In medieval times, life was not easy, clothing played an important role in the flesh to preserve life.
Simple clothing made of flimsy fabric was common, leather was considered a rarity, but armor was worn only by wealthy gentlemen.

Henry VIII's Armet, known as the "Horned Shell". Innsbruck, Austria, 1511

There are several versions regarding the appearance of the first armor. Some believe it all started with robes made of forged metal. Others believe that wood protection should also be considered, in which case we need to remember the truly distant ancestors with stones and sticks. But most people think that armor came from those difficult times when men were knights and women languished in anticipation of them.

Another strange shell-mask, from Augsburg, Germany, 1515.

A separate article should be devoted to the variety of shapes and styles of medieval armor:

Either armor or nothing
The first armor was very simple: rough metal plates designed to protect the knight inside from spears and swords. But gradually the weapons became more and more complicated, and the blacksmiths had to take this into account and make the armor more and more durable, light and flexible, until they had the maximum degree of protection.

One of the most brilliant innovations was the improvement of chain mail. According to rumors, it was first created by the Celts many centuries ago. It was a long process that took a very long time until gunsmiths took on it and took the idea to new heights. This idea is not entirely logical: instead of making armor from strong plates and very reliable metal, why not make it from several thousand carefully connected rings? It turned out great: light and durable, chain mail allowed its owner to be mobile and was often a key factor in how he left the battlefield: on a horse or on a stretcher. When plate armor was added to chain mail, the result was stunning: the armor of the Middle Ages appeared.

Medieval arms race
Now it's hard to imagine that for a long time the knight on horseback was truly terrible weapon of that era: arriving at the scene of battle on a war horse, often also dressed in armor, he was as terrifying as he was invincible. Nothing could stop such knights when, with a sword and spear, they could easily attack almost anyone.

Here is an imaginary knight, reminiscent of heroic and victorious times (drawn by the delightful illustrator John Howe):

Bizarre Monsters
Combat became more and more “ritualistic,” leading to the jousting tournaments we all know and love from movies and books. Armor became less useful in practice and gradually became more degree only indicators of high social level and well-being. Only the rich or nobles could afford armor, however only a truly rich or very wealthy baron, duke, prince or king could afford fantastic armor of the highest quality.

Did this make them especially beautiful? After a while, the armor began to look more like dinner wear than battle gear: impeccable metal work, precious metals, ornate coats of arms and regalia... All of this, while looking amazing, was useless during battle.

Just look at the armor belonging to Henry VIII: isn't it a masterpiece of art of the time? The armor was designed and made, like most all armor of the time, to fit the wearer. In Henry's case, however, his costume looked more noble than fearsome. Who can remember the royal armor? Looking at a set of such armor, the question arises: were they invented for fighting or for showing off? But honestly, we can't blame Henry for his choice: his armor was never really designed for war.

England comes up with ideas
What is certain is that the suit of armor was a terrifying weapon of the day. But all days come to an end, and in the case of classic armor, their end was simply worse than ever.
1415, northern France: on one side - the French; on the other - the British. Although their numbers are a matter of debate, it is generally believed that the French outnumbered the English by a ratio of about 10 to 1. For the English, under Henry (5th, forefather of the aforementioned 8th), this was not at all pleasant. Most likely, they will be, to use a military term, "killed." But then something happened that not only determined the outcome of the war, but also changed Europe forever, as well as dooming armor as a primary weapon.

When we, modern people, we draw colorful pictures of medieval romance in our imagination, then, first of all, we imagine a knight, clad from head to toe in heavy armor, a kind of iron man, whose even face is hidden by a metal visor. But in fact, the knight's armor was not necessarily heavy. The armor had to provide good protection while being light enough to allow mobility and flexibility during combat. What is the use of heavy armor if, having fallen to the ground, he could not even get up without outside help? But the knights’ weapons were indeed quite heavy.

A spear

The most important weapon of a medieval knight was not a sword at all, as many believe, but a spear. Until the eleventh century, spears were mainly used as pikes and were used in battle using a sharp lunge, that is, the knight, when attacking, straightened the hand gripping the spear; therefore, the length of such weapons rarely exceeded two and a half meters. In addition, spears of this size were also used as throwing weapons. But literally two centuries later, the knight’s spear had lengthened considerably. This was due to a change in the tactics of spear combat: the lunge disappeared, only the blow remained.

Spears began to be made from three and a half meters in length, and such weapons weighed up to 18 kilograms. The shaft was usually made of ash or apple wood. Sometimes beech was used. The tip was double-edged, under which there were either tricolor flags or a banner, and under them there was a special disk that prevented the spear from penetrating too deeply into the body of the defeated enemy. Although, it is unlikely that medieval gunsmiths were guided by humane considerations when making this disc. It was most likely necessary to make it easier to remove the spear from the enemy’s body.

Sword

Knight's sword has been least subject to change over time. The only thing that has changed in this type of weapon is its size. Around the 15th century, when knightly armor became much stronger, an improved sword was needed that could pierce a strong cuirass. So swords began to be made much longer than before, increasing the force of the blow. The sword began to be sharpened not on both sides, as before, but only on one. The hilt of the sword became much thinner, so the knights began to wrap it with wire. But the sheath, as before, was made of tanned leather, which was sheathed on top with fabric, onto which various metal decorations were already attached.

Later a two-hander appeared. It was simply impossible to hold a two-handed sword with one hand. It was much longer, and therefore much heavier than an ordinary sword or a bastard, its striking power was enormous. A two-handed sword could cut a person in half with one blow.

Battle axes, sledgehammers, and axes were still used more in the army, since knights preferred the good old swords, but still, in close combat, they were sometimes used. Battle axes were used and how throwing weapon and as a striking force. A long belt was often attached to them, with the help of which the axes were returned to the knight after throwing. But, over time, they were used less and less. As a result, the battle ax turned into an exclusively tournament type of weapon. Just like the bow itself, shooting from which has also turned into a sport.

The bow was replaced as an offensive weapon by a crossbow, the penetrating power of which was truly terrifying. An arrow fired from a crossbow pierced both chain mail and plate armor from a distance of 150 meters!

Few other types of weapons have left such a mark in the history of our civilization. For thousands of years, the sword was not just a murder weapon, but also a symbol of courage and valor, a warrior’s constant companion and a source of pride. In many cultures, the sword represented dignity, leadership, and strength. Around this symbol in the Middle Ages, a professional military class was formed and its concepts of honor were developed. The sword can be called the real embodiment of war; varieties of this weapon are known to almost all cultures of antiquity and the Middle Ages.

