TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Bold text is denoted by =equal signs=.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been
placed at the end of each chapter or Appendix. The numbers [376] to
[383] in Appendix C are part of the quoted document, and are not
footnotes.
A superscript is denoted by ^{xx} or ^x, for example vj^{li} or xv^s
(six pounds or fifteen shillings).
Basic fractions are displayed as ½ ¼ ⅜ etc; the only other fraction is
one-sixteenth, displayed as 1/16. Currency (shillings and pence) is
displayed as a/b or a/-, for example 4/8 is 4 shillings and 8 pence,
2/- is two shillings.
An overline above a or abc for example is shown as [=a] or [=abc].
Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
THE ARMOURER AND HIS CRAFT
UNIFORM WITH THIS VOLUME
PASTE BY A. BERESFORD RYLEY
[Illustration: VENUS AT THE FORGE OF VULCAN. JAN BRUEGHEL AND
HENDRICK VAN BALEN. CIRCA 1600
KAISER FRIEDRICH MUSEUM, BERLIN]
THE ARMOURER
AND HIS CRAFT
FROM THE XITH TO THE XVITH CENTURY
By CHARLES FFOULKES, B.Litt.Oxon.
WITH SIXTY-NINE DIAGRAMS IN THE TEXT AND THIRTY-TWO PLATES
METHUEN & CO. LTD.
36 ESSEX STREET W.C.
LONDON
_First Published in 1912_
_Printed in Great Britain_
TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
THE VISCOUNT DILLON, Hon. M.A. Oxon.
V.P.S.A., Etc. Etc.
CURATOR OF THE TOWER ARMOURIES
PREFACE
I do not propose, in this work, to consider the history or
development of defensive armour, for this has been more or less
fully discussed in works which deal with the subject from the
historical side of the question. I have rather endeavoured to
compile a work which will, in some measure, fill up a gap in the
subject, by collecting all the records and references, especially
in English documents, which relate to the actual making of armour
and the regulations which controlled the Armourer and his Craft.
At the same time it is impossible to discuss this branch of the
subject without overlapping in some details the existing works on
Arms and Armour, but such repetition has only been included because
it bears directly on the making, selling, or wearing of armour.
I have intentionally omitted all reference to the sword and other
weapons of offence, for this would have unduly increased the size
of the present work, and the subject is of such importance that it
deserves a full consideration in a separate volume.
The original limits of this work have been considerably enlarged
since it was offered as a thesis for the Degree of Bachelor of
Letters in the University of Oxford in the Michaelmas Term, 1911.
A polyglot glossary has been included, as this is a detail which
has been practically overlooked by all English writers. The subject
of Arms and Armour has not, up to the present time, received the
attention in England that it deserves, but I would be the first to
admit the value of the works of Meyrick and Hewitt, which are the
foundations upon which German and French as well as all English
authors have based their investigations. At the same time it should
be remembered that these two authors were pioneers, and statements
which they made have been contradicted or modified by more recent
research. Two examples of this will suffice. Meyrick named the
upstanding neck-guards on the pauldron the “passguards” and the
neck-armour of the horse the “mainfaire.” From the researches of
Viscount Dillon we learn that the passguard was a reinforcing piece
for the joust and the mainfaire was a gauntlet (_main de fer._)
Both these mistakes are still perpetuated in foreign works on the
subject, which shows the influence of Meyrick’s work even at the
present day.
The subject of the Armourer and his Craft has never received much
attention in England, even at the hands of Meyrick and Hewitt. On
the Continent, however, writers like the late Dr. Wendelin Boeheim,
Gurlitt, Buff, and Angellucci have all added greatly to our store
of information on the subject. Boeheim’s work on the Armourers of
Europe (_Meister der Waffenschmiedekunst_) is the only work in any
language which has given us some account of the armour craftsmen
of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and I should be indeed
remiss if I did not take this opportunity of acknowledging the
assistance which this collection of biographies has been in the
preparation of the present work. Signori Gelli and Moretti have
collected interesting documents relating to the Missaglia family,
but apart from this no other writers have made a study of the
Armourer.
Gay’s _Encyclopædia_, which unfortunately was cut short after the
letter G by the death of the author, is also invaluable as far as
it goes, in that it gives in every case contemporary references
relating to the use of each word. The late J. B. Giraud published
certain records dealing with the Armourer in various French
archæological journals, and M. Charles Buttin has placed all those
interested in the subject under a deep obligation for his minute
researches on the subject of the proving of armour.
Of living English writers I would express the indebtedness not
only of myself, but also of all those who are true _amateurs
d’armes_, to Baron de Cosson, who, with the late J. Burges, A.R.A.,
compiled the Catalogue of Helmets and Mail which is to this day the
standard work on the subject. Last of all I would offer my sincere
thanks to Viscount Dillon, Curator of the Tower Armouries, not
only for his minute researches printed in the _Archæologia_ and
_Archæological Journal_, which have brought to light much valuable
information respecting the Armourer and his Craft in English
records, but also for very great personal interest and assistance
in the compilation of this work.
