Armor of the Polygamous King

39
King Henry VIII of England (1497 - 1547) was known to most people mainly because he was a polygamist king, and so he started the so-called Anglican church in England, not so much for faith, but for the sake of , to be able to marry without hindrance. However, what is more important is that he was also a clever statesman, whose rule British historians view as the period when the old was replaced by the new, and at the same time as the era of sunset and the heyday of solid-plate armor.

The birth of the "Greenwich style"

We need to start with the fact that it was Henry VIII who transformed the English army from the traditional medieval army, which consisted of knightly cavalry and a certain number of infantrymen and archers, to the army “modern”, welded by discipline, unfamiliar to the feudal army, and gaining the upper hand thanks to its firearms arms and very long spears, which allowed its infantry to fight with the knightly cavalry on an equal footing. True, a new weapon in England has not yet been produced, but was brought from the mainland. However, the king retained the “good old English bow”, strongly encouraged shooting from it and did not allow his shooters to set targets closer than 220 yards (approx. 200 m).

Armor of the Polygamous King

The famous "horned helmet" of Henry VIII. Royal Arsenal. Leeds.

Heinrich himself could not be called an outstanding commander, even if he participated in two military campaigns outside the country. But when he was young, he fought in tournaments, loved to fight and shot from a bow, and when he got old, he became addicted to falconry. Twice, in 1524 and 1536, taking part in tournaments, he almost lost his life - so much tournament fun was dangerous even for kings.


Portrait of Henry VIII by Holbein.

But he was also clever, and he considered unacceptable the fact that Britain depended on the import of weapons and armor from the continent. To start his own production, he invited the masters from Italy to England, but for some reason this time the matter ended in failure. But the king was persistent and in 1515 he found master gunsmiths in Germany and in Flanders, who agreed to move to England and work with him in a specially opened workshop for them in Greenwich.

And so it happened that in England two schools were mixed at once: German-Flemish, but also Italian, and that was how the famous “Greenwich style” was born.

Of course, we must bear in mind that mainly the king tried for himself! Because cheap armor for his infantry he still preferred to order abroad and, in particular, in Italy, where at the end of 1512 he acquired 2000 sets of plate armor in Florence (at the price of 16 shillings for armor); a year later, he also bought 5000 of similar armor in Milan. Then, in 1539, the king also ordered 1200 sets of cheap armor in Colony, and also 2700 in Antwerp. Moreover, contemporaries noted that here Heinrich clearly decided to save money, since Antwerp was "famous for" the development of "low quality" armor, which were used only in infantry. But the king himself did not hurt himself! Only in the Royal Arsenal of the Tower of London are stored immediately four armor belonging to Henry VIII. The fifth armor is located in Windsor Castle, and two more, which, according to experts, also belong to Henry VIII, owns the Metropolitan Museum in New York.


Silver and engraved armor of Henry VIII from the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Height 1850 mm. Weight 30.11 kg. It is believed that they were brought to England or the Flemish, or Milanese Filippo de Gramnis and Giovanni Angelo de Littis. The armor was previously gilded, but now it is completely covered with silver, and the engraving is done in silver.

The king was very fond of foot fights, so the first armor (around 1515) was made for him to participate in them. All the details of it are fitted one to another very carefully, so that the armor resembles not so much the armor as a true work of art. Their engraving adorns them, the plot of which was the marriage of Henry VIII to Ekaterina of Aragon held in 1509. On the cuirass in front was an image of St. George, and behind St. Barbara. Ornaments were climbing plants, among which were the Tudor roses, and also the grenades of Aragon. On the wings of the knee pads were depicted bundles of arrows - that is, the emblem of the father of Catherine, King Ferdinand II of Aragon. Sabbaton socks were decorated with symbolic images of the fortress of Castile and another emblem of the Tudor family - the lattice of the locking gates on the chains. Along the bottom of the “skirt” of the armor there was a fringe of interlaced initials “H” and “K” - that is, “Heinrich” and “Catherine”. The back of the grease carried the image of a female figure, which appeared from the calyx of a flower; the figure on the left had the inscription "GLVCK" on its collar. The armor emphasizes the high, even for our time, growth and the beautiful physical form of the young monarch.

