Sword of knights. Antique edged weapons

5 most formidable two-handed swords of the Middle Ages October 9th, 2016

After we've discussed it, let's find out something closer to reality.

Thanks to the efforts of popular culture, the most incredible rumors always swirl around two-handed swords of the Middle Ages. Look at any art picture of a knight or a Hollywood film about those times. All the main characters have a huge sword, reaching almost to their chest. Some endow the weapon with a weight of pounds, others - with incredible dimensions and the ability to cut a knight in half, and still others even argue that swords of this size could not exist as military weapons.

Claymore

Claymore (claymore, claymore, claymore, from the Gaulish claidheamh-mòr - “great sword”) is a two-handed sword that received widespread among the Scottish Highlanders from the end of the 14th century. Being the main weapon of infantrymen, the claymore was actively used in skirmishes between tribes or border battles with the British.

Claymore is the smallest among all its brothers. This, however, does not mean that the weapon is small: the average length of the blade is 105-110 cm, and together with the handle the sword reached 150 cm. distinctive feature there was a characteristic bend in the arms of the cross - downwards, towards the tip of the blade. This design made it possible to effectively capture and literally pull out any long weapon from the enemy’s hands. In addition, the decoration of the horns of the bow - pierced in the shape of a stylized four-leaf clover - became a distinctive sign by which everyone easily recognized the weapon.

In terms of size and effectiveness, the claymore was perhaps the most the best option among all two-handed swords. It was not specialized, and therefore was used quite effectively in any combat situation.

Zweihander

The Zweihander (German: Zweihänder or Bidenhänder/Bihänder, “two-handed sword”) is a weapon of a special unit of landsknechts who are on double pay (doppelsoldners). If the claymore is the most modest sword, then the zweihander was indeed impressive in size and in rare cases reached two meters in length, including the hilt. In addition, it was notable for its double guard, where special “boar tusks” separated the unsharpened part of the blade (ricasso) from the sharpened part.

Such a sword was a weapon of very narrow use. The fighting technique was quite dangerous: the owner of the zweihander acted in the front ranks, pushing away with a lever (or even completely cutting) the shafts of enemy pikes and spears. To own this monster required not only remarkable strength and courage, but also significant swordsmanship, so the mercenaries did not receive double pay for their beautiful eyes. The technique of fighting with two-handed swords bears little resemblance to conventional blade fencing: such a sword is much easier to compare with a reed. Of course, the zweihander did not have a sheath - it was worn on the shoulder like an oar or spear.

Flamberge

Flamberge ("flaming sword") is a natural evolution of the ordinary straight sword. The curvature of the blade made it possible to increase the lethality of the weapon, but in the case of large swords, the blade was too massive, fragile and still could not penetrate high-quality armor. In addition, the Western European school of fencing suggests using the sword mainly as a piercing weapon, and therefore curved blades were not suitable for it.

By the 14th-16th centuries, advances in metallurgy led to the fact that the chopping sword became practically useless on the battlefield - it simply could not penetrate armor made of hardened steel with one or two blows, which played a critical role in mass battles. Gunsmiths began to actively look for a way out of this situation, until they finally came to the concept of a wave blade, which has a series of successive anti-phase bends. Such swords were difficult to manufacture and expensive, but the effectiveness of the sword was undeniable. Due to a significant reduction in the area of the damaging surface, upon contact with the target, the destructive effect was increased many times over. In addition, the blade acted like a saw, cutting the affected surface.

The wounds inflicted by the flamberge did not heal for a very long time. Some commanders sentenced captured swordsmen to death solely for carrying such weapons. Catholic Church She also cursed such swords and branded them as inhumane weapons.

Slasher

Espadon (French espadon from Spanish espada - sword) is a classic type two-handed sword with a tetrahedral cross-section of the blade. Its length reached 1.8 meters, and the guard consisted of two massive arches. The center of gravity of the weapon often shifted towards the tip - this increased the penetrating ability of the sword.

Such weapons were used in battle unique warriors, usually having no other specialization. Their task was to, waving huge blades, destroy the enemy’s battle formation, overturn the first ranks of the enemy and pave the way for the rest of the army. Sometimes these swords were used in battles with cavalry - due to the size and weight of the blade, the weapon made it possible to very effectively chop the legs of horses and cut through the armor of heavy infantry.

Most often, the weight of military weapons ranged from 3 to 5 kg, and heavier examples were awarded or ceremonial. Sometimes weighted replicas of combat blades were used for training purposes.

Estoc

Estoc (French estoc) is a two-handed piercing weapon designed to pierce knightly armor. A long (up to 1.3 meters) tetrahedral blade usually had a stiffening rib. If previous swords were used as a means of countermeasures against cavalry, then the estok, on the contrary, was the weapon of the horseman. Riders wore it on the right side of the saddle so that in case of loss of the pike they would have an additional means of self-defense. In horse fighting, the sword was held with one hand, and the blow was delivered due to the speed and mass of the horse. In a foot skirmish, the warrior took it in two hands, compensating for the lack of mass own strength. Some examples of the 16th century have a complex guard, like a sword, but most often there was no need for it.

Now let's look at the largest combat two-handed sword.

