23

Googling this has been less than helpful on the history factor, and a quick look at HEMA rules and regulations says it's easier to use fencing masks instead, which isn't what I'm asking. (This was mildly helpful however, considering that from what I'd found, fencers tend to get prescription sport goggles or differently shaped glasses to better fit within the confines of their mask. But it doesn't answer my particular question.)

Did they have their helmets built with the lenses in mind? (Sounds impractical to me considering that if the glass shatters, it's going directly into their eyeballs.) Did they wear their glasses under the helmets? Did they go into battle without their glasses entirely?

bittersweetVICTORY
  • 357
  • 1
  • 2
  • 6
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – MCW Nov 16 '22 at 00:24
  • 14
    It's also entirely possible that myopia wasn't even a widespread problem. It's entirely possible that our indoor lives are causing myopia. – Nelson Nov 16 '22 at 01:49
  • 13
    @Nelson This is probably true, though Aristotle seems to have noted it and also Galen. It has been hypothesized that myopic people, in ancient Greece at least, specialised in making things like fine jewellery. – Lars Bosteen Nov 16 '22 at 02:57
  • 6
    You just point your lance at the angry blob and aim for the center! – Mark Rogers Nov 16 '22 at 03:24
  • 36
    More importantly, how did the knights update their Instagram during the battle? Surely their metal gauntlets would not work with the touchscreen. – Daron Nov 16 '22 at 11:19
  • 1
    @Nelson - if not our indoor lives - its probably caused by staring at screens less than a meter away - which also weren't invented yet. – eagle275 Nov 16 '22 at 13:44
  • 8
    Try blaming reading instead of screens or indoors. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28904-x – Jason Harrison Nov 16 '22 at 22:12
  • @Nelson absolutely - when I started commuting by bike an hour each way, my eyesight improved because of the exercise of looking further. – Criggie Nov 16 '22 at 23:20
  • 1
    @Nelson: And even for the myopic folks, you'd expect them to be less myopic. My vision is around 20/500, and I can still punch a slightly fuzzy person at arm's reach; at sword's reach they'd be blurrier, and pinpoint accuracy would suffer, but it wouldn't be crippling. Myopia is strong in my family (my mother is worse than 20/1000), but we're all bookworms and nerds. If I'd grown up spending my time in outdoor combat practice, I'd probably still be myopic (damn bad eye genes), but more like 20/100 or better, perfectly fine for battlefield awareness and close combat. – ShadowRanger Nov 17 '22 at 18:22
  • What difference do you think clear sight might make against an armoured knight?

    What difference might clear sight might make against the fanciest fencer?

     – Robbie Goodwin Nov 17 '22 at 18:39
  • 1
    Recent studies show that most eye problems are from insufficient light intake and little time spent watching the horizon, as the lenses in your eye cannot calibrate properly. I would hypothesize most knights would have good eyesight until older age. – MrVocabulary Nov 18 '22 at 06:31
  • I've noticed a few comments mentioning lines of work, and that if you were nearsighted you wouldn't have fought. Keep in mind that in the middle ages (not the early-modern period), there weren't really any professional soldiers in Europe outside of Italy. Most people fought because of their family's obligation, either as aristocrats (knights) or as levied commoners. – hegel5000 Nov 21 '22 at 14:37

5 Answers5

66

According to Wikipedia glasses were invented in 1268 by Roger Bacon. About a century later, the first wearable glasses appear on a painting by Thomasso da Modena in 1352.

Glasses were rudimentary at best, and very expensive to make. The only people who wore glasses were wealthy scholars, because of technical limitations: those glasses were only good enough (barely) for reading. Glasses of this period were only capable of correcting presbyopia (not being able read, common for elderly people). If you accept the distortions, and didn't mind wearing or holding something very uncomfortable for extended periods. A scholar or merchant used glasses in a sedentary environment. Wearing those kind of glasses in any other environment was not practical. Least of all on a battlefield.

