Firearms were invented at the beginning of the 14th century. After that, a long time passed before it became widely used, but, one way or another, this invention completely changed the way wars were waged. the Middle Ages are gradually fading into the past. Knightly armor could not protect against bullets, so the knights no longer approached the enemy at close range to use their swords and spears. And the walls of castles, in turn, could not withstand cannonballs.
Approximately from the beginning of the XIV century. in the infantry, large, arrow-sized bows began to be used, which were very effective in combat against mounted knights. They fired at a considerable distance and with great accuracy. The capture of castles and fortified cities was not an easy task, but when in the XV century. during the siege, cannons began to be used, even the thickest walls could not resist them.
Armor and weapons were expensive. When the peasants revolted against the feudal lords, as often happened in the 15th and 16th centuries, they had little hope of holding out against the well-armed knights. In this drawing, a German knight stabs a rebel peasant with a spear. The first guns were not very convenient in combat, because it took a long time to reload them and the hit accuracy was low. Therefore, soldiers armed with pikes were placed next to the shooters, who covered them while reloading their guns.
Then a gun called a musket was invented. It shot more accurately, but was too heavy to hold it in your hands. Therefore, the musketeers had to put the gun on a special support during the shooting. Shooting from pistols was more accurate, but less distant, than from a gun. Pistols were usually fired by cavalrymen, who, having galloped towards the enemy, unloaded their pistols, and then drove off to a safe distance to reload them. By the end of the XVII century. The infantry was armed with bayonets, which were attached to the muzzle of a gun. Now, at close range, the shooters could protect themselves.
Instead of relying on the military support of their vassals and their militias, or using mercenaries, kings began to create their own standing armies. These armies were much better trained and disciplined than those of the feudal lords in the past. Military leaders now had to seriously study military science in order to learn how to plan military operations and military campaigns.
The methods of warfare at sea have also changed. The British and Dutch learned how to build lighter and more maneuverable ships. Thanks to such ships, the English fleet was able to defeat the Spanish Armada. Guns were installed on each side of the warship. Opponents tried to shoot at each other with side salvos, that is, with all the guns of the side at once, in order to increase the probability of hitting. Due to illness, poor nutrition and harsh punishments, the life of the sailors on the ship was very difficult. Governments often had to use recruiting squads to kidnap people and force them onto ships.
Tanya Yatsenko
Musical "why" for older preschoolers. Renaissance
Age: Renaissance
Time: from the XV-XVII century
Peculiarities:
Music is becoming more accessible, secular, there are more musicians.
Music was divided into 3 genres: vocal works, virtuoso pieces with improvisations, dance works.
Musical achievements of the era:
Musicians who composed music were called composers.
In the 15th century, a machine was invented that could print notes.
There were collections of notes for home music-making.
Not only men, but also women began to play musical instruments. The lute became the favorite female instrument.
There is polyphony.
A new genre of secular music appeared - the madrigal.
Music departments were opened at Oxford and Cambridge universities.
Era names:
Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina
Orlando Lasso
Claudio Monteverdi
Gesualdo di Venosa
Oddities of the era:
The main city of the Italian Renaissance was Rome. But not a single famous Renaissance painter, sculptor, composer or musician was born in this city.
If a Renaissance gentleman took off his hat in front of a lady with his left hand, this meant that he greeted the lady with all his heart.
The Italians called the new stringed bowed instruments viols, which means “violet” in translation. Violas were made from valuable tree species, decorated with gold and mother-of-pearl. Therefore, only very rich people could play these instruments.
Renaissance artists often depicted angels holding musical instruments. So they emphasized the divine origin of music.
The highest praise for all works of Renaissance art was "divine". "Divine" was considered the music of the Italian lunist and composer of the 16th century - Francesco da Milano. By the way, the song "Golden City", familiar to many adults, was created precisely to the melody of this composer.
During the Renaissance in France, ... chanson appeared. "Chanson" means "song" in French. Renaissance chanson is a secular song sung by several voices (polyphonic song).
Why were dance teachers paid dearly for dance lessons during the Renaissance?
Because balls came into fashion, and at the balls it was necessary to dance well. Dance teachers taught their wards not only movements, but also court etiquette, recitation (to speak beautifully) and even helped with the choice of dress style so that the gentleman or lady looked spectacular at the ball. Dance teachers were often referred to as "teacher of graceful manners".
Why was the madrigal the most popular song genre?
Because in the Renaissance, people were very worried about their feelings and love experiences. Many poets of the Renaissance composed lyrical love poems. They say it's easier to sing about love than to read a verse. Therefore, there were songs about love, about feelings, about experiences - madrigals. Madrigal was considered a serious, sophisticated genre of secular music.
Why and how did polyphony appear?
Because church music continued to develop and become more complex. In the Middle Ages, 3- and 4-voice works were performed in temples. But in these songs and organums, one voice was the main one. The word "polyphony" comes from the Greek words "polis" - "numerous" and "background" - "sound", "voice". Polyphony is a piece of music in which several voices and all of them are equal - the main ones.
Why did the first musical ensembles appear in the Renaissance?
Because music collections of various works and songs began to be printed - music became more accessible. Not only composers, professional singers and musicians appeared, but also amateur musicians. Amateur musicians did not know how to play virtuoso, but they liked to play music not alone, but together (duet, three (trio) or four (quartet) - this way musical works sounded more impressive.
Vocabulary
Virtuoso - a talented musician who perfectly plays the most complex works on a musical instrument.
virtuoso pieces - Spectacular works that are usually performed at a fast pace.
Polyphony - the sound of two or more voices or melodic lines.
Madrigal - a love, lyrical song that is performed in the native (mother's) language.
Mass - the musical part of the Catholic or Protestant worship performed by the choir and organ. Masses can be performed not only in churches, but also at concerts.
Magnificat - a song of praise for the text of the words of the Virgin Mary from the Gospel.
Regent - conductor of the church choir.
Cantor - Choirman of the Catholic Church.
Bandmaster - director of a choir or orchestra, or both (conductor).
Inquisition - an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, which sought out and punished the enemies of the church.
secular music – music for the Light – everyday, worldly, not spiritual (church).
Related publications:
Throughout the last century, our country was rightfully proud of the title of "the most reading in the world." Modern statistics show that.
