Armor of knights of the Middle Ages: photo and description. Medieval armor in Western Europe Knight armor of the 15th century

• 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 times of war, these militias were 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 the majority 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 may have arisen from the fact that most of the armor displayed in museums is high quality equipment, while most of the simpler armor that belonged to the common people and the lowest of the nobles was hidden in storage or lost through the centuries.

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. Wherein full armor began to be found less and less often, 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 assistance or any equipment, without ladders or cranes. Modern experiments with real armor of the 15th and 16th centuries and with their exact copies showed that even an untrained person in properly selected armor can climb on and off a horse, sit or lie down, 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 what seemed to them to be many different types of 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, there are scattered examples of how armor was ordered, how long orders took, and how much they cost various parts armor Secondly, a complete armor could consist of parts made by various armorers with a narrow specialization. Armor parts could be sold unfinished and then customized locally for a certain amount. 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 effective work 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 part of the 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, airman's plates in World War II, and bulletproof vests of modern times.

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 is wrapped from left to right, because this is how the armor was originally closed.

The theory behind this statement 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 left-hand side was superimposed on the right to prevent the blow of the enemy’s sword from penetrating. 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 of trade, 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 an everyday weapon for self-defense in public places. And up to early XIX centuries, swords and small swords have become 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 the Islamic world, often have 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 perforation is 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.

Network material.

“Here are approximate figures for the weight of armor and weapons in the Middle Ages: typical armor of the 15th century weighed about 52 pounds, that is, approximately 23.6 kg. If we take individual parts, then the armored helmet (full closed helmet) weighed from 6"-7"8 "(2.7-3.4 kg), gorget (collar) - 9 ounces (0.25 kg), cuirass from the back and chest parts - 12"8" (5.7 kg), "skirt" at the bottom of the cuirass - 1"11" (0.76 kg) , right bracer - 2"14" (1.3 kg), left bracer - 2"9" (1.16 kg), "legs" - 6"1" (2.74 kg) each, ringed shirt with short sleeves - 15"7" ( 7 kg), long sleeve - 20"11" (9.38 kg), typical long sword - 2"8" (1.13 kg).
The daily marching load of an infantryman from the Napoleonic Wars to the present day ranges from 60 to 70 pounds, that is, between 27 and 32 kg. And this weight is distributed much less conveniently than the armor of a medieval knight.

Just as a shock-absorbing cap was worn under the helmet, so under the chain mail, and then under the armor, the knights wore a quilted (stitched from 8-30 layers of canvas) jacket, called a “gambeson”. The shoulders and chest were padded with cotton wool.

The noticeable relief of the shoulders and chest made a proper impression on the ladies, but this was not the goal of the resourceful knights. These “pillows” were intended to distribute the weight of the armor and absorb shock. The multi-layered matter could also stop a striking blow already weakened by iron armor.

The chest pillow also served to increase the level of protection. If it was difficult, but possible, to cut a silk scarf in the air with a saber, then a pillow cannot be cut with one blow by any damask steel, even on the block. As an argumentative example, let us recall the stories of veterans of the Great Patriotic War. A standard soldier's quilted jacket stopped German submachine gun bullets from 200 meters!

So a prestigious costume of the 15th century (a puffy doublet jacket with rolls on the shoulders, with narrow sleeves, as well as hose trousers similar to stockings, a flattened “pill” headdress, shoes without heels, but with long toes - and all this is flashy colors) is not an absurd fashion, but a chic “military” style. And the fact that the trouser legs are different colors - this was just not visible under the armor...

In the 7th century, stirrups became widespread, allowing riders to use powerful horses, long spears and heavy axes - without stirrups, it was almost impossible to sit on a horse while swinging an ax. The appearance of stirrups sharply strengthened the cavalry. But the replacement of peasant militias with real knightly cavalry did not happen in one day. It was only in the 9th century, during the era of Charlemagne, that knights became the main force on the battlefield. What were these knights?