Presumably this sword belonged to the rebel and pirate Pierre Gerlofs Donia known as "Big Pierre", who, according to legend, could cut off several heads at once, and he also bent coins using his sword. thumb, index and middle finger.

According to legend, this sword was brought to Friesland by the German Landsknechts; it was used as a banner (was not a battle one); captured by Pierre, this sword began to be used as a battle sword

Pier Gerlofs Donia (W. Frisian. Grutte Pier, approximately 1480, Kimsvärd - October 18, 1520, Sneek) - Frisian pirate and independence fighter. Descendant of the famous Frisian leader Haring Harinxma (Haring Harinxma, 1323–1404).
Son of Pier Gerlofs Donia and Frisian noblewoman Fokel Sybrants Bonga. He was married to Rintsje or Rintze Syrtsema, and had from her a son, Gerlof, and a daughter, Wobbel, born in 1510.

On January 29, 1515, his court was destroyed and burned by soldiers from the Black Band, landsknechts of the Saxon Duke George the Bearded, and Rintze was raped and killed. Hatred of his wife's murderers prompted Pierre to take part in the Gueldern War against the powerful Habsburgs, on the side of the Gueldern Duke Charles II (1492-1538) of the Egmont dynasty. He entered into an agreement with the Duchy of Geldern and became a pirate.

The ships of his flotilla "Arumer Zwarte Hoop" dominated the Zuiderzee, causing enormous damage to Dutch and Burgundian shipping. After the capture of 28 Dutch ships, Pierre Gerlofs Donia (Grutte Pier) solemnly declared himself “King of Frisia” and set a course for liberation and unification home country. However, after he noticed that the Duke of Geldern did not intend to support him in the war of independence, Pierre terminated alliance treaty and in 1519 he resigned. On October 18, 1520, he died in Grootsand, a suburb of the Frisian city of Sneek. Buried on the north side of the Great Sneek Church (built in the 15th century)

Here it is necessary to make a remark that the weight of 6.6 is abnormal for a combat two-handed sword. A significant number of them vary in weight around 3-4 kg.

sources

The sword is a murder weapon with a touch of romance. In the hands of fearless warriors, it is a silent witness to terrible battles and changing eras. The sword personified courage, fearlessness, strength and nobility. His enemies were afraid of his blade. With the sword, brave warriors were knighted and crowned persons were crowned.

Bastard swords, or swords with a one-and-a-half-handed hilt, existed from the Renaissance (13th century) until the late Middle Ages (16th century). In the 17th century, swords were replaced by rapiers. But swords are not forgotten and the brilliance of the blade still excites the minds of writers and filmmakers.

Types of swords

Longsword - long sword

The hilt of such swords is for three palms. When you grabbed the hilt of the sword with both hands, there were a few centimeters left for one more palm. This made complex fencing maneuvers and strikes using swords possible.

The bastard or “bastard” sword is a classic example among bastard swords. The handle of the “bastards” was less than two, but more than one palm (about 15 cm). This sword is not a longsword: neither two, nor one and a half - not for one hand and not for two, for which it received such an offensive nickname. The bastard was used as a weapon of self-defense and was perfect for everyday wear.

It must be said that they fought with this bastard sword without using a shield.

The appearance of the first examples of bastard swords dates back to the end of the 13th century. Bastard swords were different sizes and variations, but they were united by one name - swords of war. This blade was fashionable as an attribute to a horse's saddle. Bastard swords were always kept with them on trips and hikes, in order to protect themselves from an unexpected enemy attack in case of emergency.

In battles, strong blows that did not give the right to life were inflicted with a combat or heavy bastard sword.

Bastard, had a narrow straight blade and was indispensable for piercing blows. The most famous representative among narrow bastard swords is the blade of an English warrior and prince who participated in the war of the 14th century. After the death of the prince, the sword was placed over his grave, where it remained until the 17th century.

The English historian Ewart Oakeshott studied the ancient battle swords of France and classified them. He noted gradual changes in the characteristics of bastard swords, including changes in the length of the blade.

In England, at the beginning of the 14th century, a “large combat” bastard sword appeared, which was worn not in the saddle, but on the belt.

Characteristics

The length of a bastard sword is from 110 to 140 cm, (weighing 1200 g and up to 2500 g). Of these, about a meter of sword is part of the blade. Blades for bastard swords were forged different forms and sizes, but they were all effective in delivering a variety of devastating blows. There were basic characteristics of the blade in which they differed from each other.

In the Middle Ages, the blades of bastard swords were thin and straight. Referring to Oakeshott's typology: Gradually the blades become elongated and thicker in cross-section, but become thinner at the tip of the swords. The handles are also modified.

The cross-section of the blade is divided into biconvex and diamond-shaped. In the latter version, the central vertical line the blade provided hardness. And the features of sword forging add options to the cross-section of the blade.

Bastard swords, whose blades had fullers, were very popular. The fuller is a cavity running from the cross along the blade. It is a misconception that the fullers were used as a blood drain or for easy removal of a sword from a wound. In fact, the absence of metal in the middle of the blade made the swords lighter and more maneuverable. The fullers could be wide - almost the entire width of the blade, to more numerous and thin. The length of the dollars also varied: the entire length or a third of the total length of the bastard sword.

The crosspiece was elongated and had arches to protect the hand.

