Knights in the Russian Empire

Recently I was trying to find photographs of what full plate armour of Russian knights looked like but I could not really find anything.

I was wondering if anyone here knew about knights, thier organization and thier equipment in the Russian empire?



(To moderators I put this here because it is specifically about Russia but feel free to move it to the world military history section if it does not belong here)

The big problem you have is that the first real knights did not appear in Europe until the 1100's, and at that time there was no Russian Empire.


Formally the Russian Empire was not proclaimed until 1721, and by that time the knights were no longer in existence, aside from the "knights" being used as a title for the upper part of the lower nobility (like chevalier in France, and ritter in Austria).


First we have the Iranian Roxalani/Roxolani/Rosomoni of the ancient history (also the later Iranian-designated White, Red, Black Rus).

Later there was the enigmatic Hros (Ros) Khaganate on the Black Sea, which I believe was of Iranian origin.

Then there was the Duchy of the Rus/Ruthenia that existed in a unified state from the 800's until the late 1000's.

Afterwards we have the political fragmentation into the various Rus/Ruthenian duchies and republics.

Then we have the Russian Grand Duchy of Muscovy and the "rival" Belarussian-Lithuanian Grand Duchy of the Litva, Samogatia, and the Rus.

Eventually the Grand Duchy of Muscovy becomes the Czardom of Muscovy.



Keep in mind that the medieval Rus/Ruthenia never really had proper knights, but much more like it had mounted warriors, as the Russes were heavily influenced over time by the Norse/Varangians, Byzantines, Pechengs, Cumans, Alans, Mongols, and Circassians. In general the Rus mounted warriors were rather "Eastern" in comparison to the Western knights.

The knights-proper existed only in the Western Europe, and also in Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and apparently also in Bosnia, Serbia, and Zeta (Montenegro).

The rest of the South-Eastern and Eastern Europe, and also the Baltics and Finland, did not really have the knights-proper, but as I am not a professional historian someone can correct me if I am incorrect on that matter.




Some interesting information about the medieval knights on Youtube:


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMjlDOf0UO9wSijFqPE9wBw

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsXZvmc4g2QBq8GJoqlVyCg


And do not believe all this bull-shit about chivalry, there were many medieval knights who did not give a shit about it.

Odin of Ossetia wrote:
The big problem you have is that the first real knights did not appear in Europe until the 1100's, and at that time there was no Russian Empire.
.
.
.
The knights-proper existed only in the Western Europe, and also in Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and apparently also in Bosnia, Serbia, and Zeta (Montenegro).

The rest of the South-Eastern and Eastern Europe, and also the Baltics and Finland, did not really have the knights-proper, but as I am not a professional historian someone can correct me if I am incorrect on that matter.

Knights were known since 8th chentury in Europe. They evolved in the Kingdom of the Franks. It was a shift from classic medium armoured foot soldiers in the Roman Empire to heavy armoured mounted shock troops.

In the Prinicipalities of Rus the Druzhina are known since 10th century. They are a mix of viking, slawic and byzantine military tradition. The armor of Druzhina was a mix of lamellar armour and chainmail. They are the equivalent to western knights. In contrast to western knights they had no special code of conduct...but they were part of russian nobility, more through performance than through inheritance.

The most known Druzhina was the Varangian Gurad of the Byzantine Emperor. The Varangian Guard was a gift of Wladimir I, ruler of the Kievan Rus.

Everything we know from "knights was published much later and the era was romanticized and transfigured. The shiny gothic knights appeared much later, normal knights wore mostly chainmail and only a handful wore full plate armour. The Druzhina were equally well armored, but armor looks a bit different...that's all.

Not much is in western countries known about slavic countries during middle Ages...the cities were much more dominated by merchants, than by nobility! The cities and principalties were much more democratic, than their western counterparts...the "Veche" was the assembly of all men and their speakers had the same rights like higher nobilty. Only western counterparts are the italian city states, like Venice.

