Did hunter historically wear some kind of armor?

[Conradine]

When hunting dangerous game like boars, bears and wolves did hunters wear armor or protection of some kind?

[Rogar Demonblud]

As I understand it, not really. The stuff is hot, heavy and cumbersome, not to mention noisy. Clothes made of leather were worn, but that's at least as much about briars and brambles as wild animals.

[veti]

Clothes made of leather were worn, but that's at least as much about briars and brambles as wild animals.

Tough clothing would often have been worn, but even that was context-dependent. In warm weather and open country, lots of people would have hunted without wearing anything very special. I suspect the main criterion would be - must be something they don't mind getting blood on. (i.e. Probably not their Sunday best.)

[Conradine]

No armor, not even for nasty stuff like big bears or lions?

[Anymage]

Again. Presumably thick clothing, but heavier armors were pricey for most of the time they were available. Hunters tended to do it for their own subsistence, and people who need to hunt to supplement their own diet tend to be very different from the people rich enough to afford heavy armor.

You're also underestimating ranged weapons, which predate heavy armor by a good, long while. If you're chucking spears at something, keeping distance protects you better than having armor but being forced into melee range. As you get up to bows and especially guns, the range advantage just keeps improving.

[Mith]

No armor, not even for nasty stuff like big bears or lions?

Bears often raid people's pantries for the cans of tomato sauce, which they open by smashing the can between their paws and licking the mess off the floors and walls. I don't think any animal of that weight class of would be slowed much by people in armour. Armour was more meant for civilised weapons, not a boar charge or a bear's swat. Once they knock you down, your armour isn't going to do you much good.

[Keltest]

As a rule of thumb, hunters who allowed themselves to be regularly mauled by the creatures they were hunting were not terribly successful hunters. They would wear clothes appropriate to their environment, but they almost never went in anticipating having to face tank a lion or a boar. The name of the game was evasion and reach, not tanking.

[veti]

No armor, not even for nasty stuff like big bears or lions?

I think that until hunting for sport became a thing, people tended not to hunt large dangerous carnivores unless they had no choice. Why hunt lions, when antelopes are a lot more common, less dangerous, and better eating?

If people did hunt lions, I would expect them to make a plan - a cautious plan - that involves taking advantage of superior weapons, tactics and numbers.

In Europe, the most dangerous animal that regularly got hunted was the boar. As I understand it, the accepted procedure was to keep a long, stout spear between yourself and the quarry, and be ready to jump out of the way and let your mates distract the beast if it somehow got past that. Armour would only have weighed you down.

[Tvtyrant]

When hunting dangerous game like boars, bears and wolves did hunters wear armor or protection of some kind?

No but their dogs did and do. Leather armor in the past, they use kevlar now for boar and bear hunting.

The secret to humans hunting dangerous game is fire, wolves, and ranged weapons. The dogs and fire chase animals to a spot where javelins, arrows, or guns can shoot them. Boars you took with a spear, but they still corralled it with hounds first.

[Vinyadan]

I think that until hunting for sport became a thing, people tended not to hunt large dangerous carnivores unless they had no choice. Why hunt lions, when antelopes are a lot more common, less dangerous, and better eating?

The maasai did hunt lions, but it wasn't for food.

Anyway, the Romans had arm and leg protections made of leather, but they really were mostly used to avoid excoriations while moving or working in the forest. They weren't meant as a defence against animals.

[Conradine]

If I had to hunt wolves or boars I would at least wear hard leather leggings, boots, jacket and gloves. Plus some stripes of leather further hardened in boiling oil sewed on the external part of the upper legs ( to protect arteries ) and a thick scarf ( to protect throat ).

For bears I would wear at least lamellar.

[Themrys]

In Europe, the most dangerous animal that regularly got hunted was the boar. As I understand it, the accepted procedure was to keep a long, stout spear between yourself and the quarry, and be ready to jump out of the way and let your mates distract the beast if it somehow got past that. Armour would only have weighed you down.

That's what I read, too. There was a special kind of spear designed for hunting boars. And it seems that even boar hunting was a pastime for the upper classes.

If you hunt for food, animals that aren't likely to kill you are just a much more reasonable choice.

For getting rid of wolves that preyed on livestock, poison and traps seem to have been a much more popular method, for obvious reasons.

[warty goblin]

That's what I read, too. There was a special kind of spear designed for hunting boars. And it seems that even boar hunting was a pastime for the upper classes.

.

Indeed. The distinguishing feature of the classic boar spear are the lugs below the blade, generally thought to be there so the boar can't run up the shaft and stab you with its tusks. Here's a replica example by Arms and Armour:

This is not strictly necessary of course; people have hunted boar for a long time without fancy lugged spears.

