How do we know about what was once upon a time? After all, no human memory will preserve this? Historical sources come to the rescue: ancient manuscripts, artifacts - antiquities found and preserved in museums and in various collections, bas-reliefs and sculptures on walls and tombstones. The latter are very important. But the miniatures in the manuscripts, as good as they are, present us with a flat representation of people and objects. You can't look under them! The bas-relief is also not very voluminous, but the sculpture is a completely different matter. In addition, it usually conveys everything that surrounded the sculptor at the time when he created it. Statues of Roman emperors, Western European monarchs riding mighty horses have come down to us, but the greatest interest for the study of weapons and armor of the Middle Ages are … effigii!
What is effigy (from Latin effigies)? Just a sculpture lying on a gravestone and made of stone or wood. There is also a breaststroke - an engraved image of a figure on a flat metal sheet. It was usually brass. In the Middle Ages, these sculptures depicted the deceased in a lying and kneeling form, or standing, and were placed over the grave of knights, a spiritual person, other representatives of the nobility, or, for example, "women with status." There are also known paired effigies or breaststrokes, depicting a husband and wife (and, it happened, and a wife with two husbands or a husband with four wives at once, of course, who died at different times!). Paired images of men in armor are also known. The pose was characteristic, but depended on time and fashion: the right hand could rest on the hilt of the sword, and the palms were folded. The legs were depicted as standing on the figure of a lion or on a dog, or the figure was kneeling with folded hands in prayer, and even half-turned to the viewer.
The value of effigia is very high, since they are well preserved, although some of them are badly damaged from time to time, or even by the efforts of unreasonable people. After all, genuine samples of weapons and especially armor of the XII-XIV centuries. found very few, literally a few. There is only one chain mail, there are several rusty "big helmets", there are only three felchen-type swords, although many more traditional swords have been found in the same Thames. "White armor" has survived in much larger numbers, but many of them are remakes made much later than their time, so we know about the earliest knightly armor mainly from miniatures from handwritten books. But these pictures are too small and you can't see anything there. And effigies, even damaged, nevertheless often look much better than the same statues of knights standing in city squares. After all, knights were usually buried under the floor of churches and cathedrals, and it is clear that their effigies were also under the roof. The roof protected them from the vagaries of the weather, but the people in the church also did not "vandalize" very much, although in the same France, during the years of the Great French Revolution, many effigies were broken even in churches and abbeys. But almost every English church has preserved at least one or two effigies, and the most valuable ones have fences, as they are monuments of national culture. And just looking at them, British stories of knightly weapons are studied, comparing the finds with stone images. Let's “ask” a few effigies and braces and listen to their leisurely story … However, sometimes this story will be “not quite a story,” so the effigies themselves ask us more questions than they answer, and, nevertheless …
It is believed that the earliest royal effigy belongs to King Edward II (1327), well, then the British began to install them in droves over the graves of all their dead. But this is not at all true! For example, an English historian such as Christopher Gravett believes that the oldest effigy is the figure of William Longspy from Salisbury Cathedral, which dates from about 1230 to 1240.
Later it suffered, but it was restored in the 19th century, and it did not get any worse. But there are effigies of Robert Berkeley from the Bristol cathedral, 1170, Geoffrey de Mandeville, the first earl of Essex, 1185 (although he himself died in 1144!), William Marshal, the second earl of Pembroke (ibid. - 1231) and many others, including unnamed ones, which are considered earlier. Especially many such tombstone sculptures appeared in the XIII-XIV centuries, and on them we see knights with swords and shields. Some have their head resting on a special pillow, while others use a helmet instead. There is only one effigia with a head covered with a helmet, and why she is like that, why the sculptor did not depict the face of the deceased is unknown. Legs usually lie on a dog - a symbol of devotion, or on the figure of a lion - a symbol of the deceased's courage.
