steel, one on each breast, riveted to the fabric which composed
the whole defence. An example of this nature exists in the
Waffensammlung at Vienna, and there are also several of these
reinforcing plates, the brigandines of which have perished, in
the Ethnological Museum at Athens (Fig. 26). These latter were
found in the castle of Chalcis, which was taken by the Turks from
the Venetians in 1470, so they can be dated with accuracy.[73] On
one of the plates is a mark which strongly resembles the mark of
Antonio Missaglia (see Plates XI, XVI). These brigandines with
solid breast-pieces are described in Appendix D, page 177. Both
these plates and the example at Vienna are fitted with lance-rests
which seem to be eminently unpractical, as the garment is more or
less pliant and would not be of much use in sustaining the weight
of a lance. The most curious of these reinforcing plates is to
be found in the picture of S. Victor by Van der Goes, _circ._
1450, which is now in the Municipal Gallery at Glasgow. Here the
uppermost part of the torse is protected by strong plates of steel,
but the abdomen is only covered by the brigandine (Fig. 27).
As an example of this fashion of armour and as a most careful
representation of detail this picture is as valuable as it is
unique. Splinted armour is practically the brigandine without a
covering, but made usually of stronger plates or lames. The fact
that the body was covered by a series of small plates ensured
greater freedom and ease in movement than was possible with solid
breast and back plates. The monument in Ash Church and the statue
of S. George at Prague are good examples of the splinted armour of
the fourteenth century (Figs. 28, 29).
[Illustration: FIG. 27. S. Victor, by Van der Goes, Glasgow.]
[Illustration: FIG. 28. Effigy at Ash Church, Kent, fourteenth
century.]
That the skill of the sixteenth-century armourer surpassed that
of the present-day craftsman is evident after careful examination
of some of the triple-combed Burgonets and Morions of the middle
of the century. They are often found forged in one piece with no
sign of join or welding, and what is more remarkable still, there
is but little difference in the thickness of the metal all over
the piece. Now, when a smith hollows out a plate of metal into a
bowl-like form, the edges are generally thicker than the inside of
the bowl; but in many of these head-pieces the metal is almost of
equal thickness all over, a _tour de force_ which few metal-workers
to-day could imitate.[74] This thinning of the metal was utilized
to a great extent in the different portions of the suit which
were not exposed to attack. As will be found in the chapter on
“Proof,” the back-plates were generally thinner than the breasts.
In jousting-helms the top of the skull, which, from the position
of the rider when jousting, was most exposed to the lance, was
generally much thicker than the back of the helm, where there was
no chance of attack.
[Illustration: FIG. 29. Statue of S. George, Prague, 1375.]
Again, the left side of both jousting and war harness is frequently
thicker than the right, for it was here that the attack of both
lance and sword was directed. Up to the middle of the fifteenth
century the shield, hung on the left arm, was used as an extra
protection for this the more vulnerable side of the man-at-arms,
but it seriously interfered with the management of the horse. By
the sixteenth century it was discarded and the armour itself made
stronger on the left side both by increased thickness and also by
reinforcing pieces such as the Grandgarde, the Passgarde, and the
Manteau d’armes.
[Illustration: FIG. 30. Sliding rivet showing (1) front, (2) side,
(3) back.]
