1. scull timbre scheitelstück coppo calva
2. visor visière visier visiera vista
3. ventail ventail schembart ventaglio ventalle
4. bevor {bavière } kinreff baviera barbote
{mentonnière }
5. crest crête kamm cresta cresteria
6. plume-holder{porte-plume } pennachiera penacho
{porte-panache}
7. nape-guard couvre-nuque nackenschirm gronda cubrenuca
8. gorget colletin kragen goletta gorjal
9. spring-pin piton à federzapfen
ressort
10. neck-guard garde-collet brechränder guarda- bufeta
goletta
11. pauldron épaulière achseln spallaccio guardabrazo
12. rerebrace arrière-bras oberarmzeug bracciali brazali
13. lance-rest faucre rüsthaken resta restra de
muelle
14. rondel or } rondelle achselhöhl- {rotellino } luneta
besague } scheibe {da bracciale}
15. breast plastron brust petto peto
16. back dossière rücken schiena dos
17. elbow-cop }
or coude } coudière armkasheln cubitiera codales
18. vambrace avant-bras unterarmzeug bracciali brazali
19. gauntlet gantelet handschuhe mittene manopla
20. taces bracconière bauchreisen panziera faldaje
21. loin-guard garde-reins gesassreifen falda ”
22. fald or } {stahlmaschen-}
skirt } brayette { unterschutz } braghetta
of mail }
23. tasset tassette beintaschen fiancale escarcela
24. upper cuishe cuissard oberdiechlinge cosciali quijotes
25. cuishe ” unterdiechlinge ” ”
26. knee-cop genouillière kniebuckel ginocchielli guarda o
rodillera
27. jamb or } jambière, beinröhen gambiera greba
greave } grève
28. solleret or} soleret schuhe scarpe escarpe
sabbaton }
29. fan-plate ailerons
]
There is no mention of the pauldron in the Hastings MS., but when
this was worn it was strapped to the neck-opening of the cuirass or
hung from spring-pins which project from the shoulder-plate of the
cuirass.
The staples mentioned in the Hastings MS. are often very elaborate
contrivances, especially in jousting-armour, and the foremost
fastening was called the “charnel.” Fig. 59 shows the methods of
attaching jousting-helms to the cuirass. No. 1 shows the adjustable
plate which fixes the front of the helm of the suit of Philip II
(Madrid, A, 16). A similar contrivance was used with the “Brocas”
helm (Fig. 12). No. 2 is the front of a helm (Mus. d’Art, Paris,
G, 163) in which the lower plate is bolted to the breast and
can be released from the helm by withdrawing the hinge-pin. No.
3 shows the back of the same helm. Fig. 60 is a larger sketch of
the fixing-hook of this helm. A is the back-plate of the helm, E
the pillar hinged at D and hooked into a lug on the back of the
cuirass. B is a solid block of steel of circular section pierced
with holes and connected to a screw in E. B can be turned by
inserting a pin in the holes and the screw tightened or loosened.
Minute details as to the fastenings of the helm will be found in
Appendix D, page 178.
[Illustration: FIG. 59. Attachment of jousting-helms to the
cuirass.]
It can therefore be easily imagined that the work of arming a man
was a serious business, and it was necessary that the armourer or
an expert assistant should be present in case some portion of the
suit or its fastenings gave way.
[Illustration: FIG. 60. Side view of attachment on Fig. 59, 3.]
Details of the different parts that went to make up the complete
suit, with the thickness of each plate, the laces or points, and
various fastenings and methods of attachment, will be found in the
fifteenth-century Treatise on Military Costume of which a portion
is given in Appendix D.
The Marquis de Belleval published an interesting monograph on this
manuscript in 1866, which is now scarce and difficult to obtain.
In the illustration on Plate XVII the squires are shown arming
their masters from horseback, which appears to involve some
gymnastic exercises.
