Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Study Impact of Wearing Medieval Armor

FoolishOwl writes "Scientists at the University of Leeds tested the effects of wearing heavy medieval armor by monitoring volunteers, who were experienced medieval reenactors, as they walked and ran on treadmills, while wearing accurate replicas of 15th century armor. While the suits of armor weighed between 30 and 50 kg, comparable to the weight of gear carried by modern soldiers, volunteers who carried equivalent amounts of weight in backpacks had an easier time with the weight. Volunteers in armor burned more energy and had difficulty breathing. The scientists speculate that much of the additional effort was due to weight of armor on the legs — leg armor was one of the first things dropped in the shift towards lighter armor in the 16th century. While it has long been assumed that heavy medieval armor limited mobility, and that this contributed to the outcome of battles, such as the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, this was the first study to quantify the impact of wearing heavy armor."

38 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Battles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    While it has long been assumed that heavy medieval armor limited mobility, and that this contributed to the outcome of battles, such as the Battle of Agincourt in 1415

    Nonsense. It's well established that being French contributes to the outcome of battles, such as the Battle of Agincourt. The effects of armor is minor in comparison.

    1. Re:Battles by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      No I meant the Napoleonic Wars where France had the whole world on the run for almost 20 years.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Battles by liquidweaver · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh come on. http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp When you cherry pick from the history of any country, you can come up with a long list of defeats. I don't remember Japan, Germany or Russia being too successful in the last hundred years. Even America got it's capital burned to the ground in 1812, and was defeated in Vietnam (in fairness, after France too).

      --
      mov ah, 4ch
      int 21h
    3. Re:Battles by dltaylor · · Score: 2

      Yeah, like the losers who blockaded Lord Charles Cornwallis' resupply and reinforcements at Yorktown, and the ground troops that reinforced the perimeter to help prevent a breakout.. Without the help of the French, both in North America and in keeping the British busy elsewhere, there would likely be no United States of America.

      Perhaps the French defeats that passed into folklore (Agincourt, Trafalgar, Waterloo, Dien Bien Phu) have done so because the French were, at the time, a major power (which takes winning a lot) that got some comeuppance, as the USofA did at, for example, Little Big Horn.

    4. Re:Battles by Chicken_Kickers · · Score: 2

      It is easy to go after the French, especially since they initially lost WWII. What most USA,USA,USA Americans tend to forget was that the first World War was largely a French vs Germany affair, with France fielding the largest army and suffering the largest casualties, not to mention that the war was fought largely on French soil. It was no poetic license when they said that the "flower of Europe's youth" were killed during WWI. The UK and US on other hand had the luxury of fighting without serious consequences to their homeland,separated by the Channel or the Atlantic ocean. This was slightly less true for the Brits in WWII but still much the same for the US. If like some historians who argues that WWII was only a continuation of WWI, then you will see the reason for the rapid collapse of the French army at the start of WWII. And in case you Anglo-Americans/Brits tend to forget, the Normans were French with Viking blood in them. The English language that you speak today had been drastically modified by the Normans. So, in many ways, you are French too.

    5. Re:Battles by Phrogman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Americans have this tunnel vision with regards to the French, and assume they can't win wars because they got their ass kicked in WWII. They seem to think its funny even - even though if you mention the French in any regard on a forum, you can be 100% assured that someone will make a comment concerning that defeat. Its long since gotten tired folks.

      Somehow they seem to ignore the whole Napoleonic Wars period, you know 30+ years where the French were the most feared military force in the world. When the French *defined* military technology, techniques and achievements. Sure, they are kind of stuck up, and their recent military history hasn't been all that distinguished but to be fair they were also faced with the German army, in its time the most efficient military force in existence. It took a whole lot of countries to defeat the Germans, and yes that eventually included the USA.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    6. Re:Battles by liquidweaver · · Score: 2

      I am an American - and I would agree with you. Britain was just short of defeat in WW2, Sweden was making deals with the Nazis, and Russia is enormous and enormously cold. France got sacked in WW2 mostly because of bad military strategy - but more importantly, because the Germans had the best tech and strategies in Europe. Making fun of France for getting rocked in WW2 is like laughing at the kid who got his lunch money stolen, despite that he tried to defend himself. And I am proud of my country;however, a lot of my countrymen are so proud it's jingoist.