Purpose: to continue acquaintance with their small homeland, the life of the Ural writer and the familiarization of children of the senior preschool with the work of P. P. Bazhov.
Card file of physical education minutes for older preschoolers Card file of physical education minutes for older preschoolers They run, they run from the yard. They run, they run from the yard (We walk on the spot.) Walk, walk in the meadows:.
Every year, hundreds of traffic accidents occur on the roads of the city of our country, as a result of which dozens of children die.
Maslenitsa for older preschoolers Children go outside. Host: Hello friends! Go out into the street - to meet Spring! Nice day to celebrate. Guys, what a holiday.
Methodical development "Communicative musical games as a way of socialization of preschoolers in a children's team" This methodological development is intended for the musical directors of preschool educational institutions. Preschool childhood is the most important period in the formation of personality.
Zhorka26 09-10-2015 15:22
I have been interested in renaissance weapons for a long time, since the release of the Borgia series and the Ezio Auditore series of games. Well, it's a lyric. This era is interesting with the emergence of new tactics and strategies of warfare and the appearance of firearms, the rejection of armor in favor of swords, and much more. I was interested in the question - what should the sword look like in that transitional period, when they began to make it as light and maneuverable as possible. What did the "father" of the rapier look like? And what did the first rapiers look like, without all these rings and cups that rapiers later began to acquire?
Arabat 09-10-2015 17:59
The answer is very simple: the first rapiers were swords.
There was no abrupt transition. It’s just that the hilts gradually became more complicated, and the blade lengthened and lightened. Well, in more detail it is to the Fox.
Search the internet for the swords of Colada and Sidon Sid. See something interesting.
Zhorka26 09-10-2015 19:39
I remember those swords, semi-mythical things. But I'm talking about swords that have become thin and flexible. Not a sword with a hilt from a prothorapyra with finger rings, but narrow blades. What did they look like and their hilts? I can ask my friends. Now, if somewhere a narrow sword is shown with a proud, protective ring bent down on the hilts and demonstrating fencing techniques like a rapierah, all this happens during the Renaissance or a little later, can such a sword be considered transitional? And immediately in pursuit, but how was such a sword-sword supposed to look like?
Arabat 09-10-2015 19:44
Recently, somewhere here, a sword slipped with a sort of plate (or ring?) Moving away from the crosshairs. At the same time, it seems, they said that this is the earliest stage of the transition. In the same place, Fox spoke about the transition itself in more detail. Look. The author of the topic, it seems, Iv.
foxbat 09-10-2015 20:44
Consider this point - since the hilts were made by one master, and the blades by another, and the third one assembled everything together (well, or the fourth one, because another one made handles), you can find very different swords with the same hilts - different in weight, shape, width , chopping and piercing properties, etc... often at the request of a particular customer.
This is so... to further confuse the issue.
But in fact - there are books and the Internet, where all this is perfectly stated.
Basically, sword-like hilts stood on sword-like blades - rather wide and heavy, with pronounced edges.
Zhorka26 09-10-2015 21:07
And what were such narrow European swords called, what word to drive in the search?
Zhorka26 09-10-2015 21:15
I read this thread, it's interesting. But these are wide swords, and I am interested in narrow ones so much that this was not the case before, after which such a fashion took root and gave rise to the phenomenon of a sword.
foxbat 09-10-2015 21:17
Google 16th century sword - and you will have a wagon of happiness.
You can also score 16th century rapier.
Then you can ask more specifically.
foxbat 09-10-2015 21:20
In the 16th century, there were no very narrow ones yet, mostly there were, as it were, "medium", mostly 25-30 mm wide at the base. Narrower ones appeared already in the 17th century.
Arabat 09-10-2015 21:46
quote: but I'm interested in narrow ones so much that it wasn't like that before
If you are interested in "so narrow", then these will be full-fledged rapiers with a full-fledged hilt. The development of hilts was ahead of schedule. Then what about transitional forms?
Zhorka26 09-10-2015 23:25
And with such a width, could the SWORD blade be 80 cm long?
foxbat 09-10-2015 23:43
At "such" it at what? 30mm?
I have a chopper here, the blade is 34mm at the guard, the length is more than a meter.
JRL 10-10-2015 07:49
quote: The answer is very simple: the first rapiers were swords
Or Estoks. Choice gentlemen!
JRL 10-10-2015 07:52
Are you not interested in the weapons of peasant wars?
Arabat 10-10-2015 09:38
quote: Or Estoks. Choice gentlemen!
No. Not Estoks. A smooth transition from swords to rapiers is observed, but not from estoks.
JRL 10-10-2015 16:05
Dear Sir
On the issues of rapiers, there is my knowledge, with which IHO gurus categorically disagree. And they are right.
There were two types of rapiers. The first type, early, is a shortened estok. A rigid and inflexible blade that could parry a blow from an already lighter sword and pierce an already lighter armor.
And the flexible rapier appeared when the sword was replaced by a flexible (spring) sword.
But combat CW does not live long and is not particularly beautiful. On the engravings, weapons are stylized, museum pieces are necessarily beautiful and possibly made for decoration. The debate about what combat rapiers actually are has been going on for a long time.
Sincerely.
foxbat 10-10-2015 16:16
Oh my God! Has the forgotten “flexible rapier” resurfaced again? I already hoped that we survived it like measles.
And yes, the estok is a completely different weapon, the only connection with the rapier is that both have a long blade. Arabat is absolutely right. External similarities in the hilts should not confuse us, because the fashion was often the same for everything.
For example, the well-known cup hilt was placed both on super-narrow rapier blades and on very wide, chopping, frankly sword blades.
JRL 10-10-2015 17:03
quote: Has the forgotten “flexible rapier” resurfaced again?
Mister
So is the rapier rigid or flexible?
Sincerely.
foxbat 10-10-2015 17:20
Rigidity is definitely valued in the rapier, and how it turned out is the second question.
JRL 10-10-2015 17:29
Thanks to!
foxbat 10-10-2015 18:14
Ideally, a rapier blade should be like a laser beam - light and rigid.
Arabat 10-10-2015 18:24
But what about these legends about Toledo blades that were sold bent into a ring?
