What are they, the warriors of the Middle Ages?

53
What are they, the warriors of the Middle Ages?


It would seem that a lot has been written about the Middle Ages, but, nevertheless, interest in this historical period has not waned so far. One of the reasons for this is the warriors, who were distinguished by excellent fighting qualities. And although they did not possess magic and could not use it in the fight with their enemies, but quite real weapons many of them were fluent in perfection.

One of the brightest representatives of the Middle Ages are the Vikings. And let them belong to different nations, this did not prevent them from understanding each other. The northern lands were the birthplace of all of them, so the French Vikings were called "Normans". At the very beginning, the word "Viking" denoted sea robbers who raided the enemy in coastal waters. And in Scandinavia, they became known long before the first mention of them in Europe.

And wherever the Vikings kept their way, they always seized foreign lands, sometimes even remained in the conquered territories and became rulers there. From the French, they managed to win back a part of the country, which was named Normandy. The Vikings also raided the Russian lands, even descending to the shores of the Caspian and Black Seas. The Vikings are the last German barbarous conquerors and the first European navigators-pioneers.



For attacks, the Vikings used detachments of specially trained warriors, who formed detachments of several hundred people. By the way, joining these units has always been voluntary. During the raid, one of the warriors necessarily carried a banner, which was very honorable. Therefore, as a rule, an especially distinguished warrior was chosen for this purpose. It was believed that the banner can not only bring victory in battle, but also save the lives of those who bear it. The main task of the Vikings in case of defeat was to protect their commander (king), and if he died, then all the warriors fought to the last near the body of the leader.

Among the Vikings, the Berserkers, who in principle did not wear armor and did not hide from the dangers, were particularly fearless. They went right through, as if insane, inducing this horror at the enemy. Berserkers could bring themselves to a state of euphoria and fought to death, crushing enemies.

Often the Vikings used the bilmen units. As a rule, these were infantry warriors armed with battle sickles (halberds). This weapon was a kind of peasant sickle, which was used for harvesting. It combined a needle tip and a blade of a battle ax with a sharp butt. It was widespread in the Middle Ages as an effective weapon against cavalry. However, later, when firearms appeared, bilmen lost their purpose, so they began to be used in parades and magnificent ceremonies.
But, as it turned out, invincible Vikings also had weak points - this is the inability to prolonged siege. This, in fact, was one of the reasons for their defeat.

Knights were no less outstanding military qualities. So, for example, the German knights united around the Teutonic Order, which arose on the basis of a hospital that was organized by German pilgrims and crusaders between 1120-1128 for years. The order itself (as a spiritual organ) was registered only in the 1190 year, and six years later it was reorganized into a spiritual and knightly order.

Sometimes the Teutonic Order is compared with the Order of the Templars and the Order of the Hospitallers. Its members gave three vows: poverty, chastity and obedience. In those days, the knights were completely dependent on the Pope and did not submit to the sovereigns in whose territory their possessions were located.

Jan Matejko. Battle of Grunwald (1878)


It is known what role was played by the knights of this order during the conquest of the Baltic and Prussian territories. Beginning with 1215, the Knights, on the initiative of the Pope, penetrate the Baltic coast, ostensibly with the aim of planting Christianity. However, this process was carried out with the help of bloody operations. And Prussian lands were taken under control for incomplete 50 years. They managed to conquer a significant part of Poland, and also represented a constant military threat to Lithuania. In 1216, the Teutons suffered a defeat in the fight against the Lithuanians, and the Prussians revolted against the German knights. And only after many years in 1283, they managed to conquer the freedom-loving Prussians. And in order to retain control of the Baltic states, the Teutons continued to brutally destroy all the recalcitrant, all who dared to provide even the slightest resistance.

After uniting with the Swedish feudal lords, the Teutons began to look at the Russian lands, because the Pope wanted to dominate the whole world. Russia in this regard was very valuable above all for its inexhaustible wealth. But Russia was able to provide decent resistance, as evidenced by the battle on Lake Peipsi in 1242. It was the defeat of the knights in the Battle of the Ice was the beginning of the end for the Teutonic Order. They no longer had the opportunity to move to the East, committing looting and seizing land.

