home » Autumn clothes » Truth and fiction: Knights, armor, weapons. Medieval Weapons and Armor: Common Misconceptions and Frequently Asked Questions

Truth and fiction: Knights, armor, weapons. Medieval Weapons and Armor: Common Misconceptions and Frequently Asked Questions

Translation

German armor of the 16th century for knight and horse

The field of weapons and armor is surrounded by romantic legends, monstrous myths and widespread misconceptions. Their sources are often a lack of knowledge and experience of communicating with real things and their history. Most of these ideas are absurd and based on nothing.

Perhaps one of the most notorious examples is the belief that “knights had to be mounted by crane,” which is as absurd as it is a common belief, even among historians. In other cases, certain technical details that defy obvious description have become the object of passionate and fantastically inventive attempts to explain their purpose. Among them, the first place seems to be occupied by the spear rest, protruding from the right side of the breastplate.

The following text will attempt to correct the most popular misconceptions and answer questions often asked during museum tours.

Misconceptions and questions about armor

1. Only knights wore armor

This erroneous but common belief probably stems from the romantic idea of the “knight in shining armor,” a picture that itself gives rise to further misconceptions. First, knights rarely fought alone, and armies in the Middle Ages and Renaissance did not consist entirely of mounted knights. Although the knights were the dominant force in most of these armies, they were invariably - and increasingly over time - supported (and countered) by foot soldiers such as archers, pikemen, crossbowmen and firearms soldiers. On campaign, the knight depended on a group of servants, squires and soldiers to provide armed support and look after his horses, armor and other equipment, not to mention the peasants and artisans who made a feudal society with a warrior class possible.

Armor for a knight's duel, late 16th century

Secondly, it is wrong to believe that every noble man was a knight. Knights were not born, knights were created by other knights, feudal lords or sometimes priests. And under certain conditions, people of non-noble birth could be knighted (although knights were often considered the lowest rank of nobility). Sometimes mercenaries or civilians who fought as ordinary soldiers could be knighted for demonstrating extreme bravery and courage, and later knighthood could be purchased for money.

In other words, the ability to wear armor and fight in armor was not the prerogative of knights. Infantry from mercenaries, or groups of soldiers consisting of peasants, or burghers (city dwellers) also took part in armed conflicts and accordingly protected themselves with armor of varying quality and size. Indeed, burghers (of a certain age and above a certain income or wealth) in most medieval and Renaissance cities were required - often by law and decrees - to purchase and store their own weapons and armor. Usually it was not full armor, but at least it included a helmet, body protection in the form of chain mail, cloth armor or a breastplate, and a weapon - a spear, pike, bow or crossbow.

Indian chain mail of the 17th century

IN war time this popular militia was required to defend the city or perform military duties for feudal lords or allied cities. During the 15th century, when some rich and influential cities began to become more independent and self-reliant, even the burghers organized their own tournaments, in which they, of course, wore armor.

Because of this, not every piece of armor has ever been worn by a knight, and not every person depicted wearing armor will be a knight. It would be more correct to call a man in armor a soldier or a man in armor.

2. Women in the old days never wore armor or fought in battles.

In most historical periods, there is evidence of women taking part in armed conflicts. There is evidence of noble ladies turning into military commanders, such as Joan of Penthièvre (1319–1384). There are rare references to women from lower society who stood “under the gun.” There are records of women fighting in armor, but no contemporary illustrations of this topic survive. Joan of Arc (1412–1431) will perhaps be the most famous example of a female warrior, and there is evidence that she wore armor commissioned for her by King Charles VII of France. But only one small illustration of her, made during her lifetime, has reached us, in which she is depicted with a sword and banner, but without armor. The fact that contemporaries perceived a woman commanding an army, or even wearing armor, as something worthy of recording suggests that this spectacle was the exception and not the rule.

3. The armor was so expensive that only princes and rich nobles could afford it.

This idea could have come from the fact that most of the armor exhibited in museums is high quality equipment, and most of the simpler armor that belonged to ordinary people and the lowest of the nobles, was hidden in vaults or lost through the ages.

Indeed, with the exception of obtaining armor on the battlefield or winning a tournament, acquiring armor was a very expensive undertaking. However, since there were differences in the quality of armor, there must have been differences in their cost. Armor of low and medium quality, available to burghers, mercenaries and the lower nobility, could be bought ready-made at markets, fairs and city stores. On the other hand, there was also armor upper class, made to order in imperial or royal workshops and from famous German and Italian gunsmiths.

Armor of King Henry VIII of England, 16th century

Although we have extant examples of the cost of armor, weapons and equipment in some of the historical periods, it is very difficult to translate historical costs into modern equivalents. It is clear, however, that the cost of armor ranged from inexpensive, low-quality or obsolete, second-hand items available to citizens and mercenaries, to the cost of the full armor of an English knight, which in 1374 was estimated at £16. This was analogous to the cost of 5-8 years of rent for a merchant's house in London, or three years of salary for an experienced worker, and the price of a helmet alone (with a visor, and probably with an aventail) was more than the price of a cow.

At the higher end of the scale one finds examples such as a large suit of armor (a basic suit that, with the help of additional items and plates, could be adapted for various uses, both on the battlefield and in tournament), commissioned in 1546 by the German king (later - Emperor) for his son. Upon completion of this order, for a year of work, the court armorer Jörg Seusenhofer from Innsbruck received an incredible sum of 1200 gold coins, equivalent to twelve annual salaries of a senior court official.

4. The armor is extremely heavy and greatly limits the mobility of its wearer.

Thanks for the tip in the comments to the article.

A full set of combat armor usually weighs from 20 to 25 kg, and a helmet - from 2 to 4 kg. This is less than a firefighter's full oxygen outfit, or what modern soldiers have had to carry into battle since the nineteenth century. Moreover, while modern equipment usually hangs from the shoulders or waist, the weight of well-fitted armor is distributed over the entire body. Only to XVII century The weight of combat armor was greatly increased to make it bulletproof due to the increased accuracy of firearms. At the same time, full armor became increasingly rare, and only important parts of the body: the head, torso and arms were protected by metal plates.

The opinion that wearing armor (which took shape by 1420-30) greatly reduced the mobility of a warrior is not true. The armor equipment was made from separate elements for each limb. Each element consisted of metal plates and plates connected by movable rivets and leather straps, which allowed any movement without restrictions imposed by the rigidity of the material. The widespread idea that a man in armor could barely move, and having fallen to the ground, could not get up, has no basis. On the contrary, historical sources tell of the famous French knight Jean II le Mengre, nicknamed Boucicault (1366–1421), who, dressed in full armor, could, by grabbing the steps of a ladder from below, on the reverse side, climb it using only hands Moreover, there are several illustrations from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in which soldiers, squires or knights, in full armor, mount horses without outside help or any devices, without ladders or cranes. Modern experiments with real armor of the 15th and 16th centuries and with their exact copies have shown that even an untrained person in properly selected armor can climb on and off a horse, sit or lie, and then get up from the ground, run and move his limbs freely and without discomfort.

In some exceptional cases, the armor was very heavy or held the wearer in almost one position, for example, in some types of tournaments. Tournament armor was made for special occasions and was worn for a limited time. A man in armor would then climb onto the horse with the help of a squire or a small ladder, and the last elements of the armor could be put on him after he was settled in the saddle.

5. Knights had to be placed in the saddle using cranes

This idea appears to have originated in the late nineteenth century as a joke. It entered popular fiction in subsequent decades, and the picture was eventually immortalized in 1944, when Laurence Olivier used it in his film King Henry V, despite the protests of historical advisers, including such eminent authorities as James Mann, chief armorer of the Tower of London.

