Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)

I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?

Carol

A very good question. I still can't work out how Richard's helm was pulled off so easily. I can see that a sallet would be, but not one fastened, as it were, under the chin; must have taken a fair bit of tugging. Over to the battle experts.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:09
Subject: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)

 

I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?

Carol

Carol
As armor was developed to combat new technology i.e. bodkin arrow heads that would effectively pierce plate or steel, the price went up till only the very rich could afford a full armor. Lesser people would only wear a helmet and thick leather jerkin occasionaly if they could afford it chain mail over the top. The helmets for the majority were not dissimilar from the wide brimmed helmets favored by the British and American troops during the 1st WW.
As it was the habit to stick your ready arrows in the ground by your side this unintentionally added biological warfare even to a non life thretening puncture wound antiseptics were unknown and wounds were treated with honey or quaterized, the mortality rate for the rank and file was substantially higher than the armored leaders who would remain in a vantage point overseeing the battle directing charges and attacks. Richards charge though not unknown was very atypical though as has been said in this forum he had been known to make quick and in this case fatal decisions.
Battle for the masses was a very brutal affair with the basic weapon being a farm implement and with little or no battlefield care, lethal for all but minor wounds The next time that we see similar outcomes would be the development of the machine gun though the final modern idea of an atomic bomb which puts all in its shadow.
George

http://thecastlecourt.com/shop/armor/battle-helmets

wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow

http://www.military-history.org/articles/war-of-the-roses/15th-century-armour.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NqC_squo6X4#!




On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:09 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
>
> Carol
>
>

I noticed in one of the videos that the helmet stopped about mouth area. That leaves the very delicate and critical neck open to swords. If the helmet was just put on like a hat, it seems like it could be easily knocked off. How were they affixed? I am looking forward to the answers by those in the know !
Pamela

On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:09 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?

Carol

Hi Hilary and Carol, I have an interest in armour. 
Armour did not protect as well as  you might think, a good thump with a poleaxe may not cut but the force of the blow could damage ribs,skull etc.
Richard wasn't the only one to loose his helmet, according to the reports of the battle Jack Howard Duke of Norfolk leading Richard's van was attacked by Oxford and lost his helmet, then was hit by an arrow in the eye which killed him.
I have a sallet and it just fastens with a leather strap which could easily be broken if hit hard.
As Richard had a severe wound to the back of his head, possbly from behind I think, the blow would push the sallet forward and could have broken the strap.
Loyaulte me Lie
 


________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:18
Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)


 

A very good question. I still can't work out how Richard's helm was pulled off so easily. I can see that a sallet would be, but not one fastened, as it were, under the chin; must have taken a fair bit of tugging. Over to the battle experts.

________________________________
From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:09
Subject: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)

 

I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?

Carol

I am also still rather puzzled. At least now I don't have to envisage loss of helmet, and loss of crown from helmet into hawthorn bush as well! I think we have an expert from the Royal Armouries at the 2nd March conference, so he may be able to shed some light on this.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> A very good question. I still can't work out how Richard's helm was pulled off so easily. I can see that a sallet would be, but not one fastened, as it were, under the chin; must have taken a fair bit of tugging. Over to the battle experts.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:09
> Subject: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
>
>  
>
> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

The neck was protected, as was the lower part of the face, but I'll leave it to George to explain.
Marie

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> I noticed in one of the videos that the helmet stopped about mouth area. That leaves the very delicate and critical neck open to swords. If the helmet was just put on like a hat, it seems like it could be easily knocked off. How were they affixed? I am looking forward to the answers by those in the know !
> Pamela
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:09 AM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
>
>
>
> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Christine, that's very useful. So it could have come off at the time of the fatal blow - never thought of that.?Thought it would be more like getting a jumper off over your head, if you see what I mean.



________________________________
From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:44
Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)

 

Hi Hilary and Carol, I have an interest in armour. 
Armour did not protect as well as  you might think, a good thump with a poleaxe may not cut but the force of the blow could damage ribs,skull etc.
Richard wasn't the only one to loose his helmet, according to the reports of the battle Jack Howard Duke of Norfolk leading Richard's van was attacked by Oxford and lost his helmet, then was hit by an arrow in the eye which killed him.
I have a sallet and it just fastens with a leather strap which could easily be broken if hit hard.
As Richard had a severe wound to the back of his head, possbly from behind I think, the blow would push the sallet forward and could have broken the strap.
Loyaulte me Lie
 


________________________________
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:18
Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)


 

A very good question. I still can't work out how Richard's helm was pulled off so easily. I can see that a sallet would be, but not one fastened, as it were, under the chin; must have taken a fair bit of tugging. Over to the battle experts.

________________________________
From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:09
Subject: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)

 

I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?

Carol

The biology bit is very interesting. Stupidly never thought of germs from earth - could even have led to tetanus afterwards?



________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:42
Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)

Carol
As armor was developed to combat new technology  i.e. bodkin arrow heads that would effectively pierce plate or steel, the price went up till only the very rich could afford a full armor. Lesser people would only wear a helmet and thick leather jerkin occasionaly if they could afford it chain mail over the top. The helmets for the majority were not dissimilar from the wide brimmed helmets favored by the British and American troops during the 1st WW.
As it was the habit to stick your ready arrows in the ground by your side this unintentionally added biological warfare even to a non life thretening puncture wound antiseptics were unknown and wounds were treated with honey or quaterized, the mortality rate for the rank and file was substantially higher than the armored leaders who would remain in a vantage point overseeing the battle directing charges and attacks. Richards charge though not unknown was very atypical  though as has been said in this forum he had been known to make quick and in this case fatal decisions.
Battle for the masses was a very brutal affair with the basic weapon being a farm implement and with little or no battlefield care, lethal for all but minor wounds The next time that we see similar outcomes would be the development of the machine gun though the final modern idea of an atomic bomb which puts all in its shadow.
George

http://thecastlecourt.com/shop/armor/battle-helmets

wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow

http://www.military-history.org/articles/war-of-the-roses/15th-century-armour.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NqC_squo6X4#!




On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:09 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
>
> Carol
>
>







------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi Marie, the back was not protected, the front was protected by what is called a bevor.
There would be a chain mail standard round the neck which was like a high collar but this would not stop the helmet being knoked off, I have some experience of this.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:53
Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)


 

The neck was protected, as was the lower part of the face, but I'll leave it to George to explain.
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> I noticed in one of the videos that the helmet stopped about mouth area. That leaves the very delicate and critical neck open to swords. If the helmet was just put on like a hat, it seems like it could be easily knocked off. How were they affixed? I am looking forward to the answers by those in the know !
> Pamela
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:09 AM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
>
>
>
> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Richard would not have been wearing a sallet - those were for ordinary soldiers. I can't find a particularly good image but the second one on this site at least give a feel for the level of protection and how easy or not it might have been to cut the ties on the helm and tip it off:-

