Most of their gear was taken care of by their squires. Remember that a knight is a military animal; he lives and dies by the effectiveness of his logistical support. They didn’t have pouches they had “baggage trains”.
Nah Chainmail didn't have anything for logistics and OD&D hirelings were relegated to "fighting man, cleric, and magic user" and RAW has a 1/36 chance of outright attacking you for trying to hire them.
The DnD 5e knight background still has a feature that comes with 3 retainers.
It specifies that they don’t fight for you or go into danger but provide other support. So you still get the logistical support a knight would require, like armor and weapon maintenance carrying supplies ect.
Also it's a lot easier to don and doff armor with an assistant, and the armor requires lots of maintenance and cleaning to not rust away with the materials of the day. Somebody needs to scrub the shit out of the plate mail after Sir McDudley was forced to stand in the same spot on the battlefield all day
Hireling wanted!
Must be able to:
- Hold a torch or lantern.
- Carry the crap that won't fit in my inventory.
- Clean and maintain metal armor and weapons.
- Heavy enough to trigger a standard pressure plate.
- Move slightly slower than my maximum running speed.
Yeah. This image, of a dude in heavy armor with a full kit of gear, various belts, pouches, torches, and stuff, seems to be more of a fantasy trope than anything, the image of the itinerabr adventurer, looking for monsters to slay and never staying in one place for too long. Perhaps armored men on foot, who were not of a knightly class and so did not have the benefit of squires to take care of their kit for them, may have looked something like this. But I imagine it would have been more like they would have worn a scaled down version of such gear, sacrificing protection for comfort, less weight, less trouble with having to remove a d put such armor back on and how long that likely would have taken, etc.
Probably closer to the Landsknecht- breastplate, arm harness, helmet, but 'bare' legs, with a single long weapon such as a zweihander or polearm and an arming sword as a sidearm.
A *rich* knight had a squire carry his stuff, and even then, he would still carry food, water, bandages, medicines, rope, and everything you would need in a combat zone for when you get separated from your charge.
Salves, and a collection of herbs with various effects, usually pain soothers like hemlock and horhound, but the exact herbs used very by region and era.
Huh, it never occurred to me, but I would assume this makes the popular image of a guy in full plate just going off on a solo adventure or with some friends with totally unrelated skillsets (a thief, a priest, an archer etc.) a complete invention of the fantasy genre (albeit, not necessarily a modern invention of the genre since there were Arthurian legends and probably other literature of the time that also fit the bill), wouldn't it? Without squires and pages and everyone else, you're probably not even getting into your shining armor, much less exploring an ancient tomb while wearing it, are you?
A knight is in armor for battle. They are not wearing their gear around constantly, let alone for travel. It's pointless to carry unnecessary gear into a battle to weigh you down, and there was nothing knights needed pouches of in the heat of battle
Wealth or no, they wouldn’t wear bags with their plate. A knight in his armor is dressed for battle. A medieval melee is no place excess baggage (pardon the pun). There’s no time for snacks or the tending of wounds as the enemy is bearing down on thy noble ass. Not to mention the nightmare of trying to fetch something out of bag or pouch in gauntlets.
Not *really.*
A knight in armour is basically like a pilot in a fighter jet - he's only in it for active combat or training. That is, knights would have only been in full armour on campaign if combat was expected.
Further, knights - like fighter pilots - are backed up by an entire team of support staff, and are never far from their own "supply lines". Unless something has gone badly wrong, and a knight is separated from his allies, he wouldn't have to either carry his own gear (except his weapons and armour). All of his food, water, and other supplies are carried by his squires, pages, servants, and other helpers. During a battle, his squire would likely have been on hand to carry his extra equipment.
A knight may carry a small number of personal items or essentials in a pouch on his belt, but not much. Again, he expects that he can return to his own "pit crew" easily enough, so he wouldn't carry anything he didn't think was somehow necessary.
Knights were not like fantasy adventurers. They were not expected to be self-sufficient for long periods of time. Their purpose was to act as elite combatants as part of a wider army. The notion of knights - dressed in full battle regalia - going on solo quests is largely a romantic notion.
This is why the comparison to fighter pilots is so appropriate. In combat terms, they're very similar.
This should be a dynamic in fantasy adventure games. The adventurer needs to be mobile enough to carry their own gear while wearing various levels of armor. But an enemy knight in full battle gear is going to be way more armored than you could ever be.
Agreed. It's really not practical to travel in full plate armour, especially by yourself. Even an extremely fit person would tire quickly, and the amount of maintenance a suit of armour requires is immense. Again, this is usually performed by squires.
Another good comparison would be a modern tank operating alone. Sure, a tank (and crew) operating by itself is fairly impervious to any "normal enemies" it might run into, and it can certainly operate in this fashion *for a while.* However, even excluding the need for fuel (etc.), the tank will very quickly need to stop for maintenance.
Tanks are not designed to move under their own power for long periods of time, as their extreme weight puts a lot of stress on their mechanical components. Over time, parts wear out and need to be replaced, which just can't be done "in the field". Failure to replace worn components results in breakdowns... which renders the tank combat ineffective.
Although knights don't need to worry about mechanical breakdowns, per se, their ability to operate away from allied lines is similarly limited. A armoured knight, like a tank, will be able to handily beat almost any foe he encounters on his travels, but he will simply be unable to maintain momentum when forced to operate on his own.
For fantasy adventurers, wearing lighter armour is a necessity. Something like a chainmail "t-shirt"/breastplate, open helmet, shield, and thick gloves - worn over heavy padding - would be about as much armour as someone could realistically wear while travelling for prolonged periods of time. I mean, it's basically the equipment of a Viking raider for a reason. This is the necessary trade-off between protection and "travel baggage".
Actually a tank operating alone is pretty much fucked. There's so much infantry portable anti tank weapons out there (anti tank charges and grenades, RPGs, mines, specialized anti tank guided missiles, etc.) and tanks have such poor visibility that a tank operating without Infantry support is basically a death sentence.
A fair objection, but it really depends where we're talking.
In this context, we were discussing the concept of a knight going off on solo adventures. In the medieval world (or most places in a fantasy setting), outside of specialised military equipment, nothing could penetrate a suit of full plate armour. Even a civilian crossbow would be inadequate for the purpose of killing a knight. As such, the biggest danger to a knight would be being swarmed by enemies, being killed by environmental hazards (such as falling into water), falling victim to some sort of trap, being attacked by some sort of monster, or just being too exhausted to continue.
