Medieval Russian

Armies 1250-1500
 rst published In G",al Bnlam In 2002 b\I Osprey
8ms Court. Chapel Way, 8011ey. Oxford 0X2 9lP.1Jnl:.a1 ""v:X""
EmaIl·lntoOospmypublhng.com
~......."' ..""'".:.. to LJ. 011'11. I.TSlpilla and A.Triakina for
'lI'il~ti'9 s. 0 A.S.Sheps for hIS artwork of arms and
C 2002 OsPl'lY Publishing lid. or he!' artwork 0 ,mber fortresses.

All nghts reserved Apart from any fa" dealong lor purpose al OIl •
research ctl1JClsm Q( _ . as pem1ltted under the Copyng Designs IIl1d
Patents Act. 1988. no part of th.s publlc8t1on may be reproduced. SlQI8d '" 11 Artist's Note
retneval system or ttal1SlT1ltted In any form 0< bY any means. electmnlC.
eIec\Ik;8l, chern I. mechank:aJ. opt>cal. phoiocopylng. recordong or otherwISe. Readers may care to note thaI the onginal paintings from which the
wrthoUt the p(Ior wr. en perm<SSlon 01 the copyright Owner Enqu'nes should be colour plates In this book were prepared are available for private
addressed to the Publlshefs. sale. All reproduction copyright whatsoever Is retained by the
Publishers, All enqUines should be addressed to:
ISBN 1 84176234 2
Scorpio Gallery. PO Box 475. HaJlsham. E.Sussex BN27 2SL UK
Edllor: Matbn Windrow
Oeslgn Alan Hamp The Publishers regret that they can enter Into no correspondence
lnaex by Alan Rutt... upon this matter.
Maps by DaVId NICOlle
Ong,naled by Magnet HlII18QUVl. Uxbridge, UK
Pnnted in China through 'IVotId Pnnilld.

FOR A CATALOGUE OF All BOOKS PUBLISHED BY

OSPREY MIUTARY AND AVIATION PlEASE CONTACT
The MlII1Ie~ng Manager. Osprey Direct UK. PO Box 140
Wellingborough, NorthBnts. NNB 4ZA, United Kingdom
Email: InfoOospreydrecl.co,uk

The Merketlng Manager. Osprey Direct USA

c/o Motortlooks tnblrnatlonal
PO 80.1, Osceola, Wl54020-0001. USA
EmaJl: intoOo Pnlydir-e<:tUN.com

www.ospreypubllshng.com

OPPOSITE From the 15th-century copy of the lost

13th-century Rad;rllovskaya Chronicle, two drawings of
waniors dressed In very different styles. One wears a
garment coming down to just above the knee, the other
an ankle-length robe under his armour; note, however,
that both have the tall, pointed helmets with aventails
which are so Characteristic of the Russian tradition.
MED EVAL USSIA ARM ES
1250-1500

THE MONGOL CONQUEST OF RUSSIA

1237 nn~ 0 'GO I 'Amen I.h Ru ian principality f Ryazan.
hr e a lal r th n rth-\ l rn and. outhern parts of I.h untr)'
lay in ruin. th im < der mad th ir wa a r va'; tiS w aldl
Ru ian p';ncipalities dley over am Ii rtifi d lOwn and ffici nt
armi ,RlI ian armi Ii und th m Iv. gr aLI utnumb r d n d1
field of baLtl , and I.h r wa no unit of pllrpO m ng d1 Ru sian
prin ,In the past th y had foughl Wal f £i udal'; 11 bul. now for
the fir l tim ,d1 M n 01 horde introduc d a ne\ kind of warfare
bas d upon th lOW d truClion of an n m nati n and its culLUr . In
fa I. it wa virtuall imp ibl for an 13th ntu Eur p 'an t grasp
I.h cal of th at tr ph , and LO lmd rstand how hi nativ Ollntl
and its l wn h d lIap d. M ll\ hil Ru ia' . c upi d b th
Mongol. £ r d t pa mbul., and in many ar . d populal. d, aft r
which Lh Mong ,. iwarm d n t ravag asl. m EUfOP .
The scop of rhis rlisaster is confirmed b archa 01 gi a] rese rch,
and il. is g neraJ1 agr d that the Mongol in ion h ld back the
d v lopm nL of Ru . 'ia Ii \' up 1.0 twO enlu,; , h invasion aJs had an
impa t up n th military ar in m dieval Ru ia, alLh ugh r lati el
lil.u i kn wn ab ut the military hi t ry ofRu ia fr m I.he 13th I. tl1
1 Lh c ntury. whi hi r pr . n d as om thing fa 'dark ag "

CHRONOLOGY
125 -63 Rul of rin fVladimi a
rand P';n
1276-1303 Rul of Plin \ .
L0 hur h

0\ .

J327 Mongol

1 2 -41 rand P';nc . 3

 Russian states, c.1270. Note that
Polotsk (15) and Turov-Pinsk (22)
were the only Russian
principalities which did not
recognise the overlordship of
the Mongol Golden Horde:
(1) Beloozero
(2) Berestie
(3) Chemigov
(4) Dmltrov
(5) Galich
(6) Isyaslavl
(7) Kiev
(8) Kostroma
(9) Kremenets
(10) Murom
(11) Muscovy
(12) Novgorod
(13) Novgorod Seversk
(14) Pereyaslavl
(15) Polotsk
(16) Rostov
(17) Ryazan
(18) Smolensk
(19) Starodub
(20) Suzdal Nlzhegorod
(21) Svlzhden
(22) Turov-Plnsk
(23) Tver
(24) Ugllch
(25) Velikl Us1yug
(26) Vladimir
(27) Yarosl8vl,
(28) Yurlev

'1-
Fronfierof Golden Horde 8. vassal states.,..)<.."1-

13 1-51 rand Prin

1345-77 r al Lithuania' and Lil w s( rn
OPPOSITE Asiatic troops
1 4 attacking a city, probably
representing Jerusalem or
1353-59
Constantinople, In the Chronicle
1359- 9 W, r g- of Georgi Amartola, Russian,
1318-1327. (lenin Library,
1367- Moscow)
1371 Arm of Mo cow defeats Prince leg
of Ryazan.
1377 Jagi II lh rea bern Prin of
Lithuania (nd King r P land
in 1386).
137 II ugust Battl of th Riv r
13 0 p mb r, Battle of uJikov
13 2 Khan okhlami'h of the n
Horde burns Mo m; Lr l r cord d
u e f fir arms b Ru sian .
13 5 Fir'l oi n of l.h Pdl ipaJil of
r al Lithuania' (including we t m
Ru ian prin ipali' ) and Kin dom
f P land. ABOVE The massive medieval earth rampartfl of Chemihlv,
1389-1425 Rul f asili I mi ri iell a rand known as the Dytynets, as they appeared at the start of the
20th centu",. Today these rampartfl. along with the 12 cast
Pdn
Iron 17th-18th C cannon along their summit, form the
1 95 -,n of Unm-i L n.k (Tam dan ) M.Kotsyubynsky Central Park of Culture and Recreation.
burns to' n of RIeLS: conCr mauon of (ChemihiY State Historical Museum photograph)
Rus. ian armi and th l of Timur-i BELOW Russian states, 1466.
ok 11 th Ri ka: TimLU' 1 a e (1) Muscovy, (2) Novgorod, (3) Pskov, (4) Rostov,
Ru ia. (5) Ryazan, (6) small principalities, (7) Tver.
1398-14 0 Rul 01" Prin vt as Prin f
r at Lithuania (in luding w rn
Ru 'ianprin ip<liti s).
1399 Baltl of lh River Vor kla.
140 In\! ion of Ru 'ja b Amir Egid i of
the ld n H r Ie.
I 13 nd ni n f lh Prin ipalilJ f
'Cr at Lithuania (in Inding w t III
Ru ian pdn ipaliLie ) and Kingd m
fP Ind.
1425-62 Rul f Vasilii n th D rk rand
Prine

.... , I
In "" ... -' \
I '.
I
'--'

PolanrJ-
Lithuania
1451 Mongol Plince Mazovsha burns Moscow but fails 10 lake the
Kremlin.
1462-1505 Rule of Ivan III VasiHevich as Grand Prince.
1471 Defeat of Novgorod by Moscow at the BailIe of River Shelin.
1472 Marriage of Grand Prince Ivan III with BYlallline Plincess
Sofia Palaeologos.
1'178 Novgorod annexed by Moscow.
1480 Death of Khan Ahmad of thc Mongol Colden Horde: Russia
wins independence from the Golden Horde.
1485 Tver annexed by Moscow.
1485-1516 New Kremlin walls built in Moscow.
1487 FiT'St conquest of the Mongol city of K... . 7.<·1!1 b)' ~'Ioscow
(Muscovy).
1493 Grand Prince Iv,lIl III of Moscow proclaims himself Tzar of
the ,...hole Rus' (Russial1 peoples).
1496-97 War between Russia and Sweden: Russia wins an outlet to the
Baltic Sea.
1501 Russian invrtSion of Livonia led by Voivode Shenia, defeating
the Tcutonic Knights outside Gelmcd.

