THIRTEENTH CENTURY.
The authorities which throughout the last division of our inquiry
have served us as guides--seals, vellum-paintings, metal-chasings,
ivory-carvings, and the writings of chroniclers and poets--are still
available to us: but in the thirteenth century a new and most valuable
source of information is offered by the numerous knightly effigies
which are found in cathedral and chantry, in wayside chapel and lofty
monastery. These sepulchral figures, of the proportions of life, are of
especial value to the student of military costume, permitting him to
follow his inquiry into the minutest detail. Not a belt nor a lace, not
a buckle nor a strap, but he can trace the exact form and assign the
particular purpose of it. Whether the effigy be a statue or "a brass,"
he finds in it abundant material for furthering his inquiry; and while
from the illuminations of cotemporary manuscripts he obtains precise
information on the point of _colour_, in the effigy he sees the exact
moulding of each knightly adjunct, and the smallest pattern that adorns
the smallest ornament of the knightly equipment. The military brasses
of this century are but few; but the statues, in stone, in wood, or
in Purbeck marble, are scattered through our English counties in
surprising numbers. The value of these national memorials is beginning
to be understood: the crumbling figure is no longer permitted to perish
in the open churchyard, to lie in fragments among the rubbish of the
belfry corner, to form the ridiculous ornament of the churchwarden's
grotto or the squire's glyptotheck. With pious care it is restored to
the sacred fane from which it had been abstracted; it again becomes
part of the chancel or chantry beneath whose pavement lie the bones
of him of whom church, chantry, and statue are alike the monuments.
But from the very consideration which has been newly accorded to these
memorials, has arisen a fresh danger: it has, in some cases, been
thought expedient to submit them to a so-called restoration. They have
been patched up with Roman cement, eked out with supplementary limbs,
plastered over with mock Purbeck marble. The mistakes that have been
committed in costume, equipment, and art-treatment, are more fit for
the pages of a jest-book than those of a sober treatise; and it is
scarcely necessary to say that, for any purpose of the historian, the
archæologist, or even in the more narrow view of ancestral portraiture,
the statue has become, under such a treatment, utterly valueless. Yet
our task is so simple. We have only to preserve. Inheritors of the
finest series of national ancestral memorials that Europe can boast,
let us at least transmit to after-days, in all their integrity, the
admirable works that have come down to us through the troubles and
turmoils of seven centuries[265].
Throughout the thirteenth century the feudal and mercenary TROOPS
continued to be employed together. But towards the middle of this
period, the Italian cities, combating for their liberties, began to
levy their men-at-arms from the non-noble class as well as from the
knightly; a force which, under the name of _Conduttitij Soldati_,
obtained in the next age a very wide celebrity.
[Illustration: No. 47.]
Besides the mounted men-at-arms or heavy cavalry, there were
light-horse troops formed by the mounted archers and cross-bowmen,
and the esquires attending upon the knights. The example here given
is from Roy. MS. 20, D. 1, fol. 127, a work of the close of the
thirteenth century[266].
The foot-troops or _Sergents de pied_ consisted principally of archers,
cross-bowmen and spearmen. There were also the _Sergens d'armes_ or
heavy-armed body-guard, Coustillers, Slingers, Bidaux, and Brigands
or Ribauds; to which may be added the varlets or pages, who followed
their knightly masters into the field, now fighting lustily in the
_mêlée_, now bearing off the wounded body of their lord to some place
of solace and safety. Clientes and Satellites were general names given
to the inferior troops of the feudal and communal levy, including both
horse and foot. There was nothing approaching to a uniform costume for
the soldiery, though occasionally we find a leader seeking to identify
his men by some addition to their dress, as a cross, a scarf, or other
similar token. In 1264, Simon de Montford "ordered his troops to fasten
white crosses on their breasts and backs, above their armour, in order
that they might be known by their enemies, and to shew that they were
fighting for justice[267]." In this case, however, the motive seems to
have been, less the desire of a mark of recognition among friends, than
the assumption, so common in warlike undertakings, of a holy motive
for manslaughter. In the following passage from Guiart relating to
the battle of Mons-en-Puelle, the object is more distinctly that of
friendly recognition:--
"Pour estre au ferrir reconnuz,
Vilains, courtois, larges et chiches,
Sont de laz blans et de ceintures
Escharpés sur leurs armures.
Neis li ribaut les ont mises,
Faites de leurs propres chemises."--_Vers_ 11,059.
Of the Man-at-arms and his barded charger we obtain an admirable
definition from the _Chronicon Colmariense_ under the year 1298:
"Armati reputabantur qui galeas ferreas in capitibus habebant, et qui
wambasia, id est, tunicam spissam ex lino et stuppa, vel veteribus
pannis consutam, et desuper camisiam ferream, id est, vestem ex
circulis ferreis contextam, per quæ nulla sagitta poterat hominem
vulnerare. Ex his Armatis centum inermes mille lædi potuerunt:
habebant et multos qui habebant dextrarios, id est, equos magnos,
qui inter equos communes quasi Bucephalus Alexandri, inter alios
eminebat. Hi equi cooperti fuerunt coopertoriis ferreis, id est,
veste ex circulis ferreis, contexta. Assessores dextrariorum habebant
loricas ferreas: habebant et caligas, manipulos ferreos, et in
capitibus galeas ferreas splendidas et ornatas, et alia multa quæ
me tæduit enarrare." The armour of these sturdy warriors we shall
presently examine piece by piece.
The _Sergens à pied_ (_Servientes_) included the mass of the troops
beneath the knightly dignity. Guillaume Guiart arms them with the
lance and crossbow:--
"----bon serjanz i a
A arbaletes et a lances."
_Chronique Métrique_, 2^e. partie, vers 8567.
And the same weapons are assigned to those levied by the _ordonnance_
of Philip of France in 1303: "Et seront armés les sergens de pie de
pourpoint et de hauberjons, gamboison, de bacinez et de lances: Et
des six, il y en aura deux arbalestriers[268]."
The _Sergens d'armes_, (_Servientes Armorum_,) whose establishment in
the twelfth century we have already observed, (page 100,) continued
to form the royal body-guard throughout the present age. In 1214 they
especially distinguished themselves at the battle of Bovines, as we
find recorded by the monument (before noticed) in the church of St.
Catherine. The inscription of the monument, though itself not earlier
than the beginning of the fifteenth century, probably relates very
exactly the circumstances of their victory, and of the foundation
of the church. It is as follows:--"A la priere des Sergens darmes
Mons^r. Saint Loys fonda ceste Eglise et y mist la premiere pierre:
Et fu pour la joie de la vittoire qui fu au Pont de Bouines lan Mil.
CC et XIIII. Les Sergens darmes pour le temps gardoient ledit pont et
vouerent que se Dieu leur donnoit vittoire ils fonderoient une eglise
en lonneur de Madame Sainte Katherine. Et ainsi fu il." A statute of
Philippe le Bel in 1285 limits the number of these guards attending
the court to thirty: "Item, Sergens d'armes, trente, lesquels seront
à Cour sans plus." From the same statute we learn that one of their
weapons at this time was the crossbow: "Ils porteront toujours leurs
carquois pleins de carreaux."
[Illustration: No. 48.]
The Archer was becoming every day of more importance in the field;
and if the bow was an efficient arm in battle, it was still more
so in sieges, and the defence of strongholds and mountain-passes.
From various Statutes of Arms we find that a portion of the military
tenants are ordered to be provided with the longbow and arrows. The
Statute of Winchester, in 1285, directs that each man "a quaraunte
soudeesz de terre e de plus jeqs a cent souz, eit en sa mesun espe,
ark, setes e cutel.... E tuz lez autres qui aver pount, eient arcs e
setes hors de forestes, e dedenz forestes arcs e piles." Compare the
statute of the 36th year of Henry III., printed in the _Additamenta_
of the History of Matthew Paris[269]. The costume of the ordinary
archer, defended only by his _chapel de fer_, appears to be depicted
in our woodcut, No. 50, from Harleian MS. 4751, fol. 8, written at
the commencement of this century. That the English occasionally
mixed their bowmen with the cavalry, we have the express testimony
of Matthew Paris: "Viri autem sagittarii gentis Anglorum equitibus
permixti." In many illuminations of this time they appear fully armed
in hauberk and helm, as in the miniature here given from Royal MS.
20, D. 1, fol. 307. See also our woodcut, No. 82, a group from the
Painted Chamber of the palace at Westminster, where the archer wears
a hauberk and coif of chain-mail. These examples of heavy-armed
bowmen are fully borne out by written testimony. We have already
observed Richard Cœur-de-Lion plying his arrows under the walls of
Lincoln, (p. 157); and Otto Morena has, "Ipse Imperator optime sciens
sagittare, multos de Cremensibus interfecit." (p. 58.) For further
pictorial examples of archers of this century, see Royal MS. 2, B.
vi. fol. 10; and 20, D. i. ff. 60, 87, 150 and 285.
By a curious volume of "Proverbs" of the thirteenth century, printed
from a manuscript of that date in the _Vie privée des François_[270],
we learn that "the best archers are in Anjou." Other proverbial
celebrities of this manuscript are: Chevaliers de Champagne, Ecuyers
de Bourgogne, Sergens de Hainaut, Champions d'Eu, Ribauds de Troyes.
The provision of an equipped archer to attend the king in his wars, is
the frequent sergeantry for lands at this time; and the particulars
attached to the service occasionally partake of that whimsicality
found in other tenures of the period. It is curious also to trace
the changes which these charters undergo in a small lapse of years,
as they come under the inspection of the jurors appointed to enforce
their engagements. Thus, the service for the manor of Faintree, in
Shropshire, in 1211, is "a foot-soldier, with a bow and arrows, for the
king's army in Wales." In 1274 the soldier is bound to stay with the
host only "till he has shot away his arrows." In 1284 the archer has
"to attend the king in his Welsh wars, with a bow, three arrows, and a
'terpolus[271].'" This terpolus, or tribulus, was probably an "archer's
stake," not the mere small iron _caltrop_, of which the provision of
one only by each archer would be of little use in impeding a charge
of cavalry. The duty of the bowman who had only to stay in the field
till he had shot away three arrows was sufficiently easy; but on other
occasions the archer did not escape so lightly. The manor of Chetton,
co. Salop, supplies in 1283 an archer for the king's host in Wales, who
is to take with him a flitch of bacon, and to remain with the army till
he has eaten it all up[272].
[Illustration: No. 49.]
The Cross-bowman was an essential component of the host during
all this period. He was in the van of battle. "Balistarii semper
præibant," says Matthew Paris[273]; and there is scarcely a conflict
mentioned by this chronicler in which the arbalester does not play a
conspicuous part. In the battle near Damietta, in 1237, "more than a
hundred knights of the Temple fell, and three hundred cross-bowmen
(_arcubalistarii_), not including some other seculars, and a large
number of foot-soldiers[274]." The Emperor Frederic in 1239,
giving an account of his Italian campaign to the king of England,
writes: "After we had by our knights and cross-bowmen reduced all
the province of Liguria[275]," &c. In 1242 the Count de la Marche,
refusing to do homage to Amphulse, the brother of the French king,
"swelling with anger and with loud threats, accompanied by his wife
Isabella and surrounded by a body of soldiers, broke through the
midst of the Poictevin cross-bowmen, and having set fire to the
house in which he had dwelt, suddenly mounted a horse and took to
flight[276]." St. Louis, marching to meet the English in Poitou, had
an army in which there were "about four thousand knights splendidly
armed to the teeth, besides numbers of others, who came from all
directions, flocking to the army, like rivers flowing into the sea;
and the number of retainers and cross-bowmen was said to be about
twenty thousand[277]." The opposing forces of the English king
consisted of "sixteen hundred knights, twenty thousand foot-soldiers,
and seven hundred arbalesters."
The Cross-bowmen were of several kinds, some mounted, some on foot.
The mounted balistarii in King John's time were those possessing one
horse, those having two horses (_ad duos equos_[278]), and others
having three horses[279]. In 1205 the king sends to the sheriff
of Salop, "Peter, a balister of three horses, and nine two-horse
balisters," who are to be paid 10_s._ 4_d._ per day (the whole ten).
The usual pay at this time was: to the cross-bowman with two horses,
15_d._ per diem; with one horse, 7-1/2_d._ per day; and to the
foot-balister, 3_d._ per day.
The quarrels for the crossbows were carried after the army in carts.
Thus Guillaume Guiart:--
"Arbaletriers vont quarriaux prendre,
A pointes agues et netes,
Qui la furent _en trois charrettes_
Venues par mesire Oudart."--_Année_ 1303, p. 291.
