How tall are suits of armor

Throughout medieval Europe, swords were the chief weapon of knights and mounted men-at-arms. In times of peace, however, generally speaking only noblemen were allowed to carry a sword in public. An exception to this rule was granted to travelers citizens, merchants, even pilgrims due to the inherent dangers of travel by land and sea. Within the walls of most medieval cities, however, the carrying of swords was generally prohibited for everyone—sometimes even nobility—at least during times of peace.

Standardized measures for the trade, usually attached prominently to medieval churches or city halls, often also included examples of the permissible length of daggers or swords that could be carried inside city walls without fear of penalty.

It is undoubtedly due to such regulations that the sword was transformed into an exclusive symbol of both the warrior class and knightly status. Yet, due to social changes and newly evolved fighting techniques during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, it became gradually acceptable for civilians and noblemen alike to carry the lighter and thinner successor of the sword, the rapier, as an everyday weapon for self-defense in public.

Indeed, until the early nineteenth century, rapiers and smallswords became an indispensable dress accessory for the European gentleman. The reasons for these allegations are easily explained. Due to the rarity of genuine specimens, few people have ever handled a medieval or Renaissance sword. Furthermore, practically all of these swords—with rare exceptions—are in excavated condition.

Their corroded appearance today, which can easily give the impression of crudity, can be compared to that of a burnt-out car, having lost all signs of its former glory and sophistication. The majority of genuine medieval and Renaissance swords tell a different story. Whereas a single-handed sword on average weighed 2—4 lbs.

With the length of the blade skillfully counterbalanced by the weight of the pommel, these swords were light, sophisticated, and sometimes beautifully decorated. As illustrated by documents and works of art, such a sword, in the hands of a skilled warrior, could be used with terrible efficiency, capable of severing limbs and even cutting through armor.

Swords as well as some daggers, whether European, Islamic , or Asian , often have one or more grooves extending down one or both sides or faces of the blade. Consequently, such grooves should correctly be referred to as either a groove or a fuller, or by another appropriate technical term. On a number of European edged weapons, such as swords, rapiers, and daggers as well as some staff weapons, these grooves show elaborately cut and pierced perforations.

Similar perforations can be found on Indian and Near Eastern edged weapons. First, the perforations resulted in a loss of material and accordingly served to make the blade lighter.

If further proof is wanted, one only need point to the fact that the majority of these perforations are usually found near the hilt grip and guard of the weapon and not closer to the blade, as one would expect were the weapon to carry poison.

Breiding, Dirk H. Visiting The Met? Mail Shirt Bechler. Parrying Dagger. Misconceptions and Questions Relating to Armor 1. Armor was worn only by knights. Women of earlier times never fought in battle or wore armor. Armor was so expensive that only princes and rich nobility could afford it. Armor is extremely heavy and renders its wearer immobile. Knights had to be hoisted into their saddles with cranes. How did men in armor go to the toilet? The military salute originates from the raising of a visor.

How long did it take to make a suit of armor? Details of armor: the lance rest and the codpiece explained. Did Vikings wear horns on their helmets? Armor became obsolete because of firearms. The size of armor indicates that people in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were smaller. Only knights were allowed to carry swords. Swords are heavy and crude weapons. Central Europe including Germany , — A. I also noticed that many of these "short hilt" swords tend to have a relatively large circular pommel.

Could there be some advantage in a short grip when holding such a sword? For reference I am enclosing a full scale pic of my sword Attachment: 7. Posted: Mon 19 May, am Post subject:. I'm very envious , where on earth did you pick that up from? My own recent studies on similar pieces seem to indicate quite a short grip. As for the actual size of medieval nights , As far as I can tell the average height may only have been a little shorter than now there is one suit of armour in leeds that is about 6ft 7 and another in the tower that is even taller!!

There is quite a bit of variance in the heights as far as I can tell, thing is I know short people with huge hands and tall people with fine hands Im not sure if we should be talking about grip lengths in proportion to height?! Digging deep in the bowels of my memory I seem to remember the average height in the 9th 10th century seems to have been around 5ft 8 vikings avaraged at about 5ft 10 to 6ft, however viking swords tend towards short grips?.