Perhaps the most ingenious contrivance used in making the suit of
armour is the sliding rivet (Fig. 30). This contrivance has come to
be called the “Almain rivet” in modern catalogues in a sense never
found in contemporary documents. In these documents the “Almain
rivet” is a light half-suit of German origin, made up of breast,
back, and tassets, with sometimes arm-pieces. The word “rivet” was
employed in the sixteenth century for a suit of armour, for Hall
uses the word frequently in his Chronicles. This word is therefore
more probably derived from the same root as the French _revêtir_,
rather than from the rivets which were used in the making of the
suit. Up to the sixteenth century the rivet as we know it to-day
is always called an “arming-nail,” and it is only in the middle of
the sixteenth century that we find the word rivet used as part of
the armourer’s stock-in-trade. These light suits were put together
with sliding rivets, which have at the present day received the
name originally given to the whole suit. The head of the rivet is
burred over and fixed in the upper plate, but the lower plate is
slotted for about three-quarters of an inch, so that it will play
up and down on the shank of the rivet and give more freedom of
action than the fixed rivet; at the same time it will not allow the
two plates to slide so far apart as will uncover the limb or body
of the wearer. These sliding rivets were used to join the upper and
lower portions of the breastplate which was in fashion in the last
years of the fifteenth century, so as to allow a certain amount
of movement for the torse backwards and forwards. They were also
employed to join the taces, which needed a certain amount of play
when mounting a horse or when sitting. When the “lobster-tail”
cuisse superseded the taces and tassets in the late sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries they were used instead of the fixed rivets
for joining the lames of the cuisse.
[Illustration: _PLATE XIII_
ARMET OF SIR HENRY LEE, BY JACOB TOPF, 1530-1597]
The most ingenious arrangement of sliding rivets, however, is to
be found on the brassards of the late fifteenth to the seventeenth
century. As has been noticed on page 6, the armourer had to
consider in this case both the defensive needs of his patron
and also the necessity for using his arm as conveniently as was
consistent with safety.
Now the only actions needed for the right arm are those of holding
the lance in rest and of striking with the sword. The arm-defence
therefore had to be so constructed that the arm could be bent for
the former and raised for the latter. To do this the lames of the
rerebrace are joined with sliding rivets at the hinder corners,
but at the front corners they are joined with a strap fastened
vertically to the top plate of the brassart and riveted, when
extended straight, to each lame.
This allows play for the lames in the two above-mentioned
positions, but when the arm is dropped, after the blow has been
delivered, the lames automatically close one over the other and
completely protect the arm and allow no backward movement.
The same arrangement is found on the laminated cuisses and tassets,
in which the inner edges of the lames are joined by a strap and
the outer by sliding rivets. This combination of sliding rivet and
strap is shown on Fig. 7 and on Plate IX.
Another ingenious arrangement on the brassard is the turned-over
edge or the embossed rim fitting in a collar, both of which allow
the lower part of the rerebrace to turn horizontally to adapt it to
the outward action of the hand and arm. In most suits the bossings
of the rims are outside, but on the “Engraved Suit” (II, 5) in
the Tower they are inside. The former gives a smooth surface to
the wearer’s arm and the latter presents a smooth surface to the
opposing weapon (Fig. 31).
[Illustration: FIG. 31. Sections of Rerebraces.
1. “Engraved Suit,” Tower, II, 5, 1514.
2. Tower, II, 6, 1540.
3. Tower, II, 7, 1570.
4. Wallace Collection, 340.]
A similar rim and collar are found on close helmets and gorgets
of the sixteenth century (Plate XIII). Meyrick,[75] misreading
Fauchet’s[76] reference to the burgonet, considered this helmet
with a lower edge fitting into the gorget to be the burgonet, but
he brought no real evidence to support his assertion. Although
the helmet and gorget fitted one over the other and therefore
surmounted one of the chief dangers in war or joust, when the lance
might penetrate the space between these two portions of the suit,
it will be seen on examination of any suit of this kind that from
the oblique position of the gorget the embossed rim of the helmet
could not possibly turn in the hollowed rim of the gorget, so that
it can only be considered as a defensive improvement which in no
way added to the convenience in use, if anything it rather hampered
the wearer, as he could only turn his head inside the helmet and
that to no great extent. In some late suits a pin fixed at the back
of the gorget comes through a hole in the lower edge of the helmet
and _prevents_ any possible movement.
It is almost superfluous to mention the straps which join the
various portions of the suit. These are always placed, where
possible, in positions where they are protected from injury; as,
for example, on the jambs they are on the inside of the leg, next
to the horse when the wearer is mounted, and the hinge of the jamb
being of metal is on the outside. In some cases the end of the
strap after being buckled fits into a “shoe” bossed out of the
armour plate (Fig. 33).
