Produced by deaurider, Charlie Howard, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
book was produced from images made available by the
HathiTrust Digital Library.)
THE DEFENSIVE ARMOUR AND THE WEAPONS AND ENGINES OF WAR OF MEDIÆVAL
TIMES, AND OF THE “RENAISSANCE.”
[Illustration: Fig. 1.--Transitional Gothic Suit at Munich.]
THE DEFENSIVE ARMOUR
AND THE WEAPONS AND
ENGINES OF WAR OF
MEDIÆVAL TIMES, AND
OF THE “RENAISSANCE.”
BY
ROBERT COLTMAN CLEPHAN,
OF SOUTHDENE TOWER, GATESHEAD.
With 51 Illustrations from Specimens in his own and in other
English Collections, and also from others in some of
the Great Collections of Europe.
LONDON: WALTER SCOTT, LIMITED,
PATERNOSTER SQUARE.
1900.
PREFACE.
This volume has grown out of some “notes” printed in the _Archæologia
Æliana_ in 1898, and added to as any new facts and lights presented
themselves to me. The text is compressed as much as possible, with a
view to publishing at a moderate cost; and as a more general interest
in arms and armour is decidedly growing, I venture to hope that this
volume, however imperfect, may supply a want, and that it does not
contain too many manifest errors and inaccuracies. The subject is
treated chronologically, and no further detail entered into than seemed
necessary for presenting it in a consecutive and concrete form.
All students, myself among the number, owe much to those experts whose
original research and delineation of nice points of detail go to
make history in the several branches of my subject, and it is to be
regretted that more of them do not undertake further comprehensive work.
Defensive armour is the section I am most conversant with, and it is
perhaps the one affording the most concrete materials for chronological
classification and analysis.
The question of the weapons of the “middle ages” and of the
“renaissance,” their chronology, description and classification, is
far from being in a satisfactory state. There are no books dealing
with the subject as a whole, and many of the “notes” and “papers” I
have seen spread over many years are, most of them, very sectional
and fragmentary in their scope and character. Technical terms vary
exceedingly among the different writers, and some more generally
intelligible codification is very desirable. International it cannot
be, as Germany naturally has her own terms, while those of England are
perhaps as necessarily mixed up with Norman-French.
There are often great difficulties in the way of reasonably
approximating the date and nationality of both weapons and armour,
owing to causes which will be touched upon later in these pages; but
these apparent inconsistencies must needs be grappled with as far as
possible, and herein lies the work of the archæologist. In the case of
sword specimens, it very often happens that blades and hilts belong to
widely different periods, and even nationalities, and cases of this
kind often give rise to much doubt and perplexity; indeed, unless there
is evidence that a blade and hilt are contemporaneous, it is always
well to consider that they may not be so; for blades were passed down
from father to son, and often re-hilted more than once. Hilts also were
often re-bladed.
The great question of smiths’ marks could only be adequately dealt with
in a volume devoted entirely to that subject. This will be seen from
the complexity arising from the piracy of marks--such, for instance,
as that of the running wolf of Passau, or Scottish blades with the
many variations of “Ferrara” impressed upon them. These marks came to
be regarded merely as “standards,” and were often used without any
intention to defraud--in the sense, in fact, of the name “Wallsend”
being applied to express a certain quality in coals. A book dealing
comprehensively with this branch of the subject has yet to be written.
While gratefully acknowledging much information and infinite assistance
from other writers, I have found many manifest errors, which have been
both inherited and perpetuated, handed down, so to speak, through long
generations of book-making. I have taken as little as possible from
books, especially over the period where actual specimens are available,
but have endeavoured, by carefully studying many important collections,
both at home and abroad, to compare, as far as possible, the types
and fashions prevailing at the different periods dealt with, which,
however, greatly interweave, especially among European nations, where
easy facilities for interchange existed.