I think it is entirely possible there is a good practical reason for the shorter grips? Best, M. Jan, Would it be too off-topic to ask you a couple of more detailed pictures of that lovely sword? Anyway, congratulations, really. Sorry about the original question, but I have no idea at all why some swords Especially early medieval ones have grips that "seem" too short.

But I don't think there is always a strictly direct correlation between human height, hand's width and a particular sword grip's length during a given time period. I have far more knowledge of contemporary weapons firearms than ancient ones. The upper classes were by and large on par with heights today, while the lower classes suffered somewhat in height as well as other issues produced by poor or limited diet.

That being said weight in general or at least body mass seems to have been a bit lower if the sizes of surviving pieces are any indicator. I have owned several breast plates over the years that are of the correct height for some one of my height bottom edge of the breast plate at the height of the lowest rib of the rib cage but were very tight in the upper chest.

One explaination i've heard for this is the idea that this level of society seldom walked but rather road everywhere. A fair portion of the world today owns cars and drives most places, so one would expect to see the same result in modern humans but this does not seem to necessarily be the case so I find the above explaination suspect.

For the calves, I wonder if they are thin because they are being held on it part by the springiness of the metal, as opposed to slapping around as the wearer walked. Not sure about the small chest thing, though. You'd think, given the mucking great weapons they were swinging, they would have rather large chests. Fun stuff! Exhibited was the coat that Lenin wore when he was shot [poorly] by Fanni Kaplan. Even then it struck me how tiny it was. Man was a midget.

As has been noted, diet and lifestyle overall had and still have a lot to do with stature; this was also true of disease; serious illness was liable to have much more pronounced effects on human bodies in an era with little medical knowledge and almost no provision of useful medical care for the afflicted.

These men tended to suffer from any number of maladies, including malnutrition, rickets, bisinosis, black lung All of them endured poor diets, damaging housing and atrocious working conditions. Even the upper classes, despite their generally superior lifestyle, were not immune. To take another 19th-Century example, Capt. Lawrence Oates of Scott fame , whose mess waistcoat is preserved in our collection, really must have been rather lacking in stature.

That garment would hardly fit me, and I'm not exactly hefty. As an aside, a friend of mine who has been working out incessantly since he was around 15 and is an accomplished martial artist, and all round great bloke to boot is, despite his good diet etc, around 5ft 9in. His brother is around 6ft 1in, having not been quite such a fitness fanatic.

Perhaps constant hard exercise, especially in the important youthful growth period, stunts one somewhat. Thanks for the information on the greaves.

Oddly, I'm still a bit puzzled about the chest, but whatever. I guess core muscles and shoulders do the job. As for hard work stunting a body, I can make the opposite case.

I'm rather large, and I've always had trouble doing martial arts things that smaller people could do easily. What was getting me was the square-cube proportionality law. My wrists and ankles and other major joints aren't a lot larger than those of someone who is a foot shorter than I am the square: joint surface area , but I weigh a lot more the cube: weight. As a result, I stress my joints a lot harder when I move than does someone who is shorter and lighter.

That's why a gymnast throwing a couple of flips isn't nearly as impressive as a football player doing the same move. The gymnast isn't as close to blowing her joints as the big guy is.

I've seen some ex football players do some pretty impressive moves given their size, and they have my respect. Does working hard stunt growth? But at the same time, a smaller person may be more comfortable with the moves of a martial artist, causing them to stick with the practice where someone who is bigger has to endure more stress injuries. My tuppence, F edit P. Last edited by fearn; 21st July at AM. Each Jointed Suit of Armor measures a whopping six feet tall, which gives off an authentic vibe.

Comes one per package. Product Features This realistic suit of armor is jointed so it is easy to bend in half to ship and store Each jointed knight cutout measures six 6 feet in height by twenty-four 24 inches at widest point of shoulders Printed on front side on cardstock material Each package includes one 1 jointed cutout. Product Code: