The area of weapons and armor is surrounded by romantic legends, monstrous myths and widespread misconceptions. Their sources are often a lack of knowledge and experience of dealing with real things and their history. Most of these concepts are absurd and not based on anything.
Perhaps one of the most notorious examples would be the view that “knights on horseback had to be mounted with a crane,” which is as absurd as it is widespread opinion, even among historians. In other cases, some technical details that defy obvious description have become the object of passionate and imaginative attempts to explain their purpose. Among them, the first place, apparently, is occupied by a spear rest protruding from the right side of the breastplate.
The following text will try to correct the most popular misconceptions, and answer questions often asked during museum tours.
Misconceptions and questions about armor
Armor for a knightly duel, late 16th century.
1. Armor was worn only by knights
This erroneous but common belief probably stems from the romantic notion of a "knight in shining armor," a painting that in itself causes further misconceptions. First, the knights rarely fought alone, and armies in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance did not consist entirely of mounted knights. Although knights were the predominant force of most of these armies, they were invariably - and increasingly stronger over time - supported (and opposed by) foot soldiers such as archers, pikemen, crossbowmen, and soldiers with firearms. On the march, the knight depended on a group of servants, squires, and soldiers who provided armed support and watched over his horses, armor and other equipment, not to mention the peasants and artisans who made feudal society with the existence of a military class possible.
Promotional video:
Secondly, it is wrong to believe that every noble person was a knight. Knights were not born; knights were created by other knights, feudal lords, or sometimes priests. And under certain conditions, people of ignoble origin could be knighted (although knights were often considered the lowest class of nobility). Sometimes mercenaries or civilians who fought like ordinary soldiers could be knighted because of a demonstration of extreme courage and courage, and later it became possible to acquire knighthood for money.
In other words, the ability to wear armor and fight in armor was not the prerogative of knights. Mercenary infantrymen, or groups of soldiers consisting of peasants, or burghers (city dwellers) also took part in armed conflicts and accordingly defended themselves with armor of different 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 decree - to buy and store their own weapons and armor. Usually it was not a full armor, but at least it included a helmet, body protection in the form of chain mail, cloth armor or a breastplate, as well as weapons - a spear, pike, bow or crossbow.
Indian chain mail of the 17th century.
In wartime, this militia was obliged to defend the city or perform military duties for the feudal lords or allied cities. During the 15th century, as some wealthy and influential cities began to become more independent and arrogant, even the burghers organized their own tournaments, in which they, of course, wore armor.
Due to this, not every piece of armor was ever worn by a knight, and not every person depicted in armor will be a knight. A man in armor would be more correctly called a soldier [man-at-arms] or a man in armor.
2. Women in the old days never wore armor and did not fight in battles
In most historical periods, there is evidence of women who took part in armed conflicts. There is evidence of how noble ladies became military commanders, such as Jeanne de Pentevre (1319–1384). There are rare references to women from lower society who got up "under the gun." There are records that women fought in armor, but no illustrations from that time on this topic have survived. Joan of Arc (1412–1431) is perhaps the most famous example of a female warrior, and there is evidence that she wore armor commissioned for her by the French king Charles VII. But only one small illustration with her image, made during her lifetime, has come down to us, in which she is depicted with a sword and a banner, but without armor. The fact that contemporaries perceived a woman in command of an armyor even wearing armor, as something worthy of the record, suggests that this sight was the exception, not the rule.
3. The armor was so expensive that only princes and rich noble gentlemen could afford it
This idea may have sprung from the fact that most of the armor on display in museums is of high quality, and most of the simpler armor, belonging to the common people and the lowest of the nobility, was hidden in vaults or lost over the centuries.
Indeed, with the exception of acquiring armor on the battlefield or winning a tournament, acquiring armor was a very expensive undertaking. However, since there are differences in the quality of armor, there must have been differences in their cost. Armor of low to medium quality, available to burghers, mercenaries and lower nobility, could be bought ready-made at markets, fairs and in city shops. On the other hand, there was also the highest class of armor, made to order in the imperial or royal workshops and by famous German and Italian armourers.
Armor of King Henry VIII of England, XVI century.
The armor, designed by some of the most renowned craftsmen, was the ultimate weaponry and was extremely expensive.