In 1510, Mr. Henry VIII, Emperor Maximilian I, donated horse armor - as a memory of the war with the French, and here he shows particularly well how perfect such armor was at that time. It was made by the Flemish master Martin van Royan, and it consists of such details as the head, collar, breastplate, two flanchard side plates and a massive convex perpendicular. Engraving and chasing, as well as gilding were used to decorate the plates. Metal plates of the reins were engraved, and all the other large metal plates, front and rear bows of the saddle were decorated with convex images of pomegranate branches and fruits, and in addition also the branch crosses of the Order of the Golden Fleece, which Henry VIII became the owner of in 1505. the plate of this armor, however, and on it was made an engraved border, which depicted grenades. It is believed that this part belongs to another armor and was made by the Flemish master Paul van Vrelant. However, later these two masters turned up in Greenwich. So Heinrich, apparently, was picking up for himself people who are known to him for his work on the orders of Emperor Maximilian I.

Who knows, maybe in these silver-plated and engraved 1515 armor there are more Italian works than Flemish masters, but it may well be that their parts were made in Flanders, although it can be said almost certainly that they were trimmed directly in England where Henry VIII in 1515 already had his own armory.

In 1520, the king needed another armor for the pedestrian tournament, which was to take place in the Golden Brocade Field, which is famous for its luxury, and it was these armor that were so perfect that, having a weight of 42,68 kg, there was not a single piece body, not closed forged steel. But these armors were not finished, and they have come to this very day in such an incomplete form.


Knight's armor of Henry VIII 1520. Drawing by a modern artist.

Another armor of Henry VIII refers to the same year. It is called "steel skirt", and it is clear why - because this is its main element. It is also obvious that this armor was made in a big hurry, because of which some of its parts were borrowed from some other armor, and only some of them were made anew.

It is distinguished by a very large bascinet, originally made in Milan (since it is stamped with the workshop of Missagli city), but with a modified visor on it. Bracers also took from the old armor, and they had the appearance of a series of narrow and thin plates that covered the elbow joints from the inside, but from the outside they were covered with larger plates.


Tournament armor "steel skirt."

Leggings had loops and special grooves for the spurs, required by the rider, but not at all required for the foot fighter. Only the shoulder pads of the plates that overlapped each other (which was the hallmark of gunsmiths from Greenwich) and the steel skirt (tonlet) were completely new. Engravings on them still retain traces of gilding. Figures of St. George, the Virgin Mary and the baby were used as ornaments for him, Tudor roses were on the edge, a sign of the Order of the Garter was engraved on the collar, and on the left hollow there was an engraved image of the Order of the Garter.


Badge of the Order of the Garter.

On the one hand, it turns out that the armor sharply specialized, on the other - their truly incredible cost, sometimes equal to the cost of a city (!) Of medium size, brought to life armored headsets, in which the armor could be “modernized” by adding different parts to it. And thus the same armor could be used both as tournament and combat at the same time.

The most famous of the headsets that have come down to our days is a kit made for Henry VIII by his masters at Greenwich in 1540. These are full armor for dzhostra, as indicated by the very massive left shoulder strap, which is one piece with the buff - that is, an additional armor plate , which was attached to the cuirass so that it covered the chin, neck and another part of the chest. If it was used in the foot tournament tournament, then elongated legguards could be fastened to these armors. Shoulders had a symmetrical shape, but the codpiece - a thing that the king really loved and appreciated, was all-metal. By combining parts of the armor it was possible to get several armor: tournament; the so-called “dart armor” or “three-quarters”, in which the legguards covered their legs only to the knees, and infantry's half-armor with mail sleeve sleeves, plate gloves, thighs, and again with an all-metal codpiece, but without a spear hook on his cuirass. The helmet had no visor. There were no plate shoes on him.


