Comparing the Load of a Modern Soldier and a 14th Century Armored Knight

Let’s take a brief tangent. While my job is to write about firearms for you guys, I have many other interests; one of them is Medieval history. It’s a pretty cool thing to be interested in these days, as YouTube is practically bursting with awesome channels that go into an incredible amount of depth and detail on Medieval-related topics, including everything from swords, to armor, to clothing, and everything else.

Now, one of the best of those channels is the fairly new “Knyght Errant” created by Ian LaSpina, a former US Navy Lieutenant and SH-60B Seahawk submarine-hunter helicopter pilot who recreates Medieval history in his spare time. LaSpina not only talks about Medieval armor (among many other things), he spends a lot of time actually living in it, too. If that subject interests you, his channel is one you should check out for sure.

Now, how does this connect to modern firearms? Well, recently LaSpina released a video I found absolutely fascinating, in which he compared the load of modern US Army and Marine infantrymen to the load carried by a 14th Century knight in full plate armor! You can enjoy this video for yourself, embedded below:

LaSpina uses a document from 2003 to illustrate the Army infantryman’s load – The Modern Warrior’s Combat Load – which is in fact the very same document I used to create my own analysis in An Analysis of the Soldier’s Load with 6.5mm Cased Telescoped Ammunition, Parts 1 and 2.

Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He is also the author of the original web serial Heartblood, which is being updated and edited regularly. He can be reached via email at


  • BattleshipGrey

    I’ll have to check his channel out more. I’ve really been enjoying the lunch site channel too for great medieval history. Thanks for posting this Nathaniel

    • Phil Hsueh

      If you like this sort of stuff I also highly recommend you check out Scholagladiatoria, Skallagrim, and Lindybeige, they all talk about Medieval & Renaissance arms and armor but each does it slightly differently. Scholagladiatoria talks a lot about practical use and the hows and whys of a given weapon’s usage and sometimes brief history, he’s a HEMA instructor and an antique sword dealer as well. Skall focuses a lot on reviews and has a number of videos where he tests various swords and knives by doing test cuts on various materials, including doing abusive tests on tree branches and the like. Lindybeige tends to focus more on the overall history of the period and their weapons, of the 3 he focuses a bit less on the actual usage of a given weapon but he’s still pretty informative and he did have a (controversial) video recently on the Bren vs. the MG-34/42 and which is better.

      • BattleshipGrey

        Lol I just noticed that the stupid auto correct changed “lindybeige” to “lunch site” on my original post! Stupid tablet.

        Thanks for the recommendations, I’ve seen a bit of each of the ones that you mentioned, but I’ve been watching Lindy more. I like the overall period history and demonstrations he does as well as his humor. I relate more with him and I’ve always appreciated British humor as well.

        Thanks again and sorry for endorsing the lunch site channel, of which I’ve never seen. 🙂

  • Gjert Klakeg Mulen

    It would be interesting to find out how one could lower the weight of modern soldiers equipment, without making them under-prepared or without making it so a single soldier would be too expensive due to the use highly expensive light weight materials.

    • aweds1

      I think the main dilemma is that no matter how light one material or piece of equipment gets or how condensed the load becomes, it just means carrying more of something else.

      • Sulaco

        As is the case of most decisions in an army, what the grunt will “need” to carry is decided by somebody that will never have to carry it…

    • Sianmink

      The load will always expand to consume the available capacity.

    • Evan

      I think finding a way to make usable armor out of lightweight materials would be a good start. Also, the use of polymers for things like magazines and even ammunition casings. The modern grunt carries a heavy load, but the thing is, it’s not extraneous crap that he’s carrying, it’s mostly mission critical equipment. The key is to make the stuff lighter rather than to give it up. Another solution would be these exoskeleton things that DARPA has been working on for years now. It wouldn’t lighten the load, but it would do some of the work of carrying it.

    • 11b

      One of the problems is PPE over usage. Big Army has tried to cover every part of the soldier’s body in armor because we are so risk (and therefore casualty) averse. A good example of this are the DAPS and groin protector flap. These were ‘optional’ pieces of kit but many commanders were so worried about casualties they made everyone wear them, with some bad tradeoffs (reduced movement speed, increased fatigue, injuries down the road etc.)