Warriors always had to use the weapons that modern and fellow artisans could make. Charlemagne, the creator of a huge empire, a commander whose name became a household name, lived in a wooden mansion and wore a homespun linen shirt. And not out of a desire to be closer to the people, but because of a lack of choice. There were no architects or dyers in his state. And there were also few blacksmiths... For these reasons, the armor of the first European knights was still made of leather. At least at its core.

The cuirass (part of the shell that covers the torso, but does not protect the neck and arms), made of several layers of cowhide boiled in oil and glued together, weighed more than 4 kg, and the full armor (cuirass, legguards, leggings, shoulders, bracers), made according to this technology - about 15 kg. The multi-layered skin held arrows from a bow well, but was pierced by arrows from a crossbow from a distance of up to 100 meters. Moreover, this armor could be pierced with a strong blow from a spear or sword. And he practically did not protect against clubs and axes at all.

The positive features of leather armor are its accessibility and lightness (compared to metal). But in general, it often did not justify itself - the level of protection it provided did not pay for the reduction in mobility. Therefore, leather armor was rarely used in infantry. On the other hand, horse warriors less concerned with high mobility did not neglect him. Although even then - only for lack of an alternative.

Increasing the level of protection of leather armor was usually achieved by attaching soft iron plates to it. If there was only one plate, it protected the heart. Several plates could completely cover the chest and abdomen.

The thickness of the metal in the plates was only about a millimeter. If you increase the thickness, the armor becomes too heavy. In addition, the increase in thickness still did not allow the iron of the plates to withstand direct blows: it sank and pierced due to the imperfections of medieval technology. So reinforcing leather armor with plates increased its weight by only 2-3 kg.

Of course, a better result could be achieved by strengthening leather armor hard steel, but thin plates of it would be brittle and would not be useful. Therefore, an alternative to using wide iron plates was to attach a large number of small - several centimeters in diameter - steel plaques to the skin. They were of little help from arrows and spear blows, but, being hard, they effectively prevented the cutting of armor.

Chainmail

An alternative to leather armor was the hauberk, which was chain mail with sleeves and a hood, additionally equipped with chain mail stockings.

To make chain mail, many rings were wound from iron wire about a millimeter thick, each about a centimeter in diameter.

Outwardly, the houberk looked quite solid: the armor completely covered the body, weighed relatively little (about 10 kg; with stockings and a hood - more), and almost did not restrict movements. However, the protection the houberk provided was very dubious. The technology of that time made it possible to pull wire only from the softest and most malleable iron (rings made of hard steel broke and gave more worst defense). Chain mail armor was easily cut with a saber, pierced with a spear and chopped with an ax. Flexible chain mail did not protect at all from a club or mace. Only against relatively light swords, used before the 14th century, did chain mail provide satisfactory protection.

Chain mail armor was almost useless against arrows: the faceted tips went into the cell of the ring. Even at a distance of 50 meters, a warrior could not feel safe when fired with heavy arrows from powerful bows.
Chain mail was one of the easiest types of metal armor to make - and this is its main advantage. The production of a hauberk required only a few kilograms of the cheapest iron. Of course, it was impossible to do without a device for drawing wire.

Bekhterets and brigantine

Mail armor for a long time used in parallel with leather, in the 11th century they began to predominate, and in the 13th century they finally pushed leather into the background. When chain mail became available to most knights, a leather cuirass with iron plates sewn onto it began to be worn over a chain mail shirt. This achieved a higher level of protection against arrows. The total weight of protective equipment increased and reached 18 kg.

Considering that even such (triple!) protection was easily penetrated by both an ax and a cavalry spear, the large weight of the set was clearly unjustified.

In addition, the progress of blacksmithing allowed knights in the 14th century to replace Carolingian-style swords with ritterschwerts that were twice as heavy and one and a half times longer. Chain mail was no longer suitable against one-and-a-half-handed swords.
A solid metal plate 1.2-2 millimeters thick would have the optimal ratio of weight to level of protection, but such an element of iron armor could only be made by welding. Similar technologies were not available.