Knightly set of Henry VIII. Modern design.

Thus, with only one such set, Henry VIII, it turned out, had several armor at once. It is possible that such a decision was dictated by economic considerations, since the armor was very expensive. But it is possible that it was also a kind of “mind game”, and it was just prestigious to possess such armor. Indeed, in 1544, he needed two more armor already for the Boulogne campaign. The basis for their engraving served as sketches of the artist Hans Holbein. But why, then, did he not use his armored set?

A unique accessory plate, which the French King Francis I proposed to use in 1545, offered Henry VIII a unique feature of the 1520 armor. It became a feature of the Greenwich school, but was used only on these royal armor and nowhere else. This is a detail of three steel plates interconnected and overlapping one another. It was fastened in front on a quilted doublet with mail sleeves and with short mail tails with a codpiece. The chest cuirass in the center of the chest had a hole for a T-shaped pin that held the plate to the cuirass. Such a device helped to distribute the weight of the cuirass over the body, in addition, the multi-layered armor became just “absolutely perfect”.


Henry VIII 1545 Armor

As for the ceremonial armor, the master gunsmiths, trying to please their customers, did not pay attention to common sense at that time, which proves to us the famous “horned helmet” of Henry VIII, which the same Emperor Maximilian I gave him in 1514 g .


The armor of William Somerset, the Third Earl of Worcester, the chief investigator of Henry VIII. Weight xnumx kg In these armor, Count Worcester is depicted in two portraits, one of which was written no earlier than 53,12, when he was awarded the Order of the Garter, which is visible on it. Made in Greenwich under the direction of John Kelt. The kit includes parts for horse armor and a saddle with protective lining. Originally, the armor was purple with gilded scallops.

From the armor itself, only this helmet has been preserved. He has a reclining up visor, having the shape of a human face, glasses without glasses (and it is clear why, they are needed on armor ?!) and for some reason ... twisted mutton horns attached to it! He was made a master by Konrad Zoyzenhofer from Innsbruck in 1512, and no doubt he is an outstanding work of the armored art of the beginning of the sixteenth century. But only to fight in it was, most likely, quite uncomfortable.


Here he is - so famous "horned helmet"!

Did gunsmiths understand this? Could not understand! But, apparently, it was an original souvenir and no more, a purely “royal gift” for the king - the king, that's why they made him that way!

Well, the armor of this helmet was not found, and there is a suspicion that what was left of them was sold for scrap as early as 1649, during the Civil War in England. The helmet of this fate was avoided only because it was kept separate from them (they might have had other helmets). Already in the seventeenth century. This helmet was shown in the Tower as a detail of the "Will Somers" armor, which Henry VIII was a court jester. Who was actually its owner, for a long time was generally unknown.


Helmet-mask 1515. Colman Helschmidt. Weight 2146

True, recently, again, experts have had certain doubts about its authenticity. And the question is: were the ram's horns and glasses on it from the very beginning, or were they added to it later? And most importantly, why would it be such a bizarre subject as Maximilian I decided to donate to Henry VIII? Most likely, it will not be possible to answer these questions, but ... even if it is the only part of this armor, it is truly amazing and therefore ... especially beautiful! On the other hand, it is possible that such questions are inappropriate in general. Just the time between 1510 and 1540. It was at the peak of the popularity of so-called Maximilian armor, and many of them had armor helmets in the form of grotesque human faces. Hence the desire of master gunsmiths to please their crowned customer to the maximum and to do something completely original that has not yet been encountered, and it should be noted that in this they achieved their goal!

