By Eric J. Johansson

Undoubtedly, the knights of the Order of St. John, founded in the 10th century in the Holy Lands, who faced the Turks at the famous Siege of Malta in 1565 wore special armor; however, this armor had both evolved and ‘devolved’ over the ages to accommodate itself to the current needs of battle conditions.

It is interesting to see how the earliest armor that would have been worn by the knights in the 10th century both differed and in very many ways, and matched what they would have worn in the mid-16th century.

For Europeans, the earliest form of armor was merely a padded coat, stuffed with horse hair. This coat, later called a ‘Gambeson,’ was simple, being made of coarse white or gray cloth with a series of heavily cross hatched patterns of sewing. Internally, the pockets formed by this stitching would be filled by horse, goat, pony or cow fur. The only function of the Gambeson was to lessen the severity of a blow to the wearer. There would be no substantial protection against a thrust, but a side stroke with a sword would tend to result in a bad bruising as opposed to slicing.

The Romans introduced both a form of chain mail and plate armor in the equipment worn by the Legionnaires between 100 BC to 400 AD. This segmented armor that now covered the shoulders, chest and lower hips was called the ‘lorica segmenta’ and though it was beyond the ability of the foes of the Empire to create, it did influence later armor in the following centuries.
Chain mail, often called ‘butted mail’ was the natural successor to the Gambeson: it was made of thousands of inter-linked ‘chains’ of thin iron which were butted or riveted together. It was both flexible and adjustable in that either sections could be added to it, or straps would allow the wearer to adjust it over a wool under-padding.

Chain mail shirts and even a form of rudimentary trousers were soon being produced. Most often, the ‘shirts’ were long sleeved with a closed neck which unlaced to allow the wearer to first slip the shirt over his head and then lace up the upper chest to protect it.

The earliest armor of the western knights, as at the battle of Hastings, 1066 AD, shows that the Normans and the English both favored the chain mail. The Bayeaux Tapestry, produced under the request of Duke William’s brother, Bishop Odo, around 1080 AD, shows the wide acceptance of chain mail by knights. There are even illustrations of the dead being stripped of their mail: iron was a precious commodity in the so-called Dark Ages, and removal of armor from the dead was considered merely the spoils of war.

By the time of the founding of the Order of the Hospitallers, circa 937-1000 AD, most knights from Europe would have been equipped with chain mail. Small additions were added to the mail—knee protectors, called "poleyns," were readily molded to fit the knee and then directly affixed to the chain mail by an ingenious system of tie cords that protruded from the Gambeson. Additional protection would be offered by elbow guards, known as "copts", which also were similarly attached.

A conical closed helmet, known as a “Great Heume” would protect the head. Chain mail gloves were worn and a simple leather boot was were worn over the foot where the chain mail ended at the ankles and wrists of the wearer.

For almost two hundred years, well into the 12th century, the armor described above would have been worn by crusader knights in the Holy Lands. It was efficient, relatively light and, when covered with a burmouse or Arabic robe, was protected from direct sunlight.

By the beginning of the 13th century, the necessity to reinforcing armor was clearly apparent. Swords, axes, maces and even projectile weapons were proving that the old combination of mail, Gambeson and small armor sections could not be counted on to protect the wearer. Indeed, by the beginning of the 13th century, almost all holdings of the crusaders in the Outremer were being extinguished by resurgent Arabic nationalism under charismatic leaders, who had these offensive weapons at their disposal.

For the Knights of Malta, heavier armor also came into vogue with the appearance of full protection to the chest as offered by the cuirass, a double front and back plate designed to enclose the chest cavity. Shoulders and upper arms were now protected by flexible armor plates known as a "Pauldron" which covered the upper shoulders and the “Upper Vambrace” which protected, in turn, the upper arm. It was naturally connected to the elbow guard and then, as advances continued, a lower arm guard that extended from elbow to wrist was introduced—the ”Lower Vambrace.” In contemporary literature they are often called ‘"cannons,’ " thus the full name of an element would be the “Lower cannon of the Vambrace.”

"Greaves," or armor for the upper and lower leg, were methodically added to the knee cover and before long the exposed foot was covered in a “Sabaton,” a shoeless foot cover that extended iron protection over the foot. These Sabatons in France and , England (and also in Germany, and Italy) were often decorated with the wildest designs. In the 14th century, turned, up toe shoes became popular in at court. Soon they were replicated in armor. They were totally useless as foot knights were easily tripped by vines and vegetation that caught in the turned up toes of their boots. Horse cavalry soon adopted a heavy sabaton with iron spikes that could be used to kick a foot soldier in the face if he came too close to a mounted man.

Gauntlets went from simple chainmail to ornate iron articulated gloves, distinguished between "mitten" and "finger" types, depending on the whim of the owner.

By the beginning of the 16th century, armor was uniformly found to be too confining. It had grown in weight to the extent that a full suit of armor with helmet and all fittings to include sword, dagger, mace, etc. might weigh well over 120 lbs., a heavy load for the average European male who himself stood around 5’5” and weighed in at 200 lbs.

The advent of firearms and the natural tendency of armor to slow a man, making him only a standing fortress, worked against the very principles that brought armor about. The English, by 1590, had already begun divesting themselves of what they considered to be ‘useless’ armor. It is not uncommon to find in the official dispatches of the Tower, which was charged with providing armor to English forces in the field, that many troopers soon “lost” armor they thought to be burdensome. Many nobles of all countries, by 1600, openly advocated what was then known as “naked infantry,” men without armor.

For the Knights of Malta, though they were somewhat distant from European courts, armor, too, began a devolution: that which was necessary, chest, shoulder and head armor, was kept. Other elements were dropped. Against an agile opponent, a heavily armored man found himself at a fatal disadvantage.

By the time of the Great Siege, armor was up to individual taste: Spaniards and French tended to favor thigh armor: English knights found it better to do without such protection. Indeed, on the continent, one of the most able of Queen Elizabeth I’s knights, Sir Philip Sydney, was killed in 1590 shortly after he removed his thigh armor. A musket ball struck his leg, mortally wounding him. No one faulted his decision to remove the armor; they only mourned the loss of a great man!

For the knights, fighting against Turkish forces who wore traditional Ottoman armor (which was almost solely confined to needed elbow, and chest protection), heavy armor would have been a distinct liability. Both sides utilized extensive small arms formations in addition to heavier cannon and it had been proved, time over time, that even the strongest armor could not withstand a musket ball at close range.

The Knights at Malta were a very pragmatic band of warriors: they had been fighting the Moslems for more than five centuries and they had adapted a nice union of light and heavy armor, incorporating the best elements of both nationalities.

The slow loading firearms of the 16th century necessitated the use of swords and other weapons for close combat but the armor that greeted the blows of these weapons was far different from what had been there only a century earlier. It is ironic that by the 16th century, many of the knights and their men-at-arms were fighting for their Cause in armor that would have easily been recognized by their ancestors five centuries before!Oddly enough, the last organized use of armor would disappear in the 17th century. The great battles of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) that destroyed Germany, the English Civil War of 1642-49 and skirmishes in northern Italy under the influence of the French king, Francis I, were the last major manifestations of armor in Europe. In the New World, the last armor came in the form of the cuirasses and morion helmets worn by the armed soldiers of the American colonies: but they too died out by the time of King Phillips’s War in the latter part of the 17th century. Armor would remain disdained, ignored and forgotten until the brutal battles of the First World War brought back the familiar silhouettes of the salades or flared helmets of the 15th century.