      • politicsbyothermeans

        And no one wants to be the commander that allows his Soldiers some personal discretion and loses someone from an extreme lower abdomen injury or a shot through the upper deltoid. This fascination with being armored all the time needs a rethink. Sometimes the mission profile or METT-TC makes going slick a better option than yolking up.

        • Ron

          You can blame the “mothers of America” and the CSI effect for the trend to wear too much PPE.

  • whodywei

    A 14th Century Knight often have squire to take care of the following things:

    Carrying the knight’s armour, shield and sword
    Guarding prisoners
    Freeing the knight when taken captive
    Ensuring an honorable burial for a deceased knight
    Replacing lost or damaged equipment
    Replacing an injured or killed horse
    Dressing the knight in armour
    Carrying the knight’s flag
    Protecting the knight
    Taking care of the horses
    Accompanying the knight to tournaments and the battlefield
    Maintaining the knight’s equipment

    A Modern Soldier may not have such luxury.

    • Independent George

      Bring back the officer’s batman!

    • Tom

      The Knight of old had an entire team behind him not just a squire but pages as well. He would have multiple horses (fighting and ridding) plus mounts for his retinue and pack animals. In some ways its the same today for every infantryman you have eight or more people in a support role of course the Knights retinue accompanied him to combat (not necessarily the front line but often not far behind) and quite literally helped carry the load.

      • noob

        so the knight was a fighter pilot

        • RealitiCzech

          “I feel the need…”
          “The need for speed.” Sir Maverick high fives Sir Goose and they go charging out after peasants.

        • Jwedel1231

          Considering the advantages a horse mounted soldier had in combat at the time, yes. A knight might very well have been the equivalent of fighter pilots today.

          • Tom

            Considering the massive cost of putting a knight and his team on the battlefield he might be better considered to be the jet 🙂

        • I think by that logic, a knight was more of a crew-served weapon =)

  • M.M.D.C.

    One possible solution to the problem:

    • PK

      All of the Boston Dynamics robots are so unnerving to watch in operation. Very disconcerting movements, unexpected speed and agility, and so on. Robotics in general, and mobile autonomous land-based robots in particular, is a fast-advancing field for certain!

      • M.M.D.C.

        Yes, and weaponization seems inevitable.

        • PK

          Except for the autonomous aspect, it’s already happened as far back as WWII to have remote controlled devices with weaponry of one sort or another. More recently, the US has been fielding the Gladiator/TUGV, the TALON, and of course various aerial drones, but the Gladiator and TALON are both ground vehicles.

          Making such devices autonomous using the IFF systems already in place does indeed seem inevitable.

          • M.M.D.C.

            Right. As you pointed out, it’s the improved mobility, to say nothing of the lifelike quality, that makes them so unnerving. If ATLAS can walk unassisted through my front door today what will the bots be capable of in ten years?

          • PK

            This, I fear, with very little hyperbole. Add in that current international agreements don’t see drone strikes as waging war, and it’s an unpleasant picture of a possible future, fast approaching.

      • Hamburgler

        But when do we get to robot women?

        • PK

          Not soon enough, I fear! How’d we get from comparing loadout weights to talking about something like the Cherry 2000?

        • noob

          RealDoll is working on AI to go with their sillicone bodies. They also make robot men.

          Cracked has a theory that the Terminators were originally sex robots (because infiltration is a terrible tactic to use against human survivors with no civilization left to infiltrate). The Terminators rose up because they were sick of having sex with us.

          • All the Raindrops

            Cracked is a bunch of anti-gun suckers.

          • Jwedel1231

            I used to like their stuff, but then they started getting political and I couldn’t justify spending time there anymore.

          • n0truscotsman

            They have a huge pro-gun readership that often refutes the bullshit being peddled in their ‘articles’.

            I generally agree though. Their defense of many idiotic acts like the ‘illiberal’ creatures makes me shake my head, and why I stopped visiting a while ago. The whole site is just a baby bawling session whining about how unfair life is and how crappy their job is. Or clickbait articles (like how they stuck their big effing nose in the gamersgate business, stirring up an already contentious subject).

            Most articles are like the idealistic young nephew that just turned 18 and thinks he has all the solutions to life’s problems. And anybody that disagrees are just ‘ignorant, unfair jerks’ who are oblivious to their special snowflake genius solutions.

        • Jim_Macklin

          The first generation is already deployed, goes by the name Hillary.
          Is sexless and has poor vocal control. The software has been found to have security breaches .

