[46] Cott. MS., Vit. c. 10, fol. 154.
[47] _Archæologia_, LVII, also _Arch. Journ._, IV, 226.
[48] _Antiquarian Repertory_, IV, 367.
[49] Pumice-stone.
[50] Expenses of Sir Edw. Guilford, Master of the Armoury.
[51] See also Appendix F.
[52] _Arch. Journ._, XI.
[53] Given in full, Meyrick, _Antient Armour_, III, 106.
[54] A pick? (_Eng. Dialect Dict._)
[55] Bottom stake.
[56] For turning over edges of iron.
[57] This shows that curved shears were also used.
[58] Possibly a nozzle for bellows (_N. E. Dict._).
[59] _Cabinet Cyclopædia_, “Manufacture of Metals,” Lardner, 1831.
[60] _Burlington Magazine_, April, 1911. _Zeitschrift für
Historische Waffenkunde_, V, 10.
IRON AND STEEL
There is but little information to be obtained regarding the
actual materials used by the armourer. The chief source from
which he drew his supplies seems to have been Innsbruck. Why this
was so is not clear from the contemporary records, but we may be
sure that the German metal was harder and better tempered than
that of other countries, or there would not have been the demand
for it that there evidently was. In the various entries in the
State Papers Domestic we find specific mention of “Isebruk” iron,
and the merits of this metal must have been appreciated even in
Shakespeare’s time, for we have in _Othello_, v. 2, 253, “a sword
of icebrook’s temper.” In the earliest editions of the play the
word is “Isebrooke,” which is obviously the anglicized version of
Innsbruck.[61]
Sheffield steel must have been appreciated as early as Chaucer’s
time, for the Miller carries a “Sheffield thwyrtel” (knife), and in
1402 the arrows used at the battle of Homildon were pointed with
Sheffield steel, so sharp that no armour could repel them.
It is possible that the German iron-smelters had discovered the
properties of manganese, which hardens steel, and thus obtained a
superior metal to that produced in other countries.
The discovery of steel was probably a fortuitous accident, due to
the fact that the first smelting-works were fuelled with charcoal,
which deoxidizes iron and turns some portion of the metal into
natural steel. The Germans themselves realized the superiority
of their material, for in 1511 Seusenhofer complained that his
merchant was not giving him good metal, and advised that it should
be classed as “Milanese,” so as not to lessen the fame of Innsbruck
iron.
Till the seventeenth century English iron seems to have been
largely used for domestic purposes, for we find on examining
Professor Rogers’s _Agriculture and Prices_ that German iron is
never mentioned, but there are frequent references to English and
Spanish metal. The following prices from the above work show the
fluctuations in prices of iron in England.
1436. Spanish iron, 24 lb., 1s. 6d., or about £14 the ton.
1462. Iron, 42 lb. at 5d., or £17 10s. the ton.
1562. Raw English iron, £12 10s. the ton.
Bilbow (Bilboa), £11 8s. the ton.
Spanish, £12 the ton.
1570. Iron gun-stocks, made up, £28 the ton.
1571. Steel bar, £10 the ton.
Bar steel, £37 4s. the ton.
1584. Spanish iron, £14 the ton. 50 bars to the ton, or about
45 lb. to the bar.
1622. Steel, £32 the ton.
1623. Spanish iron, £14 10s. to £15 10s.
1624. Iron bars of 24 lb. at £37 4s. the ton.
These prices vary so greatly that we must be sure that there was a
great difference in the quality, and also in the state in which the
metal is delivered. In some cases there must have been a great deal
of preparation and finishing of the raw material to account for the
high price paid.
In 1517 an entry in the State Papers Domestic, given on page 31,
states that 2541 lb. of Isebroke steel cost £26 12s., which gives
about £23 for the ton.
In the _Sussex Archæological Journal_, II, 200, Walter Burrel
gives an account of Sussex ironworks in the seventeenth century.
He states that when once the furnace was lit it was kept going
sometimes for forty weeks, the period being reckoned in “foundays.”