The bows themselves, with other weapons and defences, were also
carted after the host, and termed the "artillery" of the expedition:--
"Artillerie est le charroi
Qui par duc, par comte ou par roi
Ou par aucun seigneur de terre
Est charchié (chargé) de quarriaux en guerre,
D'arbaletes, de dars, de lances,
Et de targes d'une semblance."--_Guiart_, an. 1304.
Notwithstanding the services rendered in the front of the battle
by the cross-bowmen, and the other foot-troops; whose post was the
more perilous from their being but slightly provided with defensive
equipment; the knightly body of their own party made no scruple
to ride them down whenever they stood in the way of the glory or
ambition of the equestrian order. At Courtray in 1302, the French
foot having gallantly repulsed the Flemings, Messire de Valepayelle
cried to the Count of Artois,--
"Sire, cil vilain tant feront
Que l'onneur en emporteront."--_Guiart_, pt. ii. v. 6132.
And forthwith the men-at-arms
"Parmi les pietons se flatissent,
Qu'a force de destriers entr'ouvrent:
Des leurs meismes le champ queuvrent,
Et merveilleux nombre en estraignent."
This is confirmed by the _Grandes Chroniques_: "Nos gens de
pie savancent, si auront la victoire et nous ny aurons point
d'onneur[280]." All our readers will remember the similar fate
of the Genoese cross-bowmen at Cressy: "Or tôt, tuez toute cette
ribaudaille, qui nous empêche la voie sans raison[281]."
The arbalester sometimes appears in heavy armour, as in our
woodcuts, Nos. 49 and 50. And Matthew Paris has: "Arcubalistarii
circiter sexaginta loricati[282]." The provision of quarrels for
each cross-bowman of the communal force was fifty, as we learn from
the charter of Theobald, count of Champagne in 1220: "Chascuns de
la Commune de Vitré qui aura vaillant XX. livres, aura aubeleste en
son ostel et quarriaux L." The office of "Master of the Arbalesters"
became one of the chief dignities of the French army, and was
conferred only on persons of the highest rank. Thibaut de Monleart
held this charge under Saint Louis, and in the _Milice Françoise_
of Père Daniel will be found a complete list of the "Maîtres des
Arbalêtriers de France" till the days of Francis I., when the office
ceased[283]. The little window in city or castle wall, through which
the bolts of the crossbow were discharged, was called _arbalestena_.
For other pictures of the cross-bowman of the thirteenth century than
those given in our woodcuts, Nos. 49 and 50, see Add. MS. 15,268,
fol. 122, and Roy. MS. 20, D. 1, fol. 361^b.
The Coustiller, employed, as we have seen, at Bovines in 1214,
continues in request throughout this century; and will be found
again in the pages of Froissart, taking part in the battles of the
succeeding age.
[Illustration:
PLATE L.]
The Slinger is still of occasional occurrence. In this very curious
group from Harl. MS. 4751, fol. 8, a work of the early part of
the thirteenth century, the slinger appears without any defensive
armour, and his weapon differs in no particular from the sling of
Anglo-Saxon times, as shewn in our woodcut, No. 12. Besides the
ancient Cord Sling, there appears in the manuscripts of this century
a variety of the arm, the Staff Sling. It seems to have been in vogue
for naval warfare, or in the conflicts of siege operations. The
example here engraved is from Strutt's Horda, vol. i. plate 31; the
authority being a MS. of Matthew Paris of this century, preserved in
the library of Benet College, Cambridge. Other examples of the Staff
Sling are given in Strutt's Sports, bk. i. chap. 2.
[Illustration: No. 51.]
The Bideaux (_bibaldi_) were foot-troops fighting without defensive
armour, whose usual weapons were a spear, javelins and a coutel.
Guiart exactly describes them:--
"De Navarre et devers Espaingne
Reviennent Bidaux a granz routes.
En guerre par accoustumance
Portent deux darz et une lance,
Et un coutel a la ceinture:
D'autres armures n'ont cure."--_Pt._ ii. _verse_ 10,518.
The Ribaux or Brigans were the humblest of the troops, and by their
extreme poverty were driven to acts of depredation which eventually
made their very name synonymous with marauder. They carried such
weapons as they could obtain:--
"Li uns une pilete[284] porte,
L'autre croc ou macue torte.
* * * * *
L'un tient une epee sans feurre,
L'autre un maillet, l'autre une hache."--_Guiart_, v. 6635.
They are not only without armour, but their equipment altogether is
in a very tattered condition:--
"Et Ribaldorum nihilominus agmen inerme,
Qui nunquam dubitant in quævis ire pericla."
_Philippidos_, lib. iii.
"Leurs robes ne sont mie neuves,
Ainz semble tant sont empirées
Que chiens les aient déciriées."--_Guiart_, v. 6640.
Matthew Paris names them with but little honour: "Ribaldi et viles
personæ[285]." They were, however, by no means useless members of the
host. Thus, when Philippe Auguste appeared before Tours in 1189: "Dum
Rex circumquaque immunita civitatis consideraret, Ribaldi ipsius,
_qui primos impetus in expugnandis munitionibus facere consueverunt_,
eo vidente, in ipsam civitatem impetum fecerunt," &c.[286]
They were made to assist in carrying the baggage of the army:
"Inermes Ribaldos et alios, qui solent sequi exercitum propter onera
deportanda[287]." And, being unprovided with defensive armour,
whenever they obtained any booty, the "soudoyers," who were better
equipped than they, attacked them and appropriated their prizes:--
"Mais li Soudoiers de Biaugiers,
Qui d'armes ne sont mie nuz,
De ce qu'ils portent les desrobent."--_Guiart_, v. 10,826.
The _Roi des Ribauds_ was an officer appointed to restrain the excesses
of the Ribaldi, and is mentioned in many documents of France from the
time of Philip Augustus to that of Charles VI. At the battle of Bovines
in 1214, Roger de Wafalia is named in the list of prisoners as falling
to the share of the King of the Ribauds: "Rogerus de Wafalia. Hunc
habuit Rex Ribaldorum, quia dicebat se esse servientem."
The names Clientes and Satellites were employed, as we have before
mentioned, to indicate generally the inferior troops, whether horse
or foot. At the battle of Bovines, the Clientes are a mounted corps,
armed with sword and spear:--
"----Et quos Medardicus abbas[288]
Miserat immensâ claros probitate Clientes
Terdenos decies quorum exultabat in armis
Quilibet altus equo gladioque horrebat et hastâ."
_Guil. le Breton._
In the following passage, the Clientes seem to be foot-troops. It is
from the History of Dauphiny, where, in 1283, Humbert promises to
assist the Archbishop and Chapter of Vienne: "contra omnes homines,
suis propriis sumptibus et expensis, cum centum hominibus armatis in
equis, et cum tercentis balistariis, et septingentis clientibus cum
lanceis."
Satellites appear at Bovines, both mounted and on foot. The horse
seem to have formed a light corps, and were employed to begin the
combat. They are looked upon, however, with much contempt by the
opponent _knights_; who, disdaining to advance against an ignoble
foe, receive the charge without quitting their post. "Præmisit,"
says Rigord, "idem Electus[289], de consilio Comitis S. Pauli, CL.
Satellites in equis ad inchoandum bellum, ea intentione ut prædicti
milites egregii invenerint hostes aliquantulum motos et turbatos.
Indignati sunt Flandrenses ... quod non a Militibus sed a Satellibus
primo invadebantur: nec se moverent de loco quo stabant, sed eos
ibidem expectantes acriter receperunt," &c. These troops, we are
told, were from the valley of Soissons, and combated both on foot
and on horseback. "Erant Satellites illi probissimi, de valle
Suessionensi, nec minus pugnabant sine equis quam in equis."
Not only were Spies in use, but, what somewhat disturbs one's
confidence in the exalted simplicity of these times, it had already
been discovered that the fair sex might be employed with advantage in
this office. The heroic Edward I., in his campaign against the Welsh
in 1281, gives a shilling to a "certain female spy" for her services:
"Cuidam spiatrici, de dono, xij. denarii[290]." And again, a pound
to another of these useful ladies, "to buy her a house:" "Cuidam
spiatrici, ad unam domum sibi emendam, de dono, xx. s.[291]"
From the various Statutes of Arms of this century we learn very exactly
the equipment of the military tenants. Three of these statutes for
England have been preserved: that of 1252, in the Additamenta of the
Historia Major of Matthew Paris, and printed in Rymer's Fœdera; that
forming part of the Statute of Winchester in 1285, printed by the
Record Commission in vol. i. of the "Statutes of the Realm;" and that
of 1298, printed in the new edition of the Fœdera, vol. i. p. 901. The
Scottish enactments will be found in Skene's _Regiam Majestatem_, and
the French in the _Collection des Ordonnances_.
The Assize of 1252, 36 of Hen. III., closely resembles that of 1285;
but in the first the equipment is of six varieties, while in the second
there are seven classes of armed men. To avoid repetition, we shall
give the earliest of these statutes in the text, and add the readings
relating to the armour from the Statute of Winchester in a note.
The Sheriffs, with two knights elected for that purpose, are to go
round the hundreds, cities, &c., and call before them the "cives,
burgenses, liberè tenentes, villanos et alios, ætatis quindecim
annorum usque ad ætatem sexaginta annorum; et eosdem faciant omnes
jurare ad arma, secundùm quantitatem terrarum et catallorum[292]
suorum; scilicet: Ad quindecim libratas terræ, unam loricam, capellum
ferreum, gladium, cultellum et equum[293]: Ad decem libratas terræ,
unum habergetum[294], capellum ferreum, gladium et cultellum: Ad
centum solidatas terræ, unum purpunctum, capellum ferreum, gladium,
lanceam et cultellum[295]: Ad quadraginta solidatas terræ et eo
amplius usque ad centum solidatas terræ, gladium, arcum, sagittas
et cultellum[296]. Qui minus habent quam XL. solidatas terræ, jurati
sint ad falces, gisarmas, cultellos et alia arma minuta[297].
"Ad catalla sexaginta marcarum, unam loricam, capellum ferreum,
gladium, cultellum et equum[298]: Ad catalla XL. marcarum, unum
haubercum, capellum ferreum, gladium et cultellum: Ad catalla XX.
marcarum, unum purpunctum, capellum ferreum, gladium et cultellum:
Ad catalla novem marcarum, gladium, cultellum, arcum et sagittas: Ad
catalla XL. solidarum et eo amplius usque ad decem marcas, falces,
gisarmas, et alia arma minuta[299].
"Omnes enim alii qui possunt habere arcus et sagittas extra forestam,
habeant: qui verò in forestâ, habeant arcus et pilatos[300]."
View of arms is to be taken by the mayors, bailiffs and provosts of
the cities and towns[301]. Constables to be appointed to command
the force. Tournaments and behourds forbidden:--"Clamare faciant
Vicecomites, &c. quod nulli conveniant ad turniandum vel burdandum,
nec ad alias quascunque aventuras." And none to appear armed except
those specially appointed.
The distinction between the kinds of arrow to be used within and
without the forest bounds, is curious, and not altogether clear at this
distance from the days of archery. The fatal power of the barbed shaft
upon the king's deer is indeed evident enough, but the comparatively
innocuous character of the piled arrow is not so plain. The usage,
however, is well attested by numerous instances. In the Statute of
arms of William the Lion, king of Scotland, we have: "Et omnes alii,
qui habere poterunt, habeant arcum et sagittas extra forestam: infra
forestam, arcum et pyle[302]." And by an agreement made in 1246
between Roger de Quinci, earl of Winchester, and Roger de Somery,
touching certain rights of chace in Bradgate Park, co. Leicester, it is
stipulated "quod Forestarii sui non portabunt in bosco prædicti Rogeri
de Somery et hæredum suorum sagittas barbatas sed pilettas[303]."
Shakespere, who illustrates everything, has a passage bearing on this
subject among the rest. Under the greenwood tree of the forest of
Arden, the Duke, in "As you like it," addresses his companions:--
"Come, shall we go and kill us venison?
And yet it irks me, the poor dappled fools
(Being native burghers of this desert city)
Should, in their own confines, with _forked heads_
Have their round haunches gored."--_Act_ ii. _Sc._ 1.
And the fatal effects of the forked head are familiar to us all in
the case of the
"----poor sequester'd stag,
That from the hunter's aim had ta'en a hurt,"
coming to languish away its life
"On the extremest verge of the swift brook."
The feudal levy of the Ban and Arrière-ban was of course much
influenced by the pressure of the occasion requiring their armament.