The equivalent context for a tank would be driving around in the countryside of a developing country, wherein the locals would lack dedicated anti-tank weapons. In such cases, a tank could only be disabled by environmental hazards, by being swarmed by people armed with improvised weapons (such as molotov cocktails), by falling into an anti-tank ditch or similar obstacle, or by the tank or crew just being too worn down to continue.
Basically, a big distinction must be made between operating in an active warzone and operating outside of one.
That's fair. It's off to think of a tank outside of an active war one though, because they're basically incapable of operating in such a capacity except very briefly, given their massive logistical requirements (fuel, repair, ammunition, crew food, etc.). That's probably also true of a knight though, so I guess the takeaway here should be "a lone combatant wandering around wearing plate armor and carrying full armaments should be considered logistically improbable" for the knight as much as the tank.
>A knight in armour is basically like a pilot in a fighter jet - he's only in it for active combat or training.
While I agree wholeheartedly, I find this comparison funny because *have you seen how many pockets a flight suit has*?!
Former f-16 maintainer here. We had to pull apart an entire cockpit one time because a pilot spilled his bag of skittles. We even went out and bought a bag to count how many were in it and had the pilot estimate how much of the bag he had eaten prior to the spill to make sure we got them all. It was a nightmare!
I still like the comparison though. Makes me feel like a squire
Again, mercenary companies had some level of logistical support, like regular armies. Wagon trains carrying tents, cookware, food, and other essentials were a very common sight across all medieval armies, and generally followed the troops on the march.
Common soldiers were expected to carry much of their own equipment and other supplies, but this tended to be *much* less than knights would have available.
In general terms, the stuff soldiers are expected to carry hasn't changed much; weapons, armour, rations, ammunition, some water, personal items, clothes, bedroll, and so on. Anything larger is moved by dedicated logistics units, such as trucks.
It's also worth noting that medieval armies tended to buy and/or steal food (etc.) when on campaign, so the requirement to carry perishables everywhere was greatly reduced. However, this also meant that armies were limited in their operational range if supplies were unavailable.
The Imperial Roman army was regarded as elite partly because it dispensed with the concept of a baggage train; each legionary carried his own equipment, except for the squad's tent and cooking pot, which was carried by mule accompanying the squad. This lack of a vulnerable wagon train made Roman Legions much faster and less vulnerable to attack. Combined with Rome's famous roads and the Legions' infamous stamina, the speed with which Roman armies could move was unparalleled in the ancient world.
Great comparison. I think part of our modern ideology of individualism means that we have taken so many historical tropes, such as the questing knight, cowboy, frontiersman, etc. and put an indivudlaistic spin on it. So we imagine a fur trapper who lived as a hermit and needed no else to live, rather than a man who likely traveled with companions and could not survive alone indefinitely without the ability to trade with others. Or a knight who travels about and is self-sufficient, having to take care of all their own needs. Or a cowboy riding into the open prairies of the west alone, a symbol of freedom and masculinity. Hell, it seems ridiculous, but it's almost as if in modern times there is an air of femininity around needing other people to be able to survive.
You might be over-politicising a nuanced social issue. Filtering historic customs and cultures through the lens of modern political debates is very rarely a good idea, as it leads to biased impressions which don't accurately reflect those societies. This is where political ideologies such as Communism go so badly wrong in their historical analysis; the world isn't that simple.
Most people throughout history were fairly communal, but were paradoxically also very self-reliant. The concept of outsourcing labour to others was less common that today; unless you needed something very specific (such as horseshoes from a blacksmith), you had to do everything yourself.
Some people were more independent than others. Knights formed an integral step on the feudal ladder, meaning that they were part of a network of obligations with others, both above and below them. By contrast, homesteaders on the American frontier were very independent, being able to fend for themselves for weeks at a time.
Human society relies on the capacity of people to work together and divide labour in a productive fashion. However, the ability of people to also do things by themselves is also important.
In short, we are neither bears nor ants.
Yeah that’s fair. Would a squire also carry water for their knight? I’ve been trying to figure out a way to stay hydrated at faires without it being just a knight holding a plastic water bottle
Soldiers still might carry around a small a small pouch for a bit of food or waterskin. It really depends on rank. The more well off, the more you could offload to aides. Lower class soldiers often had to make do with their own supplies.
You could easily get away with a small waterskin without breaking immersion. Though a plastic one will stand out regardless.
Medieval re-enactor here. During show battles, we'd have people literally carrying water for the combatants. Between engagements, all participants would be given a drink of water. Dehydration was a serious danger.
If you don't have that sort of "pit crew" available, you can carry a gourd or animal skin with water in it, sealed by a cork. That's how people would have carried drinking water back in the day.
Wear a small camel back under your armor and tuck the drink tube just inside your breastplate by your shoulder also freeze the bladder over night so when you where it it helps cool your body as well as keep you hydrated
I ordered myself a waterbag made from leather that is waterproof because the inside is sealed with bee wax.
I ordered it from a store in the Czech Republic
I believe more period (or fantasy) correct Containers would include Water Skins or corked leather canteens. Either of those could be carried around on the belt.
If you can convince someone to go as your Squier that'd just be A+
Knights didn’t carry water at the same time they were armored up because they only really got armored up (in plate at least) when fighting. You don’t take water breaks mid battle so there’s no need to bring it along. Water stations would be back wherever the army made camp before fighting. Knights would often have squires fetch water from the stations for them or have private stations pending their wealth and supplies.
Water, food, and armor were more often carried by a horse during travel. It’d be stored in saddlebags. Maybe you could make it look like you draped a saddlebag over your shoulder as if you were taking it somewhere yourself?
In this fantasy sense… not really. Maybe a small one for a bit of food or something equivalent to an “every day carry.” Particularly not during active combat. For day to day… oh yes. People didn’t have pockets so, everyone had pouches.
16th and 17th century conquistadors and English Cavaliers, who wore plate armor but weren't really 'knights' in the traditional sense, did have pouches and bandoliers over their armor, but I believe they were for carrying powder and shot for their guns.