[Illustration: FIG. 32. Locking Gauntlet of Sir Henry Lee,
Armourers’ Hall, London.]
It is practically impossible to notice the various forms of turning
or locking pins used for joining parts of a suit. The general
principle is that of a turning rivet with a flat, fan, or hook
shaped head which, fitting into an oblong slot in the upper plate,
can be turned at right angles to hold the two plates together.
There are many varieties of this fastening, based upon the same
principle, but those existing at the present day are often modern
restorations. In suits for the joust or tourney these adjustable
fastenings could not always be depended upon, and the great helm,
the manteau d’armes, and the passgarde were often screwed on to the
suit with square or polygonal headed bolts tightened with a spanner.
The gauntlet was sometimes capable of being locked, for the
unfingered flap which covered the fingers was prolonged so as to
reach the wrist, where it fastened over a pin. This was used in
foot jousts to prevent the weapon from being struck out of the
hand and is sometimes called the “forbidden gauntlet,” an absurd
term when we consider that many fine suits are provided with this
appliance, which would not be the case if its use were not allowed
(Fig. 32, also Plate XXII).
[Illustration: FIG. 33. Locking hooks, turning pins, and
strap-cover.]
A few of the fastenings used to hold the different parts of the
suit together are shown on Fig. 33. The hook (No. 1) is found on
the armets made by Topf (page 21 and Plate XIII). Here the hook A
is shown in position fastening the visor over a button D. When it
is necessary to open the visor a leather thong which was attached
at C is pulled and at the same time the button F is pressed. This
depresses a spring riveted to the visor at G and projecting with a
small tongue at E. The depression of E allows the hook to be moved
back and the visor to be raised. When the hook is moved forward to
close the visor the tongue E springs up and locks the whole firmly.
No. 2 of the same figure is another contrivance for locking plates
together, and is found on 695, Wallace Collection, and elsewhere.
C C C is the section of the armour plate. The hook is pivoted
at C and is fitted with a spring at D. When the leather lace at
A is pulled the tongue of the hook B is brought back flush with
the plate C and allows the visor to be raised. When the visor is
closed the hook springs back to its position and locks the plates
together. No. 3 is a catch of the same kind, but is worked by a
spring of the same kind as that which locks the “Topf” hook. The
pressing of the button A sets back the hook B, which is riveted to
the plate at D. No. 4 is a “spring pin,” or “federzapfen” as they
are called in German and “auberon” in French. The small flange let
into the pin is kept pressed outwards by a spring and is pressed
back to slip the pauldron, in which is a hole cut for the purpose,
over the pin. No. 5 shows a series of turning pins which are
riveted to the lower plate in taces, cuisses, tassets, etc., but
can be turned at will. The upper plates that are fastened by these
pins are pierced with narrow oblong slits through which the flat
head of the pin can be passed; a turn at right angles locks the two
plates closely. No. 6 is an ingenious contrivance found on 1086,
Wallace Collection. The armour plate is bossed upwards to form a
covering for the free end of the strap when buckled, to prevent the
chance of this loose piece of leather being cut off or of hindering
the wearer in any way.
[Illustration: FIG. 34. Bracket for jousting-sallad and reinforcing
bevor, Dresden, C, 3, 4.]
On Fig. 34 is shown the support for the jousting-sallad, without
which it was always liable to be struck off. It is screwed with
wing nuts to the crest of the sallad and to the back of the
cuirass. The reinforcing piece for face and breast of the same
nature as the mentonnière and grand-guard. These various methods of
fastening plates together can be only studied to advantage by
careful examination of actual suits, and even here there is always
the chance that they may be modern restorations. Perhaps the most
elaborately contrived suit in existence is that made for Henry VIII
for fighting on foot in the lists (Tower, II, 28). This covers the
wearer completely with lames back and front, and allows as much
movement as is possible in a suit weighing 93 lb. (Plate VIII). It
is composed of 235 separate pieces, all of different form. There
are similar suits in the Musée d’Artillerie, Paris (G, 178, 179)
of a more ornate character. The cuisse of one of these suits is
shown on Plate XI and the inside of the cuisse of the Tower suit
on Plate IX. While dealing with this question of the pieces that
compose a suit, it should be noted that the “Leicester” suit in the
Tower (II, 10) is made up of 194 pieces, and a suit at Madrid (A,
164, the “Muhlberg” suit of Charles V) requires one mounted and six
unmounted figures to show it off completely.
