THE WEARING OF ARMOUR AND ITS CONSTRUCTIONAL DETAILS
Before proceeding to examine the suit of Full Plate, with all its
interesting details and differences as exemplified in the various
armouries of England and Europe, it will be well to make clear the main
principles which governed the manufacture of such armour. We should
remember that the whole history of our subject is one long struggle of
defensive equipment against offensive weapons. This is brought out clearly
at the present day in the Navy, where the contest between gun and
armour-plating is the dominant factor in naval construction. As the
weapons of the Middle Ages became more serviceable, the armour was
increased in weight. The Longbow and the Crossbow marked distinct periods
in the development of defensive armour; for so important a factor did
these weapons become, especially the latter, that they were used for
testing the temper of the metal, large or small weapons being used as
occasion demanded. Those writers who are prone to generalize upon such
subjects tell us that the invention of gunpowder sounded the knell of
defensive armour, but this is by no means accurate, for guns were used in
sieges as early as 1382, and, as we shall find farther on in this chapter,
the armour of the late sixteenth century was proved by pistol shot. The
result of the improvement of firearms was that for many years armour
became heavier and thicker till the musket was perfected, and then it was
found that even highly-tempered steel would not resist the impact of a
bullet.
It is a safe assertion to make that a full suit of plate armour at its
finest period--the fifteenth century--is the most perfect work of
craftsmanship that exists.
[Illustration: FIG. 23.]
[Illustration: FIG. 24. Maximilian breastplate and taces.]
[Illustration: FIG. 25. Coude or Elbow-cop.]
This assertion is not made without fully considering the real value of
such work, which must fulfil all those essentials without which no true
work of craftsmanship can have any merit. The first of these is that the
work should fulfil its object in the best possible manner; secondly, that
it should be convenient and simple in use; thirdly, that it should
proclaim its material; and fourthly, and this is by no means the least
important, that any decoration should be subservient to its purpose. To
take our axioms in the order given, it may appear to the casual student
that if armour were sufficiently thick it would naturally fulfil its
primary reason for existence. But we find, on careful examination of plate
armour, that there are other considerations which are of equal, if not
greater importance. Of these the most noticeable is the 'glancing
surface'. It is somewhat difficult to exemplify this by a line-drawing,
though it is easy to do so with an actual example. Referring to the
Maximilian breastplate (Fig. 24), we find that a lance, the thrusting
weapon much favoured in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, would, on
striking the breast be deflected along the grooved channel nearest to the
point of impact till it reached the raised edge either at the top or at
the sides, when it would be conducted safely off the body of the wearer.
The same surface is to be noticed on all helms and helmets after the
twelfth century, the rounded surfaces giving no sure hold for cutting or
thrusting weapons. The Coude (Fig. 25) shows this same glancing surface
used to protect the elbow, and, again, the fan-shaped plate on the outside
of the knee effects the same result (see Frontispiece).[17] The great
jousting helms are so constructed that the lance-point should glance off
them when the wearer is in the proper jousting position, that is, bent
forward at such an angle that the eyes come on a level with the ocularium
or vision slit (Plate V, 5). These helms are also made of plates varying
in thickness as the part may be more exposed to attack. The Great Helm in
the possession of Captain Lindsay of Sutton Courtenay, near Abingdon, has
a skull-plate nearly a quarter of an inch thick, for, in the bending
position adopted by the wearer, this portion of the helm would be most
exposed to the lance. The back-plate is less than half that thickness.
This helm is one of the heaviest in existence, for it weighs 25 lb. 14 oz.
