Military Review

Outfit and armament of the English army at the end of the 16th – first half of the 17th century (part 1)

26
Man began to defend himself from a long, long time, then when weapons As such, it was not even mentioned. Man had to defend himself against weapons from the moment the weapon itself appeared. Simultaneously with the development of weapons for the offensive, weapons began to develop for protection: the protection of man, his body from sharp teeth, claws and horns of animals. Then it was a primitive defense made of improvised means: animal skins, the same horns, etc. Protective clothing was light, which provided the hunter with good mobility, did not interfere with running fast and being agile and evasive in a duel with a beast. Before becoming a full-fledged knightly latnika, completely covering the entire body of a person, protective clothing went a rather long way of development.


To protect against arrows, as well as from sliding accidental strikes, combat armor was intended, which even when penetrated, reduced the severity of injuries received. The chance of survival increased, that's all.

Outfit and armament of the English army at the end of the 16th – first half of the 17th century (part 1)

Heavy cavalry sword with a basket handle (in English terminology "basket sword") 1600 – 1625 The length of 100, see. Weight 1729 England. Metropolitan Museum, New York.

If we carefully consider the mass of armor, we will see that for several centuries it has not changed. In the XIII century - mail protection, in the XIV century - "transitional" armor, the XV century - a full latnik, XVI - XVII century - "three-quarter" armor, they all weighed the same: 30 - 40 kilograms. This weight was distributed throughout the body and was equal in strength to the average soldier (compare, the equipment of a modern soldier - 40 kg, a soldier from elite units such as the Airborne Forces - up to 90 kg). Only tournament armor, not intended to protect against accidental strikes or reducing the severity of injuries, was knocked out of this line, but to prevent them completely, even when struck with a spear with a ram on the chest. Naturally, this armor was not used in combat. Wearing armor for a long time exhausted the warrior, and in the heat he could get a heat stroke. Therefore, warriors often tried to at least partially free themselves from their protective equipment, even realizing that they could be taken by armor by surprise, because this happened often. Sometimes they also took off their armor when crossing or escaping, and sometimes they cut off to save their own life: armor is expensive and life is more expensive!


Handle "basket sword" 1600 – 1625 England. Metropolitan Museum, New York.

The awkwardness and clumsiness of a warrior in armor is nothing more than a myth. After all, combat plate armor, even very heavy, allowed the soldier who wore it to perform fully any movements necessary for combat, and some medieval sources describe the performance of acrobatic tricks by soldiers. It is enough to visit the Royal Arsenal in Leeds in England to animate the knightly duel of soldiers wearing Greenwich armor to see that they can jump and push each other's legs to the chest, and beat him in the face not with a blade, but with the hilt of a sword. However, during active operations, the warrior in the armor quickly got tired, so that to wear the armor needed an excellent physical training. By the way, animators in Leeds are sweating and tired ...

Special demands were made by European archers on the shoulders that interfere with archery, slowing down the speed of hand movements. Not every design of the shoulders allows you to raise your hands up completely or dissolve them to the sides with low energy costs. In Asia, they used kuyachny, laminar or lamellar designs — flexible sheets hung loosely from the shoulders, in this case mobility was improved by good protection, because the underarm area was not covered by anything.

In Europe, they began with the manufacture of sets of fairly light chain mail armor, and then consistently improved their protective properties. This was the beginning of the competition between offensive and defensive weapons. Only the widespread use of firearms ended this competition. Outside Europe, armor makers did not at all try to achieve absolute protection. The shield was maintained, actively accepting the blows of the enemy and protecting it from arrows. In Europe, by the 16th century, the shield fell out of use, since the new sword fencing technique allowed melee to do without it, began to take a lance blow directly to the cuirass, and the arrows were no longer scary.

So, instead of protecting the entire body of a warrior with solid plates characteristic of Europe from the 15th century, more powerful armor began to protect especially vulnerable places and vital organs, and the rest - mobile and light armor.

The historiography of England offers a lot of books on this topic - they just run up, and this is understandable - these are theirs. историяbiography of their country. Many current works are written in the last century, and the British themselves refer to them so far! But let's start with the background. And that's what we learn.


The armor of the English infantryman-pikener of the XVII century.


It turns out that in the 16th century, for example, in the 1591 year, English archers (after all, archers were used!) Demanded that they wear armor covered with bright fabric - a “combat doublet”, made of quilted fabric, or underlay with metal plates. Historians D. Paddock and D. Edge explain this by the fact that firearms had obvious successes, but the quality of gunpowder was still quite low. Therefore, a shot from the musket was effective at a distance of no more than 90 m. The riders' vestment was also appropriate for the weapons of that time.

