The Soldier Through the Ages - Part 1 - From Antiquity to the Middle Ages - with Drawings by the Author

Already in the third millennium B.C. there was a great pharaonic realm in the Nile valley, whose culture had already reached a high level. According to A. v. Pawlikowski-Cholewa (Die Heere des Morgenlandes, Berlin 1940, p. 141), Egypt (for most of its history) was not a military state but a peasant state with an ancient culture.

Because the fertility of the river valley attracted many other peoples, Egypt had to wage war since the earliest times. Thus even ancient Egypt knew a well-organized military system.

At the time of Ramses II (1324 - 1258 B.C.) the army was divided into 5 corps of 10,000 men each, named after gods (Amon, Re, Ptah, Phra and Seth). The corps were further subdivided into 2 divisions each. Each of these divisions also included war chariots (50) and baggage wagons (6). The formations deployed in dense formations about 100 men wide. The standards displayed images (lion, bull, horse, ship, etc.).

Egypt possessed a lightly equipped army that generally consisted of infantry and light chariots.

The chariot was the decisive weapon of battle; it was essentially what secured the existence of the Egyptian realm. The chariot was a light, maneuverable platform from which enemy troops were shot at. Its use, however, required suitable terrain, namely flat and as tree-free areas as possible. The career of the charioteer was respected; he was socially on a par with the important "scribe."

The bulk of the army consisted of mercenary troops, such as Nubians or other peoples. In the earliest times military service was still corvée. Those called up as soldiers also served as laborers.

The armament of the Egyptian warrior consisted mainly of various types of bows and spears (lances); the sword was used less frequently.

The Egyptian bow was initially the simple African stave; later it was either triangular or recurved and was usually made of different materials combined, consisting mainly of wood, sinew, glue and animal hide. The effective range was about 300–400 meters. Arrowheads were mostly made of flint. Egyptian archers enjoyed a good reputation.

The first swords resembled a dagger: short, straight and double-edged. Only later did sickle-shaped swords appear. Various forms of swords developed: the short sword of about 45 cm in length, the long sword of about 72 cm, and the aforementioned sickle sword.

Spears could be only 1.30–1.50 m or even up to 3 m long. Even the short lance was not used as a throwing spear.

Clubs and axes also served as weapons. These were 1–1.25 m long staves, probably of hard ebony.

"War axes were at first only rectangular or semicircular cast discs of copper whose edge was sharpened and hardened by hammering. The poll of the axe was set into a haft and fastened by holes or by extensions of the poll with leather straps" (A. v. Pawlikowski-Cholewa, loc. cit., p. 143).

The soldier himself wore clothing suited to the climate; the light infantry mostly only a loincloth.

Among officers and pharaohs we already find cuirasses of hippopotamus hide with metal scales. The heavily armed wore a breastplate of crocodile hide.

The soldier additionally protected himself with a wooden shield whose edges were sheathed in metal. The shape of the shield was rectangular, but there were also round and oval shields. According to A. v. Pawlikowski-Cholewa (loc. cit. p. 146) only the heavy infantry (spear- and axe-bearers) had a shield.

Defensive equipment includes helmet, cuirass and greaves; in Western Asia these pieces were not so widespread, although the aforementioned shields regularly belonged to a soldier's equipment. In the New Kingdom, in addition to the scale armor, a strip and plated armor was introduced. "The former consisted of strips of thick leather set in rows with white, yellow, blue, red and green scales and ran horizontally around the body over the shoulders but obliquely. The plated armor consisted alternately of leather strips and metal plates" (A. v. Pawlikowski-Cholewa, loc. cit., p. 146).

In the Egyptian army helmets made of metal were not widespread; instead simple caps pulled down at the back were worn, of Hittite origin. They were made of leather and belonged to the standard equipment of the Egyptian soldier.

There were state armories and "an extensive industry of chariot builders, leather workers, bow-makers, sword and lance smiths, cuirass and helmet factories, etc., with civilian workers" (A. v. Pawlikowski-Cholewa, loc. cit., p. 146).

A military music corps was also already known, equipped with trumpets, flutes, drums, cymbals, etc. (Niels M. Saxtorph, Kriegstrachten in Farben. Von den Anfängen der Geschichte bis zum 17. Jahrhundert, Berlin 1971, p. 149).

The Sumerians were an old, but not the oldest, population layer in Mesopotamia. They are regarded as the creators of one of the earliest high cultures. Around 1800 B.C. they were absorbed into the Akkadians.

On the Sumerian military system and the weapons used, Hartmut Schmökel writes in Das Land Sumer (Stuttgart 1974, pp. 90 ff.): "Wood, leather, stone, copper and bronze provided the materials for manufacturing the war equipment that was produced for the general levy but also for the permanent bearers of arms. For the phalanx of the Vulture Stele, on one fragment four rows of six spears each can be seen thrust forward for attack, while another piece shows soldiers with shouldered spears, and similar relief representations on the mosaic standard of Ur prove that there was a uniform equipment with spear, shield and helmet and a drill regulation. Such a regulation — it seems to be a sixfold organization corresponding to the prevailing numerical system — is inconceivable without a standing core troop that was trained in it and passed it on in wartime to the levied contingent of all those fit for service. Likewise, the war chariot, as it appears on the same artworks and in the copper model from Tell Agrab, is effective only after much driving and field service training, and for that a contingent of professional warriors was required. When Sargon names a guard regiment of 5,400 men, we must assume similar, of course numerically much smaller, formations among the city-lords of Sumer. The equipment of such troops, whose members are to be regarded as semi-free or as a service-obliged hereditary class endowed with a fief, is known to us from reliefs and occasional grave finds. The heavily armed carried large rectangular shields covering the body up to the neck, which were sheathed with bronze bosses, a conical helmet and a long spear, probably also a short sword, while the king carries a sickle-sword as shown on an old round relief from Lagash. Officers possessed a battle-axe as an insignia of their rank.

The lightly armed fought with javelin and bow and arrow; double-axe men are also mentioned. Standard-bearers carried banners in front, which probably mostly represented divine emblems such as eagle or vulture. The role of the armored force was taken by the war chariots, from which the leaders fought. These chariots existed in two types: a heavy four-wheeled type as seen on the so-called mosaic standard of Ur and in clay models from Kish, and a light two-wheeled type that appears on seal images, reliefs and in the copper model from Tell Agrab.

Certainly soldiers and officers played a role in the life of the Sumerian city, and we have already heard that a "captain of the guard" boasted under Shulgi of Ur of having built a temple for his god-king. In peacetime they were perhaps employed in field and construction work; when war broke out, instructors and superiors for the conscripted able-bodied men were taken from their ranks, who were precisely recorded in a muster roll. Among these temple-dependent freemen liable for military service the lists only lack storekeepers, clerks, cooks, brewers, merchants and priests — they were probably members of "militarily important trades" or "rear services" or exempted from service on account of their sacred offices."

Depicted are representations of Sumerian infantry armed with spears and axes, equipped with cloth cloaks and caps with chin straps.

The depicted officer exceptionally wears a metal helmet.

Armor was otherwise probably not used, but sheepskins were worn as protection, for example against arrows. In addition, the heavily armed infantry carried large rectangular shields bound with iron.

Heavy chariots drawn by donkeys were used in battle.

The Hittites were an Anatolian people who attained political influence and military strength in the 2nd millennium B.C.

They lived in what is today north-central Turkey and originated from Indo-European nomadic tribes that migrated around 2300 B.C. from the lower Danube region into western and southern Anatolia. Their center was the city of Kussar (Ḫattuša).

From here they founded their first kingdom around 1700 B.C. This included a number of vassal and neighboring states.

Egypt, Babylon and Assyria regarded the Hittites as rivals; there were diplomatic contacts and military confrontations.

One of the most significant military engagements of antiquity is the Battle of Kadesh between the Egyptian and Hittite empires. It took place in the year 1274 B.C. (1292/1285 B.C.). It was the first or one of the first documented major battles of antiquity.

The Egyptian army was led by Pharaoh Ramses II Melamoun of the XIX Dynasty. By this time the Egyptian military had reached a high standard. The Hyksos had been driven out. Now a confrontation threatened with the Hittite realm over the fortified and cult site of Kadesh. The core of the Egyptian army consisted of archers, slingers, spear- and sword-bearers. A considerable portion were Nubian mercenaries. Additionally there were chariots that provided the necessary mobility and were manned by archers.

The Hittite infantry is estimated at 20,000 men, composed of levies from 12 tribal confederations. But the Hittites also had 2,500 chariots. Since 1400 B.C. their crews consisted of three men each (driver, spear- and shield-bearer). The opposing army was led by the Hittite king Muwatalli.

Due to various tactical errors the Egyptians defeated the Hittites, but the victory was insufficient to drive the Hittites out of Syria. Seventeen years after the Battle of Kadesh a peace treaty was concluded (Markov/Helmert/Schlachten der Weltgeschichte, 28).

In the early 12th century the Hittite great empire collapsed. The precise reasons are unknown.

The Hittites were capable of working iron and therefore could produce iron weapons. They were good spear fighters. This also applied to the warriors on the chariots. Sickle-swords and daggers were also used. There are also depictions of round-edged battle axes and shields shaped like the figure eight.

On the clothing of the Hittites Ortwin Gamber (Waffe und Rüstung Eurasiens. Frühzeit und Antike, p. 121) writes the following: "Self-depictions of the artistically not very gifted Hittites are incomparably rarer than those of the Egyptians. The female attire seems to have consisted of a shirt, long skirt, mantle and cylindrical head-dress. The men wore round caps, short-sleeved shirts, belted loincloths and sandals turned up at the front. Gods and princes are distinguished by high pointed caps, as they apparently belonged to the Indo-Europeans. The Hittite pointed caps were completely rigid. They consisted of a headband, vertical supports and a small terminal plate. At times on the depictions it appears as if a fabric filling were bulging out between the supports."

The helmets shown above are headgear of princes or body- or temple-guards, and thus not usual for the ordinary Hittite warriors.

The Assyrians were the strongest military power of the Iron Age. They settled the northern part of Mesopotamia and probably originated from the second Semitic migration (c. 2500 B.C.). In the 2nd millennium B.C. Assyria was still isolated.

Until the 13th century B.C. Assyrian power grew only slowly, but with the decline of the Hittite and Egyptian powers Assyria's position increased. Numerous wars consolidated the slowly emerging Assyrian empire, whose starting point was the city of Assur on the middle stretch of the Tigris.

For more than six hundred years the Assyrians overran the entire Middle East with warfare. They systematically expanded their dominion through campaigns of conquest, and only the capture of the capital Nineveh in 612 B.C. by Scythians, Medes and Babylonians ended the history of this significant warrior people.

The Assyrians had the best-equipped army of the Ancient Orient. Alongside the Spartans and the Romans, the Assyrians are regarded as one of the most significant warrior peoples of antiquity.

The core of the army was heavily armed chariots; they formed the backbone of the Assyrian army and were a feared weapon. In open field battles they had the main role. They attacked from all directions and shattered the enemy formation, while other units followed and "cleaned up" the battlefield. Incidentally, the chariots served to pursue the fleeing enemy and to transport troops.

The Assyrians were the first to employ cavalry, introduced shortly before 1000 B.C. It consisted of armored archers and spear-bearers. Cavalrymen always fought in pairs, one soldier shot the bow while the other held the horses. The spear-bearers generally did not use the lance as a throwing spear but as a weapon in close combat. Over time Assyrian cavalry increased in importance and soon took the role of the chariot as the shock weapon. Under the Assyrian ruler Sargon cavalry units appear with 1,000 riders each.

The infantry consisted of spearmen, archers and slingers.

The spearmen wore heavy armor and helmets. They acted as shock troops in hand-to-hand combat and were also employed in attacks on fortresses.

The bulk of the Assyrian infantry consisted of archers, who initially wore long armored cloaks. The large, powerful bow was typical of the Assyrian army. The archers were equipped with a very good composite bow. In the 8th century B.C. a new bow with recurved tips was introduced, which was easier to draw. There also existed light units composed of archers.

Tiglath-Pileser III introduced, alongside the sling, the man-high, upward-curved shield. Otherwise Assyrian shields were of differing shapes and sizes. Generally they were made of wood and fitted with metal mountings. Princes and officers in battle were protected by shield-bearers. Helmets occurred in a variety of forms and were made of iron or bronze. Almost all Assyrian warriors carried a short sword on the left side, the sheath of which was continuously decorated with a "lily." The discovered reliefs show a predominant use of armored shirts. These occurred as ring-, chain- and scale-armour and were testimony to a highly developed smithing craft. Cavalry horses were protected by felt or wool blankets reinforced with metal or leather overlays.

Helmut Nickel (Ullstein Waffenbuch 1974, p. 67) describes the Assyrian helmet types as follows: "At the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C. the warriors of Assyria confront us on the reliefs of the royal palaces of Assur, Nimrud and Nineveh, well-armed in lamellar armor and bronze conical helmets. The helmets are sharply pointed with a slightly curved outline and either have an armored neck-guard of lamellar strips hanging from the smooth lower rim down to the shoulders or cheekpieces worked in one piece with the helmet bowl. On many there is a semicircular brow-plate visible, which perhaps is decoratively chased out of the helmet bowl; there is also a flat, turban-like fabric wrapping, which may have been of various colors and may have served to distinguish troop types. Very similar helmets have been found as votive offerings of the great kings of Urartu mostly in the source region of the Euphrates and Tigris — one of them was even carried as far as southern Russia, probably by plundering Scythians. Such a find is evidence of how far-reaching international relations already were in prehistory, and a warning how much one must be wary of deducing origin from find-spot even for an object as universally regarded and appreciated as a weapon. Among the Assyrian warrior depictions there are also those with differently shaped helmets ...".

Hans Bonnet (Die Waffen der Völker des Alten Orients, Leipzig 1926, pp. 206 ff.) writes the following about Assyrian headgear: "Among the Assyrians the caterpillar-decorated helmet only gained acceptance from the time of Tiglath-Pileser III. One follows without question the Urartian model here, but does not adopt it without modification. The form of the helmet ornament is, however, different. The caterpillar does not lie directly on the helmet cap but is raised above it, being seated either on a hoop that slopes evenly forward and backward, or on a kind of crest which bends robustly, occasionally almost semicircularly, forward, less often backward. The helmet cap itself is flatly domed and usually has earflaps, unless the rear part is drawn down into the nape. Thus the Urartian helmet ornament was adapted to the native helmet form. There is no question that the Assyrian spike helmet prepared the way for the elevation of the caterpillar ridge. This was not only more pleasing in appearance, it also had a practical advantage, as the raised hoop could itself also take blows and weaken their force."

In the following image further warriors of antiquity are depicted, namely Nubians, Philistines, Phoenicians, etc.