It takes many years and opportunities of study to achieve much in the
direction of judging armour, and it is only by a close comparison,
not merely of individual pieces, with a careful examination of every
detail, but also a knowledge of the makes of steel of the various
ages covered, their composition, manipulation, and relative degrees
of hardness, that a reasonable amount of certainty can be arrived at.
Much ingenuity has been applied in faking up and partially restoring
many suits, still, it is obvious to an expert, in most instances,
which pieces are of comparatively modern construction, especially in
the cases where ornamentation has been applied, for here the best work
of the “renaissance” cannot be adequately reproduced. Many suits,
even in national collections, are not only doubtful, but now known to
be spurious, while in others the restoration process has left much
to be desired. The uninitiated would be surprised if they knew how
comparatively few suits are absolutely homogeneous, so many having been
set up by dealers, often more or less of pieces of various types and
dates.
It is most interesting to trace what may be termed the evolution
of arms and armour, and to follow the craft and ingenuity of the
armour-smith as pitted against that of the makers of weapons;
indeed, all through the history of the armour period this contest
has proceeded with varying fortune. Fashion also has always been a
potent and arbitrary factor in the direction of change, and hence so
many preposterous departures, such as both the extravagantly long and
ridiculously wide sollerets of the “Gothic” and “Maximilian” periods
respectively. Expansive skirts of steel, which must have been very
crippling to the wearers, were used at one time by all cavaliers who
had the least pretensions to be considered _à la mode_.
At the risk of the general subject occasionally overlapping, and
of some repetition in matters of historical retrospection, I have
concluded to divide these pages into two main sections, viz.,
“Defensive Armour” and “Weapons of War” over the period set forth in
the title-page. This has been done in the interests of conciseness and
perspicuity, and more especially with a view to an easy reference to
any branch of the subject under discussion.
ROBERT COLTMAN CLEPHAN.
SOUTHDENE TOWER, GATESHEAD,
_March, 1900_.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
PREFACE v
SECTION I.--DEFENSIVE ARMOUR.
PART
I. INTRODUCTORY AND GENERAL 15
II. CHAIN-MAIL AND MIXED ARMOUR 20
III. THE TRANSITION PERIOD 37
IV. HELMS UP TO THE END OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD 44
V. PLATE ARMOUR 48
VI. A SLIGHT SKETCH OF SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT COLLECTIONS
ABROAD 71
VII. THE TOURNAMENT 76
VIII. DETAILS OF DEFENSIVE PLATE ARMOUR 96
IX. “GOTHIC” ARMOUR, 1440–1500; AND SOME ARMOUR-SMITHS OF THE
PERIOD 114
X. “MAXIMILIAN” ARMOUR, 1500–1540 125
XI. ARMOUR WITH LAMBOYS OR BASES 130
XII. SOME ARMOUR-SMITHS OF THE FIRST HALF OF THE SIXTEENTH
CENTURY 132
XIII. DEFENSIVE ARMOUR, 1540–1620, AND TO THE END 134
XIV. ENRICHED ARMOUR 139
SECTION II.--THE WEAPONS AND ENGINES OF WAR.
XV. INTRODUCTORY AND GENERAL 151
XVI. THE SWORD 158
XVII. THE DAGGER 175
XVIII. THE LONGBOW 178
XIX. THE CROSSBOW 183
XX. MACHINES FOR HURLING OR SHOOTING MISSILES, AND THE
WARWOLF 187
XXI. MACHINES FOR ATTACKING BELEAGUERED PLACES 190
XXII. THE SLING AND FUSTIBAL 192
XXIII. STAFF AND CLUB WEAPONS 193
XXIV. EARLY ARTILLERY 204
XXV. EARLY HAND-GUNS 216
INDEX 229
ILLUSTRATIONS.
