Movatterモバイル変換

LONDON
SEELEY AND CO. LIMITED, GREAT RUSSELL STREET
NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY1897

I
The Britons—An Early Age of Plate-Armour

It is the nature of islands to exhibit some peculiarities in their faunaand flora, and this insularity is no less pronounced in the manners andcustoms of the human beings inhabiting them. Thus even the stoneimplements of Britain of remote prehistoric days can readily be distinguishedby the expert; and we have the authority of Sir John Evans forregarding our types of bronze celts and weapons as both peculiar andindigenous. On first taking a place in history several strange and extra-Europeancustoms were noticed in these isles by Cæsar, such as theuse of chariots in war, and dyeing the skin blue with woad: Britishnations were, moreover, frequently ruled by queens, and some practisedthe rare and difficult, and very far from barbaric, art of enamelling onbronze.

Modern opinion is at present opposed to the theory that the cultureand civilisation of Western Europe originated exclusively in the East,and is inclined to regard our primitive arts and crafts as indigenous. Thatthis must in a large measure be true appears sufficiently established; butthe large and excellently-made bronze bucklers with concentric rings ofbosses or studs, called the clypeus, the singular art of enamelling, theuse of studs of coral for embellishing weapons and trinkets, the chariotsof war and the government by women, all so remote from savagery, andso intimately connected with Eastern civilisation, compel the belief that[Pg 6]these isles did actually at some distant time possess a privileged andintimate communication with the East. The old and rooted tradition ofa direct traffic in tin between Britain and Phœnicia cannot yet in fact besafely abandoned.

These arts and practices, however, only fall within the scope of oursubject so far as they were applied to arms and weapons. One of these,very rarely used for the embellishment of arms in later times, is thatof enamelling, a process unknown to the Romans. Philostratus, whowrote in the third century, referring to some coloured horse-trappings,observed, “They say that the Barbarians who live in the Ocean pour thesecolours on to heated bronze, and that they adhere, become hard as stone,and preserve the designs which are made in them.” The bronze to beenamelled was cast with the pattern upon it, and the colours used werevaried and bright, but opaque. Some brilliant horse-trappings withpurely Celtic decorations and a few sword-hilts are known, but the bulkof cast bronze enamelled ware consisted of brooches, seal-boxes, cups,and vases, all Romano-British in design. A much rarer enamel is foundon beaten or repoussé bronze armour. Pliny, in the Natural History,remarks that the Gauls were in the habit of adorning their swords,shields, and helmets with coral, but an immense demand springing up inIndia, it became unprocurable. We find accordingly that resort washad in England to enamel to reproduce the effect of the coral studs.In the British Museum is an oblong shield of Celtic design, found in theWitham, embellished with coral, but a smaller and handsomer shieldbeside it, found in the Thames, has gold cloisonné studs of blood-redenamel. The curious Celtic reproduction of the Roman peaked helmet,and the horned helmet found in the Thames, both from the Meyrickcollection, are also decorated with small raised bosses cross-hatched to retainred enamel, some of which still adheres. The horned brazen helmetshould, according to Diodorus Siculus, be a relic of, or borrowed from,the Belgic Gauls, who inhabited so much of this part of England.The gem-like effect of the enamelled studs, like single drops of red onthe golden bronze, must have been most refined; it is altogether toorestrained to have originated with the enameller, who usually covers hissurfaces. The identity of workmanship of these arms with the Irishbronze and enamel work suggests that some of those who produced them[Pg 7]passed over and found with their traditions and arts a peaceful refuge inthe sister isle.

Tacitus, however, states most explicitly that the Britons wore neitherhelmets nor armour, and were not able, therefore, under Caractacus, tomaintain their resistance. Herodianus also, relating the expedition ofSeverus 250 years after Cæsar’s invasion, presents an extraordinary pictureof savagery. He observes that the Britons were a most warlike andsanguinary race, carrying only a small shield and a spear, and a swordgirded to their naked bodies. “Of a breastplate or helmet they knewnot the use, esteeming them an impediment through the marshes.”They encircled their necks and loins with iron rings as an evidence ofwealth, instead of gold, and went naked rather than conceal the tattoos ofdifferent animals which covered and gave a blue cast to their bodies.

In striking contrast to this picture are the large number of chariotsemployed in war and the extraordinary skill displayed in handling them.Cæsar states that Cassivelaunus, when totally defeated and a fugitive, wasstill accompanied by 4000 charioteers; the basis probably of PomponiusMela’s later statement that 4000 two-horsed chariots armed with scythesformed part of that chieftain’s army. Having proved ineffectual againstRoman discipline, this arm was perhaps soon abandoned, since we findlittle further mention of war-chariots, though cavalry did not cease toform part of a British army. In process of time the subjugated Britonsmust have become completely Romanised as to arms, and accustomed towear the helmet, greaves, and corselet, either of one piece or formed ofsmaller and more flexible plates or scales. Though the manhood of thecountry enrolled in disciplined cohorts and legions had deserted it, Romanweapons must have been the arms of those who remained when theRomans finally retired from Britain in 410.

In the two succeeding centuries, which were to elapse before thecountry definitely inclined to become English, an intensely Celtic feeling,embodied in the legends of King Arthur and wholly opposed to Romanideas, had time to spring up. Judged by their ornament, it is to thisperiod that most of the bronze enamelled arms and trappings in theBritish Museum belong. The golden corselet found in a barrow in Flint,together with many traditions of the finding of golden armour, such asthe helmet of pure gold set with gems found in a bronze vase and pre[Pg 8]sentedto Katharine of Arragon, suggest the idea that serviceable qualitiesbecame sacrificed to a love of display. At this time it is said the Britons,in obsolete and fantastic panoply, bore an evil reputation, as being vainand fruitful in menaces, but slow and little to be feared in action. Theirfrightfully demoralised state, if not greatly overdrawn by Gildas, calledfor a day of reckoning and the condign, almost exterminating, punishmentwhich overtook them. The agents destined to execute the vengeance ofProvidence were the Frisian pirates, the scourge of the Channel, who hadwith difficulty been kept in awe by the most powerful Roman fleets.The country, left to the divided rule of clergy, nobles, and municipalities,and described as “glittering with the multitude of cities built by theRomans,” presented a tempting and easy prey to these professors ofrapine. They were Teutons, who relied mainly on the Fram or spear-likejavelin, as when Tacitus described them, and still carried the roundgaudily-painted buckler, though then strengthened with an iron umboand rim. Their weapons had been perfected in a long series of grimexperiences in actual war, and they had added to their equipment a swordand dagger, and some kind of simple headpiece. That they hadadopted any complete defence of plate-armour in the Roman fashion isimprobable, but they were apparently entirely unacquainted with chain-mail.In the history of armour in Britain this period, taken as a whole,can only be regarded as a very primitive age of plate. To be anefficient protection plate-armour must, however, be of an intolerableweight, at least to men on foot, making celerity of movement impossible.We cannot close the chapter better than by instancing the dreadful fateof the Æduan Crupellarians, related by Tacitus, who clothed themselvesin unwieldy iron plate, impenetrable to sword and javelin. Thoughthe main army was overthrown, these kept their ranks as if rooted tothe ground, until, fallen upon with hatchets and pickaxes, armour andmen were crushed together and left on the ground an inanimate mass.This lesson was not forgotten by the nations of Europe who fought onfoot with Rome, and no such use of body-armour among them is againrecorded.

II
The Mailed Warrior

The appearance of the mail-clad warrior opens up an entirely new era inthe history of European armour. The light plate defences worn by theMediterranean nations, whether Greeks, Etruscans, or Romans, were nevercalculated to secure immunity from wounds; and as a fighting equipmentthey went down before mail, as stone before bronze, or bronze beforeiron. Chain-mail body-armour is distinctly represented on the Trajancolumn, and wherever worn, whether by the Scythian, the Parthian whowas armoured down to his horse’s hoofs, or the dreaded Sassanian horse, itseems to have flashed like a beacon of victory, and its wearers ever appearin history as Rome’s most dreaded and formidable foes.

The Scandinavian also, isolated so long and unknown in history, suddenlyburst upon Europe as a new and even more redoubtable mail-cladwarrior. How so remote a people became acquainted with chain-mail canonly be surmised, but it was perhaps through some Scythian channel notopen to Western Europe. That the ravaging Viking landed on ourshores equipped in mail, the “war nets” of Beowulf, “woven by thesmiths, hand-locked, and riveted”; “shining over the waters” or in “theranks of battle,” is sufficiently recorded by the Chroniclers. Shirts of mail,called “byrnies,” attributed to even the fourth and fifth centuries, arefound in Danish peat-bogs fashioned of rings welded and riveted in alternaterows as neatly and skilfully as can possibly be, and all made by thehammer, if it be a fact that wire-drawing was not invented till nearly athousand years later. The almost perfect specimen we figure, one-tenththe natural size, was found at Vimose, with portions of others. Some[Pg 10]have also been found at Thorsberg, and in a burial-place of Roman agein Jutland.

Besides the mail defence, the Danes were armed with a shield, an ironcap, lance, axe, and sword. Thus equipped they proved for a long timealmost irresistible, and ventured on the most dangerous and desperateundertakings. When we reflect on their adventurous voyages, the recklessattacks on powerful nations made by mere handfuls of men, and thegallant pertinacity they at all times displayed, it is impossible not toadmire their exalted courage. It is easy to detect a rugged poetry,almost chivalry of a kind, underlying the Viking nature, in spite ofruthless cruelty, while the exaltation of deceit when practised on an enemyinto a virtue is but a germ of modern statecraft. Their lives dependingat every moment on the quality of their weapons caused these to beinvested, particularly the sword, with a mystic glamour, which scarcelydied out with chivalry itself, and lingers even yet in the more importantfunctions of state. The chieftain’s sword was in fact his inseparablecompanion, known and endeared to his followers by a name symbolic ofthe havoc they had seen it wreak upon the enemy, and its fame in sagaswas as undying as its owner’s. Tradition elevated the maker of thesword of Odin, a smith, we must believe, who forged swords of uncommonexcellence, into a demigod; and has handed down the story of how hemade a blade called Mimung so keenly tempered that when challenged totry conclusions with one Amilias, a rival, it sliced him so cleanly in twoas he sat in his armour, that the cut only became apparent when, as he roseto shake himself, he fell dead in two halves. The name of this princeof craftsmen yet lives in the mysterious Wayland Smith of English folklore.Another vaunting smith Mimer was slain by the sword Grauerwielded by Sigurd; and the sword Hrunting is made famous by itsowner Beowulf, the father of English lyrics. A Danish sword in theBritish Museum is inscribed in runes Ægenkœra, the awe-inspirer.From the Danes the exaltation of the sword passed to the English, andwe find Ethelwulf, Alfred, and Athelstan bequeathing their swords bywill as most precious possessions, equivalent to a brother’s or sister’sportion. Thence it passed, in legend at least, to the Britons, KingArthur’s sword Calibon, or Excalibur, presented ultimately by Richard I.to Tancred when in Sicily, being almost as famous as Arthur himself.[Pg 11]Even Cæsar is provided by history with a sword named “Crocea mors,”captured from him in combat by our valiant countryman Nennius. Thehilts of the Danish swords are described in theEdda as of gold, andBeowulf speaks of hilts that were treasures of gold and jewels. Canute’shuiscarles and Earl Godwin’s crew had swords inlaid with the preciousmetals, and some English swords were valued at eighty mancuses of gold.

