period, for we find in the _Chronicon Colmariense_, under the year
1398, the statement that the men-at-arms wore “camisiam ferream, ex
circulis ferreis contextam, per quae nulla sagitta arcus poterat
hominem vulnerare.” The earliest entry of this mail of proof is
found in the Inventory of Louis X (le Hutin) of France, which is
here given together with other entries of the different expressions
used with regard to proof of this nature.
1316. _Inventory of Louis le Hutin. Bib. Richel., MS. fr._, 7855.
Item uns pans[79] et uns bras de roondes mailles de haute cloueur.
Uns de meme d’acier plus fors.
Item uns couverture a cheval ... de jaseran de fer, uns de mailes
rondes demy clouées.
In this entry there is evidently a variety of mail which is even
stronger than that of “haute cloueur,” but this may possibly be of
stouter or better-tempered metal. The horse-armour would not need
to be of such high proof as that of the man, because from its form
it would be more or less in folds when the horse was in action
and would therefore present double thicknesses to the weapon.
An illustration of the mail-clad horse is given in the present
writer’s _Armour and Weapons_, and also in _Monumenta Vetusta_,
Vol. VI.
1390. _Archives Camerales de Turin Comptes Tres. gen. de Savoie,
No. 38, fol. 62v._
Achettez de Simond Brufaler armeur, de mons ... per le pris de un
auberjon d’acier de toute botte.
This expression “de toute botte” suggests that the armour was
proof against all blows, that is from the sword, the axe--the
“estramaçon” above alluded to--and also against the bow and the
crossbow. In 1612 Sturtevant in his _Metallica_ writes on page 62
that the ironworker should “make things stronger than the Exact
strength which the thing is to have,” and we find this borne
out in an extract from the Armerie di Roma, Arch. Stat. c. 150,
of the date 1627, which mentions old armour “a botta” which had
been proved with “due e tre colpi dell’ arma alla quale dovevano
resistere.”[80]
The proof by the crossbow is mentioned by Angellucci in a note,
quoting from the _Arch. Gonz. Copialett._, T. II, c. 65: “et si
te manderemo doi veretoni di nostri saldi, como i quali tu farai
aprovare la ditta coraza corno uno bono balestro di cidello.”[80]
The last-mentioned weapon is the “arbalest à tour” or windlass
crossbow. It would seem from M. Buttin’s researches that the armour
“à toute épreuve” was proved by crossbow and sword, and that “à
demi épreuve” by the smaller lever crossbow or by the javelin
thrown by hand. These varieties of proof were indicated by the
marks stamped upon them, one mark for the single and two for the
double (see page 65). In some documents we have definite entries
of arrows used for proof, which would naturally have exceptionally
well-tempered points:--
1378. _Reg. de la Cloison d’Angers, No. 6._
Pour deux milliers de fer pour viretons partie d’espreuve et
autre partie de fer commun.
The “vireton” was a crossbow-bolt which had spiral wings of metal
or wood so fitted that it revolved in its course.
1416. _Compt de Gilet Baudry, Arch. Mun. Orleans._
Flêches à arc empannées a cire et ferres de fers d’espreuve.
Here the “feathering” of the arrow with copper is specified, for
it was this metal wing which, acting like the propeller of a boat,
caused the arrow to revolve with increased velocity.
These arrows of proof cost double the price of ordinary arrows, for
we have entries of such projectiles in the year 1419 costing 8s.
the dozen, while the ordinary quality cost but 4s. the dozen.[81]
Details of the regulations of setting proof marks upon armour will
be found in Appendices B, E, K.
The proving of brigandines was most carefully carried out, for in
some instances every separate plate was stamped with the proof
mark. In the Paris Collection double proof marks are found on the
brigandine G, 206, and a similar double mark appears stamped on the
Missaglia suit G, 3, but of a different design. The helmet of Henry
VIII on II, 29 (Tower) also bears the double proof mark of one of
the Missaglia family (Plate X). It would be tedious and unnecessary
to give a list of those armours which bear these proof marks, for
they are to be found in every armoury of note in Europe; but it
will be of some profit to quote various extracts showing the reason
and the effects of proofs or trials of armour.
[Illustration: _PLATE XVI_
1. VENETIAN SALLAD COVERED WITH VELVET, XVI CENT.
2. BACK PLATE OF BRIGANDINE COVERED WITH FABRIC, 1470
3. MORION WITH COVER, XVI-XVII CENT.
4. SURCOAT OF THE BLACK PRINCE]
In the sixteenth century the firearm had become a serious factor in
warfare, therefore the proof was decided by submitting the armour
to pistol or musket shot.