Actually, to be more precise, the Hros (Ros) Khaganate was located on the Sea of Azov.



There was not much honor in the East either, like when the Ukrainian Duchy of Galicia-Volhynia invaded south-eastern Poland in 1205, its warriors raped the wives of a bunch of the Polish knights from the city of Lublin and perhaps elsewhere. Shortly afterwards the entire army of these invaders was wiped out by the Poles at the Battle of Zawichost.

https://www.amazon.ca/1205-Europe-Adrianople-Koundouros-Adramyttium/dp/1157578225


In a separate incident, there was some Belarussian boyar who was killed by a group of Polish knights for raping the wife of a Polish knight.



Also, the real knights-proper do not appear until the 1100's, before that they can be described as mounted warriors or even as "proto-knights." Azi, I think you are mixing up the emergence of feudalism with the knights.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhIP6dfr_FE




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNiYqmFxtI8




Most Medieval Knights were NOT Chivalrous.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szldaaHfPbs



Also, the Varangians for the most part were a bunch of Swedish trailer trash, and in the later times, especially after 1066, many of the Varangian Guards were Anglo-Saxons.

The Poles soundly defeated a Rus army made up of the Novogrodians and Varangians at the Battle of the Bug River in 1018. Poles suffered very few casualties while their enemies were destroyed.

Odin of Ossetia wrote:
Also, the real knights-proper do not appear until the 1100's, before that they can be described as mounted warriors or even as "proto-knights." Azi, I think you are mixing up the emergence of feudalism with the knights.
.
.
.
Also, the Varangians for the most part were a bunch of Swedish trailer trash, and in the later times, especially after 1066, many of the Varangian Guards were Anglo-Saxons.

The Poles soundly defeated a Rus army made up of the Novogrodians and Varangians at the Battle of the Bug River in 1018. Poles suffered very few casualties while their enemies were destroyed.

You can't draw a real line between real knights and proto knights. You are right for the word "Ritter", german word for knight appeared first in 11th century, the social status in 12th century. The first knights in military term appeared during 8th century in the realm of the Franks during Carolingian age...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight

In the Early Medieval period any well-equipped horseman could be described as a knight, or miles in Latin.[19] The first knights appeared during the reign of Charlemagne in the 8th century.[20][21][22] As the Carolingian Age progressed, the Franks were generally on the attack, and larger numbers of warriors took to their horses to ride with the Emperor in his wide-ranging campaigns of conquest. At about this time the Franks increasingly remained on horseback to fight on the battlefield as true cavalry rather than mounted infantry, with the discovery of the stirrup, and would continue to do so for centuries afterwards.

By the way..."knight" is the german word for servant (Knecht) The german word "Ritter" means "Reiter", nothing else than horseman. Refering to the Roman Empire, were only nobles and rich people were able to ride a horse, the so called "equites" (horseman) riding the "equus" (horse). Warfare with horseman was so uncommon for the Roman Empire that they buyed mercenaries from other parts of Europe, trained in mounted warfare...most were germans and celts, of course other "barbaric" tribes. The french word is "chevalier", derived from the italian word "cavaliere" (horseman). From chevalier is word "chivalrous" derived and later the word cavalry. The US-Army still use the word cavalry in some division and regiment names, like "1st Cavalry Division ". ;D LOL

Later in 12th century the knight was social rank, addition to the military role. For this you are correct! All of our ideas about knights refer to this era and later...in military terms it's not correct. Yes, most knights were not really chivalrous.

As you can see in your video the evolution of armour was similar in west and east europa till 13th century....than something occured...
The Mongolian Invasion! Soldiers in heavy armour were hard to kill, but they couldn't catch and kill Mongolians in a fight...Mongolians were able to attack with bows, to draw back and fire at the same time in backward direction...later attack with lance and swords. These tactics made the Mongols the ultimate mounted soldiers. Druzhina with their more or less heavy armour, similar to western knights, were not able to fight Mongolians in open field. Western armies proofed really bad against the Mongols.

