here we go guys as i promised my first installation starts with byzantine military. first i will give you a bit of background about its history.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Byzantine military background
The centuries of invasion, civil war, and general decay took their fatal toll on the Roman empire of the West. From the 4th century onward the legacy of Rome was gradually transferred to its eastern capital, Constantinople, where Roman emperors attempted to stem the tide of barbarism and preserve the essence of Roman culture. By 650 A.D. the empire of the east was resigned to the loss of the western provinces, and found itself confronted with numerous military threats, especially from Islam, closer to home. These threats occupied the empire's attention for the next 800 years, and it is a testimony to Byzantine greatness and skill that the empire survived and prospered for more than a millennium after the collapse of Rome until suffering its final defeat at the hand of Ottoman armies in 1453. The Western Roman empire had lasted for 500 years. The Eastern empire (395-1453) endured for over a thousand.
The imposition of Roman administrative machinery upon the Byzantine population in the early years kept the traditions of Roman military science and law intact, and preserved Roman culture and achievement for more than a thousand years until, as Allbutt noted, "Western Europe was once again fit to take care of them." Byzantium suffered no period of general degradation and decay like the Middle Ages in Europe and, for the most part, remained the most refined and developed culture in the world until the very end.
Vital to Byzantine survival was the maintenance of its military capability which, as Oman notes, "was, in its day, the most efficient military body in the world." Despite many evolutionary changes in details, the Byzantine military machine remained Roman in both its organization and values, and it continued to produce excellent soldiers and commanders long after the Roman legions had disappeared in the West. The basic administrative and tactical unit of the Byzantine army, for both cavalry and infantry, was the numerus comprised of 300-400 men, the equivalent of the old Roman cohort. Each numerus was commanded by the equivalent of a colonel. A division or turma was comprised of five to eight battalions commanded by a general. Two or three turmae could be combined into a corps commanded by a senior general called a strategos. The empire was geographically organized into provinces or themes, each of which had a military commander responsible for security with deliberately unclear lines between civil and military administration so as to give priority to military defense. For more than four centuries the Byzantine army numbered approximately 150,000 men almost evenly split between infantry and heavy cavalry forces.
Military manpower was obtained through universal conscription, but in practice recruiting and stationing military forces within each theme allowed commanders to recruit the best manpower from within each province. The army attracted the best families for its soldiers, thereby avoiding the fatal mistake of the Western empire which relied heavily upon barbarian soldiers while the best Roman citizens served not at all. Whereas Rome had relied heavily upon infantry until too late, the Byzantines adjusted to the new forms of highly mobile mounted warfare by relying primarily upon an excellent heavy cavalry of their own. Byzantine military commanders were quick to adopt a number of weapons and tactics of their enemies, so that as the infantry legion had symbolized the might of Rome, the mounted heavily armored horseman, the cataphracti, came to symbolize the military might of Byzantium.
The organizational infrastructure of the army of Byzantium was every bit as well-organized and efficient as it had been under the old Roman legions. The army had organic supply and logistics trains comprised of carts and pack animals to speed mobility, excellent siegecraft capabilities to include the full range of Roman artillery and siegecraft specialists, a fully articulated staff organization professionally trained in military academies, and a powerful navy to support ground operations. The genius of the Romans for military organization was preserved intact in almost all its earlier aspects.
The centuries of invasion, civil war, and general decay took their fatal toll on the Roman empire of the West. From the 4th century onward the legacy of Rome was gradually transferred to its eastern capital, Constantinople, where Roman emperors attempted to stem the tide of barbarism and preserve the essence of Roman culture. By 650 A.D. the empire of the east was resigned to the loss of the western provinces, and found itself confronted with numerous military threats, especially from Islam, closer to home. These threats occupied the empire's attention for the next 800 years, and it is a testimony to Byzantine greatness and skill that the empire survived and prospered for more than a millennium after the collapse of Rome until suffering its final defeat at the hand of Ottoman armies in 1453. The Western Roman empire had lasted for 500 years. The Eastern empire (395-1453) endured for over a thousand.
The imposition of Roman administrative machinery upon the Byzantine population in the early years kept the traditions of Roman military science and law intact, and preserved Roman culture and achievement for more than a thousand years until, as Allbutt noted, "Western Europe was once again fit to take care of them." Byzantium suffered no period of general degradation and decay like the Middle Ages in Europe and, for the most part, remained the most refined and developed culture in the world until the very end.
Vital to Byzantine survival was the maintenance of its military capability which, as Oman notes, "was, in its day, the most efficient military body in the world." Despite many evolutionary changes in details, the Byzantine military machine remained Roman in both its organization and values, and it continued to produce excellent soldiers and commanders long after the Roman legions had disappeared in the West. The basic administrative and tactical unit of the Byzantine army, for both cavalry and infantry, was the numerus comprised of 300-400 men, the equivalent of the old Roman cohort. Each numerus was commanded by the equivalent of a colonel. A division or turma was comprised of five to eight battalions commanded by a general. Two or three turmae could be combined into a corps commanded by a senior general called a strategos. The empire was geographically organized into provinces or themes, each of which had a military commander responsible for security with deliberately unclear lines between civil and military administration so as to give priority to military defense. For more than four centuries the Byzantine army numbered approximately 150,000 men almost evenly split between infantry and heavy cavalry forces.
Military manpower was obtained through universal conscription, but in practice recruiting and stationing military forces within each theme allowed commanders to recruit the best manpower from within each province. The army attracted the best families for its soldiers, thereby avoiding the fatal mistake of the Western empire which relied heavily upon barbarian soldiers while the best Roman citizens served not at all. Whereas Rome had relied heavily upon infantry until too late, the Byzantines adjusted to the new forms of highly mobile mounted warfare by relying primarily upon an excellent heavy cavalry of their own. Byzantine military commanders were quick to adopt a number of weapons and tactics of their enemies, so that as the infantry legion had symbolized the might of Rome, the mounted heavily armored horseman, the cataphracti, came to symbolize the military might of Byzantium.
The organizational infrastructure of the army of Byzantium was every bit as well-organized and efficient as it had been under the old Roman legions. The army had organic supply and logistics trains comprised of carts and pack animals to speed mobility, excellent siegecraft capabilities to include the full range of Roman artillery and siegecraft specialists, a fully articulated staff organization professionally trained in military academies, and a powerful navy to support ground operations. The genius of the Romans for military organization was preserved intact in almost all its earlier aspects.
middle ages military background
oh boy i couldnt resist this one sorry i just got alot of information to give hope you find this usefulThe period from 800 to 1453, the high Middle Ages, was a period of violent transition that began with the end of the Dark Ages and ended with the Renaissance. When this period began Europe was still attempting after years of barbarization to reestablish an imperium along Roman lines (the dream that drove Charlemagne), and when it ended the idea of an imperium was dead, replaced by the quilt-like pattern of the national state system that has survived to this day. For 700 years (800-1453) Europe was wreaked by dynastic struggles, religious wars, renewed invasions from outside European borders, brigandage, guerrilla war, and national conflicts. The Viking invasions of the 9th century added such havoc to an already chaotic state of affairs that the Church conceived of the First Crusade (to be followed by seven others) as a mechanism for deflecting the war-like spirit of feudal combatants toward other targets outside Europe. For 700 years, Europe knew little respite from the ravages of war and destruction.
The centralizing efforts of Charlemagne resulted in the solidification of the new feudal order marked by extreme decentralization in all political, economic, social, and military functions. The next seven centuries may best be defined by the constant struggle between the forces of centralization led by would-be national monarchs against the forces of decentralization and peripheralization which characterized feudalism as a form of societal organization. In the end, the forces of centralization overcame feudal pressures but proved unequal to the task of reestablishing any form of imperial order encompassing national identity and loyalty. In this way Europe gave birth to the nation-state.
The military organization of the Middle Ages was a direct reflection of the political, social, and economic decentralization of feudalism. Most wars were fought not by nation-states but by rival monarchs who raised armies by levying requirements for soldiers and arms on subvassals. Accordingly, there were no centralized arms industries, no permanent standing military forces to speak of, and no efforts to maintain logistical organizations or to train armies. What few efforts were made in these areas were made by local vassals as they saw fit.
Military doctrine and tactics were almost nonexistent, and battles showed all the sophistication of armed scuffles and sword-swinging melees among groups of mounted men. It was, as one author has remarked, a period of squalid butchery. After each battle, the armies disintegrated as the knights returned home under the command of their local vassals. Tax collections for military purposes were highly sporadic, usually taken in kind, and, in any case, were left to local military commanders who were also the chief political officials. As the 14th century dawned, Europe was caught in a period of transition between feudalism and the rise of the embryonic national state.
The decentralization that characterized feudalism placed the armed knight at the pinnacle of the social and military order, and the form of mounted individualized combat at which the knight excelled had swept infantry from the field almost a thousand years before. Moreover, the development of infantry was further hindered by the nature of the social order that regarded it as the height of dangerous idiocy to arm the peasantry. The last time Europe had witnessed a disciplined infantry force was under Rome. The start of the Hundred Years War saw the supremacy of the mounted knight remain unchallenged. By the time this series of dynastic wars ended, new military forms had emerged which signaled the beginning of the end of that supremacy.
To counter the power of the mounted knight, the opponent had either to withstand the shock of a mounted assault against infantry or be able to deliver sufficient missiles from a distance great enough to inflict casualties on the mounted formation and prevent it from closing with the infantry. At the Battle of Laupen (1339) the Swiss infantry annihilated a force of mounted knights by the simple trick of reinventing the Macedonian phalanx complete with 18-foot pikes similar to the sarissae used by Alexander's infantry sixteen hundred years earlier. The Swiss infantry, pikes at the ready, stood the shock action of the cavalry charge. Swiss halsberdsmen and axe throwers attacked the knights by chopping off the legs of the horses and butchering the knights as they lay helpless on the ground.
At Crecy (1346), the English reinvented the second solution for dealing with the cavalry charge by destroying a force of French knights at a distance with hails of metal-tipped arrows fired from long bows. In both instances, the solutions represented the rediscovery and reapplication of ancient, long-forgotten techniques used by Alexander, the Romans, and the Persians for defeating heavy cavalry. For the first time in a thousand years, disciplined infantry forces once again began to appear on the battlefields of Europe.
oh boy i couldnt resist this one sorry i just got alot of information to give hope you find this usefulThe period from 800 to 1453, the high Middle Ages, was a period of violent transition that began with the end of the Dark Ages and ended with the Renaissance. When this period began Europe was still attempting after years of barbarization to reestablish an imperium along Roman lines (the dream that drove Charlemagne), and when it ended the idea of an imperium was dead, replaced by the quilt-like pattern of the national state system that has survived to this day. For 700 years (800-1453) Europe was wreaked by dynastic struggles, religious wars, renewed invasions from outside European borders, brigandage, guerrilla war, and national conflicts. The Viking invasions of the 9th century added such havoc to an already chaotic state of affairs that the Church conceived of the First Crusade (to be followed by seven others) as a mechanism for deflecting the war-like spirit of feudal combatants toward other targets outside Europe. For 700 years, Europe knew little respite from the ravages of war and destruction.
The centralizing efforts of Charlemagne resulted in the solidification of the new feudal order marked by extreme decentralization in all political, economic, social, and military functions. The next seven centuries may best be defined by the constant struggle between the forces of centralization led by would-be national monarchs against the forces of decentralization and peripheralization which characterized feudalism as a form of societal organization. In the end, the forces of centralization overcame feudal pressures but proved unequal to the task of reestablishing any form of imperial order encompassing national identity and loyalty. In this way Europe gave birth to the nation-state.
The military organization of the Middle Ages was a direct reflection of the political, social, and economic decentralization of feudalism. Most wars were fought not by nation-states but by rival monarchs who raised armies by levying requirements for soldiers and arms on subvassals. Accordingly, there were no centralized arms industries, no permanent standing military forces to speak of, and no efforts to maintain logistical organizations or to train armies. What few efforts were made in these areas were made by local vassals as they saw fit.
Military doctrine and tactics were almost nonexistent, and battles showed all the sophistication of armed scuffles and sword-swinging melees among groups of mounted men. It was, as one author has remarked, a period of squalid butchery. After each battle, the armies disintegrated as the knights returned home under the command of their local vassals. Tax collections for military purposes were highly sporadic, usually taken in kind, and, in any case, were left to local military commanders who were also the chief political officials. As the 14th century dawned, Europe was caught in a period of transition between feudalism and the rise of the embryonic national state.
The decentralization that characterized feudalism placed the armed knight at the pinnacle of the social and military order, and the form of mounted individualized combat at which the knight excelled had swept infantry from the field almost a thousand years before. Moreover, the development of infantry was further hindered by the nature of the social order that regarded it as the height of dangerous idiocy to arm the peasantry. The last time Europe had witnessed a disciplined infantry force was under Rome. The start of the Hundred Years War saw the supremacy of the mounted knight remain unchallenged. By the time this series of dynastic wars ended, new military forms had emerged which signaled the beginning of the end of that supremacy.
To counter the power of the mounted knight, the opponent had either to withstand the shock of a mounted assault against infantry or be able to deliver sufficient missiles from a distance great enough to inflict casualties on the mounted formation and prevent it from closing with the infantry. At the Battle of Laupen (1339) the Swiss infantry annihilated a force of mounted knights by the simple trick of reinventing the Macedonian phalanx complete with 18-foot pikes similar to the sarissae used by Alexander's infantry sixteen hundred years earlier. The Swiss infantry, pikes at the ready, stood the shock action of the cavalry charge. Swiss halsberdsmen and axe throwers attacked the knights by chopping off the legs of the horses and butchering the knights as they lay helpless on the ground.
At Crecy (1346), the English reinvented the second solution for dealing with the cavalry charge by destroying a force of French knights at a distance with hails of metal-tipped arrows fired from long bows. In both instances, the solutions represented the rediscovery and reapplication of ancient, long-forgotten techniques used by Alexander, the Romans, and the Persians for defeating heavy cavalry. For the first time in a thousand years, disciplined infantry forces once again began to appear on the battlefields of Europe.
here we go discussing byzantine tactics which they used generally through out the period with minor changes.
Byzantine Tactics
By the time of the so-called Byzantine era (the surviving eastern Roman empire) true power on the battle field had long since passed into the hands of the cavalry. If there was any infantry, it was made up of archers, whose bows had longer range than the smaller bows of the horsemen.
Handbooks were published, most famously by the general and later emperor Maurice (the strategicon), the emperor Leo VI (the tactica) and Nicephorus Phocas (the updated tactica).
As with the old Roman legion, the infantry still fought at the centre, with the cavalry at the wings. But often now the lines of the infantry stood further back than the cavalry wings, creating a 'refused' centre. Any enemy who would try and attack the infantry would have to pass between the two wings of the cavalry.
In hilly ground or in narrow valleys where the cavalry could not be used, the infantry itself had its lighter archers at the wings, whereas its heavier fighters (scutati) were placed at the centre. The wings were positioned slightly forward, creating a kind of crescent-shaped line.
In case of an attack on the centre of the infantry the wings of archers would send a storm of arrows upon the attacker. Though in case the infantry wings themselves were attacked they could retire behing the heavier scutati.
Often though infantry was not part of the conflict at all, with commanders relying entirely on their cavalry to win the day.
It is in the tactics described for these occasions that the sophistication of Byzantine warfare becomes apparent.
Though in greater or lesser numbers, and with infantry or not, it is likely the Byzantine army would fight in similar array.
The main force would be the Fighting Line (ca. 1500 men) and the Supporting Line (ca. 1300 men).
The Supporting Line might have gaps in it to allow the Fighting Line to widthdraw through if necessary.
The Wings (2 x 400 men), also called the liers-in-wait tried to get behind or into the flank of the enemy in a sweeping move around the forces, far out of sight.
The Flanks (2 x 200 men) either side of the main Fighting Line were meant to prevent the enemy's wings or flanks from circling one's own force. Often the right Flank was also used to attack the side of the opponent's main body. Striking from the right it drove into the left of the opponent which was harder to defend as most warriors would bear their weapons with their right arm.
At the back of the force a Third Line or Reserve (ca. 500 men) would be posted out to the sides, ready either to help defend the Flanks, to help steady any forces of the Fighting Line driven back through the Supporting Line, or to intervene in any flanking assaults on the enemy.
This leaves the general's own escort which would most likely lie to rear of the force and would consist of about 100 men.
Specific Byzantine Tactics
The Byzantine art of war was highly developed and eventually even contained specially developed tactics for specific opponents.
Leo VI's manual, the famous tactica, provides precise instructions for dealing with various foes.
The Franks and the Lombards were defined as knightly heavy cavalry which, in a direct charge, could devastate an opponent and so it was advised to avoid a pitched battle against them. However, they fought with no discipline and little to no battle order at all and generally had few, if any, of their horsemen performing any reconnaissance ahead of the army. They also failed to fortify their camps at night.
The Byzantine general would hence best fight such an opponent in a series of ambushes and night attacks. If it came to battle he would pretend to flee, drawing the knights to charge his retreating army - only to run into an ambush.
The Magyars and Patzinaks, referred to as the Turks by the Byzantines, fought as bands of light horsemen, armed with bow, javelin and scimitar. They were accomplished in performing ambushes and used many horsemen to scout ahead of the army.
In battle they advanced in small scattered bands which would harass the frontline of the army, charging only if they discovered a weak point.
The general was advised to deploy his infantry archers in the front line. Their larger bows had greater range than that of the horsemen and could so keep them at a distance. Once the Turks, harassed by the arrows of the Byzantine archers would try and close into range of their own bows, the Byzantine heavy cavalry was to ride them down.
The Slavonic Tribes, such as the Servians, Slovenes and Croatians still fought as foot soldiers. However, the craggy and mountainous terrain of the Balkans lent itself very well to ambushes by archers and spearmen from above, when an army would be hemmed in in a steep valley. Invasion into their territories was hence discouraged, though if necessary, it was recommended that extensive scouting was undertaken in order to avoid ambushes.
However, when hunting down Slavonic raiding parties or meeting an army in open field, it was pointed out that the tribesmen fought with little or no protective armour, except for round shields. Hence their infantry could easily be overpowered by a charge of the heavy cavalry.
The Saracens were judged as the most dangerous of all foes by Leo VI. Had they in earlier centuries been powered only by religious fanaticism, then by the time of Leo VI's reign (AD 886-912) they had adopted some of the weaponry and tactics of the Byzantine army.
After earlier defeats beyond the mountain passes of the Taurus, the Saracens concentrated on raiding and plundering expeditions instead of seeking permanent conquest. Having forced their way through a pass, their horsemen would charge into the lands at an incredible speed.
Byzantine tactics were to immediately collect a force of cavalry from the nearest themes and to trail the invading Saracen army. Such a force might have been too small to seriously challenge the invaders, but it deterred small detachments of plunderers from breaking away from the main army.
Meanwhile the main Byzantine army was to be gathered from all around Asia Minor (Turkey) and to meet the invasion force on the battlefield.
The Saracen infantry was deemed by Leo VI to be little more than an disorganized rabble, except for the occasional Ethiopian archers who though were only lightly armed and hence could not match the Byzantine infantry.
If the Saracen cavalry was judged to be a fine force it could not match the discipline and organisation of the Byzantines. Also the Byzantine combination of horse archer and heavy cavalry proved a deadly mix to the light Saracen cavalry.
Should however, the Saracen force only be caught up with by the time it was retreating homewards laden with plunder, then the emperor Nicephorus Phocas advised in his military manual that the army's infantry should set upon them at night from three sides, leaving open only the road back to their land. It was deemed most likely that the startled Saracens would leap to their horses and take homeward rather than defend their plunder.
Another tactic was to cut off their retreat across the passes. Byzantine infantry would reinforce the garrisons in the fortresses guarding the passes and the cavalry would pursue the invader driving them up into the valley. Like this the enemy could be helplessly pressed into a narrow valley with little to no room to manoeuver. Here they would be easy prey to the Byzantine archers.
A third tactic was to launch counter attack across the border into Saracen territory. An invading Saracen force would often turn around to defend its own borders if message of an attack reached it.
Byzantine Tactics
By the time of the so-called Byzantine era (the surviving eastern Roman empire) true power on the battle field had long since passed into the hands of the cavalry. If there was any infantry, it was made up of archers, whose bows had longer range than the smaller bows of the horsemen.
Handbooks were published, most famously by the general and later emperor Maurice (the strategicon), the emperor Leo VI (the tactica) and Nicephorus Phocas (the updated tactica).
As with the old Roman legion, the infantry still fought at the centre, with the cavalry at the wings. But often now the lines of the infantry stood further back than the cavalry wings, creating a 'refused' centre. Any enemy who would try and attack the infantry would have to pass between the two wings of the cavalry.
In hilly ground or in narrow valleys where the cavalry could not be used, the infantry itself had its lighter archers at the wings, whereas its heavier fighters (scutati) were placed at the centre. The wings were positioned slightly forward, creating a kind of crescent-shaped line.
In case of an attack on the centre of the infantry the wings of archers would send a storm of arrows upon the attacker. Though in case the infantry wings themselves were attacked they could retire behing the heavier scutati.
Often though infantry was not part of the conflict at all, with commanders relying entirely on their cavalry to win the day.
It is in the tactics described for these occasions that the sophistication of Byzantine warfare becomes apparent.
Though in greater or lesser numbers, and with infantry or not, it is likely the Byzantine army would fight in similar array.
The main force would be the Fighting Line (ca. 1500 men) and the Supporting Line (ca. 1300 men).
The Supporting Line might have gaps in it to allow the Fighting Line to widthdraw through if necessary.
The Wings (2 x 400 men), also called the liers-in-wait tried to get behind or into the flank of the enemy in a sweeping move around the forces, far out of sight.
The Flanks (2 x 200 men) either side of the main Fighting Line were meant to prevent the enemy's wings or flanks from circling one's own force. Often the right Flank was also used to attack the side of the opponent's main body. Striking from the right it drove into the left of the opponent which was harder to defend as most warriors would bear their weapons with their right arm.
At the back of the force a Third Line or Reserve (ca. 500 men) would be posted out to the sides, ready either to help defend the Flanks, to help steady any forces of the Fighting Line driven back through the Supporting Line, or to intervene in any flanking assaults on the enemy.
This leaves the general's own escort which would most likely lie to rear of the force and would consist of about 100 men.
Specific Byzantine Tactics
The Byzantine art of war was highly developed and eventually even contained specially developed tactics for specific opponents.
Leo VI's manual, the famous tactica, provides precise instructions for dealing with various foes.
The Franks and the Lombards were defined as knightly heavy cavalry which, in a direct charge, could devastate an opponent and so it was advised to avoid a pitched battle against them. However, they fought with no discipline and little to no battle order at all and generally had few, if any, of their horsemen performing any reconnaissance ahead of the army. They also failed to fortify their camps at night.
The Byzantine general would hence best fight such an opponent in a series of ambushes and night attacks. If it came to battle he would pretend to flee, drawing the knights to charge his retreating army - only to run into an ambush.