WLDR 10-10-2015 18:25
And what is flexible is the feders. These are wedges for sparring.
Arabat 10-10-2015 20:02
That is, first we create a legend and promote its wide distribution. And then we begin to sell gullible buyers deliberate crap? You can, of course, there have been recent examples. However, in those days, not all buyers simply hung on the wall, some tried to use it. Such lovers of vparivanie, they could well get on the neck later, very sensitively.
Zhorka26 10-10-2015 20:50
And what kind of "parry a blow from an already lighter sword and pierce an already lighter armor" are you talking about? I'm more interested in that same sword than a rapier or a sword, since it is already formed as a weapon class. I'm interested in to what extent the sword can be short and narrow, in order to continue to be called such, and not a sword / rapier
Arabat 10-10-2015 20:54
And hell knows. No one has conducted relevant linguistic studies. With weapons terminology in Russia, in general, a dark forest and complete anarchy. In one of our pre-revolutionary encyclopedias with a military, by the way, bias, that same Colada is called a sword.
On the other hand, any crap can be called a sword. Not only the Japanese katana (this is still all right), but also the Chinese dao, and this, in general, is already a clean reed. Well, or at worst a hypersovnya.
In short, if someone believes that this is a sword, then he writes a sword, and if he does not know how to call it at all, then a sword.
WLDR 10-10-2015 21:22
sell to the gullible
Why crap?
Everything is fair. Here are swords for bending, and here are for use. Axes - in the garden and garden department.
How to steam here? It's obvious though.
Especially for someone who is able to hit on the neck.
And for those who are thirsty for a miracle, please, a miracle saber.
It bends into a ring and into any convenient figure.
The buyer is always right.
Zhorka26 10-10-2015 22:58
And there are also glaives and combat scythes, and some Chinese sabers can be called falchions, as you like.
JRL 11-10-2015 08:09
quote: I'm interested in to what extent a sword can be short and narrow in order to continue to be called such, and not a sword / rapier
Akinak is a sword, both narrow and short!
JRL 11-10-2015 15:40
Narrow is a rhombus approaching a square. And depending on what you want to do with this sword? If only to prick, then a rhombus approaching a square is enough, fitting into the circumference of the thumb or at the worst end of the big toe. But if you need to chop something like a blade, even if the rhombus is undercut and the edge is sharp, like a scraper, it will cut through, but it won’t fit deep.
By the way, look at boar or hunting swords. And pricked and the tip can be cut and cut.
https://www.google.ru/search?h...&lr=&gws_rd=ssl
Zhorka26 11-10-2015 16:25
I'm talking about swords that are no longer as wide as those of the Vikings, but not as thin as a sword. With a width of 30 mm. and up to 80 cm long with a proud curved down
foxbat 11-10-2015 17:14
Well, so why talk about them? What exactly is hidden there?
What's the question?
Zhorka26 11-10-2015 17:55
What did such a blade look like? We need pictures of historical samples and non-idealized iconography. I would like to understand whether there were such swords and what they were capable of
foxbat 11-10-2015 20:30
Duc ... what they put, it looks like that. I say every time - there were no laws. Most likely lenticular wide, with different grooves. Up to 30mm and 80cm, this is more from the category of short swords, the fighting ones were larger.
Short ones were mainly worn as an auxiliary weapon, when a combat weapon was scrapped. For example, there is a riding sword category - a person took something more convenient on the road so that the huge pendulina would not hang out. These are about the same size.
Arabat 11-10-2015 20:37
Exactly. There were no laws. At the same time, they were both wider and narrower, longer and shorter. You can only speak on average.
It is necessary not to watch one specific instance, but to collect a bunch of different ones related to the same time and see what comes out on average.
The Renaissance was the beginning of the decline of the long history of swords on the battlefield. The spread and improvement of firearms gradually led to a decrease in the role of the sword in combat. First, the main weapon on the battlefield was a long pike, then a fairly advanced musket, and then a gun. Artillery made it pointless to wear armor and shields even earlier. Swords have ceased to be companions of only knights - especially since chivalry, as an institution of heavy tanks, is no more. Soldiers and officers carried swords with them for a long time and used them, but the sword gradually occupied the niche of a modern pistol. It has become an auxiliary weapon, which is resorted to when the main one is unavailable or inconvenient for one reason or another.
Interestingly, the sword has always been different from any other edged weapon in that it is obviously a tool made specifically for war. It is clear that the battle ax, which is lighter than the household ax, is also a special weapon, and the war hammer has practically nothing to do with its civilian counterpart. It is also clear that the sword, as we have already found out, strictly speaking, came simply from a long knife. But still, a certain difference between the sword and any other weapon has always been felt. Therefore, with rare exceptions, swords belonged only to knights and other professional warriors, and commoners, as a rule, were forbidden to own long bladed weapons.
With the decline in the importance of the sword as an item of military equipment, a category of weapons that had never been seen before in Europe appeared - civilian swords. They were conceived for self-defense mainly in peacetime. Their design does not provide for the need to confront the armored man or any armor in general, because outside the battlefield none of the normal people wore armor in peacetime. Unlike the usual knightly ones, new swords had to be used without a shield, often without a buckler - just a sword and that's it, since no one wore shields either, they fell out of use in the war thanks to artillery. This new way of using weapons required the development of specific fencing techniques based on parrying rather than shielding. The technique of fencing has changed, fencing textbooks of various kinds have appeared. And under the new technology, new weapons were needed.
The military, seeing the development of a new "peaceful" fencing, immediately set about studying and adapting it, including for combat swords, which still remained with them. After all, somehow it will turn out wrong if a combat officer cannot cope with a civilian rogue!
Sword
In Italian, this weapon is called "spada da lato", actually "side sword". The Russian "sword" just came from this Italian "spada". In English earlier, these swords were simply called swords. In modern times, to avoid confusion, they began to be called "sidesword", literally translating the Italian name.
At the beginning of the 15th century, when the late knightly swords were the main type of European sword, the manner of throwing the index finger over the cross appeared and spread. This grip improves fine control of the blade and allows for better stabbing. As a result, type XIX swords appeared according to the Oakeshott typology, which were already mentioned earlier, at the end of the story about knightly swords: with a ring to protect the thrown finger.