That such agility of the armed man was by no means an artistic
licence we may gather from the fact that Froissart[126] mentions
Sir John Assueton leaping fully armed behind his page on to his
war-horse. Again, Shakespeare makes Henry V (Act V, Sc. 2) say, “If
I could win a lady at leapfrog or by vaulting into my saddle with
my armour on my back,” and Oliver de la Marche states that Galliot
de Balthasin in 1446 leaped fully armed out of the saddle as though
he had on a pourpoint only. That this was no mere figure of speech
we may judge from a little book entitled _The Vaulting Master_,
written by W. Stokes, an Oxford riding-master, in 1641.
[Illustration: _PLATE XXX_
ARMOUR OF THE MIDDLE XV CENT.
ARMOUR OF FRIEDRICH DES SIEGREICHEN, BY TOMASO DA MISSAGLIA, 1460]
[Illustration: FIG. 61. Armourer in the lists (Heralds’ Coll., MS.
M, 6, f. 56).]
In the preface he writes: “In war the nimble avoydance of a man’s
horse if wounded or killed under him, and in like manner the ready
ascent into his enemies saddle if it be his hap to unhorse him, and
much more which the experienced souldier shall find.”
There is an engraving on Plate I of the work showing a cuirassier
in half-armour about to vault into the saddle without stirrups.
Stokes occasionally breaks out into verse as follows:--
Here’s that will make a stubborne armour weare
Gentle as Persian silks and light as air,
which refers to the ease of mounting which his prescribed exercises
ensured.
On the subject of the wearing of armour we have much valuable
information from the works of the great military reformer of
the sixteenth century, Sir John Smith, who, as has been stated
previously, suffered imprisonment for his opinions. In his
_Instructions and Observations and Orders Militarie_, 1591-5, he
writes:--
Page 183. “No man can be conveniently armed unlesse he be first
fitly apparelled.” He states that at Tilbury he saw “but very few
of that army that had any convenience of apparel and chieflie of
doublets to arme upon, whereof it came to passe that the most of
them did weare their armors verie uncomelie and uneasilie.... But
because the collars of their armours doe beare the chief waight
of all the rest of the armour, I would wish that the souldiers
... should have under Collars of Fustian convenientlie bombasted
to defende the heveth weight, and poise of their armours from the
paining or hurting of their shouldiers.”
On page 193 he writes: “Also I would have them to have pouldrons
of a good compasse and size, and vambraces both joined together,
and not asunder, because that the poise of the pouldrons and
vambraces, hanging upon the pinnes and springes of their collars,
they doe not weigh so much, nor are not so wearisome as when they
are separated; and that they weare their vambraces tied with
points to their doublets under their pouldrons.” Here the author,
who was pre-eminently a practical soldier, saw the discomfort
and inconvenience caused by the drag of the arming-point on the
sleeve and wisely considered that the whole arm-defence should
hang from a pin or strap from the gorget or cuirass, so that the
weight might be on the shoulders and not on the arms.
The armour for the joust in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
was far too heavy to allow of such vagaries. Pluvinel in his
_Maneige Royale_, 1625, gives an imaginary conversation between
himself and the King which bears upon the subject:--
The King.
It seems to me that such a man would have difficulty in getting
on his horse and being on to help himself.
Pluvinel.
It would be very difficult, but with this armament the case has
been provided for. In this way, at triumphs and tourneys where
lances are broken, there must be at the two ends of the lists a
small scaffold the height of the stirrup, on which two or three
persons can stand; that is to say, the rider, an armourer to
arm him, and one other to help him, as it is necessary in these
dangerous encounters that an armourer should always be at hand
and that all should be ready. Then the rider being armed, and the
horse brought near to the stand, he easily mounts him ... for
this reason the horses must be steady.
A little pen-drawing of the sixteenth century in a manuscript
dealing with jousts (Heralds’ Coll., M, 6, 56) shows the armourer
on one of these scaffolds at the end of the lists (Fig. 61).
In the chapter on the Proving of Armour the question of disuse on
account of weight was considered. From the sixteenth century and
even earlier we have records of the discarding of armour because
it hampered the wearer or for some equally cogent reason. The
following extracts bear upon the subject:--
1383. _Chroniques de Dugesclin_, line 5973 (edit. 1839).