In medieval Germany, the reiters of Henry VIII were armed with a spear 3,5 meter in length, and, moreover, each was also armed with two pistols with wheel locks. The gun had a fairly solid weight and was about 3 kg, had a half-meter length, the bullet weighed 30 grams, but the range of damage was about 45 m. There were more than two pistols, if you had such an opportunity. And then they shoved them over the tops of their boots and a couple more were tucked into their belts. But science is moving forward and the quality of the powder has improved. Pistols and muskets have become more effective against the old means of protection, already rather obsolete. More sophisticated armor, which came after it was made available to the reitar, was now tested for durability and quality by means of bullets. I checked for the vulnerability of the whole set, especially the helmet.

The armored headset "Eagle", reinforced on the chest with an additional plate, providing additional bulletproofness, was at the time of the Archduke Ferdinad of Tyrol. But such armor, along with its invaluable quality - security, had a big drawback - they were heavy, which, of course, affected the mobility of the warrior.

In parallel, in England, there was a process of bringing the armor to a certain uniform pattern, as there were changes in the organization of the system for the purchase of weapons for the army. According to the law 1558 of the year, now the population was assigned the obligation to arm the army. The value of the contribution depended on the amount of income on an annualized basis. For example, a “gentleman” who had an income of £ 10 or more in an 1000 year was obliged to equip six horses for the army (three of them must be with a harness), and for the rider also armor; 10 horses for light cavalry (with armor and harness). For infantry: 40 conventional armor sets and 40 lightweight, Germanic pattern: 40 peak, 30 bows (for each 24 arrows); 30 light iron helmets, 20 halberds or bill-type copies; 20 arquebus; and twenty morion type helmets. The rest bought weapons on their income. Therefore, master gunsmiths began to massively forge sets of identical armor. This led to the “flow production” of vestments and greatly facilitated their release. It is curious that it was strictly forbidden to take all these weapons to other states.

The heavily armed cavalry wore a cuirass, a girdle to the middle of the thigh, the arms were fully protected, and the helmet Morion had a comb and metal shoulder pads, which were tied with laces under the chin. They were armed with a heavy spear without a shield and a sword. The lightly-armed cavalry wore a chainmail shirt and the same Morion, and there were very tall cavalry boots made of thick leather on their feet, the same as those of heavy cavalry. They were armed with a sword and light spear. In Norwich, light cavalry drove two pistols in holsters near the saddle in 1584. For protection they used a brigandine or a Jacques jacket with a lining of horizontal metal plates.


Briganina XVI century. Most likely, made in Italy, around 1570 - 1580. Weight 10615 g. View from the outside and inside. Philadelphia Museum of Art.

Irish pikemen were protected by cuirass, their arms were completely covered, the head was covered with Morion with a crest, they did not wear legguards. On arms was a long "Arab peak" (about 6 m long), like, a heavy sword and a short dagger.
Author:
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. bionik
    bionik 13 January 2016 07: 02 New
    +3
    Battle of Tilbury. 1588. Outfit of a militia soldier. Thom Atkinson Photoproject
    1. bionik
      bionik 13 January 2016 08: 37 New
      +3
      If anyone is interested: Outfit of soldiers of the British army from 1066 to 2014: historical photo project
      Source: http://www.kulturologia.ru/blogs/080814/21045/
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 13 January 2016 08: 23 New
    0
    Svetlana took up an interesting topic .. well, continue .. Thank you!
  3. Engineer
    Engineer 13 January 2016 08: 56 New
    +5
    Not a basket handle, but a hilt with a developed guard, and a hilt is part of the hilt, which actually covers the brush. I recommend reading Zhukov - one of the best domestic experts in this field.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 13 January 2016 11: 41 New
      0
      Verify the truth.
    2. Sweles
      Sweles 13 January 2016 15: 08 New
      -2
      Quote: Engineer
      Not a basket handle, but a hilt with a developed guard, and a hilt is part of the hilt, which actually covers the brush. I recommend reading Zhukov - one of the best domestic experts in this field.


      garda-enclose the Russian word ...
      1. Aljavad
        Aljavad 14 January 2016 01: 39 New
        +1
        garda-enclose the Russian word ...