Fig. A. Shepsa
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    13 May 2016 06: 25
    Reading this article, I was once again convinced that the author is a great specialist in armament of medieval Europe. As always, colorful illustrations complement the long text. Thank you Vyacheslav Olegovich, for the work.
    Here I have a question, looking at these armors:
    Knight's armor of Henry VIII 1520. Drawing by a modern artist.

    And how fast did they shoot? (well, let's say in case of diarrhea) smile
    1. +11
      13 May 2016 08: 13
      Oh, oh, a question from questions !!! But I’ll start by saying that ... we emptied first. And then they didn’t eat. Just drank and water came out with sweat! Therefore, then they got drunk on feasts. And as for undressing like that. I don’t know how on this armor, but ordinary armor (without armored ass, ha ha) two squires put on you for a maximum of 15 minutes. Everything is on the belts and hooks, so it's fast. And they take it off even faster. So this was hardly a hindrance. But actually you interested me and suggested a topic for the article. It will be necessary to write to Leeds and find out all this for certain.
      1. +4
        13 May 2016 11: 29
        Difficult question (about shit ...). During the "normal" time, yes, before putting it on. But when, for example, the "Egyptians" squeezed Saint Louis IX and the 7th crusade, then day and night fought here and dysentery mowed down the ranks ... After all, it was there that Louis ordered himself to cut his pants in the back ... So, apparently, knights went, en masse whirring.
        1. +1
          13 May 2016 13: 01
          Quote: King, just king
          So, that knights went to see, massively deceiving.

          laughing laughing laughing
        2. +3
          13 May 2016 14: 23
          Europeans of that time massively lied. They began to wash themselves after the Crusades. The fashion for washing to the east came with the Romans, and then from the east returned to Europe.
        3. 0
          13 May 2016 14: 23
          Europeans of that time massively lied. They began to wash themselves after the Crusades. The fashion for washing to the east came with the Romans, and then from the east returned to Europe.
        4. 0
          13 May 2016 23: 15
          But when, for example, the "Egyptians" squeezed Saint Louis IX and the 7th crusade, then they fought day and night and dysentery cut down the ranks ...
          To begin with, the 7th Crusade was in the middle of the 13th century. Until the development of plate armor there were still 120-150 (and in some regions all 200) years, and the armor set was very different from the armor presented in the article.
          wink
          So, that knights went to see, massively deceiving.
          As for the wobbling, the persistent stupid smell of sweat was from the knights during prolonged battles. But only because of the fact that with high physical activity in armor terribly hot and poor ventilation. A modern analogue in this sense is hockey players. Albeit in plastic, but packed just as tightly. Because regularly sweat profusely and stink zelo hard.
          Difficult question (about a shit ...)

