How much does a knight's breastplate weigh? Armor of a medieval knight. The main thing is that the suit fits. Men's clothing wraps from left to right, because this is how the armor was originally closed.

12.06.2019

Scientists became interested in how much energy a person dressed in Western European knightly armor spends. Modern lovers of the reconstruction of historical battles dress in lighter armor than the warriors who wore them in the 15th century. Solid articulated armor was produced only in Europe, so to speak, on own needs, because they fought in such vestments, too, only in Europe. In Asia, it was occasionally found only among Turkish sipahis.

Last weekend, the first festival "Crossroads of Times" was held on the Zaporizhzhya island of Khortytsia, dedicated to the day the baptism of Russia, which was held in the format of a knightly tournament. Men dressed in knightly costumes participated in impromptu duels and mass battles. different eras. Weigh modern armor from 10 to 30 kilograms. When the thermometer exceeds the 30-degree mark, it is not easy to fight with such equipment. Medieval warriors had even worse - in the 15th century, the weight of knightly armor ranged from 30 to 50 kilograms.

Researchers from the University of Leeds have found that moving in armor is twice as hard as without it. According to the webzine covering biology, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the volunteers participating in the experiment put on knightly armor and stood on the treadmill. Sensors were attached to them to record the exhaled air, pulse rate, blood pressure and other physiological parameters while the subjects were walking or running.

The experiment showed that walking in armor consumes 2.1-2.3 times more energy than without them. During the run, this figure increased by 1.9 times. The researchers also found that the energy consumption when wearing armor is higher than when moving with an equal weight load on your hands. This is due to overcoming the resistance of the armor when moving the limbs.

Answering a simple question, how much knightly armor weighed on average, is not so simple. The whole problem lies in the evolution that this military vestment has undergone. The immediate predecessors of the Western European knights were heavily armed horsemen - cataphracts(in translation: "reserved" or "dressed in iron"). In late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, they were part of the Iranian, late Roman and Byzantine troops. Accordingly, the protective vestments of cataphracts served as a prototype for knightly armor.

Since the first half of the 12th century, chain mail woven from steel rings (sometimes in two or three layers) has become widespread. Chain mail existed until the middle of the XIV century. In the next century, armor appeared that protected the most vulnerabilities. In addition, chain mail could no longer protect against the novelty that appeared in military affairs - firearms.

Separate parts of knightly armor were interconnected with rivets, and the parts were fastened with straps and buckles. Total parts of Western European knightly attire sometimes reached two hundred, and their total weight could be 55 kilograms. Russian warriors, for the most part who fought with the steppe nomads, dressed in more light armor, which weighed about the same as the average load of a modern paratrooper, that is, about 20-35 kilograms.

The armor of the 15th century reliably protected from being hit by bow arrows, withstood the blows of crossbow bolts and arquebus bullets fired from a distance of 25-30 meters. They could not be pierced by javelins, spears, or even swords, with the exception of the heavier two-handed swords.

In the second half of the 15th century, the art of forging knightly armor reaches its highest development, not only from a technological point of view, but also from an artistic one. Knightly armor for the nobility was very richly decorated: they were covered with niello (a special alloy of silver, lead and sulfur), taushing was applied to them (metal inlay on metal) or a notch was made (filling specially made "grooves" in the armor with non-ferrous metal - gold, silver, aluminum). Deep chasing and bluing were also used, that is, obtaining iron oxides on the surface of steel. Moreover, the latter was used not only for decorative purposes, but also for pragmatic ones, as it helped to reduce metal corrosion. Also used was such a method of decorating armor as aiming with gold, or gilding. To cover military vestments with a layer of this precious metal, gold was first dissolved in mercury and stirred with a graphite rod until completely dissolved. The resulting amalgam was poured into water and cooled, after which it was applied to the prepared product. The "outfit" of the Italian knights was considered the most beautiful.