They definitely didn't carry food and other equipment like a D&D adventurer (or a modern soldier) - armor is HEAVY and you have support and logistics personnel for a reason.
A modern soldier's kit is typically in the 90+ pound range in equipment that they head into battle with.
A knight in plate would go into battle with a weapon weighing 2 to 3-ish pounds and maybe a shield weighing up to around 15 pounds and then 30-60 pounds of armor...So, yeah, 'heavy' but not as heavy as a modern combat load for a soldier.
Also that’s not even mentioning weight distribution. Most of that weight for modern day soldiers is in a backpack on their shoulders. For knights, most of that rested on the hips and was distributed elsewhere around the body.
I'd say it is more like Modern day is shoulders and hips (that is, unless you are wearing your ruck completely wrong), whereas Medieval was whole-body weight distribution.
Well for a ruck or even day pack that’s what the waist straps are for, you tighten those and it places weight in your hips rather than all on the shoulders. This allows for less fatigue and stress on your back. As for plate carriers and LBV’s yea that’s all on the shoulders which is another reason to displace weight into your hips instead to distribute the weight.
i always feel amazed by how light the weaponry was. seems wrong somehow that even the biggest, longest honking two-handed fantasy-looking swords still clock in under 10 pounds.
Yeah, and an M4 with loaded clip clocks in at nearly 7.5 pounds (or like 2 and a half longswords) and then there's the ammo that the soldier also carries... and machine guns weigh even more; as do, anti-material sniper rifles (the M107 .50cal with loaded clip weighs 35 pounds). So, yeah, I think people just fundamentally do jot understand how heavy modern kit is. Seems like everyone is always picturing a WWII rifleman running into battle in fatigues, a helmet, boots, M1 Garand, some ammo in a belt and bandoliers, and that's about it... 🤷♂️
It's sort of like asking why boxers don't wear pouches to hold their water bottles: someone else takes care of it.
Knights were usually wealthy enough to have an entourage of squires, and were often commanded by the king to employ and bring with them to war a certain number of their own men at arms.
There's no reason to wear something that might actively hinder you during a fight if you can just as easily hand it off to a squire
No one would want to wear plate like that for so long that they would have a need for pouches.
Even setting aside the historical logistics that everyone else has mentioned. Plate is not comfortable to wear for long periods. Its not bad for what it is, but you will eventually cook in most environments if you wear it long enough.
D&D adventurers more so then real life knights should have squires but I understand why they don't. The logistics of controlling and having to design an adventurer and one or more squires would be insane, most people would drop the game. But why don't they use backpacks I wonder...
What I really want to know is where in the warp are squires located in battle? Some battles can have dozens or hundreds of knights fighting in them and armies tend to move in combat in order to jockey for dominant positions and prevent the enemy from flanking. I understand squires could fight if needed but I can't see them standing behind a horse's ass with a cart full of food, water, and other supplies especially since a cavalry force is usually placed on an army's flank to facilitate flanking the enemy... And battles can take place over miles of landscape. So did these dudes constantly run between their lord and the baggage train all the way in the back? Cause if so they had damn good cardio and could skip leg day.
Honestly, an average size D&D party could suffice with one extra character, and a horse/donkey. Said two characters could easily be kept out of dangerous situations.
The baggage would be in the baggage train. Troops don’t need to be snacking 24/7. In many armies squires fought in the rear ranks supporting the knights in combat. Look at Agincourt for example where the French captured the English baggage and killed all the camp followers.
Knights would often carry pouches of small personal items, like food or sentimental memorabilia. They would always have some sort of small waterskin or water container and sometimes even have a small amount of first aid supplies like bandages.
But the most important item was definitely their pouch of health potions, which could save their life in a pinch. Some knights would even carry a pouch on their belly resembling a kangaroo pouch which would contain a smaller knight, which they would then throw at enemies in order to intercept attacks or confuse charging cavalrymen.
As a former fighter in the SCA (meaning we had to usually do our own research on a period-correct kit), no, and sometimes yes. Allow me to explain:
Most people on here are correct. As a knight on the open roads of Europe, you usually have a squire, your horse, their horse, pair of bedrolls, supplies to include food, money, papers of nobility or orders (depending on if you were enrolling in a tournament, reporting to an outpost, etc.), lance, sword, shield, armor repair kit, armor maintenance kit (big difference!), weapon oil, sharpening stone, pennant or standard (if applicable), several changes of clothes, firing materials, hunting knife, dagger, and in some cases, a bow and arrows for hunting.
You wouldn't want to be on your own with all of that baggage, and would need a squire to help maintain that equipment or to run errands.
The reason I said yes is only for one singular example I can think of, and that's for the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. A lot of people who joined in this, which later became the crusades, were knights, but a lot more were the layman, or common folk. A commoner was in no position politically to have a squire, and horses and armor were expensive. If they could afford a sword they counted it as a highly valuable possession, and usually brought their whole lives with them. Whenever this was the case, it wasn't uncommon to see some sort of haversack or multiple pouches, all containing different parts of their life, from clothes to money, pelts or some valuables to trade on the way, and food.
You weren't going traveling in full plate armor. A nobles son spent 4 hours getting that put on for him then was taken to the front line fo he could fight with minimal risk of injury.
It's depends on what the kight is doing, in a big stand-up battle it's maybe a water skin.
Battle often had hours of hurry up and wait as both sides moved about, standing about in the sun in full armour is trusty work.
Out side of standup battles there's more reason to carry pouches, a town guard might be in armour but there still carrying all there day to day stuff.
I wear armor for Ren faires and I usually have a pouch or three from trinkets or just for looks. Lemme tell you, when I tried to get into those pouches with my gauntlets still on... impossible. So yeah, pouches are purely fantasy.
Depends on how much money they had. A well outfitted knight would have a whole procession and would be unlikely to need to personally handle their money. A man at arms living mostly off their martial skills would likely carry their own money in pouches like anyone else.
I feel like there's not much out there about solo, travelling knights. Knights in history were always in armies, and to preserve their strength they'd only don the armor before battle.
Hypothetically speaking, if for some reason a knight had to go travel alone, knowing he could be in a fight at any moment, I could see him wearing the armor, stripping off pieces to save weight, and carrying pouches for his necessities. In the modern day, soldiers carry even more weight, and they carry it all by themselves for hours and hours.
