Laminar armor. How to make lamellar armor with your own hands. Medieval laminar armor

Laminar armor (from Latin laminae - layer) is the general name for armor made of solid transverse strips movably connected to each other.
The most famous examples of laminar armor are the Roman Lorica segmentata and some of the later varieties of samurai armor. In addition to Lorica segmentata, in ancient Rome Full laminar protection of the limbs was also known, but it was practically not used in the army, being used mainly for gladiators, who usually only had one arm (in some cases one leg) protected in this way with an unprotected body.
Laminar armor was widespread in the East until the 16th century, until it was replaced by ring-plate armor. Laminar armor was widely used by Mongol warriors in the 12th-14th centuries; the most common type of Mongolian armor - huyag - often had a laminar structure. In terms of cut, the Mongolian laminar armor was no different from the lamellar armor, but it was heavier and more inconvenient than the lamellar armor.

Related concepts

Ringed armor - armor woven from iron rings, a metal network to protect against damage from cold weapons. It bore (depending on the variety) different names: chain mail, shell, baidana, yacerin. Different types of chain mail were used - from a chain mail shirt, which covered only the torso and shoulders, to full hauberks, which covered the body completely, from head to toe.

Medieval laminar armor

Pre-samurai armor

The earliest Japanese armor, known as tanko, was of laminar construction, and was intended only for foot combat (as it had tonlets, not intended for riding). Another distinctive feature was the use of a tanko with a hand shield. After the advent of Japanese cavalry, initially protected by lamellar armor imported from China, the tanko was completely replaced by Japanese lamellar armor known as keiko (later evolving into o-yoroi armor).

Samurai armor

At the beginning of the Sengoku Period, Japanese armor usually had two options - an expensive one and a cheaper one. Both versions had the same design, the difference being that the expensive versions were made from "true lamellar plates" (known as hon-ko-zane for narrow plates, and hon-iyo-zane for wider plates), while the cheaper version was made from "fake lamellar plates" (known as kiritsuke-ko-zane or kiritsuke-iyo-zane, briefly kiritsuke-zane). “Fake” lamellar plates were made from long, non-stretched, perforated and laced protective plates, imitating “real” lamellar plates, assembled on a cord of small protective plates (since a typical lamellar consisted of horizontal rows of small plates assembled into strips). Thus, the strips of "fake lamellar plates" were very hard, while the strips of "real lamellar plates" consisted of two or three words of smaller plates. "Fake lamellar plates" provided better protection against bludgeoning blows, while "real lamellar plates" provided better protection against arrows and slashing blows, with swords and bows being much more common than maces in Japan.

For better imitation, the "fake lamellar plates" were often heavily perforated, but usually they had stiffening ribs imitating the angles of the "real lamellar plates." As for other design details, the armor made from “real lamellar plates” and from “fake lamellar plates” had the same structure (in fact, it was lamellar and lamellar armor).

As the Civil War became increasingly destructive, "fake lamellar armor" became less and less popular, while "real lamellar armor" became even more expensive, causing the imitation of lamellar armor to become optional, resulting in laminar stripes instead connections with a cord using the “full tying” technique ( kebiki-odoshi) were often connected by technology sugake-odoshi.

After almost a hundred years of continuous civil war The laminar cuirass evolved into the Okigawa-wu cuirass, consisting of horizontal protective strips connected not by cords, but by rivets (often with kamon), or staples imitating cords. Soon rivets and staples became optional because... the metal strips of armor could simply be forged together by forge welding. Such cuirasses (which were no longer truly laminar) were often worn with impressive sized pieces, known as o-sode, to make the armor look like the very prestigious o-yoroi armor (the old-fashioned o-yoroi was valued not for its protective qualities, but for its -because such armor served as proof of the noble origin of the wearer, thus even newly made o-yoroi was highly valued as ceremonial armor).

Middle Eastern and Central Asian lamellar armor

According to Leonid Bobrov, until the end of the 15th century, the most popular armor for this region, including Central Asia and Iran, was lamellar armor and laminar armor. However, in Iran, from the 15th century, lamellar and laminar armor were used mainly only in the south, while at the same time ring-plate armor was common in the north.

Initially (as, for example, in Japan) for centuries, lamellar armor was simply cheaper than lamellar armor, but (unlike Japan) they did not try to visually imitate lamellar armor when producing lamellar armor. Laminar armor was made from horizontal strips of protective material, fastened in a manner similar to lamellar armor, but without additional weaving and without simulating individual plates of lamellar armor. And like lamellar armor, these cords could be cut during battle, and simply wear out and tear over time, with insufficient maintenance of the armor.

Later, in the early 15th century, the design of laminar armor changed significantly, and instead of attaching individual plates with cords on new laminar armor, individual plates were attached with rivets to wide straps (like lorica segmentata). As a result, lamellar armor became more reliable than lamellar armor - hidden straps could not be cut without piercing the armor, it did not require constant repair, and was much more durable and reliable than laced lamellar armor. Thus, laminar armor became more popular than lamellar armor, and was almost completely replaced by the end of the 15th century. True lamellar armor became very rare, however various combinations of lamellar and lamellar armor were very popular. The reason for this is that laminar armor was much more durable than lamellar armor, but laminar armor was not flexible enough, while lamellar armor was very flexible. Lamellar cuirasses could be worn with lamellar pauldrons and tassets (with separate bracers and helmets). Less common was the opposite combination of a lamellar cuirass with lamellar pauldrons and tassets. Both combinations could be supplemented with a lamellar or laminar codpiece and, or reinforced with mirror plates.