In the 16th century, a new “style” of knightly armor appeared, which, unlike the Gothic ones, began to be called Maximilian, in honor of the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I of Habsburg (1459-1519), nicknamed the “last knight”. However, in German there is another equivalent for their name - Riefelharnisch, and in English they are also not always called Maximilian armor, a fluted armor.

hallmark of this armor, which peaked in the period from 1515 to 1525, had grooves covering the entire surface, which increased the strength of the metal and set aside edged weapons. The armor consisted of the following parts: a helmet with a visor and a throat cover, a necklace, a breastplate and a backplate, two shoulders, two bracers and two elbow pieces, two mittens or two gloves, an underbelly, thigh pads, leggings and two boots.

Average weight knight's armor reached 22.7-29.5 kilograms; helmet - from 2.3 to 5.5 kilograms; chain mail under armor - about seven kilograms; shield - 4.5 kilograms. Total weight knightly armor could approach 36.5-46.5 kilograms. The knights knocked out of the saddle could no longer mount the horse on their own. For foot combat, they used special armor with a steel skirt instead of leggings and boots.

In medieval times, life was not easy, clothing played an important role, up to the preservation of life.
Simple clothes made of fragile fabric were common, leather was considered a rarity, but armor was worn only by wealthy gentlemen.

Armet of Henry VIII, known as the "Horned Carapace". Innsbruck, Austria, 1511

There are several versions regarding the appearance of the first armor. Some believe that it all started with robes made of forged metal. Others are sure that wood protection should also be considered, in this case we need to remember the truly distant ancestors with stones and sticks. But most think that the armor came from those difficult times when men were knights, and women languished in anticipation of them.

Another strange shell-mask, from Augsburg, Germany, 1515.

The variety of forms and styles of medieval shells should be devoted to a separate article:

Or armor or nothing

The first armor was very simple: roughly crafted metal plates designed to protect the knight inside them from spears and swords. But gradually the weapon became more and more complicated, and the blacksmiths had to take this into account and make the armor more durable, light and flexible, until they began to possess maximum degree protection.

One of the most brilliant innovations was the improvement of chain mail. According to rumors, it was first created by the Celts many centuries ago. It was a long process, it took a very long time, until gunsmiths took up it, who brought this idea to new heights. This idea is not entirely logical: instead of making armor from strong plates and very reliable metal, why not make it from several thousand carefully connected rings? It turned out great: light and durable, chain mail allowed its owner to be mobile and often was key factor how he leaves the battlefield: on a horse or on a stretcher. When plate armor was added to chain mail, the result was stunning: armor from the Middle Ages appeared.

Medieval arms race

Now it's hard to imagine that long time the knight on horseback was truly terrible weapon of that era: arriving at the scene of battle on a war horse, often also dressed in armor, he was as terrible as he was invincible. Nothing could stop such knights when they, with a sword and a spear, could easily attack almost anyone.

Here is an imaginary knight reminiscent of heroic and victorious times (drawn by the delightful illustrator John Howe):

freaky monsters

The battle became more and more "ritual", leading to the jousting we all know and love from movies and books. Armor became less useful in practice and gradually became more of a mere indicator of high social status and wealth. Only the rich or noble could afford armor, but only the truly wealthy or very wealthy baron, duke, prince, or king could afford fantastic armor of the highest quality.

Did they become especially beautiful from this? After a while, the armor began to look more like clothes for dinner than equipment for battle: impeccable metal work, precious metals, ornate coats of arms and regalia ... All this, although it looked amazing, was useless during the battle.

Just look at the armor that belongs to Henry VIII: Aren't they a masterpiece of the art of that time? The armor was designed and made, like most all armor of the time, to the size of the wearer. In Heinrich's case, however, his costume looked more noble than intimidating. And who can remember the royal armor? Looking at a set of such armor, you involuntarily think: were they invented to fight or to show off? But to be honest, we can't blame Henry for his choice: his armor was never really designed for war.

England puts forward ideas

What is certain is that the suit of armor was a terrifying weapon of the day. But all days come to an end, and in the case of classic armor, their end was simply worse than ever.
1415, northern France: French on one side; on the other hand, the British. Although their numbers are debatable, it is generally believed that the French outnumbered the English by a ratio of about 10 to 1. For the English, under Henry (5th, forefather of the aforementioned 8th), this was not at all pleasant. Most likely, they, using the military term, will be "killed". But then something happened that not only determined the outcome of the war, but also changed Europe forever, as well as dooming armor as a primary weapon.