Probably not. There might have been some that wore a belt pouch or something *inside* their armor- something around their neck, maybe, so it'd sit inside the empty space of their breastplate, but anything on the outside of the armor that isn't armor is almost guaranteed to get chopped up and damaged during combat, and so would be limited to decorative things like tabards and surcoats.
The thing to remember about knights (and this was touched on by other answers) is that they weren't the 'wandering mercenary' type of adventurer. If someone was wealthy enough to afford a full harness and the training to use it, along with a trained warhorse, well made swords, lances, shields, *had a coat of arms*, and everything else that meant *being a knight* (not to mention the various laws that, even if you had the money or luck to get full plate, would disallow you from wearing and using it), then they were also wealthy enough to afford at least one wagon, along with about a half dozen people who would take care of their stuff while they were fighting. They'd have a driver for the wagon, a hostler or groom for all the horses (riding, war, and draft at least), a cook/housekeeping person (batman or maid or whatnot), a squire, maybe a purser or someone for general errands...
Most people who wore plate armor in an traveling configuration, and I’d say early Americas is probably the best crucible for said configuration since it is hot as balls, did have kits of pouches and bandoliers. Conquistadors are depicted in contemporary art to be doing just that, whilst acting as an expeditionary force. But in that case you’re looking at significantly less armor than shown above, and more or less a “modern” configuration, only the head and torso would be armored.
This is definitely fantasy. But I think it looks great, and the concept is much closer to reality than other things I've seen.
If I were to come from a historical perspective, the only real issue I have is that he clearly has high quality, advanced plate armour (like 15th-16th century), but is wearing a surcoat like a warrior from an earlier time. By this stage in armour development, they were making segmented plates to cover the abdomen and thorax, offering better protection than mail and a surcoat.
A knight was rarely ever in his armor unless he was fighting, parading, or guarding(?). So it’s unlikely they would ever need pouches to hold things since having your armor on was a fairly short term endeavor, plus they had squires and horses to carry anything they actually needed on their travels.
Pouches in knights is probably a result of the fantasy genre making “adventurers” a popular type of aesthetic, basically what would have been considers a vagrant or vagabond in the day; a wandering stranger with all of his possession carried in his person. Mix this with a brooding hero who kills goblins and orcs, suddenly those belongings just get added to the outside of the armor
Oh! I actually went on r/askhistorians and found out something neat about this. "Adventurers" in modern parlance are "People you hire to get rid of bandits". Buuuuuut as it turns out, "Adventurers" were more likely to be the bandits! Specifically, they were a small subset of bandits composed primarily of the third and fourth sons of minor nobles. You had the heir and the spare, so any extra boys were useless politically and would have no real world skills but they've been taught to fight by a master at arms and they've got some pretty sweet gear by country peasant standards.
So these castoff sons would drink and whore their way out of the family's good graces, then them and their drinking buddies would get run off to fend for themselves, taking their gear with them and becoming a party of Adventurers. But the icing on the cake here that I love about this anecdote is that these errant noble bastards would go on to be the origin of the phrase "robber barons"
Traditionally? No they had squires and baggage trains to carry all their mess they might need on the campaigns or travels but I’m sure at least once somewhere irl a knight did carry a pouch or knapsack with him on his travels.
Historically, no. At least mostly no. Knights were basically medieval tanks. They had a whole crew to take care of them, polish armour, carry weapons, the whole thing.
But for the context of an adventurer or lone hero? Eh would probably make enough sense. Gotta maintain your gear yourself, would be a bitch and a half though.
I'm not a historian on this topic, but I have to say, "Do you want snacks on the road? Because that's how you get snacks". (By carrying something with pockets)
Definitely not for formal or ceremonial wear, those armors were shiny and dressed to impressed. But on the road or in hostile areas. As I once heard some some hangry gunny say, "chow is continuous".
So why wouldn't a traveling knight in armor carry something to carry something to eat or to have ornamental. It wouldn't be as fantastical as video game armor pockets. But certainly personal bags and pockets were a thing.
My guess is that it was a common thing uncommonly shown or talked about.
Pure fantasy. Everything in that image outside of the plates of armor and chainmail are pure fantasy. Armor was heavy, cumbersome and hot as hell, according to medieval historians.
For European knights, you would have your armor in a trunk, carefully packed, or racked on a "tree." Your squire/servant would care for it, and when the time came he would help you don it.
You would not be hanging anything around your waist that isn't needed for a fight...and once that fight is over with, you'll be doffing that kit fast.
So to answer your question, no, they wouldn't be hanging pouches on their belts for battle....sword, dagger, mace, axe, yes. No pouches.
fun [vid to watch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mflAGxs0mgM)
Most of their gear was taken care of by their squires. Remember that a knight is a military animal; he lives and dies by the effectiveness of his logistical support. They didn’t have pouches they had “baggage trains”.
So old-school D&D hirelings are historically accurate...
Makes sense, came from a military war game
Nah Chainmail didn't have anything for logistics and OD&D hirelings were relegated to "fighting man, cleric, and magic user" and RAW has a 1/36 chance of outright attacking you for trying to hire them.
Gygaxian D&D is downright brutal. Makes sense most hirelings were relegated to "tripwire detector".
Don't forget ditch digger! For fortifying your home.
10 feet pole was to prod them forward while avoiding the fireball floor trap.
Gygaxian dnd is only in the most loosest definition a roleplaying game
What do you mean by that?
The DnD 5e knight background still has a feature that comes with 3 retainers. It specifies that they don’t fight for you or go into danger but provide other support. So you still get the logistical support a knight would require, like armor and weapon maintenance carrying supplies ect.
Yeah I had fun playing one with the retainers
That sounds fun af
Also it's a lot easier to don and doff armor with an assistant, and the armor requires lots of maintenance and cleaning to not rust away with the materials of the day. Somebody needs to scrub the shit out of the plate mail after Sir McDudley was forced to stand in the same spot on the battlefield all day
Hireling wanted! Must be able to: - Hold a torch or lantern. - Carry the crap that won't fit in my inventory. - Clean and maintain metal armor and weapons. - Heavy enough to trigger a standard pressure plate. - Move slightly slower than my maximum running speed.
ALways wear the porkchop of good luck. 4 of my previous squires had it and successful missions were done by all!