Much later. in 1409, a great war broke out between the knights of the Teutonic Order and the combined forces of Poland and Lithuania, the result of which was the defeat of the Order, and its expansion to the eastern lands was ended. The Teutonic Order was forced to abandon political independence.

In England in the 15 century, knights in brilliant plate armor first appeared. That is how they entered the medieval legends. Of course, the knight in armor looked more impressive than in chain mail. Especially popular are the English knights from the time of King Arthur. But, unlike the descriptions that are full of literature, they were far from being so faithful and loyal. Many knights were looking for money and a good position. Therefore, without special hesitation, they could move from one side to another. And some turned into real thugs. During this period, chivalry as a phenomenon radically changed. They no longer needed to protect the interests of the sovereign in exchange for land. Moreover, many of them preferred a peaceful existence, without war. In addition, any rich citizen who had no knightly past could become a knight. The knights who took part in the war occupied officer positions in the army, which was becoming more professional.



It is necessary to say a few words about the fact that in the Middle Ages, a crossbow — a mechanical bow — came to replace the war bow. Beginning in the 15 century, these weapons became widespread in Europe. Characteristic was the formation of detachments of crossbowmen, mainly in the knightly armies. The crossbow was much more accurate than a regular bow, and also had more destructive power, but sometimes it was not so fast. The reason for its popularity was the fact that the string was stretched with the help of the gate. Since no more physical effort was needed to pull the string, the light crossbow became heavy, and its arrows could even pierce armor. But this weapon also had drawbacks - this is not a very convenient form, high cost and difficulty with reloading. The crossbow could only afford a regular warrior.

Carapace boyars are a category of warriors of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Eastern Europe of the 10-16 centuries. They came from the "armored servants", that is, people who are obliged to carry out military service on a horse, being dressed in heavy armored weapons. As a rule, they were exempted from paying their duties. And later, when the period of wars was in the past, they were drawn to serve as messengers or policemen. This estate was especially prevalent in Kievan Rus, Bulgaria, Muscovy, Moldavian principalities, Wallachia.



Armored boyars were a kind of "layer" between the nobility and the serfs. They owned land plots with the right to transfer them by inheritance, for which they were in military service. Despite the fact that some of them had serfs, they preferred to farm the land themselves. They also had the right to live in cities and engage in trade and crafts.

After Belarus was annexed to the Russian Empire, the armor-clad boyars were ranked among the palace peasants and they received rights on a par with the Ukrainian Cossacks.

Great interest among historians continues to cause the Order of the Templars and the Order of the Hospitallers.

The Order of the Hospitallers was created in the 12 century and is named in honor of St. John of Jerusalem. The main purpose of his appearance is to protect the pilgrims who traveled around Jerusalem. At the very beginning of its formation, the order served mainly missionary and charitable functions, and the knights were needed only for protection. But later, during the crusades, the order was transformed into a monastic-military organization, headed by Grand Master Raymond du Puy. After the Crusaders were driven out of the Holy Land, the Hospitallers, after briefly staying in Cyprus, conquered the island of Rhodes, where they established their state. However, in 1522, they were forced to leave the island because of the Turkish siege. In the 1530 year, the Hospitallers took possession of the island of Malta (hence its second name Maltese), on which the fraternity remained until the 1798 year, the time of its capture by the French. They launched a fight at sea against the Levantine, Algerian, Tripolitan and Tunisian pirates, and also repelled the attacks of the Turkish troops in 1565.

Grand Master of Hospitallers Guillaume de Villars protects the walls of Acre, Galilee, 1291. thin Dominic Louis Papeti (1815-1849) Versailles


The Order of Malta was eventually forced to return to Rome, but even here its knights honored their traditions and maintained sovereignty. To date, the Order of the Hospitallers is the only order that is officially recognized, unlike the Order of the Templars, about which more rumors are circulating than the truth. For the entire period of its existence, the Knights of the Order of Malta participated in the political world life. And now they are observers at the UN.

The Order of the Templars is, like the Order of Malta, a military-religious order, the foundation of which falls on the 1119 year. In the same way his knights were to protect the pilgrims. History Order began with simple Crusaders, but soon he became one of the richest orders. By the way, it was the Templars who invented the banking system, they repeatedly lent large sums of money. In addition, the knights had broad legal and religious powers with which the pope (the direct manager of the order) conferred them.

