Image: Getty Images
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
On August 13, 1415, the 27-year-old English king Henry V led his army into France. Within two months dysentery had killed perhaps a quarter of his men, while a French army four times its size blocked escape to Calais and across the English Channel. Winter approached; food grew scarce. Yet in one of the most remarkable upsets in military history, a force of fewer than 7,000 English soldiers—most of them lightly armed archers—repulsed 20,000 to 30,000 heavily armored French men-at-arms near the village of Agincourt, killing thousands. Shakespeare’s play Henry V attributed the victory to the power of Henry’s inspirational rhetoric; the renowned military historian John Keegan has credited the self-defeating crush of the French charge. But a study by exercise physiologists now suggests a new reason for the slaughter: suits of armor might not be all that great for fighting.
Researchers at the University of Leeds in England placed armor-clad volunteers on a treadmill and monitored their oxygen consumption. The armor commonly used in the 15th century weighed anywhere from 30 to 50 kilograms, spread from head to hand to toe. Because of the distributed mass, volunteers had to summon great effort to swing steel-plated legs through each stride. In addition, breastplates forced quick, shallow breaths. The researchers found that the suits of armor doubled volunteers’ metabolic requirements, compared with an increase of only about 70 percent for the same amount of weight carried in a backpack.
Of course, medieval battles did not happen on treadmills. The fields at Agincourt were thick with mud, having recently been plowed for winter wheat and soaked in a heavy October shower. The French charged across 300 yards of this slop, all while suffering fire from the English archers. Combine the effort required to run in armor with that needed to slog through mud, says Graham Askew, one of the study’s leaders, and you’d expect at least a fourfold increase in energy expenditure—enough, it seems, to change history.
This article was originally published with the title The Trouble with Armor.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentThe armor shown in the photo postdates Agincourt by a century or so. Indeed, the armor used in the original study dates from the 16th century and was used in tourneys and not battle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUmmmm...the French charged on horseback at this battle. The English knights were dismounted. But they didn't have to move much. The French came to them. The French then learned the wrong lesson...and started to dismount their men-at-arms for battle,even in the attack, reasoning that was the reason for the English success. Opssssssssss.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA main part of their defeat can be attributed the the English assualt weapon. The English long bow was a cultural and mechanical asset that decimated the French. Cultural, due to its being in the hands of english men from a young age, meaning the French could buy all they might want but the learning curve in its operation was a log one. The mechanical asset of it is that being 6' in length and throwing such a large projectile it could at a faily long range,(20 or so yards) penetrate the plate armor of the day. This was key to the defeat of the French at Agincourt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting, next time I see Robocop I'll tell not to take on Robin Hood in a muddy French field...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe stuff we can learn from digging into history!
Seems to me that all this study proves is that individuals not trained from a young age to do things in armor...aren't good at doing things in armor. Plus, as has been said, the battle was largely won by archers and the knights were mounted regardless, and not exerting themselves overmuch physically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a couple of people have pointed out some of the obvious errors with this "study", here's another one - Knights in period had armor that was actually made for them, specifically. It was fitted and strapped to suit their individual physiques and purposefully put together in a way that allowed maximum comfort and minimal disruption to full motion - including running and breathing fully. I belong to a historical combat recreation group, and the fit of your armor is totally customized. I doubt from the description of the study that this level of care was taken to fit the armor to the volunteers. Doing so, by the way, would have been time consuming and expensive, and it sounds like they cut that corner...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEssentially, this study seems completely useless, and it's "results" are incorrect.
Personally, I have fought in armor, run around in it, charged up and down hills, in hot sun, rain and even snow, and because my gear is designed to fit me, and I have a lot of experience wearing it, I barely even notice that it is there anymore.