The origin of the remarkable veneration for arms and armour, soapparent in the history of chivalry, is thus traced to wearers of mail,[Pg 12]the first figures also to appear in something like what we regard asknightly equipment. The dress of Magnus Barefoot, described in 1093,differed probably but little from that of his predecessors, and consistedof helmet, a red shield with a golden lion, his sword called Leg-biter,a battle-axe, and a coat-of-mail, over which he wore a red silk tunicwith a yellow lion.

The wearing of armour, particularly mail, on land, necessitated riding,and the northern rovers, finding the weight intolerable on their inlandforays, took to horse whenever possible, harrying by this means anextent of country otherwise almost inaccessible. They even learnt intime to transport their horses over the sea, and in the ninth and tenthcenturies landed in England from France as a mounted force, as theirdescendants after them did at Hastings. The English, on the otherhand, rarely wore mail, though the spoils of the Danes might havefurnished a fair supply, and they only used cavalry as a small forcefor scouting. An English king of the eighth century is, however,represented in mail by Strutt, and Harold and his immediate companionsmay have worn mail at Hastings, as represented in the Bayeux tapestry,and as he certainly did when assisting William in his war against Conanof Brittany. Handsome presents of Norman arms and armour werethen made to him by Duke William. A little later we have thecurious testimony of Anna Comnena, 1083-1146, that this mail, madeentirely of steel rings riveted together, was wholly unknown in Byzantium,and only worn by the inhabitants of Northern Europe.

The definite conversion of the Northmen from sea-rovers to mountedmen-at-arms when they settled in Normandy enabled them to lengthentheir coats-of-mail, as well as their shields, lances, and swords, and toadopt many French manners and customs. But in facing the infantrywedge at Hastings, the time-honoured fighting formation of Teutonicstocks from the days of Tacitus, they did not disdain to fall back onthe old Viking tactics of a pretended flight and rally, practised alreadyby them during two centuries of warfare in England. That the Englishshould have allowed their impenetrable ranks to be broken by so threadbarea stratagem is indeed extraordinary.

The Norman Conquest introduced into England a permanent mail-cladcavalry as the chief strength of the battle, as in France, and infantry[Pg 13]was discredited until the disputes of the sons of the Conqueror ledonce more to an English infantry force taking the field. The mail coatof the cavalry had in the meantime been further lengthened, and changedinto a complete sheathing of steel by the addition of long sleeves andmufflers falling over the hands; leggings covering the thighs, shins,and feet; and a capuchin-like hood only leaving the eyes and noseexposed, but which could be thrown back. Thus enveloped, with athickly-padded garment under the mail, a conical or flat-topped steelhelmet, a large kite-shaped shield, and long-reaching weapons, he hadlittle to fear when opposed to light-armed cavalry or infantry. Themail and helmets were always kept bright, as we know, but AnnaComnena adds that even the shields of steel and brass were so brightlypolished as to dazzle beholders. Combined with the pennons and bannersof various forms, with their glittering emblazonry, the massed men-at-armsof that day must have presented a magnificent spectacle, as theChroniclers so frequently remind us. The coat-of-mail remained withbut trifling variations the chief knightly defence until the close of the[Pg 14]thirteenth century, and the protection it afforded was so complete that of900 combatants who once entered battle in steel armour but three wereslain. At Joppa in 1192, during a battle lasting from the rising to thesetting sun, only three were killed on the side of the Crusaders; at the battleof Lincoln only three, at Evesham (1260) one knight and two esquires,at Falkirk (1295) but one knight and thirty foot on the winning side.These somewhat random examples seem fairly to represent the loss onthe side of the victors, though terrible massacres overtook the losers. Theprotection was such that Saladin’s bravest warriors reported our men to beimpenetrable; blows, they said, fell as if on rocks of flint, for our peoplewere of iron and would yield to no blows. But though so terrible onhorseback, the mailed knight, as observed by Anna Comnena, was littledangerous when dismounted. Neither had the English failed to observethis, and thus directed all their efforts to dismount the enemy. Theyhad been severely galled by the bow at Hastings, and they came torecognise it as the one weapon likely to render them really formidable totheir Norman oppressors. Henry I. encouraged its use, and we soonfind the English arrows described as falling in battle like a shower onthe grass or as falling snow. In a skirmish at Bourgthéroude in 1124,the first discharge brought forty horses to the ground before a strokewas struck, and eighty men-at-arms soon fell prisoners into the victors’hands. At the battle of the Standard, the cloud of arrows pierced theunarmoured Scots, and chiefly contributed to the dreadful slaughter,set down at 11,000. The effects of missile weapons were such thatthe mailed period of which we are speaking saw three English kingsfall victims to the bow, while a fourth, Edward I., escaped a like fateby a miracle. The accounts handed down of the extraordinary rangeand precision attained soon afterwards by this weapon appear whollyincredible in the light of modern toxophilite displays.

The cross-bow was an even more powerful weapon, whose use hadbeen forbidden in war, but allowed by the Pope to the Crusaders in 1139.Richard I. appears to have introduced it into the English army, whichbecame so expert in its use that in some of the sieges conducted during thetwelfth and thirteenth centuries the enemies’ walls could not be manned.It is related of Richard, both at the sieges of Acre and Nottingham, thathe himself slew men with this weapon. The numbers of cross-bowmen[Pg 15]in our armies appear, however, to have been always relatively small.King John, with 400 knights, had but 250 cross-bowmen, used asskirmishers, keeping a mile in front of the army. The splendid army ofEdward I. assembled at Poitou (1242), numbering 1600 knights and20,000 foot, comprised but 700. The battle of Lincoln, however, wasgained by them owing to their shot mowing down the horses of thebarons, who were rendered helpless when dismounted. The cross-bowwas at first bent by the hand and foot, but was afterwards of steel, whenit required mechanical aids to charge it. The short and heavy bolts,called quarrels, struck with greater force than arrows, and the knight hitfull on the head or breast by one was fortunate if only stunned.Instances are recorded of twofold mail and the quilted coat being penetratedby them. Cross-bowmen for a long time formed corps d’élite,the weight of the weapon and the armour causing them to befrequently mounted, and so early as King John the mounted “balistarii”were provided with one, two, or even three horses each, with carts tocarry the quarrels and even the cross-bows as well. Notwithstandingsuperior accuracy in aim and penetrating power, it fell into disuse inEngland soon after the close of the thirteenth century, owing to its heavyweight and liability to damage by wet, and above all, on account of thegreater rapidity with which arrows could be discharged from the longbow,—ina ratio of something like ten to one.

Nothing is more constantly met with in chronicles than accounts ofthe destructive effects of missiles, whether from bow or cross-bow, uponthe horses of mounted combatants; yet, apart from the poetic fancy ofWace, who mounts Fitz-Osbert on an iron-clad steed at Hastings, thefirst mention of horse-armour at all connected with English historyis at the battle of Gisors in 1198, when Richard I. speaks of thecapture of 140 sets in terms which plainly show that he then metwith it for the first time. It has, however, been concluded, from theabsence of any mention of horse-armour in English statutes until 1298,that it was unknown here till the close of the thirteenth century. At thistime a man-at-arms in France received half as much again in pay ifhis horse was armoured, and in 1303 every man with an estate of 500livres was bound to provide horse-armour. A mailed horse appears inthe effigy of Sir Robert de Shirland in Sheppey, and a fine figure of a[Pg 16]steed completely clad in mail is among the figures ofThe PaintedChamber, published by the Society of Antiquaries.

The English custom of fighting on foot, it is almost needless to add,had been adopted by the Danish and even the Norman settlers here, andduring the civil wars of Henry I., Stephen, and Henry II., the leaderson both sides, including the kings in person, fought their battles dismounted,rendering horse-armour of relatively small importance.

A permanent force was raised by a law of Henry II. in 1181,compelling every burgess or freeman to possess an iron headpiece, alance, and either a mail hauberk or a gambeson, according to hismeans: and this was supplemented by the addition, under HenryIII. in 1253, of swords and knives to the infantry equipment, and thecalling up of a reserve of those possessed of less than 40s. of land, armedwith scythes, long-handled axes, knives, and other rustic weapons.Soon afterwards a wild Welsh and Cornish infantry was enrolled, and wehear of lagers and intrenchments, and in 1302 one of the first reallycrushing defeats is inflicted on chivalry at the hands of burghers by themen of Bruges, who slew forty counts and barons at Cambray.

This extensive arming of the population led to the formation of bandsof outlaws, who devastated the country, something in the manner of thefree-companies of France at a later time. A young man named William,declining to acknowledge Lewis of France in 1216, drew together athousand bowmen and conducted a guerilla warfare in the forests ofSussex. The still more renowned Adam Gordon infested the woodycountry between Wilts and Hants until Prince Edward at last, about1267, overcame him in single combat. The ancient Ballads abound withinstances of such exploits, which are embodied in the romance of RobinHood.

A contemporary of Richard I. describes the equipment of an Englishfoot-soldier as consisting of an iron headpiece, a coif and coat-of-mail,and “a tissue of many folds of linen, difficult of penetration and artificiallyworked with the needle, vulgarly called a pourpoint.” He was taughtto receive cavalry with the right knee on the ground, the left leg bent,the shield in the left hand and the butt of the lance in the ground withthe point to the enemy. Between every two lances was a cross-bowmanwith a rear rank to load while the front shot. Against this formation[Pg 17]the Moslem cavalry’s “surging charges foamed themselves away,” and asat Waterloo, the retreating squadrons were charged again and again byour heavy-armed horse. On the other hand, the same tactics, whenemployed against forces largely composed of English archers, wereunsuccessful; thus the Welsh in 1295 set their long spears on the groundwith points towards the cavalry, but the Earl of Warwick placed anarcher between every two horsemen and routed them. Wallace’s massedpikemen, three years later, were broken by Edward’s archers and militaryengines, and routed by the men-at-arms, who dashed into the openings.

It does not appear that any special study of mail has been undertaken,or that any good collection of mail has been formed, nor have the manyvarieties been arranged chronologically in the order in which theyappeared. Materials for such a study exist, though not very abundantly,in the Tower, the British Museum, the collection at Woolwich and DoverCastle, the Armourers’ Hall, Warwick Castle, Parham, and in other privatecollections, and from these and the effigies of mailed knights it can beseen that an almost endless variety exists, not only in the sizes of thelinks, which vary from ⅙ to ¾ of an inch in diameter, but in the sectionsof the wire used, which may be round, flat, triangular, trapeziform,quadrate, polygonal, etc. Nor is there less diversity in the method ofclosing the rings, which was accomplished either by welding, single ordouble riveting, with a flattening and more or less overlapping of the links,soldering or merely butting. Again, there are many ways of arrangingthe links, producing mail of very different weights, either double or single,as well as mail in which certain parts are stronger than the rest. InEuropean mail four links are usually made to pass through a centre one,though this is not an invariable rule. The statement in Beckman’sHistoryof Inventions, that wire-drawing was invented in the fourteenth century,was held for a long time to furnish a safe date, but two Corporations ofwire-drawers occur in Etienne Boileau’sParis Livres des Mestiers, in themiddle of the thirteenth century, and the art is actually of unknownantiquity. The mail, we read, was kept bright by barreling, but doesnot appear to have presented much scope for decoration. TheEddaspeaks of a byrnie of gold, and there are other allusions to gilded mail,and we find hauberks scalloped at the extremities, and finished off withrings of brass.

