Defences of Poland and Its Men in 11th and 12th Centuries
Verbruggen describes the protection offered by the nature of Poland's landscape:
"Bohemia enjoyed the protection of the wooded Erzgebirge, nearly forty miles wide….The Sudeten mountains
protected Poland in the south-west, the Carpathians in the south, the border forest of Pomerania and Prussia in the
north, and the Oder [Odra] only with great difficulty [could be overcome]" (321).
This harsh terrain of Poland kept "most sieges unsuccessful until about the middle of the twelfth century" (330). A
prime example of invading armies trying to overcome this terrain is the campaign of Henry II in the late 10th century
to early 11th century. In 1005, Henry II succeeded in making it to within two miles of Poznan when he had to retreat
due to lack of supplies. He was then persued by the Poles, under the leadership of Boleslaw the Brave, and suffered
heavy losses while seeking food and supplies in the area. Henry II was forced to make an "unfavourable peace" with
the Poles in return for he and his remaining men to escape alive. Another Polish victory happened merely ten years
later when Polish archers destroyed some of the Royal army guarding a baggage train. In 1017 Henry II again tried to
gain passage into Poland, this time through their allies in Bohemia in order to seek food and a safe stretch of country.
Though Conrad II was forced to abandon a 1029 campaign into Polish territory, due to lack of food, he scored the
only major victory against Poland during this era when he had "only" the Saxons fighting with him in 1031. It seems
that against Poland's natural defences a smaller army fared better than a large army, due to the scarcity of resources to
support a large-scale army. Schunemann, as repeated by Verbruggen, noticed this paradox, saying "the smaller the
army was, the greater its chance of success" (336).
This is as much as can be comfortably detailed about the strengths and strategies of armies relating to Poland due to
the large amount of technically inaccurate data. Usually military officers embelished the numbers of armies they
fought to make them look better as commanders, or made their own numbers greater to instill fear in their enemies.
Generally, officers had no preparation in historical method (1, Verbruggen) to accurately record a battle for
examination by later historians. Though susceptible to rust and rot, armour, on the other hand, is a more reliable
source of how effective armies fared in battle since it is a physical remnant of the era. Pictoral representations of
battles are also more useful than military reports since artists drew pictures of the armour which are supported by
relics found on battlefields and methods employed by smiths at the time. The French Maciejowski Bible, circa 1250,
shows the greatest recorded detail relating to the construction and effectiveness of armour of the era (some plates
reprinted in Bull, 54). Of the five general rules of armour Ffoulkes describes, four are relevant to this era: it must be
suitable for its purpose, convenient to use, of sound constructional methods, and subservient to decoration to
preceeding rules (3). Armour's basic goal is not to protect the wearer from a direct hit while fighting an enemy but
rather to provide a "glancing surface" to an incoming blow. This means the armour is not specifically designed to take
the full brunt of an assualt, rather it redirects the blow to a stronger part of the armour or away from the wearer.
Armour with flat surfaces, such as the flat-top helmets of early Crusaders, proved ineffective against overhead attacks,
which usually cleaved the helmet in half, along with the head underneath. Convenience was conveyed in the armour's
ease of putting it on and providing as close to free range of motion of an unfettered man. This was the problem more
toward the 15th century as plate maile became more popular and the plates had to be riveted together ingeniously to
facilitate natural movement. Armour having to be of sound construction is obvious; if it is not put together well, it
won't hold up in battle. Finally, decoration should be limited, if incorporated at all, in order to keep armour functional
rather than fanciful. Elaborately decorated armour, commonly called show maile, was reserved for official functions
of the state and for smiths who wanted to show off their ability.
The seemingly most primitive form of armour used in this era was comprised of fabric and linen, but was surprisingly
resistant to cutting blows. This type of armour was less oppressive weightwise than its metal counterpart, chain maile,
on long marches. Two constructions of this armour fall under this category. One of which involved the layering of 29
or 30 thicknesses of linen with deerskin overtop, while the other comprised of 31 thicknesses of animal hyde, usually
deerskin. The main use of this type of armour was as a defence for the arms or torso of the body. Protection for the
lower half of the body using this method was impractical due to the unnatural inherent thickness which would hinder
foot soldiers in battle, and worse restrictions on a march. Helmets made in this fashion would serve as protection from
the elements rather than be a useful deterrent of a head wound since the linen did little to dissipate the force of a blow.