http://www.armourdesign.dial.pipex.com/


Marie




, C HOLMES wrote:
>
> Hi Hilary and Carol, I have an interest in armour. 
> Armour did not protect as well as  you might think, a good thump with a poleaxe may not cut but the force of the blow could damage ribs,skull etc.
> Richard wasn't the only one to loose his helmet, according to the reports of the battle Jack Howard Duke of Norfolk leading Richard's van was attacked by Oxford and lost his helmet, then was hit by an arrow in the eye which killed him.
> I have a sallet and it just fastens with a leather strap which could easily be broken if hit hard.
> As Richard had a severe wound to the back of his head, possbly from behind I think, the blow would push the sallet forward and could have broken the strap.
> Loyaulte me Lie
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: ""
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:18
> Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
>
>
>  
>
> A very good question. I still can't work out how Richard's helm was pulled off so easily. I can see that a sallet would be, but not one fastened, as it were, under the chin; must have taken a fair bit of tugging. Over to the battle experts.
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:09
> Subject: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
>
>  
>
> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, it chimes in with what I was wondering, which is that perhaps the fatal injury might have been caused by the weapon being used to push the helm up off Richard's head from behind. If the blow was applied downwards, I would have thought it would have ended up in his upper back.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Thanks Christine, that's very useful. So it could have come off at the time of the fatal blow - never thought of that.?Thought it would be more like getting a jumper off over your head, if you see what I mean.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: C HOLMES
> To: ""
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:44
> Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
>
>  
>
> Hi Hilary and Carol, I have an interest in armour. 
> Armour did not protect as well as  you might think, a good thump with a poleaxe may not cut but the force of the blow could damage ribs,skull etc.
> Richard wasn't the only one to loose his helmet, according to the reports of the battle Jack Howard Duke of Norfolk leading Richard's van was attacked by Oxford and lost his helmet, then was hit by an arrow in the eye which killed him.
> I have a sallet and it just fastens with a leather strap which could easily be broken if hit hard.
> As Richard had a severe wound to the back of his head, possbly from behind I think, the blow would push the sallet forward and could have broken the strap.
> Loyaulte me Lie
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:18
> Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
>
>
>  
>
> A very good question. I still can't work out how Richard's helm was pulled off so easily. I can see that a sallet would be, but not one fastened, as it were, under the chin; must have taken a fair bit of tugging. Over to the battle experts.
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:09
> Subject: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
>
>  
>
> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, there was chainmail - the back of the neck was protected. Whether the helmet could be knocked off is a different question. Also, the armour worn by top knights seems to have been state-of-the-art in terms of design and protection. I'm waiting for our royal Armouries guy to explain - he showed us photos of some amazing suits of armour (gold) of the standard that ould have been worn by kings, and the sort of helms they wore.
Marie



--- In , C HOLMES wrote:
>
> Hi Marie, the back was not protected, the front was protected by what is called a bevor.
> There would be a chain mail standard round the neck which was like a high collar but this would not stop the helmet being knoked off, I have some experience of this.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:53
> Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
>
>
>  
>
> The neck was protected, as was the lower part of the face, but I'll leave it to George to explain.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > I noticed in one of the videos that the helmet stopped about mouth area. That leaves the very delicate and critical neck open to swords. If the helmet was just put on like a hat, it seems like it could be easily knocked off. How were they affixed? I am looking forward to the answers by those in the know !
> > Pamela
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:09 AM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NqC_squo6X4#!

This is a lecture given by the dept. head at the Metropolitan Museum were they have one of the most comprehensive collections of arms and armor. This lecture is well worth watching as it fills in many gaps in our understanding as well as what we think we know about knights.
I strongly recommend it

George


On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:44 AM, C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:

> Hi Hilary and Carol, I have an interest in armour.
> Armour did not protect as well as you might think, a good thump with a poleaxe may not cut but the force of the blow could damage ribs,skull etc.
> Richard wasn't the only one to loose his helmet, according to the reports of the battle Jack Howard Duke of Norfolk leading Richard's van was attacked by Oxford and lost his helmet, then was hit by an arrow in the eye which killed him.
> I have a sallet and it just fastens with a leather strap which could easily be broken if hit hard.
> As Richard had a severe wound to the back of his head, possbly from behind I think, the blow would push the sallet forward and could have broken the strap.
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:18
> Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
>
>
>
>
> A very good question. I still can't work out how Richard's helm was pulled off so easily. I can see that a sallet would be, but not one fastened, as it were, under the chin; must have taken a fair bit of tugging. Over to the battle experts.
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:09
> Subject: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
>
>
>
> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Or worse....

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:54 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



The biology bit is very interesting. Stupidly never thought of germs from earth - could even have led to tetanus afterwards?

________________________________
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:42
Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)

Carol
As armor was developed to combat new technology i.e. bodkin arrow heads that would effectively pierce plate or steel, the price went up till only the very rich could afford a full armor. Lesser people would only wear a helmet and thick leather jerkin occasionaly if they could afford it chain mail over the top. The helmets for the majority were not dissimilar from the wide brimmed helmets favored by the British and American troops during the 1st WW.
As it was the habit to stick your ready arrows in the ground by your side this unintentionally added biological warfare even to a non life thretening puncture wound antiseptics were unknown and wounds were treated with honey or quaterized, the mortality rate for the rank and file was substantially higher than the armored leaders who would remain in a vantage point overseeing the battle directing charges and attacks. Richards charge though not unknown was very atypical though as has been said in this forum he had been known to make quick and in this case fatal decisions.
Battle for the masses was a very brutal affair with the basic weapon being a farm implement and with little or no battlefield care, lethal for all but minor wounds The next time that we see similar outcomes would be the development of the machine gun though the final modern idea of an atomic bomb which puts all in its shadow.
George

http://thecastlecourt.com/shop/armor/battle-helmets

wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow<http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow>

http://www.military-history.org/articles/war-of-the-roses/15th-century-armour.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NqC_squo6X4#!

On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:09 AM, justcarol67 justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:

> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
>
> Carol
>
>



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Well of course even full armour was a harness and had "joints" for
manoeuvrability, and it has been demonstrated by the experts that there
were a number of vulnerable points on the body even with this, notably
the armpits, raise the arm to strike a blow, the belly and crotch area,
the throat, unless a bevor was also worn, and even the eye slit in a
sallet could be used to stab through. As for Richard having his helm
strapped on as per the last WW, this was not the case, a sallet being
fitted to the head, the bevor held on with a strap to the back of the
neck, so a heavy side blow could dislodge a helm, but it was not the
thing a mounted knight expected. Full armour weighed 60 lbs or more and
as one expert says made the wearer breathless, sluggish, and subject to
rapid fatigue, "adding to the holocaust of English nobles during the
WOTR as it made escape when things went wrong exceptionally difficult".
And no steel could resist a pike or hammer blow.
Paul


On 13/02/2013 16:42, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I noticed in one of the videos that the helmet stopped about mouth area. That leaves the very delicate and critical neck open to swords. If the helmet was just put on like a hat, it seems like it could be easily knocked off. How were they affixed? I am looking forward to the answers by those in the know !
> Pamela
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:09 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

...I'm actually going to the Metropolitan Museum in less than an hour to look at
that wing for completely un-Richard-related reasons (I work in one-on-one
childcare- somewhere between "babysitter" and "nanny", and the four-year-old boy
I work with today wants to "go see the knights", so that's the plan after I pick
him up from school). I haven't got an actual camera on me, but I could try to
take some camera phone photos of armor from the appropriate era and share them
here later today, if that would help the discussion.



________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 12:15:43 PM
Subject: Re: Intresting and FACTUAL lecture on armor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NqC_squo6X4#!

This is a lecture given by the dept. head at the Metropolitan Museum were they
have one of the most comprehensive collections of arms and armor. This lecture
is well worth watching as it fills in many gaps in our understanding as well as
what we think we know about knights.
I strongly recommend it

George


On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:44 AM, C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
wrote:

> Hi Hilary and Carol, I have an interest in armour.
> Armour did not protect as well as you might think, a good thump with a poleaxe
>may not cut but the force of the blow could damage ribs,skull etc.
> Richard wasn't the only one to loose his helmet, according to the reports of
>the battle Jack Howard Duke of Norfolk leading Richard's van was attacked by
>Oxford and lost his helmet, then was hit by an arrow in the eye which killed
>him.
> I have a sallet and it just fastens with a leather strap which could easily be
>broken if hit hard.
> As Richard had a severe wound to the back of his head, possbly from behind I
>think, the blow would push the sallet forward and could have broken the strap.
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> To: ""
>>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:18
> Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs
>you)
>
>
>
>
> A very good question. I still can't work out how Richard's helm was pulled off
>so easily. I can see that a sallet would be, but not one fastened, as it were,
>under the chin; must have taken a fair bit of tugging. Over to the battle
>experts.
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:09
> Subject: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
>
>
>
> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some
>of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it.
>If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head),
>why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in
>battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor?
>Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and
>sallets?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>







------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Thanks George will do



________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 17:15
Subject: Re: Intresting and FACTUAL lecture on armor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NqC_squo6X4#!

