Swimming in armor

[Gene Tausk]

"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 "

Good. Cite it, because I can't find it either and I agree with Lafayette on this.

[Benjamin Parker]

Do you think I bothered with the page number?

[Benjamin Parker]

You agree that the cavalry was heavier?

[Gene Tausk]

Do you think I bothered with the page number?

I asked you to cite the reference to which you refer. Either you can find the reference and cite it word for word, or you cannot. Page numbers are not required. If you find the cite, then I can refer to my own copy of the work and find it as well.

It's not rocket science.

[Brent Lambell]

It's not rocket science.

Yep, its history. Any historian worth his salt cites his sources, formally or informally. If you don't cite, then you are just pulling out random, unsubstantiated factoids. I do not mean to critique, but I just finished a healthy sized research paper on the Mongolian Empire and if I ever have to make another footnote or cite another source again, it will be too soon.

[Peter Goranov]

Guys i think you are all getting carried away. Has anyone here ever tried swimming in his every day clothes? I have, and even jeans and a shirt are more than enough to make it very exhausting. Granted i am no Olympics swimming champion, but a pair of jeans isn't full plate either. Also, the first historical reference that popped to mind when i saw the topic was emperor Barbarossa drowning when he jumped in the river in full armour:

June 10, 1190: Wearing heavy armor, Frederick Barbarossa drowns in the Saleph River in Cilcia, after which the German forces of the Third Crusade fall apart and are devastated by Muslim attacks.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Veg was talking about infantry also the era he's talking about the cavalry was fairly light

No. Just to take some quotations from Vegetius:

The manner of arming the troops comes next under consideration. But the method of the ancients no longer is followed. For though after the example of the Goths, the Alans and the Huns, we have made some improvements in the arms of the cavalry,

In like manner the Decurion is to be preferred to the command of a troop for his activity and address in mounting his horse completely armed; for his skill in riding and in the use of the lance and bow; for his attencion in forming his men to all the evolutions of the cavaIry; and for his care in obliging them to keep their cuirasses, lances and helmets always bright and in good order.

It's pretty clear that--at least in Vegetius's opinion--the cavalry of his time was no lighter than in "ancient times," and the heavier portion ("men with cuirasses and lances") might have actually been heavier. It's also worth noting that Procopius, writing of 6th-century Eastern Roman (Byzantine) troops, said that one of the best things about the Roman horse archers of his time was their heavy armor.

also I do remember a spot where he said infantry needed to be able to swim in full gear

Where? I can easily find injunctions that infantry had to practice swimming, and also that they had to be able to march in full gear, but none where they had to swim in full armor and weaponry.

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

Um...Vegetius's statement directly contradicts this:

The manner of arming the troops comes next under consideration. But the method of the ancients no longer is followed. For though after the example of the Goths, the Alans and the Huns, we have made some improvements in the arms of the cavalry, yet it is plain the infantry are entirely defenseless. From the foundation of the city till the reign of the Emperor Gratian, the foot wore cuirasses and helmets. But negligence and sloth having by degrees introduced a total relaxation of discipline, the soldiers began to think their armor too heavy, as they seldom put it on. They first requested leave from the Emperor to lay aside the cuirass and afterwards the helmet. In consequence of this, our troops in their engagements with the Goths were often overwhelmed with their showers of arrows. Nor was the necessity of obliging the infantry to resume their cuirasses and helmets discovered, notwithstanding such repeated defeats, which brought on the destruction of so many great cities.

Vegetius is obviously railing against how the infantry of his time had discarded their armor, and that he wanted them to take it (armor) up again--a fairly common opinion among Late Roman military thinkers.

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

Vault into their saddles and climb ladders with only their arms in a full plate harness? Those things sound plausible, and indeed I think I can dig up an old of the Companie of Saynt George journal that specifically quotes medieval sources about these feats. But swimming in armor? You entirely lost me there.

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

The only thing I can find there that even remotely resembles this assertion is your own post:

I've read that medieval knight's were also trained to run, jump, swim, climb, and to vault into their horse's saddle.

which doesn't even mention anything about swimming in armor!

[Benjamin Parker]

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

Um...Vegetius's statement directly contradicts this:

The manner of arming the troops comes next under consideration. But the method of the ancients no longer is followed. For though after the example of the Goths, the Alans and the Huns, we have made some improvements in the arms of the cavalry, yet it is plain the infantry are entirely defenseless. From the foundation of the city till the reign of the Emperor Gratian, the foot wore cuirasses and helmets. But negligence and sloth having by degrees introduced a total relaxation of discipline, the soldiers began to think their armor too heavy, as they seldom put it on. They first requested leave from the Emperor to lay aside the cuirass and afterwards the helmet. In consequence of this, our troops in their engagements with the Goths were often overwhelmed with their showers of arrows. Nor was the necessity of obliging the infantry to resume their cuirasses and helmets discovered, notwithstanding such repeated defeats, which brought on the destruction of so many great cities.

