When people hear of the medieval age their first thought usually is about castles, knights, suits of armor, jousting, and other knightly things. Many people often dream of living in such a time. But, little do these people know, many of the things I listed did not stick around for very long. The armor that many people think of when they talk about knights are those full suits of armor, completely decked out with every piece and facet imaginable, sometimes even etched with ornate pictures and engravings. While armor like this did exist, its high point in usage was not nearly as long lived as mail armor. In fact, for almost the whole medieval period, mail armor was used by almost all soldiers during actual battles.

Soldiers fighting in Mail armor. From Panel 72 from the Bayeux Tapestry in Wilson’s book The Bayeux Tapestry. pg. 194

As one can see from the Bayeux Tapestry (c. 1070) mail armor was the main piece of armor used. This was in the heart of the medieval times and the tapestry showed in some great detail what exactly was being used at the time. Chain mail vests, open-faced helmets, large shields, spears, swords, axes, and horses were the predominant technologies of the time.  Full plate armor did not exist until the late medieval age, and quite quickly turned from something to protect the body to more of a piece of art for rich or royal people or for tournament use.

Rather than delve into the background of the evolution of armor (which I think most people know about) I wanted to cover what the actual suit of armor consisted of. Many people have probably not looked close enough into a suit of armor to realize all of the different pieces and hinges that made these things so useful. The type of armor that I will be describing will be steel plate armor from about the late 14^th century to the 15^th century. First of all, the knight would wear a helmet, which was either open or closed face. An open face helmet did not have a visor or any piece of armor covering the face. This type of helmet was more often found on armor made for royalty, probably to allow viewers to see who was wearing the armor. The closed face helmet had a visor of some sort with only a slit to see out of. This could have made the wearer’s field of vision smaller, but it provided exceptional protection for the face. The next piece of armor was the gorget, which was a piece that covered the neck area between the helmet and the breastplate. The pauldrons covered the shoulders, armpits, and some areas of the chest and back. For knights on horseback, one pauldron was usually cut away on one side to allow the resting of a lance. Next is the breastplate, which was one of the major pieces in the suit of armor. The breastplate covered the chest, torso, and back of the knight, and was made to be one of the strongest pieces of armor. Many breastplates had edges fashioned into them to make it able to withstand strong blows. The armor that covered the arm consisted of the couter and the vambrace. The couter was a piece that covered the elbow while the vambrace covered the areas between the elbow and the gauntlets or between the couter and the pauldron. These pieces advanced from being simple pieces of metal to being articulate joints, allowing a greater ease of motion for wielding weapons. Lastly for the upper body is the gauntlet, which covers the fingers and hands. Gauntlets eventually evolved into very sophisticated pieces of armor by having many hinges or plates to make the fingers have a full range of motion.

On the lower body, you have the fauld, which is made up of many pieces of plate armor that covers the waist. It covers the area that the breastplate cannot cover and protects the upper legs. The cuisse covers the upper thigh down to the knee. Connecting the cuisse to the lower leg guard is a piece called a poleyn. The poleyn is a joint that provides excellent protection while also giving great flexibility and motion. This piece, like the couter and gauntlets, had evolved from being just a piece of metal to being a complex joint. Next are the greaves. The greaves covered the shins and were built to be extremely tough. In comparison to other pieces of armor in the full suit, the greaves needed to be one of the strongest. A good blow to the shin or lower leg could render the entire leg useless, which would often times prove fatal. To compensate for this need for extra protection, the greaves were often fashioned with extra ridges to make them stronger, just like the extra ridges in the breastplate. Last, but not least, are the sabaton, which covers the feet. The sabaton were made out of many pieces of metal to allow for a more natural foot motion.

A chart of the different pieces of plate armor. Taken from DeVries and Smiths’ Medieval Military Technology book. Fig. 2.7, pg. 80 (cited book below)

All of these pieces make up a full suit of steel plate armor. While there are other pieces that I did not mention, these were the most vital components in the suit. But again, right as these great technological advancements were being made to the suit of armor, other deadly weapons were being created. New weaponry made the use of plate armor not as viable to use, which made it fade out rather quickly. People still liked the look of it though, because after the 15^th century is when some of the most fantastically beautiful suits of armor were made, but these suits were made for show instead of for battle. To end my blog post, I will show a few examples of these late suits to show how intricate the details were.

Ornately decorated armor made around 1600. Taken from Pfaffenbichler’s book on Medieval Craftsmen. Fig. 43, pg. 37 (cited book below)

The embossed ‘Hercules armour’ of Emporer Maximilian. Taken from Pfaffenbichler’s book on Medieval Craftsmen. Fig. 56, pg. 49. (cited book below)

Work Cited

DeVries, Kelly and Robert Smith. Medieval Military Technology: Second Edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012. Print.