CAMPAIGNS AND BATTLES OF THE

13TH-15TH CENTURIES
This \-:as a vcry warlikc period and, according to the Russian historian
M.S.Solm:jcv, Russia was involvcd in over 300 conflicts between 1228 and
1462, rcsulting in 8..l) full-scale battles. Two hundrcd of tllCSC connicts
involved cxternal enemies - Tatar-Mongols, Lithuanians. Swedes or
Teutonic Knights - resulting in 60 battles. If we add at leasl 150 att.:lcks
on fonresses and more than 80 sieges of Russian lawns, it becomes clear
that there was no prolonged period of peace during these lWO and a half
centuries. AhJ10Ugh Russian trade. handicntfts and culture sun<i\'ed,
marc than 200 years of more or less continual bloody cOlll1ict incvitably
left their mark 011 tile Russian char,tcter.
While vast territories were harassed b)' the Mongols, Russia's military
culture continucd to develop rapidly, while there was also consider,lble
cxternal influence. During the mid-13th century, for example, tJ1e
soutJHvestcrn principalily of Galich-Volhynia experienced a notable
increase in military power. From c.1240 infantry became more
prominent and started LO participate in combat on an equal fOOling with
caV'ilh1" Thc IJmljeu ChlOllicks for 1249, 1251 and 1253 showed that
infantry often decided the outcome of such clashes. Furthermore. this
southern Russian anny now included people from more varied social
backgrouncls, including IOWJlSmen and peasants. Illstead of the old tenn
drw:illfl (military detachment), troops tended to be called merel)'
'riders', IN'Shtsi or foot soldiers, or simpl)' 1/Q/.... - 'warriors' - while the
supporting moullled archers were called sl11'llsi.
Field banles remaincd the most important aspeCI of w31-fare. As
Princc Daniil ofGalich reminded his lllcn during lheir campaign against
tile Yalvyags in 1251, the 'open Mcld' was thcir fortress. The fast-moving
combats which had characterised Russian wal-tare against nomadic pt.."Oples
in the 12tJ1 cemury were no longer COlllmon; instead battles were carefully

Detau. fTom two miniature. In
the Sf~v-ChludovPulter
d.tlng from around 1270. One,
len, 11Iu.tnlte. King
Nebuchadnez:...r with hI. gu.rd.;
note that he I. apparently
depicted waarlng malt chau.....
The other, right, sho_ KIng
D",vld with two of hI. soldiers;
again, note the poInted helmet.,
mall aventaUa, and klte-.haped
.hlelds.
plannt.-d - lhough such plans could also change as
eventS unfolded.
Armies still covered up to 80km in one day,
or 60km if accompanied by siege equipment.
The missile-throwing siege wcapons known
before me Mongol inv,tSion becamc even more
widesprcad in the mid-13th cenwl")', and the
carpcmcrs to build sllch devices at the sil,e of a
siege accompanied an arlllY all the march. This
in turn influenced military architecturc, with tall
SLOne LOwers gradually replacing the old wooden
ones, initially in the south-west and then in
nonhem Russia.
Prince Daniil of Galich also illlroduced new
elements of Mongol armour and weaponry for his
cavalry, including cham frons and horse-annour like that described by
Plano C'lrpini. Similarly the heavy armour worn by the men improved,
the old tenn bronja for anllOllr being replaced by dospekh. By lhe
16th centlll'}' the latter had come 10 mean a completely new fonn of
mail-and-plale protcction,
The 13th century:
resistance to the Crusaders and Mongols
Methods of combat were similarly changing in northern Russia. Thus at
the battle of the River Neva a Russian mixed force of cavalry and infantl)'
<tu3cked the Swedes ncar where the latter had moored their ships,
instead of drawing up in a regular battle arr.:lY as was nonnal. l\leamvhile
soldiers of very different social backgrounds no\\' fought side by side.
During the famous 'Battle on tile Icc' at L"tke Pcipus in 1242. the
Russians encircled tile German 'boar's head' formation of heavily
armoured knights - the latter having cOI1~iderable penetrating power
but little manoeuvrability. Similar tactics were repealed in 1268 at the
battle of RakO\'ol' (now Rakvere in Estonia), where the Wcstemers' 'great
iron pig' was aw.lcked in its nanks. Ilerc the first of twO Cerman 'iron
wedges' cnlshed tile forces of Novgorod and Pskov which faced them,
but the second wedge then broke from its ambush position 10 atUlck the

TwO tully armoured wamo... tn
combat, forming a marginal
l1Iu.t... tlon and letter 'M' tn 8
14th.. C RUssian manuscript.
tpsBlter, f.291, Salty1<ov_
Shchredrln PUblic Llbrery,
St. Petersburg)
'A king with hi. 9uards', as 1111""
trated In the Chflmk/e of Georgi
AmartoIa, RuU!an, 13t8-1327.
The soldlet' on the left, holding 8
sabre, haa a mall aventall acrou
most of his face; the shIelds are
round. (Lenin LIbrary, Moscow)
....
.
( ..
Russian transport - leaving the first force to be
encircled. After four hours' righting neilher side
had won a clear ad\~lIl1age, and it was only as
evening fell thaI the greater endurance of the
Russians brought them \ictory. Prince Dovrnont of
Pskov emerged as the hero of this battle, as
recognised even in the German Rhymed Chro71ide.
His unit pursued the retreating Teutonic Knights
and eventually reached the B.11lic coast before
returning with considerable booty.
50011 after the battle of Rakovor, about a
thousand German soldiers occupied scveral
framie!' settlements in the principality of Psko\'.
Prince Do\'mo11l immediately took a small
number of men in five boats and att.acked the
enemy on the Rivcr Miropovna, the suddenncss
and speed of the Russian coulller..aUack enabling
Dunnom to defeat a numerically superior foe on
Sl.Ceorgc's Day, 23 April.
In 1269 the Masler of tlle Teutonic Order,
OIlO VOll Rodenstein. gathered all his aV"<\ilable
troops. numbering almost 18.000. and sel off against Pskov in sen;ral
columns. Some Crusaders weill by lanel. others in river bOilts bringing
large numbers of siege macllincs with them. Many villages were burned
and the well..fortiricd (Own of Izborsk was taken by storm. Atthe end of
June the enemy auacked Pskov itself. An initial attack was beaten 01T,
but the subsequcill siege lasted tt:n days, by which timt: the defenders
were almost exhausted. Prince Dovmont led a large crowd of people
into the Troitskij Cathedral and. in a solemn ceremony, laid his sword
on the altar. There it was consccr:tted by a procession of priests before
Falher..superior Sidor handed the weapon back to Dovmonl. This
ceremony raised the defenders' mOI<lle, and sevenll ferocious sorties
were launched against the besiegers: Prince Dovmosl himself
reportedly even wOllnding lhe Teutonic Grand Master. The German
Knights tllen leamed that a large relief army
was approaching from Novgorod and so, on
8 July, they abandoned their siege. The baltles
of Rakovor, tlte Miropovna Ri.. .er and the siege
of Pskov brollght tlle long period of aggression
from the north-west to an end. They also
showed that. despite Mongol massacres. Russia
could still defeat the Crusaders.
The battle of R.'lkovor is also interesting for
another reason: before this campaign, catapults
called IJOroks were made in the 'Vladika yard' of
No\'gorod. These were state propeny, and
could apparently be used not only during sieges
but also on the battlefield. CatapUlts were.
of course, used during the storming of
fortifications. Thus in 1301 the "'cJl..fortiried
Swedish town of Landscrona was, according
to the Russian historian K.1ramzin, taken by
Novgorodians with the help of stone-throwing
machines. A contemporary observer also
desclibed the Russians approaching L"llldscrona
with abundant light armour and sparkling
helmets. '1 suppose', he wrote, 'that they set OLlt
011 the march in the Russian way; which probably
meant that they moved with their armour
displayed to the cnem)'- This had a u'cmendOlls
ps)'chological imp:1Cl.
Meanwhile resist..1.nce to the Mongols had
started back in 1252 I\'hen Prince Andrt;j
Yaroslavich led his troops ag-dinsl the Tal3rs ncar
Pereyaslavl-Zales.skij; but it was not until 1285 that
Prince Drnitrii Alexandrovich dro\'e r.lidingTatars
from No\'gorodian tcnitory, inflicting the first
rcal defeat upon the Mongol occupiers.

The 14th century: development of

tactIcs and army organisation
B}, comp,lring the twO regions of Russian which
escaped complete defeal b)' the anny of Khan
Batll, we call see similarities in the StnlClurc of
Russian armies, in the role of infanu1' and
archers, in l3clics, armour, lhe lise of catapults
and siege machines as well as a switch 1.0 stone
fonification. In fact the evidence indicates a
speeding IIp of military development in northern
and somhern Russia following the Mongol invasion. Clearly a great deal The central panellrom e Rue.lan
was borTowed from Russia's neighbours. and after 1277 Russian u'oops Icon llIu.tratlng the Ille end
mertyrdom of St.George, m~e In
also panicipated in Mongol puniti\·c expeditions to the Caucasus,
or near NOVVOroclin the earl)'
Lithuania and Poland. From 1269 Russian princes themselves began 14th century. (Stete Ru.alan
recmiting troops from rhe Golden Horde, but this does nOI neceSS<lrily Museum,lnv.211S,
mean thnt Russian war<raft ceased to be original. On the conO-<lry, the St.PlItersbl.lrg)
neighbouring Hungarians, Poles and Swedes distinguished 'Russian
combat', 'Russian custom' and a 'Russian way' in tactics and annamcnL.
Consequently tlle Russians were able to surprise Lhe Gennans by using
Tatar \I'eapons; to hah the Tatars with stone-tllrowing machines and
Slone-built castles; and to exhaust Baltic Cmsaders by Mongol-st)'le
arche'1' altacks.
The greatest ballie fought b)' Russians in the 14th century was at
Kulikovo Field (1380). Here, fighting alongside U'aditional cavah)'. were
large numbers of foot soldiers recruited from the merC31ll.i1e ,md
peas:mt classes from all over the country. Craftsmen and petty merchants
similarly fouglu as both infallll)' and cavah1' in Pskov and Novgorod,
their role being vital nOlI' lhat an army drawn only from the military elite
was 110 longer adequalC. Subsequently farmers and merchants \"ere not
accepted into tlle military, their place being taken by horsemen from the
genu)" but in tllC 14tll celltu ry the sodal structure of Russian annies was
morc mixed.
The size of Russian armies was also increasing, along with the
number of formations they CUlllained. At Rako\'or in 1268 the Russian
at'my was divided not illl.o the normal three dh'isions of a large centre
win , bUI inl

an ABOVE Dismounted warrlo....salnt

slaying a dragon from whose
belly a previous victim then
emerges. Detail from a Russian
carved wooden cross made In
1359. (Kremlin Museum,
Novgorod)