An important indicator of a well-forged bastard sword was its precise balance, distributed in the right place. Bastard swords in Rus' were balanced at a point on top of the hilt. The defect of the sword was always revealed during the battle. As soon as the blacksmiths made a mistake and shifted the center of gravity of the bastard sword upward, the sword, in the presence of a deadly blow, became inconvenient. The sword vibrated as it struck the enemy's swords or armor. And this weapon did not help, but hindered the soldier. Good weapon was an extension of the hand of war. Master blacksmiths skillfully forged swords, correctly distributing certain zones. These zones are the nodes of the blade; if positioned correctly, they guaranteed a high-quality bastard sword.

Shield and bastard sword

Certain fighting systems and varied styles made sword fighting akin to art, rather than chaotic and barbaric. Various teachers taught techniques for fighting with a bastard sword. And there was no more effective weapon in the hands of an experienced warrior. There was no need for a shield with this sword.

And all thanks to the armor that took the blow. Before them, chain mail was worn, but it was not capable of protecting the war from the blow of cold steel. Light plate armor and armor began to be forged in large quantities by master blacksmiths. There is a misconception that iron armor was very heavy and it was impossible to move in it. This is partly true, but only for tournament equipment, which weighed about 50 kg. Military armor weighed half as much, and one could actively move in it.

Not just the blade of a bastard sword was used for an attack, but also the guard as a hook, capable of knocking down the pommel.

Possessing the art of fencing, the soldier received the necessary base and could take up other types of weapons: a spear, a pole, and so on.

Despite the apparent lightness of bastard swords, fighting with it required strength, endurance and dexterity. The knights, for whom war was everyday life and swords as their faithful companions, never spent a day without training and weapons. Regular training did not allow them to lose their warlike qualities and die during the battle, which went on non-stop and intensely.

Schools and techniques of the bastard sword

German and Italian schools are becoming the most popular. The earliest manual of the German fencing school was translated, despite difficulties (1389).

In these manuals, swords were depicted as being held by both hands at the hilt. Most of the manual was occupied by a section with a one-handed sword, showing the methods and advantages of holding a sword with one hand. The half-sword technique was depicted as an integral part of armored combat.

The absence of a shield gave rise to new fencing techniques. There were such instructions on fencing - “fechtbukhs”, with manuals from famous masters of this matter. Excellent illustrations and a textbook, considered a classic, were left to us by not only the fighter, but also the wonderful artist and mathematician Albert Durer.

But fencing schools and military science are not the same thing. Knowledge from fencing is applicable to knightly tournaments and judicial duels. In war, a soldier had to be able to hold formation, hold a sword, and defeat opposing enemies. But there are no treatises on this topic.

Ordinary townspeople also knew how to hold weapons, including a bastard sword. In those days, you couldn’t live without a weapon, but not everyone could afford a sword. The iron and bronze that went into a good blade were rare and expensive.

A special technique of fencing with a bastard sword was fencing without any protection in the form of armor or chain mail. Head and top part the torsos were not protected in any way from the blow of the blade, except for ordinary clothing.

Increased protection among soldiers contributed to changes in fencing techniques. And with swords they tried to deliver piercing rather than slashing blows. The "half-sword" technique was used.

Special welcome

There were many different techniques. They were used during the fight and, thanks to these techniques, many fighters survived.

But there is a technique that causes surprise: the technique of half a sword. When a warrior grabbed the blade of a sword with one or even two hands, pointing it at the enemy and trying to push it under the armor. The other hand lay on the hilt of the sword, giving the necessary strength and speed. How did the fighters avoid wounding their hand on the edge of the sword? The fact is that swords were sharpened at the end of the blade. Therefore, the half-sword technique was successful. True, you can also hold a sharpened sword blade in gloves, but, most importantly, hold it tightly, and in no case allow the blade of the blade to “walk” in the palm of your hand.

Later, in the 17th century, Italian fencing masters focused all their attention on the rapier and abandoned the bastard sword. And in 1612, a German manual was published with the technique of fencing with a bastard sword. This was the last manual on fighting techniques where such swords were used. However, in Italy, despite the increased popularity of the rapier, they continue to fencing with a spadone (bastard sword).

Bastard in Rus'

Western Europe had a great influence on some peoples medieval Rus'. The West influenced geography, culture, military science and weapons.

As a fact, in Belarus and Western Ukraine there are knightly castles of those times. And a few years ago, on television, they reported the discovery in the Mogilev region of knightly weapons of a Western European model dating back to the 16th century. There were few finds of bastard swords in Moscow and Northern Rus'. Since military affairs there were aimed at fighting the Tatars, which means that instead of heavy infantry and swords, another weapon was needed - sabers.

But the western and southwestern lands of Rus' are knightly territory. A wide variety of weapons and bastard swords, Russian and European, were found there during excavations.

One-and-a-half or two-handed

Types of swords differ from each other in their mass; different lengths of hilt and blade. If a sword with a long blade and hilt can be easily manipulated with one hand, then it is a representative of bastard swords. And if one hand is not enough to hold a bastard sword, then most likely this is a representative of two-handed swords. Approximately at the total length of 140 cm, the limit for a bastard sword comes. More than this length, it is difficult to hold a bastard sword with one hand.

