Effects of injury leading to misconceptions about armor

[Neil Bockus]

Salvete!

Recently I've been doing some reading and have come across some interesting lines in Machiavelli's Art of War. In book two, Cosimo, apparently dismissing infantry, asks Fabrizio how he would arm his cavalry, to which Fabrizio replies that he would not rely too heavily on cavalry, as "lately we have seen them often shamefully beaten by infantry(1)." But what cought my attention and got me to thinking was a paragraph shortly after, pertaining to a battle between the Armenians and Romans:

"Nevertheless, when they engaged, the king (of Armenia) was routed; and the historian imputes the defeat entirely to the little service done by the cataphracti, whose faces were covered in such a manner that they could hardly see-much less annoy-the enemy and whose limbs were so overloaded with heavy armor, that when any of them fell from their horses, they could hardly get up again or use their arms(2)." To me, this sounds similar to the stuff we'd see in a movie or on stage. (I wonder if Fabrizio actually believed the account, as earlier in the same book, he explained to Cosimo that dismounted cavalry, who fought in armor head-to-toe had a major advantage over the poorly armored pike squares and saw great success attacking them with sword/sword and shield.)

So this made me think, is it possible that some misconceptions about armor come from witnesses seeing injured combatants trying to get back up or fight with broken bones or in a dazed state from falling off a horse? Having a little experience myself with being flung from fast moving objects, i.e. dirtbikes, I know that if someone falls the wrong way, even at slower speeds, they can break bones or become very dazed. In a combat environment, is it possible an on-looker might chalk up this lack of strength caused by injury to be excessively heavy armor?

Just a thought on finding some more on why, over time, we came up with the idea that armor was so heavy and awkward. Any thoughts on the validity of this?

----------------------------------------------------------
1. Niccolo Machiavelli, Trans. Ellis Farneworth, The Art of War (Da Capo Press, 1965) 52.
2. Ibid 53.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Maybe the commentator called it overly heavy armour when perhaps it was actually out of shape knights. In other words, maybe the commentator was implying that in some joking manner. Maybe not.

Earlier circa 1350 De Charny in his Book of Chivalry derided knights too fat and out of shape to move around properly in their armour, chiding them for not staying in shape.

[AlexCSmith]

I also wouldn't rule out the possibility of incompetence on the part of the reporter/historian in question or intentional misrepresentation of the Cataphracts to make them seem less threatening.

That same type of troops dealt the Romans several defeats and I fully believe that if the armor on their faces was that great a hindrance they wouldn't have fought in it.

The infantry mentioned in that passage were most likely polearm troops who were almost as likely as the cavalry they defeated to be wearing plate armor.

[Neil Bockus]

Alex,

I think you just drew a similar conclusion to what I was asking about, but in a different venue. What I mean is, because of the high potential for injuries inherant with getting hit off of a horse, is it possible that witnesses mistook the inability of dismounted soldiers to move well or get up as a result of their armor, rather than broken bones or injury. I guess I'm asking if there is a trend with accounts where soldiers have difficulty getting to their feet after being dropped from horseback at a relatively high velocity by a weapon with a steel head? And the reason I'm asking is because while a lot of people today have at least a grip on how the body works, not as many would have back then, and may have accounted dismounted troops seemingly sluggish ability to recover to their armor, and not their injuries?

I have also understood for a long time that no one would ever use armor that was a greater hinderance to their fighting capacity than a benefit, so I don't believe the historian either; it was part of the quote from the book, and likely a jab at the Cataphracts by the historian, and I doubt Fabrizio believed him either. Earlier in the same book, he told Cosimo the infantry that had embarassed the cavalry were the same pike formations that wore little armor (by Fabrizio's account a breastplate and just maybe a helm,) which is why they were so vulnerable when the knights unmounted, wearing full harness and attacked with swords. By Fabrizio's account, once the knights got beyond the tips of the pikes, they slaughtered the poorly armored pikemen because they were so "well secured" by their own armor (and it'd be pretty hard to be that effective in over-weight, awkward Hollywood armor!)

I ran into one of the many results of these misconceptions last semester, while looking for sources for my independant study. I was reading a book from the late 1800's, in which the author lamented armor for its weight (I don't have the exact quote, but with respect to pike formations lack of armor, the author wrote something like "Initially they (the pikemen) couldn't afford a full harness, but later did not wish to because how many men had fallen on account of their heavy armor?" the answer being none that I can think of) and as a result, I disregarded everything I had read to that point, did not use it as a secondary source for my study, and moved on. The book was by Charles Oman, "A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages."

So, it's not the armor itself I'm questioning about, but rather if there is a trend of perception among historical accounts in which it is possible (or may be interpreted that) the witnesses are blaming armor instead of injury, which caused some of the foundations for misconceptions that arrived later on the scene.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

The book was by Charles Oman, "A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages."

Well, Oman can still be a useful source as long as you're willing to take him with a grain of salt. After all, much of the modern scholarship in military history has focused on examining and correcting his mistakes.

As for Machiavelli's work, the battle in question was the battle of Tigranocerta and I got the strange impression that Machiavelli either didn't know or deliberately forgot to mention that the Roman foot attacked the cataphracts from the flank. This fact and its potential psychological repercussions might have been a significant factor in preventing the cataphracts from standing back up once they had been knocked off their horses.

[John_Clements]

See my article on the myth of the cumbersome knight in heavy armor, in Military History magazine, July 2005.

JC