Constantinople. Assault 1203

24
Constantinople. Assault 1203
Siege of Constantinople by the Crusaders. 1204 Peter Dennis. Osprey Publishing


Enemy at the gate


In June 1203, near the city of Abydos (modern Canakkale), the collection of all ships and vessels of the crusaders began. At this point in August 717, Maslama's Arab army crossed the strait to besiege Constantinople.



Their next stop was at the monastery of St. Sebastian, modern Yeşilkoy district, 12–13 km (three French leagues) to the walls of Constantinople.

Now the arriving pilgrims saw Constantinople, which shocked them, Villehardouin writes:

So, know that they looked at Constantinople for a long time, those who had never seen it; for they could not even imagine that such a rich city could exist anywhere in the world when they saw these high walls and these rich towers with which it was surrounded all around, and these rich palaces, and these high churches that were there so much that no one could have imagined if he had not seen them with his own eyes, and the length and width of the city, which dominated among all the cities. And know that there was no such brave person whose heart would not tremble...

Here there is a military council, at which, without the cunning Venetian Doge, everything would have been completely different or, as usual, during the sieges of New Rome. The enemies would have trampled before the city walls of Theodosius, and then, with the loss of resources, would have been forced to retreat.

But the Doge proposed to strike from the sea, and before that to capture the Princes' Islands and the Asian coast in order to provide themselves with food. This plan was accepted.


Prince's Islands. Photo by the author.

On June 24, 1203, the entire Crusader fleet passed the southern walls of Constantinople, and the entire city came running to see this spectacle. Moving north along the strait, they passed Constantinople on the right and landed in Chalcedon (on the Asian side of the Bosphorus), at the Rufian imperial palace, where they pitched tents and provided themselves with food.


Kadykoy, once Chalcedon. Istanbul. Türkiye. Photo by the author.

After a short rest, they took up a position much closer to the city. The naves and cargo naval fleet moved to Pereia harbor (modern Kabatash) below Diplokion (this is the modern Besiktas district). Here the Venetians saw and then reproduced in their city two columns in Piazza San Marco.


Photo of two columns. Piazza San Marco. Venice. Photo by the author.

And the dromons of the pilgrims stood on June 26, 1204, opposite the entrance to the Golden Horn, on the Asian coast in Scutari (Chrysopolis, modern Uskudar), where another imperial palace was located. In the region of Pere or Galate (modern Galata) there were clashes between knights and the “knights” of the Greek emperor, the Roman horsemen.


Üsküdar. Istanbul. Türkiye. Photo by the author.

A knight from Lombardy, Nicolas Roux, arrived here as an ambassador in Scutari. He brought a message from Emperor Alexei III, in which he offered to provide them, if the pilgrims needed it, with everything they needed. Despite the fact that Choniates gives the most derogatory characterization of this extravagant emperor, nevertheless, the basileus had information about the situation among the crusaders and tried to play on the fact that they were not going to campaign against Christians, but against infidels, in the name of saving Jerusalem. But the arguments did not work, especially since the tenacious Venetian Doge did not know his business.

Basileus received the answer that the crusaders did not need the services of the usurper and demanded to vacate the throne for the real heir, Isaac's son, Alexei.

After which the aliens decided to demonstrate the “real” emperor to the capital, the Doge and the Marquis Boniface of Montferrat were on the same ship, and Alexei was with them. They approached the very sea walls of the city, but, according to Villehardouin, out of fear, no one supported the new emperor. However, this surprised all the crusaders, who thought that their thoughts were noble, and they were restoring the rights of the “real” emperor. They could hardly understand that both Isaac and his brother, now the ruler, Alexei III Angel, from the point of view of usurpation, were worth each other.

Preparations for war began, the crusader army was divided into seven detachments.