Leurs cuissieres osterent tres tous communement
Par coi aler peussent trop plus legierement.
This refers to the action of Sir Hugh Calverly at the battle of
Mont Auray, who ordered his men to take off their cuisses in order
to move more easily.
1590. _Discourses_, p. 4, Sir John Smith.
But that which is more strange, these our such new fantasied men
of warre doe despise and scorne our auncient arming of ourselves
both on horseback and on foote saying that wee armed ourselves in
times past with too much armour, or peces of yron as they terme
it. And therefore their footmen piquers they doo allow for verie
well armed when they weare their burganets, their collars, their
cuirasses, and their backs, without either pouldrons, vambraces,
gauntlets or tasses.
Sir John Smith goes on to say that it was the discarding of his
cuisses that cost Sir Philip Sidney his life, for he received a
wound from a spent bullet which his armour might have deflected.
1619. _The Art of Warre_, Edward Davies.
[the arquebusiers were loaded] with a heavie shirt of male and a
burganet, by the time they have marched in the heat of summer or
deepe of winter ten or twelve English miles they are more apt to
rest than readie to fight.
1625. _Souldiers’ Accidence_, Markham.
As for the pouldron or the vant-brace they must be spared because
they are but cumbersome.
Against these extracts we must place the opinions of military
leaders who deplored the disuse of armour:--
1632. _Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie_, Cruso.
Captain Bingham in his Low Countrie exercise appointeth him [the
harquebusier] a cuirass pistoll proofe which condemneth the late
practice of our trained Harquebusiers to be erroneous which have
wholly left off their arms and think themselves safe enough in a
calf’s skin coat.
1756. _Rêveries_, Marshal Maurice of Saxe, p. 56.
Je ne sais pourquoi on a quitte les Armures, car rien n’est si
beau ni si avantageux. L’on dira peut-etre que c’est l’usage de
la poudre qui les a abolis; mais point du tout car du tems de
Henri IV. et depuis jusq’en l’annee 1667 on en a porter, et il y
avoit deja bien longtems que la poudre etoit en usage: mais vous
verrez que c’est la chere commodite qui les a fait quitter.
Marshal Saxe further suggests that the large proportion of wounds
are received from sword, lance, or spent bullet, and that all these
might be guarded against by wearing armour or a buff coat of his
own invention which when reinforced with steel plates weighed 30 lb.
THE WEIGHT OF ARMOUR
We have but few records in contemporary documents of the actual
weight of the different parts of the suit of armour, but we can
obtain these from examples of the sixteenth century onwards from
specimens in the different museums and collections.
That armour had become burdensome in the extreme owing to the
necessity of subjecting it to pistol and musket proof we know from
various writers on the subject.
La Noue in his _Discours Politiques et Militaires_, translated by
“E. A.” 1587, writes on page 185: “For where they had some reason
in respect of the violence of harquebuzes and dagges [muskets and
pistols] to make their armor thicker and of better proofe than
before, they have now so farre exceeded, that most of th[=e] have
laden themselves with stithies [anvils] in view of clothing their
bodies with armour ... neither was their armour so heavie but that
they might wel bear it 24 hours, where those that are now worne
are so waightie that the peiz [weight] of them will benumme a
Gentleman’s shoulders of 35 yeres of age.”
[Illustration: _PLATE XXXI_
PORTRAIT MEDAL OF COLOMAN, COLMAN, 1470-1532
DESIGNS FOR ARMOUR BY ALBERT DURER, 1517]
On page 196 of Sir John Smith’s _Instructions, Observations, and
Orders Militarie_, the author strongly objects to the discarding of
the arm and leg defences which was advised by other authorities. He
insists that these limbs are as important as the “breste, belly,
and backe,” and should be adequately protected. His opinions are
also held by Marshal Maurice of Saxe in his _Rêveries_, quoted
above.
Edward Ludlow, at the battle of Edgehill, 1642,[127] was dismounted
in getting through a hedge, and says: “I could not without
great difficulty recover on horse-back again being loaded with
cuirassiers arms as the rest of the guard were also.”