This is a lecture given by the dept. head at the Metropolitan Museum were they have one of the most comprehensive collections of arms and armor. This lecture is well worth watching as it fills in many gaps in our understanding as well as what we think we know about knights.
I strongly recommend it

George


On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:44 AM, C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:

> Hi Hilary and Carol, I have an interest in armour.
> Armour did not protect as well as  you might think, a good thump with a poleaxe may not cut but the force of the blow could damage ribs,skull etc.
> Richard wasn't the only one to loose his helmet, according to the reports of the battle Jack Howard Duke of Norfolk leading Richard's van was attacked by Oxford and lost his helmet, then was hit by an arrow in the eye which killed him.
> I have a sallet and it just fastens with a leather strap which could easily be broken if hit hard.
> As Richard had a severe wound to the back of his head, possbly from behind I think, the blow would push the sallet forward and could have broken the strap.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:18
> Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
>
>
> 
>
> A very good question. I still can't work out how Richard's helm was pulled off so easily. I can see that a sallet would be, but not one fastened, as it were, under the chin; must have taken a fair bit of tugging. Over to the battle experts.
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:09
> Subject: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
>
> 
>
> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>







------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

I haven't been to the Met in several years. Do they still have the long line of knights in armor in one of the wings? During my college years, I spent a lot of time in the medieval section - it was fabulous. Maire.
--- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> ...I'm actually going to the Metropolitan Museum in less than an hour to look at
> that wing for completely un-Richard-related reasons (I work in one-on-one
> childcare- somewhere between "babysitter" and "nanny", and the four-year-old boy
> I work with today wants to "go see the knights", so that's the plan after I pick
> him up from school). I haven't got an actual camera on me, but I could try to
> take some camera phone photos of armor from the appropriate era and share them
> here later today, if that would help the discussion.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield
> To:
> Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 12:15:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Intresting and FACTUAL lecture on armor
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NqC_squo6X4#!
>
> This is a lecture given by the dept. head at the Metropolitan Museum were they
> have one of the most comprehensive collections of arms and armor. This lecture
> is well worth watching as it fills in many gaps in our understanding as well as
> what we think we know about knights.
> I strongly recommend it
>
> George
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:44 AM, C HOLMES
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Hilary and Carol, I have an interest in armour.
> > Armour did not protect as well as you might think, a good thump with a poleaxe
> >may not cut but the force of the blow could damage ribs,skull etc.
> > Richard wasn't the only one to loose his helmet, according to the reports of
> >the battle Jack Howard Duke of Norfolk leading Richard's van was attacked by
> >Oxford and lost his helmet, then was hit by an arrow in the eye which killed
> >him.
> > I have a sallet and it just fastens with a leather strap which could easily be
> >broken if hit hard.
> > As Richard had a severe wound to the back of his head, possbly from behind I
> >think, the blow would push the sallet forward and could have broken the strap.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> > To: ""
> >>
> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:18
> > Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs
> >you)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > A very good question. I still can't work out how Richard's helm was pulled off
> >so easily. I can see that a sallet would be, but not one fastened, as it were,
> >under the chin; must have taken a fair bit of tugging. Over to the battle
> >experts.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:09
> > Subject: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
> >
> >
> >
> > I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some
> >of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it.
> >If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head),
> >why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in
> >battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor?
> >Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and
> >sallets?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Fascinating post, Paul. If what they say about these suits is true, why wouldn't Richard stop for a drink of water? Makes perfect sense to me. Maire.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Well of course even full armour was a harness and had "joints" for
> manoeuvrability, and it has been demonstrated by the experts that there
> were a number of vulnerable points on the body even with this, notably
> the armpits, raise the arm to strike a blow, the belly and crotch area,
> the throat, unless a bevor was also worn, and even the eye slit in a
> sallet could be used to stab through. As for Richard having his helm
> strapped on as per the last WW, this was not the case, a sallet being
> fitted to the head, the bevor held on with a strap to the back of the
> neck, so a heavy side blow could dislodge a helm, but it was not the
> thing a mounted knight expected. Full armour weighed 60 lbs or more and
> as one expert says made the wearer breathless, sluggish, and subject to
> rapid fatigue, "adding to the holocaust of English nobles during the
> WOTR as it made escape when things went wrong exceptionally difficult".
> And no steel could resist a pike or hammer blow.
> Paul
>
>
> On 13/02/2013 16:42, Pamela Bain wrote:
> > I noticed in one of the videos that the helmet stopped about mouth area. That leaves the very delicate and critical neck open to swords. If the helmet was just put on like a hat, it seems like it could be easily knocked off. How were they affixed? I am looking forward to the answers by those in the know !
> > Pamela
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:09 AM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

I think so- the last time I was in that wing was sometime around summer 2011 (I
spend most of my time there in the Egyptian and Greco-Roman wings), and I think
that was there. I'll let you know when I get back and try to bring some photos
and notes with me.

This is another one of those odd timing-is-everything things that's been popping
up for us Ricardians lately, it seems.




________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 12:28:21 PM
Subject: Re: Intresting and FACTUAL lecture on armor



I haven't been to the Met in several years. Do they still have the long line of
knights in armor in one of the wings? During my college years, I spent a lot of
time in the medieval section - it was fabulous. Maire.
--- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> ...I'm actually going to the Metropolitan Museum in less than an hour to look
>at
>
> that wing for completely un-Richard-related reasons (I work in one-on-one
> childcare- somewhere between "babysitter" and "nanny", and the four-year-old
>boy
>
> I work with today wants to "go see the knights", so that's the plan after I
>pick
>
> him up from school). I haven't got an actual camera on me, but I could try to
> take some camera phone photos of armor from the appropriate era and share them

> here later today, if that would help the discussion.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield
> To:
> Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 12:15:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Intresting and FACTUAL lecture on
armor
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NqC_squo6X4#!
>
> This is a lecture given by the dept. head at the Metropolitan Museum were they

> have one of the most comprehensive collections of arms and armor. This lecture

> is well worth watching as it fills in many gaps in our understanding as well as
>
> what we think we know about knights.
> I strongly recommend it
>
> George
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:44 AM, C HOLMES
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Hilary and Carol, I have an interest in armour.
> > Armour did not protect as well as you might think, a good thump with a
>poleaxe
>
> >may not cut but the force of the blow could damage ribs,skull etc.
> > Richard wasn't the only one to loose his helmet, according to the reports of

> >the battle Jack Howard Duke of Norfolk leading Richard's van was attacked by
> >Oxford and lost his helmet, then was hit by an arrow in the eye which killed
> >him.
> > I have a sallet and it just fastens with a leather strap which could easily
>be
>
> >broken if hit hard.
> > As Richard had a severe wound to the back of his head, possbly from behind I

> >think, the blow would push the sallet forward and could have broken the
strap.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> > To: ""
> >>
> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:18
> > Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs
> >you)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > A very good question. I still can't work out how Richard's helm was pulled
>off
>
> >so easily. I can see that a sallet would be, but not one fastened, as it were,
>
> >under the chin; must have taken a fair bit of tugging. Over to the battle
> >experts.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:09
> > Subject: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
> >
> >
> >
> > I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some
>
> >of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer
>it.
>
> >If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the
>head),
>
> >why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in

> >battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the
>armor?
>
> >Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks
>and
>
> >sallets?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

If you were "lucky" enough to die of tetanus I would suggest that septicemia would have killed them far sooner remember that wounds were dressed in torn up clothing or rags, hands were not washed and we had to wait for soap.
If you want to see an example of a hospital go to Brugge in Belgium.

http://www.brugge.be/internet/en/musea/Hospitaalmuseum/index.htm

Probably would not be placed high on my list for a place to go for a transplant!