Leather was the next best thing since it was lighter and less costly than metal. When the thick cut of animal hyde was
boiled in water or oil it could then be moulded, cooled, and could withstand almost as much battle-wear as metal.
Though leather cuirasses and other pieces of armour were made with leather, it is the shield which received the most
use of leatherworking. The downside to both of these materials is that they were both extremely susceptible to rot.
Great care had to be taken to keep the material as dry as possible for it to last from battle to battle. Leather was
sometimes painted to keep moisture from reaching and destroying it.
Chain maile was the most prevalent form of protection in the Middle Ages. It was extremely flexible, almost as much
as cloth1, durable against most slashing attacks, and even protected against some piercing attacks, such as a thrust
from a sword or an arrow (if woven tightly enough). The most common pieces of maile made for battle were the coif,
ventail, hauberk, and chausses. The coif is a headpiece which defended the shoulders and above, leaving only the face,
from eyebrows to chin, unguarded. The ventail is an extension of the coif, which would protect the area of the face
from the chin up to, and sometimes including, the nose. When not in use it would hang from one side of the coif onto
the chest until going into battle, where it would attach to a fastener on the opposite side of the coif. Hauberks are long
sleeved shirts of chain maile which extend down to the knees of the man wearing it. Most of the time a linen would be
worn underneath the maile to provide comfort for the man wearing it, but some preferred to wear just the maile.
Sometimes there would be chain maile mittens attached to the hauberk, instead of the man wearing separate gauntlets,
for protection of the hands. Chausses are extensions of chain maile used to protect the legs of a man, most effective
when fighting on horseback against enemies on foot. These are the only pieces which required, usually leather, straps
to keep them attached to the man wearing them. Exposed straps would be the first target of an attacker to render the
maile useless, so it is meant to strap above the knee where the hauberk can defend the straps. A way of testing
whether the maile was ready for battle would be subject it to an "estramacon", a sword blow, or submit it to other
weapons of the time, such as the axe, lance, bow, or crossbow. Chain maile was also used as armour for horses. Maile
'trappers' covered much of the horse and the horse's head with a 'chaufron' or 'chaffron' (Bull, 60).
In the late 12th century some interesting innovations took place in the development of chain maile. One of which was
the surcoat, a long gown of a light colour worn over the armour, which is said to have been developed during the
crusades. It has been suggested that this was to keep the wearer of the maile cooler since the light colour deflected the
sun's rays. Another use for the surcoat was to readily identify the wearer. In 1191, the Eastern borders of central
Europe became the battleground between the Teutonic Knights and the Muscovites and Slavs. Members of the
Teutonic Knights were distinguished by a white mantle with a black Latin cross which they wore over their armour.
The basic shape shield also changed as it became flatter on top, transforming from the traditional round shape to the
familiar shield shape of today. It is interesting to point out that also in the late 12th century there was a surgence of
fencing with swords and bucklers, though there was no clear division between fencing as a sport and fencing as
preparation for war. The swords used were typical double-edged straight blades with little variance. The bucklers
were predominantly small, equipped with one handgrip, and easily wielded to parry a blow or throw an opponent off
balance with a thrust, but the designs varied greatly. The convex glancing surface is the most predominant change and
a matter of personal preference, ranging from only a slightly convex centre to an entirely convex surface with a spike
in the centre (Bull). There is a general misconception of why armour, which could still withstand the heavy blows of
later weapons, was phased out. Armour was not left behind because it could not defend adequately, rather because it
could withstand the point-blank range of later weapons, such as the dagge (pistol) or arquebus (or harquebuze, a
musket) against which it was tested, which made it obsolete. In order to protect against such firepower the armour had
to be so heavy that a man wearing it could not fight effectively under its weight (Ffoulkes). Movement was restricted
so severely that only a man mounted on a horse could hope to move with the speed needed for battle, but without the
mobility they would be a sitting target for the enemy to attack en masse.
1
There is a saying, "If it can be made of cloth, it can be made of chain maile."
Sources
- Bull, Stephen. An Historical Guide to Arms and Armor. Facts on File Inc., New York, NY. 1991.
- Ffoulkes, Charles. The Armourer and His Craft. Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., NY. 1912 (1967).
- Verbruggen, J.F. The Art of Warfare in Western Europe During the Middle Ages from the Eighth Century to 1340.
The Boydell Press. Rochester, NY. 1997.