With these swords, the process of transformation of the medieval hilt began, almost no different from the ancient sword hilts of the Bronze Age. And this is a very important point both in the development of bladed weapons and in understanding the processes of this development.
Initially, the guard of the sword was actually used in order to make the grip more comfortable and reliable, in order to exclude the possibility of the brush slipping onto the blade. Then, already in the Middle Ages, during the evolution of caroling into a knight's sword, the cross was lengthened, which made it possible to protect the hand from accidental contact with the enemy's shield, substituted for a chopping blow.
Why didn’t some Vikings think of increasing the guard before? Very simple: because the Viking shields were large, flat, round, relatively light and with a fist grip. Their technique involves constantly covering one's sword-wielding arm with one's own shield. But in the high and late Middle Ages, the shields changed, somewhat decreasing in size and thickening. There was an elbow mount. The shield no longer protected the right hand as well as before. Medieval warriors relied more on the guard and armor, while the shield was needed for general body protection and turning dangerous blows into sliding ones.
Of course, a sufficiently long cross does not protect the hand so badly. Especially when compared with the complete absence of a guard as such, or, for example, with a Japanese tsuba. But before the advent of the sword, the weapon did not seriously constructively protect the owner's hand.
So, the ring to protect the finger, thrown over the cross, was the first step in the transformation of the sword into a sword. Such rings also appeared on falchions related to swords, because why not. Then on the swords there was a symmetrical duplication of rings on both sides of the blade. For a falchion, a sword with a one-sided sharpening, duplication of rings is not very useful, but there is a bow that protects the fingers. Falchions were more often used for powerful chopping blows that opened fingers, and probably after the appearance of falchions with bows, many asked themselves the question “why didn’t we think of this before?” Of course, almost immediately the shackle appeared on straight double-edged swords of the knightly type.
The hilt was further strengthened by a side ring located on the side of the cross, perpendicular to the intersection of the guard and the blade. It perfectly protects the outer part of the hand, with the knuckles of the fist. Then, which no longer surprised anyone, another ring appeared, covering the already inner part of the brush holding the sword, with the thumb. Finally, a few more angled temples have been added to improve finger protection.
The main part of all this transformation took place at the very end of the 15th century and the beginning of the 16th century, literally in 20-30 years. With such a speed, edged weapons have never developed, neither before nor after. The evolution of the civilian sword hilt during this period changed the paradigm of swordsmanship. As mentioned above, the main defense was parrying in the broad sense of the word - there was no shield.
And one more thing, very important for modern modeling. We are used to the fact that the swordsman stands, somehow putting his hand with the sword forward. So, this fencing tradition appeared relatively recently - just along with normal hilts. In earlier stances, the armed hand was not usually extended forward, except perhaps covered by a shield. After all, it is so easy to miss a blow to the fingers - any person who has ever participated in any fencing sparring will agree with this. If there was no shield, then the hands were located much closer to the body than modern people, who were brought up on the sports image of fencing, are accustomed to. And this is true for both the west and the east. Of course, there were moments and there were techniques that required bringing the hands forward - but, mainly, this bringing the hands forward was done in the active phase of a strike or defense, and then they were removed back to the body.
And what about the sword? So a sword with a developed hilt and a double-edged blade of a knightly type is a sword. It's so simple. In the future, the blade slowly lengthened and narrowed, but any sword of the European type with a hilt more fancy than that of type XIX can be called a sword. A pair of finger rings - okay, still a transitional form. The rings and bow are already a sword. Rings, shackle and side rings - definitely a sword. Later hilts, found on rapiers, mounted on an earlier “knightly” or already “epee” blade - again a sword. A two-fisted handle with a developed hilt does not change things, it is still a sword, albeit the size of a bastard sword. Although this weapon can really be attributed to long swords. Such long swords, for example, were used by Reiters, German heavy cavalrymen.
Rapier
Not everyone knows that a combat rapier has little in common with a sports one. In English, they are even called differently: "rapier" and "foil" respectively.
A combat rapier is a sword with a very fancy hilt and a very long and narrow blade that can both cut and stab. Moreover, if chopping blows with a rapier are not so hot, then injections are beyond praise. The blade of the rapier is long and hard, again having nothing to do with sports equipment, the task of which is to minimize harm to the recipient. A combat rapier should be able to pierce a person through and through, passing between the ribs and breaking through the shoulder blade.
Some people, especially those who have not seen a real rapier even in a good picture, but at the same time, for example, watched a lot of anime, are absolutely sure of the fragility and brittleness of a rapier blade. Say, an opponent with a rapier is easy, because you can easily break / cut her blade with a good blow from a powerful katana (or any other “male” sword. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the experiment on this topic.
Translation of the entire video is inappropriate. They took a modern "practical rapier" from the respected manufacturer Hanwei Forge, and tried to break it with various weapons. First, blows were delivered similar to those that can come to a rapier blade in a real fight. Then they simply began to hit at the most convenient angle for the kicker, as in tameshigiri. The rapier was used for training, without sharpening and with a more flexible blade than the combat one. However, in order to level the flexibility, the blows to the rapier were applied not in the plane, but directly on the blade. Also, strictly speaking, it should be borne in mind that a dull blade is somewhat stronger than a sharp one, since it is more difficult to serrate. Nevertheless, taking into account all of the above, the results of the experiment show that it is impossible to cut and break this sword. Maybe if you hit it for another half an hour, the metal will get tired, but so that with one blow or within one duel of a realistic duration - no, just not. And, objectively, there is no reason to believe that the combat rapier will suddenly be much more fragile. Even if so, it’s good, so it needs to be purposefully broken not for half an hour, but for ten minutes. It is impossible to believe anything less after watching the video.
Saber
The word "saber" refers to almost any curved sword. Unless, as a rule, nihonto is not written in sabers. But in vain, since shamshir and tao are sabers, then nihonto is also a saber. But now we have in mind a narrower type of sword, characteristic of Europe of the late Renaissance and modern times.
The saber is another variation on the theme of a piercing-chopping sword. The blade is long, with a slight bend - in the previously considered talwars-shamshirs, the curvature is much more pronounced. Here the geometry is closer to the unobtrusive bend of nihonto, moreover, it is rather late, more direct than many of them. The saber hilt, as a rule, is well protected by a developed hilt - this is at least a bow, in later versions a cup or basket. The absence of such protection, however, does not deprive the sword of the right to be called a saber, it is simply more dangerous to work with it.