In order to forge a flat blade from three strips of metal, great skill was already required. A three-dimensional object (helmet or cuirass) is much more difficult to produce with one forging process. Sometimes craftsmen managed to create a cuirass from several elements that were connected to each other. But such a product was a literal work of art, and was an exception to the general rule. Moreover, there were few skilled craftsmen. In Western Europe, until the 11th century there were no large cities, and, therefore, trade, stone construction, and complex crafts were limited.

Craftsmen capable of forging a large and reliable armor element (especially a curved one) from several layers of metal did not exist in Europe until the 14th century. Therefore, all the parts of the armor were assembled from flat and small elements.

In the simplest case, about 1,500 small welded flakes were connected by chainmail rings. The armor woven in this way (by analogy with the ancient Roman one it was called “lamellar”) was called “bekhterets” in Russian, resembled scales and had some flexibility.

Bekhterets covered the fighter's chest, back and hips. Weighing 12 kg, it withstood the chopping blows of a ritterschwert, but did not save it from blows from a spear, ax and club. Therefore, the next step in the development of warrior protection was the brigantine, which became widespread from the mid-14th century.

It still used flat armor elements, but there were only 30-40 of them. The plates were not connected to each other, but were inserted into the pockets of the fabric jacket, forming noticeable gaps. The disadvantage of the brigantine was the greater mobility of the plates relative to each other. The plate distributed the blow of the club across the surface of the armor, but ultimately it usually fell on the person's ribs. And the enemy blade could slip into the gap between the plates. An arrow could also have hit there. As for the spear, the plates themselves diverged under the pressure of the tip.

In general, the brigantine significantly increased protection, but was mainly used only on top of the houberk, adding its 10 kg to its already considerable weight.

Plate armor

In the 15th century, the quality of brigantines improved. The plates acquired a trapezoidal shape and began to fit tightly to the figure. Sometimes the plates even overlapped each other, providing improved protection. The number of plates in the armor increased to 100-200, and then to 500 pieces. But all these, of course, were half measures. Only large, voluminous, solid forged parts could provide real protection.

Back in the 13th century in Europe, chain mail was sometimes reinforced with extensive shoulder and chest plates (when the warrior, the owner of the armor, allowed this). In addition to breastplates and shoulders, bracers, leggings, legguards and other elements were made from solid metal. Most often, solid armor elements were supplemented with chain mail or leather fragments. Europe realized the benefits of rigid booking early. The masters did not stop implementing new ideas until they brought the principle to its logical conclusion, making the armor truly solid. From now on, it was articulated from individual parts and covered the entire body.

Most knights now wanted to have such and only such armor. This was also due to the tactics of the knightly cavalry. The heavy cavalry charged in close formation several ranks deep. At the same time, the king often considered it important to be in the front row. Indeed, according to European tradition, representatives of the wealthiest class - the highest aristocracy - not only personally participated in battles, but also, in their absence, had to fight in tournaments every year. And what will happen to the commander, galloping ahead on a dashing horse, if he is knocked out of the saddle? The rider will crash right under the feet of his own squire's horse, and compared to the blow of a shod hoof, any club is nothing!

Full articulated armor not only provided a high level of protection in hand-to-hand combat. Most importantly, they served as a kind of exoskeleton (similar to the natural shell of beetles), and thereby sharply increased the survivability of a dismounted warrior during a cavalry battle.

The first “classic” plate knight armor appeared in the 13th century. But at that time they were available only to kings. And not for everyone, but only for the wealthiest! From the beginning of the 14th century, kings of middle income and many dukes could afford full armament, and in the 15th century this pleasure became available to the broad masses of knights.

Solid armor of the 15th century was guaranteed to protect against arrows fired from a bow from any distance. At a distance of 25-30 meters, the armor could withstand crossbow bolts and arquebus bullets. They did not penetrate with darts, spears and swords (except for two-handed swords), and reliably protected them from blows. They could only be penetrated with a heavy slashing weapon (preferably two-handed).