So...that's the reason why east european armies sacrificed armour for mobility. Best example are Cossacks beginning from 16th century...orthodox slaws with the lifestyle of asian steppe peoples. Speed and mobility preferred over armour protection. If Kievan Rus was more unified during Mongol Invasion, maybe they could have defeated Mongol Empire...but they were more interested in feuds and killing each other during the time (Mongols had really problems to besiege european cities and castles).

Yes maybe the Poles defeated a army of Novgorod..so what?! Novgorod defeated 2 times easy a knight army of the Teutonic Order. Poland was a mighty country during the Middle Ages, like Sweden and Denmark. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose...if Druzhina performed historical so bad, all Russians would be catholic now and speak german or polish. By the way polish knights were called "Druzhina".

Azi, you should read more carefully what I wrote.


In 1018 Poles easily destroyed a Rus army composed of Novogrodians and Varangians.



You are mixing up the emergence of feudalism with what I describe as the knights-proper; as in mounted warriors who wear a more heavy type of body armor, wear a big helmet, and use a shield with their own coat-of-arms, and who participate in the jousting tournaments. These do not really appear until the 1100's, before that time they were a bunch of noble mounted warriors not the real knights per se.

The Ruthenian mounted warriors were already starting to considerably differ from the "Western" knights-proper by the late 1100's, and that is before the first Mongols ever showed up.


When I said that the Finland, Eastern Europe, and the eastern part of the South-Eastern Europe had no real knights-proper, but had their own "Eastern-influenced" mounted warriors, I did not meant that they were somehow inferior fighters.

In fact on a whole bunch of occasions they clearly won against the Western armies that included many knights-proper.



1240 Battle of the Neva River, Novogrod Republic Defeats Kingdom of Sweden.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHpaBGyMo9o


1205 Battle of Adrianople, Bulgaria Defeats the "Frankish" Latin Empire.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlZoArfWZek




Besides these there were others like the Mongols repeatedly defeating Hungarians and Poles, Lithuanians and Samogatians defeating the German Order of the Sword Brothers in northern Samogatia, the Wallachian Vlachs (southern Romanians) defeating the Hungarians at the Battle of Posada, the Moldavian Vlachs (north-eastern Romanians) repeatedly defeating the Poles, Ottoman Turks crushing the crusaders at Nikopolis and later at Varna, and the crusaders repeatedly suffering major defeats at the hands of the Seljuk Turks, Ayyubids, and the Turko-Circassian Mamelukes.

The opposite also happened like the German-led Teutonic Order conquering the Baltic Prussians, Latvians, and Estonians; the Swedish crusaders subjecting the Finns; Poles taking over of Galicia (from the Ukrainians) and most of Podolia (from the local Tatars), and eventually establishing tributary control over Moldavia; and even the Czechs reportedly won a battle against the Mongols in Moravia.

Also, the Fourth Crusade conquering much of what was left of the Byzantine Empire, only not long afterwards to be defeated by Bulgaria, Despotate of the Epirus, and the Nicean Empire.



Neither way of warfare was totally superior to the other.

The closest non-European counterparts of the medieval European knights were the Byzantine (if you want to count them as "non-European"), Armenian, and Persian cataphracts, as well as the Japanese Samurai.

In a more distant place I would place the medieval Arab, Ruthenian, and Mongol heavy cavalry.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ3IxLGMrYE


Other peoples also used the cataphracts but I think the Armenians, Byzantines, Persians and other ancient Iranians, used them the most on a per capita basis.

Perhaps a little of topic but does anyone know when the Russians started using full plate armour wand what Russian full plate armour looked like?

Regarding the facilitation of armor in the Russian armies of the 10th century. Even before the advent of the Mongols, Russia was constantly at war with various tribes of nomads. Since Russia from the east surrounded the steppes.

