Military Review

Outfit and armament of the English army at the end of the 16th – first half of the 17th century (part 2)

47
The division into different types of troops in the army, which began under Henry VIII, continued even after his death. At the beginning of the 17th century, the English historian C. Blair singled out six types of English warriors in armor and with weapons:


1. Heavy cavalry - wore three-quarter armor, D. Paddock and D. Edge, indicate that armor to mid-thigh - legguards - that is, semi-armor was primarily used by light middle cavalry, and heavy cavalry wore knightly full armament. K. Blair - “heavy cavalry wore boots instead of greaves,” and D. Paddock and D. Edge wore boots instead of knight sabatons, they also used closed helmets and knight's armor, but on the cuirass there was no hook for the hook. .

2. The average cavalry wore armor lighter in weight, and they combined with a burginot (or burgonet) helmet.

Outfit and armament of the English army at the end of the 16th – first half of the 17th century (part 2)

Burgonet. Holland 1620 - 1630 Weight 2414 Metropolitan Museum, New York.

3. Light horsemen used firearms weapon and therefore included all those who could “shoot from a horse”, D. Paddock and D. Edge also include “javelinners” (“javelin” - dart) among them, therefore the phrase “dart armor”). Their protective weapons consisted of a breastplate, a burginot helmet, a lamellar skirt, and a horget. K. Blair describes the light cavalry armor differently. They have “Arquebus Armor”: a breastplate, a shoulder pad, a collar, a glove on the left hand to the elbow (“long glove” or “glove for reins”) and again burginot. Lightweight version - gloves, chain mail shirt and burginot again.

4. Musketeers and arquebusiers wore a leather jacket Jacques, and then after 1600, she was replaced by a buffalo leather jacket that withstood cuts with cold weapons, as well as a morion helmet. The musketeers later stopped using armor for protection, and instead of wearing helmets in civilian fashion, they began to wear a wide-brimmed hat.

5. "Armed spears" - infantry protected by armor. She stood in the ranks in the first ranks. She wore armor: cuirass, shoulder pads, gorget, gauntlets, handcuffs and a helmet morion.

6. “Dry spears” (light infantry) used a brigandine or Jacques (often with chain mail sleeves), a morion helmet.

Referring to the illustrations, in 1581 Mr. D. Pottinger and A. Norman indicate that Ireland used two types of English cavalry:

The heavily armed cavalry wore a cuirass, to the middle of the thigh - a thigh, hands were fully protected, and the helmet Morion had a comb and metal cheek pads that were tied with laces under the chin. They were armed with a heavy spear and sword.

The lightly-armed cavalry wore a chainmail shirt and, again, Morion, and boots (very tall with thick skin) on their feet, and heavy cavalry wore the same. Armed with a sword and light spear. For the protection used brigandine or Jacques.

Irish pikemen were protected by a cuirass, their hands were completely covered, Morion was covered with a crest, no legguards were worn, a long “Arab peak”, a short dagger and a heavy sword were in service.

The alebardists guarding the company flags had only cuirass and helmets, since it is not very convenient to use a protected armor to wave a halberd.

The protection of the arquebusier, like that of other infantrymen, included a Morion helmet; in addition to the main weapon, he also had a dagger and a sword. Drummers and trumpeters, whether in infantry or in cavalry, did not wear armor, cold weapons for self-defense.

The officers differed from the rank and file in the wealth of their equipment, and in a sign of high status they wore short spears. In the illustrations, the page boys carry convex round shields behind them. For a long time, such shields were used by the Spaniards, who believed that they helped break through into the building of pikemen, if they moved their peaks. Prince Moritz of Orange later armed his infantrymen in the first rank with bullet-proof shields, trying in such a way to provide protection from bullets from muskets.

The knight's spear (very heavy) by the year 1600 practically ceased to be used in battle, it was used at tournaments and that was all. The very same spear from the 20-ies of the XVII century was rarely used. The heavily armed rider was called the cuirassier (this is the main element of his equipment).


Funerary bras from the grave of Sir Edward Filmer 1629, East Sutton, Kent.

But the past was firmly seated in people's minds, and therefore English historian Peter Young in the 1976 year (300 years later after the described period) wrote that, allegedly, in the 1632 year, the English heavily armed horseman had the appearance of the same medieval knight, although he was "Improved." He lacked plate shoes, did not have a “skirt” - leggings, instead of them used plate covers for the legs (strengthened to the cuirass and protected the legs below the waist down to the knees). The rider's hands were also fully protected, and he was armed with a knight’s spear or a lightened counterpart (there were no extensions and a handle), a cavalry sword (very heavy) and a pair of wheeled pistols.


Gravestone bras from the grave of Ralph Aesheton 1650, Midleton, Yorkshire.

