Armor of French knights. Armor

Around 1420 plate armor can be considered as fully formed, all subsequent changes being only partial improvements or fads of fashion, which gradually had a decisive influence on armament. Changes in the shape of armor sometimes turn out to be very rational, but often, after a few years, new varieties are created; at the same time, national originality is noticed, which makes it very difficult to review the essence of the form.

Gothic armor

Such armor was made throughout the 15th century and reached its peak in the 1480s, when it was considered the best in Europe. Their appearance carried the features of Gothic architecture and Gothic art. The armor had many pointed shapes and graceful lines, in addition, as a rule, this type of armor had corrugations and corrugations - the so-called stiffening ribs, which increased the strength of the armor.

In addition to steel plates, this armor included chainmail elements attached to the underarmor to protect the body at the inside of the joints and crotch.
Sometimes this type of armor is called German Gothic, and the contemporary Milanese armor is called Italian Gothic, on the basis that outside of Germany and Italy, Italian and German parts of armor were sometimes mixed (this was especially often done in England), resulting in armor that had mixed features.

Sometimes this type of armor is called German Gothic, and the contemporary Milanese armor is called Italian Gothic, on the basis that outside of Germany and Italy, Italian and German parts of armor were sometimes mixed (this was especially often done in England), resulting in armor that had mixed features. The argument against this use of terminology is that Milanese armor existed (with minor design changes) both before and after Gothic armor (Gothic armor existed from the middle of the 15th century, and in the early years of the 16th century - before the appearance of Maximilian armor, and Milanese armor with end of the 14th century and continued to be worn at the beginning of the 16th century).
By style, Gothic armor is divided into high and low Gothic, as well as late and early. Some people mistakenly believe that Gothic armor is characterized by the absence of thigh guards (tassets), but in fact this is a feature of the most famous examples - there are lesser known examples of Gothic armor in which the guards are not lost.
It is usually believed that high Gothic must have abundant fluting, but there are examples of high Gothic that have the characteristic silhouette of high Gothic, but do not have fluting (in particular, these are found both among those forged by Prunner and among those forged by Helmschmidt, who were at that time one of the most famous armor smiths).
Late Gothic and high Gothic are not the same thing; cheap examples of late Gothic sometimes have signs of low Gothic.

Milanese armor

Italian armor of the late XIV - early XVI centuries. This is armor that covers almost the entire surface of the body with large rounded smooth steel plates. The main distinguishing feature of this style of armor is the rounded cuirass, the front and back of which consist of two large segments; as well as wide shoulder pads with large sides to deflect spears. Moreover, the left shoulder pad is especially massive and the protection of the forearm and shoulder is represented by one detail and the use of plate gauntlets to protect the hands (in German armor, plate gloves were mainly used).

Below is a textbook set of Milanese armor that belonged to a member of the von Matsch family, owners of Schloss Churburg Castle, dated around 1455. Now exhibited at the Glasgow Art Museum and Gallery.
This set of armor almost certainly belonged to a member of the Matsch family of Hkrburg Castle in the Italian Tyrol, which in the Middle Ages was a territory of Germany (now Austria). This armor is more than five centuries old. Even more impressive is the fact that this armor set is very close to the original. But if the right gauntlet is genuine, then the left modern production. The Barbuta helmet corresponds in production time to the rest of the armor set, but does not belong to it. But this helmet is beautiful in itself, and its original soft lining is also preserved. Chain mail, too, most likely refers to armor only by period, because at this time they rarely wore a full chain mail shirt under armor. Limited to scraps of chain mail laced to the underarmor jacket.
Some details are also missing. In particular, four leather straps are intended for the plates of glove guards hanging from the plate armor, to protect vulnerable spots between the skirt and the leg guards. In addition, the hook for securing the spear was broken off. There are dents on the plate skirt, probably from a spear or crossbow bolt. The weight of the armor (without the new-made gauntlet and chain mail) is 25.85 kg.

Maximilian armor

German armor of the first third of the 16th century (or 1505-1525, if characteristic corrugation is considered mandatory), named after Emperor Maximilian I.

The armor is characterized by the presence of an armet-type helmet and a closed helmet with a corrugated visor, fine fan-shaped and parallel corrugations, often covering most of the armor (but never the greaves), engraving, and a strongly convex cuirass.
A characteristic feature is the “Bear Paw” sabatons (plate shoes), corresponding to the shoes fashionable at the time with very wide toes, from which the expression “living large” came. Later, after going out of fashion, these sabatons and shoes were nicknamed “Duck Paws.”