CHARLES FFOULKES
S. JOHN’S COLLEGE,
OXFORD, 1912
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE ix
THE ARMOURER 1
TOOLS, APPLIANCES, ETC. 22
IRON AND STEEL 38
THE CRAFT OF THE ARMOURER 44
THE PROOF OF ARMOUR 62
THE DECORATION OF ARMOUR 73
THE CLEANING OF ARMOUR 78
THE USE OF FABRICS AND LINEN 83
THE USE OF LEATHER 96
THE WEARING OF ARMOUR 104
THE ARMOURERS’ COMPANY OF THE CITY OF LONDON 120
LISTS OF EUROPEAN ARMOURERS 126
SHORT BIOGRAPHIES OF NOTABLE ARMOURERS 131
LIST OF ARMOURERS’ MARKS 147
POLYGLOT GLOSSARY OF WORDS DEALING WITH ARMOUR AND WEAPONS 153
APPENDICES
A. EXTRACT FROM THE RECORDS OF THE ARMOURERS’ COMPANY OF
LONDON, 1322 (Lib. C, fol. 33) 169
B. REGULATIONS OF THE HEAUMERS’ COMPANY, 1347 (City of
London Letter Book F, cxlii) 171
C. TREATISE OF WORSHIP IN ARMS, BY JOHAN HILL, ARMOURER,
1434 (Bod. Lib., Ashmole. 856, art. 22, fol. 376) 173
D. TRAITÉ DU COSTUME MILITAIRE, 1446 (Du Costume Militaire
des Français en 1446, Bib. Nat., Paris, 1997) 177
E. EXTRACT FROM THE ORDINANCES OF THE ARMOURERS OF ANGERS,
ETC., 1448 (Ordonn. des Rois, XX, 156. Rev. d’Aquitaine,
XII, 26. Arch. des B. Pyrénées, E, 302) 180
F. EXPENSES IN THE ROYAL ARMOURIES, TEMP. HENRY VIII (Brit.
Mus., Cotton. App. XXVIII, f. 76) 182
G. PETITION OF ARMOURERS TO QUEEN ELIZABETH (Lansdowne MS.
63, f. 5) 184
H. UNDERTAKING OF THE ARMOURERS’ COMPANY OF LONDON TO
SUPPLY ARMOUR (Records of the Company, 1618) 186
I. PROCLAMATION AGAINST THE USE OF GOLD AND SILVER EXCEPT
IN THE CASE OF ARMOUR (State Papers Dom. Jac. I, cv) 187
J. ERECTION OF PLATING-MILLS AT ERITH (State Papers Dom.
Jac. I, clxxx) 188
K. REGULATIONS AS TO THE HALL-MARK OF THE ARMOURERS’
COMPANY (Rymer, XIX, 314) 191
L. PETITION OF ARMOURERS (State Papers Dom. Car. I,
cclxxxix, 93) 192
M. EXTRACT FROM THE SURVEY OF THE TOWER ARMOURY, 1660
(Brit. Mus., Harl. MS. 7457) 193
INDEX 195
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
PAGE
1. Diagram showing the “glancing surface” 4
2. Diagram showing the position of the lance in jousting,
from _Arch. Journ._, LV. 5
3. Pauldrons on the statue of Colleoni, Venice, and of a
Missaglia suit in the Waffensammlung, Vienna (Plate II) 6
4. The solleret, practical and unpractical 6
5. Horse-armour 8
6. Harnischmeister Albrecht, from a painting in the
Arsenal, Vienna 9
7. Cuissard for the off hock of a horse. Musée Porte de
Hal, Brussels 10
8. Arms of the Armourers’ Gild, Florence. From the Church
of Or San Michele 14
9. S. George, by Hans Multscher, 1458. Augsburg 14
10. Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, arming. Brit. Mus.,
Cott., Jul., E, IV, fol. 12 b 15
11. The Westminster helm 17
12. The Brocas helm 17
13. The Fogge helm 17
14. The Barendyne helm 17
15. The Mail-maker, from Jost Amman’s _Stande und
Handwerker_, _circ._ 1590 23
16. The Armourer, from the same source as the above 24
17. Burring-machine or “jenny,” from the picture by
Breughel given on the frontispiece 36
18. Method of making mail, from _Arch. Journ._, XXXVII 45
19. Representations of double and single mail, from the
effigy of Robert de Mauley, formerly in York Minster,
_Archæologia_, XXXI 45
20. The coif of mail, from the effigy of William, Earl of
Pembroke, Temple Church, and an unnamed effigy in Pershore
Church, Worcs, after Fairholt 46
21. Attachment of the camail, from the effigy of Sir R.
Pembridge, Clehonger Church, Hereford 46
22. Attachment of the camail reconstructed 46
23. Suggested arrangement of “banded” mail, from _Arch.
Journ._, XXXVII, figure from _Romance of Alexander_, Paris,
Bib. Nat., _circ._ 1240, and the effigy at Newton Solney,
Derbs. 47
24. Foot-soldier wearing a jack, from the _Chasse of S.
Ursula_, by Memling, 1475-1485. Bruges. 49
25. Construction of jack, from _Arch. Journ._, XXXVII 50
26. Brigandine in the Waffensammlung, Vienna, No. 130 50
27. Detail from the picture of S. Victor and donor, by Van
der Goes, Glasgow 51
28. Effigy in Ash Church, Kent, XIV cent. 51
29. Statue of S. George at Prague, 1375 51
30. The sliding rivet 52
31. Sections of brassards in the Tower 54
32. Locking gauntlet of Sir Henry Lee. Armourers’ Hall,
London 55
33. Locking hooks, turning pins, and strap cover 55
34. Bracket for jousting-sallad. Dresden, C, 3, 4 57
35. Detail showing proof mark on the breast of suit of
Louis XIV. Paris, G, 125 69
36. Proof marks on a brigandine plate in the Darmstadt
Museum 71
37. Poleynes on the brass of Sir Robert de Bures, Acton,
Suffolk, 1302 74
38. Beinbergs on the statue of Guigliemo Berardi, 1289, in
the Cloisters of the Church of the Annunziata, Florence 74
39. Brass of an unknown knight at Laughton, Lincs, 1400 75
40. Pourpointed cuisses, from the brass of Sir John de
Argentine, Horseheath Church, Cambs, 1360 83
41. Padded horse-armour, from King René’s _Traicté d’un
Tournois_ 85
42. Padded “harnische-kappe” and helm showing the
attachment of the cap, after Dürer 89
43. Sallad-cap, from a picture by Paolo Morando, 1486-1522,
No. 571. Uffizi Gallery, Florence 89
44. Helmet-cap, from a XVI-cent. engraving of Jacob Fugger 89
45. Detail of eyelet coats, XVI-XVII cent. Musée
d’Artillerie and Musée Cluny, Paris 91