The Magyars and Patzinaks, referred to as the Turks by the Byzantines, fought as bands of light horsemen, armed with bow, javelin and scimitar. They were accomplished in performing ambushes and used many horsemen to scout ahead of the army.
In battle they advanced in small scattered bands which would harass the frontline of the army, charging only if they discovered a weak point.
The general was advised to deploy his infantry archers in the front line. Their larger bows had greater range than that of the horsemen and could so keep them at a distance. Once the Turks, harassed by the arrows of the Byzantine archers would try and close into range of their own bows, the Byzantine heavy cavalry was to ride them down.
The Slavonic Tribes, such as the Servians, Slovenes and Croatians still fought as foot soldiers. However, the craggy and mountainous terrain of the Balkans lent itself very well to ambushes by archers and spearmen from above, when an army would be hemmed in in a steep valley. Invasion into their territories was hence discouraged, though if necessary, it was recommended that extensive scouting was undertaken in order to avoid ambushes.
However, when hunting down Slavonic raiding parties or meeting an army in open field, it was pointed out that the tribesmen fought with little or no protective armour, except for round shields. Hence their infantry could easily be overpowered by a charge of the heavy cavalry.
The Saracens were judged as the most dangerous of all foes by Leo VI. Had they in earlier centuries been powered only by religious fanaticism, then by the time of Leo VI's reign (AD 886-912) they had adopted some of the weaponry and tactics of the Byzantine army.
After earlier defeats beyond the mountain passes of the Taurus, the Saracens concentrated on raiding and plundering expeditions instead of seeking permanent conquest. Having forced their way through a pass, their horsemen would charge into the lands at an incredible speed.
Byzantine tactics were to immediately collect a force of cavalry from the nearest themes and to trail the invading Saracen army. Such a force might have been too small to seriously challenge the invaders, but it deterred small detachments of plunderers from breaking away from the main army.
Meanwhile the main Byzantine army was to be gathered from all around Asia Minor (Turkey) and to meet the invasion force on the battlefield.
The Saracen infantry was deemed by Leo VI to be little more than an disorganized rabble, except for the occasional Ethiopian archers who though were only lightly armed and hence could not match the Byzantine infantry.
If the Saracen cavalry was judged to be a fine force it could not match the discipline and organisation of the Byzantines. Also the Byzantine combination of horse archer and heavy cavalry proved a deadly mix to the light Saracen cavalry.
Should however, the Saracen force only be caught up with by the time it was retreating homewards laden with plunder, then the emperor Nicephorus Phocas advised in his military manual that the army's infantry should set upon them at night from three sides, leaving open only the road back to their land. It was deemed most likely that the startled Saracens would leap to their horses and take homeward rather than defend their plunder.
Another tactic was to cut off their retreat across the passes. Byzantine infantry would reinforce the garrisons in the fortresses guarding the passes and the cavalry would pursue the invader driving them up into the valley. Like this the enemy could be helplessly pressed into a narrow valley with little to no room to manoeuver. Here they would be easy prey to the Byzantine archers.
A third tactic was to launch counter attack across the border into Saracen territory. An invading Saracen force would often turn around to defend its own borders if message of an attack reached it.
example of early byzantine army using above tactics
hi there all ready for another lesson today
here we see the above tactics been used by the great general Narses who was the collegue of Belisaurus himself
the battle of Taginae
Opening Moves
The Battle of Taginae brought an end to the long struggle between Byzantium and the Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy. In the Spring of 552, Justinian's eunuch general Narses recruited a large army of Byzantines (East Romans) and barbarians, including Lombards and Heruli. He moved down the Via Flaminia, heading for Rome. The Ostrogothic king, Totila, advanced to intercept him at Taginae (the modern Gualdo Tadino). He arrived in time to force Narses to fight, or else make a perilous retreat back over the Apennines.
Totila, aware that he was outnumbered, and awaiting reinforcements, at first negotiated with Narses, then advanced on the Byzantines, hoping to take them by surprise. On one flank was a small hill that offered the prospect of turning the Byzantine left, but Narses got to it first, occupying it with just fifty men, who held a defile there. Totila sent cavalry against them but the Byzantine infantry succeeded in holding them off.
Totila now decided to await his reinforcements - about 2,000 horsemen. Both generals tried to inspire their men with speeches, Narses emphasising the Byzantine superiority in numbers, Totila the importance of the battle, and the mercenary nature of their opponents.
Deployment
Narses formed his army in a defensive arc, dismounting his Lombards and Heruli to form the centre, and flanking them with his Byzantine cavalry. Archers were deployed in front of the cavalry. On his extreme left, Narses posted about 1,500 additional cavalry.
The Ostrogothic deployment was somewhat simpler, with the cavalry - accounting for at least half of Totila's force - deployed en masse opposite the Byzantine centre, and the infantry behind them. Totila's army included many Byzantine deserters - actually German federates, attracted by the Ostrogothic king's reputation.
The Battle
There now followed a scene that might have come from Homer, or one of the battles of the Heroic Age. A Byzantine deserter in the Ostrogothic army rode out and issued a challenge to single combat, but was defeated, whereupon Totila himself rode out in front of his army and performed either a war dance or an elaborate series of equestrian exercises, admired by the men of both armies.
The Gothic reinforcements now arrived and, after both sides had taken their midday meals, the Ostrogothic cavalry suddenly moved forward, intending to sweep the Byzantine centre from the field in a single charge. As the Goths advanced, Narses swung his foot archers inwards. The Goths charged into a funnel formed by the bowmen, and were shot at from both flanks as they moved forwards, suffering heavy casualties.
The initial charge faltered but was followed by repeated attempts, which grimly foreshadowed those of the French chivalry at Crecy eight centuries later. While the Lombards held the centre, the Byzantine cavalry on the far left circled around the Gothic host and attacked them in the flank.
By early evening, the Ostrogothic cavalry was in disarray and Totila himself may have been wounded. Narses ordered a general advance. The Goths at first gave ground and then began to flee. Their own infantry failed to open its ranks to let them through but were carried away in the rout. Six thousand Goths were slain. Totila himself was killed either in the battle or in the subsequent pursuit.
It was the last act of Ostrogothic resistance in Italy, which now reverted briefly to Roman rule. Ironically, when the Byzantines were again driven out of Northern Italy, it was by their erstwhile allies, the Lombards
hi there all ready for another lesson today
here we see the above tactics been used by the great general Narses who was the collegue of Belisaurus himself
the battle of Taginae
Opening Moves
The Battle of Taginae brought an end to the long struggle between Byzantium and the Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy. In the Spring of 552, Justinian's eunuch general Narses recruited a large army of Byzantines (East Romans) and barbarians, including Lombards and Heruli. He moved down the Via Flaminia, heading for Rome. The Ostrogothic king, Totila, advanced to intercept him at Taginae (the modern Gualdo Tadino). He arrived in time to force Narses to fight, or else make a perilous retreat back over the Apennines.
Totila, aware that he was outnumbered, and awaiting reinforcements, at first negotiated with Narses, then advanced on the Byzantines, hoping to take them by surprise. On one flank was a small hill that offered the prospect of turning the Byzantine left, but Narses got to it first, occupying it with just fifty men, who held a defile there. Totila sent cavalry against them but the Byzantine infantry succeeded in holding them off.
Totila now decided to await his reinforcements - about 2,000 horsemen. Both generals tried to inspire their men with speeches, Narses emphasising the Byzantine superiority in numbers, Totila the importance of the battle, and the mercenary nature of their opponents.
Deployment
Narses formed his army in a defensive arc, dismounting his Lombards and Heruli to form the centre, and flanking them with his Byzantine cavalry. Archers were deployed in front of the cavalry. On his extreme left, Narses posted about 1,500 additional cavalry.
The Ostrogothic deployment was somewhat simpler, with the cavalry - accounting for at least half of Totila's force - deployed en masse opposite the Byzantine centre, and the infantry behind them. Totila's army included many Byzantine deserters - actually German federates, attracted by the Ostrogothic king's reputation.
The Battle
There now followed a scene that might have come from Homer, or one of the battles of the Heroic Age. A Byzantine deserter in the Ostrogothic army rode out and issued a challenge to single combat, but was defeated, whereupon Totila himself rode out in front of his army and performed either a war dance or an elaborate series of equestrian exercises, admired by the men of both armies.
The Gothic reinforcements now arrived and, after both sides had taken their midday meals, the Ostrogothic cavalry suddenly moved forward, intending to sweep the Byzantine centre from the field in a single charge. As the Goths advanced, Narses swung his foot archers inwards. The Goths charged into a funnel formed by the bowmen, and were shot at from both flanks as they moved forwards, suffering heavy casualties.
The initial charge faltered but was followed by repeated attempts, which grimly foreshadowed those of the French chivalry at Crecy eight centuries later. While the Lombards held the centre, the Byzantine cavalry on the far left circled around the Gothic host and attacked them in the flank.
By early evening, the Ostrogothic cavalry was in disarray and Totila himself may have been wounded. Narses ordered a general advance. The Goths at first gave ground and then began to flee. Their own infantry failed to open its ranks to let them through but were carried away in the rout. Six thousand Goths were slain. Totila himself was killed either in the battle or in the subsequent pursuit.
It was the last act of Ostrogothic resistance in Italy, which now reverted briefly to Roman rule. Ironically, when the Byzantines were again driven out of Northern Italy, it was by their erstwhile allies, the Lombards
elite units of byzantine army: Varangian Guard
hey peeps
thought you would be interested in the information about the emperor's famous bodyguards
A General history of the Varangian Guard
The Varangian Guard was an elite force of Viking warriors who served the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire.
The name Varangian comes from an Old Norse word relating to sharers in an oath - it is thought it originally referred to Swedish traders on the Russian rivers, bound together by an oath to co-operate and share profits. It was later extended to mean any Viking from the Norse settlements in Russia.
Vikings had served in the Byzantine army and navy from at least the middle of the ninth century, but in 988 AD Byzantine Emperor Basil II Bulgaroktonos (Slayer of Bulgarians) was sent 6000 Swedish warriors by Varangian Tsar Vladimir of Russia, and it is thought he made them his Imperial bodyguard. They were known as the Axe-bearing Guard, from the enormous two-handed axes they carried. They took part in many of the great battles of the Byzantine Empire, and may also have garrisoned the Empire’s cities.
The Varangian Guards were among the best-paid of the Empire’s troops - so well paid that membership had to be purchased. Norsemen from all over Scandinavia and Russia came to Byzantium (Constantinople), spent time in the Varangian Guard and returned home wealthy. One such was Harald Hardrada, who later became king of Norway. He was to die in battle in 1066 during an unsuccessful attempt to invade England, shortly before it was conquered by William of Normandy. After the Norman Conquest, many Anglo-Saxons are thought to have left England and joined the Varangian Guard.
The Varangians were renowned for their loyalty to the Emperors, an unusual thing in a society as riddled with intrigue as Byzantium. They stayed in Imperial service for over two centuries, seeing the greatness and decline of the Byzantine Empire. The Varangian Guards were mercenaries of Viking and Anglo-Saxon stock who acted as personal bodyguards to the Emperors of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire between the late 10th and early 13th centuries AD. Recruited from Scandinavia and the Viking settlements in Russia, and later, Anglo-Saxon England, they shared a common warrior philosophy and racial ancestry, and spoke either Old English or a version of Old Norse. As very few of them would have spoken Greek, they would have had difficulty making themselves understood by the locals, who generally regarded them as outlandish barbarians. The Varangians were considerably taller than most Byzantines, and were used as Imperial bodyguards and as shock troops in battle. Their other duties included guarding the Imperial Palaces and other important sites in the City of Constantinople, and as Imperial police to carry out unpopular duties for the Emperor (such as arresting a Patriarch the Emperor didn’t like), which would have been shunned by his own people.
The New Varangian Guard has existed for many years now - more than some of us care to remember - but as far as I can see it has never fully realised the goal of accurately representing a unit of the original Varangian Guards. Such a unit would have to be complete as far as possible down to clothing, weapons, armour, and equipment. Fortunately, the Byzantine military manuals are quite thorough about what an army unit would have been provided with.
Military units had “a slave or paid groom or servant to look after the baggage and perform menial chores” - élite cavalry units having one servant per man, and other units having fewer. Cavalry was the Empire’s major military arm, upon which it concentrated and relied for its military effectiveness.They got the lion’s share of the servants, both for prestige and to look after the horses, to ensure the unit worked as efficiently as possible in keeping with their importance to the army.
There is evidence to suggest that the Varangians were mounted infantry; firstly, it was common for Vikings when raiding to steal horses and ride them to raid, but they fought as infantry. The Battle Of Maldon poem (Bradley pp. 519-20) has the Anglo-Saxons ride to the battlefield but fight on foot. And at the battle of Dyrrakhion, Anna Komnena states that the Varangians arrived on horseback, but dismounted to fight (Blöndal/Benedikz p. 126). Also the big scuffle in 1000 AD between Varangians and Iberians reported by Asochik of Armenia (ibid. p. 47), followed an argument over a bale of hay:
“A certain soldier from the Russian infantry was carrying hay for his horse, when one of the Iberians went up to him and took the hay away from him. At this another Russian came running up to help his fellow-countryman, and the Iberian now called for help from his compatriots. . .”
Well, one thing led to another, and by the time the fight was over, 6000 Varangians had been involved and 30 men of rank among the Iberians were dead, including their Grand Prince. These episodes may indicate that the Varangians routinely had horses. The evidence is a little thin, though, and shouldn’t be relied on too much. Maybe we should assume the Varangians had the same number of servants as the second rank of Thematic cavalry - one per 3 or 4 men.
Infantry were very much “second-class citizens” in the Byzantine army, and to them fell the duty of digging defensive ditches and building earth ramparts around the encampment at the end of each day’s march. Whether the Varangians were required to do labouring work at the end of the day with the common infantry is a moot point. Though infantry, they were directly associated with the Emperor and may have been exempted from this menial work.
According to Osprey, the Optimaton Theme (based across the Bosphorus from Constantinople) was non-military from the late 8th century onward, being instead a service corps, and perhaps the servants came from this Theme. Optimaton may have had overall control of logistics, however, and the unit servants and slaves may have been from another source, whether from Byzantine citizens, prisoners of war, or others who had gained employment with the army.
The Strategikon of Emperor Maurice (c. 600 AD) lists the equipment the infantrymen’s servant/slave was to have with him:
“a light mule-drawn cart which contained among other items, a hand-mill [presumably for grinding grain], saw, two spades, a mallet, wicker basket, scythe, bill-hook and two pick-axes.”
Obviously, the cavalry groom/servant’s equipment would have been different from that of the infantry, but it’d only be relevant if we represent mounted infantry. These requirements would presumably also have included tents, cookware etc. Though they are unlikely to have had a brazier, they might have had a big metal grate (as shown in fig. 1 - my thanks to Tim Dawson), and would probably have had a big copper or bronze cooking pot, ladles, pan scrapers, strainers, wooden cooking spoons, a carving knife, a cooking fork, a cleaver and perhaps a frying pan of some sort. There are archaeological and manuscript examples of these items, which if we don’t already have them could be made relatively easily. Horses were kept well back from the exterior of the encampment so if the Varangians were mounted infantry they’d have no need for entrenching tools. It should be noted (Walker, p.3) that by the Varangian era the baggage transport system used by the Imperial army may have changed from carts to mule-back .
Most Varangians would have arrived in Constantinople with little military equipment . Only the nobility and members of the military elite would have had their own armour. This consisted of a mailshirt (knee length with wide elbow length sleeves in the mid-late 11th century) and a conical helmet, usually made of segments riveted to a conical frame (the so-called spangenhelm) with a noseguard or nasal, usually worn over a mail hoof or coif. These few would have kept their own helmet and mailshirt. Those who became officers might have been issued with better quality Byzantine armour.
The majority would have had only a weapon and a shield, and would have been supplied with Byzantine military issue from the Imperial armoury - probably a very basic helmet and armour. Though they used mailshirts, the Byzantines had two other important types of armour – scale, made of small iron plates laced or riveted to a backing and overlapping downwards, and the lamellar klibanion, made of similar plates, but overlapping upwards, laced directly to each other, and with leather strips between horizontal rows to protect the laces from wear. Lamellar was the favoured and most common type of armour, and most Varangians would have been issued with. It would have been simple functional army issue, without decoration or sophistication - for example, the plates of the klibanion might have been square, not rounded, at the top (as shown in some contemporary portrayals). They could also have had splinted or padded greaves and vambraces. Shields wear out after a reasonably short time, and would have been replaced with Byzantine ones, which could be either round or kite-shaped.
Byzantine helmets were of many types. A Varangian unit would have had a mixture of all of them. Byzantine helmets usually had a “curtain” of mail, lamellar or scale armour, or even padded cloth, called an aventail, to protect the back of the neck. Hardly any Byzantine helmets seem to have had nasals, though in some at least, the aventail covered the face (with eyeholes) as well as the back of the neck.
Weapons
Most Varangians used the large two-handed Viking axe to deadly effect, and the spear was in common use amongst them, both for hand to hand combat and as a missile. Apart from these two, the only other weapon a Varangian was likely to carry was the scramasax, a knife which also served him at mealtimes and as a multi-purpose tool. Only the upper classes would have had swords – they were too expensive for the rank and file. Spears far outnumbered swords - they were cheap and easy to make, and could be used effectively with a minimum of practice - and the lowliest peasant with a spear could happily kill a nobleman with the most expensive sword. And the two-handed axe was the weapon for which the Varangians were known.
Clothing And Appearance
Varangians would normally have worn the same clothing as they had worn at home but would have replaced it locally as it wore out, so the quality of fabric they wore would have improved. They would have maintained the fashions and hairstyles with which they were comfortable. A Russian Varangian might have worn a tunic over baggy woollen trousers, and had a large moustache plus a shaven beard and tattooed arms and face. Most Anglo-Saxons wore tunic and hose, had their hair cut a little above the shoulders and were either clean shaven or (particularly the upper classes, in the late 11th century at least) sported a large “handlebar” moustache.
Accessories
Many Varangians in the 11th century had been converted to Christianity, but they would have maintained many of their old beliefs as superstitions. A pious Varangian would have worn a cross around his neck (either from home or bought during his travels), or perhaps a purse containing a Saint’s relic. Some, still pagan, may have worn a Thor’s hammer instead (or as well).
The wealthy wore armrings and cloak brooches of gold or silver, plus occasionally finger rings – a convenient and relatively safe way to carry one’s wealth around. But everyone wore small pieces of jewellery as they could afford them – often bronze, pewter or even lead. The workmanship of these pieces reflected the wealth of the person who owned them Expensive items were quite exquisitely worked, while those of the rank and file could be very trashy.
The basic kit of a Varangian would have included
? several tunics (the Skylitzes Chronicle shows a Varangian’s property including at least four tunics, though some of these could have been undershirts)
? trousers - or braies and hose if he was English (or Norman)
? perhaps socks (made from wool using the “crochet” technique known as nålbinding, as in the Jorvik sock)
? [accurate!] leather shoes or ankle boots (high boots were rare among the Vikings and Anglo-Saxons, though the occasional Varangian may have picked up Byzantine military boots)
a cloak and brooch, a purse and a hat appropriate to his race
a comb made of antler or bone
a razor if he was from one of the more civilized races (at least one Viking “pocket knife” has been discovered – was this for shaving?)
probably some metal jewellery appropriate to his social caste
a sax for eating, a jug, bowl and perhaps a spoon (though maybe he used fingers)
Firemaking equipment - flint, steel and tinder
plus his weapons and armour.
Garrison
Some Varangians were billeted in the City, others on the surrounding countryside. Their main headquarters may have been in the Hodegon monastery, near the Mangana – a palace and arsenal at the northeastern end of the City, next to the Bosphorus Strait and within the Palace complex. However, detachments were also based in the Boukoleon Palace, at the Brazen Gate near the Hippodrome, and at the Blachernae (Vlachernai) Palace at the northern end of the land walls at the other end of the City.
They would have had local (i.e. Byzantine) servants to do their menial tasks, so you wouldn’t have seen a Varangian cooking, or mending or washing his own clothes.
At home in Constantinople, the Varangians would have wooden chests containing their personal property, which could have included glazed earthenware bowls of Byzantine, Arab or Persian manufacture, purchased in the City’s markets. Each man would also have had some sort of bedroll. Investigations (Oikonomides p. 213) suggest that in the Empire at least, this would have consisted of a blanket or thin mattress to sleep on, plus another blanket to cover the person when asleep. These would have been laid on benches of wood or stone around the walls of the barracks room, which were used for seating during the day.
The Varangians aren’t likely to have brought their wives with them, and though there may have been a few Scandinavian women in the Rus trading community at Constantinople, (probably in Galata on the north shore of the Golden Horn), they’re far more likely to have formed liaisons with local women (see Tim Dawson’s article Further Comment on the Varangian Lifestyle, Varangian Voice No. 38). There would also have been washerwomen, prostitutes and other women in such occupations as the Varangians would have come into contact with in the City.
On campaign
Junior officers were advised not to bring their own tents with them on campaign (Dennis p. 291), so would either have shared a tent with their men, or perhaps the whole unit slept in the open
On campaign the Varangians would have accompanied the Emperor and camped near his tent. If they had tents of their own, they would have been Byzantine army issue – tall circular tents with a conical roof and a central pole. It should be noted that an anonymous treatise of the 6th century (ibid) recommends that all spears be rested against the tent-pole, and the soldiers sleep with their heads to the pole and their feet facing outwards. This was to make it easier to reach weapons in an emergency. (Haldon, footnote p. 33) mentions that javelins were kept in bundles in leather cases. Each man would probably have had a bedroll consisting of a blanket and a thin strawfilled mattress, but on campaign may have slept on the ground with just a cloak to cover him.
On campaign the Varangians’ chests of personal property would have to be left at home - there’d be nobody to carry them. Pottery or soapstone eating bowls would be too fragile to use on campaign and would be replaced by wood - or metal, as is current practice in today’s armies. They may even have eaten from a communal bowl rather than having one each, and shared a single drinking vessel between them at meals (Oikonomides p. 212). Perhaps several units shared cooking facilities and ate together, or did what the navy still does - have one central cooking facility and servants to carry the food back to their own units when it was cooked. However, each Varangian probably had a waterbottle (there is an example of an Anglo-Saxon pottery bottle, made in imitation of leather, in Varangian Voice No 41, and the Mediterranean countries often use animal bladders). The mule-cart would have carried water in a wooden barrel or large waterskin (or perhaps in amphorae).