George

On Feb 13, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> Or worse....
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:54 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The biology bit is very interesting. Stupidly never thought of germs from earth - could even have led to tetanus afterwards?
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:42
> Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
>
> Carol
> As armor was developed to combat new technology i.e. bodkin arrow heads that would effectively pierce plate or steel, the price went up till only the very rich could afford a full armor. Lesser people would only wear a helmet and thick leather jerkin occasionaly if they could afford it chain mail over the top. The helmets for the majority were not dissimilar from the wide brimmed helmets favored by the British and American troops during the 1st WW.
> As it was the habit to stick your ready arrows in the ground by your side this unintentionally added biological warfare even to a non life thretening puncture wound antiseptics were unknown and wounds were treated with honey or quaterized, the mortality rate for the rank and file was substantially higher than the armored leaders who would remain in a vantage point overseeing the battle directing charges and attacks. Richards charge though not unknown was very atypical though as has been said in this forum he had been known to make quick and in this case fatal decisions.
> Battle for the masses was a very brutal affair with the basic weapon being a farm implement and with little or no battlefield care, lethal for all but minor wounds The next time that we see similar outcomes would be the development of the machine gun though the final modern idea of an atomic bomb which puts all in its shadow.
> George
>
> http://thecastlecourt.com/shop/armor/battle-helmets
>
> wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow<http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow>
>
> http://www.military-history.org/articles/war-of-the-roses/15th-century-armour.htm
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NqC_squo6X4#!
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:09 AM, justcarol67 justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I have been studying Bosworth for 20 years and have never come across
all these detailed accounts that people are posting!
Odd that I have not seen that Norfolk was killed by an arrow after
having his helm knocked off anywhere but this forum!
Where are you people getting this stuff from? I'm sure all the other
writers on the battle would love to know as they've missed it all too!
Paul

On 13/02/2013 16:44, C HOLMES wrote:
> Hi Hilary and Carol, I have an interest in armour.
> Armour did not protect as well as you might think, a good thump with a poleaxe may not cut but the force of the blow could damage ribs,skull etc.
> Richard wasn't the only one to loose his helmet, according to the reports of the battle Jack Howard Duke of Norfolk leading Richard's van was attacked by Oxford and lost his helmet, then was hit by an arrow in the eye which killed him.
> I have a sallet and it just fastens with a leather strap which could easily be broken if hit hard.
> As Richard had a severe wound to the back of his head, possbly from behind I think, the blow would push the sallet forward and could have broken the strap.
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:18
> Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
>
>
>
>
> A very good question. I still can't work out how Richard's helm was pulled off so easily. I can see that a sallet would be, but not one fastened, as it were, under the chin; must have taken a fair bit of tugging. Over to the battle experts.
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:09
> Subject: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
>
>
>
> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Certainly a wound would be septic very quickly. The one thing going for them, is there nothing was pasteurized, cleaned, or anything we view as necessary. Baths were few, food was eaten in season or not at all. Water was polluted by animals, people and whatever. So, they probably had a much higher resistance level than modern patients. But a deep would, certainly, if one lived over it, be life changing. It was only in modern times that the standards we demand have become common. And that is certainly not everywhere, even now.






From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of George Butterfield
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:32 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)



If you were "lucky" enough to die of tetanus I would suggest that septicemia would have killed them far sooner remember that wounds were dressed in torn up clothing or rags, hands were not washed and we had to wait for soap.
If you want to see an example of a hospital go to Brugge in Belgium.

http://www.brugge.be/internet/en/musea/Hospitaalmuseum/index.htm

Probably would not be placed high on my list for a place to go for a transplant!

George

On Feb 13, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:

> Or worse....
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:54 AM, "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The biology bit is very interesting. Stupidly never thought of germs from earth - could even have led to tetanus afterwards?
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:42
> Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
>
> Carol
> As armor was developed to combat new technology i.e. bodkin arrow heads that would effectively pierce plate or steel, the price went up till only the very rich could afford a full armor. Lesser people would only wear a helmet and thick leather jerkin occasionaly if they could afford it chain mail over the top. The helmets for the majority were not dissimilar from the wide brimmed helmets favored by the British and American troops during the 1st WW.
> As it was the habit to stick your ready arrows in the ground by your side this unintentionally added biological warfare even to a non life thretening puncture wound antiseptics were unknown and wounds were treated with honey or quaterized, the mortality rate for the rank and file was substantially higher than the armored leaders who would remain in a vantage point overseeing the battle directing charges and attacks. Richards charge though not unknown was very atypical though as has been said in this forum he had been known to make quick and in this case fatal decisions.
> Battle for the masses was a very brutal affair with the basic weapon being a farm implement and with little or no battlefield care, lethal for all but minor wounds The next time that we see similar outcomes would be the development of the machine gun though the final modern idea of an atomic bomb which puts all in its shadow.
> George
>
> http://thecastlecourt.com/shop/armor/battle-helmets
>
> wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbowhttp://wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow>
>
> http://www.military-history.org/articles/war-of-the-roses/15th-century-armour.htm
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NqC_squo6X4#<http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NqC_squo6X4>!
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:09 AM, justcarol67 justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

The Met Museum( NYC) has a wonderful wing on medieval weapons and armors . I have never checked it out until December and those helmets from the 15 th century seems very strong. I am no expert but I can't imagine how that thing could be removed without the enemy soldiers holding you down and wrenching the thing off your head..... Shuddering at the though!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:44 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

> I am also still rather puzzled. At least now I don't have to envisage loss of helmet, and loss of crown from helmet into hawthorn bush as well! I think we have an expert from the Royal Armouries at the 2nd March conference, so he may be able to shed some light on this.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > A very good question. I still can't work out how Richard's helm was pulled off so easily. I can see that a sallet would be, but not one fastened, as it were, under the chin; must have taken a fair bit of tugging. Over to the battle experts.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:09
> > Subject: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
> >
> >
> >
> > I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Marie for goodness sakes think!
Richard did not take place in any fighting until the charge. Are you
suggesting, in order to preserve your legend, that half way across to
Henry Tudor he suddenly stopped, got off his horse and took a drink,
then jumped back on and continued the charge?
Ridiculous isn't it?
Paul

On 13/02/2013 17:31, mairemulholland wrote:
> Fascinating post, Paul. If what they say about these suits is true, why wouldn't Richard stop for a drink of water? Makes perfect sense to me. Maire.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>> Well of course even full armour was a harness and had "joints" for
>> manoeuvrability, and it has been demonstrated by the experts that there
>> were a number of vulnerable points on the body even with this, notably
>> the armpits, raise the arm to strike a blow, the belly and crotch area,
>> the throat, unless a bevor was also worn, and even the eye slit in a
>> sallet could be used to stab through. As for Richard having his helm
>> strapped on as per the last WW, this was not the case, a sallet being
>> fitted to the head, the bevor held on with a strap to the back of the
>> neck, so a heavy side blow could dislodge a helm, but it was not the
>> thing a mounted knight expected. Full armour weighed 60 lbs or more and
>> as one expert says made the wearer breathless, sluggish, and subject to
>> rapid fatigue, "adding to the holocaust of English nobles during the
>> WOTR as it made escape when things went wrong exceptionally difficult".
>> And no steel could resist a pike or hammer blow.
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 13/02/2013 16:42, Pamela Bain wrote:
>>> I noticed in one of the videos that the helmet stopped about mouth area. That leaves the very delicate and critical neck open to swords. If the helmet was just put on like a hat, it seems like it could be easily knocked off. How were they affixed? I am looking forward to the answers by those in the know !
>>> Pamela
>>>
>>> On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:09 AM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

It's not that he woudn't have drunk, Maire - ask any modern athlete or dancer, again, and they will tell you they make sure to stay well hydrated. It's just that dickon's well is not where the battle is now known to have been fought.
Marie