      --
      mov ah, 4ch
      int 21h
    7. Re:Battles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The US land army in the spring of 1940 was hardly better than the Dutch or Belgian army, and tiny compared to the French one. The quick French defeat is unfortunate, but no other army actually in existence at that time could have done better defending France from Germany. French performance on the unit level is also not notably worse than British, Belgian, and Dutch performance in that campaign, if one compares units of similar quality.

      The French were Europe's most formidable military force in a number of periods: the Napoleonic wars, the second half of the 18th century, when the French were only contained by European coalitions (the Grand Alliance, the Augsburg leaugue), and in the early Carolingian and Merovingian periods. From the point of view of us Dutch people, the French were the #1 threat to peace in Europe for centuries before Germany took center stage.

      I would also rate them higher than the English as soldier material in general. Obviously, the countries that are most often in harm's way are most likely to develop and retain a militaristic tradition. The hundred years' war was most of the time a war between Frenchmen. England was at that time partially based in France and obviously raised many of its "English" soldiers locally. England also depended on allies and experienced mercenaries from France and the French-speaking Low countries (Burgundy, Flanders) in that war, and even fought the Scots and Welsh in that era using continental war veterans. Agincourt is an exception, involving mostly English and Welsh archers, and is especially notable to the English because of it. Other major victories over the French involve major contributions of European allies. At Blenheim, for instance, 16.000 of 52.000 were English, at Waterloo just 24.000 of 118.000 (also excluding the King's German Legion). French armies also made use of mercenaries from Germany, the Low countries, and Nortern Italy at times in the middle ages, but generally speaking mostly consisted of Frenchmen.

    8. Re:Battles by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Their surrender in WW2 is usually the first thing British people bring up too. The reality is that we were there too (Expeditionary Force) and got our arses kicked too. It would have been a lot worse for us if the French hadn't covered our fleeing from the battle at Dunkirk.

      France was defeated militarily. People seem to think that when Churchill gave his "fight them on the beaches... we will never surrender" speech he was being serious, but no country ever fights to the last man. While I don't want to take anything away from the heroic pilots who won the Battle of Britain it could easily have gone the other way just by the weather being more favourable to the Germans. If we had lost and they invaded it is unlikely we could have stopped them and would have surrendered eventually rather than every last man, woman and child fighting to the death.

      We should be proud of our victory, but also realistic and not so xenophobic. Aside from anything else it holds us back. When people start talking about the EU the old war-time propaganda seems to be fresh in people's minds. Most Germans were not even born when the Nazis were in power and they have done a lot to prevent it ever happening again. We should also not forget that the allied victors of WW1 are partially responsible for making Hitler, and it is only be recognising that truth that we were able to create a stable Europe free from war in the years after WW2. In fact Churchill was one of the strongest proponents of a united Europe, which is ironic because the far-right BNP now uses his image to peddle their hateful messages.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Ergonomics by pgpalmer · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a reason why good-quality backpacks have a strap that wraps around the waist - the pelvis is capable of comfortably supporting a large amount of weight, and that is why the weight of backpacks is best supported there. Medieval armour supports it all over the body, causing body-wide muscle fatigue. From the article: "We were interested to find out why that was - and one of the main reasons is that if you wear a suit of armour, a lot of the weight is carried on the legs - about 7-8kg of it."

    1. Re:Ergonomics by husker_man · · Score: 2

      Actually, the best backpacks (ones for long-distance hiking) tend to have the weight more on the hips than on the waist. Ideally, the shoulder straps should be relatively loose, and the bulk of the weight transferred down to the hip belt. The purpose for the shoulder straps is to to keep it relatively stable.