Although examples of the cost of armor, weapons and equipment have come down to us in some of the historical periods, it is very difficult to translate the historical cost into modern counterparts. It is clear, however, that the cost of the armor ranged from inexpensive, low-quality or outdated, second-hand items available to citizens and mercenaries, to the cost of a full armor of an English knight, which in 1374 was estimated at £ 16. It was analogous to the cost of 5-8 years of renting a merchant's house in London, or three years of the salary of an experienced worker, and the price of a helmet alone (with a visor, and probably with a barmitsa) was more than the price of a cow.
At the upper end of the scale, you can find examples such as a large set of armor (a basic set, which with the help of additional items and plates could be adapted for various uses, both on the battlefield and in a tournament), ordered in 1546 by the German king (later - Emperor) for his son. For the fulfillment of this order, for a year of work, the court gunsmith Jörg Seusenhofer from Innsbruck received an incredible amount of 1200 gold moments, equivalent to twelve annual salaries of a senior court official.
4. Armor is extremely heavy and severely restricts the wearer's mobility
A full set of combat armor typically weighs between 20 and 25 kg, and a helmet between 2 and 4 kg. This is less than a full firefighter outfit with oxygen equipment, or what modern soldiers have had to carry in combat since the nineteenth century. Moreover, while modern equipment usually hangs from the shoulders or belt, the weight of a well-fitted piece of armor is distributed throughout the body. It wasn't until the 17th century that the weight of battle armor was greatly increased to make it bulletproof, due to the increased accuracy of firearms. At the same time, full armor began to be encountered less and less, 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 making any movements without restrictions imposed by the rigidity of the material. The widespread idea that a man in armor could hardly move, and falling to the ground, could not get up, has no basis. On the contrary, historical sources tell about the famous French knight Jean II le Mengre, nicknamed Boucico (1366-1421), who, being dressed in full armor, could, grabbing the steps of the ladder from below, from the back of it, climb it with the help of some hands. Furthermore,There are several illustrations of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, in which soldiers, squires or knights, in full armor, climb horses without assistance or any devices, without ladders or cranes. Modern experiments with real armor of the 15th and 16th centuries and with their exact copies have shown that even an untrained person in properly selected armor can climb and get off a horse, sit or lie, and then get up from the ground, run and move limbs freely and without inconvenience.that even an untrained person in properly selected armor can climb and dismount a horse, sit or lie down, and then get up from the ground, run and move limbs freely and without inconvenience.that even an untrained person in the right armor can climb in and out of a horse, sit or lie down, and then get up from the ground, run and move limbs freely and without inconvenience.
In some exceptional cases, the armor was very heavy or kept the person wearing it in almost the same position, for example, in some types of tournaments. Tournament armor was made for special occasions and was worn for a limited time. A man in armor then climbed a horse with the help of a squire or a small ladder, and the last elements of armor could be put on him after he had settled in the saddle.
5. Knights had to be saddled with cranes
This performance appears to have originated in the late nineteenth century as a joke. It entered popular fiction in the following decades, and the picture was eventually immortalized in 1944 when Laurence Olivier used it in his film King Henry V, despite the protests of history advisers, among whom was such a prominent authority as James Mann, Chief Armourer of the Tower of London.
As noted above, most of the armor was light and flexible enough not to constrain the wearer. Most people in armor should have been able to put one foot in the stirrup and saddle a horse without any problems without any problems. 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?
Unfortunately, one of the most popular questions, especially among young visitors to the museum, does not have an exact answer. When the man in armor was not busy in battle, he did the same thing that people do today. He would go to the toilet (which in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance was called a restroom or latrine) or to another secluded place, remove the corresponding parts of armor and clothing and indulge in the call of nature. On the battlefield, everything had to happen differently. In this case, the answer is unknown to us. However, keep in mind that the urge to go to the toilet in the heat of battle was most likely at the bottom of the priority list.
7. The military salute came from the gesture of raising the visor
Some believe that the military salute appeared during the time of the Roman Republic, when murder by order was in the order of things, and citizens, when approaching officials, had to raise their right hand to show that there was no weapon hidden in it. It is more widely believed that the modern military salute came from men in armor who raised their helmets before greeting their comrades or lords. This gesture made it possible to recognize the person, and also made him vulnerable, and at the same time showed that there was no weapon in his right hand (in which the sword was usually held). All these were signs of trust and good intentions.
