well, at least sort of wrong. Once again, we go back to the idea that repetitive actions with additional weight can tire anyone out over time. Coming fresh into battle, a knight was able to move very quickly. There are some great YouTube channels that demonstrate just how agile and fast someone in full plate armor can be. However, none of these channels accurately recreate a medieval battle. In each video, the fighters are able to withdraw, have plenty of space to maneuver, and are not fighting for an extended period of time. The same is true for competition fighting. While the competitions are certainly intense in the moment, after a bout is over you're allowed to withdraw, rest, drink water, etc. In a medieval battle, this might not be the case. Most certainly, removing any piece of your armor to get a moment of relief could be fatal as proven by young Lloyd Clifford during the War of the Roses. After fighting all day, he removed his throat protector in order to get a drink of water and promptly caught an arrow to the throat. Here's a key factor. Even if you did get a chance to step back from the front line, you still had to stay fully armored and were unable to refresh, since there were likely enemy archers and crossbowmen that would target you as soon as you appeared vulnerable. Thus, while knights might enter a battle as quick, agile fighters, within an hour or two they'd start to be slow and cumbersome. Not because of the weight of their armor necessarily, but because they were getting tired from the strain of all-out physical exertion to try to stay alive. Again, it's easy to dismiss this myth as being quote-unquote false, when in reality the answer is a lot more nuanced than that. In fact, we're incorrectly blaming the armor when in reality we are looking at a simple reality of human physiology under extreme stress. People also discount the extreme physical exertion that comes from combat. I've wrestled and fought amateur MMA in my life, and both are incredibly exhausting. A four-minute wrestling match will leave many people at almost total muscle failure, and we can see from professional boxers how quickly they can tire after a few minutes of boxing. They become slow and cumbersome while not wearing any armor at all, and from chroniclers we know that a short battle like Blore Heath was around 30 minutes. Longer ones could last most of a day, so imagine the stress on your muscles even if you do get frequent chances to rest. But with that said, let's address our final myth. Myth number three. Plate armor made you invincible. In modern times, there's a counter-movement to myths one and two, and I've seen it on a few YouTube channels and some forum posts as well. Certain people go out of their way to show how arrows couldn't penetrate plate armor and neither can the sword, the poleaxe, or any other weapon from the time period. In other words, a knight in full plate armor was basically invincible on the field of battle. And yet, we know that this isn't true from a simple glance at history. We have battle after battle where knights in full or partial plate armor were proudly defeated with heavy casualties. We also have skeletons such as those from the Tauton mass grave which show terrible injuries to the head especially. So how does this happen? Well, the baseline answer is that no armor is perfect. All armor has a weak point. In fact, from medieval manuscripts, we can tell that fighters in this period understood these weak points very well. We see images such as this one that show how one should attempt to attack a weak spot under the arm. And we also know from chroniclers that this is how a master of the Knights Templar was killed when the Muslims stormed Acre. Fiore even has a rather cheeky image where a swordsman simply reaches up and opens his opponent's visor to give him a nasty stab to the face. Now, I can already hear some people saying that this would be impossible to do against a trained fighter, and I beg to differ. In a battle, it's not just you against one enemy, it's you against everyone else from the enemy army that's nearby. If you're busy defending yourself from one enemy or if that enemy has trapped your weapon, then it's not hard to see how his buddy couldn't come up and open your visor or stab you from the side at a weak point. It's also important to remember that a key difference between competition or reenactments in real battles is what I call lethal intent. I'll go into this in a video series covering the psychology of warfare, but I'll summarize it briefly here. Lethal intent refers to the fact that enemies on a battlefield are actively attempting to end each other's lives. This is something that hopefully is not happening in any competition or reenactment. When lethal intent is involved, combat becomes much more dangerous. There are no longer rules that limit strikes to unprotected areas of the body, and no longer any rules that prevent you from using sharpened weapons against soft tissue. People will also strike harder once again because they are driven to destroy the enemy and ensure their own survival. And going back to the idea of physical exertion, real fighting can be much more exhausting than reenactments or low-intensity competition. Stress can tire the body quite quickly, and your stress level is obviously much higher when your opponent has no rules and is looking to end your existence, as opposed to in a match where there are rules, referees, and medical personnel on hand to ensure fighter safety. Moreover, in a competition, a great deal of emphasis is placed on creating a fair playing field. In real battles, the goal was to put the enemy at the greatest disadvantage possible. If knights had to rush up a muddy hill or were attacked when they were in a stream or a brook, they were at a significant disadvantage, already tired and slower than their enemies before contact was even made. So, plate armor was incredibly effective, and we actually see this from the Talton Mass Grave. Most of the injuries are to the extremities and to the head, not to the body, which suggests that the body armor worn was probably quite effective, and soldiers either didn't target those areas specifically or their strikes against them were largely ineffective. However, what we also see is that plate armor did not make you invulnerable. There were plenty of weak points and ways to exploit them, and from the manuscripts, we know that medieval warriors knew about this and trained specifically to exploit them. But those are the three myths that I wanted to address today. The takeaway here is that myths often have a foundation in truth. However, there are two places that we often go wrong. The first is considering only the piece of equipment or the soldier in question without considering other factors. This is highlighted in the myths regarding plate armor being too heavy and making fighters too cumbersome. The culprit here is exhaustion, brought on by long periods of intense physical stress. The armor is a contributing factor, but not the only or even the primary cause. The second is when we view something in all or nothing terms, such as in the third example. There is no armor or vehicle or weapon that is truly invincible or can't be defended against. Every armor has a weakness, and every soldier has situations where they are more vulnerable. The key in warfare is to find ways to put the enemy into vulnerable situations while avoiding them yourself. The commanders that can do so are usually victorious. But I hope you enjoyed this video. Let me know in the comments section about other myths regarding armored combat, as well as your thoughts and opinions.