At the end of the 15th century, when lamellar armor became more popular than lamellar armor, both types of armor began to be replaced by ring-plate armor. Initially, only legguards were ring-plate, but by the beginning of the 16th century, ring-chain legguards and shoulder pads completely replaced laminar and lamellar ones, because they provided better body coverage. Thus, the typical laminar armor of this period was a laminar cuirass, which could be worn over a sleeved brigandine, with the addition of ringed-plate legguards (helmet, bracers and greaves are not mentioned here, as they were common for the region). The sleeves of such a brigand worked as shoulder pads, and if the brigand was long enough, then its floors served as tassets. Another option was to wear such a laminar cuirass without a brigandine, but with ring-plate pauldrons and legguards. Both variations of laminar armor could be reinforced with a mirror (even if laminar armor was sufficient to protect against edged weapons, a metal mirror was worn as protection against the evil eye). Finally, by the end of the 16th century, laminar and lamellar armor had virtually disappeared from the Middle East and Central Asia regions.

Leonid Bobrov's theory

According to Bobrov's theory, ring-plate armor completely replaced laminar and lamellar armor as a result of the fact that the Mongol invasion of Islamic countries changed their perception by society, which was reflected in the perception of Islamic armor. Laminar and lamellar armor complemented the image of "pagans" and "Mongols", especially when made in the Mongol style, while ring-plate armor was associated with a "orthodox" image. In Islamic miniatures of that period, it was typical to depict enemies (no matter whether they were pagans or Muslims) in lamellar and laminar armor, while “their” warriors were depicted in chain mail.

Laminar armor of the natives of Alaska and Siberia

The armor of the Chukchi and Eskimos had a very similar design, the difference being that the Chukchi armor had only one huge shoulder pad, expanding to the waist, used as a shield, and looking more like a wing than the Japanese o-sode, and the Eskimo The armor had two such winged pauldrons. Both Chukchi armor and Eskimo armor could be either laminar or lamellar, unlike other regions where lamellar and laminar armor usually had different designs

Classic lamellar armor was made from hard materials (originally from natural materials, such as bones, fangs, whalebone, and sometimes even wood, because arrowheads were originally made of bone or stone), in the form of a short cuirass, or even consisting of a single breastplate. Laminar armor was usually made from reinforced seal skin and was knee-length or even longer. However, later lamellar armor was made of metal (iron, steel, or bronze) and could reach the length of lamellar armor. Typically lamellar and lamellar armor was worn with a high collar (protecting the throat and head) combined with one or two laminar pauldrons (used more as a shield than a pauldron). This collar and shoulder pads were made primarily of leather and wood.

Thus, at least one part of the armor (the shoulder pads) was laminar. But sometimes the pauldron was relatively short, and instead of a lamellar structure of several wooden slats, it had only one large bar, and the rest of the arm was protected by a splint or lamellar bracer. In addition to optional bracers, the armor could have a lamellar helmet and splint or lamellar leggings.

White armor- armor produced in Europe from the end of the 14th to the beginning of the 15th century. After the revival of the art of making cuirass, plate armor was replaced. Later it evolved into Milanese and casten-brut. It was called white to distinguish it from Coracina. Later they began to call armor that was not coated with paint and not blued. It had less flexibility and degree of freedom, but greater reliability than a large-plate brigantine. Used with a Grand Bascinet helmet and gauntlets. Characteristic feature It was a plate skirt without hip pads. Not to be confused with legguards. Note author.

Castaing-brut- armor produced in northern Europe from the beginning to the middle of the 15th century. Predecessor of Gothic armor. Used with a Grand Bascinet helmet and plate gloves. Characteristic features were an angular silhouette and a very long skirt.

Milanese armor- armor produced in central and southern Europe from the beginning of the 15th to the middle of the 16th century. The concept of the armor was based on simplicity, reliability and protection. It was often used in conjunction with an armet-type helmet, additional protection in the form of a rondel, bouvier, shoulders, forehead protector, and so on. Plate gauntlets and sabatons were a mandatory element of armor. The characteristic features of the armor were smooth, rounded shapes, the presence large quantity belts fastening the armor and an enlarged left elbow pad.

Gothic armor- armor produced in northern Europe from the mid-15th to the beginning of the 16th century. It was distinguished by great flexibility and freedom of movement provided to the owner of the armor. These properties of the armor were achieved by reducing the level of reliability and protection. As a rule, it had strong corrugation and corrugation, which increased the strength and reduced the weight of the armor. Often used in conjunction with a salad helmet, bouvier, steel gloves and half gloves. The characteristic features of the armor were angles and sharp lines, and minimal additional protection. Often additional reservations were not used at all. The armor set also included chain mail to protect joints and open areas of the body.

Maximilian armor- armor produced in northern Europe since the beginning of the 16th century. Developed by German gunsmiths inspired by the work of Italian craftsmen. Combines Italian rounded with German angular style. The mixture of styles made it possible to create armor that has an external resemblance to Milanese armor, but has not lost characteristic features Gothic. The armor was more durable than the Milanese, but had a lesser degree of freedom and flexibility than the Gothic. A distinctive feature of Maximilian armor, in addition to corrugation and corrugation, were stiffening ribs created by bending the edges of steel plates outward and wrapping them into the narrowest possible tube. Used with helmets of the Armet and Bourguignot type, and plate gauntlets with separate thumb protection. A characteristic feature of the armor was the enlarged elements of standard protection, which made it possible for those who wished to refuse additional armor. For example, changing the size of the shoulder pad, towards increasing the chest plate, made it possible to abandon the rondel.