There are many rumors and legends around this medieval weapons like a two-handed sword. Many doubt that with such dimensions it could be effective in battle. Despite the large mass and clumsiness, the weapon at one time enjoyed wide popularity. It is worth noting that the blade is at least a meter long, and the handle is about 25 centimeters. Moreover, the mass of the sword is more than two and a half kilograms. Only dexterous and strong people could really operate such a device.

Historical facts

The two-handed sword with large blades appeared relatively late in medieval battles. In addition to an effective weapon, the warrior was equipped with a shield and protective armor. Significant progress in the manufacture of such weapons occurred after the development of metallurgical casting.

Only wealthy soldiers and bodyguards could afford a sword. How better warrior fencing with a sword, the more valuable he was for his army or tribe. Masters constantly improved their technique, passing on experience from generation to generation. In addition to remarkable strength, wielding a blade required high professionalism, reaction and dexterity.

Purpose

The weight of a two-handed sword sometimes reaches four kilograms. In battle, only tall and physically resilient warriors can control it. In a real battle, at a certain moment they were placed in the vanguard of the formation in order to break through the first ranks of the enemy and disarm the halberdiers. The swordsmen could not be constantly in front, since in the turmoil of the battle they were deprived of free space for swinging and maneuvering.

If in close combat swords were used to make holes in the enemy’s defenses, then cutting blows required perfect balancing of the weapon. In open space battles, they used a wedge to cut down the enemy from above or from the side, and also delivered piercing blows using long lunges. The crosshair under the handle served to hit the enemy in the face or neck at maximum proximity.

Design features

A large two-handed sword weighing five or more kilograms serves primarily as a ritual attribute. Such specimens were used in parades, at dedications, or presented as gifts to the nobility. Simplified versions served as a kind of simulator for fencing masters, training hand strength and endurance.

The combat modification of a two-handed sword usually did not exceed a mass of 3.5 kilograms and a total length of 1.7 meters. About half a meter of the length of the weapon was allocated to the handle. It also served as a balancer. With good blade handling skills, even the solid mass of the sword was not an obstacle to effective use this weapon. If we compare the options under consideration with one-handed samples, it can be noted that the latest modifications rarely weighed more than one and a half kilograms.

The optimal size of a two-handed sword in the classic version is the length from the floor to the warrior’s shoulder, and the same indicator for the handle is the distance from the wrist to the elbow joint.

Advantages and disadvantages

The advantages of the weapon in question include the following:

a two-handed sword allows you to effectively block when protecting large area around the warrior;
a massive blade makes it possible to deliver slashing blows that are very difficult to parry;
wide range of uses.

Negative sides of this weapon is low maneuverability, unstable dynamics due to the large mass of the blade. In addition, the need to hold the sword with both hands practically eliminated the possibility of using a shield. The ratio of slash amplification and energy expenditure was also not an aspect influencing the popularity of the massive option.

Types of two-handed swords

Let's look at the most famous and formidable modifications:

Claymore. This weapon comes from Scotland and is the most compact among its analogues. Average length the blade did not exceed 110 centimeters. A special feature of this sword is the original bend of the cross-shaped arches towards the tip. This design made it possible to grab and pull out any long weapon from the enemy’s hands. In terms of size and efficiency, the claymore is one of the best examples among two-handed swords. It was used in almost any combat situation.
Zweihander. This model is distinguished by its impressive dimensions (sometimes up to two meters in length). It is equipped with a pair of guards, on which special wedge-shaped pins separate the sharpened part of the blade from the ricasso. The weapon had a narrow application. Mainly used to repel or chop enemy spears and halberds.
Flamberge is a two-handed sword with a wavy blade. This design made it possible to increase the lethality. Due to this, the destructive effect when defeating the enemy increased many times over. The wounds inflicted by the flamberge took a very long time to heal. The commanders of some armies could sentence captured soldiers to death just for wearing such a sword.

Briefly about other modifications

The Estok two-handed piercing weapon is designed to pierce armor. The sword is equipped with a tetrahedral blade one hundred and thirty centimeters long, intended for use in cavalry.
The slasher is a classic version of a two-handed sword with a tetrahedral transverse blade design. It reaches 1.8 meters in length and has a guard consisting of a pair of massive arches. The center of gravity shifted to the tip allows you to increase the penetrating power of the weapon.
The curved two-handed sword "Katana" is the most famous type of bladed weapon in Japan. It is designed for close combat, equipped with a thirty-centimeter handle and a 0.9-meter long tip. There is a specimen with a 2.25 meter blade, which can cut a person in half with one blow.
The Chinese sword "Dadao" has a large blade width. It has a curved profile and a blade sharpened on one side. Such weapons were used even during the Second World War in hand-to-hand combat, and very effectively.

It is worth noting that Slavic peoples A two-handed sword meant a double-edged blade with a massive hilt.

The two-handed sword with the largest dimensions, which has survived to this day, is in a Dutch museum. Its total length is two hundred and fifteen centimeters, and its weight is 6.6 kilograms. The handle is made of oak, covered with a single piece of goatskin. Presumably, it was made by German craftsmen in the fifteenth century. The sword did not participate in battles, but served for various ceremonies. His blade bears the mark of Inri.