--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Fascinating post, Paul. If what they say about these suits is true, why wouldn't Richard stop for a drink of water? Makes perfect sense to me. Maire.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Well of course even full armour was a harness and had "joints" for
> > manoeuvrability, and it has been demonstrated by the experts that there
> > were a number of vulnerable points on the body even with this, notably
> > the armpits, raise the arm to strike a blow, the belly and crotch area,
> > the throat, unless a bevor was also worn, and even the eye slit in a
> > sallet could be used to stab through. As for Richard having his helm
> > strapped on as per the last WW, this was not the case, a sallet being
> > fitted to the head, the bevor held on with a strap to the back of the
> > neck, so a heavy side blow could dislodge a helm, but it was not the
> > thing a mounted knight expected. Full armour weighed 60 lbs or more and
> > as one expert says made the wearer breathless, sluggish, and subject to
> > rapid fatigue, "adding to the holocaust of English nobles during the
> > WOTR as it made escape when things went wrong exceptionally difficult".
> > And no steel could resist a pike or hammer blow.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 13/02/2013 16:42, Pamela Bain wrote:
> > > I noticed in one of the videos that the helmet stopped about mouth area. That leaves the very delicate and critical neck open to swords. If the helmet was just put on like a hat, it seems like it could be easily knocked off. How were they affixed? I am looking forward to the answers by those in the know !
> > > Pamela
> > >
> > > On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:09 AM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

I know. It's just that little touch of human need is what makes this myth so attractive. maire.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> It's not that he woudn't have drunk, Maire - ask any modern athlete or dancer, again, and they will tell you they make sure to stay well hydrated. It's just that dickon's well is not where the battle is now known to have been fought.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Fascinating post, Paul. If what they say about these suits is true, why wouldn't Richard stop for a drink of water? Makes perfect sense to me. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > Well of course even full armour was a harness and had "joints" for
> > > manoeuvrability, and it has been demonstrated by the experts that there
> > > were a number of vulnerable points on the body even with this, notably
> > > the armpits, raise the arm to strike a blow, the belly and crotch area,
> > > the throat, unless a bevor was also worn, and even the eye slit in a
> > > sallet could be used to stab through. As for Richard having his helm
> > > strapped on as per the last WW, this was not the case, a sallet being
> > > fitted to the head, the bevor held on with a strap to the back of the
> > > neck, so a heavy side blow could dislodge a helm, but it was not the
> > > thing a mounted knight expected. Full armour weighed 60 lbs or more and
> > > as one expert says made the wearer breathless, sluggish, and subject to
> > > rapid fatigue, "adding to the holocaust of English nobles during the
> > > WOTR as it made escape when things went wrong exceptionally difficult".
> > > And no steel could resist a pike or hammer blow.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > On 13/02/2013 16:42, Pamela Bain wrote:
> > > > I noticed in one of the videos that the helmet stopped about mouth area. That leaves the very delicate and critical neck open to swords. If the helmet was just put on like a hat, it seems like it could be easily knocked off. How were they affixed? I am looking forward to the answers by those in the know !
> > > > Pamela
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:09 AM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>

Err...it's Maire, thank you, not Marie. OK, he didn't take a drink of water; I stand corrected. mm

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Marie for goodness sakes think!
> Richard did not take place in any fighting until the charge. Are you
> suggesting, in order to preserve your legend, that half way across to
> Henry Tudor he suddenly stopped, got off his horse and took a drink,
> then jumped back on and continued the charge?
> Ridiculous isn't it?
> Paul
>
> On 13/02/2013 17:31, mairemulholland wrote:
> > Fascinating post, Paul. If what they say about these suits is true, why wouldn't Richard stop for a drink of water? Makes perfect sense to me. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >> Well of course even full armour was a harness and had "joints" for
> >> manoeuvrability, and it has been demonstrated by the experts that there
> >> were a number of vulnerable points on the body even with this, notably
> >> the armpits, raise the arm to strike a blow, the belly and crotch area,
> >> the throat, unless a bevor was also worn, and even the eye slit in a
> >> sallet could be used to stab through. As for Richard having his helm
> >> strapped on as per the last WW, this was not the case, a sallet being
> >> fitted to the head, the bevor held on with a strap to the back of the
> >> neck, so a heavy side blow could dislodge a helm, but it was not the
> >> thing a mounted knight expected. Full armour weighed 60 lbs or more and
> >> as one expert says made the wearer breathless, sluggish, and subject to
> >> rapid fatigue, "adding to the holocaust of English nobles during the
> >> WOTR as it made escape when things went wrong exceptionally difficult".
> >> And no steel could resist a pike or hammer blow.
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >> On 13/02/2013 16:42, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >>> I noticed in one of the videos that the helmet stopped about mouth area. That leaves the very delicate and critical neck open to swords. If the helmet was just put on like a hat, it seems like it could be easily knocked off. How were they affixed? I am looking forward to the answers by those in the know !
> >>> Pamela
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:09 AM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
> >>>
> >>> Carol
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

I dunno. They did have soap, and I once read a book by Carol Rawcliffe on medieval hospitals. The surviving rules mention nurses in Paris, for instance, having to wash all the bedlinen until every stain was completely removed. Tig Lang's work on 15th century surgeons has shown they used infusions of herbs, which would have been antiseptic, to flush out the wound. Just think how many of those Towton skeletons had incurred major injuries in the past that had healed up. I bet some of the herbs believed to promite healing, such as dittany, were also antiseptic. A lot of practices actually got worse later.
Marie

--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> If you were "lucky" enough to die of tetanus I would suggest that septicemia would have killed them far sooner remember that wounds were dressed in torn up clothing or rags, hands were not washed and we had to wait for soap.
> If you want to see an example of a hospital go to Brugge in Belgium.
>
> http://www.brugge.be/internet/en/musea/Hospitaalmuseum/index.htm
>
> Probably would not be placed high on my list for a place to go for a transplant!
>
> George
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > Or worse....
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:54 AM, "Hilary Jones" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The biology bit is very interesting. Stupidly never thought of germs from earth - could even have led to tetanus afterwards?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... >
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:42
> > Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
> >
> > Carol
> > As armor was developed to combat new technology i.e. bodkin arrow heads that would effectively pierce plate or steel, the price went up till only the very rich could afford a full armor. Lesser people would only wear a helmet and thick leather jerkin occasionaly if they could afford it chain mail over the top. The helmets for the majority were not dissimilar from the wide brimmed helmets favored by the British and American troops during the 1st WW.
> > As it was the habit to stick your ready arrows in the ground by your side this unintentionally added biological warfare even to a non life thretening puncture wound antiseptics were unknown and wounds were treated with honey or quaterized, the mortality rate for the rank and file was substantially higher than the armored leaders who would remain in a vantage point overseeing the battle directing charges and attacks. Richards charge though not unknown was very atypical though as has been said in this forum he had been known to make quick and in this case fatal decisions.
> > Battle for the masses was a very brutal affair with the basic weapon being a farm implement and with little or no battlefield care, lethal for all but minor wounds The next time that we see similar outcomes would be the development of the machine gun though the final modern idea of an atomic bomb which puts all in its shadow.
> > George
> >
> > http://thecastlecourt.com/shop/armor/battle-helmets
> >
> > wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow
> >
> > http://www.military-history.org/articles/war-of-the-roses/15th-century-armour.htm
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NqC_squo6X4#!
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:09 AM, justcarol67 justcarol67@... > wrote:
> >
> >> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