Armor-wise, remember two important points. Firstly you have to get to the animal, which is quite likely not terribly close to where you live, in rough country, and probably needs to be tracked down. You might need to be able to move quite quietly while doing this. And then you have to haul it back; all of which makes the prospect of strapping an extra 30lbs of hot, jangling and uncomfortable dead weight to yourself substantially less appealing.

[darkrose50]

I bet hunters wore gambesons. For boars I think that they sometimes used spears, and perhaps shields (but those things can get scary big). Solders would not wear armor that did not work, and for quite a while solders wore gambesons.

Apparently gambeson (padded armor) was quite cheap and easy to produce. It is basically layered linin quilted together, and was apparently quite the standard armor in history. Evidently the more primitive the production of the linen (not for regular clothing or fine clothing), the more rubbery it is, and the better armor it makes. If lucky arrows would bounce off, or cut though some of the layers. Flax is apparently easy-enough to grow. The average housewife knew how to make linen, and shirts. You could make it as thick as you wanted to.

https://www.quora.com/Would-medieval...ers-wear-armor
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...ambesons_on_a/

We should definitely have different gambesons for D&D . . . as in not like padded armor, and as in all the armor categories via adding more rubbery/gummy layers (light, medium and heavy for D&D).

Bears? Depending on the kind, I think folks would have used bows and crossbows.

Type in "bear hunting dog" in Google, and see how big those things are! It looks like the really big ones are Russian bear hunting dogs. This is what a halfling war dog would be like!

[sktarq]

The only armor i can remember being associated with hunting was:
A: light leathers that were more for avoiding damage from plants than your animal target
B: the beaters sometimes would have shields or (IIRC) be shown with some degree of protection for wolf or some other dangerous animal hunt....but that could have been artistic license. (EDIT: I say artistic license because the only time I remember seeing such evidence is in art about hunting from time to time...but it would makes sense from both a noise production side (can beat the shield with the stick) and as a psychological boost to the beaters (who may not feel great about possibly surprising/panicing a wild beast at close quarters)
C: somewhat heavier leather leggings or boots if an animal (again wolves IIRC) was going to try to pull you from your horse. But if they count as "heavy" as per armor or as heavy as compared to court tights is left unsaid.

[Keltest]

Apparently gambeson (padded armor) was quite cheap and easy to produce. It is basically layered linin quilted together, and was apparently quite the standard armor in history. Evidently the more primitive the production of the linen (not for regular clothing or fine clothing), the more rubbery it is, and the better armor it makes. Arrows would bounce off, or cut though some of the layers (if lucky). Flax is apparently easy-enough to grow. The average housewife knew how to make linen, and shirts. You could make it as thick as you wanted to. The average housewife knew about boars, and boar hunter husbands. I bet they wore gambesons. For boars I think that they sometimes used spears.

https://www.quora.com/Would-medieval...ers-wear-armor
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...ambesons_on_a/

We should definitely have different gambesons for D&D . . . as in not like padded armor, and as in all the armor categories via adding more rubbery/gummy layers (light, medium and heavy for D&D).

Bears? Depending on the kind, I think folks would have used bows and crossbows.

Type in "bear hunting dog" in Google, and see how big those things are! It looks like the really big ones are Russian bear hunting dogs. This is what a halfling war dog would be like!

Gambesons were heavy and uncomfortable to wear, especially in warmer weather. By themselves they wouldn't stop an angry boar or bear. Its unlikely they were worn for hunting them. There were more appropriate protective clothes available for traveling in the woods.


The level of armor needed to be useful in that kind of situation simply made it undesirable as a sport. Hence boar spears.

[Xyril]

If I had to hunt wolves or boars I would at least wear hard leather leggings, boots, jacket and gloves. Plus some stripes of leather further hardened in boiling oil sewed on the external part of the upper legs ( to protect arteries ) and a thick scarf ( to protect throat ).

For bears I would wear at least lamellar.

...and if I had to hunt wolves, I would do it from a helicopter, Sarah Palin style.

Your question was whether hunters "historically" wore armor, and I think it's been pretty adequately explained why they mostly didn't. The folks who hunted for subsistence (literally hunting to either put food on their own tables or to have something to trade or sell for other necessities) obviously didn't have a lot of extra money to burn on fancy armor. Their main focus is bringing in as much as they can carry/use and not spending much more than they have to. Safety is obviously important, but there's a point where a marginal reduction of risk doesn't justify the trade-offs.

The most obvious thing you can do is go after comparatively safe prey animals--unless somebody is paying incredibly well for bits of lions or cape buffalo, there's really no reason to go after them instead of a gazelle or something else that would rather run from you than fight. If you're not chasing the dangerous animals, then it's probably wiser to dress to avoid a fight with them rather than to survive one. In other words, heavy armor that will help you survive a lion's bite is useful if you absolutely can't avoid fighting a lion. However, light or no armor means you can make less noise, move faster and longer without tiring or overheating, and climb trees or cross difficulty terrain with a bit more ease: This means that you're more likely to avoid going toe to toe with a lion to begin with.