Infantry on campaign were issued with 8 caltrops on a rope per man (from cheval trap [= horse trap (bad French)]: an object with 4 protruding spikes arranged so one always sticks up vertically, to trap men and horses). Each dekarkhia (ten men) had a metal spike which was hammered into the ground in front of the ditch, and the caltrop ropes attached to it and flung outwards (presumably in a fan-shaped arrangement) to deter cavalry from attacking the encampment. Also the camp was surrounded by a string from which small bells were hung to give the alarm if the enemy tried to sneak up to the camp. Ditches known as “footbreakers” were dug in front of the encampment, with wooden spikes in them (Dennis p. 263) - a ditch about a foot deep would efficiently break an ankle if stumbled into unawares. The spikes would have been cut and the ditches dug using the pickaxes, billhook and shovels in the mule-cart.
There would also have been camp followers - tinkers, tailors, prostitutes, cobblers, washerwomen, and the multitude of people who stand to gain employment or profit from providing services to a large army, probably including thieves who hoped to make off with army property and sell it - even back to the army itself. These would have been Greek, Armenian, Bulgarian, or any of a host of races within or on the periphery of the Empire. They are not likely to have been Scandinavians!
Organisation
A Varangian unit would have had its own leaders, answerable to the overall leader of the Varangian Guard, known as the Akolouthos, or to the commanding Byzantine strategos (general) There was also a Byzantine interpreter, whose job it was to relay commands to the non Greek-speaking Varangians.
It would be particularly important to have the right proportions of weapons within the unit. Have we ever had a unit of axemen and spearmen alone? Would it work? Or would they all die horribly and fast? Quality and accuracy of costume, arms and armour would be vital - but that doesn’t mean the equipment would have to be flashy. On the contrary, if the Varangians had basic Byzantine army issue equipment as I proposed above, it would be quite plain with only the very occasional spectacular outfit representing a nobleman or high officer.
The mule might be a bit of a luxury, but a cart would be of great use for carrying armour etc., especially if it could be pulled apart and put on a trailer or the back of a ute at the end of the day. Getting people to represent the servants might be difficult - it’s not a very glamorous job - but maybe somebody not interested in fighting would like to try it, or we could try being servants in rotation, with everybody getting a turn.
Portraying a unit of Varangian Guards would not have to be confined to one garrison; in fact, it might be possible to have a conglomerate unit from many garrisons which gets together at such things as Conventions or large public displays. If we can get enough people, we could get several units together, each with its own tent, cart, servants etc.
References
Beatson, P., Another illustration of Varangian Guardsmen from the Skylitzes Manuscript, Madrid, Varangian Voice No. 23.
Blöndal, S. & Benedikz, B. The Varangians of Byzantium, Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Bradley, S.D., Anglo-Saxon Poetry, Dent & Sons, London, 1982
Dennis, G.T., Three Byzantine Military Treatises, Dumbarton Oaks Texts, Washington, 1985.
hey peeps
thought you would be interested in the information about the emperor's famous bodyguards
A General history of the Varangian Guard
The Varangian Guard was an elite force of Viking warriors who served the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire.
The name Varangian comes from an Old Norse word relating to sharers in an oath - it is thought it originally referred to Swedish traders on the Russian rivers, bound together by an oath to co-operate and share profits. It was later extended to mean any Viking from the Norse settlements in Russia.
Vikings had served in the Byzantine army and navy from at least the middle of the ninth century, but in 988 AD Byzantine Emperor Basil II Bulgaroktonos (Slayer of Bulgarians) was sent 6000 Swedish warriors by Varangian Tsar Vladimir of Russia, and it is thought he made them his Imperial bodyguard. They were known as the Axe-bearing Guard, from the enormous two-handed axes they carried. They took part in many of the great battles of the Byzantine Empire, and may also have garrisoned the Empire’s cities.
The Varangian Guards were among the best-paid of the Empire’s troops - so well paid that membership had to be purchased. Norsemen from all over Scandinavia and Russia came to Byzantium (Constantinople), spent time in the Varangian Guard and returned home wealthy. One such was Harald Hardrada, who later became king of Norway. He was to die in battle in 1066 during an unsuccessful attempt to invade England, shortly before it was conquered by William of Normandy. After the Norman Conquest, many Anglo-Saxons are thought to have left England and joined the Varangian Guard.
The Varangians were renowned for their loyalty to the Emperors, an unusual thing in a society as riddled with intrigue as Byzantium. They stayed in Imperial service for over two centuries, seeing the greatness and decline of the Byzantine Empire. The Varangian Guards were mercenaries of Viking and Anglo-Saxon stock who acted as personal bodyguards to the Emperors of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire between the late 10th and early 13th centuries AD. Recruited from Scandinavia and the Viking settlements in Russia, and later, Anglo-Saxon England, they shared a common warrior philosophy and racial ancestry, and spoke either Old English or a version of Old Norse. As very few of them would have spoken Greek, they would have had difficulty making themselves understood by the locals, who generally regarded them as outlandish barbarians. The Varangians were considerably taller than most Byzantines, and were used as Imperial bodyguards and as shock troops in battle. Their other duties included guarding the Imperial Palaces and other important sites in the City of Constantinople, and as Imperial police to carry out unpopular duties for the Emperor (such as arresting a Patriarch the Emperor didn’t like), which would have been shunned by his own people.
The New Varangian Guard has existed for many years now - more than some of us care to remember - but as far as I can see it has never fully realised the goal of accurately representing a unit of the original Varangian Guards. Such a unit would have to be complete as far as possible down to clothing, weapons, armour, and equipment. Fortunately, the Byzantine military manuals are quite thorough about what an army unit would have been provided with.
Military units had “a slave or paid groom or servant to look after the baggage and perform menial chores” - élite cavalry units having one servant per man, and other units having fewer. Cavalry was the Empire’s major military arm, upon which it concentrated and relied for its military effectiveness.They got the lion’s share of the servants, both for prestige and to look after the horses, to ensure the unit worked as efficiently as possible in keeping with their importance to the army.
There is evidence to suggest that the Varangians were mounted infantry; firstly, it was common for Vikings when raiding to steal horses and ride them to raid, but they fought as infantry. The Battle Of Maldon poem (Bradley pp. 519-20) has the Anglo-Saxons ride to the battlefield but fight on foot. And at the battle of Dyrrakhion, Anna Komnena states that the Varangians arrived on horseback, but dismounted to fight (Blöndal/Benedikz p. 126). Also the big scuffle in 1000 AD between Varangians and Iberians reported by Asochik of Armenia (ibid. p. 47), followed an argument over a bale of hay:
“A certain soldier from the Russian infantry was carrying hay for his horse, when one of the Iberians went up to him and took the hay away from him. At this another Russian came running up to help his fellow-countryman, and the Iberian now called for help from his compatriots. . .”
Well, one thing led to another, and by the time the fight was over, 6000 Varangians had been involved and 30 men of rank among the Iberians were dead, including their Grand Prince. These episodes may indicate that the Varangians routinely had horses. The evidence is a little thin, though, and shouldn’t be relied on too much. Maybe we should assume the Varangians had the same number of servants as the second rank of Thematic cavalry - one per 3 or 4 men.
Infantry were very much “second-class citizens” in the Byzantine army, and to them fell the duty of digging defensive ditches and building earth ramparts around the encampment at the end of each day’s march. Whether the Varangians were required to do labouring work at the end of the day with the common infantry is a moot point. Though infantry, they were directly associated with the Emperor and may have been exempted from this menial work.
According to Osprey, the Optimaton Theme (based across the Bosphorus from Constantinople) was non-military from the late 8th century onward, being instead a service corps, and perhaps the servants came from this Theme. Optimaton may have had overall control of logistics, however, and the unit servants and slaves may have been from another source, whether from Byzantine citizens, prisoners of war, or others who had gained employment with the army.
The Strategikon of Emperor Maurice (c. 600 AD) lists the equipment the infantrymen’s servant/slave was to have with him:
“a light mule-drawn cart which contained among other items, a hand-mill [presumably for grinding grain], saw, two spades, a mallet, wicker basket, scythe, bill-hook and two pick-axes.”
Obviously, the cavalry groom/servant’s equipment would have been different from that of the infantry, but it’d only be relevant if we represent mounted infantry. These requirements would presumably also have included tents, cookware etc. Though they are unlikely to have had a brazier, they might have had a big metal grate (as shown in fig. 1 - my thanks to Tim Dawson), and would probably have had a big copper or bronze cooking pot, ladles, pan scrapers, strainers, wooden cooking spoons, a carving knife, a cooking fork, a cleaver and perhaps a frying pan of some sort. There are archaeological and manuscript examples of these items, which if we don’t already have them could be made relatively easily. Horses were kept well back from the exterior of the encampment so if the Varangians were mounted infantry they’d have no need for entrenching tools. It should be noted (Walker, p.3) that by the Varangian era the baggage transport system used by the Imperial army may have changed from carts to mule-back .
Most Varangians would have arrived in Constantinople with little military equipment . Only the nobility and members of the military elite would have had their own armour. This consisted of a mailshirt (knee length with wide elbow length sleeves in the mid-late 11th century) and a conical helmet, usually made of segments riveted to a conical frame (the so-called spangenhelm) with a noseguard or nasal, usually worn over a mail hoof or coif. These few would have kept their own helmet and mailshirt. Those who became officers might have been issued with better quality Byzantine armour.
The majority would have had only a weapon and a shield, and would have been supplied with Byzantine military issue from the Imperial armoury - probably a very basic helmet and armour. Though they used mailshirts, the Byzantines had two other important types of armour – scale, made of small iron plates laced or riveted to a backing and overlapping downwards, and the lamellar klibanion, made of similar plates, but overlapping upwards, laced directly to each other, and with leather strips between horizontal rows to protect the laces from wear. Lamellar was the favoured and most common type of armour, and most Varangians would have been issued with. It would have been simple functional army issue, without decoration or sophistication - for example, the plates of the klibanion might have been square, not rounded, at the top (as shown in some contemporary portrayals). They could also have had splinted or padded greaves and vambraces. Shields wear out after a reasonably short time, and would have been replaced with Byzantine ones, which could be either round or kite-shaped.
Byzantine helmets were of many types. A Varangian unit would have had a mixture of all of them. Byzantine helmets usually had a “curtain” of mail, lamellar or scale armour, or even padded cloth, called an aventail, to protect the back of the neck. Hardly any Byzantine helmets seem to have had nasals, though in some at least, the aventail covered the face (with eyeholes) as well as the back of the neck.
Weapons
Most Varangians used the large two-handed Viking axe to deadly effect, and the spear was in common use amongst them, both for hand to hand combat and as a missile. Apart from these two, the only other weapon a Varangian was likely to carry was the scramasax, a knife which also served him at mealtimes and as a multi-purpose tool. Only the upper classes would have had swords – they were too expensive for the rank and file. Spears far outnumbered swords - they were cheap and easy to make, and could be used effectively with a minimum of practice - and the lowliest peasant with a spear could happily kill a nobleman with the most expensive sword. And the two-handed axe was the weapon for which the Varangians were known.
Clothing And Appearance
Varangians would normally have worn the same clothing as they had worn at home but would have replaced it locally as it wore out, so the quality of fabric they wore would have improved. They would have maintained the fashions and hairstyles with which they were comfortable. A Russian Varangian might have worn a tunic over baggy woollen trousers, and had a large moustache plus a shaven beard and tattooed arms and face. Most Anglo-Saxons wore tunic and hose, had their hair cut a little above the shoulders and were either clean shaven or (particularly the upper classes, in the late 11th century at least) sported a large “handlebar” moustache.
Accessories
Many Varangians in the 11th century had been converted to Christianity, but they would have maintained many of their old beliefs as superstitions. A pious Varangian would have worn a cross around his neck (either from home or bought during his travels), or perhaps a purse containing a Saint’s relic. Some, still pagan, may have worn a Thor’s hammer instead (or as well).
The wealthy wore armrings and cloak brooches of gold or silver, plus occasionally finger rings – a convenient and relatively safe way to carry one’s wealth around. But everyone wore small pieces of jewellery as they could afford them – often bronze, pewter or even lead. The workmanship of these pieces reflected the wealth of the person who owned them Expensive items were quite exquisitely worked, while those of the rank and file could be very trashy.
The basic kit of a Varangian would have included
? several tunics (the Skylitzes Chronicle shows a Varangian’s property including at least four tunics, though some of these could have been undershirts)
? trousers - or braies and hose if he was English (or Norman)
? perhaps socks (made from wool using the “crochet” technique known as nålbinding, as in the Jorvik sock)
? [accurate!] leather shoes or ankle boots (high boots were rare among the Vikings and Anglo-Saxons, though the occasional Varangian may have picked up Byzantine military boots)
a cloak and brooch, a purse and a hat appropriate to his race
a comb made of antler or bone
a razor if he was from one of the more civilized races (at least one Viking “pocket knife” has been discovered – was this for shaving?)
probably some metal jewellery appropriate to his social caste
a sax for eating, a jug, bowl and perhaps a spoon (though maybe he used fingers)
Firemaking equipment - flint, steel and tinder
plus his weapons and armour.
Garrison
Some Varangians were billeted in the City, others on the surrounding countryside. Their main headquarters may have been in the Hodegon monastery, near the Mangana – a palace and arsenal at the northeastern end of the City, next to the Bosphorus Strait and within the Palace complex. However, detachments were also based in the Boukoleon Palace, at the Brazen Gate near the Hippodrome, and at the Blachernae (Vlachernai) Palace at the northern end of the land walls at the other end of the City.
They would have had local (i.e. Byzantine) servants to do their menial tasks, so you wouldn’t have seen a Varangian cooking, or mending or washing his own clothes.
At home in Constantinople, the Varangians would have wooden chests containing their personal property, which could have included glazed earthenware bowls of Byzantine, Arab or Persian manufacture, purchased in the City’s markets. Each man would also have had some sort of bedroll. Investigations (Oikonomides p. 213) suggest that in the Empire at least, this would have consisted of a blanket or thin mattress to sleep on, plus another blanket to cover the person when asleep. These would have been laid on benches of wood or stone around the walls of the barracks room, which were used for seating during the day.
The Varangians aren’t likely to have brought their wives with them, and though there may have been a few Scandinavian women in the Rus trading community at Constantinople, (probably in Galata on the north shore of the Golden Horn), they’re far more likely to have formed liaisons with local women (see Tim Dawson’s article Further Comment on the Varangian Lifestyle, Varangian Voice No. 38). There would also have been washerwomen, prostitutes and other women in such occupations as the Varangians would have come into contact with in the City.
On campaign
Junior officers were advised not to bring their own tents with them on campaign (Dennis p. 291), so would either have shared a tent with their men, or perhaps the whole unit slept in the open
On campaign the Varangians would have accompanied the Emperor and camped near his tent. If they had tents of their own, they would have been Byzantine army issue – tall circular tents with a conical roof and a central pole. It should be noted that an anonymous treatise of the 6th century (ibid) recommends that all spears be rested against the tent-pole, and the soldiers sleep with their heads to the pole and their feet facing outwards. This was to make it easier to reach weapons in an emergency. (Haldon, footnote p. 33) mentions that javelins were kept in bundles in leather cases. Each man would probably have had a bedroll consisting of a blanket and a thin strawfilled mattress, but on campaign may have slept on the ground with just a cloak to cover him.
On campaign the Varangians’ chests of personal property would have to be left at home - there’d be nobody to carry them. Pottery or soapstone eating bowls would be too fragile to use on campaign and would be replaced by wood - or metal, as is current practice in today’s armies. They may even have eaten from a communal bowl rather than having one each, and shared a single drinking vessel between them at meals (Oikonomides p. 212). Perhaps several units shared cooking facilities and ate together, or did what the navy still does - have one central cooking facility and servants to carry the food back to their own units when it was cooked. However, each Varangian probably had a waterbottle (there is an example of an Anglo-Saxon pottery bottle, made in imitation of leather, in Varangian Voice No 41, and the Mediterranean countries often use animal bladders). The mule-cart would have carried water in a wooden barrel or large waterskin (or perhaps in amphorae).
Infantry on campaign were issued with 8 caltrops on a rope per man (from cheval trap [= horse trap (bad French)]: an object with 4 protruding spikes arranged so one always sticks up vertically, to trap men and horses). Each dekarkhia (ten men) had a metal spike which was hammered into the ground in front of the ditch, and the caltrop ropes attached to it and flung outwards (presumably in a fan-shaped arrangement) to deter cavalry from attacking the encampment. Also the camp was surrounded by a string from which small bells were hung to give the alarm if the enemy tried to sneak up to the camp. Ditches known as “footbreakers” were dug in front of the encampment, with wooden spikes in them (Dennis p. 263) - a ditch about a foot deep would efficiently break an ankle if stumbled into unawares. The spikes would have been cut and the ditches dug using the pickaxes, billhook and shovels in the mule-cart.
There would also have been camp followers - tinkers, tailors, prostitutes, cobblers, washerwomen, and the multitude of people who stand to gain employment or profit from providing services to a large army, probably including thieves who hoped to make off with army property and sell it - even back to the army itself. These would have been Greek, Armenian, Bulgarian, or any of a host of races within or on the periphery of the Empire. They are not likely to have been Scandinavians!
Organisation
A Varangian unit would have had its own leaders, answerable to the overall leader of the Varangian Guard, known as the Akolouthos, or to the commanding Byzantine strategos (general) There was also a Byzantine interpreter, whose job it was to relay commands to the non Greek-speaking Varangians.
It would be particularly important to have the right proportions of weapons within the unit. Have we ever had a unit of axemen and spearmen alone? Would it work? Or would they all die horribly and fast? Quality and accuracy of costume, arms and armour would be vital - but that doesn’t mean the equipment would have to be flashy. On the contrary, if the Varangians had basic Byzantine army issue equipment as I proposed above, it would be quite plain with only the very occasional spectacular outfit representing a nobleman or high officer.
The mule might be a bit of a luxury, but a cart would be of great use for carrying armour etc., especially if it could be pulled apart and put on a trailer or the back of a ute at the end of the day. Getting people to represent the servants might be difficult - it’s not a very glamorous job - but maybe somebody not interested in fighting would like to try it, or we could try being servants in rotation, with everybody getting a turn.
Portraying a unit of Varangian Guards would not have to be confined to one garrison; in fact, it might be possible to have a conglomerate unit from many garrisons which gets together at such things as Conventions or large public displays. If we can get enough people, we could get several units together, each with its own tent, cart, servants etc.
References
Beatson, P., Another illustration of Varangian Guardsmen from the Skylitzes Manuscript, Madrid, Varangian Voice No. 23.
Blöndal, S. & Benedikz, B. The Varangians of Byzantium, Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Bradley, S.D., Anglo-Saxon Poetry, Dent & Sons, London, 1982
Dennis, G.T., Three Byzantine Military Treatises, Dumbarton Oaks Texts, Washington, 1985.
a little background about seljuk military
here we go another part about seljuk military. enjoy it
The Seljuks first appear at the beginning of the eleventh century when they enter the service of Mahmud of Ghazni. Upon his death, they set out on their own; and when his son tries to bring then back into line, they crush him so thoroughly that they put an end to the Ghaznavid Empire.
Between 1040 and 1092, the Seljuqs were caught in the westward migratory flow with the Huns before them and the Mongols after them. They conquered Baghdad, Syria, Transcaucasia, Asia Minor, and the coast of Arabia, and reduced Georgia to tributary status, creating thus an empire the size of which the Islamic world had not known since the heyday of the Ummayads.
While the Caliph in Baghdad maintained a spiritual supremacy, the real power throughout the Seljuk Empire was exercised by the Sultan. Great Sultans of this period are Alp Arslan (victor at Mantzikert in 1071) and his grandson, Malik Shah.
Around the time of the First Crusade the impetous in Seljuk expansion was curbed. The nomadic nature of the Turks had not prepared them for the challenges of governing a vast Empire. After the death of Malik Shah, the last powerful Sultan, centrifugal tendencies appeared and local rulers (emirs) began totake over. By 1130 there are three major Sultanates and a number of minor Emirates that make up the Seljuk world:
The Sultanate of Rum, centered in Asia Minor with its capital at Iconium (Konya);
The Sultanate of Hamadan with Baghdad as its capital; and
The Sultanate of Merv, which encompasess all the Eastern provinces all the way up to Aral Sea.
The Sultanates were dotted with many minor local power seats (e.g., Sivas in A. Minor, Damascus, Mosul, Shiraz on the Gulf) whose Emirs were practically the equals of the Sultans they're supposed to be under.
By 1170, Merv is out of the picture having been replaced by tribes of Ghuzz Turks who, in turn, were pushed southward by the first of the flood of Mongolian tribes. In the Middle East, the new power was Zenghi, Emir of Mosul, whose successors, Nureddin and Saladin chipped away at both Hamadan and Rum. A resurgence of Iranian power enthroned the Khwarizmian Shah in Baghdad in the early 1200's while the last of the Seljuq Sultanates, that of Rum, become a Mongol tributary thereafter.
Notes on Organization and Tactics
Although their star shone for only 150-or-so years, the Seljuks represent a potent military force. They reorganized the system of the old Arab Empire in a way that resembles feudalism: every province was responsible for providing their own troops under the leadership of the Emir, although there is no such thing as liege allegiance (i.e., the troops were subjects of their Emir, not the Sultan).
The Sultan's bodyguard together with those of the Emirs are the backbone of the army and they are called Askaris. These are the Cav (and probably the Cav in the Medieval Syrian army).
In times of war the Askaris were supplemented with large numbers of Turcoman mercenary horse archers and feudal levies who also fought mounted but with shield and spear, not bow.
With their military system, the Seljuks were able to mobilize large numbers of troops, while every province had the military potential of using its own forces to delay the enemy until the main army arrived. It is known that during the 1st Crusade the most powerful Emirates in Syria, those of Aleppo and Damascus, were each able to field up to 2000 Askaris while in the 13th century the Sultan in Baghdad would command 120,000 horsemen (that's the total for the army, the size of his askar is unknown).
Infantry forces seem to have been unimportantperhaps feudal levies who did not have the possibility of equipping themselves for mounted warfare. The Medieval Syrian army (in essence the Seljuk Emirs who broke away from central control) includes the city militia of Damascus, comparable in size and drill to that of a western European city of the same period. Seljuk horse armies normally fought in crescent formation.
here we go another part about seljuk military. enjoy it
The Seljuks first appear at the beginning of the eleventh century when they enter the service of Mahmud of Ghazni. Upon his death, they set out on their own; and when his son tries to bring then back into line, they crush him so thoroughly that they put an end to the Ghaznavid Empire.
Between 1040 and 1092, the Seljuqs were caught in the westward migratory flow with the Huns before them and the Mongols after them. They conquered Baghdad, Syria, Transcaucasia, Asia Minor, and the coast of Arabia, and reduced Georgia to tributary status, creating thus an empire the size of which the Islamic world had not known since the heyday of the Ummayads.
While the Caliph in Baghdad maintained a spiritual supremacy, the real power throughout the Seljuk Empire was exercised by the Sultan. Great Sultans of this period are Alp Arslan (victor at Mantzikert in 1071) and his grandson, Malik Shah.