I've never heard that detail about Norfolk either, Paul. Where is it from?
Marie

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> I have been studying Bosworth for 20 years and have never come across
> all these detailed accounts that people are posting!
> Odd that I have not seen that Norfolk was killed by an arrow after
> having his helm knocked off anywhere but this forum!
> Where are you people getting this stuff from? I'm sure all the other
> writers on the battle would love to know as they've missed it all too!
> Paul
>
> On 13/02/2013 16:44, C HOLMES wrote:
> > Hi Hilary and Carol, I have an interest in armour.
> > Armour did not protect as well as you might think, a good thump with a poleaxe may not cut but the force of the blow could damage ribs,skull etc.
> > Richard wasn't the only one to loose his helmet, according to the reports of the battle Jack Howard Duke of Norfolk leading Richard's van was attacked by Oxford and lost his helmet, then was hit by an arrow in the eye which killed him.
> > I have a sallet and it just fastens with a leather strap which could easily be broken if hit hard.
> > As Richard had a severe wound to the back of his head, possbly from behind I think, the blow would push the sallet forward and could have broken the strap.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To: ""
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:18
> > Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > A very good question. I still can't work out how Richard's helm was pulled off so easily. I can see that a sallet would be, but not one fastened, as it were, under the chin; must have taken a fair bit of tugging. Over to the battle experts.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:09
> > Subject: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
> >
> >
> >
> > I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

The vast majority of armoured casualties in the wars were inflicted in the route as one side gave way and ran for it. This was certainly the case with Warwick, who was dragged from his horse when trying to escape the field and killed; the Duke of York went much the same way. When a man is overwhelmed by numbers and grounded he is virtually helpless, armour or no.
Very few men in plate armour would have suffered fatal wounds in the hand-to-hand combat of the melee; this is why men would spend so much on a good suit of armour (and why many men who qualified for knighthood chose not to accept it, paying a fine instead).

This is why I have questioned the high casualties listed at Bosworth despite there being no record of a route after the battle, the Royal army having given up and surrendered on news of the King's death.

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 19:56
Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)


 
Marie for goodness sakes think!
Richard did not take place in any fighting until the charge. Are you
suggesting, in order to preserve your legend, that half way across to
Henry Tudor he suddenly stopped, got off his horse and took a drink,
then jumped back on and continued the charge?
Ridiculous isn't it?
Paul

On 13/02/2013 17:31, mairemulholland wrote:
> Fascinating post, Paul. If what they say about these suits is true, why wouldn't Richard stop for a drink of water? Makes perfect sense to me. Maire.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>> Well of course even full armour was a harness and had "joints" for
>> manoeuvrability, and it has been demonstrated by the experts that there
>> were a number of vulnerable points on the body even with this, notably
>> the armpits, raise the arm to strike a blow, the belly and crotch area,
>> the throat, unless a bevor was also worn, and even the eye slit in a
>> sallet could be used to stab through. As for Richard having his helm
>> strapped on as per the last WW, this was not the case, a sallet being
>> fitted to the head, the bevor held on with a strap to the back of the
>> neck, so a heavy side blow could dislodge a helm, but it was not the
>> thing a mounted knight expected. Full armour weighed 60 lbs or more and
>> as one expert says made the wearer breathless, sluggish, and subject to
>> rapid fatigue, "adding to the holocaust of English nobles during the
>> WOTR as it made escape when things went wrong exceptionally difficult".
>> And no steel could resist a pike or hammer blow.
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 13/02/2013 16:42, Pamela Bain wrote:
>>> I noticed in one of the videos that the helmet stopped about mouth area. That leaves the very delicate and critical neck open to swords. If the helmet was just put on like a hat, it seems like it could be easily knocked off. How were they affixed? I am looking forward to the answers by those in the know !
>>> Pamela
>>>
>>> On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:09 AM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Marie
I know that some hospitals did have a rudimentary idea of hygiene, however field hospitals were not in general use till about the time of the Crimea and this also started so called modern nursing with Florence Nightingale.
I have an extensive medical library dealing with European mainly English medicine and the use of herbs in the form of poultices. these were mainly administered by either barber surgeons or monks, apart from wrapping the wounds little was done in situ Sadly the high quality of medicine developed by the Arabs/Greeks and brought back from the crusades had been lost.
The early form of soap was lye soap a particular caustic form that I don't believe was used in day to day personal hygiene but in washing clothes.
Though there are many examples of post trauma survival a lot of people were hurt in their daily work this is especially true in viewing mass burials as the mass would be your common man.
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:06 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

> I dunno. They did have soap, and I once read a book by Carol Rawcliffe on medieval hospitals. The surviving rules mention nurses in Paris, for instance, having to wash all the bedlinen until every stain was completely removed. Tig Lang's work on 15th century surgeons has shown they used infusions of herbs, which would have been antiseptic, to flush out the wound. Just think how many of those Towton skeletons had incurred major injuries in the past that had healed up. I bet some of the herbs believed to promite healing, such as dittany, were also antiseptic. A lot of practices actually got worse later.
> Marie
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > If you were "lucky" enough to die of tetanus I would suggest that septicemia would have killed them far sooner remember that wounds were dressed in torn up clothing or rags, hands were not washed and we had to wait for soap.
> > If you want to see an example of a hospital go to Brugge in Belgium.
> >
> > http://www.brugge.be/internet/en/musea/Hospitaalmuseum/index.htm
> >
> > Probably would not be placed high on my list for a place to go for a transplant!
> >
> > George
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > Or worse....
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:54 AM, "Hilary Jones" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The biology bit is very interesting. Stupidly never thought of germs from earth - could even have led to tetanus afterwards?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... >
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:42
> > > Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
> > >
> > > Carol
> > > As armor was developed to combat new technology i.e. bodkin arrow heads that would effectively pierce plate or steel, the price went up till only the very rich could afford a full armor. Lesser people would only wear a helmet and thick leather jerkin occasionaly if they could afford it chain mail over the top. The helmets for the majority were not dissimilar from the wide brimmed helmets favored by the British and American troops during the 1st WW.
> > > As it was the habit to stick your ready arrows in the ground by your side this unintentionally added biological warfare even to a non life thretening puncture wound antiseptics were unknown and wounds were treated with honey or quaterized, the mortality rate for the rank and file was substantially higher than the armored leaders who would remain in a vantage point overseeing the battle directing charges and attacks. Richards charge though not unknown was very atypical though as has been said in this forum he had been known to make quick and in this case fatal decisions.
> > > Battle for the masses was a very brutal affair with the basic weapon being a farm implement and with little or no battlefield care, lethal for all but minor wounds The next time that we see similar outcomes would be the development of the machine gun though the final modern idea of an atomic bomb which puts all in its shadow.
> > > George
> > >
> > > http://thecastlecourt.com/shop/armor/battle-helmets
> > >
> > > wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow
> > >
> > > http://www.military-history.org/articles/war-of-the-roses/15th-century-armour.htm
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NqC_squo6X4#!
> > >
> > > On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:09 AM, justcarol67 justcarol67@... > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
> > >>
> > >> Carol
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Carol
> As armor was developed to combat new technology i.e. bodkin arrow heads that would effectively pierce plate or steel, the price went up till only the very rich could afford a full armor. Lesser people would only wear a helmet and thick leather jerkin occasionaly if they could afford it chain mail over the top. The helmets for the majority were not dissimilar from the wide brimmed helmets favored by the British and American troops during the 1st WW.
[snip]
> Battle for the masses was a very brutal affair with the basic weapon being a farm implement and with little or no battlefield care, lethal for all but minor wounds The next time that we see similar outcomes would be the development of the machine gun though the final modern idea of an atomic bomb which puts all in its shadow.

Carol responds:

Thank you, George. But most of the casualties listed for WOTP battles are members of the nobility. I know that some, such as the Earl of Salisbury at Wakefield, were captured and killed after the battle, and it's quite unclear how the Duke of York and his son Edmund of Rutland died, but how about Warwick and Montagu at Barnet or Norfolk at Bosworth? I'm sure that there are plenty of other examples, but these are the ones that pop into my mind as I type. it's the idea that a knight (meaning a rich man who could afford plate armor, who probably would hold at least that rank) could die in battle despite his expensive armor that I'm concerned about. (I'm not talking about Richard here; his armor seemed to protect him up to the moment that he lost his helmet.)