The knight's sword of the Middle Ages symbolized, among other things, the Christian cross. Before knighting, the sword was kept in the altar, cleansing the weapon from worldly filth. During the initiation ceremony, the weapon was presented to the warrior by the priest.

With the help of a sword they were knighted; this weapon was necessarily part of the regalia used at the coronation crowned persons Europe. The sword is one of the most common symbols in heraldry. We see it everywhere in the Bible and the Koran, in medieval sagas and in modern fantasy novels. However, despite its enormous cultural and social significance, the sword primarily remained a melee weapon, with the help of which it was possible to send the enemy to the next world as quickly as possible.

The sword was not available to everyone. Metals (iron and bronze) were rare, expensive, and it took a lot of time and skilled labor to make a good blade. In the early Middle Ages, it was often the presence of a sword that distinguished the leader of a detachment from an ordinary commoner warrior.

A good sword is not just a strip of forged metal, but a complex composite product consisting of several pieces of steel of different characteristics, properly processed and hardened. European industry was able to provide mass release good blades only became available towards the end of the Middle Ages, when the importance of bladed weapons had already begun to decline.

A spear or battle ax was much cheaper, and it was much easier to learn how to use them. The sword was a weapon of the elite, professional warriors, and definitely a status item. To achieve true mastery, a swordsman had to train daily, for many months and years.

Historical documents who have come down to us say that the cost of a sword of average quality could be equal to the price of four cows. Swords of work famous blacksmiths were much more valuable. And the weapons of the elite, decorated with precious metals and stones, cost a fortune.

First of all, the sword is good for its versatility. It could be used effectively on foot or on horseback, for attack or defense, and as a primary or secondary weapon. The sword was perfect for personal protection (for example, on trips or in court battles), it could be carried with you and, if necessary, quickly used.

The sword has a low center of gravity, which makes it much easier to control. Fencing with a sword is significantly less tiring than swinging a club of similar length and weight. The sword allowed the fighter to realize his advantage not only in strength, but also in agility and speed.

The main drawback of the sword, which gunsmiths tried to get rid of throughout the history of the development of this weapon, was its low “penetrating” ability. And the reason for this was also the low center of gravity of the weapon. Against a well-armored enemy, it was better to use something else: a battle axe, a hammer, a hammer, or a regular spear.

Now we should say a few words about the very concept of this weapon. A sword is a type of bladed weapon that has a straight blade and is used to deliver slashing and piercing blows. Sometimes the length of the blade is added to this definition, which should be at least 60 cm. But short sword sometimes it was even smaller; examples include the Roman gladius and the Scythian akinac. The largest two-handed swords reached almost two meters in length.

If a weapon has one blade, then it should be classified as a broadsword, and a weapon with a curved blade should be classified as a saber. Famous Japanese katana not actually a sword, but a typical saber. Also, swords and rapiers should not be classified as swords; they are usually classified as separate groups edged weapons.

How does a sword work?

As mentioned above, a sword is a straight, double-edged bladed weapon designed to deliver piercing, slashing, slashing and stabbing blows. Its design is very simple - it is a narrow strip of steel with a handle at one end. The shape or profile of the blade changed throughout the history of this weapon, it depended on the fighting technique that prevailed in a given period. Combat swords of different eras could “specialize” in slashing or piercing blows.

The division of bladed weapons into swords and daggers is also somewhat arbitrary. We can say that the short sword had a longer blade than the dagger itself - but drawing a clear line between these types of weapons is not always easy. Sometimes a classification is used based on the length of the blade; in accordance with it, the following are distinguished:

• Short sword. Blade length 60-70 cm;
• Long sword. The size of his blade was 70-90 cm, it could be used by both foot and horse warriors;
• Cavalry sword. The length of the blade is more than 90 cm.

The weight of the sword varies within very wide limits: from 700 grams (gladius, akinak) to 5-6 kg ( big sword type flamberge or espadon).

Swords are also often divided into one-handed, one-and-a-half and two-handed. A one-handed sword usually weighed from one to one and a half kilograms.

The sword consists of two parts: the blade and the hilt. The cutting edge of the blade is called the blade; the blade ends with a point. As a rule, it had a stiffener and a fuller - a recess designed to lighten the weapon and give it additional rigidity. The unsharpened part of the blade adjacent directly to the guard is called the ricasso (heel). The blade can also be divided into three parts: the strong part (often it was not sharpened at all), middle part and the point.

The hilt includes a guard (in medieval swords it often looked like a simple cross), a handle, and a pommel, or pommel. The last element of the weapon has great importance for proper balancing and also prevents the hand from slipping. The cross also performs several important functions: it prevents the hand from sliding forward after striking, protects the hand from hitting the enemy’s shield, the cross was also used in some fencing techniques. And only as a last resort did the crosspiece protect the swordsman’s hand from the blow of an enemy’s weapon. So, at least, it follows from medieval fencing manuals.

An important characteristic of the blade is its cross-section. Many variants of the section are known; they changed along with the development of weapons. Early swords (in barbarian and Viking times) often had a lenticular cross-section, which was more suitable for cutting and slashing. As armor developed, the rhombic section of the blade became increasingly popular: it was more rigid and more suitable for thrusting.

The sword blade has two tapers: in length and in thickness. This is necessary to reduce the weight of the weapon, improve its controllability in battle and increase the efficiency of use.

The balance point (or equilibrium point) is the center of gravity of the weapon. As a rule, it is located a finger's distance from the guard. However, this characteristic can vary quite widely depending on the type of sword.

Speaking about the classification of this weapon, it should be noted that the sword is a “piece” product. Each blade was made (or selected) for a specific fighter, his height and arm length. Therefore, no two swords are completely identical, although blades of the same type are similar in many ways.

An invariable accessory of the sword was a sheath - a case for carrying and storing this weapon. The sword sheath was made from various materials: metal, leather, wood, fabric. At the bottom they had a tip, and at the top they ended at the mouth. Typically these elements were made of metal. The sword scabbard had various devices that made it possible to attach it to a belt, clothing or saddle.

The birth of the sword - the era of antiquity

It is unknown when exactly man made the first sword. Wooden clubs can be considered their prototype. However, the sword in the modern sense of the word could only arise after people began to smelt metals. The first swords were probably made of copper, but this metal was very quickly replaced by bronze, a more durable alloy of copper and tin. Structurally, the oldest bronze blades were not much different from their later steel counterparts. Bronze resists corrosion very well, which is why today we have a large number of bronze swords discovered by archaeologists in different regions of the world.

The oldest sword known to date was found in one of the burial mounds in the Republic of Adygea. Scientists believe that it was made 4 thousand years BC.

