Question: The Exhaustion Factor...

[Robert Murphy]

Hullo all,

New to the subject matter, I have a fairly basic question to ask: roughly speaking, just how long could a knight manage to last in combat before exhaustion set in, given he was fully armored in plate, and on foot? (Let us say in mild weather, and fighting with weapons not of an excessive weight; e.g. a broadsword, not a war hammer.) Surely even one in excellent shape will tire quickly when 'fully-accoutered' and subjected to the rigors of medieval combat?

As I realize many of you have not only scholarly knowledge but first-hand experience here, I would be very grateful to for any feedback.

Cheers,

Robert

[Craig Peters]

Robert,

Before discussing things further, I want to clear up a couple of things. The term "broad sword" is frequently used to refer to single handed swords used in the Middle Ages, but it's actually an erroneous and non-historical term. Because ARMA members are students of the sword as well as of historic European martial arts, we try to avoid using the term "broad sword" since it was not one used by medieval people. They would have simply called the weapon a "sword". If you want to be more specific than that about the type of sword you are referring to, referring to the single handed sword will make it clear what you mean. Also, if you're fighting in plate, you would almost certainly not be using a single handed sword. Since plate makes the use of a shield redundant, a long sword or great sword with enough room for two hands to grip the weapon would have been used. http://www.thearma.org/essays/broadsword.htm

Secondly, depending upon what you're referring to, war hammers are not that heavy either. As you can see from this replica by Arms & Armor of Minnesota, historical war hammers were typically not that long and the metal heads were not that large. So I think that it is unlikely that such a hammer would fatigue one significantly more rapidly than a sword. http://www.armor.com/pole005.html

You're question is a reasonable one, but difficult to answer in concrete terms. Simply put, despite the factors you gave such as mild weather, the answer to your question remains "It depends". Remember, the ability to withstand fatigue varies from individual to individual. Also, factors like how much fighting one has to do (assuming a battle) can make a difference too.

That having been said, we know that fatigue was a serious factor in fights. In accounts of some of the combats between people found in essays in this website, I believe there are instances where men on either side were forced to stop and rest from fatigue. In the judicial duel between Jean de Carrouges and Jacques le Gris, it is indicated that the fighters would some times rest for a bit before attacking, despite the fact that the duel was fought in late December in France and the weather was cool. In his book on Hastings, Peter Poyntz Wright indicates that William's men probably stopped to rest after each of their failed attempts to take Senlac ridge. From what I've read, it was certainly not uncommon for fighting men to take rests that were mutally but wordlessly agreed upon even though they might be mortal enemies. So you're quite right that armour posed a serious fatigue factor, because we have accounts of people requiring breaks to rest. Just how long a particular fighter could go without needing a rest is up for debate however. It's one of those intangibles that is really impossible to answer.

[Craig Peters]

Another thing to consider too is that even in battles, there are moments of respite that can make a big difference to how long one can fight in armour. I doubt that any man could fight for five minutes straight in harness at maximum speed, force and intensity without collapsing from utter exhaustion. Also, many period illustrations indicate that knights and men at arms fought with their visors up, despite the obvious threat that this presents to the face. Aside from the fact that fighting with the visor up allows for superior vision, it also plays a significant role in protecting one from overheating, which indicates the fatigue of fighting in harness.

[Todd Eriksen]

Now that's a very interesting question. At the battle of Crecy, the young Prince Edward, the Black Prince, (granted, the reports were meant to glorify the victors) was reported with all his men, to be kneeling on one knee leaning against their swords, catching their breath after the couple of attacks that the French had impressed upon them. No matter how in shape you are especially with armour, the intensity and the stress of an all out frontal attack will wear you down in minutes. That's why I feel that this is where your enterage comes into play. You surround yourself with the best that your money can buy to save your life and protect it. Crecy supposedly lasted 4-6 hours with many waves of attack by the French. There is no way that the human being, regardless of the shape they are in last that long with continual action. Look at modern day wrestlers (college) who are in the most phenominal shape. They wrestle for only a few minutes at a time because no matter the shape they are in they can not handle immense physical stress of a long drawn out bout. So, my personal opinion is that they, too, like modern scholars (ARMA) have physical limitations, no matter how much in shape or trained they are, and would tire quickly in a battle, which is why they surrounded themselves with high quality 'assistants' who could cover their backs.

