Armor of Medieval Times - Research Paper Example

Medieval Armor Medieval armor was designed to form a series of functions that can be designated asfunctional, military, and social. There was a great deal of variation of armor from one country to the next, therefore medieval armor can be explored best when confined to one region. A discussion of European armor allows for exploring a large range of types and purposes. Armor was a functional collection of equipment that protected a soldier from battle and was most often designed to withstand the type of weapons that would be confronted by the soldier. However, armor was associated with rank within the military and served the purposes of the cultural event of war as much as it served the functionality of battle. As well, it often designated the role of the individual within society, the type of armor worn having relevance to class and social status. Armor served a great number of purposes within the medieval social environment and was not strictly a resource for functionality. Armor began to appear in the fourth century in Europe, often made from what was left behind by the Roman soldiers who had tried to conquer the lands. Barbarians began to construct protection from what was left behind and setting up the culture to eventually improves upon those designs. As metallurgy began to grow technologically, armor began to reflect a higher sophistication in its manufacture (DeVries and Smith 38). The many types of armor during the Middle ages are numerous and vary from one country to the next. However, the basic European styles of armor were divided by head armor and body armor, with differences in each section. Head armor was a vital form of armor in that it protected the most vulnerable and essential part of the fighter. The head was vulnerable to cutting, thrusting, and bludgeoning moves that would immediately take down or kill an offender. A common configuration of armor was a chain mail hood, called the camail or the coif de mailles, with a metal helmet placed over the chain mail (Cosman and Jones 271). The two aspects of war that had to be combated was a strike and a penetration. The metal helmet would protect against a strike, while the chain mail would help against penetration. The types of helmets varied according to both country of origin and fashion. In the early middle ages, the casque was the more common type of helmet, designed after the Roman helmets. The casque was designed with no visor and was considered defensive or ornamental, depending on who was wearing the piece and the purpose of wearing it. This type of helmet can be found from the ninth century to the thirteenth century, although it became more ornamental as other types of helmets were created in order to provide better protection for those who wore them. The casques allowed the view of the face of the wearer, the item gaining popularity among those of the aristocracy when they would not be confronted with battle directly (Cosman and Jones 271). In the thirteenth century, the full helmet that also completely covered the face came into fashion for battle. The beaulm covered the forehead, face, ears, and scalp; however this was eventually evolved into the full covering form of a helmet. Soldiers from Burgundy wore a helmet that was designed to look something like a bonnet with a piece coming down to protect the nose. The bassinet was worn over the chain mail hood and began to show signs of evolving greater protection as exampled by the extension of the nose piece. Germanic soldiers often wore the sallet, which was a lighter version of the helmet (Cosman and Jones 272). However, the more well known type of helmet came into fashion around the fourteenth century. This helmet had hinged pieces that formed a tightly enclosed space that protected the entire head. The armet was made from four pieces: “the skull, the visor, and two interlocking cheek plates, which provided complete protection for the head, face and neck” (Cosman and Jones 272). However, the advancements in weapons technology swiftly conquered the protection of each evolution of the helmet through better and stronger weapons as exampled by the difference between the bow and arrow, and the crossbow. Body armor became a complex system of pieces that allowed for as much movement as possible, evolving over time to increasingly accommodate the need for movement in battle. According to Cosman and Jones, “Armor was required to be relatively impenetrable yet flexible enough to allow the wearer to mount, ride, and dismount, either alone or with help from a squire or mechanical winch or windlass” which means that sometimes it took a lift to place the soldier on his horse, meaning that if he was unhorsed in battle, he would not be able to regain his mount (273). The armor had to also consider body function such as eating, urinating, and defecating, thus needing flexibility and easy removal when those needs had to be met. Because of the common small size of much of the surviving armor, there is a misconception about the size of the soldiers of the period. However, knights were often invested into the knighthood at the age of thirteen, thus their first armor being smaller in size than the average size of a man (Cosman and Jones 273). This armor is more common because of the less often use of it in battle, thus it sustained less damage. The armor of men was put under a great deal of use, much of it not surviving the wars in which it was worn. Armor was a part of the weaponry of war and much was lost during the activity of battle. The soldier was covered from his shoulders to his toes in armor. The shoulders had a strip piece of armor called the ailette, which was the precursor for the fabric epilettes that are now often seen on military uniforms. Interlocking pieces called agraffe were used to secure one piece of armor to the next. Palettes were pieces that were worn under the armpits to protect this vulnerable area. Body armor could weigh more than 100 pounds and in order to wear all the pieces and function sufficiently, the horse needed to be in concert with the rider so that the extra weight and for both could be best maneuvered and utilized. Fabric and padding was often used as the form of armor for those without enough money or rank to afford armor. The aketan was a full length coat that was sometimes worn over the armor, but was just as