It is curious that before burial with the owner, bronze swords were often symbolically bent.

Bronze swords have properties that are in many ways different from steel ones. Bronze does not spring, but it can bend without breaking. To reduce the likelihood of deformation, bronze swords were often equipped with impressive stiffening ribs. For the same reason, it is difficult to make a large sword from bronze; usually such weapons had relatively modest dimensions - about 60 cm.

Bronze weapons were made by casting, so there were no particular problems in creating blades of complex shapes. Examples include the Egyptian khopesh, the Persian kopis and the Greek mahaira. True, all these samples of edged weapons were cutlasses or sabers, but not swords. Bronze weapons were poorly suited for piercing armor or fencing; blades made of this material were more often used for cutting rather than piercing blows.

Some ancient civilizations also used a large sword made of bronze. During excavations on the island of Crete, blades more than a meter long were found. They are believed to have been made around 1700 BC.

They learned to make swords from iron around the 8th century BC. new era, and in the 5th century they were already widespread. although bronze was used along with iron for many centuries. Europe switched to iron more quickly because the region had much more of it than the tin and copper deposits needed to create bronze.

Among the currently known blades of antiquity, one can highlight the Greek xiphos, the Roman gladius and spatha, and the Scythian sword akinak.

The xiphos is a short sword with a leaf-shaped blade, the length of which was approximately 60 cm. It was used by the Greeks and Spartans, later this weapon was actively used in the army of Alexander the Great; the warriors of the famous Macedonian phalanx were armed with the xiphos.

The Gladius is another famous short sword that was one of the main weapons of the heavy Roman infantry - legionnaires. The gladius had a length of about 60 cm and the center of gravity was shifted towards the handle due to the massive pommel. These weapons could deliver both slashing and piercing blows; the gladius was especially effective in close formation.

Spatha is a large sword (about a meter long) that apparently first appeared among the Celts or Sarmatians. Later, the Gauls' cavalry, and then the Roman cavalry, were armed with spatami. However, spatha was also used by foot Roman soldiers. Originally, this sword did not have an edge, it was a purely chopping weapon. Later, spatha became suitable for stabbing.

Akinak. This is a short one-handed sword, which was used by the Scythians and other peoples of the Northern Black Sea region and the Middle East. It should be understood that the Greeks often called all the tribes roaming the Black Sea steppes Scythians. Akinak was 60 cm long, weighed about 2 kg, and had excellent piercing and cutting properties. The crosshair of this sword was heart-shaped, and the pommel resembled a beam or a crescent.

Swords from the era of chivalry

The “finest hour” of the sword, however, like many other types of edged weapons, was the Middle Ages. For this historical period, the sword was more than just a weapon. The medieval sword developed over a thousand years, its history began around the 5th century with the advent of the German spatha, and ended in the 16th century, when it was replaced by the sword. The development of the medieval sword was inextricably linked with the evolution of armor.

The collapse of the Roman Empire was marked by the decline of military art and the loss of many technologies and knowledge. Europe plunged into dark times of fragmentation and internecine wars. Battle tactics were significantly simplified, and the number of armies was reduced. In the Early Middle Ages, battles mainly took place in open areas; opponents, as a rule, neglected defensive tactics.

This period is characterized by almost complete absence armor, unless only the nobility could afford chain mail or plate armor. Due to the decline of crafts, the sword is transformed from the weapon of an ordinary soldier into the weapon of a select elite.

At the beginning of the first millennium, Europe was in a “fever”: it was Great Migration peoples, and barbarian tribes (Goths, Vandals, Burgundians, Franks) created new states in the territories of the former Roman provinces. The first European sword is considered to be the German spatha, its further continuation is the Merovingian type sword, named after the French royal dynasty Merovingian.

The Merovingian sword had a blade approximately 75 cm long with a rounded tip, a wide and flat fuller, a thick cross and a massive pommel. The blade practically did not taper to the tip; the weapon was more suitable for delivering cutting and chopping blows. At that time, only very wealthy people could afford a combat sword, so Merovingian swords were richly decorated. This type of sword was in use until about the 9th century, but already in the 8th century it began to be replaced by a Carolingian type sword. This weapon is also called the Viking Age sword.

Around the 8th century AD, a new misfortune came to Europe: regular raids by Vikings or Normans began from the north. These were fierce fair-haired warriors who knew no mercy or pity, fearless sailors who plied the expanses of the European seas. The souls of the dead Vikings were taken from the battlefield by golden-haired warrior maidens straight to the halls of Odin.

In fact, Carolingian-type swords were produced on the continent, and they came to Scandinavia as military booty or ordinary goods. The Vikings had a custom of burying a sword with a warrior, which is why a large number of Carolingian swords were found in Scandinavia.

The Carolingian sword is in many ways similar to the Merovingian, but it is more elegant, better balanced, and the blade has a well-defined edge. The sword still remained expensive weapons, according to the orders of Charlemagne, cavalrymen must be armed with them, while foot soldiers, as a rule, used something simpler.

Together with the Normans, the Carolingian sword also entered the territory Kievan Rus. There were even centers on Slavic lands where such weapons were made.

The Vikings (like the ancient Germans) treated their swords with special reverence. Their sagas contain many stories about special magical swords, as well as about family blades passed down from generation to generation.

Around the second half of the 11th century, the gradual transformation of the Carolingian sword into a knightly or Romanesque sword began. At this time, cities began to grow in Europe, crafts developed rapidly, and the level of blacksmithing and metallurgy increased significantly. The shape and characteristics of any blade were primarily determined by the enemy’s protective equipment. At that time it consisted of a shield, helmet and armor.

To learn to wield a sword, the future knight began training with early childhood. At about the age of seven, he was usually sent to some relative or friendly knight, where the boy continued to master the secrets of noble combat. At the age of 12-13 he became a squire, after which his training continued for another 6-7 years. Then the young man could be knighted, or he continued to serve with the rank of “noble squire.” The difference was small: the knight had the right to wear a sword on his belt, and the squire attached it to the saddle. In the Middle Ages, the sword clearly distinguished a free man and knight from a commoner or slave.

Ordinary warriors usually wore leather armor made from specially treated leather as protective equipment. The nobility used chain mail shirts or leather armor, onto which metal plates were sewn. Until the 11th century, helmets were also made of treated leather, reinforced with metal inserts. However, later helmets were mainly made from metal plates, which were extremely difficult to break through with a chopping blow.