The battle of Varna took place 10 on November 1444 of the year between the united army of the crusaders and the Ottoman Empire near the city of Varna. The battle was the end of an unsuccessful crusade against Varna of the Hungarian and Polish King Vladislav. The outcome of the battle was the complete defeat of the Crusaders, the death of Vladislav and the strengthening of the Turks on the Balkan Peninsula.

The Templars were widely known for their fighting qualities, they had good military training, they skillfully owned weapons, and the detachments were distinguished by a high degree of organization and discipline. But beyond that, the knights of the order were known as debauchees and drinkers. In addition, the wealth did not bring them to good. Philip the Fair was very jealous of such innumerable riches. Therefore, a lawsuit began over the Templars, as a result of which most of the knights were burned. But no one got the gold, and nothing is known about where it is at the moment. Those of the Templars who survived, managed to safely hide it.

No less interest of historians is caused by yet another representatives of the military Middle Ages - khuskarly. Initially, this word meant court servants. But in the Viking Age, its value changes. In those days, so began to call the royal warriors. In England, in the first half of the 11 century, the term “khuskarly” began to denote a closed, unique organization of professional soldiers, which formed the basis of the Anglo-Saxon army. As a rule, this corps was used for offensive operations.

Most often, the origins of the xuskarls are associated with the pirate fraternity of the Vikings from the fortified Jomsborg. Khuskarly had a high level of military organization, had their own code of honor, were loyal to the king. Most of them received land tenure for service, where they lived in peacetime.

This organization had its own charter, which defined the rights and obligations of the participants. So, for example, at the royal table, everyone had to sit down by their nobility of origin or by seniority. If any of the khuskarlov committed a misdemeanor, he was transplanted to a lower location. If there were three such misdemeanors, the guilty were put to the very end of the table, where no one spoke to him. In addition, it could throw bones. If the huskarl killed a comrade - for this he lost his head or was expelled beyond the boundaries of those lands where Anglo-Saxon King Knut ruled. In addition, the word "coward" was glued to it tightly. A similar punishment was imposed for treason - the penalty or confiscation of property.

Tom Lowell. Battle of Hastings


Since the number of khuskarls was insignificant, they were never used as an independent combat force, even though they surpassed the national Anglo-Saxon army in military strength. Most of the Houskarls were killed at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. The survivors left England, moving to the service of the emperor of Byzantium.

Of course, this is not a complete list of medieval warriors. Here are only the most fearless of them, those who entered the history of civilization as the brightest representatives of the era.

Materials used:
http://mport.bigmir.net/war/1519397-TOP-5-luchshih-voinov-Srednevekov-ja
http://refak.ru/referat/1838/
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Yoshkin Kot
    +17
    28 May 2012 09: 32
    superficially and churly romantic, in real life the knights were something like our brothers from the 90s, only their godfather was the king, and all matters, besides knightly armor itself, were nothing more than tournament or ceremonial vestments, everything was real simpler, which however does not cancel their excellent training and personal courage laughing
    1. Green 413-1685
      +6
      28 May 2012 11: 12
      Yeah, but I was smiled by a comparison of the knights of the late Middle Ages in plate armor and the mythical knights of King Arthur, who, if there was a place, at the time of the departure of the Romans and the advent of the Saxons.
    2. borisst64
      +11
      28 May 2012 11: 13
      The title article is attractive, and when you start reading, it feels like a history textbook for elementary grades. I liked the pictures !!

      Well, I can not resist at least one pearl to discuss:
      "Knights in shiny plate armor first appeared in England in the 15th century"
      For the first time what? Knights, in brilliant, in plate or armor? Or the totality of everything?
      1. Green 413-1685
        +11
        28 May 2012 11: 19
        Did it just bother you? Yes, I couldn’t read the whole article without gaggling. Waste paper. And the pictures are yes, good ones.
        1. Redpartyzan
          +7
          28 May 2012 11: 36
          Hmm. And where is the prince's squad? If we start talking about the best warriors of the Middle Ages, then not mentioning it would be strange. She defeated the most modern military of that time — the Byzantine.
          1. +5
            28 May 2012 17: 51
            The most interesting thing is that at the same time they did not use armor ... swords and spears ... The Byzantines, who knew the full force of the blows of the Slavs and Antes, naturally, were primarily interested in their martial art. The author of "Strategikon" reports that the Slavs and Antes ... are hardy, easily endure heat, cold, rain, nakedness, lack of food. They are armed with small spears (2-3 each), bows and small arrows, poisoned with a potent poison (such arrows were used by the Scythians). Many had sturdy shields. They did not know shells.