often worn as armor, its thick padding providing the wearer with some protection against blows (Cosman and Jones 273). Many times wars were waged, especially on foreign lands, by hiring mercenaries to act as soldiers. While many mercenaries devoted themselves to war, often they could not afford full sets of armor. However, the more money spent, the better the armor could be found on the mercenaries (Fowler 169). Foot soldiers, on the other hand, were often conscripted into the army and had little to no armor. The military wore armor both in accordance with the individual could afford and in compliance with what the nation who supported the military could afford. Spending more on armor would provide a better equipped force that could push the goals of a campaign forward, but that often meant that certain portions of the army could be considered expendable, and thus no money would be spent on armor for these actors in the campaign (Fritze 24). Rank and social position had a great affect on the way in which an army was equipped with armor. The way in which war was waged often created a great deal of expenditure of collateral life which leaders would expect when designing their battles. The way in which armor was given was in direct relationship to how important the salvation of life was to the way in which the battle would be waged. Social status was also defined by the type of armor that was worn. An example of this is left through the effigies that can be observed on the tombs of kings and knights. English art has a clue to the way in which clothing defined the status of those who had died. On the Hell Mouth of folio 39 of the Winchester Psalter (1150), sinners are unclothed; kings and queens are indicated by crowns, while monks are indicated by tonsures. According to Dressler, this is indicative of the representation that could be found on tomb effigies, the social status of the individual indicated by the types of armor worn on the stone representation of the individual in the tomb (62). The people of the medieval period put a great deal of importance on the representation of social class by what was worn. Tangible exterior elements defined the type of person that was being encountered, class separation an important part of the identity. Typically, there were three types of knights. Knighthood could come from being a part of the aristocracy, from doing a deed in battle that created a commission, or from inheriting the title of knight. Often poor knights were younger siblings that had no inheritance and needed a way to make their way in the world. A battle could bring more economic possibilities to the individual than just the pay of a soldier. Conquering towns would provide an opportunity for pillaging their resources. Robber-knights would go on pillaging raids with the purpose of funding themselves for their campaigns, but also in building a financial gain that could build them a place within society (Verbruggen 50). Knights had to find resources from which to fund their careers when war was not being waged or when the pay from the war was not enough to sustain and increase their position in life. Tournaments were held during peace time in order to continue the practice of war time activities. By the twelfth century, the tournaments became a popular exhibition for public entertainment. The tournaments consisted of different contests in which the knights involved wore their regular armor, although in later periods it was common to have constructed lighter forms of the battle armor in order to make movement easier (Gravett and McBride 9). The tournaments had many advantages financially for the knights, helping them to raise money for their equipment as much as for their daily needs of food and shelter. Sometimes prisoners were allotted to knights after they won tournaments and could be held for ransom, but this could prove to be more trouble than it was worth as the prisoners could rise up against the knight and cause him problems if they were not ransomed quickly enough. In later decades, prizes of gold and jewels were more common and provided money for the knights, an important help to those knights with little family means or inheritance from which to support themselves. Medieval armor in Europe was originally created from what was left behind when Rome abandoned their outposts. The barbarians took the pieces of what was left behind and put them together in order to protect them during conflict. As war became more sophisticated and technologies began to emerge in metallurgy, armor could be constructed that could both be more uniform to the nation that had built an army and to the weapons that would be confronting the soldiers. Armor could range from heavily padded clothing to full suits of metal armor that covered a warrior from his head to his toes. The heavier metal armor could impede the work of the warrior and often required assistance in regard to mounting his horse. Defining the identity of the soldier was an important aspect of the armor. Foot soldiers might have little to no armor, while the leaders of a campaign could wear armor that was ornate and unique to themselves, creating a tangible exterior identity. This was part of the cultural theories of representation of the time. Armor served a great number of purposes, ranging from function and military purposes to that of social identification within the European medieval world. Works Cited Cosman, Madeleine P, and Linda G. Jones. Handbook to Life in the Medieval World. New York: Facts On File, 2008. Print. DeVries, Kelly, and Robert D. Smith. Medieval Weapons: An Illustrated History of Their Impact. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2007. Internet resource. Dressler, Rachel A. Of Armor and Men in Medieval England: The Chivalric Rhetoric of Three English Knights' Effigies. Aldershot [u.a.: Ashgate, 2004. Print. Fowler, Kenneth A. The Great Companies. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Print. Fritze, Ronald H. Historical Dictionary of Late Medieval England, 1272 - 1485. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2002. Print. Gravett, Christopher, and Angus McBride. Knights at Tournament. London: Osprey, 1988. Print. Verbruggen, Jan F. The Art of Warfare in Western Europe During the Middle Ages: From the Eight Century to 1340. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002. Print. Read More