Carol

Carol

Little guy didn't want to stay at the Met for too long, so I didn't get to
investigate much, but what kind of timeframe would we be looking at to gather a
rough idea of armor contemporary to Richard's, even if there are no true
contemporaries there? I'm not sure how quickly armor tended to evolve, but I can
return there at some point this week and come back with some diagrams/general
observations.




________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 5:36:55 PM
Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)


George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Carol
> As armor was developed to combat new technology i.e. bodkin arrow heads that
>would effectively pierce plate or steel, the price went up till only the very
>rich could afford a full armor. Lesser people would only wear a helmet and thick
>leather jerkin occasionaly if they could afford it chain mail over the top. The
>helmets for the majority were not dissimilar from the wide brimmed helmets
>favored by the British and American troops during the 1st WW.
[snip]
> Battle for the masses was a very brutal affair with the basic weapon being a
>farm implement and with little or no battlefield care, lethal for all but minor
>wounds The next time that we see similar outcomes would be the development of
>the machine gun though the final modern idea of an atomic bomb which puts all in
>its shadow.
>

C HOLMES wrote:
>
> Hi Hilary and Carol, I have an interest in armour. 
> Armour did not protect as well as  you might think, a good thump with a poleaxe may not cut but the force of the blow could damage ribs,skull etc.
> Richard wasn't the only one to loose his helmet, according to the reports of the battle Jack Howard Duke of Norfolk leading Richard's van was attacked by Oxford and lost his helmet, then was hit by an arrow in the eye which killed him.
> I have a sallet and it just fastens with a leather strap which could easily be broken if hit hard.
> As Richard had a severe wound to the back of his head, possbly from behind I think, the blow would push the sallet forward and could have broken the strap.


Carol responds;

Thanks, Christine. I thought that sallets (little salad-bowl-shaped helmets, hence the name) were worn along with jocks (leather jackets) by the common foot soldiers. I'm not sure what the sallets were made of, but I thought they were distinct from the helmets worn by the nobility (which were not, I think, the helmets with visors or "beavers" that we usually picture, though I could very easily be wrong.)

Carol

I know there were no gfield hospitals, George. I didn't think I'd assumed there were. Battles in England were fought not far from centres of population, and those lucky enough to be able to make it away could get seen to. The Towton team seem to believe a lot of the men whose bones they have examined show signs of previous battle injuries that had healed. Tig Lang, who has done a lot of work on medieval medicine, including translating the Philomena, a book by Henry IV's surgeon John Bradmore on his most successful and unusual operations, is very impressed with what she has discovered about the surgeons, though not so much the doctors. I've attended several of her talks. Bradmore washed out the wounds with liquid steeped in herbs. One of his operations was to save the life of a man who had tried to commit suicide by running himself through with a sword. It had gone in his stomach and stuck out the back. Bradmore's methods were exemplary. It is many years since I heard the details, but as I recall, because he didn't know what damage there was to the insides he basically gave the man something to give him constipation, flushed out his insides with herbal liquid, packed the wound to stop it closing completely until he was sure everything was healing inside without infectin, then after three weeks sewed up the wound and gave him an enema and hoped to God it had worked. It had.
Marie


--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Marie
> I know that some hospitals did have a rudimentary idea of hygiene, however field hospitals were not in general use till about the time of the Crimea and this also started so called modern nursing with Florence Nightingale.
> I have an extensive medical library dealing with European mainly English medicine and the use of herbs in the form of poultices. these were mainly administered by either barber surgeons or monks, apart from wrapping the wounds little was done in situ Sadly the high quality of medicine developed by the Arabs/Greeks and brought back from the crusades had been lost.
> The early form of soap was lye soap a particular caustic form that I don't believe was used in day to day personal hygiene but in washing clothes.
> Though there are many examples of post trauma survival a lot of people were hurt in their daily work this is especially true in viewing mass burials as the mass would be your common man.
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:06 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > I dunno. They did have soap, and I once read a book by Carol Rawcliffe on medieval hospitals. The surviving rules mention nurses in Paris, for instance, having to wash all the bedlinen until every stain was completely removed. Tig Lang's work on 15th century surgeons has shown they used infusions of herbs, which would have been antiseptic, to flush out the wound. Just think how many of those Towton skeletons had incurred major injuries in the past that had healed up. I bet some of the herbs believed to promite healing, such as dittany, were also antiseptic. A lot of practices actually got worse later.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > >
> > > If you were "lucky" enough to die of tetanus I would suggest that septicemia would have killed them far sooner remember that wounds were dressed in torn up clothing or rags, hands were not washed and we had to wait for soap.
> > > If you want to see an example of a hospital go to Brugge in Belgium.
> > >
> > > http://www.brugge.be/internet/en/musea/Hospitaalmuseum/index.htm
> > >
> > > Probably would not be placed high on my list for a place to go for a transplant!
> > >
> > > George
> > >
> > > On Feb 13, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > > Or worse....
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:54 AM, "Hilary Jones" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The biology bit is very interesting. Stupidly never thought of germs from earth - could even have led to tetanus afterwards?
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@ >
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:42
> > > > Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > > As armor was developed to combat new technology i.e. bodkin arrow heads that would effectively pierce plate or steel, the price went up till only the very rich could afford a full armor. Lesser people would only wear a helmet and thick leather jerkin occasionaly if they could afford it chain mail over the top. The helmets for the majority were not dissimilar from the wide brimmed helmets favored by the British and American troops during the 1st WW.
> > > > As it was the habit to stick your ready arrows in the ground by your side this unintentionally added biological warfare even to a non life thretening puncture wound antiseptics were unknown and wounds were treated with honey or quaterized, the mortality rate for the rank and file was substantially higher than the armored leaders who would remain in a vantage point overseeing the battle directing charges and attacks. Richards charge though not unknown was very atypical though as has been said in this forum he had been known to make quick and in this case fatal decisions.
> > > > Battle for the masses was a very brutal affair with the basic weapon being a farm implement and with little or no battlefield care, lethal for all but minor wounds The next time that we see similar outcomes would be the development of the machine gun though the final modern idea of an atomic bomb which puts all in its shadow.
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > http://thecastlecourt.com/shop/armor/battle-helmets
> > > >
> > > > wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow
> > > >
> > > > http://www.military-history.org/articles/war-of-the-roses/15th-century-armour.htm
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NqC_squo6X4#!
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:09 AM, justcarol67 justcarol67@ > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
> > > >>
> > > >> Carol
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Wow, and I thought colonoscopies were bad!

On Feb 13, 2013, at 4:52 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



I know there were no gfield hospitals, George. I didn't think I'd assumed there were. Battles in England were fought not far from centres of population, and those lucky enough to be able to make it away could get seen to. The Towton team seem to believe a lot of the men whose bones they have examined show signs of previous battle injuries that had healed. Tig Lang, who has done a lot of work on medieval medicine, including translating the Philomena, a book by Henry IV's surgeon John Bradmore on his most successful and unusual operations, is very impressed with what she has discovered about the surgeons, though not so much the doctors. I've attended several of her talks. Bradmore washed out the wounds with liquid steeped in herbs. One of his operations was to save the life of a man who had tried to commit suicide by running himself through with a sword. It had gone in his stomach and stuck out the back. Bradmore's methods were exemplary. It is many years since I heard the details, but as I recall, because he didn't know what damage there was to the insides he basically gave the man something to give him constipation, flushed out his insides with herbal liquid, packed the wound to stop it closing completely until he was sure everything was healing inside without infectin, then after three weeks sewed up the wound and gave him an enema and hoped to God it had worked. It had.
Marie