That's where your problem lies: a knight didn't need reading glasses, supposing they could read. Many of them couldn't. They needed to cope with myopia, or short-sightedness. That's the opposite of what glasses at the time could assist with.

The technology to create wearable glasses in a helmet or on the battlefield simply didn't exist. Glasses that help with short-sightedness weren't invented during medieval times, but long afterwards. Wearable glasses as we use to day appeared around 1727.

Community
  • 1
Jos
  • 21,973
  • 2
  • 63
  • 99
  • When were the first lenses to correct astigmatism? – MCW Nov 15 '22 at 10:43
  • 6
    @MCW "The first lenses for correcting astigmatism were designed by the British astronomer George Airy in 1825." (from wiki) – QCD_IS_GOOD Nov 15 '22 at 15:28
  • 3
    @MCW as usual in 19th centuriy, you get different answers in different countries. Germans would point to Joseph von Fraunhofer (production and grating technology) and Ernst Abbe (theory of optical aberations, glas technology and its commercialisation) as the most important contributors. – ccprog Nov 15 '22 at 15:47
  • It is interesting to think that a lot of early archers or musket users washed out simply because they couldn't see the targets. Wonder if there's any historical documents that mention this at all. "Selected 200 men for crossbow training. 8 out due to illness or injury. 14 out because they're blind as a bat." – JamieB Nov 15 '22 at 17:08
  • 41
    @JamieB you're thinking of musketeers as snipers, shooting at individual enemies. That's a mistake: musket formations shot primarily at other formations. Even quite-bad eyesight can still be plenty good enough to see a formation at musket ranges. My eyesight is not great (something like 20/100), but I can still see where a person is at 100 yards, at least against a contrasting background. That's good enough to shoot in the right direction with more accuracy than the average musket provides. – fectin Nov 15 '22 at 17:28
  • 2
    @JamieB Most formations of archers shot in volleys (which musketeers also did once they were available). Arrows were generally aimed upwards at a significant angle to gain distance. – Michael Richardson Nov 15 '22 at 18:42
  • 3
    This answer focuses a bit too much on how expensive glasses were... but knights were rich landowners, their equipment cost a fortune, so money wouldn't be an issue. However, you don't need perfect vision in order to gallop at an enemy formation to impale them on your lance, or to cut them down with your sword when you're fighting them in a melee. – vsz Nov 15 '22 at 19:18
  • 6
    Hmm, I have a hard time reconciling the two statements "...myopia, the opposite of what glasses at the time could assist with" and "Glasses that help for hyperopia or far-sightedness weren't invented during medieval times". Which one were the glasses invented for back then? – ilkkachu Nov 15 '22 at 20:07
  • 5
    @ilkkachu: medieval glasses were for presbyopia, which is not quite the same thing as hyperopia. In particular, the glasses for presbyopia are pretty simple magnifying lenses, while for hyperopia, you need to find a balance between helping the eyes focus up-close while not making distance vision noticeably worse. – Martha Nov 15 '22 at 20:38
  • 7
    @JamieB Even ignoring the fact that most archery was volley fire and not one person shooting at a single target, archery is arguably more about math or muscle memory than sight. I’m legally blind and I do just fine with archery provided I have accurate information about the shape of the target and the range, and I know a number of people who have even worse vision than me who are not only decent archers, but actually place well in archery competitions. It’s no different than modern artillery computing firing solutions ahead of time. – Austin Hemmelgarn Nov 16 '22 at 01:48
  • @ilkkachu, you're right. I've correct that. – Jos Nov 16 '22 at 02:14
  • @Martha I've correct that. – Jos Nov 16 '22 at 02:26
  • 8
    I think you’ve confused near-sightedness and far-sightedness in your answer. A knight doesn’t have to see things closer than a meter or so clearly. Therefore for a knight being far-sighted is no problem, but being near-sighted would be. – Michael Nov 16 '22 at 11:29
  • "a knight didn't need reading glasses, supposing they could read. Many of them couldn't" was illiteracy really commonplace in the knightly class? I wouldn't be at all surprised if many commoner men-at-arms couldn't read (at least not well), but I'd have thought genuine knights would likely have had reasonable literacy – Tristan Nov 17 '22 at 13:55
  • 1
    @Tristan: Yeah, aside from the (relatively small) number of knights elevated from the commoner classes, knights were nobles and typically expected to be literate (fighting is all well and good, but you need to be ready to do lordship duties should age or injury end your fighting days). They didn't actually write much (writing was hard/sloppy, scribes handled that for them), but most of them could read (not necessarily as fast as modern people, who practice reading on novels a hundred times longer than the practical reading needs of the time, but well enough) and write at least a little. – ShadowRanger Nov 17 '22 at 20:51
  • 1
    @ShadowRanger and ofc reading was almost universally done aloud (or at least with moving lips), rather than silently (as it is today). It's earlier than this era, but Saint Ambrose (in the 4th century)'s ability to read without moving his lips was reported as near-miraculous – Tristan Nov 18 '22 at 09:37
45