Two suits of mail (seeFig. 3), illustrated in the catalogue ofthe loan collection of Ironmongers’ Hall in 1861, now in the possessionof Mr. J. E. Gardner, F.S.A., are formed of unriveted links, the endsof the rings being merely butted. Their authenticity has therefore beenquestioned. The description of them printed in 1861 was to the effectthat they had been found in a chest or in a vault of a church in Oxfordshire.In the manuscript catalogue of the collection at Parham is a noteto the effect that they were found in stone coffins built in the wall ofthe church at Goring, Berks, supposed to be coffins of the Beche or[Pg 19]De Beche family, and contained skeletons, a third suit having beendestroyed except the hood, which is now at Parham. However thismay be, the larger suit affords a good representation of the mailed figureof the end of the twelfth, and the small one of that of the thirteenthcentury, with reinforcing pieces of plate. The possibility of their havingbeen made for lying in state or funerals deserves perhaps a passing note,especially in view of their respective dimensions; and it is in any casevery questionable whether the prices paid for them would have remuneratedthe labour of producing forgeries. Another hauberk of largesize was found in Phœnix Park, Dublin, thirty years ago, but a silverbadge of an O’Neil found with it showed it to have been buried notearlier than the middle of the fifteenth century. In the thirteenthcentury the curious and well-known banded mail appears on effigies andother representations, which Mr. J. G. Waller, F.S.A., regards as causedby the passing of a leather thong through each alternate row of rings,for the sake of extra strength. This variety may have originated withthe single thong passed through the links of the coif over the foreheadand below the knee, seen in early effigies like that of William Longespée(Fig. 4) at Salisbury.

The defence of the body was for a time wholly left to the mail withthe underlying gambeson, and the shield, but the head had always[Pg 20]received the additional protection of a cap of steel, called the chapelle-de-fer,worn indifferently under or over the coif of mail. Effigies of thefirst half of the thirteenth century show it both round and flat at the top(Figs.4,5,6, and7). The nasal piece associated with the conical helm(Fig. 2) of the eleventh century tended to disappear in the twelfth.

The fact that English armies under Richard I. were made toabandon their ancient formation and to engage on horseback, and torely on the battle-axe and mace as their chief weapons, and the presenceof the large bodies of archers and arbalisters which he brought into thefield, led to the introduction, probably by Richard himself, of the greatheaume worn over the steel cap and padding, and only put on at themoment of battle. It is first seen on Richard’s second seal, and consistedof a cylinder, usually flat-topped, with two horizontal clefts forvision, and strengthened by bands crossing each other over the face andtop. Breathing-holes were added towards the middle of the century,and the grated front was introduced soon after, to admit more air. Thisis seen in the first seal of Henry III., and another advance, the movablevantail, hinged at the side, in his second seal. An oft-described specimenin the Tower weighs 13 lb. 8 oz., but is regarded by Lord Dillon, thepresent Curator of the Armouries, as a forgery. About 1270 we sometimesfind it with a round top, though the flat top did not go quite outtill the beginning of the fourteenth century. The attempts made to seizeand drag it off, so often noticed by Chroniclers, led to its being securedby a chain. The further changes seen were improvements in the visor,giving better vision and more air, fixing it more securely, and sotransferring the weight from the head to the shoulders, and changingthe flat top to a cone, on which blows fell with less stunning effect.

These heaumes, by concealing the face, intensified a difficulty alreadyfelt at Hastings, when Duke William was obliged to raise his helmet tocontradict a rumour of his death. Recognition, now become impossible,led to the use of heraldic badges, at first painted on the helm, as theyalready were on the shield; and of crests, first in the fan or peacock’sfeather shape, as on the second seal of Richard I., and afterwards to moredistinctive crests and badges. The Crusading Chroniclers relate that thecrests were brilliant with jewels, and they are represented as circled bycoronets in the seals of Henry III. and his son Edward. The heaume of[Pg 21]St. Louis, 1249, was gilded. Richard himself, in gala dress, on the dayafter his marriage with Berengaria, is described by Vinsauf as wearing aDamascus sword with gold hilt and silver-scaled scabbard, his saddleinlaid with precious stones, his horse bitted with gold, and in placeof the high defensive plates before and behind in general use two littlegolden lions with raised paws.

Next to the headpiece the most urgent necessity was to protectthe breast against the direct shock of the lance, and for this a rigiddefence was of the utmost importance. Thus a beginning was madeeven during the mail period towards the introduction of plate-armour.Jazerant and scale armour of small plates had been adopted to this end by[Pg 22]the Franks, and Charlemagne had introduced the classic breastplate.Something of the kind was perhaps even known to the Viking, andby the twelfth century Scandinavians certainly used a defence called abriostbiorg beneath the mail, extending from the neck to the waist.Chroniclers allude to shining breastplates long before there is theslightest appearance of them in illustrations, though from the time thatsurcoats were worn over the armour it becomes difficult to see whatis beneath. Allusion is often made to a plastron-de-fer; and in thecombat between Richard, when Earl of Poitou, and William des Barreswe read that an iron defence was worn over the breast. One of theeffigies in the Temple Church is equipped with a back and breast plateof single plates united by straps. It is stated that the bodyguard ofHenry III., 400 strong, which fled at the battle of Lewes in 1244, worebreastplates; and in 1277, 300 cavalry so armed were sent to Wales.

Following the head and breast, the limbs received protection fromplate-armour, the knees and shins of mounted men-at-arms being peculiarlyexposed to injury in melées with infantry, from blows of the two-handedbattle-axe and mace. Additional security was absolutely essential againstthese weapons, which were introduced both for horse and foot by RichardI., and had grown in favour ever since. These even penetrated mail, theIrish axe in particular being reputed to cut off limbs in spite of itsprotection. The Scandinavians, with their keen military instincts,had provided themselves in the twelfth century with knee-caps of ironattached to overalls worn over the mail. Our earlier mailed effigies,however, show no special defence for the knee, though the one atSalisbury, attributed by Stothard to William Longespée, already noticed,has a stout thong passing between the links of mail just under it.The effigy of Robert of Normandy, of which there is a cast in theNational Portrait Gallery, shows a thick overall under the chausses ofmail, and drawn over the mail chaussons at the knee (Fig. 8, No. 1),and a similar appearance is seen in the first seal of Richard I.; in thesleeping guards of the Easter Sepulchre at Lincoln (Fig. 9); and othermonuments of the same date. In the effigy attributed to William, Earlof Pembroke, in the Temple, who died in 1289 (Fig. 8, No. 2), andin Stothard’s drawing of the effigy at Whitworth, an appearance of athick cap is also to be seen, perhaps the extremity of a padded overall[Pg 23]overlapping the knee; and in other examples the thick quilted gambesonleg-defence is clearly seen below the mail, covering the knee, and inthe case of De Vere, who died 1221, it has the interesting additionof an octagonal plate (Fig. 8, No. 3), apparently of iron, over the kneecap.The effigy, called the second Longespée, at Salisbury (Fig. 8,No. 4), about 1260, exhibits an apparently double thickness of mail atthis point, caused by the overlapping of the chausses and chaussons, withthe addition of a circular plate with a quatrefoil upon it. ContemporaryChroniclers also mention that greaves were worn by knights[Pg 24]in the time of Richard I., though the earliest manuscript illustrationof them occurs in Matthew of Paris’sLives of the Offas.

The feet were cased in mail, and the spurs were simple straight spikesor goads, perhaps worn on one heel only and called the prick-spur.Under the early Plantagenets the point was fixed on a ball, while the rowelspur is seen in the monument to Le Botiler of the reign of Henry III.

Under the heroic Richard the powers of defence seem to havedefinitely triumphed over those of attack. Knights sheathed in mail overquilted work, and wearing the great battle-helm, appeared invulnerableand able to encounter the most fearful odds, and even to rescue each otherwhen dismounted amidst swarming enemies. The further changes duringthe mailed period were in the direction of military display, which hasalways offered an attractive field. Whenever the pressure for improvedarmament was relieved through the defensive equipment for the timesatisfying the wearer, whether a naked savage or well-equipped soldier,attention was turned to the warrior’s personal embellishments, partly togratify the wearer’s vanity, partly to captivate and dazzle, but chiefly toaffright and awe the enemy. The fact that the French and Englishwore the same armour and equipment, and the common occurrence ofinternecine wars at this time, rendered distinguishing costumes particularlynecessary. By simply throwing away their cognisance at the battle ofNoyon, Peter de Maule and others escaped recognition and mingledwith the pursuers, while Ralph de Courci mistook the French for hisown side and was taken prisoner. Nothing but the different-colouredcrosses sewn to the garments of the French, English, and Flemish Crusadersserved to distinguish them, and white crosses alone distinguished theparty of Simon de Montfort, 1264, from their enemies. Nothingapproaching to any uniform is heard of in this age, unless when Richardof Gloucester traversed France in 1250, with a retinue of forty knightsequipped all alike, with new harness glittering with gold, on his visit tothe Pope.

The beautifully-sculptured guards of the early fourteenth centuryEaster Sepulchre in Lincoln Cathedral (Fig. 9) present fine examplesof the costume of the knight armed with the mace, sword, and shieldtowards the end of the mailed period. The bassinet on the figure tothe right is particularly noteworthy.

III
The Transition Period—From about the Reign of Edward I. to that ofRichard II., 1272-1399

The warrior sheathed in mail, mounted on his charger, whether prickingalone or in troops over hill and dale, was a picturesque and portentousfigure, and when massed for battle presented an awe-inspiring sight.The gray burnished steel, glittering in the sun or under lowering skies,relieved by the fluttering pennons and banners and emblazoned shields,formed a picture that the old Crusading Chroniclers loved to dwell on,filling the imagination with those great gatherings of the chivalry ofEurope. In the days of the last of the Paladins, of Godfrey de Bouillonand Richard Cœur de Lion, the dress of burnished mail was the knight’sespecial pride, and no garment concealed it. But as progress and love ofchange are universal, and the mail itself could not well be embellished, anembroidered surcoat was worn over it in the more degenerate days ofJohn and his son Henry, concealing all but the limbs and head. Thisgarment became the vehicle for distinguishing marks and colours, like themodern racing-jacket. A little later, when emblazoned with heraldry,it served to distinguish the individual. The transfer of the surcoat fromunder to over the mail gave rise to the custom of concealing the steelpanoply under rich materials, which distinguished the Transition Periodin armour. While it lasted we literally and constantly meet with the“iron hand under the velvet glove.” This and the continual piling ofone coat of defence upon another, in the fruitless attempt to secureimmunity for life and limb, are the chief characteristics of the period weare now to treat.