Count Baudouin of Flanders led the vanguard, having horsemen and a large number of archers and crossbowmen. The second detachment was led by his brother Henri, Mathieu de Valincourt and Baudouin de Beauvoir. The third was commanded by the Count de Saint-Paul, Pierre of Amiens, and his nephew Eustache de Cantelet. The fourth detachment was led by Count Louis of Blois and Chartres. The fifth was commanded by Mathieu de Montmorency, Geoffroy de Villehardouin, Ogier de Saint-Chéron, Manassier de Lisle, etc. In the sixth were the Burgundians Ed de Chanlitte Champagne, Guillaume, his brother, Richard de Dampierre and Ed, etc. The rearguard or seventh detachment was under the beginning of the Marquis Boniface of Montferrat.

With all the knightly bragging, the knights were not confident that they could cope with the defenders, and the Venetians believed that the fleet could only be properly positioned in the Golden Horn Bay, protected from sea storms. The plan was to break into the Golden Horn and be able to attack the city both from the bay and from the north and northwest, in the area of ​​Blachernae.

But first it was necessary to enter the Golden Horn Bay, the path to which was blocked by a chain. It was stretched out from Galata: it was firmly attached to the tower in Galata. And the second end, controlled, was in the tower of Centinaria, actually in Constantinople, next to which there was the gate of Eugene or Marmaroport (“Marble Gate”), since it was lined with marble.

It was located on the shore in the Sea Walls system, in the area of ​​the Vosporion (Prosphorion) harbor, one of two harbors along the southern shore of the Golden Horn. Now, instead of two harbors, there are ferry berths, to the east just behind the Galata Bridge. But if the modern Galata Bridge is located just to the west of these harbors, then the Tower of Centinaria was located to the east, and the chain was stretched right at the very entrance to the bay, covering the Acropolis of the capital from the sea.

The chain was kept afloat by logs.


Part of the chain. Istanbul Archaeological Museum. Istanbul. Türkiye. Photo by the author.

The main knightly forces began loading and moving to the Pera area on July 5, 1203, landing in the area of ​​​​the modern port of Kabatash. The Huissiers, having little maneuverability, were dragged by the galleys. The entire army was fully armed, the knights were in chain mail and with their visors down. The landing party marched to the sound of trumpets. Some of the knights landed directly into the water, occupying a bridgehead.

The Byzantines were already camped here. They crossed the bridge of St. Callinicus at Blachernae, 7–8 km before Galata. Basileus Alexei III arrived at the landing site of the knights with a large army and retinue, which he built according to all the rules of the Byzantine strategems.

After the Huissiers landed, the squires began to lead out their horses, and the knights lined up in detachments. They immediately launched an attack, but contrary to expectations, the large cavalry army of the basileus fled. The knights pursued them to the bridge of St. Callinicus. Choniates is indignant about this:

And how could they dare to fight these people, whom they in fear called deadly angels, or invulnerable copper statues, and at the mere sight of which they were ready to die of horror?

Thus, the first threat that the pilgrims who had lost their way were afraid of was overcome: the danger of a collision with a large land army of the Romans had passed.


View of Galata. Istanbul. Türkiye. Photo by the author.

A few days later, when the Latins realized that there would be no land resistance, they launched an attack on the fortifications of Galata, with the goal of breaking through the protective sea chain. The crusaders surrounded the tower, settling in the wealthy Jewish quarter of Galata. Several attempts to take the tower failed:

This tower was strongly fortified and well defended by numerous armed warriors,

– wrote Robert de Clary.

The tower was defended by the Angles, Pisans and Genoese. On the morning of July 6, 1203, the defenders of the tower and those arriving from Constantinople made a sortie, bringing down the army of the besiegers, led by Pierre de Brachet or Jean d'Aville. They held back the attack of the besieged and attacked themselves with the support of the troops that arrived in time, so they reached the gates of the tower, which they were able to break into.

At the same time, naval battles took place around the chain at sea. It was impossible to break the chain with any “scissors”; the link was about 20–25 cm in length, 4,5–5 cm in diameter. In addition, it was located on huge logs.

Perhaps, after the chain was taken at Pera, it was either cut or broken out of the wall, allowing the Venetian galleys or dromons to break through, the first being the ship "Eagle", probably equipped with a powerful ram to break the chain. Some of the defenders tried to cross to the city side along logs and chains, and they drowned; others escaped on boats and barges.