In 1205 King John, in a Council held at Winchester, called upon every
tenth knight in the realm to accompany him into Poitou, at the
expense of the other nine; and if, during his absence, the country
should be invaded, every man capable of bearing arms was to join in
its defence, under pain of forfeiting any lands he might hold; or, if
not a landowner, of becoming, with all his posterity, a _slave_ for
ever, and paying a yearly poll-tax of four-pence. Each knight was to
receive two shillings per day[304]. This expedition did not, however,
leave our shores.
When Philip of France was preparing to attack King John in 1213, the
English monarch summoned all his "liberos homines et servientes, vel
quicunque sint," to aid him under pain of culvertage[305].
In 1264, when the Earl of Leicester mustered his forces on Barham
Downs to resist the threatened invasion of Queen Eleanor, the military
tenants were ordered, under pain of felony, to bring into the field not
only the force specified in their tenures, but all the horsemen and
infantry in their power: every township was compelled to send eight,
six, or four footmen well armed with lances, bows, swords, cross-bows,
and axes, who should serve forty days at the expense of the township;
and the cities and burghs received orders to furnish as many horsemen
and footmen as the Sheriff should appoint[306].
The Pay assigned to troops who, having contributed the stipulated
service for their holdings or assessments, were required to render
further assistance to the king in his wars, we discover in the Roll
of Expenses of King Edward I. at Ruddlan Castle in Wales, in 1281-2.
From this curious document, which is printed in full in the sixteenth
volume of the Archæologia, we find:--
_The Pay of_ _Per Diem._ _In modern money._
A knight 12 Pence 15 shillings
An esquire 12 Pence 15 shillings
An archer 2 Pence 2s. 6d.
A cross-bowman 2 Pence 2s. 6d.
A captain-of-twenty } 4 Pence 5s. 0d.
(bowmen) }
A constable (of 100 } 6 Pence 7s. 6d.
bowmen) }
"Saturday the fifth day of January, paid to the Lord Engolrane,
serving with the Lord John de Deynile and his four Esquires, for
their wages from the first day of April to the fourth day of
June, for lxv. days xix. _li._ x. _s._
"To the same, for the pay of his fifth Esquire, for xxiv. days:
xxiv. _s._
"To the said five Esquires, for their pay, for fifteen days
following the fourth of June lxxv. _s._"
* * * * *
"Paid to Geoffry le Chamberlin, for the wages of twelve
cross-bowmen (_balistariorum_) and thirteen archers
(_sagittariorum_) for xxiv. days, each Cross-bowman receiving by
the day iv. _d._, and each Archer ij. _d._ vii. _li._ viii. _s._"
Here the arbalester gets double the wages of the archer, but in the
following and other instances, his pay is the same.
"To Guillemin and his comrade, Cross-bowmen, for their wages, for
twenty-one days, at ij. _d._ by the day xxi. _s._"
On one occasion, Guillemin and his companion receive sixpence per
day: but this is altogether an unusual sum.
The archers were divided into bands of twenties, and over each was
placed a Captain. To every hundred bowmen, with their captains, was
appointed a Constable.
"To Master R. Giffard, for the wages of one Constable of foot,
receiving vi. _d._ per day, and of fifty-three Archers, with two
Captains of Twenties, for three days xxix. _s._
* * * * *
"To Robert Giffard, ---- for the wages of forty-three Captains of
Twenties, each receiving iv. _d._ per day," &c.
There were also Constables of Cavalry, perhaps commanding mounted
archers, and their pay is set down at twelve pence per day.
Occasionally the constables have a command of two hundred men, and
sometimes it sinks as low as fifty. The ordinary number, however, is
a hundred.
Of the Armed Town-Watch in England we obtain some particulars from
the "Breve Regis" of the 36th Hen. III. "Henry, king, &c. to such
or such a sheriff, greeting. Be it known to you that, for the
maintenance of our peace, it has been provided in our Council, that
watch shall be kept in every city, borough and town of your county,
from Ascension Day to the Feast of St. Michael; to wit: that in
every city, six armed men (_armis munitos_) shall watch at every
gate: in every borough, twelve men: in every town (_in singulis
villis integris_) six men, or at least four, likewise furnished with
arms, according to the number of the inhabitants. They shall watch
continually throughout the night from sunset to sunrise; so that all
strangers seeking to pass through, may be detained till morning. And
then, if he be a loyal man (_fidelis_), he shall be set at liberty;
if a suspected person (_suspectus_), he shall be delivered over to
the Sheriff, to be by him kept in a place of safety. But if it happen
that strangers of this latter sort refuse to allow themselves to be
stopped, then the aforesaid Guards shall raise the hue against them
on all sides, and shall follow them with all the inhabitants of the
place (_cum tota villata_) and places adjacent, raising the hue and
cry 'de villa in villam' until they be taken[307]," &c. The manner
of the hue and cry is set down in the "Articuli[308]." "Pursuit by
hue and cry to be made according to the ancient and proper form, so
that those who neglect to follow the cry may be taken as accomplices
of the evil-doers, and delivered to the Sheriff. Moreover, in every
town, four or six men, according to the number of the inhabitants,
shall be appointed to make the hue and cry with promptitude and
perseverance, and to pursue evil-doers, if any should appear, with
bows and arrows and other light weapons (_et aliis levibus armis_);
which weapons ought to be provided for the custody of the whole town,
and to remain for the use of the aforesaid town. And besides the
foregoing, there shall be provided out of each hundred, two free and
loyal men of most influence, to be over them, and to see that the
watch be duly made, as well as the pursuits aforesaid."
Compare the regulations for the Watch of the city of Paris, contained
in an ordinance of Saint Louis in 1254; printed in the _Collection
des Ordonnances_.
The feudal constitution of armies was necessarily modified in different
countries by the nature of the territory, the habits of the people, and
the wealth of the state. In Germany, where the class of nobles was more
restricted than in France and England, the foot-troops were at an early
period regarded with consideration. In hilly countries, where the breed
of horses was of a small stature, a light-armed cavalry was the most
available force. While, in the fastnesses of mountains, the pikes and
halberds of a sturdy infantry compensated for the want of horses and
the poverty of a rugged territory.
The Scottish army in 1244, Matthew Paris[309] tells us, was "very
numerous and powerful, consisting of a thousand armed knights, well
mounted, although not on Spanish or Italian, or other costly horses,
and well protected by armour of steel or linen; and about a hundred
thousand foot-soldiers, who were all of one mind, and who, having
made confession, and been encouraged by the consoling assurance of
their preachers, that the cause in which they were engaged was a just
one and for their country's good, had very little fear of death."
In 1298 Wallace contending against Edward I. in person, formed his
pikemen, who were the strength of his army, into four circular
bodies[310], connected together by a number of archers from the
Forest of Selkirk. Before them he planted a defence of palisades:
behind them, the cavalry was stationed. In front of all was a morass,
dividing them from the English. The latter, having passed the night
on the bare heath, in the morning advanced to the attack. Their
first division, commanded by the Earl Marshal, from its ignorance
of the ground, soon became entangled in the morass. The second, led
by the Bishop of Durham, wheeled round the swamp and came in sight
of the Scottish cavalry, when the prelate ordered his men to await
the arrival of the other bodies. "To thy mass, bishop!" exclaimed
one of his knights, and rushed on the enemy. They gave way at the
first charge; the bowmen were trampled under foot, but the four
bodies of pikemen opposed on all sides an impenetrable front. The
bravest resistance, however, could not restore the fortune of the
day. Edward advanced his archers, supporting them with his military
engines, an opening was made in each circle, the men-at-arms dashed
in among the disordered pikemen, and the battle was won[311]. This
conflict, fought near Falkirk, on the 22nd of July, 1298, affords
one of innumerable instances, shewing that little reliance can be
placed in the numbers of the slain given by even cotemporary writers.
Trivet reports the loss of the Scotch at twenty thousand; Matthew of
Westminster raises it to forty thousand.
The Welsh, keeping up their hostilities to their Norman invaders,
reserved their aggressive operations till the wet and stormy
season of the year, when the land was unfit for the manœuvres of a
heavy-armed cavalry, and the gloomy days favourable for the sudden
onslaught of mountain warriors. "Videntes tempus hyemale madidum sibi
competere," says Matthew Paris[312].
The rich cities of Italy, as we have seen, began about the middle
of this century to employ stipendiary men-at-arms; and it seems
probable that the first of these knightly soldiers were those of the
equestrian class who, from political disgust or family feuds, had
become refugees in the territory of their new masters. The good wages
and the booty obtained by these gentle mercenaries induced others of
a more humble class to take up the trade, and under skilful leaders
(the well-known Condottieri) they obtained fame, fortune and honours.
The Basques were at this time among the most prominent of the
mercenary troops, acting as a light corps, for which their
mountain-life rendered them very apt. They were the Swiss of the
thirteenth century.
Among our northern neighbours we obtain a glimpse of the
Frieslanders, through the means of the indefatigable Matthew Paris.
"These Frieslanders," he says, "are a rude and untamable people:
they inhabit a northern country, are well skilled in naval warfare,
and fight with great vigour and courage on the ice. It is of the
cold regions of these people, and their neighbours the Sarmatians,
that Juvenal says, 'One had better fly hence, beyond the Sarmatians
and the icy ocean,' &c. The Frieslanders, therefore, having laid
ambuscades among the rush-beds along the sea-coast, (in their war
with William of Holland,) as well as along the country, which is
marshy--and the winter season was coming on--went in pursuit of the
said William, armed with javelins, which they call _gaveloches_,
in the use of which they are very expert, and with Danish axes and
pikes, and clad in linen dresses covered with light armour. On
reaching a certain marsh they met with William, helmeted, and wearing
armour, and mounted on a large war-horse covered with mail. But, as
he rode along, the ice broke, although it was more than half a foot
thick, and the horse sank up to his flank, becoming fixed in the
mud of the marsh. The trammelled rider dug his sharp spurs into the
animal's sides to a great depth, and the noble, fiery beast struggled
to rise and free himself, but without success. Crushed and bruised,
he only sank the deeper for his efforts, and at length by his
struggles he threw his rider among the rough slippery fragments of
ice. The Frieslanders then rushed on William, who had no one to help
him from his position, all his companions having fled, to avoid a
similar disaster; and attacking him on all sides with their javelins,
despite his cries for mercy, pierced his body through and through,
which was already stiffened with wet and cold. He offered his
murderers an immense sum of money for ransom of his life, but these
inhuman men, shewing no mercy, cut him to pieces. And thus, just as
he had a taste of empire, was the Flower of Chivalry, William, king
of Germany and count of Holland, the creature and pupil of the Pope,
hurled, at the will of his enemies, from the pinnacle of his high
dignity to the depths of confusion and ruin[313]."
Clerics are still found participating the dangers and glories of
the battle-field; not alone as councillors or leaders, but sturdily
wielding the deadly mace, and clad in hauberk and helm, like the
lay vassals and men-at-arms around them. We have already seen the
Bishop of Durham leading a division of the English at the battle of
Falkirk. At the great battle of Bovines, in 1214, the French army was
commanded by Guerin, bishop-elect of Senlis; and there too, armed
to the teeth, and plying the cleric weapon, the mace, contended
that bishop of Beauvais, whom we have, on a former occasion, seen
the prisoner of Richard Cœur-de-Lion. At the siege of Milan, in
1238, "the bishop-elect of Valentia, who knew more of temporal than
spiritual arms, hastened with the knights whom the counts of Toulouse
and Provence had sent to assist the emperor[314]." In 1239 the
Emperor Frederic, writing to the king of England, complains of the
Pope becoming a general and his monks men-at-arms, to wrest from him
his crown of empire. "He hath openly declared himself the leader and
chief of the war against us and the empire, making the cause of the
Milanese and other faithless traitors his own, and openly turning
their business to suit his own interests. Moreover, he appointed as
his lieutenants over the Milanese, or rather the papal, army, the
before-mentioned Gregory de Monte Longo and brother Leo, a minister
of the Minorite order, who not only girded on the sword and clad
themselves in armour, presenting the false appearance of soldiers;
but also, continuing their office of preaching, absolved from their
sins the Milanese and others, when they insulted our person or those
of our followers[315]." Father John of Gatesden boldly throws aside
alb and chasuble to don the knightly hauberk and chausses in good
earnest. "Anno Domini 1245, King Henry passed Christmas at London,
and observed the solemnities of that festival in the company of many
of his nobles. At that place, on Christmas-day, he conferred the
honour of knighthood on John de Gatesden, a clerk, who had enjoyed
several rich benefices; but who, as was proper, now resigned them
all[316]." In the contest for the empire in 1248, the army raised
against Conrad by the legate, "was commanded by the archbishops of
Mayence, Metz, Lorraine and Strasburg, and consisted of innumerable
bands from their provinces and from Friesland, Gothland, Russia,
Dacia, and from the provinces of Germany and those adjoining who had
_received the cross_[317]," &c. For it was part of the papal tactics
to invest the soldiers who fought in the quarrels of the Holy See
with the sacred dignity of Crusaders. In the revolt of the Scots
under Bruce in 1306, among the prisoners captured by the English were
the Abbot of Scone and the Bishops of St. Andrew's and Glasgow, all
taken in complete armour[318].