Unfortunately, such armor also had disadvantages, the most significant of which (literally) was the burden on the warrior. The articulated shell weighed about 25 kg. If chain mail was worn underneath, which was generally accepted until the end of the 15th century, then the total mass of the protective equipment reached 32 kilograms!

A warrior clad in such heavy armor was significantly limited in mobility. In individual foot combat, armor was more of a hindrance than a help, since victory cannot be achieved by passive defense alone. Well, to attack the enemy you cannot be inferior to him in mobility. A meeting with a lightly armed enemy with a long weapon of great penetrating power did not bode well for a knight on foot. Preparing to take the fight on foot, the knights removed their protection, at least from their legs.

Helmets

The helmet is the most responsible and important element of armor: if you lose your arm, you can still sit in the saddle, but if you lose your head... Therefore, the latest inventions were used, first of all, in the manufacture of helmets. In the early Middle Ages, helmets were made using the same technologies as reinforced leather armor. Such a headdress was either a hat made of a shock-absorbing substrate and several layers of leather, trimmed with strips of iron, or the same hat with steel plaques attached to it. Such helmets did not stand up to criticism. The chain mail hoods were of little more use.

Nevertheless, it was the hoods of the hoberks that for a long time served as helmets in Europe. Before the revival of urban civilization, trade and crafts, only a small part of warriors could afford all-metal helmets. For the bulk of knights they became available only at the beginning of the 14th century, and for foot soldiers only towards the end of the same century. In the mid-14th century, the famous Genoese crossbowmen wore houberks and brigantines, but still did not have helmets.

The oldest Norman European helmets were completely similar in design to Asian and Russian helmets. The conical or ovoid shape contributed to the slippage of enemy blows, and a rod (nasal) welded to the visor protected the face. The warrior's neck and throat were covered with aventail, a chain mail cape.

Sometimes, instead of welding the nose, the helmet was made in such a way that it covered the entire upper part of the face, or even the entire face to the chin. In this case, naturally, slits were left for the eyes. Such “semi-blind” helmets were usually designed with the possibility of using them as open helmets in mind. The “Doric” helmet, as it was called in antiquity, could be worn shifted to the back of the head. In the Middle Ages, retractable helmets were called barbuds.

Finally, from the 15th century, first among the European infantry, and then among the cavalry, helmets with wide brims spread - these were capalins, similar to hats.

All of the mentioned helmets were distinguished by a fatal drawback: ultimately, they were attached to the cervical vertebrae. If a fighter fell from a horse, an open helmet could save him from a concussion, but not from a fatal neck fracture.

For this reason, from the 13th century in Europe, blind helmets in the shape of a truncated cone (an inverted bucket) became widespread. The main advantage of the “pots” was that when hit from above, the shock-absorbing cap under the helmet was crushed (and such a hat was always worn under every helmet), and its edges fell onto the shoulder plates. Thus, the blow fell not on the head, but on the shoulders.

At the beginning of the 14th century, a steel garget collar and a movable visor were introduced into the helmet design. However, throughout the 14th century, such helmets (“dog heads”, “frog faces”, “armets”) were produced in only a few quantities. They were included with articulated armor, and, like armor, became widespread only from the 15th century.
Of course, even a solid helmet was not without its drawbacks. The ability to turn his head was practically absent. In addition, the “observation embrasures” narrowed the field of view, especially since the visor slits were located far from the eyes (so that the tip of the sword, penetrating into them, could not cause injury). The situation with audibility was even worse: the warrior in the thick helmet did not feel anything except his own snoring. And it’s unlikely that even a raised visor would completely solve such problems.

As a result, a blind helmet was only good for fighting in dense formations, when there was no danger of attack from the side or from behind. If an individual battle began, especially on foot or with several opponents, the knight took off his helmet, remaining in the hood of the houberk. Squires and mounted sergeants, as well as infantrymen, generally preferred open helmets.

