For everyone and about everything. Weapons and military equipment of Medieval Europe

The armor of the knights of the Middle Ages, photos and descriptions of which are presented in the article, went through a complex evolutionary path. They can be seen in weapons museums. This is a real work of art.

They surprise not only with their protective properties, but also with their luxury and grandeur. However, few people know that the monolithic iron armor of the knights of the Middle Ages dates back to the late period of that era. This was no longer protection, but traditional clothing that emphasized the high social status of the owner. This is a kind of analogue of modern expensive business suits. They could be used to judge the situation in society. We will talk about this in more detail later, presenting photos of knights in armor of the Middle Ages. But first, about where they came from.

First armor

The weapons and armor of the knights of the Middle Ages developed together. This is understandable. The improvement of lethal means necessarily leads to the development of defensive ones. Even in prehistoric times, man tried to protect his body. The first armor was animal skin. It protected well from soft weapons: sledgehammers, primitive axes, etc. The ancient Celts achieved perfection in this. Their protective skins sometimes withstood even sharp spears and arrows. Surprisingly, the main emphasis in defense was on the back. The logic was this: in a frontal attack it was possible to hide from shells. Backstabs are impossible to see. Flight and retreat were part of the combat tactics of these peoples.

Fabric armor

Few people know, but the armor of the knights of the Middle Ages in the early period was made of matter. It was difficult to distinguish them from peaceful civilian clothing. The only difference is that they were glued together from several layers of material (up to 30 layers). These were light, from 2 to 6 kg, inexpensive armor. In the era of mass battles and the primitiveness of chopping weapons, this is an ideal option. Any militia could afford such protection. Surprisingly, such armor even withstood arrows with stone tips, which easily pierced iron. This happened due to cushioning against the fabric. The more prosperous people used quilted caftans instead, stuffed with horsehair, cotton wool, and hemp.

The peoples of the Caucasus used similar protection until the 19th century. Their felted wool cloak was rarely cut by a saber and withstood not only arrows, but also bullets from smoothbore guns from 100 meters. Let us recall that such weapons were in our army until Crimean War 1955-1956, when our soldiers died from European rifled rifles.

Leather armor

The armor of medieval knights made of leather replaced cloth ones. They became widespread in Rus'. Leather craftsmen were widely valued at the time.

In Europe, they were poorly developed, since the use of crossbows and bows was the favorite tactics of Europeans throughout the Middle Ages. Leather protection was used by archers and crossbowmen. She protected from light cavalry, as well as from brothers in arms opposite side. From long distances they could withstand bolts and arrows.

Buffalo leather was especially prized. It was almost impossible to get it. Only the richest could afford it. There were relatively light leather armor of the knights of the Middle Ages. Weight was from 4 to 15 kg.

Armor Evolution: Lamellar Armor

Next, evolution occurs - the production of armor for medieval knights from metal begins. One of the varieties is lamellar armor. The first mention of such technology is observed in Mesopotamia. The armor there was made of copper. Metal began to be used in similar protective technology. Lammellar armor is a scaly shell. They turned out to be the most reliable. We only got through with bullets. Their main drawback is their weight up to 25 kg. It is impossible to put it on alone. In addition, if a knight fell from his horse, he was completely neutralized. It was impossible to get up.

Chainmail

The armor of medieval knights in the form of chain mail was the most common. Already in the 12th century they became widespread. The ringed armor weighed relatively little: 8-10 kg. The full set, including stockings, helmet, gloves, reached up to 40 kg. The main advantage is that the armor did not restrict movement. Only the wealthiest aristocrats could afford them. It only became widespread among the middle classes in the 14th century, when wealthy aristocrats donned plate armor. They will be discussed further.

Armor

Plate armor is the pinnacle of evolution. Only with the development of metal forging technology was it possible to create such a work of art. It is almost impossible to make the plate armor of medieval knights with your own hands. It was a single monolithic shell. Only the richest aristocrats could afford such protection. Their distribution dates back to the Late Middle Ages. A knight in plate armor on the battlefield is a real armored tank. It was impossible to defeat him. One such warrior among the army tipped the scales towards victory. Italy is the birthplace of such protection. It was this country that was famous for its masters in the production of armor.

