the varied forms assumed by armour and weapons in obedience to the
all-powerful dictates of self-preservation, or to the more arbitrary
changes of fashion. To realise what these changes mean, to appropriate
them to the scenes and episodes of history, belongs to the painter,
sculptor, and scenic artist. If anything in art should be accurately
portrayed, it is the men and the events which make up history.
Historic painting and sculpture, which might live long in art, may be
disregarded by posterity owing to the anachronisms due to neglect of
this important study. Most of the changes were perhaps efforts to avert
the recurrence of some accident in the lists or field of battle. To
definitely track them to their actual origin, to seek out the causes
for the singular and ceaseless modifications arms and armour have
undergone, is, however, work only possible to the antiquary. It is his
province to open the door to the artist.
The quality of the art lavished as decoration on the gala suits of
princes and nobles is superb. In mediæval days it was the prerogative
of the male sex, the fighting sex, to deck itself like a game bird in
gorgeous plumage; women's raiment was more subdued. To the male, no
richness of dress that ingenuity could invent or wealth procure was
denied. In preparation for those stately festivals when the courtier
was to shine in the presence of the fair sex, his sovereign, and
his peers, nothing was spared. The armour of parade intended for
royal jousts and tournaments is as sumptuous as the wit of man could
devise, with time and money unstinted. Chasing, embossing, engraving,
damascening, and gilding of the most exquisite quality were lavished
upon it, the designs, and possibly the actual work, being by the
best artists of the day. The later suits, when cap-à-pie armour was
mainly consecrated to festivals and little regarded in battle, were
especially loaded with decoration. Besides its excellence of design and
richness of ornament, the mere craftsmanship of the armour itself is
of a quality that never can be excelled, and the modern counterfeiter,
with all his skill and appliances, is baffled in the reproduction of
_tours-de-force_, such as the high-combed morions of Italy and Spain.
To study the evolution of armour is like observing the works of
nature. Necessity, it is well known, is the great stimulator of the
inventive faculty of man, and no necessity is more cogent than that
of self-preservation. In the long trials of skill, in which for
generation after generation the armourer was pitted against the guilds
concerned in the production of lethal weapons, the means of defence
seemed once or twice so entirely perfected as to defy the weapons of
the assailants. But ere long, the attacking forces, gathering energy,
calling on the ingenuity of bowyers, fletchers, sword- and gun-smiths,
seem again to emerge triumphant, armed with yet more deadly and
powerful weapons. The struggle on the one hand to encase the man, like
Achilles, in invulnerable armour, and on the other to break down his
armour of proof, was like that between the gunners and naval architects
to-day, but it lasted for centuries. It ended, as all such struggles
must, in the complete discomfiture of the armourer; the increasing use
and accuracy of firearms finally reducing defensive armour to a costly
incumbrance. Nature, indeed, seems to will that all things, animate
or inanimate, should succumb to persistent attack. Viewed in its true
light, armour reveals all the stages, and is the very embodiment
of, perhaps, the most prolonged and determined struggle that the
development of civilisation has witnessed. It presents a gauge of the
extent and limitation of man's inventive faculties, in other words, of
his brain capacity, in the ages so-called mediæval.
Concerning the history of the vast bulk of the armour that falls into
the possession of the collector, all is speculation, and its very
nationality perhaps matter of conjecture. The place whence it has come
is often purposely concealed by the dealer, and a legend concocted
to invest it with a higher market value. The weapon may have played
its part in the stern realities of war; the armour may have saved its
owner, or, failing in the hour of need, contributed to the deaths of
those who trusted to it. Little armour perished with the wearer. Next
to gold and silver, the harvest of arms was the most coveted spoil of
victory, and none remained ungleaned on the battle-field. What harvests
such holocausts as Flodden Field must have presented, affording
opportunities of refitting to the man-at-arms, archer, hobiler,
billman, down to the rapacious camp-follower. Though etiquette may
have hindered the squire of low degree from donning the full cap-à-pie
armour of the knight he overcame, no doubt many a captor of rich armour
sacrificed life to indulgence in the dangerous vanity of dressing
beyond his station.