Again, we may notice the overlapping Lames or strips of steel that are so
frequently used for Pauldron, Rerebrace, Vambrace, Soleret, and Gauntlet;
all present the same surface to the opposing weapon, and, except in the
case of the Taces, where the overlapping from necessity of form must be in
an inverse direction, the chance of a weapon penetrating the joints is
reduced to a minimum (Fig. 23). A portion of the pauldron which is
designed for this glancing defence, and for this only, is the upstanding
Neck- or Shoulder-guard which is so generally described as the
Passe-guard. It is curious, with the very definite information to hand
(supplied by Viscount Dillon in the _Archaeological Journal_, vol. xlvi,
p. 129), that even the most recent writers fall into the same mistake
about the name of this defence. Space will not admit of quoting more fully
Viscount Dillon's interesting paper; but two facts cited by him prove
conclusively that the passe-guard is quite another portion of the
armour. In the Tower Inventory of 1697 appears the entry, 'One Armour
cap-a-pe Engraven with a Ragged Staffe, made for ye Earle of Leisester, a
Mainfere, Passguard and Maineguard and Gantlett.' Now it is hardly
reasonable to suppose that this ridge on the pauldron should be specially
mentioned as the Passe-guard without any notice of the pauldron itself. In
the Additional Notes to the above article Viscount Dillon gives, from a
List of Payments made in connexion with jousts held on October 20, 1519,
'9 yards of Cheshire cotton at 7_d._ for lining the king's pasguard.' That
the neck-guard to which we refer should need lining on the inside, where
it did not even touch the helmet, we may dismiss at once; and that the
lining should be on the outside is of course absurd. As far as can be
gathered from recent research the passe-guard is a reinforcing piece for
the right elbow, used for jousting. It was lined to protect the ordinary
arm defence underneath from being scratched, and also to lessen the shock
to the wearer if it were struck. It is to be hoped, from this reiteration
of Viscount Dillon's researches, that at any rate one of the many errors
of nomenclature in armour may be corrected.
[Illustration: PLATE V
1. Bascinet from the tomb of the Black Prince, Canterbury, XIVth. cent. 2.
Visored Bascinet from the statuette of S. George, Dijon, XIVth. cent. 3.
Salade, Royal Armoury, Turin, XVth. cent. 4. Salade with visor and beavor,
Musee de la porte de Hal, Brussels, XVth. cent. 5. The Brocas Helm,
Rotunda Woolwich XVth.-XVIth. cent. 6. Armet, Royal Armoury, Turin 7.
Burgonet, Brit. Mus. XVIth. cent. 8. Burgonet and Buffe, Royal Armoury,
Turin XVIth. cent. 9. Morion, Brussels, XVIth. cent. 10. Cabasset, Turin,
XVIth. cent. 11. Lobster-tailed Pot helmet, Turin, XVIIth. cent.]
With regard to the thickness of plate armour, we should remember that it
was forged from the solid ingot, and was not rolled in sheets as is the
material of to-day from which so many forgeries are manufactured. The
armourer was therefore able to graduate the thickness of his material,
increasing it where it was most needed, and lessening it in those parts
which were less exposed.
With regard to the proving of armour an article in _Archaeologia_, vol.
li, also by Viscount Dillon, is of great interest as showing the
indifferent skill of the English ironsmiths of the sixteenth century. In
1590 a discussion arose as to the quality of the English iron found in
Shropshire as compared to the 'Hungere' iron which came from Innsbruck.
After some delay Sir Henry Lee, Master of the Tower Armouries, arranged a
test, and two breastplates were prepared, of equal make and weight. Two
pistol charges of equal power were fired at the test breastplates, with
the result that the foreign armour was only slightly dented, while the
English plate was pierced completely, and the beam on which it rested was
torn by the bullet. A bascinet in the Tower, which belonged to Henry VIII,
bears two indented marks, signifying that it was proof against the large
crossbow. In the Musée d'Artillerie in Paris, a suit made for Louis XIV
bears proof marks which are treated as the centres for floriated designs
(Plate VIII). No excuse need be offered for thus borrowing from papers by
Viscount Dillon and other writers in _Archaeologia_ and the
_Archaeological Journal_, for these publications are not always at hand to
those interested in the subject of armour and equipments. They are,
however, indispensable for careful study; for they contain reports of the
most recent discoveries and investigations of the subject, and are
written, for the most part, by men whose expert knowledge is at once
extensive and precise.
[Illustration: PLATE VI
_Photograph by Viscount Dillon._
Engraved suit of armour given to Henry VIII by the Emperor Maximilian.
Tower.]
Another detail of importance in connexion with the protective power of
armour occurs in the great jousting helms, which invariably present a
smooth surface on the left side, even when there may be some opening, for
ventilation or other purposes, on the right. The reason for this was that
the jouster always passed left arm to left arm with the lance pointed
across the horse's neck. It was therefore important that there should be
no projection or opening on the left side of the helm in which the
lance-point could possibly be caught.