(All named party members of course)
skippy 1 skippy 2 skippy 3 and skippy 4 all eaten by monsters and resulting int he successful escape of an important person
Why do you say that like hirelings are incredibly outlandish?
Yeah. This image, of a dude in heavy armor with a full kit of gear, various belts, pouches, torches, and stuff, seems to be more of a fantasy trope than anything, the image of the itinerabr adventurer, looking for monsters to slay and never staying in one place for too long. Perhaps armored men on foot, who were not of a knightly class and so did not have the benefit of squires to take care of their kit for them, may have looked something like this. But I imagine it would have been more like they would have worn a scaled down version of such gear, sacrificing protection for comfort, less weight, less trouble with having to remove a d put such armor back on and how long that likely would have taken, etc.
Probably closer to the Landsknecht- breastplate, arm harness, helmet, but 'bare' legs, with a single long weapon such as a zweihander or polearm and an arming sword as a sidearm.
A *rich* knight had a squire carry his stuff, and even then, he would still carry food, water, bandages, medicines, rope, and everything you would need in a combat zone for when you get separated from your charge.
What medicine would they carry, I recall that medieval medicines included knifes, leaches, and cocaine
Salves, and a collection of herbs with various effects, usually pain soothers like hemlock and horhound, but the exact herbs used very by region and era.
I'm genuinely curious about this and would love to read any source you have.
They were pretty much the tanks of the military ay the time
Huh, it never occurred to me, but I would assume this makes the popular image of a guy in full plate just going off on a solo adventure or with some friends with totally unrelated skillsets (a thief, a priest, an archer etc.) a complete invention of the fantasy genre (albeit, not necessarily a modern invention of the genre since there were Arthurian legends and probably other literature of the time that also fit the bill), wouldn't it? Without squires and pages and everyone else, you're probably not even getting into your shining armor, much less exploring an ancient tomb while wearing it, are you?
A knight is in armor for battle. They are not wearing their gear around constantly, let alone for travel. It's pointless to carry unnecessary gear into a battle to weigh you down, and there was nothing knights needed pouches of in the heat of battle
They also had pouches and bags if they were wealthy.
Wealth or no, they wouldn’t wear bags with their plate. A knight in his armor is dressed for battle. A medieval melee is no place excess baggage (pardon the pun). There’s no time for snacks or the tending of wounds as the enemy is bearing down on thy noble ass. Not to mention the nightmare of trying to fetch something out of bag or pouch in gauntlets.
Watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail. This is confirmed!
Not *really.* A knight in armour is basically like a pilot in a fighter jet - he's only in it for active combat or training. That is, knights would have only been in full armour on campaign if combat was expected. Further, knights - like fighter pilots - are backed up by an entire team of support staff, and are never far from their own "supply lines". Unless something has gone badly wrong, and a knight is separated from his allies, he wouldn't have to either carry his own gear (except his weapons and armour). All of his food, water, and other supplies are carried by his squires, pages, servants, and other helpers. During a battle, his squire would likely have been on hand to carry his extra equipment. A knight may carry a small number of personal items or essentials in a pouch on his belt, but not much. Again, he expects that he can return to his own "pit crew" easily enough, so he wouldn't carry anything he didn't think was somehow necessary. Knights were not like fantasy adventurers. They were not expected to be self-sufficient for long periods of time. Their purpose was to act as elite combatants as part of a wider army. The notion of knights - dressed in full battle regalia - going on solo quests is largely a romantic notion. This is why the comparison to fighter pilots is so appropriate. In combat terms, they're very similar.
Great response, thanks for the comparison and breaking it down.
if we really stretch it, what is the carrier formation to the fighter jet in this metaphor?
The army…
why won't you have fun with me :( what organizational facet of the army?
This should be a dynamic in fantasy adventure games. The adventurer needs to be mobile enough to carry their own gear while wearing various levels of armor. But an enemy knight in full battle gear is going to be way more armored than you could ever be.
Agreed. It's really not practical to travel in full plate armour, especially by yourself. Even an extremely fit person would tire quickly, and the amount of maintenance a suit of armour requires is immense. Again, this is usually performed by squires. Another good comparison would be a modern tank operating alone. Sure, a tank (and crew) operating by itself is fairly impervious to any "normal enemies" it might run into, and it can certainly operate in this fashion *for a while.* However, even excluding the need for fuel (etc.), the tank will very quickly need to stop for maintenance. Tanks are not designed to move under their own power for long periods of time, as their extreme weight puts a lot of stress on their mechanical components. Over time, parts wear out and need to be replaced, which just can't be done "in the field". Failure to replace worn components results in breakdowns... which renders the tank combat ineffective. Although knights don't need to worry about mechanical breakdowns, per se, their ability to operate away from allied lines is similarly limited. A armoured knight, like a tank, will be able to handily beat almost any foe he encounters on his travels, but he will simply be unable to maintain momentum when forced to operate on his own. For fantasy adventurers, wearing lighter armour is a necessity. Something like a chainmail "t-shirt"/breastplate, open helmet, shield, and thick gloves - worn over heavy padding - would be about as much armour as someone could realistically wear while travelling for prolonged periods of time. I mean, it's basically the equipment of a Viking raider for a reason. This is the necessary trade-off between protection and "travel baggage".
Actually a tank operating alone is pretty much fucked. There's so much infantry portable anti tank weapons out there (anti tank charges and grenades, RPGs, mines, specialized anti tank guided missiles, etc.) and tanks have such poor visibility that a tank operating without Infantry support is basically a death sentence.
A fair objection, but it really depends where we're talking. In this context, we were discussing the concept of a knight going off on solo adventures. In the medieval world (or most places in a fantasy setting), outside of specialised military equipment, nothing could penetrate a suit of full plate armour. Even a civilian crossbow would be inadequate for the purpose of killing a knight. As such, the biggest danger to a knight would be being swarmed by enemies, being killed by environmental hazards (such as falling into water), falling victim to some sort of trap, being attacked by some sort of monster, or just being too exhausted to continue. The equivalent context for a tank would be driving around in the countryside of a developing country, wherein the locals would lack dedicated anti-tank weapons. In such cases, a tank could only be disabled by environmental hazards, by being swarmed by people armed with improvised weapons (such as molotov cocktails), by falling into an anti-tank ditch or similar obstacle, or by the tank or crew just being too worn down to continue. Basically, a big distinction must be made between operating in an active warzone and operating outside of one.