1347. _Regulations of the Heaumers of London_ (original in
Norman-French), _City of London Letter Book, F, fol. cxlii_.
Also that helmetry and other arms forged by the hammer ... shall
not from henceforth in any way be offered for sale privily or
openly until they have been properly assayed by the aforesaid
Wardens and marked with their marks (see Appendix B).
1448. _Statutes des Armuriers Fourbisseurs d’Angers._
It. les quels maisters desd. mestiers seront tenus besoigner
et faire ouvrage et bonnes étoffes, c’est assavoir pour tant
que touche les armuriers, ils feront harnois blancs pour hommes
d’armes, de toute épreuve qui est à dire d’arbalestes à tilloles
et à coursel à tout le moins demie espreuve ... marquées de
2 marques ... et d’espreuve d’arbaleste à crocq et traict
d’archier, marquées d’une marque (see Appendix E).
The “arbaleste à tilloles” was the large bow bent with a windlass,
the “arbaleste à crocq” was smaller and was bent with a hook
fastened to the waist of the archer (see Payne Gallwey, _The
Crossbow_).
1537. _Discipline Militaire_, Langey, I, chap, xxii, pp. 79, 80.
... les Harnois soient trop foibles pour résister à l’Artillerie
ou à l’Escopeterie, néantmoins ils défendent la personne des
coups de Pique de Hallebarde, d’Epée, du Trait, des Pierres, des
Arbalestes, et des Arcs.... Et par fois une Harquebuze sera si
mal chargée ou si fort eschauffée ou pourra tirer de si loin, que
le Harnois pour peu qu’il soit bon sauvera la vie d’un homme.
The above writer considers, and with reason, that when the
uncertainty of firearms was taken into consideration defensive
armour was of much practical use; and this theory was held as
late as the eighteenth century, for Marshal Saxe in his _Les
Rêveries_[82] warmly recommends the use of defensive armour,
especially for cavalry, as he considers that a large proportion
of wounds were caused by sword, lance, or spent bullets. It was
evidently from reasons such as the above that a reliable proof by
pistol or musket shot was insisted upon, for the armour of the Duc
de Guise in the Musée d’Artillerie (G, 80) is of great thickness
and weighs 42 kilos. It has either been tested by the maker or has
seen service, for there are three bullet marks on the breastplate,
neither of which has penetrated.[83]
1569. _Arch. cur. de Nantes_, I, col. 305.
612 corps de cuyrace ... garnis de haulzecou ... desquelz le
devant sera a l’espreuve d’arquebuse et le derrière de pistol.
The terms “high proof,” “caliver proof,” and “musket proof” often
occur in writings of this period and onwards up to the time when
armour was discarded; but it is difficult to get any definite
information as to how the proof was made. In the above entry there
are two kinds of proof, which show that the back-plate was thinner
than the breastplate, the resisting power being obtained not only
by temper of metal, but also by its thickness.
1568. _Les Armuriers français et étrangers_, Giraud, pp. 191, 192.
Ung corps de cuirasse lequel sera a l’espreuve de la pistolle,
ung habillement de teste a l’esprouve de la pistolle, brassartz
... a l’esprove de la pistolle, tassettes courtes a l’esprouve de
la pistolle.
Here is evidently a necessary definition of each piece. Probably
on some former occasion the armourer had classed the whole suit as
of proof when such a description might only be honestly given to
the cuirass. Accounts of actual trials are rare, but the following
extract is of interest as showing the methods employed in England.
It is given in full, with many valuable extracts bearing on the
craft of the armourer, by Viscount Dillon, in _Archæologia_, Vol.
LI. The extract is taken from a letter from Sir Henry Lee, Master
of the Armoury in 1580, to Lord Burghley, and bears the date Oct.
12, 1590.
The first part of the letter states that a gentleman of Shropshire
was anxious that the metal mined in his county should be used for
armour instead of the German iron which at this time was considered
to be the best in the market. Sir Henry writes: “To give the more
credyte to that stuffe to the armourers of London and to Jacobi the
Mr. workman of Grenewhyche, the Counsell apoynt in there presence
that Sr. Robarte Constable and my cossyn John Lee shoulde see a
proofe made wh. by tryall proved most usefull.” The “Shropshire
gentleman” sent Sir Henry “a new brest beyng sent owt of the
country of gret litenes and strengthe as he was made beleve,” and
entrusted him to “cause another of the very same wayght to be made
in her Matys office of Greenwhyche, wh. I presently performed.”