[Robert Murphy]

Craig and Todd,

Hey, thanks for some very interesting feedback! As for the term "broadsword," while I did not know that it was not contemporary to the period when such swords were actually used, this is unsurprising: one thing I think you and all of my fellow serious students of history here have discovered is that very often it turns out a term commonly found in modern history texts was coined 'after the fact.' (E.g., the term "Blitzkrieg" did not originate with the Wehrmacht, or even German journalists; I believe it emerged in English-language papers shortly after the 1940 debacle in France...)

I have a follow-up question for either of you gentleman here: did knights fighting on foot (again, here I am referring to those in late 14th/early-15th Century full plate) practice a sort of, er, (for the serious lack of a better term) 'tag team' or 'relay' tactic in combat? I.e., in some sort of loose, small, but mutually supporting squads/formations, where those who had to catch their breath could momentarily fall back a few paces, while those of their comrades who still had energy to burn covered for them? (Obviously these roles would alternate...) OK, pure postulation here but any feedback greatly appreciated as always.

Cheers,

Robert

[Jean-Luc Ancelin]

From what I have gathered on the subject of "assistants" in various history books (I wouldn't vouch for them hundred percent though) :

the basic tactical unit was called a "lance" (probably same word in French and English). A lance was about six men strong. One knight, usually mounted at least at first, two archers, two or three polearm wielders, possibly one swordsman. Remember that unlike what you have in todays RPGs, archers are quite capable of close combat too. This type of squad sized unit could certainly do the job of "relaying" as you seem to indicate.

Additionally, I hold from these history books that on the battle of Agincourt, the French knights were dispatched in close combat (and not by arrows), one by one, by teams of three English archers using a mix of polearms and shorter one handed weapons. The polearm user would somehow impede or skewer the knight, while his buddies went around and finished him (hacked him to death or thrust to armor openings). It seems this tactic also appears on period art pictures. By the way, I wonder if you ARMA people try to recreate and validate in group sparring this type of tactic (three unarmored against one armored, with mixed weapons).

Hope I did answer some of your question (and that what I think I know is not too far off the truth).

JL

[Craig Peters]

Jean-Luc,

I don't think anyone has specifically tried out the sparring scenario that you described. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that much of the time, the English used bills and other such weapons to actually hook and drag the French knights to the ground and slay them. Assuming that this is the case, I don't know that we'd ever practice such a scenario because it might be one that's potentially too dangerous to practice when sparring. You'd need real bills and plate in order for it to work properly, but the chance of the bill's flanges causing injury could make it prohibitively dangerous.

The other thing to consider is that the armoured man would probably be best suited (pardon the pun) to use the strategies for taking on multiple opponents. That having been said, it would be much more difficult to do this successfully with the added weight and fatigue factor of the harness.

[s_taillebois]

M. Ancelin,
Good observation about Agincourt. On a related theme, I'd wonder if some of the downed French the Welsh daggermen killed, were men who had been exhausted (by heat or exertion), rather than directly wounded? Granted most of the killings by the Welshmen where at night, but even with that, how long would it take to recover from heat exhaustion in harness? Even the English (who used the Welsh as irregulars(and assasins), seemed to have some distain for them.
Also, there was a tendancy for Medieval armies to temporarily back away at midday. Earliest reference to this, as M. Peters had mentioned, was at Hastings, the Saxons/Normans did so, then at about late afternoon (3:oo or so) commenced killing again. Hundred years war, there were some temporary midday truces...they'd pull out the wounded, get some water, and recommence the killing later.
At Hattin, Saladin, used the opposite of this tradition. He kept the Franks away from the water sources, and under pressure throughout the entire day. Reading through the sources, it seems a proportion of the Franks, were well on their way to being dead, well prior to the Moslim's final attack. (obviously prior to 14th century type harness)
Perhaps a good way to ascertain these effects, would be to research the battles in Spain, Italy, and Mexico. Obviously being hotter climes the effects of armour and heat exhaustion would be compounded. There are some mentions in Daiz, about the conquistadors dilemma in keeping the armour vs the heat. And when the Spanish got into SW Kansas (Quivera and co.), many of that contingent appears to have minimized the wearing of armour because of the heat (but they weren't usually at battles).
Plus mild weather, a relative condition. Usually medieval armies were unable to do winter campaigns, due to the forage problem. Often they did wait out the early summer (needing the crops to come in to feed their armies), and having more available to loot in enemy territory. They didn't really have a logistical supply system in the same sense as a modern army. So many of these campaigns would have taken place in late summer, early fall, not always ensuring mild temps. (Also one of the reasons Medieval wars tended to cause famines...quite literally the countries subjected to it all, were literally 'eaten out', just prior to winter.)