The historic and personal associations connected with the arms and
weapons present at, and by whose agency were enacted, the decisive
battles, the most stirring incidents of history humanity can witness,
are not the least of the many-sided interests of armour.
Though but a small proportion of the vast number of suits, helmets,
and weapons that have come down to us can be assigned to definite
wearers, and most of even these were but the parade suits of royalty
and the court, the few pieces of real actual fighting armour identified
with particular owners are invested with extraordinary interest. Most
of these owe their preservation to the ancient and poetic custom of
hanging the arms of knightly personages over their tombs, a custom
linked with the still older dedication of arms and armour at the
obsequies of the dead, either by placing them in the grave or hanging
them in the temples of the gods. The reality of the connection between
the pagan and Christian customs is apparent by such incidents as that
of William of Toulouse, early in the thirteenth century, who dedicated
his helm, shield, and weapons to St. Julian, hanging them over his
shrine; or that of the King of France, who, after the battle of Cassel
in 1327, presented his victorious arms to the neighbouring church.
The churches in fact ought to have been the great treasure-houses for
actual armour, as they are of representations of armour on monuments
and brasses. Unfortunately, however, the old veneration for the person
of the dead which led to the consecration of the armour and weapons
he had actually used, hardly survived the close of the thirteenth
century. Cupidity induced the prelate to claim them as a perquisite of
the burial function, as when the Prior of Westminster received £100
as ransom for the horse and accoutrements of John of Eltham; while
the temptation natural to the survivor to retain the finely tempered
weapons and armour, whose quality had been tested in the field, had
always to be reckoned with. This reluctance to sacrifice them is
beautifully expressed in such ancient ballads as those on the death of
King Arthur.
Armour was moreover specially devised by will to be kept as heirlooms.
Grose in the _Antiquities_ states that Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of
Warwick in the time of Henry IV., left to his son Richard by will the
sword and coat of mail said to belong to the celebrated Guy, Earl of
Warwick, he having received them as an heir-loom from his father. Sir
Thomas Poynings, in 1369, devised to his heir the helmet and armour
which his father devised to him. It also became penal to make away with
armour. Enactments, such as that of 1270, commanded that all armour was
to be viewed and kept in safe keeping under good security not to be
let go, for the king's use at reasonable valuation. The custom, which
prevailed extensively, of leaving the undertaker to provide property
helmets and arms in place of those the departed had himself used, also
tended to lessen the interest of even the arms which yet remain. That
the helmet of Henry V. was provided by the undertaker is well known,
and that he continued to provide arms down to Elizabeth's time, is
shown by accounts of funerals such as of Lord Grey de Wilton in 1562,
when among the items of the undertaker's bill are a "cote of arms,"
banner and bannerolles, a "helmett of stele gylt with fyne golde,"
with a crest gilt and coloured, a "swerde with the hyltes, pomell,
chape, buckle, and pendant, likewise gylte, with a gurdle and sheathe
of velvet." This custom of substituting spurious insignia at the
solemn interment of the dead was set by the Church, who consigned mock
croziers and chalices of no intrinsic value to the graves of even the
most exalted prelates. But of the true and the spurious armour alike,
time, rust, and above all, changes of religious sentiment in regard
to the churches, have spared little besides an occasional helmet. The
claims of neighbouring magnates, to the custody of what they regard
as family relics, the temptation to sell, and lack of interest, have
further sadly reduced this residue within the present century.
Yet neglect and depredations notwithstanding, the preservation of
nearly all the English fighting helms known, from the time of the
Black Prince to that of Henry VIII., and of many swords of early date,
is due to their having been deposited in churches. Other magnificent
fourteenth and even thirteenth century swords owe their preservation
to their inclusion in the insignia of Municipal Corporations. Lincoln,
Bristol, Kingston on Hull, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Southampton, Gloucester,
Hereford, Exeter, Chester, Coventry, are among the cities still
possessing these interesting relics.
If our national collections are less imposing than those of Spain,
Austria, Italy, France, and Germany, the enthusiasm of wealthy amateurs
has made this country second to none in the richness of its private
collections of European arms and armour.