We next turn our attention to Convenience in Use. Under this head the
armourer had to consider that the human body makes certain movements of
the limbs for walking and riding, or fighting with arm and hand. He had so
to construct the different portions of the suit that they should allow of
all these movements without hindrance; and at the same time he had to
endeavour to protect the body and limbs while the movements were taking
place. The arrangements for pivoting elbow- and knee-joints need scarcely
be detailed; for it will be seen by a glance at any suit of plate armour
how the cuisse and jamb are pivoted on to the genouillière, and move with
the leg to a straight or bent position without allowing these plates to
escape from under the genouillière. The coude is sometimes pivoted in the
same manner, but more often it is rigid and of such circumference that the
arm can bend within it and yet be very adequately protected. In the
overlapping lames or strips of metal which give ease of movement to the
upper arm, the hands, the waist, and the foot, we find that much careful
work and calculation was needed to ensure comfort to the wearer. On the
foot, the toepiece and four or more arches of metal overlap upwards on to
a broader arch, while above this three or more arches overlap downwards,
thus allowing the toe-joint and ankle to be bent at the same time (Fig.
26). In a suit in the Tower, made for Prince Henry, son of James I, all
the arches of the soleret overlap downwards. This points to a certain
decadence in the craftsmanship of the armourer of the period, though the
excuse might be offered for him that the suit was intended only for use on
horseback. There are generally one, two, or more of these movable lames
joining the genouillière to the jamb, and above this the cuisse to the
genouillière to give greater flexibility to the knee fastenings. The
separate arm- and leg-pieces are, when made in two halves to encircle the
limb, hinged on the outside and closed with strap and buckle, or with
locking hook or bolt on the inside. This, of course, is to ensure greater
protection to these fastenings, especially on horseback. Higher up again
we get the tuilles or taces, which, from the fact that to adapt themselves
to the human form they must narrow at the waist and spread out below,
overlap upwards. From the taces are hung the tassets, with strap and
buckle, which give increased protection to the upper leg, and yet are not
in any way rigid. When the tassets are made of more than one plate they
are attached to each other by a most ingenious arrangement of straps and
sliding rivets. On the inner edge of each plate the rivets are attached to
a strap on the under side; but the outer edge, requiring more compression
of the lames together, is furnished with rivets fixed firmly in the
uppermost plate and working loose in a slot in the back plate, thus
allowing an expansion or contraction of half an inch or more to each
lame. It is somewhat difficult to explain this ingenious arrangement in
words, but Fig. 27 will show how the straps and rivets are set. When the
tassets were discarded about the end of the sixteenth century the cuisses
were laminated in this way from waist to knee.
[Illustration: PLATE VII
1. Passe-guard 2. Grand-guard 3. Tilting cuisse 4. Half suit for the
Stechzeug, Nuremberg 1450-1500 a. Polder mitton b. Lance rest c. Queue]
[Illustration: FIG. 26. Soleret.]
[Illustration: FIG. 27. Method of using sliding rivets.]
The gauntlet is generally found with a stiff cuff, and from wrist to
knuckles the plates in narrow arches overlap towards the arm, where they
join a wider plate which underlaps the cuff. The knuckle-plate is usually
ridged with a rope-shaped crest or with bosses imitating the knuckles. The
fingers are protected by small plates, from four on the fourth finger to
six on the second finger (in some examples there are more or less), which
overlap from knuckle to finger-tip. The thumb is covered in like manner,
but has a lozenge-shaped plate to connect it to the cuff. This metal
hand-covering was sewn on to a leather glove or attached to it with
leather loops (Fig. 28). The vambrace is generally rigid, either a solid
tube or hinged on the outside and fastened on the inside by straps or
hooks. It is held to the lower edge of the coude by a rivet. The lower
portion of the rerebrace is also tubular, while the upper portion, where
it joins the pauldron, is often laminated, with the plates overlapping,
downwards as a rule, though there are instances of these plates
overlapping upwards. They are joined in the same way as the laminated
tassets by a riveted strap on the inner side, and by sliding rivets at the
back, thus giving the arm freedom of movement forwards in the direction
most needed, but less freedom towards the back.
These sliding rivets working in slots have come to be called 'Almain'
rivets from the fact that the Almain rivet, a light half suit of armour,
was put together to a great extent by this method. These suits will be
referred to later in the chapter.
[Illustration: FIG. 28. Gauntlet.]
[Illustration: FIG. 29. Turning 'lock-pins'.]
[Illustration: FIG. 30. Gorget.]
The Pauldron is hung on the shoulder by a strap from the gorget or the
breastplate, or it is pierced with a hole which fits over a pin fixed in
one of these portions of the armour. In most suits of plate of the
fifteenth and early sixteenth century that portion of the pauldron which
covers the breastplate is larger on the left side than on the right. The
reason for this is that the position of the lance when held 'in rest',
that is couched for the charge, necessitates a certain curtailment of the
front plate of the pauldron, and, at the same time, the left arm being
held rigid at the bridle, and being exposed to the attacking weapon,
requires more protection than does the right, which, when using the lance,
was guarded by the Vamplate or metal disc fixed to the lance above the
Grip.