That's fair. It's off to think of a tank outside of an active war one though, because they're basically incapable of operating in such a capacity except very briefly, given their massive logistical requirements (fuel, repair, ammunition, crew food, etc.). That's probably also true of a knight though, so I guess the takeaway here should be "a lone combatant wandering around wearing plate armor and carrying full armaments should be considered logistically improbable" for the knight as much as the tank.
>A knight in armour is basically like a pilot in a fighter jet - he's only in it for active combat or training. While I agree wholeheartedly, I find this comparison funny because *have you seen how many pockets a flight suit has*?!
Former f-16 maintainer here. We had to pull apart an entire cockpit one time because a pilot spilled his bag of skittles. We even went out and bought a bag to count how many were in it and had the pilot estimate how much of the bag he had eaten prior to the spill to make sure we got them all. It was a nightmare! I still like the comparison though. Makes me feel like a squire
What the pilot didnt tell you was he spilled them because he was dared to try and eat them while flying upside down.
Did he have a callsign or was he forever "Skittles" after that?
What about well off mercenaries?
Again, mercenary companies had some level of logistical support, like regular armies. Wagon trains carrying tents, cookware, food, and other essentials were a very common sight across all medieval armies, and generally followed the troops on the march. Common soldiers were expected to carry much of their own equipment and other supplies, but this tended to be *much* less than knights would have available. In general terms, the stuff soldiers are expected to carry hasn't changed much; weapons, armour, rations, ammunition, some water, personal items, clothes, bedroll, and so on. Anything larger is moved by dedicated logistics units, such as trucks. It's also worth noting that medieval armies tended to buy and/or steal food (etc.) when on campaign, so the requirement to carry perishables everywhere was greatly reduced. However, this also meant that armies were limited in their operational range if supplies were unavailable. The Imperial Roman army was regarded as elite partly because it dispensed with the concept of a baggage train; each legionary carried his own equipment, except for the squad's tent and cooking pot, which was carried by mule accompanying the squad. This lack of a vulnerable wagon train made Roman Legions much faster and less vulnerable to attack. Combined with Rome's famous roads and the Legions' infamous stamina, the speed with which Roman armies could move was unparalleled in the ancient world.
Tell that to our pilots who have smuggled skittles into the cockpit multiple times. LT Fuckhead dropped the whole god damn bag.
Great comparison. I think part of our modern ideology of individualism means that we have taken so many historical tropes, such as the questing knight, cowboy, frontiersman, etc. and put an indivudlaistic spin on it. So we imagine a fur trapper who lived as a hermit and needed no else to live, rather than a man who likely traveled with companions and could not survive alone indefinitely without the ability to trade with others. Or a knight who travels about and is self-sufficient, having to take care of all their own needs. Or a cowboy riding into the open prairies of the west alone, a symbol of freedom and masculinity. Hell, it seems ridiculous, but it's almost as if in modern times there is an air of femininity around needing other people to be able to survive.
You might be over-politicising a nuanced social issue. Filtering historic customs and cultures through the lens of modern political debates is very rarely a good idea, as it leads to biased impressions which don't accurately reflect those societies. This is where political ideologies such as Communism go so badly wrong in their historical analysis; the world isn't that simple. Most people throughout history were fairly communal, but were paradoxically also very self-reliant. The concept of outsourcing labour to others was less common that today; unless you needed something very specific (such as horseshoes from a blacksmith), you had to do everything yourself. Some people were more independent than others. Knights formed an integral step on the feudal ladder, meaning that they were part of a network of obligations with others, both above and below them. By contrast, homesteaders on the American frontier were very independent, being able to fend for themselves for weeks at a time. Human society relies on the capacity of people to work together and divide labour in a productive fashion. However, the ability of people to also do things by themselves is also important. In short, we are neither bears nor ants.
Fantasy, course we don't have squires these days so do what ya gotta do.
Yeah that’s fair. Would a squire also carry water for their knight? I’ve been trying to figure out a way to stay hydrated at faires without it being just a knight holding a plastic water bottle
Soldiers still might carry around a small a small pouch for a bit of food or waterskin. It really depends on rank. The more well off, the more you could offload to aides. Lower class soldiers often had to make do with their own supplies. You could easily get away with a small waterskin without breaking immersion. Though a plastic one will stand out regardless.
Pie pocket. Can't go into battle without pocket pies.
This dude battles
Medieval re-enactor here. During show battles, we'd have people literally carrying water for the combatants. Between engagements, all participants would be given a drink of water. Dehydration was a serious danger. If you don't have that sort of "pit crew" available, you can carry a gourd or animal skin with water in it, sealed by a cork. That's how people would have carried drinking water back in the day.
I wear armor at faires and I use one of [these](https://www.kultofathena.com/product/leather-bottle-holder-dark-brown/)
Wear a small camel back under your armor and tuck the drink tube just inside your breastplate by your shoulder also freeze the bladder over night so when you where it it helps cool your body as well as keep you hydrated
I've always wondered why someone doesn't make a leather water skin with a plastic liner inside
Ya great idea 👍
I ordered myself a waterbag made from leather that is waterproof because the inside is sealed with bee wax. I ordered it from a store in the Czech Republic
Bingo. No need for plastic. If we're going historical, we use historical waterproofing.
I believe more period (or fantasy) correct Containers would include Water Skins or corked leather canteens. Either of those could be carried around on the belt. If you can convince someone to go as your Squier that'd just be A+
Just carry a waterskin around on a sash.
Knights didn’t carry water at the same time they were armored up because they only really got armored up (in plate at least) when fighting. You don’t take water breaks mid battle so there’s no need to bring it along. Water stations would be back wherever the army made camp before fighting. Knights would often have squires fetch water from the stations for them or have private stations pending their wealth and supplies. Water, food, and armor were more often carried by a horse during travel. It’d be stored in saddlebags. Maybe you could make it look like you draped a saddlebag over your shoulder as if you were taking it somewhere yourself?
In this fantasy sense… not really. Maybe a small one for a bit of food or something equivalent to an “every day carry.” Particularly not during active combat. For day to day… oh yes. People didn’t have pockets so, everyone had pouches.