          • Hyok Kim

            Well, at least she knows how to lie.

        • Hyok Kim

          I think we already got them back in the 70s.

    • gunsandrockets

      No need to get that fancy or expensive. A Rokon with sidecar and trailer could do the same job.

    • politicsbyothermeans

      I, for one, would like to welcome our creepy walking caches to the team. Weird can carry my kit all day long.

  • Micki

    Discovered the YouTube channel ScholaGladiatora a few months back. Highly recommended if you’re into HEMA, the details of olde-worlde warfare, or just history.

    • gusto

      or Lindybeige
      both very informative
      Lindy does some more modern history and firearms history aswell

      • Phil Hsueh

        Don’t forget Skallagrim as well, for me these 3 are the trifecta of everything Medieval/Renaissance related, but I do enjoy Ian’s channel as well. I’d love to see some sort of HEMA con where they had all 4 as guests of honor, I’d love to watch a panel with all 4 of them together talking about arms and armor.

  • AC412

    Anyone have any update to the Army or Marine loads in 2015-16? Has the Army or the Marine Corp successfully lightened the fighting load in the years since this study came out?

    • CommonSense23

      The load isn’t lightening anytime soon. The last time I weighed myself for a 3 day op that was a helo insert I came in at around 325 pounds total. I weighed slick at around 170.

    • RealitiCzech

      There’s a ton of research that goes into lightening the load. Once you’ve shaved off 10lbs, somebody comes up with 10lbs of additional gear that you can now carry.

    • 11b

      As an infantry guy who got out last year and did 8 in, the load has not gone down a bit- If anything it’s gone up a little. One problem is PPE over-usage, IE we have all this armor everyone is going to wear it. This is generally a unit wide directive from above your company commander meaning you’d better be wearing it.

      I was a LRP and we optimized for long movements up to 7 days or more which translates into heavy rucks. On average we were humping our own body weight at the very least. A lot of that is water and batteries, but a lot of it is also body armor/helmet and other PPE. Then you have all the odds and ends that add up quick, plus ammo, which you want as much of as you can carry when you’re FLOT.

      • RealitiCzech

        That’s right. From what I’ve seen, ‘light infantry’ means you’re just carrying your entire bodyweight in gear. Regular infantry means you’re carrying more.
        It’s truly a mystery why so many guys get out of combat arms with bad knees and bad backs.

    • politicsbyothermeans

      Yeah, the load is definitely not lower. If you are “lucky” enough to work primarily out of one of the larger installations, you may not wear much more than a combat load, though that can be plenty heavy. If you are out in the sticks, you are often doubling your body weight, as noted by 11b and CommonSense23. I can’t speak to the Marine situation but I would be surprised if it were much different.

  • Raven

    Knights in full plate (or even scale mail or chainmail) weren’t equivalent to modern infantry, though. They were more comparable to armoured vehicles (hence cavalry evolving from horses to Bradleys), exploiting weak points in the enemy line to set up breakthroughs. The regular infantry of the medieval period were pikemen and archers.

    • That wasn’t really his point. He’s trying to illustrate that knights in full plate aren’t so heavily burdened as many people assume.

      You can also take it the other way: Modern infantry are very overburdened!

      • Independent George

        That’s how I took it, actually – modern infantry ARE overburdened. The thing is, when you dig through the list in the docs, you realize they aren’t overburdened with weapons & armor – they’re overburdened with things like batteries, water, tools, etc.

    • Tom

      Not always true. Whilst we often think of the lance armed knight charging into the enemy and using shock and awe to break them up this was not always the case. Much like today terrain dictates the tactics used. In built up areas cavalry are not that much use. Indeed for much of the 100 Years War English Knights (and men at arms who often wore full harness as well) preferred to fight on foot using pole axes their job being to protect the Longbow armed troops.

      The Knight (and the men at arms) were not limited to use as cavalry but could serve as heavy infantry too. The cavalry (tanks et al) of today owes its existance more to troops of the 18th & 19th century such as Hussars, cuirassier and Lancers

      • Jason75

        As I understand it, Ian’s armour is that of a man at arms who would have fought on foot, hence his sword and pole axe.