This is how the naves looked, however, much later in the 1371th century. Naval battle off Calais. 1480 Chronicle of Jean Froissart XNUMX British Library. London.

A small number of triremes, dromons and naves of the Romans who defended the Golden Horn were either captured or thrown ashore. The bay was completely cleared of small fleet Romeev.

Thus, the Romans’ neglect of naval forces led to a tragic consequence, and thirty years ago the Roman fleet was a formidable force opposing the fleet of the Sicilian Normans. The Venetians received a reliable base for their fleet, but a miracle for the Romans, like in August 626, when a storm in the Golden Horn destroyed the Slavs and Avars attacking the city, did not happen.

The entire left bank of the Golden Horn, about 8 km long, was captured. The bridge of St. Callinicus, already dilapidated by the Byzantines across the Varviss River, which flows into the bay, was cleared from the battle. It was located 3 km west of Constantinople. The next day, July 7, the entire Crusader fleet entered here.


View of the northern shore of the Golden Horn, a boat can be seen in the photo. Istanbul. Türkiye. Photo by the author.

The crusaders began to discuss how to conduct further military operations. A dispute arose between the allies, the Venetians proposed attacking the Sea Walls from the waters of the Golden Horn, and the knights believed that they were more accustomed to fighting on land. We decided to use both possibilities.

The crusaders restored the stone bridge of St. Callinicus, crossed it and, as it were, returned back, approaching the walls of Theodosius, the fortifications of New Rome.

They encamped at the monastery of Cosmas and Damian, and set up camp on a hill just below the walls of Blachernae, at the Girolimna Gate, the new fortifications of the Blachernae Palace, built at the end of the 12th century. The besiegers and the besieged could communicate.

Nearby was the parking lot of the Venetian fleet.


The pilgrim fleet could have been stationed at this location. Opposite the walls of Blachernae. Photo by the author.

The newcomers clearly understood that it was unrealistic to take the seven-kilometer Fedoseyev walls and the 5,6 km long sea walls, and decided to attack precisely in the area of ​​the Blachernae Palace. It was also necessary to speed up the assault because the crusaders had supplies for only a few weeks, and there was no way to replenish them. The knights also believed, as Marshal Champagne writes, that their army was significantly smaller than the army of the Roman Emperor.

The latter constantly carried out forays, so that the crusaders could not even forage. After which they surrounded the camp with a palisade and other fortifications.

The Romans made two powerful forays. As Choniates noted, Theodore Laskarites (1174–1218), in his opinion, showed what the glory of the Roman weapons, and his brother, the stratilate of the East, Constantine, was captured by the knights.

These attacks were very dangerous for the besiegers; they were carried out so often that the pilgrims could neither sleep nor eat properly. The parties also exchanged shots from stone-throwing machines, but, again, as Nikita Choniates believed, these sorties were made only for form; Emperor Alexei III himself was already planning an escape.

And the crusaders were in a hurry to storm. Blow number one was to be delivered against the fortifications of Blachernae, which had neither a ditch nor a rampart. And the Venetians, naturally, planned an assault on the city’s Sea Walls. They chose to storm Fort Petrion.

Weapons for siege



Image of a trebuchet or manganelli. Bible of Cardinal Maciejewski (Louis IX). Morgan Library and Museum. NY. USA.

Sources report that the Crusaders used mangonelli or mangano. This machine looked like a trebuchet. We previously met them during any siege of Constantinople under the name manganika or in Arabic majanika, stone throwers with a fixed counterweight (μαyyανικα). In Tactics of Leo VI, manganiki are clearly distinguished from toxobolista or ballistae.

Ballistas were also used on both sides. The Venetians specially equipped the naves for the assault. A bridge was built on the bow or on the mast, 100 feet (3,2 m) or 200 feet (6,2 m) long,

covering them with cowhide to protect them from fire, and hanging rope ladders along the yards, which, by means of blocks attached to the masts, could easily be lowered and raised again.”
Perhaps the sides of the ships were also filled with vinegar, which the Latins used against the “Greek fire.”