The most important element of a warrior’s defense was the shield. It was made from a thick layer of wood (up to 2 cm) durable rocks and were covered on top with treated leather, and sometimes reinforced with metal strips or rivets. This was a very effective defense; such a shield could not be penetrated with a sword. Accordingly, in battle it was necessary to hit a part of the enemy’s body that was not covered by a shield, and the sword had to pierce the enemy’s armor. This led to changes in the design of the sword early Middle Ages. Typically they had the following criteria:

• Total length about 90 cm;
• Relatively light weight, which made it easy to fencing with one hand;
• Sharpening blades designed to deliver an effective cutting blow;
• The weight of such a one-handed sword did not exceed 1.3 kg.

Around the middle of the 13th century, a real revolution took place in the armament of the knight - plate armor became widespread. To break through such a defense, it was necessary to inflict piercing blows. This led to significant changes in the shape of the Romanesque sword; it began to narrow, and the tip of the weapon became more and more pronounced. The cross-section of the blades also changed, they became thicker and heavier, and received stiffening ribs.

Around the 13th century, the importance of infantry on the battlefield began to increase rapidly. Thanks to the improvement of infantry armor, it became possible to dramatically reduce the shield, or even abandon it altogether. This led to the fact that the sword began to be taken in both hands to enhance the blow. This is how the long sword appeared, a variation of which is the bastard sword. In modern historical literature it is called " bastard sword" Bastards were also called “war swords” - weapons of such length and weight were not carried with them just like that, but taken to war.

The bastard sword led to the emergence of new fencing techniques - the half-hand technique: the blade was sharpened only in the upper third, and its lower part could be intercepted by the hand, further enhancing the piercing blow.

This weapon can be called a transitional stage between one-handed and two-handed swords. The heyday of long swords was the era of the late Middle Ages.

During the same period, two-handed swords became widespread. These were real giants among their brothers. The total length of this weapon could reach two meters and weight – 5 kilograms. Two-handed swords were used by infantrymen; they did not have sheaths made for them, but were worn on the shoulder, like a halberd or a pike. Disputes continue among historians today as to exactly how these weapons were used. The most famous representatives of this type of weapon are the zweihander, claymore, spandrel and flamberge - wavy or curved two-handed sword.

Almost all two-handed swords had a significant ricasso, which was often covered with leather for greater ease of fencing. At the end of the ricasso there were often additional hooks (“boar’s tusks”), which protected the hand from enemy blows.

Claymore. This is a type of two-handed sword (there were also one-handed claymores) that was used in Scotland in the 15th-17th centuries. Claymore means "great sword" in Gaelic. It should be noted that the claymore was the smallest of the two-handed swords, its overall size reached 1.5 meters, and the length of the blade was 110-120 cm.

A distinctive feature of this sword was the shape of the guard: the arms of the cross were bent towards the tip. The claymore was the most versatile “two-handed weapon”; its relatively small dimensions made it possible to use it in various combat situations.

Zweihander. The famous two-handed sword of the German Landsknechts, and their special unit - the Doppelsoldners. These warriors received double pay; they fought in the front ranks, cutting down the enemy's peaks. It is clear that such work was mortally dangerous; in addition, it required great physical strength and excellent weapon skills.

This giant could reach a length of 2 meters, had a double guard with “boar tusks” and a ricasso covered with leather.

Slasher. A classic two-handed sword, most often used in Germany and Switzerland. The total length of the slasher could reach up to 1.8 meters, of which 1.5 meters was on the blade. To increase the penetrating power of the sword, its center of gravity was often shifted closer to the tip. The weight of the sledge ranged from 3 to 5 kg.

Flamberge. A wavy or curved two-handed sword, it had a blade of a special flame-like shape. Most often, these weapons were used in Germany and Switzerland in the 15th-17th centuries. Currently, flamberges are in service with the Vatican Guard.

A curved two-handed sword is an attempt by European gunsmiths to combine best properties sword and saber. Flamberge had a blade with a number of successive curves; when delivering chopping blows, it acted on the principle of a saw, cutting through armor and inflicting terrible, long-lasting wounds. The curved two-handed sword was considered an “inhumane” weapon, and the church actively opposed it. Warriors with such a sword should not have been captured; at best, they were killed immediately.

The length of the flamberge was approximately 1.5 m and it weighed 3-4 kg. It should also be noted that such weapons were much more expensive than usual, because they were very difficult to manufacture. Despite this, such two-handed swords were often used by mercenaries during Thirty Years' War in Germany.

Among the interesting swords of the late Middle Ages, it is also worth noting the so-called sword of justice, which was used to carry out death sentences. In the Middle Ages, heads were most often chopped off with an ax, and the sword was used exclusively for beheading members of the nobility. Firstly, it was more honorable, and secondly, execution with a sword brought less suffering to the victim.

The technique of beheading with a sword had its own characteristics. The scaffold was not used. The condemned man was simply forced to his knees, and the executioner cut off his head with one blow. One might also add that the “sword of justice” had no edge at all.

By the 15th century, the technique of wielding edged weapons was changing, which led to changes in bladed edged weapons. At the same time, firearms are increasingly used, which easily penetrate any armor, and as a result it becomes almost unnecessary. Why carry a bunch of iron on you if it can't protect your life? Along with armor, heavy medieval swords, which clearly had an “armor-piercing” character, are also becoming a thing of the past.

The sword becomes more and more a piercing weapon, it tapers towards the tip, becomes thicker and narrower. The grip of the weapon changes: in order to deliver more effective piercing blows, swordsmen grasp the cross from the outside. Very soon special arches appear on it to protect the fingers. This is how the sword begins its glorious path.

At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries, the sword guard became significantly more complex in order to more reliably protect the fencer’s fingers and hand. Swords and broadswords appeared in which the guard looked like a complex basket, which included numerous bows or a solid shield.

Weapons become lighter, they gain popularity not only among the nobility, but also large quantities townspeople and becomes an integral part of everyday costume. In war they still use a helmet and cuirass, but in frequent duels or street fights They fight without any armor. The art of fencing is becoming significantly more complex, new techniques and techniques are appearing.

A sword is a weapon with a narrow cutting and piercing blade and a developed hilt that reliably protects the fencer’s hand.

In the 17th century, the rapier evolved from the sword - a weapon with a piercing blade, sometimes even without cutting edges. Both the sword and the rapier were intended to be worn with casual clothing, not with armor. Later, this weapon turned into a certain attribute, a detail of the appearance of a person of noble origin. It is also necessary to add that the rapier was lighter than the sword and gave tangible advantages in a duel without armor.

The most common myths about swords

The sword is the most iconic weapon invented by man. Interest in it continues today. Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions and myths associated with this type of weapon.