Fi Id Lh ur p n
nnam nl po m

Dellllls from an k::on of Sillnu:
Boris and Oletl, pn>hllbly painted
In MOKOW, 14th century. Top,
Martyrdom In a boat; abova, a
prince with his armed following.
The shields Mill alll an shown as
01 'cropped kite' shape.
(Tretyakov Oallery, Moscow)
OPf'OSITE Icon 01 Sillnts Bo';.
and Ote/), 14th C, probably from
MOKOW. (Tretyakov Gallery,
MOKow)
ZtulO1Uhilw, wriuen by Sofonij Rya7.aneLS, meillions
Lithuanian swords, Gcrman rolits or short spears,
shiclcls from Moscow, helmeLS of Cherkassk and
Tatar origin. and assorted foons of annour. This
ZadQlIshill(l includes more rcferences to European
wcapomy Lllall did !.he famous Ellie of Pri"u Igor
wrilLcn much earlicr. The tcrm bail/mUl, which was
of Arabic origin and refen'cd LO a mail shirt of
large flauened rings, was only mentioned
once, and it rcmained one of relatively fcw
Turca..Arabian borrowings in Lhe Russian milit.uy
vocabulary of lhe post-Mongol period.
The baule of Kulikovo Field is bcliL"\'cd to have
lasted four hours ilnd involvcd numerous
cOlllrolled and disciplined CdValry comba!S. By tlte
end of the tllird hour lhe lo.longols beg::111 to w,wcr,
yet it was only an att."lck by the Russian Glvaky
reserve which clinched tlle Russian victory - tlley
had been held back by Plince Dmilrii lvanovich
for JUSt such a moment. Surprised by these
unexpecLCd reinforccmems, the Mongols Oed.
Nevcrtllelcss tlle COSl of tlle \ictol)' was very high:
onlyone-telllh of the Russian anny is said to have
returned home. Twelve plinces and 483 noble
boyars, lhe pick of tlle army, had been killed - rei>"
reseillillg 60 per cent of the Russian COllunanders.
Nobody knows the los...es among the common
soldiers bUL doubtless lhe manpower resources of
Russia were badly afTcCled by this battle. Medieval
sources lhat claimed that hundreds of thousands
of Russian warriors look pan are doublless
exaggeraled, as were tlle supposedly huge numbers of r-.<Iongols. Clearly
100,000 people preparing for a general battle would represent an
ullcOlllrollable horde and such an army certain I)' could nOt be arrayed
on a battlefield only four or five kilomelres wide. Perhaps as many as
36.000 men. forming six divisions. took pan but even t1lis \\'as a "cry'
large number for lhe Middle Ages. Even for a major campaign armies
were not raised which would exhausl the manpo.....er and other
resources of lhe coumry. According to the mOSt reliable sources
Russian armies of lhe 15th and 16lh centuries could number 100,000
or even 120,000 mcn, bUl armies of such a size were intended lO
operate on several frolllS simultaneousl)' ralher tllan all taking pan in
onc ballle; lhe actual size of a umslVQ or field army was much smaller.
In 1382 Prince Dmilrii. now nicknamed 'Donskoy' after this great
vicLOry (which LOok place Ilcar tlte DOll River), was unable LO recruit
sufficient troops lo facc Khan TokhL.'l.mish. whose army then ravaged
Moscow. On the other hand. in 1386 Dmitrii Donskoy gathered a
considerable forcc against Novgorod, indicating lhat Russian
manpower had been rebuill during tllC imervcning four years. For
many generalions the baule of Kulikovo Ficld remained a symbol of the
stl'llgglc for independcncc, and lhose who took pan werc seen as
heroes of Russian hislOI)'. In 1480, tltC year when Russia finally lhrew
This little drawing was made In
the slK:ond half of the 14th C,
and shares several features with
the previous Icon painting: a
cavalry army Is led by a prince or
commander wearing the charac-
teristic brimmed hat of the
Russian nobility; the hOniemen
all have the tall, Oriental-style
pointed helmets which became
almost universal In later
medieval Russia; and one carries
a 'cropped kite' shield.
(Si/vestTovskaya Manuscript,
State Archive of Historical
Documents, fund N3B1,
Act.no.53, Moscow)

Icon of St.Demetrius of
Thessalonlkl, from Pskov late
14th or early 15th C; the saint
carries archery equipment.
(Inv.2096, Russian Museum,
St.Petersburg)
 The Oower of Rl.Issian-Lilhml.llian c:hivall)' who
had helped Vitovl to establish Great Lithuania
and \\'ho had also fought under U1C banners of
DmiU'ii Donskoj at Kulikovo Field died in Ihis
~rriblc defeat. Idcgej then pursued Vitovl as far
as Kiev, from which the emir extracted a ransom
""hile his army pillaged somhem Russia. c.'1l1sing
as much devasulliol1 as the original Mongol
invasion had done. -. •
. .,
r ''\..
~, r~ -~ :.
The 15th century: Oriental Influences,
the Mongol decline, and the spread
of firearms
.... -
_ _ JO ~~.

'-- .
-.;.
Despite such disastcrs as the Vorskl River, Russia
.......s steadily gelling stronger while thc Mongol
Golden Horde was in decline. Russian milital)'
t'CJuipmelll became c\'cr more Oriental in slyle.
Sabres rcplaced swords, round shields replaced
the traditional kile-shape, and various Iypes of
Easlcrn anns and armour were adopled. A bailIe
betwcen MllscO\~tes and Novgorodians in 1455
was the last nlltior combat in which spear-armed
camlry pla)'cd the leading rote; after this lhe
sabre became the primary cavalry weapon.
Riding equipment similarly changed with lhe
adoption of lighter, higher Asiatic saddles, whips
replacing spurs, ann shorter stirrup leathers
enabling a ricler not only to lUi'll more easil}' in
his saddle but also to use a bow. Some of these features had already The e..tem side, wlth Its
been seen in the 12th and 13ul centuries bUI came to dominate in the entranceway and one gale tower,
ot the tortreas ot Koporya, whIch
14th and 15th. Even in 1500, however, descriptions of combat sound
was constructed In the mld·15lh
very traditional: 'Clash of spears, crashing of shields, helmets drop century. IPhotograqph
down and sabres break. arms are clanging, "'arnors fall dead :tnd V.V.Kostochklnal
wounded.'

In this little sketch 01 a cavalry

battl. two h.o.... m.n on the
v\(;torioua side are &hown
wleldln.g a stl1llght sword and a
curved aabre with both hands.
One h.o.... man In the retreatln.g
army protecU hlmHII with
what appe.... to be • so-called
'LIthuanIan p.vl,.', with a
vertical 'keel' down the tronl.
RlKJz/lonkaya Chronicle, In a
15th-C copy of a 13th·C
original.

TOP Painted wooden statuette of
St.George, Russian, 15th century.
(Local Historical Museum, Yurtev
Polskoy)
ABOVE The kremlin or citadel of
Tve" as Illustrated In a detail
from a 15th-C Russian icon,
showIng a variety of types of
towers and gates, with
characteristic onion-domed
Russian churches behind.
(Location unknown)
Fr m 1 2 nr arms tart pr ading a ro s Rus ia. fir d as d (I n ive
w ap n' for tOwn r Ii rU' es and laL r ligh r hand-h ld gun .
Lh nd f th J th ntllry \'ari us t s w r kn wn in luding tll
arqu bL whi he lIJd b arri dna ldi r' b k, Lb {/mopalh< nd- un,
od th rudmil a. whi h, a long-barr II d mw k l. Th w apon
w r \1ot a curaLe at mar than th shorte t ran e, but their fire caus d
pani among alar troop, oft n making lh m r tf aL e en b for
hanel-la-hand ftghting began. When, in] 0, Khan Ahm d b gan llli
ultimal I un u f'tll ampaign again t Ru 'sia, lh Ru sian
p se d lImci nt numb r f annan and arq I bu t 't P hi arm
fr m roo ing th Riv r ra. Th khan wait d n th far bank unlil
aULUmn, but th Ru ian de~ nee r main d firm and th Talar
ventuall retreat d. hi tand-off r ull d in d. ng I-Tatar k
finaLl beLnO" thrown off after 24 rears: Russia b came a full
ind p nd nt stat und r 1:'ar I n III asilievieh, who began annexin
n w territ ri . E epL fI r his ampaign again·t th Id n HOTd in
1472 and 1480, plu allaC' on z n in J4 7-1 and 1 7 11 Ivan ill's
war w r wa d a ain L tIl r RlI 'ian . tal gain W l rn
n i hb u su h Lillll1ania. w d nand h ut ni Knight'!.
nd r 1: ar V: il iII th Ru i n pop! b am a quaint d with wbat
th call d 'Lh h a hand of Mo ow'. hi became po ibl beeau ,
durin the fi L half of the 15111 c ntur , the prince of a CO\ found
Lrong 1I ppon am ng l Lh ir dvcrr- courti I r gen - and th childr n
of III boyar ari t craey. Thi I . r w rapidJ , after Iller ati J1 f an
• Lal tern' at th nd f th 15th 11tury a r ulr of whi h th
inL r'lS f th ari '[ era
nd th rulin 'ar
n rmally in id d. he
risto rae' al a provided
th ar widl a num rollS
and effi i 11l ann which
dl rul r u. l c nquer
n w land, di tributing
th' aplur d t rritorie
amon t hi oldier .
,•
Althou h thi pr was
camp ni d b on mic
t d 'v lopm Dt, iL also relied
• upon J1 talll [ rritorial
'pan ion.
ARMS AND ARMOUR
Spears and javelins
Rus, ian. p aT of 111 13th to 16th c nluri 'had long tri ngular h ads of
diamond lion de igned t pen trall arm ur. During Lh 13th
nttlry ulitsi or javelin VI r a1 0 m ntion d ventuall b Lng l d b
I III in anlf}' and cavalry 0 ppo alar ar h . In fa t lh darts r
jay lin w r so p pul r lhat th b am' 1m sl uni r 1 n L nl
when approach in the n Illy but in hand-l hand omba and duJing
retr alS. haeoJogi al e cavation near ov or d and r h k hay
uncovered such leaf-shapcd dart heads dating
from Iht.' 131h 10 161h centluies. DIlling the 14lh
cenHln the boar-spear was mentioned as a
lighting weapon. ha\1ng been used for hunting
for celllllrics; hO\\'('\'cr, the largest foml of Russian
lighting spt..'3r did nOI change, and COlllinued
to ha\e a laurel leaf-shaped blade well inlO t.he
17t.h celllun.

