Swimming in armor

[CalebChow]

Certainly not a pleasant thing to have to do, but given certain battlefield circumstances I'd imagine that it'd be necessary every now and then.

Are there any documentations/records (or even techniques?) of fighters swimming in full plate armor?

[Stacy Clifford]

I would think you would have to have a pretty large body mass for your buoyancy to overcome 80-100 pounds of armor and assorted equipment. I can barely float even without armor, my legs always want to sink to the bottom and only leave my scalp sticking out of the water. I believe that many of Cortes's armored conquistadors were drowned during the Noche Triste escape from Tenochtitlan when they were knocked off of the causeways and into the lake. Those who did manage to swim were still too encumbered to escape the Aztecs in the water, who were excellent swimmers.

[s_taillebois]

At Towton the routed Lancastrian's were jammed up at the fords and the bridges. To the extent that a few of the bridges actually collapsed due to the number of men trying to crowd across them. These men were obviously in an extreme situation but it seems fairly few tried to actually swim the river.

And as M. Clifford noted the gear would have made it very difficult. Even without plate and harness something such as a Aketon, Gambeson or the like would have been a substantial problem when soaked. And swimming in such would have been fairly difficult even under the best of conditions.

And in rout situations the probability of men taking the time to remove various bits of kit which could not easily be tossed aside, isn't that likely. Helmets, and weapons would be easy to cast away, and likely were in a panic.

Once again referring to the Towton dead, many were killed by various blows to the head and neck, which may indicate some still possessed kit which made it more viable to use these other blows. Granted many at Towton were murdered, but since both sides elected to give no quarter it's unlikely these men were prisoners per se...they were running to get away when they were killed.

Offhand the only reference I can think of which relates to a medieval fighter swimming is in Beowulf...and many of these refer to such activities as seafaring hunts. In which armor was not too likely to be worn. Plus Beowulf is obviously mythological.

[Brent Lambell]

Ooops, double post.

[Brent Lambell]

I have not personally read any documents that point to armored men swimming with any real success. Most descriptions tend to come out telling a chaotic and terrifying scene. It becomes a thrashing mass of bodies, sharp weapons, spooked horse, blood, mud, and debris. If you don't drown, you are likely trampled it would seem.

I have read coroner reports that mentions plenty of villagers, peasants mostly if memory serves, drowning in rivers and falling into wells. Water related deaths were common enough.

[CalebChow]

Just out of curiosity, then, how would hardened leather armor fare in water? My impression is that leather is still quite heavy and wouldn't fare wonderfully either...

[Sal Bertucci]

I'd say you're right there. The leather still has to be fairly thick to be effective as armor. More than you'll want to swim in.

[Martin Lysen]

I haven´t seen any documents regarding this either, but me and my friends have tested it. Swimming in full plate is way out (at least for us), but swimming in chain mail did work. One has to find one´s limit of bouyancy. 30 pounds worked for most of us, but more than that was very hard. It depends on how fit you are.

[Benjamin Parker]

Hmm I can't remember any accounts off hand I will have to do some digging, well I take that back Vegetius said that troops had to be able to swim with full gear, armor, pack, etc. Another thing to keep in mind is that not all suits are created equal

[Jay Vail]

Most people in the Middle Ages couldn't swim.

[s_taillebois]

True most could not swim, simple trades such as washer woman seemed to drown an untoward number of people.

Another factor would be that, even if one could get across some river wearing even partial harness once out on the other bank it's probable the enemy would have been likely to have set up a killing zone of arrow or bolt fire. River crossings and fords were often denied in this manner, and unless it was a very broad river the opposite bank could be denied in the same way.

That's assuming that with the exhaustion of having been out fought that swimming out of the field would even be possible. It's very probable that under such stresses swimming across any sizable river would have been likely as lethal as waiting for one's doom on the banks. In the north , some people who tried to swim across the Missouri were killed by undertows, distance and etc. And they weren't exhausted and wearing harness.

And another factor may have been codes of ethics during the period. In most cases an aristocrat may have been ransomed, so some who had no other alternative may have allowed themselves to be captured. In cases such as Towton there was a strong fatalism inherent to the medieval character, and once presented with a barrier such as a river...those who could not hide, died.

[Stacy Clifford]

In northern Europe particularly I could imagine hypothermia being a pretty strong deterrent to swimming for much of the year as well. We frequently mention the thick clothing they often wore throughout the year due to the climate (during the Little Ice Age no less) when discussing cut resistance, so if the air was that chilly most of the time, the water couldn't have been any better. Even if you made it out of the water, fighting while sopping wet in heavy clothing and shivering like a jumping bean is probably not going to last long enough for you to warm yourself up again.

[s_taillebois]

Good observation. With some of the bodies (skeletons) were found at a early frontier site in Virginia (where the Indians had raided and burnt the settlement). some of those who did survive were found in fetal positions in what would have been the hollows of trees and etc. Apparently trying to keep warm, and failing to do so killed many-even without their wounds being considered.

And during the late middle ages, at about the hundred years war period, the climate had become wetter (the same little ice age M. Clifford referred to...). So it's very probable that the losers in any battle would have been reluctant to be jumping into rivers. They knew that death by exposure was very probable especially if they had to remove enough clothing to be effective at swimming. An Aketon for example, in addition to its value as a form of armor, would have had substantial value as clothing insulating from the weather. As such these may have been items which even defeated soldiers would have been reluctant to cast away.

Plus for those of upper status, keeping clothing and armor which marked their status would have been important. At Crecy or Agincourt (sorry I forgot which one) the man who led the final French charge was murdered because the English did not deem him a man worthy of ransom (in his rush to get to the fight he'd worn the kit of a lesser status man).

[LafayetteCCurtis]

well I take that back Vegetius said that troops had to be able to swim with full gear, armor, pack, etc.

Really?

Vegetius did enjoin the soldiers to learn to swim, but there is no explicit statement whatsoever that they had to be able to swim in full gear. Indeed, the idea is contradicted by the method he describes for crossing a deep river:

Navigable rivers are passed by means of piles driven into the bottom and floored with planks; or in a sudden emergency by fastening together a number of empty casks and covering them with boards. The cavalry, throwing off their accoutrements, make small floats of dry reeds or rushes on which they lay their rams and cuirasses to preserve them from being wet. They themselves swim their horses across the river and draw the floats after them by a leather thong.

Sure, the reason he gives is keeping the armor out of the water, but it's probably also an important precaution to prevent the soldiers from drowning--especially the cavalrymen, who usually had heavier armor than their infantry counterparts.

[Benjamin Parker]

Veg was talking about infantry also the era he's talking about the cavalry was fairly light also I do remember a spot where he said infantry needed to be able to swim in full gear

Also late roman infantry was just as heavily armored as their early counterparts

I've also read that knights were expected to be able to swim in full plate and vault into their saddles and climb ladders using only their arms

BTW There was a guy in the calling any samurai thread that mentioned a reenactment group that requires their people to swim in full samurai armor