In Russia, types of protective equipment always prevailed, ensuring high mobility of both a foot and horse warrior.
This was probably dictated by the confrontation with the nomadic world.
The use of bows and remote combat by local cavalry also contributed to the development of the ring-plate armor along the eastern path, and not the European - plate variant.
In the 16th century, under Ivan IV, Russia formed the first army, archers, armed only with firearms. With the spread of the firearm and the army of a new type, the armor slowly but surely begins to lose its relevance.

Sorry for google translate

Knyaz would be rus version of a knight - chivalry was there too, but not the armour or martial lifestyle.

If we disregard political aspects, Eastern Europe was far behind in metallurgy, armourers, guilds and even warhorses. Even Poles while being more exposed to Western technology and fighting were not even closely advanced as Germans. Germany and Italy had world renown guilds of armourers that made the rest look pathetic. Lithuanians were even worse and we looked almost identically armed as russians and used light cavalry instead.

Poles were quite late bloomers, but shined with their Winged Hussars, but this was the time when cavalry was transforming and heavy armour became rare.

Regular wrote:Knyaz would be rus version of a knight - chivalry was there too, but not the armour or martial lifestyle.

If we disregard political aspects, Eastern Europe was far behind in metallurgy, armourers, guilds and even warhorses. Even Poles while being more exposed to Western technology and fighting were not even closely advanced as Germans. Germany and Italy had world renown guilds of armourers that made the rest look pathetic. Lithuanians were even worse and we looked almost identically armed as russians and used light cavalry instead.

Poles were quite late bloomers, but shined with their Winged Hussars, but this was the time when cavalry was transforming and heavy armour became rare.

The above is written by someone who clearly does not know any Polish history.

First of all kniaz means "duke" or "prince" and not a knight.

I already discussed the practically non-existent chivalry - in both the East and the West - in my posts above.


Your Lithuanian and Ruthenian nobles did not really use any coats-of-arms (with possible exception of the Gediminids and Rurikids), and the Polish nobility had to allow them to use its own Polish noble coats-of-arms at the so-called Union of Horodlo in 1413, because even the Lithuanian nobles and Ruthenian boyars did not have any.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Horod%C5%82o


And I am not even mentioning the jousting tournaments.

There were at least a couple of Polish knights who were undefeated at a whole bunch of Western European jousting tournaments. Did any Lithuanians and Ruthenians ever even participate in them?


You have no idea how Polish knights looked like, in many cases they were indistinguishable from their German counterparts.


See this series of paintings about the Battle of the Legnickie Pole in 1241 against the invading Mongols, who in this battle defeated a Polish-Czech-Templar army (albeit in reality it was predominantly Polish).










And do not tell me that the "German-looking" knights are actually German, as they have the coats-of-arms of the Polish nobility (like for example Brochwicz, Ciolek, and the Black Eagle of the Silesian Piasts, as well as some other ones).

Regular wrote:
If we disregard political aspects, Eastern Europe was far behind in metallurgy, armourers, guilds and even warhorses.

If Russia was behind in metallurgy and metalwork then how exactly did they suddenly transition into being good at gunmaking?

I know thing or two about polish history as we were one country once and I had to study about you in school even in Soviet times. I am not sure what are you trying to prove by saying that poles had same armour as germans. Of course you did, but on much smaller scale, you had no famous armouries that nobles from Europe would flock to buy, you had no original designs up to much much later; your horses were nothing like warsteeds, they were much smaller; metallurgy was less advanced, arabs ruled the metalworks and due to crusades western civilization learned thing or two. We were the underdogs, it's miracle we managed to win fights against steel behemoths.

Yes, knyaz wouldn't be best analogy, but only higher nobles and their retinue had heavy armour and formed heavy cavalry. Boyar cavalry was featherweight and you could hardly compare druzhina to knights. I can't think of any other people who had heavy armour in the east. Slavic armour was also much inferior and surprisingly even poorer than the ones late period mongols used to have. Eastern slavs stagnated when plate became very popular and cheap to make, russians were still using mail/lamellar/scale armour. It's like they have skipped whole mid-late medieval period all together and their most defeats in middle ages come from their inability to stop heavy cavarly.