Battle-a.e.
An axe and a boar-spear seem t.o have been con-
sidered the es.o;entiaJ amlS of a foot soldier in lat.e
medieval Russia: one chronicler "id of t.he
MlIsco\it('s who set out. against the Tat.lrs in 1144
LIt"1 t.he ·foot.-men were equipped v.ilh clubs. axes
and boar-spcars'. In fact 1\\'0 difTercllI tndit.ions
seem to ha\'e merged in t.ht" hislO!)' of Ihe batt.le-
a.xe. \'\1ICI1 ol\'<Ih1' dominated warfare Ihis I..eapon
became plebeian, but. as armour became stronger
and the illlponance of infantl,' incrcased, so the The 'boar-speer' or huntlng speer
axe rose ag-din in prestige. Amongst. lhe pole-axes, of Pri"..e Boris AJeliendrovlc.h.
c"ekatlS and axe-maces willi trapezoid blades Ru$Sl8n, c..14SO. Thto SOCket I.
excavated in Novgorod and Vladimir. SOUle of the decorated with ftI'Iely 1n9"'ted
ecenee. Including e liet>lCUon -
fomler had silver decoration 011 Ihc blades. These _ deIIIll below - 01 en .reNt".
wefe high qualit.), it.ems made b) smilhs who (Kremlin Armoury MUHUm,
exported t.heir productS to the neighbouring .....owl
Saami (Lapps) and Tatars. "Illt~ palmlaritv of t.he
a.xe througholll the Mongol period also indicated
the sl.Tengt.h of the armour ",'Om at Ihis time.
The a.xe also became a ceremonial parade
weapon, and in 1468 a chronicler first. mentioned
a coun functionan called the keeper of the bmiuh
or pole·axe. "Illis bmlish had a crescent moon-
shaped blade. and "''as linked 10 t.he long-bladed
bmtuh which b«aJne common in t.he lawr Russian
st"tm ,mn). &rrlisMs were used as a suppon for
hand-held guns, and slmls; unilS c<luipped with
such guns ""c,'c fonned around the last <Iuarter of
the ISd. celltury. The long-hafted, bro:.ld-bladed
bmfish was dcsibrnecl for swinging blows though it
could also be thmsL During the 15th ccnt.uf)' lhe
bmlish similarl)' appeared in Sweden. but as )'el the
degree of technological interaction betwecn Russia
and Scandiml\1a remains unclear. Meanwhile the
caval!)-, which "'-d.S largel)' recruiled from tlle
genlr), made liule use of axes.

Sword. and sabre.

During the 14th centu.... straight S\\'On:1s continued
t.o Ix- used in nonh-v.·cstem Russia ",·hilt· sabres
were adopl(~d in the south. There is no doubl that
the troops of N'O\'gorod and PlIilo\ used strAight
 ut-and-lhn t blad
and mlan.
long T.
ml

2a

(11 Alles found In the Ipatevskl I ' red d m

side-street In Moscow In 1989. Lhru ting. In til
(2, 2a) Alles from Novgorod,
bltd
14th-15th C
(3) Axe from Vladimir,
14th-15th C
(4) Axe from Novgorod,
14th-15th C
(5) Axe-meces, 14th-15th C.
 1) Sabre from the Kuban area,
4th e (State Historical Museum,
cow) o 0
Sword from Rldomlla, VOlhynla
"1l9 on, 14th or early 15th C
'State Hennitage Museum,
U'etersburg)
3] Sword from Vodlchki,
melnltskaya region,
4th-15th e (Historical Museum,
manets-Podolsk)
J Sword from Kiev, 14th-15th e
tlon unknown)
Sword from Sebel, 15th e
Slate Hennitage Museum, 1 4 5 6 7
S Petersburg)
6 Sword attributed to Prince
Dovmont of Pskov, mid-13th e
orical Museum, Pskov)
Sword attributed to Vselvolod
islavlch (Historical Museum.
kov)
8
8) Method of scabbard
attachment.

nd om (i fm
with
nLinu d to
he. Io-per 0 r
111 14th

The highly decorated 'sword of

Vsevolod Ms1lslavlch' was almost
certainly made In central Europe
tor a Russian prince, perhaps In
the late t4th e.
(A & B) The two faces of the
pommel
(e & 0) The two sIdes of the
qullIons
(E & F) The outer faces of the
two scabbard mounts
(G) The chapa.
One of the best pre$enled
medieval sabre blades to be
discovered In Russia was
excavated by archaeologists near
Nezin; it probably dates from the
12th or 13th century.
The Arabic decoration and
inscription on the Nezin sabre
Indicate that It was Import d
from the Islamic world. (State
Historical Museum, Chemlhlv)

2 in P k v, Lh ugh b lhi Lime th

hip than fun li nal weap n.

Knives. some stUI with their

wooden handles, and decorated
leather sheaths; Novgorod, 12th
to 15th C. (Kremlin Museum.
Novgorod)
 m a W I' quil m ie,
h aviel- than rdin
haf

Russian 'winged' maces from Mon I p'ri d. PI'

Pronsk, Sakhnovka, Khmelnla and b
nd Zvenlgorod: (1-3, 3a) 13th C;
(4-5) 14th C.

Donor figures In the typical

cos1ume 01 wealthy late-
medieval Russian men, with a
woman on the far right. It was
painted In Novgorod In 1467.
remlln Museum, Novgorod) pp I'

worn
 prefi IT d ~ r mili tary
indi ating rna
p and cloa'
r d or red

Russian arrowheads, and

crossbow bolt heads, lou.nd In
Novgorod. (Kremlin Museum,
Novgorod)
FORTRESSES AND SIEGE WARFARE
i.n lhe mid-14th century. Ciladels made entirely of stone came lalel;
mough Daniil Romanovich had a ncw stone-built capilal at Kholm as
Girlyas 1259.
Russian wars of the 13th to 16th century increasingly focused on the
conquesl and annexation of l,en;tol1'; consequcnliy, fortified celllres
\imilarly increased in importance. A third of the 460 l'ecorded campaigns
between 1228 and 1462 involved attacks upon, and the defence of, towns.
During the period of !..he 'Mongol Yoke' various ways of protecting
territory evolved, depending on local circumstances; lhese similarly
effected lile funclioll of fortificalions. Following the Mongol invasion
under Khan Batu, Tamr midcrs avoided using cumbersome heavy
u-.mspon and siege equipment, and seldom risked assaulling lOwns. If
me)' were few ill number lhey contcnted lhemseh'es with ravaging lhe
mral outskirts, bUl if they were slltndc11l1y numerous they might u'}' to
take a foru·es.s by deceplion or by defeating its garrison in open bailie.
Conditions were different on lilC north-western and western frontiers,
\\'here lile Teutonic Knights and Lilhuanians often relied on siege
engines to take lawns. Hence there W'dS a large-sc.'lle prOb'TIlIllmC of
fonification and of assembling numerous slone-throwing machines from
the late 13lh cemul)' onwards. After fortil)'ing lheir capital cities in
1302--09 the people of Psko\' and Novgorod erecled mall)' foru·esses.
especially along lheir borders. As wooden and eanhen defences became The fortified tower at Stot~,
obsolete, lllany were replaced by slronger stone stmcUlres. New fortified bullt during the ~nd half of
the 13th or fl ...t hatl of the 14th
lowns were created in stratcgically vulncrable rcgions, including
century. Apart lrom a few la'98tY
Kopor)'c, Korela, Oresheck, Izoorsk, Yama and Porkho\'. aymbollc st_ 118tes In major
Between 1382 and 1426 fireanns began lO be used in auack as well as citIes, thIs type of Isolated lower
in defcllce of Russian fortificalions, alongside existing siege weapons. Wlll the tl... t form of atone
The walls anc! towers were them.reh'es designed to allo\\' their defenders fortlfleatlon to be constructed
In Russia. They appeared In the
to emplo)' arquebus fire, archery and crossbows, but il. was not llnlilthe
weatemmOtit prinelpaUtlea,
$Ccond quarter of the 15lh cenlury that fircarms really changed the probably aa a ..ault of Central
design of military architecture. The earliesl evidence within Russia European Influence, and would
appears to be the thickening oflhe walls of Porkhov in 1430, followed by not be aeen further east for
the rebuilding of Yamgorod in 1448. many.yea....

During the second half of lhe 15th centUry. coinciding with lhe
fonnation of lhe Muscovite Slale, cannon became powerful enough to
breach stone walls. The first case in Russian history was in 1481. during
the siege of lilC Teutonic Knights' fortress al Fellina. Another new stage
was reached with the construction of the strictly quadrangular CiL'ldel of
Ivangorod in 1492, the first such Slruclure in Russia. But as Russian
architeclS \,'cl'e genemlly imitating Western European tonitications, even
hangorod seemed old fashioned for its date, and lacked flanking towers.
This \\'eakness became vel'}' apparent when a Swedish force easily
captllred lile llew fortress only four ),eal's after it had been buill.
Ivangorod was thereafter modernised and slrengulened lO cope with
siege warfare based entirely upon cannon.
The following years saw remarkably rapid improvements in Russian
mililary architcClure. especially in tile sollth, and resulted in Russia
becoming one of the most advanced countries in Europe in lhis field of
"~drfare. Nor is il a coincidence lilal these changes took place as Russia
became a unified Slate. They also reflected the fan that wars were now
largely resolved through sieges wherea~ in earlier times they had been
decided in open bauJe.

