# History of Medieval Armor



## armorjohn (Oct 4, 2007)

History Of Medieval Armor​
In the beginning there was no armor for protection against enemies.  There were only weapons.  Humans have fought over possessions or land ever since early humans began to grow crops or keep domestic animals. The earliest weapons were probably rocks, sticks, and animal bones and were used in one of two ways. Some were carried to strike a blow or to cut. Other weapons were made to be thrown or shot at the enemy from a distance.

Later, humans developed specially shaped weapons from stone and flint, and by about 5000 b.c., copper was being used. After this came bronze, then iron, and finally steel, which made the hardest armor and sharpest blades. Many other materials have also been used, such as leather, whalebone, and horn.

Soon, those who had to fight began to protect themselves by carrying shields. Sometimes they also wore body armor. Armor was designed to give the best possible protection against increasingly powerful weapons. The armor could not be too heavy or so difficult to wear that a sol*dier could not move properly. This con*stant struggle between attack and defense has continued right up to the present day with each manufacturer trying to produce better equipment than his or her rivals.

*The first armor was introduced by the Sumerians.*
The first soldiers to use bronze were the Sumerians of the ancient Middle East around 3000 b.c. The Sumerians carried spears and large rectangular shields. By about 1400 b.c., Egyptian soldiers, among others, were wearing armor of stiffened fabric and coats covered in small scales, which also protected their shoulders. The Assyrians, who rose to power in the Middle East in the late 10th century b.c., were ruthless soldiers. The Assyrian Empire fell around 612 b.c., by which time the Greek city-states were becoming powerful. Greek soldiers wore bronze helmets that covered almost the whole head, and they carried large, round bronze shields. .

*The Greeks and their armor.*
The Greeks used armor that was made of small bronze plates joined tightly by red laces. The armor on the shoulders and stomach had lacing on the outside and moved easily.
The Greeks sometimes used a muscled bronze greave, or lower leg armor. 

*The Chinese armor used bronze armor.*
The Chinese had discovered how to cast bronze by 1500 b.c. By 1300 b.c., they were using bronze body armor made of many small plates or one large piece. Around 500 b.c. iron weapons began to appear, but for a long time the metal was brittle and of poor quality.

The uniform of all imperial Qin soldiers seems to have been of similar colors.  This made soldiers instantly recognizable as members of a unit and helped boost comradeship within the ranks.

The crossbow shot a bolt, an arrow shorter than the one used by bowmen. The bronze heads of both arrows and bolts often had three or four sides, which pierced armor well.

*The Roman armor incorporated special helmets.*
In Italy the Romans developed armies that were finally able to defeat the Greeks and break up their phalanxes.  A phalanx may be defined as being a tight formation of foot soldiers usually carrying spears or pikes. After the 2nd century b.c., the Romans gradually conquered much of Europe with disciplined legions of men in armor. Each legion contained several thousand regular troops plus auxiliaries who were not Roman citizens. Legionnaires at first wore mail, made of small metal rings, or a metal plate on the chest. In the 1st century a.d., the lorica segmentata came into use. The large shield and tunic were colored to match the soldier's unit. 

The Roman armor also called lorica was made from iron strips held together by laces, straps, and buckles. These often wore out, so metal fastenings were introduced.

The iron helmet, tied under the chin, had cheek pieces to guard the face and a broad neck armor. Ear cutouts allowed the Roman soldier to hear.

Mail was armor made from interlinked iron rings (looked like mesh)
Because mail is not rigid, blows can break bones without actually cutting through the rings. More and more steel plates were therefore added, and by 1400, knights were covered from head to foot in plate armor. The pieces could be held together by leather strips attached underneath or by rivets. A rivet on one plate slid in a slot in another plate, or two plates pivoted on a single rivet. Battle armor, like this weighed about 1400, weighed about 44 pounds (20 kg). Because the weight was distributed evenly over the body, a man could sit, lie down, run, or mount his horse without help. Plate armor was
used until the 17th century.    

*The Age of Mail as armor and the Saxon warrior*
Armor was first introduced in England during the 1066 Battle of Hastings.  The mail armor was the forerunner of what the great knights of England later wore during battles and jousts.  By the 12th century a knight attacked with the lance tucked under his arm, using the momentum of the galloping horse to drive the pointed steel head into the target.  Mail was made from many small iron rings joined together, each closed with a tiny pin called a rivet. Sometimes every other row was made of welded rings.

A mail coat might weigh 20-27 pounds (9-13 kg) and had split skirts to make riding easier. A flap guarded the throat, and a padded tunic might be worn underneath to deaden blows.

The steel helmet was shaped to make blows slide off, while the nose guard protected the face from a slashing cut. The knights used this type of helmet until the 13th century.

The wooden kite shaped shield became popular with mounted knights. Unlike the older round shield, it guarded the left side of both horse and rider.

Mail continued to be worn by some of the wealthy warriors after the Roman Empire split in a.d. 395. By the 10th century, attacks by raiders, such as the Vikings, had begun. Armored horsemen called knights resisted them. The cost of mail, a sword, and a trained war-horse meant that only wealthy men could be knights. When Norman knights invaded England in 1066, most of them wore long mail coats. From the 12th century, mail often covered the whole body and included stockings of mail. It continued to be worn until the 14th century, by which time better-equipped knights were adding steel plates.  Less well-off soldiers continued to use mail until the 17th century.

*The Armor of the medieval knight*
Since mail was not rigid, more steel plates were therefore added and by 1400 knights were covered from head to foot in plate armor. This type of medieval armor is what we see in museums as being representative of the romance and bravery of England’s medieval knight.   

Because the weight was distributed evenly over the body, a knight could sit, lie down, run, or mount his horse without help.  Plate armor like the knights of the roundtable was used until the 17th Century.  

*Today’s Armor*
In today’s world, we have helmets and bullet-proof vests made of Kevlar.  It is light to wear and can stop shrapnel.  Ceramic plates are sometimes added to stop high-powered bullets.  One piece suits protect against gas or chemical attacks.  

A new range of armor is available for police forces.  Helmets and vests are similar to military types.  Some body armor can protect against knife thrusts and dangerous dogs.

medieval suit of armor and weapons from ArmorVenue.com


----------



## Fake Vencar (Oct 24, 2007)

All i can say is: wow 

Thanks for the information, i'll have to file it on word to keep. Hours of research all put togther. Thanks again.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Oct 25, 2007)

Thank you for that very accurate and comprehensive history of armour!


----------



## sarakoth (Oct 29, 2007)

armorjohn said:


> History Of Medieval Armor​
> 
> In the beginning there was no armor for protection against enemies. There were only weapons. Humans have fought over possessions or land ever since early humans began to grow crops or keep domestic animals. The earliest weapons were probably rocks, sticks, and animal bones and were used in one of two ways. Some were carried to strike a blow or to cut. Other weapons were made to be thrown or shot at the enemy from a distance.
> 
> ...


 
The Chinese developed advanced iron metallurgy in 500 BCE, which was not matched by Europeans until the 14th century.

Vikings began attacking the English Isles in the 8th century, before the developement of the Medieval kinght.

That was a lot of information. Why did you state somethings multiple times 

e.g.  Because the weight was distributed evenly over the body, a knight could sit, lie down, run, or mount his horse without help. Plate armor like the knights of the roundtable was used until the 17th Century.


----------



## chrispenycate (Oct 29, 2007)

*



			The Age of Mail as armor and the Saxon warrior
		
Click to expand...

*


> Armor was first introduced in England during the 1066 Battle of Hastings. The mail armor was the forerunner of what the great knights of England later wore during battles and jousts. By the 12th century a knight attacked with the lance tucked under his arm, using the momentum of the galloping horse to drive the pointed steel head into the target. Mail was made from many small iron rings joined together, each closed with a tiny pin called a rivet. Sometimes every other row was made of welded rings.
> 
> A mail coat might weigh 20-27 pounds (9-13 kg) and had split skirts to make riding easier. A flap guarded the throat, and a padded tunic might be worn underneath to deaden blows.
> 
> ...


Bit of a contradiction here; you say that "armour" generically was first introduced into england with Guillaume of Normandy.
But surely the romans didn't leave theirs off when they took the region over? All right, the place wasn't yet England, it was Britain or Albion. But the saxons weren't stupid, and didn't have the (somewhat strange) tradition of the Celts of fighting stark naked to demonstrate their lack of fear of the opponent (and probably their lack of other things by the end of the battle. If something gave them a military advantage they would adopt it, and illustrations clearly show saxons wearing at least partial armour before the norman invasion.
The epitomy of articulated plate armour seems to have been italian (although Italy was a geographical location rather than a political entity at the time, and it was reputed you could dance in it (I couldn't, but there again, I can't danse without it, so that's no surprise) Looking at the craftsmanship involved, and knowing that it was tailor-made for one occupant means that the stuff must have been incredibly expensive; you were seriously discouraged from putting on weight before retirement.
For full plate armour to be effective in real battles very solid horses were required, and a number of our present breeds of plough horses and cart horses were probably bred at this time - probably the increasing strength of the horse and the increasing weight of the armour developing in parallel. Armour has also been developed for horses and elephants.
I would be interested in the differences between chain mail and ring mail, and between scale mail and splint and scale, which I've read about but never seen in a museum.
And when did articulated metal gauntlets first appear, and where were they made?