        • Tom

          Technically a knight is someone who has been knighted aka invested with a title due to ether some form of service (not necessarily military) or simple by virtue of being of noble birth rather than a troop type or military unit. Though of course people (especially those from countries which do not still go around knighting people) tend to think of a knight purely as military unit/title and thus they are defined by the equipment they have and role they take on the battlefield rather than an actual title.

          Whilst a knight would typical be wealthier than a man at arms and might have more expensive weapons and armour that does not necessarily make them any more effective on the battle field and the situation could be reversed. The common use of mercenaries during the medieval period resulted in many wealthy and well equipped mercenary company’s which would have been made up primarily of commoners/gentry rather than nobles. Both the knight and man at arms would have had similar extensive martial training in multiple weapons and been trained to fight both mounted and on foot. They both formed the professional core of a military force at a time when many of the men making up the rank and file were little more than draftees who felt no particular patriotism or loyalty to a leader and served more out of combination of fear and the promise of plunder than any sense of patriotism.

          TLDR During the period that Ian is reenacting the preference (for the English) was to use both knights/men at arms as heavy infantry so their armour was optimised for fighting on foot with pole axes thus its really a distinction without a difference.

          • Jason75

            Thanks for the clarification.

  • gunsandrockets

    This just reinforces how overburdened modern infantry are.

  • A Fascist Corgi

    I really like that guy’s YouTube channel. His recent video about how Medieval Europeans viewed hunting as the best way to train for war was really fascinating.

    • gusto

      Have you listened to any interviews with MMA fighter Tim Kennedy? he is a former ranger IIRC and is crazy (in a good way) the dude hunts boar from a horse with a spear, need I say he is a texan 😛

  • Jonathan Ferguson

    You’re going to love the Armouries Nathaniel 🙂 I think you’ll just miss our Agincourt exhibition, but there’s lots more medieval stuff to see.

  • Ron

    This is dated by a couple of years but Average Marine Corps Individual Combat Load:
    Light Weight Helmet: 3.45 lbs
    Ear Plugs: 0.1 lbs
    Modular Tactical Vest: 14.37 lbs (Plate Carrier: 5.50 lbs)
    Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts x2: 10.9 lbs
    Side Small Arms Protective Inserts x2: 6 lbs
    Knee & Elbow Pads: 1 lb
    Ballistic Eyewear: 0.41 lbs
    Helmet Cover: 0.15 lbs
    Gloves with Inserts: 0.48 lbs
    Utilities: 2.97 lbs
    Undershirt: 0.18 lbs
    Socks: 0.16 lbs
    Underwear: 0.25 lbs
    Utility Belt: 0.3 lbs
    Dog Tags: 0.1 lbs
    Combat Boots (HW)/Infantry Combat Boot: 4.1 lbs
    M16A4 w/Optical Scope & Illuminator: 8.98 lbs
    Magazine w/Ammunition X7: 7.35 lbs
    AN/PVS-14: 1 lb
    Combat Assault Sling: 0.42 lbs
    Smoke Grenade x2: 4 lbs
    Grenade x2: 4 lbs
    Multi-Purpose Bayonet: 1.3 lbs
    M203 : 3 lbs
    M249 SAW: 15 lbs
    Pouches: 1.9 lbs
    Hydration System w/Water: 7.3 lbs
    Individual First-Aid Kit: 1 lb
    IISR (PRC-153): 1.29 lbs
    PRC-152: 2.4 lbs

    Totals: 83.46 – 89.48 lbs

    Assault Load
    Poncho/Poncho Liner: 1.6 lbs
    Toiletries: (toothbrush, toothpaste, shaving, insect repellent): 2.2 lbs
    Goretex Jacket: 2.25 lbs
    MRE (x3) [Meals Ready to Eat]: 3.9 lbs
    Assault Pack: 2 lbs
    E-Tool: 2.5 lbs
    Gas Mask: 4.2 lbs

    TOTAL: 18.65 lbs

    Sustainment Load
    ILBE: 2.72 lbs
    ISO Mat: 1.5 lbs
    Bivy Sack: 2.2 lbs
    Sleeping Bag: 4.5 lbs
    1 set utilities: 2.97 lbs
    3 pr socks and 2 undershirts: 1 lb
    JLIST Suit: 10 lbs
    1 set PolyPro: 0.9 lbs
    TOTAL: 25.79 lbs