The French did not know what struck them. Well, in fact, they knew, and it made their defeat even more terrible: after all, it was them, the “cream” of the equipment of the French infantry going to an obvious victory, their chain mail and plates sparkling in the sun, their monstrous metal armor and the best defense in the world...

Arrows fired from secret weapon Heinrich: English (to be precise, Welsh) longbow. A few volleys - and the French were defeated by the enemy, which they could not even approach, their precious armor turned out to be pillows for pins, and the army was trampled into the dirty ground.

Clothing says a lot about a person. And for a very long time, armor was the most versatile garment of that time, suitable for almost all occasions. But times are changing. In our case, this was greatly helped by a few people with a small amount of bows and arrows.

Armor of the First World War

Armor Brewster, 1917-1918:

Experimental machine gunner's helmet, 1918:

If the level of protection provided by the helmet does not seem sufficient, you can try to climb inside the mobile protection, supplemented by four wheels (a real mobile coffin):

Some of the British "face protection systems" looked downright stupid. Belgian samples also did not shine with grace:

And finally, the original pilot suits with face protection from 1917, terribly similar to the outfits of pilots from Star Wars:

Plate armor has long been one of the main symbols of the Middle Ages, being calling card knights and personifying the power and wealth of the owner. The most incredible and ridiculous myths constantly arise around armor.

Armor - armor made of large metal plates, anatomically repeating the male figure. Compared to other types of armor, the manufacture of such armor was the most difficult and required a considerable amount of steel, and therefore the art of making armor began to develop actively only from the middle of the 14th century.

Because of these difficulties, even in the 15th century, plate armor was not cheap and was often made to order. Of course, only representatives of the nobility could afford such a luxury, which is why the armor became a symbol of chivalry and high birth. So how effective is such armor and was it worth the money? Let's figure it out:

MYTH 1: THE ARMOR WEIGHED SO MUCH THAT THE FALLEN KNIGHT COULD NOT Rise WITHOUT HELP

This is not true. The total weight of the complete battle armor rarely exceeded 30 kg. The figure may seem big to you, but do not forget that the weight was evenly distributed throughout the body, moreover, men at arms, as a rule, fought on horseback. With this in mind, we get the approximate weight of the modern equipment of an army infantryman. Heavier varieties belonged to tournament armor, deliberately sacrificing mobility in favor of increasing the thickness of the armor, which reduced the risk of injury when struck by a spear or falling from a horse.
Modern reenactors have repeatedly proved that in a replica of full armor you can not only run fast, but even fencing and climb stairs.

MYTH 2: PLATE ARMOR COULD BE EASILY PUNCHED WITH CONVENTIONAL WEAPON

And this is a lie. Main distinguishing feature plate armor - excellent resistance to all types of damage. Cutting blows do not cause him any harm, unless the knight at full gallop is substituted under the blow of the reed. The piercing blows could penetrate soft, poorly hardened steel, but later armor also held the blow of the sharp end of the war hammer quite well. In addition, armor (contrary to the opinion mass culture, who likes to decorate armor with spikes and ribs) was made as smooth and streamlined as possible in order to evenly distribute the energy from the impact and thereby increase the strength of the entire structure. For real effective means against the man-at-arms were daggers, which, due to the shortest possible attack distance, are the easiest to hit the joints of the armor, and two-handed swords, specially created as countermeasures against heavy infantry and cavalry.

In contrast, video recordings are often cited, in which the tester breaks through a plate breastplate with a morning star or a lucernhammer. It should be noted here that theoretically this is indeed possible, but it is very difficult to deliver a direct blow with a wide swing at an ideal right angle during a battle, otherwise the man-at-arms has every chance of completely or partially avoiding damage.