As stated above, most armor was light and flexible enough not to bind the wearer. Most people wearing armor should have no problem being able to place one foot in the stirrup and saddle a horse without assistance. A stool or the help of a squire would speed up this process. But the crane was absolutely unnecessary.

6. How did people in armor go to the toilet?

One of the most popular questions, especially among young museum visitors, unfortunately, does not have an exact answer. When the man in armor was not busy in battle, he did the same things that people do today. He would go to the toilet (which in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance was called a privy or latrine) or other secluded place, remove the appropriate pieces of armor and clothing and surrender to the call of nature. On the battlefield, everything should have happened differently. In this case, the answer is unknown to us. However, it must be taken into account that the desire to go to the toilet in the heat of battle was most likely low on the list of priorities.

7. The military salute came from the gesture of raising the visor

Some believe that the military salute originated during the Roman Republic, when contract killing was the order of the day, and citizens were required to raise their right hand when approaching officials to show that they were not carrying a concealed weapon. The more common belief is that the modern military salute came from men in armor raising the visors of their helmets before saluting their comrades or lords. This gesture made it possible to recognize a person, and also made him vulnerable and at the same time demonstrated that in his right hand(in which the sword was usually held) there were no weapons. These were all signs of trust and good intentions.

Although these theories sound intriguing and romantic, there is virtually no evidence that the military salute originated from them. As for Roman customs, it would be virtually impossible to prove that they lasted fifteen centuries (or were restored during the Renaissance) and led to the modern military salute. There is also no direct confirmation of the visor theory, although it is more recent. Most military helmets after 1600 were no longer equipped with visors, and after 1700 helmets were rarely worn on European battlefields.

One way or another, military records in 17th century England reflect that “the formal act of greeting was the removal of headdress.” By 1745, the English regiment of the Coldstream Guards appears to have perfected this procedure, making it "putting the hand to the head and bowing upon meeting."

Coldstream Guards

Other English regiments adopted this practice, and it may have spread to America (during the Revolutionary War) and continental Europe (during the Napoleonic Wars). So the truth may lie somewhere in the middle, in which the military salute evolved from a gesture of respect and politeness, paralleling the civilian habit of raising or touching the brim of a hat, perhaps with a combination of the warrior custom of showing the unarmed right hand.

8. Chain mail – “chain mail” or “mail”?

German chain mail of the 15th century

A protective garment consisting of interlocking rings should properly be called “mail” or “mail armor” in English. The common term "chain mail" is a modern pleonasm (a linguistic error meaning using more words than necessary to describe it). In our case, “chain” and “mail” describe an object consisting of a sequence of intertwined rings. That is, the term “chain mail” simply repeats the same thing twice.

As with other misconceptions, the roots of this error should be sought in the 19th century. When those who began to study armor looked at medieval paintings, they noticed, as it seemed to them, many different types armor: rings, chains, ring bracelets, scale armor, small plates, etc. As a result, all ancient armor was called “mail”, distinguishing it only by its appearance, which is where the terms “ring-mail”, “chain-mail”, “banded mail”, “scale-mail”, “plate-mail” came from. Today, it is generally accepted that most of these different images were just different attempts by artists to correctly depict the surface of a type of armor that is difficult to capture in painting and sculpture. Instead of depicting individual rings, these details were stylized using dots, strokes, squiggles, circles and other things, which led to errors.

9. How long did it take to make a full suit of armor?

It is difficult to answer this question unambiguously for many reasons. First, there is no surviving evidence that can paint a complete picture for any of the periods. From around the 15th century, scattered examples survive of how armor was ordered, how long orders took, and how much various pieces of armor cost. Secondly, a complete armor could consist of parts made by various armorers with a narrow specialization. Armor parts could be sold in unfinished form, and then for a certain amount customized according to location. Finally, the matter was complicated by regional and national differences.

In the case of German gunsmiths, most workshops were controlled by strict guild rules that limited the number of apprentices, thereby controlling the number of items that one master and his workshop could produce. In Italy, on the other hand, there were no such restrictions and workshops could grow, which improved the speed of creation and the quantity of products.

In any case, it is worth keeping in mind that the production of armor and weapons flourished during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Gunsmiths, manufacturers of blades, pistols, bows, crossbows and arrows were present in any big city. As now, their market depended on supply and demand, and efficient operation was a key parameter for success. The common myth that simple chain mail took several years to make is nonsense (but it cannot be denied that chain mail was very labor-intensive to make).

The answer to this question is simple and elusive at the same time. The production time for armor depended on several factors, for example, the customer, who was entrusted with the production of the order (the number of people in production and the workshop busy with other orders), and the quality of the armor. Two famous examples will serve to illustrate this.

In 1473, Martin Rondel, possibly an Italian gunsmith working in Bruges who called himself "armourer to my bastard of Burgundy", wrote to his English client, Sir John Paston. The armorer informed Sir John that he could fulfill the request for the production of armor as soon as the English knight informed him which parts of the costume he needed, in what form, and the time frame by which the armor should be completed (unfortunately, the armorer did not indicate possible deadlines ). In the court workshops, the production of armor for high-ranking persons appears to have taken more time. The court armorer Jörg Seusenhofer (with a small number of assistants) apparently took more than a year to make the armor for the horse and the large armor for the king. The order was made in November 1546 by King (later Emperor) Ferdinand I (1503–1564) for himself and his son, and was completed in November 1547. We do not know whether Seusenhofer and his workshop were working on other orders at this time.

10. Armor details - spear support and codpiece

Two parts of the armor most spark the public's imagination: one is described as "that thing sticking out to the right of the chest," and the second is referred to, after muffled giggles, as "that thing between the legs." In weapon and armor terminology they are known as the spear rest and codpiece.

The spear support appeared shortly after the appearance of the solid chest plate at the end of the 14th century and existed until the armor itself began to disappear. Contrary to the literal meaning of the English term "lance rest", its main purpose was not to bear the weight of the spear. It was actually used for two purposes, which are better described by the French term "arrêt de cuirasse" (spear restraint). It allowed the mounted warrior to hold the spear firmly under his right hand, preventing it from slipping back. This allowed the spear to be stabilized and balanced, which improved aim. In addition, the combined weight and speed of the horse and rider were transferred to the tip of the spear, which made this weapon very formidable. If the target was hit, the spear rest also acted as a shock absorber, preventing the spear from "firing" backwards, and distributing the blow across the chest plate over the entire upper torso, rather than just the right arm, wrist, elbow and shoulder. It is worth noting that on most battle armor the spear support could be folded upward so as not to interfere with the mobility of the sword hand after the warrior got rid of the spear.

The history of the armored codpiece is closely connected with its counterpart in the civilian men's suit. From the middle of the 14th century, the upper part of men's clothing began to be shortened so much that it no longer covered the crotch. In those days, pants had not yet been invented, and men wore leggings clipped to their underwear or a belt, with the crotch hidden behind a hollow attached to the inside of the top edge of each leg of the leggings. At the beginning of the 16th century, this floor began to be filled and visually enlarged. And the codpiece remained a detail men's suit until the end of the 16th century. On armor, the codpiece as a separate plate protecting the genitals appeared in the second decade of the 16th century, and remained relevant until the 1570s. It had a thick lining on the inside and was joined to the armor at the center of the bottom edge of the shirt. Early varieties were bowl-shaped, but due to the influence of civilian costume it gradually transformed into an upward-pointing shape. It was not usually used when riding a horse, because, firstly, it would get in the way, and secondly, the armored front of the combat saddle provided sufficient protection for the crotch. The codpiece was therefore commonly used for armor intended for fighting on foot, both in war and in tournaments, and while it had some value for protection, it was used just as much for fashion.