In my opinion, among one-handed swords, it is the saber that has the right to be considered a kind of “middle option”, “default sword”, and so on. Any cutting-stabbing sword is capable of chopping and stabbing in one way or another. A-priory. So, it is the saber blade that is least specialized for one or another role. He cuts normally and pricks normally. Any other sword can do one thing better, but at the same time it will do another worse.
Sword
It just so happened that things are not going very well with Russian-language terms for historical weapons. If only because in our country at the relevant times, not all of these weapons were known, and what was known was called randomly. The problem, however, is typical not only for the Russian language. As mentioned above, in modern realities, English-speaking enthusiasts use not quite historical “cut-and-thrust sword” and “sidesword”. Let's add "backsword", "a sword with a back" to the collection. Strictly speaking, the term “backsword” can also be called a saber, but if you immediately add the definition of “straight” to the meaning of this term, then everything becomes much more convenient. Fortunately, our language has a ready-made term for this weapon: broadsword.
When using the word “broadsword”, a terrible thing immediately arises: by coincidence, this word is called two completely different swords, they are united only by the region of origin - Scotland. The first of these swords is a healthy two-handed Scottish Highlanders, the second is a chopping-piercing straight sword with a basket protecting the hand, often with one-sided or one-and-a-half sharpening. For clarity, I propose never to call Scottish two-handed broadswords at all. If you really want to give them a specific name, although a two-hander - in Scotland, and in Switzerland, and in China, in fact, just a two-hander - it’s easier and more understandable to trace the original word “claymore”, “claymore”. It sounds no more and no less un-Russian than "broadsword". Many people do this and consider it right, but not all, which is why I am focusing on this point.
Swords similar to the Scottish broadsword were popular in various regions of Europe. Separately noteworthy is the Italian schiavona (the word "schiavona" is read that way). This sword was often used by Yugoslav mercenaries and adventurers, although not only them. The blade is ordinary, typical for any other broadsword, but the basket guard is very characteristic, with diagonal “rods”.
Another collective term for broadswords is "broadsword", "broad sword". Unlike the “backsword”, it is quite historical: this was the name of military swords, which really had wider blades than civilian rapiers. Later broadswords, however, become quite narrow. The term "broadsword" is sometimes mistakenly called a knight's sword, for which there is no reason at all.
So, once again, what is a broadsword? It is a one-handed sword with a straight blade and basket hilt. It may have a one-sided or one-and-a-half sharpening ("backsword"), or it may be double-sided, common for a sword blade or a knight's sword ("broadsword"), usually wider than that of civilian swords of its era. Both that and another - broadsword. A claymore is not a broadsword.
In modern times, broadswords have become thinner and no longer correspond to the term "broadsword". The last of the British broadswords, the sword of an infantry officer of the 1897 model, is still in service, although it is used only in parades. This is a good, very light cutting and stabbing sword with enhanced piercing capabilities. Veterans of the conflicts of the late XIX and early XX centuries, who happened to use this weapon in battle, spoke positively about it. In the design of this broadsword, it is interesting that there is no sharpening in the strong part of the blade, closest to the hilt - which is logical, no one ever attacks with this part of the sword, they only defend themselves, and sharpening in defense only interferes. The asymmetry of the protective cup is also remarkable: it is wider on the outside, like the brush holding the sword. The narrower side is sufficient to cover the hand from the side of the thumb, while it is more comfortable than the usual symmetrical cup, since when worn in a sheath it almost does not dig into the wearer's body.
Grossmesser
Or "big knife". From the point of view of fencing - nothing special, just another pointed falchion. Available with a two-handed handle with a long cross. An additional protective element, the “nail”, is traditional: at the intersection of the cross with the line of the blade-handle, another steel bar extends perpendicularly to the side, covering the brush from the outside. In some cases, instead of a bar-nail, a side ring was used. Grossmesser is purely visually perceived as a nihonto (katana) with a European hilt. Unless the blade is wider and usually straighter, but in general the same. I note that the wider blade of the grossmesser could be narrower than the narrower blade of the nihonto, so their mass and balance are not far at all.
An interesting feature of fastening the shank of the gross messer. In ordinary European swords, the shank is entirely located inside the handle and its tip is fastened to the apple. Grossmessers, like ordinary household knives, have a shank fastened to the handle with several rivets. This feature allowed the German (grossmesser from there) commoners to legally prove their right to carry this weapon. “What kind of sword is this, your honor, it’s just a big knife, I use it around the house!”
That is, in the case of a gross messer, we meet for the third time the convergent evolution of a sword from a knife. The first time the knife turned into a sword somewhere in the Bronze Age, then at the beginning of the Middle Ages a falchion appeared from the Saxon. Grossmessers did not give such abundant offspring as the Xiphos-Naue and Falchions, since almost all the niches of long edged weapons were already occupied.
Cutlass
The saber, about which below, is treated weakly, if at all. Rather, it is a descendant of a falchion-cleaver. Yes, and it is called in English "cutlass" or, another kind of very similar weapon, "hanger". There is no talk of any "saber" at all.
The cutlass is an excellent weapon in its natural conditions. A powerful cup perfectly protects the hand, allowing you not to think about fencing in the process of cutting. The short blade, despite its width, is quite light: few people on ships used armor, so, although it is a military weapon, there is no need to overweight it. But the cutting saber is far from universal. On land, in a duel against the same rapier - an almost completely useless piece of iron. It is very doubtful that an adequate rapierist, provided there is room for maneuver, will allow him to approach himself within the striking distance of a cutlass.
If you think about it, then the cutlass is somewhat reminiscent of a gladius in spirit. Only instead of a shield - a good guard and chopping technique, which itself works like a fan defense. Well, instead of a dense system, a close dump. And so the same thing: come and attack.
long sword
Immediately important. The term "longsword" or "long sword" in various fantasy games and related sources refers to the weapon that we have defined in accordance with its historical name: a knight's sword. In fantasy, based in most cases on medieval Europe, in addition to the one-handed "long" sword, there is also a certain "short" sword, with a blade one and a half times less than a "long" one (knight's actually, you understand). In the real Middle Ages, no one used anything like this. Short swords are, for example, gladiuses, or bronze rapiers - much more ancient types of weapons. At the same time, the gladius, as we found out, is a highly specialized combatant blade, and the bronze rapier would be glad to be longer, but the material of the blade no longer allowed it to be lengthened. In general, weaponry in fantasy is a topic, perhaps worthy of a separate article.
