its general adoption; it was that as the movement or “play” of the
_éclisses_ made it convenient to wear, so from this flexibility it was
found that the plates frequently became disconnected, and thus left a
part of the body defenceless. In making the _éclisses_ to overlap from
below, regard was had to the usual direction of a sword-cut or
dagger-thrust, which usually came from below; but there was all the more
danger from blows of the _martel_[9] and battle-axe, the stroke of which
weapon was directed downwards.
Bronzed armour came in about the middle of the sixteenth century, and
was somewhat commonly worn in 1558; it was introduced on account of its
being far more easily kept clean than polished steel. For the same
reason black armour was tried, but the engravings and chasings, the
gildings and damaskeenings were more effective on the greenish ground;
consequently black varnish was given up in favour of bronze. At the end
of the sixteenth century, and during the long civil wars which desolated
France, armour took a variety of shapes, and as regards ornamentation at
least, there was generally to be seen a strange medley of the style of
the previous century with that of the period (Fig. 61). However, the
decline of the use of armour, which became in a measure inevitable, was
at hand.
De la Noue, an eminent Huguenot officer of the time of Charles IX.,
says, in his “Discours Militaires”--“The penetrating power of pikes and
arquebuses has very naturally led to the adoption of armour stronger and
more capable of great resistance than formerly. It is now so heavy that
one is laden with anvils rather than protected by armour. Our
men-at-arms and light cavalry in Henry II.’s time presented a much finer
appearance, with their helmets, their brassarts, tassets,[10] and the
morion,[11] carrying the lance with a flag; their armour was not so
heavy but that a strong man was able to support its weight for
twenty-four hours; but those of the present day are so ponderous that a
young knight of thirty has his shoulders quite crippled.”
Thus, in endeavouring to make the resistance of armour keep pace with
the improvement in new warlike engines, they rendered it useless;
because the weight was intolerable, especially in warm weather, during
long marches, or in lengthened combats. Having vainly tried to make
suits of armour invulnerable, men began to leave off wearing such
portions as were of minor importance, which by degrees were entirely
discontinued. Under Louis XIII. we see armour undergoing further
modifications, but of fashion rather than of utility: finally, there is
every reason to think that the magnificent armour presented by the
Republic of Venice to Louis XIV., in 1668, and which is now to be seen
in the Museum of Artillery in Paris, was one of the latest sets made in
Europe.
Let us now retrace our steps to examine a series of arms, the gradual
adoption of which was destined to completely change the art of warfare.
It is now the almost universal opinion that the invention of
gunpowder,--assumed to have been discovered in 1256, or at all events
its application to artillery, which first dates from 1280,--is due to
Berthold Schwartz, an Augustin friar, born at Fribourg. Some writers,
however, make these dates a century later, and affirm that powder and
cannons were first known from 1330 to 1380. Nevertheless, the employment
of artillery only became general during the wars of Charles-Quint and of
Francis I., that is, towards 1530, or two centuries after its
invention.
But perhaps in place of giving, as we have done, the unconditional
acceptation to the word _artillery_ which it now has, we ought perhaps
to have said artillery used with gunpowder; for long before the
invention of gunpowder the word _artillery_ was employed when speaking
of all machines or engines of war (Fig. 62). Thus in the middle of the
thirteenth century we find among the _personnel_ of the _artillery_ a
grand master of the crossbow men, masters of the engines, of the
cannoniers (the word _cannon_ was even then applied to the tube forming
one of the principal portions of an engine for hurling projectiles), and
in 1291 we see Philip the Fair appointing a grand master of the
artillery of the Louvre.
[Illustration: Fig. 62.--Engine for hurling Stones; taken from a
Miniature of the Chevalier au Cygne. (Bibl. Imp. de Paris, No. 340, S.
E.)]
In order to follow methodically the progress of the manufacture of arms
such as we shall call novel, we will, in the first place, treat
separately of the engines of large calibre which were first employed,
and then of portable arms.
The earliest allusion to cannons in France is found in 1338, in an
account of the treasurer of war, wherein we read:--“To Henri de
Vaumechon, for buying powder and other necessaries for cannons,” which
had been used at the siege of Puy-Guilhem, in Périgord.