46. Sallad with cover, from a XVI-cent. engraving 93
47. Cuirass, from the sketch-book of Willars de Honecourt,
XIII cent. 96
48. Leather gauntlet, XVII cent. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford 96
49. Brassard of leather and cord for the tourney, from King
René’s _Traicté d’un Tournois_ 97
50. Leather and steel hat of Bradshaw the regicide.
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford 99
51. Stripping the dead, from the Bayeux Tapestry 105
52. Knight arming, from the _Livre des Nobles Femmes_, Bib.
Nat., Paris, XIV cent. 105
53. Brass of Sir John de Creke, 1325, Westley Waterless,
Cambs. 106
54. Arming-points, from the portrait of a navigator.
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford 108
55. Attachment of brassard, from the portrait of the Duc de
Nevers. Hampton Court Palace 108
56. Moton attached by points. Harl. MS. 4826 109
57. Arming-points on the foot, from a picture of S.
Demetrius by Ortolano. National Gallery, London 109
58. Sixteenth-century suit of plate with the several parts
named in English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish 110
59. Attachment of jousting-helms to the cuirass 112
60. Side view of the above 112
61. The armourer in the lists. Heralds’ Coll., MS. M, 6,
fol. 56 113
62. Arms of the Armourers’ Company of London 120
63. Design on a gauntlet of the suit made for Henry, Prince
of Wales, by William Pickering, _circ._ 1611. Windsor
Castle 122
64. Mark of Bernardino Cantoni on a brigandine, C, II. Real
Armeria, Madrid 133
65. Detail of shield by Desiderius Colman (Plate XXIV) 135
66. Capital formerly in the Via degli Spadari, Milan,
showing the mark of the Missaglia family 138
67. Design on the left cuisse of Henry VIII’s suit, made by
Conrad Seusenhofer. Tower of London, II, 5 141
68. Design by Jacobe Topf for gauntlet and armet of Sir
Henry Lee, from the _Armourer’s Album_. Victoria and Albert
Museum 146
69. Design on the breast of Sir Henry Lee’s suit by Topf.
Armourers’ Hall, London 146
LIST OF PLATES
Venus at the Forge of Vulcan, by Jan Breughel and Hendrik
van Balen, _circ._ 1600. Kaiser Friedrich Museum,
Berlin _Frontispiece_
FACING PAGE
I. Armour for the “Stechzeug,” XV-XVI cent. Germanische
Museum, Nuremberg 4
II. Armour of the fifteenth century exemplified by the
effigy of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, S. Mary’s
Church, Warwick, cast by Bartholomew Lambspring and Will
Austin, _circ._ 1454, from Blore’s _Monumental Remains_. S.
George, by Andrea Mantegna, 1431-1506, Accademia, Venice.
Armour of Roberto di Sanseverino, by Antonio da Missaglia,
_circ._ 1480; Waffensammlung, Vienna, No. 3 8
III. A Contrast. Armour of Count Sigismond of Tirol,
1427-1496; Waffensammlung, Vienna, No. 41. Armour of Louis
XIV, by Garbagnus, 1668; Musée d’Artillerie, Paris, G, 125 12
IV. Armourers at work, Brit. Mus., Roy. MS. 16, G, v, fol.
II. Wood-carving of Duke William of Aquitaine, XV cent., S.
William’s Church, Strasburg. Venus and Vulcan, XIII cent.,
Königl. Bib., Berlin, Codex MS. Germ., fol. 282, p. 79 16
V. Anvils in the British Museum (Burges Bequest) and in the
possession of Mme. Bellon, Avignon 20
VI. The Workshop of Conrad Seusenhofer, from the _Weisz
Künig_, by Hans Burgmair, 1525 24
VII. Armour of Kurfürst Moritz, by Matthäus Frauenpreis,
1548. Königl. Hist. Museum, Dresden, G, 39 28
VIII. Armour of Henry VIII for fighting on foot in the
lists. Tower of London, II, 28 32
IX. Italian brassard (front and back), cuisse, 1470;
Ethnological Museum, Athens. Inside of leg-armour of suit
shown on Plate VIII 36
X. Helmets of Henry VIII; Tower of London. (1, 2) Made by
one of the Missaglia family; II, 29. (3, 4) Made by Conrad
Seusenhofer, 1514. (5) Bevor for the latter; II, 5. The
last three numbers form part of the suit shown on Plate XII 40
XI. Brigandine (inside and outside), XV cent.; Musée
d’Artillerie, Paris, G, 204, 205. Breast-plate of a
brigandine, 1470; Ethnological Museum, Athens. Right cuisse
of suit for fighting on foot in the lists, early XVI cent.;
Musée d’Artillerie, Paris, G, 178 44
XII. “Engraved Suit,” by Conrad Seusenhofer, presented to
Henry VIII by the Emperor Maximilian I, 1514. Tower of
London, II, 5 48
XIII. Helmet of Sir Henry Lee, by Jacobe Topf, 1530-1597.
Tower of London, IV, 29 52
XIV. Armour of King Sebastian of Portugal, by Anton
Peffenhauser, 1525-1603. Pageant armour of Charles V, by
Bartolomeo Campi, 1546. Real Armeria, Madrid, A, 290, 188 56
XV. Alegoria del Tacto, by Jan Breughel. Prado, Madrid 60
XVI. Venetian sallad, XVI cent.; Bayerischen National
Museum, Munich. Back-plate of a brigandine, 1470;
Ethnological Museum, Athens. Morion, XVI-XVII cent.;
Stibbert Collection, Florence. Surcoat of the Black Prince;
Canterbury Cathedral 64
XVII. Cast of ivory chessman, XIV cent. The original of
this was in the possession of the Rev. J. Eagles in 1856,
but has since disappeared. Ivory mirror-case showing
squires arming their masters, XIV cent. Carrand Collection,
Museo Nationale, Florence 68
XVIII. Portraits of two unknown noblemen, by Moroni,
1510-1578, showing the arming-doublet and mail sleeves.