Pistols were then loaded with equal charges and fired at the two
breastplates, with the result that “that made in the Offyce and of
the metall of Houngere[84] helde out and more than a littel dent
of the pellet nothinge perced, the other clene shotte thereowe and
much tare the overpart of a beme the brest studde upon as longe as
my fyngeers. Thus muche for the Ynglyshe metall.”
From time to time, as has been noticed before, there had been
efforts to wrest the monopoly of the supply of metal for armour
from the foreigner, but here was a very tangible proof of the
superiority of the alien material. It is true that the Shropshire
breastplate appears to have been sent from that county for the
test, while the foreign metal was made up by the highly skilled
workmen in the Royal Armoury at Greenwich under the eye of Jacobi
(Topf), a master-craftsman who can have had but few rivals at that
time. Possibly he may have possessed some secrets of tempering
and hardening his metal which were unknown to less experienced
smiths, and so have obtained the award of superiority for the metal
of his own country. Topf had migrated to England from Innsbruck
and must certainly have had friends among the iron-merchants of
that locality. So his interests were obviously on the side of the
foreign metal.
It may be only romance or it may be fact, but certainly Oliver de
la Marche,[85] writing about the year 1450, describes some such
process of tempering armour after it was made. “Boniface avoit
trempe son harnois d’une eau qui le tenoit si bon que fer ne povoit
prendre sus.” It is not to be suggested that it was a special kind
of water that was used for this, but rather that it was some method
of heating and cooling the metal which was employed. Angellucci, in
the _Catalogue of the Armeria Reale, Turin_ (p. 129), quotes, from
documents of the sixteenth century, the account of a breastplate
made by Colombo, an armourer of Brescia, being spoiled because he
had used excessive charges for his pistol or musket.
1602. _Milice français_, Montgomery, Pt. II, p. 187.
Les chevau-légers estoient armez d’armes complètes d’une cuirasse
à l’épreuve. Le reste estoit à la légère.
The last detail shows that the back-pieces were much lighter than
the proof breastplates, and this is borne out by other similar
entries during the century. Evidently the efficacy of the musket
had increased in the first years of the seventeenth century and
with it the weight of the proved armour. In later entries we find
that pistol proof is of more frequent occurrence, and from this we
may gather that the weight of metal was a serious hindrance to the
soldier and that he preferred the risk of a bullet.
Still there are cases to be found of complete proof, for in 1605
even the brayette was of proof (_Arch. Gov. Brescia Privil., R. 7,
V_, p. 10),[86] and if this small, in fact the smallest, portion
of the armour was proved, we may be sure that the whole suit was
tested equally.
In 1628-9 we learn from the State Papers Domestic, lxxxix, 23,
that one Whetstone had a project for making light armour as good
as proof, but there are no details of his methods. It is quite
probable, in most cases, that when one piece of the armour was
proved the rest were made of similar material and tempered in the
same way, and that actual proof was not expected or given. An
interesting extract from the _Memorials of the Verney Family_, IV,
30, gives us some information as regards the proof of armour:--
1667, Feb. Richard Hals is choosing some armour for his cousin in
London: he has tested it with as much powder as will cover the
bullet in the palme of his hand.
This rough-and-ready method of estimating the charge is borne out
in Gaya’s _Traité des Armes_, p. 30 (Reprint 1911, Clarendon Press).
The Verney extract goes on to say that Verney wished to have the
armour tested again, but the armourer refused, for by this time it
was finished, and he said that “it is not the custom of workmen to
try their armour after it is faced and filed.”
[Illustration: _PLATE XVII_
CAST OF IVORY CHESSMAN, XIV CENT.
IVORY MIRROR CASE, XIV CENT.]
This suit cost £14 2s. 8d., and when it was delivered Verney was
by no means pleased, as it did not fit.[87] A clear proof that
armour was tested before it was finished is to be found on the
suit made by Garbagnus of Brescia for Louis XIV of France, now in
the Musée d’Artillerie (G, 125). M. Buttin[88] in noticing this
suit describes it as “La magnifique armure offerte à Louis XLV
par la République de Venise,” but in this we must certainly hold
a different opinion, for the production, although elaborately
engraved, is perhaps the best example of the decadence of the craft
of the armourer, so graceless and clumsy are its lines and
proportions. The proof mark is upon the left of the breastplate, at
the point where the lower edge of the pauldron ends. It has been
made the centre of a double-petalled rose, showing plainly that the
bullet mark was there before the engraver began his work. A similar
mark at the back is made the centre of a flower (Fig. 35). The
document relating to the “proof mark” of the Armourers’ Company of
London will be found in Appendix K.
[Illustration: FIG. 35. Detail showing proof mark on breast of suit
of Louis XIV, Mus. d’Art, Paris, G, 125.]