[Jean-Luc Ancelin]

Ok Craig, I understand the limitations you are pointing out. However, to make an interesting scenario, and one which would still remain historical, maybe you could simply use a sparring-safe spear ?

There seems to be a lot to explore in trying to coordinate a small team of two or three with different weapon lengths and techniques. How much training together would be needed to achieve the necessary effectiveness ?

Also, this kind of small team looks like part of the "lance" I mentioned previously. If this tactic is effective and historical, then it is certainly of value to our study ?

The fatigue factor would be critical for the armored student, I believe. What would the Virginia students of armored combat think of it ? Running in the mud with 50lbs on your back, avoiding multiple hostiles... hmmm might sound familiar to the military out there <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

JL

[Will Adamson]

I'll venture to guess that those participating in battles didn't take in nearly as much water as what we might now given the same exertion level. I can think of a number of factors like limited supply and carrying capacity, sanitation, differing knowledge on the role of water in human physiology, showing weakness, etc. In many duel stories I've seen mention of when, how, and what fighters drank during the course of a protracted contest.

Which brings me to a new question related to this. What was the sports drink of the time? (Whatever time that may be.) I know the Greeks and Romans watered down their wine, and I'm sure some sort of mead or beer was invibed in later periods. Water is really the best thing, but sanitation can be a problem. I had a professor who used to drink a mixture of honey, tea, and gatorade. We were sure it had some bourbon in it as well. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Aaron Pynenberg]

-did someone say 'cowbell'.....

I am not really well read in this area yet, but i was under the impression that they drank alot of beer because of the sanitation problems, with water you are not sure what little nasties are lurking, with beer-obviously there's probably had a weak alcohol conent, it would be much better, as well as getting a boat load of carbs as well, and could the alcohol had increased the chivalric properties of these men, as well as lesson the bodily soreness etc. I think this is all plausible-?

[s_taillebois]

The other reason for the beer, was storage. Especially in the 100 years war period, the weather had become cooler and wetter, so grain storage was a problem.
Aristocrats, usually wine. Although like the Roman's they did add honey, water and various spices. Probably in it's own right...a good combination.
Back to the original question...for those who have horses...how much of an effect would barding be on the endurance of the horse? Obviously for the mounted knight, that would have been a factor.
Also perhaps, a reason for the English inclination to dismount and fight. During their incursions into France, stock brought over the channel, might have arrived in poorer condition. And likely the French fiefs, would have been less than inclined to provide good riding stock for their English overlords...
Also concerning the fatigue issue and armour. In Mexico, and during the Acoma/Zuni etc Pueblo revolt...the NA fighters didn't seem to be especially inclined to adopt captured Spanish armour. So at least under those conditions, it might have been a slight liability. In Japan ( a more moderate clime) some did adopt European plate.

[Craig Peters]

In the Carrouges/Le Gris duel that I mentioned earlier, it was stipulated that the men would have wine to drink during the day if needed.

[Nathan Dexter]

I'm suprised that no one has mentioned that the vast majority of medeival battles were castle seiges, and they needed to get in the castle before fighting on foot, and castle seiges lasted a long time, seeing that the vikings seiged paris for 2 years before letting up, and that was only because of a bribe. Also, I havent noticed anything about adrenaline wich can make for a serious extention in the ability to work for a long while. And everyone has there own personal level of endurance as well.

[Craig Peters]

That's a good point Nathan. I suppose due to the nature of the initial question I presupposed an extended period of fighting on the field. However, during the later Middle Ages which is the period Robert was initially referring to in his first post, there were more battles in the field than there had been in the past.