National Gallery, London 72
XIX. Helm for fighting on foot in the lists, XVI cent. It
formerly hung over the tomb of Sir Giles Capel, in Raynes
Church, Essex, and was sold as old iron to Baron de Cosson,
from whom it passed to the collection of the Duc de Dino,
and from thence to the Metropolitan Museum, New York.
Arming a knight for combat in the lists, from a MS. of the
XV cent., in the possession of Lord Hastings 76
XX. Armour of Henry, Prince of Wales, son of James I, by
William Pickering, 1591-1630, Master of the Armourers’
Company of London. Royal Armoury, Windsor Castle 80
XXI. Suit of “puffed and slashed” armour, _circ._ 1520;
formerly in the Meyrick Collection; Wallace Collection,
No. 380. Tonlet suit for fighting on foot in the lists,
by Conrad Lochner, 1510-1567; Musée d’Artillerie, Paris,
G, 182. Armour of Ruprecht von der Pfalz, _circ._ 1515;
Waffensammlung, Vienna, No. 198 84
XXII. Gauntlets. (1, 2) Left and right hand gauntlets,
probably by Jacobe Topf, 1530-1597; Tower, II, 10. (3)
Bridle gauntlet of James I; Tower, II, 24. (4) Left-hand
gauntlet, XV cent.; Madrid, E, 87. (5) Locking gauntlet,
XVI cent.; Tower, III, 59. (6) Left-hand bridle gauntlet,
XVI cent.; Tower, III, 95. (7) Left-hand gauntlet of
Kurfürst Christian II, by Heinrich Knopf, _circ._ 1590;
Dresden, E, 7. (8) Left-hand gauntlet for fighting on
foot at barriers, XVI cent.; Tower, III, 58. (9) Gorget
of Kurfürst Johann Georg II, showing the Garter badge and
motto, by Jacob Joringk, 1669; Dresden, D, 29 88
XXIII. Armour for horse and man, middle of XV cent. Musée
d’Artillerie, Paris, G, 1 92
XXIV. Pageant shield, by Desiderius Colman, 1554. Real
Armeria, Madrid, A, 241 96
XXV. Drawing by Jacobe Topf, 1530-1597, No. 15 in the Album
in the Art Library, Victoria and Albert Museum, London 100
XXVI. Armour of Sir Christopher Hatton; formerly in the
Spitzer Collection, now in the Royal Armoury, Windsor
Castle 100
XXVII. Drawing by Jacobe Topf, from the same source as
Plate XXV, 18 in the Album 104
XXVIII. Armour of Sir John Smith, by Jacobe Topf. Tower of
London, II, 12 104
XXIX. (1) Armet, middle of the XVI cent.; Musée
d’Artillerie, Paris, H, 89. (2) Armet, engraved and gilt
with heavy reinforcing plates on the left side, end of XVI
cent.; Paris, H, 108. (3) Helm from the tomb of Sir Richard
Pembridge, Hereford Cathedral, _circ._ 1360. It was given
by the Dean of Hereford to Sir Samuel Meyrick, and passed
from him to Sir Noel Paton, and is now in the Museum at
Edinburgh. (4) Parade casque, after Negroli, middle of XVI
cent.; Musée d’Artillerie, Paris, H, 253. (5) Sallad, by
one of the Negroli family, end of XV cent.; Real Armeria,
Madrid, D, 13 108
XXX. Armour of Friedrich des Siegreichen, by Tomaso da
Missaglia, _circ._ 1450; Waffensammlung, Vienna, No. 2.
Armour, _circ._ 1460; Musée d’Artillerie, Paris, G, 5 112
XXXI. Portrait medal of Coloman Colman (Helmschmied),
1470-1532. Designs for saddle steel and visor, by Albert
Dürer, 1517, from the Albertina, Vienna 116
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author desires to express his thanks for permission to
reproduce illustrations contained in this work to the following:--
Viscount Dillon, Curator of the Tower Armouries; Mr. Guy Laking,
M.V.O., King’s Armourer; M. Charles Buttin, Paris; Mr. Albert
Calvert, London; The Society of Antiquaries; The Archæological
Institute; The Burlington Fine Arts Club; The Curators of the
Musée d’Artillerie, Paris; and of the Johanneum, Dresden; Messrs.
Mansell and Co., Hanfstaengl, Griggs and Co., London; Sgi. Fratelli
Alinari, Florence; Sig. Anderson, Rome; Herren Teufel, Munich;
Löwy, Vienna (publishers of Boeheim’s _Waffensammlungen_); Moeser,
Berlin (publishers of Boeheim’s _Meister der Waffenschmiedkunst_);
Christof Müller, Nuremberg; Seeman, Leipzig (publishers of
Boeheim’s _Waffenkunde_); and Sen. Hauser and Menet, Madrid.
WORKS OF REFERENCE
Allgemeine Zeitung. Various vols.
Angellucci. Doccumenti inediti.
Antiquarian Repertory.
Archæologia. Various vols.
Archæological Journal. Various vols.
Archives Civiques de Lille.
Archives Camerales di Torino.
Armourers’ Company, London, Records of.
Beckman. History of Inventions. 1846.
Belleval, Marquis de. Costume Militaire Français de 1445.
Boeheim. Waffenkunde. 1890.
” Meister der Waffenschmiedekunst. 1897.
” Articles in Jahrbuch des Kunsthist. Sammlungen.
Boileau, Étienne. Livres des Métiers. Edit. 1837.
Buff, A. Augsburger Platner Allge. Zeit. 1892.
Buttin. Notes sur l’Épreuve. (Rev. Savoisienne, 1906, fasc. 4.)
” Le Guet de Genève. 1910.
Calendar of State Papers. Various entries.
Carteggio ined. artisti.
Cellini, Benvenuto. Arte Fabrile, Plon. 1883.
” ” Life, Cust. 1910.
Chambres des Comptes, Paris. Various entries, 1765.
Chronique de Bertrand du Guesclin. Edit. 1837.
City of London Letter Books.
Cosson, Baron de:--
Arch. Journ., XXXVII. Catalogue of Helmets and Mail.
” ” XLI. Gauntlets.