The armor itself was designed to emulate the pleated clothing that was fashionable in Europe at the time. The creation of armor that not only provided the maximum level of protection, but also was visually attractive was a trend in Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. She combined the Italian rounded style of armor with the German fluted style. Maximilian armor is indeed somewhat similar to Italian armor in the Italic style. alla tedesca (ala Germanic), but created in Germany/Austria under the influence of Italian armor, famous for its reliability and protection (in return for sacrificing freedom of movement). With external outlines that make it similar to Milanese armor (adjusted for the different curve of the cuirass), it has design features inherited from German Gothic armor. The abundance of stiffening ribs (made by embossing) gave a more durable structure, which made it possible to reduce the thickness of the metal and significantly reduce weight!

At the same time, the armor, unlike the Gothic one, like the Milanese one, was made not from small, but from large plates, which is associated with the spread of firearms, which is why it was necessary to sacrifice the famous flexibility and freedom of movement of the Gothic armor for the sake of the ability to withstand a bullet fired from a distance . Due to this, a knight in such armor could be reliably hit from the handguns of that time only by shooting at point-blank range, despite the fact that very strong nerves were needed in order not to shoot prematurely at an attacking knight on an armored horse, which could trample without resorting to weapons . The low accuracy of the firearms of that time also played a role, and the fact that they fired with a slight and, most importantly, almost unpredictable delay (the gunpowder on the seed shelf ignites and does not burn instantly), which makes it difficult to aim vulnerabilities for a moving rider it was unrealistic.
In addition to creating stiffening ribs by corrugation, another method of creating stiffening ribs was widely used in Maximilian armor. The edges of the plates were bent outward and wrapped into tubes (along the edges of the armor), which in turn, through additional corrugation, were shaped in the form of ropes, as a result of which the plates received very strong stiffening ribs along the edges. It’s interesting that the Italians have Ital. alla tedesca (a la Germanic) the edges of large plates also curved outward, but were not always wrapped. In Gothic armor, instead of arching, the edges of the plates were corrugated and could have a riveted gilded edging as decoration.

A characteristic feature of Maximilian armor is considered to be plate gauntlets, capable of withstanding a blow to the fingers with a sword, but with the spread of wheeled pistols, Maximilians with plate gloves appeared, allowing them to shoot pistols. At the same time, although the plate gauntlets consisted of large plates, these plates were still somewhat smaller than in the Milanese armor, and their number was greater, which provided a little more flexibility with approximately equal reliability. In addition, the thumb protection corresponded in design to the thumb protection of Gothic armor and was attached to a special complex hinge, providing greater mobility of the thumb.

Ceremonial armor

In Medieval Europe, until the 15th century, combat armor was used as ceremonial armor, additionally decorated with heraldry: helmet figures (made of papier-mâché, parchment, fabric, leather, wood), shoulder shields, and coats of arms on a surcoat, mantle, horse blanket and brigantine. Some wore a real crown over a helmet or chain mail hood. In addition, the chain mail was decorated with woven copper rings, polished to a golden shine. Helmets were sometimes painted with a solution of gold in mercury, after the evaporation of which a golden design remained on the helmet. Additionally, a richly decorated knight's belt made of gold or gilded plaques (actually a sword belt in the form of a wide belt) was worn, and in the 14th century chains appeared (for hanging weapons and helmets), which could also be decorated.
In the 15th century, due to the widespread spread of armor, separately manufactured ceremonial armor based on combat armor appeared, differing from them primarily in that it was painted with gold. At the same time, in Germany, expensive armor, even if it was not ceremonial, had abundant corrugation, and plate shoes were equipped with extravagantly long toes that could be detached.

And in Italy, richly decorated ceremonial helmets with an open face were in circulation.
In the 15th-16th centuries, some ceremonial armor was covered with elegant fabric decorated with heraldry and nailed to the metal with figured rivets. Moreover, some of these armors had a metal base hidden under the fabric that was heavily perforated to lighten the weight, so that such lightweight armor was unsuitable for combat, although it could be used for tournament duels with maces. What is noteworthy is that metal cuirasses covered with fabric actually appeared at the end of the 14th century, being then a type of large-plate brigantines (coracins), transitional from brigantines to armor. At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries, as a result of the influence of the Renaissance, ceremonial armor in the ancient style appeared, created in imitation of Roman and ancient Greek armor. Moreover, the Italians, who loved armor in the Italic style. alia romana (that is, Roman), one did not have to travel far to see what kind of armor the Romans wore.

In the same 16th century, some armor was painted with enamel, drawing real pictures on them in the style of contemporary Renaissance paintings. Naturally, when the armor was hit, the enamel could not withstand and crumbled, which is why this armor, although it could withstand the blow of a weapon, was intended for parade, and not for battle. At the same time, in addition to gold painting, armor covered with chasing and engraving, as well as applications of gold and silver plates, became widespread.