[Illustration: _PLATE XIV_
PARADE ARMOUR
1. FOR KING SEBASTIAN OF PORTUGAL, BY ANTON PEFFENHAUSER, 1525-1603
2. FOR CHARLES V, BY BARTOLOMEO CAMPI, 1546]
THE MAKING OF ARMOUR IN ENGLAND, FROM CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTS
1321. Edward II sends David le Hope, armour-smith, to Paris to
learn the method of making sword-blades for battle.
1322. Regulations concerning the covering of helmets with fabric
and the selling of old and broken helmets. _Arm. Co., Lond._ (see
Appendix A).
1347. Regulations of the Heaumers’ Co. _City of London Letter
Book, F, fol. cxlii_ (see Appendix B).
1355. The Mayor and Sheriffs of London ordered to appraise the
armour in the armourers’ shops. _Rymer, III, v_, 817.
1365. The armourers of London are in full work, but the results
are not satisfactory. The King (Edward III) insists on proof or
trade marks. “Certa signa sua super omnibus operationibus suis
ponant.” _Rymer, III_, 772.
1386. Armourers are forbidden to increase the prices of their
wares. _Rymer, III_, 546.
1408. Oct. 12. Petition to the Mayor and Aldermen of London
against foreign importers who use marks similar to English marks,
and praying to keep the price fixed and regulated by the masters
of the cutlers and bladesmiths jointly. Agreed to by the Mayor.
_City of London Letter Books, 1, fol. lxxi._
1434. This is very similar to the Ordinances of the Hastings MS.
noticed in _Archæologia_, LVII. It is given here in full, as
it is the only literary effort of an armourer that is known in
England. _Treatise on Worship in Arms_, by Johan Hill, armourer
(Bod. Lib. Ash., 856) (see Appendix C).
1436. Proclamation forbidding the armourers to increase their
prices. _Fœdera_, Rymer, X, 647.
1509. Sir Nicholas Vaux, Lieutenant at Guisnes, orders all the
garrison to be English except gunners, crossbow-makers, spies,
beer-brewers, armourers, and smiths. _Cal. State Papers, Hen.
VIII, Vol. I._
1511. Payments made for a forge for Milanese armourers at
Greenwich.
1514. The armourers from Brussels are installed by Henry VIII at
Greenwich.
1515. Almain or German armourers mentioned as King’s servants.
1544. A complete account of the charges of the King’s Armoury,
with wages of the workmen. _Brit. Mus., Cott. App. XXVIII_, 75
(see Appendix F).
1556. Sir John Mason reports to the Council that he has obtained
50 fardels of plate for harness provided by the Schorers from
Augsburg. In _Considerations delivered to Parliament in 1559_
it is suggested “that iron mills be banished out of the realme,
where wood was formerly 1d. the load at the stalk now by reason
of the iron mills it is 2/- the load. Formerly Spanish iron was
sold for 5 marks the ton now there are iron mills English iron is
sold at 9/-.” This may be the key to the question of importation
of armour ready made. Evidently the use of wood in iron-smelting
presented a serious difficulty. As may be seen in the chapter on
Iron (p. 40), the use of wood in the furnaces was considered a
grave danger, as it took material which should have been used for
shipbuilding. The English forests were limited and had not the
vast acreage of the German woods, so that the deforestation was
merely a question of time.