Myth 1. The European sword was heavy; in battle it was used to inflict concussion on the enemy and break through his armor - like an ordinary club. At the same time, absolutely fantastic figures for the mass of medieval swords are voiced (10-15 kg). This opinion is not true. The weight of all surviving original medieval swords ranges from 600 grams to 1.4 kg. On average, the blades weighed about 1 kg. Rapiers and sabers, which appeared much later, had similar characteristics (from 0.8 to 1.2 kg). European swords were convenient and well-balanced weapons, effective and convenient in battle.

Myth 2. Swords do not have a sharp edge. It is stated that against the armor the sword acted like a chisel, breaking through it. This assumption is also not true. Historical documents that have survived to this day describe swords as sharp weapons that could cut a person in half.

In addition, the geometry of the blade itself (its cross-section) does not allow sharpening to be obtuse (like a chisel). Studies of the graves of warriors who died in medieval battles also prove the high cutting ability of swords. The fallen were found to have severed limbs and serious chop wounds.

Myth 3. “Bad” steel was used for European swords. Today there is a lot of talk about the excellent steel of traditional Japanese blades, which are supposedly the pinnacle of blacksmithing. However, historians absolutely know that the technology of welding various types of steel was successfully used in Europe already in antiquity. The hardening of the blades was also at the proper level. The technologies for making Damascus knives, blades and other things were also well known in Europe. By the way, there is no evidence that Damascus was a serious metallurgical center at any time. In general, the myth about the superiority of eastern steel (and blades) over western steel was born back in the 19th century, when there was a fashion for everything eastern and exotic.

Myth 4. Europe did not have its own developed fencing system. What can I say? You should not consider your ancestors more stupid than you. The Europeans waged almost continuous wars using edged weapons for several thousand years and had ancient military traditions, so they simply could not help but create a developed combat system. This fact is confirmed by historians. To this day, many manuals on fencing have been preserved, the oldest of which date back to the 13th century. Moreover, many of the techniques from these books are more designed for the dexterity and speed of the fencer than for primitive brute strength.

German armor of the 16th century for knight and horse

The weapon and armor area is surrounded 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.

1. Only knights wore armor

This erroneous but common belief probably stems from the romantic idea of ​​the “knight in shining armor,” a picture that itself gives rise to further misconceptions. First, knights rarely fought alone, and armies in the Middle Ages and Renaissance did not consist entirely of mounted knights. Although knights were the predominant force of 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, fabric armor or a breastplate, and a weapon - a spear, pike, bow or crossbow.

Indian chain mail of the 17th century

IN war time This civil uprising 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 probably be the most famous example female warriors, and there is evidence that she wore armor commissioned for her by the French king Charles VII. 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 for various uses, both on the battlefield and in tournament), commissioned in 1546 by the German king (later - emperor) for his son. Upon completion of this order, for a year of work, the court armorer Jörg Seusenhofer from Innsbruck received an incredible sum of 1200 gold moment, equivalent to twelve annual salaries of a senior court official.

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

A full set of combat armor usually weighs between 20 and 25 kg, and a helmet between 2 and 4 kg. It's less than full equipment a firefighter with oxygen equipment, or what modern soldiers have had to carry into battle since the nineteenth century. Moreover, while modern equipment usually hangs from the shoulders or waist, the weight of well-fitted armor is distributed over the entire body. Only to XVII century the weight of combat armor was greatly increased to make it bulletproof due to increased accuracy 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 were 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. A 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 the use more words than necessary for description). In our case, “chain” and “mail” describe an object consisting of a sequence of intertwined rings. That is, the term “chain mail” simply repeats the same thing twice.

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

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

It is difficult to answer this question unambiguously for many reasons. First, there is no surviving evidence that can paint a complete picture for any of the periods. From around the 15th century, scattered examples survive of how armor was ordered, how long orders took, and how much various pieces of armor cost. Secondly, a complete armor could consist of parts made by various armorers with a narrow specialization. Armor parts could be sold unfinished and then customized locally for a certain amount. Finally, the matter was complicated by regional and national differences.

In the case of German gunsmiths, most workshops were controlled by strict guild rules that limited the number of apprentices, thereby controlling the number of items that one master and his workshop could produce. In Italy, on the other hand, there were no such restrictions and workshops could grow, which improved the speed of creation and the quantity of products.

In any case, it is worth keeping in mind that the production of armor and weapons flourished during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Gunsmiths, manufacturers of blades, pistols, bows, crossbows and arrows were present in any big city. As now, their market depended on supply and demand, and effective work 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 time it took to produce 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 apparently took 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 English term“lance rest” (spear stand), 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 top part men's clothing began to shorten so much that it no longer covered the crotch. In those days, pants had not yet been invented, and men wore leggings clipped to their underwear or a belt, with the crotch hidden behind a hollow attached to the inside of the top edge of each leg of the leggings. At the beginning of the 16th century, this floor began to be filled and visually enlarged. And the codpiece remained a detail men's suit until the end of the 16th century. On armor, the codpiece as a separate plate protecting the genitals appeared in the second decade of the 16th century, and remained relevant until the 1570s. It had a thick lining on the inside and was joined to the armor at the center of the bottom edge of the shirt. Early varieties were bowl-shaped, but due to the influence of civilian costume it gradually transformed into an upward-pointing shape. It was not usually used when riding a horse, because, firstly, it would get in the way, and secondly, the armored front of the combat saddle provided sufficient protection for the crotch. The codpiece was therefore commonly used for armor intended for fighting on foot, both in war and in tournaments, and while it had some value 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 that of the Viking, who can be instantly recognized by his helmet equipped with a pair of horns. However, there is very little evidence that the Vikings ever used horns to decorate their helmets.

The earliest example of a helmet being decorated with a pair of stylized horns 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 (the plate and brigantine of the 14th and 15th centuries, the armet - a closed cavalry helmet of the 15th and 16th centuries, the 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 scent 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 peaceful times carry swords in 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 century, swords and small swords have become an indispensable attribute of the clothing of the European gentleman.

It is widely believed that swords of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were simple tools of brute force, very heavy, and as a result, impossible to handle for “ ordinary person”, that is, a very ineffective weapon. The reasons for these accusations are easy to understand. Due to the rarity of surviving examples, few people held a real sword in their hands from the Middle Ages or the Renaissance. Most of these swords were obtained from excavations. Their rusty current appearance can easily give the impression of roughness - like a burnt-out car that has lost all signs of its former grandeur and complexity.