Suit armor

The peak of fashion for such armor occurred in the first quarter of the 16th century - the heyday of the Renaissance, the rise of landsknechts and cuirassiers and the beginning of the decline of knighthood. It was the last knights, inspired by the spirit of the Renaissance, who were the owners of such armor; It was precisely the insane high cost of such armor that led to the fact that many nobles, instead of being knighted according to tradition at the age of 21, preferred to remain squires and serve not as knights, but as cuirassiers, gendarmes, reiters, hussars, etc. ., and even go as officers to the infantry, which just a hundred years ago was unthinkable for many nobles.

Possession of such extremely expensive armor was a matter of prestige for a knight, because every knight, arriving at a tournament or other formal event, tried to impress those around him. And if in previous centuries - during the times of chain mail and brigantines - this cost an acceptable amount (to do this, they simply decorated the helmets with painted coat of arms figures made of papier-mâché, wood or parchment, and put an elegant surcoat over the armor, also covering the horse with an elegant blanket), then in the 16th century, trying to impress others was ruinous. Moreover, in earlier times, tournament armor was also used in battle, but in the 16th century, few people wore tournament armor into battle.

There were also special armor sets in which additional parts were attached to ordinary armor, turning it into tournament armor, but such sets were also very expensive and looked worse than costume armor. However, not all suit armor was suitable for tournaments. So, very fashionable and prestigious armor, stylized as antiquity, for example in the Italian style. alia romana (a la Roman), due to insufficient protection they were unsuitable for tournaments, and despite the fact that such armor was much more expensive than combat armor. The owner of such armor, although he sported it at the tournament, still put on another armor for the duel. Not every tournament participant could afford to have, in addition to tournament armor, “antique” armor, suitable only for a parade. Other types of costume armor, for example in the “de fajas espesas” style, were also suitable for tournament battles, as they provided good protection, in connection with which armor that looked like clothing from the 16th century was very popular. The price of such armor was determined not only by the abundance of gold decorations and quality, but also by the complexity of manufacturing: since clothing of that era often had elaborate elements (for example, huge puffy sleeves), not every blacksmith could forge such armor - so the most impressive armor was also the most expensive.

Tournament armor

Armor for tournament fights. Could, but not necessarily, be ceremonial armor at the same time. Classic tournament armor (of the late 15th and entire 16th centuries), due to its too narrow specialization, was unsuitable for real combat. Thus, the classic armor for foot combat was not suitable for mounted combat, and the armor for spear fighting was not suitable not only for foot combat, but also for hacking on horseback. In addition to highly specialized armor, there were also armor sets, which were a real constructor made of plate parts. It could be used to assemble any tournament or battle armor, and even ceremonial armor.
Since the emergence of tournaments, it was customary to use ordinary armor as tournament and ceremonial armor; the only difference was that additional chain mail was worn for the tournament, not counting the elegant cloak.

In the 14th century, with the spread of visors for bascinets, the potted helmet gradually ceased to be worn in battle, continuing to be worn in tournaments, and by the end of the 14th century it turned into a purely tournament helmet. With the spread of armor, the pot helmet turned into the so-called “Toad Head”, screwed to the cuirass.

The appearance of the “Toad Head” led to the fact that if earlier, during a horse fight, they bowed their heads, pressing their chin to their chest, then in a toad head, screwed to the cuirass, they straightened up so that the spear did not even accidentally hit the visual slit. In a helmet not screwed to the cuirass, getting hit in the head with a spear at full gallop was fraught with the risk of breaking your neck.

The armor for equestrian spear duels (shtehtsoig) weighed up to 85 kg. It covered only the rider's head and torso, but was more than a centimeter thick. They dressed the knight in it, placing him on a log raised above the ground or a special “lifting” device, since he could not mount a horse from the ground. The tournament spear was very heavy and had a powerful steel circle at the handle to protect the hand and the right side of the chest. A system of hooks and grips was used to hold it and direct it to the target. The horse for the tournament was also dressed in special armor with a thick soft lining. The knight sat in a huge saddle, the back pommel of which was supported by steel rods, and the front pommel was bound with steel and was so wide and extended downwards that it reliably protected the stomach, thighs and legs. All the vestments of the rider and horse were covered with the richest heraldic robes, capes, blankets, heraldic figures were attached to helmets, spears were decorated with flags, ribbons or a scarf.
Since the blow of the spear, according to the rules, was angled upward and forward, the legs could be hit either intentionally or in an accident. Therefore, in order to lighten the weight, the legs were either not protected at all, or their protection was limited to thigh guards, instead of which sometimes there were leg guards fastened to a cuirass or a plate skirt.