Until the Transition, the mounted knight, cap-à-pied in mail overthe quilted gambeson, with the steel cap, and the great helm for thesupreme moment of combat, seemed completely invulnerable unless tomissile weapons mechanically projected. Few men-at-arms fell in actualbattle on the winning side, and great slaughters were only consequent onthe complete rout of one of the parties. Under the warlike Edward I.the powers of attack must have gathered renewed force, for a long periodof tentative changes set in which finally ended in the suit of mail beingcompletely hidden beneath an outer shell of steel plates. The qualitiesof steel for offensive weapons must also at this same time have undergonemarked improvements, and we now begin to hear of definite seats ofmanufacture attaining world-wide celebrity. Cologne, Lorraine, Poitouproduced weapons which are said to have pierced mail and quilted armourwith ease. The heavy blows given by the battle-axe and mace, usedby horse and foot, must, however, have been chiefly instrumental inintroducing extra means of defence. These were by no means at firstuniversally of steel, for cuir-bouilli or boiled leather, a very impervioussubstance when properly prepared, seemed at one time likely to rival itfor general use; and trial was made of every other kind of material thatcould be used for defence, such as horn, whalebone, ivory, padded wool,leather, either alone or strengthened with metal studs or splints, brass,and small plates of iron fixed to textiles. It is almost certain that for atime the moulded surface of cuir-bouilli, with its gilded and perhapscoloured surfaces, was preferred to steel. During this tentative periodevery combination of these materials with chain-mail is to be met with,and the triumph of steel-plate armour only became definite after everypossible substitute, combined in every practicable way, had been triedeither at home or abroad and found wanting. It is at least improbablethat any armour pictured with enriched designs at this date was of steel.

It would be impossible within the limits of this work, and of littleinterest, to endeavour to describe the constant changes, often due toindividual caprice, that occur; for when groups of soldiery are represented,even long after the Transition, it is rare to find two individuals accoutredin precisely the same manner. We may rest assured, however, that eachpiece as it successively appears was introduced to meet some new perfectionin the weapons of attack, or to cope with some new tactics, in short,[Pg 29]to protect some part that had been proved by the practical experience ofarmed strife to be vulnerable. These additions were naturally subject tomodification, according to the passing dictates of military display, or thechanging fashions of civilian dress.

Fig. 10 is taken from one of the English MSS. most valuable for theknightly costume of the Transition. The armour is in this MS. almostentirely mail, of the banded variety, worn beneath a surcoat, which ishardly ever emblazoned. Plate-armour is only represented by the kneecaps,with an occasional roundel and shoulder-plate. The great helm,always with a fan-crest, the chapelle-de-fer worn beneath or above themail coiffe, the bassinet, often visored, and the broad-brimmed roundhelmet are worn, except in jousts, quite indifferently.

The head, being the most vulnerable part of the body and the mostdifficult to protect, received the greatest amount of attention. The greathelm, with bands and cross-cuts for the sight, continued in use throughoutthe Transition, but with a sugar-loaf crown, and rendered lessinsupportable in the reign of Edward I. by transferring the weightfrom the head to the shoulders. It was occasionally of brass—Chaucermentions the knight’s “helm of latoun bright,” a metal used so far back asHenry I.—and much more frequently of cuir-bouilli, as in the tourna[Pg 30]mentat Windsor in 1278, when twelve of the thirty-eight knights hadgilded helms, and were called digniores. There can be no doubt, however,that a helm of Poitou steel was even then the surest defence.

To the custom of hanging arms in churches we are indebted forthe preservation of all the most valuable historic pieces. The first recordof this poetic usage occurs early in the thirteenth century, when Williamof Toulouse hung his helm and splendid shield over St. Julien’s tombat Brives, and his lance and sword, bow and quiver, outside. By themiddle of the century it had become the practice, when a brave knightdied, to hang his shield and helm on the walls above his grave, and itappears in addition, from the instance of the King of France after thebattle of Cassel in 1328, that the victor in some cases presented his armsto the nearest church. The helm of the Black Prince, still suspendedabove his tomb at Canterbury (Fig. 11), is an illustration familiar to all.By the kindness of Sir Noel Paton we are enabled to present an evenfiner helm (Fig. 12), in more perfect preservation, which formerly hungabove the tomb of Sir Richard Pembridge, K.G., in Hereford Cathedral,who died one year before the Prince of Wales, in 1375. Its admirableworkmanship has been fully described by Baron de Cosson, its fine steelyquality being such that no penknife would scratch its polished surface.It is formed of three pieces—the cone, the cylinder, and the top-piece,welded so beautifully that no seam is visible, and these are joined byround-headed nails clinched on the inside. Every practical detail, downto the minutest, has received careful attention. The metal is thickenedand turned outwards round the eye-piece, which is thus efficientlyguarded, and the bottom edge is rolled inwards over a thick wire, so asnot to cut the surcoat. These and other details given by Baronde Cosson in the Catalogue of Armour exhibited at the Royal ArchæologicalInstitute in 1880, show conclusively that this specimen at leastis a real war helm, fitted to resist and to strike fire under the shock of alance that might unhorse its wearer. The conical helm was worn overthe visorless bassinet next described, as the previous helms had beenworn over the chapelle-de-fer, and being only donned in the hour ofdanger, is rarely represented in monuments, except as a pillow underthe head. When worn the face was invisible and recognitionimpossible, so that a moulded crest of linen, leather, or some light[Pg 31]
[Pg 32]material surmounted it and became its most important feature. Amantling was also introduced, at first in the simple form of a puggaree, asseen in the effigy of the Black Prince (Fig. 16), but later of more ampledimensions, fantastically shredded to represent the supposed rents ofbattle. When the taste for military display increased, these mantleswere usually of scarlet lined with ermine. A wide-rimmed helm isoften represented as worn over or in place of the bassinet, and jewelledand crested. This form reappears continually, its first introductiondating so far back as the Bayeux tapestry.

The bassinet, used with or without the helm, enjoyed a prolongedperiod of favour from Edward I. to Henry VI. It differed from theolder chapelle-de-fer worn with the hood of mail, in having the mailhung round it, instead of passing over or under it. This mail, nowcalled the camail or gorget, was laced to a series of staples along theedges of the bassinet and fell like a curtain on to the shoulders. At theoutset merely a skull-cap, it was gradually prolonged at the back and sidesso as to leave only the face exposed. Early in the fourteenth centuryits appearance was profoundly modified by the addition of a movablevisor, at first hinged at the side, but subsequently raised and loweredfrom above the forehead. Being readily removed, the visor was onlyworn in action, and is thus rarely represented in effigies and brasses.No helm was worn over the visored bassinet, which became thebattle head-piece of the fourteenth century and part of the fifteenth,[Pg 33]the helm being reserved for jousts and tournaments. We are able,by the kindness of Baron de Cosson, to give an illustration (Fig. 13)of a real bassinet of large size, from the tomb of Sir John de Melsain Aldborough Church, Holderness. It is described in the Catalogue ofArms already referred to as of the second half of the fourteenth century,and was worn with a large visor. A second bassinet is illustrated (Fig.14) from Sir Noel Paton’s collection, described by Baron de Cosson astransformed into a sallad about the middle of the fifteenth century.Fine bassinets are in the Tower and at Woolwich, and in the Burgess,Christy, and Wallace collections, all happily belonging to the nation, and[Pg 34]in Warwick Castle and at Parham, but none are directly connectedwith English wearers. The beaked visor, represented in so manymanuscripts of about the close of the fourteenth century, is a fine defensiveand not unpicturesque form. There are several real examples in theMusée d’Artillerie in Paris, two of which are regarded as English.

The bassinet, like the rest of the knight’s armour, did not necessarilyexhibit a surface of plain burnished steel. It was frequently coveredwith leather, as mentioned in the inventories of Humphrey de Bohun,1322, and of Dover Castle, 1344; while the King of France at one timewore his bassinet covered with white leather. One of cuir-bouilli, inSimon Burley’s inventory, 1388, is coloured white and green. It wasalso tinned or gilded, and even of pure gold, as prizes for tourneys, or likeone set with gems, sent to Edward I. by his father-in-law in 1334. Ina bequest of William Langford, 1411, is a headpiece covered with redvelvet, and actual specimens so covered are not unknown. The richnessof the decorations bestowed on these helmets is shown in the goldsmith’saccount of one made for the King of France in 1352, and of anothermade in the same year for the Dauphin with a band of forty large pearls.Effigies and brasses show that coronets and jewelled fillets commonlyadorned them, even in the case of simple knights, and that these are notimaginary decorations may be gathered from Froissart, who mentionsthat the King of Castille actually entered a battle in 1385 with hisbassinet enriched with 20,000 francs’ worth of gems. Sir Guy ofWarwick, in the Romance, is given a helmet adorned with a circle ofgold set with most precious stones.

Some notable champions, like Sir John Chandos and the Earl ofWarwick, prided themselves on a disregard of danger and habituallyfought without a visor, yet the tendency to close every crevice with platedefences developed continuously, and the frequent accidents at tourneys,when the lance-point glanced upward and entered the throat under thecamail, led to the introduction, about 1330, of a gorget of plate orscales, which with the visor converted the bassinet into a closed helmet.

The defence of the breast was always considered next in importanceto the head, and fourteenth-century inventories constantly refer to “pairsof plates large,” perhaps like those till recently worn in Persia, corsets defer, cors d’acier, brust plate pour justes, and other defences of plate.[Pg 35]Chaucer writes, “Some would be armed in an haubergeon, a brightbreastplate and a gypoun.” The globose form given to the chests ofeffigies, such as that of the Black Prince, seems to imply the presenceof a rigid defence under the emblazoned surcoat.

The limbs began to be definitely protected over the mail in thesecond half of the thirteenth century. Effigies and manuscriptillustrations of that date commonly represent globose knee-caps, sometimesridged down the front, and usually gilt. In the fourteenthcentury they are always present and frequently treated very decoratively,with shields, roundels, scalloped edges, etc. The technical name forthese appendages is “Genouillière,” or “knee-cap.” Subsidiary platesoften appear below the knee, and sometimes above it, and are continuedunder the mail.

The greave was a rigid gaiter fitting at first only over the front ofthe leg below the knee, but afterwards enveloping it; and it was eitherof metal or cuir-bouilli. When seen on English fourteenth-centurymonuments it usually seems to be of steel fitting closely over the mail,and laced or buckled at the back, but at times it is so richly decorated asto suggest cuir-bouilli. Greaves are usually omitted on early monuments,and are only commonly seen when they had become an integral part ofthe suit of armour. As yet they were not habitually worn except inbattle, and knights were not at this time represented in their effigiesaccoutred for war, but in ordinary military costume. Thus the effigy[Pg 36]of Aymer de Valence shows no plate armour, except the genouillière;but the two mounted figures of the canopy present the visored bassinet,the high gorget, the arm and elbow plates, the tubular greaves andsteel sollerets for the feet. The tubular leg defence is not seen in earlierrepresentations, and its introduction may coincide with the first recordedappearance in the field of large bodies of Welsh armed with long knives.It was usually hinged and buckled, and becomes more general as thecentury advances. This appears in the inventory of Piers Gaveston, 1313,who possessed three pairs of such greaves. Monstrelet relates that thebailiff of Evreux, sallying out without his greaves, had his leg badlybroken by the kick of a horse.

Defences of plate armour for the feet are called sollerets, and arefirst, if somewhat indistinctly, visible in the small equestrian figure onthe canopy of the tomb of Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster, inWestminster Abbey, the mail not being continued over the front of thefeet as in the older effigies. One of the small equestrian figures of theadjoining tomb of Aymer de Valence has the feet, though mutilated,distinctly covered with small rectangular plates, arranged longitudinallyin continuation of the greaves. In the D’Abernon and other brassesof the second quarter of the fourteenth century laminar plates arefastened across the upper part of the foot. Other varieties are thescaled sollerets of the De Cheney brass, 1375; the De Sulney brass, withsollerets of laminar plates, and one large plate over the instep; theLittlebury effigy, with longitudinal plates like those of De Valence. Inthe effigy of John of Eltham, 1334, we seem for the first time to meetwith the whole foot visible incased in plate, as it continued to be duringthe rest of the century. In the Warwick collection a pair of solleretsare made each of one piece like sabots. The long curved sollerets withpointed toes of the second half of the fourteenth century are calledpouleynes or poulaines, from the souliers à la Polaine, and differ slightlyfrom those known as Cracowes, introduced by Richard II. from Bohemia.There are two fine pointed sollerets at Warwick, one measuring twenty-fiveinches from toe to heel, or with the spur thirty-two and a halfinches. Another beautifully-made one attached to leg armour has theplates scalloped along the edges, and is attributed to Edward, son ofHenry VI.