In conclusion

Despite the fact that two-handed swords were formidable and effective weapons, only dexterous, strong and resilient warriors could handle them. Most countries have developed and created their own analogues, which have certain features and differences. This weapon left a confident and indelible mark on the history of medieval wars.

Fencing with a two-handed sword required not only strength, but also dexterity, since it was not enough to hold the weapon, it was also necessary to wield it effectively. Expensively decorated and decorated specimens were often used in ritual ceremonies, and also decorated the homes of wealthy nobles.

What did Historical Swords Weigh?

Translation from English: Georgy Golovanov

"Never overload yourself with heavy weapons,
for the mobility of the body and the mobility of the weapon
are the two main helpers in victory"

- Joseph Suitnam
“School of noble and worthy science of defense”, 1617

How much exactly did they weigh? medieval and renaissance swords? This question (perhaps the most common on this topic) can be easily answered knowledgeable people. Serious scientists and fencing practice value knowledge of the exact dimensions of weapons of the past, while general public and even experts are often completely ignorant of this issue. Find reliable information about the weight of real historical swords who have actually passed the weigh-in is not easy, but convincing skeptics and the ignorant is an equally difficult task.

A significant problem.

False statements about the weight of medieval and Renaissance swords are unfortunately quite common. This is one of the most common misconceptions. And not surprising, considering how many mistakes about fencing of the past is distributed through the media. Everywhere from television and film to video games, historical European swords are portrayed as clumsy and swung around with wide movements. Recently on the TV channel The History Channel" one respected academician and military technology expert confidently stated that swords XIV centuries sometimes weighed as much as “40 pounds” (18 kg)!

From simple life experience, we know very well that swords could not be excessively heavy and did not weigh 5-7 kg or more. It can be repeated endlessly that this weapon was not at all bulky or clumsy. It is curious that although accurate information on the weight of swords would be very useful to weapons researchers and historians, there is no serious book with such information. Perhaps the document vacuum is part of this very problem. However, there are several reputable sources that provide some valuable statistics. For example, the catalog of swords from the famous Wallace Collection in London lists dozens of exhibits, among which it is difficult to find anything heavier than 1.8 kg. Most examples, from battle swords to rapiers, weighed much less than 1.5 kg.

Despite all assurances to the contrary, medieval swords were actually light, comfortable and weighed less than 1.8kg on average. Leading Sword Expert Evart Oakeshott stated:

“Medieval swords were neither unbearably heavy nor identical - the average weight of any standard-sized sword was between 1.1 kg and 1.6 kg. Even large hand-and-a-half “military” swords rarely weighed more than 2 kg. Otherwise they would undoubtedly be too impractical even for people who learned to wield weapons from the age of 7 (and who had to be tough to survive)."(Oakeshot, The Sword in the Hand, p. 13).

Leading author and researcher of 20th century European swordsEvart Oakeshottknew what he was saying. He held thousands of swords in his hands and personally owned several dozen copies, from Bronze Age until the 19th century.

Medieval swords, as a rule, were high-quality, lightweight, maneuverable military weapons, equally capable of delivering severing blows and deep cuts. They didn't look like the clunky, heavy things that are often portrayed in the media, more like a "club with a blade." According to another source:

“The sword, it turns out, was surprisingly light: the average weight of swords from the 10th to the 15th centuries was 1.3 kg, and in the 16th century - 0.9 kg. Even the heavier bastard swords, which were used by only a small number of soldiers, did not exceed 1.6 kg, and the horsemen's swords, known as "one and a half", weighed 1.8 kg on average. It is logical that these surprisingly low numbers also apply to huge two-handed swords, which were traditionally wielded only by “real Hercules.” And yet they rarely weighed more than 3 kg” (translated from: Funcken, Arms, Part 3, p. 26).

Since the 16th century, there were, of course, special ceremonial or ritual swords that weighed 4 kg or more, however, these monstrous examples were not military weapons, and there is no evidence that they were even intended for use in battle. Indeed, it would be pointless to use them in the presence of more maneuverable combat units, which were much lighter. Dr. Hans-Peter Hills in a 1985 dissertation dedicated to the great master of the 14th century Johannes Lichtenauer writes that since the 19th century, many weapons museums have passed off large collections of ceremonial weapons as military weapons, ignoring the fact that their blades were blunt and their size, weight and balance impractical for use (Hils, pp. 269-286).

Expert opinion.

In my hands is a wonderful example of a 14th century military sword. Testing the sword for maneuverability and ease of handling.

The belief that medieval swords were bulky and awkward to use has become urban folklore and still baffles those of us new to fencing. It is not easy to find an author of books about fencing of the 19th and even 20th centuries (even a historian) who would not categorically assert that medieval swords were "heavy", "clumsy", "bulky", "uncomfortable" and (as a result of a complete misunderstanding of the technique of ownership, goals and objectives of such weapons) they were supposedly intended only for attack.

Despite these measurements, many today are convinced that these large swords must be especially heavy. This opinion is not limited to our century. For example, an overall flawless booklet on army fencing 1746 "The Use of the Broad Sword" Thomas Page, spreads tall tales about early swords. After talking about how things have changed from early techniques and knowledge in the field of combat fencing, Paige states:

“The form was crude, and the technique was devoid of Method. It was an Instrument of Power, not a Weapon or a Work of Art. The sword was enormously long and wide, heavy and heavy, forged only to cut from top to bottom with Power strong hand"(Page, p. A3).

