"… And she feeds on fables!"
(Boris Godunov. A. S. Pushkin)
Who argues that you need to know the history of your homeland? No one! But you can know it in different ways. You can limit yourself to a school textbook and … the junior scooper of the sewage convoy doesn't need it anymore. You can also read the "School of future commanders". A very … "advanced" book for the appropriate age. Next comes the university, and there is its own specificity: for "techies", Russian history is read for one semester … and that's it! The humanities studies it to a greater extent, but often also … "at a gallop through Europe." But the worst is in the university for auxiliary historical disciplines and such disciplines as historiography. I remember well how I and my classmates studied it in the period from 1972 to 1977. How did we do it? And here's how - "anyhow!" "Auxiliary" read … a scientist, yes, but he liked to "give in". The second discipline is his drinking companion, not at all an authoritative peasant who muttered something under his breath, and failed to instill in us the main thing - that only possession of information about who, what and how wrote before you helps to write something new to you ! And, perhaps, I hope so, somewhere all this was studied and is being studied in a completely different way, although the teaching experience since 1982 shows that the importance of these particular subjects is still underestimated, at least by students.
In the articles of Mr. Samsonov, the term "chained knights" is used so often that it literally "takes the brain out." And was it possible, by the way, to check this very "restraint" of the then knights before writing about it? Yes, easily! For example, when I had such a need, I turned to the British "Medieval Society" and they provided me with photographs … effigy - tombstone sculptures of knights, made either immediately after their death, or several years later. But they still reflect what the sculptor saw. And they are voluminous, unlike the miniatures in the illuminated manuscripts of that time, and all are dated to the years of the death of the deceased whom they represent. Let's arrange a kind of "time travel", and see how the effigies reflect the genesis of knightly armor "from and to". Here is the first and very famous: the effigy of William Longspe, mind. 1226 Salisbury Cathedral. As you can see, he is all from head to toe in chain mail. And since the armor was a value, then one must think that the same was worn in 1240. Or is it not?
Meanwhile, it is clear what paramount importance are sources for history, because all this together is the foundation of all historical science. And - I will add, for pseudo-scientific journalism. Because you can, of course, take and rewrite a couple of banal publications "from the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea" and publish it, or you can regularly view, say, such an academic journal as "Voprosy istorii", where not only a lot of interesting articles are published, again with links to the most authoritative sources, but also "e-mails" of their authors are given, that is, you can always contact them and get answers to your questions.
Did all the knights walk like that then? Yes! Here is the effigy of Robert de Roos, d. 1227 London Temple.
That is … everything is there, from the complete collection of Russian chronicles (the generally accepted abbreviation PSRL) - the fundamental book series for studying the history of ancient and medieval Russia, to the corresponding, again, journal publications and monographs. And so it had to happen that today I come to my university and bring me the next issue of "Questions of History", and there is an article by Ph. D., Associate Professor AN Nesterenko. "False narratives of the biography of Alexander Nevsky in Russian historiography." Why are materials in VI good? The fact that literally for every fact, and that there is a fact - a word, there is a link to a source and a solid source. That is, go, good people, to the library, read, compare and learn a lot yourself. Since, as I wrote above, the sources are very important, then perhaps we should start with the chronicles. And again - there were smart people who did a great job, wrote the article "Written sources about the Battle on the Ice" (Begunov Yu. K., Kleinenberg I. E., Shaskolsky I. P.). And it is enough for anyone to "drive" all this into Google, as it will be provided to you. And in it, again, links to the chronicles from the PSRL. So, if someone is completely unbelieving Thomas, he can look for everything himself, compare, compare and draw conclusions. Finally, it’s easy to grab the 1942 filing of Pravda and look at the April 5 editorial. Believe me, it is more interesting than the articles about the Battle of the Neva and the Battle of the Ice published here, and even more historical at times. And we must remember what time it was, what kind of war was going on, and most importantly - who personally edited Pravda with a blue pencil. And … I missed everything written, and therefore - approved!
Here is a not very well preserved effigy of William de Charpenoine of Umberlein, d. 1240 However, what he is wearing is still visible!
So, based on the totality of the facts available in our domestic historiography, we can today establish for sure that the battle on the same Lake Peipsi … was. That the Russian troops (let's just say) under the leadership of Prince Alexander defeated the army of the knight brothers. And that's it! Any details? Yes, there are in different sources! “The killed fell into the grass”, “the brothers overpowered the shooters”, “Chudi fell innumerable” and a number of others, but there are not so many of them, and again they are all in the annals, as well as in the Livonian rhymed chronicle, about which, by the way, in the historian K. Zhukov very well tells his speech, as, in fact, about the "Battle of the Ice" itself.
Gilbert Marshall 4th Earl of Pembroke, d. 1241
And from all this volume of information, the conclusion follows: NOBODY IN THE LAKE DROWNED, NOBODY WAS CONQUERED IN HEAVY LATS, very few soldiers from both sides took part in the battle, and all the reconstructions of Beskorovny and Razin are pure insinuations designed for simpletons. At the same time, no one disputes the fact that the very fact of the knights drowning as a result of the "breaking of the ice" does not cause doubts, only it took place somewhat earlier, in the battle of Omovzha, which, again, the chronicles tell us, and one more, and may to be the only battle on the ice really took place … in 1270, which, by the way, I wrote in detail about in my article here on VO.