Brigantine- armor made of steel plates made on a leather or fabric base with the plates overlapping the edges of each other, produced in Europe from the 13th to the 17th centuries. When using a brigantine with plate protection for the limbs, the result was plate-brigant armor. There was also chain mail-brigantine, splint-brigantine and full brigantine armor. There were three main types of brigantines. Classic brigantine It was mainly used from the 13th to the mid-14th centuries. Afterwards it began to be used mainly by militias and mercenaries. It was made from small plates. Often produced in a dimensionless (baggy) version. The edges of the brigantine were connected by straps on the back and shoulders. The back was protected by side wings. Could have had a chainmail skirt. Large-plate brigantine(coracina) was used by knights from the beginning of the 14th to the beginning of the 15th century. Made exactly to fit. Coracina had a detachable breastplate and separate plates protecting the back. Fastened with straps on the chest and shoulders. It also had a skirt of laminar design. Sometimes the back segments of the skirt were missing for greater seating comfort. Later specimens of Coracina consisted of two chest plates, two plates protecting the abdomen, four lateral plates and two dorsal plates. With the advent of the cuirass, the coracina disappeared due to its high cost. Brigantine with plastron used since the middle of the 14th century. It was made by riveting a forged breastplate (plastron) to a classic brigantine. Fastened with straps on the back.

Bakhterets- ring-plate armor produced in the Middle East from the 14th to the 17th centuries. Subsequently, its production spread throughout the East, Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is made of overlapping vertical rows of horizontally arranged steel plates on a chain mail base. The overlap of the plates was at least double. May be a vest, jacket or robe. Can be fastened with straps on the sides or chest. Provides very good protection and complete freedom of movement. Consists of several hundred (up to one and a half thousand) small plates.

Yushman- ring-plate armor produced in the Middle East from the 14th to the 17th centuries. It differs from bakhterets in having larger plates and less overlap between them. May be a vest, jacket or robe. Can be fastened with straps on the sides or chest. Provides less protection than a bakhterets and less freedom of movement. Consists of about a hundred large plates.

Kolontar- ring-plate armor produced in the Middle East from the 13th to the 17th centuries. It is made of steel plates woven together without overlapping. It does not have sleeves covered with plates. The columnar is made on a chainmail basis. May be a vest or jacket with chain mail sleeves and hem. Fastened with straps on the sides. Provides good protection and freedom of movement.

Lamellar armor- a group of armor produced from the 11th to the 14th centuries in eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia, from steel plates woven together with wire or leather cord. First, horizontal stripes are assembled, and then they are fastened together with partial overlap. The armor can be a vest, jacket or robe. Can be fastened with straps on the sides or chest. Provides good protection and freedom of movement. Was supplanted by laminar armor. Lamellar armor is often confused with ring-plate armor. Note author.

Laminar armor- a group of armor, the first examples of which were made in the Roman Empire. Subsequently, they were produced from the 12th to the 15th centuries in eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia, from steel strips woven together with wire or leather cord. The production technology is the same with lamellar armor. First, strips of the required length were forged, and then they were fastened together. Subsequently, the plates began to be attached with rivets to leather straps running inside the armor. The armor is a vest to which additional elements are attached. Can be fastened with straps on the sides or chest. Provides good protection and freedom of movement. Due to greater rigidity, reliability of plate fastening and lower manufacturing costs, laminar armor replaced lamellar armor, but individual moving elements (shoulder pads, elbow pads, etc.) of lamellar construction continued to be found. Laminar armor was replaced by ring-plate armor.

Ring armor- a group of armor produced from the 5th century BC to the 19th century in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, from steel rings woven together. The weaving of rings can be divided into “4in1” - single, “6in1” - one and a half, “8in1” - double. The armor can be a vest, jacket, overalls or robe. A ring net can be a stand-alone means of protection used in combination with others. For example, aventail. The armor can be fastened with straps on the sides, chest or back. Provides good protection and freedom of movement. IN mandatory Used only with underarmor.

Underarmor- the simplest armor-clothing (quilted jacket, vest, robe, etc.) with internal padding made of cotton wool, hemp or flax. The type of armor under which it was worn determined the size and thickness of the underarmor.

Helmets

Round helmet- The open helmet has been produced since ancient Greece. It was made of leather and metal, or entirely of metal. Could have a nosepiece, a mask, ears, butt plate, aventail in various combinations. In Europe it evolved into the capelina, bascinet and pot helmet.

Chain Hood- head protection produced in Europe since the 5th century. Could be used either independently or in conjunction with a helmet.

Potty helmet- a closed helmet produced in Europe since the beginning of the 13th century. Cylindrical or pot-shaped in shape. The later modification had a pointed top and was called a sugar loaf. Tournament modification - toad head. The helmet had two slits on the front. Holes for ventilation could be drilled below. The helmet was worn over a chainmail hood and a thick hat (skullcap). It rested on the shoulders of the wearer, which, together with the hat, protected against concussion when hit on the head. It had poor visibility and could not be firmly fixed relative to the head. After a spear blow he was often removed from the head. Since the end of the 14th century, it was used only in tournaments.

Capelina (chapel)- a group of helmets produced in Europe from the beginning of the 13th to the 17th centuries. It had a cylindrical or spheroconic shape. Replaced the round helmet as head protection for infantrymen and cavalrymen. It was distinguished by wide brims that partially covered the shoulders. There was no face protection. Could have had aventail. The capelina was attached to the head with a chin strap. Later modifications were similar to lettuce.

Bascinet- an open helmet produced in Europe from the beginning of the 13th to the 16th centuries. Could be used independently and as a head protection for knights instead of a chain mail hood worn under a pot helmet. Face protection was limited to a nasal guard and aventail. The bascinet was attached to the head with a chin strap. Later modifications had a very wide detachable nosepiece. In the 14th century, the snout evolves into an elongated cone-shaped visor of a dog's muzzle. The visor was attached in two ways. In the first method, the visor was attached to the frontal part of the bascinet on one hinge and with a belt behind the back of the helmet. This method made it possible to fold back or unfasten the visor. In this case, it could be completely removed and not interfere with putting on the potty helmet. The second method was traditional. The visor was attached to the temple parts of the helmet. The helmet later evolved into the grand bascinet.