The knight was often forced to take off his helmet, and the shock-absorbing cap was also removed along with it, former part metal headdress. The chainmail hood that remained in place did not provide serious protection to the head, which prompted the knights to come up with a witty solution. Under the thick helmet, the most prudent warriors began to wear another helmet - a small, tight-fitting skull.

The helmets were made of metal about 3 mm thick, and therefore they weighed not so little - rarely less than 2 kg. The weight of solid helmets with a movable visor and an additional iron liner reached almost 5 kg.
There is a widespread belief that the protective equipment of European knights was unusually reliable (in comparison with warriors of other eras and peoples). This opinion has no sufficient basis. In the 7th-10th centuries, European armor was, if not lighter, then worse, for example, Arabic. Only towards the end of this period in Europe did chain mail begin to prevail over leather caftans trimmed with metal plaques.

In the 11th-13th centuries, leather armor was already encountered as an exception, but chain mail was still considered the crown of progress. Only occasionally was it supplemented by a helmet, forged shoulders and an iron-lined leather vest. During this time, protection from arrows was provided mainly by the long Frankish shield. In general, on the ice of Lake Peipus, the Germans’ weapons corresponded to the weapons of the Novgorod infantry and were even inferior, both in quality and weight, to the armor of the Russian cavalry.

The situation changed little in the first half of the 14th century. The large losses of the French cavalry from arrows during the Battle of Cressy were explained by the fact that most of the knights were still wearing chain mail.

However, if Russian civilization experienced a severe crisis in the 14th century, European civilization took a big step forward. In the 15th century, knights were finally able to arm themselves “like a knight.” It was only from this time that European protective equipment actually became heavier and more reliable than that adopted in other parts of the world.
During the same period, armor for knightly horses spread. They were sometimes covered with quilted blankets back in the 13th century, but only in the middle of the 14th century did the horses of the richest knights receive chainmail armor.

Real horse armor, rigid, assembled from extensive forged parts, began to be hung on horses only in the 15th century. However, in the 15th century, in most cases, armor protected only the chest, head and neck of the horse, while the sides and back, as two centuries before this century, remained covered only with a quilted blanket.

In the good old days, which, as we know, were very difficult, clothing was a matter of life and death: simple, flimsy fabric was common, leather was considered a rarity, and for wealthy gentlemen only armor played an important role ...

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 that took a very long time until gunsmiths took on it and took the 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 chain mail, the result was stunning: the armor of the Middle Ages appeared.

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 war 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 of this, although it looked amazing, was useless during the 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, the question arises: 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:

In medieval times, life was not easy, clothing played an important role in the flesh to preserve 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 that took a very long time until gunsmiths took on it and took the 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 chain mail, the result was stunning: the armor of the Middle Ages appeared.

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 war 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, ornate coats of arms and regalia... All of this, while looking 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, the question arises: 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.

“Oh, knights, arise, the hour of action has come!
You have shields, steel helmets and armor.
Your dedicated sword is ready to fight for your faith.
Give me strength, oh God, for new glorious battles.

I, a beggar, will take rich spoils there.
I don’t need gold and I don’t need land,
But maybe I will be, singer, mentor, warrior,
Rewarded with heavenly bliss forever"
(Walter von der Vogelweide. Translation by V. Levick)

A sufficient number of articles on the topic of knightly weapons and, in particular, knightly armor have already been published on the VO website. However, this topic is so interesting that you can delve into it for a very long time. The reason for turning to her again is banal... weight. Armor weight and . Alas, I recently asked students again how much a knight’s sword weighs, and received the following set of numbers: 5, 10 and 15 kilograms. They considered chain mail weighing 16 kg to be very light, although not all of them did, and the weight of plate armor at just over 20 kilos was simply ridiculous.

Figures of a knight and a horse in full protective equipment. Traditionally, knights were imagined exactly like that - “chained in armor.” (Cleveland Museum of Art)

At VO, naturally, “things with weight” are much better due to regular publications on this topic. However, the opinion about the excessive weight of the “knightly costume” of the classical type has not yet been eradicated here. Therefore, it makes sense to return to this topic and consider it with specific examples.