Breast- and back-pieces are held together on the shoulders and sides by
straps, but the lames of the taces, and in some cases the breast and back
themselves, are fastened with turning pins which play an important part in
holding the suit together (Fig. 29). The Gorget (Fig. 30) is made in two
halves, each composed of a single plate or, sometimes, of two or three
horizontal lames. The two portions are united by a loose-working rivet on
the left side and are joined by a turning pin on the right. The gorget was
worn either over or under the breast- and backplates.
Perhaps the most ingeniously contrived suit in existence, which completely
protects the wearer and at the same time follows the anatomical
construction of the human body, is that made for Henry VIII for fighting
on foot in the lists. It is numbered xxviii in the Armoury of the Tower.
There are no parts of the body or limbs left uncovered by plate, and every
separate portion fits closely to its neighbour with sliding rivets and
turning pins to give the necessary play for the limbs. It is composed of
235 pieces and weighs 93 lb.
The wearing of the bascinet, salade, burgonet, and like helmets needs no
detailed description. In the preceding chapter we noticed the method of
attaching the camail to the bascinet. When the great helm was made a
fixture in the fifteenth century, as distinct from the loose or chained
helms of preceding periods, it was either bolted to the breast and back,
as on Plate VII, or it was fastened by an adjustable plate which shut over
a locking pin, as shown on Plate V, 5, and a somewhat similar arrangement
at the back, or a strap and buckle, held it firmly in place, while if
extra rigidity was needed it was supplied by straps from the shoulders to
the lugs shown in the drawing of the Brocas Helm on Plate V. The Armet, or
close helmet, fits the shape of the head to such an extent that it must be
opened to be put on. This is arranged by hingeing the side plates to the
centre, and, when fixed, fastening them with a screw at the back to which
a circular disc is added as a protection to this fastening (Fig. 31). The
armet shown on Plate V opens in the front and when closed is fastened with
a spring hook. The different parts of the armet are the Ventail, A, and
Vue, B, which together make the Visor; the Skull, C; and the Beavor, D
(Plate V, 6).
Having now arrived at some understanding of the construction of the suit
of armour we will pass on to the wearing of the suit. A man could not wear
his ordinary clothes under his armour; the friction of the metal was too
great. In spite of the excellence of workmanship of the armourer any thin
substance was bound to be torn, so a strong fabric was chosen which is
called in contemporary records Fustian. Whether it at all resembled the
modern fabric of that name it is difficult to determine, but certainly the
wearing powers of this material or of corduroy would be admirably adapted
for the purpose. Chaucer writes in the Prologue to the _Canterbury Tales_,
line 75:
Of fustyan he wered a gepoun
Aile bysmoterud with his haburgeoun.
This would refer to the rust-stains that penetrated through the
interstices of the mail. In Hall's _Chronicles_ (p. 524) is mentioned a
levy of troops ordered for the wars in France in 1543, for which it was
enjoined: 'Item every man to hav an armyng doublet of ffustyean or
canvas', and also 'a capp to put his scull or sallet in'. These last were
coverings for the helmets which we have noted on page 42. The helmets had
linings, either riveted to the metal or worn separately as a cap. The
tilting helm was provided with a thick padded cap with straps to keep it
in its place. Some of these caps exist in the Museum at Vienna.
[Illustration: FIG. 31. Armet.]
King René, in his _Livre des Tournois_, advises a pourpoint or padded
undergarment to be put on under the body armour, 'stuffed to the thickness
of three fingers on the shoulders for there the blows fall heaviest.' It
seems that in Brabant and the Low Countries the blows fell heavier, or
that the combatants were less hardy, for he advises for them a thickness
of four fingers, filled with cotton. Viscount Dillon mentions in his
Armour Notes[18] the fact that a 'stuffer of Bacynetts' accompanied Henry
V to Agincourt. He also quotes a letter from James Croft to Cecil on July
1, 1559, which states that a man cannot keep his corselet and pay for the
wear and tear of his clothes due to the rubbing of the body armour, under
8_d._ per day.