11. Did the Vikings wear horns on their helmets?

One of the most enduring and popular images of the medieval warrior is that of the Viking, who can be instantly recognized by his helmet equipped with a pair of horns. However, there is very little evidence that the Vikings ever used horns to decorate their helmets.

The earliest example of a helmet being decorated with a pair of stylized horns comes from a small group of Celtic Bronze Age helmets found in Scandinavia and what is now France, Germany and Austria. These decorations were made of bronze and could take the form of two horns or a flat triangular profile. These helmets date back to the 12th or 11th century BC. Two thousand years later, from 1250, pairs of horns gained popularity in Europe and remained one of the most commonly used heraldic symbols on helmets for battle and tournaments in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. It is easy to see that the two periods indicated do not coincide with what is usually associated with the Scandinavian raids that took place from the end of the 8th to the end of the 11th centuries.

Viking helmets were usually conical or hemispherical, sometimes made from a single piece of metal, sometimes from segments held together by strips (Spangenhelm).

Many of these helmets were also equipped with face protection. The latter could take the form of a metal bar covering the nose, or a face sheet consisting of protection for the nose and two eyes, as well as the upper part of the cheekbones, or protection for the entire face and neck in the form of chain mail.

12. Armor became unnecessary due to the advent of firearms

In general, the gradual decline of armor was not due to the advent of firearms as such, but due to their constant improvement. Since the first firearms appeared in Europe already in the third decade of the 14th century, and the gradual decline of armor was not noted until the second half of the 17th century, armor and firearms existed together for more than 300 years. During the 16th century, attempts were made to make bulletproof armor, either by reinforcing the steel, thickening the armor, or adding individual reinforcements on top of the regular armor.

German arquebus from the late 14th century

Finally, it is worth noting that the armor never completely disappeared. The widespread use of helmets by modern soldiers and police proves that armor, although it has changed materials and may have lost some of its importance, is still a necessary part of military equipment throughout the world. Additionally, torso protection continued to exist in the form of experimental chest plates during the American civil war, plates of gunner pilots in World War II and bulletproof vests of our time.

13. The size of the armor suggests that people were smaller in the Middle Ages and Renaissance

Medical and anthropological research shows that the average height of men and women has gradually increased over the centuries, a process that has accelerated over the past 150 years due to improvements in diet and public health. Most of the armor that has come down to us from the 15th and 16th centuries confirms these discoveries.

However, when drawing such general conclusions based on armor, many factors must be considered. Firstly, is the armor complete and uniform, that is, did all the parts fit together, thereby giving the correct impression of its original owner? Secondly, even high-quality armor made to order for a specific person can give an approximate idea of his height, with an error of up to 2-5 cm, since the overlap of the protection of the lower abdomen (shirt and thigh guards) and hips (gaiters) can only be estimated approximately.

Armor came in all shapes and sizes, including armor for children and youth (as opposed to adults), and there was even armor for dwarfs and giants (often found in European courts as "curiosities"). In addition, there are other factors to consider, such as the difference in average height between northern and southern Europeans, or simply the fact that there have always been unusually tall or unusually short people when compared with average contemporaries.

Notable exceptions include examples from kings, such as Francis I, King of France (1515–47), or Henry VIII, King of England (1509–47). The latter’s height was 180 cm, as evidenced by contemporaries has been preserved, and which can be verified thanks to half a dozen of his armor that have come down to us.

Armor of the German Duke Johann Wilhelm, 16th century

Armor of Emperor Ferdinand I, 16th century

Visitors to the Metropolitan Museum can compare German armor dating from 1530 with the battle armor of Emperor Ferdinand I (1503–1564), dating from 1555. Both armors are incomplete and the dimensions of their wearers are only approximate, but the difference in size is still striking. The height of the owner of the first armor was apparently about 193 cm, and the chest circumference was 137 cm, while the height of Emperor Ferdinand did not exceed 170 cm.

14. Men's clothing It wraps from left to right, because that’s how the armor was originally closed.

The theory behind this claim is that some early forms of armor (plate protection and brigantine of the 14th and 15th centuries, armet - a closed cavalry helmet of the 15th-16th centuries, cuirass of the 16th century) were designed so that the left side overlapped the right, so as not to allow the blow of the enemy's sword to penetrate. Since most people are right-handed, most of the penetrating blows would come from the left, and, if successful, should slide across the armor through the smell and to the right.

The theory is compelling, but there is not enough evidence to prove that modern clothes was subject to the direct influence of such armor. Additionally, while the armor protection theory may be true for the Middle Ages and Renaissance, some examples of helmets and body armor wrap the other way.

Misconceptions and questions about cutting weapons

Sword, early 15th century

Dagger, 16th century

As with armor, not everyone who carried a sword was a knight. But the idea that the sword is the prerogative of knights is not so far from the truth. Customs or even the right to carry a sword varied depending on time, place and laws.

IN medieval Europe swords were the main weapon of knights and horsemen. In times of peace, only persons of noble birth had the right to carry swords in public places. Since in most places swords were perceived as “weapons of war” (as opposed to the same daggers), peasants and burghers who did not belong to the warrior class of medieval society could not carry swords. An exception to the rule was made for travelers (citizens, traders and pilgrims) due to the dangers of traveling by land and sea. Within the walls of most medieval cities, the carrying of swords was forbidden to everyone - sometimes even nobles - at least in times of peace. Standard Rules trades, often present at churches or town halls, often also included examples of the permitted length of daggers or swords that could be carried without hindrance within city walls.

Without a doubt, it was these rules that gave rise to the idea that the sword is the exclusive symbol of the warrior and knight. But due to social changes and new fighting techniques that appeared in the 15th and 16th centuries, it became possible and acceptable for citizens and knights to carry lighter and thinner descendants of swords - swords, as a daily weapon for self-defense in public places. And until the beginning of the 19th century, swords and small swords became an indispensable attribute of the clothing of the European gentleman.

It is widely believed that swords of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were simple tools of brute force, very heavy, and as a result, impossible to handle for “ ordinary person”, that is, a very ineffective weapon. The reasons for these accusations are easy to understand. Due to the rarity of surviving examples, few people held a real sword in their hands from the Middle Ages or the Renaissance. Most of these swords were obtained from excavations. Their rusty current appearance can easily give the impression of roughness - like a burnt-out car that has lost all signs of its former grandeur and complexity.

Most real swords from the Middle Ages and Renaissance tell a different story. A one-handed sword usually weighed 1-2 kg, and even a large two-handed "war sword" of the 14th-16th centuries rarely weighed more than 4.5 kg. The weight of the blade was balanced by the weight of the hilt, and the swords were light, complex and sometimes very beautifully decorated. Documents and paintings show that such a sword, in skilled hands, could be used with terrible effectiveness, from cutting off limbs to piercing armor.

Turkish saber with scabbard, 18th century

Japanese katana and wakizashi short sword, 15th century

Swords and some daggers, both European and Asian, and weapons from Islamic world, often there are one or more grooves on the blade. Misconceptions about their purpose led to the emergence of the term “bloodstock.” It is claimed that these grooves speed up the flow of blood from an opponent's wound, thus enhancing the effect of the wound, or that they make it easier to remove the blade from the wound, allowing the weapon to be easily drawn without twisting. Despite the entertainment of such theories, in fact the purpose of this groove, called the fuller, is only to lighten the blade, reducing its mass without weakening the blade or impairing flexibility.