Even in abbreviated form, such armor often weighed more than it protected only from knives. It was all very hard to wear. The cuirassier armor is preserved, which weighed 42 kg, as well as the classic knight armor! These armor defended from bullets reliably enough, but at a certain distance, however, their weight was too great and sometimes with the fall of the rider from the saddle led to injuries.


Helmet "sweat" ("pot") or "tail lobster."

That is why, after the middle of the XVII, the English cavalry used heavily lightweight armor, which had nothing in common with the knight. "Knights" and "round-headed" horsemen of parliament wore a helmet called "sweat". Instead of a visor, an expanding noseplate was made, or an overlapping of metal bands. The cuirass covered the back and chest, the left arm to the elbow — handcuffed, below — the plate glove, and in the “cheap” army of parliament even this “excess” riders were deprived. Dragoons, musketeers, horse arquebusiers did not have protective armor (even the brave guardsmen of King Louis XIII).


Musketeers of Louis XIII 1625 - 1630 Figure Graham Türner.

It can be said that the birth and development of European plate weaponry was completed already after the middle of the 17th century, and by the year 1700, and even more so. True, in combat practice, separate elements of armor were still used. Over a long period of time, weapons developed and, by 1649, the “traditional” form was defined: pikemen (infantry) - breastplate, legguards, helmet morion; musketeers (occasionally) - a helmet and only; cavalry - a breastplate and a helmet, (often only the front part of the cuirass) Pikemen could have gloves with leggings of thick leather, which could protect hands from splinters from the shaft of the pikes.

The changes affected in England and the armor for the nobility, made in the late XVI - early XVII centuries. After Italy, after the 1580 of the year, the “pea pod” (form of cuirass) was borrowed, but after 20 years, the “pea” was abandoned. The helmet could turn on gorget; The back and chest plates were made on rivets from separate strips, this provided for the owner of the armor good mobility. Masters to strengthen the armor added a whole-forged chest plate, which was fixed on top. Lamellar legguards attached directly to the cuirass. The gloves of the fingers were separated, they were protected by metal plates that went over each other. Chainmail shoes had metal noses.


Cuirassier Lats of the end of the XVI century. Cleveland Museum of Art.

The development of the armor continued under Queen Elizabeth, but at the same time there were many various additional details: a chest plate, forearm buff, on the left side a special “guard” was worn on the arm and part of the armor (used for tournaments). Burguignot dressed with a buff that protected the neck and lower face. This armor was very expensive. Leggings became rougher and more massive, because they were put on over their boots, and they had to be even more spacious. Out of use in battle, they almost completely disappeared, as did the sabatons, but the leggings still dressed in armor.


1650 helmet - 1700's. Weight 2152 Metropolitan Museum, New York.

In France, King Henry IV decreed in 1604 to ban full knight armor. Later on, the English rider's 1620 of the year was a lattice made from rods of various kinds. And for the cuirassier helmet there was an Italian “dead head” - a special shape was taken with slots in the shape of a skull.


A helmet with such a “face” not only defended, but also scared!

A novelty was the helmet of the “gentleman” (he received distribution in 1642 - 1649 in England during the Civil War). He looked like a hat with a wide brim, she had a sliding bow. At the end of the 16th and 18th centuries, sappers wore special types of armor, because they had to work under enemy fire and were interested in protection more than other soldiers. Bulletproof helmets were a special kind of protection at the end of the era of the use of knight armor. They were made for commanders who watched siege operations from cover (no one wants to substitute their head for enemy shots).


Tombstone from the grave of Alexander Newton 1659, Brazeworth, Suffolk.
Author:
47 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. qwert
    qwert 21 January 2016 06: 58 New
    12
    A helmet with teeth, this is of course vesch. From the best couturiers of the Middle Ages
  2. Support
    Support 21 January 2016 08: 00 New
    -11
    Yes, half of the exhibits in the photo are some kind of nonsense. How can some of them be dressed? (For example - PHOTO - Burgonet. Holland 1620 - 1630. Weight 2414. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York). The head should be very small - a little more than a fist. And the technologies used do not channel. The level is not the Middle Ages .... Closer to the 20th century ... Again we are ... sorry, they are deceiving. I saw a part in the museum - they are stupidly solid. how to wear? We are again held for idiots in relation to History ....
    1. Riv
      Riv 21 January 2016 08: 29 New
      +1
      Well, like that ... :) Squeaked, but climbed.
      But the "Dead Head" is still collapsible and the collar too.
    2. kalibr
      21 January 2016 08: 42 New
      +4
      What tutunovka are you from, dear? Clever people checked everything, described, found out, indicated ... You, no one "there" is going to fool. "There" they don't even know about you. Foolish "there" costs a lot of money out of your pocket. Have you tried pissing against strong winds? This is the same thing. You don't even know that 1620-30. this is no longer the Middle Ages, but the New Time. You understand - everything is known! People made corrugated armor, wheel locks, clocks that kept time on the towers. Difficult! So don't be afraid! Everything they had to crawl through, and if, where there was any fake, then they were quickly exposed! Once again - this is MONEY, the money is HUGE. And no one will keep fakes in the exposition of the Metropolitan, like De-Beers will not sell fake diamonds!
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 21 January 2016 13: 13 New
        +2
        Quote: kalibr
        how De Beers will not trade fake diamonds!