Nubia lay in the southern Nile valley. From this region the Egyptians obtained important raw materials such as gold, ebony, ivory, etc., but also mercenaries. Nubia traded with Egypt but was also at times ruled by the realm of the pharaohs. The mercenaries from Nubia were mostly commanded by Egyptian officers.

The Philistines are counted among the second migratory movement of the so-called Sea Peoples. They were repelled by the Egyptian army under Pharaoh Ramses III around 1180 B.C. Subsequently the defeated Philistines were settled as military colonists near the coast in Palestine and organized themselves there under a prince. With the decline of Egyptian power the Philistines grew strong and fought the Israelite tribes. King Saul died fighting the Philistines. Only his successor, King David, succeeded in subduing them. After the Philistines later partially recovered politically, they came under the influence of the Assyrians at the end of the 8th century. Later they belonged to the Neo-Babylonian and Persian and then to the Roman Empire.

The Phoenicians lived along the eastern Mediterranean coast and the hinterland up to the Carmel Mountains. Phoenicia is described in the Lexikon der Alten Welt (Zürich and Stuttgart 1965, p. 2312) as follows: "Phoenicia was the coastal region of Syria from Carmel in the south to the Nahr el-Kelb in the north, separated from the Syrian interior by the Galilean mountains, Lebanon and the Nosairiyah range." It was not a single realm but various ethnic groups organized into city-states. The Phoenicians are regarded as the best seafarers of antiquity and outstanding technicians (Gerhard Herm). They developed sea and long-distance trade with many neighboring great powers and states, especially with Asia Minor, Egypt, Assyria, Greece and Babylonia, and founded many trading colonies, e.g. also in the western Mediterranean. The Phoenicians early became involved in the conflicts between the Hittite and Egyptian empires and later fell under Assyrian rule. In 333 B.C. Phoenicia was conquered by Alexander the Great, although only the city of Tyre offered prolonged military resistance to the Greeks/Macedonians.

The Medes belonged to the alliance that brought down the Assyrian empire around 609 B.C. They lived in the region named after them in present-day Iran and their realm became the basis for the later Persian Empire. On this Veit Valentin writes (Knaus Weltgeschichte, Munich–Zürich 65): "The greatest empire in the Near East was founded by the Indo-European people of the Persians. In it everything that Semites and non-Semites had attempted before is overcome and brought together into a majestic unity. The Persian highland, extending southeast from Ararat to India and to the Persian Gulf, had become the home of wandering Indo-Europeans who by the region were later called Iranians; the tribe of the Medes first becomes effective in the history of Assur; the Persians are their closest and far more important relatives."

Their early residence lay in Pasargadae. It is located at 1900 m altitude on the Murghab plain in the Zagros of Persis in present-day Iran. Pasargadae consisted mainly of a fortress and various palaces. Characteristic for the Medes and Persians was the military incorporation of subjugated peoples. Under the dynasty of the Achaemenids a large empire arose which only collapsed under the conquest of Alexander III of Macedon (from 334 B.C.). Even before that the Persians had suffered military defeats, such as failed forays into the Sudan or against the oases in Libya.

The Old Persian army consisted of cavalry and infantry. The latter used primarily the thrusting lance. Chariots were indeed used but were no longer a dominant weapon type.

The noble warriors of the Medes and Persians were above all lightly equipped horsemen and used the composite bow. They are regularly depicted wearing trousers. The appearance of the bodyguards shown above is documented by reliefs in the capital Persepolis (Saxtorph/Bramsen, Kriegstrachten, p. 150).

An elite unit were the "Immortals," so called by Herodotus. According to Wikipedia, "Herodotus described the Immortals from a military point of view as heavy infantry. In peacetime they served as the imperial court and royal bodyguard, among others under Darius I. In wartime they formed a kind of standing army. Thus Immortals fought in many wars of the Persian Empire, for example in the campaigns of Cyrus II in 547 B.C., those of his son Cambyses II against Egypt (525 B.C.) and in the invasions of Egypt and Scythia under Darius I around 520 and 513 B.C. They also took part in the Persian Wars against the Greeks from 480 B.C.... The term "Immortal" in this case refers less to the individual man; although they represented an elite unit, these troops were by no means optimally armored, compared e.g. with hoplites. Rather the unit as a whole was regarded as immortal, since losses through death, injury or illness were immediately made up for by reinforcements so that the strength always remained constant at 10,000."

Greece is located in the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula; deep-penetrating bays divide the country into Northern, Central and Southern Greece, while impassable mountains split it into many regions. Shortly after 2000 BC, agrarian warriors seeking land conquered Greece and subjugated the indigenous population. The immigrants were Indo-Europeans. They gradually occupied the entire Greek mainland and many islands.

Greek military history can be divided into an early and a classical period, and the era beginning with the rise to power of the Macedonians at the end of the 4th century BC.

The first chapter includes the legendary siege of Troy in Asia Minor in the 13th or 12th century BC.

The second chapter is dominated by

the Persian Wars in the 5th century with the battles at Marathon in 490 BC and at Salamis and Plataea in 480/479 BC

and

by the rivalry among the various city-states — especially Athens and Sparta — which culminated in the Peloponnesian War from 431 BC to 404 BC.

In the last period the Greek city-states succumbed to the neighboring Macedonian state under King Philip II.

His brilliant son Alexander (the Great) defeated, in a campaign lasting about ten years (spring 334 to March 324 BC), the former Persian rival of Greece for dominance in the Mediterranean region and brought about the fall of the Achaemenid Empire.

In the centuries before and after 1000 BC a culture flourished in Greece that takes its name from the citadel of Mycenae on the Peloponnese. Mycenae was an important fortified city in the pre-classical period. The settlement lay in the plain of Argos or of the river Inachos. The Mycenaean culture had close ties to the Cretans, whose culture it largely adopted.

The culture and state ethos of the early Greeks was martial. The large wall frescoes of the Mycenaean palaces and the figuratively decorated vessels of precious metal or clay favored hunting and combat scenes. Mycenae and Tiryns were the most important centers of Mycenaean culture.

The great movement of peoples (the Dorian migration), which around the middle of the 12th century BC shook the entire world of the eastern Mediterranean, nevertheless brought about the collapse of the highly developed Mycenaean state system.

In archaic Greece, from the 8th century BC onwards, a social and economic upheaval took place: kingship came to an end, power passed to the nobility, who fought from chariots or on horseback, and finally to the citizen who fought as a heavily armed foot soldier (hoplite) in dense formations. Characteristic of the classical period was rule by the people (democracy); the developing city-states were called polis and the citizens were the polites. Only in ancient Sparta was there, in the classical and post-classical periods (until the 2nd century BC), a double kingship. However, for example, democratic Athens was at times not immune to sole rule (tyranny) (e.g., in Athens under Peisistratos, 561 BC, but also in Corinth, Sicyon, and Samos), which corresponded to a monarchical form of government (Martin Dreher).

"Whereas in the archaic period it was perfectly natural for a free man from 18 to 60 years of age to be a warrior and to live and die by arms and combat, this essentially remained the case under later forms of state through the universally valid law of general conscription, only that with it military service and succession were quite regulated and the form and manner of participation were mostly graduated according to tax concepts. In any case, military organization was anchored in the constitution and belonged to its most important components.... On the other hand, we must point to the fundamental change of these conditions in the 4th century through the gradual emergence of the mercenary system, for thereby the whole duty-relationship of the citizen to the state changed, or rather we see from this change how much the martial sense of the state had already been newly formed...." (Thassilo v. Scheffer, The Culture of the Greeks, Stuttgart n.d., pp. 169 ff.).

The art of war and the equipment and armament of Mycenaean warriors are encountered in the great epics (Iliad and Odyssey) of Homer (ca. 1200 BC).

In Mycenaean times the main piece of the fully equipped warrior was the large, almost man-high shield. It consisted of several layers of ox-hide stretched over a wooden frame, and it was decorated on the outside and edged with metal. Two types of shields can be distinguished in Mycenaean times. One variant consisted of two halves whose lower half was larger than the upper half. The shield had almost the shape of an eight and was deeply indented so that the warrior could "lay himself" into it with his whole body.

In addition, rectangular shields were in use which were set on the ground in front of the fighter during combat. These massive pieces, called tower shields, were held by a strap that ran over the left shoulder and the neck and were thrown onto the back during the march.

Because the shield covered the whole man, at that time one usually wore only a tunic, which was often reinforced with metal plates and fittings. At times Mycenaean warriors also wore a cuirass of bronze bands. The lower abdomen was protected by leather straps set with metal. The garment had short sleeves and reached only to the thighs.

The helmet was made of leather or bronze. It was furnished with metal scales, boar’s teeth and a crest.

The classical helmets shown below with visors, cheek pieces and neck protection only came into use later. Inside the helmet the cap was lined with felt.

On the shins they first wore fabric, then leather greaves as leg protection.

Until about 1000 BC weapons were made of bronze.

As offensive weapons spears, daggers, axes and more rarely swords were in use. The most important weapon was the spear, suitable both for thrusting and for throwing.

Two-edged axes are also attested.

The precious sword was double-edged and intended more for cutting than for thrusting.

The figures on the left and right wear the so-called Dendra armor. This was found in a village (Dendra) near the city of Mycenae.

It is described in a Wikipedia entry as follows: "The Dendra armor is made of bronze. It consists of a breastplate, a backplate, six armor rings, multi-part shoulder plates, a neck guard and a boar’s-tusk helmet. The helmet is made of leather and covered with polished boar’s teeth. On the top there is an attachment probably intended for a plume. On the sides there are bronze cheekpieces, the neck guard is round and rests on the breastplate. It is fitted with a curved rim and protects the face roughly down to the wearer’s chin. The breastplate is likewise made of bronze and has a breast and back section. These parts could probably be connected with leather straps. Below the breast and back plates are six bronze half-rings, three on the front and three on the back, which are movably connected to each other. The last ring on the back is wider than the last ring on the front and therefore overlaps the front ring at the bottom. The shoulder plates consist of several plate parts movably connected to each other. The multipart construction provided better mobility for the wearer’s arms. The armor probably also included arm and leg greaves. Sandals typical of the period were worn on the feet. All outer edges of the armor parts were probably padded with leather to protect the wearer from the sharp edges."

In the work The Art of War in Greece and Rome by John Warry it is written: "This unusual armor was found in Dendra near Mycenae. The hinges of the shoulder pieces already indicate a certain technical skill. The leather helmet is inlaid with boar’s teeth. The drawing shows how the armor was worn. An infantryman was certainly quite cramped and no longer needed a shield. Perhaps it also belonged on a chariot. In Dendra arm and leg greaves were also found, but it is not known whether they belonged to this armor (p. 12)."

That was the armor of the nobles, who, owing to their superior equipment, played the dominant role on the battlefield in Mycenaean times. The fighters drove onto the battlefield in chariots, dismounted and engaged in single combat. The army of early Greece was divided into the noble fighters and the mass of less heavily armed warriors who followed them and were equipped with bow, spear and sword.

Chariots were drawn by two to three horses and offered space for the charioteer and the fighter who jumped out to engage in actual combat. Karel Toman (The Soldier Through the Ages) writes: "On the battlefield before the gates of Troy the fighting warriors whipped up clouds of dust. The battle surged from one place to another. In search of an equal opponent the heroes, with plumes streaming, chased across the tumult of war in clattering chariots. Javelins pierced shields, and in an emergency even fieldstones were used as weapons."

Thus the Greeks fought in Homeric times. Individual personalities were decisive in the battles of that era. Hindered by the massive shield, combat was slow and awkward, not a wild mêlée but rather an almost ceremonial fighting conducted in the manner of knights.

Over time warfare in early Greece changed. The high tower shield was replaced by the handy round shield. The transition from the Mycenaean shield to the round shield passed through several intermediate stages, such as the so-called Dipylon shield and the so-called Boeotian shield.

The Dipylon shield was still very similar to the Mycenaean shield, but somewhat smaller.

The Boeotian shield still had smaller cutouts at the sides reminiscent of the Mycenaean shield. This shield, however, was already carried on the left arm.

Also known is a small round shield from Asia that had a central handle and was handled and directed with one hand.

The wooden round shield covered with metal made the warrior much more mobile, but because it no longer protected the warrior’s entire body, it required supplementary protection by a breastplate and leg greaves (knemides) made of rigid material, first bronze, then iron. Occasionally upper- and lower-arm guards as well as ankle, thigh and foot protection were also used.

From the 8th century BC the typical full equipment of the heavily armed Greek warrior, the hoplite as a citizen-soldier, developed. His name was derived from his characteristic heavy round shield, the hoplon or aspis, which had a diameter of 90–100 cm.

The shields were painted, initially individually, later sometimes uniformly.

H. Droysen describes the headgear of the Greek warriors in his work: Army Organization and Warfare of the Greeks (Freiburg 1880, pp. 9 ff., quoted here without footnotes) as follows:

"To cover the head served the helmet and the hat.

In the great variety of helmets, as known from depictions and finds, three basic forms can be recognized: the 'Corinthian', as Athena wears it on Corinthian coins, the 'Attic', which on Attic coins always covers Athena’s head, and the egg-shaped cap. The Corinthian helmet consisted of the skullpiece, from which in front the free-projecting nose-piece descended, the longer or shorter neck guard, the side parts which came together in front leaving only a slit for the nose and mouth, at the top of which the eye openings were placed, and thus covered the cheeks. Outside of battle it was pushed back on the head; in battle it was pulled down far enough that the face was covered up to or under the chin; thus it was a secure but very uncomfortable means of protection for the wearer, which is why sometimes the greater safety was sacrificed for greater comfort and the side parts were shortened so that the lower face was left free."

The Attic helmet had a neck guard that fit firmly on the head; the face was only partially protected by cheek pieces that either sat fixed and immovable on the helmet or could be hinged up and down. The front of the helmet from ear to ear was reinforced by a bar attached to its lower edge that either projected or rested on it; in some depictions it is shown folded down so that it protects the face like a projecting visor. The crest served not only for ornament but above all to increase resistance, and the way it was mounted varied: either placed in a high tube so that it "bows downward from above," or fixed on a broad band that ran over the helmet and lay firmly. The plume itself, the most prominent part of helmet decoration, was made of trimmed horse mane forming the crest, while a horsehair tail hung freely at the back.

The third helmet form was the egg-shaped cap with or without a projecting brim, cited as a speciality of Arcadians and Laconians.

To reduce the pressure of the helmet on the head, it was either padded at the lower edge or a felt cap was worn underneath.

Besides leather caps covered with metal fittings, lighter headgear included broad-brimmed felt hats, which in some regions of Greece were part of the national costume, the Thessalian hat, the Macedonian kausia and the similar Aetolian hat; as equipment for war they had additional reinforcement in the head from inserted metal strips."