During each founday eight tons were made with twenty-four loads of
charcoal. The metal was cast into “sows” weighing from 600 to 2000
lb. He states that “they melt off a piece of the sow about three
quarters of a hundredweight and beat it with sledges near a fire
so that it may not fall to pieces, treating it with water they
thus bring it to a ‘bloom,’ a four square piece 2 ft. long.”[62]
Modern bar-iron 1 in. by 1 in. by 12 in. weighs 3.4 lb. Therefore
this bloom would approximately make a plate 33 sq. ft. by 1/16 in.
thick.[63] Even with these data it is impossible to tell the size
of the plates delivered to the armourer; for the appliances in the
Middle Ages were but crude, and it is doubtful if rolling-mills
were used in the sixteenth century. From the picture by Breughel,
given as the frontispiece, we know that tilt-hammers were in use,
but these would hardly have been used to flatten plates of any
great size.
It would appear that iron in some localities was tainted with
some poison; for in a _Géographie d’Edrisi_ quoted in _Gay’s
Encyclopædia_, 699, reference is made to a mountain in Armenia
where the iron ore is poisoned and which, when made into knives
and swords, produced mortal wounds. It may have been that this
was actually the case, but it is more probable that it was an
invention of the owner of the mine designed to give his productions
a fictitious value.
A few details of interest in connection with the manufacture of
iron in England may be gathered from the _Metallum Martis_ of Dud
Dudley, a natural son of Edward, Lord Dudley. The treatise was
printed in 1665 and refers to the author’s endeavours to interest
the Crown in his project for smelting iron with sea-coal instead
of wood or charcoal. In his address to the King (Charles II) and
Council he prefaces his technical remarks as follows:--
“Our predecessors in former Ages had both serious Consultations
and Considerations before they made these many Wholesome and Good
Lawes for the preservation of Wood and Timber of this Kingdome.
1 Eliz. 15, 23 Eliz. 5, 27 Eliz. 19, 28 Eliz. 3, 5.... Therefore
it concerns His Sacred Majesty, his high Court of Parliament ...
to lay it to heart and helping hands upon fit occasions in these
laudable Inventions of making Iron & melting of mines and refyning
them with Pitcoal, Seacoal, Peat, and Turf; ... for maintenance
of Navigation, men of War, the Fishing and Merchants trade, which
is the greatest strength of Great Britain ... whose defence and
offence next under God consists by his sacred Majestie’s assisting
care and view of his men of War ... Ordinance of Copper, Brass and
Iron, Armories, Steels, and Irons of all sorts.”
[Illustration: _PLATE X_
HELMETS OF HENRY VIII
1, 2. FRONT AND BACK OF HELMET BY THE MISSAGLIAS
3, 4. ” ” ” PART OF THE SUIT SHOWN ON PLATE XII, BY
CONRAD SEUSENHOFER
5. BEVOR FOR THE LATTER
THE ARMOURER’S MARKS APPEAR ON 2 AND 4]
In his letter to the King he mentions Shippings, Stores, Armories,
Ordnance, Magazines, and Trade. He mentions several counties as
mining centres, but does not include Sussex or Shropshire. The
first of these two was probably ruled out, as the industry there
depended on the use of wood, against which Dudley’s introduction
of coal was levelled. We find Shropshire mentioned in the Trial of
Armour given in the chapter on “Proof” (page 66).
Dudley seems to have formed a company in May, 1638, into which he
took one Roger Foulke, “a Counsellor of the Temple and an ingenious
man,” as partner.
Before this his father, Lord Dudley, had employed a certain Richard
Parkes or Parkhouse to carry iron merchandise to the Tower, which
James I ordered to be tested by his “Artists,” that is, of course,
his armourers. Parkes made a sample fowling-piece of the new
“Dudley Ore,” smelted from pit-coal, and signed his name in gold
upon the barrel. The gun was taken from him by Colonel Levison and
was never returned.
Dudley gives three qualities of iron: grey iron, the finest, and
best suited for making bar-iron; motley iron, a medium quality; and
white iron, the least refined.
It is curious that in all his calculations and specifications he
never actually mentions the making of armour and but seldom the
casting of ordnance.
In considering the weights of suits as given in Appendix J we find
the following details. By the prices given 20 cwt. make one ton.
The cwt. at the time of James I was 112 lb.
Now we are told that “Sixe hundred of iron will make five hundred
of plates,” so we gather that in turning the pig-iron into plates
one hundredweight was lost. The above entries give the following
weights per suit or portion of a suit scheduled:--
Five hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 cuirasses
of pistol proofe with pauldrons.
Therefore one set will weigh 28 lb.
Four hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 pair (or 40
sets) of cuirasses without pauldrons.
Therefore one set will weigh 11 lb. 3 oz.
Sixteen hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 lance-armours.
