The material aspect of the Byzantine army is a field which has always been the poor relation of scholarship on its organisation and logistics, and publications of the last decade have unfortunately confused the issue as much as elucidated it. Byzantium had a rich tradition of military literature, in unbroken continuity with the already sophisticated practice of the western empire of Rome. Manuals from late Antiquity to the tenth century provide considerable detail of the equipment a Byzantine soldier should ideally have, and in doing so show in the armed forces of the empire a pragmatic willingness to absorb useful equipment, as much as effective tactics, from its neighbours and enemies. The quality of its equipment must also have been a factor in the remarkable success of the army and navy in preserving the empire as much as they did against so many foes for a thousand years. In view of this, the relationship between the ideals of the manuals and the reality is an important issue, one which demands a laborious search for evidence beyond literary sources. Economic conditions impinged on more than the amount of manpower to be mobilised. They also influenced the quantity and even the very type of equipment that could be supplied to the troops. We shall look here at three items of armour which were essential elements of middle period panoply, the kremasmata, the kabadion and the klibanion with the aim of establishing their nature more precisely.
Armour From The Battle Of Wisby Pdf Free
The battlefield of 1632 covered an area of approximately 750 hectares. Beginning in September 2006, the first large-scale archaeological examinations by the State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt were undertaken using metal detectors, which ultimately brought to light approximately 3000 metal objects from the battle [44,54]. An analysis of the distribution of the projectiles allowed the archaeologists to reconstruct the hostilities and to draw conclusions with regard to the course of the battle [44,55]. Neither aerial photography nor geophysical examinations (geomagnetic and ground-penetrating radar) provided any evidence of graves [54]. The records kept by the city authorities of Lützen, however, showed that construction work had repeatedly unearthed bone finds on the north-eastern edge of the city. In the late summer of 2011, a linear trial trench, excavated parallel to an old trade route (Via Regia) with the aim of verifying data obtained by metal detector surveying, led to the chance discovery of a mass grave (Fig 1).
The dead from the mass grave at Lützen rarely exhibited cranial injuries inflicted by bladed weapons. Cutting and penetrating injuries were somewhat more frequently found on the postcranial skeletons. Possible weapons include sabres, rapiers, knives/daggers and also halberds. The severity of the bone injuries ranged from small nicks on the surface to long deep cuts and complete detachment of entire areas of the bone (Fig 6). The latter, however, was only observed in rare cases. The fact that cutting and slashing injuries in battles from that period were common is shown by the results of the examinations carried out on the mass graves at Wittstock and Alerheim and, a century later, at Zurich and Schaffhausen [41,47,51]. Although firearms were becoming more readily available, bladed weapons were still the weapons of choice for hand-to-hand combat. Medicolegal examinations of homicide victims show that fatal sharp force traumata with bone injuries rank third after projectile and blunt force traumata, and the injuries are most often localised in the trunk region [134].
Historical records and reconstructions of the course of the battle suggest that a Swedish infantry brigade suffered a heavy defeat in the area where the mass grave was later dug. An élite unit of the Swedish army, the so-called Blue Brigade, were annihilated here in a surprise attack from the flank by an imperial cavalry unit [6,44,140]. The records speak of heavy losses. The archaeological and anthropological features support the theory that the dead from the mass grave might have been the victims of this clash. 1) The majority of the projectiles found in the grave were ammunition from hand firearms used by the cavalry. 2) More than half of the men were struck by gunfire. Injuries inflicted by bladed weapons only played a minor role. 3) The attackers primarily aimed for the head and the attack occurred mainly from the front and side.
The difference between the two types of armours was witnessed at the Battle of Verneuil in 1424, where 2,000 Milanese heavy cavalry, all outfitted in tempered steel plate, bolstered the French lines. During the battle, the French cavalry attacked the English line on the left flank, and the Milanese attacked the English line on the right. The French attack was broken by volleys from the longbowmen, and hundreds died. The Milanese were practically impervious to the arrows and lost only 60 men.