          Pulling down your pants for shit in armor is not a problem. The big problem is the inconvenience ... uh ... to sit down and have enough time to "relax" on the courts wassat
          The weight of the armor, and most importantly, the lack of flexibility of the legplates. The plate tibia with the leg fully bent will rest under the knee, which is unpleasant in general, and especially when sitting in a deep squat. To this is added the lack of flexibility of the cuirass + skirt - in a deep squat, the plate skirt will pile up and rest against the bottom of the cuirass. So it will not work to maintain balance in this pose that interests you.
    2. +1
      13 May 2016 10: 22
      Unfortunately, I can't say for sure in which book, but Druon, in "Cursed Kings", describes how these problems were solved.
      I really liked the article. Thank you, Vyacheslav.
      The weight of this armor is somehow a little depressing. The knights not only wore this armor, but also fought in it! Servants dressed the knights in this armor. That is, such a weight was in everyday life. "It was a hard life!"
      1. +1
        13 May 2016 23: 33
        The weight of full combat armor rarely exceeded 30 kg. And even that, mainly in late armor, which became much thicker for bullet resistance. Such cuirassier kits reached 35 kg.
        If we take the developed Gothic style of the mid-15th century, then the weight of the complete set is 20-26 kg, depending on the height of the owner and the thickness of the plates. The weight is evenly and conveniently distributed throughout the body. Plus many years of training and a full fit. And don’t forget, only knights have full armor. That is, cavalrymen. It is necessary to regret there not a knight, but his horse.
    3. +2
      13 May 2016 22: 56
      on the usual battle armor, the priest was not covered by armor. Because she was covered by a saddle and a horse. It was easy to lower the pants without having to remove the armor. As for the tournament armor for foot combat, which is with armor, the issue of diarrhea was not relevant there.
  2. +3
    13 May 2016 06: 26
    Thank. Wonderful selection. A casual helmet - as from another time.
    1. +1
      13 May 2016 15: 33
      One can’t see from this helmet a fig - the helmet is not utilitarian, but a work of art.
  3. +1
    13 May 2016 07: 44
    Knightly armor of the 16th century is already a work of art ... Henry VIII invited not only gunsmiths, but also artists, architects .. Thank you, the photos, the drawings are wonderful ..
  4. +1
    13 May 2016 08: 24
    Thank you for the article! As works of art and as the history of the development of the defense of a warrior, armor occupies a worthy niche.
  5. +2
    13 May 2016 08: 47
    Beautiful work. The glasses were most likely with removable lenses for better vision and extra protection. I would also like to see the "rasp openers" of this armor. even with the then firearms it is problematic to pierce the armor, and there is no need to talk about the bow and sword. One of the most effective means of fighting a soldier on foot in such armor is a club. not one-on-one, of course, but even a protected head could not stand a blow from the side with a club, breaking his neck. The beaks were still for breaking through the shell. Well, this is for commoners, and the knights often did not disdain with a spear.
    1. 0
      13 May 2016 11: 16
      Well, in those funny times, knights were "shaking hands" with a cudgel, but after the appearance of plate armor - war hammers (as you wrote - "beaked"), maces, and other percussion weapons went off with a bang. Sword tactics have changed to stabbing.
    2. +2
      13 May 2016 23: 54
      it’s problematic to break through armor even with a firearm
      It depends on what kind of armor, what kind of firearm and how far:
      Arquebus or gun - bullshit (why, in fact, came up with a musket)
      Heavy crossbow with gear for tensioning - up to 50-80 meters
      The musket is a standard opener of late armor at a distance of 100-150 meters (depending on the quality of the armor and the weight of gunpowder)
      Cannon Buckshot - Level 80 Opener laughing
      A bow is ridiculous if you do not take a massive shelling, when some arrow hits the joint or the eye socket.
      A sword - if it doesn’t cut, but stabbed at the joints, it normally opens.
      one of the effective means of fighting a foot warrior in such armor is a club.