It would be superfluous to mention the different occasions on
which unhorsed knights were captured or killed through their
inability to remount in battle. Froissart in describing the battle
of Poitiers says that when once dismounted men could not get up
again, and other historians bear equal witness of the disadvantage
of armour when unmounted; and the Sieur de Gaya, who has been so
often referred to in these pages, writing in 1678, says in his
_Traité des Armes_, page 60: “Ils n’avoient trop de tort à mon avis
d’équiper ainsi leurs chevaux parce qu’un Cavalier armé n’est plus
propre à rien quand il est démonté.”
Although this may be taken as a reason put forward by the writer
for more armour for man and horse, it shows at the same time that
the fully armed man was considered to be comparatively useless when
unhorsed, as the Spanish proverb ran: “Muerto el Cavallo, perdido
el hombre d’armas.”
It may be somewhat of a surprise to learn that the present-day
equipment is but little lighter than that of the fifteenth century.
The Under Secretary for War, speaking in the House of Commons on
November 28th, 1911, stated that the infantry soldier marched on an
average thirty miles a day during the manœuvres, carrying 59 lb. 11
oz. of equipment and kit. Against this we may place the weight of
some suits of foot-soldiers’ armour of the sixteenth century, which
weigh with the helmet at the outside 25 lb.; leaving therefore
a wide margin for underclothes and weapons. And this comparison
of weight carried is even more interesting when considering the
cavalry equipment, as will be seen from the annexed table on the
opposite page.
Of course all these figures represent “dead weight”; and here
we are brought back to one of those fundamental rules of good
craftsmanship--the recognition of “Convenience in Use.”
Even in the Golden Age of armour, the fifteenth century, the
armourer was hampered by material and by methods of construction
which even the most expert craftsman could not overcome; but when
we reach the period of decadence in the seventeenth century, the
excellence of craftsmanship had deteriorated to an alarming extent
and these difficulties were still greater. The secret therefore of
the weight-carrying powers of man and horse at the present day is
greater convenience in carrying, the scientific distribution of
weight, and a more adaptable material, which when taken together
give greater freedom and greater mobility, even though the actual
weight be the same as the equipment of steel.
The following table gives the weights of typical suits from the
fifteenth century onwards:--
ARMOUR FOR THE JOUST
XV-XVI.--HELMS (ENGLISH). lb. oz.
Barendyne, Great Haseley, Oxon 13 8
Wallace Collection, No. 78 17 0
Westminster Abbey 17 12
Brocas, Rotunda, Woolwich 17 12
Dawtrey, Petworth, Sussex 21 8
Captain Lindsay, Sutton Courtenay, Berks 24 14
1518. Madrid, A, 37 41 9
SUITS.
1520. Tower, II, 28, for fighting on foot 93 0
1530 (_circ._). Madrid, A, 26 { man 79 0
{ horse 79 0
1590. Tower, II, 9, man 103 0
WAR HARNESS
1439. Musée d’Artillerie, Paris, G, 1, man and horse 163 0
1514. Tower, II, 5 { man 64 13
{ horse 69 3
1588. Musée d’Artillerie, G, 80, man 92 6
1590. Tower, II, 10 79 0
1590. Tower, II, 12 55 8
1612. Tower, II, 18 77 14
CAVALRY
1450 1875 1909
+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+----------+
|G, 1, Musée d’Artillerie, Paris. | | | |
| _Man, about 140 lb._ } | | | |
| _Armour for man and horse, } | | | |
| 163 lb._[128] } | 333 lb. | | |
| _Arms, clothes, saddlery, etc., } | | | |
| about 30 lb._ } | | | |
+======================================+ | | |
|British Household Cavalry | | 308 lb. |} |
| ” Heavy ” | | 280 lb. |} |
| ” Medium ” | | 266 lb. |} 246 lb. |
| ” Light ” | | 259 lb. |} [130] |
| | | [129] | |
|German Cuirassier | | | 334 lb. |
| _All the above are Service equipment,| | | |
| including rider and saddlery._ | | | |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+----------+
INFANTRY
1550 1875 1911
+----------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
|106-8, Rotunda, Woolwich, Maltese Suits.| | | |
| _Half-armour and helmet, 25 lb._ } | | | |
| _Clothes and arms, about 15 lb._ } | 40 lb.| | |
+========================================+ | | |
|British Infantry. | | | |
| _Service equipment, including arms_ | | 52 lb.|59 lb. 11 oz.|
| | | [129]| [131] |
+----------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
FOOTNOTES:
[120] _Arch. Journ._, LX.