A winged lion storms the sea walls


On the morning of July 17, 1203, the Venetians lined up in a single formation and moved towards the walls, firing at them from manganicas, crossbows and bows.


Cannonballs for throwing from manganel or manganica. Ajlun Castle Museum. Jordan.

You need to understand that the sea city walls stood both on the shore itself and at a distance, some 40 m from the sea. From the bridges and stairs of the naves, the Venetians began the battle only with the walls that were directly on the shore; most likely, intense shelling was carried out from most of the naves from bows, crossbows and manganicas. But there were huge naves whose masts were higher than the walls, such as “Cosmos” or “Pilgrim”.


This is how an eyewitness of the Fourth Crusade from Ravenna depicted the ship on the mosaic. Church of San Giovanni Evangelista. Ravenna. Italy. Photo by the author.

The task also consisted of both landing and attacking walls that were not near the water. But here there was a catch, as Villehardouin reports, the galleys could not land. Then the blind doge, dressed in chain mail armor, demanded to be taken to the shore. He himself held in his hands a huge banner of St. Mark, on which a winged lion was depicted. With the help of his squires, he was the first to land on the shore, and the Venetians, seeing this, began to land from Yuissier.


The question remains open: how could they storm the walls directly from ships? A painting by Carpaccio is indicative here, where naves are depicted next to the sea walls: Carpaccio (1465–1525). Arrival of pilgrims in Cologne. Academy Gallery. Venice.

Rams were located on many ships. With the help of one ram, a breach was made in the wall, and the Tsagratoksots (τζάγγρα), as Choniates writes, or crossbowmen, immediately rushed into it. But they were repulsed by the Pisans and the British.

And then, as Marshal Champagne writes, assuring that this was confirmed to him by 40 witnesses, the banner of St. Mark suddenly appeared on the city wall. Such a miracle! But there was no miracle, the Venetians used their shooting advantage, were able to clear the walls of defenders and capture, according to sources, as many as 25 towers in the Petrion area. Immediately the robberies began, they managed to take possession of the horses and send them to Yuissier to the crusaders’ camp.

But earlier a boat had been sent with the message that part of the sea wall of Constantinople had been captured. Forces gathered in the city, and the Venetians realized that they could not cope with them, so they set fire to the Petrion area.

Interestingly, a Russian traveler who happened to be in Constantinople at that time reported that the fire was caused by barrels of resin thrown from ship engines, possibly by manganik. The fire spread to the south of the city, covering almost the entire central part of Constantinople (not to be confused with the city center) and the Blachernae region.


Map of the area of ​​the fire in Constantinople on July 17, 1203, made by the author.

Blacherna attack


While the Venetians were active in the area of ​​Petrion, the knights attempted to take the walls of Blachernae.

Above I wrote that all knighthood was divided into 7 detachments. There were 700 knights in total, the rest were squires, infantry, crossbowmen and archers. Three detachments were supposed to go on the assault, and four remained to protect the camp and guns:

And Count Baudouin of Flanders and d'Hainaut moved with his men to attack; Henri, his brother, and Count Louis of Blois and Chartres, and Count Hugues de Saint-Paul, and those who went with them, also moved to attack.

The knights began their assault up just two stairs, and then they were met by the Angles and Danes. Fifteen warriors were able to climb, but the “axe-bearers” repelled the attack, taking two prisoners and sending them to the basileus.


Blachernae fortifications and palace. Istanbul. Türkiye. Photo by the author.

“The last and worst thing is when the husband himself is a woman”


A terrible fire caused by the Venetians caused outrage in the city. The townspeople began to demand that the cowardly and boastful ruler take action. He was forced to gather a mounted army, and the foot army consisted of the entire male population of the capital capable of holding weapons.

The army left the walls of Constantinople and moved towards the Crusader camp. Villehardouin claims that there were 100 thousand Romans or 60 detachments; his younger brother in robbery, Robert de Clari, writes about some 17 detachments.

The women of the city gathered on the walls, watching the battle take place.