The hoplite’s offensive weapon was a thrusting lance (dory) with an iron tip. This spear was initially about 2 m long, later even up to 6 m, the so-called sarissa.

Later shorter javelins were added.

Swords varied: besides a short sword (xiphos) for close combat, a heavy cutting sword (kopis) also became common.

Also known are short, broad daggers (parazonion), which were at first worn on the left side.

The chariot had lost significance; the bulk of the fighters now bore the combat. With the flourishing of the cities and rising prosperity, more and more free citizens and farmers could afford full armor. The era in which only the noble landowner had the privilege of the full equipment described above was over. With the loss of economic and social superiority not only did the age of heroic individual combats come to an end, but the civic or peasant collective also claimed political participation, which brought with it the right and duty to defend their community. Property-less Athenians could borrow equipment from the state armory.

There continued to be cavalry, but at first it did not play a great role. Thassilo v. Scheffer (loc. cit., p. 170) writes: "It is strange that cavalry and belonging to it, although regarded as the noblest and most costly form of military service, practically lagged far behind in effectiveness and success and in very rare cases played a decisive role."

A truly significant light (elaphroi) and heavy cavalry only arose in Macedonian times under Alexander the Great, which not only performed reconnaissance duties but also served as true battle cavalry.

In the classical age the heavily armed infantry fought in dense formations. The various city-states, such as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Corinth, frequently had military conflicts with one another. Their equipment and tactics resembled each other.

From the 7th century BC Greek warriors fought in the so-called phalanx. The name means "log" or "roller" and aptly describes the character of this closed formation. The heavily armed hoplites stood eight ranks deep and the space between individual fighters was just large enough for a man to move somewhat freely. The distance from rank to rank was about three steps.

The phalanx was organized into units of 1,000 men and roughly 300 men. But it was understood overall as a tactical formation. In the first and last rank, according to Theodor Fuchs (History of European Warfare, Vol. I, p. 21), stood the best warriors.

A flat terrain was ideal for the use of the phalanx. Terrain obstacles could tear the formation apart. Thus a high degree of discipline was required to maintain the closed order even under adverse conditions. The actual combat was initiated by lightly armed fighters, like archers and slingers, who, before the closed formations collided, moved aside laterally.

Among these lightly armed fighters or skirmishers were the so-called peltasts. They wore no armor, a fur cap instead of a helmet, but carried a smaller shield (pelta) and were armed with javelins and a short sword. The peltasts’ javelins were fitted at the end of the shaft with a loop (ankyle) equipped. The other light fighters (psiloi) — archers and slingers — were not protected by a shield, because that would only hinder them when shooting arrows or slinging.

The strength of the phalanx was the powerful and cohesive assault. The hoplites essentially formed a shield wall. Because hoplites held the shield with the left hand and oriented it forward, the formation automatically tended to drift slightly to the left. For that reason the right wing was often made stronger.

Macedonian infantry still fought in the phalanx. It was now organized into basic units of 256 men (syntagma = 16 x 16 men).

Below are depicted Phrygian and Scythian warrior types.

Phrygia was a kingdom that existed on the Anatolian plateau in the 8th century BC and "stretched from the upper reaches of the Rhyndakos and the Maeander to the Halys and Lake Tatta" (Lexicon of the Ancient World, Vol. II, p. 2318). The Phrygians migrated around 1200 BC (perhaps earlier) from the Macedonian-Thracian area into Asia Minor. The capital was Gordion. Previously the Phrygians had been nomadic wanderers and clashed with the Assyrians. They fought against Persians, Greeks and Romans. Later they lost their political independence and were absorbed into the Roman province of Asia. A distinct Phrygian art developed after the abandonment of nomadic life, as attested by surviving relics such as pottery, bronze vessels, painted amphorae, significant metalworks and stone sculptures. They also created larger buildings and large tumuli with richly furnished wooden burial chambers.

Phrygian foot soldiers wore simple metal helmets with a comb-like crest, along with a breastplate probably of leather with metal reinforcements. Protective equipment also included uniquely shaped shields. Their armament consisted of spear and sword. There were also mounted archers who carried a short lance.

The warlike Scythians were also originally nomads and feared opponents. They were an Iranian people closely related to the Persians (Lexicon of the Ancient World, Vol. III, p. 2819). The horse-herding riders — divided into different tribes — migrated around 700 BC from the Eurasian region and for a time ruled in northern Iran and Armenia. Later they moved into the Carpathians and the Dobruja and resisted the Persians under Darius. From about 300 they were displaced by the Sarmatians. The Scythians were famous for their highly developed metalwork — especially silverwork.

The Scythians were skilled cattle breeders and excellent archers. The short bow was kept in a case (gorytos). The particularly ornate short sword — with a heart-shaped pommel and antennae knob — was regarded as a sacred weapon. The mounted archer also carried a short lance. The clothing consisted of a sleeved tunic, long cloth trousers and shoes, together possibly with a fur or leather jacket. Foot soldiers for close combat sometimes wore armor of metal scales, metal plates attached on the sleeves and a helmet with metal cheekpieces.

The Germanic peoples were not a homogeneous people but consisted of various tribes that settled in Northern and Central Europe.

They can be culturally distinguished from the Celts and Scythians.

Characteristic of the Germanic peoples was an agrarian way of life. There was no unified state and military system.

The Germanic peoples did not know a classic professional army; every male Germanic individual was in principle also a warrior and every free man could be called up (Döbler, The Germanic Peoples: Legend and Reality, Vol. 2, p. 563).

In the course of the Migration Period the Germanic peoples came into contact with the heavily equipped Roman army, trained in sophisticated combat tactics. In the course of this confrontation a distinctly Germanic art of war essentially developed (Hans von Gottberg, Men, Weapons, Strategies, p. 20).

At the head of the Germanic army stood the elected duke, who was supported by regional kings and other nobles who, already in peacetime, created retinues that were in effect professional warriors.

The army, which was only assembled in case of war, organized itself into thousands, hundreds and tens, which were formed by the districts or village and clan communities. It was thus a levy of the people.

In attack a wedge formation was formed that attempted with force to split the opposing formation.

The Germanic peoples also mastered scattered skirmishing.

There was also a good Germanic cavalry capable of attacking in closed squadrons.

A mixed formation of riders and foot warriors formed the so-called (and feared) bodyguard cavalry.

The horse played an important role for the Germanic peoples not only in warfare but also in agriculture and in spiritual practices.

The clothing, equipment and armament of the Germanic peoples were simple.

The clothing was practical. Characteristic were long trousers. A long tunic reaching down to the thighs was worn with them. Cloak-like mantles were also common. Footwear consisted of laced, multicolored leather shoes.

As armament, above all the longer spear (frame) served, but also — though more rarely — the sword.

The spear had a narrow, short iron tip. According to Pastenaci (The Art of War of the Germanic Peoples, Karlsbad and Leipzig, p. 52) the true Germanic weapon was the lance. Accordingly the Germanic warrior was equipped with one or, as needed, several lances.

The longer sword, called spatha, was purely a cutting weapon.

This blade weapon is described by Döbler (The Germanic Peoples: Legend and Reality, Vol. 2, p. 491) as follows: "Double-edged sword whose blade and hilt were richly decorated. Obviously it was only carried by nobles. The blade was 75–95 cm long and 4–6 cm wide. The bronze or iron hilt with grip scales of wood or bone was covered with gold leaf; the pommel was inlaid. It was worn until the mid-7th century on a long strap thrown over the shoulder, later on a waist belt that became correspondingly wider."

Shorter swords (sax) were used as thrusting weapons. Döbler (The Germanic Peoples: Legend and Reality, Vol. 2, p. 467) describes this weapon as the "single-edged short sword of the Frankish period."

Late in the period battle-axes came into use. Known are, for example, the Frankish throwing battle-axe or the franciska.

The bow was also used, which in any case was already used for hunting. According to Pastenaci (The Art of War of the Germanic Peoples, p. 56), however, bows and arrows as ranged weapons are almost entirely absent. This also applies to the Celts in the Iron Age. For ranged combat the lance was used.

For protection a round or oval shield was used. It had a metal rim fitting and a bronze or iron boss. The shield was held by a shield strap or fastened to the arm. The shield is described in more detail as follows: "For defense the warrior carried a shield that differs substantially from the Roman soldier's. The iron fittings that sat on the shield wood allow the reconstruction of the shield. The most important fitting is the shield boss, which occurs in conical form and as a bar boss. The shield boss looks like a small helmet. It is riveted to the shield wood with its rim and covers the round cutout for the warrior's hand. In this cutout a wooden handgrip is inset, which is often reinforced by an iron or bronze shield strap. The rim of the shield was secured by a fitting of iron, bronze or silver. The shape of the rim fittings gives us an indication of the size of the shields. Since the wood has been burned out from the metal fittings, the thickness of the shield wood can be determined exactly. According to the evidence of the shield strap and rim rivets the shield was 1.4 to 1.6 cm thick in the middle. The rim, on the other hand, only 0.4 to 0.6 cm thick. The completely preserved rim fitting from a find at Kothendorf in Mecklenburg shows us that the shield had a diameter of 0.56 m. Above all, lightness was important for the Germanic shield. The downward-thrusting spears and heavy sword blows were intercepted and parried by the shield boss" (Wegewitz, quoted in: Kurt Pasenaci, The Art of War of the Germanic Peoples, Karlsbad and Leipzig, p. 53).

Other armor parts, such as elaborate helmets (made of silver) or mail armor, were generally reserved for princes or the warrior nobility.

These were often spoils of war.

When the Germanic warrior did wear a helmet, these were simple head coverings, e.g., bell or nave helmets. According to Pastenaci (The Art of War of the Germanic Peoples, p. 57) helmet and armor become more common only in the Migration Period.

On the left is the helmet from Valsgärde near Old Uppsala from the 7th century depicted.

It is described as follows: "It is crafted for an unusually long skull. A decorative band with animal interlace surrounds it; two others arch vertically above it. Thus its construction is established. On top rests a two-headed snake and above the eyes bird-dragons rise, all to ward off harmful influences from these sensitive spots and in the service of the intent to make the warrior's visage appear particularly fearsome" (Wolfgang Schulz, Ancient Germanic Culture in Word and Image. Three Millennia of Germanic Cultural Formation, Munich 1937, image no. 141).

The armament of the Germanic warrior was fundamentally his own affair or that of his kin. Ultimately it was practical and focused above all on mobility in combat. "For fighting in a wedge formation the armament of the front ranks with lance and sword was fully sufficient. The ranks standing deeper in the wedge hardly had the opportunity to use a sword. They will have been equipped instead with several lances or javelins, for they could from their position reinforce the combat of the front ranks by throwing their spears. We can imagine that such an armed and fighting battle wedge had a very great striking effect. The prerequisite for throwing spears from the middle and rear ranks is that the ranks of the wedge were not formed too closely together, but stood at sufficient distance from one another to be able to use the weapon." (Pastenaci, The Art of War of the Germanic Peoples, p. 58).

Subsequently, the Celts, in particular the outward appearance and equipment or armament of their warriors, especially the Gauls, will be presented. They too were stubborn opponents of the Romans, whose methods of warfare are discussed further below.

The Celts were a confederation of various tribes and peoples. Their origin is located in the area between Burgundy and Württemberg. There were Gallic tribes, Celtiberian and Lusitanian-Gallaecian tribes, eastern Celts and British and Irish tribes. In Bavaria, for example, the Treveri, the Boii, the Vindelici, the Helvetii, the Rhaetians, the Norici, etc., belonged to the Celts.

Although there are differences in the social organization of the various tribes, there was a common language and cultural affinities.

In art, a Celtic style emerged from the 5th century. The Celts were very talented goldsmiths. Little is known about their religion.

For the study of the Celts, the archaeological finds of the Hallstatt culture (early Iron Age) and the La Tène culture (late Iron Age) are of particular importance.

The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus reports on the armament of the Celtic warriors: "As weapons they carried shields as tall as a man, which are peculiarly painted; on some are well-worked, brazen animal figures applied in high relief, which serve not only as ornament but also for protection. They cover their heads with brazen helmets with high crests, which make them appear extraordinarily large. Some wear forged-on horns, others the heads of birds or four-legged animals. Several wear an iron ring-mail; others have no armor except their skin and fight naked. They throw spears, which they call lances, whose iron heads are a cubit long, the shaft even longer; they are not much less than two hands in breadth. The spears are sometimes like a screw and serrated on all sides, so that when they strike they not only cut into the flesh but actually tear it apart and further enlarge the wound when withdrawn" (quoted after: Peter Kolb, Wer waren die Kelten. Catalogue Munich 1993, p. 34).

The Celts carried long swords. In addition, daggers, lances and axes were in use. Bows and arrows also formed part of their armament.

From around 500 BC, the armament changed or was supplemented. Helmets and wooden shields as well as chariots are now additionally found.

The lances were up to 2.50 m long, or the spears were man-high.

The long swords were intended for cutting or thrusting; accordingly they had either a blunt or a pointed tip.

The hilt often had the form of an elongated X and was usually made of wood, less commonly of bronze or iron.

The Celts were especially skilled in working iron. As a result, the swords became harder and better and did not bend so easily.

The sword was worn on the right on a strap, which was additionally secured with a chain.

The shield belonged to the standard equipment of the Celtic warrior. While these were initially relatively small and oval, they developed over time into the very large shields typical of the Celts. These were almost man-high and had a central rib of wood and a broad shield boss strip of metal.

In individual cases, Celtic warriors are said to have fought with bare upper bodies; there were also breastplates—for example, made of leather reinforced with bronze disks—and chain shirts of iron in use.

The Celtic warrior frequently wore a helmet. According to Peter Kolb, these were generally pointed or conical or semi-circular helmets made of leather, but also of bronze or iron. The (bronze) conical helmets also had a short neck-guard.

In later times, simple semi-spherical helmet forms became increasingly common, reminiscent of Italic helmets.

In addition, long trousers were customary, tied together at the bottom. Leather footwear was also worn.

The aforementioned Diodorus mentions the use of chariots among the Celts: "To move and to fight they used chariots drawn by two horses, on which the noble warrior stood with his charioteer. On encountering enemy riders they immediately threw spears, jumped from the chariot and continued to fight on foot ...".

The chariots were drawn by two horses, the wheels had a diameter of 1 m and the platform with side structure had an area of 1 x 1.50 m. In the illustrated reference work on weapons, warriors and the art of war in Greece and Rome by John Warry (Cologne 1981, p. 165) the following is written: "On the chariot are two typical Celtic warriors. They went into battle with bare upper bodies or entirely naked. To look as terrifying as possible they hardened their hair with lime and clay. Some tribes bore tattoos. The Picts even derived their name from this custom. The picture shows that the charioteer usually sat while the warrior stood behind him. Both moved completely freely on the battlefield. The warrior fought dismounted, although the chariot remained nearby for emergencies." With the chariots, warriors could also be transported as reinforcements to a certain point on the battlefield or be picked up there.