In Froissart, we next find that, in 1340, the inhabitants of Quesnoy,
when repelling the attack of the French, made use of bombards and cannon
which hurled huge bolts at the besiegers. But the statement of Villani,
that the English were indebted to the employment of artillery for the
victory of Crécy, in 1346, must be treated as a pure invention, because
it is certain that the firearms which may have been in use at that time
were in no way suited to field warfare; and that they were only employed
with the older engines in the attack and defence of fortresses. Not only
did their cumbrous weight and the rude construction of their carriages
render them extremely difficult of transport, but, intended as they were
to be employed as catapults, they were generally constructed for hurling
heavy projectiles, by causing these to describe a curved line, like
modern shells; and their shape is, in fact, much more like that of our
mortars than of cannon (Fig. 63).
[Illustration: Fig. 63.--Bombards on fixed and rolling carriages. (From
the MSS. 851 and 852, Bibl. Imp. de Paris.)]
“It would seem,” says M. de Saulcy, “that, in loading them, hollow
cylinders (_manchons_), or movable chambers, were used, in which the
charge was previously laid; and these fitted, by means of a wedge, into
the body of the piece. Sometimes these cylinders were at the side, and
formed a right angle with the axis of the piece, but usually they fitted
into the breech, of which they formed a prolongation.”
The name _bombards_, which we have just used, and which is derived, as
we may conclude, from the Greek _bombos_ (noise), was the first employed
for designating cannon; but these engines were so imperfect in
principle, and so feeble in power, that catapults, which had played so
signal a part in sieges during the Middle Ages, were used in preference
when very heavy projectiles had to be hurled (Fig. 64).
[Illustration: Fig. 64.--Mangonneau; an Engine of War of the Fifteenth
Century. (Miniature in the MS. 7,239, Bibl. Imp. of Paris.)]
Originally the piece rested, as it were, fixedly on a massive support;
but soon the means of sighting had to be considered; thus we see
depicted in early manuscripts pieces that could be moved up and down by
means of trunnions; or which were elevated or depressed for firing by a
sort of tail or long projection behind the tube; at other times the
muzzle of the cannon is sustained by a fork more or less buried in the
ground. This bombard, attached to a platform on wheels, received the
denomination of _cerbotana ambulatoria_; this last word conveying the
idea of the movability of the engine.
We have seen that projectiles were of stone, but there is no doubt that
from the fourteenth century they were also made of metal; that was
nothing new, for ancient engines of war, including the sling, threw
leaden balls and masses of red-hot iron. No doubt it was with the object
of giving the largest size possible to projectiles of artillery by means
of powder that stone was used; which, in the state of the art at that
time, was much better adapted than metal for large balls.
Christine of Pisa, who wrote in the time of Charles VI. the “Livre des
Faits d’Armes et de Chevalrie,” has left us a collection of very
interesting details of the condition of artillery used with powder,
which, as early as the fifteenth century, had become much more extended
than would be easily believed; moreover, in the descriptions this author
gives of armaments, or of narratives of battles, we almost always still
see catapults, the large cross-bows, &c., appearing by the side of
cannon; a certain proof that the use of powder found its equivalent in
more than one instance in the ancient means of the propulsion of
projectiles.
[Illustration: Fig. 65.--Earliest Models of Cannon. In the Tower of
London.]
Valturio, an Italian writer, whose treatise on military art was first
printed in 1472, has described and drawn all the engines of war then in
use. Cannons are not forgotten. We observe that the greater number of
these pieces have no longer any box forming a movable chamber; this
implies an important advance in the art of making them; but, on the
other hand, these cannons, bound with cords to a block of wood, or
resting on platforms, must have been very difficult to move.
At this period pieces of the largest calibre, which projected enormous
balls of stone, were more commonly called _bombards_; mortars, the very
short cannons throwing heated projectiles; cannons, pieces of medium
calibre carrying iron projectiles (Fig. 65); culverins, the long pieces
loaded with leaden balls, which, as well as the powder, were rammed in
with an iron rod; hand-cannons, or _bâtons à feu_ (Fig. 66), were in a
manner portable, for if they were handled by one man, it was never
without his having recourse to another for firing them.
This last-named term, _bâtons à feu_, like that of _cannon_, existed
before the invention of gunpowder. As swords and lances had often been
designated under the generic name of _bâtons_, it followed that the name
which implied arms in general should also be applied to the earliest
portable firearms. In ancient royal ordinances we even see the term
_gros bâtons_ used to designate large pieces of artillery.