Grand Bascinet- a closed helmet produced in Europe since the mid-14th century. Unlike the bascinet, it had a nape plate covering the lower part of the neck and a permanent visor. The appeared bouviger (chin guard) formed a single set of protection with the helmet, covered the chin, throat, collarbones and was attached with pins to the helmet and cuirass. The grand bascinet rested on his shoulders and made it impossible to turn his head. It was attached to the back and, through the bouvier, to the chest part of the cuirass. In terms of protective properties, the grand bascinet was slightly inferior to the pot helmet, but thanks to its versatility, it ousted it from the battlefield and supplanted it in tournaments. Evolved into armet.

Armet- a closed helmet produced in central and southern Europe from the beginning of the 15th to the end of the 16th century. Unlike the grand bascinet, the bouviger was integral with the rest of the helmet. The bouviger consisted of two opening face halves. In the closed position they were fixed with a pin on the chin. Later, the bouviger became a single piece and was attached to the temples of the helmet, which made it possible to fold it back like a visor. In this version, the lower part of the bouvier was attached with a belt with a rondel to the back of the helmet. Almost always the armet rested on the shoulders and did not allow one to turn the head. The helmet could have an aventail and not be attached to the cuirass.

Salad- a group of helmets produced in northern Europe from the end of the 14th to the middle of the 16th century. They originate from the bascinet and are helmets various shapes, united by the presence of a long, located under acute angle to the neck, the back plate and, not always, however, the longitudinal stiffener. Most salads do not have lower face protection. The upper part is protected by a fixed plate with a narrow slot for the eyes or a short visor. In this case, it is necessary to use a bouvier. An armor set consisting of Gothic armor, a salad without lower jaw protection and a bouvier was extremely popular in the German states. The salad allows you to turn and tilt your head in any direction, and the backplate and buviger form good protection for the neck and lower part of the face. The salad did not obstruct the flow of air at all. The combat helmet, as it was called in Germany, was not used in tournaments. In battle, after a spear strike, the salad moved to the back of the head and completely opened the eyes. In the middle of the 15th century, the development of blacksmithing made it possible to equip the salad with two visors. The upper one covered the face from the eyebrows to the tip of the nose, the lower one from the nose to the throat. In the 16th century, the salad evolved into bourguignot. The German World War II helmet and the modern cyclist's helmet are direct descendants of the Salad. I like German gunsmiths, and if you remember what was happening in this region then, you understand that they could not make ceremonial and tournament armor. Note author.

Barbute- (Venetian salad) an open helmet, produced in the south of Europe from the 15th to the mid-16th century. It was a creatively redesigned version of a helmet popular in ancient times. The combat helmet covered the entire head to the shoulders except for the Y-shaped or T-shaped cutout in the front part. Did not interfere with vision, breathing or head movement. Could be equipped with aventail.

Bourguignot- a closed helmet produced in Europe since the mid-16th century. It was a mixture of salad and barbute with elements of armet. It was characterized by a round body, tightly fitting the skull, adjacent to the back of the head and trapezius muscles of the back. Provided good visibility, head mobility and normal air flow. Barbute made it possible to completely abandon the bouvier. Over the course of half a century, in connection with the development of military art, the burgignot became an open helmet. The visor evolved into a visor, the stiffening rib became a ridge, and the side parts of the helmet (cheek pads and ears) began to be attached to hinges.

Source - Gorelik M.V. Early Mongolian armor (IX - first half of the 14th century) // Archeology, ethnography and anthropology of Mongolia. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1987.

Continuation. - on ARD.

Mongolian armor made of hard materials

The main materials for their manufacture were iron and thick leather, molded and dried after removal from the carcass, when it acquired the stiffness of wood. Plano Carpini describes the process of its preparation as follows: “They take straps from a bull or other animal, the width of an arm, and fill them with resin, three or four at a time...” (46). This “armor... made of multi-layered leather... almost impenetrable,” “stronger than iron” (47). Bronze armor is also mentioned in the “Secret Legend” (48).

In structure, the solid armor of the Mongols, all types of which were called the term “huyag” of Mongolian origin (49), was lamellar or laminar (made of continuous wide strips of material connected to each other by straps or cords).

Plano Carpini describes the lamellar iron armor of the Mongols as follows: “They make one thin strip (plate - M.G.) as wide as a finger and as long as a palm, and in this way they prepare many strips; in each strip they make 8 small holes and insert inside (under. - M. G.) three dense and strong belts, lay the strips one on top of the other, as if climbing along ledges (they are laid overlapping with their long sides. - M. G.), and tie the above-mentioned strips to the belts with thin straps, which are passed through the holes noted above; in the upper part they sew one strap, which doubles on both sides and is sewn with another strap so that the above-mentioned strips come together well and tightly, and form from the strips, as it were, one belt (ribbon from plates. - M. G.), and then they tie everything together piece by piece as described above (i.e., as in laminar armor - M. G.). And they do this both to arm the horses and to arm the people. And they make it shine so much that a person can see his own face in them” (50).