        g (c) arda - defense (see. - Guard). "o-mountain (o) -live." root - goro (a) -dit, g (o) r-od. those. rather "build" than "enclose"

        Do not be like the ancient ukrams, on whose mov Adam and Eve mash.
        1. Sweles
          Sweles 14 January 2016 11: 30 New
          0
          Quote: Aljavad
          garda-enclose the Russian word ...


          g (c) arda - defense (see. - Guard). "o-mountain (o) -live." root - goro (a) -dit, g (o) r-od. those. rather "build" than "enclose"

          Do not be like the ancient ukrams, on whose mov Adam and Eve mash.


          two in terms of language, you can’t be able to analyze, don’t take it ...
          1. alebor
            alebor 25 November 2016 10: 33 New
            0
            Well, if the word “guard” is a Russian word, then the words with the same root must be Russian: vanguard, rear guard, wardrobe ...
            In a word, a deuce to you in French. :-)
        2. Sweles
          Sweles 14 January 2016 11: 30 New
          0
          Quote: Aljavad
          garda-enclose the Russian word ...


          g (c) arda - defense (see. - Guard). "o-mountain (o) -live." root - goro (a) -dit, g (o) r-od. those. rather "build" than "enclose"

          Do not be like the ancient ukrams, on whose mov Adam and Eve mash.


          two in terms of language, you can’t be able to analyze, don’t take it ...
    3. kalibr
      13 January 2016 16: 00 New
      +2
      Norman and Pottinger originally had a basket sword - a basket sword, and there was a variation of the term - basket grip - basket handle. There was a literal translation. Sometimes this is not entirely successful, but it accurately conveys what their historians say.
      1. Sweles
        Sweles 13 January 2016 16: 10 New
        0
        Quote: kalibr
        Norman and Pottinger originally had a basket sword - a basket sword, and there was a variation of the term - basket grip - basket handle. There was a literal translation. Sometimes this is not entirely successful, but it accurately conveys what their historians say.


        "unsuccessful" is said unsuccessfully, as we see Western historians are not too concerned about the transfer of accurate knowledge, but it is advisable for ours not to repeat their writings based on unsuccessful imagination, but to somehow creatively comprehend what they write there and correct if possible .. .
        1. kalibr
          13 January 2016 19: 13 New
          +1
          It’s easier said than done, unfortunately. Everyone knows how to advise, it’s easy, but as it comes to business, then even a few can do it!
  4. avt
    avt 13 January 2016 09: 49 New
    +6
    Quote: Engineer
    Not a basket handle, but a hilt with a developed guard, and a hilt is part of the hilt, which actually covers the brush.

    ,, You-s! You ... tovo! ",, Chevo tovo?" ,, Don’t outrageous ... Huh? ”“ Fullness, well, they called the hilt a hilt .... that’s how the Germans and Franks generally called sabers with big knives and they didn’t sound like knights / knights. The guards of boarding sabers were called ladles at all. Normal this is how the article writes, it’s so accessible without tediousness and mystical sci-fi ..... I remembered an article by a lady in the magazine ,, Antiquar "about the origin of the Turkish Tagans, that’s really there - Daragaya’s mother laughing .... it’s good that the aliens didn’t write about aliens. And here Svetlana writes a pretty decent, second, kind of article that’s called, in the format. ”What’s good and someone else wants to search on this topic, here’s a colleague again refreshed
    Quote: bionik
    Battle of Tilbury. 1588. Outfit of a militia soldier. Thom Atkinson Photoproject
    There, the continuation to the present day seems really at this link
    Quote: bionik
    If anyone is interested: Outfit of soldiers of the British army from 1066 to 2014: historical photo project
    Source: http://www.kulturologia.ru/blogs/080814/21045/
    So really
    Quote: parusnik
    Svetlana took up an interesting topic .. well, continue .. Thank you!
  5. homedition
    homedition 13 January 2016 10: 49 New
    -4
    The slowness and clumsiness of a warrior in armor is nothing more than a myth
    Dear Svetlana. To understand this myth or not, I advise you to put on plate armor and wave your sword, and then put on something easier and the question will disappear by itself. Naturally, by clumsiness and slowness it is impossible to understand the complete impossibility to move in armor, but this is not an easy task.
    1. kalibr
      13 January 2016 11: 50 New
      +6
      You should see the fights at the Weapons Museum in Leeds. It is clear that the production, but each movement is taken from the English "manuals" of that time. The roar is still from the iron. But they even bounce. It is clear that sweaty then everything. But this is the best illustration of clumsiness in armor. And as the 17 summer Joan of Arc, being in armor, "first put the ladder against the wall" (a phrase from the chronicle), and before that she jumped into the moat with her. The moat is not a hole, and a staircase, albeit a bamboo, but ... not a meter high. And nothing! jumped, ran. For two weeks she only felt bad in armor - she wore them without taking off (!), But then, even she slept without taking off her armor. And, by the way, she remained alive and not disabled, after an arrow from a crossbow pierced her armor and hit her thigh!
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 13 January 2016 12: 08 New
        +2
        And if you take into account that the knight was prepared from childhood, then ...
        1. avt
          avt 13 January 2016 13: 57 New
          +2
          Quote: cth; fyn
          a knight was trained since childhood,