Therefore one lance-armour[64] will weigh 89 lb. 10 oz.
Five hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 proof
targets.
Therefore one target will weigh 28 lb.
Twelve hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 pairs
(40 sets) of strong cuirasses with caps.
Therefore one set of cuirass and cap will weigh 33 lb. 10 oz.
Four “platers” will make up 3700 weight or 37 cwt. of plates in one
week, therefore one plater will make up 9 cwt. 28 lb. in a week or
1 cwt. 57 lb. or thereabouts in one day.
For comparison with existing suits of which the weights are known
we may use the following details:--
lb. oz.
Paris (G, 80), _circ._ 1588. Cuirass, arm-pieces,
and tassets 73 0
Head-piece 22 0
-------
95 0
Stanton Harcourt, Oxon, _circ._ 1685. Cuirass 25 0
Head-piece 22 10
Arm-pieces (2) 6 0
------
53 10
Tower (II, 92), _circ._ 1686. Cuirass 27 4
Head-piece 7 8
Long gauntlet 3 0
-------
37 12
Tower (II, 92), of XVII cent. Cuirass 24 0
Head-piece 6 8
The whole of this suit weighs 48 8
It should be noted that two of the items in the Appendix are
described as of “proof” and one is described as “strong.” The
lance-armours are not qualified in any way, but from their weight
they must have been proof against musket or arquebus.
It is impossible to discover what size the “plates” were made
before they were handed over to the armourers. The largest single
plate in the Tower is a portion of the horse-armour of II, 5, known
as the “Engraved Suit.” This piece measures 27½ in. at top and
28½ in. at bottom by 17 in. and 18½ in. high, or roughly speaking
28½ in. by 18½ in., about 1/16 in. thick, weighing about 6 lb.
4 oz. If the numbers given on page 41 represent plates and not
hundredweights, each plate 1/16 in. thick would be 6 in. by 11
in., and this is obviously absurd. It is more likely that, with the
crude appliances in use, an ingot of metal was beaten out into such
a plate as the weight of the ingot might give, larger or smaller
as the case might be, and not standardized in any way. Dud Dudley
writing in 1665 describes the methods of ironworkers before his
introduction of sea-coal.
“They could make but one little lump or bloom of Iron in a day, not
100 weight and that not fusible, nor fined, or malliable, until it
were long burned and wrought under hammers.”[65]
FOOTNOTES:
[61] The quotation continues: “a sword of Spain.” We find
many Solingen and Passau blades bearing the marks of Spanish
sword-smiths.
[62] This would be a piece about 2 ft. by 3½ in. by 3½ in.
[63] Large plates of horse-armour are about 1/16 in. thick.
[64] For particulars of “lance-armour” see Appendix I.
[65] _Metallum Martis_, p. 37.
THE CRAFT OF THE ARMOURER
The actual craft-work of the armourer differed but little from
that of the smith, but there are some details which the armourer
had to consider which were not part of ordinary blacksmith’s work.
There are no contemporary works of a technical nature, and our
investigations can only be based on actual examination of suits,
assisted by scattered extracts from authorities who mention the
subject in military works. In 1649 J. Cramer printed a work, _De
Armorum Fabricatione_, but it throws no light upon the subject and
quotes from Roman authorities.
In the first place, the making of mail was a distinct craft which
had no counterpart in other branches of smithing. At first the wire
had to be beaten out from the solid, and thus the few fragments
which remain to us of early mail show a rough, uneven ring of
wire, clumsily fashioned and thicker than that of later dates.
The invention of wire-drawing is generally ascribed to Rudolph
of Nuremberg, about the middle of the fourteenth century,[66]
but there were two corporations of wire-drawers in Paris in the
thirteenth century mentioned in Étienne Boileau’s _Livre des
Métiers_, written about 1260.
[Illustration: _PLATE XI_
BRIGANDINE, OUTSIDE AND INSIDE. XV CENT.
BREASTPLATE FOR BRIGANDINE, 1470, SHOWING ARMOURER’S MARK
RIGHT CUISSE OF ARMOUR FOR BARRIERS SHOWING ARMOURER’S MARK]
When the wire was obtained, either hammered out or drawn, it was
probably twisted spirally round a rod of the diameter of the
required ring. It was then cut off into rings, with the ends
overlapping. The two ends were flattened and punched or bored with
holes through the flat portion. A small rivet, and in some cases
two, was then inserted, and this was burred over with a hammer or
with punches (Fig. 15, 18; also Plate IV). It is possible that some
kind of riveting-pincers were used, but no specimens of this kind
of tool are known.[67] Sometimes the ends of the rings are welded,
which would be done by heating them and hammering them together.