Gaya in his _Traité des Armes_, 1678, referred to above, states
on page 53 that the casque and front of the cuirass should be of
musket proof, but the other parts need only be of pistol or carbine
proof. In speaking of head-pieces he states, on the same page,
that the heavier kinds were proved with musket-shot, but the light
varieties were only tested with “estramaçon” or sword-cut; and he
adds that for armour to be good it must be beaten and worked cold
and not hot.
We have seen how armour was proved and how the proof mark of
crossbow-bolt or bullet is often found as a witness to the fact.
In addition to this we frequently find the mark or poinçon of
the armourer, which invariably means that the piece is of good
workmanship and worthy of notice.
Like all the other craft gilds, that of the armourer was very
jealous of the reputation of its members. The tapestry weavers of
Flanders were obliged to mark, in some cases, every yard of their
production; and so in fine suits of armour we find many of the
individual pieces that go to make up the suit stamped with the
maker’s mark and also with the stamp of the town. These town stamps
are mostly found in German work from Nuremberg, Augsburg, etc. We
find the name Arbois used on some Burgundian armour, but never
are the names of Italian or French towns stamped. With the sword
this rule does not hold good, for the Spanish, Italian, and German
makers frequently used the town of origin as a mark in addition
to their own. Toledo, Passau, Ferara, Solingen are all found upon
swords, and are very often stamped upon blades of an entirely
different nationality. This forgery of the stamp may have been
perpetrated with the intent to defraud, or it may simply have been
used as a mark of excellence, like “Paris fashions” or “Sheffield
steel” at the present day. The forgery of marks on suits of armour
is very seldom met with and where it exists it is obviously done
for ulterior reasons.
The stamps take the form of signs such as the trefoil of Treytz,
the monogram such as the “M Y” of the Missaglias, and the crowned
“A” of the Armourers’ Company of London; the rebus, as for example
the helm used by the Colman (Helmschmied) family, or a combination
of two or more of the above variety.
About the year 1390 we have the following entry:--
Achetiez de Symond Brufaler armeur ... 1 auberion d’acier de
botte cassé duquel toutes les mailes sunt seignier du seignet du
maistre.[89]
This shows that in some cases every link of mail was stamped with
the armourer’s mark. In Oriental mail letters and sometimes words
from the Koran are stamped on each link, but we have no examples
extant of European mail stamped with the maker’s mark on each link.
On May 11, 1513, Richard Thyrkyll writes to Henry VIII from Antwerp
saying that he can find no “harness of the fleur de lys” in any
part of Brabant (Brit. Mus. Galba, B, III, 85).
This probably refers to a trade-mark or poinçon well known as
denoting metal of high temper. A brigandine in the Museum at
Darmstadt bears this mark repeated twice on each plate, showing
that it was proof against the large crossbow (Fig. 36). Demmin
(_Guide des Amateurs d’Armes_) gives a mark of a lion rampant as
stamped on the plates of a brigandine in his collection, and an
example in the Musée d’Artillerie has the Nuremberg mark on each of
the plates.
[Illustration: FIG. 36. Proof marks on a Brigandine plate,
Darmstadt Museum (full size).]
In the case of mail a small label is sometimes found, riveted on to
the fabric, on which is the maker’s stamp; an example of this is
the eagle which is stamped on a label attached to the mail skirt
G, 86, in the Armeria Reale, Turin (see Table of Marks, 59). In
brigandines we sometimes find each of the small plates stamped with
the maker’s mark, which is held to be evidence of “proof.”
As we have seen from the entry under the date 1448, on page 65, the
single stamp signified proof against the small crossbow and the
double stamp proof against the heavy windlass-bow.
As has been noticed above, the forgery or imitation of marks is
more common on sword-blades than on defensive armour, and of these
the wolf, dog, or fox of Passau is most frequently imitated. In
some instances the representation is more or less life-like, but in
others there is simply a crude arrangement of straight lines that
suggest the head, legs, body, and tail of the animal.
Stamping of armour was practised early in the middle of the
fourteenth century, as will be seen in the Regulations of the
Company of Heaumers transcribed in Appendix B.
In Rymer’s _Fœdera_ (XIX, p. 312) we find accounts for repairing
and remodelling armour in the year 1631, and at the end of the list
comes the entry “For stamping every harness fit to be allowed
£ 0 0 0”, which shows that even armour that was remade from old
material was subjected to tests, and also that these tests were
recorded by a gratuitous stamp of the craftsman or of the company
to which he belonged.