Of collections commenced and handed down from the time that armour
was still in use, by far the most important is the Tower Armoury. Its
history can be gathered from Lord Dillon's paper in the fifty-first
volume of _Archæologia_, "Arms and Armour at Westminster, the Tower,
and Greenwich." The collection had its origin in Henry VIII.'s
passion for arms and armour, which was ministered to by Continental
sovereigns, especially Maximilian, who shared this taste, and with whom
he maintained a close friendship. His extensive array of tilting and
jousting suits was kept at Greenwich, and an inventory taken of them
upon his death. They were not removed to the Tower until perhaps 1644,
though the armoury there was already, during the reign of Henry, one
of the sights of London. The arms stored at Westminster were probably
removed to the Tower as early as the beginning of the reign of Edward
VI. The armoury was no doubt regarded more as an arsenal for use, than
in the light of a collection, and perhaps was drawn upon constantly
until the Civil Wars, when it was extensively depleted. Five of the
Greenwich complete suits of Henry VIII. still exist, however, three
mounted upon barded horses, as well as other pieces. The collection
becoming on its removal a national one, several suits of distinguished
nobles of Elizabeth's reign, and some of the royal armour of the
Stuarts, were added. During the present century attempts to render
it more complete have been made, by purchasing examples of enriched
foreign armour, and more especially of pieces illustrating the armour
of more ancient days. Many of the latter, however, are now pronounced
to be spurious, and none of them are remarkable.
It appears that the Tower collection has been drawn upon, at some
comparatively recent period, for the decoration of Windsor Castle. Some
half-dozen of the richest suits are now in the Guard Chamber. Arrayed
in cases in the north corridor is a most extensive collection of
magnificent weapons, many intimately connected with the history of the
country, as well as a matchless collection of oriental arms and armour,
formed to a large extent from the collection at Carlton House and added
to by Her Majesty.
The Museum of Artillery in the Rotunda at Woolwich contains a valuable
collection of armour and weapons, formed partly from the Tower
collection, and by judicious purchases. The series of Gothic armour
from Rhodes is very remarkable. There are also a few pieces in the
Royal Artillery Institution not far distant, and a small part of the
collection has been placed in Dover Castle.
The British Museum contains a limited but choice collection, chiefly
bequeathed by Mr. Burges, of Mediæval and Renaissance armour, as well
as its unrivalled series of antique arms and weapons.
The South Kensington Museum also possesses a few interesting arms and
weapons, besides collections deposited on loan.
The munificent bequest of the Wallace Collection has put the nation in
possession of a superb series of armour only rivalled by that in the
Tower Armoury. It must unfortunately remain inaccessible, being packed
away in cases until the rearrangement of Manchester House is completed;
consequently none of its contents could be illustrated. It contains
perhaps over 1200 specimens, without counting the Oriental arms, all
of them choice and some unsurpassed. It is rich in Gothic, fluted, and
highly decorated armour, and comprises a matchless series of swords
and other weapons. Of private collections in this country that are
historic, the Earl of Warwick's is undoubtedly the most interesting,
part of it having been in the Castle from the days when armour was in
constant use. Besides the few almost legendary pieces, it claims to
contain armour of Lord Brooke, killed at Lichfield, of Montrose, the
target of the Pretender, and Cromwell's helmet.
Among the armour at Wilton House are the superb suits of the Dukes
of Montmorency and Bourbon, captured by the Earl of Pembroke at the
battle of St. Quentin, together with the suit worn by the Earl, and
pictured in the Jacobe Album. With these are a good number of lancers'
demi-suits marked with the family initial. The armour of the Earl of
Cumberland, also figured in the Jacobe Album, yet remains in perfect
preservation in the possession of Lord Hothfield. The collection
at Penshurst Castle comprises some good armour, including helmets
and weapons of the Sidneys, its former owners. Sir Wheatman Pearson
possesses the barded suit of fluted armour said to have been worn
by a Talbot of Shrewsbury at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. Many
other ancient seats still contain family armour, either relics of the
Civil Wars, as at Littlecote and Farleigh Castle, or removed from the
neighbouring church, or discovered in some attic, vault, or even well,
as at Arundel.