        a comment was written for this? However, by the way, they trade ...
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 22 January 2016 09: 49 New
          +1
          They trade synthetic. And not fake.
          And this is a big difference.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 31 January 2016 19: 51 New
            +1
            No... bully
          2. Scraptor
            Scraptor 31 January 2016 23: 08 New
            +1
            A synthetic diamond cannot be considered natural, but they did or did not write about it. laughing
            1. abrakadabre
              abrakadabre 2 February 2016 08: 58 New
              +1
              Fake is a glass cut like a diamond or something similar. A synthetic diamond is still a diamond: crystalline carbon with a certain type of crystal lattice. All!
    3. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 21 January 2016 09: 33 New
      +3
      Oops ... However, on the fighter immediately forged ...
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 21 January 2016 10: 06 New
        10
        What really is there. Dipped his head in molten metal. What stuck, then the helmet. wassat
        Because Savoyard mask is so terrible. This fighter, while dipping into the melt, made faces a little and blew bubbles.
        fool (this emoticon Prop)
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 21 January 2016 10: 17 New
          +3
          You made my day rosy and cheerful, you haven’t been laughing so long)))
      2. Scraptor
        Scraptor 21 January 2016 13: 14 New
        -1
        just like a chastity belt, you understand Europe ...
    4. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 21 January 2016 10: 00 New
      +5
      They stupidly open on two axes on the sides of the helmet. And in the photo all the necessary structural elements are clearly visible.
      About technology. Do not so stick out your own handshake for show. If you can not imagine how all this is forged, then it would be better to be silent.

      Thanks to the author. For minor inaccuracies, the rest is all well set out for such a brief article.
      1. Looking Petrovich
        Looking Petrovich 21 January 2016 12: 20 New
        +8
        Quote: abrakadabre
        They stupidly open on two axes on the sides of the helmet ...

        Really. The upper visor-mask rises up and back on the bourguignot, and the side flaps to the sides. Everything is simple and reliable - a head of any size will fit there.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 21 January 2016 13: 15 New
          +1
          and the key - with you, so that the soldier on the demobilization does not go away ... laughing
        2. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 22 January 2016 09: 54 New
          +3
          In the photo - an option for an early arm. Front flaps open on hinges.
          There was also an option like a closed helmet (late arm). When the whole front part was structurally held on the same axes as the reclining visor-visor. When wearing a helmet, it opened upwards, as did the visor.
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 21 January 2016 08: 15 New
    +4
    Thank you, Svetlana ... continue ... you get it ...
  4. Riv
    Riv 21 January 2016 08: 28 New
    +2
    Informative. As always, five cents on the part of a person poisoned by technical education.

    The hat with the fields of the musketeers is not a show off, but the thing is purely utilitarian. The musket has a castle, on the shelf of which it was necessary to pour seed powder. What if the rain? To shoot, to bend ... Here the wide fields of the hat were useful, protecting the musket from water.

    The musketeers' armor in some places remained for quite some time. But with the massive entry into the circulation of firearms, another maneuver weapon was also a maneuver on the battlefield. The infantry had to make long march-throws, but in general to run in battle. How far do you escape in a shell weighing under 20 kilograms (including a musket)? And if you’ve been hiking for three months and ate hot porridge three days ago? In general, not everyone could ... :)
    1. avt
      avt 21 January 2016 09: 13 New
      +2
      Quote: Riv
      The hat with the fields of the musketeers is not a show off, but the thing is purely utilitarian.

      Naturally, especially in Paris, and in any major city of that era, when kitchen slops are spilled from the top floor at best.
      Quote: Riv
      The musket has a castle, on the shelf of which it was necessary to pour seed powder. What if the rain?

      wassat But how then did Petsya, in particular, go to the Europe cocked hat in Russia, where such hats were not rejoicing among the archers, ???
      Quote: Riv
      How far do you escape in a shell weighing under 20 kilograms (including a musket)?

      laughing I’m even afraid to ask - Have you ever been on a camping trip in life? I don’t even ask for a combat exit if 20kg is heavy. laughing
      1. Riv
        Riv 21 January 2016 09: 49 New
        +2
        Do not walk, but RUN. I give an introductory one: the gun is discharged, it takes half a minute to load, a man rushing at you on a horse, with a lance and obviously not for tea, wants to invite you. The forest is 400 meters away. In the bronics, try to run this distance somehow for fun. A cuirass weighs a little more. In general, not only everyone can do it.