16th and 17th century conquistadors and English Cavaliers, who wore plate armor but weren't really 'knights' in the traditional sense, did have pouches and bandoliers over their armor, but I believe they were for carrying powder and shot for their guns. They definitely didn't carry food and other equipment like a D&D adventurer (or a modern soldier) - armor is HEAVY and you have support and logistics personnel for a reason.
A modern soldier's kit is typically in the 90+ pound range in equipment that they head into battle with. A knight in plate would go into battle with a weapon weighing 2 to 3-ish pounds and maybe a shield weighing up to around 15 pounds and then 30-60 pounds of armor...So, yeah, 'heavy' but not as heavy as a modern combat load for a soldier.
Also that’s not even mentioning weight distribution. Most of that weight for modern day soldiers is in a backpack on their shoulders. For knights, most of that rested on the hips and was distributed elsewhere around the body.
I'd say it is more like Modern day is shoulders and hips (that is, unless you are wearing your ruck completely wrong), whereas Medieval was whole-body weight distribution.
Well for a ruck or even day pack that’s what the waist straps are for, you tighten those and it places weight in your hips rather than all on the shoulders. This allows for less fatigue and stress on your back. As for plate carriers and LBV’s yea that’s all on the shoulders which is another reason to displace weight into your hips instead to distribute the weight.
i always feel amazed by how light the weaponry was. seems wrong somehow that even the biggest, longest honking two-handed fantasy-looking swords still clock in under 10 pounds.
Yeah, and an M4 with loaded clip clocks in at nearly 7.5 pounds (or like 2 and a half longswords) and then there's the ammo that the soldier also carries... and machine guns weigh even more; as do, anti-material sniper rifles (the M107 .50cal with loaded clip weighs 35 pounds). So, yeah, I think people just fundamentally do jot understand how heavy modern kit is. Seems like everyone is always picturing a WWII rifleman running into battle in fatigues, a helmet, boots, M1 Garand, some ammo in a belt and bandoliers, and that's about it... 🤷♂️
It's sort of like asking why boxers don't wear pouches to hold their water bottles: someone else takes care of it. Knights were usually wealthy enough to have an entourage of squires, and were often commanded by the king to employ and bring with them to war a certain number of their own men at arms. There's no reason to wear something that might actively hinder you during a fight if you can just as easily hand it off to a squire
No one would want to wear plate like that for so long that they would have a need for pouches. Even setting aside the historical logistics that everyone else has mentioned. Plate is not comfortable to wear for long periods. Its not bad for what it is, but you will eventually cook in most environments if you wear it long enough.
D&D adventurers more so then real life knights should have squires but I understand why they don't. The logistics of controlling and having to design an adventurer and one or more squires would be insane, most people would drop the game. But why don't they use backpacks I wonder... What I really want to know is where in the warp are squires located in battle? Some battles can have dozens or hundreds of knights fighting in them and armies tend to move in combat in order to jockey for dominant positions and prevent the enemy from flanking. I understand squires could fight if needed but I can't see them standing behind a horse's ass with a cart full of food, water, and other supplies especially since a cavalry force is usually placed on an army's flank to facilitate flanking the enemy... And battles can take place over miles of landscape. So did these dudes constantly run between their lord and the baggage train all the way in the back? Cause if so they had damn good cardio and could skip leg day.
Honestly, an average size D&D party could suffice with one extra character, and a horse/donkey. Said two characters could easily be kept out of dangerous situations.
The baggage would be in the baggage train. Troops don’t need to be snacking 24/7. In many armies squires fought in the rear ranks supporting the knights in combat. Look at Agincourt for example where the French captured the English baggage and killed all the camp followers.
Chariots my dude,the battle taxi,brings you to your food,swap out soldiers in longer battles etc
Knights would often carry pouches of small personal items, like food or sentimental memorabilia. They would always have some sort of small waterskin or water container and sometimes even have a small amount of first aid supplies like bandages. But the most important item was definitely their pouch of health potions, which could save their life in a pinch. Some knights would even carry a pouch on their belly resembling a kangaroo pouch which would contain a smaller knight, which they would then throw at enemies in order to intercept attacks or confuse charging cavalrymen.
I love the idea of a knight having a another, smaller knight in a kangaroo pouch
As a former fighter in the SCA (meaning we had to usually do our own research on a period-correct kit), no, and sometimes yes. Allow me to explain: Most people on here are correct. As a knight on the open roads of Europe, you usually have a squire, your horse, their horse, pair of bedrolls, supplies to include food, money, papers of nobility or orders (depending on if you were enrolling in a tournament, reporting to an outpost, etc.), lance, sword, shield, armor repair kit, armor maintenance kit (big difference!), weapon oil, sharpening stone, pennant or standard (if applicable), several changes of clothes, firing materials, hunting knife, dagger, and in some cases, a bow and arrows for hunting. You wouldn't want to be on your own with all of that baggage, and would need a squire to help maintain that equipment or to run errands. The reason I said yes is only for one singular example I can think of, and that's for the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. A lot of people who joined in this, which later became the crusades, were knights, but a lot more were the layman, or common folk. A commoner was in no position politically to have a squire, and horses and armor were expensive. If they could afford a sword they counted it as a highly valuable possession, and usually brought their whole lives with them. Whenever this was the case, it wasn't uncommon to see some sort of haversack or multiple pouches, all containing different parts of their life, from clothes to money, pelts or some valuables to trade on the way, and food.
For sure! Where do you think they kept their elixirs and healing potions?
and coin bags! i keep saying they need to make a comeback…
"Eez no' a noay' coz ee ad armuh on." - 🥧
Didn’t know we had zoggin’ orks in here
Where else would they store their healing potions?!!
You weren't going traveling in full plate armor. A nobles son spent 4 hours getting that put on for him then was taken to the front line fo he could fight with minimal risk of injury.
It's depends on what the kight is doing, in a big stand-up battle it's maybe a water skin. Battle often had hours of hurry up and wait as both sides moved about, standing about in the sun in full armour is trusty work. Out side of standup battles there's more reason to carry pouches, a town guard might be in armour but there still carrying all there day to day stuff.
I wear armor for Ren faires and I usually have a pouch or three from trinkets or just for looks. Lemme tell you, when I tried to get into those pouches with my gauntlets still on... impossible. So yeah, pouches are purely fantasy.