FIG. PAGE
1. TRANSITIONAL GOTHIC SUIT AT MUNICH _Frontispiece_
_Face_
2. GREAT HELMS AT BERLIN 48
3. MOUNTED SUIT WITH BARDS, IN THE KUNGL. LIFRUSTKAMMAR
COLLECTION, STOCKHOLM 67
4. SHARFRENNEN AT MINDEN IN 1545 88
5. SUIT AT DRESDEN FOR SHARFRENNEN, DATE 1554 88
6. TILTING SUIT AT NUREMBERG, FOR THE GERMAN GESTECH 90
7. TILTING SUIT FOR THE ITALIAN COURSE (WELSCHES GESTECH) 91
8. AN ITALIAN COURSE AT AUGSBURG IN 1510 (WELSCHES GESTECH) 91
9. ARMOUR FOR THE FREITURNIER AT DRESDEN 92
10. REINFORCING PIECES FOR THE TOURNAMENT 95
11. DO. DO. DO. 95
12. TILTING HELM AT HAUGHTON CASTLE, NORTHUMBERLAND 96
13. SALLADS, ETC. 98
14. BRAYETTE IN CHAIN-MAIL, AT BERLIN 109
15. PAGEANT SHIELD, FORMERLY IN THE COLLECTION OF PRINCE CARL
OF PRUSSIA 113
16. EFFIGY OF RICHARD BEAUCHAMP, EARL OF WARWICK, IN ST. MARY’S
CHURCH, WARWICK 119
17. GOTHIC SUIT AT SIGMARINGEN 120
18. GOTHIC SUIT AT BERLIN 122
19. GOTHIC SUIT, IN THE AUTHOR’S COLLECTION 124
20. FLUTED MAXIMILIAN SUIT AT BERLIN 127
21. FLUTED MAXIMILIAN SUIT AT MUNICH 128
22. FLUTED MAXIMILIAN SUIT, WITH GROTESQUE HELMET 128
23. PLAIN MAXIMILIAN SUIT, IN THE AUTHOR’S COLLECTION 128
24. MOUNTED MAXIMILIAN SUIT, WITH BARDS 130
25. SUIT WITH LAMBOYS, IN THE AUTHOR’S COLLECTION 130
26. SUIT BY PETER VON SPEYER OF ANNABERG, DATED 1560 135
27. PLAIN DEMI-SUIT, IN THE AUTHOR’S COLLECTION 136
28. BLACK AND WHITE DEMI-SUIT, IN THE AUTHOR’S COLLECTION 137
29. LATE SUIT AT MUNICH, 1590–1620 137
30. LATE SUIT AT BRANCEPETH CASTLE, DURHAM 138
ENRICHED ARMOUR.
31. SUITS BY JÖRG SEUSENHOFER, OF INNSBRUCK 141
32. CUIRASS AND TASSETS AT DRESDEN 141
33. SUIT AT ALNWICK CASTLE, NORTHUMBERLAND 142
34. SOME DETAILS OF THE SUIT AT ALNWICK CASTLE 144
35. SUIT BY LUCIO PICCININO, OF MILAN 144
36. REPOUSSÉ ARMOUR AT BERLIN 145
37. SUIT OF THE DUC D’OSUNA 146
38. SOME DETAILS OF THE OSUNA SUIT 147
39. SUIT BY ANTON PEFFENHAUSER, AT MADRID 148
WEAPONS.
40. ENRICHED SWORD, SECOND HALF SIXTEENTH CENTURY 156
41. HAND-GUNS, RENAISSANCE WORK 157
42. TWO-HANDED SWORDS, FLAMBERGES, AND DAGGERS 166
43. ANELACE AT BERLIN 176
44. SWORD OF CHARLES V., ABOUT 1530 168
45. RAPIERS--GERMAN, SPANISH, AND ITALIAN 169
46. SCHIAVONA, IN THE AUTHOR’S COLLECTION 173
47. CROSSBOWS AND QUARRELS 185
48. PRINCIPLE OF THE BALLISTA 204
49. STAFF AND CLUB WEAPONS, ETC. 204
50. EARLY ARTILLERY 210
51. EARLY HAND-GUNS 228
THE DEFENSIVE ARMOUR AND THE WEAPONS AND ENGINES OF WAR OF MEDIÆVAL
TIMES, AND OF THE “RENAISSANCE.”