What is a long sword really? Elementary: we take a knight's sword and increase it so that it becomes too big for one hand. Yes, a long sword is a two-handed weapon. Nobody called one-handed swords long, they were just normal swords, especially since there were no short ones at the same time. The difference in length in one class of weapons did not bother anyone, since there was always room for personal preference.
In fact, long swords in the broad sense of the word appeared long before the Renaissance. But in more ancient times they were much less common, but their essence was the same. I note that it is much more difficult to make a long sword than a short sword, advanced metallurgy is needed. Therefore, the archetype "naked barbarian with a two-handed sword" is quite strongly delusional. One can, of course, explain that he stole this high-tech weapon from somewhere, made by very civilized blacksmiths. But then it is not clear why he did not steal at least chain mail. Yes, an article about weapons in fantasy suggests itself ...
Another popular type of sword is the so-called "bastard" sword, in English terminology, either a "hand-and-half sword" or a "bastard sword". Unlike a purely fantasy short sword, half-and-half swords have the right to exist, albeit quite prosaic. These are just fairly light and not too long swords that can be used both in two hands and in one. It is important to understand that here in general the boundary is purely subjective. The same sword can be considered both long and one and a half - it all depends on the physical strength of the owner.
Almost all Japanese long swords are one and a half. The differences between a not too large long European sword and a Japanese katana are nothing at all. The style of fencing is almost the same. Each of these weapons has its pros and cons. However, the pros and cons of these are somewhat of a different caliber. The advantages of a katana, for example, include such things as ease of wearing and the availability of the popular technique of instantly drawing a sword, and, well, a very powerful cutting and chopping blow. The advantages of a long sword are greater versatility and a more perfect hilt. It turns out that if you need to choose a sword for daily wear with the likely need to suddenly cut someone down, a katana is more convenient. But if you have to choose a sword for a fight, no matter what, be it a tournament fight or a group fight, then the long sword still wins.
Federschwert
Increasingly popular replicas of renaissance training equipment these days, federschwerts are a good compromise between realism and safety. They are not historically sharpened. The blade is flexible, almost like a steel ruler, when pricked, this minimizes possible damage to the partner. They have reinforced protection of the hands due to the significant expansion of the blade near the cross. As a result, they can be fenced, possibly even in full contact, if the fencers are wearing light protective equipment. And these are not timbars or pieces of wood, normal steel. Nicely.
If you make a federschvert with a not so flexible blade and sharpen it, you get an ordinary long sword with interesting additional hand protection, almost with a second guard.
two-handed sword
The English "greatsword" or "great sword" (a space in the names of weapons traditionally floats) is a two-handed sword, or just a two-handed one. We take the same knightly sword as a basis, make it long and make it even longer and heavier. We get an object weighing 3-4 kg, which is completely impossible to fence with one hand. Carrying in one hand is easy, but fencing is not.
There are two main types of two-handed swords. The first is the claymore of the Scottish highlanders already mentioned above. Everything is simple with him - this is a large long sword with an impressive hilt and the same crosspiece. By the way, since the late Middle Ages, there has been a general rule: the length of the cross of the sword should be approximately equal to the length of its hilt. If the cross is much longer, then it begins to interfere. If it is shorter, then in many positions one of the hands is not well protected.
The second type of two-handed swords is German-Swiss. The English (actually German, of course) "zweihander" is unhistorical, although it is known to everyone. The terms "bidenhander" and "doppelhander" were actually used. These two-handers have an additional guard directly on the blade, with an unsharpened and often wrapped for ease of grip part of the blade between the guards, called the "ricasso" or "heel" (I'm used to the Italian term). You can shift your right hand to the ricasso to turn a bulky two-handed sword into a kind of nimble pole slashing and stabbing weapon that works great in a relatively close battle.
Some blades of various types of weapons are made "flaming", with wavy curves along the entire length. The most famous of these blades is the kris or keris, a type of dagger popular in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. A variety of swords were supplied with flaming blades. Two-handers of the German-Swiss type were made flaming noticeably more often than other weapons. This is due to a complex of reasons. A flaming blade is either wider and heavier, or narrower and less durable than a similar blade without the bells and whistles. Plus it is more difficult to produce, it is more expensive. The severity did not always frighten the customers of the German-Swiss two-handers, and the person ordering the two-handed has money anyway. Therefore, it is on swords of this type that flaming blades are found more often than usual. Some people think that the two-hander with a flaming blade is a separate type of weapon, "flamberg". Actually no, the same two-hander. But if you really want to emphasize the presence of a flaming blade with a beautiful word, then you should use the term “flammard”, which actually means a flaming blade.
August 25th, 2016
The field of weapons and armor is surrounded by romantic legends, monstrous myths, and widespread misconceptions. Their sources are often a lack of knowledge and experience with real things and their history. Most of these notions are absurd and based on nothing.
Perhaps one of the most infamous examples would be the notion that "knights had to be put on horseback with a crane", which is as absurd as it is a common belief, even among historians. In other cases, some technical details that defy obvious description have become the object of passionate and fantastic in their ingenuity attempts to explain their purpose. Among them, the first place, apparently, is occupied by the stop for the spear, protruding from the right side of the breastplate.
The following text will attempt to correct the most popular misconceptions and answer questions frequently asked during museum tours.
Misconceptions and questions about armor.
Armor for a knight's duel, late 16th century
1. Only knights wore armor.
This erroneous but common notion probably stems from the romantic notion of the "knight in shining armor", a painting that has itself been the subject of further misconceptions. First, knights rarely fought alone, and armies in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance did not consist entirely of mounted knights. Although the knights were the predominant force in 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 campaign, the knight depended on a group of servants, squires and soldiers who provided armed support and looked after his horses, armor and other equipment, not to mention peasants and artisans who made a feudal society with the existence of a military class possible.