The gilt spur was the honorific and distinguishing badge of theknight, and was put on in the ceremony of investiture, and hacked offby the king’s cook if the knight was formally degraded. An immensespoil of gilt spurs fell to the victors after the battle of Courtrai. Boththe goad and rowel forms were in use throughout the century, and whenknights habitually dismounted to fight, they were taken off. Froissartmentions instances where they were fixed in the ground like caltrops.The extravagantly long, rowelled spurs of Henry VI.’s time must havebeen peculiarly inconvenient.

No great time could well have elapsed before similar defences of platewere found necessary to protect the shoulders and elbows, which werescarcely less vulnerable than the legs. The shoulder-pieces, however, arerarely visible in illustrations and effigies, being much concealed by thesurcoat. The earliest arm-defence is in the form of an elbow-guard, andappears in the effigy at Salisbury, date about 1260, consisting of onecupped rosette over another. Elbow-guards are more commonly seen inthe second quarter of the fourteenth century, when they consist of cupsand discs, or both combined, the latter occasionally spiked. The equestrianfigures of the De Valence monument, already mentioned, show inone case gilt rosettes on the shoulders and elbows, and in the other theforearms sheathed in plate. John of Eltham, 1334, has a roundel on theelbow, with articulated plates beneath. In the Ifield effigy the arms areshown by Stothard completely sheathed, and with shoulder and elbowroundels bearing embossed lions’ heads. Plain roundels, rosettes, shells,or lion masks were worn on the shoulders, and articulated plates are seenbetween 1320 and 1350. The singular and exaggerated plates knownas ailettes, picturesque objects which rose above the shoulders likeepaulettes, were as useless apparently as the shoulder-knots of thepresent day. They first appear on the scene in the Windsor tournament,1278, and disappear in the first quarter of the fourteenth century. Theyare of many shapes and sizes, and are well seen in our illustration (Fig. 10)from Queen Mary’s Psalter, in an elegant brass in Weaver’sFuneralMonuments, as well as in many others, and in several stained-glass windows.Usually they bear the armorial bearings of the owner, though those ofPiers Gaveston, 1311, were “frettez de perles.”

Mail gloves continued to be worn, though with divided fingers, during[Pg 40]the first part of the fourteenth century. The first effigy to show anychange is that of a Whatton, engraved by Stothard, of the time ofEdward II. Gloves of leather were sometimes worn between 1311 and1360, as well as others of whalebone, metal studs and splintwork, iron scalesand brass. Plate-armour gauntlets first appear towards the middle of thecentury with articulated fingers and a broad plate for the back of thehand and wrist; whilst a steel cuff, sometimes articulated, was shortlyafterwards added. They are at times spiked, or with gads like knuckle-dusters,as in the case of the Black Prince, and frequently richly jewelled.The jewelled example given from the effigy of Sir Thomas Cawne, ofthe time of Edward III., is reproduced from Stothard’s drawing. Theother is from the monument of the Earl of Westmoreland, of the firstyears of Henry VI. Gauntlets are constantly represented as gilt inMSS. of these periods.

The knight’s dress for war now consisted, in addition to any ordinarycivilian underclothing, of a more or less complete suit of gambeson orquilted material, sometimes called the haketon, as in Chaucer’sSirThopas:—

The habergeon is the mail in this case, and the hauberk is of plateor splint armour, while the cote-armoure is the surcoat, possibly thicklypadded, as in the still-existing surcoat of the Black Prince. In themutilated effigy at Sandwich the thick quilted gambeson is distinctly seenat the knee and wrist underlying the mail, while the fine hauberk of plateoverlies it, and the surcoat is worn over all. The effigy at Ash shows theplate armour, under the surcoat, fashioned in the curious armadillo-likeJazerant or brigandine form, with an upper gambeson under it, as wellas the usual second gambeson under the mail. That two separate quilteddefences were worn at this time is supported by the De Crell brass, 1325,the D’Abernon brass, 1327, and the Ifield and John of Eltham brasses,[Pg 41]1334. The colours of these various garments, the edges of which wereallowed to show one above the other, were no doubt effectively contrasted,while the edges of the mail, as we have seen, were pinked, vandyked,or scalloped and gilt or finished with brass rings, while the plate-armourfinishes most commonly in a fringe-like arrangement of small verticalplates.

The splendid glitter of polished steel, so associated in our mindswith the knight in armour, appealed scarcely at all to its wearers in thisTransition age. In fact, no decided preference can be discovered evenfor the defensive qualities of steel, and this constitutes perhaps the mostmarked peculiarity of the age. In the halcyon days of mail, the steelwas kept bright and bare, the helm and shield burnished, withnothing to conceal its brilliancy but a coronet and the rich sword-beltswhich merely enhanced the effect. But in Chaucer’sSir Thopas thereis no mention of steel forming part of the visible equipment:—

Over the body armour was a garment, called by Chaucer “the cote-armoure,as white as is the lily floure.”

The helmets were almost hidden by the large crests and the scarletmantling, and the metal exposed was generally gilt. The trunk armourwas concealed under the emblazoned surcoat or pourpoint; and whenthe thighs and legs are visible below this they are seen to be clothedover the mail by splinted or brigandine armour, showing velvet or satinexternally attached by gilt or silver nails; the knee-caps and greavesare often richly moulded and probably cuir-bouilli, as seen in thestatues on the front of Exeter Cathedral, and in the paintings fromSt. Stephen’s Chapel they are also shown as gilt. The arms and at timesthe hands are similarly clothed. The horse-armour was almost entirelyconcealed by rich caparisons, as in Chaucer’sKnightes Tale:—

The figures from the tomb of Edmund Crouchback and Aymer deValence, engraved by Stothard, show the emblazoned housings of thetime of Edward II. The equestrian figures in Queen Mary’s Psalter showthat the fully-equipped knight of this period, when in full war panoply,was a gorgeous object, blazing in colours and gold, and exhibiting littleto recall the stern realities of campaigns and sieges.

A few examples from inventories will best illustrate the colours andthe magnificence of the materials used to conceal the steel. Humfreyde Bohun had breastplates covered with “vert velvet”; the Earl ofMarch used “rouge samyt” and “drap d’or,” and others had “cendalvermeil, samit vermeil, zatony, veluyau asuré, veluyau vert ouvré debroderie,” etc. Piers Gaveston’s pair of breastplates were “enclouez etgarnie d’argent od 4 cheynes d’argent covery d’un drap de velvet vermailbesaunté d’or.” Two pairs of plates for the King of France required3000 crescentic and 3000 round gilt nails to fix the velvet. Exposedpieces of armour were gilt, if not jewelled, pearls and carbuncles beingthe favourite gems. The baldric, knightly belt, sword-belt, hilt, andscabbard furnished a field for the goldsmith. The magnificence indulgedin was often destructive to the wearers, who might have otherwise[Pg 43]escaped in battle. They were “hunted for their hides,” or slain for thesake of their spoils.

The weight and fashion of the armour largely determined the tacticsin war. The English appear at this time to have reverted to theirancient practice, once more dismounting to engage in battle. At Cressythe horses were sent to the rear, while the army, forming intobattalions of archers supported by dismounted men-at-arms, took up itsground and waited the attack. The weight of armour carried by themen-at-arms made any forward movement on their part impossible onfoot. By good fortune the 15,000 Genoese cross-bowmen, who mighthave inflicted severe loss on the English, were unable to use their bows,and the French coming up quite out of hand, charged and retreated asthe spirit moved them, without deploying into any battle formation, andso fell into the utmost confusion, with the well-known results. Ourarchers “shot their arrows with such force and quickness that it seemedas if it snowed,” piercing the Genoese and dismounting the horsemen;upon which a body of 1000 Welsh foot with long knives advancedthrough the men-at-arms, who made way for them, and slew numbersof the French chivalry, so that the battle was “murderous and cruel.”

At Poitiers, 1356, the English similarly selected a strong positionand awaited the attack dismounted. The French, uncertain how tomeet the enemy, commenced by attacking with a mounted division, whichwas routed by the effect of the English arrows on the horses before gettingto close quarters. Their retreat threw the second battalion, which alsoappears to have been mounted, into a confusion, which quickly developedinto a panic. Deeming an advance necessary at this critical moment, theEnglish men-at-arms sent to the rear for their horses and charged, completingthe destruction and dispersal of all but the rear battalion. Thiswas dismounted in order to fight on foot, and armed with swordand battle-axe presented a most stubborn front, under the king inperson, numerous parties from the broken battalions rallying and dismountingto join in its advance. The English resumed the defensiveand remained immovable, the archers plying their arrows with the usualeffect. The only English force capable of movement and able toskirmish in the field was the archery, while the men-at-arms kept theirground or advanced very slowly in compact order, until, seeing the day[Pg 44]won, they again mounted to complete the discomfiture and engage inpursuit.

At the battle of Auray, 1364, the French dismounted and foughton foot, when the arrows did little execution among them, and the fightdeveloped into a hand-to-hand engagement with battle-axes, in whichthe leaders, Sir Oliver de Clisson and Sir John Chandos, greatly distinguishedthemselves. In all subsequent battles and skirmishes betweenFrench and English, until the close of the century, we find that bothsides invariably fought on foot, riding up till almost within strikingdistance, and then dismounting as if by common consent. To advanceany distance on foot after dismounting in order to engage was, in fact,almost impossible. The old knightly weapon, the lance, was in consequencealmost discarded, and could now only be used effectively ifshortened to about five feet, and thus with the shield fell into disuseas a weapon of battle, while the presence of artillery also began to makeitself felt.

IV
The Age of Plate-Armour

Any line dividing what has here been termed a Transition Age fromthe age of fully-developed plate-armour must of necessity be a purelyarbitrary one. Roughly speaking, the age of plate commenced whenmail no longer formed the outer defence of any part of the body. Thelast chink, leaving the mail exposed under the armpit, was a vulnerableopening in the armour called the “vif de l’harnois,” or the “defaut de lacuirasse”; and even this now became protected by small plates of steelcalled gussets. The necessity for such defences was often proved intournaments: it is related that the lance pierced “au vif de l’harnois”for lack of the crescent or “gouchet.” When these last plates were addedthe knights appeared more invulnerable than Achilles. We find atalmost every period, however, that a fair blow delivered “au pas de charge”with a well-steeled lance might penetrate every defence; and that noarmour could be made actually proof against downright blows from atwo-handed battle-axe wielded by a powerful and expert rider.

One of the most marked characteristics of this age of plate-armourwas a growing appreciation of the intrinsic beauty of steel, and a newdesire to invest steel armour with graceful lines. The tendency is bestexemplified in the fine Gothic armour of the second half of the fifteenthcentury, of which much is fortunately preserved. This combines mostsplendidly picturesque outlines with graceful fan or shell-like ridgings,which please the more when examined critically, since every curve andfluting serves some definite and practical end.