While these theories sound intriguing and romantic, there is little evidence that the military salute originated from them. As far as Roman customs are concerned, it would be nearly impossible to prove that they held out for fifteen centuries (or were restored during the Renaissance) and led to the modern military salute. Also, there is no direct confirmation of the theory with a visor, 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.
Anyway, military records of England in the 17th century reflect that "the formal act of greeting was the removal of the headdress." By 1745, the British Coldstream Guards appeared to have perfected this procedure by converting it into "putting your hand on your head and bowing when you meet."
Coldstream Guard.
This practice was adopted by other British regiments, and then it could spread to America (during the War of Independence) and continental Europe (during the Napoleonic wars). So the truth may be somewhere in between, in which the military salute evolved from a gesture of respect and courtesy, parallel to the civilian habit of lifting or touching the brim of a hat, perhaps a combination of the warrior's custom of showing his naked right hand.
8. Chain mail - "chain mail" or "mail"?
A protective garment consisting of interlaced rings should be properly called "mail" or "mail armor" in English. The generally accepted term "chain mail" is modern pleonasm (a linguistic error meaning the use of more words than is necessary to describe). 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.
German chain mail of the 15th century.
As with other misconceptions, the roots of this error lie in the 19th century. When those who began to study armor looked at medieval paintings, they noticed what they thought were many different types of armor: rings, chains, ring bracelets, scale armor, small plates, etc. As a result, all ancient armor was called "mail", distinguishing it only by its appearance, hence the terms "ring-mail", "chain-mail", "banded mail", "scale-mail", "plate-mail". Today, it is generally accepted that most of these different images were just various attempts by artists to correctly display the surface of the type of armor that is difficult to capture in a painting and in sculpture. Instead of depicting individual rings, these details were stylized with dots, strokes, squiggles, circles, and more, which led to errors.
9. How long did it take to make a full armor?
It is difficult to answer the question unequivocally for many reasons. Firstly, there is no evidence that can paint a complete picture for any of the periods. From about the 15th century, scattered examples have survived of how armor was ordered, how long the orders took, and how much various armor parts cost. Secondly, a full body armor could have been made up of parts made by various narrowly specialized gunsmiths. Parts of the armor could be sold unfinished and then customized on site for a certain amount. Finally, the matter was compounded by regional and national differences.
In the case of German gunsmiths, most of the workshops were controlled by strict guild rules that limited the number of apprentices and thus controlled 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 number of products.
In any case, it should be borne in mind that the production of armor and weapons flourished during the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance. Gunsmiths, makers of blades, pistols, bows, crossbows and arrows were present in every big city. As it is now, their market depended on supply and demand, and efficient operation was the key to success. The common myth that making a simple chain mail took several years is nonsense (but it cannot be denied that making chain mail was very labor intensive).
The answer to this question turns out to be simple and elusive at the same time. The production time of the armor depended on several factors, for example, on the customer, on who was entrusted with the production of the order (the number of people in production and the occupancy of the workshop with other orders), and the quality of the armor. Two famous examples will serve as an illustration.
In 1473 Martin Rondelle, possibly an Italian gunsmith working in Bruges who called himself "my master of Burgundy's master's armourer," wrote to his English client, Sir John Paston. The gunsmith informed Sir John that he could fulfill the request for the manufacture of the armor as soon as the English knight informs what parts of the suit he needs, in what form, and the date by which the armor should be completed (unfortunately, the gunsmith did not indicate possible dates). In the court workshops, the production of armor for the highest persons, apparently, took more time. At the court gunsmith Jörg Seusenhofer (with a small number of assistants), the manufacture of horse armor and large armor for the king apparently took more than a year. The order was placed 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 if Seusenhofer and his workshop were working on other orders at that time.
10. Armor details - spear support and codpiece
Two details of the armor more than others inflame the public imagination: one of them is described as "that thing sticking out to the right of the chest", and the second is mentioned after a muffled giggle, as "that thing between the legs." In weapon and armor terminology, they are known as spear rest and codpiece.