Sir John Smith, in his _Animadversions_ (1591), writes: 'No man should
wear any cut doublets, as well in respect that the wearing of armour doth
quickly fret them out, and also by reason that the corners and edges of
the lames and joints of the armour do take such hold upon such cuttes as
they do hinder the quick and sudden arming of men.'
An interesting description of the arming of a man, entitled, '_Howe a
manne schall be armed at hys ese when he schall fighte on foote_,' is
preserved in the _Life of Sir John Astley_ (a manuscript in the possession
of Lord Hastings).[19] The knight is first dressed in a doublet of
fustian, lined with satin, which is cut with holes for ventilation. This
satin was to keep the roughness of the fustian from the wearer's body; for
he wore no shirt under it. The doublet was provided with gussets of mail,
or Vuyders, attached under the armpit and at the bend of the elbow by
Arming Points or laces. These mail gussets were to protect the parts not
covered by the plate armour. The 'Portrait of an Italian Nobleman' by
Moroni, in the National Gallery, shows the figure dressed in this arming
doublet. A pair of thick worsted hose were worn, and shoes of stout
leather. It must be noticed here that the soleret, or sabaton as it is
sometimes called, covered only the top of the foot, and had understraps
which kept it to the sole of the shoe. First the sabatons were put on,
then the jambs, genouillière and cuisses, then the skirt or breech of mail
round the waist. This is sometimes known as the Brayette. Then the
breast-and backplates were buckled on with the accompanying taces,
tassets, and Garde-rein or plates to protect the loins. After this the arm
defences, and, if worn over the breastpiece, the gorget; and, finally, the
helmet completed the equipment. The sword was buckled on the left side and
the dagger on the right.
The armour for jousts and tourneys was much heavier than the Hosting or
War harness. From the fact, which has been previously noticed, that the
combatants passed each other on the left, this side of the armour was
reinforced to such a degree that in time it presented a totally different
appearance from the right side (see Plate VII). The weight of jousting
armour was so great that it was impossible for the wearer to mount without
assistance. De Pluvinel, in his _Maneige Royal_ (1629), gives an imaginary
conversation between himself and the King (Louis XIV) as follows:--
_The King._ 'It seems to me that such a man would have difficulty in
getting on his horse, and being on to help himself.'
_De Pluvinel._ 'It would be very difficult, but with this arming the
matter has been provided for. In this manner at triumphs and tourneys
there ought to be at the two ends of the lists a small scaffold, the
height of a stirrup, on which two or three persons can stand, that is to
say, the knight, an armourer to arm him, and one other to help him. The
knight being armed and the horse brought close to the stand, he easily
mounts him.'
Reference has been made to the fact that modern writers call the sliding
rivet the 'Almain' rivet. Whenever mentioned in Inventories and such-like
documents, the Almain rivet stands for a suit of light armour. Garrard, in
his _Art of Warre_ (1591), distinctly says, 'The fore part of a corselet
and a head peece and tasses is the almayne rivet.' Among the purchases
made on the Continent by Henry VIII in 1512 may be noted 2,000 Almain
rivets, each consisting of a salet, a gorget, a breastplate, a backplate,
and a pair of splints (short taces). In the Inventory of the goods of Dame
Agnes Huntingdon, executed at Tyburn for murdering her husband in 1523, we
find 'sex score pare of harness of Alman rivets'. The 'pare', of course,
refers to the breast- and backplates. The word Alman, Almaine, or Almain,
shows that the invention of this light armour and the sliding rivets
which were used in its construction came from Germany.
That the wearing of armour caused grave inconvenience to some, while to
others it seems to have been no hindrance at all, we may gather from the
following historical incidents. In 1526 King Louis of Hungary, fleeing
from the Battle of Mohacz, was drowned while crossing the Danube because
of the weight of his armour. On the other hand we find that Robert de
Vere, Earl of Oxford, when forced to fly at the Battle of Radcot Bridge,
escaped easily by swimming the river to safety in full armour. We should
remember that the weight of plate armour was less felt than that of mail,
because the former was distributed over the whole body and limbs, while
the latter hung from the shoulders and waist alone. King Henry V, in
courting Queen Katharine, says:--'If I could win a lady at leapfrog, or by
vaulting into my saddle with my armour on my back,' which seems to imply
that this feat was at any rate a possibility. Oliver de la Marche
describes Galliot de Balthasin in 1446 as leaping clear out of his saddle
'Armé de toute'. We may safely consign Sir Walter Scott's description of
the feasting knights to the realms of poetic licence, for he writes:--
They carved at the meal with gloves of steel
And drank the red wine through their helmets barred.