        You are our tourist ... :)))

        And never, never, NEVER try to drench the slush of the royal musketeers. Though in hats, even without. They will set fire to your house and they will not be anything for it. You have children's ideas about that time. Dumas read? The episode where four in search of the mistress of one of them break into the monastery. Without consequences. No one even said a word to them. And my lady blew the head off? Only Richelieu hinted that they hadn’t done well, but here they too did.
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 21 January 2016 10: 19 New
          +8
          Your opponent has normal concepts. Historical: narrow streets, the complete lack of sewage as a concept, slops and night pots splash out the window without looking ... from any floor and from either side of the street ...
          Whether you want it or not, but it was so.

          Running around the battlefield in a dense infantry formation is a fantastic thing. In mixed construction with pikemen - doubly fantastic.
          The infantry cuirass of the mass army of that time weighed less than the normal modern infantry body armor of not hidden wearing. Only 5-7 kg.
          1. Riv
            Riv 21 January 2016 11: 46 New
            -1
            Well, yes ... Since the street is narrow, you need to wear a hat. Historically, what really is there. The European essence is directly rushing out. It is not in vain that black fell into them there. The mentality is similar. And about the fact that for the owners of the house a bad attitude towards passers-by could end very badly, hamsters cute forget.

            And you still did not understand what I was talking about. Racing with pikemen? Tie up plump. :) The point, I repeat, was that on the battlefield, infantry maneuver became increasingly important with the saturation of troops with firearms. It was necessary to use the properties of the terrain, to be reconstructed in time, to change the direction of fire (the value of the density of fire was well understood already then), to get out of the shelling of artillery, and finally just to roll off at a defeat. Moving is one thing, and running is another. Okay, the cuirass weighs seven kilograms ... We look further. Helmet how much? Musket? Slicer / sword on the belt? Gunpowder in the powder flask and berries in the buttocks, that is, in the shoulder bag? As for bronik you are also mistaken. 12 kilos are models of a thousand and nine hundred shaggy year. But already the old ZhZL weighed 5,5 kg if my memory serves me, and modern models are even lighter. But even in such 400 meters for a while - not sugar.

            March march of the French infantryman during the Napoleonic Wars was about 30 kilograms. Suvorov soldier was carrying about the same amount. And if you think that some kind of guardsman of the cardinal left something important in the train before the fight, then you are mistaken. They would have stolen it without looking at the noble origin, and not everyone has servants. In fact, this weight - a couple of pounds - it has not changed since the time of the musketeers.

            By the way, the samurai in the battle were running and it was precisely racing with the ashigaru. They had this rule: you can’t run - not a tenant. And the Roman legionnaires also fled. And even the Egyptians knew how to turn on the third speed, judging by their frescoes.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 21 January 2016 13: 22 New
              0
              Everybody did it there ... "nothing personal" bully

              You still will not run away from the knights (if only into the forest on a tree) and maneuvering with fire you won’t compete with dragoons, up to rifled ones and with steppes or hussars (however, hussars usually stopped attacks if the infantry even managed to get in the square with even shotguns).
              1. Riv
                Riv 21 January 2016 14: 07 New
                0
                You think so? :) In fact, a person is a rather nimble creature, and if you chase him with a spear, then he shows the same miracles of resourcefulness and sets records at short distances. That's just not in armor.

                But such a system as a square did not appear because it gave some sort of magical protection. Just infantry with guns, built in several rows, could give out a very high density of fire on the front. Attacking such a system on the forehead, in an equestrian stand, in an open area is useless. But! Four of a kind is a column, and a column is an attacking formation, not a defensive one. The column must continue to move continuously, at any cost, preferably quickly. Stopping a column means its death. Hence the danger of its use against the linear infantry system. The front will be broken through, but then it will not be possible to turn around. A clear coordination of the actions of the columns with cavalry and artillery is needed.

                But then the military affairs did not advance to such a level. But the column was successfully used by Suvorov, who first began to combine it with a linear system. Then Napoleon poked at this tactic.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 21 January 2016 16: 11 New
                  0
                  So I know ... The horse is faster. And the rider's armor can weigh more.
                  The square was attacked from the corners, and if the infantry had only smooth-bore guns, it only helped from the European cavalry, which had no long-range bows. In essence, a square is the protection of the guns that were in their middle. One could get it from the horde, but buckshot at such a range was ineffective and you couldn’t put much in the core.
                  1. Riv
                    Riv 21 January 2016 16: 41 New
                    0
                    Kartech, by the way, flew 300 meters. Not every bow can do it, right? In fact, in the Russian army, the regimental square quite successfully withstood the cavalry attacks of the Turks. But! With the support of field artillery. One can imagine the clarity and speed of the rebuilding required of the soldiers.
                    But I already spoke about this: a maneuver began to decide on the battlefield.
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 21 January 2016 17: 02 New
                      0
                      And where did you go? Every Mongolian hits at 500.
                      It began to withstand with the advent of rifled, especially breech-loading.
                      Cavalry was engaged in artillery or cavalry.
        2. avt
          avt 21 January 2016 15: 15 New
          +3
          Quote: Riv
          . I give an introductory: the gun is discharged, it takes half a minute to load, a man rushing at you on a horse, with a lance and obviously not for tea, wants to invite you.