Views Page shared by other fencers who then used light small swords and sabers.

Testing of a 15th century two-handed sword at the British Royal Armories.

In the early 1870s, Captain M. J. O'Rourke, a little-known Irish-American historian and fencing teacher, spoke about early swords, characterizing them as "massive blades that required all the strength of both hands". We can also recall the pioneer in the field of historical fencing research, Egerton Castle, and his remarkable comment about "rude old swords" ( Castle,"Schools and fencing masters").

Quite often, some scientists or archivists, experts in history, but not athletes, not fencers, who trained in using a sword from childhood, authoritatively assert that the knight’s sword was “heavy.” The same sword in trained hands will seem light, balanced and maneuverable. For example, the famous English historian and museum curator Charles Foulkes in 1938 stated:

“The so-called crusader sword is heavy, with a wide blade and a short hilt. It has no balance, as the word is understood in fencing, and it is not intended for thrusts; its weight does not allow for quick parries” (Ffoulkes, p. 29-30).

Foulkes's opinion, completely unfounded, but shared by his co-author Captain Hopkins, was the product of his experience in gentleman's duels with sporting weapons. Fulkes, of course, bases his opinion on contemporary light weapons: foils, epee and dueling sabers (just as a tennis racket may seem heavy to a table tennis player).

Unfortunately, Fulkes in 1945 he even expressed it this way:

“All swords from the 9th to the 13th centuries are heavy, poorly balanced and equipped with a short and awkward hilt”(Ffoulkes, Arms, p.17).

Imagine, 500 years of professional warriors have been wrong, and a museum curator in 1945, who has never been in a real sword fight or even trained with a real sword of any kind, informs us of the shortcomings of this magnificent weapon.

Famous French medievalist later repeated Fulkes's opinion literally as a reliable judgment. Dear historian and specialist in medieval military affairs, Dr. Kelly de Vries, in a book about military technology Middle Ages, nevertheless writes in the 1990s about “thick, heavy, uncomfortable, but exquisitely forged medieval swords” (Devries, Medieval Military Technology, p. 25). It is not surprising that such “authoritative” opinions influence modern readers, and we have to make so much effort.

Testing a 16th century bastard sword at the Glenbow Museum, Calgary.

Such an opinion about “bulky old swords,” as one French swordsman once called them, could be ignored as a product of its era and lack of information. But now such views cannot be justified. It is especially sad when leading fencing masters (trained only in the weapons of modern fake duels) proudly express judgments about the weight of early swords. As I wrote in the book "Medieval fencing" 1998:

“It’s very unfortunate that the presenters masters of sports fencing(wielding only light rapiers, épées and sabers) demonstrate their misconceptions about “10-pound medieval swords that can only be used for “awkward striking and slashing.”

For example, a respected swordsman of the 20th century Charles Selberg mentions the "heavy and clumsy weapons of early times" (Selberg, p. 1). A modern swordsman de Beaumont states:

"In the Middle Ages, armor required weapons - battle axes or two-handed swords - to be heavy and clumsy" (de Beaumont, p. 143).

Did the armor require the weapon to be heavy and clumsy? In addition, the 1930 Book of Fencing stated with great confidence:

“With few exceptions, the swords of Europe in 1450 were heavy, clumsy weapons, and in balance and ease of use were no different from axes” (Cass, pp. 29-30).

Even today this idiocy continues. In a book with a good title « Complete Guide on the Crusades for Dummies" tells us that knights fought in tournaments, “cutting each other with heavy, 20-30 pound swords” (P. Williams, p. 20).

Such comments say more about the inclinations and ignorance of the authors than about the nature of actual swords and fencing. I myself have heard these statements countless times in personal conversations and online from fencing instructors and their students, so I have no doubt about their prevalence. As one author wrote about medieval swords in 2003,

“they were so heavy that they could even split armor”, and the great swords weighed “up to 20 pounds and could easily destroy heavy armor” (A. Baker, p. 39).

None of this is true.

Weighing of a rare example of a 14th century combat sword from the collection of the Alexandria Arsenal.

Perhaps the most damning example that comes to mind is Olympic fencer Richard Cohen and his book on fencing and the history of the sword:

“swords, which could weigh more than three pounds, were heavy and poorly balanced and required strength rather than skill” (Cohen, p. 14).

With all due respect, even when he accurately states the weight (while belittling the merits of those who owned them), nevertheless, he is able to perceive them only in comparison with the fake swords of modern sport, even believing that the technique of their use was predominantly “impact-crushing”. If you believe Cohen, it turns out that a real sword, intended for a real fight to the death, should be very heavy, poorly balanced and require no real skill? Are modern toy swords for make-believe fights as they should be?

In hand is an example of a 16th century Swiss combat sword. Sturdy, lightweight, functional.

For some reason, many classical swordsmen still cannot understand that early swords, while real weapons, were not made to be held at arm's length and twirled with just the fingers. Now is the beginning of the 21st century, there is a revival of the historical martial arts of Europe, and fencers still adhere to the misconceptions inherent in 19th century. If you don't understand how a given sword was used, it's impossible to appreciate its true capabilities or understand why it was made the way it was. And so you interpret it through the prism of what you already know yourself. Even wide swords with a cup were maneuverable piercing and cutting weapons.