Vegetius is obviously railing against how the infantry of his time had discarded their armor, and that he wanted them to take it (armor) up again--a fairly common opinion among Late Roman military thinkers.

Well there I have to disagree as does the archeaological evidence and Goldsworthy

Also I said early roman cavalry was fairly light I never said late roman cavalry wasn't light

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

Vault into their saddles and climb ladders with only their arms in a full plate harness? Those things sound plausible, and indeed I think I can dig up an old of the Companie of Saynt George journal that specifically quotes medieval sources about these feats. But swimming in armor? You entirely lost me there.

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

The only thing I can find there that even remotely resembles this assertion is your own post:

I've read that medieval knight's were also trained to run, jump, swim, climb, and to vault into their horse's saddle.

which doesn't even mention anything about swimming in armor![/quote]

Well it's in there my point is if they can do that surely they could swim in armor

[Sal Bertucci]

So you're stating that just b/c someone has trained to run, jump, swim, climb, and vault on their horse this would logically mean they could swim in full armor? Is that correct?

I know that you're mostly here to ask questions, but I think you're aren't thinking this one through, and just want to doggedly hang on to your opinion.

By your assumptions I should be able to swim in armor too, b/c I have been trained to do everything but vault onto a horse. (which I'm sure I could get down with a couple weeks practice)

The task is amazingly difficult even if you were JUST wearing the suit of plate, but I have never seen in any historical drawings, or even modern reenactments where they only wore the plate. I've noticed several mail halberks worn underneath the suit, and I'm fairly certain that at least a gambeson would be worn. (which would absorb water once it was wet and be even heavier)

Given the fact there this thread has shown that fully armored persons have fallen into rivers and drowned instead of swimming out of it, and that the roman legions were advised to float their armor across rivers etc. as well as the difficulty in swimming in modern casual clothes. All pointing to the fact that it wasn't encouraged, much less that they trained for it.

On the opposite end we had you, with your only support being you uncertain memory and "logic" saying that it makes sense that they would.

You're free to believe whatever you want, but I think you need to do a bit more homework on this topic.

[Stacy Clifford]

As I said at the beginning, it all comes down to buoyancy. Buoyant objects must have less mass than the same volume of water that they would displace. A naked human body is a little bit less dense than water. If you add clothing and armor, you are only expanding the volume a little bit, but you are increasing the mass a lot, meaning that you are increasing your overall density. In an average sized human being that is going to mean you become more dense than water and therefore sink. The only way to counteract this is to create downforce against the water by swimming. The more dense you are, the greater the force you have to create. Considering that swimming in just a swimsuit is already fairly hard work, swimming in armor would be much, much harder and would exhaust you much faster. Add struggling against the current of a river and you are asking the near impossible. The only other possibility is to have enough volume to prevent the armor from raising your density above that of water. So in other words, the only way you can swim in armor is to be either incredibly powerful or incredibly fat.

[Benjamin Parker]

So in other words, the only way you can swim in armor is to be either incredibly powerful

Which those dudes were

[Benjamin Parker]

So you're stating that just b/c someone has trained to run, jump, swim, climb, and vault on their horse this would logically mean they could swim in full armor? Is that correct?

You seem to have 'forgotten' all the other aspects of a knights training that I pointed out such as climbing a ladder using only your arms


I know that you're mostly here to ask questions, but I think you're aren't thinking this one through, and just want to doggedly hang on to your opinion.

And I think you should be a little more respectful

By your assumptions I should be able to swim in armor too, b/c I have been trained to do everything but vault onto a horse. (which I'm sure I could get down with a couple weeks practice)

Those guys trained for years were ridicously strong and as I said all suits weigh different amounts also wouldn't the 'bulge' on a breastplate provide buoyancy?

The task is amazingly difficult even if you were JUST wearing the suit of plate, but I have never seen in any historical drawings, or even modern reenactments where they only wore the plate. I've noticed several mail halberks worn underneath the suit, and I'm fairly certain that at least a gambeson would be worn. (which would absorb water once it was wet and be even heavier)

several hauberks? what era? perhaps your thinking goussets?

Given the fact there this thread has shown that fully armored persons have fallen into rivers and drowned instead of swimming out of it, and that the roman legions were advised to float their armor across rivers etc. as well as the difficulty in swimming in modern casual clothes. All pointing to the fact that it wasn't encouraged, much less that they trained for it.