The desire for heavy defense stems from the battle tactics of medieval cavalry. Firstly, it delivered a powerful, swift strike in closed ranks. As a rule, after one strike with a wedge against the infantry, the battle ended in victory. Therefore, in the forefront were the most privileged aristocrats, among whom was the king himself. Knights in armor almost never died. It was impossible to kill him in battle, and after the battle the captured aristocrats were not executed, since everyone knew each other. Yesterday's enemy turned into a friend today. In addition, the exchange and sale of captured aristocrats sometimes amounted to main goal battles. In fact, medieval battles were similar to: They rarely killed the “best men”, but in real battles this still happened. Therefore, the need for improvement constantly arose.

"Peaceful Battle"

In 1439, in Italy, the homeland of the best blacksmiths, a battle took place near the city of Anghiari. Several thousand knights took part in it. After four hours of battle, only one warrior died. He fell from his horse and fell under its hooves.

The end of the era of combat armor

England put an end to "peaceful" wars. In one of the battles, the English, led by Henry XIII, who were tens of times outnumbered, used powerful Welsh bows against French aristocrats in armor. Marching confidently, they felt safe. Imagine their surprise when arrows began to rain down from above. The shock was that they had never hit knights from above before. Shields were used against frontal damage. The close formation of them reliably protected against bows and crossbows. However, the Welsh weapons were able to penetrate the armor from above. This defeat at the dawn of the Middle Ages, where the “best people” of France died, put an end to such battles.

Armor is a symbol of aristocracy

Armor has always been a symbol of aristocracy, not only in Europe, but throughout the world. Even the development of firearms did not put an end to their use. The armor always featured a coat of arms; it was a ceremonial uniform.

They were worn for holidays, celebrations, and official meetings. Of course, ceremonial armor was made in a lightweight version. Last time their combat use was already in Japan in the 19th century, during the samurai uprisings. However firearms showed that any peasant with a rifle is much more effective than a professional warrior with a bladed weapon, dressed in heavy armor.

Armor of a medieval knight: description

So, the classic set of the average knight consisted of the following things:

Weapons and armor were not uniform throughout the history of the Middle Ages, since they performed two functions. The first is protection. Second, armor was a distinctive attribute of high social status. One complex helmet could cost entire villages with serfs. Not everyone could afford it. This also applies to complex armor. Therefore, it was impossible to find two identical sets. Feudal armor is not a uniform uniform for recruit soldiers in later eras. They are distinguished by their individuality.

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

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

This idea may have come from the fact that most of the armor displayed in museums is equipment High Quality, and most of the simpler armor that belonged to ordinary 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 equivalent to the cost of 5-8 years of rent for a merchant's house in London, or three years the salary of 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. It's less than full equipment a firefighter with oxygen equipment, or what modern soldiers have had to carry into battle since the nineteenth century. Moreover, while modern equipment usually hanging from the shoulders or waist, the weight of well-fitted armor is distributed over the entire body. It was not until the 17th century that the weight of combat armor was greatly increased to make it bulletproof due to the improved accuracy of firearms. At the same time, full armor became increasingly rare, and only important parts of the body: the head, torso and arms were protected by metal plates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some believe that the military salute originated during the Roman Republic, when contract killing was the order of the day, and citizens were required to raise their right hand when approaching officials to show that they were not carrying a concealed weapon. The more common belief is that the modern military salute came from men in armor raising the visors of their helmets before saluting their comrades or lords. This gesture allowed recognition of the person, and also made him vulnerable and at the same time demonstrated that his right hand (which usually held a sword) did not have a weapon. 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 the use more words than necessary for description). 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 appearance, where the terms “ring-mail”, “chain-mail”, “banded mail”, “scale-mail”, “plate-mail” came from. Today, it is generally accepted that most of these different images were just different attempts by artists to correctly depict the surface of a type of armor that is difficult to capture in painting and sculpture. Instead of depicting individual rings, these details were stylized using dots, strokes, squiggles, circles and other things, which led to errors.