Around the time of the First Crusade the impetous in Seljuk expansion was curbed. The nomadic nature of the Turks had not prepared them for the challenges of governing a vast Empire. After the death of Malik Shah, the last powerful Sultan, centrifugal tendencies appeared and local rulers (emirs) began totake over. By 1130 there are three major Sultanates and a number of minor Emirates that make up the Seljuk world:
The Sultanate of Rum, centered in Asia Minor with its capital at Iconium (Konya);
The Sultanate of Hamadan with Baghdad as its capital; and
The Sultanate of Merv, which encompasess all the Eastern provinces all the way up to Aral Sea.
The Sultanates were dotted with many minor local power seats (e.g., Sivas in A. Minor, Damascus, Mosul, Shiraz on the Gulf) whose Emirs were practically the equals of the Sultans they're supposed to be under.
By 1170, Merv is out of the picture having been replaced by tribes of Ghuzz Turks who, in turn, were pushed southward by the first of the flood of Mongolian tribes. In the Middle East, the new power was Zenghi, Emir of Mosul, whose successors, Nureddin and Saladin chipped away at both Hamadan and Rum. A resurgence of Iranian power enthroned the Khwarizmian Shah in Baghdad in the early 1200's while the last of the Seljuq Sultanates, that of Rum, become a Mongol tributary thereafter.
Notes on Organization and Tactics
Although their star shone for only 150-or-so years, the Seljuks represent a potent military force. They reorganized the system of the old Arab Empire in a way that resembles feudalism: every province was responsible for providing their own troops under the leadership of the Emir, although there is no such thing as liege allegiance (i.e., the troops were subjects of their Emir, not the Sultan).
The Sultan's bodyguard together with those of the Emirs are the backbone of the army and they are called Askaris. These are the Cav (and probably the Cav in the Medieval Syrian army).
In times of war the Askaris were supplemented with large numbers of Turcoman mercenary horse archers and feudal levies who also fought mounted but with shield and spear, not bow.
With their military system, the Seljuks were able to mobilize large numbers of troops, while every province had the military potential of using its own forces to delay the enemy until the main army arrived. It is known that during the 1st Crusade the most powerful Emirates in Syria, those of Aleppo and Damascus, were each able to field up to 2000 Askaris while in the 13th century the Sultan in Baghdad would command 120,000 horsemen (that's the total for the army, the size of his askar is unknown).
Infantry forces seem to have been unimportantperhaps feudal levies who did not have the possibility of equipping themselves for mounted warfare. The Medieval Syrian army (in essence the Seljuk Emirs who broke away from central control) includes the city militia of Damascus, comparable in size and drill to that of a western European city of the same period. Seljuk horse armies normally fought in crescent formation.
coming from you i take it as highest compliments
are there any specific request about information i.e units of say italian states or the lances of royal french army????
abit about other units of byzantine empire
this is reworking done for one of my projects back in good old uni
i took quite abit of information from couple of my friends who were in british army.
The mailed horse-archer still remained the great power of war, but a completely new system of units and names was introduced.
The forces were now organized in numeri, an expression for some units which appeared to have come into use as early as Diocletian or Constantine. The numeri, or war-bands (bandae), were not necessarily all of the same size. In fact the Byzantine army appeared to take great care not to have all its units of the same size, in order to confuse an opponent in battle as to where its strengths and weaknessses lay. (A system still used by Napoleon.) A numerus which was between three or four hundred men strong and was commanded by a comes or tribunus. If several numeri could form a brigade (drungus) of two to three thousand men, which would be commanded by a dux. These brigades again could unite to form a division (turma) of up six to eight thousand men.
During peacetime these forces were not united into brigades and divisions, far more they were spread across the territories. It was only at the outbreak of war that the commander would weld them into a force.
Also part of the reorganization was the end of the comitatus system by which the soldiers owed their loyalty to their commander. Now the soldiers' loyalties lay with the emperor. This change was made easy by the fact that the German federates who had brought in such customs were now in the decline within the eastern army. As the amount of money available to the government declined so too did the number of German mercenaries decrease.
The remaining German mercenaries were to be found divided into foederati (federates), optimati (the best men picked from the federates), buccellarii (the emperor's bodyguard).
The optimati are of particular interest as they appear clearly to resemble the fore-runners of medieval knights. They were chosen bands of German volunteers, who appeared to be of such standing among their own people that they each brought with them one or two armati, who were their personal assistants, just as later squires attendend to their knights.
Around the end of the first war with the Saracens in the seventh century, during the reign of Constans II or his son Constantine IV, a new order was established. The military order was closely linked with the very land it protected.
The old boundaries of the provinces and their administration had been wiped out by the invasions of the Persians and the Saracens. The lands were ruled by the military commanders of the various forces. Hence the emperor (either Constans II or Constantine IV) divided the land into provinces, called themes, which took their names directly from the units that were based there. Themes with names like Buccellarion, Optimaton or Thrakesion (the Thracian units in Asia Minor (Turkey)) clearly revealing who was based there and in charge of the administration.
The names of the themes further reveal that the various units were not all based along the frontiers with the Saracen foe, but far more were spread out all over the Byzantine territories.
The commander of a frontier theme of course had greater forces at his disposal than one of his colleagues in an inland district.
Did the word 'theme' come to stand for both the province as well as the garrison within it, then the same was the case for the 'turma'. The turma, commanded by a turmarch, was merely smaller unit within a theme. Further there was also the clissura, commanded by a clissurarch, which was a small garrison protecting one or more fortified mountain passes.
The strength of the Byzantine army remained its heavy cavalry. The infantry was merely there to man the fortresses and to act as garrisons for important centres. Though some campaigns appear to have been done solely by the cavalry, the infantry did appear still to be a part of most, though it never really played a decisive role.
The heavy cavalryman wore a mail shirt reaching from the neck to the waist or thighs. A small steel helmet protected his head whilst gauntlets and steel shoes protected his hands and feet.
The horses of the officers and of the men in the front rank also were armoured with protection to their heads and chest.
Over their armour the riders would wear a linen cape or tunic to protect themselves against the sun or a heavy woolen cloak to protect against cold weather. These tunics, as well as the tufts on the helmets and any pennants on the lances would be of the same colour in each warband, creating a kind of uniform. The weapons of the rider were a broadsword, a dagger, a bow and quiver, a long lance fitted with a leather strap towards it butt (to help keeping hold of it).
Some would further add to their weaponry by carrying an axe or a mace strapped to the saddle. Some of the young, inexperienced soldiers would still use the shield, but its use was frowned upon as it was seen to hinder the free use of the bow.
These armoury and weaponry can not be precisely gauged as the Byzantine army was by no means as uniform as the old Roman army. Had once every soldier carried the same weapons and armour, the Byzantine army possessed a large mix of individually armed riders.
Like the equestrians of the old Roman republic, the cavalry men of the Byzantine army were of considerable social standing.
The emperor Leo VI pointed out that the men chosen for the cavalry should be robust, courageous and should possess sufficient means to be free from care for their homes and possessions in their absence.
Farms of cavalrymen were exempt from all taxation except land tax during the reign of Leo VI (and most likely under the rule of other emperors) in order to help in the management of the estates when the master was on campaign.
The large proportion of cavalrymen were hence small landowners and their officers were drawn from the Byzantine aristocracy.
As many of the men were of some standing, many brought with them servants boys and attendants who relieved the forces of many of their menial duties. However, these camp followers did indeed slow down the otherwise rapid moving cavalry units considerably.
The infantry in the time of Leo VI still consisted almost entirely of archers, just as it had done in the sixth century under Justinian.
The light archer is largely unprotected, wearing merely boots and tunic and no helmet.
The more heavily armed footsoldier, the so-called scutatus wore a pointed steel helmet and a mail shirt. Some of them may have also worn gauntlets and greaves to protect the hands and shins. The scutatus carried with him a large round shield, a lance, a sword and an axe with a blade at one side and a spike at the other. The shield and the colour of the the tuft on the helmet were of all the same colour for each war band.
Once more, just as with the cavalry, we most imagine the Byzantine infantry as a body varying largely in its equipment from each soldier to the other.
The infantry also went on campaign with a large baggage train, bringing with it, among vital supplies also picks and spades, for the Byzantine army carefully fortified its camps against suprises, just as the ancient Roman army had done. A unit of engineers always marched ahead with the vanguard helped the footsoldiers in the preparation of the camp for the night's stay.
this is reworking done for one of my projects back in good old uni
i took quite abit of information from couple of my friends who were in british army.
The mailed horse-archer still remained the great power of war, but a completely new system of units and names was introduced.
The forces were now organized in numeri, an expression for some units which appeared to have come into use as early as Diocletian or Constantine. The numeri, or war-bands (bandae), were not necessarily all of the same size. In fact the Byzantine army appeared to take great care not to have all its units of the same size, in order to confuse an opponent in battle as to where its strengths and weaknessses lay. (A system still used by Napoleon.) A numerus which was between three or four hundred men strong and was commanded by a comes or tribunus. If several numeri could form a brigade (drungus) of two to three thousand men, which would be commanded by a dux. These brigades again could unite to form a division (turma) of up six to eight thousand men.
During peacetime these forces were not united into brigades and divisions, far more they were spread across the territories. It was only at the outbreak of war that the commander would weld them into a force.
Also part of the reorganization was the end of the comitatus system by which the soldiers owed their loyalty to their commander. Now the soldiers' loyalties lay with the emperor. This change was made easy by the fact that the German federates who had brought in such customs were now in the decline within the eastern army. As the amount of money available to the government declined so too did the number of German mercenaries decrease.
The remaining German mercenaries were to be found divided into foederati (federates), optimati (the best men picked from the federates), buccellarii (the emperor's bodyguard).
The optimati are of particular interest as they appear clearly to resemble the fore-runners of medieval knights. They were chosen bands of German volunteers, who appeared to be of such standing among their own people that they each brought with them one or two armati, who were their personal assistants, just as later squires attendend to their knights.
Around the end of the first war with the Saracens in the seventh century, during the reign of Constans II or his son Constantine IV, a new order was established. The military order was closely linked with the very land it protected.
The old boundaries of the provinces and their administration had been wiped out by the invasions of the Persians and the Saracens. The lands were ruled by the military commanders of the various forces. Hence the emperor (either Constans II or Constantine IV) divided the land into provinces, called themes, which took their names directly from the units that were based there. Themes with names like Buccellarion, Optimaton or Thrakesion (the Thracian units in Asia Minor (Turkey)) clearly revealing who was based there and in charge of the administration.
The names of the themes further reveal that the various units were not all based along the frontiers with the Saracen foe, but far more were spread out all over the Byzantine territories.
The commander of a frontier theme of course had greater forces at his disposal than one of his colleagues in an inland district.
Did the word 'theme' come to stand for both the province as well as the garrison within it, then the same was the case for the 'turma'. The turma, commanded by a turmarch, was merely smaller unit within a theme. Further there was also the clissura, commanded by a clissurarch, which was a small garrison protecting one or more fortified mountain passes.
The strength of the Byzantine army remained its heavy cavalry. The infantry was merely there to man the fortresses and to act as garrisons for important centres. Though some campaigns appear to have been done solely by the cavalry, the infantry did appear still to be a part of most, though it never really played a decisive role.
The heavy cavalryman wore a mail shirt reaching from the neck to the waist or thighs. A small steel helmet protected his head whilst gauntlets and steel shoes protected his hands and feet.
The horses of the officers and of the men in the front rank also were armoured with protection to their heads and chest.
Over their armour the riders would wear a linen cape or tunic to protect themselves against the sun or a heavy woolen cloak to protect against cold weather. These tunics, as well as the tufts on the helmets and any pennants on the lances would be of the same colour in each warband, creating a kind of uniform. The weapons of the rider were a broadsword, a dagger, a bow and quiver, a long lance fitted with a leather strap towards it butt (to help keeping hold of it).
Some would further add to their weaponry by carrying an axe or a mace strapped to the saddle. Some of the young, inexperienced soldiers would still use the shield, but its use was frowned upon as it was seen to hinder the free use of the bow.
These armoury and weaponry can not be precisely gauged as the Byzantine army was by no means as uniform as the old Roman army. Had once every soldier carried the same weapons and armour, the Byzantine army possessed a large mix of individually armed riders.
Like the equestrians of the old Roman republic, the cavalry men of the Byzantine army were of considerable social standing.
The emperor Leo VI pointed out that the men chosen for the cavalry should be robust, courageous and should possess sufficient means to be free from care for their homes and possessions in their absence.
Farms of cavalrymen were exempt from all taxation except land tax during the reign of Leo VI (and most likely under the rule of other emperors) in order to help in the management of the estates when the master was on campaign.
The large proportion of cavalrymen were hence small landowners and their officers were drawn from the Byzantine aristocracy.
As many of the men were of some standing, many brought with them servants boys and attendants who relieved the forces of many of their menial duties. However, these camp followers did indeed slow down the otherwise rapid moving cavalry units considerably.
The infantry in the time of Leo VI still consisted almost entirely of archers, just as it had done in the sixth century under Justinian.
The light archer is largely unprotected, wearing merely boots and tunic and no helmet.
The more heavily armed footsoldier, the so-called scutatus wore a pointed steel helmet and a mail shirt. Some of them may have also worn gauntlets and greaves to protect the hands and shins. The scutatus carried with him a large round shield, a lance, a sword and an axe with a blade at one side and a spike at the other. The shield and the colour of the the tuft on the helmet were of all the same colour for each war band.
Once more, just as with the cavalry, we most imagine the Byzantine infantry as a body varying largely in its equipment from each soldier to the other.
The infantry also went on campaign with a large baggage train, bringing with it, among vital supplies also picks and spades, for the Byzantine army carefully fortified its camps against suprises, just as the ancient Roman army had done. A unit of engineers always marched ahead with the vanguard helped the footsoldiers in the preparation of the camp for the night's stay.
Nice work!
Nice work - and lot's of it. But I do have a quibble about one thing - which is not your fault at all. Many historians say, as your source did, that the Byzantine army numbered about 150,000 men. However, this is highly unlikely as follows:
1) Byzantium was a medieval state, and no other medieval state could ever amass an army anything like those numbers. Yes, Byzantium was a relatively weathly, developed state compared to some areas of Western Europe, but even later in the Middle Ages, France, arguably one of the richest states, could never mount an army that big. Even Byzantium was not immune for the general economic collapse of the 5th century, and the bubonic plague of the 6th century.
2) Roman armies at their height probably numbered no more than 500,000. Yet 150,000 men for Byzantium would have been 30% of that total. And Byzantium in no way controlled 30% of the old empire. Indeed the Arabs stripped the Empire of its wealthiest provinces (North Africa, Syria, Sicily, and Egypt), leaving it with only Greece/Balkans and Asia Minor.
3) Accounts and records of Byzantine battles and the Byzantine books on tactics you mention above show relatively small armies - 5,000 t0 10,000 men, maybe 15,000 at the most. These are much smaller armies than if you had 150,000 troops available. Indeed the 10th century attempt at the reconquest of Crete, mounted with great effort and expense, shows only about 10,000 troops involved.
4) Most accounts that arrive at the 150,000 take Roman records at a certain point, and attempt to estimate losses and additions through the years. However, there is no attempt to really measure what the empire could suport economically - and it is most likely much less than 150,000. An army of that size would have most likely been larger than the combined armies of Western Europe - yet was Byzantium that much richer? It was still an agrarian peasant based economy - it had no agricultural advantage vs. the West.
No criticism intended by any means, just another perspective from a book I read.
Grifman
Nice work - and lot's of it. But I do have a quibble about one thing - which is not your fault at all. Many historians say, as your source did, that the Byzantine army numbered about 150,000 men. However, this is highly unlikely as follows:
1) Byzantium was a medieval state, and no other medieval state could ever amass an army anything like those numbers. Yes, Byzantium was a relatively weathly, developed state compared to some areas of Western Europe, but even later in the Middle Ages, France, arguably one of the richest states, could never mount an army that big. Even Byzantium was not immune for the general economic collapse of the 5th century, and the bubonic plague of the 6th century.
2) Roman armies at their height probably numbered no more than 500,000. Yet 150,000 men for Byzantium would have been 30% of that total. And Byzantium in no way controlled 30% of the old empire. Indeed the Arabs stripped the Empire of its wealthiest provinces (North Africa, Syria, Sicily, and Egypt), leaving it with only Greece/Balkans and Asia Minor.
3) Accounts and records of Byzantine battles and the Byzantine books on tactics you mention above show relatively small armies - 5,000 t0 10,000 men, maybe 15,000 at the most. These are much smaller armies than if you had 150,000 troops available. Indeed the 10th century attempt at the reconquest of Crete, mounted with great effort and expense, shows only about 10,000 troops involved.
4) Most accounts that arrive at the 150,000 take Roman records at a certain point, and attempt to estimate losses and additions through the years. However, there is no attempt to really measure what the empire could suport economically - and it is most likely much less than 150,000. An army of that size would have most likely been larger than the combined armies of Western Europe - yet was Byzantium that much richer? It was still an agrarian peasant based economy - it had no agricultural advantage vs. the West.
No criticism intended by any means, just another perspective from a book I read.
Grifman
good point there, the reason that most ppl gives 150k as the establishment of the byzantium army is becuase in early and late eras majority of their forces were so called barbarians i.e slavs and turks who while getting nominal tithe for their services were awarded plunder rights that was how the army was estimated at 150,000, the realy core was no more than 50k which included the guards and heavy calvary
tactics and strategies of byzantine army
okey peeps here is my last part on byzantine army it deals with their organisation and battle tactics
Tactics and Strategies
"Whoever was commanding this army of outlaws had set his sights on William's title. William fought harder, as if this skirmish might determine the future of the earldom. Only half the outlaws were actually fighting the knights, William realized. The rest were moving the flour. The combat settled into a steady exchange of thrust and parry, swipe and dodge. Like soldiers who know that the retreat must be sounded soon, the outlaws had begun to fight in a cautious defensive style. (Follett, 845)"
Ken Follett, in The Pillars of the Earth, gives us a fine example of what western warfare was like during the 12th century. In this passage Richard leads a group of unruly outlaws into a small skirmish against William Hamleigh. There was no real organization or plan of attack, just a mere bursting through enemy lines and begin to fight tooth and nail until one side prevails. In those times the soldiers fought as an undisciplined mob led into battle by a power hungry lord in search of an inflated title. Although there is a limited amount of recorded detail on the actually organization of western warfare during this period, what most conclude is "no general battle was fought, but a number of detached and incoherent cavalry combats (Beeler, 59)", had all resulted in skirmishes of brut strength.
While the western kingdom fought their feudal upheavals, the Byzantine Army practice an art of war resembling the Roman war traditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization of the Byzantine Battalion
Infantry
The battalion's infantry was broken down into the Heavy Armed and Light Armed : the Archers, and Javelin-men. The infantry was typically organized into bands of sixteen, eight, or occasionally four deep with the scutati (heavy armed) placed in the center with the archers and javelin-men occupying the flanks. If the the battalion expected a charge of attack by cavalry or be assailed by a heavy column of hostile foot, the light troops would retire to the back of the heavy armed to take refuge. The infantry was more heavily used in mountainous terrain where horses were useless but in the cases of fighting Turks, Magyars, Patzinaks, and Sacarens whose forces where all horses, the infantry would break off from combat and guard the passes and boundary lines in case the opposing side decided to break around and try a counter attack through the back.
Cavalry
The wings of the infantry were covered by the cavalry when the geography permit it. This made it possible for the infantry not to worry about their most vulnerable point, their sides, from hostile forces flanking around and striking them without protection. The cavalry's tactics had been carried to a far greater degree of elaboration than the infantry tactics. Leo in his Tactica suggested that the whole force must be divided into four parts. (1) a fighting line, (2) a supporting line, (3) a small reserve behind the second line, and (4) detachments out on the wings, destined some to turn the enemy's flank, some to protect that of their own main body. As of numerical proportions of these four parts of the host, the front line should average somewhat more than a third - say three-eights- of the whole; the supporting line about a third of the whole; the reserve about a tenth, and the flanking detachments about a fifth.
Battalion Assistance
Behind the cavalry and infantry, followed a long precession of personal servants, train of baggage, camp-followers, and carts which carried the military supplies. Besides the personal servants for the well to do soldiers, there also followed a corps of engineers and surgeons.
Engineers marched with the vanguard and when the battalion stopped for the evening it was the engineers' job to rope off an area around the entire battalion, enclosing them into one area. After this was accomplished the engineers and the infantry would dig a ditch around the enclosed area. Meanwhile, a thick chain of pickets were kept far out from the camp, and the men not engaged in entrenching were kept close to their arms, so that a surprise was almost impossible. The engineers job was crucial to the protection of the soldiers so that they could rest safely from night attacks.
Surgeons or ambulance corps also accompanied the battalion. Each band was equipped with a doctor, surgeon, and six bearers, whose duty was to pick up and attend to the wounded. They would use horses to carry off the wounded and then care for them accordingly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Battle Formation
The Byzantine Army, unlike the western armies, had strategic battle formations that they would use to execute their objective. The East could conquer Slavs, Turk, Frank, or Saracen by employing in each case the tactical means best adapted to meet their opponent's method of warfare. By understanding the mind set and abilities of their opponent, the Byzantine were able to create an elaborate system which proved rather successful.
The infantry and cavalry worked together in a pleasant mixture when the geographic situations allowed. When in hilly terrain the cavalry would draw back while the infantry band drew itself up with the scutati in the middle, and the light troops thrown forward on either flank, so as to form a kind of crescent-shaped array. When the opponent was strictly on horse back the infantry would withdraw and the cavalry would take lead. Yet in the ideal situation the infantry and the Cavalry would form together and fight as one.
The image below is a diagram of the Byzantine battle formation most readily used.
Diagram Description
1.) Illustrated with the letter "A" is the front rank which is composed of three bodies each five hundred strong. Each are composed of two bands of two hundred and fifty men. It is drawn up with the smallest possible intervals between the bands, so as to present a practically continuous front. The senior divisional general call a Turmarch, the second in command of the whole force, leads the line with his post in the center. Each of the six bands sends out to skirmish one-third of its men, all archers while the rest are halted till the time for charging comes.
2.) "B" illustrates the second line. It is composed of four bands of one thousand men. They are not drawn up in a continuous line, as are their comrades in the front, but in four separate bodies a bowshot apart. The three intervals between the bands are to serve from the passage of the fighting line to the rear in case it should be routed. Headed by the commander-in-chief who has a hundred bodyguards and the great battle flag, takes his position in the middle of the second line but can maneuver as he pleases throughout the entire second line. To give a solid appearance of the second line there are three hundred horse men drawn up two deep in each of the intervals between the four bands, illustrated with the letter "G".
3.) To the rear flank of the second line are two bands of two hundred and fifty men each as a last reserve, letter "C".
4.) A week band of two hundred men is placed on the right flank, somewhat forward of the fighting line, letter "D". They are used to turn the enemy's left flank when the clash of battle comes. On the left flank, "E" illustrates a corresponding band of two hundred men who are charged with the duty of preventing any such attempt on the part of the enemy.