The casing of plate-armour, which had been so long elaborating,[Pg 46]having at last become complete, the work of the armourer was directedto further perfecting its parts, and to disencumbering the wearer, withthe least risk, of his weighty underlying chain-mail, quilted gambesons,and padded surcoats. This process had not proceeded far when Agincourtwas fought, if we may credit the testimony of a French knight, who waspresent and describes the armour as consisting of the long hauberk ofchain-mail reaching below the knee, and very heavy, with the leg-armourbeneath, and over this the plate or white armour with the bassinet andcamail. One Allbright, noted particularly as “mail-maker,” and twelveother armourers, were in the suite of the king on this expedition. Theweight of armour would, therefore, have rendered a repetition advisable,on the part of the English, of the tactics of Cressy or Poitiers in thisbattle, had not the French disconcerted us by dismounting and seatingthemselves, and refusing to advance. They had also, copying theEnglish, brought a large force of archers and cross-bowmen into thefield, and, in addition, kept bodies of men-at-arms in the saddle oneither wing, to make flank attacks when opportunities occurred. TheEnglish having in vain endeavoured to provoke the enemy to advanceby sending out archers to fire a house and barn, posted an ambuscadeand moved forward, the archers in front as usual and the men-at-armsbehind. The archers thus gave up the shelter of their pointed stakes,and the men-at-arms suffered the fatigue of an advance in armourof an almost insupportable weight to men on foot. They advanced,however, with repeated huzzas, but, as the Chroniclers inform us,“often stopping to take breath.” The French, stooping their visorsunder the amazing hail of arrows that began to fall upon them, gave waya few paces, and the English, coming close up, pressed them soon afterwardsso hardly, “that only the front ranks with shortened lances couldraise their hands.” Our archers, flinging away their bows, fought lustilywith swords, hatchets, mallets, or bill-hooks, supported manfully by KingHenry and his men-at-arms. Pressing on and slaying all before them,they routed the van and reached the main body, which was also quicklydestroyed. The rear battalion of the French, which had remainedmounted, then fled panic-struck, and the battle terminated in somedesultory charges made by a few parties of nobles and their men-at-arms,which were easily repulsed; 10,000 French perished, all but 1600 being[Pg 47]gentlemen! many in the massacre of prisoners consequent on a falsealarm. The battle of Verneuil, so fatal nine years later to the Scots,who lost the Earls of Douglas, Murray, and Buchan, with the flower oftheir army, was fought on precisely the same lines; the main Frenchbattalion with their Scottish allies on foot being first shaken by thestorm of arrows, and then destroyed at close quarters by the advance ofthe archers with the usual “loud shouts,” supported by the Duke ofBedford and the men-at-arms. These defeats caused the French toagain waver in their plan for meeting the enemy, for at the battleof Herrings, and the skirmish at Beauvais in 1430, they made their attackmounted, the English archers receiving the first charge behind theirpalisade of pointed stakes, and defeating the enemy by the clouds ofarrows taking their usual deadly effect on the horses. These stakes, six feetlong and sharpened at both ends, formed an important item of the archers’equipment, and were planted in the ground by the front rank, slopingtowards the enemy, the next rank fixing theirs intermediately to affrightthe enemy’s horse. Throughout the Anglo-Burgundian alliance, theBurgundians of all arms were often compelled “under pain of death”to fight dismounted, the Picards especially adopting the tactics andperhaps equalling the English. A little later, as at the battle ofMontlhéry, 1465, both Burgundian and English archers are armedwith the formidable long-handled leaden mauls or mallets, which thearmour of the men-at-arms was incapable of resisting. In the accountof one of these battles we learn incidentally that the duty of the varletswho invariably formed part of the retinue of each man-at-arms wasto succour and refresh their masters during the heat of the engagement,and to carry the prisoners they took to the rear.

As the various hauberks of mail, brigandines, gambesons, and otherdefences became more or less obsolete and discarded by men-at-armsarmed cap-à-pied, they were relegated to a lighter-armed cavalry and theinfantry; but so long as a suit of mail continued to be worn by the man-at-armsas a defence underlying the armour of plate, flexibility in thelatter was of paramount importance.

Regarding the armour of Henry V. as the earliest complete cap-à-piedplate-armour, we find it thus composed. The breast and back plates areeach of one piece, the gorget is usually in one, though a standard of mail[Pg 48]sometimes replaces it; the limb-defences are of few pieces and rigid,except at the joints, which are guarded by caps or roundels; while thearmour of the fingers, toes, and upper surfaces of the shoulders isarticulated or protected by narrow laminar plates. The introduction ofthe gussets, and more particularly of the horizontal bands of plate forminga short petticoat below the waist, materially altered the appearance ofthe armour of the fifteenth century from that of the fourteenth. Theplates of the petticoat, called the tassets, are first seen in the brass ofNicholas Hawberk, at Cobham, who died in 1406, and they graduallyincrease in number till about 1420. At Agincourt, where thefighting was on foot, the visored bassinetwould have been worn by the kingand his men-at-arms, and not the greathelm. The example of the latter suspendedin the chantry of Henry V.in Westminster Abbey, though a realhelm, was only purchased from ThomasDaunt, for 33s. 4d., according toRymer, with the crest, for the funeral.The bassinet was probably plumedwith ostrich feathers, which were takingthe place of crests, and was encircledby a coronet, damaged in the meléeby a blow from the Duke of Alençon,which among its jewels comprised the ruby of the Black Prince, now inthe regalia. The diamond-hilted sword was not taken into the fray, unfortunately,as it happened, and fell a prey to the baggage-looters. Theking is generally represented wearing a tabard of arms on this occasion, agarment differing from the surcoat in being loose and cut like the modernherald’s tabard, emblazoned before and behind and on the broad flaps whichdo duty for sleeves. The horses, borrowing the custom of Lombardy,wore a heavy chamfron or headpiece of plate, of which a specimen stillexists in Warwick Castle, and an articulated crinet or neck-defence of overlappingplates, put together on the same plan as the tassets, and probablysome mail defences concealed by the emblazoned caparisons. The ostentatiousmagnificence which had hitherto covered the body armour of the[Pg 49]knight with silks and satins, velvet and bullion and gems, especially amongthe Burgundian French, was now in process of being transferred to thehorse. The housings are described as of silks and satins of every colour,or velvet crimson and blue, or cloth of gold, and sweeping the ground,besprinkled with escutcheons of arms, and loaded with silversmith’s work,or raised work of solid gold. We read of trappings of white silverfringed with cloth of gold, and of cloth of gold interwrought with solidsilver; and it appears that no materials were too rich to deck out thefavourite destrier or war-horse. It is unlikely that the English were atthis time behind the French in display, for so early as 1409, of the sixpages of Sir John de Cornewall, two rode horses covered with ermine,and four horses with cloth of gold; and in 1414 the English embassycarried themselves so magnificently that the French, and especially theParisians, were astonished. Splendid, however, as were the housings, theheadpieces of the horses eclipsed them. The horse of the Count de Foixat the entry into Bayonne had a headpiece of steel enriched with goldwork and precious stones to the value of 15,000 crowns. The Countde St. Pol’s horse’s headpiece on leaving Rouen was estimated to beworth 30,000 francs, while those of the Dukes of Burgundy and Cleveson the entry of Louis XI. into Paris were still more magnificent. Thatof the king, however, was on this occasion merely of fine gold withostrich plumes of various colours. As with the armour in the fourteenthcentury, the rich trappings of the horse naturally led at times to thepursuit and capture of the owner. It is difficult to believe, in days ofsuch magnificence, that the pay of the Duke of York under Henry V.was only 13s. 4d. per day, an earl received but 6s. 8d., a baron or banneret4s., a knight 2s., an esquire 1s., and an archer 6d.

Though Henry V. wore royal armour at Agincourt it does notappear that he followed the prudent custom, first noticed in the battleof Viterbo, 1243, of dressing several knights in an identical manner withhimself. At Viterbo, on a knight dressed like the emperor being slain, theresult was a panic, and the emperor himself had to press with his trumpetsinto the thickest of the fight to restore confidence. At Poitiers, thoughnineteen knights were dressed like the king, it did not preserve himfrom capture. In England, however, the king was saved on many afield by this precaution, as at the battle of Shrewsbury, when the earl,[Pg 50]Sir Walter Blount and two others in royal armour were slain. Thepassages in Shakespeare will be present to the mind of all:—

The appreciation of steel, called by the Chroniclers plain or whitearmour, for its own sake, had not progressed very far by the timeof Henry V.’s invasion of France, but the more lavish splendours wereat least reserved for gala occasions. The next modifications wereevidently devised to increase the flexibility of the armour, and can betraced with greater precision in England than elsewhere, owing to thefortunate preservation in our churches of a matchless series of militarymonumental brasses. These clearly indicate that the tendency duringthe first half of the fifteenth century was to increase the number ofjoints or articulations in every part of the armour. By the close of thereign of Henry V. things had proceeded so far in this direction thatin some cases the greater part of the limb-defences are made up oflaminated plates.

The next important change in the appearance of the man-at-armsoccurs in the early years of Henry VI., and is due to a striking developmentof the fan-shaped elbow-guards, first seen in a rudimentary formin 1425, as well as to an addition of short hinged plates called tuillesto the bottom of the hoop-like skirt of tassets which lay closer to thebody. By 1435 these tuilles are ridged or fluted perpendicularly andscalloped along the lower edge, and shortly after they take the moredeveloped, elongate and elegant forms familiar in Gothic armour. By1440 we have the addition of great shoulder and elbow plates attachedby nuts and screws, and concealing the articulated shoulder-pieces orepaulettes. These extra plates usually differ in size, being often verymuch larger on the left side, which received the blows, and thus conferringa quite peculiar character on the plate-armour of the middle of the[Pg 51]century. A scarcely less important modification, introduced about 1445,is the articulation of the breastplate in two pieces, the lower overlappingand sliding over the upper, and made flexible by straps.

The Daundelyon brass of this date, at Margate, exhibits a leftelbow-piece of immense size, and pointed and ridged tuilles below thetassets, which are almost repeated again in form by the plates belowthe knee-caps. John Gaynesford’s brass at Crowhurst, 1450, presentsstrong reinforcing shoulder-guards over articulated plates, and repeatsthe same long peaked and ridged plates below the knee-cap. Wecontinue for the next few years to find the limb-defences constantlyvarying in the number and form of the pieces composing them, accordingto the dictates of conflicting requirements, namely flexibility and impenetrability.The frequent absence of tuilles at this time is held toimply that they were not used in combats on foot, then very popular.It is obvious that when the immensely long and pointed solleret came inwith the equally preposterous spur, the fashion of fighting on foot wason the wane, and the men-at-arms generally fought mounted during theWars of the Roses.