----------



## sarakoth (Oct 31, 2007)

chrispenycate said:


> *
> Bit of a contradiction here; you say that "armour" generically was first introduced into england with Guillaume of Normandy.
> But surely the romans didn't leave theirs off when they took the region over? All right, the place wasn't yet England, it was Britain or Albion. But the saxons weren't stupid, and didn't have the (somewhat strange) tradition of the Celts of fighting stark naked to demonstrate their lack of fear of the opponent (and probably their lack of other things by the end of the battle. If something gave them a military advantage they would adopt it, and illustrations clearly show saxons wearing at least partial armour before the norman invasion.
> The epitomy of articulated plate armour seems to have been italian (although Italy was a geographical location rather than a political entity at the time, and it was reputed you could dance in it (I couldn't, but there again, I can't danse without it, so that's no surprise) Looking at the craftsmanship involved, and knowing that it was tailor-made for one occupant means that the stuff must have been incredibly expensive; you were seriously discouraged from putting on weight before retirement.
> ...


*

I believe metal gauntlets appeared around the same time period as full plate armor. Before then, warriors wore mail or leather gloves.*


----------



## Diomedes (Nov 14, 2007)

As Chrispenycate stated before large destriers would be needed in order to carry a fully-armored knight and his gear (the like of which not even the Clydsdale compares, as the War Horse breeds are all but extinct). Another statement you made was a knight could easily move, lie down, mount his destrier, etc. without aid. This is false in many cases, as most knights had either a handful of squires help them mount, or a special crane device reportedly used in jousting tournaments to readily lift the knight onto his horse. This armor not only restrained mobility and dexterity, but it also fatigued it's wearer after a long period of battle and allowed for very little freedom of movement or flexibility. So the plated armor of this time was neither easy to move, mount, fight, or lie down in. Good job on the Roman names anyhow, they are correct translations, I will have to check out that website that you listed.


----------



## The Ace (Nov 14, 2007)

The war destrier was a sort of halfway-house, between a modern racehorse (fast) and a heavy draught horse (strong).  A good example of the type still extant is the French percheron, which was still used as a draught animal up until ww2.

 Chain-mail and ring-mail are probably synonyms, since both describe a similar item.  My roman replica chain (probably copied from the Celts) is made up of 6mm rings and weighs around 20lb, but many of my colleagues in the Antonine Guard are bigger or have shoulder-doubling on their mailshirts which can easily double this.

Roman strip armour, therefore can be lighter than chain but is very uncomfortable and the weight sits entirely on the shoulders.  Chain-mail with a tight belt allows more even distribution of the weight and is easier to wear over long periods.


----------



## Delvo (Nov 14, 2007)

The idea of full plate armor being restrictive, too heavy to move in, and such is wrong. The "crane" idea is beyond wrong and well into "ridiculous"... as it was intended to be, having first been concocted for a comedy play about a knight whose actual problem was not the armor but his own fat (intended for audiences who knew perfectly well that that was NOT a problem real armored knights actually faced)...


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 14, 2007)

Excellent information. Thank you.

My son thinks that people in England ride around horses in armor battling dragons.


----------



## The Ace (Nov 14, 2007)

They might well, I wouldn't know.


----------



## Diomedes (Nov 15, 2007)

Plate armor is definently restricting when the form of plate you wear is the full-plate of medeival England. Small modifications and improvements were made to allow flexibility and lift the burden of weight (As gussets to eliminate the use of wearing hauberks or shirts of chainmail underneath the heavy plate), and it is completely plausible to think it untenable to be able to mount a horse in full-plate like it was a simple act of climbing onto the horse. Flexibility is also greatly limited. European plate armor weighed 60 pounds on average, not too heavy of a load (especially for the elite soldiers of today) but the plate itself wasn't very articulated until later times, and climbing on a horse was no easy task, especially when you consider the immensity of the War-chargers of that time. This simple factor combine with not the best of articulation could make mounting a very tiring feat. Thanks for explaining the crane idea to me however, I was tired last night and didn't feel like researching the topic, a couple nights of bad sleep and lethargy tend to do that.


----------



## ushumgal (Jul 24, 2008)

Thanks for sharing this nice summary, armorjohn!  If you'll allow me to make a few pedantic observations... 