          Children's armor survived - from childhood, they trained their offspring who had pennies.
          1. Aljavad
            Aljavad 14 January 2016 01: 50 New
            +1
            Children's armor survived - from the very childhood they trained their offspring who had pennies


            And then, in the 1970s, they placed a “pioneer” next to these armor and said: “That's how people grew up over 500 years! A schoolboy is taller than a knight! wink

            The stereotype of “clumsiness” is also from deletantism. Tournament armor was given out as combat.
      2. Aljavad
        Aljavad 14 January 2016 01: 46 New
        0
        You should see the fights at the Leeds Weapons Museum.


        There is video on the network.
    2. avt
      avt 13 January 2016 13: 55 New
      +5
      Quote: homedition
      To understand this myth or not, I advise you to put on plate armor and wave your sword, and then put on something easier and the question will disappear by itself.

      The battle weighed quite the same in the whole World, which is exactly what the author in the article rightly points out
      “Three-quarter” armor, they all weighed the same: 30 - 40 kilograms. This weight was distributed throughout the body and was equal in strength to the average warrior (compare, the equipment of a modern soldier is 40 kg, a soldier from elite units like the Airborne Forces is up to 90 kg). Only tournament armor was knocked out of this series, designed not to protect against accidental blows or reduce the severity of injuries, but to completely prevent them even when struck with a spear "ram" in the chest. Naturally, these armors were not used in battle
      . Moreover, for both nomads and Western riders, it all depended on the wealth of the owner - a professional war. And with 30 kg distributed throughout the body, you can run and jump, well, not
      push each other's legs in the chest,
      this is what the Chinese do only in the action movies. But she writes that it is correct, just read carefully.
    3. Aljavad
      Aljavad 14 January 2016 01: 46 New
      +1
      homedition RU Yesterday, 10:49 AM
      Slowness and clumsiness of a warrior in armor is nothing more than a myth Dear Svetlana. To understand this myth or not, I advise you to put on plate armor and wave your sword, and then put on something easier and the question will disappear by itself. Naturally, by clumsiness and slowness it is impossible to understand the complete impossibility to move in armor, but this is not an easy task.


      If, once, "put on plate armor and wave your sword with it," then it will be awkward. As the first (or even not the first) march of 10 km in the army. Have you tried it? But then you also need to fight ...