Most real swords from the Middle Ages and Renaissance tell a different story. A one-handed sword usually weighed 1-2 kg, and even a large two-handed "war sword" of the 14th-16th centuries rarely weighed more than 4.5 kg. The weight of the blade was balanced by the weight of the hilt, and the swords were light, complex, and sometimes very beautifully decorated. Documents and paintings show that such a sword, in skilled hands, could be used with terrible effectiveness, from cutting off limbs to piercing armor.

Turkish saber with scabbard, 18th century

Japanese katana and wakizashi short sword, 15th century

Swords and some daggers, both European and Asian, and weapons from the Islamic world, often have one or more grooves on the blade. Misconceptions about their purpose led to the emergence of the term “bloodstock.” It is claimed that these grooves speed up the flow of blood from an opponent's wound, thus enhancing the effect of the wound, or that they make it easier to remove the blade from the wound, allowing the weapon to be easily drawn without twisting. Despite the entertainment of such theories, in fact the purpose of this groove, called the fuller, is only to lighten the blade, reducing its mass without weakening the blade or impairing flexibility.

On some European blades, in particular swords, rapiers and daggers, as well as on some fighting poles, these grooves have a complex shape and perforation. The same 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.

Fantasy authors often bypass the possibilities of smoke powder, preferring the good old sword and magic. And this is strange, because primitive firearms are not only a natural, but also a necessary element of the medieval setting. It was no accident that warriors with “fiery shooting” appeared in knightly armies. The spread of heavy armor naturally led to an increase in interest in weapons capable of piercing them.

Ancient "lights"

Sulfur. A common component of spells and component gunpowder

The secret of gunpowder (if, of course, we can talk about a secret here) lies in the special properties of saltpeter. Namely, the ability of this substance to release oxygen when heated. If saltpeter is mixed with any fuel and set on fire, a “chain reaction” will begin. The oxygen released by nitrate will increase the intensity of combustion, and the hotter the flame flares up, the more oxygen will be released.

People learned to use saltpeter to increase the effectiveness of incendiary mixtures back in the 1st millennium BC. It was just not easy to find her. In countries with hot and very humid climate White, snow-like crystals could sometimes be found on the site of old fire pits. But in Europe, saltpeter was found only in stinking sewer tunnels or in populated areas. bats caves.

Before gunpowder was used for explosions and throwing cannonballs and bullets, saltpeter-based compounds had long been used to make incendiary shells and flamethrowers. For example, the legendary “Greek fire” was a mixture of saltpeter with oil, sulfur and rosin. Sulfur, which ignites at low temperatures, was added to facilitate ignition of the composition. Rosin was required to thicken the “cocktail” so that the charge would not flow out of the flamethrower pipe.

The “Greek fire” really could not be extinguished. After all, saltpeter dissolved in boiling oil continued to release oxygen and support combustion even under water.

In order for gunpowder to become an explosive, saltpeter must make up 60% of its mass. In the “Greek fire” there was half as much. But even this amount was enough to make the oil combustion process unusually violent.

The Byzantines were not the inventors of “Greek fire”, but borrowed it from the Arabs back in the 7th century. The saltpeter and oil necessary for its production were also purchased in Asia. If we take into account that the Arabs themselves called saltpeter “Chinese salt” and rockets “Chinese arrows”, it will not be difficult to guess where this technology came from.

Spreading gunpowder

It is very difficult to indicate the place and time of the first use of saltpeter for incendiary compositions, fireworks and rockets. But the credit for inventing cannons definitely belongs to the Chinese. The ability of gunpowder to throw projectiles from metal barrels is reported in Chinese chronicles of the 7th century. The discovery of a method for “growing” saltpeter in special pits or shafts made of earth and manure dates back to the 7th century. This technology made it possible to regularly use flamethrowers and rockets, and later firearms.

The barrel of the Dardanelles cannon - from a similar gun the Turks shot down the walls of Constantinople

At the beginning of the 13th century, after the capture of Constantinople, the recipe for “Greek fire” fell into the hands of the crusaders. The first descriptions of “real” exploding gunpowder by European scientists date back to the middle of the 13th century. The use of gunpowder for throwing stones became known to the Arabs no later than the 11th century.

In the “classic” version, black gunpowder included 60% saltpeter and 20% each of sulfur and charcoal. Charcoal could successfully be replaced with ground brown coal (brown powder), cotton wool or dried sawdust (white gunpowder). There was even “blue” gunpowder, in which coal was replaced with cornflower flowers.

Sulfur was also not always present in gunpowder. For cannons, the charge in which was ignited not by sparks, but by a torch or a hot rod, gunpowder could be made consisting only of saltpeter and brown coal. When firing from guns, sulfur could not be mixed into the gunpowder, but poured directly onto the shelf.

Inventor of gunpowder

Invented? Well, step aside, don't stand there like a donkey

In 1320, the German monk Berthold Schwarz finally “invented” gunpowder. It is now impossible to determine how many people in different countries They invented gunpowder before Schwartz, but we can say with confidence that after him no one succeeded!

Berthold Schwartz (whose name, by the way, was Berthold Niger) of course, did not invent anything. The “classic” composition of gunpowder became known to Europeans even before its birth. But in his treatise “On the Benefits of Gunpowder” he gave clear practical recommendations on the manufacture and use of gunpowder and cannons. It was thanks to his work that during the second half of the 14th century the art of fire shooting began to rapidly spread in Europe.

The first gunpowder factory was built in 1340 in Strasbourg. Soon after this, the production of saltpeter and gunpowder began in Russia. Exact date This event is not known, but already in 1400 Moscow burned for the first time as a result of an explosion in a gunpowder workshop.

Fire tubes

First depiction of a European cannon, 1326

The simplest hand-held firearm - the hand grip - appeared in China already in the middle of the 12th century. The most ancient samopals of the Spanish Moors date back to the same period. And from the beginning of the 14th century, “fire-fighting pipes” began to be fired in Europe. Hand cranks appear in the chronicles under many names. The Chinese called such a weapon pao, the Moors called it modfa or carabine (hence the word "carbine"), and the Europeans called it hand bombard, handcanona, sclopetta, petrinal or culverina.

The handle weighed from 4 to 6 kilograms and was a blank of soft iron, copper or bronze drilled from the inside. The barrel length ranged from 25 to 40 centimeters, the caliber could be 30 millimeters or more. The projectile was usually a round lead bullet. In Europe, however, until the beginning of the 15th century, lead was rare, and self-propelled guns were often loaded with small stones.