            The Byzantines (IV century) emphasize the fundamental difference between the military system and the military art of the Slavs, in which each soldier was of the highest class. The Slavs were an armed people, over which neither the military-political force of the retinue organization nor military doctrines prevailed. The only division among this armed people was age-related, i.e., according to the degree of mastery of martial art. This division survived to the times of Kievan Rus, when there was a front (paternal) senior squad and a young squad.

            About the military qualities of the Slavs, the same opinion is shared by Procopius, the Jordan, and John of Ephesus: ... they learned to fight a war better than the Romans. They went into battle in shirts and trousers, but others don’t wear either shirts or raincoats, but only pants pulled up with a wide belt on their hips (Tacitus).
        2. +2
          28 May 2012 21: 54
          Yes, I agree. Lyapov, like a flea on a dog
      2. pribolt
        +2
        28 May 2012 20: 26
        The title article is attractive, and when you start reading, it feels like a history textbook for elementary grades. I liked the pictures !!

        I support comments borisst64
    3. Shuhrat turani
      +8
      28 May 2012 11: 30
      Quote: Yoshkin Cat
      which, however, does not cancel their excellent training and personal courage


      more precisely, pride ... As an example, we can cite the behavior of the French feudal lord in the battle of Crescy, and in the battle of Poitiers during the Hundred Years War.
      In both cases, pride and indiscipline led the French to defeat ...

      The foundation of any army is discipline, in some cases it compensates for the lack of high training.
      1. +6
        28 May 2012 12: 16
        Shuhrat turani, you forgot about the Battle of Agincourt-- where in fact the English militia archers fucked up the whole color of European chivalry !!! moreover, like an ace heating pad !!! wink feel laughing and the article minus over ran the author-
      2. Yoshkin Kot
        +1
        28 May 2012 13: 26
        Well, I didn’t specifically mention what they didn’t have, otherwise I would have to list a huge one !!!
        1. 755962
          +1
          28 May 2012 22: 17
          Sometimes even romantic ...
  2. +10
    28 May 2012 09: 54
    And how they stank)))
    in the campaign, up to 1/3 died not in battle, but from diseases, in particular from dysentery
    1. Ataturk
      +1
      28 May 2012 10: 04
      Quote: leon-iv
      And how they stank)))

      How is it smelly cheese)))))))))))))))))
      And from the mouth always smelled of garlic huh?))))))))))))))
      wuhahaha.

      And my legs smelled like))))))))))))
      bathed in clothes)))))

      I'm glad that I live in the modern world.
      I don’t even live a day without a toilet and a soul.

      Although they had their own buzz. It’s a pleasure to ss-rip in the bushes)))))) and wiped with leaves))))))))))))

      wuhahahaha
      1. SIT
        +2
        28 May 2012 13: 53
        Quote: Ataturk
        Although they had their own buzz. It’s a pleasure to ss-rip in the bushes)))))) and wiped with leaves))))))))))))

        Yeah, now you won’t allow yourself such a luxury. You even need to piss in a plastic container to carry with you and then pour into running water. A sheet is not something to wipe, but you can’t even break it down - they will immediately calculate it. Yes, even a drone overhead with an IR scanner - at night even worse than during the day. And if they cover it and take it alive without documents and dog tags, then they will do something that no Saracens could even dream of. The progress of the evo to the swing !!!
  3. Ataturk
    0
    28 May 2012 10: 02
    Somehow one sage was asked, can you tell when the 3rd World War will begin?
    To which the sage answered: I do not know when the 3rd world war will begin, but I know one thing, if it starts, the 4th will definitely be with swords and bows.
    1. +7
      28 May 2012 10: 13
      Ataturk
      What other sage - ancient Chinese? They asked Einstein what they would fight in World War 3, to which he replied that he did not know exactly how and with what, but in World War 4 they would fight with stone axes.
      1. Shuhrat turani
        +2
        28 May 2012 11: 26
        And Einstein is not a sage ????? To some extent, and rank him among the cohort of "wise men".
        1. Yoshkin Kot
          0
          28 May 2012 13: 27
          on a "national" basis? feel
    2. +1
      28 May 2012 12: 21
      Ataturk, the sage was called modestly so -Einstein Yes and said that World War 3 will be carried out with clubs and stone axes !!! wink
  4. Yoshkin Kot
    +1
    28 May 2012 10: 12
    not a, world war, in principle, cannot begin at such a level, here is a simple not a world war, then yes
    1. Shuhrat turani
      +2
      28 May 2012 11: 34
      Quote: Yoshkin Cat
      not a, world war, in principle, cannot begin at such a level, here is a simple not a world war, then yes