The Armourers and Braziers Company possess one of the Jacobe suits in
their small collection; the Benchers of the Middle Temple own some
armour; and there are a few pieces in the United Service Museum in
Whitehall. Mr. Leonard Brassey possesses a fine historic cap-à-pie
suit of the hereditary challengers, the Dymoke family. Some of the
Corporation Museums, especially at Edinburgh, comprise examples of
armour and weapons.
It is unfortunate that nearly all the notable private collections made
within the present century have been dispersed, either on the death of
their owners, or before. The Walpole, Bernal, Meyrick, Londesborough,
Shrewsbury, Coutts-Lindsay, Brett, De Cosson, and many other
collections have been scattered far and wide under the hammer. The
Warwick and others have suffered severely by fire; and of collections
made by the past generation probably only that of Lord Zouche at Parham
remains intact.
A great deal of armour is absorbed as decoration, not only in such
stately homes of the nobility as Arundel, Eaton Hall, Hatfield,
Knebworth, but in private houses. Armour is also hidden away in small
and unknown collections, like two in the writer's family, which would
well repay careful examination. But undoubtedly the richest treasures
are in the collections of wealthy amateurs, like Mr. David Currie, Sir
Noël Paton, and above all in those of members of the Kernoozer's Club.
It is impossible to convey, in a slight sketch, any adequate idea of
the wealth of armour in the country, the real extent of which is as yet
only to be surmised; but in spite of sales it is doubtless increasing
yearly.
The fact cannot be ignored that, of all this mass of armour, very
little has been made in England. By far the larger part was indeed
certainly made in Germany, a country devoted to metal-working from the
earliest periods of its history.
The first dawning of anything like European reputation for the
production of arms and armour, since the collapse of the Roman Empire,
was achieved by Germany. Owing to its political constitution, and
perhaps extent and population, its towns were more enterprising
in mediæval ages than ours, and acquired a name for particular
manufactures at a relatively early period. The necessity the trading
towns were under of arming their citizens to defend their freedom and
privileges, amidst the semi-independent princelings and nobles who kept
armed retainers and combined to levy blackmail, induced many to take
up the manufacture of arms in self-defence, for which they afterwards
sought a market among neighbours and abroad. In the thirteenth century,
when St. Louis bore a German sword to the Crusades, the names of
Cologne, Passau, Heilbronn appear almost simultaneously as seats
famous for the production of lethal weapons. Cologne soon assumed the
ascendency, at least in English eyes, for its weapons are spoken of
with respect in many an early ballad. Thus the battle of Otterbourne is
fought "with swords of fyne Collayne," and King Arthur's sword hails
from Cologne:--
For all of Coleyne was the blayde
And all the hilte of precious stone.
The Duke of Norfolk having sent for armour out of Germany proves that
its armour was already regarded as of superior excellence in the time
of Richard II. German armour might have been used more largely in
England and at an earlier period, but for want of sympathy, perhaps
inherited from the Crusades. These, which knitted so many of the races
of Europe into close contact, happened not to promote any _camaraderie_
between Germany and ourselves. Their Crusades were undertaken
independently, or were ill-timed relatively to ours. The unfortunate
differences between Richard and the Archduke of Austria, which drained
our country of so much gold and silver that even the chalices were
melted, rendered Germany unpopular, and the feeling was not improved by
the further great loss of treasure on the abortive election of Richard
of Cornwall as Emperor. Princely intermarriages were unable to effect
a union of hearts, for the Kings of Almayne never come out well in
contemporary poetry. Nor was the perpetual presence of enterprising
Hansa merchants in factories, such as the London Steleyard, calculated
to promote good feeling, though introducing a large bulk of German
goods into the country. Steel, itself a German word, was certainly
amongst the imports, probably not only as a raw product, but
manufactured into articles such as the "Colleyne clowystes" and "Cullen
cleavers," and possibly sometimes defensive armour as well. Until late
in the fifteenth century, however, the differences between the military
equipment of Germany and England is more marked than between that of
England and France, which country with the Netherlands formed a natural
barrier that only strong common interests would effectively bridge.