5.) Finally illustrated with the letter "F" a band of soldiers are placed far from the whole line of battle to both the right and left. These are bands of about four hundred men called "lies-in-wait" and they are to do a long circular march to hide themselves in a forest or behind a hill. When the time comes they will unexpectedly come in on the flank or the rear of the enemy.
(Oman, 197-198)
okey peeps here is my last part on byzantine army it deals with their organisation and battle tactics
Tactics and Strategies
"Whoever was commanding this army of outlaws had set his sights on William's title. William fought harder, as if this skirmish might determine the future of the earldom. Only half the outlaws were actually fighting the knights, William realized. The rest were moving the flour. The combat settled into a steady exchange of thrust and parry, swipe and dodge. Like soldiers who know that the retreat must be sounded soon, the outlaws had begun to fight in a cautious defensive style. (Follett, 845)"
Ken Follett, in The Pillars of the Earth, gives us a fine example of what western warfare was like during the 12th century. In this passage Richard leads a group of unruly outlaws into a small skirmish against William Hamleigh. There was no real organization or plan of attack, just a mere bursting through enemy lines and begin to fight tooth and nail until one side prevails. In those times the soldiers fought as an undisciplined mob led into battle by a power hungry lord in search of an inflated title. Although there is a limited amount of recorded detail on the actually organization of western warfare during this period, what most conclude is "no general battle was fought, but a number of detached and incoherent cavalry combats (Beeler, 59)", had all resulted in skirmishes of brut strength.
While the western kingdom fought their feudal upheavals, the Byzantine Army practice an art of war resembling the Roman war traditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization of the Byzantine Battalion
Infantry
The battalion's infantry was broken down into the Heavy Armed and Light Armed : the Archers, and Javelin-men. The infantry was typically organized into bands of sixteen, eight, or occasionally four deep with the scutati (heavy armed) placed in the center with the archers and javelin-men occupying the flanks. If the the battalion expected a charge of attack by cavalry or be assailed by a heavy column of hostile foot, the light troops would retire to the back of the heavy armed to take refuge. The infantry was more heavily used in mountainous terrain where horses were useless but in the cases of fighting Turks, Magyars, Patzinaks, and Sacarens whose forces where all horses, the infantry would break off from combat and guard the passes and boundary lines in case the opposing side decided to break around and try a counter attack through the back.
Cavalry
The wings of the infantry were covered by the cavalry when the geography permit it. This made it possible for the infantry not to worry about their most vulnerable point, their sides, from hostile forces flanking around and striking them without protection. The cavalry's tactics had been carried to a far greater degree of elaboration than the infantry tactics. Leo in his Tactica suggested that the whole force must be divided into four parts. (1) a fighting line, (2) a supporting line, (3) a small reserve behind the second line, and (4) detachments out on the wings, destined some to turn the enemy's flank, some to protect that of their own main body. As of numerical proportions of these four parts of the host, the front line should average somewhat more than a third - say three-eights- of the whole; the supporting line about a third of the whole; the reserve about a tenth, and the flanking detachments about a fifth.
Battalion Assistance
Behind the cavalry and infantry, followed a long precession of personal servants, train of baggage, camp-followers, and carts which carried the military supplies. Besides the personal servants for the well to do soldiers, there also followed a corps of engineers and surgeons.
Engineers marched with the vanguard and when the battalion stopped for the evening it was the engineers' job to rope off an area around the entire battalion, enclosing them into one area. After this was accomplished the engineers and the infantry would dig a ditch around the enclosed area. Meanwhile, a thick chain of pickets were kept far out from the camp, and the men not engaged in entrenching were kept close to their arms, so that a surprise was almost impossible. The engineers job was crucial to the protection of the soldiers so that they could rest safely from night attacks.
Surgeons or ambulance corps also accompanied the battalion. Each band was equipped with a doctor, surgeon, and six bearers, whose duty was to pick up and attend to the wounded. They would use horses to carry off the wounded and then care for them accordingly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Battle Formation
The Byzantine Army, unlike the western armies, had strategic battle formations that they would use to execute their objective. The East could conquer Slavs, Turk, Frank, or Saracen by employing in each case the tactical means best adapted to meet their opponent's method of warfare. By understanding the mind set and abilities of their opponent, the Byzantine were able to create an elaborate system which proved rather successful.
The infantry and cavalry worked together in a pleasant mixture when the geographic situations allowed. When in hilly terrain the cavalry would draw back while the infantry band drew itself up with the scutati in the middle, and the light troops thrown forward on either flank, so as to form a kind of crescent-shaped array. When the opponent was strictly on horse back the infantry would withdraw and the cavalry would take lead. Yet in the ideal situation the infantry and the Cavalry would form together and fight as one.
The image below is a diagram of the Byzantine battle formation most readily used.
Diagram Description
1.) Illustrated with the letter "A" is the front rank which is composed of three bodies each five hundred strong. Each are composed of two bands of two hundred and fifty men. It is drawn up with the smallest possible intervals between the bands, so as to present a practically continuous front. The senior divisional general call a Turmarch, the second in command of the whole force, leads the line with his post in the center. Each of the six bands sends out to skirmish one-third of its men, all archers while the rest are halted till the time for charging comes.
2.) "B" illustrates the second line. It is composed of four bands of one thousand men. They are not drawn up in a continuous line, as are their comrades in the front, but in four separate bodies a bowshot apart. The three intervals between the bands are to serve from the passage of the fighting line to the rear in case it should be routed. Headed by the commander-in-chief who has a hundred bodyguards and the great battle flag, takes his position in the middle of the second line but can maneuver as he pleases throughout the entire second line. To give a solid appearance of the second line there are three hundred horse men drawn up two deep in each of the intervals between the four bands, illustrated with the letter "G".
3.) To the rear flank of the second line are two bands of two hundred and fifty men each as a last reserve, letter "C".
4.) A week band of two hundred men is placed on the right flank, somewhat forward of the fighting line, letter "D". They are used to turn the enemy's left flank when the clash of battle comes. On the left flank, "E" illustrates a corresponding band of two hundred men who are charged with the duty of preventing any such attempt on the part of the enemy.
5.) Finally illustrated with the letter "F" a band of soldiers are placed far from the whole line of battle to both the right and left. These are bands of about four hundred men called "lies-in-wait" and they are to do a long circular march to hide themselves in a forest or behind a hill. When the time comes they will unexpectedly come in on the flank or the rear of the enemy.
(Oman, 197-198)
Superb work! A great wealth of information and well presented. Thanks for the tremendous about of work that this represents.
For some reason the link in the last post isn't working for me...I get a "page cannot be displyed" message.
You mentioned above that you had specific information re the Royal French Lancers...I'd certainly be interested in reading about the slightly different approaches employed in that region (presumably the English style would be similar?) and a comparison between those and the German and the Italian approaches...just trying to get a feel for the choas when two different battle styles happened to meet one another on the field, or tried to work together against a common foe (or did they?).
For some reason the link in the last post isn't working for me...I get a "page cannot be displyed" message.
You mentioned above that you had specific information re the Royal French Lancers...I'd certainly be interested in reading about the slightly different approaches employed in that region (presumably the English style would be similar?) and a comparison between those and the German and the Italian approaches...just trying to get a feel for the choas when two different battle styles happened to meet one another on the field, or tried to work together against a common foe (or did they?).
Originally posted by khurjan
coming from you i take it as highest compliments
are there any specific request about information i.e units of say italian states or the lances of royal french army????
From me? You're going to make me blush!
I am finding this information on Byzantine military history very interesting. I don't know much about that region, so all of your material is excellent & interesting stuff. I would be curious as to when (or if) this system broke down in the 1300s & 1400s - was it a case of new innovations outpacing them (such as artillery) or was it a stagnation of tactical & strategic thought?
brieft account of military tactics in middle ages
hi there all. here is a brief account which generalises the military tactics in middle ages
Cavalry Tactics and the Use of the Lance
Early cavalry techniques involved the knights on horses with or without stirrups, equipped with a long sword and a long spear or lance. The spear or lance was used as a thrusting weapon against both cavalry and infantry. When used against infantry a downward thrust was applied to hit the soldier. When used against a mounted knight the spear or lance would be used in an upward thrust to puncture or dismount the knight. These tactics changed to those known as mounted shock troop sometime around orbefore the middle of the 12th century. The lance, instead of being used as a thrustingweapon, was placed firmly under the arm and used along with the force of the horse to charge into the lines of infantry. This tactic was more likely to allow the cavalry to break through the front line and cause the infantry to lose formation leading to major casualties, as the confusion allowed the cavalry to take advantage of the infantry. (DeVries 1992, 12-13)
Infantry and the Emergence of Staff Weapon Tactics
Calvary's domination of the battlefield began to change in the early 1300s when infantry tactics began to improve. For ages the standard in infantry weaponry was a spear, some shorter or longer depending on who and when, and a sword, again the type varying with the culture and time period. In the 14th and 15th century the spear evolvedinto a longer pike. The extra length added onto the pike made it better suited for use against the charge of cavalry. Staff weapons, which combined the length of the spear with the melee power of a mace, axe or hammer, can be dated far before the late middle ages but for the most part these weapons didn t become widely used until the 14thcentury. (DeVries 1992, 15) Staff weapons made their mark on infantry-based armies starting in the early 14th century, when infantry armed with these weapons began toeffectively defeat cavalry-based armies. Staff weapon tactics used by the Swiss were so effective that foot soldiers were often seen overpowering mounted knights. To deploy troops in this way the infantry had to be of high morale and trained well as a unit to resist a charge from the well trained and armed cavalry units that would bear down on them. A well-formed infantry unit could stand against cavalry when deploying spears and missile weapons as long as there were no infantry as well helping the cavalry. This in essence made infantry and archers necessary to complement the use of the cavalry. (Keen 1999, 76-78)
The Scots defeated the English with the use of staff weapons at Loudon Hill 1307,and Bannockburn in 1314. The Swiss also defeated the Austrians at Mortgarten 1315, and at Laupen 1339. The armies of the Flemings successfully defeated the French at both Courtrai 1302, and Argues 1303, by deploying successful staff weapon based infantry. (DeVries 1992, 29-30) At Courtrai the French deployed crossbowmen to inflict casualties on the Flemish pikemen. The French then deployed their cavalry to charge the pikemen. Because the French general called the charge too soon, the Flemish pikemen were allowed to devastate the oncoming French cavalry. (Keen 1999, 113-114)
Men-At-Arms
The use of men-at-arms, that is knights dismounted for combat, was a tactic mainly used by the English. In the mid 14th century the English began using a three-man lance unit instead of the traditional knight with two squires, one with the knight's lance and the other leading the spare horse. The three-man lance was two knights and a squire: the knights would dismount and fight side by side in combat and leave the horses with the squire till the end of combat when the squire would bring back the horses. (Prestwich 1996, 49)
The battle of Cráy in 1346 is a good example of the English knights dismounting to fight side by side with the infantry and of the English use of strong defensive bow tactics to support the infantry. The French deployed their crossbowmen in front of their cavalry. The English archers were spread out in a defensive formation around the infantry, consisting of both the normal foot soldiers and the English men-at-arms. The English archers used the firing rate of the long bow to overpower the French crossbowmen. The French cavalry could not then effectively mount a charge upon the well-placed English men at arms and ended the day with defeat. (Hooper & Bennett 1996, 120)
The Crossbow
The crossbow is believed by some to be the major factor in the change from mail to plate armor. The crossbow has a violent force behind the bolts that are fired. It is capable of penetrating shields and mail and keeping enough force to continue moving. Reports from the 12th century say that bolts fired from a crossbow could pierce througha man's shield and armor and into the wearer. (Hardy 1976, 35) The church saw the power of the crossbow and how it challenged the dominance of the knight on the battlefield. This prompted the Pope to make a stand against crossbows and he declared the Anathema, which stated that the use of crossbows against Christians was against God's will. For those that chose to follow the new law set forth by the church, the onlyvalid use of the crossbow was against non-Christians, but even then it was frowned upon. (Hardy 1976, 35) The belt and claw, consisting of a hook attached to the belt that could be used to set the crossbow allowing for a more powerful bow, were first recorded in the late 12th century. In the 14th century the windlass, which was a mechanical device attached to the crossbow to allow you to crank the string back with pulleys, and the screw winder, which was a shaft that could be attached to both the bowstring and a turning screw, brought increased power to the crossbow. (Richardson 1997, 43-44)
Longbow
Technological advances in the bow were slowed by the emergence of the crossbow in the 10th and 11th century but still made significant improvements. (Hardy1976, 35) The bow of the 11th century was the short bow which still had the power to pierce through some mails when used right. The arrows were standard 4-feathered shafts with a tanged head. Into the 12th century the development of smaller heads allowed forarrows to be better at piercing mail armor. (Hooper & Bennett 1996, 161) There were cases of longbows powerful enough to pierce through a mailed leg and then into the mount of the knight and inflict a mortal wound on the horse. (Bradbury 1985, 16) The longbow, even though proven effective in battle by the English in the 1300s, still required immense training and did not prove to be a major component in the armies of continental Europe.
hi there all. here is a brief account which generalises the military tactics in middle ages
Cavalry Tactics and the Use of the Lance
Early cavalry techniques involved the knights on horses with or without stirrups, equipped with a long sword and a long spear or lance. The spear or lance was used as a thrusting weapon against both cavalry and infantry. When used against infantry a downward thrust was applied to hit the soldier. When used against a mounted knight the spear or lance would be used in an upward thrust to puncture or dismount the knight. These tactics changed to those known as mounted shock troop sometime around orbefore the middle of the 12th century. The lance, instead of being used as a thrustingweapon, was placed firmly under the arm and used along with the force of the horse to charge into the lines of infantry. This tactic was more likely to allow the cavalry to break through the front line and cause the infantry to lose formation leading to major casualties, as the confusion allowed the cavalry to take advantage of the infantry. (DeVries 1992, 12-13)
Infantry and the Emergence of Staff Weapon Tactics
Calvary's domination of the battlefield began to change in the early 1300s when infantry tactics began to improve. For ages the standard in infantry weaponry was a spear, some shorter or longer depending on who and when, and a sword, again the type varying with the culture and time period. In the 14th and 15th century the spear evolvedinto a longer pike. The extra length added onto the pike made it better suited for use against the charge of cavalry. Staff weapons, which combined the length of the spear with the melee power of a mace, axe or hammer, can be dated far before the late middle ages but for the most part these weapons didn t become widely used until the 14thcentury. (DeVries 1992, 15) Staff weapons made their mark on infantry-based armies starting in the early 14th century, when infantry armed with these weapons began toeffectively defeat cavalry-based armies. Staff weapon tactics used by the Swiss were so effective that foot soldiers were often seen overpowering mounted knights. To deploy troops in this way the infantry had to be of high morale and trained well as a unit to resist a charge from the well trained and armed cavalry units that would bear down on them. A well-formed infantry unit could stand against cavalry when deploying spears and missile weapons as long as there were no infantry as well helping the cavalry. This in essence made infantry and archers necessary to complement the use of the cavalry. (Keen 1999, 76-78)
The Scots defeated the English with the use of staff weapons at Loudon Hill 1307,and Bannockburn in 1314. The Swiss also defeated the Austrians at Mortgarten 1315, and at Laupen 1339. The armies of the Flemings successfully defeated the French at both Courtrai 1302, and Argues 1303, by deploying successful staff weapon based infantry. (DeVries 1992, 29-30) At Courtrai the French deployed crossbowmen to inflict casualties on the Flemish pikemen. The French then deployed their cavalry to charge the pikemen. Because the French general called the charge too soon, the Flemish pikemen were allowed to devastate the oncoming French cavalry. (Keen 1999, 113-114)
Men-At-Arms
The use of men-at-arms, that is knights dismounted for combat, was a tactic mainly used by the English. In the mid 14th century the English began using a three-man lance unit instead of the traditional knight with two squires, one with the knight's lance and the other leading the spare horse. The three-man lance was two knights and a squire: the knights would dismount and fight side by side in combat and leave the horses with the squire till the end of combat when the squire would bring back the horses. (Prestwich 1996, 49)
The battle of Cráy in 1346 is a good example of the English knights dismounting to fight side by side with the infantry and of the English use of strong defensive bow tactics to support the infantry. The French deployed their crossbowmen in front of their cavalry. The English archers were spread out in a defensive formation around the infantry, consisting of both the normal foot soldiers and the English men-at-arms. The English archers used the firing rate of the long bow to overpower the French crossbowmen. The French cavalry could not then effectively mount a charge upon the well-placed English men at arms and ended the day with defeat. (Hooper & Bennett 1996, 120)
The Crossbow
The crossbow is believed by some to be the major factor in the change from mail to plate armor. The crossbow has a violent force behind the bolts that are fired. It is capable of penetrating shields and mail and keeping enough force to continue moving. Reports from the 12th century say that bolts fired from a crossbow could pierce througha man's shield and armor and into the wearer. (Hardy 1976, 35) The church saw the power of the crossbow and how it challenged the dominance of the knight on the battlefield. This prompted the Pope to make a stand against crossbows and he declared the Anathema, which stated that the use of crossbows against Christians was against God's will. For those that chose to follow the new law set forth by the church, the onlyvalid use of the crossbow was against non-Christians, but even then it was frowned upon. (Hardy 1976, 35) The belt and claw, consisting of a hook attached to the belt that could be used to set the crossbow allowing for a more powerful bow, were first recorded in the late 12th century. In the 14th century the windlass, which was a mechanical device attached to the crossbow to allow you to crank the string back with pulleys, and the screw winder, which was a shaft that could be attached to both the bowstring and a turning screw, brought increased power to the crossbow. (Richardson 1997, 43-44)
Longbow
Technological advances in the bow were slowed by the emergence of the crossbow in the 10th and 11th century but still made significant improvements. (Hardy1976, 35) The bow of the 11th century was the short bow which still had the power to pierce through some mails when used right. The arrows were standard 4-feathered shafts with a tanged head. Into the 12th century the development of smaller heads allowed forarrows to be better at piercing mail armor. (Hooper & Bennett 1996, 161) There were cases of longbows powerful enough to pierce through a mailed leg and then into the mount of the knight and inflict a mortal wound on the horse. (Bradbury 1985, 16) The longbow, even though proven effective in battle by the English in the 1300s, still required immense training and did not prove to be a major component in the armies of continental Europe.
development of plate armour as used by knights
howdi all
here is another roundup of how the armour development took place once again this is a generalisation but fear not for those medieval words i have used i am including a glossary too so enjoy your bedside stories again
A General History of Armor
It seems that, while not exactly the birth of plate armor in Europe, the second half of the 13th century is the period where the transition from mail to plate really begins. That is not to say that the transition was confined to this period - indeed, elements of plate armorwere emerging in the 12th century, while others did not become popular until well into the 14th and 15th centuries. It should also be noted that though mail declined in popularity and effectiveness during the period, it was in use to some extent as long as armor in general was around.
One of the earliest elements of armor to use plate protection was the helmet. However, the development of plate defense for the head does not follow the transitional timeline we see with protection for the rest of the body. The evolution of the helmet is therefore discussed at the end of this paper, separate from the general discussion.
Dominance of Mail and Early Plate (before 1250)
The Paladins of Charlemagne's court (c. 750) wore on their bodies either mail hauberks, scale shirts, or, more unusually, coats of lamellar armor (Edge and Paddock 1998, 9). While this time period is rather early for the scope of this project, it does not even approach the date of the origin of mail.
The shirt of mail, formed of interlinked metal rings, first appears in Celtic graves, and the Roman author Varro attributed its invention to the Celts. It was first used in the Classical World in the third century BCE and became widely disseminated. The mail hauberk of Charlemagne's day was normally knee-length or a little shorter, and was pulled on over the head. It had a plain round neck opening with a front slit, and invariably had short sleeves. At the center front and back it was split from hem to groin level to enable the wearer to ride (Edge and Paddock 1998, 9).
The earliest surviving hauberk dates from the 12th century and is preserved in the Prague Cathedral as supposedly being that of Saint Wenceslaus. The early hauberks were made of riveted mail, probably weighing over 30 pounds. The sleeves, by the 11th century, extended midway down the forearm. Most depictions of the hauberk from the same time have a rectangle covering the upper chest, outlined with broad bands, suggesting that the vulnerable neck opening was protected by a lined reinforce of mail (Edge and Paddock 1998, 19).
Early Anglo-Saxon manuscript sources imply that the hauberk was rare and highly prized. Only leaders or important warriors possessed one, but they grew to become an integral part of the early knight's equipment and an indication of his profession, status, and rank (Edge and Paddock 1998, 21).
Manuscripts also describe different types of mail, such as double and triple mail. Hauberks made of two or three layers of mail would have been exceptionally heavy to wear, so it is more likely that double and triple mail refer to the closeness of the mesh. Banded mail in contemporary illustrations, especially from the 12th and 13th centuries, may represent alternating rows of riveted rings and rings made by punching complete closed circles of metal from a thin sheet of iron, adding strength, since there is no weak point on unriveted rings. In Europe from the 14th century onwards, it is extremely rare to find any exception to wholly riveted mail (Edge and Paddock 1998, 21).
The body armor of the 11th century also continued relatively unchanged into the 12th, still consisting primarily of the mail, or, occasionally, scale hauberk with an integrated coif (Edge and Paddock 1998, 45).
By the middle of the 12th century mail chausses on the legs were far more common than they had been a century before, and there are many more extant contemporary illustrations of them in use. For the most part, the type which laced up at the back of the calf was still more popular than the full mail stocking gartered at the knee (Edge and Paddock 1998, 45).
The foot was more commonly protected in the 12th century, and the arms also; in the last few decades of the century the sleeves of the hauberk became longer, ending in mitten-shaped gloves called mufflers, which were slit at the wrist to permit the hands to be withdrawn at will (Edge and Paddock 1998, 45).
Overall, the equipment of the knight varied little throughout Europe during the 13th century. The main body defense remained the mail hauberk. This reached to mid-thigh and had an integrated coif which had an aventail or flap of mail which could be drawn across the mouth and closed with a strap. This is clearly shown on the wooden effigy attributed to Robert of Normandy in Gloucester Cathedral, England. By mid-century the mufflers attached to the end of the sleeves often had separate fingers (Edge and Paddock 1998, 53-56).
Mail is not a rigid defense and, although it will stop a cut, the force of a blow is transferred directly through it, causing blunt trauma. Furthermore, it gives inadequate protection against a thrust with a sharply pointed weapon or from arrows or crossbow bolts, all of which can burst the links apart. These problems were dealt with in two ways: partially by wearing rigid defenses over the mail, such as the coat of plates and the reinforced surcoat, and partially by the adoption of quilted and padded undergarments. The latter were separate defenses which could be worn in addition to the hauberk, or instead of it (Edge and Paddock 1998, 57).