      Generally not effective. From the word at all. The exception is a very rare amball with a log in his hand + if the knight does not see him (for example, an attack from the side or behind). Otherwise, an ambal with a log instantly turns into a corpse under a log. Due to slowness.
      even a protected head cannot stand a blow from the side with a club, it breaks the neck.
      Unprotected with a medieval helmet - no doubt. Protected by a helmet ... uh ... how could I tell you more reliably ... If the helmet (and burns on the neck) can withstand the direct hit of a ram, and this is the mass of the enemy with the horse at double speed of the horse (converging courses) and with concentration on the tip spears ... You can’t even tickle with a club.
      The beaks were still for breaking through the shell. Well this is for commoners
      "Klyuvoryly", as you put it, has a name - klevets. It is mostly a cavalryman's weapon. The foot soldiers enjoyed halberds in all their variety for this purpose. Polexami, for example, including.
      knights often did not disdain a horn
      Rogatina - on the contrary, is a purely infantry spear. For all its strength, it is too short for a knight on a horse - infantry or an enemy cannot be reached in ramming, but in close combat it is cumbersome and heavy. There is already fit with a sword or slander.
  6. +3
    13 May 2016 09: 48
    "But why then didn't he use his armored headset?"
    Judging by the picture presented, Henry VIII was a man overall, with an age more inclined to fullness.
    Armor of this level is piece goods, and the master adjusted to the dimensions that the owner had at that moment. Some time passes - the stomach grows, we need new armor by a new standard. It is possible that there is an explanation.
    1. +1
      13 May 2016 10: 57
      You treat the king of England poorly. He (Henry) also had a "belly".
      1. +2
        13 May 2016 15: 47
        And another option - the old armor became unfashionable. Shame in such a go to war.
    2. +1
      13 May 2016 23: 58
      Heinrich had a serious injury, after which he was forced to leave an active "sports" career. Although he retained his love for armor and similar amusements for life. Well, for the inability to keep himself in shape, he began to put on a lot. so to speak, he began to lead an unhealthy lifestyle - species, women, gluttony ... They say that even syphilis ...
      And in his youth he lit not childishly on the lists.
  7. +2
    13 May 2016 10: 54
    Baaalshoe, human thanks. I’m just making a book for myself personally on various materials about the English knights since 1200, a very useful article.
    1. +1
      13 May 2016 12: 34
      Then you have a direct road to the site of the Royal Arsenal in Leeds and the site of the Metropolitan Museum in New York - there is a lot of armor and data on them - height, weight ... Soon there will be a series of articles: about crusaders and knightly armor - there should be a lot of interesting things. Well, about the English armor there is a good book "Knights" by Christopher Gravett. Eksmo, 2010. (And mine: "The history of knightly weapons." Lomonosov, 2013)
      There is my book in Russian in Germany: "The English-language historiography of knightly armament" - but it is insanely expensive.
      1. 0
        13 May 2016 12: 43
        Thank you for the information on the materials.
      2. 0
        6 July 2016 11: 23
        Thanks for the info! The topic is incredibly interesting!
  8. +3
    13 May 2016 11: 28
    Looking at the knightly armor, I was always amazed how to build such spacesuits from iron, even in those times in which you could walk, fight, in which joints were bent without opening them. I can hardly imagine how to do this even now. then ... request
    1. +1
      13 May 2016 12: 35
      I know many people who do this and have seen how ... Moreover, the technique has changed little!
    2. +2
      13 May 2016 12: 51
      Yeah, also with floating rivets. But the prices were ... royal! And if they are also taken prisoner and stripped to underpants, then at least hang yourself with a knight.
      And do not forget about the knightly horse, too, the price and training are considerable.
      And to equip the squire (s) and to hasten. Better to sit at home. Paid the king 2 pounds and walk boldly. True, they could chop off a head off on a fever.
    3. 0
      20 May 2016 21: 24
      Even now I can hardly imagine how to do this, and even then ...
      So after all, not only did they achieve high strength of armored parts and mobility in joints. Not only did a good equestrian armor, when a knight fell from a horse, some of the elements “automatically” unfastened to increase the warrior's mobility. So it was still decorated in various ways of plating and engraving. And the armor presented in the article is not yet the pinnacle of skill.
  9. +1
    13 May 2016 11: 50
    Allow me one more question: the place of the elbow joint is on the side of the abdomen, there are some hypertrophied large V-shaped plates, almost in all armor. This is so that the hand is not chopped off, or a two-handed sword was put in there and acted like a spear, or maybe they just held the sword in the "ready" position.
    The material, however, is interesting thanks for the article.
    1. +3
      13 May 2016 12: 36
      No sword was put there. Two-handed is for the infantry. These are reflector plates!
    2. +4
      14 May 2016 00: 08
      These are chippers. So that with a chopping blow it was impossible to cut the elbow from the inside. Exactly the same or similar are made on the outside of the knee. To protect the popliteal space from a chopping blow from the side. And since the joints must move, the size of the bump must be made large. so as not to limit limb flexion.
      Especially large elbow bumpers were in the Milanese type of armor. Well, of course, in the tournament options.
      In some late armor, they learned to make continuous protection from small plates. The article has a photo of such samples. At the same time, the chipper was still preserved. Although made smaller. Since the plates behind the bends had to be made thin.
      This option is not widespread due to the complexity of the design and a significant limitation of mobility - a large fold of plates and an under-arm is assembled in the bend.
      Therefore, they were more often limited to protecting the fold with a chain mail sewn onto a doublet under a chipper. Such chain mail inserts were made on the elbows and in the armpits. some knights covered with chain mail and popliteal hollows and inner-back surfaces of the thigh.
      1. +1
        14 May 2016 13: 57
        You can’t say better!
  10. +1
    13 May 2016 12: 51
    this may be the only part of these armor, but it is truly amazing and therefore ... especially beautiful!