On some European blades, in particular swords, rapiers and daggers, as well as on some fighting poles, these grooves have a complex shape and perforation. The same perforations are present on cutting weapons from India and the Middle East. Based on scanty documentary evidence, it is believed that this perforation must have contained poison so that the blow was guaranteed to lead to the death of the enemy. This misconception has led to weapons with such perforations being called “assassin weapons.”

While references to Indian poison-bladed weapons exist, and similar rare cases may have occurred in Renaissance Europe, the true purpose of this perforation is not at all so sensational. Firstly, perforation eliminated some material and made the blade lighter. Secondly, it was often made in elaborate and intricate patterns, and served as both a demonstration of the blacksmith's skill and as decoration. To prove it, it is only necessary to point out that most of these perforations are usually located near the handle (hilt) of the weapon, and not on the other side, as would have to be done in the case of poison.

Knightly armor and weapons of the Middle Ages changed almost at the same speed as modern fashion. And knightly armor from the mid-15th century. did not even remotely resemble what warriors used to protect themselves in the 12th or 13th centuries. The evolution became especially noticeable in the late Middle Ages, when almost every year brought changes in the appearance of defensive and offensive weapons. In this review, we will talk about what kind of armor the English and French knights wore in the era when, under the leadership of the legendary Joan of Arc, the French defeated the English troops near Orleans, and there was a turning point in the Hundred Years' War.

By the end of the XIV - beginning of the XV century. The appearance of full plate armor finally took shape. In the 20-30s. XV century The best armor was considered to be made by Italian and, above all, Milanese gunsmiths, famous for the extraordinary skill of their work. Along with the Italian ones, gunsmiths from the south of Germany and the Netherlands were also popular.

Armor

Underarmor. A thick quilted jacket was mandatory to be worn under the armor. It was sewn from leather or strong, coarse material on horsehair, cotton wool or tow. In the XIII-XIV centuries. this fabric armor was called “aketon”, in the 15th century. the term “doublet” was assigned to it. The thickness of the padding and the quality of quilting of the doublet largely depended protective properties any armor. After all, a strong blow could, without breaking through the armor, seriously injure the owner. The doublet was cut according to the style that was fashionable in the 15th century. a short, fitted jacket, usually with a front fastening and a stand-up collar. The long sleeves of the doublet could not be sewn, but laced to the armholes. The thickest padding covered the most vulnerable parts of the body: neck, chest, stomach. On the elbows and under the arms the padding was very thin or completely absent, so as not to restrict the warrior’s movements.

A quilted balaclava was also worn on the head under the helmet. One liner, as a rule, was mounted inside the helmet, the second, thinner and smaller, was worn directly on the head like a cap. Such powerful shock-absorbing pads caused extremely big size helmet, which significantly exceeded the size of the knight's head.

Quilted linings were also required to be worn under the leg armor.

By the first third of the 15th century. knights used four types of helmets: bassinet, arme, salade and helmets with brims (chapelle de fer).

Basinet was very popular already in the 14th century. This is a helmet with a hemispherical or conical head equipped with a visor. Basinets of the late XIV - early XV centuries. had a back plate that went down onto the warrior’s back, as well as a collar, which reliably protected the warrior’s head and neck. Basinettes with an elongated backplate and neck plate were called “large bassinettes” and became quite widespread. Large Basinettes were always equipped with a visor. At the end of the 14th century. The conical visor, which, because of its shape, was called “hundgugel” (dog head) in German, was extremely popular. Thanks to this shape, even powerful blows from the spear slipped off without causing harm. To facilitate breathing and provide better visibility, the visors were equipped with a lower slot at the level of the mouth and numerous round holes. These holes could only be located on the right half of the visor, which was determined by the conditions of equestrian combat with spears, in which the left half of the warrior’s helmet was primarily affected.

Fig.2 Helmet with open and closed visor

At the beginning of the 15th century. Another type of helmet appeared, which later became the very popular “Arme” helmet. The main difference between arme and basinet, in the 30s of the 15th century, was the presence of two cheek plates equipped with hinges, closing in front of the chin and locking with a hook or a belt with a buckle.

Another type of helmet originates from the bassinet, namely the so-called “salad” (in German “shaler”). The term “salade” was first used in 1407. By the time of the siege of Orleans, it began to be equipped with a movable visor attached to two hinges.

At the beginning of the 15th century. Helmets with brims were very popular. These helmets, made in the shape of an ordinary hat (hence the French name “chapel-de-fer”, literally “iron hat”), did not impede breathing and provided full review. At the same time, the overhanging fields protected the face from lateral impacts. This helmet was most widespread in the infantry, but knights and even crowned heads did not neglect it. Not long ago, during excavations in the Louvre, a luxurious chapel de fer of Charles VI, decorated with gold, was found. The heavy cavalry in the front ranks of the battle formation, which took the first, most terrible spear blow, wore closed helmets, while the fighters in the rear ranks often used helmets with brims.

Helmets of all types under consideration were decorated in accordance with fashion, the desire of the owner and the characteristics of a particular region. Thus, the French knights were characterized by plumes attached to tubes installed in the upper part of the helmet. English knights preferred to wear embroidered “burelets” (stuffed bolsters) on their helmets, and in most cases they did without them. Helmets could also be gilded or painted with tempera paints.

Note that English knights preferred basinettes and only occasionally wore chapelle-de-ferres. The French used all of these types of helmets.

Cuirass. The main element of armor that protected the body was the cuirass. Cuirasses of the 20-30s. XV century were monolithic and composite. Monolithic ones consisted of only two parts: a breastplate and a backrest. In composite ones, the breastplate and backrest were assembled from two parts, upper and lower. The top and bottom of classic Italian cuirasses were connected to each other by belts with buckles. Cuirasses produced for sale to other countries were made with sliding rivets that replaced belts. The breastplate and backrest of the first version were connected on the left side with a loop and fastened on the right side with a buckle. The parts of the cuirass of the second version were connected on the sides by means of belts with buckles. Monolithic cuirasses were more typical of English chivalry, while composite ones were more typical of French chivalry.

Lamellar hems covered the body from the waist to the base of the hips and had smooth outlines. They were assembled from horizontal steel strips stacked on top of each other from bottom to top. They were connected along the edges with rivets; an additional leather strip, riveted from the inside, was usually passed through the center. The number of steel hem strips varied from four to seven or even eight. By the second half of the 1420s. Plates began to be hung on belts from the bottom of the hem, covering the base of the thigh. These plates were called "tassets".

Brigantine. In addition to cuirasses, knights of both warring sides continued to use brigantines - armor consisting of small plates attached to inside fabric jackets with rivets. The fabric base was made of velvet with a lining of linen, hemp or thin leather. The most common brigantine tire colors were red and blue.

Since the 30s. XV century brigantines could be reinforced with all-metal elements, namely the lower part of the composite cuirass and a plate hem.

For the convenience of using spears in equestrian combat from the end of the 14th century. the right side of the chest part of the brigantine or cuirass began to be equipped with a support hook. During a horse fight, the shaft of a spear was placed on it.

Hand protection. The warrior’s hands were protected with special steel pads: bracers, elbow pads, shoulder guards, and shoulder pads. The bracers consisted of two wings, connected by a loop and straps with buckles. Elbow pads are strongly convex plates of a hemispherical, conical or dome shape. The outer part of the elbow pads, as a rule, was equipped with a side shield shaped like a shell. The shoulder shield had the shape of a monolithic pipe. The shoulder pad protected the shoulder joint. The armpit could be covered with an additional hanging plate of one shape or another.

An interesting type of covering the shoulder joint were brigantine shoulder pads. They were made in the manner of ordinary brigantine armor with steel plates under the fabric. Such pauldrons were either fastened (laced) to the armor, like a plate pauldron, or cut out with a brigantine.