      why not???? Remember the era of the Hunnic invasion ... The Hunnic Alliance fought against the Rimper Empire with its allies and federates. In principle, the two largest military blocs of their time entered the battle, only Parthia and China did not participate ... The climax of the war was the Catalun battle, which remained in the memory of Europe for a long time and was long remembered in sagas and chronicles ...
      1. +2
        28 May 2012 12: 25
        Shuhrat turani, The culmination of war is the Catalun battle, which has long remained in the memory of Europe and has long been remembered in sagas and chronicles ...-- you probably wanted to say the battle on the Catalan fields? Where the Romans defeated Attila together with the Germans and Gauls? wink
        1. Shuhrat turani
          +2
          28 May 2012 14: 14
          they didn’t beat ... actually the battle ended in a draw ... since both sides refused to participate in the second round ... De facto bleeding both sides ...
      2. Yoshkin Kot
        0
        28 May 2012 13: 28
        So what? war captured the entire planet? or did war veterans have colonies overseas?
        1. Shuhrat turani
          0
          28 May 2012 18: 05
          the rest of the planet chewed cokes while sitting on palm trees and blowing bubbles from their own saliva ...
          1. 0
            26 January 2017 20: 07
            Quote: Yoshkin the Cat
            So what? war captured the entire planet? or did war veterans have colonies overseas?

            Quote: Shuhrat Turani
            the rest of the planet chewed cokes while sitting on palm trees and blowing bubbles from their own saliva ...

            Of course, not the rest of the planet chewed coconuts - but the population of the Roman Empire, suddenly, was 60% of global (and of the remaining 40% of humanity, 30% came from the Chinese, and the Huns and their allies accounted for a maximum of 2% of the world's population - they just had a man from 15 to 70 men, and the Romans alas ...)
      3. 0
        26 January 2017 19: 54
        Quote: Shuhrat Turani
        In principle, the two largest military blocs of their time entered the battle, only Parthia and China did not participate ...


        Then it’s more correct to consider the first world Trojan, which led to the so-called “Bronze Age Disaster” - just the Greeks remembered in it only their own small section of the front (just like modern small Britts, who consider El Alamein the most important battle of WWII). Bottom line: of the five world powers, three were covered with a copper basin (Hettia, Achaean Greece and a little later - Babylonia), and the remaining two (Egypt and Assyria) were in a deep decline of over two hundred years!
  5. +2
    28 May 2012 10: 23
    In general, the invention of firearms made the war "more humane", but vile. A bullet wound gave a person a chance to survive, but a stab blow from a sword - 100% blood loss, not to mention the chopping blows of axes. On the other hand, the improvement of firearms nullified all the prowess - the sniper is the apotheosis of "dishonorable" and "vile" war bully
    1. +2
      28 May 2012 12: 32
      Prometey, HA DURING the time of chivalry, these pros considered crossbowmen a fiend of hell (they were not taken prisoner), how could some pezant drive an iron bolt into them, and it is guaranteed to bang an entire pro of a knight’s war !!! wink so beautiful, chained up to the most do not indulge in steel, plume, and you dirty dirty peasant !!!! laughing
    2. 0
      26 January 2017 19: 47
      Quote: Prometey
      A bullet wound gave a person a chance to survive, but a stab blow from a sword - 100% blood loss, not to mention chopping ax attacks