We see by manuscript illustrations that a few suits were still gilded,and we find Jack Cade after his victory in 1450 flourishing about in asuit of gilt armour, the spoils of Sir Humphrey Stafford. But the ever-growingappreciation of the intrinsic beauty of the steel panoply andits fine military qualities is now distinctly felt, and the armourer soughtmore and more to invest his work with beauty of form. All is stillentirely dictated by fitness to its purpose, and the requirements of joustsand war; and the decorative and subtle shell-like ridgings and flutingsare really present more to deflect the weapon’s point than as ornament,while the engrailing, dentelling, scalloping and punching of the marginsof the plates unmistakably indicate that the decorative spirit is appliedto embellishing and not to concealing the steel. The superb gildedmetal effigy (Fig. 19) of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, presentsa faithful model of the most beautiful type of Gothic armour known.Every fastening, strap, buckle or hinge is represented with scrupulousfidelity, not only on the front, but on the unseen back. Baronde Cosson, who has minutely described it, expresses the belief thatit is a faithful reproduction of a suit actually worn by the Earl, and[Pg 52]therefore earlier than 1439; although the effigy itself was onlyproduced in 1454, and the armour agrees with that worn in Englandat the latter date. He regards the suit represented as the workof the celebrated contemporary Milanese armourers, the Missaglias.Italian armour is shown by sculptures, medals and paintings to have beenmany years in advance of English, and the two known contemporarysuits by Tomaso di Missaglia greatly resemble it. The Earl ofWarwick knew Milan in his youth, when he had tilted successfully atVerona; and it was a practice among the great to obtain armour there,dating from so far back as 1398, when the Earl of Derby had his armourbrought over by Milanese armourers; the Baron’s view presents thereforeno improbabilities. Wherever made, the Earl of Warwick’s suit appearsto have solved the armourer’s problem, being at once light, flexible, yetimpenetrable. Indeed, in its beautiful proportions and admirably perfectadaptation to all requirements, it appears more like a work of nature thanof art. The contours of the pieces and their graceful fan-like flutings, togive strength and deflect opponents’ blows, are artistically splendid. Thegreat shoulder-guards and elbow-pieces, the cuissarts and winged kneecaps,the tuilles, the jointed breast and back plates, the upright neck-guard,not hitherto seen, are all fashioned with consummate skill. In such asuit the preux and gallant knight for three days held his tournamentvictoriously against all comers, presenting each of his discomfitedadversaries with new war-chargers, feasting the whole company, andfinally “returning to Calais with great worship.” The two cuts (Figs. 20and 21), illustrating scenes from his life, are taken from the exquisitelydrawn illustrations to the contemporary Beauchamp manuscript, now in theBritish Museum. The incidental testimonies to the excellence of Italianarmour of the middle of the fifteenth century are abundant. A stalwartBurgundian champion tried in vain during a tournament in 1446 topenetrate or find a crevice in the armour of the Duke of Milan’schamberlain, whom it was impossible to wound; and in 1449 the suitof another knight in the service of the same Duke was said to be steepedin some magic liquid, as so light a harness could not possibly haveotherwise withstood the heavy blows it received.

No word ever escapes the chronicler in praise of English armour;but the splendid model of the Earl of Warwick’s suit is by William Austin,[Pg 53]
[Pg 54]
[Pg 55]founder, and Thomas Stevyns, coppersmith, both of London, withthe gilding, chasing, and polishing by Bartholomew Lambespring,Dutchman and goldsmith of London. The will directs that theeffigy shall be made according to patterns, directions obviously mostscrupulously carried out.

In contemplating the lithe figure we may well believe that thesteely quality and workmanship of such a suit would confer immunityon the wearer; and that the relative elasticity and lightness of a perfectly-fittingsuit might confer such superiority on an active and sinewy championengaging with men swathed like mummies beneath their armour inthick gambeson or mail, as to enable him to emerge from his deeds ofarms as triumphantly as the heroes of romance. Nothing was wornbeneath but the fustian doublet, well padded and lined with satin, withthe small lozenge-shaped gussets of mail under the limb-joints and theshort petticoat of mail tied round the waist. It is also unlikely that such[Pg 56]armour was concealed under any garment, and we may observe thatwhile some princes and nobles are still wearing brigandines of velvetand cloth of gold in pageants, many more are in “plain armour,”presenting, except when standing collars of mail were worn, a uniformsurface of smooth polished steel.

The Missaglia suit remained the type with little modification forseveral years, almost to the close of the Gothic period. The Quatremaynebrass in Thame Church, of the year 1460, presents a magnificentexample of it with singularly exaggerated elbow-guards. During the nextfew years the limb-pieces and gorget become more articulated and flexible,and the breast and back plates are formed of as many as three or fouroverlapping articulated plates, cut chevron-wise, and notched andindented in an interesting manner. The gauntlets and sollerets arealso of excellent workmanship. There are a number of peculiarly fineexamples in the Museum of Artillery in the Rotunda at Woolwich, fromthe Isle of Rhodes, which exhibit the graceful outlines and ornamentof later fifteenth-century Gothic armour in perfection, and also presentearly and interesting examples of engraving on armour. Lord Zouchehas also some remarkable suits, said to be from the Church of Irene atConstantinople, in his collection at Parham. Sir Noel Paton’s finecollection also comprises several Gothic suits, and there are some in theTower. None, however, are connected historically with English wearers,and the destruction of Gothic armour in this country appears to havebeen unusually complete. The illustrations from theLife of the Earl ofWarwick, an English MS. of the second half of the fifteenth century (Figs.20 and 21); and the scene (Fig. 25) from the late fifteenth-century MS.of Froissart, which belonged to Philip de Commines, both now in theBritish Museum, give excellent ideas of the armour of this period inactual use, while the brasses supply exact figures of the details.

Turning now to head-defences, the great crested helm, still representedas pillowing the head in effigies, had long since been relegated tothe joust and tilt, while the bassinet with a visor, already seen inthe Transition period, remained the fighting helmet till about the middleof the century. The visor, however, was not unfrequently struck orwrenched off in tourneys, and the neck pierced by the lance. Somehardy warriors, indeed, like Sir John Chandos and the Earl of Warwick,[Pg 57]dispensed with it and went into the fray with faces bare, but this wasexceptional, and the pig-faced and beaked visored bassinets occur inall delineations of combats of the first half of the century.

The bassinet began to be superseded towards the middle of thefifteenth century by the sallad, which remained in fashion almost to itsclose. Its merits were, the free supply of air it afforded, and thereadiness with which the face could be concealed and protected. Itwas the headpiece of the Gothic armour, such as that of the Warwickeffigy, though monuments of this date almost always leave the headbare. The origin of the sallad, whether German or Italian, is unknown,but the term occurs in Chaucer. In its simplest form it was low-crowned,projecting behind, and strapped under the chin, somethinglike a “sou’wester” or the heraldic chapeau, and in this form it wasworn by archers and billmen. Another kind had a higher crown, withtwo slits in front as an ocularium, and could be pulled over the browstill this came level with the eyes (Fig. 22). A hinged nose-piecewas also sometimes present, to be let down in time of danger. It wasalso made more completely protective by a chin-piece called the bavier,strapped round the neck or fastened to the breastplate for tilting; whilea lighter bavier was in two pieces, of which the upper was hinged atthe side and could be raised for speaking. It was frequently furnishedwith a visor to let down. The tail-piece was occasionally so prolongedthat sallads measure as much as eighteen inches from back to front. Itoccurs both smooth-topped and combed, and with a slot for plumesapproaches nearer to classic models than any other form of mediævalhelmet. This picturesque headpiece is the one so frequently representedby Albert Dürer, and was favoured for a longer time in Germany thanelsewhere, many of the Germans in the picture of the meeting ofMaximilian and Henry VIII. appearing in it, while all the English wearthe later close helmet or armet. The form represented has the additionof articulated pieces behind and a double visor moving on pivots at thesides, which make it a near approach to a closed helmet.

The sallad was the principal helmet in use throughout the Wars ofthe Roses, and is constantly represented in manuscripts of that period.But one solitary example has been preserved in England from the time ofthose destructive wars, in which its first wearer may have taken part. Ithangs in St. Mary’s Hall, Coventry, and owes its preservation to itsuse as a stage property in the Godiva processions. There are specimens,however, in all the important collections in England and abroad.

The bassinet was sometimes richly decorated, covered with velvet,plumed, crested, and of considerable value, Sir John de Cornwall wageringhis helmet in 1423, which he offered to prove to be worth 500 nobles. Thepretty custom of garlanding them with may, marguerites, or other flowersspecially favoured by a queen or princess,or with chaplets of pearls andother gems, seen in the early part of thecentury, lasted until after the introductionof the sallad, which provided abetter field for such display. A salladbelonging to the Duke of Burgundy,decorated with rubies and diamonds tothe estimated value of 100,000 crowns,figured in the entry of Louis XI. intoParis in 1443. In the expenses ofHenry VII. precious stones and pearlsare bought from the Lombards to thevalue of £3800 for embellishing salladsand other helmets, and in France eventhe sallads of the mounted archers arecontinually mentioned as garnishedwith silver.

The sallad was a relatively dangerousheadpiece in tourneys on foot, anda large-visored bassinet is often mentionedas being retained in use for thispurpose down to the sixteenth century.The Baron de Cosson has identifiedthis form, seen to have been fixed tothe breast by two staples and a doublebuckle behind, and himself possessesa magnificent example, which once hung over the tombs of the Capels inRayne Church. Sir Giles Capel was one of the knights who with HenryVIII. challenged all comers for thirty days on the Field of the Cloth ofGold. The visor in this example is very massive, the holes so small that nopoint could possibly enter, and the helm being fixed the head moved freely[Pg 60]inside. A second and possibly earlier example has the visor thrown intohorizontal ridges and a small bavier. The visor is hinged at the sides,and the sight and breathing holes are short slots, parallel to and protectedby the ridges. It hangs over the tomb of John Beaufort, Duke ofSomerset, in Wimborne Minster, who died in 1444, but it is of laterdate; and another belonging to the suit of Henry VIII. in the Tower,made for fighting on foot, is not dissimilar. Baron de Cosson callsattention to the fact that this form, called a bassinet, is shown in theminiature of the manuscript entitled, “How a man shalle be armyd at hisese when he schal fighte on foote.”

Another very interesting andthoroughly English form of helm,intended, according to De Cosson, forthe tilt with lances, is preserved ina specimen in Broadwater Church,another in Willington Church overSir John Gostwick’s tomb, and a thirdin Cobham Church, the helm of SirThomas Brooke, who died 1522.These all present considerable differencesof detail. A not dissimilarhelm of slightly later date with abarred visor, or the bars riveted tothe helm, affording plenty of breathingspace, was used for the tourneywith sword or battle-axe, and has become the Royal and the nobles’helmet of heraldry.

A form of helm used for tilting with the lance and also frequently depictedin heraldry, is the great helm of the time of Henry VII. and HenryVIII., of immense weight and strength, resting on the shoulders, andsecurely fixed to the back and breast. It was relatively flat on the crown,produced in front into a kind of blunt beak, giving a bird-like aspectwith no distinct neck. The ocularium, or slit for vision, is large and inthe crown, and can only be used by bending the body forward; the headbeing raised before the moment of impact to avoid the danger of thelance penetrating. This helm is well represented in the tournament roll[Pg 61]of Henry VIII. in Heralds’ College, and from its massive strength andthe fact that by no possibility could a combatant be accidentally unhelmed,afforded absolute protection to the head. Le Heaulme du Roy isrepresented in this roll as silvered, with a crown-like border round the neckof pearls and gems set in gold.There is a magnificent specimenin the Museum of Artillery atWoolwich, one in WestminsterAbbey, two in St. George’s Chapel,one in Petworth Church, and oneat Parham. This form of helmwas the most massive and secure,and the last that remained in use.A very early delineation of ahelmet of this type is seen in thelate fourteenth-century FrenchMS. (Burney, 257) in the BritishMuseum. Some exceedingly interestingdelineations of the samekind of tilting helm in actualuse are to be seen in Philip deCommines’ Froissart, Harl. MS.,4379-80 (Fig. 25). It is thererepresented plain and fluted, andwith various crests and mantling,one of the most singular, and afavourite, being a close copy ofthe lady’s head-dress of the period,with the lady’s long gauze veilreaching below the waist. Thismanuscript is of late fifteenth-century date, and very remarkable for theapparently faithful representations of the armour worn by the English andFrench at that time. In one group of soldiery alone, in the secondvolume, page 84, the helm of the early fourteenth century, the beakedbassinet of the early fifteenth, and various forms of visored and unvisoredsallads are assembled together.