1578. Inquiry as to a dispute between the armourers and
blacksmiths as to right of search for armour, etc. The judges
state that “the Armourers did show us that King Edward the Second
did grant to the Lord Maior and his bretheren the searche with
the armourers.” _Records Arm. Co., London._
1580. Sir Henry Lee made Master of the Armouries.
1590. Petition of the armourers of London to Queen Elizabeth
against the importation of foreign armour and workmen. _Lansdowne
MS._, 63, 5 (see Appendix G).
1611. Survey and inventory of all armour, etc., in the armouries
of the Tower, Greenwich, and Windsor in the late custody of Sir
Henry Lee, deceased, and now of Sir Thos. Monson, Master of the
Armoury. _State Papers Domestic, Jac. I, lxiv, June 8._
1614. Warrant to pay to Wm. Pickering, Master of the Armoury at
Greenwich, £200, balance of £340, for armour gilt and graven for
the late Prince. _Sign. Man., Vol. IV_, 29.
This suit, made for Henry, Prince of Wales, is now in the Royal
Collection at Windsor (see Plate XX).
1618. Undertaking of the Armourers’ Company to make certain
armours every six months and the prices of the same. _Records of
the Armourers’ Company of London_ (see Appendix H).
1619. Proclamation against the excessive use of gold and silver
foliate except for armour and ensigns of honour. _S.P.D. Jac. I,
cv, Feb., Proclamations_, 65 (see Appendix I).
1621. Gild of Armourers and Smiths incorporated at Shrewsbury by
James I. The “Arbor” of the Gild existed at Kingsland in 1862.
The Gild carried a figure of Vulcan dressed in black armour in
their processions. Their motto was “With hammer and hand all
hearts do stand.” The armour is in the Museum at Shrewsbury.
_Reliquary, Vol. III._
1624. Erection of plating-mills at Erith by Capt. John Martin.
_S.P.D. Jac. I, clxxx_, 71 (see Appendix J).
1625. Falkner asks for an inquiry as to the condition of the
Royal Armouries. _S.P.D. Car. I, xiii_, 96.
1627. Report of George, Earl of Totnes, on Falkner’s petition
advising John Cooper, Keeper of the King’s Brigandines, to
surrender his patent. _S.P.D. Car I, liv_, 1.
Cooper refuses to surrender unless his arrears of 16d. a day for
a year and a half are paid. _S.P.D. Car. I, lv_, 70.
1627. Petition of Falkner (Fawcknor) as to the condition of the
armouries. _S.P.D. Car. I, lxxxiv_, 5.
1628. Order to gun-makers, saddlers, and cutlers to bring
patterns of their wares. _S.P.D. Car. I, xcv_, March 10.
1628. Whetstone’s project to make armour lighter and as good as
proof. _S.P.D. Car. I, lxxxix_, 23. No details as to the process
are given in this entry.
1630. Inquiry into the work done in the State armouries of the
Tower, Greenwich, etc., with lists of the Remaines, moved by
Roger Falkenor. _S.P.D., clxxix_, 65. The whole of this document
is given in _Antient Armour_, Sir S. Meyrick, III, 78.
1631. Regulations respecting the use of a hall-mark by the
Armourers’ Company. _Rymer, XIX_, 309 (see Appendix K).
1635. Petition of the Workmen Armourers of London who are now old
and out of work. _S.P.D. Car. I, cclxxxix_, 93 (see Appendix L).
1636. Benjamin Stone, blade-maker, of Hounslow Heath, states
that he has, at his own charge of £6000, perfected the art of
blade-making, and that he can make “as good as any that are made
in the Christian world.” _S.P.D. Car. I, cccxli_, 132.
1660. A survey of the Tower Armoury and the Remaines contained
therein. This was taken after the Civil War and shows that much
of the working plant had been scattered. _Harl. MS._ 7457 (see
Appendix M).
1666. “Armour of the Toyras provision with headpeeces whereof
made in England to be worn with the said armes.” _Tower Inv. sub
ann._ Meyrick considers that this was made at Tours, but brings
no evidence to support his statement. It may have been part of
the equipment of the infantry under Marechal de Toiras, who
assisted Charles I against the Huguenots in La Rochelle in 1625.