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 non-noble origin 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 due to a display of extreme bravery and courage, and later knighthood became possible to purchase for money.
In other words, the ability to wear armor and fight in armor was not the prerogative of the knights. Mercenary foot soldiers, or groups of soldiers made up 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 cities of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were obliged - often by law and decree - to buy and keep 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, as well as weapons - a spear, pike, bow or crossbow.
Indian chain mail of the 17th century
In wartime, this people's militia was obliged to defend the city or perform military duties for feudal lords or allied cities. During the 15th century, when some wealthy and influential cities began to become more independent and self-confident, even the burghers organized their own tournaments, in which, of course, they wore armor.
In this regard, not every piece of armor has ever been 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 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 taking part in armed conflicts. There is evidence of noble ladies turning into military commanders, such as Jeanne de Penthièvre (1319-1384). There are rare references to women from lower society getting up "under the gun". There are records that women fought in armor, but no illustrations of that time on this subject have been preserved. 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 of her, made during her lifetime, has come down to us, in which she is depicted with a sword and banner, but without armor. The fact that contemporaries regarded a woman commanding an army, or even wearing armor, as something worthy of recording suggests that this spectacle was the exception, not the rule.
3. Armor was so expensive that only princes and wealthy nobles could afford it.
This idea may have been born from the fact that much of the armor on display in museums is of high quality, and that much of the simpler armor belonging to the common people and the lowly of the nobles has been hidden in vaults or lost through the ages.
Indeed, with the exception of looting armor on the battlefield or winning a tournament, acquiring armor was a very expensive undertaking. However, since there are differences in the quality of the armor, there must have been differences in its value. Armor of low and medium quality, available to burghers, mercenaries and the lower nobility, could be bought ready-made in markets, fairs and city shops. On the other hand, there were also high-class armor made to order in imperial or royal workshops and from famous German and Italian gunsmiths.
Armor of King Henry VIII of England, 16th century
Although examples of the value of armor, weapons and equipment in some of the historical periods have come down to us, it is very difficult to translate the historical cost 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 a full armor of an English knight, which in 1374 was estimated at £16. It was an analogue of 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 an aventail) was more than the price of a cow.
At the upper end of the scale, examples can be found such as a large set of armor (a basic set that, with the help of additional items and plates, could be adapted for various uses, both on the battlefield and in the 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. The armor is extremely heavy and severely limits 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. That's less than a full firefighter's outfit with oxygen equipment, or what modern soldiers have had to wear in combat since the nineteenth century. Moreover, while modern equipment usually hangs from the shoulders or waist, the weight of well-fitted 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 became less and less common, and only important parts of the body: the head, torso and arms were protected by metal plates.
The opinion that wearing armor (formed by 1420-30) greatly reduced the mobility of a warrior is not true. 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 made it possible to perform any movement without restrictions imposed by the rigidity of the material. The common notion that a man in armor could barely move, and if he fell to the ground, could not get up, has no basis. On the contrary, historical sources tell about the famous French knight Jean II le Mengre, nicknamed Boucicault (1366-1421), who, being dressed in full armor, could, grabbing the steps of a ladder from below, on its back side, climb it with the help of some 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 and 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 dismount from a horse, sit or lie down, and then get up from the ground, run and move limbs freely and without discomfort.
In some exceptional cases, the armor was very heavy or held the person wearing it in almost the same position, for example, in some types of tournaments. Tournament armor was made for special occasions and worn for a limited time. A man in armor then mounted 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 settled in the saddle.
5. Knights had to be saddled with cranes.
This idea, apparently, appeared at the end of the nineteenth century as a joke. It entered mainstream fiction in the decades that followed, and the painting 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 an eminent authority as James Mann, chief armorer of the Tower of London.
As stated above, most of the armor was light and flexible enough not to restrict the wearer. Most people in armor should have been able to put one foot in the stirrup and saddle a horse without assistance. A stool or the help of a squire would hasten this process. But the crane was absolutely not needed.
6. How did the people in the armor go to the toilet?
One of the most popular questions, especially among young museum visitors, unfortunately does not have a precise answer. When the man in armor was not engaged in battle, he was doing the same thing 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 to another secluded place, take off the appropriate parts of armor and clothing, and indulge in the call of nature. On the battlefield, things were supposed to be different. In this case, we do not know the answer. 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 dates back to the time of the Roman Republic, when assassination by order was the order of the day, and citizens had to raise their right hand when approaching officials to show that there was no weapon hidden in it. It is more commonly believed that the modern war salute came from armored men lifting their helmet visors 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 showed that his right hand (which usually held a sword) did not have a weapon. 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 practically 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, the military records of 17th-century England reflect that "the formal act of greeting was the removal of the headdress." By 1745, the English regiment of the Coldstream Guards seems to have perfected this procedure, rewriting it as "laying the hand to the head and bowing at the meeting."
Coldstream Guard
This practice was adopted by other English regiments, and then it could 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 originated from a gesture of respect and courtesy, in parallel with the civilian habit of lifting or touching the brim of the 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 intertwined rings should properly be called "mail" or "mail armor" in English. The commonly accepted term "chain mail" is modern pleonasm (a linguistic error meaning using more words than is necessary to describe). In our case, "chain" (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 must be sought in the 19th century. When those who started studying armor looked at medieval paintings, they noticed what seemed to them to be many different types of armor: rings, chains, ring bracelets, scaly armor, small plates, etc. As a result, all ancient armor was called “mail”, distinguishing it only in appearance, from which the terms “ring-mail”, “chain-mail”, “banded mail”, “scale-mail”, “plate-mail” appeared. 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 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 this question unambiguously for many reasons. First, no evidence has been preserved that can paint a complete picture for any of the periods. Since about the 15th century, scattered examples of how armor was ordered, how long orders took, and how much various parts of armor cost, have been preserved. Secondly, full armor could consist of parts made by various gunsmiths with a narrow specialization. Parts of the armor could be sold unfinished, and then, for a certain amount, adjusted locally. 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, and thus controlled the number of items that one craftsman 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 production.