[Illustration: Fig. 66.--Hand Cannon (or _Bâton à feu_), taken from a
piece of Tapestry belonging to the Church of Notre Dame de Nantilly,
Saumur.]
According to M. de Saulcy, the most important improvement ever made in
artillery is certainly that which consisted in placing a gun with
trunnions on a carriage _à flasques_--upright beams of wood, between
which the gun can oscillate, and united by cross-pieces; this carriage
was mounted on wheels, and admitted of the gun being inclined by the
simple use of a wedge of wood placed under the breech. But, strangely
enough, it is most difficult to state precisely the date of this
improvement. Nevertheless, circumstances tend to the belief that it was
between 1476 and 1494--that is, during the reigns of Louis XI. and of
Charles VIII.--that they succeeded in making pieces of all calibres
carrying iron shot, and also in solidly fixing the trunnions, which not
only supported the weight, but also resisted the recoil of the cannon.
The carriages for these guns were mounted on wheels. From this period
the art of fortifying towns underwent a complete revolution, which
suddenly changed the whole system.
When, in 1494, Charles VIII. entered Italy to conquer the kingdom of
Naples, the French artillery produced universal admiration. The Italians
had only iron guns, drawn by bullocks in rear of the army, and more for
appearance than for use. After the first discharge it was some hours
before the gun was ready for a second. The French had lighter cannon of
bronze, drawn by horses, and moved with so much order that their
transport hardly delayed the march of the army; they planted their
batteries with incredible promptitude, considering the period, and the
rounds were as quickly delivered as they were well aimed. Cotemporaneous
Italian writers say that the French used almost exclusively iron shot,
and that the guns, both of large and small calibre, were admirably
balanced on their carriages.
Yet no single specimen, or even a drawing, of this remarkable artillery
has been handed down to us. The Museum of Artillery does, indeed,
possess one small piece, on which, between the trunnions and the breech,
is this inscription:--“Presented by Charles VIII. to Bartemi, Lord of
Pins, captain of the bands of artillery, in 1490.” This cannon presents
nothing remarkable in its construction, for we already recognise the
form, one that has scarcely varied since then, and which, it seems, was
definitely adopted under Louis XII. and Francis I. Of this period we
still have two magnificent bronze cannons. They were found at Algiers in
1830; the porcupine, the salamander, and the fleur-de-lys that ornament
them, made their origin known.
Artillery, which in the reign of Charles VIII. had become an important
arm, and had, besides, the prestige of success in Italy, became a
subject to which particular attention was given in succeeding reigns.
But, we again say, the true principles of manufacture and mounting were
already well ascertained, and only improvements in matters of detail
remained to be discovered.
The Armoury Real of Madrid contains a curious _dragonneau_,[12] cast at
Liège in 1503, which figured in the siege of Santander in 1511 (Fig.
67). The carriage, consisting of a single piece of carved oak, is by its
delicacy and finish worthy of sustaining this masterpiece of
bronze-work, which presents a double interest, first as regards art, and
then on account of the rapid advance already made in firearms; for this
_dragonneau_ has a double barrel, and is loaded at the breech.
[Illustration: Fig. 67.--Double-barrelled Dragonneau. Armoury Real of
Madrid.]
Having arrived at this point, let us again retrace our steps, in order
to note, and rapidly follow from its origin, the progress of firearms.
The earliest of these used in the middle of the fourteenth century were
called hand-cannon, and were merely formed of an iron tube pierced with
a vent, without stock or lock.
A manuscript of that period represents a warrior who, standing on one of
those little movable towers then forming part of the siege _matériel_,
is shooting a stone with a gun of this description. The piece is resting
on the parapet. By the side a sling is placed with its stone--a
circumstance which indicates the relative power of the hand-cannon, as
no doubt each engine was to be used alternately. In another place is a
horseman holding a small gun with a prolongation; the muzzle is
supported by a prong fixed on the pommel of the saddle. Thus it was
impossible for him to take aim, and he applied the fire with his hand.
A little later, to prevent the effect of the recoil, there was added
below the barrel, a little short of the centre, a sort of hook, intended
to serve the purpose of checking the piece. When fired, it was supported
on a fork or on a wall; hence the name of _arquebuse à croc_, which took
the place of that of _canon à main_.