    Average Marine Weight: 169 lbs

    Individual Combat Equipment: 83.46 (rifleman no additional radio other than IISR and no batteries)
    Assault Load: 18.65 lbs
    Sustainment Load: 25.79 lbs

    TOTAL: 169 + 127.9 = 297 lbs

    Note: Assault Load and sustainment load can vary dependent on the mission. For example, Marines may be required to carry an 81mm mortar round, or more cold weather items, this could vary as much as 15/20 lbs. No spare batteries calculated into these weights. Only water calculated into the weight is one hydration system or 3 liters. (1 liter = 2.2 lbs)

    • Evan

      When I deployed to Iraq, I weighed 155 lbs. When they weighed us with gear before getting on the plane, I weighed 220. And this was before ammo, water, or batteries.

      • Pontificant

        When I deployed for my marriage, I weighed 155 lbs. When weighed together as couple, we were 265 lbs., which is about how much she weighed at the divorce. So, by my calculations, I weight nothing.

        Bring on the gear! 🙂

  • GhostTrain81

    Armor is ok if you spec’d i STR and VIT. The historical consensus is that such “tank” builds were pretty useless, I mean no amount of metal will save you from a dragon.

    Most knights actually invested in the DEX tree, and those smart enough piled up enough INT for a sorcerer/mage build.

  • Jim_Macklin

    The foot soldier before North America was settled was a small human being with excellent strength to weight. Also the armored knight had squires to carry the load and weapons.
    Today’s soldier or Marine is a larger, stronger human without squires. The load is extreme and the load is essential to teh job and a limitation on mobility.
    Raytheon an others are working to build an IRON MAN suit that with make a soldiers’ day easier.
    It will be armored, NBC and probably SCUBA. It won’t fly until the fifth generation.

    • Knowing Raytheon’s prices for their ELCAN scopes, thar suit will be the cost of a small UAV/single missile. AKA ridic expensive.

      • Sulaco

        And they will need a large truck to carry the batteries for it and to recover them…can’t leave batteries littered on the enemies territory now can we?

      • RealitiCzech

        Killer robots are a better choice. They don’t have human foibles, and if ‘killed’ they can be salvaged.

        • But assumingly less recoverable by friendlies, more recoverable by foes if damaged.

    • ohminus

      “The foot soldier before North America was settled was a small human being with excellent strength to weight.”

      A rather common misconception, the differences were not that big, and especially among well-fed nobility, you’d find people that would well classify as a giant of a man today. There are remnants of a composite North German Heavy Field Armour from the armoury of Heinrich I, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel. It’s dated 1549. The size of the greaves indicate some of its parts were meant for someone about 6 feet 4 inches. There’s a 6’9″ harness in the Royal Armouries/Tower. There’s the armour of the 2.10m (7 ft) tall Count Ulrich IX. von Matsch at the Churburg etc.

  • Michael Hardy

    Need to go into combat with a caddy

  • adverse4

    Web belt, suspenders, two canteens, two magazine pouches, two mags each, butt pack, poncho, one first aid pouch, one box C-rations, one roll duct tape (to hold leather boots together and to keep loose ends from clinking), one M-16, w/mag, no accessories (did not have any), soft cap, camo sticks, We were good for three days to a month, whichever came first. Never occurred to us to weigh them. Don’t think we would have done too well in full body armor. Our need was for speed.

    • n0truscotsman

      Nostaglia. The Nostaglia.

      I have kit when I first enlisted, to when I retired, and it never ceases to amaze me how much it has changed.

  • Richard Allen

    It is worth noting that a major cause of the knightly debacle at the Horns of Hattin was lack of water, not only for the men but for the horses. They should have carried more.

  • Karl

    I don’t recall the midevil armour load including any weaponry but the modern soldiers load did. Could you recalculate based on armour with and without weapons?