[121] _Archives de Bruxelles_, Cat. Mus. Porte de Hal, 1885.
[122] _Jahrbuch des Kunsthist. Sammlungen_, II, 1032.
[123] _Arch. Journ._, IV.
[124] _Archæologia_, LVII.
[125] _Antiquarian Repertory_, IV.
[126] Johnes’ edition, I, 449.
[127] _Ludlow’s Memoirs_, Firth, I, 44.
[128] Catalogue of the Museum.
[129] Sir G. P. Colley, K.S.I., _Encyc. Brit._, 1875.
[130] Col. F. N. Maude, _Encyc. Brit._, 1910.
[131] _Morning Post_, December 9, 1911.
THE ARMOURERS’ COMPANY OF THE CITY OF LONDON, ARMOURERS’ HALL,
COLEMAN STREET, E.C.
At the present day this Company is combined with that of the
Braziers, but this combination only dates from the beginning
of the eighteenth century, when it had ceased to deal with the
making of armour and was more concerned with other branches of the
craft of the metal-worker. The objects of the craft-gild of the
armourers were the same as all those of like nature in the Middle
Ages. Members were protected from outside piracy of methods and
trade-marks, they were cared for in body when ill or incapable of
working, and in soul by masses and religious exercises.
[Illustration: FIG. 62. Arms of the Armourers’ Company of London.]
An important detail in the organization of these craft-gilds and
one sadly lacking in modern trade combinations was the examination
and approval of the members’ work by the gild-masters. In this way
was the craftsman encouraged to produce good work, and also the
purchaser was protected against inferior workmanship. A reference
to the Appendices B, K will exemplify this, for in these two
instances alone we find that careless work is condemned by the
Company. In the document of the reign of Edward II it is noted that
“old bascute broken and false now newly covered by men that nothing
understood of ye mystery wh. be put in pryvie places and borne out
into ye contrye out of ye said Citye to sell and in ye same citie
of wh. men may not gaine knowledge whether they be good or ill of
ye wh. thinge greate yill might fall to ye king and his people.”
Again, under Charles I, in the appeal of the Company to the Crown,
leave to use the mark is requested “because divers cutlers,
smythes, tynkers & other botchers of arms by their unskillfulness
have utterly spoiled many armes, armours, &c.”
The Company seems to have existed during the reign of Edward II,
but was not then incorporated, and with the exception of the
document transcribed in Appendix A, there is but little evidence
of their existence before the date of 31st Henry VI, in which year
a Charter of Incorporation was granted. This deals mostly with
questions relating to religious observances, the gild-chapel and
like matters. A report to the Court of Aldermen, dated 20th Eliz.
(1578), as to right of search for armour, etc., states that “the
Armourers did shewe us that in Kinge Edward the Second his time,
the Lord Maior and his bretheren did then graunte the serche unto
the Armourers.”
As has been noticed before, the fact that armour plates were
expensive and difficult to forge will account for the scarcity of
examples of the defensive equipment up to the sixteenth century.
Either the suit was remade or, having been cast aside, it was
utilized by the common soldier as well as might be. It was only
when the age of the firearm was reached that armour was left in
its perfect state and was not improved upon. We have therefore but
little to show whether the English armourers of the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries were more or less expert than their foreign
rivals, but, from other examples of metal-work that remain to
us, we are forced to the conclusion that the foreigner was our
superior. At the same time we find on more than one occasion
that the English armourer claims to equal his foreign rival; but
whether these claims were ever proved we are unable to decide
without actual examples of the craft work or documentary evidence.