The leading principle in the TACTICS of this century was, with the
exceptions already noticed, to compose the _strength of the army_
of the knightly order. It was the knight who fought in the terrible
mêlée of the battle-field: it was the knight who scaled the walls
of the besieged fortress; who directed the discharge of perrier and
mangonel; who filled the towers of assault by the city walls; who
defended those walls from outward attack; and who, in sea-fights,
manned the ships of war, and with pike and javelin contended against
other men-at-arms battling in the adverse fleet. The remainder of the
troops were looked upon as mere accessories, engines useful to clear
the way for the "achievement" of the equestrian order.
The men-at-arms marched to the field of battle in squadrons so dense
that, as a cotemporary writer records, "a glove thrown into the midst
of them would not have reached the ground."
"Chacun conroi lente aleure
S'en va joint comme en quarreure,
Si bien que s'un gant preissiez
Et entr'eux haut le gétissiez,
Il paroit qu'à son asseoir
Ne duste mie tost cheoir."--_Guiart_, 2 par., v. 11,494.
They charged, however, in single line--_en haie_--the onset of
the first rank being supported by the successive charges of those
behind. The ancient formation of the wedge (_cuneus_) was not,
however, altogether abandoned, whether for horse or foot. The
particular manner in which the German cavalry composed the wedge,
beginning with a front of seven men, and increasing each rank by one
additional soldier, as far as to half the depth of the formation,
is very clearly shewn by Fronsperger[319]. "Wie wohl bey den Alten
gebraeuchlich gewesen das sie ihre Schlachtordnung (fur die Reisigen)
gespitzt oder in Dreyangel gemacht haben, also das etwan im ersten
Glied sieben Mann, im andern acht, im dritten neun, im vierten zehn;
also fort an bis auf den halben Theil der Ordnung und Hauffen,
darnach seien si durchaus geviert gemacht worden." In 1302, a body of
Flemish infantry adopted a similar formation in acting against the
French. "Les François virent une très grande bataille des Flamands,
qui contint bien huit mil hommes; et avoient ordonné leur bataille en
guise d'un escu, la pointe devant, et s'estoient entrelaciez l'un en
l'autre, si que on me les peut percier[320]."
Of the circular formation we have already seen an example among the
Scotch at the battle of Selkirk. Guiart furnishes another:--
"Renaut, jadis quens de Bouloingne,
Qui mort ne mehaing ne resoingne,
Tant est plain de grant hardement,
Ot fait dès le commencement
De serjanz plains de grant prouece
Une closture en réondèce,
Ou, en reposant, s'aaisoit
Toutes les fois qu'il li plaisoit;
Et r'issoit de leanz souvent
Quant il avoit pris air ou vent."--_Sub an._ 1214.
The entire army was usually formed into three "battles:" sometimes
into four; and occasionally the whole force was gathered into one
body. In 1249 the Imperialists, fighting against the Bolognese,
distributed their troops into three corps, while the latter formed
four[321]. And in 1266, Manfred, in a battle with Charles d'Anjou,
ranged his cavalry in three bodies, while his adversary divided his
army into four parts[322].
In front of all were placed the various "gyns" of the host; the
mangonels, trebuchets, perdriaux, &c., serving in some degree the
purpose of gunnery in our own day.
"Près du roi devant la banière
Metent François trois Perdriaus,
Jetans pierres aus enniaus
Entre Flamens grosses et males,
Joignant d'eus rot deux Espringoles,
Que garçons au tirer avancent."
_Guiart._--2^e. Par., v. 11,573.
At the battle of Mons-en-Puelle, in 1304, three espringoles were
placed in battery before the French army, of which the force was so
great that the quarrels discharged from them are said to have pierced
four or five ranks of the enemy in succession.
"Li garrot, empené d'arain,
Quatre ou cinq en percent tout outre."--_G. Guiart._
The Archers and Cross-bowmen were usually placed at the wings, the
infantry of the communal levy in the centre, and behind these the
mounted men-at-arms.
"Cil d'armes se rangent derrières."--_Guiart_, _Année_ 1303.
Archers were sometimes intermixed with the cavalry. Thus, in the
23rd of Edward I., the Earl of Warwick fighting against the Welsh,
the latter "placed their men-at-arms fronting the earl's army: they
were furnished with very long spears, which, being set on the ground,
had their points suddenly turned towards the earl and his company,
in order to break the force of the English cavalry. But the earl had
well provided against them; for between every two horsemen he had
placed an archer, so that, by their missile weapons, those who held
the lances were put to the rout[323]." We have already seen _bodies_
of archers interspersed with other troops in the conflict between
Edward and Wallace in 1298[324].
To defend themselves from the attack of cavalry, the army
occasionally formed a barrier of carts and wagons.
"De chars et de charettes vuides,
Qu'à grant diligence ont atruites,
Ont entr'eus trois rengies faites,
En tel sens et par ordre commune
Que le derrière de chacune
Est mis, si com nous estimons,
A l'autre entre les deus limons."
_Guiart_, 2^e. partie, v. 11,108.
The more usual entrenchment was the ancient one of a ditch and
palissaded bank.
Stratagems were still greatly in vogue, and some of them are of so
dramatic a character that they tell rather of the jongleur than of
the sober historian. Others, with enough of the marvellous, are less
out of the bounds of probability. In 1250, Matthew Paris informs
us, the Saracens gained a victory over a body of Crusaders, whom
they slew. Desiring to obtain possession of Damietta, which was in
the hands of the Christians, "a strong body of them, about equal in
number to the Crusaders they had slain, treacherously putting on the
armour, and carrying the shields and standards of the Christians who
had fallen, set out thus disguised towards Damietta; in order that,
having the appearance of French troops, they might gain admission
into the city, and, as soon as admitted, might kill all they found
therein. When they approached the walls, the Christians on guard
looked forth from the ramparts and towers, and at first thought
they were Christians, exultingly bearing spoils and trophies: but
the nearer they approached, the more unlike Frenchmen they seemed:
for they marched hurriedly and in disordered crowds, and sloped
their shields irregularly, more after the manner of Saracens than of
French. And when they reached the extremities of the fortifications
and approached the gates of the city, they were clearly seen to be
Saracens by their black and bearded faces. But who can fully relate
the heartfelt grief of the Christians when they saw the enemies
of the faith giving vent to their pride and derision, clad in the
armour, and bearing the standards and painted devices which were so
well known to them[325]."
The device of equipping several soldiers in similar arms to the
leader of the host, seems also to have been in use. At the siege of
Viterbo in 1243, Matthew Paris tells us, "One illustrious soldier on
the Emperor's side, and adorned with his special arms, (_armis ipsius
specialibus decoratus_,) miserably expired, to the great grief of
the Emperor, being pierced by the quarrel of a crossbow. His enemies
raised a shout of joy, thinking they had slain the Emperor himself;
but the Emperor, preceded by his trumpeters, advanced; and, though
not without difficulty, disengaged his army from the fury of their
opponents, who had suddenly pressed forward to crush them[326]."
The influence of the stars, the power of lucky and unlucky days
over the issue of battle, were still occasionally acknowledged; not
alone by the rude leaders of a company of men-at-arms, but by the
commanders of armies, by crowned dignitaries. The Emperor Frederic
II. had a firm faith in the predictions of astrologers; he never
undertook a march until the fortunate moment for departure had been
fixed by those skilled in divination; and when, in 1239, he was about
to advance against Treviso, his march was suddenly arrested by an
eclipse of the sun[327].
[Illustration: GREAT SEAL OF KING JOHN.
No. 52.]
The usual BODY-ARMOUR of the knightly order was, in the early part
of the thirteenth century, of interlinked chain-mail; but, in the
second half of the century, portions of plate appear, in the form of
shoulder-pieces, elbow-pieces, and knee-pieces. The chain-mail was of
hammered iron, the art of wire-drawing not being found till about the
middle of the next age. Other materials were occasionally employed
for defensive purposes: leather, quilting, scale and jazerant-work,
and, at the close of the century, a kind of armour which has been
named Banded-mail, but of which the structure has not been exactly
ascertained. There can be little doubt that, among the more humble
troops, the Coustillers and the Ribauds, every kind of defensive
material was in use which these men could obtain: a pectoral and a
helmet of some sort were almost indispensable, to protect them from
the downward flight of the arrows, which played so principal a part,
whether in the field or the siege. The knights themselves, indeed,
did not attempt a uniform costume: on the contrary, it is often made
a reproach to them, that each endeavoured to outvie the other in
the magnificence of his apparel. On rare occasions we find a band
of cavaliers who exhibit the marvel of a similar equipment. When
Richard, earl of Gloucester, visited the Pope, in 1250, "he travelled
through the kingdom of France accompanied by the Countess, his wife,
and his eldest son, Henry, with a numerous suite, and attended by a
large retinue, in great pomp, consisting of forty knights equipped
in new accoutrements, all alike, and mounted on beautiful horses,
bearing new harness, glittering with gold, and with five wagons and
fifty sumpter-horses; so that he presented a wonderful and honourable
show to the sight of the astonished French beholders[328]."
The usual series of knightly garments was the tunic, the gambeson,
the hauberk, the chausses, the chausson, and the surcoat. With these
are found various accessories: the ailettes, coudières, poleyns, and
greaves.
The Tunic has already been seen in the first seal of Richard I., and
other monuments. It again appears in this curious group, part of a
martyrdom of Thomas à Becket, from Harl. MS. 5102, fol. 32, a work
of the beginning of the thirteenth century (_overleaf_.) It is found
also in our woodcut No. 63, from Add. MS. 17,687, an example of the
close of the century.
[Illustration: No. 53.]
The Gambeson, that quilted garment which we have seen was worn as an
additional defence beneath the hauberk of chain-mail, is in view in
the monumental effigy from Haseley church, Oxfordshire, (woodcut 46,)
a figure seemingly of the middle of this century. It is again very
clearly shewn in our woodcut No. 59, an effigy in Ash church, near
Sandwich. In both these examples the vertical lines of quilting are
plainly expressed by the sculptor. Ducange, in his Observations on
the History of St. Louis, cites an account of the year 1268, which
includes "Expensæ pro cendatis et bourra ad Gambesones[329]." These
might, however, have been the Gambesons that formed of themselves
the body-armour of the soldier. It is very clearly distinguished
as a horseman's garment in a passage of the Statutes of Frejus, in
1235; where also we see the gambeson _alone_ accorded to the
foot-fighter: "Militem sine equo armato intelligimus armatum
auspergoto et propuncto (with hauberk and gambeson) et scuto: peditem
armatum intelligimus armatum scuto et propuncto _seu_ aspergoto." The
Chronicon Colmariense, under the year 1298, is still more explicit:
"Armati reputabantur qui galeas ferreas in capitibus habebant, et qui
wambasia, id est, tunicam spissam ex lino et stuppa, vel veteribus
pannis consutam, et _desuper_ camisiam ferream."
[Illustration:
PLATE LIV.]
The Hauberk of chain-mail, in the beginning of the thirteenth
century, was made with continuous coif and gloves, the coif somewhat
flattened at the top of the head, and the gloves not divided into
fingers; it descended nearly to the knees, and at the face-opening
left little more than the eyes and nose of the knight in view. A
striking example of the last-named arrangement is afforded by the
figure here engraved, the sculptured effigy of William Longespée, at
Salisbury, c. 1227. See also the seal of King John, p. 228, and the
woodcut, No. 53, from Harl. MS. 5102. The sleeve of the hauberk is
sometimes secured at the wrist by a lace or strap; as in the figure
of Longespée, in the brass of Sir Roger de Trumpington, c. 1289,
(woodcut 73,) and the effigy at Norton, Durham, of the end of the
century (woodcut 70). In order to liberate the hand occasionally from
its fingerless glove, an aperture was left in the centre of the palm.
