They preferred armor. Chain armor began to lose its relevance when longbows and crossbows were invented. Their penetration 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. They were subsequently replaced by epaulettes. 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

At the end of the 12th century, the first armor for horses appeared. These were first quilted and then chain mail blankets. A mask was pulled over the animal's face. It was usually made from leather and covered with paint.

In the 13th century, leather plates began to be applied to chain mail. They were made from several layers of boiled leather. They were added only to the arms and legs. And, of course, surcoat. This was a very important item of clothing. It was a fabric caftan that was worn over armor. Rich knights sewed themselves surcoats from the most expensive fabrics. They were decorated with coats of arms and emblems.

This type of clothing was required. According to the concepts of Catholic morality, undisguised knightly armor was akin to a naked body. Therefore, appearing in them in public was considered indecent. That's why they were covered with cloth. In addition, the white fabric reflected sun 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 completely replaced chain mail, and knightly armor passed into 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, bundhugelam, 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 was very different in appearance from German 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. 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 their armor. 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. The main striking force in European armies were arquebusiers and musketeers. 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.

• 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 which itself is the source of 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 a campaign, a 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 wartime This militia was obliged 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, at 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 army commander, 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 vaults or lost through the ages.

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

Armor of King Henry VIII of England, 16th century

Although we have extant examples of the cost of armor, weapons and equipment in some of the historical periods, it is very difficult to translate historical costs into modern equivalents. It is clear, however, that the cost of armor ranged from inexpensive, low-quality or obsolete, second-hand items available to citizens and mercenaries, to the cost of the full armor of an English knight, which in 1374 was estimated at £16. This was 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 to various applications, both on the battlefield and in the tournament), ordered in 1546 by the German king (later the emperor) for his son. Upon completion of this order, for a year of work, the court armorer Jörg Seusenhofer from Innsbruck received an incredible sum of 1200 gold coins, equivalent to twelve annual salaries of a senior court official.

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

Thanks for the tip in the comments to the article.

A full set of combat armor usually weighs from 20 to 25 kg, and a helmet - from 2 to 4 kg. This is less than a firefighter's full oxygen outfit, or what modern soldiers have had to carry into battle since the nineteenth century. Moreover, while modern equipment usually hangs from the shoulders or waist, the weight of well-fitted armor is distributed over the entire body. 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. Vice versa, historical sources they talk 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 with only his hands. Moreover, there are several illustrations from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in which soldiers, squires or knights, in full armor, mount horses without assistance or any equipment, without ladders or cranes. Modern experiments with real armor of the 15th and 16th centuries and with their exact copies showed that even an untrained person in properly selected armor can climb on and off a horse, sit or lie down, and then get up from the ground, run and move his limbs freely and without discomfort.

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

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

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

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

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

One of the most popular questions, especially among young museum visitors, unfortunately, does not have an exact answer. When the man in armor was not busy in battle, he did the same things that people do today. He would go to the toilet (which in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance was called a latrine 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 at the bottom of the list of priorities.

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

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

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

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

Coldstream Guards

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

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

German chain mail of the 15th century

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

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

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

It is difficult to answer this question unambiguously for many reasons. First, there is no surviving evidence that can paint a complete picture for any of the periods. From around the 15th century, 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 efficient operation was key parameter 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 as an illustration.

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

10. Armor details - spear support and codpiece

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

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

The history of the armored codpiece is closely connected with its counterpart in the civilian men's suit. From the middle of the 14th century, the upper part of men's clothing began to be shortened so much that it no longer covered the crotch. In those days, pants had not yet been invented, and men wore leggings clipped to their underwear or a belt, with the crotch hidden behind a hollow attached to the inside of the top edge of each leg of the leggings. At the beginning of the 16th century, they began to fill this floor and visually enlarge it. 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 as protection, it was no less used for fashion reasons.

11. Did the Vikings wear horns on their helmets?

One of the most enduring and popular images of the medieval warrior is the image 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 is a small group of helmets that have come down to us from the Celtic Bronze Age, found in Scandinavia and in the territory of 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. The widespread use of helmets by modern soldiers and police proves that armor, although it has changed materials and may have lost some of its importance, is still a necessary part of military equipment throughout the world. Additionally, torso protection continued to exist in the form of experimental chest plates during the American civil war, plates of gunner pilots in World War II and bulletproof vests of our time.

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

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

However, when 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 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 come from the left, and, if successful, should slide across the armor through the smell and to the right.

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

Misconceptions and questions about cutting weapons

Sword, early 15th century

Dagger, 16th century

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

In medieval Europe, swords were the main weapon of knights and horsemen. In times of peace, carry swords in public places Only persons of noble birth were eligible. 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 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.

Plate armor has long become one of the main symbols of the Middle Ages, being business card 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 it was not cheap and was often made to 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 COULDN’T GET UP 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. For real effective means against the man-at-arms there were daggers, which, due to the maximum short distance attacks are easiest to hit at the joints of the armor, and two-handed swords, specifically 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

This is a controversial issue. 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 were adjacent to each other as tightly as possible, which in the hustle and bustle major 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 their 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.