The hands were covered with plate gloves or mittens. They were made from strips of iron and plates of various shapes and fastened with hinges. The plates that protected the fingers were riveted to narrow leather strips, which, in turn, were sewn to the fingers of ordinary gloves. In the 1420s In Italy, gauntlets made of wide strips of steel with a hinge joint were invented. At the time of the Siege of Orleans, this progressive innovation was just beginning to gain popularity in Western Europe and was rarely used by anyone except the Italians.

Leg protection. The armor that covered the legs was traditionally ahead of the development of wrist armor. The leg guard was connected to the knee pad through adapter plates on hinges. The knee pad, like the elbow pad, was complemented on the outside with a shell-shaped side shield. The lower part of the knee pad was equipped with several transition plates, the last of which was in the fashion of the 15th century. had a considerable length, up to about a third of the shin (sometimes up to the middle of the shin). In the 1430s. or a little earlier, the upper part of the legguard began to be supplemented with one transition plate, for a better fit of the leg, as well as to enhance the protection of the base of the thigh. The back of the thigh was covered with several vertical stripes on loops and buckles. A double-leaf plate greave was worn under the lower transition plates of the knee pad. The greave exactly repeated the features anatomical structure shins, which met the requirements of convenience and practicality. The foot was placed in the arched cutout of the front flap of the greave. This cutout was rolled around the perimeter to increase the rigidity of the greave.

The foot was protected by a plate shoe “sabaton” or “soleret”. Like the plate gauntlet, the sabaton was made up of transverse strips on hinges. Its toe had a pointed shape in the style of an ordinary leather “pulen” shoe.

Leg and wrist armor were decorated with plates made of non-ferrous metal, often chased or engraved with various geometric patterns.

The weight of the knightly armor we are considering from the first third of the 15th century. together with quilted and chain mail elements, it weighed 20-25 kg, but heavier specimens could also be found. In most cases, it depended on the physical characteristics of its owner. The thickness of the plates was, as a rule, from 1 to 3 mm. The protective parts covering the warrior’s torso, head and joints had the greatest thickness. The surface of plate armor was additionally saturated with carbon and subjected to heat treatment (hardening), due to which the plates acquired increased strength properties.

Initially, greaves with sabatons were put on, then a quilted doublet was put on the warrior’s body, to which greaves connected to knee pads were laced. Then the wrist armor was put on, laced to the upper part of the doublet sleeve. Subsequently, a cuirass with a plate hem or a brigantine was put on the warrior’s body. After the shoulder pads were secured, a quilted balaclava with a helmet was placed on the warrior’s head. Plate gloves were worn immediately before battle. Dressing a knight in full armor required the help of one or two experienced squires. The process of putting on and adjusting equipment took from 10 to 30 minutes.

During the time period under review, the chivalry of both warring sides still used the shield. The shield was made from one or several boards. It had a different shape (triangular, trapezoidal, rectangular), one or more parallel edges passing through the central part of the shield, and a cutout for a spear located on the right side. The surface of the shield was covered with leather or fabric, after which it was primed and covered with tempera painting. The images on the shields were the coats of arms of the owners, allegorical drawings, “floral” ornaments, and the mottos of the owners or units. A system of belts and a padded shock-absorbing cushion were attached to the inside of the shield.

Weapon

Edged weapons consisted of swords, cutlasses (falchions), daggers, combat knives, stilettos, axes, axes, war hammers, pickers, maces, swords and spears.

Armored perfect forms and armed with high-quality edged weapons, the English and French knights fought on the battlefields of the Hundred Years' War for a long time after the siege of Orleans.

Falchion (falchion) It was a piercing-cutting-chopping weapon, consisting of a massive curved or straight asymmetrical single-edged blade, often greatly expanding towards the tip, a cross-shaped guard, a handle and a pommel. This weapon, which had a massive blade, made it possible to penetrate chain mail protection. In the case where the blow landed on a warrior’s helmet, the enemy could be temporarily stunned. Due to comparatively short length blade, the use of falchions was especially effective in foot combat.

Battle ax It was a metal piece of iron (this part corresponds to the tip of a pole weapon), equipped with a wedge (a damaging structural element) and mounted on the handle. Very often, the piece of iron was equipped with a spike-shaped, hook-shaped or pronounced hammer-shaped protrusion on the side of the butt and a lance-shaped or spear-shaped feather directed upward. The two-handed ax already belonged to the pole weapon and was a very popular weapon in foot combat, as it had monstrous penetrating ability and a significant bruising effect.

War Hammer, belonging to the category of pole weapons, initially with only impact-crushing action, was a tip in the form of a metal striker of a cylindrical or coil shape, mounted on a wooden shaft. Quite often in the 15th century. such weapons were equipped with a spear-shaped or lance-shaped tip. The shaft was almost always bound with metal strips, protecting it from chopping blows and splitting.

Pernach was a weapon of shock-crushing action, consisting of a pommel and a handle. The pommel is a complex of impact striking elements in the form of plates of rectangular, triangular, trapezoidal and other shapes, assembled in an amount of 6 to 8 pieces around the circumference and fixed on a common tubular base.

Mace, just like the pernach, being a weapon of shock-crushing action, it consisted of a pommel and a handle. The pommel was made in the form of a metal ball, often equipped with edges or spikes.

Battle scourge was a weapon of shock-crushing action. It was a massive impact load (weight), connected to the handle by means of a flexible suspension (rope, leather belt or chain).

A spear was the main polearm piercing weapon knight. This weapon consisted of a steel tip and a wooden shaft equipped with a safety guard. The tip consisted of a faceted feather and a sleeve, through which the tip was attached to the shaft. The shaft was made of wood hard rocks(ash, elm, birch) and had an elongated spindle-shaped shape. To make it easier to control the spear during battle, the shaft was equipped with a protective shield or a special cutout. To improve balance, lead was poured into the back of the shaft.

Sword consisted of a straight double-edged blade with a pronounced tip, a guard in the form of a cross, a handle and a pommel. Particularly popular were swords with a blade that smoothly tapered to the tip, had a diamond-shaped cross-section, a significant blade thickness and increased rigidity. With such a weapon it was possible to deliver effective piercing blows, capable of hitting the vulnerable spots of plate armor, the application of slashing blows to which did not bring the desired result.

Dagger, in the period under review, consisted of a narrow piercing-cutting double-edged blade, a guard various shapes, handles and, in rare cases, pommels. The dagger was an almost unchanged attribute of secular and military costume. Its presence on the owner’s belt allowed him to get rid of annoying attacks on his wallet in urban conditions, and in battle it made it possible to hit the enemy in the joints and crevices of his armor.

Combat knife in its design and appearance it was not much different from a dagger and performed the same functions as the latter. The main difference was that the knife had a massive elongated triangular single-edged blade.

Stylet, being only a piercing weapon, consisted of a faceted blade with only an edge, a disc-shaped guard, the same pommel and a cylindrical or barrel-shaped handle. This weapon was not yet widely used during this period.

Ax consisted of structural elements similar to the structural elements of a battle axe. The main difference between these related groups of bladed weapons was the presence of a wedge in the ax, the width of which was greater than its length and increased in both directions relative to the vertical plane of the weapon when held with a piece of iron or the tip up. Like the battle axe, this weapon, being the weapon of wealthy warriors, could be richly decorated in the Gothic style.

It should be especially noted that as battle axes, and axes, belonging to the category of polearms, were especially popular in France throughout the 15th century.