          Take your opening and go to some kind of weapons museum and you will see that the same musketeers had pikemen and no one was running anywhere, except in a panic, and when the musketeers fired, they gave way to the meeting for the time of reload when
          Quote: Riv
          , a man rushing at you on a horse with a lance and obviously not for tea wants to invite you. The forest is 400 meters away.
          You are our musketeer theorist, just ask yourself before you run to the forest, when pikemen were written off in the infantry.
          Quote: Riv
          . You have children's ideas about that time. Dumas read?

          Uncle read the dummy mustache, but now I never heard the answer to
          Quote: avt
          But how then did Petsya, in particular, go to the Europe cocked hat in Russia, where such hats were not rejoicing among the archers, ???

          Compared to the musketeers, it wasn’t invented that water-resistant gunpowder on flintlock rifles was invented, but the archers did not use it for the first time and began to need hats. wassat
          1. Riv
            Riv 21 January 2016 15: 54 New
            -2
            Young man, please reread your questions. "Horses, people mixed in a heap ..." - and also museums and pikemen. I understand your desire to amuse me, but do not demand answers to idiotic questions from me.

            What other pikemen? What are you talking about? Did I mention them? The abrocadaber remembered about them, and they would ask him. But if you are specifically interested in their history, then after the Thirty Years' War there were almost no pikemen in the European armies. Later all of them refused to Spain. In general, the evolution of weapons during this war is curious. In the Spanish third there were equally pikemen and arkebzirs. This is the beginning of the war. And the Swedes have closer to its end in third already musketeers and there are two of them more than pikemen. Well, then the Swedes finally switched to linear tactics, in which the peaks were useless.

            What are you talking about archers? To the question of hats? They might be happy to wear cocked hats in the summer, but for musketeers (for the first time in the world, which few people know about!) Mandatory wearing of a military uniform was introduced and its appearance was established. Fershteyn? Not according to the charter they were European hats.
            1. avt
              avt 21 January 2016 16: 53 New
              +3
              Quote: Riv
              ? Did I mention them?

              In general, I wished you to find out who they are.
              Quote: Riv
              What are you talking about archers? To the question of hats? They might be happy to wear cocked hats in the summer, but for musketeers (for the first time in the world, which few people know about!) Mandatory wearing of a military uniform was introduced and its appearance was established. Fershteyn?

              This is an idiotic question, or Fershtein told you about the must-wear form of archers, who personally forbade hats to wear - to protect muskets from water laughing ? Specifically worn for hats and their magical protection
              Quote: Riv
              The hat with the fields of the musketeers is not a show off, but the thing is purely utilitarian. The musket has a castle, on the shelf of which it was necessary to pour seed powder. What if the rain? To shoot, to bend ... Here the wide fields of the hat were useful, protecting the musket from water.
              and archery caps, as well as reluctance in the protection of the three-cornered hat, and begin to carry the blizzard?
              Quote: Riv
              Young man, please reread your questions. "Horses, people mixed in a heap ..." - and also museums and pikemen. I understand your desire to amuse me, but do not demand answers to idiotic questions from me.

              Well, what can I offer? Only yours
              Quote: Riv
              Tie up a plump.

              And then I look already buggy is not childish
              Quote: Riv
              Four of a kind is a column, and a column is an attacking formation, not a defensive one.

              Four of a kind is essentially an attacking formation, since in essence a column fool The next step to the campaign will be in determining what is the Soviet power from the Leninist formula — communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country, such as Soviet power is communism minus the electrification of the whole country. wassat
              1. Riv
                Riv 22 January 2016 06: 00 New
                -1
                Young man, you started a little early. Tie it up. The original is not achievable for you. :)
              2. abrakadabre
                abrakadabre 22 January 2016 10: 08 New
                0
                And communism is Soviet power = electrification of the whole country.
                And no other way!
                Hehe ...

                We need to develop this algebra. After all, there are still operations of multiplication, division, exponentiation, root extraction. That I still do not take logarithms, exponentials, trigonometric functions and so on.