Western European chain mail (hauberk) 1400 – 1460 Weight 10.47 kg. (Cleveland Museum of Art)

Let's start with the fact that British weapons historians created a very reasonable and clear classification of armor according to their specific characteristics and ultimately divided the entire Middle Ages, guided, naturally, by available sources, into three eras: “the era of chain mail”, “the era of mixed chain mail and plate protective weapons" and "the era of solid forged armor." All three eras together make up the period from 1066 to 1700. Accordingly, the first era has a framework of 1066 - 1250, the second - the era of chain mail-plate armor - 1250 - 1330. But further on: the early stage in the development of knightly plate armor stands out (1330 - 1410), “ great period"into knights in "white armor" (1410 - 1500) and the era of the decline of knightly armor (1500 - 1700).

Chain mail together with a helmet and aventail (aventail) XIII – XIV centuries. (Royal Arsenal, Leeds)

During the years of “wonderful Soviet education” we had never heard of such periodization. But in the school textbook “History of the Middle Ages” for VΙ grade for many years, with some rehashes, one could read the following:
“It was not easy for the peasants to defeat even one feudal lord. The mounted warrior - the knight - was armed with a heavy sword and a long spear. He could cover himself from head to toe with a large shield. The knight's body was protected by chain mail - a shirt woven from iron rings. Later, chain mail was replaced by armor - armor made of iron plates.

Classic knightly armor, which was most often discussed in textbooks for schools and universities. Before us is Italian armor of the 15th century, restored in the 19th century. Height 170.2 cm. Weight 26.10 kg. Helmet weight 2850 g (Metropolitan Museum, New York)

Knights fought on strong, hardy horses, which were also protected by armor. The knight's weapons were very heavy: they weighed up to 50 kilograms. Therefore, the warrior was clumsy and clumsy. If a rider was thrown from his horse, he could not get up without help and was usually captured. To fight on horseback in heavy armor, long training was needed; feudal lords prepared for military service from childhood. They constantly practiced fencing, horse riding, wrestling, swimming, and javelin throwing.

German armor 1535. Presumably from Brunswick. Weight 27.85 kg. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)

A war horse and knightly weapons were very expensive: for all this a whole herd had to be given - 45 cows! The landowner for whom the peasants worked could perform knightly service. Therefore, military affairs became an occupation almost exclusively of feudal lords” (Agibalova, E.V. History of the Middle Ages: Textbook for the 6th grade / E.V. Agibalova, G.M. Donskoy, M.: Prosveshchenie, 1969. P.33; Golin, E.M. History of the Middle Ages: Tutorial for 6th grade evening (shift) school / E.M. Golin, V.L. Kuzmenko, M.Ya. Leuberg. M.: Education, 1965. P. 31-32.)

A knight in armor and a horse in horse armor. The work of master Kunz Lochner. Nuremberg, Germany 1510 – 1567 It dates back to 1548. The total weight of the rider's equipment, including horse armor and saddle, is 41.73 kg. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)

Only in the 3rd edition of the textbook “History of the Middle Ages” for VΙ grade high school V.A. Vedyushkin, published in 2002, the description of knightly weapons became somewhat truly thoughtful and corresponded to the above-mentioned periodization used today by historians around the world: “At first, the knight was protected by a shield, helmet and chain mail. Then the most vulnerable parts of the body began to be hidden behind metal plates, and from the 15th century, chain mail was finally replaced by solid armor. Battle armor weighed up to 30 kg, so for battle the knights chose hardy horses, also protected by armor.”

Armor of Emperor Ferdinand I (1503–1564) Gunsmith Kunz Lochner. Germany, Nuremberg 1510 – 1567 Dated 1549. Height 170.2 cm. Weight 24 kg.