_SECTION I._
DEFENSIVE ARMOUR.
PART I.
INTRODUCTORY AND GENERAL.
The phrases, “the Stone,” “Bronze,” and “Iron Ages” are mere
generalizations fast losing their significance, and the purposes of
this volume will not permit of any special disquisition on the weapons
of these mixed and merging classifications of periods, or even those
recorded of the Egyptian, Etruscan, Greek, Roman, and Eastern peoples;
beyond what, in some instances, may seem necessary for showing any
prototypes or analogies of arms or armour in use during the “Middle
Ages” and the “Renaissance.”
The more remote ages of Egypt would have been a blank to us but for
the character of the tombs, which preserved so wonderfully the papyri
and frescoes we find so valuable, and, above all, the inscriptions and
bas-reliefs on stone, affording infinite information concerning the
arms of this ancient people and their martial achievements; indeed,
we really know more of the weapons of the ancient Egyptians, and even
those of the times of Hesiod, Homer, and Cambyses, than we do of those
of the Goths, Vandals, Huns, and Ancient Britons during the centuries
immediately following on the final evacuation of Britain by the Roman
legions. The vigorous races that had been vanquished by imperial Rome,
and those that in their turn had invaded and conquered Italy, inherited
much from the earlier Roman wars and domination, more than has been
thoroughly understood by historians of the nebulous centuries partly
preceding and closely following on the final overthrow of the Western
Empire; and the Romans had already gathered together many of the forms
of the nations and empires that had preceded them, to say nothing of
adaptations from the armament of contemporary tribes and peoples;
still, in the main, the Romans had imposed their own methods and
civilisation on all the nations they conquered. On a monument recently
brought to light by M. de Morgan at Susa, erected by Naram-Sin about
B.C. 3750, is a figure of the king wearing a horned helm, and armed
with an arrow in his right hand and a bow in his left; a dagger is
thrust into his girdle.
The granite sculptures of Persepolis show the weapons of the Assyrians
to have been mainly those perpetuated for many ages and under many
degrees of civilisation--viz., the sword, the lance or javelin, the
sling and the bow; and in the rusty fragments of solidified iron rings
in the British Museum, found at Nineveh, we see the ancestor of the
Roman lorica, the bright byrnie of the “Sagas,” and hauberk of the
“middle ages.” The same monumental inscriptions clearly indicate to
which ancient people the Romans were indebted for their missile-casting
engines, for here you have the catapulta and ballista, differing but
little from those which were used by the Romans in the third century
of our era, and doubtless handed down in their turn principally
through the Franks to mediæval times. Strange it is that the principle
involved, nay, the very machines themselves, have hibernated, so to
speak, again and again!
An antique Greek drawing, representing Amazons fighting, in conjunction
with Scythians, against Theseus at Attica, shows the following
armament, viz.[1]:--Helmets of the Phrygian type; tunics coming
half-way down the thighs, fortified with scales; and complete leg
armour looking on the drawing like chain-mail, but probably, like the
tunics, of small scale armour similar to that found at Æsica, referred
to later in these pages. Two of the figures brandish long spears with
leaf-formed heads, while the third is in the act of bending a bow, the
arrow having a barbed head, and wears a quiver slung over the shoulder.
They all have belts, and the tunics are ornamented with a geometrical
border. Such long spears were also the weapons of the heavy Greek
infantry. We owe, then, the inception of much of the arms and armour of
European countries to the ancient civilisations of Asia and Egypt, and
much also to the Etrurians, Greeks, and Romans; for, up to the middle
of the fifth century, the countries as far as the Danube, in form at
least, were still under the domination of Rome, so that Roman influence
on armament must still have been very considerable; but with the final
break-up of the empire of the West, at the end of the century, the old
national and patriotic forms, which were of a more ponderous character,
began to reassert themselves. These, again, became much modified, at a
later period, in a considerable revival in the direction of Roman forms
among the Franco-Germans, who aimed at a continuation or reconstruction
of the traditional Western Empire. Another potent influence in the
direction of change and interchange, concerning which we can merely
speculate, was the swarming out of Eastern peoples, as well as the
constant pressure from the frozen North towards the sunny South.