Armor for a walking tournament

Initially, it was distinguished by a very long plate skirt with a bell, for reliable protection of the genitals. But later, with the development of armor art, options appeared that provided reliable protection without a long plate skirt. Another characteristic feature there was a helmet with support on the shoulders, in which the impulse of the impact on the helmet was transferred not to the head, but to the shoulders to avoid shocks.

Moreover, for fights with blunt weapons like a mace (i.e., when there is no danger that the tip of the weapon will accidentally hit the eye), instead of a visor, a large lattice made of thick rods was used, which gave a good view.

To protect the fingers, plate gauntlets were usually used, which could withstand blows to the fingers well. What is curious is that the helmet sitting on the shoulders, mittens and a long plate skirt made this armor similar in general outline to a cast-in-breast.

Greenwich armor

16th-century armor produced in Greenwich in England, brought there by German gunsmiths.
Greenwich workshops were founded by Henry VIII in 1525, and had their full name in English. “The Royal “Almain” Armories” (literally “Royal “German” Arsenals”, French Almain - the French name for Germany). Since the workshops were created for the production of “German” armor, the production was headed by German gunsmiths. The first Englishman to head the production was William Pickering in 1607.

Although the armor was supposed, according to Henry VIII, to reproduce the German ones, they nevertheless carried both German and Italian features, and therefore the Greenwich Armor, although made by German craftsmen (with the participation of English apprentices), are distinguished by researchers into a separate “English” style.
The pattern of borrowings from various styles in Greenwich Armor is as follows:
The cuirass (including both shape and design) is in the Italian style.
The helmet (before about 1610) is in the German style with a “Burgundian” gorge.
Hip guards and leg guards are in the South German and Nuremberg style.
Shoulder protection - Italian style.
The execution of other details is in the Augsburg style.

Landsknecht armor

Incomplete armor worn by Landsknechts, the configuration and price of the armor depended on the rank and salary of the Landsknecht. A typical landsknecht's armor consisted of a cuirass with a necklace and legguards, which provided the only protection for the legs. Often integral part The armor consisted of plate bracers of a simplified design. Attached to the necklace were shoulder pads that reached to the elbow. The landsknecht's head was protected by a burguignot helmet.

Reitar armor

It had the same design as cheap cuirassier and expensive Landsknecht armor. In the 16th century there was no longer a special design of armor “for landsnechts”, “for cuirassiers”, “for reiters” and so on. There was only full knightly armor, worn at that time only by the highest aristocracy and the gendarmes of the French king, and incomplete armor, worn by everyone else, including the reitar. Armor and weapons were purchased at their own expense, and therefore the difference between Landsknecht and cuirassier armor stemmed from who could afford what kind of armor. The usual landsknecht was often limited to an open helmet, a cuirass with shoulder pads and leg guards. A cuirassier, as a rule, who was a nobleman, could buy himself a closed helmet with a visor (armé or heavy burgignot), a cuirass, full protection arms, long legguards with knee pads and a pair of strong good boots, reinforced with steel plates - which was the difference between typical Landsknecht or Reitar armor.

The similarity between Landsknecht and cuirassier armor appeared if the nobleman was impoverished, and the Landsknecht received a “double” salary. Reitar, in this regard, was much better off than an infantryman, but since his main weapon - wheeled pistols - were very expensive (for comparison: in the infantry only officers could afford pistols), he had to save on armor, since, unlike cuirassiers , for a reitar it was preferable to have good expensive pistols and inexpensive armor than vice versa.
Typical Reitar armor consisted of a cuirass with segmented legguards (usually knee-length), plate arm protection, a plate necklace and a helmet. Plate hand protection, depending on the wallet, could be complete, or it could be limited to segmented shoulder pads up to the elbows and plate gloves, also up to the elbows. The compromise version consisted of the same elbow-length shoulder pads and plate gloves, complemented by elbow pads. In addition to elbow pads, there could also be knee pads, which, if available, were usually attached to the thigh pads. As for the helmet, at first the burgignot with a visor and cheek pads, called the “assault helmet” (German: Sturmhaube), was popular. Usually the face was open, but if desired, if funds allowed, one could buy an option with a folding chin guard that covered the face like a visor, but not from top to bottom, but from bottom to top.