The Sumerians most likely did not "invent" armor, but it is first attested among them in the early 3rd millennium BC.  There are depictions, such as the "phalanx" of troops on the Stela of the Vultures (of King Eannatum of Girsu, see Eannatum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), who wear helmets, probably of copper-alloy, and who carry spears and large rectangular shields.  There have also been actual finds - the Royal Tombs of Ur (roughly contemporary with Eannatum, ca. 2600 BC) yielded a number of copper-alloy helmets, still on the heads of the soldiers apparently sacrificed in the tombs, as well as a spectacular electrum helmet shaped like a fancy kingly hairdo.  So helmets are well attested, but not yet body armor.

Body armor is certainly around some 1000 years later, usually bronze scale or lamellar armor.  Tutankhamun's armor was of rawhide scales.  They tended to comprise long shirts with short sleeves, but by the first millennium BC, and the Neo-Assyrian empire (which is the subject I study), armor corselets are often about waist length (sometimes with short pteruges) and have short sleeves.  Assyrians tended to use conical helmets, while crested helmets were popular with other groups of people.  By this time, both armor and helmets could be either iron or bronze, with iron becoming increasingly common over time.

The Greeks used a number of different armor styles over time: in the Archaic period, bronze bell-cuirasses with very enclosed helmets (like the famous Corinthian helmet) were favored.  Indeed, some finds at Olympia show that heavily armored soldiers might also wear greaves, thigh protection, and upper and lower arm protection.  But these were already falling out of favor by the Persian wars.  The Linothorax became poopular by this time, and remained so for centuries.  This was an inexpensive armor made from a number of layers of linen, which offered surprisingly good protection.  The shoulder doublings of the linothorax were copied later by the Romans with several styles of their armor.  No linothorax has been found, but an iron breastplate in the shape of a linothorax was found in an unplundered royal Macedonian tomb in Vergina (conventionally identified as that of Philip II, Big Alex's father, but more likely was his half-brother, Philip III Arrhidaeus).  The linothorax was often, as armorjohn mentioned, reinforced by sewing bronze scales to it (there are innumerable depictions of this in Athenian redware).  In the Hellentistic period, "muscled" breastplates came into common use, as did some new helmet styles, such as my personal favorite, the Phyrgian helmet (aka. the Smurf hat).

The development of Roman armor is also rather complex - one should recall that in the later empire, Rome had cataphracts to match their Persian adversaries.  These were mounted warriors who were armored from head to toe, whose helmets had full face masks, and whose arms and legs were protected by mail sleeves or by manica, which is sort of like lorica segmentata for the extremities.  The reason lorica segmentata was abandoned was likely the fact that is was expensive to manufacture and difficult to maintain.  Anyone who can draw wire and hammer in rivets can make mail, and it's easy to fix a broken link or two.  Broken segmentata could get much more complicated, and that is why is vanishes around the time Rome enters into a series of very serious warfare.

The Chinese actually were casting bronze long before 500 BC - the Zhou period is famous precisely for the excellent bronzes it produced.  However, it should be observed that armor was never cast - it was formed from sheet metal.  Bronze cannot be accurately cast thin enough to make it practical for armor, plus the working of the metal with the hammer compresses is and so hardens it (sometimes too much, requiring the armorer to anneal the piece).

As Chrispenycate points out, mail armor was in Britain long before William of Normandy.  Note that the Bayeaux Tapestry shows *both* sides wearing it.  Also read Beowulf, where mail shirts were often considered valuable prizes in battle.

Anyway, you've done a great job putting this all together, armorjohn!  Thanks for sharing it!


----------



## The Ace (Jul 24, 2008)

Sorry, but the Bayeux Tapestry (actually an embroidery) isn't a good source for armour and weapons, because the people who made it had seldom seen Saxon warriors and both sides have the same weapons, armour and shield types.

The Celts actually invented chain-mail which, like helmets, was limited to the high-ranking warriors who could afford it.  In the Roman Army _every _soldier was armoured, chain-mail actually being the commonest type.

Trajan's column shows strip armour at least partly because a soldier in chain-mail could be anyone, but a soldier in strip armour was Roman, and leads to the impression that strip armour was far more common than it actually was.


----------



## Delvo (Jul 26, 2008)

The person who started this thread did so almost a year ago and hasn't posted a single other thing since then...


----------



## Happy Joe (Jul 26, 2008)

A shame, really, there is some good information in this thread.
Armor and primitve weapons have long been a minor interest of mine.

Enjoy!


----------