    There is someone like that. As for me, all these "organic" additions, on the contrary, weaken the effect. The armor should give the impression of an impersonal, indestructible force. Therefore, I do not like masks of any shape, horns and other tinsel. Normal symmetry, straight lines and geometry are better. The closest of associations is a revived mechanism, devoid of human weaknesses, as well as feelings and emotions. I just doubt that people of that time were familiar with such an artistic image. Unless one can use some associations with a mill and a millstone. It is also quite good to maintain the image of impersonal power through standardization - when an entire unit is equipped with the same armor and acts the same. In my opinion, when a second exactly the same one rises to replace a fallen enemy, this is much more discouraging than all sorts of frightening puffs-ornaments. It may feel like you are just a recyclable material and you are dealing with a machine and not with people.
    1. 0
      13 May 2016 13: 02
      To dress two infantry units in the same armor, the navel will untie any king.
      About horns and stuff on the helmet is interesting. They were not rigidly fixed so as not to get a concussion, or a fracture of the cervical vertebrae (ie, when the horns were hit, the whole "bucket" with its head bent to the lever, this is so, for beauty.
      1. +1
        14 May 2016 13: 56
        But it was precisely Genrich who bought the thousands of sets of Milanese and Anverpine armor for the infantry! Not the best quality, but on 2-3 thousands of sets at a time!
  11. +1
    13 May 2016 12: 59
    Quote: askold
    the elbow joint is located on the side of the abdomen, there are some hypertrophied large V-shaped plates, in almost all armor.

    Not at all, but there is. IMHO, cavalry armor, protection of the elbow bend from a powerful oncoming strike, an attempt to deflect the spear when hit in the bend to the side. Otherwise, you can damage the joint even without breaking through the armor.
  12. -1
    15 May 2016 18: 33
    I wonder if such armor could withstand shots from handguns of that period? Apparently, they survived, since light and elegant arquebuses of the beginning of the century gave way to hefty heavy muskets, from which it was possible to shoot only from the bipod
    1. 0
      16 May 2016 00: 06
      I wonder if such armor could withstand shots from handguns of that period?
      Dear, made to order were bulletproof enough. You can not say about mass production for the infantry. Again, the whole question is in the distance. The fact that the infantryman in armor could fall over 50 meters, the knight either did not penetrate, or penetrated when shooting at point blank range.
    2. 0
      16 May 2016 09: 15
      Armor with bullet recesses has come down to us. And they argue - this is ... a trace of verification or combat damage. In any case, the armor was not broken!
  13. 0
    20 May 2016 17: 50
    The article is curious and the armor itself is a real work of art. But what is this from the war? Tournament armor was not suitable for real battles and often cost a fortune. Personally, they give me a double impression. On the one hand, the impressive work of the masters, and on the other - an incomprehensible combat value. With the money spent on the purchase of such an accessory, it was possible to contain a small (or even quite decent) army throughout the year.
    1. 0
      28 June 2016 18: 36
      and why do women buy jewelry and fur coats for themselves, for the same money, for example, they could plump for a month, or make repairs in the apartment, in the end donate to the orphanage.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"