How much weight did knights carry?

Table of Contents Show

Social Media
Creative Commons Licence
How heavy was a suit of armour?
How much weight could a medieval horse carry?
How much would a knight weight?
How much weight could a war horse carry?

A complete suit of armour of a knight in the late 13th and early 14th century weighed about 30 to 35 kilogrammes. To us, this may seem heavy, but a knight was used to carry his equipment from very young childhood on. You could compare him to a modern top athlete who likewise achieve a top performance which normal people will not even get close to reaching. A knight in his suit of armour was likewise moveable. One of our employees, when wearing a reconstructed equipment of the 1330s can even make a flip. The moveability was first reduced considerably with the introduction of the (iron) plate armour and later the breast armour. He could still stand up by himself, even with this, assuming that he did not lose conscience after falling from his horse.

Question in the Native Language

Wie schwer war eine Ritterrüstung und warum war sie so schwer, dass ein Ritter alleine nicht mehr aufstehen konnte (DE)?

Eine komplette Ritterrüstung des späten13. bis frühen 14. Jahrhunderts wog circa 30 bis 35 Kilogramm. Dies hört sich für uns sehr schwer an, jedoch war der Ritter von frühester Jugend an daran gewöhnt, eine Rüstung zu tragen. Damit ist er modernen Hochleistungssportlern vergleichbar, die ebenfalls mühelos Leistungen schaffen, die der normale Mensch überhaupt nicht bewältigen kann. Entsprechend beweglich war ein gut trainierter Ritter in seiner Rüstung. Einer unserer Mitarbeiter kann in einer rekonstruierten Rüstung der Zeit um 1330 sogar einen Salto vorführen. Erst die Einführung des (Eisen-)Plattenpanzers und später der Brustharnische schränken die Bewegungsfähigkeit des Ritters wesentlich ein. Selbstständig aufstehen konnte er aber auch damit - vorausgesetzt, er war nach dem Sturz vom Pferde noch bei Bewusstsein.

EXARC

Creative Commons Licence

That medieval swords and armor were ‘heavy’ is one of the strangest misconceptions of medieval life. These people’s LIVES depended on their agility and ability to survive a fight. Why would they be wielding 20 pound swords and wearing armor so heavy if they fell of their horse, they’d find themselves as helpless as upturned turtles?

One reason for the confusion comes from the fact that ornamental swords and armor that remain to us often ARE heavier than ones used in battle, secondly, the sport of ‘fencing’ has greatly confused people as to what sword fighting really entailed (the purpose of fencing is to poke your opponent with the tip; the purpose of sword fighting is to get your opponent on the ground and shove your 2 lb. sword through his midsection to kill him), and thirdly, that in the late middle ages, the plate armor knights used specifically for jousting WERE heavier than normal so they could survive a straight shot to the chest from a lance. I have a children’s book that actually claims that a knight had to be helped onto his horse by two servants and a ladder.

No, no, no, no.

“Perhaps the most infamous example is the notion that “knights had to be hoisted into their saddles with a crane,” which is as absurd as it is persistent even among many historians. In other instances, certain technical details that escape an obvious explanation have become the focus of lurid and fantastically imaginative attempts to explain their original function. Among these, the lance rest, an object protruding from the proper right side of many breastplates, probably holds first place.” http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm

“From ordinary hands-on experience we know full well that swords were not excessively heavy nor did they weigh 10 or 15 pounds and more. There is only so many ways we can repeat how these weapons were not at all heavy or ungainly. Remarkably, while one would think a crucial piece of information as the weight of swords would be of great interest to arms curators and arms historians, there is no major reference book that actually lists the weights of different types. Perhaps this vacuum of documented evidence is part of the very problem surrounding the issue. However, there are a few respected sources that do give some valuable statistics. For example, the lengthy catalog of swords from the famed Wallace Collection Museum in London readily lists dozens of fine specimens among which it is difficult to find any weighing in excess of 4 pounds. Indeed, the majority of specimens, from arming swords to two-handers to rapiers, weigh much less than three pounds.