This is clearly shewn in our woodcuts, No. 80 and 62; the first from
the Lives of the Offas, Cotton MS., Nero, D. i.; and the other from
Roy. MS. 2, A. XXII. The glove turned off and hanging from the wrist
may be seen in Plate 17 of Hefner's _Trachten_, and in the sculptured
effigy of a knight in Bingham church, Nottinghamshire. In the second
half of the century the gloves of the hauberk were divided for the
fingers; from which we may suppose that the armour-smith had by this
time improved his art by making his mail-web more flexible and more
delicate. Early examples occur in the sculptured effigies of knights
at Rampton, Cambridgeshire, and Danbury, Essex; the former figured
in Stothard's Monuments, Plate 20; the latter in Strutt's Dress and
Habits, Plates 45 and 46. Instances both of the undivided and the
fingered glove will be found among our engravings. Occasionally
the sleeves of the hauberk terminate at the wrist, as those of the
archers in cuts 47 and 48; in these instances obviously for the
greater freedom in handling the bow. Where the lancer's hauberk is
thus fashioned, the hand has the supplementary defence of a gauntlet.
Gauntlets of scalework occur in a knightly brass, c. 1280, engraved
by Waller, Part x., and Boutell[330], p. 113. To the elbows of the
hauberk were sometimes affixed, but rarely in this century, plates
of metal called _coudières_. An effigy in Salisbury Cathedral,
circa 1260, (Stothard, Pl. XXX.,) offers a good example. There is
another, a knight of the Clinton family, in the church of Coleshill,
Warwickshire. The hauberk was subject to a further variety: it was
made with or without a _Collar_. Matthew Paris tells us that in a
hastilude "at the abbey of Wallenden" in 1252, the lance of Roger de
Lemburn entered beneath the helm of his antagonist and pierced his
throat, for he was uncovered in that part of his body, and without
a collar (_carens collario_). Ducange cites an analogous passage:
"Venitque ictus inter cassidem et collarium, dejecitque caput ejus
multum a corpore[331]." The hauberk without collar may be seen in
the figures of _Largesse_ and _Debonnaireté_ in the pictures of the
Painted Chamber (Vet. Mon., vol. vi.)
The Continuous Coif was in the early part of the century nearly flat at
the top; in the second half the round-topped coif was more usual. The
flattened form is well shewn in the statue of Longespée (woodcut, No.
54), and in those of De l'Isle and De Braci, (Stothard, Plates XIX. and
XX.) The rounded crown occurs frequently in our woodcuts. The coif was
drawn over the head by means of an opening in the side, and was then
fastened by a lace, a buckle, or a tie. The manner in which the lace,
passing through alternate groups of the links farming the coif, is
made to secure the loose to the fixed part of the cap, is excellently
shewn in the figures of Longespée and the so-called Duke of Normandy
in Gloucester Cathedral, (Stothard, Plate XXII.) A good example of the
fastening by strap and buckle is furnished by the fragment of an effigy
found at Exeter, engraved in the Archæological Journal, vol. ix. p.
188. The coif adjusted by a tie is seen in our woodcut, No. 62. The
side-piece hanging free is shewn in a knightly statue of this century
in the Abbey Church of Pershore, Worcestershire, engraved in the
Journal of the Archæological Association, vol. iv. p. 319. The coif is
sometimes encircled by a fillet. See our woodcuts, No. 46, 59, and 63.
The circles are of gold-colour in figures of the Painted Chamber (Pl.
XXX.): in the effigy of William de Valence the band is richly jewelled,
(Stothard, Pl. XLIV.)
Many examples shew that the warrior often went to battle without any
kind of helmet _over_ the coif of chain-mail; though it is probable
that some additional defence, whether of plate or of quilted-work,
was in this case worn beneath it. The regular and compact form of
the crown in many ancient examples favours this belief; and a modern
instance from the East helps to confirm it. A suit of Birman armour
in the Tower of London has a skull-cap of plate which is quite hidden
from view by the outer armour of the head. In the effigy at Bingham,
Notts., already mentioned, the upper part of the coif is so large
that it almost gives the notion of a turban being worn beneath. The
coif used in battle without any further defence over it, may be seen
in our engravings, No. 80 and 82.
On other occasions, the mail-coif had the additional armament of a
helmet of some kind. This may be better considered in our general
notice of helmets.
[Illustration: No. 55.]
The Hood of Chain-mail appears to have been designed as an
improvement on the Continuous Coif by rendering unnecessary the
side-opening and the lacing about the face. But the hood had this
great disadvantage; that, as it lay on the shoulders of the knight,
it permitted the lance of the adversary to pass beneath it and deal
a deadly thrust on the unguarded neck. This fact is of constant
occurrence, as well in the chronicles as in the pictures of the
times. The hood, like the coif, is both flat-topped and round.
The flattened hood is seen in the effigy of De l'Isle, (Stothard,
Pl. XX.) The round appears in the brasses of Sir John D'Aubernoun
(woodcut, No. 55), and Sir Roger de Trumpington (Waller, Pt. iv.,
and our woodcut, No. 73): in the statues of De Vere, Crouchback, and
Shurland, figured by Stothard; and in our engravings, No. 59 and
63. A simple lace, passing across the forehead and tying behind,
bound the hood firmly to the head. The manner of this may be seen on
comparing the brass of Sir John D'Aubernoun and the statue of Sir
Robert Shurland. Both hood and coif appear occasionally to have been
slipped over the head and suffered to rest on the shoulders. Compare
the effigy in the Temple Church (Stothard, Pl. XXXVIII.), Hefner's
plate 27, and our woodcuts No. 56 and 70. The hood is sometimes shewn
as made of a cloth-like material, (cloth, leather, or pourpointerie?)
as in the front figure of our engraving, No. 68, from a MS. in the
library of Metz. Its colour is brown, while the banded mail in this
drawing is iron-colour. (Hefner, Pl. LXXVII.) Plain and enriched
fillets, which we have seen were worn over the mail-coif, appear
also upon the hood. The plain circle occurs in the Gosberton effigy
(Stothard, Pl. XXXVII.), and in our woodcuts, No. 59 and 63. Enriched
examples are found in the sculptures of De Vere and Crouchback
(Stothard, Pl. XXXVI. and XLII.).
[Illustration: No. 56.]
Beneath the head-defence of chain-mail was worn a coif of softer
material, to mitigate the roughness of the iron-cloth; and perhaps
also to assist in protecting the head by being made of quilted-work.
See our woodcut, No. 56, from a miniature given by Willemin
(Monumens Inédits, j. Pl. CII.) Compare also Painted Chamber, Pl.
XXXV., and Willemin, j. Pl. CXLIII.
Besides the Hauberk already described, which however forms in a great
majority of instances the body-armour of the knights of this time,
we have several varieties of defensive equipment. The Haubergeon is
still mentioned, and seems to imply, not alone the smaller hauberk of
chain-mail, but sometimes a garment of inferior defence and different
material. There is also a chain-mail hauberk made with sleeves which
reach but little below the elbows. A good example occurs on folio
9 of Roy. MS. 12, F. xiii.; a Bestiarium. See also the figures of
Virtues in Plates XXXVIII. and XXXIX. of the Painted Chamber.
The Gambeson or Pourpoint, or _Gambesiata Lorica_, as it is called
in a will of the year 1286, frequently appears as forming of
itself the coat of fence. It is thus noticed in the Statute of
Winchester, already quoted; where, while the first class of tenants
are prescribed a "hauber, chapel de feer," &c., the third class are
to have "parpoint, chapel de feer, espe e cutel." Compare also the
Statute of Arms of 1252. In the eighth of Edward I. we read that
"Rogerus de Wanstede tenet dimid. serjantiam ibidem per servitium
inveniendi unum Valectum per octo dies, sumptibus propriis, cum
praepuncto, capella ferrea et lancea, custodire castrum de Portsmut
tempore guerrae[332]." In the "Ordonnances sur le Commerce et les
Métiers," the duties of the pourpointers of Paris at the close
of this century are very exactly defined. "Se l'on fait cotes
gamboisiees, que elles soient couchees deuement sur neufves
estoffes, et pointees, enfermees, faites a deux fois, bien et
nettement emplies, de bonnes estoffes, soient de coton ou dautres
estoffes[333]." Again: "Item que nul doresenavant ne puist faire cote
gamboisiee ou il n'ait trois livres de coton tout net, si elles ne
sont faites en fremes, et au dessous soient faites entremains, et que
il y ait un ply de vieil linge emprez l'endroit de demie aulne et
demy quartier devant et autant derriere." From these enactments we
see that the counterpointers of the thirteenth century were but too
apt to construct their armours of unstable materials, and to stuff
them with a niggard hand.
The Cuirie (_Cuirena_) was, as its name implies, originally a
defence of leather: it was also made of cloth. It covered the body
alone, requiring the addition of _Brachières_ to complete the coat.
Thus, in the Roll of Purchases made for the Windsor tournament
in the sixth year of Edward I., we have: "De Milōn. le Cuireu͂r
(Milo the Currier) xxxiij. quire͂t, p'c pēc iij. _s._" Each took
two ells of the cloth called Carda in its construction: "I͂t pro
qualibet quiret͂t ij. ul̄n card." The sleeves appear to have been of
pourpointerie: "I͂t pro xxxviij. pa͂r brac͂h, x. bukeran̄n[334]."
An account cited by Ducange, of the date 1239, has:--"Pro hernesio suo,
videlicet baccis et cuireniis suis affecturis IX. lib. v. sol. Item pro
tribus baccis et tribus cuirenis ad eosdem, IV. lib. iv. sol." See the
glossarists under _Baca_. Guiart also mentions the cuirie:--
"Hyaumes, haubers, tacles, cuiries,
Fondent par les grans cops et fraingnent."
_Année_ 1268.
The Cargan seems to have been a collar or tippet of chain-mail. It
occurs as part of a footman's armour in the Statutes of Frejus, A.D.
1233: "Peditem armatum intelligimus armatum scuto et propuncto, seu
auspergoto, et cofa seu capello ferreo, et cargan, vel sine cargan,"
&c. The glossarists derive this and the cognate word, _carcannum_,
from καρκίνος, genus vinculi; and, if this derivation is the true
one, a gorget of chain-mail may be fairly inferred.
Other materials for armour than those mentioned above appear during the
thirteenth century; but, before noticing these, it may be well to take
a glance at the remaining _parts_ of the knightly suit as they occur in
the usual monuments of the time; then to examine the appendages which
are attached to the body-armour, as the ailettes; after which we will
notice the exceptional materials employed for defensive purposes; and
lastly, those portions of the warrior's equipment which have not been
included in the above scheme of investigation.
The Chausses, in the early part of the thirteenth century were
entirely of chain-mail, covering the whole leg; as shewn in our
woodcuts, No. 46, 52, and 54. Sometimes they were tightened below the
knee with a lace, as in the two Salisbury effigies (Stothard, Plates
XVII. and XXX., and our woodcut, No. 54.) A variety of this defence
was laid on the front part of the leg, and then laced up behind. See
woodcut, No. 53, from Harl. MS. 5102, fol. 32, a book of the early
part of the century; and our numbers 56 and 62, towards the close of
this period. Compare also Plates XXXIII. of Hefner, Plate LIV. of
Strutt's Horda, and folio 10 of Roy. MS. 12, F. XIII.
To the chausses, whether of chain-mail or of banded-mail, are sometimes
added Poleyns (or knee-pieces) of plate. It is often, however,
difficult to determine whether the poleyns are fixed to the chausses or
the chausson, from the upper edge of them being covered by the hauberk.
A good example of the chausses armed with the knee-piece is offered
by the knightly statue in Salisbury Cathedral (Stothard, Pl. XXX.),
circa 1260. See also our woodcuts, No. 75 and 77: the first from Add.
MS. 11,639, fol. 520; the latter from a glass-painting in the north
transept of Oxford Cathedral. A German example given by Hefner (Pt. i.
Pl. LXXVII.), from a manuscript illuminated at Metz c. 1280, is copied
in our woodcut, No. 68. Poleyns are named in the Wardrobe Account
of 28 Ed. I. (1300): "factura diversorum armorum, vexillorum, et
penocellorum, pro Domino Edwardo filio Regis, et Johanne de Lancastria,
jamberis, poleyns, platis, uno capello ferri, una cresta cum clavis
argenti pro eodem capello," &c.
[Illustration: No. 57.]
Towards the close of the thirteenth century the Chausses are most
commonly accompanied with a Chausson of leather or quilted-work, the
purpose of which was probably to obviate the inconvenience of the
long chausses of metal in riding. It is found plain, gamboised in
vertical lines, and sometimes richly diapered. The plain chausson
is well shewn in Stothard's Plates XXII. and XXVI., effigies at
Gloucester and in the Temple Church, London. The gamboised chausson
is seen in this drawing of an ivory chess-piece preserved in the
Ashmolean Museum. See also the effigy of a De Vere at Hatfield
Broadoak, (Stothard, Pl. XXXVI.) An excellent example of the
pourpointed chausson worked in a rich diaper is offered by the brass
of De Bures, 1302 (Waller, Pt. 2, and Boutell's "Brasses and Slabs").