The support for the spear appeared soon after the appearance of the solid chest plate at the end of the 14th century and existed until the armor itself began to disappear. Contrary to the literal meaning of the English term "lance rest", its main purpose was not to take on the weight of the spear. In fact, it was used for two purposes, which are better described by the French term "arrêt de cuirasse" (limiting the spear). It allowed the mounted warrior to hold the spear firmly under his right hand, restraining it from slipping backward. This allowed the spear to be stabilized and balanced, which improved the sight. In addition, the total weight and speed of the horse and rider were transferred to the point of the spear, making this weapon very formidable.
If the target was hit, the support for the spear also worked as a shock absorber, preventing the spear from "firing" backward, and distributing the blow across the chest plate over the entire upper body, and not just over the right arm, wrist, elbow and shoulder. It is worth noting that on most battle armor, the spear support could fold upward so as not to interfere with the mobility of the hand holding the sword after the warrior got rid of the spear.
The history of the armored codpiece is closely related to its brother in a civilian man's suit. From the middle of the 14th century, the upper part of men's clothing began to be shortened so much that it ceased to cover the crotch. In those days, pants were not yet invented, and men wore leggings fastened to underwear or a belt, and the crotch was hidden behind a hollow attached to the inside of the top edge of each of the legging legs. At the beginning of the 16th century, this floor began to be filled and visually enlarged. And the codpiece remained a part of the men's costume 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 attached to the armor in the center of the bottom hem of the shirt. The early varieties were in the shape of a bowl, but thanks to the influence of civilian costume, it gradually changed into an upward shape. It was usually not 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. Therefore, the codpiece was usually used for armor designed for foot battles, both in war and in tournaments, and, despite its value as a defense, it was also used to a lesser extent because of fashion.
11. Did Vikings wear horns on their helmets?
One of the most enduring and popular images of a medieval warrior is the image of a Viking, which can be instantly recognized by a helmet equipped with a pair of horns. However, there is very little evidence that the Vikings ever used horns to decorate helmets.
The earliest example of decorating a helmet 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 on 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 from the 12th or 11th century BC. Two thousand years later, from 1250 onwards, pairs of horns became popular in Europe and remained one of the most frequently used heraldic symbols on helmets for battle and tournaments in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. It is easy to see that the two indicated periods 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 stripes (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 front sheet consisting of protection for the nose and two eyes, as well as the upper part of the cheekbones, or protection of the entire face and neck in the form of chain mail.
12. Armor is no longer needed due to the appearance of firearms
In general, the gradual decline of armor was not due to the emergence of firearms as such, but because of 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 have existed together for over 300 years. During the 16th century, attempts were made to make bullet-proof armor, either by reinforcing steel, thickening the armor, or adding separate reinforcing pieces on top of regular armor.
German pishchal late XIV century.
Finally, it's worth noting that the armor never completely faded away. The widespread use of helmets by modern soldiers and the 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 around the world. In addition, torso protection continued to exist in the form of experimental chest plates during the American Civil War, rifle pilot plates in World War II, and bulletproof vests of today.
13. The size of the armor suggests that people were smaller in the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance
Medical and anthropological studies show that the average height of men and women has gradually increased over the centuries, and this process has accelerated over the past 150 years thanks to improvements in diet and public health. Most of the armor of the 15th and 16th centuries that have come down to us confirms these discoveries.
However, there are many factors to consider when drawing such general conclusions from the armor. First, is this armor complete and uniform, that is, did all the parts go 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 belly protectors (shirt and thigh shields) and thighs (legguards) can only be estimated about.
Armor was found in all shapes and sizes, including armor for children and youth (as opposed to adults), and there was even armor for dwarfs and giants (often found in European courts as "curiosities"). In addition, there are other factors to consider, such as the difference in average height between northern and southern Europeans, or simply the fact that there have always been unusually tall or unusually short people when compared to average contemporaries.
Notable exceptions include kings such as Francis I, King of France (1515–47), or Henry VIII, King of England (1509–47). The height of the latter was 180 cm, as evidenced by his contemporaries, and which can be verified thanks to the half-dozen of his armor that have come down to us.
Armor of the German Duke Johann Wilhelm, 16th century.