Oakeshott was aware of the existing problem, a mixture of ignorance and prejudice, more than 30 years ago when he wrote his significant book "The Sword in the Age of Chivalry":

“Add to this the fantasies of the romantic writers of the past, who, wanting to give their heroes the characteristics of Superman, made them brandish huge and heavy weapons, thus demonstrating strength far beyond their capabilities. modern man. And the picture is completed by the evolution of attitudes towards this type of weapon, right up to the contempt that lovers of sophistication and elegance who lived in the eighteenth century, romantics of the Elizabethan era and admirers of magnificent art had for swords Renaissance. It becomes clear why weapons, visible only in their degraded state, can be considered ill-conceived, crude, ponderous and ineffective.

Of course, there will always be people for whom strict asceticism of forms is indistinguishable from primitivism and incompleteness. And an iron object a little less than a meter long may well seem very heavy. In fact, the average weight of such swords varied between 1.0 and 1.5 kg, and they were balanced (according to their purpose) with the same care and skill as, for example, a tennis racket or fishing rod. The prevailing opinion that they cannot be held in hands is absurd and long ago outdated, but continues to live, like the myth that knights dressed in armor could only be lifted onto horses by a crane" ( Oakeshott, "The Sword in the Age of Chivalry", p. 12).

Even a similar broadsword from the 16th century is quite convenient to control for striking and thrusting.

Long-time researcher of weapons and fencing at the British Royal Armories Kate Ducklin states:

“From my experience at the Royal Armories, where I studied actual weapons from various periods, the broad-bladed European fighting sword, whether slashing, stabbing or thrusting, typically weighed between 2 pounds for a one-handed model and 4 pounds. £5 for two-handed. Swords made for other purposes, such as ceremonies or executions, may have weighed more or less, but these were not combat examples” (personal correspondence with the author, April 2000).

Mr Ducklin, undoubtedly knowledgeable, because he held and studied literally hundreds of excellent swords from the famous collection and looked at them from the point of view of a fighter.

Training with a fine example of a true 15th century Estoc. Only in this way can one understand the true purpose of such weapons.

In a brief article about the types of swords of the 15th-16th centuries. from the collections of three museums, including exhibits from Museum Stibbert in Florence, Dr Timothy Drawson noted that no one-handed sword weighed more than 3.5 pounds, and no two-handed sword weighed more than 6 pounds. His conclusion:

“From these examples it is clear that the idea that medieval and Renaissance swords were heavy and clumsy is far from true” (Drawson, pp. 34 & 35).

Subjectivity and objectivity.

Obviously, if you know how to handle a weapon, the technique of using it, and the dynamics of the blade, then any weapon from the Middle Ages and Renaissance will seem flexible and easy to use.

In 1863, a sword maker and major specialist John Latham from "Wilkinson Swords" erroneously claims that some excellent specimen 14th century sword had “enormous weight” because it was “used in those days when warriors had to deal with opponents clad in iron.” Latham adds:

“They took the heaviest weapons they could and applied as much force as they could” (Latham, Shape, p. 420-422).

However, commenting on the "excessive heaviness" of swords, Latham talks about a 2.7 kg sword forged for a cavalry officer who thought it would strengthen his wrist, but as a result “No living person could cut with it... The weight was so great that it was impossible to accelerate it, so the cutting force was zero. A very simple test proves this" (Latham, Shape, p. 420-421).

Latham also adds: “Body type, however, greatly influences the results.”. He then concludes, repeating the common mistake, that strong man will take a heavier sword to deal more damage.

“The weight that a man can lift at the fastest speed will produce the best effect, but a lighter sword he cannot necessarily move faster. The sword can be so light that it feels like a “whip” in your hand. Such a sword is worse than one that is too heavy" (Latham, pp. 414-415).

I must have enough mass to hold the blade and point, parry blows and give force to the blow, but at the same time it must not be too heavy, that is, slow and awkward, otherwise faster weapons will circle around it. This required weight depended on the purpose of the blade, whether it should stab, chop, both, and what kind of material it might encounter.

Most Medieval and Renaissance swords are so balanced and poised that they seem to literally cry out to you: “Master me!”

Fantastic stories about knightly valor often mention huge swords that only great heroes and villains could wield, and with which they cut horses and even trees. But these are all myths and legends; they cannot be taken literally. In Froissart's Chronicles, when the Scots defeat the English at Mulrose, we read of Sir Archibald Douglas, who "held before him a huge sword, the blade of which was two meters long, and hardly anyone could lift it, but Sir Archibald without labor wielded it and inflicted such terrible blows that everyone he hit fell to the ground; and there was no one among the English who could withstand his blows.” Great fencing master of the 14th century Johannes Lichtenauer he himself said: “The sword is the measure, and it is large and heavy” and is balanced with a suitable pommel, which means that the weapon itself should be balanced and therefore suitable for battle, and not weighty. Italian master Filippo Vadi in the early 1480s he instructed:

"Take light weapons, and not heavy, so that you can easily control it so that its weight does not bother you.”