[Illustration: Fig. 68.--Arquebusier. Drawn and Engraved by J. Amman.]
The _arquebuse à croc_ sometimes weighed from fifty to sixty pounds,
measured from five to six feet in length, and in principle was chiefly
adapted for firing from a wall; it was lightened a little that it might
be used by foot-soldiers, who, however, never fired it without a fixed
or a movable rest.
The inconvenience of applying fire with the hand, which, moreover,
prevented the right direction of the missile, was soon partially
superseded by adapting to the barrel a stock to fire from the shoulder,
and a lock for a match, called a _serpentin_, which had only to be let
down to ignite the powder at the touch-hole. This was the matchlock
arquebus still used by certain Eastern nations in our time, and which
secured victory to the Spaniards at the battle of Pavia.
Although the matchlock arquebus, which was made lighter, and was then
called _mousquet_, continued to be the usual arm of infantry until the
time of Louis XIII., many serious objections to the use of the
_serpentin_ continued. It compelled the soldier always to have a lighted
match, or some means of striking a light. Besides, for nearly each shot
it was necessary so to regulate the match that the end of it, which was
placed in the head of the _serpentin_ (lock), should come exactly into
the priming-pan; then the priming-pan had to be opened; these operations
were, so to speak, impossible for mounted men, who at the same time had
to manage their horses.
[Illustration: Fig. 69.--Arquebus with Wheel and Match.]
About 1517 the Germans invented the screw-plate called _à
rouet_,--wheel-lock (Fig. 69).
To the Spaniards is due the merit of the improvement that followed, the
type of which is still in a measure perpetuated in our percussion guns;
which, in their turn, have just been replaced by the needle-gun. The
Spanish screw-plate, often called the _miquelet_ screw-plate, had on the
outside a spring, which pressed, at the extremity of its movable limb,
on one of the catches of the hammer; when the gun was cocked the other
catch pressed against a pin which projected from the inside and
traversed the screw-plate; this pin could be removed, and then the
spring acted on the hammer, which was no longer held back; the flint
(for at that time a flint was fitted to the gun) struck upon a ribbed
plate of steel forming part of the cover of the priming-pan, the action
of the flint on the plate produced the fire.
Among the arms in use during the sixteenth century was one called
_petrinal_ or _poitrinal_ (petronel), on account of the bent stock,
which rested on the chest. This short and heavy arquebus, which could
only throw balls, but of a very large size, to a short distance, was
usually suspended from the shoulder by a strap or a broad cross-belt.
Light troops were armed with these guns, and took the name of
_carabins_; from this the weapon was next called _carabine_--a
designation which since then has received quite another meaning.
[Illustration: Fig. 70.--Battle-axe and Pistol of the 16th Century.
(Museum of Artillery, Paris.)]
Then followed the _pistoles_ and the _pistolets_, thus named, it is
said, because they were invented at Pistoia; but, with other
etymologists, we can also believe that they owed the name to the fact of
their bore being of equal diameter with that of the _pistole_, a coin of
the time. The earliest pistols were made with wheels (_à rouet_), and
the barrel did not measure more than a foot in length. Subsequently they
varied in shape and in use; some were made which fired several shots in
succession, and in other cases they attempted to combine a pistol with
the dagger or the battle-axe. (Fig. 70, &c.) This is a notably fine
specimen.
We must not forget to note, in what may be called _les armes de luxe_,
the joint application of the match-holder and the wheel to
highly-finished arms, this combination being available.
The screw-plate _à miquelet_, improved by French experiments, led to the
mechanism called flint-lock (_fusil_). There were also then pistols and
arquebuses with flint-locks, as formerly there had been pistols and
arquebuses with wheels. Subsequently the explanatory became the absolute
term, and the entire weapon was known as _fusil_.
[Illustration: Fig. 71.--Banner of the Sword-cutlers of Angers.]
CARRIAGES AND SADDLERY.