Moreover, these factors impact not only how safe you are hunting, but also how successful you are. If you're more quiet, you can sneak up on your prey more effectively. If you travel faster and have less gear to carry around, you can bring back more kills in the same amount of times. That is the whole point of hunting.

Sporting hunters (i.e., wealthy people hunting for fun) can make safety a much higher priority than efficiency, but even then, they have much better ways to be safe: Dogs, entourages, better weapons, etc. Perhaps most importantly, they have the option of horses. Horses keep you off the ground, making it harder for smaller predators to attack you directly, and they give you the ability to keep away from a lot of the larger ones. Hunting on horseback is about as safe as hunting in full plate armor, but probably a lot more comfortable. In fact, in some situations being lightly armored might be a bit safer. If I were hunting with a bunch of friends and dogs and a boar knocked me off my horse, I would prefer being able to get up and get away quickly over lying there in full plate mail while the boar goes to town on me.


Even in modern times, trade-offs are still the key consideration. Many divers will wear fine chain mesh when dealing with smaller sharks and sea snakes: There isn't a huge down side since wet suits add so much buoyancy that most divers would wear added weights anyway, and it's reasonably likely to save you from serious injury. However, people going on safari who purposefully seek out dangerous game don't use armor because it generally isn't worth it: Being inside a jeep, or nearby and able to climb in quickly, is much more useful than counting on armor to protect you from a charging elephant or hippo. Moreover, a lot of our developments in light, modern armor lend themselves to providing very specific forms of protection that aren't always helpful with animals. Kevlar and other ballistic materials, for example, are very good at preventing small projectiles from penetrating and causing a lot of damage that way, while other materials are good at preventing sharp objects from cutting or piercing through the armor and into your flesh. However, neither class of armor is particularly great at stopping a tremendous amount of force from transferring into your body. This means that armor might be useful in preventing a small cat from biting or slashing at your neck, or a venomous snake from getting its toxins into your bloodstream, or a bird from slashing at your face with its talons, but we really don't have any light, comfortable armor you can wear that will protect against the damage from being trampled by a hippo or a bull, or the crushing force of a bite from a great white shark or a big cat, or being suffocated by a constrictor or a wolf.

[Algeh]

In general, prey species are tastier than predator species (exception: seafood). As a result, people hunting for food generally hunted prey species, and generally tried to deal with the ones that would be a trample risk by doing things like pit traps (since armor doesn't really keep you from turning into a fine paste) or other terrain/planning the ground or, when available, range-based strategies.

Predator species were usually hunted for sport, fur, or to extirpate them from where you and/or your livestock are living. Leg traps are a much better way to collect fur-bearing animals than fighting them while wearing armor since it leaves fewer holes in places you don't want them in the furs, and also work well for eventually killing them all off within an area. Sport is its own thing, isn't really about efficiency, and sure, somebody may have worn armor while doing it but armor is heavy (which is inconvenient) and there are other ways to go about risk-reduction while sport hunting (range and minions being the two popular choices here).

[darkrose50]

Gambesons were heavy and uncomfortable to wear, especially in warmer weather. By themselves they wouldn't stop an angry boar or bear. Its unlikely they were worn for hunting them. There were more appropriate protective clothes available for traveling in the woods.


The level of armor needed to be useful in that kind of situation simply made it undesirable as a sport. Hence boar spears.

I would imagine most hunters were gentry. For boar hunting we could likely say that sometimes they did and sometimes they did-not wear their gambesons. Gambesons did not make folks invulnerable, but the could evidently take a hit from an arrow or a slash from a sword. I have heard that they are comfortable, but there are a wide variety of gambesons (with a standardized jack having an outer layer of animal hide after 30-layers of linin). Gambesons were extremely common. One argument is that they would not be so ubiquitous if they were not effective. They were evidently quite effective.

I can see nothing stopping a grizzly. I saw a news piece about one guy spending something like $100,000 trying to make grizzly proof armor. Here is something I found with a quick Google search, but did not watch as I am at work just now.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/e...we-should-live

[danzibr]

As a rule of thumb, hunters who allowed themselves to be regularly mauled by the creatures they were hunting were not terribly successful hunters. They would wear clothes appropriate to their environment, but they almost never went in anticipating having to face tank a lion or a boar. The name of the game was evasion and reach, not tanking.

This is the highlight of the thread.

Besides, hunters would tank with their well-trained pets.