There are often great difficulties in the way ofreasonably approximating the date and nationality ofboth weapons and armour, owing to causes which willbe touched upon later in these pages; but these apparentinconsistencies must needs be grappled with as far aspossible, and herein lies the work of the archæologist.In the case of sword specimens, it very often happensthat blades and hilts belong to widely different periods,and even nationalities, and cases of this kind often giverise to much doubt and perplexity; indeed, unless thereis evidence that a blade and hilt are contemporaneous, itis always well to consider that they may not be so; forblades were passed down from father to son, and oftenre-hilted more than once. Hilts also were often re-bladed.
During the earlier periods, and in fact throughoutthe entire time covering the use of defensive armour toits decadence, great difficulties constantly arise regardingthe precise antiquity and nationality of specimenspreserved, and, consequently, the fashions generallyprevailing in a given country at a particular time.This uncertainty is greatly owing to immigration,invasions, and to the importation of foreign artificers,as well as of arms and armour from the more advancedcountries to others less forward in mechanical skill, asapplied to armour and weapon-making.
The Arab hordes which were driven back by Charles23Martel at the decisive battle of Poitiers in 732 weredespoiled of their body-armour, which was of a richSaracenic character, by the conquerors. This wasprobably of leather or quilted stuff fortified with smallplates or scales; and such armour was henceforthadopted by the Franks, while Charlemagne graftedRoman fashions and traditions on to the armament.
It may profitably be mentioned again here thatdates on monuments are those of demise. The armour,therefore, may be much earlier, sometimes a generationor so before the date of death; and it was common,nay, usual, for a knight to bequeath his suit or suitsto his sons or other persons. For instance, Guy deBeauchamp, who died in 1316, bequeathed to his eldestson his best coat of mail, helmet, etc.; and to his sonJohn, his second suit. It is obvious, however, that manyeffigies represent the fashion of armour prevailing at thedate of demise, or even later. Mixed armour in Francewent well into the fifteenth century. Broadly speaking,mixed armour was used in England during the lastquarter of the thirteenth to the end of the fourteenthcentury, but nearly full-plate armour began to be seenthere in the reign of Richard II. It had, however, beenin vogue in Germany and Italy for some decades beforeit was generally worn by the English, and it is probablethat the earlier complete suits in England were importedfrom Germany or Italy, which countries set the fashion.Studded armour was not uncommon during the secondhalf of the fourteenth century, and even earlier. Theeffigy of Gunther von Schwarzburg, King of the Romans(1349), shows the body armour to have been of mail,with reinforcing plates for the arms and legs, on whichblank and studded lengths are interspersed. He wearsthe bassinet with camail. The following examples willshow to some extent the progress of the evolution inBelgium. A figure in the library at Ghent, of WillemWenemaer, wears genouillières and jambs of plate,otherwise clad in mail (1325). The sword is coveredwith a Latin inscription. A brass at Porte de Hal,Brussels, shows John and Gerard de Herre (1398) in41mixed armour. On a brass in the Cathedral at Bruges,dated 1452, Martin de Visch has a full armament ofplate, excepting the gorget, which is covered by astandard of mail.
The crusades exercised a cosmopolitan influenceover both arms and armour in Europe, not only in theintroduction of new forms from the East, but also ina general assimilation of fashion among the nationsof chivalry. The military administration of thesetwo centuries of disastrous warfare, in and towardsPalestine, was simply deplorable; and no reasonableprovision was made against eventualities; hence plague,leprosy, and famine played havoc among the Christianhosts. The institution of quasi-religious orders ofknighthood, however, did much to redeem these ill-starredexpeditions from absolute chaos.
The great helm or heaume, without a movable visor,is of English origin. It first appeared about the middleof the twelfth century, and was worn over a hood ofmail, which was then found inadequate to resist eitherthe lance or a heavy blow from a battle-axe or mace, oreven a stroke from the then greatly improved sword.The helm had the effect of distributing the force of theblow, and to a certain extent parried it. The secondseal of Richard I. shows him in a great helm, which iseither flat-topped or conical, with the nasal, and is obviouslyderived from the antique. The cylindrical orflat-topped variety came into vogue towards the end ofthe twelfth century. There is an example of the conicalform in the Museum of Artillery at Paris, and one of thenearly flat-topped variety, rising very slightly towardsthe centre, in the Tower of London. The great helm isoften represented as a pillow for the head in effigies. 2ff7e9595c
Comments