Horsemanship among the Ancients.--The Riding-horse and the
Carriage-horse.--Chariots armed with Scythes.--Vehicles of the
Romans, the Gauls, and the Franks: the Carruca, the Petoritum, the
Cisium, the Plaustrum, the Basterna, the Carpentum.--Different
kinds of Saddle-horses in the Days of Chivalry.--The Spur a
distinctive Sign of Nobility: its Origin.--The Saddle, its Origin
and its Modifications.--The Tilter.--Carriages.--The Mules of
Magistrates.--Corporations of Saddlers and Harness-makers,
Lorimers, Coachmakers, Chapuiseurs, Blazonniers, and
Saddle-coverers.
THE horse has been described by Buffon as “the noblest conquest made by
man.” Historians, both, sacred and profane, inform us that the conquest
dates from the most remote ages. In the Book of Job we have this
magnificent description:--“Then the Lord said, Hast thou given the horse
strength? hast thou clothed his neck with thunder? Canst thou make him
afraid as a grasshopper? the glory of his nostrils is terrible. He
paweth in the valley, and rejoiceth in his strength: he goeth on to meet
the armed men. He mocketh at fear, and is not affrighted; neither
turneth he back from the sword. The quiver rattleth against him, the
glittering spear and the shield. He swalloweth the ground with
fierceness and rage; neither believeth he that it is the sound of the
trumpet. He saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha; and he smelleth the battle
afar off.” The sacred writer is here referring expressly to the fiery
animal trained for war, and obedient to the master who has trained him.
Xenophon, in his “Treatise on Horsemanship” and his “Instructor of
Cavalry,” and Diodorus in his “Histories,” are among the Greeks who
adduce the most numerous testimonies to the honour in which equestrian
exercises were held. Among the Latins, Virgil, in reference to the
funereal games celebrated by Acestes in honour of Anchises, tells us
that the Roman youth were taught equestrian art as practised by the
Trojans. The horse and chariot races, which took place at the solemn
games in Greece, have always been justly celebrated; as were those which
continued in Rome and in all the great cities of the Roman world until
the fifth or sixth century.
We are disposed to believe that the use of the saddle-horse and the
carriage-horse was introduced about the same time. But it seems that
chariots were rarely mounted by any but chiefs, who fought from that
ambulatory elevation while squires managed the horses.
[Illustration: Fig. 72.--The Carruca, or Pleasure-Carriage, drawn by a
Pair of Horses, dating from the Fifth to the Tenth Century. (Taken from
a MS. of the Ninth Century, in the Royal Library at Brussels.)]
To Cyrus the Great is ascribed the first idea of arming chariots with
scythes, which cut to pieces in every direction those who opposed the
progress of the vehicle, or who were thrown down by the violence of the
shock. The same war-carriages were found among the Gauls; for a king
named Bituitus, having been taken prisoner by the Romans, appeared in
his chariot armed with scythes in the triumphal procession of the
general who had conquered him.
[Illustration: Fig. 73.--Cart drawn by Oxen, end of the Fifteenth
Century. (Taken from the “Chroniques de Hainault,” MS. in the Royal
Library at Brussels.)]
Riding on horseback was not only practised, but was carried to the
highest degree of perfection, among the nations of antiquity; and the
use of chariots was, in former times, almost general in war and on
certain state occasions. The Romans, and in imitation of them the Gauls
who prided themselves on being skilful carriage-builders, had several
sorts of wheeled vehicles. Those adopted by the Romans and the Gauls,
but discountenanced by the Franks, who preferred to ride on horseback,
were the _carruca_, or _carruque_, with two wheels and a pair of horses
(Fig. 72), richly ornamented with gold, silver, and ivory; the
_pilentum_, a four-wheel carriage with a cloth canopy; the _petoritum_,
an open carriage suitable for rapid travelling; the _cisium_, a
basket-carriage drawn by mules, and used for long journeys; and finally,
various carts--the _plaustrum_, the _serracum_, the _benne_, the
_camuli_ (trucks), &c. These last, which were chiefly employed as
field-carts, continued in use even after pleasure-carriages had entirely
disappeared. There remained, however, independent of mule-litters, the
_basterna_ and _carpentum_, state-carriages of the Merovingian period,
but only queens and ladies of high rank, who were unequal to long
journeys on horseback, indulged in such means of locomotion, while
men--even kings and high personages--would have blushed to be conveyed
like “holy relics,” as picturesquely expressed by one of Charlemagne’s
courtiers; but certainly not at the period of the “lazy kings,” when, as
Boileau has well said,--