Several breastplates in the Tower are stamped “Toiras.”
1666. Col. Wm. Legge appointed Master of the Armoury. Legge was
Governor of Chester in 1644, Governor of Oxford in 1645, was
offered and declined an earldom by Charles II, and died in 1672.
His eldest son was created Baron Dartmouth.
1685. An ordinance of James II that all edged tools, armour, and
all copper and brass made with the hammer in the city of London
should be approved by the Armourers’ Company. _Records of the
Company._
[Illustration: _PLATE XV_
ALEGORIA DEL TACTO, BY JAN BRUEGHEL, CIRC. 1600
PRADO, MADRID]
There are no details relating to the lives of any of the known
English armourers that are worth recording. Pickering, the pupil
of Topf, was the most celebrated, and the record of his position
of Master of the Armourers’ Company will be found under that
heading. John Blewbery, whose name occurs in several entries in
the Letters and Papers Foreign and Domestic, seems to have been
merely the master-workman, and we have no evidence that he attained
to a higher position. His name does not appear in the existing
records of the Armourers’ Company. Asamus or Erasmus Kyrkenor
first appears in a list of payments in 1518. He was employed to
make candlesticks and for “garnishing books” with clasps, etc.,
in 1529, when presumably there was a slack time in the armouries.
There are further entries of this nature in 1530, 1531, and 1532,
in which year he “garnished” eighty-six books. In 1538 he was made
Brigandarius to the King, vice John Gurre, deceased; but we find
no details as to the duties of this office, which was continued to
the reign of Charles I, when it became the subject of a complaint
from Roger Falknor (Appendix J). In 1547 we find Erasmus in charge
of the Greenwich Armoury, and in 1593 a note of the will of Wm.
and Robt. Mighill states that they were the grandsons of Erasmus
Kirkenor, deceased.
A list of English armourers is given on page 126.
FOOTNOTES:
[66] _The History of Inventions._ Beckman.
[67] See _Dover Castle Inventory_, p. 25. The “nailtoules” may have
been used for this purpose.
[68] _Archæologia_, LXII.
[69] _Arch. Journ._, XXXVII.
[70] _Archæologia_, LIX.
[71] _Historia Anglicana_, Rolls Series, p. 457.
[72] _Arch. Journ._, LX.
[73] “Italian Armour at Chalcis,” C. ffoulkes, _Archæologia_, LXII.
[74] Cf. Baron de Cosson, _Arch. Journ._, XXXVII, p. 79.
[75] _Antient Armour_, II, 164.
[76] _Origines des Chevalivers, etc._, 1606, p. 142.
THE PROOF OF ARMOUR
As soon as the armed man realized that iron and steel were the best
defences for his body, he would naturally insist that some sort
of a guarantee should be given him of the efficacy of the goods
supplied by his armourer. This system of proving armour would be
effected by using those weapons most commonly in use, and these, in
the early times, were the sword, the axe, the lance, the bow, and
the crossbow. The latter seems to have been the more common form of
proof, though as late as the seventeenth century we have evidence
that armour was proved with the “estramaçon” or sword blow.[77]
In considering the proof of mail we are met with certain terms
which are somewhat difficult of explanation, but which evidently
are intended to convey the fact that the mail mentioned was
of especially good quality. These terms are “haute cloueur,”
“demi-cloueur,” “botte cassée,” and “botte.”
M. Charles Buttin,[78] in his studies on the arms used for proving
armour, considers that “botte” is here used to denote a blow in
the sense that it is used in fencing for a thrust or a lunge (It.
botta). The word “cassée” he takes to be derived also from the
Italian “casso,” vain or empty.
The term “haute” or “demi-cloueurs” seems rather to suggest the
single or double riveting of each link of mail. Ordinary mail is
either welded or joined with one rivet, but in some cases, as in
III, 339, Tower, two rivets are used to obtain increased strength
for the fabric (see also page 44).