A curious variety of the chausson and chausses is found in the figure
of a knight from Roy. MS. 2, A. xxii. fol. 219, given in our woodcut,
No. 62; the chausson here being of chain-mail, while the chausses
appear to be of rivetted plates. A chausson of chain-mail again
appears in our cut, No. 86, from the Painted Chamber. To the chausson
were usually attached knee-pieces of some rigid material: metal,
_cuir bouilli_, or a mixture of both. See our woodcuts, Nos. 59 and
63; an effigy in Ash Church near Sandwich, and an illumination from a
German manuscript, Add. MS. 17,687, both of the end of this century.
Compare also the effigy at Gosberton (Stothard, Pl. XXXVII.), and
those of De Vere and De Bures cited above. Among the embellishments
of these poleyns are sometimes found little shields of arms; as in
our woodcut, No. 70, the effigy of an unknown knight in Norton
Church, Durham, c. 1300[335], and in the statue of Brian Fitz Alan,
in Bedale Church, Yorkshire, engraved in Hollis's Effigies, Pt. 4,
and in Blore's Monuments.
[Illustration: No. 58.]
At the close of this century first appear the Greaves, of metal or
_cuir bouilli_, covering the front of the leg from the knee to the
instep. They were probably of German introduction, for their Latin
name was _Bainbergæ_, from the German _Beinbergen_; and it seems
likely that the Germans may have copied them from the examples of
classic times with which they had become familiar during their wars
in Italy. In the south of Europe, the greaves were already become of
a highly ornamental character, as we may see from this sculpture of
Gulielmus Balnis, 1289, from a bas-relief in the Annunziata Convent
at Florence[336]; while in England they do not once appear among
our monumental effigies or on our royal seals. Nor can a single
example be found among the pictures that adorned the royal palace
of Westminster. They are seen, however, among the illustrations of
a manuscript of Matthew Paris' Lives of the two Offas, (Cott. MS.,
Nero, D. 1,) a work usually assigned to the thirteenth century,
but perhaps not earlier than the next age. Our woodcut, No. 80,
has an example from this manuscript, folio 7. On comparing the two
engravings given by us, it will be seen that, while the vellum
picture shews the defence below the knee only, the Italian figure
has it both below and above. The abundance of ornament in the
latter specimen seems to imply a moulded material--_cuir bouilli_?
Antique examples, however, found at Pompeii and elsewhere, are of
metal, highly ornamented with chasing and embossed-work. The name
Bainberg occurs in several ancient documents. In the Lex Ripuaria
we have: "Bainbergas bonas pro VI. sol. tribuat." And in the will
of St. Everard, duke of Frejus: "Bruniam unam, helmum 1. et manicam
1. ad ipsam opus, _bemberga_ II." &c. And again: "Bruniam unam cum
halsberga et manicam unam, _bemivergas_ duas." The word in the last
passage being probably an error for _beinbergas_.
[Illustration:
PLATE LIX.]
In the last quarter of the thirteenth century appear those curious
appendages to the knightly suit, the Ailettes. But they do not occur
in any frequency till the beginning of the fourteenth century. We
shall, therefore, in noticing this novelty, refer to some examples
of the later period. From their name, _ailettes_, Fr.; _alette_,
Ital.; and _alettæ_ in the Latin of the period, they appear to have
been a French or Italian invention. An early notice of them is in
the Roll of Purchases for the Windsor Tournament in 1278, where they
are made of leather covered with the kind of cloth called Carda. "De
eodem (Milo the Currier) xxxviij. pa͂r alec͂t co͂r p'̄c pa͂r. viij.
d." "I͂t pro xxxviij. pa͂r alet͂t ͂s. pro q̊ pa͂r dī ul̄n card. ͂s.
XIX. ul̄n." They were fastened with silk laces, supplied by "Richard
Paternoster." "D Ricõ pa͂t n͂r viij. Duodēn laqueorum serīc pro
alet͂t p'̄c duodēn viij. d.[337]" Sir Roger de Trumpington was one
of the thirty-eight knights engaged in this tournament, and it is
remarkable that his monumental brass furnishes one of the earliest
and best pictorial examples of the ailette that has come down to us.
(See our woodcut, No. 73.) There is one instance of it, and only one,
in the pictures of the Painted Chamber, Pl. XXXV. It is ensigned with
a bird. In monumental statues it is very rare. The figure here given
is from a knightly tomb in the Church of Ash-by-Sandwich, seemingly
of the close of this century[338]. The ailettes appear _behind_ the
shoulders, rising from the slab beneath, about the eighth of an inch.
They have been quadrangular, the outer corners having become broken
by accident: there is no trace of any fastening, and no remain of
colour. The other monumental statues in England exhibiting the
ailette are those of a Pembridge in Clehongre Church, Herefordshire
(figured, with details, in Hollis's Effigies, Pt. 5), and the
so-called Crusader at Great Tew, Oxfordshire. The Clehongre figure is
especially curious as shewing the ailette fastened by its "laqueus,"
which appears on the outside. In Switzerland there is the statue of
Rudolf von Thierstein, at Basle: the ailettes here are square, and
fixed on the _side_ of the figure. (Hefner, Pt. 2, Pl. XLI.) Our
English monumental brasses furnish several examples. See those of
Septvans and Buslingthorpe, given by Waller, and the Gorleston brass,
Plate LI. of Stothard. The curious painted windows at Tewkesbury,
figured in full by Carter (Sculpture and Painting), and in part
by Shaw (Dress and Decorations), afford the best illustration
contributed by pictured glass. Good examples are found in the ivory
carvings and seals of the period. The seals of Edward the Third, as
duke and as king, are well-known instances; and the ivory casket
engraved by Carter, Plates CXIII. and CXIV., offers a singular
variety of this accessory. Illuminated manuscripts furnish abundant
examples. See, for instance, Roy. MSS., 14, E. III. and 2, B. VII.,
and Add. MS. 10,292. The Louterell Psalter has a good specimen,
copied in Carter's work named above, and in the _Vetusta Monumenta_.
French monumental examples, we learn from M. Allou, are very scarce:
"L'accessoire qui nous occupe est fort rare dans les monuments
français. Nous en trouvons des exemples dans les dessins qui nous ont
été communiqués par M. Achille Deville, des pierres sépulchrales de
Robert Duplessis, 1322, de Robert d'Estouteville, 1331, et de Jean de
Lorraine, Duc de Brabant, 1341[339]."
[Illustration: No. 60.]
[Illustration: No. 61.]
The forms of the ailette are various: the most frequent is the
quadrangular, as in the Ash Church effigy given above, and in this
example from Add. MS. 10,293, fol. 58; a book _dated_ in 1316. The
round form occurs on the ivory casket engraved in vol. 4 of the
Journal of the Archæological Association, and in Plates CXIII. and
CXIV. of Carter's Sculpture and Painting. The pentagonal is seen in
an illumination of Sloane MS. 3,983, engraved as the frontispiece to
Strutt's Dress and Habits; the cruciform, in the figure of a knight
from Roy. MS., 2, A. XXII. fol. 219 (our woodcut, No. 62). And on
folio 94^{vo}. of Roy. MS., 14, E. iij. is an example, the only one
ever observed by the writer, of a lozenge-formed ailette. It is
clear, from the Cross on the shield having the same position as the
other, that the ailette is not a square one worn awry.
The size of this appendage differs greatly in different monuments. In
the round example of the ivory casket, cited above, it is scarcely
larger than the palm of the hand: while, in an illumination of Roy.
MS., 20, D. 1, fol. 18^{vo}, it is little less than the ordinary
shield of the period. Its position is generally behind the shoulder,
or at the side of it: sometimes it appears in front: but too strict an
interpretation must not be given to the rude memorials of these times.
The use of the ailette has somewhat perplexed antiquarian writers.
The French archæologists of the present day confess that it is
"difficile d'en expliquer l'usage[340]." Some writers have considered
it as a simply defensive provision: others look upon it as an ensign,
to indicate to his followers the place of a leader in the field.
Against the supposition that it was _merely_ armorial, may be urged
that in many cases it has no heraldic bearing at all: sometimes it
has a cross only, sometimes a diaper pattern, and sometimes it is
quite blank. See examples of all these varieties in the Tewkesbury
glass paintings, the Gorleston brass (Stothard, Pl. LI.), and the
Buslingthorpe brass (Waller, Pt. 10). In vellum pictures it is
often seen worn by knights in the tilt; where the heraldic bearings
already exhibited on the shield, crest, and surcoat of the rider,
and on the caparisons of the horse, would to no useful purpose be
repeated on the ailette. In the case of the Clehongre example, quoted
above, the outside knotting of the lace does not seem consistent
with the display of armorial distinctions on the wing beneath. In
Germany they are called _Tartschen_ (Hefner: _Trachten_, Pt. 2,
Pl. XLI.), and their purpose of shields seems most in accordance
with the numerous ancient evidences in which they appear. The
knights, indeed, not content with their panoply of steel, seem in
the course of the middle-ages to have fortified themselves with a
complete outwork of shields. Thus we have the ailettes, the shield
proper, the _garde-bras_, or elbow-shield, the shoulder-shield, the
_Beinschiene_, or shield for the legs, the vamplate on the lance,
and the steel front of the saddle, which was in fact but another
shield for the defence of the knight's body. Referring once more to
the Clehongre effigy, it will be observed that, while the "défaut
de la cuirasse" (where the arm joins the body) is strengthened _in
front_ with a steel roundel, this assailable point is covered at the
_back of the arm_ with the ailette. See the Details on Hollis's third
plate of this monument. The analogy between these defences and those
curious upright pieces of steel on the shoulders, so frequent in the
armours of the sixteenth century, will at once be recognised.
Ailettes of a superb construction appear in the Inventory of the
effects of Piers Gaveston in 1313: "Item, autres divers garnementz
des armes le dit Pieres, ovek les alettes garniz et frettez de
perles[341]." They are named also in the Inventory of the goods of
Umfrey de Bohun in 1322: "iiij peire de alettes des armes le Counte
de Hereford[342]."
[Illustration:
PLATE LXII.]
Besides the defences of chain-mail, which, as we have seen, formed
the usual armour of the knights of the thirteenth century, there
were other materials occasionally employed for the warrior's habit.
Scale-work still appears, though in but few monuments; and it seems
to have been used for small portions only of the equipment. See the
brass figured by Waller, Part x., and Boutell, page 113.
In this singular figure of a knight from Roy. MS. 2, A. xxii. fol.
219, the leg-defences are composed of a kind of Bezanted Armour:
small roundels of metal, placed contiguously, appear to be rivetted
to a fabric of cloth or to leather: forming a garment very similar to
the "penny plate armour" of the sixteenth century. In the original
drawing, the chausses are shaded with blue: but, singularly enough,
the chausson is shaded with red, though it seems clearly to be
intended for chain-mail. The date of the figure appears to be about
the close of the thirteenth century. As a curious illustration of
bezanted armour, the late Mr. Hudson Turner told the writer of these
pages that he had seen in an ancient record an account of a hauberk
of Edward III., studded with gold florins; though, with the usual
caution of the antiquarian discoverer, he withheld the name and
locality of the document.
[Illustration:
PLATE LXIII.]
In the engraving given overleaf, from Add. MS. 17,687, a German
illumination of the end of this century, we have an example of
Studded armour. Garments presenting an exterior sprinkled with
studs are of frequent occurrence in the next age, and we shall
therefore freely use the memorials of that time in illustration
of our subject; and indeed we may gather some valuable evidences
from existing armours of Eastern manufacture. Many a mystery of
middle-age lore may be unravelled by an attentive examination of
Oriental productions. As the surface only of the military studded
garments is presented to our view in ancient monuments, we can
seldom determine with exactness their construction: but, from the
comparison of various examples, it seems probable that there were not
less than four or five varieties of this kind of apparel. First, we
have quilted-work, in which the studs appear to be used for holding
together the component parts of the fabric. We have already noticed
an example of the kind in our preceding division (woodcut, No. 37).