Poland did have knights on other hand and it was copied from German martial ideas. Poles were still way behind armour up to 16th century when finally original designs came to life.

What ever you showed me is few soldiers with a great helm. By the time great helm evolved into frogmouth and various other derivatives that were out of reach only for few richest shlachtas.

Italians and Germans were out of this world when it came to armour usage and Germans mastered martial arts to the point that it's a miracle they didn't steamroll us all.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Regular wrote:
If we disregard political aspects, Eastern Europe was far behind in metallurgy, armourers, guilds and even warhorses.

If Russia was behind in metallurgy and metalwork then how exactly did they suddenly transition into being good at gunmaking?

You tell me. How Russia who only knew how to build river boats managed to build modern navy with no experience? Not only build the navy, but establish admiralty and naval school and ports? How did Russia while being squeezed from all sides managed to expand like crazy while having less population, worse technology, fractured city states to multicontinent empire in what, few hundred years?

Shouldn't this be in history section?

Regular wrote:I know thing or two about polish history as we were one country once and I had to study about you in school even in Soviet times. I am not sure what are you trying to prove by saying that poles had same armour as germans. Of course you did, but on much smaller scale, you had no famous armouries that nobles from Europe would flock to buy, you had no original designs up to much much later; your horses were nothing like warsteeds, they were much smaller; metallurgy was less advanced, arabs ruled the metalworks and due to crusades western civilization learned thing or two. We were the underdogs, it's miracle we managed to win fights against steel behemoths.

Yes, knyaz wouldn't be best analogy, but only higher nobles and their retinue had heavy armour and formed heavy cavalry. Boyar cavalry was featherweight and you could hardly compare druzhina to knights. I can't think of any other people who had heavy armour in the east. Slavic armour was also much inferior and surprisingly even poorer than the ones late period mongols used to have. Eastern slavs stagnated when plate became very popular and cheap to make, russians were still using mail/lamellar/scale armour. It's like they have skipped whole mid-late medieval period all together and their most defeats in middle ages come from their inability to stop heavy cavarly.

Poland did have knights on other hand and it was copied from German martial ideas. Poles were still way behind armour up to 16th century when finally original designs came to life.

What ever you showed me is few soldiers with a great helm. By the time great helm evolved into frogmouth and various other derivatives that were out of reach only for few richest shlachtas.

Italians and Germans were out of this world when it came to armour usage and Germans mastered martial arts to the point that it's a miracle they didn't steamroll us all.

You do not know much about the Polish knights.


Not the whole of Eastern Europe was as backward and primitive as your Lithuania.


The "frog's mouth" helmet was only used for the jousting tournaments, as it was impractical for real combat.

Talking of the tournaments how come at least two medieval Polish knights were undefeated in the Western European jousting tournaments with what you claim was "inferior armor."


Lots of German craftsmen settled in Poland, as well as some Czech ones; therefore, the medieval Polish nobles did not had to go anywhere to buy their "Western-style" armor. Also, lots of the Polish craftsmen eventually learned the armor-making techniques from the West.

Czech Kingdom during the medieval period was something of an industrial powerhouse.




Polish Duke Henryk IV the Righteous of Wroclaw, Cracow, and Scinawa (illustration from the medieval Codex Manesee).





Crowning armor of the Polish King Zygmunt II August (this one is from the 16th century, so I am making here a mute point, but I will still post it because it looks so nice).

Regular wrote:

You tell me. How Russia who only knew how to build river boats managed to build modern navy with no experience? Not only build the navy, but establish admiralty and naval school and ports? How did Russia while being squeezed from all sides managed to expand like crazy while having less population, worse technology, fractured city states to multicontinent empire in what, few hundred years?