    2. Re:Ergonomics by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Medieval armour supports it all over the body, causing body-wide muscle fatigue.

      Not so. Medieval armour up to the 14th century had hip belts that supported the weight of the leg armour on the pelvis.

      The amount of effort you spend wearing armour is way more dependent upon the fit than the total weight.

      There's been a huge study of this in various groups of the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA). Possibly the best proponent of this study that I know of is a gent known as His Majesty Cornelius von Beck, current king of Lochac (Australia). (www.sca.org.au). He's an armourer himself, and has studied - and worn - original 14th century plate. Serious students only can contact him via the SCA.

      The SCA is the only organisation I know that chooses its leaders by rite of combat...

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    3. Re:Ergonomics by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Informative
      A 50lb draw longbow can throw a clothyard shaft straight through 1/8" mild steel plate 10 out of 10, and through maille as if it were gauze.

      Crossbows weren't really required at Agincourt. A long-established culture of longbow use (mandated by the Crown) had more of an effect. You can see the effect today by looking at the window sills of small English churches -- worn to a catenary by yeomen (yew-man, a bow user) who believed sharpening their arrowheads on a church window brought good luck.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    4. Re:Ergonomics by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's been a huge study of this in various groups of the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA).

      And some of it has even been reasonably scientific. The vast bulk of it doesn't even approach Mythbusters levels of scientific accuracy and diligence however. Though the SCA tried very hard, and has gotten markedly better over time, a scientific or academic organization it isn't.
       
      (Disclaimer: Member of the SCA 25+ years now.)

  3. We are the knight who say "Ni by MRe_nl · · Score: 3, Funny

    ne miles on a treadmill are you effing joking".

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    1. Re:We are the knight who say "Ni by mcvos · · Score: 2

      The folks who could afford full armor could also afford horses.

      You touch upon a very questionable claim by TFA. It says the inability to run for very long might have influenced battles like Agincourt, but the French (who lost there) had all there knights on horseback. The English knights (who won) were on foot. They still weren't running very much, because they were relying mostly on their longbows and letting the French come to them (who were hindered by mud and stakes in the ground), so to what extend fatigue from running in armour is relevant is highly questionable.

      That doesn't change the fact that many other battles did feature lots of armoured foot soldiers walking all across the battlefield. It's just that Agincourt seems like a poor example to me.

    2. Re:We are the knight who say "Ni by corbettw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you ever ridden a galloping horse over rough ground? It's hard, and you use a lot of muscles in your legs, buttocks, and abdomen just to stay upright. Add in all the weight from armor and weapons, and it's no wonder that knights who had to move, even if they were riding horses, would be exhausted compared to knights who could stand back and let the enemy come to them.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  4. Dads with swords by gijoel · · Score: 2

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bdfx7l4z5cQ

    Who knew scientist suffered from too much game of thrones.

  5. Re:Experienced reenactors?? by ThePeices · · Score: 2

    Well, I am going to turn on my brain ( you forgot to, it seems ), and apply logic and reasoning.

    Being an experienced medieval reenactor means that person is experienced in wearing and moving around in, medieval armor. If you were going to study the effects of wearing heavy armor, would it not make sense to use test subjects who know how to use said armor, in the way it was used, in the 14th century?

    See, how hard was that? Using your brain is not as difficult as you thought, stop being lazy and use it.

  6. Next week by Nanosphere · · Score: 2

    Scientists study the impact of wearing a wizard hat while yelling "Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt!"

  7. Re:Experienced reenactors?? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

    Maybe interest level. "Volunteers wanted for research, wear armor and run on a treadmill!" got no takers at the local McDonalds, wheras they got all the volunteers they needed in 2 mins at a rennisance festival.

    Also it probably helps to have people who have worn armor before are familiar with how they're supposed to fit, how they can move in them, how they put it on.

    At the -very- least, it's an important methods note. You wouldn't publish a drug trial study and leave out the fact that you used mice.