(Image of a warrior on a bone plate discovered under Mount Tepsey. IV-VI centuries, Khakassia - drawing by Yu. Khudyakov; parts of the shell of the V-VI centuries, found in the vicinity of the village of Filimonovo, Krasnoyarsk region. Scientific Research Institute of NSU (Novosibirsk). Subject scientific and historical reconstruction of the “early” Turkic warrior of the V-VI centuries)

Although Plano Carpini describes only iron armor, there is no doubt that leather armor, characteristic of Central and East Asia from a millennium BC, was no less common. e. up to the 19th century (51). There were from 6 to 10 holes for fastening in the plates (see Fig. 3, 16, 21, 22), which brings Mongolian armor closer to Tangut and armor that existed in Xinjiang (see Fig. 3, 4-7, 9- 10), and differs from the Jurchen one, with a large number of holes (see Fig. 3, 11, 14, 15). The proportions and sizes of the plates also, of course, varied (see Fig. 3, 16, 21).

Interesting archaic for the XIII - first half of the XIV centuries. features of Mongolian lamellar armor. This is a double interlacing of plates over the edge at the upper edge, as in Tocharian leather armor of the 3rd century. n. e.(52) (which, however, took place in the Tibetan armor of the 17th-19th centuries(53), see Fig. 1, 1), and especially their connection into a ribbon based on three belts, as in the Avar- Alemannic armor of the 7th century (54) (see Fig. 1, 3) or in the later, but clearly archaic” armor of the Nivkhs (55).

Another feature archaic for Eurasian shells of this period is spherical rivets (see Fig. 3, 16, 21, 22). Similar rivets were characteristic of armor of the 8th - 11th centuries, known in the Baikal region (see Fig. 3, 17), Central Asia (wall paintings of the ancient settlement of Penjikent)56, Pecheneg-Oguz monuments of the Volga region (Dzhangala - Bek-bike, 19) , Donetsk (Donetsk settlement) (57), Dnieper region (Museum of the History of Kiev) and even in cities as distant from each other as Dvin in Armenia (58) and Novgorod in the north of Russia (59), to which this eastern tradition has reached .

At the same time, Mongolian plates from the 13th - first half of the 14th centuries. were relatively elongated, unlike previous samples (see Fig. 3, 1, 2, 17), although by the 13th century. in Central Asia and the Amur region, short and wide plates were sometimes used (see Fig. 3, 3, 2, 12).

Rice. 3. Armor plates of Central and East Asia of the pre-Mongol period and the Eurasian steppes of the XIII - XIV centuries.

1 - Tin III, burial. 1, Baikal region, mid-1st millennium;

2 - Sotsal, Baikal region, mid-1st millennium;

3-5 - San Pao, Xinjiang, XII - XIII centuries;

6-? - Khara-Khoto, XII - XIII centuries;

8-10 - Tangut burial No. 8, XI - XII centuries;

11 - Shaiginskoye settlement, 12th century, Amur region;

12 - Nadezhdinsky burial ground, X - XI centuries, Amur region;

13, 14 - Kuleshovsky burial ground, excavation V and burial. 87, IX - XI centuries, Amur region;

15- Afrasiab, large mosque, XIII century;

16 - Novoterskoye, Checheno-Ingushetia, first half of the 14th century;

17 - Lomy I, burial. 1, middle of the second half of the 1st millennium, Baikal region;

18 - grave near the village. Zugulay, Baikal region, XIV century;

19 - right bank of the Yenisei, Khakassia, IX - X centuries;

20 - Novokumaksky burial ground, mound. 1, 1971, first half - mid-14th century, Orenburg region;

21 - Olelkovo ancient settlement (?), XIII century, Kiev Historical Museum;

22 - Chernova, mound. 12, first half of the 13th century, Minusinsk Basin;

23 - Abaza, Abakan district, second half of the 13th - mid-14th century.

Laminar armor is also described by Plano Carpini. Three or four-layer leather tapes are “tied together with straps or ropes; on the upper belt (ribbon - M.G.) they place the ropes at the end (i.e., the holes for the cords are located along the lower edge - M.G.), and on the lower one - in the middle, and so on until the end; hence, when the lower straps tilt, the upper ones rise up and thus double or triple on the body” (60).

The same effect, although weaker due to the greater elasticity of the armor surface, was observed with lamellar armor strips. The inelasticity of the Mongolian leather laminar armor is emphasized by Rubruk: “I... saw two... armed with curved shirts made of hard leather, very ill-fitting and uncomfortable” (61).

Unfortunately, the remains of Mongolian laminar armor have not yet been found. But this armor can be judged by the laminar Japanese shells (“tanko”), known from the middle of the 6th to the 19th centuries. (see Fig. 1, 2), as well as Chukchi made of hard walrus skin, which existed in the 18th-19th centuries (62) (Fig. 1, 4). Since the bands of Japanese armor were forged from iron, it is likely that some of the Mongol armor also had iron bands.

Rice. 4. Iranian images of Mongolian hard shells of the “corset-cuirass” cut and helmets.

1 - “Jami at-tawarikh” by Rashid ad-Din, Tabriz, 1306-1308, Edinburgh University Library;

2, 3 - “Jami at-tawarikh” by Rashid ad-Din, Tabriz, 1314, Royal Asiatic Society, London;

4 - “Shah-name” by Ferdowsi, Shiraz, 1331, Topkapu Museum Library, Istanbul;

5 - “Kitab-i Samak Ayyar” by Sadaki Shirazi, Shiraz, 1330 - 1340, Bodley Library, Oxford; 6-8, 10-13, 15, 16 - “Shah-name” by Ferdowsi, Tabriz, 1330s, former, collected. Demotta;

14 - “Jami at-tawarikh” by Rashid ad-Din, Tabriz, 1314, Topkapu Museum Library, Istanbul.

Let's turn to visual sources. On Iranian miniatures of the first half of the 14th century. there are a lot of images of lamellar (see Fig. 4, 2, 4, 7, 8, 13, 16; Fig. 5, 2, 3, 9-14) and laminar (Fig. 4, 5, 6, 9-12, 14, 15; Fig. 5, 4, 15) armor.