That is, in the first case, intentionally or out of ignorance, the armor was divided into eras in a simplified manner, while a weight of 50 kg was attributed to both the armor of the “era of chain mail” and the “era of all-metal armor” without dividing into the actual armor of the knight and the armor of his horse. That is, judging by the text, our children were offered information that “the warrior was clumsy and clumsy.” In fact, the first articles showing that this is actually not the case were publications by V.P. Gorelik in the magazines “Around the World” in 1975, but this information never made it into textbooks for Soviet schools at that time. The reason is clear. Using anything, using any examples, show the superiority of the military skills of Russian soldiers over the “dog knights”! Unfortunately, the inertia of thinking and the not-so-great significance of this information make it difficult to disseminate information that corresponds to scientific data.

Armor set from 1549, which belonged to Emperor Maximilian II. (Wallace Collection) As you can see, the option in the photo is tournament armor, as it features a grandguard. However, it could be removed and then the armor became combat. This achieved considerable savings.

Nevertheless, the provisions of the school textbook V.A. Vedyushkina are completely true. Moreover, information about the weight of armor, well, say, from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (as well as from other museums, including our Hermitage in St. Petersburg, then Leningrad) was available for a very long time, but in the textbooks of Agibalov and Donskoy For some reason I didn’t get there in due time. However, it’s clear why. After all, we had the best education in the world. However, this is a special case, although quite indicative. It turned out that there were chain mail, then again and again and now armor. Meanwhile, the process of their appearance was more than lengthy. For example, only around 1350 was the appearance of the so-called “metal chest” with chains (from one to four) that went to a dagger, sword and shield, and sometimes a helmet was attached to the chain. Helmets at this time were not yet connected to protective plates on the chest, but under them they wore chain mail hoods that had a wide shoulder. Around 1360, armor began to have clasps; in 1370, the knights were almost completely dressed in iron armor, and chain mail fabric was used as a base. The first brigandines appeared - caftans, and lining made of metal plates. They were also used as an independent species protective clothing, and were worn together with chain mail, both in the West and in the East.

Knight's armor with a brigandine over chain mail and a bascinet helmet. Around 1400–1450 Italy. Weight 18.6 kg. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)

Since 1385, the thighs began to be covered with armor made of articulated strips of metal. In 1410, full-plate armor for all parts of the body had spread throughout Europe, but mail throat cover was still in use; in 1430, the first grooves appeared on the elbow and knee pads, and by 1450, armor made of forged steel sheets had reached its perfection. Beginning in 1475, the grooves on them became increasingly popular until fully fluted or so-called “Maximilian armor”, the authorship of which is attributed to the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, became a measure of the skill of their manufacturer and the wealth of their owners. Subsequently, knightly armor became smooth again - their shape was influenced by fashion, but the skills achieved in the craftsmanship of their finishing continued to develop. Now it was not only people who fought in armor. The horses also received it, as a result the knight with the horse turned into something like a real statue made of polished metal that sparkled in the sun!

Another “Maximilian” armor from Nuremberg 1525 – 1530. It belonged to Duke Ulrich, the son of Henry of Württemberg (1487 - 1550). (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna)

Although... although fashionistas and innovators, “running ahead of the locomotive,” have always been there too. For example, it is known that in 1410 a certain English knight named John de Fiarles paid Burgundian gunsmiths 1,727 pounds sterling for armor, a sword and a dagger made for him, which he ordered to be decorated with pearls and... diamonds (!) - a luxury that was not only unheard of time, but even for him it is not at all characteristic.

Field armor of Sir John Scudamore (1541 or 1542–1623). Armourer Jacob Jacob Halder (Greenwich Workshop 1558–1608) Circa 1587, restored 1915. Weight 31.07 kg. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)

Each piece of plate armor received its own name. For example, plates for the thighs were called cuisses, knee pads - logs (poleyns), jambers - for the legs and sabatons for the feet. Gorgets or bevors (gorgets, or bevors) protected the throat and neck, cutters (couters) - elbows, e(c)paulers, or pauldrones (espaudlers, or pauldrons) - shoulders, rerebraces - forearm , vambraces - part of the arm down from the elbow, and gantelets - these are “plate gloves” - protected the hands. The full set of armor also included a helmet and, at least at first, a shield, which subsequently ceased to be used on the battlefield around the middle of the 15th century.

