Did knights crap their armor or do you think they had a hatch in the back they could open up?

Question

Some of my coworkers brought up this topic. Some believed that they just went were they were and some believed that they had a "back door" for their back door.

Answer 1

There is an illustrated set of models at the link below. Notice that there was either an armored skirt or a different material between the legs. For reasons such as yours and because the armored knights often rode horses, that area didn't have to be armored the same way. It would be a little hard to ride a saddle in pants with a hard metal bottom now wouldn't it?

Answer 2

No they did not build hatch-backs then, and unfortunately in battle with or without armor, when you gotta go, you can only hold it so long. Use your imagination(it had to get a little stinky, and today as well). Think of guys in the trenches today and cant move or make a sound. Back then on horseback in battle there was no way to take off that armor. And there were no hoses attached like in a space suit.

Answer 3

Most knights didn't wear armor on their butts. Most "knights of old" rode horses into battle. Plate armor was designed to protect you as you sat in a saddle, not as you stood.

Also, I should note that a lot of knights "geared up" when they got to where they're going, because the armor is simply too hot to wear for extended periods.

There IS a surviving suit of armor worn by a king, which was specialized foot soldier armor. It included a segmented butt on it. However, I imagine that unless the king himself was dying, there'd be someone to help him lower the armor for "squatting" in a semi-dignified manner. As it was, that armor was only for tournaments and suchlike.. not for war.

Also, it should be mentioned that normal footsoldier armor, when it had a back to it like that, had easily removable plates on thee back. Armorer's invented the "wingnut" specifically for use in making portions of armour easily removable in the field.

The pictures linked by "rabbit" is showing fake armour by the way, I wouldn't use those as a reference, considering they aren't designed to be worn, they're just designed for decoration. They're similar enough to transitional armor, but here's some real armor for you.

http://www.arador.com/gallery/15c-3.jpg
This picture from Leeds Armoury in England shows armour that has a bit of the uhh.. butt .. covered by part of the leg armour. Where this style was used, there was a "barn door" flap that literally tied into place and was hinged onto the "cuisses" (thigh armour). In that case, I imagine they could optionally open the barn doors, as it were.

The link below has many pictures of authentic armour, rather than display armor. I personally make armor, it's a hobby of mine. The folks at this site all make armor, and could certainly answer further questions of this nature.

Answer 4

I'm waiting for a knight in shining armour, i dont think anyone is watching my back on here. A few people keep reporting me and giving me thumbs downs for no reason so i guess i may have upset someone. Never mind.

Answer 5

They crapped their armor.

Especially when they saw longbowmen.

Answer 6

They had Depends for armor.

Answer 7

I don`t know but they must have had a front flap, for, In days of old, when knights were bold, and women were not invented, men drilled holes in telegraph poles and stood there, quite contented.

Answer 8

I think they just held it until they took the armor off.

Answer 9

good question but no manly knight would crap their pants, they must of had a hatch

Answer 10

If they had to go that bad in the middle of battle ,I'm sure they just went.