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Marie
> I know that some hospitals did have a rudimentary idea of hygiene, however field hospitals were not in general use till about the time of the Crimea and this also started so called modern nursing with Florence Nightingale.
> I have an extensive medical library dealing with European mainly English medicine and the use of herbs in the form of poultices. these were mainly administered by either barber surgeons or monks, apart from wrapping the wounds little was done in situ Sadly the high quality of medicine developed by the Arabs/Greeks and brought back from the crusades had been lost.
> The early form of soap was lye soap a particular caustic form that I don't believe was used in day to day personal hygiene but in washing clothes.
> Though there are many examples of post trauma survival a lot of people were hurt in their daily work this is especially true in viewing mass burials as the mass would be your common man.
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:06 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > I dunno. They did have soap, and I once read a book by Carol Rawcliffe on medieval hospitals. The surviving rules mention nurses in Paris, for instance, having to wash all the bedlinen until every stain was completely removed. Tig Lang's work on 15th century surgeons has shown they used infusions of herbs, which would have been antiseptic, to flush out the wound. Just think how many of those Towton skeletons had incurred major injuries in the past that had healed up. I bet some of the herbs believed to promite healing, such as dittany, were also antiseptic. A lot of practices actually got worse later.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, George Butterfield wrote:
> > >
> > > If you were "lucky" enough to die of tetanus I would suggest that septicemia would have killed them far sooner remember that wounds were dressed in torn up clothing or rags, hands were not washed and we had to wait for soap.
> > > If you want to see an example of a hospital go to Brugge in Belgium.
> > >
> > > http://www.brugge.be/internet/en/musea/Hospitaalmuseum/index.htm
> > >
> > > Probably would not be placed high on my list for a place to go for a transplant!
> > >
> > > George
> > >
> > > On Feb 13, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > > Or worse....
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:54 AM, "Hilary Jones" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The biology bit is very interesting. Stupidly never thought of germs from earth - could even have led to tetanus afterwards?
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@ >
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:42
> > > > Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > > As armor was developed to combat new technology i.e. bodkin arrow heads that would effectively pierce plate or steel, the price went up till only the very rich could afford a full armor. Lesser people would only wear a helmet and thick leather jerkin occasionaly if they could afford it chain mail over the top. The helmets for the majority were not dissimilar from the wide brimmed helmets favored by the British and American troops during the 1st WW.
> > > > As it was the habit to stick your ready arrows in the ground by your side this unintentionally added biological warfare even to a non life thretening puncture wound antiseptics were unknown and wounds were treated with honey or quaterized, the mortality rate for the rank and file was substantially higher than the armored leaders who would remain in a vantage point overseeing the battle directing charges and attacks. Richards charge though not unknown was very atypical though as has been said in this forum he had been known to make quick and in this case fatal decisions.
> > > > Battle for the masses was a very brutal affair with the basic weapon being a farm implement and with little or no battlefield care, lethal for all but minor wounds The next time that we see similar outcomes would be the development of the machine gun though the final modern idea of an atomic bomb which puts all in its shadow.
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > http://thecastlecourt.com/shop/armor/battle-helmets
> > > >
> > > > wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow<http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow>
> > > >
> > > > http://www.military-history.org/articles/war-of-the-roses/15th-century-armour.htm
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NqC_squo6X4#!
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:09 AM, justcarol67 justcarol67@ > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
> > > >>
> > > >> Carol
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

In one video Jo Appleby held a piece of the scull bone (part of the large wound) and demonstrated it would have kind of "flapped". The place where the bone piece fitted would suggest that the blade came rather in an upwards movement, which would support the suggestion that the helm came off with this movement.
Sorry, can't remember where I have seen it, I think it was not in the documentary, so it must have been on the UoL site.

Renate



--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Yes, it chimes in with what I was wondering, which is that perhaps the fatal injury might have been caused by the weapon being used to push the helm up off Richard's head from behind. If the blow was applied downwards, I would have thought it would have ended up in his upper back.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Christine, that's very useful. So it could have come off at the time of the fatal blow - never thought of that.?Thought it would be more like getting a jumper off over your head, if you see what I mean.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: C HOLMES
> > To: ""
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:44
> > Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
> >
> >  
> >
> > Hi Hilary and Carol, I have an interest in armour. 
> > Armour did not protect as well as  you might think, a good thump with a poleaxe may not cut but the force of the blow could damage ribs,skull etc.
> > Richard wasn't the only one to loose his helmet, according to the reports of the battle Jack Howard Duke of Norfolk leading Richard's van was attacked by Oxford and lost his helmet, then was hit by an arrow in the eye which killed him.
> > I have a sallet and it just fastens with a leather strap which could easily be broken if hit hard.
> > As Richard had a severe wound to the back of his head, possbly from behind I think, the blow would push the sallet forward and could have broken the strap.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> >  
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@>
> > To: "" >
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:18
> > Subject: Re: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > A very good question. I still can't work out how Richard's helm was pulled off so easily. I can see that a sallet would be, but not one fastened, as it were, under the chin; must have taken a fair bit of tugging. Over to the battle experts.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:09
> > Subject: Grim question (Skip if it disturbs you)
> >
> >  
> >
> > I hate to ask this question, but I really want to know. I am hoping that some of our authorities on medieval warfare or battles such as Towton can answer it. If full body armor prevented most injuries to the body (as opposed to the head), why did so many people, including nobles like Warwick and his brother, die in battle? (I'm not talking about executions afterward.) Was it gaps in the armor? Head wounds? Or were most of the dead the poor foot soldiers in their jocks and sallets?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Marie for goodness sakes think!
> Richard did not take place in any fighting until the charge. Are you suggesting, in order to preserve your legend, that half way across to Henry Tudor he suddenly stopped, got off his horse and took a drink, then jumped back on and continued the charge?
> Ridiculous isn't it?

Carol responds:

That wasn't Marie, Paul. It was Maire, a new member. It's possible that she doesn't realize that the drink of water is part of the Bosworth legend and that Dickon's Well, presumably so named because of the legend, is on the wrong site. Also, before anyone asks, there's no evidence that he was called Dickon during his lifetime, either. The story of the note attached to Norfolk's gate (it became a tent in Shakespeare) about "Dickon thy master" originates in one of the Tudor chronicles, which copied and elaborated on each other.

Carol

david rayner wrote:
>
> The vast majority of armoured casualties in the wars were inflicted in the route as one side gave way and ran for it. This was certainly the case with Warwick, who was dragged from his horse when trying to escape the field and killed; the Duke of York went much the same way. When a man is overwhelmed by numbers and grounded he is virtually helpless, armour or no.
> Very few men in plate armour would have suffered fatal wounds in the hand-to-hand combat of the melee; this is why men would spend so much on a good suit of armour (and why many men who qualified for knighthood chose not to accept it, paying a fine instead).
>
> This is why I have questioned the high casualties listed at Bosworth despite there being no record of a route after the battle, the Royal army having given up and surrendered on news of the King's death.

Carol responds:

Very interesting, David, and it answers my original question. But was Warwick's brother Montagu also killed in the rout? I always thought that he was killed in battle. I suspect that the story of Edward of Lancaster killed fleeing George's men at Tewkesbury is the true one. I never really thought that he died in battle. And the story that Rhys ap Thomas killed Richard in hand-to-hand combat is pure Welsh propaganda.

Regarding the casulties at Bosworth, most of Richard's household knights were killed with him, weren't they? That would account for about a hundred men. Maybe the rest were killed in the battle of Norfolk against Oxford. Kendall, IIRC, says that the battle opened with a volley of arrows, which could have killed a number of Tudor's men, especially Welshmen if they were lightly armed. If the French were really in part "the sweepings of French jails" (which I suspect is a rumor intended to make Richard's defeat look more ignominious), they might also have been lightly armed, but I thought that most of the men who died were Richard's, presumably after Norfolk fell (and Surrey failed to rally them?). Oxford, unfortunately, was a very good general and possibly the slaughter of Norfolk's men was as much an incentive to Richard as spotting the Tudor from a distance (or having someone point him out as the legend has it).

If that doesn't explain it and there was no rout, what do you think explains the high body count? Did the chroniclers exaggerate? I don't trust either Croyland or Vergil, neither of whom was present, and I don't know of any other accounts besides the ones Marie cited.

Carol