So the fencing teacher specifically mentions that there is a choice between "heavy" and "light" blades. But - again - the word "heavy" is not synonymous with the word "too heavy", or cumbersome and unwieldy. You can simply choose, for example, a tennis racket or a baseball bat that is lighter or heavier.

Having held in my hands more than 200 excellent European swords from the 12th to 16th centuries, I can say that I always Special attention gave them weight. I have always been amazed by the liveliness and balance of almost all the specimens that I have come across. Swords of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, which I personally studied in six countries, and in some cases fencing and even chopping with them, were - I repeat - light and well balanced. Having considerable experience in owning weapons, I very rarely encountered historical swords, which would not be easy to handle and maneuverable. Units – if any – from short swords before the bastards weighed over 1.8 kg, and even they were well balanced. When I came across examples that I found too heavy for me or unbalanced for my tastes, I realized that they might be a good fit for people with different body types or fighting styles.

In hands are weapons from the collection of the Royal Swedish Arsenal, Stockholm.

When I was working with two 16th century combat swords, each 1.3 kg, they showed themselves perfectly. Deft blows, thrusts, defenses, transfers and quick counterattacks, furious cutting blows - as if the swords were almost weightless. There was nothing “heavy” about these intimidating and graceful instruments. When I practiced with a real 16th-century two-handed sword, I was amazed at how light the 2.7 kg weapon seemed, as if it weighed half as much. Even if it was not intended for a person of my size, I could see its obvious effectiveness and efficiency because I understood the technique and method of wielding this weapon. The reader can decide for himself whether to believe these stories. But the countless times I held excellent examples of 14th, 15th, or 16th-century weaponry in my hands, stood in stances, and moved around under the attentive gaze of friendly guardians, firmly convinced me of how much real swords weighed (and how to wield them).

One day, while examining several swords of the 14th and 16th centuries from the collection Evart Oakeshott, we were even able to weigh a few on digital scales just to make sure we had the correct weight estimate. Our colleagues did the same, and their results coincided with ours. This experience of learning about real weapons is critical ARMA Association in relation to many modern swords. I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with the neatness of many modern replicas. Obviously, the more similar a modern sword is to a historical one, the more accurate the reconstruction of the technique of wielding this sword will be.

In fact,
correct understanding of the weight of historical swords
necessary to understand their correct use.

Measuring and weighing weapons from a private collection.

Having studied in practice many medieval and renaissance swords, having collected impressions and measurement results, dear fencer Peter Johnson said that he “felt their amazing mobility. Overall they are fast, accurate and expertly balanced for their tasks. Often a sword appears much lighter than it actually is. This is the result of a careful distribution of mass, not just a balance point. Measuring the weight of a sword and its balance point is only the beginning of understanding its “dynamic balance” (i.e., how the sword behaves when in motion).” He adds:

“In general, modern replicas are quite far from the original swords in this regard. Distorted ideas about what real sharp military weapons are are the result of training only on modern weapons.”

So Johnson also claims that real swords are lighter than many people think. Even then, weight is not the only indicator, because the main characteristics are the distribution of mass along the blade, which in turn affects the balance.

We carefully measure and weigh weapons from the 14th and 16th centuries.

You need to understand
that modern copies of historical weapons,
even being approximately equal in weight,
do not guarantee the same feeling from owning them,
like their vintage originals.

If the geometry of the blade does not match the original (including along the entire length of the blade, shape and crosshair), the balance will not match.

Modern copy it often feels heavier and less comfortable than the original.

Accurately reproducing the balance of modern swords is an important aspect of their creation.

Today, many cheap and low-grade swords are historical replicas, theatrical props, fantasy weapons or souvenir products- become heavy due to poor balance. Part of this problem arises due to the sad ignorance of blade geometry on the part of the manufacturer. On the other hand, the reason is a deliberate reduction in manufacturing costs. In any case, sellers and manufacturers can hardly be expected to admit that their swords are too heavy or poorly balanced. It's much easier to say that this is how real swords should be.

Testing of an original infantryman's two-handed sword, 16th century.

There is another factor why modern swords usually made heavier than the originals.

Due to ignorance, blacksmiths and their clients expect the feeling of the weight of the sword.

These feelings arose after numerous images of woodcutter warriors with their slow swings, demonstrating the heaviness "barbarian swords", because only massive swords can hit hard. (In contrast to the lightning-fast aluminum swords of Eastern martial arts demonstrations, it is hard to blame anyone for such a lack of understanding.) Although the difference between a 1.7 kg sword and a 2.4 kg sword does not seem that big, when trying to reconstruct the technique, the difference becomes quite tangible. Additionally, when it comes to rapiers, which typically weighed between 900 and 1100 grams, their weight could be misleading. The entire weight of such a thin piercing weapon was concentrated in the handle, which gave greater mobility to the tip despite the weight compared to wider cutting blades.

“Oh, knights, arise, the hour of action has come!
Shields, steel helmets and you have armor.
Your dedicated sword is ready to fight for your faith.
Give me strength, oh God, for new glorious battles.
I, a beggar, will take rich booty there.
I don’t need gold and I don’t need land,
But maybe I will be, singer, mentor, warrior,
Rewarded with heavenly bliss forever"
(Walter von der Vogelweide. Translation by V. Levick)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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