      Yeah ... Can you imagine what a musket bullet did to a person? for a minute, 50 g - from soft lead, flattened when it enters the bone from a ball with a diameter of 20 mm into a pancake with a diameter of 50? Yes, just tear off her arms, legs and heads!
      By the way, they give heavy blood loss cutting blows (for example, sabers), but not stabbing! Remember the “duel of the minions": Kelyus received 19 stabbing wounds - and remained on his feet!
  6. Green 413-1685
    +5
    28 May 2012 11: 01
    Oh oh. Well VERY weak article. I don't even see much point in disassembling it. It is written in some kind of clumsy language, plus a set of stereotypes of a textbook for grades 6-7 and all kinds of nonsense. It amused me that the reason for the decline of the Vikings was called their inability to siege. Although the reason is completely different. And the author gave the heat to the story about the crossbow. Which "sometimes" isn't as fast-firing as a bow. ))) What he apparently suggests "sometimes" and the opposite.)) In fact, a professional archer will give odds to any crossbowman, which the British proved to the French in the Battle of Crécy, where they cleanly sawed fr. knights with Genoese mercenary crossbowmen. Another thing is that it takes years to train an archer, it is no coincidence that they can be determined even by the deformation of the bones. And a month will be enough to train a crossbowman. Well, a very superficial and weak article, very much.
    1. +2
      28 May 2012 11: 33
      and that received quantity turned into quality
      Bow gone came crossbow
      crossbow gone came firearms.
      1. Green 413-1685
        +4
        28 May 2012 11: 44
        The crossbow did not supplant the bow. Simply, depending on the principle of the formation of the troops, there was an emphasis on its armament. The same British, where the bulk of the troops were free landowners who had the opportunity of high-quality training, had an emphasis on the bow, and the French, due to the low social. the status of ordinary soldiers and low training of this "meat" at the end of the Middle Ages, 2/3 was taken by the crossbow. So the crossbow did not pass into quality. Well, then firearms appeared.
    2. +3
      28 May 2012 12: 32
      With all due respect to the bows - the battle of Cressy was won not so much by archers as by the disorganization of the French knights, who had never been particularly disciplined, so the British beat them almost throughout the Hundred Years War until Jeanne came am
      Well, fairy tales about the over-range and penetrative power of medieval bows and crossbows are only bewildering.
      1. Green 413-1685
        +1
        28 May 2012 12: 47
        And no one says that this is a weapon removed. However, it was precisely the archers in the duel that were partially destroyed and put to flight by the Genoese arbalester, and the French knights. they thinned pretty. It is strange to argue about this, if both English and French sources agree with this.
        1. +1
          28 May 2012 13: 19
          Green 413-1685
          And no one argues. The bow was a good auxiliary weapon, but nothing more. Yes, there were battles when archers decided the outcome of the battle, but they can be counted on the fingers. This is in games like Medieval 2, archers mow down enemy armies in batches, in reality it was far from reality.
          Given the incredible spread of arrows with increasing range of fire, they physically could not produce such devastations in the ranks of the enemy and even more so to pierce armor and shields when firing a canopy (this is still not shrapnel wink ).
          1. Green 413-1685
            +2
            28 May 2012 14: 03
            But who then called archers not auxiliary troops? However, it was archers in the battles of Cressy, Agincourt and Poitiers who made the decisive contribution to victory. Indeed, at large destinations, archers fired not by sight but by a canopy at areas. The rate of fire is 10-16 arrows per minute. And despite the fact that they also made their positions impregnable for the French knightly cavalry with the help of dug stakes, it was a very formidable force. It was really difficult to hit the knighted knights themselves with a canopy, but their horses easily. That is how they were beaten under Agincourt. Horses at fr. knights were knocked out, and then they were launched into a foot attack. Imagine - chained knights, hardly moving through a field where tens of thousands of stuck-in arrows with a thickness of a finger and longer than half a meter interfere with movement, and 5000 archers also beat at them at a speed of 10-16 per minute. It was archers who made a decisive contribution to the victory of the British. And of course, the French have low discipline plus the arrogance of their nobility in relation to ordinary soldiers.
            1. +1
              28 May 2012 17: 58
              The Crossbow Book / Ralph Payne-Galloway is a cool thing ... very well written and illustrated ... read imbued with respect for the English Longbow ...
            2. 0
              26 January 2017 19: 39
              Quote: Green 413-1685
              arrows thick in a finger and more than half a meter long

              this is with early crossbows. And longbow has exactly the opposite - in thickness floorfinger and long almost a meter (standard - 1 yard, 914,4 mm)
        2. 0
          28 May 2012 18: 38
          However, it was precisely the archers in the duel that were partially destroyed and put to flight by the Genoese arbalester, and the French knights. they thinned pretty.