The crusaders decided to rely on the fortified camp, as they understood that they had little chance against such an army. Knights, mounted and on foot, lined up in front of the palisade, behind them stood infantry, squires and baggage trains.

In front of the line are archers and crossbowmen. The Count of Flanders lined up his detachment in the correct formation and moved towards the emperor, who with his cavalry troops rushed towards him. At the same time, the emperor quite wisely sent part of the cavalry army to the rear of the crusaders. But the count's advisers suggested that he avoid unnecessary death and retreat under the protection of the palisades.

But the Count de Saint-Paul and his relative Pierre from Amienois decided to attack; they did not respond to all entreaties to stop. And the people of Baudouin of Flanders accused him of dishonor, and he, as a knight, could not help but join the attack of the Count of Saint-Paul. The enemy cavalry was separated by a hill; the first on the hill were the Franks, who stopped awaiting further action in the face of the huge imperial cavalry.

At this time, it is not clear why that part of the army that was supposed to strike from the rear returns to the emperor. And the Venetian army approached the knights, whose doge was ready to die along with the pilgrims, and with the right leadership from the Romans, this dream of his would have been fulfilled on this July day.

But... Basileus Alexei III, whom, obviously, it was not in vain that the imperial treasurer Choniates constantly criticized and scolded him on the pages of his chronicle, is deploying his regiments. And in front of the civilian population of New Rome, he retreats to the country palace of Philopation, located opposite the Selimvri Gate.


Melantia Gate (Porta Melantiados) or Selimvri Gate. Istanbul. Türkiye. Photo by the author.

Some of the knights even pursue the retreating ones. This was salvation for the pilgrims who turned into robbers:

And know that God never delivered any people from greater danger than that to which he exposed the army of pilgrims on that day. And know that there was not such a brave man among them who did not experience great joy.

And Basileus of the Romans, to whom

fate sent emperors who were careless, weak, devoted to pleasure, who did not want to take on any work and who considered personal safety above all else,

Alexei III was already ready to escape.

He took gold, jewelry, his daughter Irina and fled on July 18 to the city of Debelt (village of Debelt, Burgas region, Bulgaria) 350 km away, then to Adrianople (Edirne) and then to Philippopolis (Plovdiv), leaving the capital to the mercy of fate .

To be continued ...
24 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    15 March 2024 04: 24
    Thanks Edward!

    So we know for sure - are the columns in St. Mark's Square in Venice from Constantinople or not?
    1. +6
      15 March 2024 05: 54
      Quote from Korsar4
      Thanks Edward!

      So we know for sure - are the columns in St. Mark's Square in Venice from Constantinople or not?

      From Constantinople. But they were brought 200 years before the events described.
      And this time they whistled the quadriga
    2. +7
      15 March 2024 06: 11
      Good morning Sergey!!!
      As far as I know, the design itself was copied, not the columns.
      As Ivan wrote absolutely correctly, the quadriga was whistled from the hippodrome.
      And a lot more - about this, with pictures, through the article.
      hi
  2. +5
    15 March 2024 04: 31
    Great, thanks Edward!
    So far emotions!!!
  3. +5
    15 March 2024 05: 32
    I enjoyed it very much and read it with pleasure. Thank you. hi
  4. +4
    15 March 2024 05: 46
    A small amount of trier, the dromons and naves of the Romans, who defended the Golden Horn, were either captured or thrown ashore.

    The presence of triremes in the fleets of 1203 is doubtful. Ships with a similar arrangement of rowing weapons required a jib and an outrigger frame to support the oar. Similar things appear again in the Mediterranean only at the end of the 13th century.
    1. +5
      15 March 2024 06: 13
      Vladislav, good morning!!!
      This is text from sources.
      Similar things appear again in the Mediterranean only at the end of the 13th century.