Gaius Julius Caesar reports that at the time of his invasions of Britain chariots were still in use. The two limited military expeditions to Britain were carried out by him in the years 55 and 54 BC as part of his Gallic War.

The attack of Celtic warriors was guided by field standards and accompanied by wind instruments.

The field standards regularly displayed animal depictions, e.g., a boar.

The bronze wind instruments of the Celts were long signal horns assembled from several pieces with bells. These also had the form of an animal head.

The Etruscans were an ancient people in Etruria (800 - 350 BC). They founded a high culture in central Italy and were organized in a loose league of 12 cities, i.e., they did not live in a centralized state. However, a monarchical form of rule was characteristic.

Allied with Carthage at times, they underwent a cultural development parallel to that of Greece. The Etruscans practiced a highly developed agrarian economy and attained a high level in metal extraction and processing. They traded with Corsica and Elba and the rest of the Mediterranean as well as with Gaul up to Lyon. Their contact there promoted urbanization. They exchanged their goods (e.g., wine) for other raw materials, e.g., amber.

Initially a competitor of Rome, for example, a Roman family of Etruscan origin (Tarquinius) provided several kings in early Rome. This was perceived in Rome as the takeover of a foreign power, and only with the expulsion of the last Etruscan king around 509 BC could Rome free itself from Etruscan dependence. Simultaneously with the political decline of the Etruscans, Rome as the now republic began to annex and expand into the surrounding territories.

The Etruscans are regarded as the teachers of Rome; even the foundations of the Roman military system, including armament and equipment, are strongly Etruscan-influenced.

According to Saxtorph (War Attire, p. 161) Etruscan infantry were differentiated into lightly and heavily armed warriors.

The former were at most protected by a breastplate held by cross straps.

The latter had full armor, consisting of a leather cuirass with metal plates and shoulder protection. Large helmets were also worn.

Their armament consisted of the thrusting lance and the sword.

Countless early Italic helmets resembling a cap have been preserved (see: Markus Egg, Italic Helmets. Monographs of the RGZM. Heidelberg 2023, text and plate volume).

Visually striking are found crest helmets, such as those discovered on the Pass Lueg along an old road in the Alps.

The described crest helmet is described on wikipedia.org as follows: "An Etruscan crest helmet generally consists of bronze. The helmet bowl is worked in a hemispherical shape. On the sagittal line a conspicuous triangular crest is attached, made from a bronze sheet and hollow. The crest is decorated with several ornamental studs and riveted to the helmet bowl. On the front and back of the helmet, immediately before and behind the crest, plates are attached on which three bronze bolts each (so-called 'false rivets') are mounted. Helmets of this type were also used as coverings for burial urns, which in their form are to be regarded as prototypes of the later Pommerellian face urns, albeit without the Etruscan helmet forms as lids. The shape of the crest could vary and is reconstructed as being fitted with a plume. During the early Greek antiquity the helmet form disappears again and is replaced by Celtic and Roman helmet forms" (Hugh O’Neill Hencken: The earliest European helmets. Bronze Age and early Iron Age (= American School of Prehistoric Research. Bulletin 28). Peabody Museum, Cambridge MA 1971, p. 99).

The shields were made of wood covered with leather and faced with metal.

The Roman Empire (Imperium Romanum) dominated in antiquity not only the Mediterranean world but extended far beyond. It reached three continents—Europe, Asia, Africa—and at its height encompassed about 5,000,000 km2. The frontier was approximately 7,500 km long and partially artificially fortified (Hadrian's Wall = 120 km, the Limes = 548 km, Antonine Wall = 60 km). The total Roman population is estimated at around 50 to 70 million people (Tony Domin, Roma Victor. The Roman Legion. Legend and Truth. Hamburg 2012). The Roman form of state developed from monarchy to republic and ultimately to emperorship.

There were many reasons for the remarkable and long-lasting political success of the Roman Empire, particularly a brilliant strategy. The Romans were tacticians of power (Hans-Dieter Stöver, The Romans, Hamburg 1978). “Above all, the Romans developed effective concepts for the political implementation of militarily gained rule by creating a network of alliances, colonies and forms of direct dependency in Italy. It was also advantageous that they were fundamentally willing to integrate the leadership layers of the subjugated cities and peoples into the Roman state” (Kathryn Lomas, The Rise of Rome. From Romulus to Pyrrhus, Stuttgart 2019). The Roman historian Sallust (Gaius Sallustius Crispus, *01.10.86 BC in Amiternum; † 13.05.35 or 34 BC in Rome) remarked: “Amazingly easily these peoples, despite differing race, dissimilar language and different ways of life, have merged into one.” In addition to stable internal order, an efficient administration and a sophisticated legal system, it was above all the almost modern-seeming, highly effective Roman military machine that effectively protected the oversized Roman state against internal and external enemies.

Originally the city of Rome was divided into three parts. Each of these three tribes provided 1,000 men and accordingly the citizen levy-based legion consisted of 3,000 men. As the city grew, two legions of 3,000 men each were formed, each commanded by a consul. Over time the city grew and consequently so did the troop strength.

Döbler (The Germans. Legend and Reality, Munich 1975, p. 362 ff.) describes the call-up to the legion as follows: “Now the citizens were by no means an undifferentiated mass, but each belonged to a division (Lat. tribus), of which there were three in total and which went back to an old clan division. In one year one of these divisions was determined by lot to provide the conscripts. Then it was sorted: from the lists of the tribe, four roughly equally capable men were chosen and assigned to each legion (Lat. Legio - selected troop), then four more and so on, until all were assigned to a legion.”

All property-owning citizens were liable for military service between the ages of 17 and 46.

The new recruits then took the oath of obedience, whereby one man recited the full text and all said, “The same for me.”

Under Marius, against the background of the threat posed by the Cimbri and Teutones, a fundamental army reform took place.

"Through his military successes, but above all through the restructuring of the old Roman military constitution, Marius earned the greatest merits. Marius filled the Roman militia army, which originally consisted of full Roman citizens who could provide their own equipment, with the jobless and propertyless as well as with Italians. In place of the citizen levies came standing armies of professional soldiers. These measures had far-reaching social and political consequences. Through the reorganization, the farmers, who had previously supplied the bulk of the army, were helped; the proletariat was given a source of income, and through the inclusion of the Italians an expansion of citizenship was initiated. On the other hand, the professional army presented the state in the future with two problems: the obligation to provide for veterans and the increase in power of its generals, who had gained a massive following in their professionally loyal soldiers" (Enzo Orlandi, Caesar and his Time, Wiesbaden n.d., p. 6).

On the causes of this fundamental change in the Roman military system Herbert Schwarz comments: "An important reason for the change of the military constitution was the impoverishment of the small farmers due to the long campaigns. They sank to the proletariat. Thus they were no longer liable for service. When in the first century BC the legions began to be formed from citizens liable for service, which were increasingly difficult to obtain, and from mercenaries, Roman proletarians, new combat forms had to be developed. The manipular order required tactical independence of small units, hence morale and intelligence. The replacement deteriorated, and the enemy, primarily the Cimbri and Teutones, became dangerous" (The development of the Roman army, in: Journal for Military Science, 1985, p. 124). Hence the so-called cohort tactic emerged (see below).

The army reforms of Gaius Marius (around 107 BC) transformed the Roman militia into a powerful professional army. By opening up to propertyless citizens, providing state equipment, introducing the cohort tactic (see below) and abolishing the baggage train, the legions became more flexible, faster and—as mentioned—more loyal to their generals than to the state.

Since the state took over the equipment of the legionaries, this led to standardization, i.e., armor and weapons became largely identical in appearance and quality. The legionaries now had to carry most of their baggage (sarcina) themselves, the rest was carried by mules. This, however, made the Roman troops faster and more mobile.

A legion usually numbered 4,200 men. Its strength could, however, also rise to 5,000 men. As a rule, each legion was assigned an equal number of allied troops.

The legion was divided into 60 centuries. Two centuries formed a maniple. The Hastati, the Principes and the Triarii each comprised 10 maniples. In addition there were 1,200 Velites.

Furthermore, a legion included a small number of cavalry, namely 300 riders.

One distinguished four different types of legionaries: the Hastati, the Principes, the Triarii and the Velites.

The Hastati and the Principes were the classic heavily armed legionaries and formed the first two lines of a deployed legion.

The Triarii were the veteran legionaries and formed the third and thus rear rank of the deployed legion. They constituted a kind of iron reserve for a crisis in battle.

Velites were more lightly armed soldiers, equipped with sword and throwing spears.

Roman cavalry was less significant. The typical cavalry unit was the ala. An ala consisted of 16 turmae, each counting 30 riders. A turma was commanded by a decurio. The ala itself was led by a prefect.

On the rank order in the Roman army Pleticha/Schönberger (The Romans, Gütersloh 1980, p. 284) write the following: “The rank orders in the Roman army, strictly divided into rank-and-file, non-commissioned officers and officers, were in principle not much different from the ranks in modern armies, with one decisive exception: a Roman legionary did not carry a 'marshal's baton in his knapsack' unless he belonged to the first order, the senatorial order. As a third-class citizen he could rise from private to lance corporal, advance into the non-commissioned officer corps as a 'portepee-holder', sergeant or standard-bearer and then be detached to the clerks' offices at various staffs. If he wanted to rise even higher, he had to return as an 'officer candidate' to troop service, after a hard training with the Praetorian Guard in Rome and having passed an 'officer exam' he would return as a captain (centurio) to the legion and—if the best soldier of the legion, as the most senior-ranking centurion—reach the pinnacle of his military career, with pay sixty times higher than that of an ordinary soldier. All higher ranks were closed to him, even if he possessed the military aptitude for higher tasks, because they were reserved exclusively for knights and senators.”

According to Polybius, the protective equipment of the heavy Roman infantryman included: helmet, shield, greaves and the armor he did not mention.

As armament they used sword, javelin and lance. The latter, however, soon disappeared.

A legionary's armor weighed 29.3 kg, the marching baggage 18.4 kg. A legionary had to withstand this burden. The tent together with other items weighed about 144 kg. This was the maximum load for a pack animal.

The helmet (cassis) weighed (with plume) 2.1 kg. Over time different helmet types developed. Veith describes the helmet with reference to Polybius as follows: "The helmet (cassis), made of thick bronze sheet, was open and was adorned before battle or for parade with a mounted plume about 1/2 m high (crista), consisting of three red or black feathers. On the march the heavy helmet was worn slung on a leather strap" (Johannes Kromayer/Georg Veith, The Military and Warfare of the Greeks and Romans, Munich 1928, p. 324).

An early headgear is considered to be the Montefortino helmet type. The above helmet knob (fitting for the plume) was filled with lead. The neck guard was equipped with a double ring through which the strap for securing the helmet to the head ran. The (side) cheek pieces were attached to hooks. The helmets were produced in mass manufacture and were therefore sometimes of inferior quality. The Montefortino helmet type was used for a very long time—especially in Italy.

The Italic helmet was closed. It was a kind of Etruscan-Corinthian helmet, but it was not pulled down over the face; rather it was put on like a cap. Later the functionless eyeholes disappeared.

After the conquest of Gaul by Caesar (Gaius Julius Caesar; *13.07.100 BC in Rome; † 15.03.44 BC there) the previously mentioned helmet variants were replaced by a helmet of Gallic form. This helmet type was round with reinforcement at the forehead and with cheek protection. It also had an additionally deeply drawn neck protection. From this developed the known 'jockey caps' or a late formation of the imperial-Gallic helmet form.

The helmets were initially made of bronze, later—especially the Gallic helmet forms—of iron.

The body of the legionary was protected by an armor. Veith describes the early form as follows: "The armor (lorica), not expressly mentioned by Polybius, was made of sole leather and consisted of several pieces; the heart area could be particularly protected by a board-wide metal plate; the warriors of the highest census classes wore, instead of this over the lorica, a chain mail" (Johannes Kromayer/Georg Veith, The Military and Warfare of the Greeks and Romans, Munich 1928, p. 324).

Later came ring mail and—after Celtic example—chain shirts. This lorica hamata weighed 8.3 kg. The chain mail was still worn after Caesar's time. Then the typical segmented armor was introduced and became predominantly used as part of the legionary's equipment.

If the ring mail was only short, leather strips attached to it covered the lower body.

Officers wore muscle cuirasses after Greek models in both the Republican and Imperial periods.

The equipment of the legionary always included a large shield, which were mostly rectangular and convex. In early times the shield was oval. The shield (scutum) weighed about 9.6 kg. When the legionaries advanced, the shields were held forward edge to edge. The left arm thus held the shield forward. For this reason the short sword (gladius) was worn on the right.

Further details about the shield can be learned from Veith: "The shield of the heavy infantry (scutum) was rectangular with a slightly cylindrical curvature, approx. 120 cm high and not quite 1 m wide, made of a double glued plank layer and covered on the outside with canvas, then with calfskin. The two short sides (top and bottom) were reinforced by metal bands, the top to better catch sword blows, the bottom to protect against wear when leaning on the ground. The center was provided with an iron boss. The scutum was a heavy but extremely effective defensive weapon of versatile use, whose right-angled form enabling the gapless joining of whole ranks and whose considerable dimensions, covering the slightly crouched fighter almost completely, were particularly advantageous" (Johannes Kromayer/Georg Veith, The Military and Warfare of the Greeks and Romans, Munich 1928, pp. 324/325).

"The famous Roman sword (gladius), which was introduced in this period, was, as the Romans themselves always stressed, not of Roman origin. Of the various accounts, the one supported by Polybius, according to which it was of Spanish (Iberian) origin, deserves preference; the notices that mention it at a time when no contact with Spain yet existed are not counter-evidence but anachronisms. On the other hand, it is plausible to assume that the Spanish sword was not fundamentally different from the old Roman one, but represented a significantly improved type; generally the indigenous Spanish art of war seems to have been in many respects related to the Roman-Italic.

The Roman 'Spanish' sword was relatively short compared to all other sword types of antiquity—blade length 60 - 70 cm—quite broad, somewhat forward-weighted, double-edged, with a very sharp, often reinforced point. Its shortness and handy nature allow lightning-quick use in cutting and thrusting, overall the development of a consummate fighting art. The grip was long and powerful, a crossguard was not present or only indicated. - The sword was carried in a sheath consisting of two wooden pieces, covered with leather, with a broad metal mouthpiece and reinforcement band, attached to a baldric that ran from the left shoulder to the right hip. Officers wore it on the left" (Johannes Kromayer/Georg Veith, The Military and Warfare of the Greeks and Romans, Munich 1928, p. 325).

In addition, the Roman legionary is ascribed a dagger (pugio) as armament. It is, however, not certain whether this already belonged to the regular equipment in the Republican period.