The purely cuirassier version of the helmet - arme - did not enjoy noticeable popularity among the Reitar. Subsequently (German: Sturmhaube) gave way to the reiters, as well as arquebusiers, to the morion, and then to the shishak (kapelina), as it was more convenient for shooting. Since the reitar sat in the saddle and, as a rule, did not dismount in battle, the groin was well covered by the saddle and the horse, which made the codpiece practically unnecessary. Although, with a strong desire to wear it for ceremonial purposes, the codpiece was often given a grotesque look in order to emphasize the masculinity of its owner big shape, it could be purchased additionally.
As for the black color of the armor, this color was found not only among the “Black Horsemen” and, in addition to aesthetic and psychological reasons, there were also practical reasons. On the one hand, an ordinary mercenary, not having a personal servant, monitored the condition of the armor himself, and therefore armor painted with oil paint was preferable to unpainted armor, since it was less susceptible to rust, and on the other hand, the blacksmiths who made the armor often used the paint themselves so that hide existing defects in cheap armor. As a rule, expensive armor was polished, and if it was necessary to give it a black color, it was not painted, but blued, which even better protected the armor from the effects of rust.
Cheap armor usually weighed about 12 kg, while expensive bulletproof armor was gray. The 16th century could weigh all of 30-35 kg, for comparison: the armor of the beginning of the same 16th century weighed about 20-25 kg and covered the entire body.

Hussar armor

The armor of a winged hussar, consisting of a segmented cuirass with long shoulder pads and wings attached to the back, bracers, and a shishak-type helmet (kapalin). Used mainly in the 17th century.
The early hussars of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the early 16th century did not have metal armor, but wore only quilted caftans. Soon they had chain mail and chapels, borrowed from the Hungarians. Everything changed at the end of the 16th century - with Stefan Batory. This was cuirassier style cavalry. They often wore the skins of various animals over their armor, and also wore wings, which they wore on the side or back of the saddle, or even on the shield. But the armor itself, as a rule, was imported from Western Europe. The armor acquired its classic appearance only by the middle of the 17th century - during the reign of Vladislav IV. But firearms developed, and therefore hussars in metal armor lost their importance. In the 18th century, the hussars gradually turned into a ceremonial army. And finally, in 1776, the duties of the hussars were transferred to the lancers, along with which the armor was no longer used.

The cuirass was forged with a thickness of 2 to 3.5 mm, and provided good protection against many types of bladed weapons. Weight was no more than 15 kg. The cuirass consisted of a backrest and a breastplate, a collar (necklace) and shoulder pads were connected to the cuirass with leather straps or steel loops. Bracers were worn to protect the forearms and elbows, so mobility was high. All elements of armor could often be decorated with copper or brass. The quality of finishing depended on the price of the armor. For example, armor bought according to the common practice in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, by a rich hussar for a poor one, often had a crude finish that looked impressive only from a distance. While the armor of the master captain (who usually acted as one or another magnate) was distinguished by its subtlety and luxurious finish.
Classic hussar armor had bracers to protect the arms from wrist to elbow, and earlier, depending on the price, could be limited to chain mail sleeves, sometimes worn with plate gloves. As for the protection of the legs of poor nobles, whose armor (and often the war horse too) belonged to a comrade (and there were often more than two-thirds of such nobles in a hussar company, since a rich noble, becoming a hussar, was obliged to bring with him several warriors equipped at his own expense , and naturally, he did not bring serfs, but simply impoverished nobles), there was no separate protection for the legs. But those who owned the armor of the poorer hussars often had plate leg protection in the cuirassier style - from segmented leg guards ending in knee pads. In the early version, the upper part of the thighs could be covered with chain mail, both with chain mail worn under a cuirass, and with armor consisting of chain mail and a helmet, there could also be a chain mail hem worn with chain mail hands in addition to the cuirass.

Initially, in the 16th century, the wing was a trapezoidal shield, which at first was simply painted by drawing feathers on it, and then they began to decorate it with real feathers. During the reform of the hussars by Stefan Batory, shields were replaced by a cuirass by royal decree. But, nevertheless, the wing did not disappear, but turned into a wooden strip with feathers, held in the hand like a shield.
By the end of the 16th century (that is, more than a decade and a half before the “carousel”), the wing began to be attached to the left side of the saddle, and soon a second wing appeared, attached to the right. And by 1635, both wings crawled behind the back, remaining attached to the saddle. During the years of the “bloody flood,” when, due to the protracted war, according to eyewitnesses, only every tenth hussar was dressed in armor, wings also became a rarity. After the end of the protracted war, when the economy began to recover, the hetman, and then the king, John III Sobieski, made every effort to dress all the hussars in armor again, at the same time a fashion arose to attach wings not to the saddle, but to the cuirass. However, the Lithuanian hussars (and Lithuania and Poland constituted one state, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) even then continued to attach their wings to the saddle, and not to the cuirass.