Pfaffenbichler, Matthias. Medieval Craftsmen: Armourers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992. Print.

Wilson, David M. The Bayeux Tapestry: The Complete Tapestry in Color With Introduction, Description and Commentary. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2004. Print.

The Bayeux Tapestry is a giant 230 foot long piece of embroidered cloth, depicting the entire Battle of Hastings. It was created in around 1066 A.D., and it served as a visual representation of what happened during that battle. Just to make things easier to understand, the soldiers on horseback are usually the Norman cavalry and the soldiers on foot are usually the English soldiers. On the top portion of the tapestry there is a borer that covers a couple of inches. In this particular border, nothing of importance is usually shown. There is a middle piece of this embroidery, which is where the main action and story happens. At the bottom of the piece is another border, like that of the top, but in this case the bottom often holds valuable information that pertains to the main action in the middle section.

Panel 72 from the Bayeux Tapestry, as taken from Wilson

In my particular piece, panel 72, it shows English soldiers fighting the Normans. There is lots of death, as depicted in the bottom margins. One particular thing that is out-of-ordinary in the bottom section is that of a man taking the armor off another fallen soldier. During this battle, if there were good suits of armor and weapons that could be salvaged, they would retrieve them.

A soldier’s armor being removed after he had fallen in battle

On the far right side of the panel, the reader can see the beginning of the phrase “et fuga verterunt Angli,” which translates to “… and the English have turned to flight.” In the right side of panel 72 and the panel following mine, one can see that the Norman cavalry are fiercely chasing the English soldiers. In these last two panels, panel 72 and 73, marks the end of the tapestry, or at least the pieces that remain today. There is probably more to the tapestry to show the very end of the battle, but those pieces have been lost.

Bibliography

Britain’s Bayeux Tapestry (n.d.). Retrieved April 8, 2014 from Bayeuxtapestry.org.uk: http://www.bayeutapestry.org.uk/

Ingram, J. (2008). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Retrieved April 8, 2014 from Avalon.law.yale.edu: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/angsax.asp

Weaponry: Norman Arms and Armour. Historynet.com. (June 12, 2006). Retrieved April 8, 2014 from http://www.historynet.com/weaponry-norman-arms-and-armour.htm

Wilson, D. M. (1985). The Bayeux Tapestry. New York: Thames and Hudson Inc., Retrieved April 8, 2014

Alexander the Great was the ruler of Macedonia in the year 336, following the assassination of his father, King Philip II. Before then, he was put in command over the left wing of the Macedonian army at the battle of Chaeronea two years before his father died. He was a great military leader, and his father saw him a trustworthy heir to the throne because of his loyalty and skill (Oxford).

When Alexander did finally become ruler of Macedonia, he began to conquer the East, and continued to do so until his death. His empire stretched over 3,000 miles from the Adriatic Sea to the Indus River (Sacks).To conquer the other lands, Alexander led major campaigns across the continent. These campaigns were very successful. In this post, I would like to focus on one such battle, called the Battle of Granicus River.

Alexander the Great began to conquer the Persian Empire, and his first battle against the, was at the River Granicus. In summary, Alexander was up against a slightly smaller Persian army commanded by local Persian govenors. The majority of the battle was fought on horse with cavalry and on foot with soldiers, and took course over a few attempts by Alexander to cross the river, which led to his eventual victory. To delve further into this battle, I will first discuss the terrain of the river and its surrounding areas and how the two armies were set up.

Alexander the Great during the Battle of the Granicus River

First of all, the Persian armies were already posted on one side of the river, having their cavalry take the front line and line up along the whole side of the river. Being on higher elevation, the Persians had an advantage over anyone who would try to cross the river due to a high bank. The Persians were in number some 20,000 cavalrymen, along with a force of foreign mercenary infantry (Hammond).

Alexander’s forces were more numerous in size than the Persian army, but were at a disadvantage due to the river and elevation difference. Alexander was in command of the cavalry in the right wing of the army, Parmenion was in charge of the cavalry in the left wing, and the phalanx was in the center in the center, which consisted of two rows.

Alexander was urged by some of his close advisors not to charge across the river when they arrived, and was encouraged to wait at the foot of it until the next day and charge the enemy before they could get into formation. Alexander disregarded the instruction and said that is would be unworthy of the Macedonians if they did not do battle that day(Romm and Strassler).

Alexander led the first charge against the Persians with his unit of cavalry. They attempted to cross the river, but were unsuccessful. The other wing of the Macedonian army also began to cross the river, but also met resistance. Meanwhile, the main units of the Macedonian phalanx began to successfully cross the river with ease, and eventually gained the upper hand.