Scientists became interested in how much energy a person dressed in Western European knightly armor spends. Modern fans of reenacting historical battles wear lighter armor than the warriors who wore them in the 15th century. Solid articulated armor was produced only in Europe, so to speak, for their own needs, because they fought in such clothing only in Europe. In Asia, it was rarely found only among Turkish sipahis.

Last weekend, the first Crossroads of Times festival took place on the Zaporozhye island of Khortitsa. dedicated to the Day christening of Rus', which took place in the format of a knight's tournament. Men dressed in knightly costumes took part in impromptu duels and mass battles. different eras. Modern armor weighs from 10 to 30 kilograms. When the thermometer exceeds the 30-degree mark, fighting with such equipment is not at all easy. Medieval warriors had it even worse - in the 15th century, the weight of knightly armor ranged from 30 to 50 kilograms.

Researchers from the University of Leeds have found that moving with armor is twice as difficult as without it. According to a web magazine covering biology, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the volunteers participating in the experiment put on knightly armor and stood on treadmill. Sensors were attached to them to record exhaled air, heart rate, blood pressure and other physiological parameters while the subjects walked or ran.

The experiment showed that walking in armor consumes 2.1-2.3 times more energy than without it. During running, this figure increased by 1.9 times. The researchers also found that energy consumption when wearing armor is higher than when moving with an equal weight load on the hands. This is due to overcoming the resistance of the armor when moving the limbs.

Answering the simple question of how much knightly armor weighed on average is not so simple. The whole problem lies in the evolution that this military vestment has undergone. The immediate predecessors of Western European knights were heavily armed cavalry - cataphracts(translated: “booked” or “clad in iron”). In Late Antiquity and early Middle Ages they were part of the Iranian, late Roman and Byzantine armies. Accordingly, the prototype for knightly armor was the protective vestment of cataphracts.

From the first half of the 12th century, chain mail woven from steel rings (sometimes in two or three layers) became widespread. Chain mail existed until the middle of the 14th century. In the next century, armor appeared that protected the most vulnerabilities. In addition, chain mail could no longer protect against a novelty that had appeared in military affairs - firearms.

The individual parts of the knight's armor were connected to each other with rivets, and the parts were fastened with straps and buckles. The total number of parts of Western European knightly vestments sometimes reached two hundred, and their total weight could be 55 kilograms. Russian warriors, who mostly fought the steppe nomads, dressed in more light armor, which weighed about the same as the average load of a modern paratrooper, that is, about 20-35 kilograms.

The armor of the 15th century reliably protected against damage from arrows from a bow, and withstood the blows of crossbow bolts and arquebus bullets fired from a distance of 25-30 meters. Neither darts, nor spears, nor even swords, with the exception of heavier two-handed swords, could penetrate them.

In the second half of the 15th century, the art of forging knightly armor reached its highest development, not only from a technological point of view, but also from an artistic one. Knightly armor for the nobility was decorated very richly: they were covered with niello (a special alloy of silver, lead and sulfur), they were tauched (inlaid with metal on metal) or notched (filling specially made “grooves” in the armor with non-ferrous metal - gold, silver, aluminum). Deep embossing and bluing were also used, that is, obtaining iron oxides on the surface of the steel. Moreover, the latter was used not only for decorative purposes, but also for pragmatic ones, as it helped reduce metal corrosion. Also used was a method of decorating armor such as gold plating or gilding. To cover military vestments with a layer of this precious metal, gold was first dissolved in mercury and stirred with a graphite rod until completely dissolved. The resulting amalgam was poured into water and cooled, after which it was applied to the prepared product. The “uniforms” of the Italian knights were considered the most beautiful.

In the 16th century, a new “style” of knightly armor appeared, which, unlike the Gothic ones, began to be called Maximilian, in honor of the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I of Habsburg (1459-1519), nicknamed the “last knight.” However, in German there is another equivalent for their name - Riefelharnisch, and in English they are also not always called Maximilian armor, A fluted armor.

Distinctive feature This armor, the peak of which was spread from 1515 to 1525, had grooves covering the entire surface, which increased the strength of the metal and diverted bladed weapons to the side. The armor consisted of the following parts: a helmet with a visor and throat cover, a necklace, a breastplate and a backrest, two shoulders, two bracers and two elbow pads, two mittens or two gloves, a belly, leg guards, leggings and two boots.

On average, the weight of knightly armor reached 22.7-29.5 kilograms; helmet - from 2.3 to 5.5 kilograms; chain mail under the armor - about seven kilograms; shield - 4.5 kilograms. The total weight of knightly armor could be close to 36.5-46.5 kilograms. Knocked out of the saddle, the knights could no longer mount their horses on their own. For foot combat they used special armor with a steel skirt instead of leggings and boots.