This one surfaces every couple of years and, to go by some of the disparaging Facebook comments, any claim of âhas finally been dispelledâ remains wishful thinking.
The full knight-soldier-fireman obstacle run is here and Thrillist wasnât that slow off the mark (their post was 2017) since the run took place in October-November 2016.
I canât find the Royal Armouries video @dduaneâ mentioned (I think itâs LITERALLY a video, i.e. a VHS tape) but hereâs a short film, also from 8 years ago, with the armoured guy from the obstacle runâŚ
âŚa compilation posted 9 years ago, circa 2015, meaning that all the clips are that old or olderâŚ
âŚand hereâs Mike Loades in a clip posted on YouTube 16 years agoâŚ
âŚfrom a series called âWeapons That Made Britainâ, originally broadcast in 2004. The complete episode on armour is here.
Loades has been busting armour-immobilty myths since the 1990s (once again, I have VHS tapes somewhereâŚ)
Iâve also got several posts tagged #mobility in armour about it on my Tumblr blog, but here are a couple of things about armour in general which nobody seems to consider.
If knights could barely move in armour, why did they - and everyone else who could get some - wear so much of it for so long?
A knight who couldnât move effectively was no more use in battle than a tank without an engine, which suggests they could move in it just fine.
All of that refers to armour for serious kill-or-be-killed battle, known as âfield armourâ or âfield harnessâ. Incidentally, if you read about someone who âdied in harnessâ (i.e. while still working at their job rather than retired) it implies the sort of harness worn by draft horses, but AFAIK is not the original meaning at all.Â
Itâs also whatâs meant when a knight who lost a joust forfeited âhorse and harnessâ - not just his mount, its saddle and bridle, but all his armour as well.Â
Losing was an expensive business, but profitable for winners (some men, like William Marshal, made a career out of it) because, since that armour was almost certainly made to measure and since making another would take months, the loser would be more inclined to buy it back so as to quickly re-equip and perhaps be the winner next time.
Tournament armour wasnât field armour, which had to balance the advantages of protection against the disadvantages of weight and fatigue during the several hours of a battle.
It started out as the same armour worn for war, but gradually developed into specialised sports kit worn in closely monitored, tightly rule-bound contests. It was often so specialised that an armour worn for one style of joustingâŚ
âŚwas different to the armour worn for another style, so great lords, princes, kings and emperors would own several armours built for whichever were the most popular jousting styles of their region.
Horses were also specially trained. The jousting horse or âdestrierâ (a word derived from âdexterâ, right) was trained to always swerve right, not left, in other words away from not into any potential risk, and of course every jouster needed more than one horse.
Tournaments had become a sport for the rich and the royal.
Before François I of France met Henry VIII of England in a formal foot-combat at The Field of Cloth of Gold (a 1520 diplomatic bunfight in Calais) he invoked a âmy country, my rulesâ privilege and changed them.Â
This forced Henry to abandon his specially built armour - among other features, the gauntlets could lock shut around a weapon so he couldnât be disarmed - in favour of less impressive armour thrown together in a hurry from existing parts.Â
It really annoyed him, which was almost certainly Françoisâs intention. There was no love lost between themâŚ
Hereâs a Royal Armouries video about it.
Because tournament armour wasnât meant for wear for protracted periods it could be - and was - made heavier and more rigid for safety.
Most jousting helms were screwed or bolted to the breastplate, to prevent a head-strike slamming it backwards and breaking the knightâs neck.Â
It didnât matter that the only view was forward through a narrow slot. Forward was where the action happened, and that narrow slot kept it from coming inside.
The trick was to lean forward when charging in order to see out and aim, then lean back at the last instant before impact. It was a game of chicken, with the one who leaned back last being the one with final best aim.
However as happened to another king of France, Henri II, getting the timing wrong could be literally fatal.
Other armours had extra reinforcement plates (âpieces of advantageâ) fixed in place over the main armour, with a very limited range of motion because more wasnât required.
This one even has a head-brace in case the other fastenings werenât enough, and it, the extra face protection and doubled breastplate /shield (âbuffeâ and âgrande gardeâ) are held in place by very modern-looking wingnutsâŚ
These armours have right arms with only two positions, either holding the lanceâŚ
âŚor not holding the lance.
A knight encased in something that inflexible really couldnât get up unaided, but he wasnât wearing it in the sort of battle situation where being able to get up, and indeed mount up, was a matter of life or death. This wasnât typical combat armour any more than a Formula One or Indy 500 racer is a typical vehicle for going to the supermarket.
These tournament armours often belonged to important, wealthy people who kept them as decoration after their working life was done - âbruisĂŠd arms hung up for monumentsâ, as Shakespeare puts it.Â
Because of that, more heavy, inflexible tournament kit has survived than light, nimble battle armour, and Iâm pretty sure - thanks probably to the Victorians, originators of so much other âeveryone knowsâ medieval nonsense - thatâs the source of most claims about excess weight and minimal movement.