I of wooden fOrl.ress wall. It consisted of moats and
• ramparts which could reach a considerable
••
The free.8tandlng round tower
at Kamenell Wilt built In the
.-ond half of the 13th century.
Known a. the 'White To_r', It
wa. probably Inspired by
comparable frontier defences
In Hungary or Poland,
(Photograph O.N.Logvlna,
Timber fortifications
A distinctive Russian style of foru'css began to
appear in the 13th and 141.h centuries, achieving
its highesl dc\'clopmcill in the 16tJl and 171.h
cCnllllies. The shape of a Russian 10Wl1 was, of
r course, detenlllncd by its walls, lowers, religiolls
buildings and the basic COtllOlll"S of the landscape.
• Up to the 13th century any inhabilcd site \\Iilh any
Conn of banier defence was called a 'lawn', but
other more specific terms gradually emerged.
I These including IJII, meaning a paling or stockade.
and gorodni, farasy and ostrog 1,0 designate certain
types of \\"<1.11 construction.
I A 1}1l or paling was ..he simplest and oldest type
height. Logs wert~ used to support the paling
walls, the sharpened ends of these logs often
proll'Uding outside the wall - these were called
'needles', Polat)' were scaffolds constnlcted along
the inner side of such timber w·.ills to support
them, Walls in which palings were combined with
such a framed construction were, of course, much
more Slable.
In the slallling ostrog the sharpened logs were
inclined inwards, presenting a smooth, hard-to-
climb glacis, while the wall itself was supported by a low eanh
embankment, plus a special interior kozly or scaffold erected close to the
wall. The most obvious a(hanlage of these timber defences was the rapidity
and simplicityoftheir construction. The greatest dis<l,dvantage lvas lhalthe
lower end of the logs which formed the wall soon began to rot.
TIlOse with a framed construction were called gorod, gorodlli or larary,
referring to a much stronger and more complex form of architecture.
Their \,"a.lIs were normally twice as high as the simple ryn or paling, and
\\'crc generally as !.hick as a Iyn was high. In fact the gorod, gorodniol' ttlrasy
seem to have been developed in response to the appcarance of firearms,
especially cannon. Each W'dS slightly differelll, The torasy consisted of twO
parallel w'".Llls witl1 a substantial distance between them, these walls being
connected by cross--pieces at regular intervals, Some of the bays so
fonned \...ere filled with rubble, but other, often broader bays remained
empty and were used as defensive positions for members of the garrison.
Each of these bays normally had two loopholes and a door.
Corvd"i were separate frames built close to one another. One
weakness of such a wall was tllat Ihejul1ction of the frames began 1.0 l'Ot
\'ery quickly, and the 1\'3.l1s consequently became crooked. Furthermore
their construction required a great deal of time as well as building
materials. Loopholes were similarly added to such \\'alls.
Up to tlle 13th century there were no tOwers inside these sorts of
fOIU'ess, tlleir e\'entual appearnnce abrain resulting from the introduction
of gunpowder artillery, Later medie\'3.l Russian fQitresses had many types
of tower depending on tlleir function and construction. TIle most
common terms for these were vqa, slrel"itsa, kosttr and siolp, while the
term 'tower' only came into use in the 16th centlll"Y. These categories
included the comer to\\'er plus gate. the round tower. the lour-angled
towcr, the two-tiered tower, the closed to\\'cr in Ute centre of a wall, and
various otbers, Such wooden towcrs dilTered in thcir shapes. purpose,
numbcr of storeys, and the \\'ood from which the>' were consuucted,
The number of towers and their dimensions naturally reflected the
fortress's sil.e and illlport'l.nce. If the shape of the lauer followed UlC
contours of thc land, round towers were usually used. If the shape of
the fortress was more geometrical, thcn four-sided towers tended to be
constructed, because they were not only easier to connect to the walls in
a regular manner, bm also provided a wider field of fire.
Towers were also used for such purposes as storage barns, accommo-
dation, churches and chapels. 11 was, in fact, noml.al for larger fortresses
to have a balcony-like chapel suspcnded over the entrdnce gates: ulis not
only helped defend the gate itself but also served as a religious focus
which alTered the protection of the saims to ule most vulnerable point in
the foniriCltion. The largest lOwers incorporated selllry boxes which had
windows on all sides, as well as railed galleries providing a commanding
view over the surrounding countl)'side,
Fonress demils are usually divided illlo two groups. The rirsl includes
defensive systems direcuy forming pan of the main defensive strtlClUre,
such as oblol/ls (see below), loopholcs and so on. The second includes
additional devices such as ditchcs, embankments. etc. which were llsually
constrtlcted around towns and plisons.
The oblam was a second fonn of fr';lme cOfiStrtlclion above the lower
pan of the wall or tower, although sometimes the upper part of the frame
wall iL~elf could be called an oblo.m. In towers it was normally built O\'cr the
entire upper surface. whereas walls only had oblo.ms on ulcir outside Recon~ructlon of the Kremlin or

surface. Loopholcs lOok the fonn of small \\indows through which ule citadel of Moscow u It probably
appeared In the mid-14th C,
defenders could shoot. their dimensions depending on their choice of
when the fortifications were stili
I\'eapon. They were, howe\"er, usually about &m-lOcm (3ins-4ins) wide, made entirely 0' timber, the only
On Ule oUl~ide ule lower and lateral edges were sloped LO pro\ide a better stone stRIctures In this scene
angle for shooting. When larger guns weft: inU'oduccd the dimensions of are the churehes on the skyline.
such cmbrasures naturally
increased. sometimes lip to
30cm-40cm () 2ins-16ins)
wide,
During the 8th to 10th
centuries deep moats with
stecp sides had commonly
been a vital feature of
ule defences, bUL from
thc IOUl centul)' onwards
the ramparts themselves
became more impona.llt,
evcntually reaching 10m-
16m (roughly 30ft-50ft) in
height.
At the end of ule 15ul
century the whole northem
territol)' reaching as far
as the Arctic coaSL was

Tower Three of the Kremlin in
Novgorod, seen lrom Tower Four.
Tower Three i' 15th C. and the
broken waH between the towers
c.n be Men to o;:ooalll of two
brio;:k lao;:lnga filled with a ""bbie
o;:ore. ID.Nlo;:oUe photograph)
incorporated imo the
Russian staw. Dev.:lStating
raids by lhe neighbollling
people of POllloriya res-
ulled in U1C construction of
fortresses even in this
remOLe region. In addition
to large fortresses, many
monasteries, small ostrogs
and pogosts or adminis-
trative outpOSts \"erc
erected, all of them com-
bining to form a powerful
system of defence in depth
to SLOp invasions along the
northern rivers.
The ostrog at Kola was
first mentioncd as early as
the 13th century, and since
it fonned the vital north-
•
• ernmost outpost of Russia
., its fonifications were
rebuilt several limes. Even
so, the \valls of such
fonresses continued 10 be made of timber until the 18ul cenlllry.
normally using a limber framework construction where gorodlli
alternated with larnses. Empty bays were again left in the walls of such
fonifications, being uscd to storc food and other supplies, juSt as would
be the case in IllC better known Siberian fortresses. Meanwhile most
towers in this nonhcrn rcgion were built in thc form of irregular
hexagons with doublcd outer walls.
UStyug was the ncxt most important of these fonified northern
outposts. It had first appeared as early as the mid-12tJl century, and b)'
the 17th centu!")' it consisted of two pans known as Gorodishche and
Great Ostrog. These had 24 towers and timber paling walls with interior
defensive galleries; meanwhile a wide moat, 305m (11.5ft) deep.
proteCled Ust)'ug from the north-casL.
Another distinctive feature of defensive architeclllre in the north of
Russian W'.tS that many fortresses with stone inner walls also had timber
Ollier walls. One such fonress<ity was Novgorod itself. Prefabrication was
used to speed up the building of saine fonresses and there were markets
selling the prcfabricated clements for buildings in most Russian
towns. Polotsk is an example of a town that was built by using such
prefabrication lcchniqllcs.
The souulern fortresses of Russia were in the most vulnerable area,
and here entire lines of fortifications had been built (see MAA 333:
Amlits of Medieval Russia 750-1251:}). Meanwhile the development of
Siberia on the eastern frontier of Russia began in Ule 14th and 15th
centuries. Here the first small os/rogs were built to defend ncwly acquired
territory from enemy raids or invasion. These, as wcll as the compamble
sloQod(/.S or fortified winter encampments, steadily increased in llumber.
Thereafler they continued to sen'e as military and administrative centres
CAVALRY, 1250-1300
1: Western Russian cavalryman, fully armoured
2: Boyar nobleman from Pskov
3: South-Eastern Russian cavalryman
INFANTRY, 1325-1400
1: Dismounted nobleman, mid-14th century
2: Infantryman, Suzdal, mld·14th century
3: Crossbowman, late 14th century
 3

EASTERN ~USSIA. 1375-1425

~. a.v.lrrman. IlIte 14th centu'y
2:-Mounted drummer, earty 15th centu'y
3: Prince in glided 1II11lOW'. late 14th centu'y
WESTERN RUSSIA & 'GREAT UTHUANIA'. 15TH C
1: Heavy cavalryman, early 15th century
2.-Novgorod noble cavalryman, mid-15th century
3: Infantryman. late 15th century

2
MUSCOVITE FIELD ARMIES. 1425-1500
1: Cavalryman, earty 15th century
2: Heavy cavalryman,late 15th century
3: Infantryman. earty 15th century
MUSCOVITE GARRISONS, c.14SQ-1S00
1: Dismounted horse-archer, end of 15th C
2: Musketeer, mid-15th C
3: Dismounted officer, end of 15th C
3

2
 [11 }' ar n l
ral enl"tlri '.
lon~oLs u d

Tower Two of the Novgorod first d

Kremlin. This particularly
massive part of the brick
fortifications was built In the
14th-15th C and Is one of the
earlies1 towers. to. Nicolle
photograph)

mnan .
[

rg r

th V ar' p
w r introdu
 may able count rbalan e, whi h be ame very popuLar. everthl s ,
d spite their incr asin pow rand accurac. tone--lhro\ ing ma hin
vcmuall prov d Lmabl L d aJ \\~tb Lon ii nifi ti n', and w r
·up reeded b far In re elD t.i gunpowder w ap n .

FIREARMS

The massive RussIan fortress of

Ivangored overlooks the River
Narva In the Baltic coastal
region. Built between 1496 and
1507, it directly faces the rival
castle of Hermannsburg on the
other bank of the river - the
most easterly fortress of the
Teutonic Knights In Estonia,
while Ivangorod mar\(ed the
Russian frontier.

g
 a I I

A reconstnlC:tlon of the fortified

wooden 'town' of Olgov over-
looking the River Oka, as it
would have appeared in the
13th century. (Q.V.Borlseivich)

Sections through reconstructions

r . nam d ak in 14 3 and
rriag aJ xi l d. The
lhe d \' 'Iopm nl of Ii lei
of the various configurations of
lyn or timber paling wall as used
from the 13th to 16th C, from th
simplest stockade, through the
more elaborate ostrog sloping
types, to the Incorporation of
scaffolding-framed inner works.
(O.V.l'ymklna)

w,
 iron unpowder
~ r

Section through th upper part

of a timber wall fortification with th ir first t
an overhanging gallery. Note the
ev rthele.
hole cut through the upper floor,
to enable defenders to shoot
downwards or to drop missiles
on attackers. (O.V.1'ymklna)

Reconstruction of a stretch of
farasy type timber fortification,
showing two bays fllled with
rubble or aarth for added
strength, and two left empty for
occupation by defenders.
(0. V.1'ymkina)

enO' ,
 auacking such fortifications, as in 1-108.
Towards the end of the l.5th century tyrtJj'aki
\<I'erc no longer lIsed by field troops. but were
still used in defence of fortifications. The
word /JlifJak (Russian plll ... 1 /)'Ilfj'llkl) comcs
from thc COllllUon Turco-Persian-Arab tenn
lII]llk or (JIl]mk, which originally meal1l a
blow-pipe uscd as a hunting weapon. It may then
have been uscd to project 'Creek fire', but soon c..l.me to mean the earliest It Runlan hand'1lun, 137~1450.