In Appendix J is printed an appeal from Capt. John Martin in 1624
for leave to import German “platers” to teach English armourers,
with the hope that this will establish a home trade and will stop
the import of foreign work. At the same time the very fact of this
request shows that the craft in England in the reign of James I was
not in a very flourishing condition. On the other hand, in 1590 the
Armourers of London petitioned Queen Elizabeth to purchase only
home products, because they can furnish her with “farre better
armors than that wch cometh from beyond the seas.”
[Illustration: FIG. 63. Design on manifer of suit made for Henry,
Prince of Wales, by Pickering, _circ._ 1611. Windsor Castle.
Half-size (from a rubbing).]
In the year 1580 the Armourers’ Company endeavoured to obtain
an Act of Parliament to protect and encourage the craft of the
Armourer, but with no result owing to the opposition of other
Companies. In the minutes of the Company detailing this effort
occurs the following passage, which is of interest as bearing upon
the skill of English workmen at that date: “It was the Master’s
chance to speak with Sir Walter’s[132] honor again, Dr. Doull, one
of the Masters of Requests, being with him, praying him to have the
Armourers’ Bill in remembrance. ‘What,’ said Mr. Doctor, ‘there is
none of your Company that can make an armor.’ ‘Yes, sir,’ said the
Master, ‘that there is verily good workmen, and skilful as needeth
to be.’ ‘Tell me not that,’ saith he, ‘for I will hould you a
hundred pounds that there is none in England that can “trampe” an
armor for “the Cappe to the Soul of the foot.”’ ‘I will lay with
your worship afore Sir Walter’s honor if you will give me leave
that we have in England that shall work with any in the world from
the toe to the crown of the head from 100 to 1000’; and then he
made as though he would have laid it. ‘No,’ saith Sir Walter, ‘ye
shall not lay, for he will win of you, for they have very good
workmen, and I know of the workmanship myself.’”
This skill in craftsmanship was doubtless attained under the
tutelage of the Almaine armourers that have been referred to
before who were brought over by Henry VIII to Greenwich. As an
example of this we may notice the work of Pickering,[133] to whom
is attributed the suit made for Henry, Prince of Wales, now at
Windsor Castle, which bears a strong resemblance to the work of
Jacob Topf, who was Master Armourer at Greenwich in 1590 (Fig. 63).
In 1595 a Court of the Armourers’ Company was held to examine
targets and other pieces of armour, and the decision arrived at
was that it was “not of the proportion that cometh from beyond the
seas, the Breast and Back Plates were too short and too narrow
everywhere.” Again in the year 1620 at a Court it was certified
that a Sussex smith “did alter old Armour, persuading the Countrey
that they were workmanly done, which notwithstanding were utterly
unserviceable.” This matter was reported to the Justices at
Guildford to be dealt with by them. From these entries it will be
seen that the control of the Company was very real and that in the
main the English craftsman was of not much account until he had
learned his trade from foreign experts.
It was doubtless due to the instruction given by the foreigner
that the Company possessed skilled hammermen. Under Elizabeth in
1560 these hammermen were employed to assist in the process of
coin-striking and were sent, two to the Clothworkers’ Hall, two
to the Sessions Hall, Southwark, and two to the Merchant Taylors’
Hall, to strike and stamp “with portcullis and greyhound the
several pieces of money called ‘Testons,’ there to continue until
the end of fourteen days from the date of precept.”[134]
Many of the foreign immigrants took out letters of naturalization
and became members of the Company, but none of these seem to have
been craftsmen of note, for the expert workmen were generally
recalled to the German Court after some time, where there was a
wider scope and, possibly, higher remuneration for their services.
The Company, like other Corporations, suffered severely during the
Reformation. Religious observances were so much a part of the gild
life that the members soon fell under suspicion, as practising
superstitious rites. Heavy fines were enacted, and it was only
by the generosity of John Richmond, a member of the Company, who
bought part of the corporate property of the Farringdon estate for
£120 and left it back to the Company in his will, that the fine was
paid.