While the lance soon ceased to be part of the armament of Roman legionaries, this was different for the throwing spear. It was the classic ranged weapon of the Roman soldier. The legionaries of the first line (Hastati) and of the second line (Principes) each had two throwing spears (pila).

Veith has the following to report about the pilum: "Even more characteristic for the Roman legionary than the sword and equal to it in importance is the throwing javelin (pilum), which Rome over time developed into a precision weapon like no other. Its highest perfection and thus its superior tactical importance was, however, only reached towards the end of the Polybian era. Polybius shows us a transitional state. According to him, the Hastati and Principes each carried two pila, a heavy and a light one, while the Triarii carried the hasta (thrusting lance). He describes the heavy pilum as an exceedingly clumsy, 'beam-like' projectile, whose field usefulness was very doubtful and whose disappearance soon thereafter is therefore quite understandable; this seems to have been some experiment of the Scipionic period, which he preserves out of piety in a form exaggerated beyond its true significance. This view corresponds also to the simultaneous carrying of two pila, i.e., the standardized and a temporarily 'being tested' one, likewise the existence of two subtypes with round or square shaft. - The actual Roman pilum type is the Polybian 'light' pilum, consisting of an approx. 1 1/3 m long wooden shaft, into which an iron shank of the same length was inserted up to half on both sides and was very strongly fastened with numerous clamps. The total length was therefore about 2 m, of which one third each fell to the solid shaft, the shaft portion with inserted iron, and the bare point. The thickness of the iron in the middle, where it joined the shaft, was not quite 3 cm, so the shaft was probably about 4 cm thick. Whether the iron was bored into a central cavity of the shaft or laterally inserted into a groove cannot be determined for sure; the mention of clamps rather speaks for the latter as the original type, which probably improved over time and with advancing technique into the former form, which in its symmetrically round cross-section and corresponding weight distribution must have offered much greater handling safety. The center of gravity lay somewhat in front of the middle" (Johannes Kromayer/Georg Veith, The Military and Warfare of the Greeks and Romans, Munich 1928, pp. 325/326).

Characteristic of the Roman army was its strict discipline, i.e., there existed a rigid discipline and the superiors had punitive authority. The strict observance of rules and regulations and only limited freedom of action were prerequisites for the implementation of the complicated Roman combat tactics.

The army of the early Republic still fought after the Greek model in a compact phalanx (Servian army reform).

Because of the relatively low mobility of a phalanx particularly in hilly or mountainous terrain, the Roman army switched to the so-called manipular tactic. The centuries grouped into maniples (two each) were arranged in three lines in a checkerboard fashion so that the maniples of the second line (1,200 Principes) covered the gaps of the maniples of the first line (1,200 Hastati) and the maniples of the third line (600 Triarii) covered the gaps of the maniples of the second line.

"The development to the manipular legion was completed at the beginning of the 3rd century BC with the war against Pyrrhus (280 to 275 BC)" (University of Tübingen).

Probably under the influence of the Roman commander and statesman Gaius Marius (*158/157 BC in Cereatae near Arpinum; † 13.01.86 BC in Rome) the so-called cohort tactic was introduced. The cohort then became the decisive tactical unit of the legion.

The legion now comprised 10 cohorts, which in battle were deployed side by side—each arranged in three ranks. The cohorts each numbered 480 men, although the 1st cohort was stronger (800 men?). The cohorts were still subdivided into centuries (each of 80 men).

Overall, a legion now numbered 6,400 men, of which 4,800 were the actual legionaries. In addition there were cavalry, craftsmen, camp workers, medical personnel, etc. There were 30 (numbered) legions.

The construction of permanent military camps (castrum) or fortified places was typical of the Roman army. These castra also had a symbolic function, as they represented Rome’s power locally and enabled the permanent occupation of conquered territories. Such a fort included the barracks, the commandant's office, the commander's house, the supply magazine, the stables and a hospital/medical facility. Military colonies were also established at important points in the conquered lands, i.e., soldiers were settled there. This promoted the Romanization of those areas.

Characteristic of the Roman military system were also the nightly marching camps, which were surrounded by an embankment and a ditch and guaranteed the safety of the encamped army at night even in enemy territory. Polybius transmitted their standardized basic structure.

"Every century and every maniple, and probably every cohort, has its own pole standard (signum). The orders of the centurions were passed on visually by the standard-bearer (signifer) and acoustically by the horn player (cornicen, tubicen, bucinator) to the troops" (University of Tübingen).

The bearer of the field standard was the signifer (standard-bearer). He was an important non-commissioned officer (principales) in the Roman army. He had to be particularly brave; bearing the signum (field standard) of the century was an honor. In addition, he managed the troop's cash fund and received double pay.

The field standard served as an orientation point in battle.

The highest field standard of the Roman legion was the aquila (Latin Aquila, original meaning: "eagle"). The eagle was also a religious symbol. "The aquila was under the supervision of the first cohort, particularly of its leader the primus pilus, the highest centurion of the legion. It was carried by the aquilifer (Lat. 'eagle-bearer'), the highest-ranking standard-bearer of the legion. He ranked directly below the centurions and, unlike other senior non-commissioned officers, only rarely reached their rank. The rank of aquilifer was probably awarded as an honorary post to distinguished non-commissioned officers. As a 'duplicarius' the aquilifer received the double pay of a regular legionary." (Wikipedia).

The eagle-bearer often wore a scale armor and, in keeping with old Roman tradition, a cloak or shoulder covering made of wolves' pelt.

In the Roman army there were various decorations (dona militaria) for exceptional bravery. For bravery one could be awarded a crown or a wreath (corona). These were mostly given to officers. There were also honorary weapons. Lower ranks could earn special awards through distinguished service such as phalerae (= silver or silvered discs), armillae (armlets), or torques (neck rings in reduced form). It was also conceivable to receive a special byname (Torquatus).

"From the original Roman citizen army a professional army developed in the imperial period. Since the 3rd century AD the Roman legions consisted largely of Germanic mercenaries. The collapsing internal order, the frequent crises of the empire, slave uprisings and the shortage of money eroded the once iron discipline of the army. The military value of the feared legions, which felt bound to the empire only by pay, steadily and inexorably declined. The onslaught of the peoples living in a new social order, whose mostly mounted warriors fought with spear and arrow, could not be stopped even by the cleverly devised system of frontier fortresses and ramparts. When Germanic leaders in Roman service deposed the last Western Roman emperor, not only did the already decaying great Roman Empire cease to exist, but an era also came to an end in which the disciplined heavy infantryman had dominated the battlefield" (Karel Toman, The Soldier in the Change of Time, Prague 1964, p. 29).

Under the aegis of Byzantine troops under the generals Belisarius and Narses it was possible to reincorporate Italy into the empire for a certain time. However, the balance of power in Italy was fragmented. In Ravenna an exarch represented the Byzantine emperor and in Rome the dux romanus. Under the Lombard king (Agilulf) there existed in Italy, alongside the Roman territories administered from Constantinople (until the 8th century), also a Lombard kingdom. W. Seaton comments on the decline of the Western Roman Empire: "Roman civilization continued, with unique brilliance in Visigothic Spain and Ostrogothic Italy, less securely among the Burgundians of Gaul, almost stunned among the Franks. Nowhere, however, did it disappear entirely and forever."

The Parthians were a people in the greater Near and Central Asian region. They came as nomads with Scythian roots and founded a large empire between 250 and 130 BC. Its core territories included, among others, Babylonia. Essentially their empire covered the lands from present-day Iraq to the borders of Afghanistan. The capital was Ctesiphon (located near Baghdad). The main religion was Zoroastrianism.

The military levy in the Parthian realm was organized decentrally, i.e., the various noble families provided contingents in times of war.

The Parthians were excellent horsemen. The Parthian military therefore mainly consisted of cavalry, namely lightly armed mounted archers and heavily armored riders called cataphracts. The latter were armed with lances and swords. The horses were also protected by armor.

On Parthian tactics one can read in the work War and Warfare in the Course of World History by Dr. Paul Schmitthner (Potsdam, p. 78 ff.): "The age of the invasion of Mediterranean warfare had begun. It first occurred formally, then politically. Later, after its overcoming, the Near East returned to its customary style of warfare. With Parthian rule this regression was completed. Their main weapons were spear and arrow. The light horsemen, who made up the bulk of the army, were pure archers. Even the heavy lance riders, an inheritance from the Greek period, carried the bow despite their lance and armor. As once in ancient Assyria the lancer had individually enabled the mounted archer to engage in ranged combat, so now this was accomplished on the whole by the interaction of the two cavalry weapons. The attack of the armored riders aimed to confront the enemy and thus allow the mounted archers to do the shooting. The incessant hail of arrows from a distance, continually replenished in true nomadic fashion by camel convoys, decided the battle. The infantry played a secondary role. The war was cavalry and long-range warfare. Also in the Sassanid Neo-Persian realm this remained unchanged, although due to the chronic wars with Byzantium discernible influences from the West could not be contained. Again the bow was the king's weapon. Even if under Western influence the thrusting spear gained length and sometimes produced cavalry fights resembling Western knights, the bow remained the dominant weapon compared to them....".

Known is the so-called "Parthian shot," i.e., shooting while feigning retreat. This was the tactic of the mounted archers. They formed the bulk of the Parthian cavalry and consisted of the nobles' vassals (and slaves).

The infantry consisted of inhabitants of the mountainous regions and vassals and was of very uneven quality.

The Parthians soon came into conflict with the expanding Roman Empire. In the so-called Parthian War (58–63 BC) it was about control over Armenia and supremacy in the Caucasus.

The years-long military confrontation culminated in the Battle of Carrhae (53 BC). Here the Romans under Crassus suffered a heavy defeat. The Roman force comprised about 25,000 to 28,000 legionaries, 4,000 light troops, plus cavalry including 1,000 Gauls. The Parthians fought under Surena and had, among others, about 1,000 cataphracts and 6–8,000 mounted archers, i.e., only cavalry. In the entire campaign 20,000 soldiers of the Roman force were killed and 10,000 were taken prisoner. The Parthian archers had worn the Romans down with a constant hail of arrows in a daylong battle. The Roman commander was later lured into an ambush for a meeting with Surena and killed.

In late antiquity the so-called Migration Period began. In particular Germanic peoples pushed into Central and Southeastern Europe, among other causes driven by the massive attacks of the Huns.

"Like a storm they swept over the peoples north of the Black Sea. They conquered every land under the hooves of their horses and destroyed anyone who stood in their way. From the depths of the Eurasian steppe unknown warriors advanced westward during the course of the 4th century AD. Every resistance was in vain; one people after another had to give in. The tribes of the Alans and Sarmatians as well as the Germanic Goths — they all succumbed, fled, or were incorporated into the mounted-warrior confederation. Those who escaped fled westward and carried the news of the looming danger to the farthest corner of the Roman Empire. The name of the mounted invaders spread fear and terror: the Huns came. Entire peoples left their ancestral seats in the far east of Europe and sought refuge on the territory of the Imperium Romanum. The Ostrogothic realm on the northern Pontus (Moldavia and Ukraine) fell within a year to the overwhelming power of the horse army. Its king Ermanaric chose suicide in 376 to avoid witnessing the end of his realm. The defeated, shaped by life in the southern Russian steppe into a kind of riding people, were conscripted for military service. From then on the feared Ostrogothic warriors, experienced in lance combat, fought in the ranks of the Hun confederation. Their nearest relatives, the Visigoths, who settled further south on the Balkans, also stood to fight the Huns. And they too were defeated in bloody battles." (Lars Römer; see also: Hermann Schreiber, The Huns. Attila Rehearses the End of the World, Düsseldorf 1987). The first migration was thus triggered at the end of the 2nd century by the Goths (Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Gepids), who, coming from the Baltic Sea region, moved into the area of present-day Ukraine. This first migration came to a standstill at the end of the 3rd century; in the 4th and 5th centuries further comparable migrations occurred by the Vandals (to North Africa, conquest of Carthage in 439) and (from 450) by the Jutes, Angles and Saxons.

The term Migration Period is used more cautiously in current historical research because the phenomenon is associated with mistaken ideas (research myth). "Instead of fixed peoples who set out from a 'homeland' and resettled elsewhere after a 'migration', according to current research it was rather heterogeneous groups whose composition was fluid (see ethnogenesis) and whose migration (for various reasons) represented a process with an open outcome. Some of these confederations tried to participate in the wealth of the Roman Empire as contractual partners (by which the Roman state received combat-capable troops), others resorted to military means for this purpose and established new realms on the soil of the Western Empire" (Wikipedia). Which role the developments of the Migration Period played in the fall of the Western Roman Empire is a topic repeatedly debated in research and cannot be answered in general terms. Its dissolution and decline therefore had multifaceted causes. In any case, the loss of wealthy provinces — e.g., in North Africa — also meant significant financial losses with negative consequences for the financing of the costly Roman military system.

With and after the decline of the Roman Empire cavalry armies dominated warfare. These were heavily armed warriors, but there were also mounted archers, e.g., among the Huns, the Avars or the Pechenegs. Mounted archers were also used in the Byzantine army. Modeled on the Sassanids, Byzantium also raised heavily armored and lance-armed so-called cataphracts.

The warrior depicted above wears a typical helmet of the Migration Period. Even at its beginning simple iron cross-helms were worn.

This helmet type consisted of a brow band with metal bands crossed over the top of the head.

The spaces in between could be filled with pieces of horn or metal.

Later a short nasal guard and a mail curtain were added, as well as cheek pieces (Vesey Norman, Weapons and Armors, p. 8 ff.).

From 418 onward there existed a Visigothic kingdom in southwestern Gaul and later on the Iberian Peninsula.

The capital of this kingdom was initially Tolosa (Toulouse).

According to Döbler (The Germans. Legend and Reality, Vol. II, p. 584 ff.), the Visigoths originally came as refugees from the Black Sea region into the Roman Empire fleeing the Huns and were assigned settlement space in northern Thrace by King Valens.

Later the Visigothic warrior confederation — which was at times allied with Western Rome — founded the aforementioned kingdom in Gaul and from the 5th century also in Hispania. For a certain period it was an important successor state to the Western Roman Empire.

Previously the Visigoths had fought, for example, on the side of the Roman magister militum Aëtius against Attila the Hun and other peoples at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains (451).

In the military struggle with the Franks the Visigoths were pushed back to the Iberian Peninsula.

In its late phase the Visigothic state already had feudal characteristics socially, but there were problems in the military system. "In the Visigothic military system a decline occurred over the course of the 7th century. A significant role was played by the fact that numerous conscripts avoided military service, which reduced the proportion of freemen in the army. The bulk of the army consisted of unfree men who entered military service with their lords. The nobility equipped only a small portion of their unfree men and led them into the field. The laws of King Wamba and his successor Erwig illustrate these unsatisfactory conditions; Wamba threatened those who failed to fulfill their military duties with drastic penalties to property and freedom. These military laws play an important role in the research debate on Visigothic 'proto-feudalism' (Wikipedia)."