The analysis of the suits hereinafter presented will be prefaced by
a short and concise sketch of mediæval and “renaissance” armour in
general, and under its own section, that of the weapons of war, etc.
This, no doubt, will be helpful in making the explanations clearer as
regards nationality, fashion, and chronology.
During the earlier periods, and in fact throughout the entire
time covering the use of defensive armour to its decadence, great
difficulties constantly arise regarding the precise antiquity and
nationality of specimens preserved, and, consequently, the fashions
generally prevailing in a given country at a particular time. This
uncertainty is greatly owing to immigration, invasions, and to the
importation of foreign artificers, as well as of arms and armour from
the more advanced countries to others less forward in mechanical skill,
as applied to armour and weapon-making.
Some of the manuscripts, seals, effigies, brasses, and illuminated
missals preserved, afford great help in deciding doubtful points;
but very little of this kind of evidence goes farther back than the
ninth century, besides being sometimes of a more or less fanciful and
inaccurate character, and it is only by closely weighing and comparing
that some reasonable degree of certainty can be got at.
In English brasses we have the best consecutive representation of
armour, extending from that of Sir John Daubernoun, in the reign of
Edward I., to that found at Great Chart, near Ashford, Kent, of the
reign of Charles II.; but few have been preserved that date from
earlier than the fourteenth century, though there are many military
effigies. There was formerly a brass in St. Paul’s Church, Bedford, of
Sir John Beauchamp (1208), and this would have been the oldest brass
known had it been still to the fore. There is now an Elizabethan
brass of a knight in this church. The figure on the brass of Sir
John Daubernoun (1277), Stoke d’Abernon, near Leatherhead, Surrey,
is entirely encased in mail, excepting, of course, the face. A large
number of brasses may be seen in Boutell and Creeny, and you have the
best series of effigies in Stothard and the continuation by Hollis.
There are, besides, many other books treating both on brasses and
effigies. The best German series exists in Hefner’s _Trachten_. Some of
the foreign brasses are most artistic, but the iconoclast has left us
only a couple of hundred, while the English brasses are to be numbered
by thousands. The great majority of Continental brasses now left are
in Germany and Belgium, while some half-dozen examples cover those of
France, and there is only one in Spain. It must be borne in mind that
the date on ancient monuments is that of death, so that the armour
indicated may be the make of a quarter of a century earlier; besides,
it may have been inherited by the defunct. There are also cases where
these memorials were executed during the subject’s lifetime, or
from contemporary models after his death. Suits were also sometimes
“restored” by the armourer to correspond with a later fashion, and
cases of this kind naturally give rise to some difficulty; and, as in
the case of some Egyptian tombs, we have instances of misappropriation
in English monuments. A case in point is the memorial of “Vicecomes et
Escheator Comitatus Lincolniæ,” who died in the reign of Henry VIII.
The armour is late fourteenth century, but to whom the monument was
originally raised is unknown. Of course, the armour for the back is not
shown on brasses and effigies. The Beauchamp effigy at Warwick affords,
however, a notable exception, though this is of less importance owing
to the fact of there being real armour of that period existing. Another
valuable source of information arises from the custom prevailing
during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, of leaving arms and
armour as mortuaries to churches, and several helms and shields have
come down to us in this way.
Later in these pages will be found a chapter headed “Details of
Defensive Plate Armour.” This section deals as fully as a reasonable
regard for space will allow with each important piece of armour, as
regards its form, history, and chronology. It will serve also, to some
extent, as a glossary of terms. It will be seen that there is usually
a period of transition between the different well-marked styles of
armour, just as is the case in architecture.