Feathers - eagle, falcon, crane or ostrich, or brass plates instead of feathers - were attached to a wooden frame or a metal tube from 110 to 170 cm long.
According to different theories of wings, the following functions are attributed:
-protection from the lasso, which was actively used by the Cossacks, Turks and Tatars.
-additional back protection against blows from cold weapons.
-when riding, the wings made a sound that could frighten enemy horses.
- in case of falling from the saddle, the impact on the ground was absorbed.
These wings were attached to the back of the cuirass on brackets, or were held on belts and, if necessary, were quickly unfastened. But they still had several drawbacks. This is, first of all, aerodynamic resistance and additional mass, which complicates the movement of the rider. It was also impossible to carry anything on your back. In addition, there were options not with two, but with one wing. This significantly reduced efficiency and looked worse, but it reduced weight and cost. The wings could also be attached not to the back, but to the saddle. This significantly increased the mobility of the rider, in which case they did not have to be removed. But at the same time, they could no longer protect themselves when falling from a horse. In addition, the wings could be not only of a natural color, but also painted in different colors. The most widespread use of wings was among the Poles. Along with them, the wings were also used by some Serbian, Hungarian and Turkish cavalrymen.
Shishak, or kapelina (Polish kapalin), is a hemispherical helmet with a visor, ears, backplate and enlarged nosepiece, in some versions similar in size to a mask or half-mask.

It was made from two welded plates, to which a visor was riveted, a segmented backplate was attached, the ears were held on leather straps, and the nosepiece passed through the crown and was movable. This type of helmet came to Poland from Hungary, as a modification of the Russian erikhonka, which in turn arose on the basis of eastern shishaks. On top, the Polish helmet was decorated with either a spire or a high crest, which had protective function. Then from Poland this type of helmet came to Europe, spread in France as “Capeline” (French) and in Germany as “Pappenheimer” (German: Pappenheimer-Helm), and later other popular helmets were developed on its basis. But many of them still retained the transliterated name “shishak”. Therefore, the hussars wore not only Polish-made helmets, but also captured ones, including German and Turkish ones.

In medieval times, life was not easy, clothes played 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 a knight on a horse was truly terrible weapon of that era: arriving at the scene of battle on a war horse, often also dressed in armor, he was as terrifying 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 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.

In this selection of photographs from museums in Russia and Ukraine, I tried to collect Russian armor that was used by the Russians, if not in battle, then at least in parades. At first glance, it may seem that Russia did not have its own style of armor; it is Turkish-style armor with an admixture of Caucasian and Indo-Persian. But nevertheless, it has its own characteristics. In Moscow Russia and on the territory of Ukraine and Belarus, turban helmets were never used. Corps bekhterts armor was always fastened at the sides. Circular mirror armor in Muscovy was made with a corrugated surface, and was so popular that in English-language weapons science the term “krug armor” is used even for mirror armor brought from Turkey or Egypt.

But nevertheless, the Russian warrior of the 16th and 17th centuries was often very similar to those he fought against. Because his armor was bought from the “basurman”, received as a trophy or gift. This applies not only to weapons, top class The Moscow state used things and luxury goods of oriental origin and did not see anything wrong with this - they focused on beauty and quality.

Russian gunsmiths, in tribute to the style of their eastern teachers, carefully minted Arabic script on their products, although with errors and abbreviations.

Russian helmets

Helmet attributed to Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich. Diameter 19.5 cm. Armory Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin.

Dome-shaped, the crown is forged from one piece of iron, the nosepiece is riveted separately. A row of small round holes for attaching the aventail. Chained to the frontal part is a large plate of gilded silver, a board embossed with the figure of the Archangel Michael, surrounded by an engraved inscription in Cyrillic: “In the name of the Archangel Michael, help your servant Feodor.” The top is decorated with silver plates showing the Most High God and the saints: Basil, George and Feodor. The edge is framed with silver gilded embossing with figures of birds, griffins, and floral patterns.

Front view.

Helmet s. Nikolskoye former Oryol province. Chance find, 1866 (Hermitage). Photo by A. N. Kirpichnikov

The three-piece crown is forged with longitudinal grooves to increase strength. Attached to the front is an overlay with cutouts for the eyes and a humped, pointed nosepiece. The edges of the half-mask overlay and the edge of the nosepiece are equipped with small holes for the aventail, which covered, in addition to the neck, the entire lower part of the face. At the bottom of the body there are visible remains of 8-9 loops for the back of the aventail. The hoop has not survived. The entire helmet is covered with thin silver gilded sheeting, which is damaged and crumbled in many places.

Hat with Deesis. Byzantium, XIII-XIV centuries. Iron. Forged, gold incised, silver incised. Diameter - 30.0 cm; weight - 2365.7 g. Armory Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin.

The helmet cap is cone-shaped, divided into equal-sized segments by eight gold rods inlaid in iron and extending from the top down. On the straight, almost cylindrical crown there are carved gilded images of the Savior Almighty, along with naming inscriptions, Holy Mother of God and John the Baptist (Deesis), Archangel Michael, Archangel Gabriel, two cherubim, two evangelists and St. Nicholas the Wonderworker. Wide, slightly sloping brims are attached to the crown. The entire surface of the helmet is covered with the finest grass ornament.