Under King Roderic († between July 19 and 26, 711 at the Guadalete) the Visigoths suffered a decisive military defeat in 711 against a Muslim army — largely composed of Berbers — under Tāriq ibn Ziyād.

The Visigothic warrior depicted above wears a mail shirt called a hauberk. This chainmail is already found in Western Europe in the third century AD (Vesey Norman, p. 7).

With the sole rule of Emperor Constantine, Christianity was introduced as the state religion in the Roman Empire.

Instead of Rome, Byzantium was designated as the capital. That was in the year 330. Its new name was Constantinople.

The Western Roman Empire subsequently fell under the onslaught of the Migration Period, but the Eastern Roman Empire persisted for nearly another 1,000 years and was in fact the continuation of the Roman Empire in the eastern Mediterranean. It was engaged in constant internal and external struggles for power and was able to hold its own against external enemies for a long time. But even during the Migration Period the eastern half of the then-still-existing Roman realm was the target of Germanic attackers, such as the Visigoths and Ostrogoths. In the Battle of Adrianople in 378 the eastern Roman army suffered a serious defeat against the (Vis-)Goths, who were subsequently assigned settlement areas south of the Danube.

The Western Roman army had in fact dissolved around 470 and ceased to exist as a power factor. Under Emperor Justinian (527–565) and under the two eastern Roman generals Belisarius and Narses large parts of the western provinces — Italy, North Africa and southern Spain — were reconquered, but the ongoing struggles against the Vandals, Goths and Sassanids strained the empire.

From the 7th century the defensive struggles under the Heraclian dynasty against Islam began. The Arab–Byzantine wars lasted from the 7th to the 11th century and were waged against the Byzantine Empire by several Arab dynasties. Over time the Muslim caliphates conquered large parts of the Christian Byzantine realm and also repeatedly besieged, unsuccessfully, the Byzantine capital Constantinople.

Then in 1204 came the catastrophe of the Fourth Crusade and in 1453 Europe looked on as Constantinople was besieged and finally conquered by an overwhelming Turkish force.

Given the manifold threats and numerous wars, Byzantium required a consistently strong army. This presupposed good administration and sufficient financial resources.

Montgomery (History of Warfare. World History of Battles and Campaigns, London 1968, special edition Frechen n.d., p. 143) assesses the Byzantine army as follows:

"The Byzantines were the best European soldiers in the early Middle Ages, but one heard the least about their deeds. This was because they mostly pursued a defensive strategy and relied more on their wits than on brute force. They had to prevent the Arabs from penetrating Asia Minor, keep the Lombards and Franks out of the Italian provinces, and defend Greece and the Balkans against Slavs, Bulgars, Avars, Magyars and Pechenegs. With utmost vigilance they kept their borders garrisoned and regarded it as their main task to protect them. Only rarely were they offensive, for example in the mid-9th and late 10th centuries."

The aforementioned Montgomery (loc. cit., p. 1140 ff.) describes the history of Byzantine cavalry with the following words: "Throughout Byzantine history the cavalry was the principal arm. The rider wore a long mail shirt reaching to the thighs, a medium-sized round shield, a padded steel cap, greaves and iron shoes. Officer horses and the horses in the first rank wore a steel breastplate, and all had comfortable saddles with iron stirrups. The attack weapons were a broad sword, a dagger, a short bow with quiver and a long, richly decorated lance which at the lower end was provided with a strap. Some riders carried a battle axe at the saddle. Similar to the Romans and unlike all other European armies before the 16th century, the Byzantine soldiers were uniformed. Cloaks, pennons and helmet crests indicated the unit by their color. The riders had to be wealthy men to afford such fine equipment. Every officer and every four to five riders had an attendant. This meant considerable extra expense, but it was believed to be worth it so that the soldier could concentrate entirely on his military duties and, through good nourishment, maintain his physical performance."

A peculiarity in the Byzantine army were the so-called cataphracts. These were heavily armored cavalry armed with lances, whose armor covered both man and horse and who wore a peculiar facial visor. Their role was to break the enemy front.

Later a comprehensive reform of the Byzantine army led to the infantry regaining the main or a more significant role in battle.

"The Frankish Realm or Kingdom of the Franks, which existed from the 5th to the 9th century and was essentially formed from Roman Gaul and adjacent right-bank Germanic settlement areas, was the most important successor state of the Western Roman Empire that fell in 476 and the historically most important realm formation in Europe since antiquity" (Wikipedia). It arose in the course of the Migration Period when the Germanic tribe of the Franks settled on Roman territory (in present-day Belgium). The Franks were formed by the union of various smaller Germanic tribes on the Lower Rhine.

On the equipment and armament of the Franks in this early period it says in History of Warfare. World History of Battles and Campaigns by Viscount Montgomery of Alamein (London 1968, in the German edition: p. 145): "The Greek poet and historian Agathias describes in the mid-6th century the warfare of the Franks under the Merovingians ... 'The armament of the Franks is primitive. They know neither mail shirts nor greaves and wrap their legs with linen or leather strips. They have few horsemen, but their foot soldiers are bold and used to war. They carry swords and shields, but never use the bow. Their projectiles are axes and throwing spears. These are not very long and can be used for throwing and thrusting.'" This source is, however, viewed critically.

An important weapon of the Franks was their battle-axe (francisca). It was a throwing axe with a heavy blade, which was thrown at cavalry from a distance of about 10–12 meters. In the 6th century this weapon fell out of use. Broad oval shields with an iron rim and a boss were carried. The swords used were double-edged and could be used for cutting or thrusting. Helmets were rather rare. In this early period the Franks fought in large but disorderly masses.

Under the Carolingians the Franks rose to a significant military power in contemporary Europe.

The Carolingians were a ruling family of the West Germanic Franks. The name derives from the frequently used family name Karl (Charles). The progenitor of this family is considered to be Pippin the Elder. Charles Martel was royal mayor (688–741) of the Merovingians and was able to displace them from royal power after internal power struggles. He ended the civil wars of the Merovingian period and — supported by Lombard, Saxon and Frisian contingents — was able to halt the Muslim expansion into Gaul at the Battle of Tours and Poitiers (732). Pippin III of the Carolingian house became the first king of the Franks.

Far more significant was Charlemagne, who was crowned Roman–German emperor by Pope Leo in 800. He supported the pope against the Lombards and internal opponents. Hallmarks of his reign were aggressive expansions and intolerance toward pagans, especially the Saxons who were subdued after long campaigns. The eastern border of the Carolingian realm was pushed to the Elbe and the Lombard kingdom in Italy was conquered. Arab influence was confined to the Iberian Peninsula. Charlemagne ruled with the support of the nobility and the church. The Carolingian realm, alongside Byzantium, was the most successful successor state of the Roman Empire.

The tool for numerous conquests was a well-organized military system.

The Carolingians early on began distributing lands to those who had rendered services. These land grants often involved former church property. By granting such 'beneficia' the ruler created a class of vassals and warriors bound to him by personal loyalty. But this procedure also had consequences.

This was also a reason for conquests. The lands expropriated in these conquered territories were then distributed to the ruler's own nobility.

Freemen in Carolingian times were subject to military service, whether this derived from general subjection or from their respective landholdings can remain open (Heinrich Dannenbauer, Foundations of Medieval Armies, p. 240). In the early Middle Ages the model of the feudal system was not yet fully formed or was only beginning to emerge. Since military service required one's own armor, etc., there is much to suggest that the Carolingian military system was based on the levy of freemen with landholdings. The labor of poor freemen was probably used for the construction of defensive works. Military service was thus a process of communal organization (Christoph Haack, The Warriors of the Carolingians, dissertation Berlin 2020).

The levy of troops was commissioned by royal decree or ban. The counts (and abbots) then proclaimed this ban in their respective county. The so-called royal envoys (missi dominici) supervised the raising of the army in the counties.

The quality of the equipment and weapons to be provided depended on the extent (hides) of the landholding. Equipment often included one's own wagons, draft animals and provisions. There is no report of pay or compensation; rather, for a specified period (half a year or three months) clothing and weapons as well as provisions had to be provided.

The increasingly frequent and long-lasting campaigns became more and more a burden for the affected craftsmen and peasants. Therefore it was tempting to evade military service, e.g., by handing over one's property to the church or other secular powers. There were possibilities for exemption from service in the levied army, but these possibilities were limited. Those who evaded personal military service were severely punished. Bishops and abbots were also liable for military service, but generally did not serve themselves or take part in combat.

The raised army organized itself in tribes and counties.

The Carolingian army originally consisted mainly of foot soldiers. These still fought in the aforementioned Battle of Tours and Poitiers — like the former Germanic peoples — in closed formations. It was therefore primarily infantry combat supported by mounted fighters. But from the mid-8th century mounted troops came to dominate the Carolingian army. This was a significant military-historical upheaval and was associated with great expense.

The equipment of the mounted warrior was very expensive. The light cavalrymen were equipped with lance, sword, dagger and shield. Increasingly, however, heavily armed riders were introduced. These wore a scale armor and a conical metal helmet. The horse was also protected. The equipment of a heavy rider cost about three times that of a lightly armed rider. Both the armor and the swords of the Franks were of high quality and much sought after, but their export was prohibited under penalty.

In Volume 10 of the Fischer World History (The Early Middle Ages, p. 63 ff.) the following is stated about the consequences of this change in warfare and equipment: "Significant technical questions concern the introduction of the stirrup, the saddle and the horseshoe. Imagine a rider without stirrups mounting a horse that has a blanket instead of a saddle! Further assume that this rider must fight another rider or an infantryman. Armed with a lance or a sword or an axe, our rider will be unable to lower the lance for a true thrust and attack the opponent; for upon collision he would be thrown from his mount for lack of the supports provided by saddle and stirrups. Moreover, he cannot deliver a powerful sword blow because he must above all be careful not to lose his balance on the horse. It is therefore almost impossible for him to strike the enemy hard.

We now imagine the same rider on a horse with a saddle and stirrups. All maneuvers that were almost impossible for the cavalryman without these two innovations are now easy to perform. The rider, whose martial performance had been limited to shooting with bow and arrow, has now become a fearsome offensive warrior who, if he also wears a mail shirt, must become the true king of the battlefields."

This is supplemented by Niels Saxtorph in 'War Costumes in Colors' (Berlin 1971, p. 180) as follows: "The rider shows something new ... not in armor and weapons, but with the high saddle and the stirrups. It is possible that stirrups were used earlier in Europe, but their military value for the heavily armed riders was recognized only by Charles Martel. A rider on a pack-saddle with high pommels fore and aft had a much firmer seat, and he could, standing upright in the stirrups, deliver a thrust with the lance much more accurately and transfer the horse's speed to the lance thrust. However, there was the danger that in this maneuver the lance would penetrate too deeply and be difficult to withdraw from the victim, so that the rider would lose his weapon. Therefore rider lances often had a toggle to prevent too deep penetration."

The armored riders were still supported by foot soldiers. These could also wear scale armor and a spangenhelm; knee breeches were common. Heavy round shields provided protection. The other members of the levy were more simply equipped, but they too carried lances and shields.

The Carolingian army was thus an intermediate form that, while building on old Germanic traditions, initiated the transition to feudal warfare through the use of vassals and armored cavalry. A mounted elite emerged in this context. A differentiation between warrior and peasant had already taken place. With the weakening of central royal power in the 9th century and the emergence of new enemies (Vikings, Hungarians), against whom the heavy army was cumbersome, the Carolingian military system lost effectiveness. The structure evolved toward the feudal knightly armies of the High Middle Ages.

"They left their mark on the history of the West in the years between 800 and 1100 so strongly and so clearly that one can speak of an age of the Vikings. It was Vikings who in those three centuries pillaged, robbed, murdered on the coasts of Europe and kept the people in fear and terror. But there were also Vikings who, with unparalleled daring on their swift boats, the 'warhorses of the sea,' plowed the North Atlantic, settled Iceland and Greenland and reached America half a millennium before Columbus. And again it was Vikings who in the East founded the Russian realm, navigated the great rivers with their river-boats and concluded treaties with the emperors of Byzantium, serving for a long time at their court as a valued and feared bodyguard" (Frank R. Donovan, The Great Book of the Vikings, Reutlingen 1965, p. 7).

The Vikings were regarded as robbers and pirates. But they were also traders, craftsmen, shipbuilders, seafarers, explorers and colonists. Above all, however, the Vikings were farmers (cf. e.g. Rudolf Simek, The Vikings, Munich 2009). With the raid on the English monastery of Lindisfarne in the year 793 AD, they above all violently entered the light of history. For the next centuries the Vikings practiced coastal raiding and caused great insecurity and a sense of doom in Europe through these violent attacks. In the Mediterranean area, the Vikings sacked the city of Luna in Tuscany in 850 because they mistook the settlement for Rome. In the years 885 to 888 there was even a siege of Paris. The largest fleet of the Vikings was led by Sigfred and Rollo (?). The Vikings sailed up the Seine and tried to take the city, which however did not succeed. Although the garrison of Paris under Count Odo was able to successfully repel the attacks, the French king ended the military confrontation by paying tribute, which greatly damaged his reputation and ultimately led to his deposition. The numerous raids in England and Ireland were followed, especially by Danish Vikings, by the foundation of various kingdoms on English soil and henceforth a Norse minority also settled on the island. Only Alfred the Great (crowned 871) achieved a longer-term defensive success and the Vikings and Anglo-Saxons divided England between them.

Also in the East, mainly Swedish Vikings founded a number of principalities (cf. . For a long time the ships of the mainly Swedish Norsemen travelled on the river systems in the East, first as conquerors and plunderers, later only as traders. There were changeable fights with the locals living along these rivers up to actual expulsions. Settlements and whole city-states were founded, whereby often the Varangians formed the political upper stratum and the existing inhabitants, mostly Slavs, formed the dominated lower stratum. Over time, however, the violent newcomers merged with the other population groups and only late – with the Mongol onslaught – did these trade routes lose importance.

For many years the Swedish Vikings also stormed the rich city of the East. The Rus or Rusi, as they were also called by the Slavs, called this great city Miklagard and on several occasions managed to besiege it and force lucrative peace treaties. Since Vladimir (Waldemar) married an Eastern Roman emperor's daughter, relations with Byzantium improved and from then on many – above all Swedish and Norwegian – Vikings were seen there not only as traders but also as mercenaries of the imperial bodyguard (Varangians).

While the headgear of Carolingian warriors was still relatively open, helmets consisting of a brow band with iron strips arranged in a cross above it already appear early on. Between them there were infills of horn or metal. Frequently these helmets also have a nasal, cheek flaps and as neck protection a chain aventail attached to the helmet.