101111 orlighl or hand-held gun. 'nu:: word sun~ved in the ~Iiddle East and The ,hon barTel I. Ilrmly
Intened to II long wooden ~oek
eventually referred to a rille. For their part the Russians even uscd the
by two metallic bands. (Stllte
name fJllfj'lIk for guns that were specificall)' statc.."(! to be of Gemlan origin, Hl.toriclll Museum, MotICow)
so the use of an OJiental tenn did not neccss<uil)' imply an OJiental design
for the b'ltn ill qucstion. It docs, howe\'er, seem possible that Ihe word
l)'lifj'ak did indicate a b'1.lll with a broad OJ' e\'cn slighll)' funncl-shaped
muule.
T)'lifj'aki of the l.5th century \,'ere not only used dcJensivcly but also
whcn l7liding towns: but 10 shoot a light gun at fonified "".Ills hardly
makes sense, so perhaps some oliler dc\ice \v;.l~ involved. In fact a book
called Tilt' C.mmolls and Ilrque/JUSt's J)pscrilJlioll /look unexpeCledly mcntions
l)lifj'ctki with calibres offrom 4clll up to 8.Scm (1.57ins to 3.3ins). Perhaps
l)'I1/)'(lki were orib';nally intendcd as ami-personnel weapons, with
relalh'ely short 'blunderbuss' ban'cls filing multiple pl'Ojectiles. During
the course of devclopment of the cadieSI firei.lnllS tJlis design may
have been gencmlly replaced by morc aCCllnllC small-bore single-shOl
"'capons in thc last quarter of the l.5th CCIllUl1', resulting in the t)'lifj'lIk5
dis.:-..ppcal-::lnce.
Arquebuses are mentioned by the chronicles during attacks on cities
from 1408 onwards. and in defence of cities from 1'1.50; then in the 14705
this weapon increased in importance, lea\~ng the 1)'lIfj'lIk far behind.
Such a development may have reflected the increasing emcaC)' and
reliabilit) of metallic bulleLS. The earliest arquebuscs whose dcsign can
ReconstructIon 0111 .tretch 01
be described in more or less exact delail appeared £lUling the final r1Orod type timber fortification
quarter of the 15th cenIl1l1'. All were made in the r.,·loscow gUll foundry with one timber lower.
and bore the inscription 'arquebus', together with the maker's name (O.V.Tymkinll)
and a date. They also had the eXlended ban'cls t)'pical of the true
arquebus. The eadiest sun~ving bronlC example has a wooden
traversing handspike instead of the normal bUlt-stock ami,
Judging by comparable Swedish and Cennan examples. dales
from between 1400 and 1450.

.-.
 CONCLUSIO S
h abundant milita 0 d m 11-
ontinu d
cupalion.

The Vyshka and Ryahlnovka

Towers of the fortres at Old
l:tborsk, erected In the late
14th century. (Photograph
A.A.AJe"androva) I, b ti n
r milital)! ta
li , 'p ciall p

c n rnin hand-t h nd
mbat in p n formati n
during the cond hall' or
ule 14Ul nllll '. Armic'
w r e tabli h d 1 d f, nd
h emir OILOlI, n Ith
and lIlh, to ther with a
. tern f I n f, rtr s "
m I l10tabl in Ih n rth-
t r th I.Intry aud
al ng j .outhern fronli r.
hr ughoul th fiddle
g op 11 fi Id ba tIc,
r; main d Ih enlJlll aUlr
f cam aigt and g neralJ .
d fin d th ir UlCom. I
111 fonn . han~d, wan:b
a prolonged and La tin.ll'
m r f
c mbaL
obil was
qmilarl,

apabililie . B. the tim Lh • on Miniature from a 151h·C copy of

the lost 13th-C RadzJlovs/(aya
Chronicle, showing a mounted
force attacking the gate of a
town or castle.

far

Detail from the I.ft-haM ald. of
the leon of the MIr1f(:/e of the
VIrgin MaIY of tlte Sign, paInted
In the 1460a, II shows two
noblemen - not. their hata-
riding out of Noygorod, whIch la
d.fended by troopa assembled
ben.ath the Icon of the VIrgin
Mary, which auppoMdly ,",ved
the city from Suzdallan co"C!ueat.
The armoured d.fend.... carry
apea... and klt.ahaped shields.
(MuHum 0' the Hlatory of Art
and ArehltectUIll, Noygorod)
- affairs: 'Russian melhods ofw·J.rfarc belong to an
intermediate le\'e1 !x:l\\leen those of the SC),thians
(meaning the Turk... and Tatars) and those of the
-. Europeans. Scythians only usc lighl wcapons while
the EUl'opeans ahnosl exclusi\'el)' uSC hea\')' ones,
We, in ollr turn, usc both kinds quile effecuvely,
We may imitate lhe laclics of bOlh peoples.
lhough we cannot ouldo lhem. Compared to the
Scythians we arc much stronger when lIsing ollr
hea\)' arms and almost as skilful as they arc when
in llsing lighl arms. It is completely the opposite
with lhe Europeans, Thal is why \\'C should use
weapon" of both kinds againsl our cnemies and
should lake adV<llltage of lhis sinmtion.'
These \\'ords, wrillen b), a COllll1lelllator who
was a nell1'-<:ontemporar)' of lhe e\'ents, sum up
lhe \'cl)' cssence and distincuveness of mcdiC\~dl
Russian warfare. [n f-act it was only after the end
of the 15th cenwl)' lhat Russian ca\~<ill)' adopted a
much larger degree of Orient;ll equipmclll.
especially in terms of sabres alld padded saddles.
This increase in Oriental milital," influence was
associatcd with the start of the long Russian
slnlgglc against the Khanatc of the Crimea, and
also with the recl"llitmelll of large numbers of
Tatars into the MUSCO\'ile arm)',
Russian military history during the later
medieval period call therefore be divided into the
following phases:
1240-1350 This was a period of healing the wounds Cluscd b}' Ihe
r."tongol conCllicst and recouping the country's strcnglh. The lerritOry of
the Russian states was drastically reduced, but in the nOl"lh and south-
\,'cst resistance to the Mongol and other illlrllders was organist~d. In
tcrms of tactics and armament, \\'hat had been called 'the Russian way'
\\"L~ preser\'ed and indeed its efTectiveness \\';.IS considerably increased,
1350-1400 These rCaN were charactel;scd by an astonishing growth of
military lechnolog)' and a switch from dcfellsi\'c to offensive operations,
This £>C1;od also largely coincided with t.he acu\'iucs of I~rince Dmiuii
h,mo\;ch DOllSkoy (1359-1389). and the appearance of the first stone
fonifications ill Moscow (1367). In addition to the struggle against the
Mongol.Tatar Goldcn Horde, the Russian stat.es had to resist Lithuanian
expansion. ~Ieanwllilc the concepts ofcentr<llised milit:uy leadership and
of greater military discipline grew stl"Ongcr, and pan-Russia mobiliS<ltlons
became common. Moscow created a large anny recruilt:d from across
Russia, mainly using European weapons and tactics: and e\'cntually this
ann)' defeated the "f.'lIars at the great bailIe of Kuliko\'o Ficld, one of the
IUOSt significant clashes of lhe Middle Ages. The Mongols wcre nOl ret
tmally defeated, but Ihe myth of their im'incibility had becn shatlercd. In
l"loscow and other ciues Iireanlls were eagerly adopted as soon as they
became a\';,lilable, Russian troops conunued to usc trndiuonal tactics of
pre\'entive field patrols along the Oka River frontier ag-clinsl the Colden
I-Im·de. The need t.o creel stone fOliifications became ob\'ious, while at

The army of Novgorod, aided by
an angel. defeats the Invading
army of Suzdal, In the Icon of the
Miracle of the Virgin Mary of the
Sign, 14605, In the foreground
are spear-armed heavy cavalry;
note also at upper centre two
clearly painted curved sabres.
(Museum of the History of Art
and Architecture. Novgorod)
ngol- alar
FURTHER READING
H'en T.T., 'M 111'01 oll-Takin in Rl ",125-127', Harvard
Uhmillirm . (tidies V/1 (Mar h 19 1) 32-5
Belo\'in. ki, .., S Rus lIim \loinon hem elw (With lhp Rus ian Warrior
aeros tlte Cenlune ), in Rli' "ian (Mo' ow 1 92)
BillingLOl1 j., TIl(' leon lLnd lhe Axe: n Interpretive Histo 'oJRu sial1 ulture,
( cwY rk 19 )
B ri' , . J" R'II~ kie Polkovod i Xlll-, Leaders oj
lh~ }(£JI- 7 l'/1lllri J in Rli ian (
eh miavsk , M. 'KJl" n l' Basil us: n p ct ian
p liti al h ,jOUrtw{ oj the H' lOT)' oj Id as, (l 59) 459--47
rutnm ',R, .. The Formation oJA1u tov)' 1304-1613 (L nd n 1

A man with a characteristic
medleyal Russian hat and
carrying a substantial crescent-
bladed 8lle or berdlsh, between a
group of priests and an apparent
group of cltl>lens. Histot')' of
Novgorod, Russian manuscript,
15th C. (Kremlin Museum,
NoY90rod)
Dzis, I., & A,Sherbakov, 'NovgododlSi Vremen Kulikovskoy Bitvi 1380'
('Novgorod Waniors of the time of the Iklule of Kulikovo, 1380'), in
Russian, ZeughallsXlI, :;"'7.
Esper, T., 'Military Self-Sufliciency and Weapons Technology in
Muscovite Russia', Slav;!: RroinlJ, x.,XV1II/2 (June 1969) 18:;...208
Fcnnell,J.L., The Emergellce oj Moscow, 1304-1359 (London 1968)
Fennell,J,L., The Crisis QJlvlediClJal Russia, /200-1304 (London 1983),
Fennell, J.L., 'The Tvcr Uprising of 1327: A Study of the Sources',
Jahbiicher Jiir Ceschichte Osteuropas, XV (1967) 161-179
Grekov, LB., & F.F. Shachmagollov, j\llir h/orie; RllS,lkie 7.emJi II Xlll-XV IIV.
(The PiaU oj Hist(JIJ; The RlIssia" umlts ill tI~ /II-X\' umtltries'), ill
Russian (Mosco\\' 1988)
Corclik, M.V., 'Kulikovsby.l Bitva 1380. Russki i Zolotoordinski Voini'
('The Battle of Kulikovskaya 1380. Russian and Golden Horde
Wan'iars)', Zeug'uills 1(1992),2-7
Gorc1ik. M.V., 'Mongolo-Talarskoe ZashiulOe Voory.lhenie Vtoroy
Polovini XIV-Nachala XV w.' ('Mongol-Tatar Defensive Armamcnt of
the $ccond Half of tllC XIVth 10 the Early XVth Centuries'), in
KlIlik()IIska)'{/. Bitval! Istorie i Kill/lire Nashey IUxlini ('Tile Bal/Ie ojKulik{.1lJ(I
ill the l-lislOJ)' alld Cltllure nJollr Mothrr/aml'j, in Russian (Moscow 1983),
238-269
Gorelik, MV, 'Oruzhye Vorsklinskoy Bitvi' ('Weapons of the Banlc of
Vorskla') in Russian, Zeughaus III (1994),21-25
Gumilcv, L.N., 'Les Mongoles de XII Ie siecle eL la Slo\"o 0 polku Igoreve',
ulltiers (il, //lom/e n/Sse e/ smJihilJue, VIII I Oanllary-March 1966) 3i-57
Halpcrin, CJ., 'The Concept of the rushaia utl/Jia and Medieval National
Consciousness from the Temh 10 Lhe Fifteenth Centuries',
Na/iOlwlilie.s Papm, VIlli I (Spring 1980) 75-86
Halpcrin, Cj., 'Know Thy Encmy: Mcdicval Russian Familiarity witll thc
Mongols of tlle Golden Horde', JalWiicher Fir GescMchte OSlellropas,
XXX (1982) 161-173
Halperin, CJ., Rltssill antllltl' Gollkll I lOlrk (London 1985)
Halperin, CJ., 'Russia and the Mongol Empire in Comparati\'c
 Perspective', HU'1mrd
}mtrl/lll oj A~illli Sflldit!.~.
XLIII/I tiline 1983)
2~9-261
Halperin. CJ., 'The
RllSsian !..;lnd and the
Russia Tsar: The
Emergence of tool t1scovite
Ideology, 1380-1408',
Forsclllwgell zu" osfelj-
mpaisdum Cesrl!;rhfe.
XXIII (1976) 7-103
Halperin, Cj., 'Tsan:v tllus:
Russia in the Golden
Horde'. Cahins du mOl/cIi
rlLfJl' tf .~()Vjfliqlll'.