      How do we know that only at the end of the 13th century?
      I have never seen anything like this in scientific literature, and in scientific literature. butt too.
      hi
      1. +4
        15 March 2024 06: 48
        Good morning Edward.
        The description of the “royal galley” of Louis IX (Eighth Crusade (1270)) features a classic bireme with two rows of oars without a jig. The next Mediterranean type (Venetian galley) is already described as a ship with three oarsmen on a bench, each with its own oar, which pass through one port.
        1. +4
          15 March 2024 07: 25
          Vladislav,
          We also know about the two-tiered Byzantine dromon “Salandria” from the 10th century, and we know that he was not alone. And the size of rowing ships in the 12th century. have increased greatly.
          I would not strictly assert that only at the end of the 13th century. The triremes were "reanimated".
          I think that they could have been revived since the 12th century. There are no less reasons for this.
          In a painting from the 16th century. from the Doge's Palace "Siege of Constantinople" all the galleries are single-row.

          hi
          1. +1
            15 March 2024 12: 26
            In a painting from the 16th century. from the Doge's Palace "Siege of Constantinople" all the galleries are single-row.

            The bireme (two-tier) type of galley disappeared at the turn of the 13th-14th centuries. Naturally, the artist of the 16th century had no idea about dormons with two tiers of rowers.
  5. +5
    15 March 2024 06: 59
    the knights were in chain mail and with their visors down.
    I believe about the chain mail, but not about the visor. For the visor you need a bascinet, but here the maximum is a tophelm, on which the visor does not struggle in any way.
    Thanks Edward!
    1. +4
      15 March 2024 07: 20
      Anton,
      good morning!
      Thanks for the feedback.
      I myself hesitate on this issue.
      It seems to me, especially after I saw the mosaics in Ravenna, that for the beginning of the 13th century. and Topfhelm did not exist, but what to do with the same stained glass windows from Saint Chapelle. I guess it's from the mid-13th century.
      But there is one passage from the Alexiad that has always confused me:
      Seeing this, Alexey lowers the visor attached to his helmet onto his face and with his
      with six warriors (they have already been discussed) quickly attacks them.

      Perhaps this is a mask of Turkic origin?
      Another option, during the Byzantine Renaissance of the 10th - 11th centuries. flocks are fashionable, judging by the rare images that have come down to us, “ancient Roman and ancient Greek” armor became fashionable, maybe it “took it” from there?
      This is just a guess. But the question is very interesting.
      And what do you think?
      hi
      1. +4
        15 March 2024 08: 18
        First of all, it is necessary to agree on definitions and concepts. Specifically for me, the visor is a moving(!) part of the helmet. I know nothing about the use of movable faces on Turkic helmets. Of the European helmets with a half-mask, only the helmet from Germundby has reached us relatively intact, but, despite the complexity of the artifact’s design, the mask is motionless there. Regarding antique helmets, I only saw images and samples with solid forged half masks.
        As for the time of the appearance of the topfhelm... Perhaps the first pictorial source with this helmet is the Maciejewski Bible. But there they are presented in such quantity that makes it possible to assume that the first examples of this armor appeared already at the beginning of the century. However, this does not negate the fact that the visor can only be adapted to the bascinet, and this is at least a century later (and I highly doubt it!), after the events described.
        1. +5
          15 March 2024 08: 42
          But there is one passage from the Alexiad that has always confused me:
          Seeing this, Alexey lowers the visor attached to his helmet onto his face and with his
          with six warriors (they have already been discussed) quickly attacks them.

          How then to explain this passage?
          1. +1
            15 March 2024 10: 49
            Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
            Seeing this, Alexey lowers the visor attached to his helmet onto his face.
            How then to explain this passage?
            There were helmets with a mask, i.e. a mask attached on a hinge to the helmet. She rose and fell. By “visor” this is probably what was meant. There was also a “nasal guard” (I don’t know what it was called correctly), it also lowered with the help of a hinge and covered the nose during the battle. It might even be a helmet from the Latin part of Europe. Did they wear knight's armor?
            1. +2
              15 March 2024 12: 22
              There was also a “nasal guard” (I don’t know what it was called correctly), it also lowered with the help of a hinge and covered the nose during the battle.