Half mask found by B. A. Rybakov in 1948 during excavations of the detinets of the chronicle city of Vshchizh (Zhukovsky district, Bryansk region, Russia). Kept in the State Historical Museum (GIM, inventory 1115B; No. 2057). The restoration in 2010 featured silvering and gilding using the amalgamation method.

Dating: second half of the 12th -13th century.

“Mughal”, that is, helmets with masks from Northern India. Armory Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin. These masks have the remains of forehead hinges, and characteristic Mongoloid features. One of the masks is rigidly riveted to the helmet directly through the hinge - obviously, this is the later “creativity” of museum workers. In reality, the masks were attached to the helmets using a forehead hinge and a fixing flag, which in the closed position passed through a special slot inside the protective semicircular collar. Both the helmet and the mask are decorated with similar floral patterns, which may indicate that they are complete. Another helmet from the Armory. It is interesting that this helmet has a nose, consisting of two parts, soldered to the mask with copper solder, and characteristic “scars” are made on the cheeks, which are present on almost all later masks.

Big shot of Tsar Mikhail Romanov. Armory Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin. Master. N. Davydov. 1613-1639. Iron, leather. Forging, gold notching, riveting.

Spoon hat of boyar Nikita Ivanovich Romanov. Russia, XVI century State Armory Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin. The nose piece is lost, but there is a fastening for it; the face is protected by a chain mail cloth. The ears are covered with earflaps woven into chainmail fabric. The chain mail also belonged to Nikita Romanov.

Helmet of Alexander Nevsky, which belonged to Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. Deut. floor. 16th century In 1621, remade by master Nikita Davydov: he probably added a figurine of a saint to the nosepiece and an image of a crown to the crown.

Along the rim there is an Arabic inscription from the Koran: “Give joy to the faithful with the promise of help from Allah and speedy victory.”

Armory Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin. Steel, gold, gems, pearls, silk fabric. Carving, forging, embossing, gold incision, enamel. Diameter - 22 cm. Height - 35 cm. Weight - 3285 g.

Shishak of Prince Fyodor Mstislavsky. Armory Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin. Helmet of Turkish origin, 16th century. The earflaps were added by restorers in the 19th century; they correspond to the period of the helmet, but are somewhat large.

Inscriptions on Arabic on the crown of the helmet: In the name of the good and merciful God, I gave you a clear victory, may God forgive you the sins that you have committed and that you will fulfill, may the Lord of His grace fulfill you, guide you on the path of righteousness and strengthen you with glorious help. Inscriptions on the ears: God is the consubstantial king of all, immortal, wise, holy.

Collection from the Kyiv National Historical Museum. It dates back to the turn of the 14th-15th century.

Helmet of Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich. Russia, 1557. Armory Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin. Gold, damask steel, silk fabric, precious stones, pearls. Forging, embossing, gold incision, carving, enamel.

Made by order of Ivan the Terrible for his three-year-old son Ivan in 1557. This is evidenced by the inscription inscribed in gold on the crown of the helmet. The pointed shape of the helmet with a high spire is typical of the first half of the 16th century.

Turkish helmet. Hermitage St. Petersburg. Ser. - sec. floor. 16th century Steel and gold, forged, riveted and cut. Height 27.9 cm.

Shelom of Ivan the Terrible, presumably 1547. The diameter of the helmet is 19 cm - for the head of a teenager, Ivan Vasilyevich began reigning at the age of 14. The inscription at the lower edge of the crown in Arabic - “Allah Muhammad” is an abbreviated version of the well-known Muslim prayer.

On the second belt it is written: “Shelom of Prince Vasilyevich the Grand Duke from Vasily Ivanovich, the ruler of all Rus', the autocrat.”

Stored in the Livrust Camera Museum, Stockholm, Sweden (Stockgolm Livrust Kammaren).

Cappelin's helmet. Masters: Ringler, Hieronymus. Germany, Auburg.

First third of the 17th century Steel and leather, forged, carved, embossed, engraved and gilded. Vysta. 32.8 cm. Turkish style armor was made not only in Turkey.

Misyurka of the boyar Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn (died in 1619). Armory Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin. An early turban type, rare for Rus'.

High helmet, Russia, early 16th century. Iron, forging. Found in Moscow on the territory of Kitay-Gorod.

Trophy Russian cone, early. 17th century. Museum of the Polish Army. Warsaw.

Helmet “Jericho cap” Türkiye, 16th century. Damask steel, precious stones, turquoise, fabric, white metal Forging, chasing, gold notching, carving Diameter: 21.3 cm Belonged to Prince Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky

Plate armor has long become one of the main symbols of the Middle Ages, being the calling card of knights and personifying the power and wealth of the owner. The most incredible and ridiculous myths constantly arise around armor.