It's good that there are so many effigies, because they were used as a source of information by the aforementioned Christopher Gravett in his book “Knights. A History of English Chivalry "(Exmo Publishing House, 2010) and also David Nicole in his major work" Weapons and Armor of the Crusade Era 105-1350 "(the first volume, which is devoted to the weapons of the knights of Western Europe).
It's just wonderful that the sculptors at that time very accurately conveyed all the details of weapons, and even rings on chain mail. Then it can be easily compared with the finds of archaeologists, if any, or with drawings in manuscripts.
For example, the effigy of Geoffrey (or Geoffrey) de Mandeville, about which K. Gravett wrote that it refers to 1250. It is not so important whether the date is correct or not. What is more interesting is that on his head he wears a very characteristic "pan helmet" with a strange "chin" similar to either a metal plate or a thick leather belt. The same helmet is on a miniature depicting the assassination of Thomas Beckett, late 12th or early 13th century. And here is the riddle: if it is made of metal, then … it would be impossible to put this helmet on your head! Unfortunately, this effigy is severely damaged, and does not give an exact answer to this question.
Effigia (circa 1270-1280) from Peshevor Abbey in Worcestershire is also unnamed, but known for the fact that in the cut of the surcoat, a breastplate with fasteners is clearly visible. That is, at that time they were already worn, although the material from which they were made is unknown, since it could be not only metal, but also leather. A similar cuirass is also noticeable on the effigy of Gilbert Marshall, the fourth Earl of Pembroke (died 1241), which allows us to conclude that such armor was spread in England already in the middle of the 13th century. On the knees of the figure, knee pads are clearly visible, which means that at that time they were already worn. But in Denmark, judging by the sculpture of Birger Person (died 1327, the cathedral of Uppsala) at that time chain mail robes were very old-fashioned and without any additional plates. It is very important that the effigies allow us to consider the cut of the then chain mail. On some, for example, rows of rings on the sleeves went across the body, but chain mail with lobe weaving was also encountered. It is also interesting that sometimes the craftsmen conveyed the smallest details of weaving, and sometimes only outlined the rows of rings, which is even a reason for some historians to come up with all sorts of amazing chain mail from strips of leather, with rings worn on them, and other equally fantastic designs on this basis. Today British historians are unanimous that there was only one chain mail, albeit with different types of weaving, but the sculptors were either in a hurry, or simply cheated, and this kind of "chain mail fantasies" came about.
At the end of the XIII century. chains, attached to the handles of swords and daggers, entered the knightly fashion, apparently so that the knight could not lose them. Usually the opposite end of such a chain was attached to the knight's chest. But the question is - why? And on the breaststroke of Sir Roger de Trumpington (Trumpington Church in Cambridgeshire, d. C. 1326) we see that from his helmet a chain goes to … a rope belt - and this is the earliest example of this fashion. A cruciform hole was made on the helmet, a barrel-shaped "button" was attached to the end of the chain - it was on it that he held on behind the knight!
There are no such chains on the effigy of John de Abernon II (died 1327). But on the other hand, we see he has a very voluminous chain mail hood, which suggests that under it was … a lot of things were put on. No wonder many knights in battle (as the miniatures show us!) Did not wear helmets. Under this hood, you could easily hide a small servilier-type helmet!
John de Northwood (c. 1330, Minster Abbey on Sheppey Island, Kent) had a chain to his helmet attached to a hook on his chest that protruded from a metal rosette. In later effigies, such rosettes are already paired, or the chains pass through the slots on their surcoat and already there, under it, they were fixed on the cuirass of the knight. Why on a cuirass, and not on chain mail? But because no folds are visible at the attachment points of these chains! It's funny that since the beginning of the XIII century. and until the end of the XIV century, these chains are found on almost every statue, and judging by the sculptures, they especially liked the knights of Germany. There, their popularity was so great that there were not three of them, but four, although it is difficult to understand why the fourth was needed. It is also hard to imagine how a man could fight while holding a sword with a four-foot-long chain (and often gold!) That stretched from the hilt of his sword to the socket on his chest. After all, she could wrap herself around his arm, she could catch on the head of his horse or the weapon of her opponent. Besides, the chain could easily get tangled in his stirrups? But, the knights either ignored all this, or knew how to fight so as not to confuse all these chains. Perhaps they would have had just as much trouble with the zipper on their jeans!