[Keltest]

I would imagine most hunters were gentry. For boar hunting we could likely say that sometimes they did and sometimes they did-not wear their gambesons. Gambesons did not make folks invulnerable, but the could evidently take a hit from an arrow or a slash from a sword. I have heard that they are comfortable, but there are a wide variety of gambesons (with a standardized jack having an outer layer of animal hide after 30-layers of linin). Gambesons were extremely common. One argument is that they would not be so ubiquitous if they were not effective. They were evidently quite effective.

I can see nothing stopping a grizzly. I saw a news piece about one guy spending something like $100,000 trying to make grizzly proof armor. Here is something I found with a quick Google search, but did not watch as I am at work just now.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/e...we-should-live

They were very effective - for a soldier. As a hunter, you don't need the same kind of things. As others have mentioned, you would probably be on a horse, and if you did have the misfortune to actually be tackled by a boar, the gambeson itself isn't going to hold up to repeated attacks.

Again, the best protection in a boar hunt is to not get hit in the first place, and a gambeson isn't going to help with that.

[darkrose50]

I did a search on Google for "medieval boar hunt paintings" and some paintings have armor and some do not.

Gabensons look to be in some of the paintings, and even some metal armor in others.

"[Arms and Armor in Renaissance Europe] In rare instances, armor was worn for hunting bear or wild boar." https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rarm/hd_rarm.htm

Metal armor overtook Gabensons at some point. So likely more common in the medieval period?

Here is a picture of a hunting spear:
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/14.25.321/

[Keltest]

I did a search on Google for "medieval boar hunt paintings" and some paintings have armor and some do not.

Gabensons look to be in some of the paintings, and even some metal armor in others.

"[Arms and Armor in Renaissance Europe] In rare instances, armor was worn for hunting bear or wild boar." https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rarm/hd_rarm.htm

Metal armor overtook Gabensons at some point. So likely more common in the medieval period?

Here is a picture of a hunting spear:
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/14.25.321/

Overtook is perhaps apt. Gambesons were almost universally worn underneath chain or plate armor to provide cushioning and whatever minimal extra protection the quilting provided.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I did a search on Google for "medieval boar hunt paintings" and some paintings have armor and some do not.

Bear in mind, proper armour was generally very expensive, which meant that the gentry (who will be the people in the paintings) often treated it as a fashion statement.

Gambesons were also seen as civilian fashion items by the 1400s, according to a quick google. Even in a military context, I would imagine they're mainly going to be a counter to bludgeoning weapons - I really can't see a padded doublet stopping a boar's tusk.

[Teddy]

Melee is a very poor hunting method, suitable only for nobility for whom the dangers involved are the entire point of the hunt. Common people would hunt by driving or luring the animals toward ambushes or, better yet, pit traps. The dangers involved are significantly lower and it's much easier to avoid damaging valuable pelts once the animal is stuck in a pit.

[warty goblin]

Bear in mind, proper armour was generally very expensive, which meant that the gentry (who will be the people in the paintings) often treated it as a fashion statement.

Gambesons were also seen as civilian fashion items by the 1400s, according to a quick google. Even in a military context, I would imagine they're mainly going to be a counter to bludgeoning weapons - I really can't see a padded doublet stopping a boar's tusk.

The expense of (metallic) armor depends substantially on time period. If we're talking 1000 AD or so, armor is extremely expensive, but by the later middle ages it gets much cheaper on the low end. Sure if you're a king or otherwise crazy wealthy, you can definitely drop huge amounts of money on your metallurgical tailoring, but if you just want something to keep pointy things outside of your favorite organs, that's substantially cheaper.

Note also that a gambeson offers substantial protection against sword cuts, even from longswords. Swords are sharper, and generally have narrower, more efficient geometry than teeth .

[Rogar Demonblud]

Gambesons aren't that good against piercing damage, however. And that's what teeth deliver. Often with more applied force than you can get out of a swung weapon. There's an Italian proverb that translates to 'a cut may wound, but a stab will kill', which is a thing to keep in mind in any fight, even those against animals.

[darkrose50]

When I was reading up on the tests that measured force someone was criticizing some experiment saying that slashes have less power behind them. I often use this concept when opening some stubborn packet with my trusty piecing weapon the pen-tip. As an aided bonus I often have a pen or a pencil nearby, and usually not a knife or scissors.

[Rogar Demonblud]

It does seem counter-intuitive. The key is the area the force is being applied to; on a well-honed blade, the force may be working on an area as small as a square millimeter (though that's rare).

[Jay R]

A modern hunter wears important protective gear. Specifically, he or she wears a bright red or yellow jacket, so other hunters won't shoot him or her.

That tells you what the greatest danger is when you are hunting.

Most prey runs away from people.

No, hunters don't generally wear gear intended to protect them from their prey. Their prey don't attack. That's not what prey generally does.