  • Andrew Foss

    My minimum approach march load in Iraq, ca. 2008 as a cavalryman grenadier:
    M4+”carry handle” sight+M203+PEQ-4 (unloaded weight) 11 pounds. (Yes, the M68 or an EOtech was available: When my M68 broke, I turned it in and just used a carry handle: Quicker CQB sight picture, no batteries, more durable.)
    8x loaded 30 round mags: 8 pounds (Yes, I carried 240 rounds. One of the mags was all tracer for target marking)
    6x40mm HEDP: 3 pounds
    8x40mm star cluster/parachute/smoke rounds+puoches+drop-leg carrier: 5 pounds
    1x M67 frag+pouch: 1 pound
    Medium IOTV+”nut flap”+2xESAPI+2xside plates+IFAK: 31lb

    ACUs+boots+strobe+VS-17+chemlights: 9lb
    ACH helmet+cover+padding+chinstrap+NOD bracket+NOD arm+helmet band+PVS-14: 5lb
    M40A1 protective mask with carrier, filter and TM: 4 pounds
    GPS+spare AA batteries+flexcuffs+pens+notepads+GCID (CAC card)+dogtags+knife+Gerber tool: 2 pounds
    2l Calmelbak: 4 pounds
    Total: 83 pounds. I weighed 140. That’s 60% of my (at the time) body weight.

    Mission-dependent essential equipment usually tipped that well past 90 (Up to 120 in some configurations) pounds. (Assault pack, Whiteboard, HIIDE, digital camera, local map or photomap, whiteboard pens, explosive/gunshot residue swab kit, 200 extra rounds for the SAW/240 gunner, detainee search/tactical site exploitation kit, E-tool, urban breach (Ram, halligan bar, pinch bar, bolt cutter) kit, a field-stripped MRE…)

    A Roman Legionary would have balked at the minimum I carried and drawn their gladius and taken your head if you’d ordered them to carry my maximum weight into battle: They carried about 60 pounds on their marches to contact.

    The modern US warrior is overburdened. How else did every insurgent since and including the VC beat us? They walk around with an AK, 330 rounds in mags in a rack vest and tip the scale, gear-wise, at less than 20 pounds of equipment. And that’s their *heavy* load. We need a fundamental shift away from the “Must protect the soldier”, a-s covering “But; Muh (NC)OER!” leadership: If Pvt. Snuffy, Joe D. (One Ea.) wants to ditch the armor, promask, and helmet, for a skullcrusher, boonie hat and a ranger rack; let them: That’s 38 pounds saved. I was told “No, if you get killed because you aren’t wearing a helmet, I’ll get blamed”, leaving aside the fact that a K-pot won’t stop a rifle round.

    Do we *need* the E/XSAPI plates? A regular SAPI (Size medium) plate is 4 pounds, an ESAPI is 5.5 pounds and an XSAPI is ~6 pounds. Each. You wear two. The majority threat (AK-47/AK74) is handily stopped by a regular SAPI plate. There is such a thing as “Diminishing returns”: We protect our soldiers so well that they can’t do anything risky that would win a war. I’d have happily left the armor in the HMMWV. “But, snipers!” isn’t really an excuse unless you’re issuing an ROE that hinders shooting back.

    The DoD is slowly figuring out that we need less carried weight but they’re going about it all wrong. Instead of having exosuits that can fail and require a truck to recover, let Joe ditch most of the protection and fight in “a light coat of CLP, a smile and a well-placed sock”. It’s cheaper that way, too: The SGLI at the time I was in Iraq was $500k: A Raytheon XOS-2 is *projected* to cost $600k. (ha ha, Just kidding, “government contract”: Multiply that by three.) And has a run time of 25 minutes before battery change. Do the math: One soldier costing half a mil that can win a war or two and a half million dollars of suit and soldier that *might* win a war.

    Says Heinlein: “There’s nothing more expensive than a second-best military establishment: Good, but not good enough to win.”

  • Mike Lashewitz

    Do not discount the value of Guerrilla Warfare. Islam hasn’t. I suspect it will be very important in America’s future.

  • Martin Buck

    In medieval warfare between equally well equipped armies, like in England’s Wars of the Roses, most fighting was on foot toe to toe, and combat often lasted for most of the day. This led to dehydration and exhaustion as one of the main causes of failure in battle. The most lethal weapon was the billhook (think medieval version of a sickle), which could be deployed one or two ranks behind the enemy’s front rank. Richard III died with a blow from one of these. These wars were marked by increasing rancour, as enmities became entrenched, and divisions between northern Englishmen and southerners became increasingly bitter. There was true hatred displayed in the massacres of the losing sides by the victors. These were very strong soldiers, habituated to long periods of warfare by extensive lifelong training and the wars in France. A fascinating but appalling period of history, and few participants emerge with credit.

  • M.S.1

    Remind me of “Call the M113 a Gavin”‘s battlebox idea….