When bonds of trade began to knit peoples together, German armour, from
its excellent quality, divided the market of the world with Italy.
The accession of Henry VIII. opened the English market wide to it,
his ambition to again dismember France, his alliance with Maximilian
and relationship to Charles V. leading to distinct _rapprochements_.
Natural inclination and political necessity strongly biassed him in
favour of his wife's kinsmen, until his unhappy divorce left him
isolated.
Italy vied with Germany in the production of armour, Milan taking the
lead. Matthew of Paris heard, in 1237, from a credible Italian that
Milan and its dependencies could turn out 6000 men on iron-clad horses.
An item in the inventory of Louis Hutin, 1316, is "2 haubergeons de
Lombardi"; and that of Humphrey de Bohun, in 1322, mentions Bologna "un
haubergeon qu'est apele Bolioun." Italian armourers were established in
Paris as early as 1332. Ancient British ballads abound in references
to Myllan and Myllen steel. The Earl of Derby, afterwards Henry IV.,
sent to procure armour from Sir Galeas, Duke of Milan, and when he had
selected all he wished for in plated and mail armour, the Lord of Milan
ordered four of the best armourers in Milan to accompany the knight to
England. In the fifteenth century Milan was able, after the battle of
Macado in 1427, to furnish within a few days 4000 suits of armour for
cavalry and 2000 for infantry. At a great Spanish tournament held in
1434, only Italian armour and weapons were permitted. Louis XI. and
the Duke of Burgundy settled Italian armourers in their dominions.
This king seized in 1481 a heavy convoy of cuirasses, sallads, etc.,
packed in cotton to prevent them rattling and imitating bales of silk,
on the way to the Duke of Brittany, giving them to John Doyac as a
reward for their discovery. Monstrelet mentions that the Milanese gave
corselets and other armour to the Swiss, with the finest promises,
before the battle of Marignano. Henry VIII. kept 1000 Myllen swords
for the tourney in the Tower, and sent to Milan to purchase 5000 suits
of "almain rivets." The most eloquent testimony to the excellence of
Milanese arms is, however, to be found in the pages of Brantôme, a
very keen observer on all matters military. Milan furnished the finest
engraved and most elegant corselets for _hommes de pieds_ "tant de
M. de Strozzi que de Brissac." "Ce genre de cuirasse legère eut la
plus grande vogue à la cour de France"; and "on y approuvoit fort
les corselets gravés de Milan et ne trouvoit point que nos armoriers
parvinssent à la mesme perfection, non plus qu'aux morions." Strozzi,
insisting that his armaments should be Milanese, "pria voire quasy
contraignit tous ses capitaines de n'avoir plus autres armes, tant
harquebuses, fourniments, que corselets de Milan": while Guise wished
his infantry to be armed not with muskets, but good harquebuzes de
Milan--"de bonne trampe pour ne crever." Milanese armourers, like the
Gambertis, were enticed to Paris; Pompée a Milanese was selected to
teach the King fencing, and Maistre Gaspar de Milan is pronounced "le
meilleur forgeur qui jamais eut." Brantôme further describes the troops
on their way to relieve Malta, "portant sa belle harquebuze et son beau
fourniment de Milan," and adds, "car nous avions passé par Milan, où
nous nous estions accommodez d'habillements et d'armes si superbement
qu'on ne scavait pour quelz nous prendre, ou pour gentilshommes,
soldats, ou pour princes, tant nous foisoit beau veoir."
[Illustration: PLATE II.--A Marauder of the "Bandes de Picardie." In
the possession of Mr. J. F. Sullivan.]
Florence became later a great rival of Milan, and we find Wolsey
negotiating with a Florentine for "2000 complete harness of Almayne
rivettes at 16s. per set." Brescia was famed for its steel, and
probably supplied the vast requirements of Venice, whose arsenals
contained, in the seventeenth century, arms for 800,000 combatants.
Henry VIII. requested permission from the Doge of Venice, in 1544, to
purchase 1500 Brescian harquebuses, and over 1000 suits of horse and
foot-armour. Pisa, Lucca, Mantua, Verona, Pistoja also produced armour
and weapons of high quality.