On the breaststroke of William Fitzralf, (died 1323) there are no chains either, apparently, in England they still did not receive such distribution, but the surface of the chain mail on his arms and legs is covered with metal plates, from which it was not far away and to "white" armor!
The painted effigy of Sir Robert du Beuys (d. 1340, city church in Fersfield, Norfolk) is known to be covered with heraldic ermine fur. And then the question arises: what, were his helmet and gloves covered with embroidered fabric, or were they just painted like that? And many fashionistas went about covering their armor almost completely, flaunting bright and expensive fabrics!
It is the effigies that make it possible to understand that the knights wore not one helmet on their heads, but often two, one on top of the other. A "grand helmet" with slits for the eyes and holes for breathing covered the entire head, but the other, a servillera, and then a bascinet, covered the top of the head, so it was very difficult to hit the knight with a blow to the helmet! Later, the bascinet received a backside, and its top stretched upwards, and it acquired an independent meaning. Moreover, it could be that the bascinet was constantly worn, and to participate in the horse attack, the squires helped the knight to take it off and put on a “big helmet” with a bizarre heraldic figure on his head. It is interesting that the knight could have one image on the coat of arms, but the helmet-mounted figure could depict something completely different!
As for the "helmets with horns", the effigies made it possible to find out that they were not attached at all to the helmet itself, but to something like a tire that was on top of it. It is clear that they were made of something very light, such as papier-mâché or thin leather, but they also had to have a strong frame so as not to fall off of it when jumping!
Interestingly, bascinet helmets received visors even before solid-forged armor came into fashion, and the knights received metal chin collars that protected the neck from being struck by a spear in the middle of the 14th century. From the breaststroke of Sir Hugh Hastings (St. Mary's Church in Elsing, Norfolk), it can be judged that the chin - a bouwigher and a bascinet helmet with a visor fixed on two loops, he wore already in 1367, and that means that such armor was then quite suitable for him, but he was the king's close friend, not a poor man and could choose. True, the bouvier was fastened over his chain mail collar! That is, the new and then coexisted with the old!
In 1392, brass or "brass" - that is, flat engraved sheets of brass, attached to such a slab with the image of a knight resting under it - entered the practice of decorating tombstones.
Studying the effigies and breaststrokes, one can notice that the samples of weapons shown on them usually represented one single copy, that is, there was no "mass production" of armor, although, of course, chain mail with hoods could be very similar to one another. At the same time, among the armor, there is evidence that human fantasy never knew limits. So, in the knight Bernardino Baranzoni (c. 1345 - 1350) from Lombardy we can distinguish not only a chainmail nasal-bretash, but also a short chainmail aventail hanging from a helmet. Why did he need her? After all, his neck is already covered by a chain mail hood ?! His chain mail had sleeves that were wide, like those of a robe, to the elbows, but under them one more sleeves can be seen, narrow, with bulging elbow pads, that is, he is dressed in multi-layered armor!
For example, John Betteshorn (died 1398, Mere, Wildshire) had "white armor" on his legs and arms, a bascinet helmet with a chain mail aventail, but the torso itself was covered with either cloth or leather, but what is under it, alas, not to be seen.
That is, again, the effigies clearly show that there was a period when the knights wore "naked" chain mail armor, then surcoat was worn over them, then under it there was a cuirass, which for some reason was usually closed and the "era of knights in multi-layer armor", which was eventually replaced by the era of solid forged "white armor". But here, too, everything was not so simple. Many knights continued to wear cash clothing even over their beautiful Milanese armor!