A seg weighs around ten pounds full mail wighs around twenty pounds gothic plate thirty which a person said they could swim in thirty pounds of armor, also the people who drowned were usually in three quater plate which ironically weighs more than earlier designs of full plate

On the opposite end we had you, with your only support being you uncertain memory and "logic" saying that it makes sense that they would.

Perhaps you should read my posts


You're free to believe whatever you want, but I think you need to do a bit more homework on this topic.

And as I said before you need to be more respectful and read my posts

[Gene Tausk]

Mr. Parker:

Don't come on our forum and plea that people should be "respectful" to you. You have advocated a patently ridiculous argument: that a person can swim in full armor (be it plate, maille, whatever).

You have provided no evidence for this claim, despite being asked to do so. You have provided no historical evidence other than "I know its there." Sorry, that doesn't fly, not here anyway. Provide evidence - there are plenty of examples of how to do this on this forum.

Stacy has explained in language that even I can understand as to why it is next to impossible for a person in armor to swim.

Either provide historical evidence for your claim, which you have so far failed to do, or go back to playing World of Warcraft (where no doubt knights can swim in armor) and stay off of our forums.

We don't cater to fantasy here.

[s_taillebois]

In the historical period not all the people fighting were in the condition to be "powerful". So Mr. Parkers belief might be the effect more of modern perception than one which could fit reality of the time.

For example the British contingent that eventually fought at Agincourt were actually in abysmal condition in part because the chevelche had overrun its logistics. They had been reduced to eating the mollusks from rivers, which had in turn been eating the sewage from the medieval towns down river. It was remarkable they could stand and fight at Agincourt insofar as they were starved, exhausted and sick.

If they had been asked to swim a river, harness or not, its improbable that many would have gotten very far.

Additionally if the yeomanry is considered at times their diet was actually better than ours (In England for example it was heavy on the legumes and meat/Fish/birds (god help the magpies and sparrows at harvest because lower orders certainly helped themselves to them), breads were common but sugars were much scarcer). But they were also subject to seasonal food shortages and the catastrophic famines and epidemics which our society has generally not experienced. So they may have been tough but the effect of their living conditions often precluded their having our body mass. And malnutrition weakens bone, at many medieval burials bone pitting and such were evident.

In regards to the lower orders, even the mode of living for the children would have affected their body type. Children of the period began heavy labor at a fairly early age, one of the effects of that is a distortion of the ability of the growth plates in bone to fully develop.

And some of the effects of their martial training would have made swimming any major distance problematic. Based on studies from the dead at places like Towton, such problems as shoulder impingement's would have been common in groups of soldiers such as archers. As were arthritic distortions of forearms and other joints. So these men may have been tough, but they would have been subject to conditions which today would require surgeries and substantial pain killers. (their pain killers were things like hemlock and opium and obviously alcohol, under those it would seem finding a river let alone swimming could be difficult) Swimming a cold river, after an exhausting battle, in the heavy clothing of the period may have been nigh onto impossible for these men.

It was remarkable enough they could do what they did do, without needing to add mythological traits of swimming rivers and vaulting over mountains.

[Stacy Clifford]

So in other words, the only way you can swim in armor is to be either incredibly powerful

Which those dudes were

Not any more so than an elite modern athlete, and I would not expect Michael Phelps to be able to swim in armor, nor a professional wrestler or anyone else, not for more than a few yards at most. The drowning rate of training for such a thing would be absurd, unless you believe everyone could swim in armor the first time they tried it. They didn't have CPR or lifeguards or Olympic-sized pools to train in back then, and even today people sometimes drown trying to save others even without the added bulk of armor. You're making a weak argument for a feat only a few genetic freaks might ever be able to perform due to the simple laws of physics and anatomy.

And no, the bulge on a breastplate wouldn't provide any buoyancy because suits of armor do not come with watertight seals to keep air in. When metal boats fill up with water, they sink. 150 years of naval warfare is predicated on this concept, it's not difficult. Even if it were watertight, there is not enough space between the body and the armor to hold enough air to offset the weight of the armor. If there was, you'd look like a metal inflatable sumo. Try fighting in that.

As for respect, you can't get any when you're not giving any. Plenty of educated and intelligent people have weighed in on your question, quoted source material directly and cited scientific principles which are easily looked up, and not a single one has found support for your conclusion. To answer them you have quoted incomplete memories of sources that other people here own copies of, yet you can't be bothered to do a little work to hunt down a page number to back up your assertions while your opponents are doing exactly that. You're the one not showing any respect. We ARE reading your posts, Mr. Parker (as much as we can between your failures to use the quote feature properly), and that is exactly why we are not impressed.