Medieval Armor: It Really Sucked To Run In

July 21, 2011


According to a recent treadmill test conducted by the University of Leeds, walking or running in full medieval armor takes twice the energy as running with your dangle slapping against your legs like your family pennant against a castle wall on a windy day. Really?! Who would have thought wearing 30-50kg (66-110 pounds) of metal would wear a person out? No, the only time wearing something that heavy is gonna make you faster is when it's a f***ing jetpack.

The effect of the heavy armour was so great, that the researchers believe it may have have had an impact on the Battle of Agincourt.

In this famous Anglo-French conflict of 1415, French knights were defeated by their English counterparts, despite the fact that they heavily outnumbered them.

The researchers say their study suggests that the armour-clad French, who had to trek through a muddy field to meet the stationary English line, were so slowed and exhausted by their march that they would have stood little chance.

Wow, you'd think that would be a no-brainer. It's been 500 years and you had to have people run on a treadmill in armor to find out how bad wearing armor sucked (minus the whole protection thing)? This just in: wearing armor while riding a horse not nearly as bad as running around in it. Shocking, I know (give me credit in the study, a-holes).

Hit the jump for some poor sap struttin' that ass on the treadmill in full shining armor.

Treadmill knight [universityofleeds]
Treadmill shows medieval armour influenced battles [bbcnews]

Thanks to Sir John (I see what you did there) and abbie82, who would've opted to only wear Under Armour and probably been amongst the first to die in battle.

Previous Post
Next Post