We all know it's possible to swim in modern shark-resistant armor, but what about in the true ancient stuff, chain mail and plate mail?

I had heard that regardless of how strong you are, the under-padding would soak through with water and drag you to the bottom.

I apologize in advance if there's already a show or a topic on this, but I was unable to find anything with Find.

quote:

I had heard

Where are you that you hear such talk?

What's Mythical about a guy drowning in armor?

The show's concept is busting myths. Think about it.

Okay, let me rephrase.

The myth could be one of the following:

a) A sufficiently strong person could still swim in ancient-style chain-mail armor

or

b) A human could not possibly swim in chain mail armor, but it's the padding and not the armor that would do you in, not the weight of the metal itself.

I hear such talk from historical reenactment types who I trust to know more about it than I do. In particular, it's from someone I know that worked at Plimoth Plantation here on the south shore of Massachusetts, based on what he was told by other historical reenactment people who actually worked with period-accurate chainmail and padding.

It is possible, for short distances, but since the steel makes you negatively bouyant, it takes a lot of energy - the anecdotal reference is that a person in a chain mail shirt can take it off much more quickly than a person wearing a suit of plates.

From Lancelot's song "Cest Moi" in Camelot:

"Swim a moat in a coat of heavy iron mail.."

Hehe.

OK, a typical suit of "plate" armor weighed about 60 pounds, and was reasonably flexible. We have footage of guys (well trained!) doing cartwheels in the stuff.
So, could someone swim with that amount of weight? I'm inclined to think so, if only for a short distance. Take a lot of effort, of course.
Anyone want to volunteer?

perhaps I should have clarified... it's been done.

I know its possible to swim in Japanese armor.

The art of swimming in armor even has its own name Suiei-jutsu (lit water skills).

In Japan its even considered its own martial art with masters such as Sawai Atsuhiro

http://smaa-hq.com/bios/sawai.php

The Romans had elite assualt units that swam in their armor.

"Some of them would sometimes have to swim in their armour "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_army

And Knights could swim in their armor too.

"Swimming has been around for thousands of years. In 400 BC Egyptians and Romans leisurely dived off cliffs and in the 14th Century, medieval knights mastered swimming in armour!"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guernsey/content/articles/2007/04/...imming_feature.shtml

Hrm, well, this seems interesting at least. Some differing opinions, and much largely unsubstantiated talk saying it's already happened.

I'll have to do some more research and find out if there's a specific example where swimming with armor on was actually done according to an early "history" (which were often notoriously ludicrous), to have a target distance to give the myth more useful specifications.

The Roman General Sertorius (see Plutarch's Lives) swam the Rhone river ON HIS SHIELD, while still encumbered with his sword and armor. It was a military offense for a soldier to lose his sword, helmet or armor, which is why he tried it. This was after the disaster at Aristo, when the Cimbri destroy the Roman army. It was do that or die.

people that don't know how to swim come up with all sorts of reason why others shouldn't be able to

I have this account from Lucius Cassius Dio Cocceianus.

"The barbarians thought that Romans would not be able to cross it without a bridge, and consequently bivouacked in rather careless fashion on the opposite bank; but he sent across a detachment of Germanic tribesmen, who were accustomed to swim easily in full armour across the most turbulent streams. [...] Thence the Britons retired to the river Thames at a point near where it empties into the ocean and at flood-tide forms a lake. This they easily crossed because they knew where the firm ground and the easy passages in this region were to be found; but the Romans in attempting to follow them were not so successful. However, the Germans swam across again and some others got over by a bridge a little way up-stream, after which they assailed the barbarians from several sides at once and cut down many of them. (Cassius Dio, Roman History, Book 60:20)"

I heard a story about a knight back in the day.

A horse mounted Knight was separated from a battle by a river. Instead of finding a fordable position, he gallops straight into the river, but because he of the weight of the plate and chain mail, and the armor the horse was wearing, he and the horse sink to the bottom.

Not wishing to be detoured, he spurs his horse to walk on the bottom of the river, until they mount the opposite bank and join the battle.

I would love to see if this piece of Medieval swimming and testosterone is actually true

A Finnish guy named Tuomas Viljanen, a professional swimmer, did it in 1993, wearing suit of maille. Here is another man doing the same:
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/fireandsteel/swim.htm

There is one "historical" or "mythical" event involving swimming in armour in which there are two versions of the story - in one the swimmer drowns, in the other he lives. And of course, its the more unlikely but more sexy story that has become the standard version.

The Roman historian LIVY recorded the story of "Horatio at the bridge" early in the first century. (book 2 chapter 10).

In around 500 BC, Horatio had to defend Rome almost by himself when an Etruscan army had made a sneak attack on the city. They were about to rush the narrow bridge that then spanned the Tiber river, before anyone knew they were coming, and thus enter and seize the centre of Rome.

He ordered the small detachment he commanded to chop down the narrow wooden bridge from the southern (Roman) end while he stood at the northen end fighting off all comers. He was able to do this until the bridge fell because the bridge entrance was narrow enough he only had to fight off one man at a time.

When the bridge fell behind him, the Etruscans called on him to surrender. He refused, jumped into the Tiber still wearing full armour, and swam to shore - on the Roman side of course.

The english poet Macaulay wrote a famous poem on this event; "Horatio at the Bridge" or something like it.

Unfortunately for Horatio, the Historian LIVY has a reputation for always using the better and more exciting story in his histories, whenever his sources gave him a choice.

About 200 years earlier (and therefore closer to the source of the legend), the historian POLYBIUS records the same story (Book 6, chapter 56 of his histories). His reputation is to always quote the truest story, not the best. And to always verify his sources as best he can. Modern historians on principle usually use Polybius in preference to Livy whenever they describe the same historical event.

Polybius describes Horatio as deliberately jumping into the river knowing he would drown; and he did. The significance of the story to Romans in the time of Polybius was that Romans preferred to die than surrender. Polybius was speaking to the men who had fought and defeated Hannibal, and such attitudes of mind at that time were not just window dressing.

So who is right?

The armour in question (circa 500 BC) would probably been similar to early Greek Hoplite armour. Meaning a heavy bronze breatplate, bronze greaves for the shins and other trimmings.

You might be able to swim in this if you were fresh. But Horatio had already been fighting for some time, and probably had a few minor wounds as well. Also, he leaped into the water from a great height, possibly high enough to be killed by that alone.

So I find the Polybius version more likely. But unproveable, unless someone has found out that Greek Hoplite armour is impossible to swin in.

Perhaps, like Sertorious, he swam on his shield.

quote:

The armour in question (circa 500 BC) would probably been similar to early Greek Hoplite armour. Meaning a heavy bronze breatplate, bronze greaves for the shins and other trimmings.

Not always, thogh our image of the Holplite is of a Bronse Breastplate armoured man, in reality only the most Upper Class soldiers wore those, the vast majority had in addition to their shield a fabric based armour called Linothorax.

http://www.uwgb.edu/aldreteg/Linothorax.html

It would have been lighter than metal armour, made of quilted or laminated fabrics and so less taxing to wear if swimming perhaps?

"Full armor" means different things to different folks -- depending on country, period and custom. I personally think it would be very hard for someone decked out in chain mail with felted underpinnings to overcome the pull of the water as his underclothes got soaked and the weight of the whole pulled him downward. On the other hand, a Greek or Roman warrier with leather armor and metal greaves/helmet should have a much easier time of it. My thoughts.

A greek hoplite would also be carrying a shield made mostly of wood plus a wooden spear.
It would be difficult to find someone willing to
put their hand made Linothorax to the swim test as they are made with water based glues and
it would be destroyed. Leather armor is a Hollywood myth as far as the Roman legions are concerned.

Swimming is about buoyancy vs. gravity, not strength.

i do believe you are confusing floating with swimming. they are not the same.

swimming is really just propulsion through water by use of limbs (dict). it can be done underwater, and even while quite negatively buoyant.

but i like the idea: let's try swimming in different armors, as well as getting out of armor in water.