Swedish hand cannon from the 14th century

As a rule, the petrinal was mounted on a shaft, the end of which was clamped under the armpit or inserted into the current of the cuirass. Less commonly, the butt could cover the shooter's shoulder from above. Such tricks had to be resorted to because it was impossible to rest the butt of the handbrake on the shoulder: after all, the shooter could support the weapon with only one hand, and with the other he brought the fire to the fuse. The charge was ignited with a “scorching candle” - soaked in saltpeter wooden stick. The stick was pressed against the ignition hole and turned, rolling in the fingers. Sparks and pieces of smoldering wood fell inside the barrel and sooner or later ignited the gunpowder.

Dutch hand culverins from the 15th century

The extremely low accuracy of the weapon allowed effective shooting only from a point-blank range. And the shot itself occurred with a long and unpredictable delay. Only the destructive power of this weapon aroused respect. Although a bullet made of stone or soft lead at that time was still inferior to a crossbow bolt in penetrating power, a 30-mm ball fired at point-blank range left such a hole that it was worth looking at.

It was a hole, but it was still necessary to get in. And the depressingly low accuracy of the petrinal did not allow one to expect that the shot would have any consequences other than fire and noise. It may seem strange, but it was enough! Hand bombards were valued precisely for the roar, flash and cloud of sulfur-smelling smoke that accompanied the shot. Loading them with a bullet was not always considered advisable. The Petrinali-sklopetta was not even equipped with a butt and was intended exclusively for blank shooting.

15th century French marksman

The knight's horse was not afraid of fire. But if, instead of honestly stabbing him with pikes, he was blinded by a flash, deafened by a roar, and even insulted by the stench of burning sulfur, he still lost his courage and threw off the rider. Against horses not accustomed to shots and explosions, this method worked flawlessly.

But the knights were not able to introduce their horses to gunpowder right away. In the 14th century, “smoke powder” was an expensive and rare commodity in Europe. And most importantly, at first he aroused fear not only among the horses, but also among the riders. The smell of “hellish brimstone” made superstitious people tremble. However, people in Europe quickly got used to the smell. But the loudness of the shot was listed among the advantages of firearms until the 17th century.

Arquebus

At the beginning of the 15th century, self-propelled guns were still too primitive to seriously compete with bows and crossbows. But fire tubes quickly improved. Already in the 30s of the 15th century, the pilot hole was moved to the side, and a shelf for seed powder began to be welded next to it. This gunpowder, upon contact with fire, flared up instantly, and after just a split second, the hot gases ignited the charge in the barrel. The gun began to fire quickly and reliably, and most importantly, it became possible to mechanize the process of lowering the wick. In the second half of the 15th century, fire tubes acquired a lock and butt borrowed from the crossbow.

Japanese flint arquebus, 16th century

At the same time, metalworking technologies were also improved. The trunks were now made only from the purest and softest iron. This made it possible to minimize the likelihood of explosion when fired. On the other hand, the development of deep drilling techniques made it possible to make gun barrels lighter and longer.

This is how the arquebus appeared - a weapon with a caliber of 13–18 millimeters, weighing 3–4 kilograms and a barrel length of 50–70 centimeters. An ordinary 16-mm arquebus would throw a 20-gram bullet with initial speed about 300 meters per second. Such bullets could no longer rip people’s heads off, but from 30 meters they would make holes in steel armor.

Firing accuracy increased, but was still insufficient. An arquebusier could hit a person only from 20–25 meters, and at 120 meters, shooting even at such a target as a pikeman battle turned into a waste of ammunition. However, light guns retained approximately the same characteristics until the mid-19th century - only the lock changed. And in our time, shooting a bullet from a smoothbore rifle is effective no further than 50 meters.

Even modern shotgun bullets are designed not for accuracy, but for impact force.

Arquebusier, 1585

Loading an arquebus was a rather complicated procedure. To begin with, the shooter disconnected the smoldering wick and put it in a metal case attached to his belt or hat with slits for air access. Then he uncorked one of the several wooden or tin cartridges he had - “loaders”, or “gazyrs” - and poured a pre-measured amount of gunpowder from it into the barrel. Then he nailed the gunpowder to the treasury with a ramrod and stuffed a felt wad into the barrel to prevent gunpowder from spilling out. Then - a bullet and another wad, this time to hold the bullet. Finally, from the horn or from another charge, the shooter poured some gunpowder onto the shelf, slammed the lid of the shelf and reattached the wick to the trigger jaws. It took an experienced warrior about 2 minutes to do everything.

In the second half of the 15th century, arquebusiers took a strong place in European armies and began to quickly push out competitors - archers and crossbowmen. But how could this happen? After all, the combat qualities of the guns still left much to be desired. Competitions between arquebusiers and crossbowmen led to a stunning result - formally, the guns turned out to be worse in all respects! The penetrating power of the bolt and the bullet was approximately equal, but the crossbowman shot 4–8 times more often and at the same time did not miss a tall target even from 150 meters!

Geneva arquebusiers, reconstruction

The problem with the crossbow was that its advantages were of little practical value. Bolts and arrows flew like a fly in the eye during competitions when the target was motionless and the distance to it was known in advance. In a real situation, the arquebusier, who did not have to take into account the wind, the movement of the target and the distance to it, had the best chance of hitting. In addition, bullets did not have the habit of getting stuck in shields and sliding off armor; they could not be dodged. Didn't have much practical significance and rate of fire: both the arquebusier and the crossbowman only had time to fire once at the attacking cavalry.

The spread of arquebuses was restrained only by their high cost at that time. Even in 1537, Hetman Tarnovsky complained that “in Polish army There are few arquebuses, only vile hand-held hands.” The Cossacks used bows and self-propelled guns until the mid-17th century.

Pearl gunpowder

The gazyrs, worn on the chests of Caucasian warriors, gradually became an element of the national costume.

In the Middle Ages, gunpowder was prepared in the form of powder, or “pulp.” When loading the weapon, the “pulp” stuck to the inner surface of the barrel and had to be nailed to the fuse with a ramrod for a long time. In the 15th century, to speed up the loading of guns, lumps or small “pancakes” began to be sculpted from powder pulp. And at the beginning of the 16th century, “pearl” gunpowder, consisting of small hard grains, was invented.

The grains no longer stuck to the walls, but rolled down to the breech of the barrel under their own weight. In addition, graining made it possible to increase the power of gunpowder almost twice, and the duration of gunpowder storage by 20 times. Gunpowder in the form of pulp easily absorbed atmospheric moisture and deteriorated irreversibly within 3 years.

However, due to the high cost of “pearl” gunpowder, the pulp often continued to be used for loading guns until the mid-17th century. The Cossacks used homemade gunpowder in the 18th century.