  8. SCA Nerd by Toze · · Score: 4, Informative

    Disclaimer; the SCA does medievalISH combat with rules and equipment for safety; it's not authentic medieval fight styles, and there are other groups (like WMA) that focus on things like 15th century German fechtbuchs and who have more authority to speak on authentically historical modes and styles of combat.

    That said, the SCA does swordfighting at full speed and often with full power (depending on the area), and there are some strong similarities with historical combat. The sticks used (for safety reasons) are roughly the same weight as the historical swords, and there's a strong social pressure to wear armour that is both save and as authentic as possible. Thus, there's a couple things I can comment on from personal experience. First, metal armour on limbs *noticeably* slows down shots. We accept plastic plates as long as they're covered ("best effort to look good" is the standard), so people will fight with plastic covered in canvas or leather, and there is a well-known tradeoff in the SCA between "looking good" in shiny metal armour and having the best possible speed.

    I just finished building a fairly close replica of 14th century coat-of-plates armour. I had been using (poorly disguised) plastic before, and the difference when wearing 25 pounds of overlapping plates is quite noticeable. I look much better, of course, but I also work harder, sweat more, and need to take more breaks. The weight's all on my shoulders, so it's not wearing my legs out, but there's a noticeable weight when I'm moving. I recently got metal gauntlets, and they're noticeable as well; the hands move slower when there's a pound or two of metal on them. I hate to reference anime, but you know how Goku wears the heavy arm and leg weights in Dragonball Z? There's some truth to that; even the fat SCA fighters have bulkier shoulders and larger arms. (actually wearing weights around all day will just screw up your joints, by the way; it's the holding-heavy-things-out-from-your-body that does it)

    There's a reason armour was attached where it was in the middle ages; suspending legs from a belt takes at least some of the weight off the legs when moving.

    --
    No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
  9. Firsthand by Caerdwyn · · Score: 3, Informative

    Speaking as an ex-"reenactor" (Society for Creative Anachronism, http://www.sca.org/ I can offer the following firsthand observations:

    1. The quality of fitting to the individual is probably the single most important factor in how burdensome a given suit of armor is, from the point of view of the ability to move quickly. Leggings are by far the hardest to fit correctly; they also tend to shift around the most in response to movement, so a good fitting can become a bad fitting very quickly.
    2. In melee combat, the legs are hit far more often than any target other than the head. Leg armor may be encumbering, but when it comes to hand to hand combat you can't do without it.
    3. When faced with archers, an unshielded fighter takes it in the arms and torso more than anywhere else.
    4. Breathing difficulties are usually caused by poor ventilation in a closed-face helm, or a side effect of heat. Which brings us to:
    5. Overheating is what is going to exhaust you. You're wearing not just armor, but heavy padding as well. The number one factor an SCA medic sees at a large battle is overwhelmingly heat exhaustion/heatstroke/dehydration.

    --
    Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    1. Re:Firsthand by Toze · · Score: 5, Informative

      Regarding 2, Bengt Thordeman's "Armour of the Battle of Wisby" includes a survey of wounds from a 14th century mass grave, and very many of the deaths in historical combat seemed to be preceded by leg wounds. Specifically, one or both legs followed by an overhead strike to the top of the head with sword or hammer.
      (sca) I found it particularly amusing, because there's an An Tir joke about "the kingmaker" being ankle-ankle-head. (/sca)

      --
      No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
    2. Re:Firsthand by Caerdwyn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Larger wars include archery, slingers (glorified tennis balls), javelins. Archery rules specify 30-pound bows maximum, padded bird blunts, arrow shafts covered with fiber tape to prevent jagged points if they break (some kingdoms disallow wooden shafts altogether and require fiberglass, because fiberglass makes a mushy rather than pointed shape when it breaks), all helms required to have no single opening that you can fit a 1/4" dowel through, no neck-exposure allowed. West-Caid war (California vs. Arizona, etc.) was a great one for that. I think they do that at Pennsic (New England vs. the Rust Belt, battle cry is "Loser gets Pittsburg!"), and Pennsic draws many thousands of fighters annually. It's quite a spectacle.