Despite frequent claims to the contrary, Medieval swords were indeed light, manageable, and on average weighed less than four pounds. As leading sword expert Ewart Oakeshott unequivocally stated: “Medieval Swords are neither unwieldably heavy nor all alike – the average weight of any one of normal size is between 2.5 lb. and 3.5 lbs. Even the big hand-and-a-half ‘war’ swords rarely weigh more than 4.5 lbs. Such weights, to men who were trained to use the sword from the age of seven (and who had to be tough specimens to survive that age) , were by no means too great to be practical.”(Oakeshott, Sword in Hand, p. 13). Oakeshott, the 20th century’s leading author and researcher of European swords would certainly know.” http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm

A major league baseball bat weighs roughly 32 ounces–essentially the same weight as a sword. And no knight is planning on hitting a baseball 200 yards. Around the world, the new/old practice of ‘European martial arts’ is springing up, because knights were martial artists, with all the maneuvers and kicks and elbow-to-the-nose of Asian martial arts. I have post about this here: https://sarahwoodbury.com/european-martial-arts/

If you’re interested in Dark Age and Medieval Armor, here’s another post: https://sarahwoodbury.com/darkageandmedievalarmor/ (Wow! This was my first post ever!)

Mail is very flexible (which meant that while it was effective against slashes and thrusts from swords, was far less so against forceful blows), and relatively light, with a hauberk weighing roughly twenty pounds. Plate is heavier, more like 45 pounds for a full suit, but with more evenly distributed weight. When properly fitted, a knight could move easily and fully in either mail or plate.

http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa041500b.htm

“An entire suit of field armor (that is, armor for battle) usually weighs between 45 and 55 lbs. (20 to 25 kg), with the helmet weighing between 4 and 8 lbs. (2 to 4 kg)—less than the full equipment of a fireman with oxygen gear, or what most modern soldiers have carried into battle since the nineteenth century. Moreover, while most modern equipment is chiefly suspended from the shoulders or waist, the weight of a well-fitted armor is distributed all over the body. It was not until the seventeenth century that the weight of field armor was greatly increased in order to render it bulletproof against ever more accurate firearms. At the same time, however, full armor became increasingly rare and only vital parts of the body, such as the head, torso, and hands, remained protected by metal plate.

The notion that the development of plate armor (completed by about 1420–30) greatly impaired a wearer’s mobility is also untrue. A harness of plate armor was made up of individual elements for each limb. Each element in turn consisted of lames (strips of metal) and plates, linked by movable rivets and leather straps, and thus allowing practically all of the body’s movements without any impairment due to rigidity of material. The widely held view that a man in armor could hardly move, and, once he had fallen to the ground, was unable to rise again, is also without foundation. On the contrary, historical sources tell us of the famous French knight Jean de Maingre (ca. 1366–1421), known as Maréchal Boucicault, who, in full armor, was able to climb up the underside of a ladder using only his hands. Furthermore, there are several illustrations from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance depicting men-at-arms, squires, or knights, all in full armor, mounting horses without help or instruments such as ladders or cranes. Modern experiments with genuine fifteenth- and sixteenth-century armor as well as with accurate copies have shown that even an untrained man in a properly fitted armor can mount and dismount a horse, sit or lie on the ground, get up again, run, and generally move his limbs freely and without discomfort.” http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm

My son informs me that a few years ago when he downloaded a patch for a game–Skyrim–it finally made weapons and armor the proper weight. Apparently, the original game had swords weighing 10 pounds!

How heavy was a suit of armour?

An entire suit of field armor (that is, armor for battle) usually weighs between 45 and 55 lbs. (20 to 25 kg), with the helmet weighing between 4 and 8 lbs. (2 to 4 kg)—less than the full equipment of a fireman with oxygen gear, or what most modern soldiers have carried into battle since the nineteenth century.

How much weight could a medieval horse carry?

Allowing for the weight of the rider and other equipment, horses can carry approximately 30% of their weight; thus such loads could certainly be carried by a heavy riding horse in the 1,200 to 1,300 pounds (540 to 590 kg) range, and a draught horse was not needed.

How much would a knight weight?

The armor would be slightly heavier - 45 to 65 pounds - and if he was a rich soldier, he might ride a slightly heavier horse into battle, but it would still be far smaller than the draft horses employed by modern jousting enthusiasts. Mounted and armed, I can't see him weighing more than perhaps 1600 pounds.

How much weight could a war horse carry?

It is commonly believed that these great warhorses were developed during the middle ages to support the weight of the armored knight. In actuality, a good suit of armor seldom weighed over 70 pounds. When the weight of the rider was added, the horse would still only be expected to carry 250 to 300 pounds.