              In archaeological realities, we do not know any “noses” for this period: and what we have in the images, everything from a carpet from Bayo, a helmet of St. Wenceslas and a helmet from the Vienna Arsenal, chess from the Orker Islands, stelae from Milan (I her cited in the previous article), etc. - everything has an inseparable part: a single forging.
              hi
        2. +3
          15 March 2024 10: 29
          Of the European helmets with a half-mask, only the helmet from Germundby has reached us relatively intact, but, despite the complexity of the artifact’s design, the mask is immovable there. Regarding antique helmets, I have only seen images and samples with solid forged half masks.

          Finds of masks from around this period are known on the territory of Byzantium.
          Vasin and Lemeshko, in their work on masks, identify a separate Byzantine-Russian type of masks and connect the origin of these masks with the Roman era (if I am not mistaken from memory). In this version, there is a 700-800 year break in the use of disguises at least. Well, or is this really the influence of the Renaissance or is it still borrowed from the steppe people?
          Actually, several finds of larvae are known on the territory of Rus', but two can be clearly associated with the Russian area - from Serensk and Izyaslavl (Shepitovskoye fortified settlement) - both are kept in the State Historical Museum, the rest clearly belong to the “steppe” type or “Torko-Polovtsian”, another one stands out. Tatar type", but it dates back to a later time - the 2th-14th centuries. They also distinguish a separate type - “Visor”:
          Made in the form of smooth convex iron plates for complete face protection. May be equipped with a series of openings for viewing and breathing. Apparently, they initially appeared in the second half of the 12th century in Western Rus' as a Western European borrowing. For the era of the developed Middle Ages on the territory of Rus', only one example is known (the Armory Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin), 14-16 centuries

          But I don’t know - only 1 find.
          Thus, the possibility of Alexei using a disguise is quite likely.
          PS here on VO the guises were discussed, and EMNIP even 2 times. hi
          1. +3
            15 March 2024 12: 24
            Sergei welcome!
            2 can be clearly associated with the Russian area - from Serensk and Izyaslavl (Shepitovskoye fortification) - both are kept in the State Historical Museum, the rest clearly belong to the “steppe” type or “Torko-Polovtsian”,

            And I think they got it from the torques, as S.A. suggested. Pletneva.
            hi
            1. +3
              15 March 2024 12: 32
              And I think they got it from the torques, as S.A. suggested. Pletneva.

              Good afternoon, Edward!
              My opinion is that masks are a “nomadic topic”, but I am not a weapons specialist.
              Firstly, the sample for the Russian area is quite weak - only 2 specimens, and secondly, what is indicated by the differences in appearance: on Tor there are usually images of the “Oriental type” with a mustache, on Russians there is a conditionally “European type”, in general differ, but this can be a creative processing of local workshops to suit the tastes of the customer. All this is of course purely speculative.
      2. +2
        15 March 2024 14: 36
        Most likely there were masks on parts of Byzantine helmets.
        I attached masks from Constantinople (below, above a helmet from Sutton Hoo) found in the 50s in the Great Palace and later lost. The masks are iron, there are no holes for the mouth, just like on Russian masks. Regarding liftability, D'Amato writes about mounts at the top and center of each side. It seems to mean a rigid mount, but the possibility of lifting in some cases is not excluded.
  6. +5
    15 March 2024 08: 36
    Some mercenaries fought with other mercenaries. International competitions, however, with numerous sponsorships. smile Thank you!
  7. +1
    15 March 2024 11: 50
    The Angles and Danes - presumably the famous Varangian Guard? By the way, then it’s worth calling them always the same - either Angles or Englishmen
    1. +3
      15 March 2024 12: 17
      The Angles and Danes - presumably the famous Varangian Guard?

      Yes, from the second edition, if you rely on Vasilevsky.
      The descendants of the Anlo-Saxons and Danes who left England after 1066 are irreconcilable enemies of the Normans.
      hi
  8. +1
    15 March 2024 21: 54
    Thanks for the interesting presentation!
    I don’t agree with how Constantinople is depicted in the painting in the title.
    It’s as if walls were built from cinder blocks.
    But this is a personal perception.
    Thank you!