The quilted defenses were referred to as aketons or gambesons. Evidence suggests that aketon refers to garments worn under the mail while gambesons were worn over or instead of it. These were both usually made of two or more layers of linen stuffed with tow, rags, or other material. When worn under the armor the aketon had long sleeves and reached to the knee. The gambeson is often referred to in contemporary accounts as being worn by the common soldiers and, indeed, is part of the equipment required by the Assize of Arms of 1185 of Edward I of England (Edge and Paddock 1998, 57).
The earliest medieval reference to plate armor below the neck appears to be the account given by Giraldus Cambrensis of the Danish attack on Dublin in 1171. In this the Danes are wearing laminis ferreis arte consutis, or iron plates skillfully sewn together (Blair 1958, 37). It is likely that this is not actually referring to the coat of plates construction, and is simply a description of lamellar or scale armor. Either way, it represents a precursor to development of plate armor.
Very early evidence of the use of a plate defense constructed from a single piece of metal is found in Guillaume le Breton's account of the fight between Richard, Count of Poitou (later King Richard I of England) and William de Barres. In the fight, the combatants are described as wearing a plate of worked iron beneath the hauberk and aketon. The fact that Guillaume died c. 1225 gives us concrete evidence of the use of plate armor no later than the early 13th century (Blair 1958, 38). The extent to which it was used so early on is not known, but lack of evidence suggests it was relatively rare.
Although the knight does continue to wear mostly mail, continuous development of plate really begins around 1250.
The Increasing Integration of Plate (c. 1250 - 1300)
From the end of the 12th century, there are references to a rigid defense known as a cuirie or cuirass (Edge and Paddock 1998, 56). The term cuirie first appears in texts of the third quarter of the 12th century, and occurs frequently until the middle of the 14th. It is almost certainly synonymous with cuirass, a term first recorded in an inventory of the effects of Eudes, Comte de Nevers, drawn up after his death in 1266. The cuirass was a defense for the torso, worn between the surcoat and hauberk. It was often made of leather, and was rigid enough for the guard-chains for the helm and sword to be attached to it, suggesting it was made from cuir-bouilli (a hardened form of leather, derived from the French term cuir, meaning leather). It was sometimes reinforced with metal plates, sometimes lined with fabric, and sometimes had arm-defenses of leather or possibly quilted cloth. The cuirie, or cuirass, is shown on two English monuments, one from the Temple Church in London and the other from Pershore Abbey, Worcestershire, both of which date to the 1260s. By the 15th century, cuirass referred to the metal breast- and backplates taken as a single unit (Blair 1958, 38, Edge and Paddock 1998, 57).
The first reliable indication of emerging usage of plate is an increasing appearance in contemporary illustrations of reinforcing plates (poleyns) laced or strapped to the knees of the chausses, or, more frequently, the gamboised cuisses. They start off rather small, but after c. 1270 they become large and hemispherical, completely covering the front and sides of the knees (Blair 1958, 39). Not until the end of the 13th century, and then only very rarely, was any defense worn for the lower leg other than the mail chausse (Edge and Paddock 1998, 61). In the last quarter of the century gutter-shaped shin guards of steel known as schynbalds appeared. These were shortand protected only the front of the leg and were simply strapped on over the chausses, according to Edge and Paddock (61), but Blair suggests that they were probably worn under the chausses, due to his observation that the schynbalds are rarely illustrated before the second decade of the 14th century (39). There are references to schynbalds in a list of armor supplied to Edward I's sons, Edward Prince of Wales and John Duke of Lancaster, for the campaigns in Scotland in 1299. The defenses for the leg likely developed before those for the arm because when the knight was mounted the legs were particularly vulnerable to infantrymen (Edge and Paddock 1998, 60).
Disc-shaped plates, called couters, attached to the elbows of the hauberk, are found asearly as c. 1260 on the effigy of William Longespáe the Younger, although Blair is unable to trace any other examples earlier than the first decade of the 14th century (Blair 1958, 39).
Around 1290 numerous references to gauntlets constructed of baleen (often referred to as whalebone, although it is not bone at all) first appear, probably consisting of leather faced with plaques of baleen. Steel-plated gauntlets, probably made the same way, are first mentioned in 1296, but the vast majority of knights continued to use mufflers of mail (Edge and Paddock 1998, 59).
Development of plate defenses for the limbs was surely accompanied by a corresponding development of armor for the torso. Unfortunately, for quite a long period, these body defenses were obscured in illustrations, engravings, etc. by the surcoat.
The surcoat was sometimes reinforced with rows of fairly long, rectangular plates, set vertically and riveted to the inside of the fabric. These can be clearly seen on the sleeping guard from part of a sculpture of the resurrection of Christ from Wienhausen, now in the Provinzial Museum, Hanover. Only one known 13th-century illustration of this arrangement exists, in the third quarter of the century, but examples dating from the first three decades of the 14th century are found in Italy and Scandinavia (Blair 1958, 39; Edge and Paddock 1998, 57).
Another body defense appeared mid-13th century. It was shaped like a cross with an opening near the junction where a mail coif was permanently attached. The long side covered the back, while the other three protected the front and wrapped around the sides, buckling in the rear. These sides were lined with oblong plates which were riveted onto the garment at their ends. Plates from this type of garment were excavated at the Castle of Montfort in the Holy Land, and must date to before 1271, when the castle fell to the Saracens (Edge and Paddock 57). Garments of this type, cloth or leather lined with metal plates, were the most widely used type of body defense throughout the 14th century. It is now usually referred to as a coat of plates, but was known then as a pair of plates, hauberk of plates, cote à plates, or simply plates.
Overshadowing Mail (1300-1350)
The most important source of information about this type of armor comes from the mass graves at Wisby. The Battle of Wisby was fought in 1361 between the Gotlanders and the Danes, and after the battle the dead were buried in graves along with some of their equipment (Edge and Paddock 1998, 73). Excavations of the graves at Wisby began in 1905 under the supervision of Doctor Oscar Vilhelm Wennerstein, the then curator of the Gotlandic Archives. A total of five excavations examining the mass graves were performed between 1905 and 1930, some producing almost no evidence of armor at the time, and some proving very fruitful, uncovering mail coifs, gauntlets, arrowheads, iron lames and buckles, large portions of mail shirts, and especially armor plates, including a number of coats of plates that were discovered almost fully intact (Thordeman 1939, 51-62). There are also plenty of examples of the coat of plates before Wisby, though. After his death at the Battle of Courtrai in 1302, the inventory of the goods of Raoul de Nesle listed his arms as consisting of gambesons, mail hauberks, basinets, kettle hats, padded cuisses and both half and full greaves, and pairs of plates (Edge and Paddock 1998, 73). From the last decade of the thirteenth century, references to the coat of plates become more and more common until after c. 1320 there is hardly an inventory, account, or will in which armor is mentioned that does not include an example (Blair 1958, 40). It was usually worn between the surcoat and hauberk, and therefore can rarely be identified in illustrations until the third decade of the 14th century, when the front of the surcoat was shortened. The pair of plates is also clearly seen on the brasses of Sir John III d'Abernon, about 1340-5, and Sir Hugh Hastings, c. 1347 (Richardson 41). Usually, the plates were riveted to the inside of the garment, but there are also examples of them riveted to the outside, as in the Romance of Alexander, an illuminated manuscript of c. 1340 preserved in the Bodleian Library (Edge and Paddock 1998, 73).
Throughout the 14th century leg harnesses showed a gradual development with a great deal of variation. At the beginning of the century many knights wore simply mail chausses with little or no addition defense, those that were worn simply being gamboissed cuisses and cup-like steel poleyns, and occasionally schynbalds or shin guards of plate (Edge and Paddock 1998, 81).
Mail chausses continue to be shown commonly until 1350 and occasionally, in Spain and Germany, to the end of the century. However, after 1310 schynbalds are rare, being replaced by full and demi greaves. There were referred to in the Nesle inventory of 1302. By 1330 greaves constructed of two pieces hinged and strapped together were quite common (Edge and Paddock 1998, 81).
Plate defenses for the feet (sabatons) were apparently introduced in the second decade of the 14th century, although they are rarely illustrated before c. 1320. They occur, for example, on the de Cabrera effigy of c. 1314, where they are shown as pointed shoes studded with rosette-headed rivets, presumably indicating a coat-of-plates construction (Blair 1958, 43).
The most popular form of sabaton consisted of a series of overlapping, horizontal lames, shaped to the pointed shoe of the period and covering the top of the foot. One of the earliest illustrations of this form occurs on the brass of Sir William Fitzralph at Pebmarsh, Essex (c. 1323), but after this it is shown frequently, except in Germany, where plate sabatons are rare until after c. 1340. The plates were presumably riveted to a leather lining and secured to the shoe by laces knotted through pairs of holes on top or by straps passing under the foot (Blair 1958, 43-44).
Development of plate defenses for the arms lagged slightly behind the leg defenses but otherwise followed very similar lines. Couters of the type shown in the Longespée effigy begin appearing more and more in contemporary art from c. 1300 on. Some late 13th- and early 14th-century texts mention bracers of leather, but Blair can find no illustration that depicts them (Blair 1958, 45).
Towards the end of the 13th century plate defenses for the hands started to evolve. The mail mufflers worn throughout the century all but disappeared by 1330. The new types of gauntlet were originally either deep-cuffed cloth gloves plated with baleen (Froissart mentioned these as being part of the equipment of the men of Bruges at the battle of Roosebeke in 1382), or cloth or leather gloves lined with plates, constructed in a similar manner to the coat of plates. A number of this type were excavated from Wisby (Edge and Paddock 1998, 81).
From the mid-1300s, the gauntlets most commonly associated with the 14th century appeared. These were of hourglass form and consisted of a large plate shaped for the back and sides of the hand, constricted at the wrist and flared to form a short cuff. This plate was embossed for the shape of the knuckles and the base of the thumb, and the gauntlet was completed by small, overlapping plates to protect the fingers and thumbs. This whole gauntlet was stitched to an internal glove either of leather or cloth. Sometimes the plates themselves were covered in cloth, as is a gauntlet from Brick Hill Lane, London, now in the Royal Armouries. The finger defenses were sometimes accompanied by gadlings or spikes attached to the knuckles, which could be used in the manner of knuckle-dusters (Edge and Paddock 1998, 81).
The earliest illustration of full plate arm defenses goes back to the effigy of Don Alveró de Cabrera. Here, the tight-fitting sleeves of the surcoat are studded with rivets in a manner similar to that on the bevor, the chest, and the sabatons, indicating they were probably lined with plates. The earliest true vambrace, the term for the complete arm defense excepting the shoulder, appears in illustrations during the 2nd decade of the 14th century, and consists of two gutter-shaped plates, completely encircling the arm, and a cup-like couter strapped over the sleeve of the hauberk. Each vambrace was often accompanied by two disc-shaped plates, called besagews; one was secured by laces to the outside of the elbow to protect the elbow joint, and the other to the front of the shoulder to defend the armpit. This form is found as late as 1347, but is rare after c. 1335 (Blair 1958, 45).
Italian arm harnesses, as represented by the armor preserved at Churburg, consisted of a short gutter-shaped upper cannon riveted to laminated couters and lower cannons of tulip form, that is, narrowing to the wrist and flaring at the cuff. Quite often, these seem to have been worn without spaudlers or indeed any defense for the shoulder other than the mail sleeve of the hauberk (Edge and Paddock 1998, 80).
By c. 1325 the lower cannon of the arm defenses started to be constructed of two plates to completely encircle the arm. On the continent knights were quite often depicted wearing mail inside the upper defenses but outside the lower. In Germany, separate tubular or gutter-shaped defenses for the upper and lower arm, worn with or without separate couters, were all attached individually by points or straps to the undergaments (Edge and Paddock 1998, 80).
At about the same time in England, gutter-shaped upper and lower cannons made an appearance. These were joined to a couter with a small disc-like wing by small laminations, with a separate laminated spaudler for the point of the shoulder. By the 1340s these spaudlers were permanently attached to the upper cannon. This upper cannon was hinged down one side and strapped across the other (Edge and Paddock 1998, 80).
During the last years of the 13th century, references to all types of plate armor became increasingly common, though it was not always made of metal. Armorers experimented with a variety of materials, most notably baleen, horn, and cuir-bouilli, in addition to iron, steel, and latten (a form of brass), although this was probably used more decoratively than structurally. After c. 1330 illustrations of knights armored entirely or almost entirely in mail are rare (Blair 41).
The Dominance of Plate (c. 1350 - 1400)
Some forms of the pairs of plates found at Wisby were constructed so as to form separate breast- and backplates which joined at the shoulder and laced or buckled down one side. By the 1350s effigies start to show the evolution of a single large plate covering the upper chest, accompanied by smaller plates to cover the shoulders. By the 1360s or so the plate had increased in size and covered the chest as far as the diaphragm. The skirts of the armor were depicted on funereal sculptures as vertical rows of rivets in a cloth cover, which represented the fastenings for horizontal hoops of iron or steel. By the 1370s the waist lames had disappeared; the breastplate itself extended down to the top of the hips where it ended in a skirt, or fauld, of horizontal lames.
Although literary evidence for an independent breastplate, without any form of backplate, dates as early as the 1340s, the first known depiction dates only from the 1370s, and shows the breastplate being worn over the coat of plates. In Italy and Germany it was sometimes worn independently with a short fauld, being held on by cross-straps at the back, as shown in the silver altar piece from Pistoia Cathedral (c. 1376). Not until the last two decades of the century can it be considered common wear (Edge and Paddock 1998, 74-75).
During the later part of the 14th century, a body defense known as a brigandine was developed. This was a piece of body armor which seems to have been similar to scale armor in construction, using small overlapping plates that slid over each other as the body moved to give greater flexibility. These plates were riveted to a canvas garment that was usually covered in some finer material. One of the earliest mentions of this sort of defense comes from the letters of Francesco di Marco di Datini, a merchant of Prato in Italy, dated 1368. The earliest English reference to a brigandine is in the inventory of Thomas Duke of Gloucester, son of Edward III, dated 1397 (Edge and Paddock 1998, 76).
For the duration of the 14th century, the knight continued to wear his hauberk under his armor, but after about 1350 it only reached to just below hip level and was often bordered by brass rings meshed like mail and shaped into a zig-zag fringe. Beneath this he wore his aketon, which, by the mid-14th century, had become shortened to the same length as the hauberk and was strongly waisted in form (Edge and Paddock 1998, 79).
The usual English term for the defense for the lower leg during the mid 14th century was jamber, but the French term greave occurs occasionally from c. 1370 onwards and, after c. 1400, completely supplants the English. The normal construction of the greave, which remained in use until the 17th century, was for each greave to be made of a front and a rearplate hinged together down one side - usually the outside - and fastened with straps and buckles on the other. Such greaves became common after c. 1330 (Blair 1958, 42-43).
By the 1370s plate cuisses consisting of a single plate were common and had embossed lower edges to fit over the wearer's knees. These were articulated to the poleyns by rivets. Also at this time, the poleyns developed a heart-shaped side wing to protect the tendons at the back of the knee (Edge and Paddock 1998, 82-83).
By the last quarter of the 14th century, the upper leg defenses consisted of a singleplate protecting the front of the thigh with a hinged side plate for the outside of the leg. At the bottom of the main plate a small articulating lame was riveted to allow the poleyn to pivot. The poleyn had a lower lame which was either strapped over or was attached to the greave (Edge and Paddock 1998, 83).
Armor was expensive and only the very rich could afford to keep up with changes in style. Almost to the end of the 14th century many knights made do with armor composed mainly of mail, supplemented by a few pieces of plate (Edge and Paddock 1998, 93).
By the time of the brass of Ralph de Knyveton from Aveley, Essex, c. 1370, the form of the coat of plates is clearly visible, the plate arm defenses are fully articulated, and the greaves are worn with fully articulated sabatons. With the evolution of cuisses of plate by the end of the century, the development of the plate harness was essentially complete (Richardson 1997, 41).
The 'Disappearance' of Mail (after c. 1400)
Until the 1420s, the main shoulder defense was generally mail, but by the end of the second decade of the century laminated pauldrons appear for the left arm, with a smaller one being worn on the right arm. Large pauldrons remained in use throughout the 15th century, but became more rounded after 1440 and spread out across the wearer s back to overlap. The upper edges of the pauldrons were flanged to form haut pieces to protect the neck (Edge and Paddock 107).
From about 1420 the German knight would have worn simple laminated spaudlers, consisting of a domedplate for the point of the shoulder, supporting a number of laminations down the arm. Below these were worn simple gutter-shaped upper and lower cannons joined by leather straps, and a moderately sized shell-shaped couter which was laced to the arming doublet. These were accompanied by a besagew to protect the gap between arm harness and breastplate and remained in common use until the second half of the next century. From about 1450 it was common for the spaudler to be riveted to the upper cannon (Edge and Paddock 1998, 101).
Evolution of the Helmet
The helmets depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry already show elements of plate construction. They are similar to the late Roman spangenhelms, which were built around a framework of bronze or iron strips, with the infills being made from beaten panels of iron riveted onto the main frame (Edge and Paddock 1998, 17-18).
Helmets forged entirely in one piece can be traced back to the 10th century. There is one preserved in the Cathedral Treasury in Prague which is said to have belonged to Saint Wenceslaus of Bohemia, who died in 935. The iron skull is forged in one piece, with an iron nasal and bottom reinforcing rim riveted in place. Another similar helmet is in the Vienna Waffensammlung - it is forged entirely in one piece including the nasal guard (Edgeand Paddock 1998, 18).
Conical helmets of the Norman type seem to have proved an effective defense against the sword, axe, and mace, since they continued to be used by the knight in various parts of Europe until the 1250s. They were, however, increasingly replaced by a domed version, the most popular form of which is known as the cervelière, or basinet. This was a small hemispherical skull cap which was often worn beneath the mail coif, though it was also increasingly worn under the great helm or simply on its own over the coif (Edge and Paddock18, 55). Originally, the cerveli re and the basinet were synonymous. By the 1330s, though, the cervelière was totally displaced by the true basinet (Edge and Paddock 1998, 71).
At first, there were three basic types of the basinet. One was deep and conical with an arched face opening, extending down to the base of the neck and often including a visor. Another was small and globular, only reaching to just below the ears. The third was of a tall conical form, just reaching to the tops of the ears. These types appear regularly until the 1350s. After that, the basic form was of medium height with a conical skull extending in the back and on the sides to cover the cheeks and the nape of the neck. By the end of the century it was extended to the base of the neck and the cheekbones, and the apex of the skull was slowly moved backwards to give an almost vertical rear face (Edge and Paddock 1998, 71).
The aventail was a fan-shaped curtain of mail extending from the base of the basinet to the point of the shoulder, protecting the neck and throat but leaving the face exposed. It was at first riveted directly to the basinet, but later was attached by staples called vervelles which passed through a leather band at the top edge of the mail; a cord was then threaded through the staples above the leather. This had the advantage that the aventail could be removed for repair and cleaning. At the very end of the 14th century, the mail aventail was replaced by a plate defense to produce what is known as the Great Basinet. There is a good example of this type in the Doges' Palace, Venice. The whole helmet, except the visor, is raised from a single piece of steel. (Edge and Paddock 1998, 72-73).
Throughout Europe in about 1380 the visor that was sometimes found on the basinet began to develop a pronounced projecting conical snout with flanged sights and mouth slit, pierced with numerous small breaths. This type of visor was accompanied by another innovation in design in the form of a new type of pivot which allowed the visor to be removed when not required. This worked by incorporating hinges into the arms of the visor in front of the pivots. The hinges were equipped with removable pins, often with their own small guard chains to prevent loss (Edge and Paddock 1998, 72-73).
From the beginning of the 13th century the flat-topped helmet current at the end ofthe twelfth century was fitted with a face guard which contained two slits for the eyes, called sights, and was pierced by holes for ventilation, called breaths. These are clearly shown on the Shrine of Charlemagne in Aachen Cathedral, made between 1200 and 1207 (Edge and Paddock 1998, 53).
By the 1220s, this helm had evolved a narrow, fixed neck-guard which extended round to join the face guard to form a flat-topped, cylindrical helmet known as the great helm, or heaume. Over the next twenty years, the front of the helm was extended downwards to protect the wearer's neck. The best example of this type of helmet was excavated in the Schlossberg bei Dargen in Pomerania, and is now in the Museum für Deutsche Geschichte, Berlin (Edge and Paddock 1998, 53).
This form of helm remained unchanged until the 1260s, after which its crown was given a taper, presumably as a result of the inability of the flat-topped helm to deflect a sword cut. In the last quarter of the century the crown was given an even more pronounced taper, as is clearly shown on the brass of Sir Roger de Trumpington in Trumpington Church, Cambridgeshire (Edge and Paddock 1998, 53). The sides and front were also extended to almost rest on the shoulders and chest of the wearer. This provided a glancing surface off which the blades of weapons would slide (Edge and Paddock 1998, 69).
The great helm was worn with a padded arming cap, worn either over or under a mail coif. Two forms are known. The more usual one is simply a heavily quilted version of the civilian coif; rather less common is the variety depicted on the front of the Wells Cathedral, c. 1230, which is an arming cap with an additional roll of padding set at about the brow of the wearer. This roll would ease the weight of the helmet off the top of the head and help to spread it more evenly on the skull (Edge and Paddock 1998, 55).
Throughout the 14th century, the great helm continued to be worn by the knight over a basinet, and varied little in its general form. However, after about 1350 its use tended to be restricted to the tournament, although it is sometimes illustrated in manuscripts being worn in battle as late as the early 15th century.
The end of the 12th century saw the introduction of a completely new type of helmet known as the chapel de fer or kettle hat. It is known as a kettle hat because of its close resemblance to a medieval cauldron or kettle. The lasting form of the helmet consisted of a round bowl with a wide brim, sometimes of one piece, but often assembled from a number of plates riveted together. The skull was formed by a cross of steel, with the spaces filled by plates. This was used extensively by knights and was often worn with a basinet and mail coif underneath. However, worn alone or with a coif, it remained the common soldier s favoriteup until the mid-fifteenth century. It was popular because it offered protection from a downward cut, but gave all-round vision. It was also particularly useful in siegework, because the brim helped to deflect missiles from the face. (Edge and Paddock 1998).
howdi all
here is another roundup of how the armour development took place once again this is a generalisation but fear not for those medieval words i have used i am including a glossary too so enjoy your bedside stories again
A General History of Armor
It seems that, while not exactly the birth of plate armor in Europe, the second half of the 13th century is the period where the transition from mail to plate really begins. That is not to say that the transition was confined to this period - indeed, elements of plate armorwere emerging in the 12th century, while others did not become popular until well into the 14th and 15th centuries. It should also be noted that though mail declined in popularity and effectiveness during the period, it was in use to some extent as long as armor in general was around.
One of the earliest elements of armor to use plate protection was the helmet. However, the development of plate defense for the head does not follow the transitional timeline we see with protection for the rest of the body. The evolution of the helmet is therefore discussed at the end of this paper, separate from the general discussion.