Well considering that most westerners are indoctrinated into believing that 20th century Soviet equipment was inferior when in actual  reality it was often superior it would be no surprise if this trend of delusion goes back further....... Unless ofcourse you believe Russia's victories are ensured by destiny.

But back to my earlier question. What did Russian full plate look like? In particular the helmets, I have seen portraits of Russians in full plate though obviously portraits do not show the person in the wearing the helmet.

GarryB wrote:of course sets of armour held by museums are you best chance.

The trouble is that I cannot find any images of the museum pieces on the internet, I guess I am just useless at doing research.

Listen Pole, do you feel some inferiority complex? Fact is fact, Poland was also a backwards, maybe bit less, but both of us were Mexicans of Europe. And to some regard we still are. Also, comparing medieval athletes is pointless, Netherlands and Ireland have quite a few MMA fighters, but their countries are full of demasculated cwels. I highly doubt that those jousters were using polish armour.
Even that amazing ceremonial armour was made by German.. If you think Poland anything worth of mention, like true polish armour design or metalwork technology, post it here, but don't make yourself look like retard comparing what was made in Italy and Germany. If you want to boast about Poland, you can certainly do that if we talk about late medieval, especially when trading picked up and political system we shared was ahead of it's time. And most of Western Europe was at war and living in shit..

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Regular wrote:

You tell me. How Russia who only knew how to build river boats managed to build modern navy with no experience? Not only build the navy, but establish admiralty and naval school and ports? How did Russia while being squeezed from all sides managed to expand like crazy while having less population, worse technology, fractured city states to multicontinent empire in what, few hundred years?

Well considering that most westerners are indoctrinated into believing that 20th century Soviet equipment was inferior when in actual  reality it was often superior it would be no surprise if this trend of delusion goes back further....... Unless ofcourse you believe Russia's victories are ensured by destiny.

But back to my earlier question. What did Russian full plate look like? In particular the helmets, I have seen portraits of Russians in full plate though obviously portraits do not show the person in the wearing the helmet.

I do believe Russian victories were caused not by equipment, but by skill and by russian character. It forget soul of a nation and gave birth to early russian nationalism.

I don't think there's any relicts left of a full plate armour made by Russian armourers. I hope someone proves me wrong, but here are only full plate zerkalo chestpieces and bascinet type helmets left, but not full armour sets. By the time Russians could afford that, there was more pressing matters, 16th century seen reduction of armour usage.

You claimed that the medieval Polish knights were as backwards as your Lithuanian mounted warriors, the only major problem with your claim is that the medieval Polish knights looked the same as those from the Western Europe.



You can see two armies on this medieval drawing, only one of the armies has the knights-proper, and it is the Polish one:





Not entire Eastern Europe was as backward and primitive as your Lithuania.



Mikolaj Szydlowiecki the Younger (1480-1532), a Polish knight and a government official.

In 1497 he participated in the failed Polish invasion of Moldavia and was wounded during the Battle of Kozmin.

The drawing below is from a book published in 1532.




http://historiawojskowosci.blogspot.com/search/label/rycerstwo



But I know that Poland is presently a "Mexico of Europe" and I already posted on this forum about the huge wealth disparity/inequality in Poland. You do not need to educate me about it.

Knights aren't simply warriors on horseback. The most important part of being a knight is being a part of a feudal system. You need to own land from a lord in wxchange for military service to that lord in order to be called a knight.

I am not well versed in socio-political history of medieval Rus. Did such an arrangement actually ecist?

BTW Power of knights existed because they were well armed, well trained cavalry in an era when military equipment was very expensive. In XIII-XIV century enough economic and technological development took place that a well armed city/counry militias showed up, against which mounted cavalry charges were of little use. Plate armor came into use a a time when power of knights was fading away.

"Knyaz" means lord. "Vityaz" means knight. The Germanic-derived word for knight, "ritzar", has taken root also.