They Didn't Wear Glasses and They were Probably Fine

TL/DR: They didn't wear glasses and all but the blindest of knights were at no more a disadvantage than a guy who was slightly shorter or weaker or slower than average.

As mentioned previously the kinds of glasses available to a medieval aristocrat were essentially impossible to use on a battlefield. But that's not a huge hindrance. A knight's ability too see clearly would not have a tremendously bad effect on his combat capability until you get in the range of near-blindness. You must consider the ranges at which the average knight was fighting. My own vision is atrocious, in the 20/400 range. Anything outside of about 20cm gets fuzzy, and I have difficulty identifying individuals at distances greater than 3 meters unless they're especially tall/short/weird hair color or the only person of a specific race in the room. 20/400 is "legally blind" without corrective lenses. But I can (and have) done ARMA-style fights without corrective lenses. I can still see motion at 3 meters, even slight movements. and I can also perceive objects like, say, a spear or a sword moving at that range. Even from 20ish meters away I can still identify things like "that's a person" and "that person is moving towards/away/sideways as about X speed" and can roughly distinguish the size of a weapon they're carrying. (I can tell if something a spear or a sword, but not really a spear or a halberd for instance) What does that mean for a knight with a similar impairment?

Honestly not a whole lot. Certainly a GENERAL might have problems, as he would not be able to easily identify troop formations or banners at a distance. But your average knight was a close-combat specialist fighting either on foot or mounted. On foot he's coming within a few feet of his opponent, where his vision is "good enough" to allow him to fight with confidence, especially against an armored opponent where subtleties like facial cues don't matter and fights often ended in grappling. Against mounted opponents he'd be at a slight disadvantage, but if his reflexes were good enough he could still get his lance's final aimpoint on target. As he's part of a larger formation somebody else will be able to point him at the enemy. Unlike the movies battles didn't devolve in wild mixed-in melees so as long as he stayed "pointed" the right direction so he didn't go running up to foes he thought were friends until he was 3 meters away he'd be ok!

At the end of the day it certainly is a bit more challenging to fight without good vision than with my contacts in. But I wouldn't rate it much more difficult than fighting a guy who has slightly longer reach or is slightly stronger or any of the other minor advantages that nature bestows on people. A knight isn't trying to see a thin flitting rapier, and catching arrows on your shield is a matter of luck and good positioning rather than seeing the arrow coming. A knight is trying to see fairly large objects at fairly close range, and at that point even the just-barely-legally-blind can do ok!