          If my memory serves me, due to poor organization, the crossbow did not come to the crossbowmen with shields, because of which they had to conduct shelling ... As a result, all of the above you ... Respectfully
          1. -1
            28 May 2012 22: 40
            Where does such knowledge come from when applying bows?

            They never paid attention to what the chronicles say - they chopped arrows.
            Death from an arrow is a rare occurrence. Cinema basically.
            Why shot volleys, mass?
            Apply superficial but prolonged (if possible) injuries.
            There was a loss of blood.
            Considering that you had to move very heavy weapons - imagine the result.
            Here they’ll excise ... with arrows - and a hand weapon comes into action.

            And crossbow bolts are already an aimed action. But whether they will give it to aim ... from a distance of 10-20 meters.

            Really distorts reality - a picture representation, as in films.

            Why was strike weapon so popular? Because of its effectiveness, that’s all.

            And the article is utter junk. Read sickeningly. Like grade 3 elementary school.
      2. 0
        26 January 2017 19: 43
        Quote: Prometey
        therefore, the British and beat them almost throughout the Hundred Years War

        An insidious question: if the British always beat them - why did they take them a hundred years? smile
        The French epically profiled three general battles (Crécy, Poitiers, Agincourt) - but won a lot small! Napoleon also did not lose a single battle in the 1812 campaign (Berezina - this, in fact, is not even a battle!) - but the result? Google "Bertrand Duguecklen" (this is something like our Kutuzov)
  7. Shuhrat turani
    +1
    28 May 2012 11: 25
    The development of military affairs in Europe before the era of geographical discoveries did not have intensive development (especially in Z. Europe) ... Theoretical thought did not develop at all ... Everything changed with the spread of handguns. As for the Vikings, all their military prowess sprang from the application of psychotropic substances (dried fly agaric and other things) ...
    1. 0
      26 January 2017 20: 27
      Quote: Shuhrat Turani
      The development of military affairs in Europe before the era of geographical discoveries did not have intensive development (especially in Z. Europe) ... Theoretical thought did not develop at all


      Yeah .. compare chain mail and Maximilian armor!
      As well as tactics under Hastings and, for example, the same Poitiers!
  8. Voldemar
    +3
    28 May 2012 11: 26
    No article.
    1. Green 413-1685
      +1
      28 May 2012 12: 16
      Not surprising. Among the sources is a student essay. )))
      From so. The whole semester to drink, walk and spoil the girls, and then sprinkle a kind)))
  9. rainer
    +2
    28 May 2012 11: 35
    More than a weak article, for knowledge of materiel minus, for one-sidedness too. Who is interested in googling about "Milanese armor" and the battle of the golden spurs ...
  10. Ataturk
    +2
    28 May 2012 12: 44
    I ask anyone who has the time to watch this movie.
    very heavy movie. That's what is likely to await us!


    Fourth world war
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7vsQpH3tas

    Film description: Created by the efforts of activists of anti-globalist movements, this film shows paintings of resistance to power by transnational corporations and their supporting governments in different parts of the world: Mexico, Argentina, South Korea, Palestine, South Africa, Iraq. The term “The Fourth World War” in relation to the onset of global capital and the fight against it goes back to the work of the leader and theorist of Mexican Zapatista subcommandant Marcos.

    globalization corporations revolution neo-liberalism democracy culture freedom poverty poverty poverty economy NAFTA

    It is so easy to believe that everything is in order in the world: you don’t even need to close your eyes - you just have to keep your eyes on the TV screen, from colorful advertising posters and signs of a big city. It is enough to limit yourself to your worries and affairs, your work and your entertainment. But, in the words of World War IV, “beneath the fragile surface of prosperity made of hard and flat screens”, beneath the surface itself, lies violence, poverty and “the shadow of a crisis right over our heads.” This is in many ways a unique film that is strikingly different from other anti-globalization films. We don't just dive into a video that introduces us to the geography and history of modern resistance to capitalist oppression: the film features an excellent, almost poetic voiceover ...