Now let's talk about our pseudo-historians' beloved "pig" … Again, I don't want to beat K. Zhukov's bread, he talks about it in great detail, but here's what AN has written about it. Nesterenko (VI, pp. 109-10): "The Germans began the battle with a ramming blow with a pig" - another common misconception. The fact that the deep formation of horsemen, the "pig", acts like a ram on the battlefield is nothing more than a fantasy. In fact, with such a formation, only those riders who are in the front row, that is, the absolute minority, can take part in the battle. The warriors standing behind them are not only unable to provide assistance to those in front, but, on the contrary, interfere with maneuver and create a crush. Moreover, a deep formation of the cavalry is impossible by definition, since during the attack, the horses in the rear ranks will not press on the front horses, and if the riders try to force them, this will lead to complete chaos in the ranks of the attacking cavalry, and it will itself become an easy prey for the enemy. …
And this is a knight from the facade of a cathedral in Wales. Just the middle of the XIII year in a Tophel helmet. Surko, helmet, shield and chain mail and … everything!
To prevent this from happening, the "wedge", when approaching the enemy, had to turn into a line. Only in this way the maximum number of heavily armed horsemen could simultaneously join the battle and inflict the greatest damage on the enemy, while at the same time depriving him of the opportunity to strike the attackers' flanks. Therefore, the formation of the "wedge" is necessary only for rapprochement with the enemy. With its help, a massive and simultaneous strike is achieved by the moment when, having approached the minimum distance to the enemy battle formations, the "wedge" turns into an attacking horse lava. If the attack of the knightly cavalry began immediately in a deployed line, then instead of an organized strike, the knights would scatter across the entire battlefield. As a result, heavily armed horsemen, chaotically and randomly moving across the field, from a formidable enemy would turn into easy prey for ordinary peasants armed with long-range bows, and would suffer defeat after defeat from the city's foot militia, meeting armored horsemen in dense formation, bristling with long spears. Or they would become the prey of light cavalry, attacking a lone rider from all sides, shooting him from afar with bows.
Here he is - John Leverick, who died in 1350 and is buried in the church of the town of Ash, - the first effigy on which we see the torso of a knight in armor of stripes. His legs are also "chained" in anatomical armor.
The "wedge" had another very important advantage: a narrow front. After all, when a detachment of knights slowly, "step by step", approached the enemy, he became an excellent target for archers. And when building with a "wedge", the target of the enemy shooters turned out to be only a few riders in the most reliable protective equipment. The rest could only be hit with ineffective indirect fire.
And here is a knight, more or less "chained" in armor - John de Cubham, who died in 1354 and was buried in Cobham's church. True, this is not an effigy, but breaststroke - also a simpler element of the funerary inventory - engraving on a sheet of brass. And on this brace it is clear that this knight is not yet fully "chained" …
Thus, the knight's wedge, "boar's head", was intended only for rapprochement with the enemy, and not for an attack, and even less for "ramming strikes". And it is clear that no infantry in the middle of the wedge could run. The knights had to pick up speed in order to quickly go into a gallop (an hour of a trot in armor was a punishment for the Templars!), And no infantryman could keep up with a galloping horse! A lynx in iron is for superheroes, and, as you know, they don't exist!
Some effigies were painted, gilded, in a word, this is a truly rare monument and an opportunity … to look into the past. Knight Pieter de Grandissan, d. 1358 (Hereford Cathedral). Pay attention to his surcoat of the coat of arms, “kidney dagger” on the side, which was also roughly called “dagger with eggs”. He already has armor on his legs, and shields on his elbows, but no more!
Richard Pembridge, who died in 1375 (Hereford Cathedral), also wears armor, yes, but … there is also a chain mail aventail in his outfit, that is, he is not “chained” to the end!
However, the "pig" is not so bad. Some of us are so fond of the "knights in armor" that they "fetter" Jarl Birger (about whose participation in the Battle of the Neva, as A. N. Nesterenko writes, is not reported either in the chronicle or in the "Life of Alexander Nevsky" !) and which, they say, our Alexander wounded with a spear, although on his skull, and he survived, there are no traces of injury, which was attested in 2010 by the sculptor Oscar Nilsson. However, God bless him, with the skull. Let's talk about armor. And here at VO and much earlier, in the works of the historian M. V. Gorelik back in 1975, published in the magazine Around the World, repeatedly described the armor of warriors in 1240. And … they had no forged armor! But with persistence … they continue to write about them. What for? In the age of the Internet, this is strange to say the least. But … on this, I think, this material can be finished. I do not want to deprive VO readers of the pleasure of personal acquaintance with the materials named in the article and independent research, which, undoubtedly, will increase their competence significantly!
Well, as for the photographic tour of the history of armor given here, it should be quite enough! No wonder it is said: it's better to see once, isn't it? Well, and someone else said that it is necessary to move towards the goal gradually, "step by step." Most likely, few of those who read all this will find the strength to turn to the above-mentioned sources and, in particular, to the journal Voprosy istorii, which is an academic publication after all. But at least we figured out the knights, right? And when we next time, well, let's say, in a year or two, we will again read here about the Battle of the Neva and the Battle of the Ice, we can hope that, at least, knights "chained in armor" in these future materials will not be!
And now, finally, a fully "armored knight" - Nicholas de Longford, mind. 1416 (Longford Church). Note the presence of very original besagyu - shields covering the armpits on his armor. Usually besagyu were round. And these are like shells. Such was the original! And now let's calculate: since 1240 … 176 years have passed!