MYTH 3: IT IS ENOUGH TO GET INTO A VULNERABLE PLACE AND THE ARMOR WILL BE DEFEATED

That's a moot point. Yes, in plate armor there are several weak points(belt garters, gaps in the joints and joints), hitting which will in fact cause significant damage to the enemy. But it wasn't easy to do so:
Firstly, under the armor, the knights wore at least a gambeson, consisting of several layers of dense linen. It provided good protection on its own, being surprisingly strong and light, and most knights did not disdain to pull chain mail over it. Thus, the weapon had to overcome several layers of armor before reaching the body.
Secondly, gunsmiths, who quickly realized the main weakness of armor in a combat clash, tried to protect the knight from the threat as much as possible. All belts and garters were hidden deep inside the armor, special "wings" (a continuation of the cast armor plate) served as a screen for joints and joints. All parts of the armor fit together as tightly as possible, which in the crush and turmoil major battles greatly increased the chances of survival.

SO WHAT WAS BAD PLATE ARMOR?

The main disadvantage is the exactingness of care. Due to the large area of the armor itself, the metal quickly rusted, and it had to be protected from corrosion. Over time, gunsmiths learned to burn armor, which made them darker and gave good protection against oxidation. In field conditions, the armor was lubricated with oil, and in peacetime it was stored in isolated conditions, usually wrapped in several layers of cloth. Otherwise, the armor was much more effective than any analogues - frayed straps can be quickly and easily replaced, and straightening a dent on a solid plate is much easier than repairing chain mail or replacing segments in lamellar armor.
However, sometimes it was almost impossible to put on plate armor on your own, and if you were wounded, it was just as difficult to take it off. Many knights managed to bleed out from a trifling wound, which put them out of action for the entire battle.

The end of the golden age of armor came along with the beginning of the era of firearms. When the firearm appeared in service with regular armies, armor began to gradually disappear from everyday life. A lead bullet pierced such armor without any problems, although in the early stages, when the power of firearms was not great, they could still serve as a very effective defense.

Scientists became interested in how much energy a person dressed in Western European knightly armor spends. Modern lovers of the reconstruction of historical battles dress in lighter armor than the warriors who wore them in the 15th century. Solid articulated armor was produced only in Europe, so to speak, for their own needs, because they fought in such vestments also only in Europe. In Asia, it was occasionally found only among Turkish sipahis.

At one of the festivals "Crossroads of Times", dedicated to the Day of the Baptism of Russia, which was held in the format of a knightly tournament, men dressed in knightly costumes of various eras participated in impromptu duels and mass battles. Modern armor weighs from 10 to 30 kilograms. When the thermometer exceeds the 30-degree mark, it is not easy to fight with such equipment. Medieval warriors had even worse - in the 15th century, the weight of knightly armor ranged from 30 to 50 kilograms.

Researchers from the University of Leeds have found that moving in armor is twice as hard as without it. According to the biology webzine Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the volunteers donned knightly armor and stood on a treadmill. Sensors were attached to them to record exhaled air, pulse rate, blood pressure, and other physiological parameters while the subjects were walking or running.

Answering a simple question, how much knightly armor weighed on average, is not so simple. The whole problem lies in the evolution that this military vestment has undergone. The immediate predecessors of the Western European knights were heavily armed horsemen - cataphracts (in translation: "armored" or "dressed in iron"). In late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, they were part of the Iranian, late Roman and Byzantine troops. Accordingly, the protective vestments of cataphracts served as a prototype for knightly armor.

Since the first half of the 12th century, chain mail woven from steel rings (sometimes in two or three layers) has become widespread. Chain mail existed until the middle of the XIV century.

In the next century, armor appeared that protected the most vulnerable places. In addition, chain mail could no longer protect against the novelty that appeared in military affairs - firearms.

English armor of the 14th century

Separate parts of knightly armor were interconnected with rivets, and the parts were fastened with straps and buckles. The total number of parts of Western European knightly attire sometimes reached two hundred, and their total weight could be 55 kilograms.

Russian warriors, for the most part, those who fought with the steppe nomads dressed in lighter armor, which weighed about the same as the average load of a modern paratrooper, that is, about 20-35 kilograms.

English armor of the 15th century

In the second half of the 15th century, the art of forging knightly armor reached its highest development, not only from a technological point of view, but also from an artistic point of view. Knightly armor for the nobility was very richly decorated: they were covered with niello (a special alloy of silver, lead and sulfur), taushing was applied to them (metal inlay on metal) or a notch was made (filling specially made "grooves" in the armor with non-ferrous metal - gold, silver, aluminum). Deep chasing and bluing were also used, that is, obtaining iron oxides on the surface of steel.