” ” XLVIII. Arsenals and Armouries of Southern Germany.
Catalogue of the Duc de Dino’s Collection.
Daniele, Père Gabriel. Hist. de la Milice Français. 1721.
Demmin. Guide des Amateurs d’Armes.
Dillon, Viscount:--
Archæologia, LI. Arms and Armour at Westminster, the Tower, and
Greenwich. 1547.
” LI. Trial of Armour. 1590.
” LVII. Ordinances of Chivalry, XV cent.
Arch. Journ., XLIV. The Besague or Moton.
” ” XLVI. The Pasguard and the Volant Piece.
” ” LI. An Elizabethan Armourer’s Album, 1590.
” ” LV. Tilting in Tudor Times.
” ” LX. Armour Notes.
” ” LXV. Armour and Arms in Shakespeare.
” ” LXIX. Horse Armour.
An Almain Armourer’s Album, Introduction and Notes. 1905.
Dudley, Dud. Metallum Martis. 1665.
Essenwein. Die Helm. 1892.
Fauchet, Claude. Origines des Chevaliers, etc. 1610.
ffoulkes, Charles:--
Armour and Weapons. 1909.
Gaya’s Traité des Armes. 1911.
Arms and Armour at Oxford. 1912.
Archæologia, LXII, LXIII.
Arch. Journ., LXVIII.
Burlington Mag. April, 1911.
Connoisseur. June, Sept., Nov., 1909.
Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenkunde, V. 10.
Forestie. Livres des Comptes des Frères Bonis.
Garnier. L’Artillerie des Ducs de Bourgogne.
Gay. Glossaire Archéologique.
Gaya. Traité des Armes, 1687. (Edit. by C. ffoulkes.) 1911.
Gazette de Beaux Arts. Various articles.
Gelli, J. Guida del Amatore di Armi Antiche. 1900.
Gelli and Moretti. I Missaglia. 1903.
Giraud. Les Armuriers Français et Étrangers, 1898.
Gurlitt. Deutschen Turniere, Rüstungen und Plattner. 1889.
Gwynne, John. Memoirs of the Great Civil War. 1822 edit.
Hastings MS. Ordinances of Chivalry. (Archæologia, LVII.)
Hefner-Altneck. Tracten des Christlichen Mittelalters. 1840.
Herbert, William. Hist. of 12 Livery Companies of London. 1834-7.
Hewitt. Ancient Armour. 1855.
Holinshed, R. Chronicles
Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorische Sammlungen des Allerhöchster Kaiserhause.
Various vols.
Langey. Discipline Militaire.
La Noue. Discours Politiques et Militaires, trans. by E. A. 1587.
Letters and Papers Foreign and Domestic, Record Office. Various entries.
Markham, G. Decades of Epistles of War. 1662. Souldiers’ Accidence. 1643.
Memorials of the Verney Family.
Mémoires de la Soc. Arch. de Touraine.
Meyrick. Antient Armour.
Montgomery. Milice Français.
Morigia. Hist. dell’ Antichita di Milano.
Oliver de la Marche. Memoirs, etc. 1616 edit.
Ordonnances des Métiers de Paris.
Ordonnances des Rois.
Patent Office, London, Records of.
Pennant. History of London.
Pelegrini. Di un Armajuolo Bellunese. Arch. Venez., X.
René. Traicté d’un Tournoi.
Revue Savoisienne. Various vols.
Rogers, J. Thorold. History of Agriculture and Prices. 1866.
Rymer. Fœdera. Various entries.
Saulx-Tavannes. Mém. rel. à l’hist. de France, Vol. VIII. 1866.
Saxe, Marshal. Rêveries. Edit. 1756.
Scott, Sir S. History of the British Army.
Speculum Regale. Edit. 1768.
Smith, Sir John. Instructions and Orders Militarie. 1593. Discourses.
1590.
Sussex Archæological Journal. Various articles.
Walsingham. Historia Anglicana, Rolls Series.
Wardroom Accounts of Edward I. Soc. of Ant.
Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenkunde. Various articles.
_Catalogues_ of Windsor Castle; the Tower; Wallace Collection;
Rotunda, Woolwich; Musée d’Artillerie, Paris; Armeria Reale, Turin;
Real Armeria, Madrid; Waffensammlung, Vienna; Zeughaus, Berlin;
Porte de Hal, Brussels; Historische Museum, Dresden; Ashmolean and
Pitt-Rivers Museums, Oxford; British Museum; etc. etc.
_Articles in various Journals and Periodicals_ by Viscount Dillon,
Baron de Cosson, Burgess, Waller, Way, Meyrick, Hewitt, ffoulkes,
Boeheim, Angellucci, Beaumont, Buttin, Yriarte, Giraud.
_Various MSS._ from the British Museum; Bib. Nat., Paris; Königl.
Bibliothek, Berlin; Bodleian Library; etc. etc.
So yff hit stoode than no wer ware
Lost were the craffte of Armoreres
LYDGATE, _The hors, the shepe & the gosse_, line 127
THE ARMOURER AND HIS CRAFT
THE ARMOURER
The importance of the craft of the armourer in the Middle Ages
can hardly be overestimated, for it is, to a large extent, to the
excellence of defensive armour and weapons that we owe much of the
development of art and craftsmanship all over Europe. The reason
for this somewhat sweeping statement is to be found in the fact
that up to the sixteenth century the individual and the personal
factor were of supreme importance in war, and it was the individual
whose needs the armourer studied. In the days when military
organization was in its infancy, and the leader was endowed by
his followers with almost supernatural qualities, the battle was
often won by the prowess of the commander, or lost by his death or
disablement. It would be tedious to quote more than a few instances
of this importance of the individual in war, but the following are
typical of the spirit which pervaded the medieval army.