Plate is armor made of large metal plates, anatomically repeating the male figure. Compared to other types of armor, the manufacture of such armor was the most complex and required a considerable amount of steel, and therefore the art of making armor began to actively develop only from the middle of the 14th century.

Because of these difficulties, plate armor, even in the 15th century, was not cheap and was often made under personal order. Of course, only members of the nobility could afford such luxury, which is why armor became a symbol of chivalry and high birth. So how effective is such armor and was it worth the money? Let's figure it out:

MYTH 1: THE ARMOR WEIGHED SO MUCH THAT THE FALLEN KNIGHT COULD NOT RAISE WITHOUT OUTSIDE HELP

This is wrong. The total weight of full battle armor rarely exceeded 30 kg. The figure may seem large to you, but do not forget that the weight was evenly distributed throughout the body, and besides, men-at-arms, as a rule, fought on horses. Taking this into account, we get the approximate weight of modern equipment for an army infantryman. Heavier varieties were classified as tournament armor, deliberately sacrificing mobility in favor of increasing the thickness of the armor, which reduced the risk of injury when hit by a spear or falling from a horse.
Modern reenactors have repeatedly proven that in a replica of full armor you can not only run fast, but even fencing and climbing ladders.

MYTH 2: Plate ARMOR COULD EASILY BE pierced with conventional weapons

And that's a lie. The main distinguishing feature of plate armor is its excellent resistance to all types of damage. Cutting blows do not cause him any harm, unless a knight at full gallop exposes himself to the blow of a bird. Piercing blows could pierce soft, poorly hardened steel, but later armor also withstood the blow of a sharp end quite well. war hammer. In addition, the armor (contrary to the opinion of mass culture, which loves to decorate armor with spikes and ribs) was made as smooth and streamlined as possible in order to evenly distribute the energy from the impact and thereby increase the strength of the entire structure. The truly effective means against men-at-arms were daggers, which, due to the shortest attack distance, were the easiest to hit the joints of armor, and two-handed swords, specially created as countermeasures against heavy infantry and cavalry.

In contrast, video recordings are often provided in which the tester pierces a plate breastplate with a morning star or Lucernehammer. It should be noted here that theoretically this is indeed possible, but it is very difficult to deliver a direct blow with a wide swing at a perfectly right angle during a battle, and otherwise the man-at-arms has every chance of completely or partially avoiding damage.

MYTH 3: IT’S ENOUGH TO SIMPLY GET INTO A VULNERABLE POINT AND THE ARCHER WILL BE DEFEATED

That's a moot point. Yes, there are several weak points in plate armor (belt garters, gaps in joints and joints), hitting which will actually cause significant damage to the enemy. But this was not at all easy to do:
Firstly, under the armor the knights wore at least a gambeson, consisting of several layers of dense linen material. It provided good protection on its own, being surprisingly strong and light, and most knights did not hesitate to wear chain mail over it. Thus, the weapon had to overcome several layers of armor before reaching the body.
Secondly, the gunsmiths, who quickly realized the main weakness of armor in a combat encounter, tried to protect the knight as much as possible from the threat. All belts and garters were hidden deep inside the armor, special “wings” (an extension of the cast armor plate) served as a screen for the joints and joints. All parts of the armor fit together as closely as possible, which in the hustle and bustle of large battles significantly increased the chances of survival.

SO WHAT WAS PATTER ARMOR BAD?

The main disadvantage is the requirement for care. Due to the large area of ​​the armor itself, the metal quickly rusted and had to be protected from corrosion. Over time, gunsmiths learned to blue the armor, which made it darker and provided good protection against oxidation. In field conditions, the armor was lubricated with oil, and in peacetime it was stored in isolated conditions, usually wrapped in several layers of material. Otherwise, the armor was much more effective than any analogues - frayed straps can be quickly and easily replaced, and straightening a dent on a solid plate is much easier than repairing chain mail or replacing segments in lamellar armor.
However, it was sometimes almost impossible to put on plate armor on your own, and if you were wounded, it was just as difficult to take it off. Many knights managed to bleed to death from a trivial wound, which put them out of action for the entire battle.

The end of the golden age of armor came with the beginning of the era of firearms. When firearms appeared in the arsenal of regular armies, armor began to gradually disappear from use. A lead bullet penetrated such armor without any problems, although in the early stages, when the power of firearms was small, they could still serve as very effective protection.

They preferred armor. Mail 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. By the 12th 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. It was very important element clothes. 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 by anything Knight armour were 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 on hot 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 about the sometimes incredible abilities of 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 inside with water, and other everyday little things are easily explained, as is the high power at times small in 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.