Moreover, the latter was used not only for decorative purposes, but also for pragmatic ones, as it helped to reduce metal corrosion. Also used was such a method of decorating armor as aiming with gold, or gilding. To cover military vestments with a layer of this precious metal, gold was first dissolved in mercury and stirred with a graphite rod until completely dissolved. The resulting amalgam was poured into water and cooled, after which it was applied to the prepared product. The "outfit" of the Italian knights was considered the most beautiful.

Maximilian armor

In the 16th century, a new “style” of knightly armor appeared, which, unlike the Gothic ones, began to be called Maximilian, in honor of the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I of Habsburg (1459-1519), nicknamed the “last knight”. However, in German there is another equivalent for their name - Riefelharnisch, and in English they are also not always called Maximilian armor, but fluted armor.

The armor was a complex mechanical structure, consisting of more than two hundred separate parts made individually for a particular person. To wear it, you needed a good physical training, since its weight without weapons was at least three pounds (fifty kilograms).

The main part of the Maximilian armor is the aventail, a plate with a cutout for the neck, it was intended to protect the collarbone and shoulders. The rest of the armor was attached to it. The chest and back of the knight were protected by armor, which consisted of two halves. In front, for greater reliability, a breastplate was put on the armor. It was made from a set of metal plates connected by hinges. top the armor was reinforced by the shoulders, to which the bracers were attached. They consisted of two parts, connected by an articulated elbow piece, which allowed the knight to bend his arm. And a belt or spring mechanism connecting armor and shoulders provided free movement hands

But that's not all. A special throat plate and a butt plate were attached to the upper part of the aventail, which protected the neck from a chopping blow from behind.

The lower part of the helmet rested on the throat plate, protecting the chin and lower part faces. The upper part of the inside was upholstered with soft leather and lay freely on the knight's head. Only when the visor was lowered were the parts of the helmet connected into a single rigid structure.

The knight's legs were protected by steel legguards, to which articulated knee pads were attached. The shins were covered with special leggings, which consisted of a front and back half.

Not only the inside of the helmet, but also the surface of the armor was covered with leather, and in places of possible blows, felt or woolen plates were inserted under the skin. Outside, the Maximilian armor was decorated with various patterns and engravings.

To prevent metal armor from rubbing the body, the knight put on a gambizon under it - a thin quilted robe consisting of a short jacket and pants. After the advent of lightweight tournament armor, the gambizon was no longer used, replacing it with a leather camisole and leggings.

Dressed in Maximilian armor, the knight practically could not move without outside help. In a combat situation, he was constantly accompanied by a squire. He filed necessary weapon and helped the knight get off his horse.

Special steel recipes were developed for armor. Thanks to special hardening, they protected from almost all types of throwing and cutting weapons. The manufacture of armor was a long and difficult process, since all parts were bent by hand by cold forging.

Curiously, hard metal armor became widespread only in Europe. In the countries of the East, the Maximilian armor was replaced by a long metal chain mail, to which from the back and chest were attached metal plates- mirrors.

The use of chain mail was explained by the fact that the main branch of the troops in the East was the cavalry, the success of which was ensured by speed and maneuverability. But it is difficult to even imagine how a cavalry attack could have been carried out if horses had participated in it, loaded to the limit with metal.

turkish armor

Russian armor

On average, the weight of knightly armor reached 22.7-29.5 kilograms; helmet - from 2.3 to 5.5 kilograms; chain mail under armor - about seven kilograms; shield - 4.5 kilograms. The total weight of knightly armor could approach 36.5-46.5 kilograms. The knights knocked out of the saddle could no longer mount the horse on their own. For foot combat, they used special armor with a steel skirt instead of leggings and boots.

http://funik.ru/post/86053-ger...

How much does a knight's breastplate weigh? Armor of a medieval knight. The main thing is that the suit fits. Men's clothing wraps from left to right, because this is how the armor was originally closed.

Report a typo

Text to be sent to our editors:

Your comment (optional):