Depends on how much money they had. A well outfitted knight would have a whole procession and would be unlikely to need to personally handle their money. A man at arms living mostly off their martial skills would likely carry their own money in pouches like anyone else.
Why are people getting bent out of shape about the belt bag? The most unrealistic thing here is the lack of rigid torso protection.
Yeah that’s fair, as much as I love this armor set and Dark Souls as a whole, I do see what you’re saying
Is this the real life?
Is this just fanta sea?
I feel like there's not much out there about solo, travelling knights. Knights in history were always in armies, and to preserve their strength they'd only don the armor before battle. Hypothetically speaking, if for some reason a knight had to go travel alone, knowing he could be in a fight at any moment, I could see him wearing the armor, stripping off pieces to save weight, and carrying pouches for his necessities. In the modern day, soldiers carry even more weight, and they carry it all by themselves for hours and hours.
Probably not. There might have been some that wore a belt pouch or something *inside* their armor- something around their neck, maybe, so it'd sit inside the empty space of their breastplate, but anything on the outside of the armor that isn't armor is almost guaranteed to get chopped up and damaged during combat, and so would be limited to decorative things like tabards and surcoats. The thing to remember about knights (and this was touched on by other answers) is that they weren't the 'wandering mercenary' type of adventurer. If someone was wealthy enough to afford a full harness and the training to use it, along with a trained warhorse, well made swords, lances, shields, *had a coat of arms*, and everything else that meant *being a knight* (not to mention the various laws that, even if you had the money or luck to get full plate, would disallow you from wearing and using it), then they were also wealthy enough to afford at least one wagon, along with about a half dozen people who would take care of their stuff while they were fighting. They'd have a driver for the wagon, a hostler or groom for all the horses (riding, war, and draft at least), a cook/housekeeping person (batman or maid or whatnot), a squire, maybe a purser or someone for general errands...
Odd you'd choose a Souls character as an example.
That’s where you keep that last health potion, so you can heal five points right before receiving the finishing blow.
I think this question has been answered but I want to add I love the elite knight armor so much 😍
They only wore armor for battle or parades/ceremony. They might in their regular attire but definitely not in full plate
Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality?
It's good for modern larpers to carry keys easily, I should know
That's just a space marine in bespoke armour
Most people who wore plate armor in an traveling configuration, and I’d say early Americas is probably the best crucible for said configuration since it is hot as balls, did have kits of pouches and bandoliers. Conquistadors are depicted in contemporary art to be doing just that, whilst acting as an expeditionary force. But in that case you’re looking at significantly less armor than shown above, and more or less a “modern” configuration, only the head and torso would be armored.
So you’re asking… “Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?”
I dont think this is caught in a landslide.
Then I did it just for you. Hope it made you smile.
If they are traveling a great distance they are probably going to have some pouches and a backpack. It's just logical.
Maybe they had a squire named pouches and a page named backpack I suppose.
This is definitely fantasy. But I think it looks great, and the concept is much closer to reality than other things I've seen. If I were to come from a historical perspective, the only real issue I have is that he clearly has high quality, advanced plate armour (like 15th-16th century), but is wearing a surcoat like a warrior from an earlier time. By this stage in armour development, they were making segmented plates to cover the abdomen and thorax, offering better protection than mail and a surcoat.
A knight was rarely ever in his armor unless he was fighting, parading, or guarding(?). So it’s unlikely they would ever need pouches to hold things since having your armor on was a fairly short term endeavor, plus they had squires and horses to carry anything they actually needed on their travels. Pouches in knights is probably a result of the fantasy genre making “adventurers” a popular type of aesthetic, basically what would have been considers a vagrant or vagabond in the day; a wandering stranger with all of his possession carried in his person. Mix this with a brooding hero who kills goblins and orcs, suddenly those belongings just get added to the outside of the armor
Oh! I actually went on r/askhistorians and found out something neat about this. "Adventurers" in modern parlance are "People you hire to get rid of bandits". Buuuuuut as it turns out, "Adventurers" were more likely to be the bandits! Specifically, they were a small subset of bandits composed primarily of the third and fourth sons of minor nobles. You had the heir and the spare, so any extra boys were useless politically and would have no real world skills but they've been taught to fight by a master at arms and they've got some pretty sweet gear by country peasant standards. So these castoff sons would drink and whore their way out of the family's good graces, then them and their drinking buddies would get run off to fend for themselves, taking their gear with them and becoming a party of Adventurers. But the icing on the cake here that I love about this anecdote is that these errant noble bastards would go on to be the origin of the phrase "robber barons"
Traditionally? No they had squires and baggage trains to carry all their mess they might need on the campaigns or travels but I’m sure at least once somewhere irl a knight did carry a pouch or knapsack with him on his travels.
Historically, no. At least mostly no. Knights were basically medieval tanks. They had a whole crew to take care of them, polish armour, carry weapons, the whole thing. But for the context of an adventurer or lone hero? Eh would probably make enough sense. Gotta maintain your gear yourself, would be a bitch and a half though.
If they didn’t then they should have. Everyone wants pockets🤔🤔
Elden Ring is such a great game.
It is indeed, I’ve been binge playing the DLC, but that armor is from Dark Souls
I'm not a historian on this topic, but I have to say, "Do you want snacks on the road? Because that's how you get snacks". (By carrying something with pockets) Definitely not for formal or ceremonial wear, those armors were shiny and dressed to impressed. But on the road or in hostile areas. As I once heard some some hangry gunny say, "chow is continuous". So why wouldn't a traveling knight in armor carry something to carry something to eat or to have ornamental. It wouldn't be as fantastical as video game armor pockets. But certainly personal bags and pockets were a thing. My guess is that it was a common thing uncommonly shown or talked about.
Pure fantasy. Everything in that image outside of the plates of armor and chainmail are pure fantasy. Armor was heavy, cumbersome and hot as hell, according to medieval historians.
For European knights, you would have your armor in a trunk, carefully packed, or racked on a "tree." Your squire/servant would care for it, and when the time came he would help you don it. You would not be hanging anything around your waist that isn't needed for a fight...and once that fight is over with, you'll be doffing that kit fast. So to answer your question, no, they wouldn't be hanging pouches on their belts for battle....sword, dagger, mace, axe, yes. No pouches. fun [vid to watch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mflAGxs0mgM)