At the battle of Hastings, when William was supposed to have been
killed he rallied his followers by lifting his helmet and riding
through the host crying, “I am here and by God’s grace I shall
conquer!” The success of Joan of Arc need hardly be mentioned, as
it is an obvious example of the change which could be effected
in the spirit of an army by a popular leader. This importance of
the individual was realized by the leaders themselves, and, as a
safeguard, it was often the custom to dress one or more knights
like the sovereign or commander to draw off the attack. At Bosworth
field Richmond had more than one knight who personated him;
Shakespeare gives the number as five, for Richard says, “There be
six Richmonds in the field; five have I slain instead of him.”
When the importance of the leader is realized it will be obvious
that the craft of the man who protected him in battle was of the
utmost importance to the State; and when once this is admitted, we
may fairly consider that, in an age of ceaseless wars and private
raids, the importance of all the other applied arts which followed
in the train of a victorious leader depended to a very great extent
on the protection afforded him by his armourer.[1]
It would be indeed superfluous to dwell upon the artistic
influences which may be traced directly to the military operations
of the Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, and at a later date the Northern
tribes of Europe, for every writer on the subject bases his
opinions upon this foundation. In more modern periods the conquest
of Spain by the Moors introduced a type of design which has never
been wholly eradicated from Spanish Art, and in our own country the
Norman Conquest gave us a dignified strength of architecture which
would never have been established as a national phase of art if the
victory had been to Harold and the English. The improvements in
the equipment and military organization of the foot-soldier in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries necessitated a more complete
style of defensive armour for the mounted man, and the elaborate
leg armour of plate may be directly traced to the improvement in
the weapons of the former. As is the case at the present day in
the navy, the race between weapon and defence was ceaseless, each
improvement of the one being met by a corresponding improvement in
the other, till the perfection of the firearm ruled any form of
defence out of the competition. More peaceful influences were at
work, however, due to the interchange of visits between European
princes; and German and Italian fashions of armour, as well as of
the other applied arts, competed with each other all over Europe,
though their adoption may generally be traced to a ruler of note
like Maximilian or Charles V.
So without undue exaggeration we may fairly claim for the craft
of the armourer a foremost place as one of the chief influences
in the evolution of modern art and, as such, an important factor
in the development of all the arts which follow in the train of
conquest.
There are certain essential rules which must be observed in
the practice of every craft; but in most cases only one or two
are necessary for the production of good work, because of the
limitations either of the craft or of the needs of those for whom
it is practised. It would be out of place to go through the various
applied arts and to consider the rules which guide them; but,
on examination of these rules as they apply to the craft of the
armourer, it will be seen how each and all are essential for the
production of satisfactory work.
The rules are these:--
1. Suitability for purpose.
2. Convenience in use.
3. Recognition of material.
4. Soundness of constructional methods.
5. Subservience of decoration to the preceding rules.
It may be advantageous to examine these rules one by one and see
how they are observed to the full in the best specimens of armour
and how their neglect produced inferior work.
1. =Suitability for purpose.=--The object of defensive armour was
to protect the wearer from attack of the most powerful weapon in
use at the period when it was made. This was obtained not only by
thickness of metal, but also by so fashioning the planes of the
metal that they presented a “glancing surface” to the blow. An
early example of this consideration of the needs of the wearer
is to be found in the first additions of plate to the suit of
mail which were made in the leg armour of the thirteenth century
(Fig. 38). The reason for this was the increased efficacy of the
weapons of the foot-soldier, who naturally attacked the legs of the
mounted man. The use of mail was far from practical, except in the
form of gussets or capes, which could not be made so conveniently
in plate. The mail armour of the thirteenth century was only a
partial protection, for although it defended the wearer from arrows
and from sword-cut or lance-thrust, it was but little protection
against the bruise of the blow, even when, as was always the case,
a padded garment was worn underneath. Up to the sixteenth century
the shield was used for this reason and provided a smooth movable
surface which the knight could oppose to the weapon and thus
present a glancing surface to the blow.
An examination of a suit of armour of the fifteenth century will
show how this glancing surface was studied in every part. The lames
of the arm-pieces are overlapped downwards so that the blow might
slip off, and the elbow-cop presents a smooth rounded surface which
will direct the blow off the arm of the wearer. The breastplate,
which was at first simply smooth and rounded, became in the
sixteenth century fluted; and a practical experiment will show that
when the thrust of a lance--the favourite weapon at that time--met
one of these flutings it was directed to the strong ridge at neck
or arm hole and thence off the body (Plate 30, 2). The upstanding
neck-guards, wrongly called “passe-guards,” were also intended to
protect the weak part where helmet and gorget met. The fan-plate
of the knee-piece protected the bend of the knee, especially when
bent in riding, the normal position of the mounted man, and the
sollerets were so fashioned that the foot was best protected when
in the stirrup.
[Illustration: _PLATE I_
ARMOUR FOR THE STECHZEUG
XV-XVI CENT.]
[Illustration: FIG. 1. The “glancing surface.”]
The helm and helmet are especially good examples of the craft of
the armourer in this respect. The early flat-topped helm of the
thirteenth century was soon discarded because it was found that the
full force of the downward blow was felt, which was not the case
when the skull of the head-piece was pointed or rounded (Fig. 1).
A treatise on the subject of Military Equipment in the fifteenth
century (Appendix D) distinctly enjoins that the rivets on the
helm should be filed flat: “Et les autres ont la teste du clou
limée affin que le rochet ny prengne.” This is not often found in
existing helms, but the fact that it is mentioned shows that the
smooth surface of the helm was an important consideration. In
helms made for jousting these considerations were minutely studied
by the armourer, for the object of jousters in the sixteenth
century was simply to score points and not to injure each other.
The occularium of the jousting-helm is narrow and is so placed that
it is only of use when the wearer bends forward with his lance in
rest. The lance was always pointed across the horse’s neck and was
directed to the left side of his opponent, therefore the left side
of the helm is always smooth with no projection or opening (Fig.
2). These are found, in cases where they occur, on the right side,
where there would be no chance of their catching the lance-point.
Again, the skull and front plate of the helm are generally thicker
than those at the back, where there is no chance of a blow being
delivered.
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Position of lance in jousting (Arch. Journ.,
LV).]