Klevets It was a weapon of shock-crushing, piercing action and existed in several versions. One option was a weapon equipped with a handle and did not differ in significant size; the other, due to its size and long handle, can be classified as a pole weapon. A common design feature of these varieties was the presence of a striking structural element in the form of a metal wedge equipped with a tip and a hammer-like thickening of the butt.

On the left is a reconstruction of the weapons of a French knight in the 20-30s. XV century. The knight's armor shows a strong influence of Italian gunsmiths. On the right is a reconstruction of the weapons of an English knight in the 20-30s. XV century. Despite the strong Italian influence, the armor has pronounced national features. The author of both reconstructions is K. Zhukov. Artist: S. Letin

Magazine “Empire of History” No. 2 (2) for 2002
Knights of Western Europe
Klim Zhukov and Dmitry Korovkin
pp. 72-81

They preferred armor. Chain armor began to lose its relevance when longbows and crossbows were invented. Their penetrating power was so great that the mesh of metal rings became useless. Therefore, I had to protect myself with solid metal sheets. Later, when firearms took a dominant position, armor was also abandoned. The rules were dictated by military progress, and the gunsmiths only adapted to them.

A knight in chain mail with a surcoat over it
There are espaulers on the shoulders (the ancestors of epaulettes)

At first, chain mail covered only the chest and back. Then it was complemented with long sleeves and mittens. TO XII century chain mail stockings appeared. So almost all parts of the body were protected. But the most important thing is the head. The helmet covered her, but her face remained open.

Then they made a solid helmet that also covered the face. But in order to put it on, a thick fabric cap was first put on the head. A chain mail headdress was pulled over him. And on top they placed a metal riveted helmet on his head.Naturally, my head was very hot. After all, the inside of the helmet was also covered with suede. Therefore, many holes were made in it for ventilation. But this did not help much, and the knights tried to remove the heavy metal protection from their heads immediately after the battle.

Knight's helmets of the 12th-13th centuries

The shields were made in a teardrop shape. Knight's coats of arms were applied to them. The coats of arms were also displayed on special shoulder shields - espaulers. The espaulers themselves were made not of metal, but of leather, and performed purely decorative functions. Helmet decorations were made of wood and covered with leather. Most often they were made in the form of horns, eagle wings or figures of people and animals.

The knight's weapons included a spear, sword, and dagger. The handles of the swords were long so that they could be grasped with two hands. Sometimes used instead of a sword falchion. This is a cutting blade similar in shape to a machete.

Falchion on top and two knight's swords

In the 13th century, leather plates began to be applied to chain mail. They were made from several layers of boiled leather. They were added only to the arms and legs. And, of course, surcoat. This was a very important item of clothing. It was a fabric caftan that was worn over armor. Rich knights sewed themselves surcoats from the most expensive fabrics. They were decorated with coats of arms and emblems. This type of clothing was required. According to the concepts of Catholic morality, undisguised knightly armor was akin to a naked body. Therefore, appearing in them in public was considered indecent. That's why they were covered with cloth. In addition, the white fabric reflected the sun's rays, and the metal heated up less in hot weather. summer days.

Knight in armor

Knights in armor

As already mentioned, in the second half of the 13th century, large bows and crossbows appeared. The bow reached 1.8 meters in height, and an arrow fired from it pierced chain mail at a distance of 400 meters. Crossbows were not as powerful. They pierced armor at a distance of 120 meters. Therefore, we had to gradually abandon chain mail, and they were replaced by solid metal armor. The swords have also changed. Previously they were slashing, but now they have become piercing. The sharp end could pierce the joint of the plates and hit the enemy.

They began to attach visors to helmets in the shape of an elongated cone. This shape prevented arrows from hitting the helmet. They slid along the metal, but did not pierce it.

Helmets of this shape began to be called Bundhugels or "dog faces". By the beginning of the 15th century, armor had completely replaced chain mail, and knightly armor had taken on a different quality. Metal began to be decorated with gilding and niello. If the metal was undecorated, it was called “white.” Helmets continued to be improved.

From left to right: Arme, Bundhugel, Bikok

The helmet was quite original bicock. His visor did not rise, but opened like a door. It was considered the strongest and most expensive helmet arme. He withstood any blows. It was invented by Italian masters. True, it weighed about 5 kg, but the knight felt absolutely safe in it.

Entire schools of craftsmen appeared who competed with each other in the manufacture of armor. Italian armor

outwardly very different from the German ones

and Spanish.

And they had very little in common with the English ones.

As the craftsmanship improved, so did the price. The armor was getting more and more expensive. A knight of that time required several types of armor: one for battles, two for tournaments (for horse and foot combat), and also “ceremonial.”
Therefore, armor sets came into fashion. That is, you could order the full set, or you could only pay for part of it. The number of parts in such prefabricated armor reached up to 200. The weight of a complete set sometimes reached 40 kg. If a person shackled in them fell, he could no longer get up without outside help.

But we must not forget that people get used to everything. The knights felt quite comfortable in armor for battle.

All you had to do was walk around in them for two weeks, and they became like family. It should also be noted that after the appearance of armor, shields began to disappear. A professional warrior, clad in iron plates, no longer needed this type of protection. The shield lost its relevance, since the armor itself served as a shield.
Time passed, and knightly armor gradually turned from a means of protection into a luxury item.

This was due to the advent of firearms. The bullet pierced the metal. Of course, the armor could be made thicker, but in this case its weight increased significantly. And this had a negative impact on both horses and riders.

At first they fired stone bullets from matchlock guns, and later lead bullets. And even if they did not pierce the metal, they made large dents on it and rendered the armor unusable. Therefore, by the end of the 16th century, knights in armor became rare. And at the beginning of the 17th century they disappeared completely.

Only isolated elements remained from the armor. These are metal breastplates (cuirasses) and helmets. Home impact force arquebusiers and musketeers became part of European armies. The sword replaced the sword, and the pistol replaced the spear. A new stage of history began, in which there was no longer a place for knights dressed in armor.
Sergey Davydov

We have become acquainted with the harmonious, consistent official version of the development of knightly armor. The following facts can be extracted from it:
1. From the 9th to the mid-13th century, chain mail dominated. And from the second half of the 13th century until the end of the 16th century, noble knights preferred armor, due to the appearance of crossbows and powerful bows.
2. The inside of a solid steel helmet was covered with suede. To prevent the head from overheating inside the helmet, many holes were made in it. Before putting on a helmet, a fabric cap was put on the head, and a chain mail headband was pulled over it.
3. They began to attach visors to helmets in the shape of an elongated cone. This shape prevented arrows from hitting the helmet. They slid along the metal, but did not pierce it.
4. According to the concepts of Catholic morality, undisguised knightly armor was akin to a naked body. Therefore, appearing in them in public was considered indecent. Therefore, they were covered with cloth ( surcoat). In addition, the white fabric reflected the sun's rays, and the metal heated up less on hot summer days. Rich knights sewed themselves surcoats from the most expensive fabrics. They were decorated with coats of arms and emblems.
5. The knight had several types of armor: one for battles, two for tournaments (for horse and foot combat), and also “ceremonial.”

So, who are the knights?
Answer:
These are professional military men who, as a rule, have their own military formations and who, in between serving the crown and the church, were engaged in the redistribution of property among themselves. This is colorfully narrated in handwritten chronicles and numerous legends about the exploits of their famous ancestors, carefully preserved by grateful descendants.
In them, the ancestors-knights appear as noble warriors, and necessarily with famous superpowers that are not characteristic of mere mortals.