XXlII/2 (April-june
1982) 257-26~
Kal'galov, VV. SVf'/jellil' Motlb'Ow.Ta/{mkogo Iga (The Ovt!rtlmJ/lJ oj lhe The Water-Raising Tower at one
MOl/b'O/-'1ofar }ok,,!, in Russian (Moscow 1973) comer of the most tamOl.ls of ell
Russia" kremlin, or eltadel._
K.'lI'g"dlo\', V.V., & AN.SachaI'O\'. PolkmJot].fi Ommiy flusi ('Military Lt!(Ulers
that of Moscow. DesIgned by lin
of AI/cielll Rus'), in Russian (Mo~co\\' 1985) ltalllln arehlteet, Pietro AntonIo,
Kirpichniko\', AN., l)/"nJllm/Sskor Onall)'!' ('Anrim' Russia/! AmlS'), in It wa. buill around 1..90.
Russian (Leninf:,'l;ld 1971) ID.Hieolie photograph)
Kirpichnikov, A.N.. l'0I"'1II0)'t' &10 /Ill Rrl..~i v XI/-),,'V llli. ('Hussia/l Military
AfJairl ill Iht! Xll-Xl' Ct'ntur;es'), in Russian (Leningrad 1976)
Kirpichniko\', A.N., & A.F. l\lechcdev, l'oorllzJll'lIie. Dmmia)'(j HilS: Corod.
ltJlIl()k, Sl!/ ('Armamnlt. Alldnlt RIH: TOWII, ulstk, l'illllgp'), in Russian
(l\loscow 1985)
Kollmann, N.S., KillSlllJl ami Poli/in' nit Origm (/lui I:'wfu/toll oj the
MII.srov;le Boyar I~,[ill' ill Ihl' Fifll!l'llth Vl/tUl)', (Disscrtation, Ilarvard
Univcrsity 1980)
Krndin, N.P., RUSJkoe lJem;jauTlQ(' Znddll'J/T!o ('1l1lSSian H~/f'1J Dql''IIS;TII'
ArrlliterlUfl"), in Russian (Moscow 1988)
Lang:cr, L.N .. 'The Medicml Russian Towll·. in ~'1. Ilamm (cd.), The City
til Ilussilm /-listol)' (Lexington, KClllllcky 1976) 11-33
Makovsb\)'U, L.K.. UucJl1IO)'1' Ogllestl'"blQ(' Ol)'ul)'a Russkoy Anlll.l" KOlltsa
.'Ul'-).1TJlIvv. ('H(wdlifld Firrarll/S of 1111' U,Wj;,m A nil)' from lIll! end oj lilt
XIV 10 tI" X\llll emiuriPs') in Russian (Moscow 1992)
Mcd\"edev, A.F., K Islorie Pu/.Stil/dmtogo DosjJfcJw 1/(/ Rusi ('ne llislory oj
Platr Anllour ill Uussia ') in Rllssian, SOfli1'1 II rr/wl'Ology 2 (Moscow (959)
Miller, Y., (ed.), RI/Sjj{J1l Anlls al/ll Arl/lOllr (Lcninb'l'ld 1982)
Noonan, T.S., '~lcdie",11 Russia, the Mongols and the \Vcst: No\'gorocl's
Reialionswillllhc Bailie, 1100--1350', i\!1't!in}(l/Stlulies, XXXVII (1975)
311>-339
Pelenski,j .. RUSJill (//ul KflUUI. C.o/lf/llesl lI/lf1 ImlH'rialldPOlogJ 1438-1560
(The Haguc 1973)
Spiller, B.. Oil' CoIIIPlII' Hordl'. /)j!' MOllgotnJ ill Rruslrmd 1223-1502
(Wiesbaden 1965)
Toropl.Se\', A., OIUusi k Rossii: /\irodw)"ll Rllsi ('From HrlSi 10 R,/Ssia: Kinlll1/
RIIS'), in Russian (Moscow 2000)
Vernadsky, G.. ne 1\lollgol.s oj Russia (New llaven 1953)
THE PLATES
A: CAVALRY, 1250-1300
A 1: Western Russian cavalryman, fully armoured
This horseman's arms and armour illustrate the mixture of
military Influences seen In western Russia dunng this periOd.
The helmet is a type also seem as far away as the Byzantine
Empire and the Balkans, while his 'grooved' or 'keeled' shield
is of the so-called 'small Lithuanian pavise' type. He s armed
with a spear and javelins rather than spear and bow,
indicating that Lithuanian light cavalry innuence was stronger
than that of the otherwise dominant Mongol-Tatars. The
sword was probably imported from central Europe.
A2: Boyar nobleman from Pskov
The high-ranking soldier seen here In the process of putting
on his armour as yet wears only mail chausses, of basically
European form. While his massive and decorated sword is
again probably of German origin, his helmet - with a metallic
Icon on the front. and an eye-piece plus nasal somewhat
resembling a pair of spectacles, as well as a long face-
covenng mall aventail - Is clearly Within a long-established
RUSSian or even Near Asian tradition.
A3: South-Eastern Russian cavalryman
This fully armoured horse-archer, from that part of Russia
most exposed to Turco-Mongol military Influence from
the steppes, has the abundant military equipment long
associated with the military elites of these regions. He does
not, however. wear lamellar or any form of armour other than
a simple short-sleeved mail hauberk. His archery equipment
and curved sabre are similar to
those seen across south-eastern
Europe. much of the Middle East
and as far away as Central Asia
A small hardened leather wrist-
protecting bracer was often worn
on the lower left arm.
B: INFANTRY,
1250-1325
B 1: Russian crossbowman
During this period the arms and
armour of infantry. perhaps even
more than cavalry. renected the
variety of military-technological
influences seen in later 13th- and
14th-century Russia. His cross-
bow and associated equipment.
as well as his short but quite
broad sword, are typically Middle
European, though rather old-
fashioned. The same is true of his
mall hauberk and the quitted
garment beneath it. But his tall,
pointed. narrow-brimmed helmet
is distinctly Russian, as are the
boots which might indicate that
he would normally expect to be
riding a horse as a mounted
infantryman.
B2: Urban militiaman
Once again we see high boots of
soft, and in this case slightly
decorated leather. Such footwear was, of course, necessary
in the fierce Russian winters and in the typically muddy
seasons of early spring and late autumn. Whereas the
substantial sword, broad-bladed infantry spear and large
shield eamed by this militiaman - and indeed his full armour-
are comparable to those seen among the best-equipped
urban troops across Europe, the actual structure of the
armour Is distinctive. The helmet of directly riveted Iron
segments is within a long-established Russian tradition and
has been given a thickly quilted Mongol-style aventaillnstead
of the mail aventail normally seen elsewhere In Europe. His
massive, scale-lined, fabric-covered cuirass with its large
ann-flaps is also unlike anything normally seen In other parts
of Europe, and again probably reflects Mongol Influence.
B3: Light infantry archer
Unlike his companions, this foot soldier represents an
entirely Russian tradition which owed little to outside
Influences. His hat and footwear mark him out as an
ordinary man, if not necessarily a peasant. His thickly quilted
coat With its very tall collar protects him from the weather as
well as offering some protection against blows. His large
infantry bow of semi-composite construction was not. of
course, confined to Russia. being of a type seen across the
northernmost parts of Europe and Asia as well as in the
pre-Turkish Middle East. His axe may reflect a shared military
heritage with Scandinavia; and only the decorated quiver on
his right hip might betray some Turco-Mongol influence,
though even Ihis was probably within a tradition which
Russia shared with the rest of northern Asia.
C: CAVALRY. 1300-75
C1: Western Russian light
cavalryman, c.1350
During the 14th century the
difference in arms, armour and
overall military styles increased
between the western and eastern
regions of Russia. and several
western principalities began
to fall under Uthuanian. and
subsequently combined Polish-
Uthuanian control. Nevertheless
2
this cavalryman IS stili dlsllnguished by his use 01 a lamellar
cuirass in addition to ordinary central European mail armour,
His sword is a curved sabre, which was not used much further
west while his shield with its vertlcaJ 'keel' is a development
of the Lithuanian pavise.
C2: Western Russian heavy cavalryman, c,1375
This member of the western Russian military elite has adopted
the plated iron arm and leg protections which were charac-
teristic of the knightly cavalryman in the rest of Europe. Only
his helmet, which would have been considEll'ed oId-fashlonecl
in Gefmany or France, and his scale cuirass, whICh betrays
Mongol influence. set him apart from the heavily armoured
cavalrymen seen further west. His horse is, however,
protected by a plated chamfron and lameliar horse-armour
which came straight from the Turco-Mongol steppe tradition.
C3: Novgorod urban cavalryman, c.1350
Paradoxically this armoured horse-archer from the north-
western Russian state 01 Novgorod is equipped In a
r~ably Turco-Mongol or even Islamic style. Nothing
about his arms, armour and horse harness shows European
Influence: even the decoration of the flaps of lamellar armour
which protect his upper arms, and the scale-lined body
armour which he wears beneath a sleeveless tunic. are
virtually identical to the armour seen within the Mongol
Golden Horde and In Islamic Transoxania. Such styles
almost certainly stemmed from these eastern territories. The
fighting dog which tries to defend its endangered master
does, however. seem to have been a typically Russian or
Turco-Mongol phenomenon.
D: INFANTRY, 1325-1400
01: Dismounted nobleman, mid-14th century
During the 14th century a distinctively Russian style of arms
and armour re-emerged. It combined several traditions,
though of course Mongol influence remained strong, During
the 14th and 15th centuries Russian arms, armour, horse-
harness and general militS/)' costume diverged sharply from
that of the rest of Europe, remaining highly distinctive until the
reign of Peter the Great. Here, for example, a noble warrior
has both mail and lamellar armour. plus a helmet which would
not have been oot of place in the Middle East. But his swon:l
OPPOSITE Late medlev.I Russian
halmet••
(11 Fluted helmet of 14th-15th Cs
(Nallonal Historical MUf8um,
Moscow)
(2)1!lth-C northem Russian
helmet of a type which could be
f8en right acro" Russi. and
also In Iran. (Kremlin MUf8um,
Novgorod)
RIGHT Russian armour.
(1) A short·sleeved mall hauberk
found at the .ite of the battle of
KulikO'IO Field, 1380.
(2) A mall-and-plate beldllerets of
the lat. 15th or 16th C.
(D.......lngs by A.S. Shepsl
is 'Nest8l"n European. as Is his shield, though the lalter would
IlOW be considered old-fashioned further west.
02: Infantryman from Suzdal, mid-14th century
Separated from the western or European frontiers of Russia
by huge distances and several rival states, most of which
were under the same Mongol overJordship which had been
imposed on SuzdaJ, it is I10t surprising that this Infantryman's
eqUipment looks rather archaic. On the other hand it also
reflects virtually no Turco-Mor'lQol Influence. As such it is
probably a continuation of an old bUt now isolated military
tradition.
03: CrO!lsbowman, late 14th century
In contrast to the preceding figure, this crossbowman
combines distinctiVely Russian clothing and armour, ifICluding
a thickly quilted coat beneath a CUirass of embossed scales,
with a Weslern European SWOrd and typical European
crossbow equipment. Meanwhile his helmet seems to
represent a continuation of a specifically Russian military
tradition.
E: EASTERN RUSSIA, 1375-1425
E1: Cavalryman, late 14th century
During the later 14th and 15th centuries a new power arose
within the array of Russian principalities. This was Moscow. or
Musco'")'. and Its increasingly effective armies W8f'8 largely
based upon a Russian version of Mongol military traditions,
including arms and armour as well as organisation and
tactics. As in Mongol armies, there was a large and formidable
elite of heavily armoured cavalrymen. As illustrated here, they
largely relied upon Turco-Mongol forms of lamellar and
other annours, but also made use of varioos pieces of
Western European-type equipment such as this man's knee
protections: whether the lattEll' W8f'8 made locally or were
imported from elsewhere in Europe is, howevEll', unknown.
E2: Mounted drummer, early' 5th century
The Importance of drums. often carried on horseback, In the
control and motivation of Muscovite armies was another
obvious example of MongOl military Influence. In fact the role
of mounted drummers placed late medieval Musco'")' within a
military tradition that extended across a vast area from the
borders of China to the Islamic world ancl Granada in
 LEFT Late medieval
Ruaalan man hauberk
found al the alte of
the battle of Kullkovo
Field, t380.
IBattlefield Site
Museum, Kullkovo)