The Persians began to retreat, but no severe chase was given. Instead, Alexander turned his attention towards the foreign mercenaries that were still in formation. He ordered the phalanx to attack the front while he circled around back with his cavalry. They killed most of the mercenaries, but took around 2,000 alive as prisoners (Romm and Strassler).

And thus the Battle of the Granicus River was won. Although Alexander faced a disadvantage due to the landscape, he still was able to gain the upper hand and win a very decisive first victory against the Persian Empire.

Works Cited

Hammond, N. G. L. “The Battle of the Granicus River.” Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 100.Centennary Issue (1980): 73-88. Document.

Le Brun, Charles. Battle of the Granicus. Paris. Oil on canvas.

Oxford. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome. Ed. Micheal Gagarin. Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.

Romm, James and Robert B. Strassler. The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander. New York: Pantheon Books, 2010. Print.

Sacks, David. Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World: Revised Edition. New York: Facts On File, 2005. Print.

In the times of the Spartans and Athenians, warfare was very common. There was constantly someone who wanted more power, so there were many wars and battles over land, people, and power. For some of the civilizations, like Sparta, war was everything; even a way of life. One might ask, how did these people in ancient times do battle then? Of course it is nothing like to day. There were no guns, no technology, and certainly no aircrafts. So, in this post today, I will answer this question of how these people fought. I am going to also talk specifically about the organization of these groups and what each member of the army did.

First off, the armies were split up into three main categories: the armed men on foot, the cavalry, and the special forces. The special forces consisted of spear throwers, archers, and even elephant riders. The cavalry were armed men on horseback whose main purpose was often to shape the battlefield. But the group I want to focus on mainly is the armed soldiers on foot.

There were three main types of soldiers: the hoplites, the phalanx, and the helots. The helots were the most basic form of soldier and were most commonly known as the peasants or servants. These soldiers were only armed with simple weapons and armor, generally farming tools and other cheap types of weaponry. The most commonly type of soldier used by all of the ancient civilizations was the Hoplite. The hoplite was a heavy infantry unit, armed with a shield called a Hoplon, helmet, breastplate, greaves, spear, and sword. The Hoplon “was round, wide (three feet in diameter), heavy (about 16 pounds), and deeply concave on the inside” (Sacks 117). It was made out of wood reinforced with bronze. The shield was very heavy and hard to hold up for long periods of time. In battle, the shield was the first thing to usually be cast aside when either retreating or chasing the enemy’s forces, as it is heavy and cumbersome. But, for the Spartans, keeping their shield meant keeping their honor, so many did not throw away their shields.

Hoplite in full armor

The hoplite was the main force in most armies and took up the majority of the population. Some people even ruled with just an army of hoplites. For example, Around 375 BCE, Jason of Pherai, a powerful man who sought to take control of Thessaly, became tagos, or ruler, over all of Thessaly. When he became tagos, “he assessed how many horsemen and hoplites each city of Thessaly was able to contribute, and he found that he had in all more than 8,000 cavalry and more than 20,000 hoplites. His peltasts were sufficiently numerous to array against those of the whole world – indeed, it would be a difficult task simply to list the cities that furnished them” (Strassler 225). With his great army, he marched through Phocis and destroyed the wall of Herakleia; on his return to Thessaly he is the greatest man in Greece. From fear of Jason becoming tyrannical and too powerful, 7 young men assassinated him.

The other main unit in the army was the phalanx. The phalanx was “the body of Greek heavy-armed infantrymen deployed in lines that usually takes the center of the battlefield and plays the most relevant role in combat” (Fernando 304). The phalanx consisted of rows of men, sometimes up to a few hundred, who all had long spears and shields strapped to their shoulder. They would then march forward towards the enemy troops. The phalanx could be “drawn up in open order with two paces per man or doubled up to form close order” (Connolly 37). An Argive shield was strapped to the left shoulder. In close order, the shield was wide enough to offer protection to the unguarded side of the man on the left.

Work Cited

Connolly, Peter. Greece and Rome at War. Great Britain: Frontline Books, 2012. Print.

Echeverría, Fernando. “Hoplite and Phalanx in Archaic and Classical Greece: A Reassessment.” Classical Philology: Vol. 107, No. 4 (October 2012): pp. 291-318. JSTOR. Web. 2 Feb. 2014.

Sacks, David. A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Print.

Shumate, Johnny. Ancient Greece Hoplite with his Hoplon and Dory. 2006. Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 17 November 2006.
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ancient_Greece_hoplite_with_his_hoplon_and_dory.jpg&gt;

Strassler, Robert. The Landmark Xenophon’s Hellenika. New York: Pantheon Books, 2009. Print.

Hey everyone! Just saying hello on the blog.