Quote Originally Posted by econ21
The portrayal is not far from what we know from history:

http://perso.orange.fr/jean-claude.c..._ecossaise.htm
That site's in French. I haven't done French since high school.

However, there is a picture there of an armoured guy with a longbow, I'll grant you that. But I still have to wonder just how practical that combination would have been.

Let me put it this way - if armour was compatible with archery, why wasn't every melee unit in medieval times armed with a bow as well a melee weapon? I suggest it was simply because the combination is impractical.

I'm not saying you couldn't fire a bow with a suit of armour, just that you probably couldn't do it very quickly or with much in the way of accuracy. Just my opinion.

Quote Originally Posted by econ21
I suspect armour is more encumbering when fighting in melee than with archery - melee is so much more exhausting. I saw a TV program where a medieval history student (a big strong lad) was kitted out in full plate and had to duel alternate enemies - he was exhausted after 20 seconds.
Yes, melee is very exhausting if you're not used to it and if you don't know how to pace yourself. They didn't practice melee for hours on end for no reason I'm sure.

I still remember the first time I went to fight a bushfire. I was given a wet sack to hit the flames with, I was a pretty fit young man, and envisaged myself heroically putting out large swathes of fireline. After about two minutes slapping flames with the sack I was totally exhausted! You've got to know how to pace yourself, and not to allow yourself to get over-excited.

Experienced Roman soldiers could melee for 15-20 minutes at a time, after which they would rotate to the rear while a fresh centurion took up the fight. So even hardened veterans could best fight in relatively short bursts.

.