Scientists Study Impact of Wearing Medieval Armor 213
FoolishOwl writes "Scientists at the University of Leeds tested the effects of wearing heavy medieval armor by monitoring volunteers, who were experienced medieval reenactors, as they walked and ran on treadmills, while wearing accurate replicas of 15th century armor. While the suits of armor weighed between 30 and 50 kg, comparable to the weight of gear carried by modern soldiers, volunteers who carried equivalent amounts of weight in backpacks had an easier time with the weight. Volunteers in armor burned more energy and had difficulty breathing. The scientists speculate that much of the additional effort was due to weight of armor on the legs — leg armor was one of the first things dropped in the shift towards lighter armor in the 16th century. While it has long been assumed that heavy medieval armor limited mobility, and that this contributed to the outcome of battles, such as the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, this was the first study to quantify the impact of wearing heavy armor."
Re:Battles (Score:5, Interesting)
Americans have this tunnel vision with regards to the French, and assume they can't win wars because they got their ass kicked in WWII. They seem to think its funny even - even though if you mention the French in any regard on a forum, you can be 100% assured that someone will make a comment concerning that defeat. Its long since gotten tired folks.
Somehow they seem to ignore the whole Napoleonic Wars period, you know 30+ years where the French were the most feared military force in the world. When the French *defined* military technology, techniques and achievements. Sure, they are kind of stuck up, and their recent military history hasn't been all that distinguished but to be fair they were also faced with the German army, in its time the most efficient military force in existence. It took a whole lot of countries to defeat the Germans, and yes that eventually included the USA.
Re:Battles (Score:2, Interesting)
The US land army in the spring of 1940 was hardly better than the Dutch or Belgian army, and tiny compared to the French one. The quick French defeat is unfortunate, but no other army actually in existence at that time could have done better defending France from Germany. French performance on the unit level is also not notably worse than British, Belgian, and Dutch performance in that campaign, if one compares units of similar quality.
The French were Europe's most formidable military force in a number of periods: the Napoleonic wars, the second half of the 18th century, when the French were only contained by European coalitions (the Grand Alliance, the Augsburg leaugue), and in the early Carolingian and Merovingian periods. From the point of view of us Dutch people, the French were the #1 threat to peace in Europe for centuries before Germany took center stage.
I would also rate them higher than the English as soldier material in general. Obviously, the countries that are most often in harm's way are most likely to develop and retain a militaristic tradition. The hundred years' war was most of the time a war between Frenchmen. England was at that time partially based in France and obviously raised many of its "English" soldiers locally. England also depended on allies and experienced mercenaries from France and the French-speaking Low countries (Burgundy, Flanders) in that war, and even fought the Scots and Welsh in that era using continental war veterans. Agincourt is an exception, involving mostly English and Welsh archers, and is especially notable to the English because of it. Other major victories over the French involve major contributions of European allies. At Blenheim, for instance, 16.000 of 52.000 were English, at Waterloo just 24.000 of 118.000 (also excluding the King's German Legion). French armies also made use of mercenaries from Germany, the Low countries, and Nortern Italy at times in the middle ages, but generally speaking mostly consisted of Frenchmen.