      All of the above info is over a decade stale. Things may have changed, then again, maybe not. I don't know if the SCA still includes archery in wars (it was never universal; wars were announced in advance whether there were any scenarios including archery), but archery was a great way to get inexpensively into SCA war-combat. An archer needed only light body armor and a helm that was the equal of the heavy fighters. Rules are (were?) that an archer was automatically considered dead if a heavy fighter comes within ten feet, which is a good thing, as SCA melee combat is full-power full-speed. You are hitting your opponent as just as hard as your strength allows (the blow has to be hard enough to have caused injury with a real steel weapon against period armor, so such a hit on a lightly armored combatant would certainly break bones, even with SCA rattan weapons); nobody wanted to chance that a heavy would misidentify a light fighter as another heavy through limited visibility and give a full-power hit instead of a token "love tap". However, getting within ten feet isn't easy. Many an archer has happily led a heavy fighter a merry chase under the blazing sun, taunting all the way... to deal with that exercise in frustration, some fighters carried "darts" (small javelins) to smack down cocky archers with.

      Good times. Add where else can you hire an entire mercenary company for a keg of home-brew?

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    3. Re:Firsthand by mcvos · · Score: 2

      5. Overheating is what is going to exhaust you. You're wearing not just armor, but heavy padding as well. The number one factor an SCA medic sees at a large battle is overwhelmingly heat exhaustion/heatstroke/dehydration.

      Note that this depends quite a bit on the climate. There's a good reason why armour got lighter the further south you got. Also keep in mind that much of the US lies at the same latitude as the Mediteranean.

      In the end, though, armour wasn't meant to be comfortable. It was meant to keep you alive, or at least make you somewhat harder to kill.

  10. Napoleon was Italian :-) by perpenso · · Score: 2

    No I meant the Napoleonic Wars where France had the whole world on the run for almost 20 years.

    "Napoleon was born in Corsica to parents of noble Genoese ancestry", so he was actually Italian not French. :-)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon

    Corsica was ruled by Genoa (part of Italy) for 400 or so years, had a 20-something year rebellion, 15 or so years of independence and was then conquered by France shortly before Napoleon was born. Its constitution was written in Italian and Italian was the dominant language long after Napoleon's death.

    Before commencer à la flamme please note the ":-)". Yes, Napoleon was born in French territory and was therefore a French citizen.

  11. Modern Armored Combat by JabberWokky · · Score: 3, Informative

    What's interesting is that modern sports combat based on western martial arts -- meaning sword and shield, full metal armor, but using modern materials -- has shifted over to using things like 6061-T6 aluminum to keep things light. Also Underarmor sweat wicking clothing (seriously). For instance, the SCA, which is interested in individuals or groups meeting in competitive combat rather than a specific battle from a particular time or place. A good deal of effort is put into finding lightweight armor that still protects your bones.

    Now comes the twist: It's actually thicker and more durable, because nobody likes to hammer out their armor each week after (or during) fighter practice. So it actually lasts much much longer under a barrage of blows, but is still roughly the same weight. Apparently it's a reasonable weight to fight in, and what you can now take out with modern materials, people are adding back for durability.

    Check out http://www.zoombang.com/ for really out there modern armor designed for medieval non-edged combat.

    obSemiOffTopic: Deep bruises are just part of the sport -- my wife is very careful to point out early in doctor visits that she's involved in full contact martial arts. Especially as she's 5 foot and petite and I'm 6'3" and huge; we already had one nurse freak out and send me out to have a talk with her about reporting domestic violence. She now carries photos on her phone of herself in armor, holding her helm and grinning happily, just to fend off people who get the wrong idea.

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    1. Re:Modern Armored Combat by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 2

      You had me at "modern armor designed for medieval non-edged combat" but Zoombang lost me with that god damn flash menu.