Before the rings were joined up they were interlaced one with
another, each ring passing through four others. Occasionally,
to obtain increased strength, two rings were used for every one
of the ordinary mail, but representations of this double mail are
rare. The terms “haubert doublier,” “haubert à maille double,” and
“haubert clavey de double maille” are found in French inventories,
and in the inventory of Louis X which has been quoted before we
find “33 gorgieres doubles de Chambli, un pans et uns bras de
roondes mailles, une couverture de mailles rondes demy cloies.”
These different items suggest that there were various ways of
making mail and of putting it together. The double mail has been
noticed, and the mail “demy cloues” was probably mail in which
the ends of the links were closed with only one rivet. The “maile
roond” being specially scheduled points to the fact that sometimes
mail was made of flat rings, but whether cut from the sheet of
metal or merely of flattened wire it is impossible to say.
[Illustration: FIG. 18. Method of making mail.]
Where the covering of mail was not made in one piece--that is,
when the shirt, leggings, sleeves, or coif were made to open--they
were fastened by laces. The chausses, or leggings of mail, were
often laced at the back of the leg, as is shown in the sketch-book
of Wilars de Honecourt, thirteenth century, figured in _Armour
and Weapons_ (Plate I) by the present author. The coif of mail
was generally kept close to the head by a thong round the temples
(Fig. 23, 8), and was in some instances fastened in front with an
overlapping flap and a lace (Fig. 20).
[Illustration: FIG. 19. Sculptured representation of (1) double and
(2) single mail on the effigy of R. de Mauley, 1242, formerly in
York Minster (_Archæologia_, XXXI).]
The Camail, or tippet of mail, which is the distinctive detail of
the armour of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century, was
either hung from a flat plate of metal which was fitted over the
vervelles or staples on the bascinet and kept in place by a lace
or a thick wire, or the mail itself was hung over the vervelles and
the plate fitted over it and secured in the same way. This latter
method appears to have been more commonly in use, to judge from
sculptured effigies and brasses. A bascinet in the Ethnological
Museum, Athens,[68] shows the vervelles, plate, and wire that
secured it still in place, but the mail has all corroded and
disappeared. A good restoration of the camail on a bascinet with a
leather band instead of a flat plate is to be found in the Wallace
Collection (No. 74).
[Illustration: FIG. 20. Coif of Mail, (1) Effigy of William
Mareschal, Earl of Pembroke, Temple Church. (2) Effigy in Pershore
Church, Worcs. (from Fairholt).]
In the thirteenth century we find one of the most unpractical of
all the armourer’s contrivances in the nasal flap-hinged or laced
to the camail, hanging down over the chin when not in use, and
fastened, when required, to the bascinet by a pin or hook. The
nasal of the eleventh century, figured on the Bayeux Tapestry and
elsewhere, was practical because it provided a defence for the nose
and face which was as rigid as the helmet itself; but this later
nasal could only protect the wearer from the actual cutting of
the skin, for the full force of the blows would be felt almost as
much as if there were no defence at all. These nasals are figured
so frequently in Hewitt, Hefner, and elsewhere that no special
illustration is necessary in the present work.
A variety of mail which, from the sculptured effigies and from
miniatures of the thirteenth century, appears to have been in high
favour, has come to be known as “Banded Mail.”
[Illustration: FIG. 21. Attachment of Camail, effigy of Sir R.
Pembridge, Clehonger Church, Hereford.
FIG. 22. Attachment of Camail.]
In both painted and sculptured records the methods of
representation differ considerably from those employed to suggest
the ordinary mail of interlaced rings.
In the middle of the last century, when the subject of armour began
to be seriously studied, this banded mail was the subject of many
theories and suggestions. Meyrick considered that it was composed
of rings sewn on to a fabric, overlapping each other sideways; but
a practical experiment will prove that such an arrangement would be
impossible, as the weight would be excessive and the curve of the
body would cause the rings to “gape.” Other writers have considered
that the same arrangement of rings, covered with leather which
would prevent the “gaping,” is the correct solution; but here again
the heat would be a grave drawback.[69]
[Illustration: FIG. 23. Banded Mail.
1, 2, 3. Suggested reinforcements of chain mail by leather thongs.