Martin
  • 866
  • 3
  • 3
  • My better is better than yours, and I agree seeing the enemy is not an issue. However not being able to see the ground is a problem for me, especially if it's not perfectly even - which I assume is very true for medival battleground. – Christian Nov 16 '22 at 09:24
  • How about stuff like deflecting a sword? I'd expect that being able to see precisely where it is would be essential. – Arno Nov 16 '22 at 10:52
  • @Arno: A sword is big and at an optimum range for most vision impairments. Too far away for far-sightedness to be much of an issue, close enough to be very easy to see even with bad near-sightedness. – Michael Nov 16 '22 at 11:32
  • 2
    @Martin: I agree, I “only” have -1dpt near-sightedness but even in bad light I’d have absolutely no problem seeing a spear several meters away. Even archery could work, I have no problem distinguishing a human shape 100m away. – Michael Nov 16 '22 at 11:40
  • 2
    Not to mention that while full-fledged glasses are rather advanced (and expensive) technology, there's another rather simple treatment for the inability to focus light properly - holes. The kind of vision holes found in a bascinet are enough to very effectively improve vision. Not a massive disadvantage when you already need full-helmet protection. – Luaan Nov 16 '22 at 12:09
  • 3
    @Luaan there is an even better low tech solution: squinting – Christian Nov 16 '22 at 13:28
  • 1
    @Luaan: It's called "pin-hole camera" effect - and simply squinting makes a difference. This seems like the best answer to address some misconceptions by OP re "myopia. My vision is somewhat better than Martin's, but not a whole lot. However not being able to distinguish the mortar lines in a brick wall beyond 20 feet doesn't mean I can't identify it as a brick wall. I might have difficulty distinguishing Ron Weasley from Fred/George at 10 feet - but I'll still know he's a tall red-haired male even from 80 or more feet. – Pieter Geerkens Nov 16 '22 at 14:38
  • 2
    I wonder how eyesight would impact your ability to identify friend from foe. Not so sure how easy it was on medieval battlegrounds to identify which side a knight is fighting for – Carsten Nov 17 '22 at 10:50
  • 1
    @Carsten It was absolutely impossible regardless of your vision. The best people had were colours and flags, but even with those when armies closed up, all you had were the formations, really - if someone got out of position, their only real option was to flee outright :D This was even more of a problem when you consider the vast majority of combatants were not professionals with proper equipment, but rather common levies with whatever they could get. – Luaan Nov 17 '22 at 10:56
  • I practice HEMA outside during evenings, and wear glasses (low strength). During fall, when it's getting dark near the end of our practice sessions, I lose track of the swords a few minutes before the others do, but otherwise have zero issues. And when I say "lose track of the swords", I mean that I rely on the other person telling me I've hit them, as I can't see that anymore, but I can still defend myself for a good while by paying attention to my opponent's hands/arms. Basically, poor eyesight is a problem in the dark, not so much in daylight. – xanderh Nov 24 '22 at 09:22
7

I haven't studied this at all. But common sense would lead someone to one of two conclusions. If your vision was enough of a problem that you had difficulty carrying out your knightly duties, either: a. You didn't become a knight in the first place b. You died quickly in battle

I suppose you might get lucky, become a knight, and never get called to battle. But that strikes me as extraordinary luck...

silverfox1948
  • 71
  • 2
  • 4
    Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. – Community Nov 15 '22 at 23:06
  • What about nobility by blood? Knights were not all commoners who became knights by good deed, many were born that way – Pierre Arlaud Nov 18 '22 at 09:42
  • 2
    @PierreArlaud not every noble born man became a knight. One who lacked the physical requirements could for example go into the clergy instead. – jwenting Nov 21 '22 at 13:36
4

In addition to the other posts, I would just like to add that helmets would probably produce a minor pinhole effect which would slightly reduce some optical abnormalties.

Aequitas
  • 209
  • 1
  • 2
  • 5
  • And conversely, it's not like knights with good eyesight could see very much of the outside world with the visor down, either (if they had that kind of luxury; the helmet types which merely had fixed slits for the eyes would have been even worse). – tripleee Feb 26 '24 at 06:09
-1

Well, one helmet belonging to King Henry the 8th appears to have a pair of glasses mounted on it. Though this helmet was a jousting helmet rather than one that was ever worn in battle.

Aristocratic Jack
  • 1