Judging by the Tabriz miniatures, shells of a mixed structure were no less popular, in which lamellar ribbons alternated with laminar, solid ones (Fig. 4, 1, 3; Fig. 5, 1, 5-8, 16).

On Shiraz and Baghdad miniatures the shells are of only a uniform structure. The lamellar shells in these images usually have a metallic color - they are painted with yellow, less often gray or gold paint. On Tabriz miniatures, the lamellar shells are green, red, pink, and orange. Most likely, painted leather plates were depicted this way, which corresponds to the tradition of Central and East Asia, where they were also varnished to protect them from dampness (63).

In Iranian miniatures, “metallic” coloring of laminar armor is less common - usually the stripes are painted, often covered with an ornament - geometric, occasionally Muslim pseudepigraphic and especially often floral, in the form of a climbing vine with a trefoil - beloved by the Mongols, but extremely widespread (Fig. 4, 5 ). Lamellar armor is also often edged with a patterned laminar stripe.

Images of laminar armor, although not often, are found in monuments of Central and Central Asian monumental painting (64), and their prototypes were the armor on figurines from North Chinese burials of the mid-1st millennium AD. BC (65), depicting steppe Xianbei horsemen.

V.I. Raspopova suggested that Central Asian and Iranian images show not laminar, but lamellar armor, each strip of which is covered with solid leather tape (66), but she does not provide any evidence. In fact, this is found only in Japanese armor from about the 10th-11th centuries, but the specifics affected this. Japanese lamellar armor: from that time on, they tried to make and show, especially on the chest, solid monolithic armor.

This was achieved by extremely tightly tying the plates and gluing the cords, pasting the set tapes and entire bibs with strips and pieces of painted leather (67). On the mainland, nothing like this has been reliably recorded. Data from Iranian miniatures about the structure of Mongolian armor is confirmed by Chinese and Japanese images of lamellar (Fig. 6, 1, 3) and laminar (Fig. 6, 2, 7) armor.

Rice. 5. Iranian images of Mongolian hard shells of the “robe” cut and helmets.

1, 2, 5, 6 - “Jami at-tawarikh” by Rashid ad-Din, Tabriz, 1314, Royal Asiatic Society, London;

3, 13, 14 - “Jami at-tawarikh” by Rashid ad-Din, Tabriz, 1306 - 1308, Edinburgh University Library;

4, 10 - “Shah-name” by Ferdowsi, Baghdad (?), 1340, British Museum;

7, 8, 11, 15 - “Shakh-name” by Ferdowsi, Tabriz, 1330s, former. collection Demotta;

9 - “Jami at-tawarikh” by Rashid ad-Din, Tabriz, early 14th century, Prussian cultural heritage, Tübingen;

12 - “Kitab-i Samak Ayyar” by Sadaki Shirazi, Shiraz, 1330-1340, Bodley Library, Oxford; 16 - leaf from an album, Tabriz, early 14th century, Prussian cultural heritage, Tübingen.

One of the main characteristics of the shell is its cut. Plano Carpini describes in detail the cut of Mongolian armor from the mid-13th century: “The armor... has... four parts; one part (the breastplate. - M. G.) extends from the hip to the neck, but it is made according to the position of the human body, as it is compressed in front of the chest (narrower in the upper part of the chest. - M. G.), and from the arms (armpits .- M. G.) and below it fits roundly around the body; At the back of the sacrum they place another piece (the backrest - M.G.), which extends from the neck to the piece that fits around the body (to the sides - M.G.); on the shoulders, these two pieces, namely the front and back, are attached with buckles to two iron strips, which are on both shoulders; and on both arms on top (on the outside of the arm. - M. G.) they have a piece that extends from the shoulders to the hands, which are also lower (on the inside of the arm. - M. G.) are open, and on each on the knee (thigh. - M.G.) they have a piece; all these pieces are connected by buckles” (68).

Before us is a scrupulous description of the “corset-cuirass” type armor - the main cut of armor in Central and East Asia, North America and Oceania, known since the 2nd millennium BC. e. until the 19th century (69) Iranian miniatures quite accurately depict armor of this type (see Fig. 4), and sometimes down to small details - buckles connecting the chest part with shoulder pads and legguards (see Fig. 4, 1).

Carpini described only one version of the corset-cuirass - a leather laminar one with shoulder guards and legguards. The miniatures depict both lamellar (metal and leather), and laminar (metal), and corsets-cuirasses with a mixed structure. The mantles reach the elbow or end slightly higher, the legguards reach the middle femur, either the knee or the middle of the shin. It is not uncommon to see corsets-cuirasses consisting only of torso protection, without shoulders and legguards (see Fig. 4, 8, 10, 12, 13) or with legguards, but without shoulders (see Fig. 4, 5, 11).

The required cuts and fasteners on the sides are not shown in the pictures, but such a detail has almost never been depicted in world art. Often along the axis of the breastplate and backplate a seam is shown, which was made for greater flexibility of the armor (see Fig. 4, 8, 9, 12, 14); its joints are sometimes covered with trapezoidal plates (Fig. 4, 15, 16). Such plates were recently found in a 14th-century armor complex. in Tuva(70).

Notes

47 Matuzova V.I. English medieval sources... - P. 150, 152,153, 175, 182.

48 Kozin A. N. Secret legend. - § 195.

49 Gorelik M.V. Mongol-Tatar defensive weapons...-S. 256.

50 Travel to eastern countries... - P. 50-51.

51 Gorelik M.V. Military affairs...; Gorelik M.V. Armament of peoples...; Thordeman V. Armour...; Robinson H.R. Oriental Armour.