  12. Re:Now let's study other ancient suits of armor by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 2

    In Judo one of the higher katas (well, higher than those that I know) simulates(*) wearing japanese armour. And, from looking at the movements, it looks anything but comfortable.

    (*)I do not know if somewhere it is actually done while wearing armour, I only saw that with the participants wearing the usual judogi.

    --
    Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
  13. Re:Experienced reenactors?? by perpenso · · Score: 2

    In theory it means that they are used to the weight of the armour. I call BS, though. A medieval knight would train to fight in armour for 6-8 hours a day since he was old enough to spit. These guys put it on and stand around doing nothing much for a few hours a day. The whole idea that we can tell how well a medieval person supported armour weight by using modern untrained people is very suspect.

    While an actual medieval knight would surely have outperformed a modern re-enactor that is not terribly relevant. An actual medieval knight would still have improved his personal performance by switching to a modern backup. The modern backpack doesn't rely on muscle, it relies on a physiological structure that has not really changed in the last few centuries - well perhaps scale has changed but not essential structure.

  14. Scientists Study Impact of Wearing Medieval Armor by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2

    Scientists Study Impact of Wearing Medieval Armor

    And, this being slashdor, I expected to see a story about global warming and the effect that armor had on it.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  15. Re:Horses? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

    Yes, however this research indicates one reason why getting a knight off his horse was considered a "good thing" by his enemies.

    The standard way of getting a knight off his horse wasn't to politely ask him to dismount, it was to knock him off.

    At that point, his ability to jog wasn't an issue, it was more an issue of him flopping around on the ground like a turtle on his back until his squire could come help him stand up again.

    It was a "good thing" to knock him off not because he'd be hard pressed to run after you, it was because he'd be hard pressed to run away from you. Or swing a sharp cutty thing at you, for that matter.

  16. Re:Horses? by canajin56 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Totally bogus, even in heavy plate it's not hard to stand again unassisted. Maybe you're thinking of tournament armor. Tournament armor was many many times thicker than battlefield armor. Because you wouldn't be wearing it for extended periods, you wouldn't need to maneuver, and nobody wants to die in a game. Those are the ones where the squire had to help them up, because the armor weight as much as the knight! A knight on the battlefield could probably get back up faster than you could. Another piece of common knowledge about armor that's wrong is that it's mostly pointless. In fact, 10 plate armored knights against a force of 100 chain and leather clad soldiers would be an even match. Plate armor was incredibly effective. It was even somewhat effective against musket fire unless it was at very close range. Just because the hero can casually slice through plate armor doesn't mean a damn thing. Just because it's barely effective in RPGs doesn't mean a damn thing.

    --
    ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  17. Re:Experienced reenactors?? by Xaositecte · · Score: 2

    It controls for experience. Random people off the street might be more or less able to move around in armor, all depending on how quickly they take to it. It could have been possible that wearing armor which distributes weight evenly is no more tiring than wearing a backpack, but because the volunteers weren't familiar with armor, they would expend more energy for that reason.

    Also, it's not possible to go out and get real knights, because we haven't finished the time machine yet. Reenactors are the best next thing.

  18. Re:Representative? by corbettw · · Score: 2

    there are no vital organs in the leg, so an injury there is less likely to be lethal.

    The femoral artery is the single largest artery in your body after the aortic artery. Even just knicking it, let alone severing it, will cause you to bleed out in about 30 seconds.

    And considering modern standards of diet and health care, I think you could find considerably better specimens for testing endurance while wearing armor than among knights from 500 years ago.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  19. House Rules by guyminuslife · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm pretty sure that the motivation for this experiment was to settle a long-standing argument about D&D encumbrance rules.

    --
    I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
  20. US Schools by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 2

    'The US wasn't scared of France then.' no they where too busy repainting the White house to care.

    Interestingly, US Schools teach that the British torched the White House, but they usually omit that it was done in retaliation for the U.S.'s burning the houses of Parliament in Canada--which is why the Canadian capital was moved to Ottawa.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!