Dominance of Mail and Early Plate (before 1250)
The Paladins of Charlemagne's court (c. 750) wore on their bodies either mail hauberks, scale shirts, or, more unusually, coats of lamellar armor (Edge and Paddock 1998, 9). While this time period is rather early for the scope of this project, it does not even approach the date of the origin of mail.
The shirt of mail, formed of interlinked metal rings, first appears in Celtic graves, and the Roman author Varro attributed its invention to the Celts. It was first used in the Classical World in the third century BCE and became widely disseminated. The mail hauberk of Charlemagne's day was normally knee-length or a little shorter, and was pulled on over the head. It had a plain round neck opening with a front slit, and invariably had short sleeves. At the center front and back it was split from hem to groin level to enable the wearer to ride (Edge and Paddock 1998, 9).
The earliest surviving hauberk dates from the 12th century and is preserved in the Prague Cathedral as supposedly being that of Saint Wenceslaus. The early hauberks were made of riveted mail, probably weighing over 30 pounds. The sleeves, by the 11th century, extended midway down the forearm. Most depictions of the hauberk from the same time have a rectangle covering the upper chest, outlined with broad bands, suggesting that the vulnerable neck opening was protected by a lined reinforce of mail (Edge and Paddock 1998, 19).
Early Anglo-Saxon manuscript sources imply that the hauberk was rare and highly prized. Only leaders or important warriors possessed one, but they grew to become an integral part of the early knight's equipment and an indication of his profession, status, and rank (Edge and Paddock 1998, 21).
Manuscripts also describe different types of mail, such as double and triple mail. Hauberks made of two or three layers of mail would have been exceptionally heavy to wear, so it is more likely that double and triple mail refer to the closeness of the mesh. Banded mail in contemporary illustrations, especially from the 12th and 13th centuries, may represent alternating rows of riveted rings and rings made by punching complete closed circles of metal from a thin sheet of iron, adding strength, since there is no weak point on unriveted rings. In Europe from the 14th century onwards, it is extremely rare to find any exception to wholly riveted mail (Edge and Paddock 1998, 21).
The body armor of the 11th century also continued relatively unchanged into the 12th, still consisting primarily of the mail, or, occasionally, scale hauberk with an integrated coif (Edge and Paddock 1998, 45).
By the middle of the 12th century mail chausses on the legs were far more common than they had been a century before, and there are many more extant contemporary illustrations of them in use. For the most part, the type which laced up at the back of the calf was still more popular than the full mail stocking gartered at the knee (Edge and Paddock 1998, 45).
The foot was more commonly protected in the 12th century, and the arms also; in the last few decades of the century the sleeves of the hauberk became longer, ending in mitten-shaped gloves called mufflers, which were slit at the wrist to permit the hands to be withdrawn at will (Edge and Paddock 1998, 45).
Overall, the equipment of the knight varied little throughout Europe during the 13th century. The main body defense remained the mail hauberk. This reached to mid-thigh and had an integrated coif which had an aventail or flap of mail which could be drawn across the mouth and closed with a strap. This is clearly shown on the wooden effigy attributed to Robert of Normandy in Gloucester Cathedral, England. By mid-century the mufflers attached to the end of the sleeves often had separate fingers (Edge and Paddock 1998, 53-56).
Mail is not a rigid defense and, although it will stop a cut, the force of a blow is transferred directly through it, causing blunt trauma. Furthermore, it gives inadequate protection against a thrust with a sharply pointed weapon or from arrows or crossbow bolts, all of which can burst the links apart. These problems were dealt with in two ways: partially by wearing rigid defenses over the mail, such as the coat of plates and the reinforced surcoat, and partially by the adoption of quilted and padded undergarments. The latter were separate defenses which could be worn in addition to the hauberk, or instead of it (Edge and Paddock 1998, 57).
The quilted defenses were referred to as aketons or gambesons. Evidence suggests that aketon refers to garments worn under the mail while gambesons were worn over or instead of it. These were both usually made of two or more layers of linen stuffed with tow, rags, or other material. When worn under the armor the aketon had long sleeves and reached to the knee. The gambeson is often referred to in contemporary accounts as being worn by the common soldiers and, indeed, is part of the equipment required by the Assize of Arms of 1185 of Edward I of England (Edge and Paddock 1998, 57).
The earliest medieval reference to plate armor below the neck appears to be the account given by Giraldus Cambrensis of the Danish attack on Dublin in 1171. In this the Danes are wearing laminis ferreis arte consutis, or iron plates skillfully sewn together (Blair 1958, 37). It is likely that this is not actually referring to the coat of plates construction, and is simply a description of lamellar or scale armor. Either way, it represents a precursor to development of plate armor.
Very early evidence of the use of a plate defense constructed from a single piece of metal is found in Guillaume le Breton's account of the fight between Richard, Count of Poitou (later King Richard I of England) and William de Barres. In the fight, the combatants are described as wearing a plate of worked iron beneath the hauberk and aketon. The fact that Guillaume died c. 1225 gives us concrete evidence of the use of plate armor no later than the early 13th century (Blair 1958, 38). The extent to which it was used so early on is not known, but lack of evidence suggests it was relatively rare.
Although the knight does continue to wear mostly mail, continuous development of plate really begins around 1250.
The Increasing Integration of Plate (c. 1250 - 1300)
From the end of the 12th century, there are references to a rigid defense known as a cuirie or cuirass (Edge and Paddock 1998, 56). The term cuirie first appears in texts of the third quarter of the 12th century, and occurs frequently until the middle of the 14th. It is almost certainly synonymous with cuirass, a term first recorded in an inventory of the effects of Eudes, Comte de Nevers, drawn up after his death in 1266. The cuirass was a defense for the torso, worn between the surcoat and hauberk. It was often made of leather, and was rigid enough for the guard-chains for the helm and sword to be attached to it, suggesting it was made from cuir-bouilli (a hardened form of leather, derived from the French term cuir, meaning leather). It was sometimes reinforced with metal plates, sometimes lined with fabric, and sometimes had arm-defenses of leather or possibly quilted cloth. The cuirie, or cuirass, is shown on two English monuments, one from the Temple Church in London and the other from Pershore Abbey, Worcestershire, both of which date to the 1260s. By the 15th century, cuirass referred to the metal breast- and backplates taken as a single unit (Blair 1958, 38, Edge and Paddock 1998, 57).
The first reliable indication of emerging usage of plate is an increasing appearance in contemporary illustrations of reinforcing plates (poleyns) laced or strapped to the knees of the chausses, or, more frequently, the gamboised cuisses. They start off rather small, but after c. 1270 they become large and hemispherical, completely covering the front and sides of the knees (Blair 1958, 39). Not until the end of the 13th century, and then only very rarely, was any defense worn for the lower leg other than the mail chausse (Edge and Paddock 1998, 61). In the last quarter of the century gutter-shaped shin guards of steel known as schynbalds appeared. These were shortand protected only the front of the leg and were simply strapped on over the chausses, according to Edge and Paddock (61), but Blair suggests that they were probably worn under the chausses, due to his observation that the schynbalds are rarely illustrated before the second decade of the 14th century (39). There are references to schynbalds in a list of armor supplied to Edward I's sons, Edward Prince of Wales and John Duke of Lancaster, for the campaigns in Scotland in 1299. The defenses for the leg likely developed before those for the arm because when the knight was mounted the legs were particularly vulnerable to infantrymen (Edge and Paddock 1998, 60).
Disc-shaped plates, called couters, attached to the elbows of the hauberk, are found asearly as c. 1260 on the effigy of William Longespáe the Younger, although Blair is unable to trace any other examples earlier than the first decade of the 14th century (Blair 1958, 39).
Around 1290 numerous references to gauntlets constructed of baleen (often referred to as whalebone, although it is not bone at all) first appear, probably consisting of leather faced with plaques of baleen. Steel-plated gauntlets, probably made the same way, are first mentioned in 1296, but the vast majority of knights continued to use mufflers of mail (Edge and Paddock 1998, 59).
Development of plate defenses for the limbs was surely accompanied by a corresponding development of armor for the torso. Unfortunately, for quite a long period, these body defenses were obscured in illustrations, engravings, etc. by the surcoat.
The surcoat was sometimes reinforced with rows of fairly long, rectangular plates, set vertically and riveted to the inside of the fabric. These can be clearly seen on the sleeping guard from part of a sculpture of the resurrection of Christ from Wienhausen, now in the Provinzial Museum, Hanover. Only one known 13th-century illustration of this arrangement exists, in the third quarter of the century, but examples dating from the first three decades of the 14th century are found in Italy and Scandinavia (Blair 1958, 39; Edge and Paddock 1998, 57).
Another body defense appeared mid-13th century. It was shaped like a cross with an opening near the junction where a mail coif was permanently attached. The long side covered the back, while the other three protected the front and wrapped around the sides, buckling in the rear. These sides were lined with oblong plates which were riveted onto the garment at their ends. Plates from this type of garment were excavated at the Castle of Montfort in the Holy Land, and must date to before 1271, when the castle fell to the Saracens (Edge and Paddock 57). Garments of this type, cloth or leather lined with metal plates, were the most widely used type of body defense throughout the 14th century. It is now usually referred to as a coat of plates, but was known then as a pair of plates, hauberk of plates, cote à plates, or simply plates.
Overshadowing Mail (1300-1350)
The most important source of information about this type of armor comes from the mass graves at Wisby. The Battle of Wisby was fought in 1361 between the Gotlanders and the Danes, and after the battle the dead were buried in graves along with some of their equipment (Edge and Paddock 1998, 73). Excavations of the graves at Wisby began in 1905 under the supervision of Doctor Oscar Vilhelm Wennerstein, the then curator of the Gotlandic Archives. A total of five excavations examining the mass graves were performed between 1905 and 1930, some producing almost no evidence of armor at the time, and some proving very fruitful, uncovering mail coifs, gauntlets, arrowheads, iron lames and buckles, large portions of mail shirts, and especially armor plates, including a number of coats of plates that were discovered almost fully intact (Thordeman 1939, 51-62). There are also plenty of examples of the coat of plates before Wisby, though. After his death at the Battle of Courtrai in 1302, the inventory of the goods of Raoul de Nesle listed his arms as consisting of gambesons, mail hauberks, basinets, kettle hats, padded cuisses and both half and full greaves, and pairs of plates (Edge and Paddock 1998, 73). From the last decade of the thirteenth century, references to the coat of plates become more and more common until after c. 1320 there is hardly an inventory, account, or will in which armor is mentioned that does not include an example (Blair 1958, 40). It was usually worn between the surcoat and hauberk, and therefore can rarely be identified in illustrations until the third decade of the 14th century, when the front of the surcoat was shortened. The pair of plates is also clearly seen on the brasses of Sir John III d'Abernon, about 1340-5, and Sir Hugh Hastings, c. 1347 (Richardson 41). Usually, the plates were riveted to the inside of the garment, but there are also examples of them riveted to the outside, as in the Romance of Alexander, an illuminated manuscript of c. 1340 preserved in the Bodleian Library (Edge and Paddock 1998, 73).
Throughout the 14th century leg harnesses showed a gradual development with a great deal of variation. At the beginning of the century many knights wore simply mail chausses with little or no addition defense, those that were worn simply being gamboissed cuisses and cup-like steel poleyns, and occasionally schynbalds or shin guards of plate (Edge and Paddock 1998, 81).
Mail chausses continue to be shown commonly until 1350 and occasionally, in Spain and Germany, to the end of the century. However, after 1310 schynbalds are rare, being replaced by full and demi greaves. There were referred to in the Nesle inventory of 1302. By 1330 greaves constructed of two pieces hinged and strapped together were quite common (Edge and Paddock 1998, 81).
Plate defenses for the feet (sabatons) were apparently introduced in the second decade of the 14th century, although they are rarely illustrated before c. 1320. They occur, for example, on the de Cabrera effigy of c. 1314, where they are shown as pointed shoes studded with rosette-headed rivets, presumably indicating a coat-of-plates construction (Blair 1958, 43).
The most popular form of sabaton consisted of a series of overlapping, horizontal lames, shaped to the pointed shoe of the period and covering the top of the foot. One of the earliest illustrations of this form occurs on the brass of Sir William Fitzralph at Pebmarsh, Essex (c. 1323), but after this it is shown frequently, except in Germany, where plate sabatons are rare until after c. 1340. The plates were presumably riveted to a leather lining and secured to the shoe by laces knotted through pairs of holes on top or by straps passing under the foot (Blair 1958, 43-44).
Development of plate defenses for the arms lagged slightly behind the leg defenses but otherwise followed very similar lines. Couters of the type shown in the Longespée effigy begin appearing more and more in contemporary art from c. 1300 on. Some late 13th- and early 14th-century texts mention bracers of leather, but Blair can find no illustration that depicts them (Blair 1958, 45).
Towards the end of the 13th century plate defenses for the hands started to evolve. The mail mufflers worn throughout the century all but disappeared by 1330. The new types of gauntlet were originally either deep-cuffed cloth gloves plated with baleen (Froissart mentioned these as being part of the equipment of the men of Bruges at the battle of Roosebeke in 1382), or cloth or leather gloves lined with plates, constructed in a similar manner to the coat of plates. A number of this type were excavated from Wisby (Edge and Paddock 1998, 81).
From the mid-1300s, the gauntlets most commonly associated with the 14th century appeared. These were of hourglass form and consisted of a large plate shaped for the back and sides of the hand, constricted at the wrist and flared to form a short cuff. This plate was embossed for the shape of the knuckles and the base of the thumb, and the gauntlet was completed by small, overlapping plates to protect the fingers and thumbs. This whole gauntlet was stitched to an internal glove either of leather or cloth. Sometimes the plates themselves were covered in cloth, as is a gauntlet from Brick Hill Lane, London, now in the Royal Armouries. The finger defenses were sometimes accompanied by gadlings or spikes attached to the knuckles, which could be used in the manner of knuckle-dusters (Edge and Paddock 1998, 81).
The earliest illustration of full plate arm defenses goes back to the effigy of Don Alveró de Cabrera. Here, the tight-fitting sleeves of the surcoat are studded with rivets in a manner similar to that on the bevor, the chest, and the sabatons, indicating they were probably lined with plates. The earliest true vambrace, the term for the complete arm defense excepting the shoulder, appears in illustrations during the 2nd decade of the 14th century, and consists of two gutter-shaped plates, completely encircling the arm, and a cup-like couter strapped over the sleeve of the hauberk. Each vambrace was often accompanied by two disc-shaped plates, called besagews; one was secured by laces to the outside of the elbow to protect the elbow joint, and the other to the front of the shoulder to defend the armpit. This form is found as late as 1347, but is rare after c. 1335 (Blair 1958, 45).
Italian arm harnesses, as represented by the armor preserved at Churburg, consisted of a short gutter-shaped upper cannon riveted to laminated couters and lower cannons of tulip form, that is, narrowing to the wrist and flaring at the cuff. Quite often, these seem to have been worn without spaudlers or indeed any defense for the shoulder other than the mail sleeve of the hauberk (Edge and Paddock 1998, 80).
By c. 1325 the lower cannon of the arm defenses started to be constructed of two plates to completely encircle the arm. On the continent knights were quite often depicted wearing mail inside the upper defenses but outside the lower. In Germany, separate tubular or gutter-shaped defenses for the upper and lower arm, worn with or without separate couters, were all attached individually by points or straps to the undergaments (Edge and Paddock 1998, 80).
At about the same time in England, gutter-shaped upper and lower cannons made an appearance. These were joined to a couter with a small disc-like wing by small laminations, with a separate laminated spaudler for the point of the shoulder. By the 1340s these spaudlers were permanently attached to the upper cannon. This upper cannon was hinged down one side and strapped across the other (Edge and Paddock 1998, 80).
During the last years of the 13th century, references to all types of plate armor became increasingly common, though it was not always made of metal. Armorers experimented with a variety of materials, most notably baleen, horn, and cuir-bouilli, in addition to iron, steel, and latten (a form of brass), although this was probably used more decoratively than structurally. After c. 1330 illustrations of knights armored entirely or almost entirely in mail are rare (Blair 41).
The Dominance of Plate (c. 1350 - 1400)
Some forms of the pairs of plates found at Wisby were constructed so as to form separate breast- and backplates which joined at the shoulder and laced or buckled down one side. By the 1350s effigies start to show the evolution of a single large plate covering the upper chest, accompanied by smaller plates to cover the shoulders. By the 1360s or so the plate had increased in size and covered the chest as far as the diaphragm. The skirts of the armor were depicted on funereal sculptures as vertical rows of rivets in a cloth cover, which represented the fastenings for horizontal hoops of iron or steel. By the 1370s the waist lames had disappeared; the breastplate itself extended down to the top of the hips where it ended in a skirt, or fauld, of horizontal lames.
Although literary evidence for an independent breastplate, without any form of backplate, dates as early as the 1340s, the first known depiction dates only from the 1370s, and shows the breastplate being worn over the coat of plates. In Italy and Germany it was sometimes worn independently with a short fauld, being held on by cross-straps at the back, as shown in the silver altar piece from Pistoia Cathedral (c. 1376). Not until the last two decades of the century can it be considered common wear (Edge and Paddock 1998, 74-75).
During the later part of the 14th century, a body defense known as a brigandine was developed. This was a piece of body armor which seems to have been similar to scale armor in construction, using small overlapping plates that slid over each other as the body moved to give greater flexibility. These plates were riveted to a canvas garment that was usually covered in some finer material. One of the earliest mentions of this sort of defense comes from the letters of Francesco di Marco di Datini, a merchant of Prato in Italy, dated 1368. The earliest English reference to a brigandine is in the inventory of Thomas Duke of Gloucester, son of Edward III, dated 1397 (Edge and Paddock 1998, 76).
For the duration of the 14th century, the knight continued to wear his hauberk under his armor, but after about 1350 it only reached to just below hip level and was often bordered by brass rings meshed like mail and shaped into a zig-zag fringe. Beneath this he wore his aketon, which, by the mid-14th century, had become shortened to the same length as the hauberk and was strongly waisted in form (Edge and Paddock 1998, 79).
The usual English term for the defense for the lower leg during the mid 14th century was jamber, but the French term greave occurs occasionally from c. 1370 onwards and, after c. 1400, completely supplants the English. The normal construction of the greave, which remained in use until the 17th century, was for each greave to be made of a front and a rearplate hinged together down one side - usually the outside - and fastened with straps and buckles on the other. Such greaves became common after c. 1330 (Blair 1958, 42-43).
By the 1370s plate cuisses consisting of a single plate were common and had embossed lower edges to fit over the wearer's knees. These were articulated to the poleyns by rivets. Also at this time, the poleyns developed a heart-shaped side wing to protect the tendons at the back of the knee (Edge and Paddock 1998, 82-83).
By the last quarter of the 14th century, the upper leg defenses consisted of a singleplate protecting the front of the thigh with a hinged side plate for the outside of the leg. At the bottom of the main plate a small articulating lame was riveted to allow the poleyn to pivot. The poleyn had a lower lame which was either strapped over or was attached to the greave (Edge and Paddock 1998, 83).
Armor was expensive and only the very rich could afford to keep up with changes in style. Almost to the end of the 14th century many knights made do with armor composed mainly of mail, supplemented by a few pieces of plate (Edge and Paddock 1998, 93).
By the time of the brass of Ralph de Knyveton from Aveley, Essex, c. 1370, the form of the coat of plates is clearly visible, the plate arm defenses are fully articulated, and the greaves are worn with fully articulated sabatons. With the evolution of cuisses of plate by the end of the century, the development of the plate harness was essentially complete (Richardson 1997, 41).
The 'Disappearance' of Mail (after c. 1400)
Until the 1420s, the main shoulder defense was generally mail, but by the end of the second decade of the century laminated pauldrons appear for the left arm, with a smaller one being worn on the right arm. Large pauldrons remained in use throughout the 15th century, but became more rounded after 1440 and spread out across the wearer s back to overlap. The upper edges of the pauldrons were flanged to form haut pieces to protect the neck (Edge and Paddock 107).
From about 1420 the German knight would have worn simple laminated spaudlers, consisting of a domedplate for the point of the shoulder, supporting a number of laminations down the arm. Below these were worn simple gutter-shaped upper and lower cannons joined by leather straps, and a moderately sized shell-shaped couter which was laced to the arming doublet. These were accompanied by a besagew to protect the gap between arm harness and breastplate and remained in common use until the second half of the next century. From about 1450 it was common for the spaudler to be riveted to the upper cannon (Edge and Paddock 1998, 101).
Evolution of the Helmet
The helmets depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry already show elements of plate construction. They are similar to the late Roman spangenhelms, which were built around a framework of bronze or iron strips, with the infills being made from beaten panels of iron riveted onto the main frame (Edge and Paddock 1998, 17-18).
Helmets forged entirely in one piece can be traced back to the 10th century. There is one preserved in the Cathedral Treasury in Prague which is said to have belonged to Saint Wenceslaus of Bohemia, who died in 935. The iron skull is forged in one piece, with an iron nasal and bottom reinforcing rim riveted in place. Another similar helmet is in the Vienna Waffensammlung - it is forged entirely in one piece including the nasal guard (Edgeand Paddock 1998, 18).
Conical helmets of the Norman type seem to have proved an effective defense against the sword, axe, and mace, since they continued to be used by the knight in various parts of Europe until the 1250s. They were, however, increasingly replaced by a domed version, the most popular form of which is known as the cervelière, or basinet. This was a small hemispherical skull cap which was often worn beneath the mail coif, though it was also increasingly worn under the great helm or simply on its own over the coif (Edge and Paddock18, 55). Originally, the cerveli re and the basinet were synonymous. By the 1330s, though, the cervelière was totally displaced by the true basinet (Edge and Paddock 1998, 71).
At first, there were three basic types of the basinet. One was deep and conical with an arched face opening, extending down to the base of the neck and often including a visor. Another was small and globular, only reaching to just below the ears. The third was of a tall conical form, just reaching to the tops of the ears. These types appear regularly until the 1350s. After that, the basic form was of medium height with a conical skull extending in the back and on the sides to cover the cheeks and the nape of the neck. By the end of the century it was extended to the base of the neck and the cheekbones, and the apex of the skull was slowly moved backwards to give an almost vertical rear face (Edge and Paddock 1998, 71).
The aventail was a fan-shaped curtain of mail extending from the base of the basinet to the point of the shoulder, protecting the neck and throat but leaving the face exposed. It was at first riveted directly to the basinet, but later was attached by staples called vervelles which passed through a leather band at the top edge of the mail; a cord was then threaded through the staples above the leather. This had the advantage that the aventail could be removed for repair and cleaning. At the very end of the 14th century, the mail aventail was replaced by a plate defense to produce what is known as the Great Basinet. There is a good example of this type in the Doges' Palace, Venice. The whole helmet, except the visor, is raised from a single piece of steel. (Edge and Paddock 1998, 72-73).