52 Gorelik M.V. Armament of nations...

53 Thordeman V. Armour...- Fig. 238.

54 Paulsen A. P. Alamannische Adelsgraber...- Taf. 58 u. a.

55 Medvedev V. E. About the helmet of a medieval Amur warrior // Military affairs of the ancient tribes of Siberia and Central Asia. - Novosibirsk, 1981. - P. 179.

56 Belenitsky A. M. Monumental art of Penjikent. - M., 1973. - Table. 23, 25.

57 Medvedev A.F. On the history of plate armor in Rus' // SA.-1959.- No. 2.- Fig. 2, 1, 2.

58 Kalantaryan A. A. Material culture of the Dvina IV-VIII centuries - Yerevan. 1970.-Table. XXI, 1.

59 Medvedev A. F. To history... - Fig. 1, 11, 12.

60 Travel to eastern countries... - P. 50.

61 Ibid. - P. 186.

62 Stone G. S. A. Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor in all Countries and in all Times. - N. Y., 1961. - Fig. 71.

63 Robinson H. R. Oriental Armour.- Fig. 62, 67, 68.

64 Raspopova V.I. Metal products of early medieval Sogd.-P.. 198J3.- Fig. 60; Gorelik M.V. Armament of nations...

65 Robinson H. R. Armour...- Fig. 65, V.

66 Raspopova V.I. Metal products... - P. 83.

67 Robinson H. R. Oriental Armour.- P. 173-178. Her Travels to Eastern Countries...- P. 50.

69 Gorelik M.V. Military affairs...; Stone G. S. A. Glossary...- Fig. 70, 71,.76, 86, 87.

70 Gorelik M.V. Mongol-Tatar defensive weapons...-Table. IV.

History of armor Laminar armor Laminar armor (from Latin Laminae - layer) is armor consisting of strips of protective material (running horizontally relative to the body). The most famous examples of these types of armor are the lorica segmentata, and inexpensive versions of samurai armor (expensive versions were always lamellar, or a combination of lamellar armor and cuirass). Lesser-known examples of laminar armor existed in Asia from Iran to Mongolia, including Central Asia, but in the 16th century laminar and lamellar armor were supplanted by ring-plate armor in the Near East and Central Asia, remaining largely only in Mongolia. Lornca Segmentata Pre-Samurai Armor Tanko Is the oldest Japanese iron armor, in shape it was a laminar robe with a tight-fitting body cuirass made of iron strips, reproducing the shape of an earlier leather armor, with a plate necklace, with flexible elbow-length shoulder pads, and a long bell-shaped skirt, in contrast to the skirts of later armor, suitable only for foot combat. The armor was worn with tubular bracers with lamellar half-mittens that partially covered the hand, and a helmet with a small crest protruding forward like a beak and a laminar backplate of a characteristic Japanese semicircle shape. The greaves were missing. It is worth noting that, apart from its unsuitability for mounted combat, the armor was very perfect and, apart from the absence of greaves, due to the rigidity of the design, it provided much better protection in hand-to-hand combat on foot than the later kozan-do. After the appearance of the Japanese cavalry, initially protected by lamellar armor imported from China, and the tanko was completely replaced by Japanese lamellar armor known as keiko (later evolving into O-yoroi armor). Classic samurai armor - kozan-do Keiko Lamellar armor in the form of a tanko, with a shorter skirt with slits, created after the introduction of horses into Japan and mounted combat from the continent. The tanko turned out to be completely unsuitable for mounted combat, and imported lamellas from Korea and China were not enough for all the riders. Since the keiko, in contrast to the tanko precisely tailored to the figure, was dimensionless, the bracers were often made dimensionless - a splint design. The beak comb on the helmet disappeared and gave way to a visor. With the growing popularity of equestrian combat, laminar tanko were completely replaced by lamellar keiko , since the main customers of tanko switched to mounted combat and now wore keiko, and those who fought on foot could not afford to order tanko. O.. o -eroi I Literally “great armor” - the most classic armor, worn at a later time as a sign of prestige, which had a lamellar design. It was considered the highest chic to wear authentic family armor, preserved from the genpei era and participating in some famous battle of this era; such legendary armor in working condition was incredibly expensive. A characteristic feature of this armor were the huge o-sode shoulder pads, which in later eras turned into an analogue of general's shoulder straps and were worn with armor of other designs as a symbol of the high status of their wearer. This armor was intended primarily for equestrian combat as a horse archer, when shooting from the bow, the shoulder pads slid back, without interfering with shooting, and when lowering the arms, they slid back, covering the arms; in addition, the chest of the armor was covered with a varnished leather plate, designed to prevent the bow string from clinging to the weaving Another characteristic feature This lamellar had an extremely rigid weave of plates - so rigid that if non-Japanese lamellars were characterized by flexibility, then o-yora was characterized by a lack of flexibility, and therefore the protection of the body was clearly divided into four unbending parts - a breastplate, a backrest and two side parts , one of which (on the right side) was separate. The helmets were characterized by the presence of special lapels on the back of the head (which ran in a semicircle and covered not only the back of the head), intended to protect the face from arrows from the side. An integral attribute of the o-yoroi was a special cape - horo, attached to the helmet and on the lower back, designed to reduce the momentum of arrows fired at the back. The cape fluttered at the gallop like a sail, and the arrows, having hit it, reached the main armor weakened. Literally “around the body” - lamellar armor, which, unlike tKYa. And from o-yoroi, it is intended for fighting on foot and putting it on independently (without the help of servants), since it was originally worn by servants who accompanied the mounted bushi into battle on foot. But after the advent of walking bushi, he began to wear them too. The distinctive features of the domaru included less rigid weaving, fastening on the right side (without an additional separate part on the right side), minimal shoulder pads - gyoyo, simpler lamellar weaving and a running-friendly skirt with more sections. At the same