In any case, it is worth bearing in mind that the production of armor and weapons flourished during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Armourers, makers of blades, pistols, bows, crossbows, and arrows were present in any large city. As now, their market was dependent on supply and demand, and efficient operation was a key parameter of success. The common myth that simple chain mail took years to make is nonsense (but it's undeniable that chain mail was very labor intensive to make).
The answer to this question is simple and elusive at the same time. The time taken to make armor depended on several factors, such as the customer, who was tasked with making the order (the number of people in production and the workshop being 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 armourer, working in Bruges, who called himself "armourer of my bastard lord of Burgundy", wrote to his English client, Sir John Paston. The gunsmith informed Sir John that he could fulfill the request for the manufacture of armor, as soon as the English knight informed what parts of the suit he needed, in what form, and the date by which the armor should be completed (unfortunately, the gunsmith did not indicate the possible dates ). In the court workshops, the production of armor for the highest persons, apparently, took more time. For the court armourer, Jörg Seusenhofer (with a small number of assistants), the preparation of armor for the horse and large armor for the king took, apparently, 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 this time.
10. Details of armor - spear support and codpiece.
Two parts of the armor are more than others inflame the imagination of the public: one of them is described as "that thing sticking out to the right of the chest," and the second is mentioned after a muffled chuckle as "that thing between the legs." In the terminology of weapons and armor, they are known as spear supports and codpieces.
The support for the spear appeared soon after the appearance of a 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" (spear stand), its main purpose was not to bear the weight of the spear. In fact, it was used for two purposes, which are better described by the French term "arrêt de cuirasse" (spear restraint). She allowed the mounted warrior to hold the spear firmly under the right hand, limiting 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 was transferred to the point 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 "shooting" backwards, and distributing the blow to the chest plate across the entire upper torso, not just the right arm, wrist, elbow, and shoulder. It is worth noting that on most combat armor, the support for the spear could be folded up 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 connected with its brother in a civilian male suit. From the middle of the 14th century, the upper part of men's clothing began to be shortened so much that it no longer covered the crotch. In those days, pants had not yet been invented, and men wore leggings fastened to their underwear or belt, and the crotch was hidden behind a hollow attached to the inside of the top edge of each of the legs of the leggings. At the beginning of the 16th century, this floor began to be stuffed and visually enlarged. And the codpiece remained a detail of the men's suit until the end of the 16th century.
On armor, the codpiece as a separate plate protecting the genitals appeared in the second decade of the 16th century, and remained relevant until the 1570s. She had a thick lining inside and joined the armor in the center of the lower edge of the shirt. The early varieties were bowl-shaped, but due to the influence of civil costume, it gradually changed into an upward shape. It was not usually used when riding a horse, because, firstly, it would interfere, and secondly, the armored front of the combat saddle provided sufficient protection for the crotch. Therefore, the codpiece was commonly used for armor designed for foot combat, both in war and in tournaments, and despite some value as a defense, it was no less used because of fashion.
11. Did the Vikings wear horns on their helmets?
One of the most enduring and popular images of a medieval warrior is that 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 their helmets at all.
The earliest example of the decoration of 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 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 from 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 these two 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 strips (Spangenhelm).
Many of these helmets were 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 was no longer needed due to the advent of firearms.
By and large, the gradual decline of armor was not due to the advent of firearms per se, 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 steel, thickening the armor, or adding separate reinforcing parts on top of conventional armor.
German pishchal late 14th century
Finally, it is worth noting that the armor has not completely disappeared. The ubiquitous use of helmets by modern soldiers and police proves that armor, although it has changed materials and perhaps lost some of its importance, is still a necessary piece 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, marksmen's plates in World War II, and modern bulletproof vests.
13. The size of the armor suggests that in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, people were smaller.
Medical and anthropological studies show that the average height of men and women has gradually increased over the centuries, a process accelerated over the past 150 years by improvements in diet and public health. Most of the armor of the 15th and 16th centuries that has come down to us confirms these discoveries.
However, when drawing such general conclusions based on armor, there are many factors to consider. Firstly, is it a complete and uniform armor, that is, did all the parts go with each other, thereby giving the correct impression of its original owner? Secondly, even high-quality armor made to order for a particular person can give an approximate idea of \u200b\u200bhis height, with an error of up to 2-5 cm, since the overlap of the protections of the lower abdomen (shirt and thigh guards) and hips (leg guards) can only be estimated approximately.
Armor came in all shapes and sizes, including armor for children and youths (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 there have always been unusually tall or unusually short people when compared with 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 contemporaries, 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
Visitors to the Metropolitan Museum can compare German armor dating from 1530 to the battle armor of Emperor Ferdinand I (1503-1564) dating from 1555. Both armors are incomplete and the measurements of their wearers are only approximate, but still the difference in size is striking. The growth of the owner of the first armor was, apparently, about 193 cm, and the girth of the chest 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 armor was originally closed this way.
The theory behind this statement is that some early forms of armor (plate protection and brigantine of the 14th and 15th centuries, armet - a closed cavalry helmet of the 15th-16th centuries, cuirass of the 16th century) were designed so that the left side overlapped the right, so as not to let the opponent's sword strike through. Since most people are right-handed, most of the penetrating blows should have come from the left, and, with luck, should have slipped over the armor through the smell and to the right.
The theory is compelling, but there is not enough evidence that modern clothing has been directly affected by such armor. Also, while the armor protection theory may be true for the Middle Ages and the 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 the knights is not so far from the truth. Customs or even the right to carry a sword varied according to time, place and laws.
In medieval Europe, swords were the main weapon of knights and horsemen. In peacetime, 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 wear swords. An exception to the rule was made for travelers (citizens, merchants and pilgrims) because of 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 noble ones - at least in times of peace. The standard rules of trade, often found on churches or town halls, often also included examples of the 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 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 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 the swords of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were simple tools of brute force, very heavy, and as a result, not tractable for the "ordinary person", that is, a very ineffective weapon. The reasons for these accusations are easy to understand. Due to the rarity of surviving specimens, few people held a real medieval or Renaissance sword in their hands. Most of these swords were obtained in excavations. Their rusty appearance today can easily give the impression of rudeness - like a burned-out car that has lost all signs of its former grandeur and complexity.
Most of the real swords of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance say otherwise. 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 experienced hands could be used with terrible efficiency, from cutting off limbs to penetrating armor.