Now if there were two portions of the knight's equipment which would be
put off at the first opportunity, and which could be assumed the most
rapidly, they were the helmet and gauntlets. To drink through a visored
helmet is a practical impossibility. The word Beavor, which is generally
derived from the Italian _bevere_, to drink, has been considered by Baron
de Cosson, with far more probability, to be derived from the Old French
_bavière_ (originally = a child's bib, from _bave_, saliva).
The cleaning of armour is frequently alluded to in Inventories. In the
Dover Castle Inventory of 1344 is mentioned 'i barrelle pro armaturis
rollandis'. Chain-mail was rolled in barrels with sand and vinegar to
clean it, just as, inversely, barrels are cleaned in the country at the
present day by rolling chains in them. The mending and cleaning of armour
was of the first importance, and the travelling knight took with him an
armourer who was provided with such things as 'oil for dressing my lord's
harness, a thousand armyng nayles (rivets) a payre of pynsores, pomyshe
(pumice stone), fylles, a hammer and all other stuffe and tools belonginge
to an armorer'.[20]
We can gather but little of the methods of the armourers in their work. It
was so important a craft that its operations were most jealously guarded,
and the term 'Mystery', which was applied to the Trade Gilds of the Middle
Ages, can be most fittingly given to that of the armour-smith. In the
_Weisskunig_ of Hans Burgkmair, the noted German engraver, appears an
interesting woodcut of the young Maximilian in the workshop of Conrad
Seusenhofer, the famous armourer. In the text the master-smith is
described as being anxious to make use of the 'forbidden art', but the
young king replies, 'Arm me according to my own taste, for it is I, not
you, who have to take part in the tournament.' What this forbidden art may
have been we have no suggestion given us. It seems, from this account, to
be more than likely that Seusenhofer possessed some mechanical means for
stamping out armour plate; for it goes on to say, 'So this young King
invented a new art for warriors' armour, so that in the workshop 30 front
pieces and 30 hinder pieces were made at once. How wonderful and skilful
was this King!'
A most interesting album of designs by one 'Jacobe', who has been
identified by the late Herr Wendelin Boeheim as Jacobe Topf, is now, after
many vicissitudes, in the Art Library of the Victoria and Albert Museum,
South Kensington. From the somewhat naïve treatment of the designs they
can hardly be considered to be working drawings, but were more probably
sketches submitted to the different patrons of the armourer and kept for
reference. The Album has been reproduced in facsimile, with a preface
giving its history and verifying the suits drawn on its pages, by
Viscount Dillon, Curator of the Tower Armouries. Space will not admit of
more notice of this unique volume. Its author seems to have worked almost
entirely for the nobles of the court of Queen Elizabeth; only two of the
designs were made for foreigners. Of the famous armourers of Italy, the
Missaglias, Negrolis, and Campi; and of the great Colman family,
Seusenhofer and Wolf, the master-craftsmen of Germany, we can do no more
than mention the names. Experts in armour, like Baron de Cosson and Herr
Boeheim, have in the various archaeological journals of England and
Germany brought to light many interesting facts about these armourers, but
the confines of this handbook do not admit of detailed quotation, nor,
indeed, is it necessary to study these details till the primary interest
in defensive armour has been aroused. When this has been achieved the
student will certainly leave no records unexamined in following to its
farthest extremes this most fascinating study.[21]
[Illustration: FIG. 32. Archer wearing jack. From the Beauchamp Pageants,
fifteenth century.]
It is almost superfluous to discuss the third of our axioms, namely, that
which concerns the confession of material. All armour of the best periods
does this to the full. It is only under the blighting influence of the
Renaissance that we find metal so worked that it resembles woven fabrics,
or, worse still, the human form and features. The limited space at our
disposal precludes us from investigating the various Coats of Fence, or
body protections of quilted fabrics with metal, horn, and other materials
added. Mention has been made in the chapter on the Transition of the
Brigandine, which formed a very serviceable defence without being so
unwieldy as the suit of plate. There are several of these brigandines in
English and European armouries. These defences weigh as much as 18 lb.,
and are made of many small pieces of metal. An example in the Tower
contains 1,164.[22] Fig. 32, from the Beauchamp Pageants (Cotton MS.,
Julius E. iv), shows an archer of the year 1485 wearing the jack over a
shirt of mail. The Jack was used by the rank and file, and was stuffed and
wadded or composed of plates of metal or horn laced together with string
between layers of leather or linen.