time, the bushi who wore do-maru, wanting to emphasize their status, put on large shoulder pads - o-sode (from the o-yoroi armor), and moved the minimal shoulder pads - gyoyo so that they covered the armpits in front. A hybrid of o-yoroi and do-maru, with large shoulder pads, patent leather chest plate and other o-yoroi paraphernalia, but more practical for foot combat. Haramaki Maru-do-yoroi Literally “winding around the belly” - an improved do-maru, intended for samurai, the main design difference of which from the do-maru was that it was fastened on the back, and the place of fastening was protected from above by an additional lamellar section called coward plate - se-ita. In addition to the large shoulder pads - o-sode, the haramaki also wore improved shoulder pads intended for foot combat - tsubo-sode and hiro-sode, not as pompous as o-sode, but more practical and did not slide down and back, opening the shoulder when raising your hand up. Transitional armor - Mogami-do A laminar analogue of do-maru or haramaki (respectively, mogami-do-maru and mogami-haramaki), in early versions consisting of abundantly perforated strips through which abundant lacing passed, diligently imitating real small plates, for A more convincing imitation of the plate had teeth and relief, imitating small plates superimposed on each other. Despite the greater rigidity of the structure compared to lamellar armor, Mogami-do armor was nevertheless considered by contemporaries only as a cheap fake. With the advent of more advanced maru-do, mogami-do ceased to imitate lamellar (to hide its laminar nature), and continued to be manufactured until the advent of okegawa-do, but as obvious laminar armor. Samurai armor of the Sengoku era - tosei-gusoku Maru-do A laminar analogue of the do-maru of an improved design, with a more optimal distribution of the weight of the armor, which now did not weigh heavily on the shoulders, but lay partially on the hips, the protection of the upper chest and armpits was also improved and the number of laminar rows has been increased. A brigantine collar also appeared, the expanded edges of which served as small additional (internal) shoulder pads. As a rule, maru-do were abundantly perforated and, like mogami-do, imitated lamellar, from which they had the full name kirutsuke-kozane-maru-do - literally maru-do made of false small plates. Hon-kozane-maru-do Literally maru-do from real small plates - a lamellar analogue of maru-do from real elaborate small plates (differing from the original do-maru by an improved design, like maru-do), created for those who disdainfully treated laminar armor as cheap, considering it beneath his dignity to wear it. Two opposing points of view on the existence of hon-kozane-maru-do: -real small plates were better protected than laminar, since such a composite structure of composite plates (metal covered with leather and varnished) arranged with multiple overlaps and abundantly stitched with silk the cord was very viscous and was best protection from arrows - extreme conservatism and pretentious aesthetics served as the reason for the existence of such an anachronism Nuinobe-do (Hon-iyozane-nuinobe-do) Lamellar armor of an improved design made of large plates with minimal overlap (called iyozane) and sparse lacing, intended for those who wanted a real one lamellar, but could not afford a real hon-kozane-maru-do. Okegawa-do Literally “barrel cuirass” - armor with a cuirass made of riveted strips, sometimes with decorative rivets (which could be in the shape of a coat of arms - mine). The stripes could be either horizontal - yokohagi-okegawa-do, or vertical - tatehagi-okegawa-do. Yukinoshita-do Named after the creator - Yukinoshita Denshitiro Hisai (or sendai-do - according to the place of production), in fact the Japanese version of mirror armor, consisting of five parts: front, back and three side (on the right side two plates were located with overlap). This five-part design - gomai-do - was not unique, but it was master Yukinoshita’s version (with external hinges and solid plates) that turned out to be the most successful and durable. Uname-toji-do (Munemenui-do) A type of okegawa-do made of horizontal stripes perforated along the edges, for decoration purposes, with a cord woven with a horizontal stitch. Dangae-do Armor in a mixed style, for example, the chest is like that of Hishi Nui-do, and the stomach is like that of Maru-do (in the style of Kiritsuke-Kozane-Maru-do, imitating lamellar). Literally “Buddha’s chest” - armor with a seemingly solid cuirass; the cuirass could be either truly solid or actually consisting of strips (okegawa-do), the joints of which were carefully polished. Uchidashi-do After the end of the internecine Sengoku wars, a variety called uchidashi-do became widespread and differed from the usual smooth hotoke-do by abundant embossing and engraving decorations (during the Sengoku wars, such decorations were considered too dangerous for the owner, since the decorations could get caught the tip of the weapon, which in the case of smooth armor would simply slide off it). Nio-do Katahada-nugi-do Literally “Nio’s chest” - armor with a cuirass in the form of a naked torso of Buddhist guards - nio, unlike the muscular cuirasses of Greece and Rome, muscularity was optional: the torso was often depicted on the verge of exhaustion, and sometimes, on the contrary, covered layers of fat. Katahada-nugi-do Literally “cuirass with a bare shoulder” - a type of nio-do with a cuirass in the form of a naked torso with a robe draped over one shoulder. Yukinoshita-do (Sendai-do) Named after the creator - Yukinoshita Denshitiro Hisai (or sendai-do - according to the place of production), in fact the Japanese version of mirror armor, consisting of five parts: front, back and three side (on the right side there were two plates with overlap). This five-part design - gomai-do - was not unique, but it was master Yukinoshita’s version (with external hinges and solid plates) that turned out to be the most successful and durable. Tatami-do Literally “folding armor” - cheap folding armor (sometimes with a folding helmet) made of Japanese brigantine, like the Middle Eastern kalantar, but for the poor. The cheapest versions of tatami-do were made from Japanese chain mail. Ninjas also wore chain mail under their outer clothing when they did not need to be stealthy.