                For example, what will result from:
                sin (communism)
                or
                ln (electrification + communism)
                wassat
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 21 January 2016 10: 10 New
        +2
        And, terrible thing, a lot of people wore cassette tapes.
        I’m in the highlands and dragged 30-40. From the 20th, it’s generally ordinary for 3-4 thousand meters, and with a semi-vertical relief and for many hours.
        wink
        Everything is normal there.
      3. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 21 January 2016 10: 29 New
        +2
        Avt, I'm afraid that a cocked hat is a wide-brimmed hat, it's just that the fields are folded in a special way.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 21 January 2016 13: 10 New
          0
          Well, in the sea, then why are such spread fields needed? A croaking gull won't do so much on top.
          1. Riv
            Riv 21 January 2016 14: 19 New
            0
            The cocked hat has a joke in the other. If water flowed from the musketeer's hat anywhere, then from the cocked hat - strictly in the given directions. Specifically - back, behind the back. Look at the paintings of that time: at all, the front part of the cocks is slightly overstated. A cocked hat is also more convenient for working with sails. Later, hats, which were also called "Napoleonic" hats, with two curved brims, came into fashion. In Russia, they were also used by civilian officials.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 21 January 2016 15: 56 New
              +1
              It is inflated in order not to interfere with the look. Sailors do not wear them, will cling to rigging. Fishermen's hats are almost the same on modern seiners or crabbolons. On sailboats, crap went not on yards but under a bowsprit, so the captain (not in the city or port) could already turn up the hat fields.
        2. avt
          avt 21 January 2016 16: 01 New
          +2
          Quote: cth; fyn
          Avt, I'm afraid that a cocked hat is a wide-brimmed hat,

          Do not be afraid, the campaign is just so that in the wind you don’t lose edges wrapped, and again fashion.
          Quote: Riv
          then with a cocked hat - strictly in the given directions.

          Naturally, primarily in utilitarian directions, and not anyhow.
          Quote: Riv
          . But the column was successfully used by Suvorov,

          Actually, it was also his senior military commander - Rumyantsev.
          Quote: Riv
          By the way, the samurai in the battle were running and it was precisely racing with the ashigaru. They had this rule: you can’t run - not a tenant. And the Roman legionnaires also fled. And even the Egyptians knew how to turn on the third speed, judging by their frescoes.

          Everyone ran, only the knightly cavalry approached with a STEP, having in front of the riders in especially strong armor, with a wedge, well, a pig, which, in fact, the Russian horse warriors liked to do. Like real fighters, like in the movies, even the horse races did not - horse tea is not a machine, you need to take care of your strength.
          1. Riv
            Riv 21 January 2016 17: 04 New
            -2
            You are completely confused ... Well, what does the knightly cavalry have to do with it? The armor during the time described in the article was not worn to throw peaks in it. He was needed to survive under fire.

            Rumyantsev did not combine the column with linear tactics. This is entirely the merit of Suvorov. Before him, the linear system was considered defensive. Frederick the Great also used both of these tactical elements in the battle, but he was also attacked by a column, leaning on a line. An example of Rumyantsev’s tactics is the victory at Cahul, which was achieved precisely by the interaction of regimental columns and artillery. If the artillery was late, the Turks were toppled over, because the Russians did not have time to turn around. The battles at Rymnik (where Suvorov managed to subordinate the Austrians to his tactics — that’s a miracle!) And at Austerlitz can serve as an example of the interaction of columns and lines, and indeed a clear interaction of the combat arms.
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 21 January 2016 09: 39 New
      0
      Breastplate at hand, a frying pan with you)))
      1. Riv
        Riv 21 January 2016 14: 08 New
        +1
        A shovel as a frying pan is better.
    3. Sarmat149
      Sarmat149 23 December 2016 01: 03 New
      0
      And we had different equipment for the archers, the Turkish Janissaries are already different from both European and ours. How were Russian archers and Turkish janissaries handled?
  5. Red_Hamer
    Red_Hamer 21 January 2016 09: 29 New
    +3
    A hat with a brim for musketeers is not a show-off, but a purely utilitarian thing. I agree, and not only because of the rain, there were narrow streets in Europe at that time, the contents of "night vases" were often "disposed of through the window" overlooking the street. And not only "night vases", but just out the window! Well, in the castles, there were simply special turrets.
    1. Riv
      Riv 21 January 2016 09: 52 New
      +3
      Never, never, NEVER try to drench the slush of the royal musketeers. Though in hats, even in shorts. They will set fire to your house and they will not be anything for it.