From this helmet type the classic conical Norman helmets developed, whereby the cheek protection soon disappeared. The points of these helmets tended to incline forward over time. Occasionally one also finds a slightly downward-drawn rear edge of the headcovering that was intended to serve as neck protection.

Top left is a depiction of the helmet of St. Wenceslaus, which is kept in the treasury of St. Vitus Cathedral in Prague. Vesey Norman (Weapons and Armors, p. 9) describes it as follows: "A few helmets from the 10th to the 12th century have survived. The most beautiful and oldest preserved piece of a European armour is kept in Prague Cathedral and is said to have belonged to St. Wenceslaus (d. 935). It is one of the typical conical helmets of that time. On the helmet bowl made from a single piece are separately riveted an inlaid silver nasal and a similarly inlaid rim strip."

The equipment and armament of the Vikings is described by Torsten Capelle as follows: "Surprising was the Vikings' low demand for protection in combat. Mail shirts and helmets, according to archaeological evidence, were not worn, although both were known in the preceding Vendel period both in Sweden and Norway. Although there are some depictions of conical headgear, these must have been something other than helmets. Only the shield was so widespread that it must have been a kind of standard weapon. The shield, composed of narrow boards, was round, sometimes reinforced with metal fittings and almost always had an iron boss in the center to better protect the hand. Some shields must have been richly painted. This can be inferred from the fact that heroes according to Old Norse tradition were sung about in reference to the deeds depicted in pictures on their shields. The ship find from Gokstad near Oslo included painted shields hung on the railing, which, however, were only alternately painted black and yellow. On Gotland picture stones, round shields hung on the rail are also often recognizable. In this arrangement they raised the ship's side and could therefore protect equally well against capsizing waves as against a hail of arrows."

"More varied were the offensive weapons. Foremost among them are the double-edged longswords, whose high-quality, steel-like hard blades were, according to inscriptions, sometimes imported from the Carolingian area. Exporting swordsmiths, judging by the name forms, must have been based on the Lower Rhine. The three- or five-part characteristic pommel formation of many Viking swords, however, makes it clear that the completion of this weapon must have taken place in a local Nordic workshop. The battle axe is also passed down as a feared weapon of the Northmen and is evidenced in grave finds both in simple and in decorated parade versions. It was used as a cutting weapon and also as a throwing weapon. The spear is also frequently represented; it was particularly effective when thrown to open a fight. The lance as a thrusting weapon, by contrast, is mainly present in the younger Viking Age in some richly equipped graves of mounted warriors."

"What role bow and arrow ultimately played cannot yet be accurately assessed. Certainly the importance of this ranged weapon has so far been underestimated. It is indeed only rarely evidenced in finds because all parts could have consisted of organic material. New finds from Haithabu, however, demonstrate the use of longbows. They are made of yew wood, which had already been preferred in the Germanic world for centuries because of its elasticity. The man-high bows must have been used standing, that is, they are unlikely to have been hunting weapons, but rather exclusively weapons of war. Since contemporary literature speaks of 'a hail of arrows', one might here and there perhaps think of the use of whole groups of archers." (The same, The Vikings. Cultural and Art History, Darmstadt 1988, pp. 39 ff.).

The Viking equipped himself, often also with spoils of war, e.g. chain mail or helmets. In that respect the appearance of the Vikings was very varied. Weapons were a Viking's most precious possessions, although the common warrior often owned only an axe. However, the axe, the sword, the spear and the shield fundamentally belonged to the standard equipment, and more rarely a mail shirt or a breastplate or a helmet. Mail shirts, however, are shown for example on the Bayeux Tapestry made before 1082 in southern England.

Swords had proper names and an almost mythical significance. Most swords had a flat hollow blade and were double-edged, sometimes equipped with a Damascus blade. The pommel and grip sometimes displayed geometric patterns or were inlaid or plated with silver or copper. Blades were frequently imported (from the Rhineland) (cf. Hildegard Elsner, The Vikings, Nuremberg 2010, p. 10, and Angus Konstam, Atlas of the Vikings. History, Conquests and Culture of the Vikings, Vienna 2002, pp. 120 ff.).

The axe regularly had a long shaft and a broad iron blade. The latter could bear decorations. The axe was wielded with both hands.

The lance functioned as a thrusting weapon and had a broad blade. The blade socket was riveted to the wooden shaft. The iron arrowheads were fitted to birch wood shafts.

The shields had a diameter of about 1 m and an edging of leather or even metal protected the rim. An iron shield boss protected the warrior's hand (cf. Susan M. Margeson/ Peter Anderson, Vikings, Hildesheim 1994). (Coloured) cloaks and trousers were common.

The structure of feudal medieval society was based on the relation to land ownership. This was the point of reference for social status and the basis for wealth and power. The central element of the medieval military constitution was the feudal system. The liege lords lived from the surpluses of their lands or from rents and thus financed their costly military equipment, for they owed the king not only loyalty but also active military service in time of war. In that respect their decisive role was that of a nobility of the sword. The king's vassals could also re-grant the royal fief to sub-vassals. These were then only obliged to be loyal to their immediate liege lord.

From this nobility of the sword the knighthood emerged in the 11th century, whose origin can also be seen in the Germanic retinue. In any case it was a mounted professional warrior class that significantly shaped the image of the Middle Ages. The noble knight over time became the leading figure of courtly society. The ideal of the knight was shaped by the concepts of honor and courage as well as moderation or restraint (Mâze). Mâze belonged to the basic canon of knightly virtues of Middle High German poetry (cf. Fuchs, History of European Warfare, Vol. 1, p. 126 ff.). The roots of knighthood lie in France and from Germany knighthood spread eastwards.

Admission to the knighthood was preceded by a multi-year – hard – training, which in fact began in childhood (cf. Fuchs, History of European Warfare, Vol. 1, p. 130 ff.). Required were above all intensive physical training, constant practice with the main weapons, particularly sword fighting, and extensive riding training, but also the craft of war had to be learned in its basics. At about twelve years of age the page period at a count’s or princely court followed. At about 14 years the time as a squire began in the service of a single knight. The actual admission to knighthood took place at about 21 years of age by the ceremonial accolade or dubbing with the sword.

Unfree knights – so-called ministeriales – could also rise to knighthood. These were unfree servants of kings and princes who often acted as local administrators and warriors.

The medieval image of war was dominated by the knight as an armoured rider, that is, as a horseman in heavy armour that covered the body completely. The Turks therefore called them iron men. The warhorse was also protected. In medieval tactics single combat dominated; fighting in a ranked formation was unknown to knights or did not correspond to their individual thinking. Thus he fought as an individual combatant, even in battle.

But the knight did not act alone, rather regularly in a small unit, the gleve. The gleve was considered the smallest unit of the cavalry and comprised, besides a knight (glevner), a small retinue of three to four men (including the squire). It was not a tactical unit but a unit of measure for the deployment of a medieval army. The army levy consisted of all holders of fiefs; often a peasant or urban levy as well as mercenaries were added. The size of raised armies, however, was numerically significantly smaller than contemporary reports would have one believe (cf. Medieval. Strategy and Art of War, p. 10 ff.). Field battles were rather rare and many wars were basically small-scale private feuds.

Although armour or plate armour gave the knight a high degree of bodily security and the custom of granting pardon to captured knights and releasing them for ransom was widespread, fatal losses could be considerable (Maurice Keen, Chivalry, 1991, p. 340). In the Battle of Agincourt on 25 October 1415, for example, the English commander-in-chief, King Henry V, during a crisis in the course of the engagement even issued the explicit order to kill the captured Frenchmen – except for the most important. "After the battle between 1,000 and 2,000 French prisoners accompanied the English-Welsh army back to England, most of whom had been captured before the order was given. Chroniclers also report that the order was rescinded after Henry V was sure that the third French line refrained from an attack" (Wikipedia). However, the Swiss and also the levies of the Flemish towns granted no pardon.

The term Normans originally referred on the one hand to the entire population of Scandinavia, and on the other hand – which later became the rule – to the population of Normandy. The "Northmen" settled in Normandy after lengthy and bloody campaigns of conquest and created there a duchy which, by the treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte, was granted by the French king to the Viking Rollo (Hrolf) as a fief. With this the raids of the formerly landless Vikings also ended and the newcomers mixed with the native population. On the lasting and comprehensive impact of the Normans R. Allen Brown writes (The Normans, Munich 1991, p. 7): "The first and by no means least of these achievements was the building of Normandy itself – in the short century and a half between 911 (the traditional date of the first grant of a northwestern French territory by King Charles 'the Simple' to the Viking leader Rollo and his Norsemen) and the 1060s. Here arose a state that – by contemporary standards – became the most powerful of the feudal principalities that then existed in France, the West Frankish kingdom. But it also produced an energetic, integrated, loyal and self-confident society that in the last decades of the eleventh century seemed to be able to make the whole known world its plaything. Having extended their sovereignty and overlordship to the counties of Maine and Ponthieu and parts of Brittany and the county of Boulogne, the Normans – as everyone knows – set about subjugating the much larger and richer kingdom of England in one of the few truly epoch-making battles of European history – at Hastings, on Saturday, 14 October 1066...." Afterwards Wales and the Scottish lowlands were conquered. However, the energy of the Normans, who had left their Scandinavian homeland at the end of the 8th century, was not exhausted; rather, parts of the Normans also took possession of territories in southern Italy and Sicily and founded their own dominions there.

Norman rule was feudal in organization, i.e., after the subjugation the nobles rendered military service as vassals. In return they were granted lands. The service was more closely regulated. The Church (bishops and abbots) was also subject to ducal power. According to Brown, the Norman force that crossed the Channel in 1066 consisted of approximately 7,000 men, of whom about 4–5,000 were infantry and 2–3,000 were knights or their mounted squires. Among the foot soldiers were also many archers and slingers from all over Europe.

Rolf Roeingh (A Sword Stroke Across the Channel. William the Conqueror’s Victorious Voyage to England According to the Pictorial Accounts of the Bayeux Tapestry, Berlin 1941, p.) describes the Norman protective equipment as follows: "Compared to civil and everyday dress the martial attire plays a far greater role in the picture scenes. As the main component it shows the long scale armour and the mail armour, as they were both worn side by side at that time, that is roughly until the beginning of the Crusades, also by Germans and French. Mail shirts or disc shirts, as the scale armour is also called, are already known from Carolingian times and were still worn afterwards. The disc shirt consists of a leather or linen garment of three- to fourfold thickness, rounded or squared at the bottom, to which discs are sewn in such a way that they overlap like scales or roof tiles, forming a tightly closed metal surface. More frequently than this scale or disc shirt the mail armour is depicted. In this, iron rings are sewn onto the same leather or linen underlay, either tangentially next to each other, each ring with four stitches, or – which gave more resistance – as the so-called closed mail shirt, in such a way that the rings mesh more closely together. That was the brünne – French broigne – or houbert – Norman hauberk, derived from the Latin halbercum, probably from the German Halsberge. This was a neck protection that originally was only an armoured hood but later gave its name to the whole mail shirt..."

"... As a special form, alongside the actual mail shirt, a thick leather shirt appears among the Norman warriors and knights, reinforced with a grid of individual square leather strips. These strips each carry a round iron plate or a nail head. The armour is usually cut as a loose sleeve coat and reaches, especially on the rider, down like trousers so that thigh and parts of the lower leg take part in the armouring. From the shoulders the armour extends upward like a hood over the head, at least in the heavily armed, who wear over it the characteristic Norman conical pointed helmet. This helmet apparently developed from the old Germanic pointed hat, which here, reinforced with iron fittings and iron plates, transformed into the helmet. Since this helmet provided too little protection for the face and the neck, a nasal and often also an iron neck guard were attached in front of the face and at the neck. In basic form the Norman helmet roughly corresponds to the later spangenhelm...."

"... The Normans usually used as shield a pointed-oval slightly convex wooden shield, 1.5 m high and 0.5 m wide, covered with leather on the outside and fitted with metal at the rim. Inside the shields were padded and in the upper half provided with leather handles fixed crosswise with screws so that the shield could be handled either vertically or horizontally. A long strap allowed the weapon to be slung over the shoulder. The outside was brightly painted with primitively executed images of dragons, griffins, snakes, lions or with ornaments. Coats of arms were not yet known at that time. The depictions on the shields served other purposes."

The offensive weapons were the usually longer sword, the long thrusting lance and the shorter throwing spear. The swords corresponded to earlier Viking models, and the spears of the Normans did not differ or not substantially from the former models. However, the Normans adopted mounted service from the Franks. From about 993, according to Terence Wise (Saxons, Vikings and Normans 2013, p. 72), the Normans fought on horseback, using the spear as a throwing lance or as a thrusting lance. Axes were also used, as well as bows. The latter could, at close range, also pierce a mail shirt. The mail shirt grew longer over time and consisted of interlaced rings. The wide sleeves, however, initially only reached to the elbow. The helmets regularly had a nasal guard. The large shield shown above was characteristic for the Norman knight.

The English knight shown below wears a mail shirt of interlinked iron rings, over which he has put a surcoat or an overgarment.

The knee-length hauberk or mail shirt had three-quarter length sleeves and closed at the neck or had a hood. The sleeves, however, grew longer over time and soon ended in leather mittens, which were also often covered or protected with a mail of rings. These were also frequently slit so that the hand could easily slip out.

The mail shirt was usually split front and back so that it could hang down left and right at the saddle when riding and thus ensured the necessary freedom of movement.

Over this was worn a loose flowing surcoat. According to Vesey Norman (Weapons and Armours, pp. 11 ff.) this custom began in the second half of the 12th century and had precedents in the war attire of the Saracens. It was intended to protect the armour from rain and also served as sun protection. Initially monochrome, this surcoat soon showed heraldic decoration.

Beneath the mail shirt a necessary garment was also worn, presumably a simple tunic.

Furthermore, supplementary leg armour became common, partly made of chain mail or of true greaves.

The French knight depicted earlier wears a kettle helmet.

The Carolingian helmet still left the face exposed and was similar to the later morion. It was later replaced by the Norman conical helmet, which had a rudimentary facial protection in the form of a nasal.

From a further development of this helmet with a domed skullpiece the kettle helmet, also called bucket helmet, arose. Initially a visor was attached. This was an intermediate form.

The kettle helmet is often depicted with a crest, but this was not worn in war.

The initially flat crown piece of the kettle helmet was problematic and could be injured by a blow with a mace.

A reinforcing plate could be attached for the lower face. This was called a beard.

By the end of the 15th century the kettle helmet disappeared but remained in use for tournament combat.

Common badges of armies and troops were already customary early on, so the cross was the unifying symbol of the crusaders. After the conquest of Jerusalem (1099) several knightly orders were also founded, e.g. the Order of the Temple (1120), the Order of St. John (1120) and the Teutonic Order (1190). These martial associations had a uniform habit; for example, the Templars wore a white mantle with a red cross of eight beams. The Teutonic Order also had a white mantle, but with a black cross.