Below are some excerpts, oh sometimes incredible abilities ancient knights, from http://pro-vladimir.livejournal.com/266616.html#comments(more details here)
Exoskeletons of medieval knights
...
..."You would be there yourself ( in the castle ) began to spend all their days being the ruler of the surrounding lands? What about riding in full armor and even sleeping? After all, even about “sleeping,” they say, the Knight slept standing up! What kind of endurance and willpower is needed to win? To do it right in your pants, sit in a piece of metal in wet clothes, with your own secretions floating around, and even sleep standing up? Is this some kind of voluntary torture? Yes, you will rot alive there!..

What is known about Knights in full armor? That they even have a SOLID calf joint and no heel as such, i.e. The “shoe” immediately bends over the foot. At the same time, you can insert your leg, foot first, through the one-piece calf armor only by unfastening your foot, or without having one, or by stretching the armor, or by having armor that is several sizes larger or by having thin legs. But later armor already had doors on the calf joint... it is quite logical to use overhead armor from different materials, but it is no longer logical to use armor entirely made of metal, including boots that will slide... They also did not have a “door” and early helmets, but the visor opened later, and the head had to be put through the neck hole. Moreover, this is not a sweater or knitted material that stretches, and not jeans that can be stretched, it is metal! Anyone who has the desire can try to stick his head into a 10 liter jar through the narrow neck. If the ears go through, it will fit through, but pulling it back out is a problem!..

The armor was not removed by the Knights outside the Castle. Which is already strange. Those. on a hike you are in armor for many days, weeks! You pee and poop right there! And so that it doesn't stink too much, they pour water on you through... through a raised visor or neck joint. Here historians have versions; in the chronicles there is no exact indication of how to pour water on a knight, but there is a clear explanation that it needs to be poured inside, from above, and at least several times a day! This is probably easiest to do through an opening visor; some helmets are even made like funnels, where the opening from the inside looks up!..

Stubbornly, because it is written in the documents, they claim that the Knights left the Castle already in Armor! At receptions, feasts, etc., they wore Armor! Details and versions vary, but the essence remains!

Other oddities associated with the “iron” Knights are also known from documents. Legends tell us that even with his head blown off, such a Knight could fight! And in the engravings we can see that the removal of the head, like a limb, did not defeat the Knight...

There are also cases known in history when Knights fought a battle for SEVERAL days, and their army watched on the sidelines, “smoking,” perhaps all together celebrating this event, looking at the battle. After all, it’s not for nothing that they talk about a theater of military operations, maybe it was a theater, and only then the spectators began to hit each other’s faces, but doesn’t that happen here? The judge took the bait and off we went. And so when the Knight surrendered to the mercy of the winner, then his warriors were reassigned with the CONSENT of the losing Knight to the winner. Otherwise they would simply be eliminated. Those. resubordination took place with the CONSENT of the losing side, something like a surrender pact, and not by the very fact of victory. Isn't that the case with us? And it would seem why? Why give away some keys to some cities and castles to the winners? They can take them away anyway. But no! Even completely, COMPLETELY defeated enemies MUST sign something there and take the keys to the winners, otherwise there is no other way. Like the victory doesn't count...

Knights, as legends tell us, had other oddities. For the LOSS of a Knight, his entire army was completely liquidated, the defeat with the transfer to another knight was not counted, but it was physically LIQUIDATED. Which gave this army quite a good incentive to protect the Knight. This strange custom is well known from documents, although historians cannot explain it in any way...

Pictures about a knightly attitude are more like idealization, and there is a subtlety there that the lady of the Knight’s heart MUST be with her husband, i.e. there could be no talk of any physical intercourse between the Knight and the lady, only handkerchiefs and sighs, and in public, i.e. to the public. Moreover, often it was generally visual contact or in one-sided handkerchief mode from the hand of the chosen lady, after rubbing the eyes and blotting the mouth by the lady! Naturally from feelings, sir. And such a handkerchief with tears, licked by her and the Lady’s snot, was passed on to the Knight. The value is extraordinary, since they already collected tournaments for this!..

Author pro_vladimir prefaces his post with the words:
"... Some luminaries from science really want the foundations not to be touched. They don’t bother with the oddities that stick out from these foundations in all directions. For this reason, they are ready to forget how to distinguish the height of a doorway from the height of the ceiling. They are ready to brand technical elements as beautifully useless. It’s developing the impression is that, for the sake of the usual, they are ready to put an equal sign between a military parade and a gay parade. But bullshit, there are useless decorations here and there. It turns out that not everyone is able to distinguish between round and square, especially when they don’t want to notice the difference. .. which I completely agree with (as with all the criticism, by the way). The author also gives his own version explaining the superpowers of knights:

... "It's a completely different matter if it's cephalopod, and he needs armor like an aquarium, then all the carefully sealed cracks in the armor and the need to go out into the world only in it can be explained. Yes, and the need to freshen up with water inside, and other household little things are easily explained, as well as high strength with sometimes small stature. After all, physical mechanics cannot be fooled, if people have an internal skeleton and the muscles are based on them, then the volume of the muscles matters, and the bones of the skeleton prevent them from increasing their volume, just as the strength of the muscles themselves has a limit, because they will simply tear. But if you are entirely a muscle, then the entire available volume is available to you for building up power, and you use the outer shell as bones, as do crayfish, crabs, and others who have powerful claws, but they are also a skeleton for them.. .
...Those. for some reason the Knight was always in armor in open spaces, for some reason he needed water and quite a lot, and inside. Maybe to compensate for evaporation and leaks, and not to flush away excrement? And for some reason there was an advertised and replicated ritual of handing over a “handkerchief” from certain Ladies, for a heart or something else. Did the Knights fight or do something? Why do they even need this scarf with the snot and discharge of the ladies? Fetish? Or transfer of genetic material? After all, mollusks are hermaphrodites and they have no idea who is who and how many times, and during mating they can even release seed material into the water. But there is no water here, as such, and seed material can be transferred through the air with a handkerchief. Then the principle is logical and the Lady is married and the battle for her scarf is when the more worthy Knight receives the seed material and retires to his castle to be fruitful and multiply. Like a fish in a mobile aquarium left its own, got to the next one, received a portion of seeds, and took it to its own aquarium. Everything is quite logical. It’s more logical than replicating and romanticizing fetishism for the snotty scarf of Dam’s discharge...
I beg to differ with the version of a mollusk, like an octopus, inside the armor:
Muscles work only for contraction, i.e. for flexion-extension, for example, in one joint. a flexor muscle and, accordingly, an extensor muscle, and movement in the joint with the help of this pair of muscles is possible at a maximum of 180 degrees and in one plane. And so on for each joint. In addition, the muscles should be attached to adjacent segments of armor to create leverage, and this d.b. suction cups, and again with a set of specific muscles, and this will again take up part of the volume of the limb. If there are no suction cups, then the limb of the reptile sitting inside will dangle from wall to wall, i.e., a tentacle not attached to the armor segments, to ensure degrees of freedom at each point of the tentacle, b. a set of pairs of muscles, similar to the human tongue, providing movement in two perpendicular vertical planes and one horizontal, perpendicular to the vertical ones, so the force of movement in one direction will be provided by muscles occupying a small part of the cross section (6th part), for example, the arms of a knight. And in general, why does a mollusk need an alien life, alien passions and alien desires?
Another note about the official concept of knights' helmets:
The historian who invented suede and a fabric cap between the head and the steel of the helmet clearly deviated from the army in his youth. Such a gasket will not protect against loss of consciousness after being hit with a club. Well, and most importantly, the bulk, especially the supposedly more ancient armor, of higher quality, as metallurgists say, are made of stamped rolled alloy steel, when such technologies had not yet been invented. The video, which barely depicts agility in a modern reconstruction of the capabilities of a knight dressed in stamped armor, is not convincing. If a person is actually dressed in forged armor, for clarity, look at the thickness of the helmet,
then, having fallen in full clothing, he would hardly have been able to get up without outside help. It is also worth considering that there is a structural difference between “endurance” muscles and “fast” ones: the former lose speed, the latter lose endurance.