The engraving now before us seems to represent a similar armour: the
spots are coloured of a red-brown on a ground of light grey. In the
fine manuscript of Meliadus, Add. MS. 12,228, not only parts of the
knightly suit, but the saddles of the horses, are seeded with studs;
which seems distinctly to imply a quilted covering. See also the
effigies engraved by Stothard, (Plates LX. and LXIII.) And in the
Tower collection will be found Chinese armour of modern date, formed
of a quilted garment sprinkled with metal studs. The next kind of
Studded armour is that of which a real specimen of the fourteenth
century was found by Dr. Hefner in the excavations of the old
Castle of Tannenberg in Germany: a relic which throws the clearest
light on the costume of many a knightly effigy of that period. The
defence is thus contrived: strips of metal, like hooping, are placed
horizontally across the body, the upper edge of each splint being
perforated for rivets. These strips slightly overlap each other: a
piece of velvet, or other material of a similar kind, is then laid
over the whole, and by rows of rivets fastened to the iron splints
beneath. The velvet being of a rich hue, and the rivet-heads gilt
or silvered, the garment presents exactly the appearance of those
knightly suits in which spots of gold or silver are seen studding
the whole superficies of a dress of crimson or other brilliant
tincture. The relic in question is figured and minutely described
in the admirable tract on the results of the find by Doctors Hefner
and Wolf: "Die Burg Tannenberg und ihre Ausgrabungen." The Stapelton
brass, of which there is a facsimile in the Craven Ord Collection
in the British Museum, and an engraving in Stothard's work, and
the brass at Aveley in Essex (Waller, Pt. 1), seem to exhibit the
armour in question. Foreign examples occur in the figures of Conrad
von Saunsheim and those in Bamberg Cathedral, given by Hefner in
Part II. of the _Trachten_. The jazerant coats of the fifteenth
century, of which several real specimens yet remain to us, are of
a very similar construction. A third kind of Stud-work seems to
differ from the articulated sort described above, in its basis being
uniform and rigid, while the surface exhibits the same features, of
a coloured ground-work spangled with bosses of gold or silver. See
Stothard's Plates LXXVI. and XCIII. A fourth variety appears to be
described in this passage of the Inventory of the effects of Piers
Gaveston: "Item, en un autre coffre une peire de plates enclouez
et garniz d'argent, od quatre cheynes d'argent, coverz dun drap de
velvet vermail besaunte d'or[343]." Here we have a garment of velvet
spotted with gold, covering an armour nailed with silver: clearly,
therefore, differing from the preceding kinds, where the rivets
unite the component materials into one vestment. A further item of
the Inventory seems to shew still more clearly that the velvet coat
(whether bezanted or not) was distinct from the iron defence: "Item,
deux cotes de velvet pur plates coverir." Finally, another kind of
studded military garment, of which we trace the existence through the
examples of Modern Asia, consisted of several thicknesses of pliable
stuff, held together by rivets with bossed heads which appear on
the surface. In the Museum of the United Service Institution may be
seen a Chinese armour constructed after this method, but having the
coat lined at the breast with a few plates of iron about the size of
playing-cards. In other examples, the studs are not rivetted, but
only sewn down upon the garment.
[Illustration:
PLATE LXIV.]
Towards the close of the thirteenth century we find an armour
offering a new appearance, to which has been given the name of
Banded Mail. Notwithstanding much careful consideration, its exact
structure has not yet been discovered, though the representations of
it are very abundant. For a whole century, manuscript illuminations,
monumental brasses, painted windows, royal and baronial seals, metal
chasings and sculptures of various kinds, afford us an infinity of
examples; in none of which has hitherto been detected the exact
evidence either of its material or its construction. Monumental
sculptures, from their large size and the careful finish of their
details, might have been expected to solve a problem which they only
perplex. The effigy[344] here engraved, of a knight of the De
Sulney family, exhibits the warrior armed from head to foot in a suit
of banded-mail; and in the following woodcut we have given a portion
of the armour of this figure, of its real size. The profile view has
been copied with particular care, in the hope that it might be of use
in determining the structure of this very singular defence. By many
writers this fabric has been described as pourpointerie; by others
it has been considered as only a conventional mode of representing
the ordinary chain-mail. Mr. Kerrich, whose opinions will always be
received with, the greatest respect, speaking of the rows of little
arcs used to express the latter defence, says: "When there are lines
between the rows, whether _two_ or only one, I conceive it means
still but the same thing[345]." M. Pottier, in the text to Willemin's
_Monuments Inédits_, does not distinguish the so-called banded-mail
from the other, but names it simply "armure de mailles[346]." But
it seems difficult to believe that the common chain-mail could be
intended, so widely different are the two modes of representation,
whether in sculpture or in painting. Observe, for instance, the
details--especially the portion in profile--from the effigy at Newton
Solney. And in the following subject from the Romance of Meliadus,
(Add. MS. 12,228, f. 79,) there seems no assignable reason for
marking one figure so differently from the rest, unless the armour
itself were of a distinct kind[347].
[Illustration: No. 65.]
[Illustration: No. 66.]
That the banded defences under consideration were of pourpointing
is still more unlikely; for a gamboised garment, whether of velvet,
silk, cloth, or whatever material, would, in painted representations,
exhibit those various _colours_ which are so lavishly displayed in
the other portions of the knightly attire. Yet a careful examination
of many hundred figures in illuminated manuscripts has failed in
detecting a single instance of positive colour on banded-mail, except
such as may be referred to the metals. Green, scarlet, crimson,
diaper or ray, never appear. But gold or a golden tincture, silver or
white, and grey of various shades, occur continually. And all these
seem to indicate a fabric in which metal plays at least a conspicuous
part. The examples among vellum-paintings, in which the banding is
tinted grey or left white, are so numerous that one can scarcely open
a manuscript of the period without finding them. Instances of it in
silver may be seen in Cotton MSS., Vitellius, A. xiii., and Nero, D.
vi.; in Roy. MS. 20, D. i., and Add. MS. 12,228. On folio 217^{vo}.
of the last-named book will be found the figure of a knight whose
banded-mail is gilt. The same kind of armour, in gold colour, appears
in the windows of Beer Ferrers Church, Devonshire, and of Fulborn
Church, Cambridgeshire. See Lysons' Devonshire, p. 326, and Kerrich
Collections, Add. MS. 6,730, fol. 61, for faithful copies of these
examples. If from the foregoing evidences we derive the belief that
the basis of this fabric was metal, from a monument figured in the
superb work of Count Bastard, _Peintures des Manuscrits, &c._, we
gather that the lines of arcs were rings; for the fillet that binds
the coif round the temples is clearly passed through alternate
groups of rings, exactly as in the ordinary mail-hood. The figure
is from a French Bible of the beginning of the fourteenth century,
and occurs in the seventh number of the _Peintures_. In fairness we
must admit that this example is not altogether inadmissible as an
evidence in favour of the theory of common chain-mail. And on that
side may be ranged the very curious figure of Offa the First, given
in our woodcut, No. 80, from the "Lives of the Two Offas," by Matthew
Paris (Cott. MS., Nero, D. i. fol. 7); where the upper part of the
warrior's coif is of "banded-mail," while the lower portion is marked
in the manner usually adopted to express the ordinary chain-mail.
[Illustration: No. 67.]
Different from all these is the interpretation offered by M. de
Vigne in his _Recueil de Costumes du Moyen-Age_. On Plate LVI. of
that work, the author has given a series of sketches, shewing the
supposed construction of various ancient armours. The banded mail
is represented as formed of rows of overlapping rings, sewn down
on leather or other similar material, "avec les coutures couvertes
de petites bandes de cuir." Von Leber, in his sketch of medieval
armour, has the same notion: "Vom 13. his nach Anfang des 14.
Jahrh. der lederstreifige Ringharnisch als unschöne und unbequeme
Ritterhülle[348]." This interpretation, however, is at variance with
those ancient monuments where the _inside_ of the defence exhibits
the ring-work as well as the exterior. See our print of the De
Sulney effigy. A more improbable garment, to say the least of it,
than a hauberk of leather, _faced_ with mail and _lined_ with mail,
can scarcely be conceived. Other examples of the hauberk, shewing
the banding on the inside, are furnished by the brass of De Creke
(Waller, Pt. viii.; Boutell, p. 39), a brass at Minster, Isle of
Sheppey (Stothard, Pl. LIV.; Boutell, p. 42), in the effigy of Sir
John D'Aubernoun (Stothard, Pl. LX.), and the brass at Ghent, figured
in the Archæological Journal, vol. vii. p. 287.
Sometimes the knight's horse is barded with banded-mail, as in the
figure from a manuscript in the Library of Cambrai, given by De Vigne
in his _Recueil de Costumes_, vol. ii., plate VIII. In Roy. MS. 20,
D. i. fol. 330, a work of about the close of the thirteenth century,
are elephants with similar caparisons: on their backs are castles,
full of fighting men.
We have already noticed that four sculptured effigies with
banded-mail have been observed in England. The Tewkesbury figure is
given by Stothard; an example further curious from the hauberk being
sculptured as ordinary chain-mail, while the camail alone is of the
banded work. In the "Memoirs," p. 125, Stothard, writing of this
camail to Mr. Kerrich, says: "Amongst other curious things I have
met with, is a figure which has some remarkable points about it;
but, for the discovery of these, I devoted a whole day in clearing
away a thick coating of whitewash which concealed them. The mail
attached to the helmet was of that kind so frequently represented in
drawings, and which you have had doubts whether it was not another
way of representing that sort we are already acquainted with. I am
sorry that I know no more of its construction now than before I met
with it." The effigy at Dodford, near Weedon, is engraved in Baker's
Northamptonshire, vol. i. p. 360. The knight has hauberk, chausses
and coif of banded-mail, with poleyns, coutes and cervellière of
plate. The figure at Tollard Royal, Wilts, has not been engraved; but
from some memorandums kindly furnished by a friend, it appears that
this knight is habited in hauberk, chausses and coif of banded-mail,
with a skull-cap of plate.
[Illustration: No. 68]
Compare also the effigy of gilded metal in Westminster Abbey, of
William de Valence, who died in 1296 (Stothard, Pl. XLIV.). In the
following figures, from a German manuscript of about 1280, copied
from Hefner's _Trachten_, it will be observed that each knight
differs from his fellow in the manner of his equipment, though the
staple defence of all is the banded-mail. Other examples of this
kind of armour will be found in our woodcuts, No. 47, 48, 63, 72 and
77. At last, we can establish no definite conclusion. Our proofs
are but of a negative character. Yet it is always something, to
have determined what a thing is not. It seems pretty clear, then,
from the absence of varied colours which we have remarked, that the
Banded-mail is not pourpointerie of any kind. And, from the presence
of the ring-work on the inside of the armour as well as the outside,
it appears not to be of the construction suggested by the German
and Belgian antiquaries. If meant for ordinary chain-mail, it must
be confessed that the medieval artists never hit upon a mode of
expressing this material so little resembling the original. It is to
the further examination of ancient evidences, or to the discovery of
monuments hitherto unobserved, that we must look for a satisfactory
solution of this knightly mystery.
[Illustration: No. 69.]
In addition to the various armours already noticed, we find in the
thirteenth century the defence expressed by cross-lines which we have
remarked in the earlier periods. Good examples occur on folio 9 of
Roy. MS. 12, F. xiii., and in Laing's Scottish Seals, Plate IV.
And in a chess-piece of the early part of this century, the markings
of the armour are made in a very peculiar manner: by rows of drilled
holes divided by lines. (Woodcut 69.) This seems to be the device of
a rude artist to express the ordinary chain-mail. The example was
first brought into prominent notice in the pages of the Archæological
Journal, vol. iii. p. 241.
Occasionally, but very rarely, the chain-mail was indicated in
monumental statues by merely painting the links on a flat surface.
The effigy of a De l'Isle in Rampton Church, Cambridgeshire, engraved
by Stothard, Plate XXI., affords a good instance of this method.
A further singularity of the period is that the chain-mail sometimes
presents a surface of a hue which does not appear consistent with a
defence of steel. The effigy of Longuespée at Salisbury (woodcut No.
54) has the armour painted brown. The centre figure in our woodcut
No. 53 wears a hauberk which is marked with buff on a white ground,
the other hauberks being blue. The knight on woodcut No. 62 has a
chausson shaded with red. And in Harl. MSS. 1,526 and 1,527 are
many figures in which the chain-mail markings appear on a bright
red ground. It seems probable, however, that such variations may be
charged on the caprice of the artists; as in the colourings of the
Bayeux tapestry, where the near legs of the horses are made blue,
while the off legs are yellow.
Among the knightly effigies in the Temple Church, London, is a
figure which seems to require an especial notice; the armour being
of a fashion not elsewhere remarked. It consists of a back and
breast-piece, each in a single part, united at the sides by straps.
The sculpture being in stone, without any painting preserved, it
is of course impossible to ascertain the material which the artist
desired to represent. It may have been leather (the _cuirie_, of
which we have already noted the existence); but there seems no good
reason why it should not have been iron: and if so, it is perhaps
the earliest example of a body-armour formed of a "pair of plates
large[349]" that Europe has to offer. The effigy in question lies at
the south-east corner of the group in the Round Church.
