Military Review

About the infantry of Ancient Russia and its weapons

13
About the infantry of Ancient Russia and its weapons

The main military force of the Middle Ages is infantry. These are the most massive armed formations in those centuries when Russia passed through its formation. One of the issues discussed in this context is related to how infantry units were formed, where they came from weapon and what kind of weapon it was.


If we talk about the armament of the medieval foot soldiers, then it is definitely impossible to say that the weapons were "issued by conscripts." For the reason that for the Middle Ages there were no "state arsenals" of weapons from which the same infantrymen could receive blades, axes, etc. for themselves. Good weapons were in price, and if we are talking about an infantryman, most often representing a militia from among the farmers, then this price for him could simply be unbearable.

There were several options for obtaining weapons. One of the most common is to get on the battlefield from the enemy. But in order to get weapons, you must still initially have at least some kind of own weapon. Rescued what was cheaper - without much frills, with possible minimal usability. Nevertheless, even such weapons allowed the infantryman, not from among the representatives of wealthy families, to achieve certain success on the battlefield.

The story of Klim Zhukov about the medieval infantry - the infantry of Ancient Russia:

Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
13 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 18 May 2020 10: 13 New
    +9
    "Пехота-мелкота..." да уж к "царице полей" всегда относились с неким предубеждением и поглядывая с высока... с высоты коня, корабля, артиллерийского тягача, танка или самолета. А ведь все, все на поле боя "работают" ради успеха простого пехотинца, так как именно его действия определяют смогли мы одержать победу или нет
  2. Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 18 May 2020 10: 20 New
    +4
    Who needs that video Zhukov watched a very long time. Of course, there are a number of nuances that personally raised questions for me, but nonetheless. The main question is why this article, for the sake of filling content? At least they tried to analyze the available material.
  3. Free wind
    Free wind 18 May 2020 10: 35 New
    +3
    Zhukov has interesting programs. I looked only at the beginning of the round shield. And here are the problems. Thickness is from 6 to 9 mm, to make such a shield from one solid wood is problematic, even now. You need to find a straight-layer spruce, on the trunk you make a backlog, and you watch how the layers go., Dumped, take a block of wood longer than the diameter of the shield, and thrust wedges along along the middle, then next to get the chopping block, then process it. But I don’t believe in the strength of such a board. Now the boards are thinner than 15 mm and the sawmills do not undertake to saw, and you know where the material goes to coffins for social burials. I will continue the time then.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 18 May 2020 16: 36 New
      0
      Quote: Free Wind
      Thickness is from 6 to 9 mm, to make such a shield from one solid wood is problematic, even now.

      At that time, oaks were more common in our latitude, from which it is easier to obtain a similar mass of wood, and the strength of the wood is very good.
  4. Archon
    Archon 18 May 2020 10: 43 New
    10
    I do not like to watch videos - to read much faster, the text loads faster and easier and does not spend much Internet package. Therefore, this article was empty, I did not find out anything.
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 18 May 2020 11: 05 New
      +4
      I agree with you, it’s necessary to write articles about such things, and not launch videos.
  5. Charlie
    Charlie 18 May 2020 11: 11 New
    0
    And where is the dislike put here. See me video watch on the phone
  6. knn54
    knn54 18 May 2020 11: 15 New
    +2
    В польском фильме "Крестоносцы" очень красочно показали жемайтов-ополченцев из литовской Жмуди.
  7. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 18 May 2020 12: 19 New
    -2
    Жуков - "кловун", с кем поведешься. Нахватался у Гоблина, так тот на кинушках сидит, разлекалово. Пехота = пехом+топтать, топать. Безлошадники, низкое социальное положение, что уважать. Ополченцы, боя не знают, а тут на дело идти, уважают спецов-мастеров.
    2:40 says that all the neighbors of the Slavs everywhere had only infantry. I do not believe. Poland?
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 18 May 2020 12: 54 New
      +2
      Well, actually, Klim- candidate of historical sciences, the thesis was just about the topic. What does the Goblin have to do with it?
  8. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 18 May 2020 12: 53 New
    +1
    Klim - well done!
  9. Maks1995
    Maks1995 18 May 2020 18: 50 New
    0
    Right! Roller year ago.
  10. Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 29 June 2020 21: 13 New
    0
    Хм. "Основная военная сила Средневековья – пехота" В первый раз такое слышу. М.б. где то там в Китае. Что в Европах, что на Востоке основной военной силой в Средние века была конница. Пехота - на подхвате. ЕЕ звездный час настал уже фактически в Новое время, с появлением на поле боя швейцарских наемников и испанских терций. На исторических форумах вообще распространено мнение, что пехоты как таковой на Руси в средние века не было. Ополчение не в счет оно использовалось при осаде и оброне городов, а в полевых сражениях - якобы не участвовало (так это или нет - не знаю, я не специалист в этой области).