Musket

Contrary to popular belief, knights did not consider firearms “non-knightly” at all.

It is a fairly common misconception that the advent of firearms marked the end of the romantic “age of chivalry.” In fact, arming 5–10% of soldiers with arquebuses did not lead to a noticeable change in the tactics of European armies. At the beginning of the 16th century, bows, crossbows, darts and slings were still widely used. Heavy knightly armor continued to be improved, and the pike remained the main means of counteracting cavalry. The Middle Ages continued as if nothing had happened.

The romantic era of the Middle Ages ended only in 1525, when at the Battle of Pavia the Spaniards first used a new type of matchlock gun - muskets.

Battle of Pavia: museum panorama

How was a musket different from an arquebus? Size! Weighing 7–9 kilograms, the musket had a caliber of 22–23 millimeters and a barrel about one and a half meters long. Only in Spain - the most technical developed country Europe of that time could produce a durable and relatively light barrel of such length and caliber.

Naturally, such a bulky and massive gun could only be fired from a support, and two people had to operate it. But a bullet weighing 50–60 grams flew out of the musket at a speed of over 500 meters per second. She not only killed the armored horse, but also stopped it. The musket hit with such force that the shooter had to wear a cuirass or a leather pad on his shoulder to prevent the recoil from splitting his collarbone.

Musket: Assassin of the Middle Ages. 16th century

The long barrel provided the musket with relatively good accuracy for a smooth gun. The musketeer hit a person not from 20–25, but from 30–35 meters. But much higher value had an increase in the effective salvo firing range to 200–240 meters. At this entire distance, the bullets retained the ability to hit knightly horses and pierce the iron armor of pikemen.

The musket combined the capabilities of an arquebus and a pike, and became the first weapon in history that gave the shooter the opportunity to repel the onslaught of cavalry in open terrain. Musketeers did not have to run away from cavalry during a battle, therefore, unlike arquebusiers, they made extensive use of armor.

Because of heavy weight weapons, musketeers, like crossbowmen, preferred to move on horseback

Throughout the 16th century, there were few musketeers in European armies. Musketeer companies (detachments of 100–200 people) were considered the elite of the infantry and were formed from nobles. This was partly due to the high cost of weapons (as a rule, a musketeer’s equipment also included a riding horse). But even more important were the high requirements for durability. When the cavalry rushed to attack, the musketeers had to repel it or die.

Pishchal

Sagittarius

In terms of its purpose, the Russian archery arquebus corresponded to the Spanish musket. But the technical backwardness of Rus', which emerged in the 15th century, could not but affect the combat properties of guns. Even pure - “white” - iron for making barrels at the beginning of the 16th century still had to be imported “from the Germans”!

As a result, with the same weight as a musket, the arquebus was much shorter and had 2–3 times less power. Which, however, had no practical significance, given that eastern horses were much smaller than European ones. The accuracy of the weapon was also satisfactory: from 50 meters the archer did not miss a two-meter high fence.

In addition to streltsy arquebuses, light “mounted” guns (having a strap for carrying behind the back) were also produced in Muscovy, which were used by mounted (“stirrup”) archers and Cossacks. According to their characteristics, “curtain arquebuses” corresponded to European arquebuses.

Pistol

Smoldering wicks, of course, caused a lot of inconvenience for the shooters. However, the simplicity and reliability of the matchlock forced the infantry to put up with its shortcomings until the end of the 17th century. Another thing is the cavalry. The rider needed a weapon that was comfortable, always ready to fire and suitable for holding with one hand.

Wheel lock in Da Vinci's drawings

The first attempts to create a castle in which fire would be produced using iron flint and “flint” (that is, a piece of sulfur pyrite or pyrite) were made back in the 15th century. Since the second half of the 15th century, “grating locks” have been known, which were ordinary household flints installed above a shelf. With one hand the shooter aimed the weapon, and with the other he struck the flint with a file. Due to the obvious impracticality, grater locks did not become widespread.

The wheel castle, which appeared at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries, became much more popular in Europe, the diagram of which was preserved in the manuscripts of Leonardo da Vinci. The ribbed flint was given the shape of a gear. The spring of the mechanism was cocked with the key supplied to the lock. When the trigger was pressed, the wheel began to rotate, striking sparks from the flint.

German wheel pistol, 16th century

The wheel lock was very reminiscent of a watch and was not inferior to a watch in complexity. The capricious mechanism was very sensitive to clogging with gunpowder fumes and flint fragments. After 20-30 shots it stopped firing. Take it apart and clean the shooter on our own could not.

Since the advantages of the wheel lock were of the greatest value to the cavalry, the weapon equipped with it was made convenient for the rider - one-handed. Starting from the 30s of the 16th century in Europe, knightly spears were replaced by shortened wheeled arquebuses without a butt. Since the production of such weapons began in the Italian city of Pistol, one-handed arquebuses began to be called pistols. However, by the end of the century, pistols were also produced at the Moscow Armory.

European military pistols of the 16th and 17th centuries were very bulky designs. The barrel had a caliber of 14–16 millimeters and a length of at least 30 centimeters. The total length of the pistol exceeded half a meter, and the weight could reach 2 kilograms. However, the pistols struck very inaccurately and weakly. The range of an aimed shot did not exceed several meters, and even bullets fired at point-blank range bounced off cuirasses and helmets.

In the 16th century, pistols were often combined with bladed weapons, such as a club head (“apple”) or even an ax blade.

In addition to large dimensions, for pistols early period richness of decoration and whimsical design were characteristic. Pistols of the 16th and early 17th centuries were often made with multiple barrels. Including one with a rotating block of 3-4 barrels, like a revolver! All this was very interesting, very progressive... And in practice, of course, it did not work.

The wheel lock itself cost so much money that decorating the pistol with gold and pearls no longer significantly affected its price. In the 16th century, wheeled weapons were affordable only by very rich people and had more prestige than combat value.

Asian pistols were distinguished by their special grace and were highly valued in Europe

* * *

The advent of firearms became turning point in the history of military art. For the first time, a person began to use not muscular strength, but the energy of burning gunpowder to inflict damage on an enemy. And this energy, by the standards of the Middle Ages, was stunning. Noisy and clumsy firecrackers, now unable to cause anything but laughter, several centuries ago inspired people with great respect.

Beginning in the 16th century, the development of firearms began to determine the tactics of sea and land battles. The balance between close and ranged combat began to shift in favor of the latter. The importance of protective equipment began to decline, and the role of field fortifications began to increase. These trends continue to this day. Weapons that use chemical energy to eject a projectile continue to improve. Apparently, it will maintain its position for a very long time.