4. Rings covered with leather; 5, section of same.
6. Meyrick’s suggestion; 7, section of same.
8. From _Romance of Alexander_, Bib. Nat., Paris, _circ._ 1240.
9. Effigy at Newton Solney, Derbs; 10, section of same.]
An important point on all representations of banded mail is that,
when part of the garment is shown turned back, the back is the same
as the front. The most practical suggestion was put forward by the
late J. G. Waller,[70] who considered that it was simply chain mail
with leather thongs threaded through every row or every alternate
row of links. This would give a solidity to an otherwise too-pliant
fabric, and would keep the mail in its place, especially on the
arms and legs. It would also show the same arrangement of rings
back and front.
The drawing from the _Romance of Alexander_ goes far to prove that
Waller’s theory is the right one, for here the thongs are not
shown on hands and head, where greater pliability of the mail was
required, and yet these defences appear to be part of the same
garment which shows the “banded” lines.
It is almost superfluous to add that no specimen of this kind of
defence survives to-day, but Oriental mail is sometimes found
stiffened in this manner with leather thongs.
The wearing of mail survived longer than is generally supposed.
Holinshed, writing in 1586 (page 90 of the present work),
mentions shirts of mail as part of the ordinary equipment of the
foot-soldier. On Plate 8 of Derricke’s _Image of Ireland_ the
mounted officer wears mail sleeves, and in an inventory of Hengrave
Hall, Suffolk, taken in 1603, we find gorgets and shirts of mail,
and barrels for cleaning the same. Edward Davies, writing in 1619
(_The Art of Warre_), distinctly states that the arquebussiers wore
a shirt of mail (see page 115).
[Illustration: _PLATE XII_
ARMOUR PRESENTED TO HENRY VIII BY THE EMPEROR MAXIMILIAN, MADE BY
CONRAD SEUSENHOFER, 1514]
The Brigandine and splinted armour were made by riveting small
plates or horizontal lames on to a fabric foundation. In the former
the fabric was outside, and rich ornamentation was obtained by the
gilt rivet-heads which held the plates to the outer covering (see
page 150). In the latter case the metal was on the outside and
was riveted on to a foundation of linen. In some cases the rows
of small plates are divided by strips of fine mail. There was no
particular craft needed in making the brigandine, but the metal
used was often of proof and was marked with the maker’s name to
attest it.
As may be seen on Plate XI and Fig. 36, the small plates of the
brigandine are wider at the top than at the bottom, and overlap
upwards. The reason for this is that the human torse is narrower at
the waist than at the chest, and the plates could not overlap each
other and yet conform to the lines of the figure if they overlapped
downwards.
[Illustration: FIG. 24. Figure wearing Jack (from _Chasse of S.
Ursula_, by Memling, 1475-85, Bruges).]
Although lighter and more pliable defences than the cuirass, the
brigandine and jack were very effectual for protection against
arrows, for we find, according to Walsingham,[71] that the rioters
under Wat Tyler shot at a jack belonging to the Duke of Lancaster,
but were unable to damage it, and eventually cut it to pieces with
swords and axes.
The jack or canvas coat of Sir John Willoughby, _temp._ Elizabeth,
now at Woolaton Hall, is formed of stout canvas inside and out
stuffed with two layers of tow with horn discs in between. The
whole is kept together by a series of lacings which appear on the
outside as lines and triangles of the same kind as those shown on
Fig. 25. It is composed of six panels, two for the breast, two
for the back, and two small ones for the shoulders. A portrait of
Willoughby in the Painted Gallery at Greenwich shows such a jack
with red cords. The jack was generally lined with metal plates and
examples of this may be seen in the Tower (III, 335, 336). These
are also made up of six panels and weigh about 17 lb. each. They
are composed of about 1164 metal plates[72] (Fig. 25). In the
Shuttleworth accounts published by the Chetham Society are to be
found entries of 9¼ yards of linen to make a “steel coat,” a pound
of slape or pitch, two dozen points or laces for two coats, and
1650 steel plates. The cost of the coat, inclusive of making, would
come to about £1. A cap, constructed in the same manner of small
plates, is shown in the Burges Collection at the British Museum and
is figured in the _Guide to the Mediæval Room_ on page 62.
[Illustration: FIG. 25. Construction of Jack.
A. Outside.
B. Plates with cover and cords removed.]
[Illustration: FIG. 26. Brigandine at Vienna, No. 130.]