Visitors to the Metropolitan Museum can compare German armor from 1530 with the battle armor of Emperor Ferdinand I (1503–1564) from 1555. Both armors are incomplete and their wearers are only roughly sized, but the difference in size is striking. The growth of the owner of the first armor was, apparently, about 193 cm, and the chest girth was 137 cm, while the growth of Emperor Ferdinand did not exceed 170 cm.
14. Men's clothing is wrapped from left to right, because initially the armor was closed this way
The theory behind this statement is that some early forms of armor (protection from plates and brigantine of the 14th and 15th centuries, armet - a closed cavalry helmet of the 15th-16th centuries, cuirass of the 16th century) were designed so that the left side was superimposed on the right, so as not to penetrate the blow of the enemy's sword. Since most people are right-handed, most of the piercing hits should have come from the left and, if successful, should have slid across the armor through the scent and to the right.
The theory is compelling, but there is insufficient evidence that modern clothing was directly influenced by such armor. Also, while the theory of armor protection may be true in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, some examples of helmets and body armor are wrapped the other way.
Misconceptions and questions about cutting weapons
Sword, early 15th century.
Dagger, XVI century.
As with the armor, not everyone who carried the sword was a knight. But the idea that the sword is the prerogative of knights is not that far from the truth. The customs, or even the right to carry the sword, varied with time, place, and law.
In medieval Europe, swords were the main weapon of knights and horsemen. In times of peace, only persons of noble birth had the right to carry swords in public places. Since in most places swords were perceived as "weapons of war" (as opposed to the same daggers), peasants and burghers who did not belong to the warrior class of medieval society could not carry swords. An exception to the rule was made for travelers (citizens, traders, and pilgrims) due to the dangers of travel by land and sea. Within the walls of most medieval cities, the wearing of swords was forbidden to everyone - sometimes even noble ones - at least in times of peace. The standard rules of commerce, often found in churches or town halls, often also included examples of permitted lengths of daggers or swords that could be carried freely within city walls.
Without a doubt, it was these rules that gave rise to the notion 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 permissible for citizens and knights to carry the lighter and thinner descendants of swords - swords, as a daily weapon for self-defense in public places. And until the beginning of the 19th century, swords and small swords became an indispensable attribute of the clothes of a European gentleman.
It is widely believed that swords of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were uncomplicated instruments of brute force, very heavy, and as a result, not amenable to handling by the "common man", that is, a very ineffective weapon. The reasons for these accusations are easy to understand. Due to the rarity of the surviving specimens, few people held a real sword of the Middle Ages or Renaissance in their hands. Most of these swords were obtained from excavations. Their rusty appearance today can easily give the impression of rudeness - like a burned-out car that has lost all the signs of its former grandeur and complexity.
Most of the real swords of the Middle Ages and Renaissance say otherwise. A one-handed sword usually weighed 1-2 kg, and even a large two-handed "military sword" of the XIV-XVI 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, intricate and sometimes very beautifully decorated. Documents and paintings show that such a sword, in experienced hands, could be used with terrible efficiency, from cutting off limbs to penetrating 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 "bloodstream". These grooves are said to accelerate the drainage of blood from the opponent's wound, thereby enhancing the wounding effect, or that they facilitate the removal of the blade from the wound, making it easy to remove the weapon without turning. Despite the amusement of such theories, the real purpose of this groove, called a fuller, is only to lighten the blade, reduce its weight without weakening the blade or impairing flexibility.
On some European blades, in particular swords, rapiers and daggers, as well as on some combat poles, these grooves have a complex shape and perforation. The same perforation is found on cutting weapons from India and the Middle East. Based on scant documentary evidence, it is believed that this perforation must have contained poison in order for the blow to be guaranteed to lead to the death of the enemy. This misconception led to the fact that weapons with such perforations began to be called "weapons of assassins."
Although there are references to Indian poisoned blade weapons, and such rare cases may have occurred in Renaissance Europe, the actual purpose of this perforation is not at all so sensational. First, the perforation eliminated some of the material and made the blade lighter. Secondly, it was often made in the form of exquisite and complex patterns, and served as both a demonstration of the skill of a blacksmith and an ornament. For proof, 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 it would be necessary to do in the case of poison.