      This is all a matter of habit. It would be inconvenient - it would not take root.
  6. Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 13 January 2016 11: 01 New
    +2
    Somewhat unexpected ending to the article.
    I read, I read, I just got into a hunt ... and here, on you, a bang on the head - Irish pikemen ... recourse
    And then the whole buzz-relish-hunting ... unfinished.
    .
    No, dear Svetlana, I’ll ask you very much, you continue.
    And without sudden endings.
    Though a hint, they say, to be continued.
    Take an example from your older colleague .... I’ve said everything, I won’t say anything more about Middle-earth ... and I swung it over for two additional materials.
    And you do the same.
    We wait... love
    1. kalibr
      13 January 2016 11: 51 New
      +2
      It is also written above - part of 1. Will not be all at once. It's hard to write such materials even with a bunch of everything at hand.
      1. Bashibuzuk
        Bashibuzuk 13 January 2016 11: 55 New
        +2
        I read upstairs.
        And the cook reached the bottom - and there’s a bummer ....
        About that and led.
        Sincerely, Vyacheslav Olegovich!
  7. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 13 January 2016 11: 35 New
    +1
    The average weight of armor is overestimated by 10 kg, if someone does not agree, he can conduct his own research and see that the mass of combat armor rarely exceeded 30 kg.
    The development of a firearm did not stop the development of armor, because a body armor is the same brigantine, but made at a completely different technological level, therefore the development of a firearm spurred the development of armor.
    The Greenwich armor is the most MOBILE, the Gothic Masimilian or Milanese is much more mobile.
    Well, for dessert:
    http://joyreactor.cc/post/163424
    PS: the knight is an equestrian warrior and the mass of armor is not bothering him very much, but the horse is yes, but he is a horse, not a man, he is not asked.
    1. kalibr
      13 January 2016 12: 11 New
      +2
      Again, Andrei. - How do you imagine writing such an article? Svetlana sits and bangs on the clave "what did God send"? No, a lot of things have been worked out here, from the catalog of the Tower Treasure Exhibition in Moscow to the books of the same Norman, Pottinger and Nicolas, and they are very good specialists. Then there are MM funds - they indicate height, weight, not just all armor, but even individual parts. In other museums, things have not been set as exemplary, I agree, but there are weight data on them. And, the question is, where, on the basis of what do you think the Greenwich armor is the most motionless? You know the story of his appearance that he appeared after the samples you named and absorbed all the best from them. And turned out to be worse? Again, I do not argue, I only ask for the source of information!
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 13 January 2016 12: 28 New
        +2
        Field. I am fond of such things. Therefore, I know the approximate mass. In addition, the tournament armor of Henry the eighth weighed within 40kg (37, it seems, I do not remember exactly) and this is the tournament armor Vechaslav Olegovich.
        Greenwich armor is a simplified milanca and it is a compromise between cost and functionality.
        Most likely, writing is done with the help of literature, and based on my data and the data of a stranger to me, I will choose my knowledge, which I myself tested and measured and weighed.
        So, with all due respect to you, I can’t recognize an orange in an apple if I have already felt and tried an apple, even if the doctor of sciences convinces me of this.
        1. kalibr
          13 January 2016 13: 16 New
          +2
          I do not convince you of anything - the above is written about the same. And it's just great that you do it. Then what can I say? You should go to England to Leeds, see for yourself, "hold on" for everything, be like that - there is such a service, maybe even go out on the field against their animators. They reproduce everything very carefully, every gesture of the animator appears and the picture from the manuscript is right on the screen. That's when you can draw far-reaching conclusions with full 100% reason. In the meantime, this is only part of the way. I think you will agree with me on this.
          But in addition to the tournament armor of Heinrich, he also had battle armor and a very interesting armor set. Somewhere I had an article about this. Seems to be Questions of History. See if interested. Everything is understood to the smallest detail and there are links to each ",".
          1. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 13 January 2016 13: 40 New
            0
            1926-2015, I’ll be looking for a week ... At least indicate the year.
            1. kalibr
              13 January 2016 15: 45 New
              +2
              ... historiography of the knightly armor of the era of Henry VIII
              Type this ABOVE and you will crawl out all my articles on this topic in various publications. Something is duplicated, it is clear that somewhere 2-3 new facts or the emphasis is shifted. But all have links to sources. Now a year is not necessary to know. Everything is searched by keywords.
  8. otto meer
    otto meer 13 January 2016 12: 21 New
    +1
    An interesting topic, a good presentation, is easy to read and with pleasure. Well done!
    Here are just one jarred
    equipment of a modern soldier - 40 kg, a soldier from elite units of the airborne forces - up to 90 kg
    still 90 kg. overkill. I will not go into details, but let's just logically t.s. The weight of the medium-fed goblin is 80-90 kg. and 90 kg. only equipment (and in fact weapons, personal and group, b / c, communications, etc.), he simply will not carry away physically. Well, he is not an ant.
    1. Aljavad
      Aljavad 14 January 2016 02: 00 New
      +1
      The weight of the medium-fed goblin is 80-90 kg. and 90 kg. only equipment (and in fact weapons, personal and group, b / c, communications, etc.), he simply will not carry away physically. Well, he is not an ant.

      So this is the weight with all of the above! (Gun, personal and group, b / c, communication, etc.)
  9. tasha
    tasha 13 January 2016 13: 47 New
    +1
    More and more consistent, it seems to me, is an article

    "Armor and weapons of the civil war in England 1642 - 1645 gg.". Following a link

    http://topwar.ru/77423-dospehi-i-oruzhie-grazhdanskoy-voyny-v-anglii-1642-1645-g
    g.html
  10. moskowit
    moskowit 13 January 2016 19: 43 New
    +1
    "Oh, thank you" (from the film "Intercession Gate")