Armor of Henry Herbert (1534–1601), Second Earl of Pembroke. Made around 1585 – 1586. in the Greenwich armory (1511 – 1640). Weight 27.24 kg. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)

As for the number of parts in the “white armor”, in the armor of the mid-15th century their total number could reach 200 units, and taking into account all the buckles and nails, along with hooks and various screws, even up to 1000. The weight of the armor was 20 - 24 kg, and it was distributed evenly over the knight’s body, unlike chain mail, which put pressure on the man’s shoulders. So “no crane was required to put such a rider in his saddle. And knocked off his horse to the ground, he did not at all look like a helpless beetle.” But the knight of those years was not a mountain of meat and muscles, and he by no means relied solely on brute strength and bestial ferocity. And if we pay attention to how knights are described in medieval works, we will see that very often they had a fragile (!) and graceful physique, and at the same time had flexibility, developed muscles, and were strong and very agile, even when dressed in armor, with well-developed muscle response.

Tournament armor made by Anton Peffenhauser around 1580 (Germany, Augsburg, 1525–1603) Height 174.6 cm); shoulder width 45.72 cm; weight 36.8 kg. It should be noted that tournament armor was usually always heavier than combat armor. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)

IN last years In the 15th century, knightly weapons became the subject of special concern for European sovereigns, and, in particular, Emperor Maximilian I (1493 - 1519), who is credited with creating knightly armor with grooves along their entire surface, eventually called “Maximilian.” It was used without any special changes in the 16th century, when new improvements were required due to the ongoing development of small arms.

Now just a little about swords, because if you write about them in detail, then they deserve a separate topic. J. Clements, a well-known British expert on edged weapons of the Middle Ages, believes that it was the advent of multi-layer combined armor (for example, on the effigy of John de Creque we see as many as four layers of protective clothing) that led to the appearance of a “sword in one and a half hands.” Well, the blades of such swords ranged from 101 to 121 cm, and weight from 1.2 to 1.5 kg. Moreover, blades are known for chopping and piercing blows, as well as purely for stabbing. He notes that horsemen used such swords until 1500, and they were especially popular in Italy and Germany, where they were called Reitschwert (equestrian) or knight's sword. In the 16th century, swords appeared with wavy and even jagged sawtooth blades. Moreover, their length itself could reach human height with a weight of 1.4 to 2 kg. Moreover, such swords appeared in England only around 1480. Average weight sword in the X and XV centuries. was 1.3 kg; and in the sixteenth century. – 900 g. Bastard swords “one and a half hands” weighed about 1.5 – 1.8 kg, and the weight of two-handed swords was rarely more than 3 kg. The latter reached their peak between 1500 and 1600, but were always infantry weapons.

Three-quarter cuirassier armor, ca. 1610–1630 Milan or Brescia, Lombardy. Weight 39.24 kg. Obviously, since they have no armor below the knees, the extra weight comes from thickening the armor.

But shortened three-quarter armor for cuirassiers and pistoleers, even in its shortened form, often weighed more than those that offered protection only from edged weapons and they were very heavy to wear. Cuirassier armor has been preserved, the weight of which was about 42 kg, i.e. even more than classic knightly armor, although they covered a much smaller surface of the body of the person for whom they were intended! But this, it should be emphasized, is not knightly armor, that’s the point!

Horse armor, possibly made for Count Antonio IV Colalto (1548–1620), circa 1580–1590. Place of manufacture: probably Brescia. Weight with saddle 42.2 kg. (Metropolitan Museum, New York) By the way, a horse in full armor under an armored rider could even swim. The horse armor weighed 20–40 kg – a few percent of the own weight of a huge and strong knight’s horse.