New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Medieval Armor: Was It Worth the Weight?

Treadmill tests of volunteers in medieval armor revealed that the extra work required to move in the suits may have outweighed their protective benefits. Cynthia Graber reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Medieval armor certainly looks heavy. And now researchers have demonstrated how the protection might have unwittingly put its wearers at a heavy disadvantage on the battlefield.

An armored combatant in the 1400s had between about 60 to 110 pounds of steel on his head and body. The scientists wanted to know how that weight affected performance. They recruited battle experts from the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds, in the U.K., who got into replicas of four types of European armor.

The weighted warriors then walked and ran on a treadmill while the research team measured their oxygen intake. Wearing the armor turned out to be a much greater burden than carrying the same weight in a backpack. Because the distribution of weight in the armor requires the wearer to use more energy to swing his arms or move his legs. The scientists published the research in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. [Citation to come.]


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Armor wearers also wound up taking short, shallow breaths rather than the deep breaths associated with regular exertion. The researchers say that the tight, metal shell may have made the soldiers feel safer. But being weighted down probably made it a long day for a knight.

—Cynthia Graber

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe