"cuirassier's armor - was it really heavy ?" Topic

Hi Friends,

I have read that some French cuirassiers discarded their armor in 1809 (Wagram Campaign) because it was too hot in summer and too heavy, especially for the younger men.
Or at Waterloo once the horse was shot and killed, the cuirassier had tremendous difficulties with getting up due to his armor.

Today I have watched 2 videos:
"Can You Move in Armour?"
YouTube link
"Obstacle Run in Armour"
YouTube link

This is about the medieval armor – 25 kg heavy.
And how heavy was the cuirass, 5 kg ? 10 kg ?

So why the medieval men could run and JUMP OVER OBSTACLES in 25 kg armor (see videos), and our brave cuirassier was hopeless with his 10 kg front- and back- plates ? How heavy was his helmet, also 10 kg ? :-)

I've read about 6-8kg for Cuirass.
Heat, fatigue, injury, supply deficits and mud would have an effect on anyone in metallic armour, but I think a Cuirassier was quite dextrous in normal circumstances.

See previous threads on TMP like this:
TMP link

Also of interest, two interviews here with reenactors who do Cuirassiers in full gear:

Chris Maine
link

Michelle Spano
link

Mark, thank you for the links. Interesting interviews !

I've read that is was @30 lbs besides the link Mrkconz gives. While one reads all about how cuirass were meant to protect the trooper from musket shots, it actually was more of a cavalry vs cavalry protection and practiced sword play included using the cuirass to deflect a strike freeing the sword for a counter-strike.

Based on actual French cuirassier armour in the Royal Armouries collection the weight would be about 6-7 kg for breast and backplate together, possibly up to 8 kg in the heaviest examples once you add in missing fitings, straps and lining.

Comparison between Napoleonic and Medieval armor is a bit misleading since full plate was often made to measurement of wearer or at least partly made that way. As a result armour fits the body much better and is easier to wear. Standard size armour is less comfortable and may well be much more of a bother if you have to wear it all the time. (Not having squires and spare horses to carry the armour for you on the march)

I think the image of un-horsed Cuirassiers struggling like turtles on their back was a colourful expression on the part of the writer, unless perhaps men were pinned down by their mounts. Heavy boots and mud, together with the tangle of other downed horses and men, might have been more of a genuine impediment.

Presumably falling off one's horse had an impact as well

Interesting question. Anyone in London could pop into the Household cavalry Museum on Horse Guards Parade and try on their modern front and back plates. OK, they are for parades only, but they do seem sturdy enough to deflect a sword (if useless against any firearm). Find a time when it is not filled with schoolkids though!

My immediate impression was much lighter than expected. The boots were far more of an obstacle to mobility. Add the helmet they provide….now one is struggling!

Current British infantry harness weighs far more…

+1 for Timbo & 42Flanker.

I'm not sure that the wearing of the cuirass was really the issue; it did the job and didn't seem to massively hinder movement. Though clearly very hot on summer days!

However being thrown from a horse and slamming into the ground when wearing a cuirass and all the other kit probably accounts for those "turtle" moment descriptions!

DB

Even in Napoleonic times the average equipment load for infantry amounted to around sixty to seventy pounds, so the armor should not have been that much of a problem in itself. The field at Waterloo was notoriously muddy, due to heavy rain the previous night. I think that was probably the biggest problem other than having the wind knocked out of unhorsed cuirassiers.

Soldiers throughout history have always discarded equipment that they thought was troublesome and felt they wouldn't need. Sure a breast plate would be great in battle; but a pain to wear or carry around the other 99.99% of the time.

When the US Civil War began the Union infantry uniform consisted of some sort of metal shoulder epaulette. As the Union army marched south, thousands of these useless shoulder boards were torn off and left along the road side.

I doubt French cuirassiers discarded their armor on campaign. Each soldier in the French army was given his "Livret" which contained a list of all the articles of his uniform. During inspection, the Livret was presented to the inspecting officer. If articles were missing guess what – the soldier had to pay for them. Moreover, I can't imagine the discrace of showing up on parade without one's armor when all your mates have theirs.

One of the joys of working in tourism in London is that I can enter the Household Cavalry museum almost at will. In the converted stable is an area where kids can try on Trooper's current kit, both ceremonial and combat. This includes the Full Dress helmet and cuirass, both front and back. On an adult body, these are not particularly heavy, the weight being carried by the shoulder scales and a belt around the waist. But of course this casing does keep the upper body straight, so I can imagine that any unhorsed rider wanting to escape danger in a hurry would be tempted to get out of this constriction. Then add the mud, and who would want to keep this impediment?

I also the think the point about the boots is more relevant to the discomfort of the French cavalrymen. Dismounted members of the Household Cavalry walk with an awkward waddle when wearing tall jackboots and are unable to flex their ankles – it must be a bit like wearing ski boots. Faced with these challenges, I'm sure that if I thought my life might depend on it, I'd dump the armour.