2. =Convenience in use.=--Besides protecting the fighting man the
armourer had to remember that his patron had to ride, sometimes
to walk, and always to use his arms with convenience, and at the
same time had to be protected while so doing. At first the cuirass
was made simply in two pieces, the back and the front fastened
under the arms with straps. In the middle of the fifteenth century
each of these was made in two or more pieces joined with a rivet,
working loose in a slot cut in the uppermost of the plates, so
that a certain amount of movement of the torse was possible. The
pauldrons, which often appear unnecessarily large, almost meeting
in front and, as is the case in the statue of Colleoni in Venice,
crossing at the back, are so made that they would protect the
armpit when the arm was raised in striking a blow (Fig. 3). The
upper part of the arm-piece or rerebrace is made of overlapping
lames held together by sliding rivets, which allow a certain amount
of play outwards and forwards, but the defence becomes rigid if
the arm is moved backwards, for this movement is not necessary in
delivering a blow (see page 52). The arm and leg pieces are hinged
with metal hinges on the outside of the limb and fastened with
straps or hooks and staples on the inside. In most cases modern
theatrical armour errs in this respect, for it is obvious that
if the straps were on the outside the first object of the enemy
would be to cut them and render the armour useless. The vambrace
or cannon and the lower portion of the rerebrace are in single
cylindrical plates, for here no movement is possible independently
from the shoulder and elbow. The rerebrace, however, is generally
formed with a collar which turns in a groove bossed out in the
upper portion, so that the arm can turn outwards or inwards without
moving the shoulder (see page 54). The cuisse and the front and
back of the jamb are for the same reasons each made in one piece,
joined to the knee-cop and solleret by narrow lames working loose
on rivets. The cuisse only covers the top part of the thigh for
convenience on horseback, and wherever a cuisse is found that
protects the back of the thigh we may be sure that the owner
fought on foot (Plate IX). The solleret is made so that the foot
can move naturally in walking. The upper part is formed of small
lames working on loose rivets and overlapping downwards towards a
centre-plate which covers the tread of the foot; beyond this the
toe-plates overlap upwards and thus perfect freedom of movement is
obtained.
[Illustration: FIG. 3. Back of Pauldrons of A. Statue of Colleoni,
Venice. B. Missaglia Suit, Waffensammlung, Vienna.]
[Illustration: FIG. 4. (1) The practical solleret at rest and (2)
in action. (3) Unpractical solleret, late sixteenth century.]
The various forms of head-piece all more or less exemplify this
need of convenience in use, for they protected the head and at
the same time gave as much opportunity for seeing, hearing, and
breathing as was compatible with their defensive qualities. The
armet or close helmet is perhaps the most ingenious, with its
single or double visor, which could be lifted up so as to leave
the face completely exposed till the moment of attack, when it was
closed and fastened with a locking hook (Plate XIII). Examples of
the armourer adapting his work to the requirements of his patrons
are to be found in the globose helm for fighting at barriers
made by one of the Missaglia family (Tower, II, 29). Here the
vision-slits were evidently found to be too large and too dangerous
to the wearer. An inner plate was added with smaller holes through
which no weapon used at barriers could penetrate (Plate X). A
second example shown in Fig. 14 has a plate added at the lower
edge to increase the height of the helm, which suggests that
the last wearer had a longer neck than the original owner. This
convenience in use is also to be noticed in the gauntlet, which,
as the science of sword-play developed, was gradually discarded in
favour of a defence formed of the portes or rings on the sword-hilt
(Plate XXII). In jousting-armour there was only one position to be
considered, namely, the position with hand on bridle and lance in
rest. The armourer therefore strove to protect his patron when he
assumed that position alone. The arm defences of jousting-armour
with elbow-guard and poldermitton would be useless if the wearer
had to raise his arm with a sword, but, when the lance was held in
rest, the plates of the defences were so arranged that every blow
slipped harmlessly off. As the right hand was protected with the
large shield or vamplate fixed to the lance a gauntlet for this
hand was frequently dispensed with, and, as the left hand was only
employed to hold the reins, a semi-cylindrical plate protected the
hand instead of the articulated gauntlet in use on the field of war
(Plate I).
[Illustration: _PLATE II_
EFFIGY OF RICHARD BEAUCHAMP, EARL OF WARWICK
S. MARY’S CHURCH, WARWICK, 1454
S. GEORGE, BY MANTEGNA, 1431-1506
ACCADEMIA, VENICE
ARMOUR BY ANTONIO DA MISSAGLIA, 1480]
[Illustration: FIG. 5. Horse Armour, sixteenth century.
ENGLISH FRENCH GERMAN ITALIAN SPANISH
1. chanfron chanfrein ross-stirn testiera testera
2. peytral poitrail brust panzer pettiera pechera
3. crinet crinière {mähnen panzer }collo cuello
{kanze }
4. pommel {pommeau }sattel-knopf primo pomo del
{arcade de } arcione arzon
{devant }
{troussequin rückenstück }secondo zaguero
5. cantel {arcade de pausch }arcione
{derrière
6. crupper croupière {krup panzer }groppa grupera
{lenden panzer }
7. tail-guard garde-queue schwanzriem guardacorda guardamalso
panzer
8. flanchard {flançois }flanken panzer fiancali flanqueras
{flanchière }
]
Horse armour or “barding” was of necessity more cumbrous and but
little was attempted beyond the covering of the vital parts of the
body with plates or padded trappings (Fig. 5). Mail was used for
the whole “bard” in the thirteenth century, as we know from the
decorations in the “Painted Chamber” at Westminster.[2] It was
still in use for the neck-defence or “crinet” in the middle of
the fifteenth century. Examples of the latter are to be found in
Paris (Plate XXIII) and in the Wallace Collection, No. 620. Some
attempt to make an articulated suit was evidently made; for we have
a portrait of Harnischmeister Albrecht (1480) mounted on a horse
whose legs are completely covered by articulated plates similar
to those on human armour (Fig. 6). A portion of the leg-piece of
this or of a similar suit is in the Musée Porte de Hal, Brussels
(Fig. 7). Besides the obvious advantage of plate armour over mail
for defensive purposes, it should be noted that in the former the
weight is distributed over the body and limbs, while with the
latter the whole equipment hangs from the shoulders, with possibly
some support at the waist. Hence the movements of the mail-clad
man were much hampered both by the weight of the fabric, and also
by the fact that in bending the arm or leg the mail would crease
in folds, and would thus both interfere with complete freedom and
would probably produce a sore from chafing.