      Have you read Dumas? An episode where four in search of the mistress of one of them break into the monastery. Without consequences. Nobody even said a word to them. The guys (D'Aranyan was only 19 years old at the time) were fooling around - why is that? Have my lady's head taken off? Only Richelieu, the second person after the king, hinted that they did not do well, but even here they avoided it.
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 21 January 2016 10: 26 New
        +3
        And our guardsmen for such monsters are called (((double standards in action
      2. Scraptor
        Scraptor 21 January 2016 13: 06 New
        +2
        Dumas wrote this, but in fact they wore hats so that they would not have a "von nassau" (or even ...) by the collar, and themselves so utilitarianly or with laughter did it to others. wassat
        The Americans generally launched such "turrets" into space.
        1. Riv
          Riv 21 January 2016 17: 09 New
          +1
          For the nobleman of that time there was no difference, they pushed him on his head, or on his hat. Yes, even a boot. Appealing to the court was also not in fashion, but there was always a sword at hand and if the owner of the house was not some kind of prince, then the result for him was most likely very sad. In general, in those days people who did not know how to behave did not live long.

          In general, the history textbook, which describes the horrors of medieval cities, of course you need to read. But you also need to think about what you read.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 21 January 2016 17: 29 New
            +2
            The nobles themselves did not know how to behave, went to spoil a tapestry, did not wash and pressed on saucers of lice in the versailles even after the unification of Germany there.
            There and now, in the order of things, show someone your bare ass or fart at the table.
            With his sword, he would simply be screwed up with a pitchfork. You would think that these nobles were not robbed then without security, in that force on the roads.
            1. Riv
              Riv 21 January 2016 18: 37 New
              +2
              You have some kind of childish ideas about that era. Well, yes, there was not a single toilet in Versailles. Historical fact .. The nobles pissed at ease into the fireplaces and stairs. The Louvre also had problems with this. But this does not mean that you can piss anywhere. Everyone in the Louvre, except the king, queen, royal family, and Richelieu, is someone's servant. Pissing a guardsman - insulting a cardinal. Pissing the musketeer - insulting the king. Pissing Constance Bonacieux - D'Artagnan will harness, and the whole company will fit in for him. Milady guarantees: there will be consequences. The nobles of that time had the opportunity to avenge themselves. They are showing their bare asses now.

              And with a pitchfork ... The master is responsible for the servant. The murder of a nobleman is Greve Square and it is good if they just cut off their head. D'Artagnan was beaten on the way to Paris, in Mengue, but neatly. If they had killed him, the same Rochefort would have sent a company of nobility. To be discouraged. And then today a Gascon, and tomorrow on whom will the tail be raised? The townspeople would hiccup for a long time ...

              In general, you need to be careful ... :)
              1. Looking Petrovich
                Looking Petrovich 21 January 2016 19: 19 New
                +5
                You're not right. Here is what contemporaries of Louis XIV themselves wrote about Versailles:
                “Parks, gardens and the castle itself are disgusted by its abominable stink. Walkways, courtyards, buildings and corridors are filled with urine and feces; near the wing where the ministers live, a sausage slaughter and fry pigs every morning; and the whole street of Saint-Cloud is flooded with rotten water and strewn with dead cats. " (Le Guerer A. Les parfumus a Versailles aux XVII et XVIII siecles. Paris, 1999.)
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 21 January 2016 20: 36 New
                  0
                  "Some loyal vassal
                  All the walls of the castle ... "

                  Chevalier believes that they still didn’t rob on the roads
                  yes, yes, be careful not to climb the pitchfork, because if some kind of company is formed then laughing
                  moreover, they themselves did so and did not see anything shameful in this ...
                  1. psiho117
                    psiho117 23 January 2016 17: 06 New
                    0
                    Quote: Scraptor

                    Chevalier believes that they still didn’t rob on the roads
                    yes, yes, be careful not to climb the pitchfork, because if some kind of company is formed then laughing

                    robbed. but if they were caught, they hung all the robbers, their families, and even the whole village - as covering robbers. Let me remind you, for the faint-hearted, an assault on a nobleman by a sting is a crown crime. It is punished quickly and cruelly.
                    moreover, they themselves did so and did not see anything shameful in this ...

                    What is allowed to Jupiter is not allowed to the bull.
                    The fact that the noblemen robbed each other, and sometimes bleed - so these are their mutual friends, they can. and peasants - who counts them?
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 25 January 2016 02: 27 New
                      0
                      The dull ones do not understand that they are not caught - they are not a robber. If a nobleman himself attacks with the intention of "punishing" and killing someone with his sword (and not just hitting him in the face), then he will be screwed up with a pitchfork, and this will happen even faster.

                      good - I will rearrange the owl - "they did not see anything shameful in this and did so themselves." fool
                      it was not considered an insult and even there was nothing at all to give in the face - a hand with a pot protruded out of the window and the contents poured out without looking ...
                2. Moore
                  Moore 22 January 2016 06: 09 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Looking Petrovich
                  You're not right. That's what contemporaries of Louis XIV themselves wrote about Versailles ...