Below from the comments:
elektromexanik And here's more about the eye line...

Here, to use the eyes through the slits of the helmet, a normal person must tilt his head back in order to see anything. In the second case, in order to see the surroundings, you need to stuff a cap the size of a pillow into your helmet.

Below is an actual find that has lain in the ground for some time, although the accuracy of the dating is questionable.

It's taken away. The archaeological find may be related to the events of the Crusade of 1396 and the Battle of Nicopolis. Veliko Tarnovo Museum, Bulgaria.

Most likely, when talking about medieval armor, the imagination of most of us pictures something heavy, bulky and bulky. Something like that:

And not everyone knows that in reality everything was not quite like that.

This is better:

This beautifully acid-etched armored suit from the late Middle Ages no longer looks like a heavy shell, but still gives the impression of bulky and uncomfortable armor. However, it was created specifically for wear and has certain parameters that should fit the owner's size, so it will look much better on a person.

But this is a completely different conversation!

Meet Dr. Tobias Capwell, fully clad in homemade armor based on a sculpture dating back to the 1450s. This perfectly fitted “second skin” is designed to protect the life and health of its owner in tournament competitions or in foot combat. Now you can see how scary they can look correct armor– it seems as if he is capable of putting an entire army to flight even without a sword.

“Medieval armor was restrictive and heavy”

Properly created armor does not restrict the movement of its wearer. Moreover, the above armor also allows a person to increase the range of movement. The exact weight of this combat equipment is unknown, but usually medieval warriors preferred not to wear armor heavier than 30 kilograms. Although this armor was expertly crafted from modern materials, its design is entirely inspired by the armor protection created over 500 years ago.

“The knights actually bludgeoned each other until one of them fell.”

Methods of historical fencing in Western and Eastern countries differ slightly. Here, for example, is a 15th century engraving by the German fencing master Hans Thalhoffer, which demonstrates the “Mordschlag” (German death blow) technique and counteraction to it. Of course, the piercing and cutting blows of the sword are ineffective against a full set of closed armor, but using it as a hammer, you can seriously stun the enemy with the hilt or guard.

Here's “Mordschlag” in action

It shows both the possibility of this destructive attack and the strength of the armor - without it, the human skull would have lost its integrity long ago. And so the wearer of the armor (previously prepared for such a technique) merely lost consciousness due to the impact of the impact power and was unable to continue the battle. It should also be taken into account that the knights were trained in hand-to-hand combat techniques, working with one-handed and two-handed weapons, daggers, stilettos, knives, methods for countering and methods of countering counteractions.

This is probably the apotheosis of the medieval art of armor making

This combat equipment was created for the English king Henry VIII and his participation in foot knightly competitions in tournaments. This armor may seem odd to some due to its steel rear design, but look closely and you will realize that this is one of the first protective armor suits that completely hides vulnerable human flesh from the merciless edge of a weapon. By the way, the American aerospace agency NASA studied this armor in detail when creating the first space suit.

And finally, an example that a knight does not necessarily need to have a sword in his hand to hit the enemy with a shield.

In medieval times, life was not easy, clothes played important role, up to the preservation of life.
Simple clothing made of flimsy fabric was common, leather was considered a rarity, but armor was worn only by wealthy gentlemen.

Henry VIII's Armet, known as the "Horned Shell". Innsbruck, Austria, 1511

There are several versions regarding the appearance of the first armor. Some believe it all started with robes made of forged metal. Others believe that wood protection should also be considered, in which case we need to remember the truly distant ancestors with stones and sticks. But most people think that armor came from those difficult times when men were knights and women languished in anticipation of them.

Another strange shell-mask, from Augsburg, Germany, 1515.

A separate article should be devoted to the variety of shapes and styles of medieval armor:

Either armor or nothing

The first armor was very simple: rough metal plates designed to protect the knight inside from spears and swords. But gradually the weapons became more and more complicated, and the blacksmiths had to take this into account and make the armor more and more durable, light and flexible, until they had the maximum degree of protection.

One of the most brilliant innovations was the improvement of chain mail. According to rumors, it was first created by the Celts many centuries ago. It was a long process, it took a very long time until gunsmiths took on it and took this idea to new heights. This idea is not entirely logical: instead of making armor from strong plates and very reliable metal, why not make it from several thousand carefully connected rings? It turned out great: light and durable, chain mail allowed its owner to be mobile and was often a key factor in how he left the battlefield: on a horse or on a stretcher. When plate armor was added to chainmail, the result was stunning: the armor of the Middle Ages was born.

Medieval arms race

Now it is difficult to imagine that for a long time the knight on horseback was a truly terrible weapon of that era: arriving at the scene of battle on a military horse, often also dressed in armor, he was as terrible as he was invincible. Nothing could stop such knights when, with a sword and spear, they could easily attack almost anyone.

Here is an imaginary knight, reminiscent of heroic and victorious times (drawn by the delightful illustrator John Howe):

Bizarre Monsters

Combat became more and more “ritualistic,” leading to the jousting tournaments we all know and love from movies and books. Armor became less useful in practice and gradually became more of an indicator of high social level and well-being. Only the rich or nobles could afford armor, however only a truly rich or very wealthy baron, duke, prince or king could afford fantastic armor of the highest quality.

Did this make them especially beautiful? After a while, the armor began to look more like dinner wear than battle gear: impeccable metal work, precious metals, elaborate coats of arms and regalia... All this, although it looked amazing, was useless during battle.

Just look at the armor belonging to Henry VIII: isn't it a masterpiece of art of the time? The armor was designed and made, like most all armor of the time, to fit the wearer. In Henry's case, however, his costume looked more noble than fearsome. Who can remember the royal armor? Looking at a set of such armor, you can’t help but think: were they invented for fighting or for showing off? But honestly, we can't blame Henry for his choice: his armor was never really designed for war.

England comes up with ideas

What is certain is that the suit of armor was a terrifying weapon of the day. But any days come to an end, and in the case of classic armor, their end was simply worse than ever.
1415, northern France: on one side - the French; on the other - the British. Although their numbers are a matter of debate, it is generally believed that the French outnumbered the English by a ratio of about 10 to 1. For the English, under Henry (5th, forefather of the aforementioned 8th), this was not at all pleasant. Most likely, they will be, to use a military term, "killed." But then something happened that not only determined the outcome of the war, but also changed Europe forever, as well as dooming armor as a primary weapon.

The French did not know what hit them. Well, in fact, they knew, and that made their defeat even more terrible: after all, it was them, the "cream" of the equipment of the French infantry, marching to an obvious victory, their chain mail and plates sparkling in the sun, their monstrous metal armor and the best protection in the world...

Arrows began to fall on them, fired from Henry's secret weapon: the English (Welsh, to be precise) longbow. A few volleys - and the French were defeated by an enemy they could not even get close to, their precious armor turned out to be pincushions, and their army was trampled into dirty ground.

Clothes say a lot about a person. And for a very long time, armor was the most universal garment of that time, suitable for almost all occasions. But times are changing. In our case, this was greatly helped by several people with a few bows and arrows.

World War I armor

Brewster's armor, 1917-1918:

Experimental machine gunner helmet, 1918:

If the level of protection provided by a helmet does not seem sufficient, you can try climbing inside a mobile protection equipped with four wheels (a real mobile coffin):