[Illustration: FIG. 6. Harnischmeister Albrecht, 1480. From a
painting in the Arsenal, Vienna.]
[Illustration: FIG. 7. Cuissard for the off hock of a horse. Musée
Porte de Hal, Brussels, IV, 9.]
3. =Recognition of material.=--It would seem at first sight
superfluous to give examples of this when considering armour; but
in the sixteenth century, when the craftsman desired to show off
his technical skill, we find many suits made to imitate the puffed
and slashed velvets and silks of civilian dress. A notable example
of this is to be found on the famous “Engraved Suit” made by Conrad
Seusenhofer for Henry VIII in the Tower, in which the cloth “bases”
or skirts of civilian dress are imitated in metal (Plates XII,
XXI). The human form, head and torse, were also counterfeited in
metal in the sixteenth century, with no great success from the
technical point of view.
4. =Soundness of constructional methods.=--This rule is really
contained in those that have preceded it, but some notice should
be paid to the various methods of fastening different plates and
portions of the suit together. There are many ingenious forms
of turning hook and pin by which these plates can be joined or
taken apart at will (page 55). The sliding rivet is one of the
most important of these constructional details. The lower end of
the rivet is burred over the back of the lower plate, and the
upper plate has a slot cut of less width than the rivet-head,
but sufficiently long to allow the plate to move backwards and
forwards, generally from three-quarters to one inch (page 52).
5. =Subservience of decoration to the preceding rules.=--The best
suits are practically undecorated, but at the same time there are
many which are ornamented with incised or engraved lines and
gilding which do not detract from the utility of the armour. This
last rule is best understood by examples of the breach rather than
the observance; so we may take the rules in order and see how each
was broken during that period known as the Renaissance.
(1) The “glancing surface” was destroyed by elaborate embossing,
generally of meaningless designs, in which the point or edge of a
weapon would catch.
(2) The convenience was also impaired by the same methods, for the
lames and different portions of the suit could not play easily one
over the other if each had designs in high relief. Plates were set
at unpractical angles, sometimes overlapping upwards, in which
the weapon would catch and would not glance off. We find that
foot-armour was made in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
with the lames all overlapping upwards or downwards, and with no
centre-plate for the tread. In the suit given to Henry, Prince of
Wales, by the Prince de Joinville in 1608 (Tower, II, 17) the lames
of the solleret all overlap downwards (see also Fig. 4). It will be
obvious that with such a foot-covering it would be impossible to
walk with ease.
(3) The observance of this rule may be taken as a matter of course
and its neglect has been noticed above.
(4) The careless arrangement of the foot-armour, as mentioned
in No. 2, is an example of the disregard of this rule. Another
instance is the embossing the metal of various parts of the suit
so as to simulate lames or separate plates. They do not ornament
the suit and of course do not add to its convenience; they merely
create a false impression and save the craftsman some labour. The
same may be said of the “clous perdus” or false rivets, which are
found in late suits, doing no work in the construction of the suit,
but giving an appearance of constructional work which is lacking.
(5) One has only to keep the above rules in mind and then to
examine an embossed suit by Piccinino or Peffenhauser to see how
this rule was broken to the detriment of the work as a good piece
of craftsmanship, though perhaps the result may have increased the
artistic reputation of the craftsman (Plate XIV).
It should be noticed that the craftsman of the Renaissance, in
spite of his disregard of the craft rules, did not deteriorate
as a worker; for some of the suits of the Negrolis or of the two
above-mentioned armourers could hardly be equalled at the present
day as specimens of metal-work. But his energies were directed
into different channels and his reputation as an honest craftsman
suffered. By the sixteenth century everything concerned with the
defensive qualities and the constructional details of armour
had been discovered and carried to a high pitch of perfection.
The craftsman therefore had to find some way of exhibiting his
dexterity. Add to this the love of ostentation and display of
his patron, one of the most noticeable traits of the so-called
Renaissance, and we find that by degrees the old craft-excellence
became neglected in the advertisement of the craftsman and the
ostentation of his patron.
In dealing with the first rule no mention was made of the defensive
qualities of armour against firearms, and this from the middle
of the sixteenth century was an important detail in the craft of
the armourer. The glancing surface was of some use; but the armed
man could not afford to take chances. So his equipment was made
to resist a point-blank shot of pistol or arquebus. This will be
noticed with details as to the proof of armour on page 65. It was
the fact that armour _was_ proof against firearms which led to
its disuse, and not that it was of no avail against them, as is
the generally accepted idea. The armourer proved his work by the
most powerful weapons in use, and by so doing found that he had to
increase the weight of metal till it became insupportable (see page
117).
[Illustration: _PLATE III_
ARMOUR OF SIGISMOND OF TIROL, 1427-96
ARMOUR OF LOUIS XIV, BY GARBAGNAUS, 1668]
In the days when travelling was difficult and the difficulties
of transportation great, both on account of the condition of the
roads and also because of the insecurity of life and property,
due to national and personal wars, it was but natural that each
country and district should be in a large measure self-supporting,
especially with respect to armour and weapons. At the same time,
by degrees, some localities produced superior work, either because
they possessed natural resources or because some master founded
a school with superior methods to those of his neighbours. Thus
we find Milan famous for hauberks, Bordeaux[3] for swords, Colin
cleeves (Cologne halberds), Toulouse swords, misericordes of
Versy, chapeaux de Montauban (steel hats), Barcelona bucklers,
arbalests of Catheloigne, and of course swords of Solingen, Toledo,
and Passau.