I have to agree with the opinions posted so far. Fitted armor on people trained from 7 years old to carry arms and armor would have not had the same effect on modern day humans. While it is likely true the armor had some negative effect and likely did require more energy to use when compared to a similar person in the period wearing no armor, it is not likely the reason they lost the battle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe archers made the difference and that was because of culture more than anything else. The English had already tossed aside the previous "rules" of war, while the french were still under the impression that Knights were exempt from being fired upon by archers. Had they been prepared for archers, the battle probably would have gone the other way.
So I would say following tradition blindly and not changing your culture when necessary is the real culprit behind the french loss of that battle.
"enough, it seems, to change history"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, If the research is correct it was enough to MAKE history. History is, after all, what occurred.
Sounds like the research should be re-done with a group of historical re-enactors who have their own armour made to suit (pun intended) and who are used to the wearing of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, it's also widely recognised that the longbow was a medieval "secret weapon" that could be used to devastating effect. Prior to its introduction metal armour and shields were impervious to arrows. The longbow's arrows could and did penetrate armour, so charging troops who thought they were protected from ranged attack would suddenly (and demoralisingly) discover otherwise.
I am curious why such a study as this doesn't focus on modern gear of war, and seek to improve either carrying capacity or the science of gearing soldiers. While the study suggests weight would be less draining carried in a backpack, has it considered all effects of the backpack? Increased soldier bulk, longer-term back damage etc.?
All good points. @grendel, hah! good point
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe thick mud did them in. If you can't efficiently close the distance between yourself and a ranged attacker, you will eventually get killed.
A more interesting study would involve testing charging across a very muddy field with armor, just a shield and on/of horse back. Would be interesting if the French could have won by not using horse or armor, just a shield and running. Obviously, the correct strategem was to not crose the field and go around and flank, or just wait for a better day to attack.
I don't think the Frenchmen who fought and died in battles like Verdun during WWI were sissies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just love these sweeping stereotypes and generalisations like the one you posted. It probably says more about you than the French.
Armor is not an exoskeleton: on original armor of the period the buckles and straps of each element are adjustable for many different physiques and circumstances (armor was lent, inherited, borrowed, bought, won; bodies grew thin or fat or old or people wore different padding under the armor). As you know from running around in the modern version of the stuff, it's the overheating that's the problem. Look at football players collapsing after a game--and they're usually fit to start with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn 1914 France had a population of just under 40 million. In the next 4+ years France had 6 MILLION casualties - virtually all male. To have the same effect america would have had to fight Vietnam to the level of 33 million casualties and Iraq or Afghanistan to the level of 45 million casualties. Let me know which country is the bigger "sissy".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust what was the track record of French knights attacking British archers? Morale has significant effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA lot of the criticisms are addressed in the original article itself. Here is a more detailed description from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-14203621. For starters, re-enactors with customized armour and historians were consulted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks everyone for the great comments. As a number of you have noted, there were a great number of reasons for the French defeat, not all of which could fit into the article (which originally ran in the magazine, and so was constrained for space). Perhaps the primary one from a strategic standpoint is that Henry V was able to coax the French men-at-arms to charge across the muddy field (it had rained the night before), which they did while suffering heavy fire from English longbows. As the men-at-arms in the front lines fell, they then formed an additional barrier that their countrymen had to navigate. The study looked at the additional effort required to swing armor-plated appendages through a typical range of motion. It was hard work, and tiresome. I think that the interesting takeaway is that so much history depends on the physical happenstance of individuals and the unintended consequences of technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModern tests (some good youtube videos too!) have shown that even as close as 20m range plate armour was proof against longbow arrows (as long as the gendarme kept his head down to protect his eyes). The French were able to close with the English and drive back their front line; I suspect they would all have been skewered hundreds of yards away if they were unarmoured.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStupid article conclusion: the French were so tired because of their armour that they lost the close combat so they should have left their armour at home and been wiped out by arrows hundreds of yards away.
Why don't they do some more clever stuff like suggesting that because so many US soldiers were killed when their Sherman tanks caught fire they should not have used tanks at all in WWII.