                  You can also add the opinion of the Russian ambassadors: His Majesty "stinks like a wild beast"
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 22 January 2016 08: 39 New
                    0
                    It is quite a reasonable explanation why Western Europeans in Indonesia, China and Japan as "unclean" were forced to live separately on the bulk islands.
                3. The comment was deleted.
              2. kalibr
                21 January 2016 22: 33 New
                0
                You conveyed everything absolutely exactly! There were always frames! Yes, the pots were poured into the windows, but they looked at who they were pouring, because in retaliation it was possible to get so that ... There were rooms, there were pots in them, they were poured into barrels, barrels were carried out by special people. Everything was thought out and well thought out! Churchill had a pot right in the "war room" of the main headquarters, where he slept. It is still shown to tourists, so what? It didn't make him any worse. And he himself did not run to pour it out.
                But I liked more about the unification of Germany in Versailles ...
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 21 January 2016 23: 23 New
                  +1
                  Without looking, it was in the order of things. Before some very noble persons walked horns and heralds wassat
                  It was very necessary to fly down the steps of a steep narrow dark staircase with a pot in hand! laughing Much worse.
              3. The comment was deleted.
            2. psiho117
              psiho117 23 January 2016 16: 56 New
              0
              Quote: Scraptor

              With his sword, he would simply be screwed up with a pitchfork.

              What kind of nonsense? Do you even understand what class society is? everyone below the nobles are lice by definition. What the hell are forks against the sword? for this, the whole village will be looted and repopulated, and the culprit’s family - on the chopping block, or rather the gallows - as rebels
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 25 January 2016 02: 42 New
                +1
                you do not seem to understand with your estates that no one will stand and watch how he or his relative will now be stabbed with a sword ... and for "overpowering the whole village" you could already get not with a pitchfork, but with a turned scythe, or a dusty bag with some leprosy in turnips in pants or lice.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 25 January 2016 16: 29 New
                  +1
                  the sword was needed by nobles for duels with their own kind, it is easy to carry, but against other weapons or agricultural equipment it is practically useless
                  you can still remember about the network and the trident of antiquity,
                  getting under the "slop" in Europe was almost like rain, well it passed and passed ...
                  firearms or cold throwing people also have not been forbidden
                  Moreover, any nobleman for the un prevented murder of a commoner was simply tried and sentenced
                  the British with their non-contact archers tried to hobble in captured Scotland, so what happened then?
      3. kalibr
        21 January 2016 22: 40 New
        +1
        And by the way, the beggar D'Artagnan flooded to the king, and Bonacieux the rich did not even dream of that! And all why? Papa took part in the wars of faith! We are all nobles!
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 21 January 2016 23: 29 New
          0
          Well, if so, then

          Quote: kalibr
          Nobles we are all!



          http://a-pesni.org/dvor/tolstoj.php laughing
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 21 January 2016 10: 05 New
      +2
      sarcasm mod on / CE Europe / sarcasm mod of
    3. Scraptor
      Scraptor 21 January 2016 17: 50 New
      -1
      Better there is no beauty than ... hi yes crying
  6. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 21 January 2016 10: 25 New
    +2
    Very interesting article.
  7. Support
    Support 21 January 2016 13: 25 New
    +1
    Quote: kalibr
    What tutunovki you, my dear? Smart people checked everything ........ will not trade in fake diamonds!

    Gee, dear, is it you from which party? With the Jews where you crap all sorts of crap in the brain? You dear run into banal Central Russian rudeness. Go to the museum damn it and see how they open or not open. It’s something that isn’t being revealed to you, hoopoe. Sorry for the rudeness, but you, if you believe some sort of virtual scientist, write to your ears, and you are being treated like a sucker. Go to the Museum and see what kind of heads these knights had. You have a bigger penis head than their skull. Ugh on you, a Jewish henchman ...
  8. Support
    Support 21 January 2016 14: 43 New
    +1
    Minus the Jews of Jude - the truth is like a sickle to your genitals ...
  9. Support
    Support 21 January 2016 15: 38 New
    -2
    Go to the Museum, Look at the knights' hats. You’re not a dodger, figure out how you can put them on your face ......
    1. Riv
      Riv 21 January 2016 17: 11 New
      0
      Poor fellow ... You must have already put on such a helmet. With a sledgehammer. "Wait for it!" looked where the wolf and the hare in the museum? That's how it was, I guess.
      Well, you understand that with this method of dressing the armor, the main thing is to protect your ears?
  10. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  11. Olezhek
    Olezhek 21 January 2016 18: 18 New
    +2
    Not bad, informative.
    Good reference article. hi
  12. dvg1959
    dvg1959 2 March 2016 08: 56 New
    0
    It is interesting to plunge into history.
  13. dvg1959
    dvg1959 2 March 2016 09: 01 New
    0
    A helmet with such a “face” not only defended, but also scared! Psychological weapon of the Middle Ages (multifunctional).