The above knight of the Teutonic Order holds a kettle helmet in his arm.

The early cylindrical models often had a flat crown.

Under the kettle helmet a hood was worn, which is surrounded by a turban-like roll. The heavy kettle helmet rested on this hood, so it acted as a sort of cushion (Vesey Norman, p. 13).

In the 15th century heavy cavalrymen wore armour made of steel plates that covered the whole body. The armours constantly evolved and by around 1450 reached an optimal balance between mobility and protection.

Plate armour had developed in the 14th century and replaced the hauberk, since the latter protected the warrior against sword cuts but not against blows from the mace, war hammer or battle axe. Plate armour consisted of body-shaped plates and was intended to protect the warrior's body as completely as possible from violent impact in single combat, skirmish or battle.

The development of the knight's armament and equipment was influenced by technical improvements due to advances in the art of weapon forging. It did not only follow the necessities of warfare and technical progress, but also obeyed fashion influences. Thus, over time various stylistic schools developed in particular, on the one hand the German form with broken and jagged contours, on the other the Italian form with rounded and smooth contours as well as simple lines and large surfaces.

Over time a true export trade in harnesses emerged. In Germany Nuremberg and Augsburg were centres of armour craft, later also Innsbruck. In Italy Milan was a major centre for armour production. In the centres of armour craft generations of specialised armourers worked on the perfection of the harness.

The iron arrived at the armourer's workshop in the form of bars. It was initially worked cold with various hammers. The edges of the plates were cut with shears.

At the most vulnerable parts of the body the iron was kept thicker to increase the protective effect of the armour; usually the left half of the harness was heavier than its right half. The centre of the chest piece of the harness was often several millimetres thick, while at the edges it was often only 1 millimetre.

The harness was handmade and at this stage of production was black and rough and dented from countless hammer blows. In a next step the harness was polished and the various parts loosely riveted together.

"The bulk of armour smithing was done by the armourer on cooled metal. Skilled armourers were able to forge a full helmet from a single sheet of metal. They could also colour harnesses by slightly cooling the heated harness or reheating it to a lower temperature (tempering) to produce a bluish tint. A darker hue and rust protection could also be achieved by heating with linseed oil, blackening." (Wikipedia).

Parts of the armour were also padded. The harness could be opened by hinges and fastenings.

The armourers organised in guilds regularly marked their products with their initials or marks. But not only armourers were involved in creating the sumptuous harnesses, goldsmiths and etchers also contributed. Guild masters subjected the harnesses to a test by shooting at them with a crossbow. Upon passing the test the armours were furnished with a seal of quality. The armourers were essentially metal artists. The pinnacle of armour craft was reached around the year 1500.

Until the end of the 15th century a hauberk (also called Brunnika or chain-shirt) was still worn under the harness, but over time a gorget and a skirt-like plate became common.

"The brünne originally had the form of a coat or shirt with sleeves and a hood reaching down to the knees. In the late Middle Ages the brünne only protected the vulnerable neck area of the warrior and was directly connected to the skullcap or the helmet (helmet-brünne). In Persia similar gorgets were known under the name Gariban" (Wikipedia).

Under the great helm and the schaller one occasionally wore an arming coif.

The undergarments that a knight wore under his harness in the 15th and 16th centuries were very thick and probably made of soft woolen fabric. The wams sat loose, while the latter fitted more closely.

From protective clothing made of leather, cloth or felt—partly reinforced with metal elements—chain shirts made of interwoven rings of iron or steel developed. Finally, in a later stage of development, rigid metal armors followed. These complex plate armors became the distinguishing feature of the knight. In principle, an armor (= protective clothing of the knight) in the form of a full harness consisted of a kettle helm with a hinged visor, chin-piece, gorget, pauldrons, arm harness, breastplate or cuirass, elbow cops (called meusels), front skirt, gauntlets, greaves, poleyns (knee cops) and iron shoes.

In Germany, however, the demand for full harnesses was somewhat lower. Here in the 15th century they preferred a breastplate with a fluted shape, a skirt of chainmail and an iron cap or a skullcap with a visor and a neck ring. A closely fitting collar was often worn with the iron cap. The arm harness consisted of riveted upper and lower arm tubes; the shoulders were protected by rings, the armpits by arm cops. Articulated lames protected the shoulder joint. The leg harness remained unchanged.

In addition to armors manufactured for use in war, in the later knightly period purely tournament armors were developed, which were used exclusively in the ritualized sporting competitions of that time.

From the simple protective garments, over time real works of blacksmithing art were created, and various types or stylistic schools of knightly armor emerged. "Characteristic of Milanese harnesses were the rounded, massive forms as well as the asymmetrical construction. Also, a full chainmail was usually worn under the Milanese harness. In Germany the Gothic harness predominated, and later the ribbed or ridged harness (Riefelharnisch). The Gothic harness was characterized by its slimmer and more filigree construction. In addition, a full chainmail was worn less often under the Gothic harness; more often chainmail parts were attached to the gambeson so that they covered the weak points of the armor. The Riefelharnisch gets its name from the ribbing of its surface. Besides the decorative element of this ribbing, it could also provide greater structural stability with less or equal weight. This advantage was bought at the price of significantly more expensive production. English armors were optimized more than their continental counterparts for fighting on foot and almost completely enclosed the body with metal plates. Armors on the European continent were worn to a much greater extent by mounted men and could or had to therefore not protect certain parts of the body equivalently (for example, the inside of the legs was at most protected with chainmail, since on one hand the horse offered protection there, and on the other hand the plates must not chafe the horse)" (Wikipedia).

Alongside the great helm the basinet (kettle-hat, bascinet, bacyn, basnet or bascinet) also developed. The basinet had an open face field. By attaching a nasal or face guard it gradually became a full head protection.

Furthermore, a network of metal rings with rivets was attached to the basinet. This chain curtain was also called a helm-brünne. It could also be pulled up in front of the face; for this purpose a hook was fixed at the front of the basinet.

Later the basinet, instead of the nasal, was fitted with hinged visors in the shape of a snout or a boss, sometimes with a chin-plate. There were also pegged visors, i.e. visors fastened with a pin.

If the visor had the shape of a dog's snout, it was generally called a houndskull. This arose in the second half of the 14th century.

In the early period (13th century) the basinet was sometimes even worn together with padding under the great helm. Later the basinet remained in use alone as a battle helmet, while the great helm increasingly became a tournament helm.

The Italian variant of the basinet was called barbuta or celata.

"The helmet bowl of the barbuta covered the head and neck of its wearer almost completely and had an approximately T- or Y-shaped facial opening. Some variants had a nasal piece, which resulted in a great similarity to the Corinthian helmet of ancient Greece. Because the barbuta offered sufficient protection without significantly restricting sight and breathing, it also became widely used outside Italy. In the late 15th century it was displaced by other helmet types such as the armet and the sallet" (Wikipedia).

The iron cap was a (simple) military head covering widely used throughout Europe and was mainly worn by foot soldiers.

It was modeled on civilian predecessors and had wide brims and often an additional nasal guard.

The iron caps were often made from a single piece, but sometimes had riveted brims.

There are also iron caps with a deeply drawn-down brim at the front with a sight slit.

The schaller was of German origin and became a competitor to the visored helmet. The term is derived from the word for a bowl. It was a simple helmet that left the face exposed. Usually the schaller had a brim drawn back toward the rear.

The headgear was fastened with a strap. Over time the schaller was further developed and equipped with a sight slit and an attached visor.

The visored helmet was essentially a basinet fitted with a face guard. It had a rounded shape, enclosed the chin and covered the neck.

A fully developed visored helmet, already developed in the 15th century, was also called a bicoque or bicoquet. It had a domed helmet bowl, possibly with a crest, a visor that protected the face or nose, and a helmet window.

A crest was intended to provide additional protection against sword blows.

The helmet face was called mézail. Originally it consisted of a nasal piece and cheek pieces that later grew together. The helmet window or sight slit could additionally be protected by spikes.

Perforations (also in the skull piece) provided air for breathing and cooling. The chin was protected by a chin guard and the throat or nape was covered by the gorget.

The visor was movable, i.e. it could be lifted on pivots or swivelled on temple-bolts. Originally the visor was attached to the brow of the basinet. The chin-plate was also hinged so that the knight could put on the helmet.

Over time the neck-guard consisted of lames.

The final form was then a closed helmet. One variant was the so-called Burgundian helmet.

Helmets with a very pronounced forward-curving visor were called houndskull, because this shape resembled a dog’s snout.

Additionally, the visored helmet could also feature reinforcements—on the sides or on the skull or brow.

The unit was founded under King Edward III (1327–1377). It also existed under King Henry VII Tudor. Its strength was initially 50 archers, later it became 600 archers.

The war attire was in green and white. These were the colors of the Tudors.

Surrounded by a golden laurel wreath the war attire displays a red rose. This rose was a symbol of the union of the houses of Lancaster and York in the Tudor dynasty.

As headgear a kind of bonnet served.

A turning point in the art of war was signaled in 1302 when Flemish infantry—namely 20,000 members of town militias—dealt a heavy defeat to the French knights—allegedly 50,000 men—at Courtrai (July 11).

In 1314 (June 23 and 24) Scottish foot soldiers defeated English armored riders at Bannockburn. Here 10,000 Scots were victorious against 23,000 English. According to Terence Wise (Knights and Armor, Bonn 1980, p. 20) this victory was due to the fact that the knights tried to fight alone, i.e. without support from the infantry. The Scots were mostly armed with 3.70 m long spears.

On November 15, 1315 the Swiss destroyed an Austrian knightly host at Morgarten in an ambush. Long pole-weapons were also used here.

On June 21, 1339 the Swiss (the city and republic of Bern) defeated an army from Burgundy and the city of Freiburg in an open-field battle at Laupen; the attacking knights could not prevail against the pikemen with their overlong pole-weapons, although they could against bearers of too-short halberds, and ultimately withdrew from the battlefield.

In 1346 an English army (allegedly only 10,000 men) and above all its longbowmen were able to celebrate a great triumph over the French feudal host (allegedly 35,000 men) at Crécy (August 26).

These military experiences led to the increased use of heavily armed infantry.

The image of war was changed in particular by the English longbowmen. They ranked among the most important troop types of the English army. The longbow had already been in use since the 12th century in South Wales and parts of England. Under the English kings Edward I, II and III the tactical use of longbowmen was further developed. They displaced the previously recruited crossbowmen and were increasingly employed in conflicts with the Welsh and in the Scottish wars (e.g. in 1298 at Falkirk, in 1332 at Dupplin and in 1333 at Halidon Hill). Also in the naval battle of Sluys on June 24, 1340 in the Zwin off Sluis the use of English longbowmen by ship crews was decisive. The French crossbowmen shot too slowly. With the longbow 12 arrows could be loosed before a steel crossbow was re-cocked.

An archer had to practice for many years to master the art of archery. The English longbow originally came from Wales and soon eclipsed the crossbow in importance. The bows were 6 feet 4 inches high and made of yew or elm wood. The bow was drawn behind the ear and its draw weight was about one hundredweight. The string was made of hemp and linen fibers. The arrow was 37 inches long and had a sharp, diamond-shaped tip. In its range of 100–240 m the bow proved extremely effective.

Because the archer had to stand upright when shooting, he was armored and wore an open iron cap that allowed good vision; in addition he wore a tailored outer coat. The latter was sometimes reinforced with metal; leg and arm protectors made of boiled leather were also put on. Less commonly used were cuirasses or a breastplate. This was the typical protective equipment of these elite troops.

Thirty-five years after the aforementioned battle of Courtrai the so-called Hundred Years’ War between England and France began, a conflict of great military-historical significance. In 1346 (April 26) the Battle of Crécy took place. "In this engagement at the present-day location of Crécy-en-Ponthieu in the Somme department the armies of Edward III of England (about 12,000 men) and Philip VI of France (about 20,000 or even 25,000 men) faced each other" (Wikipedia). The French army also included 6,000 crossbowmen (mostly from Genoa) under Carlo Grimaldi and Antonio Doria. The English successfully defended a ridge about 2,000 [paces/units] long against a multitude of almost suicidal cavalry attacks by French knights, which failed in the hail of arrows from the English longbowmen. In addition to various well-known nobles, e.g. King John of Bohemia, Count of Luxembourg, Charles, Count of Alençon, Louis de Châtillon, Count of Blois and Dunois, Louis I (Flanders), Count of Flanders, Nevers and Rethel, etc., the French losses are given as 1,542 knights and countless ordinary soldiers. This military success brought the English a temporary lead in the military field.

"The brigantine consisted of numerous metal plates, often tinned for protection, which were riveted under a layer of cloth, sturdy linen or even velvet. The rivet heads that became visible on the outside of the outer fabric form the typical appearance of the brigantine. Often these rivet heads were arranged in groups of three and decorated. Since the plates were made in different sizes and riveted in different orientations, the brigantine guaranteed a good combination of mobility and protection—not as rigid and therefore offering less protection than a plate armor, but also not as penetrable (and more immobile) as a chainmail. The manufacture of a brigantine was simpler and required less specialized knowledge than the manufacture of a plate armor. Among other reasons, due to the cost factor it was therefore often worn by lower-ranking soldiers from the 15th century onward" (Wikipedia).

The French then further developed the tactics and equipment of their knights in order to better protect them against enemy archers. The heavy cavalry switched to plate armor, which however brought more disadvantages than advantages, as it made the individual knight even less mobile. The armors ultimately became too heavy and when Austrian knights—initially only the vanguard—went into battle on foot against enemy infantry at Sempach in 1356, they were annihilated. However, there is a contradictory tradition concerning this battle. "There is also evidence that the Habsburg knights may have panicked when they realized that under the given circumstances they could expect to be killed and could not hope to be taken captive for later ransom demands, as was otherwise customary in knightly wars. An Austrian source in any case speaks of many knights being very 'reluctant' to do their duty and many mounting their horses, watching the battle for a while and then fleeing. Leopold III of Habsburg did not personally take part in the battle at the beginning. Only when the Habsburgs threatened to lose the battle did he apparently attempt to turn the tide by throwing himself into the fray. The attempt was in vain and cost Leopold his life" (Wikipedia).

The decline of knighthood therefore began already before the use of gunpowder, since the greater range and penetrating power of longbows and crossbows and the deadly thrust of the long pikes of infantrymen revealed the limits of the armored knights (Maurice Keen, The Knight, 1991, p. 337). They were ultimately replaced by a new type of infantry, the Swiss foot soldiers and later the German Landsknechte. These were professional soldiers with their own combat techniques. As a weapon class the knights survived then in heavy cavalry.