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

It is difficult to answer this question unambiguously for many reasons. First, there is no surviving evidence that can paint a complete picture for any of the periods. From around the 15th century, scattered examples survive of how armor was ordered, how long orders took, and how much various pieces of armor cost. Secondly, a complete armor could consist of parts made by various armorers with a narrow specialization. Armor parts could be sold 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 large 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. Besides, total weight and the speed of the horse and rider was transmitted to the tip of the spear, which made this weapon very formidable. If the target was hit, the spear rest also acted as a shock absorber, preventing the spear from "firing" backwards, and distributing the blow across the chest plate over the entire upper torso, rather than just the right arm, wrist, elbow and shoulder. It is worth noting that on most battle armor the spear support could be folded upward so as not to interfere with the mobility of the sword hand after the warrior got rid of the spear.

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

11. Did the Vikings wear horns on their helmets?

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

The earliest example of a helmet being decorated with a pair of stylized horns comes from a small group of Celtic Bronze Age helmets found in Scandinavia and modern 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. Widespread use of helmets modern soldiers and police proves that armor, although it has changed materials and may have lost some of its importance, is still a necessary part of military equipment throughout the world. Additionally, torso protection continued to exist in the form of experimental chest plates during the American civil war, plates of gunner pilots in World War II and bulletproof vests of our time.

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

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

However, when compiling such general conclusions based on armor, there are many factors to consider. 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, other factors must be taken into account, such as the difference in average height between northern and southern Europeans, or simply the fact that people have always been unusually tall or unusually tall. short people, when compared with their average contemporaries.

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

Armor of the German Duke Johann Wilhelm, 16th century

Armor of Emperor Ferdinand I, 16th century

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

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

The theory behind this 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 little evidence that modern clothing was directly influenced by 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 peaceful times 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 the swords of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were simple tools of brute force, very heavy, and as a result, impossible to handle for the “ordinary person”, that is, very ineffective weapons. 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 short sword wakizashi, 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.”

Although there are references to Indian weapons with a poisoned blade, similar ones could have been found in Renaissance Europe rare cases, 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.

German armor of the 16th century for knight and horse

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

1. Only knights wore armor

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

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, fabric armor or a breastplate, and a weapon - a spear, pike, bow or crossbow.

Indian chain mail of the 17th century

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

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

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

This idea 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 high-class armor, 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 moment, equivalent to twelve annual salaries of a senior court official.

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

A full set of combat armor usually weighs between 20 and 25 kg, and a helmet between 2 and 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. It was not until the 17th century that the weight of combat armor was greatly increased to make it bulletproof due to the improved accuracy of firearms. At the same time, full armor became increasingly rare, and only important parts of the body: the head, torso and arms were protected by metal plates.

The opinion that wearing armor (which took shape by 1420-30) greatly reduced the mobility of a warrior is not true. The armor equipment was made from separate elements for each limb. Each element consisted of metal plates and plates connected by movable rivets and leather straps, which allowed any movement without restrictions imposed by the rigidity of the material. The widespread idea that a man in armor could barely move, and having fallen to the ground, could not get up, has no basis. On the contrary, historical sources tell about 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 have shown that even an untrained person in properly selected armor can climb on and off a horse, sit or lie, and then get up from the ground, run and move his limbs freely and without discomfort.

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

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

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

Coldstream Guards

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?

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 large city. As now, their market depended on supply and demand, and efficient operation was a key parameter for success. The common myth that simple chain mail took several years to make is nonsense (but it cannot be denied that chain mail was very labor intensive to make).

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

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?

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).

12. Armor became unnecessary due to the advent of firearms

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

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

Misconceptions and questions about cutting weapons

Sword, early 15th century

Dagger, 16th century

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 until the beginning of the 19th century, swords and small swords became an indispensable attribute of the clothing of the European gentleman.

Turkish saber with scabbard, 18th century

Japanese katana and wakizashi short sword, 15th century

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

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

Karabela(Polish: Karabela) - Polish military saber, with a wide curved blade with a double-edged yelman, the blade is on the curved side. The handle of the saber is equipped with a cross with a crosshair, so this saber differs little from the Turkish Kilij. Home distinctive feature is the tip of the handle in the shape of an eagle's head, and many carabelas also have a ring (paluh) for the thumb on the handle.

Parameters: blade length 83 cm; handle length 10 cm; The width of the cross varies from 7 to 20 cm. Weight is 1200-1600 grams.