About the beginning of the thirteenth century arose the use of the
military SURCOAT. The first English monarch who, on his Great Seal,
appears in this garment, is King John: 1199-1216. (See our woodcut,
No. 52.) The seal of the dauphin Louis, the rival of John, (appended
to Harleian Charter, 43, B. 37, dated 1216,) has it also. The
earliest Scottish king who wears the surcoat is Alexander the Second:
1214-1249: a fine impression of his seal is attached to Cotton
Charter, xix. 2. Imaginative writers have affirmed that this garment
was first used by the Crusaders, in order to mitigate the discomfort
of the metal hauberk, "so apt to get heated under a Syrian sun."
Cotemporary authority, however, expressly tells us that its purpose
was to defend the armour from the wet:--
"Then sex or atte[350] on assente
Hase armut hom and furthe wente
* * * * *
With scharpe weppun and schene,
Gay gownus of grene,
To hold thayre armur clene
And were[351] hitte fro the wete."
_The Avowynge of King Arther_, stanza 39.
The Surcoat was of two principal kinds: the sleeveless and the
sleeved. The latter is not found till the second half of the century.
The Sleeveless Surcoat occurs of various lengths: sometimes scarcely
covering the hauberk, sometimes reaching to the heels. Both the short
and the long are seen throughout the century. The long appear on
the royal seals noticed above. And on the seal of De Quinci, circa
1250 (woodcut, No. 87); on the sculpture from Haseley, c. 1250 (cut,
No. 46); on the brass of D'Aubernoun, 1277 (No. 55); on that of De
Trumpington, 1289 (No. 73); on the effigies at Ash and Norton, of the
close of the century (Nos. 59 and 70); and on the statues of De Vere
and Crouchback (Stothard, Plates XXXVI. and XLII.).
The shorter Surcoat occurs on the effigy of Longuespée, d. 1226
(woodcut, No. 54); the knight at Whitworth, c. 1250 (Stothard, Pl.
XXIV.); the figures from the Painted Chamber and the "Lives of the
Two Offas" (woodcuts, Nos. 80 and 86); the knight at Florence, 1289
(cut No. 58); De Valence, in Westminster Abbey (Stothard, Pl. XLIV.);
and our engravings, Nos. 47, 56, 63, 64 and 68: the last-named
examples being of the close of the century.
The Surcoat is either of a uniform tint, or diapered, or heraldically
pictured. Probably, in some early sculptured effigies, the surcoat,
now plain, had armorial devices expressed by painting, which time
has obliterated. The armorial surcoat was a necessary result of
the visored helm; for when the visor was closed, it was no longer
possible to distinguish king from subject, leader from stranger,
comrade from foe. A similar inconvenience had already been found in
the nasal helmet. At the field of Hastings, Duke William was obliged
to remove the bar from his face, in order to convince his followers
that he was still alive. The figure of Longuespée at Salisbury,
c. 1226, still exhibits a portion of the heraldic decoration of
the surcoat. And it is again found on the statue of De l'Isle at
Rampton, circa 1250 (Stothard, Pl. XX.). The pictures of the Painted
Chamber offer many examples. (See our woodcut, No. 86.) See also
our engravings, Nos. 58 and 62. The effigy of William de Valence
in Westminster Abbey, circa 1296, offers a curious variety of this
garment: it is powdered with escutcheons, on each of which are the
bearings of his house. A similar arrangement is seen in one of the
figures of the Painted Chamber (Plate VI.)
The knightly surcoat of this time was slit up in front and behind,
for convenience of riding. A singular deviation from this fashion
of the garment is found in a figure in the Cathedral of Constance,
c. 1220; where from the front part a portion passes under the arms,
overlaps the part hanging from the shoulders behind, and then fastens
at the back. See Hefner's work, Pl. IV. of Pt. i.
Occasionally the surcoat has an ornamental edge of fringe; as in
the brasses of D'Aubernoun, 1277, and De Bures, 1302 (woodcut, No.
55, and Waller, Pt. ii.). In some cases, as in the Temple Church
figure engraved by Stothard, Pl. XV., the garment has a rigid
appearance across the shoulders, which has been taken to indicate a
strengthening of the surcoat at that part. But the same treatment is
seen in the enamelled effigy at St. Denis, of John, son of St. Louis;
where the garment forms part of a civil dress (Willemin, vol. i., Pl.
XCI., and Guilhermy's Monuments of St. Denis, p. 164). The Surcoat
sometimes hangs loose, as in our woodcut, No. 86; but usually it is
girt at the waist by a cord or strap. The cord is seen in the brasses
of Sir John D'Aubernoun and Sir Roger de Trumpington; the strap, with
its long pendent end, in the effigies at Ash Church, Norton Church,
and St. Bride's (our woodcuts, Nos. 55, 73, 59, 70 and 74). The
group from Add. MS. 17,687 furnishes some further examples (cut, No.
63). Rarely, the surcote is made with a "fente" at the throat, and
fastened with a fibula. An effigy in the Temple Church exhibits this
arrangement. (Hollis, Pt. ii.)
The Sleeved Surcoat, as we have already noticed, did not come into
use till the second half of the thirteenth century. It is frequent
in the pictures of the Painted Chamber. A good example is offered by
the effigy at Norton, Durham (our woodcut, No. 70); and very similar
are found in the statue of Lord Fitz Alan at Bedale, Yorkshire,
(engraved by Hollis, Pt. iv., and in Blore's Monuments,) and the
Temple sculpture (Stothard, Pl. XXXVIII.). The knightly figure on our
woodcut No. 56 presents a variety, in the sleeves being "slittered."
Those of the Shurland effigy (Stothard, Pl. XLI.) are divided under
the arm and fastened by ties.
[Illustration:
PLATE LXX.]
[Illustration:
PLATE LXXI.]
The HELMETS of the thirteenth century, though offering many points
of difference on comparing particular examples, may yet be readily
thrown into distinguishable classes. The first division that
Suggests itself is that of the Helm (the great, close casque of
the knight) and the Helmet, a defence, as the word indicates, of
diminished completeness. The Helm must again be divided into two
leading kinds: that in which the plates forming it are all rivetted
together, so as to make one piece; and that in which the front is
provided with a moveable ventail. The successive changes of fashion
supply a further division of the helms; giving us the flat-topped,
the round-topped, and the "sugar-loaf" form. The Helmets may be
classed as the hemispherical, the cylindrical, the conical, the
wide-rimmed (Petasus form), and the nasal. Besides which are some
varieties of peculiar construction, which may be better noticed after
the more general forms have been considered.
The word Helm among the Northern nations merely meant a covering of
any kind: the _Wærhelm_ of the Anglo-Saxons was the little cap worn
by the soldier, of which we have seen many examples in our previous
inquiries. But from the end of the twelfth century, when the great
casque enclosing the whole head, like that seen on the second seal of
King Richard, came into use, the term helm or heaume was restricted
to this new kind of headpiece.
The flat-topped Helm forming a single structure, appears usually
in one of the following fashions. I. A cylinder having bands in
front forming a cross, and sometimes similar bands crossing on the
crown, which is slightly convex or conical; two horizontal clefts
for vision, but without holes for breathing. Examples occur in our
woodcut, No. 71, fig. 1, from the statue of Hugh Fitz Eudo, in
Kirkstead Chapel, Lincolnshire; in the chess-knight (woodcut 57);
in the Whitworth effigy (Stothard, Pl. XXIV.); in the carvings of
the Presbytery arcade of Worcester Cathedral (woodcut 71, fig. 2);
all these early in the century: and in the groups of the Painted
Chamber. II. A cylinder with the cross-bands as before; but, in
addition to the ocularium, having apertures for breathing. This kind
is seen in our woodcut 71, fig. 3, from Hefner's _Trachten_; in the
Walkerne effigy (Hollis, Pt. i.); in the sculptures of the front of
Wells Cathedral, circa 1225; in the miniatures of the Lives of the
Offas (Cott. MS., Nero, D.i.); and in the seal of Hugo de Vere, earl
of Oxford (woodcut 71, fig. 4). III. A cylinder with ocularium and
breathing-holes, but not having the cross-bands: woodcut 71, fig. 5,
from the very curious drawing on folio 27 of Harl. MS. 3,244, date
about 1250. IV. In this variety, the front part is rounded below, has
ocularium, but not any breathing-holes: woodcut 71, fig. 6, from the
seal of Alexander II. of Scotland, 1214-1249 (Cott. Charter, XIX.
2); and compare the seal of Louis the Dauphin, circa 1216. V. This
kind resembles the last, except that it is provided with apertures
for breathing. A good example is furnished by the seal of Robert Fitz
Walter, of the second half of the century: woodcut 71, fig. 7.
We must remark also the difference existing among these helms on the
point of ornament. Some are altogether plain; as in our woodcuts 57
and 71, and the Whitworth effigy (Stothard, Pl. XXIV.): others have a
profusion of ornament, as in the knightly figure from Roy. MS. 2, A.
xxii. (woodcut, No. 62). The term cylindrical, which has been applied
to them, must not always be understood literally. In woodcut No. 57
we have a true cylinder; but in other cases, the helm swells at
the sides, taking the "barrel" form, as in the second seal of Henry
III. (woodcut 81); or, when viewed in profile, it presents a concave
line behind, as in the seal of De Quinci (woodcut, No. 87), or, more
strikingly, in the example at Worcester (woodcut 71, fig. 2).
The helm was worn over the coif of chain-mail. An ivory carving
engraved in the sixteenth volume of the _Archælogia_ affords an
excellent illustration of this usage; the knight being there
represented in the act of raising his helm from his head armed in the
_coiffe de mailles_.
The flat-topped cylindrical Helm, with moveable ventail, appears
about the middle of the century. The figure of Ferdinand, King of
Castille, in the windows of Chartres Cathedral, affords a good
example. He died in 1252: the monument is engraved by Willemin, vol.
i., Pl. XCVII.: the helm is fig. 8 of our cut 71. A real helm of
this type is in the Tower collection: the ventail opens by means of
hinges on the side (see Archæol. Journal, vol. viii., p. 420, and our
woodcut 71, fig. 9). It is entirely of iron, weighing 13lb. 8oz. And
it is not unworthy of remark, that a much later helm, one with the
beaked visor characteristic of the close of the fourteenth century,
also in the Tower of London, differs in weight from the above example
by only four ounces. (Archæol. Journal, vol. ix., p. 93.) The
moveable ventail seems to be portrayed also on the second seal of
Henry III., and on the seal of Edward I. (woodcuts, No. 81 and 85).
About 1270 the round-topped Helm came into vogue: not, however, to
the entire exclusion of the old fashion, of which examples are
found to the end of this century, and even during a portion of the
next. See our Plate LXXI., fig. 10, from Cotton Roll, XV. 7. The
seal of Patrick Dunbar, tenth earl of March, affords another good
illustration of the helm with round crown: engraved in Laing's
"Ancient Scottish Seals," p. 54. It has moveable ventail, with
apertures for sight and breathing, as before. Other instances occur
in the groups of the "Painted Chamber" and the "Lives of the Offas."
A very curious variety of this type is furnished in the seal of Louis
of Savoy, 1294; where the ventail has the form of an eagle displayed,
the clefts for sight and air being contrived between the plumes of
the wings. (Figured by Cibrario, in the _Sigilli de' Principi di
Savoia_, Pl. XXX., and in our woodcut, No. 71, fig. 11.)
About 1280 the Helm takes the "sugar-loaf" form; having bands which
make a cross in the front of it. See woodcut, No. 71, fig. 12, from
Roy. MS. 20, D. i.; and the brass of Sir Roger de Trumpington, 1289
(woodcut, No. 73). It will be observed that this kind of heaume is
continued so low as to rest on the shoulders.
It is not improbable that some of these casques were formed in part
of leather. An early helm made of cuir-bouilli, with iron bands, is
figured by Hefner (_Trachten_, Pt. ii., Pl. LXVIII.); and for the
Windsor tournament of 1278, were provided "XXXVIII. galee de co͂r."
The helm was made fast by laces. In the Romance of Perceval, the hero
"Prant ses armes et s'aparoille:
Sans atargier le haubert vest,
L'iaume lace sans nul arest," &c.--_Fol._ 237.
[Illustration:
PLATE LXXII.]
These laces are very clearly shewn in our engravings, Nos. 47 and
62; from Roy. MSS., 20, D. i. and 2, A. xxii.
In order to recover the helm if struck off in the _mêlée_ it was
attached to some part of the knight's equipment by a chain. The
brass of Sir Roger de Trumpington (cut, No. 73) supplies us with
an illustration. And this usage is noticed in the Romance of _Le
tournois de Chauvenei_, written about 1285:--
"Chescun son hiaume en sa chaaine,
Qui de bons cous attent l'estraine."
_Vers_ 3,583.
[Illustration: No. 73.]