Throughout Europe in about 1380 the visor that was sometimes found on the basinet began to develop a pronounced projecting conical snout with flanged sights and mouth slit, pierced with numerous small breaths. This type of visor was accompanied by another innovation in design in the form of a new type of pivot which allowed the visor to be removed when not required. This worked by incorporating hinges into the arms of the visor in front of the pivots. The hinges were equipped with removable pins, often with their own small guard chains to prevent loss (Edge and Paddock 1998, 72-73).
From the beginning of the 13th century the flat-topped helmet current at the end ofthe twelfth century was fitted with a face guard which contained two slits for the eyes, called sights, and was pierced by holes for ventilation, called breaths. These are clearly shown on the Shrine of Charlemagne in Aachen Cathedral, made between 1200 and 1207 (Edge and Paddock 1998, 53).
By the 1220s, this helm had evolved a narrow, fixed neck-guard which extended round to join the face guard to form a flat-topped, cylindrical helmet known as the great helm, or heaume. Over the next twenty years, the front of the helm was extended downwards to protect the wearer's neck. The best example of this type of helmet was excavated in the Schlossberg bei Dargen in Pomerania, and is now in the Museum für Deutsche Geschichte, Berlin (Edge and Paddock 1998, 53).
This form of helm remained unchanged until the 1260s, after which its crown was given a taper, presumably as a result of the inability of the flat-topped helm to deflect a sword cut. In the last quarter of the century the crown was given an even more pronounced taper, as is clearly shown on the brass of Sir Roger de Trumpington in Trumpington Church, Cambridgeshire (Edge and Paddock 1998, 53). The sides and front were also extended to almost rest on the shoulders and chest of the wearer. This provided a glancing surface off which the blades of weapons would slide (Edge and Paddock 1998, 69).
The great helm was worn with a padded arming cap, worn either over or under a mail coif. Two forms are known. The more usual one is simply a heavily quilted version of the civilian coif; rather less common is the variety depicted on the front of the Wells Cathedral, c. 1230, which is an arming cap with an additional roll of padding set at about the brow of the wearer. This roll would ease the weight of the helmet off the top of the head and help to spread it more evenly on the skull (Edge and Paddock 1998, 55).
Throughout the 14th century, the great helm continued to be worn by the knight over a basinet, and varied little in its general form. However, after about 1350 its use tended to be restricted to the tournament, although it is sometimes illustrated in manuscripts being worn in battle as late as the early 15th century.
The end of the 12th century saw the introduction of a completely new type of helmet known as the chapel de fer or kettle hat. It is known as a kettle hat because of its close resemblance to a medieval cauldron or kettle. The lasting form of the helmet consisted of a round bowl with a wide brim, sometimes of one piece, but often assembled from a number of plates riveted together. The skull was formed by a cross of steel, with the spaces filled by plates. This was used extensively by knights and was often worn with a basinet and mail coif underneath. However, worn alone or with a coif, it remained the common soldier s favoriteup until the mid-fifteenth century. It was popular because it offered protection from a downward cut, but gave all-round vision. It was also particularly useful in siegework, because the brim helped to deflect missiles from the face. (Edge and Paddock 1998).
interesting titbit about economics and technology advancements in middle ages
hehe, in this passage we see the link between arms and armours with economic and technologigal advancements in europe in middle ages.
The development of plate armor is intrinsically linked to the development of the use of iron in medieval Europe and the development of Europe as a modern industrial center. As Europe progressed through the middle ages, a series of advancements in mining, smelting, and economics advanced Europe's ability to manufacture increasingly sophisticated personal arms and armor. Without the societal changes and the refinements in iron- and steel-making, plate armor would never have become the widespread symbol of medieval Europe.
Metallurgical Advances in the Middle Ages
The most important metal in arms manufacture from the Romans to the twentieth century, iron is the centerpiece of any metallurgical study of European arms and armor development. Able to be converted to steel or mass produced from pig iron, wrought iron was the primary material used in personal arms and armor.
The first iron produced by mankind, wrought iron was produced by smelting iron ore in a charcoal oven, or bloomery, creating a "bloom" of iron and iron-rich slag. The bloom was then worked (wrought) with a hammer to remove slag and form the bloom into a usable shape. Wrought iron was popular for cheap armor throughout Europe and Asia.
To understand the relationships between iron and steel one must examine the chemistry that separates them. While wrought iron is almost pure iron, steel has had a small amount of carbon, a few tenths of a percent of the total by mass, diffuse into the iron. This creates a mixture that has significantly better hardness than wrought iron yet retains the malleability to be shaped and to take a blow without shattering. If the carbon content goes higher, to several percent, pig or cast iron is created. This metal has a low melting point allowing it to be easily cast in molds, but is useless for arms and armor as it is far too brittle to sustain blows.
Steel has been used for centuries for the finest arms and armors. Iron can be converted into two types of steel: carburized and homogenous mild steel (a hard yet still malleable steel). These were made by packing the iron in a carbon-rich environment and heating for long periods of time, allowing the carbon to diffuse into the iron, creating steel. Carburized steel had just a layer of steel over iron while homogenous steel was a carburized steel element that was folded and reforged onto itself to distribute the carbon throughout the element.
Both carburized and homogenous steel could be further hardened by quenching, that is, suddenly cooling a piece from over 900 degrees Celsius. This creates a mixture of carbon in iron which is very hard yet brittle. Careful reheating and quenching can result in tempered steel which reduces the brittleness without excessive loss of hardness. (Williams 1978, 2-4) Both quenching and tempering were known to Theophilus in the 12th century.
The most important advance in metallurgy in the Middle Ages is the blast furnace, developed over the 14th and 15th centuries. While the blast furnace produces pig iron, a very brittle material worthless for arms and armor, wrought iron can be made from pig iron with remelting, removing some of the carbon to create an iron with only a few tenths of a percent carbon. The blast furnace allowed the production of "much more iron with much less labor, reducing cost and multiplying applications." (Gies and Gies 1994, 202) The advantage to creating pig iron is the economy of scale. Whereas a bloomery could smelt 60-70 kilograms of iron in a single operation, a blast furnace can smelt hundreds of kilograms at a time and operate continuously with power from a waterwheel. (Singer 1954, 71) While this was a boon to the producers of munition armor, where the material cost would be up to half the selling cost, in high-end armor commissioned by the wealthy, the material cost would be a nearly insignificant portion of the total cost. (Williams 1991, 79)
The major disadvantage of using pig iron in creating armor was the slag included in the final product. This can reduce the hardness and thus the protective capabilities of the armor by a significant amount. Bloomery iron could create a steel with fewer slag inclusions and therefore with superior defensive properties. The low volume of iron produced at a bloomery would raise the price to make it too expensive for the munitions armorer to use without prohibitively raising his prices. (Williams 1991, 79)
Medieval Economic and Technological Development of Europe
During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries Europe completed its transition to a mercantile-based economy and brought about the fulfillment of the Commercial Revolution. Significant achievements included the increasing urbanization of the continent and better economic systems to allow expanded trade. To fully appreciate these changes, one must look back to the beginnings of the second millennium CE.
After the First Crusade (c.1095), Europe began to develop from a barely civilized, developing region to a full economic power with bases in manufacturing and trade. Contact with the more advanced Muslim civilization increased with the victories in the Middle East and Spain, with the capture of Toledo, the new Muslim center of learning, coming in 1105. Europe began to export textiles and metal goods including arms and armor to Africa and the Near East instead of its formerly dominant fur and slave exports. (Gies and Gies 1994, 107) Cities changed into centers of commerce from their previous role as military and administrative headquarters.
Guilds, first of merchants (c.950) and later of craftsmen (c.1100), began to form from "associations of fellow drinkers" and became very powerful political organizations. (Gies and Gies 1994, 121-4) The mining industry reacted to the increase in demand by opening new mines, uncommon since the fall of the Roman Empire. The need to keep mines dry was a major source of innovation as deeper shafts were excavated and water tables breached. (Gies and Gies 1994, 168) Perhaps most important socially is a proliferation of blacksmiths throughout medieval Europe during the middle of the 12th century. By the end of the century, nearly every village had its own blacksmith as compared to almost none that were not working for the upper class in the first half of the century. (Gies and Gies 1994, 126)
Technological developments included the widespread use of water wheels and a revival of bridgemaking techniques. This allowed the harnessing of the power of the rivers of Europe as bridges were built with mills and blast furnaces in the constricted flow between their piers. Water power was used to pump bellows for the blast furnaces and smithies of the time while powering trip hammers that beat the slag out of the product. Crafts became specialized by town or region and guilds flourished, growing to dominate the cities.
The thirteenth century found Europe turning towards the sea as the Arabs and Mongols became increasingly hostile and land trade routes to the Orient had closed. Growth of trade brought about a demand for coin metal, leading to the opening of precious metal mines throughout Europe and stimulating underground mining development. Possibly the most important economic development was that of credit institutions that got around the Church's usury laws, allowing for the development of capitalist ventures and permanent corporations including the armory houses of Italy and Germany.
In short, Europe was moving from the feudal economy of the previous millennium to a modern commercial society. With the growth of commerce and the creation of wealth that accompanies it, the continent began to demand more resources, prompting technological achievement and increased productivity.
The Armorer's Craft
The basics of armor making are simple: take plates of metal and cut, hammer, and weld them into the appropriate shape. This process becomes incredibly complex as the armor must satisfy the often conflicting requirements of protection, mobility, and fashion. The skill of the medieval metal worker was considerable, and by the sixteenth century even surpassed the skill of modern recreationists and craftsmen. (ffoulkes 1912, 51)
From prehistoric times, the basic tools of the metalworker have not changed, being hammer, anvil, and tongs. Variations of these implements and their degree of craftsmanship and mechanization are the major differences between any two time periods. Listing inventories from a variety of sources in England and France, ffoulkes shows the armorer to have a large selection of specialized tools to work with.
The armorer would mark a pattern for the piece to be worked in a sheet of metal, then cut it out with shears. Careful filing, polishing, and hot and cold hammerwork by the armorer produced the piece. Hammers were kept polished so as to present the smoothest face while working a piece. From inventories of armorers, it is known that the armorer generally did not produce the iron sheet on his own but rather purchased it wholesale from specialty dealers. (Price 2000, 354) The sheets would be formed by platers working by hand or later with the assistance of water power and trip hammers.
The platers obtained their material directly from the bloomery hearth or the blast furnace and applied their technique to make a more useable product. Before the advent of water power, it seems that the end product was still difficult to work with, as ffoulkes quotes: "They could make but one little lump or bloom of Iron in a day, not 100 weight and that not fusible, nor fined, or malliable, until it were long burned and wrought under hammers." (Dud Dudley Metallum Martis 1665, 37, quoted in ffoulkes 1912, 43)
Armorers were derived from the more generalized blacksmiths, but unlike swordsmiths, did not began to see specialization and concentration into armor production centers until the 12th century. By the 13th century Northern Italy and Germany were the two centers of arms and armor production for Europe, dominating the production of armor. (Price 2000, 5) The Italians led the export industry until about 1500 and had an important trade in arms and armor from at least the 13th century. (Pfaffenbichler 1992, 6) While other countries attempted to develop adomestic arms industry, they had very little success. There are multiple instances of kings bringing armorers from Germany or Italy to found colonies and establish a local trade, but other than in England, this practice never seems to have been successful for more than a few generations. Even with the encouragement of the crown, English armor never received the same renown as Italian and German armor.
A major reason for the guilds remaining concentrated and colonies of armorers refusing to expand into a flourishing local industry is the secrecy surrounding the craft. Not trusting foreigners to keep the guild's secrets, they were simply never shared. While most locales had the capacity to make low-grade munition armor, the techniques of tempering the steel were closely kept by the guilds, thus creating a monopoly. The development of guilds also brought about a greater knowledge base of the craft, allowing an armorer to develop more advanced techniques rather than rediscover those already known. The concentration of craftsmen in guilds precedes the emergence of plate armor, beginning in the twelfth century, and looks to be a major factor in its development.
Italian armorers guilds organized production from the individual armorers who specialized in certain components and provided them prefabricated to others who would assemble and ship the final product. Each armorer had to prove his skill and undergo training as an apprentice in a guild regulated manner, ensuring the quality of the product. The guilds also provided political influence for the armorers as they grew to economically dominate several cities in northern Italy, Milan and Brescia being two of the major ones. The Italians dominated the arms and armor trade throughout the middle ages until the late fifteenth century when Germany ascended to the forefront of armor production. (Karcheski 1995, 61-2)
The German centers of production were Augsburg, Cologne, Landshut, Nuremberg, and later Innsbruck. Nuremberg is an interesting example as the city provided the quality assurance checks and organization that the guild would normally provide, due to guilds being banned after a craftsmen's revolt. This shows the importance of maintaining quality product and the city's reputation. (Karcheski 1995, 62-6)
The completed armor would be subjected to a blow from the most powerful weapon of the day, the mark being the "proof" that the armor would protect the wearer from harm. This was done with close range shots from projectile weapons or, more rarely, from actual sword blows. Once the armor was shown to be proof and passed all guild or town inspections, it would receive a mark of the producing guild, showing that it was of up to the guild's standards.
about economics and technology advancements in middle ageshehe, in this passage we see the link between arms and armours with economic and technologigal advancements in europe in middle ages.
The development of plate armor is intrinsically linked to the development of the use of iron in medieval Europe and the development of Europe as a modern industrial center. As Europe progressed through the middle ages, a series of advancements in mining, smelting, and economics advanced Europe's ability to manufacture increasingly sophisticated personal arms and armor. Without the societal changes and the refinements in iron- and steel-making, plate armor would never have become the widespread symbol of medieval Europe.
Metallurgical Advances in the Middle Ages
The most important metal in arms manufacture from the Romans to the twentieth century, iron is the centerpiece of any metallurgical study of European arms and armor development. Able to be converted to steel or mass produced from pig iron, wrought iron was the primary material used in personal arms and armor.
The first iron produced by mankind, wrought iron was produced by smelting iron ore in a charcoal oven, or bloomery, creating a "bloom" of iron and iron-rich slag. The bloom was then worked (wrought) with a hammer to remove slag and form the bloom into a usable shape. Wrought iron was popular for cheap armor throughout Europe and Asia.
To understand the relationships between iron and steel one must examine the chemistry that separates them. While wrought iron is almost pure iron, steel has had a small amount of carbon, a few tenths of a percent of the total by mass, diffuse into the iron. This creates a mixture that has significantly better hardness than wrought iron yet retains the malleability to be shaped and to take a blow without shattering. If the carbon content goes higher, to several percent, pig or cast iron is created. This metal has a low melting point allowing it to be easily cast in molds, but is useless for arms and armor as it is far too brittle to sustain blows.
Steel has been used for centuries for the finest arms and armors. Iron can be converted into two types of steel: carburized and homogenous mild steel (a hard yet still malleable steel). These were made by packing the iron in a carbon-rich environment and heating for long periods of time, allowing the carbon to diffuse into the iron, creating steel. Carburized steel had just a layer of steel over iron while homogenous steel was a carburized steel element that was folded and reforged onto itself to distribute the carbon throughout the element.
Both carburized and homogenous steel could be further hardened by quenching, that is, suddenly cooling a piece from over 900 degrees Celsius. This creates a mixture of carbon in iron which is very hard yet brittle. Careful reheating and quenching can result in tempered steel which reduces the brittleness without excessive loss of hardness. (Williams 1978, 2-4) Both quenching and tempering were known to Theophilus in the 12th century.
The most important advance in metallurgy in the Middle Ages is the blast furnace, developed over the 14th and 15th centuries. While the blast furnace produces pig iron, a very brittle material worthless for arms and armor, wrought iron can be made from pig iron with remelting, removing some of the carbon to create an iron with only a few tenths of a percent carbon. The blast furnace allowed the production of "much more iron with much less labor, reducing cost and multiplying applications." (Gies and Gies 1994, 202) The advantage to creating pig iron is the economy of scale. Whereas a bloomery could smelt 60-70 kilograms of iron in a single operation, a blast furnace can smelt hundreds of kilograms at a time and operate continuously with power from a waterwheel. (Singer 1954, 71) While this was a boon to the producers of munition armor, where the material cost would be up to half the selling cost, in high-end armor commissioned by the wealthy, the material cost would be a nearly insignificant portion of the total cost. (Williams 1991, 79)
The major disadvantage of using pig iron in creating armor was the slag included in the final product. This can reduce the hardness and thus the protective capabilities of the armor by a significant amount. Bloomery iron could create a steel with fewer slag inclusions and therefore with superior defensive properties. The low volume of iron produced at a bloomery would raise the price to make it too expensive for the munitions armorer to use without prohibitively raising his prices. (Williams 1991, 79)
Medieval Economic and Technological Development of Europe
During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries Europe completed its transition to a mercantile-based economy and brought about the fulfillment of the Commercial Revolution. Significant achievements included the increasing urbanization of the continent and better economic systems to allow expanded trade. To fully appreciate these changes, one must look back to the beginnings of the second millennium CE.
After the First Crusade (c.1095), Europe began to develop from a barely civilized, developing region to a full economic power with bases in manufacturing and trade. Contact with the more advanced Muslim civilization increased with the victories in the Middle East and Spain, with the capture of Toledo, the new Muslim center of learning, coming in 1105. Europe began to export textiles and metal goods including arms and armor to Africa and the Near East instead of its formerly dominant fur and slave exports. (Gies and Gies 1994, 107) Cities changed into centers of commerce from their previous role as military and administrative headquarters.
Guilds, first of merchants (c.950) and later of craftsmen (c.1100), began to form from "associations of fellow drinkers" and became very powerful political organizations. (Gies and Gies 1994, 121-4) The mining industry reacted to the increase in demand by opening new mines, uncommon since the fall of the Roman Empire. The need to keep mines dry was a major source of innovation as deeper shafts were excavated and water tables breached. (Gies and Gies 1994, 168) Perhaps most important socially is a proliferation of blacksmiths throughout medieval Europe during the middle of the 12th century. By the end of the century, nearly every village had its own blacksmith as compared to almost none that were not working for the upper class in the first half of the century. (Gies and Gies 1994, 126)
Technological developments included the widespread use of water wheels and a revival of bridgemaking techniques. This allowed the harnessing of the power of the rivers of Europe as bridges were built with mills and blast furnaces in the constricted flow between their piers. Water power was used to pump bellows for the blast furnaces and smithies of the time while powering trip hammers that beat the slag out of the product. Crafts became specialized by town or region and guilds flourished, growing to dominate the cities.
The thirteenth century found Europe turning towards the sea as the Arabs and Mongols became increasingly hostile and land trade routes to the Orient had closed. Growth of trade brought about a demand for coin metal, leading to the opening of precious metal mines throughout Europe and stimulating underground mining development. Possibly the most important economic development was that of credit institutions that got around the Church's usury laws, allowing for the development of capitalist ventures and permanent corporations including the armory houses of Italy and Germany.
In short, Europe was moving from the feudal economy of the previous millennium to a modern commercial society. With the growth of commerce and the creation of wealth that accompanies it, the continent began to demand more resources, prompting technological achievement and increased productivity.
The Armorer's Craft
The basics of armor making are simple: take plates of metal and cut, hammer, and weld them into the appropriate shape. This process becomes incredibly complex as the armor must satisfy the often conflicting requirements of protection, mobility, and fashion. The skill of the medieval metal worker was considerable, and by the sixteenth century even surpassed the skill of modern recreationists and craftsmen. (ffoulkes 1912, 51)
From prehistoric times, the basic tools of the metalworker have not changed, being hammer, anvil, and tongs. Variations of these implements and their degree of craftsmanship and mechanization are the major differences between any two time periods. Listing inventories from a variety of sources in England and France, ffoulkes shows the armorer to have a large selection of specialized tools to work with.
The armorer would mark a pattern for the piece to be worked in a sheet of metal, then cut it out with shears. Careful filing, polishing, and hot and cold hammerwork by the armorer produced the piece. Hammers were kept polished so as to present the smoothest face while working a piece. From inventories of armorers, it is known that the armorer generally did not produce the iron sheet on his own but rather purchased it wholesale from specialty dealers. (Price 2000, 354) The sheets would be formed by platers working by hand or later with the assistance of water power and trip hammers.
The platers obtained their material directly from the bloomery hearth or the blast furnace and applied their technique to make a more useable product. Before the advent of water power, it seems that the end product was still difficult to work with, as ffoulkes quotes: "They could make but one little lump or bloom of Iron in a day, not 100 weight and that not fusible, nor fined, or malliable, until it were long burned and wrought under hammers." (Dud Dudley Metallum Martis 1665, 37, quoted in ffoulkes 1912, 43)
Armorers were derived from the more generalized blacksmiths, but unlike swordsmiths, did not began to see specialization and concentration into armor production centers until the 12th century. By the 13th century Northern Italy and Germany were the two centers of arms and armor production for Europe, dominating the production of armor. (Price 2000, 5) The Italians led the export industry until about 1500 and had an important trade in arms and armor from at least the 13th century. (Pfaffenbichler 1992, 6) While other countries attempted to develop adomestic arms industry, they had very little success. There are multiple instances of kings bringing armorers from Germany or Italy to found colonies and establish a local trade, but other than in England, this practice never seems to have been successful for more than a few generations. Even with the encouragement of the crown, English armor never received the same renown as Italian and German armor.
A major reason for the guilds remaining concentrated and colonies of armorers refusing to expand into a flourishing local industry is the secrecy surrounding the craft. Not trusting foreigners to keep the guild's secrets, they were simply never shared. While most locales had the capacity to make low-grade munition armor, the techniques of tempering the steel were closely kept by the guilds, thus creating a monopoly. The development of guilds also brought about a greater knowledge base of the craft, allowing an armorer to develop more advanced techniques rather than rediscover those already known. The concentration of craftsmen in guilds precedes the emergence of plate armor, beginning in the twelfth century, and looks to be a major factor in its development.
Italian armorers guilds organized production from the individual armorers who specialized in certain components and provided them prefabricated to others who would assemble and ship the final product. Each armorer had to prove his skill and undergo training as an apprentice in a guild regulated manner, ensuring the quality of the product. The guilds also provided political influence for the armorers as they grew to economically dominate several cities in northern Italy, Milan and Brescia being two of the major ones. The Italians dominated the arms and armor trade throughout the middle ages until the late fifteenth century when Germany ascended to the forefront of armor production. (Karcheski 1995, 61-2)
The German centers of production were Augsburg, Cologne, Landshut, Nuremberg, and later Innsbruck. Nuremberg is an interesting example as the city provided the quality assurance checks and organization that the guild would normally provide, due to guilds being banned after a craftsmen's revolt. This shows the importance of maintaining quality product and the city's reputation. (Karcheski 1995, 62-6)
The completed armor would be subjected to a blow from the most powerful weapon of the day, the mark being the "proof" that the armor would protect the wearer from harm. This was done with close range shots from projectile weapons or, more rarely, from actual sword blows. Once the armor was shown to be proof and passed all guild or town inspections, it would receive a mark of the producing guild, showing that it was of up to the guild's standards.