    Angola, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, South Korea - where the authors of this film just did not visit and what stories they did not capture! Workers left without factories blocking the road, homeless people seize empty land, to the sound of the Irish bagpipes, protesters attack police cordons in Quebec, sapastists make their famous march to Mexico City, and Palestinian children throw stones at Israeli tanks. Even for those who are far enough from the protest movement, for a person who has never been interested in this topic, I think it will be interesting and useful to watch this excellently made film, which in its dynamics is more like an action-packed feature film, rather than a documentary.

    "The Fourth World War" is not a theoretical breakthrough, it is not the assertion of completely new ideas, it is an excellent, emotional, strong portrayal of a more or less modern movement of resistance to capitalist oppression, dictatorship and arbitrary rule of the state. This is an accident - but the work on the voice acting, editing and reviewing of this wonderful film ended on May 1 - the International Day of Workers' Solidarity. So let it become the best way to celebrate today's holiday, which has not lost its relevance these days. The story is not over and the final victory over the exploitation of man by man is only ahead!
  11. Dust
    +4
    28 May 2012 14: 25
    The author knead everything in a mess - so about this you could write ten articles, at least ...
    She smiled especially about the knights of King Arthur - it’s like the 6th century, what kind of knights could there be, for that matter? A common late-time legend ...
  12. schta
    +3
    28 May 2012 15: 33
    I apologize for the unflattering assessment, but the article is a set of stereotypes and fiction
  13. Yemelya
    +2
    28 May 2012 19: 59
    Some kind of crap.
  14. +2
    28 May 2012 22: 49
    "In addition, any rich city dweller who had no knightly past could become a knight... The knights who took part in the war were serving as officers in an increasingly professional army. "
    Along the way, the author did not teach the history of the Middle Ages in the Soviet school. Even after more than 30 years, and then from the lessons of history, I remember that only a nobleman could be a knight if he was knighted, and a city dweller is a city dweller and his armor did not make him a knight, a heavily armed infantryman, but in the Teutonic Order they called "bollards". The knight and townspeople are of different classes.
    1. 0
      26 January 2017 19: 36
      Quote: Captain45
      only a nobleman could be a knight if he was knighted. And he is a townsman, and the presence of his armor did not make him a knight


      Depended on the country and era. Until the 12th century, people of non-noble origin were often knighted, especially in the north, in Scandinavia.
  15. woodman
    0
    28 May 2012 23: 00
    The bodies are dark-skinned, naked to the waist ...
    Dancing lads near the open field.
    Tse Zigra - Dance of the Brotherhood of the Virch,
    Usih connected: the youngest and in litas,
    Auditory, proud ....

    Dovbe in timpani bullish bullish ...

    The horns are clearly imposed on them ....
    Chi in vain ...
    In the weeds, the chubats are folded
    Pid the blue sky
    Have a clean poly ...
  16. Cadet787
    +1
    29 May 2012 00: 50
    This is some kind of romantic tale for older children with good pictures.
  17. Oladushkin
    0
    30 May 2012 16: 42
    I’ll add from myself 5 kopecks about crossbows. Indeed, they were invented before the Crusades and began to be used so massively (there were always peasants in the dofig feud) that (appreciate humor) the then Pope rated the crossbow as a WEAPON OF MASS DEFEAT and issued a bull forbidding the use of a crossbow for military purposes. The ban was lifted only when the era of the Crusades began.
    1. 0
      26 January 2017 19: 34
      Quote: Oladushkin
      The ban was lifted only when the era of the Crusades began.


      Not quite so: dad forbade the use of a crossbow in wars between Christian peoples - and when the Crusades began, the demand for them rose sharply!
  18. +1
    29 May 2013 15: 06
    The topic is good raised, and disclosed so mediocre am
  19. 0
    26 January 2017 19: 32
    The hodgepodge, incoherently, the author skips from one era and the country to another, then back ...
    Especially made fun of "Anglo-Saxon King Knut "(the Dane who conquered England and annexed it to Denmark) and"English knights of the times of King Arthur. "Actually British King Arthur Anglo-Saxon invaders beat in the tail and mane, only now knights as a class in those days, neither the Angles nor the Britons - from the word "in general"