RIGHT Fragment of
searle armour from a
Runlan cui....,
perhaps fTom the
t4th C. (Kremlin
Museum, Novgorod)

soothern Spain. This man's armour is so typical of western

Asia that it coold well have been manufactured in Iran or the
Caucasus. His helmet. consisting of a mail hood reinforced
with iron plates, simllarty recalls the distinctive zirih-kulah
protections of the Caucasus.
E3: Prince In gilded armour, late 14th century
Ahhoogh this figure seems to combine the military traditions
of East and wesl, his armour is nevertheless very similar to
that seen across the Golden Horde and even Into
Transoxanla and Iran. This includes his plated arm defences,
scale-eovmeet gauntlets and metallic greaves. Meanwhile his
splendidly glided armour incorporates a simple helmet
with an anthropomorphic visor wtllch might hark back to
pre-Mongol Turkish peoples of the westSfn steppes.
Typically. pefhaps, the armour of his horse is entJrely within
the Turco-Mongol westSfn Asiatic tradition, since this was a
field In wI1lch Europe had little to offer.

F: WESTERN RUSSIA & 'GREAT LITHUANIA',
15TH CENTURY
F1: Heavy cavalryman, early 15th century
During the 15th century the western half or more of what had
been medieval Russia disappeared as a separate entJty, to be
incorporated Into what was for a short time the biggest
territorial state in Europe -the combined Kingdom and Grand
Duchy of Poland-Uthuania. The Russian-speaking territories
fell within the Lithuanian part of this remarkable state: and as
the Uthuanians W8I'9 themselves few In number, the state and
its armies became to a substantial extent Russian.
Nevertheless the arms and armour used by its heavily
armoured cavalry elite were clearly Within the Western
European military-technological tradition. Only the horse
harness and the man's shield - which was 01 a type also
seen across the Balkans, in Hungary and Poland -
distinguishes him from an early 15th-century Italian
professional cavalryman.
F2: Novgorod noble cavalryman, mid-15th
century
Few of the figures reconstructed in this book combine the
traditions of East and west to the same degree as this
nobleman. His helmet, mall aV8fltail, and the light but
effaetlve mail-and-plafe cuirass which he wears over his mall
haUberk are very Russian. The same could be said of his
heavy fur-lined cloak; but the full plate armour defences for
his arms and legs must surely have been imported from
Germany or even Italy. Unlike thaI of most Russian cavalry,
his horse harness is more European than Turco-Mongol.
F3: Infantryman, late 15th century
The main feature to note about this fully armoured
infantryman is that, outside Russia, his mail and quilted
body armour would have seemed more typical of the 14th or
even 13th centuries than of the 15th. The most modElfn item
Is his helmet. of Italian origin and perhaps imported via the
Italian trading outposts on the Black sea coast. On fhe
other hand his mace, axe, and substantial pavise shield are
very up-to-<late.
Q: MUSCOVITE FIELD ARMIES, 1425-1500
G1: Cavalryman, early 15th century
One feature Which would remain characteristic of Muscovite
armoured cavalry for several cenfuries was their preference
for helmets with remarkably fall points. This style may have
originated further east, but it became the hallmark of
Muscovite troops not only in their own art but in European
representations of Russian horsemen. The rest of this
armoured horse-archer's equipment is similar to that of his
late Golden Horde Turco-Mongol overlords and foes.
G2: Heavy cavalryman I late 15th century
By the late 15th century Muscovy had become the dominant
partner in relation to the fragmenting khanates of what had
been the vast Mongol Golden Horde. Muscovite armies were
also posing a problem for Poland-Lithuania to the west; 1n
fact, Muscovy had become the powerhouse from which a
new and revived Russia soon emerged. This man's helmet,
though of an angular form with an interesting multiple mail
aventail, still has the preferred high-pointed summit. His
armour 1s of mail and mail-and-plate construction, while hiS
shield Is entirely plated with iron segments.
G3: Infantryman, early 15th century
Like the Mongol armies which it gradually replaced, the most
Important part of the Muscovite army was cavalry: but
infantry did playa significant role. even in open field battles.
They seem to have included quite heavily armoured
spearmen and axemen such as the man shown here. Once
again, his equipment mixes the traditions of East and West,
Russia, Europe and the Mongol world. His axe and shield
would, however. not normally have been seen In the armies
of the remaining Mongol khanates.
H: MUSCOVITE GARRISONS, c.1450-1500
H 1: Dismounted horse-archer, end of the 15th
century
Fast-expanding Muscovy never inclUded as many castles and
fortresses as neighbouring European states to the west.
Nevertheless. many kremJlns or urban citadels were gradually
provided with stone defences to replace their old wooden
ones, and several stone or brick fortresses were constructed
in the north-west, west and south-west of the country. These
needed to be garrisoned, and so the Importance of infantry
gradually Increased. Although the man shown here IS a
dismounted cavalryman. the size of his bow suggests that it
was designed for use on foot. His 'helmet' is again of a
distinctivemail-and-plateconstruction, as Is the upper part of
his body armour. The decoratively engraved vambraces on his
lower arms are, however, of a type Characteristic of the Islamic
worid and Russia rather than of Western Europe.
H2: MUSketeer, mid·15th century
The Russians adopted firearms enthus1astically and there Is
plenty of evidence to show that guns were soon being
manufactured In Muscovy. This man has a heavy hand-held
gun of a type which could by now be seen throughout Europe.
His costume, including a thickly quilted coat and heavy boots,
plus his tall pointed helmet with its ear-flaps and mail aventail,
are distinctively Russian.
H3: Dismounted officer, end of the 15th century
It is interesting 10 note that a type of helmet normally
associated with the Ottoman Turks in the Balkans and the
Middle East was also seen in Russia, despite the fact that
many years would pass before Muscovy and the Ottomans
actually clashed on the bat1lefield. This was the shishak with
its sliding nasal, substantial ear-pieces and, at a slightly later
date, an extended neck protection. The rest of this officer's
armour, as well as his weaponry and his metallic shield, also
find close parallels amongst the Ottoman Turks. Perhaps this
indicates that the best equipped Muscovite military elite
shared some military traditions with those Muslim Turks who
had succeeded the Greek Orthodox ChristIan Byzantines on
the Bosphorus.

Russian rowel spurs.

(1) From Priozersk. 11rst halt
of 14th C.
(2) From Staraya Ladoga,
14th C.
(3) From Prloz.ersk, first half
of 14th C.
(4) From Novgorod, 14th C.
(5) From Vladimir regIon,
14th-15th C.
(6) From Priozersk. first half
ot 14th C.
(7) From 5t Petersburg
region, 14th-15th C.
(8) From Serensk, second
halt ot 14thl first halt of
15th C.
(g) From King seppi, second
halt of 14th/first half ot
15th C.
(10) From Novgorod, 14205.
(11) From Novgorod, second
halt of 15th C.
(12) From Novgorod, 15th C.
(13) From V1shgorod, 15th C.