The only entry extant which actually refers to the making of these
stamps for armourers is given in the _Mem. de la Soc. Arch. de
Touraine, T. XX, pp. 268-9_ (_Arch. de Tours, Grandmaison_).
1470. A Pierre Lambert orfèvre, la somme de 55 s. t. ... pour
avoir fait et gravé 6 poinsons de fer acérez pour marquer les
harnois blancs et brigandines qui seroient faiz et délivrez en
lad. ville, de la façon que le roy l’avait ordonné, et pour
avoir retaillé et ressué 2 desd. poinsons qui estoient fenduz en
marquant les harnois.
A Jehan Harane orfèvre, pour avoir gravé les armes de la ville en
2 poinsons de fer pour marquer les harnois et brigandines vendues
en lad. ville 30 s.
The number of armourers’ marks known at present amounts to several
hundred, but of the majority nothing is known as to ownership and
history. A few of the principal marks in English and Continental
collections are given on page 148.
FOOTNOTES:
[77] Gaya, _op. cit._
[78] _Revue Savoisienne_, 1906, fasc. 4.
[79] Panzer, body-armour.
[80] _Cat. Armeria Reale Turin_, 129.
[81] _Rev. Savoisienne_, 1906, fasc. 4, p. 3.
[82] Edit. 1756, p. 58.
[83] A half-suit in the possession of H. Moffat, Esq., Goodrich
Court, formerly the property of New College, Oxford, has a heavy
“plastron” or reinforcing piece. The bullet has dented this and
also the cuirass underneath. The head-piece and back-plate are
pierced by bullets.
[84] Hungarian or Innsbruck iron.
[85] _Memories_, I, xxi (edit. 1884).
[86] _Cat. Armeria Reale Turin_, p. 73 note.
[87] See page 105.
[88] _Rev. Savoisienne_, 1901, fasc. 2 and 3.
[89] Arch. Cam. de Turin, Compte des Très. gén. de Savoie, Vol.
XXXIX, f. 163.
THE DECORATION OF ARMOUR
From the earliest times defensive armour has been more or less
decorated and ornamented with more or less elaborate detail as the
armourer became skilled in his craft and as the patron indulged
in vanity or caprice. Perhaps the most astonishing work in this
direction is the shoulder-piece of a cuirass known as the Siris
bronze in the British Museum, which is of such elaborate repoussé
work that it is difficult to see how the tool can have been used
from the back. It is not, however, the intention of this work to
deal with Greek or Roman armour, or indeed with armour previous
to the eleventh century; otherwise its limits would have to be
considerably enlarged. The ornamentation of early armour, the
employment of brass or latten rings, which formed patterns on the
hauberk, called for no special skill on the part of the craftsman,
and it is only when we come to the thirteenth century that we find
traces of actual decoration on the pieces of plate which composed
the suit.
[Illustration: _PLATE XVIII_
PORTRAITS BY MORONI
NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON]
And here it should be remembered that the axiom of suitability
was, in later years, forgotten, and the ever-important “glancing
surface” was destroyed by designs in high relief, which not only
retained the full shock of the opposing weapon, but also hindered
the free movement of the several plates one over the other. The
word “decoration” in itself suggests a “decorous” or suitable
adornment, and this suitability was not always considered by the
sixteenth and seventeenth century armourers.
The use of jewels was always favoured among the nobility, and
we find in the inventory of the effects of Piers Gaveston[90]
plates ornamented with gold and silver and ailettes “frettez de
perles.” In 1352 King John of France and the Dauphin had elaborate
head-pieces ornamented with jewels, and in 1385 the King of Castile
wore a helmet at the battle of Aljubertota which was enriched with
gold and valued at 20,000 francs.[91]
[Illustration: FIG. 37. Poleynes on the brass of Sir Robert de
Bures, Acton, Suffolk, 1302.]
The well-known brass of Sir John d’Aubernon, 1277, shows the first
traces of the actual ornamentation of armour, which culminated in
the work of Piccinino and Peffenhauser in the sixteenth century.
Similar ornamentation is found on the brass of Sir Robert de Bures,
1302 (Fig. 37). It is possible that the poleynes shown on this
brass and also the beinbergs on the figure of Guigliemo Berardi in
the Cloisters of the Annunziata at Florence (Fig. 38) were made
of cuir-bouilli and not metal, for there is not much incised or
engraved iron found in domestic objects of this period (Fig. 37).
But when we reach the end of the century we find a richly decorated
suit of complete plate shown on the brass of an unknown knight of
about the year 1400 which in no way suggests any material but iron
or steel (Fig. 39).
[Illustration: FIG. 38. Beinbergs on the statue of Guigliemo
Berardi, Florence, 1289.]