One of the most unusual effigies can be seen again in England, in the church in Kangsington, although there seems to be nothing special about it. But this figure of an unknown knight is dressed in a monk's ball over his armor. And then the question arises: did he wear this all the time, or did he become a monk before his death, and with this outfit of his they wanted to emphasize this? Alas, we will never get an answer to this question.
In 1410 we see effigies showing us knights who no longer have even a scrap of cloth on their armor. But if the "white armor" already existed at that time, then all the same, the breaststroke of John Wydeval (d. 1415) shows us the old type of armor on the arms and again the aventail chainmail mantle … under the mantle of all-metal plates! He wears a typical bascinet on his head, but under his head there is a huge "big helmet" that could well be worn right on top of the bascinet!
The breaststroke of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, dating back to 1450, shows us the full "white armor" of the Milanese model. His headrest is a tournament helmet "toad's head", decorated with a crown and a swan's head. Armor of William Wadham (died 1451) Flemish work. The left shoulder pad is much larger than the right one and goes over the cuirass, and this proves that the knights no longer used shields at that time! Richard Quatermain (d. 1478) had a huge left elbow piece on his armor, which also confirms this.
Knights' swords on effigies and breaststrokes are usually shown hanging on a sword belt walking obliquely, and a dagger on "white armor" is depicted as if it were simply riveted to a plate "skirt" so that it would not get lost under all circumstances. At first, when it was customary for knights to wear a belt on the hips, a dagger hung on it. We see this in the effigy of John de Lyons in 1350, and he has a dagger hanging from his belt, on a cord that is very visible. However, later, it was abandoned and replaced with a harness, and the dagger was attached directly to the plate "skirt".
Well, the most famous effigy in England is, without a doubt, a sculpture of Edward, Prince of Wales, the eldest son of King Edward III, nicknamed the "Black Prince", who died in 1376 and was buried in Canterbury Cathedral. Interestingly, black shields with three white ostrich feathers are visible on his sarcophagus. This is the so-called "peace shield", especially for tournaments, and it was to him, and not at all to the black color of his armor, that he owed the origin of this nickname. Moreover, they were practically not visible, since he wore a heraldic jupon embroidered with British leopards and French lilies!
Surprisingly, chain mail continued to be used as a means of protection later. So, on the breaststroke of John Leventhorpe in 1510 (St. Helena's Church, Bishopgate, London), a chain mail skirt is clearly visible, visible from under the tassettes - plates attached to the cuirass to protect the thighs. And in all other respects his armor is quite modern and suddenly you are wearing chain mail again for some reason!
A similar chain mail skirt is shown on the breaststroke of 1659 by Alexander Newton of Broughworth Church in Suffolk! And again, if a typical "Walloon sword hangs on his thigh on two straps, then … the" kidney dagger "(with two bumps in place of the guard) is most likely just stuck to his chain mail skirt! And pay attention to the year! Even on earlier breaststrokes, for example, Edward Filmer 1629 (East Sutton, Kent), the armor, as a rule, covers only the thighs, and below we see pants and high cavalry boots!
Some of the breaststrokes show us warriors in full cuirassier equipment in "three-quarters", that is, armor to the knees, and below on their feet they again have boots with cuffs. Moreover, the legguards are usually very massive to cover the “chubby, cotton-filled pants!
The effigies again show that many knights wore cash robes over their armor. First surco, then a shorter jupont, and often covered with heraldic images.
For example, Richard Fitzlewis (d. 1528) was pictured on the breaststroke at Ingrave Church, Essex with four wives at once! He wore, again, "white armor", but with a chain skirt, tassettes and a caftan no worse than that of the Black Prince, all embroidered with his coats of arms of his family. There were braces in other countries, for example, the breaststroke of Lucas Gorky (d. 1475) in the Poznan Cathedral in Poland, and Ambroise de Villiers (d. 1503) in the Abbey of Notre Dame du Val in France, and he also shown in heraldic attire!
In general, the study of the knightly equipment of Western Europe without a thorough study of effigies and breaststrokes as sources today is simply impossible.