All these forms of helm were more or less contemporary with thesallad, which gave place in turn to the armet or closed helmet, firstheard of in 1443. Like, perhaps, the sallad, the armet was inventedin Italy, and did not reach England or even Germany till about 1500.In France, however, a page of the Count de St. Pol bore a richly-workedarmet on the entry into Rouen of Charles VII.; and the royal armet ofLouis XI., crowned and richly adorned with fleurs-de-lis, was carriedbefore him on his entry into Paris in 1461. It is also mentioned in1472, in an edict of the Duke of Burgundy.

The fundamental difference between it and all helms and helmetsthat had preceded it is, that while others had either fitted the top of thehead, as a cap does, or were put right over it, the armet closed roundthe head by means of hinges, following the contour of the chin andneck. Its advantages were neatness, lightness, and general handiness,and it conveyed the weight by the gorget directly on to the shoulders.Its use was exclusively for mounted combatants, though the great helmcontinued in use for jousts and tilts during the time of Henry VIII.It does not appear in English costume much before this reign, but inall the pictures of the triumphs and battle-pieces of Henry VIII. atHampton Court, the English men-at-arms invariably wear it, and it isabundantly represented in works of art during the remainder of theTudor period.

An early armet, identified by Baron de Cosson as Italian, witha double bavier riveted together, but without a visor, hangs over thetomb of Sir George Brooke, eighth Lord Cobham, K.G. (Fig. 26),and dates from 1480 to 1500. Baron de Cosson describes it as havinga reinforcing piece on the forehead, hinged cheek-pieces joined down themiddle of the chin, and of peculiarly delicate and beautiful outline. Itoriginally had a camail hanging to a leather strap. The wooden Saracen’shead may date from the funeral of this Lord Cobham in 1558, “butwas certainly never worn on any helmet.” Its owner served underNorfolk in Ireland, in 1520, and was subsequently Governor of Calais.

English armets dating from about 1500 are not uncommon, but, asfrequently observed, “they want that perfection and delicacy to be foundin fine Italian or German work.” The earlier open down the front, andthe later at the side. They are generally combed, the ridge or comb[Pg 63]
[Pg 64]
[Pg 65]running from the forehead to the back of the neck, and being beatenor raised out of the metal in the mostable way. There is generally, but notalways, a reinforcing piece over theforehead. The visor is of one piece,and works on a pivot, but in a few ofthe early specimens the pin and hingearrangement of the older Italianexamples is preserved, rendering itremovable. The slit for vision isgenerally made in the body of thevisor, but is sometimes obtained bycutting out a piece of its upper edge.It is beaked, thrown into few orseveral ridges, with the slits or holesfor breathing principally on the rightside. The English armet was rarelyfurnished with a bavier or movablechin-piece, and the fixed one, called amentonière, was small. Baron deCosson obtained one from RayneChurch in Essex, when it was pulled down, and Meyrick procured asimilar one from Fulham Church, andMr. Seymour Lucas, A.R.A., has twovery fine specimens, now exhibited atSouth Kensington, while specimens areto be met with in most great collections.The not inelegant flutedMaximilian armets of the same dateare, however, far more frequent.Like the later English armets, theyhave no baviers. Between 1510 and1525, a hollow rim was introducedround the base of the helmet, fittingclosely into a corresponding ridge round the upper edge of the gorget.This manifest improvement was considered by Meyrick to constitute the[Pg 66]Burgonet. Between 1520 and 1540 the visor was formed of two parts,the upper of which closed inside the lower, and was capable of being raisedwithout unfixing the latter. It remained in this form until the closedhelmet fell into disuse in the seventeenth century. The armet frequentlycomprised, especially in the later examples, a fixed gorget, generally of twoor more articulated plates. A number of these are included in the sixteenthand seventeenth century suits illustrated in the succeeding pages,one of the most singular being the helmet of the mounted suit of HenryVIII., made for the king by Conrad Seusenhofer of Innsbrück in 1511-14.It consists of six pieces fitting one within another without hinge or rivet,and seems originally to have had one of the curious discs at the backseen in Italian fifteenth-century armets and contemporary illustrations.

Towards the beginning of the sixteenth century knightly armourunderwent some profound modifications. The exaggerated elbow-guardsand shoulder-pieces were reduced, the tuilles, the laminated corseletswith their handsome flutings and indented margins, and the pointedsollerets were either modified or seen no more; and with them disappearmuch of the angulated, defensive mannerism, and the grace peculiar tothe armour of the third quarter of the fifteenth century. That whichfollowed appears smoother, rounder, and heavier, less mobile, andless apt for real campaigning. The modifications tending to this resultmay have been in a large degree due to the personal tastes of the threegreat monarchs of Europe. Maximilian and Henry VIII. preferredat heart the pomp and pageantry to the realities of war; while theclassic bias of Francis I. banished all Gothic feeling so far as hispersonal influence extended. The short-waisted, podgy, globularbreastplate, the stolid limb-pieces, rounded knee-caps and strikinglysplay-footed sollerets, appear as if invented to altogether banishthe very idea of agility, if not of movement; and contrast in thestrongest manner with the lithe and supple-looking armour of theBeauchamp effigy. The Tower collection, so relatively poor in Gothicarmour, is fortunately extremely rich in that of the period of HenryVIII., containing four or five suits actually made for his personaluse. One of the finest of these, and an admirably perfect suit, isshown in our illustration (Fig. 28). Though without any decorationor marks, it was undoubtedly made expressly for the king,[Pg 67]
[Pg 68]
[Pg 69]and is a chef-d’œuvre of the armourer’s craft, being formed, accordingto Lord Dillon, of no less than 235 separate pieces, whichare used about one half below and the rest above the waist.The principal pieces are fitted with a hollow groove along the inferiormargin, and overlap others provided with a corresponding ridge: sothat the whole suit thus interlocks, and the plates cannot be separatedor the armour taken apart except by removing the helmet and beginningat the neck-pieces. To the left shoulder-piece or pauldron oneof the upright neck-guards is still fixed by rivets. The breastplateis globose, and has a central ridge called the tapul. The arms aresheathed in rigid plates, separated by a series of narrow laminar plates, bywhich power of movement is obtained. The elbows are guarded by notinelegant caps, and the gauntlets are miton-fashioned, of eleven smallplates, and very flexible. The leg-armour is in large pieces ridgeddown the centre, similarly to the breastplate, except above and belowthe knee-cap, and at the ankle, where laminar plates give the necessaryplay. The sollerets being made, like the gauntlets, each ofthirteen pieces, are also extremely flexible, and reproduce in an exaggeratedway the great broad toes of the civil dress. Like the helm,already noticed, the suit is intended for combats on foot and in thelists, which were greatly in fashion. No mail gussets were needed,for there were no crevices between the plates, and the wearer insidehis armour was as well defended as a lobster in its shell; but thissecurity, as with all armour-plate, was purchased, notwithstanding theperfection of manufacture, at the expense of unwieldiness and fatigue,for the suit weighs over 92 lbs. There are three other suits whichbelonged to Henry VIII., besides the magnificent equestrian one nextfigured. The second dismounted one was also intended for combatson foot, and is known as a tonlet suit from the long, laminated skirtof horizontal plates reaching to the knee, and sliding over eachother. It is decorated with some engraved bands or borders, whilethe fine headpiece to it is Italian, bearing the marks of the celebratedMissaglias of Milan. We meet at this time with the sliding rivets, anew mode of attachment for the plates, which enabled them to playfreely over each other without parting company. The overlappingtassets of most of the close-fitting skirts are made in this fashion, to[Pg 70]which the term Almayne rivets, so frequently met with in inventories, isbelieved to apply. Some of the suits are provided with a lockinggauntlet, to prevent the sword from being struck out of the wearer’shand, the so-called forbidden gauntlet, though its prevalence in collectionsnegatives the idea that its use was disallowed. In one mounted suitthe insteps are protected by the great ungainly stirrups necessitated bythe broad-toed sollerets, and therefore only covered with mail. Thissuit is enriched with a picturesque banded ornament, partly gilt.

The superbly-mounted suit in our illustration (Fig. 29), one of thefinest of its date in existence, was constructed to the order of Maximilianexpressly for Henry VIII., by Conrad Seusenhofer, one of the mostcelebrated armourers of Innsbrück, whose mark it bears on the helmet.It was sent as a gift in 1514, and was originally silvered all over, andfinely engraved in every part with the legend of St. George andthe badges of Henry VIII. and Katharine of Arragon. The Tudorcognisances are the rose, portcullis and red dragon; and Katharine’sthe pomegranate and sheaf of arrows, with finely-scrolled arabesque workbetween. This ornament seems to be engraved and not etched, as in latertimes. The most remarkable feature is the steel skirt called base, ofgreat rarity, and made in imitation of the folds of the cloth bases somuch in vogue at this time. These skirts were used for fighting onfoot, and there is provision for fixing an additional piece to completeit in front, the absence of which alone permitted the wearer to sit onhorseback, though the difficulty of getting into the saddle must have beenconsiderable. The skirt is edged with a finely-modelled border of brassin high relief, with the initials H. and K. united by true-lover’s knots.The suit is complete in every respect except the gauntlets, and ismentioned in the Greenwich inventory of 1547, published in the fifty-firstvolume ofArchæologia by Lord Dillon. It is there described as “aharnesse given unto the King’s Maiestie by Th^e Empero^r Maximilianw^t a Base of stele and goldesmythes worke.” The brass border to thebase thus appears to have been regarded as silver and gilt goldsmiths’work. The horse armour matching the suit, which was to be usedon foot, as Lord Dillon points out, did not exist at this period,and the figure was seated on the Burgundian horse armour ofrepoussé steel of the time of Henry VII., which still stands next[Pg 71]
[Pg 72]
[Pg 73]to it in the Tower. The engraving on the horse armour or bardis designed in the same spirit as that of the armour itself, but isby an inferior hand. The subjects are treated in the style ofAlbert Dürer or Burgkmair, and represent incidents in the livesof St. George and St. Barbara, and besides the badges on the armourwhich are reproduced, the castle and the rose and pomegranate impaledappear, with the mottoDIEV ET MON DROYT many times repeated roundthe edge. All these badges and engravings were illustrated, almost realsize, by Meyrick, in the twenty-second volume ofArchæologia. Thehorse armour was silvered and probably parcel gilt, like the body armour,and was made, it is supposed, by some of the German armourers broughtover and established in Greenwich by Henry VIII. It is stiff andunwieldy, and does not very efficiently protect the horse, though its effectis dignified and even magnificent. The singular construction of thehelmet has already been alluded to.

Contemporary with these suits is the fine German late Gothic flutedarmour, known as Maximilian, nearly perfect examples of which are tobe seen in every collection of importance. This was used for tilts, withthe immensely massive outwork of plates to fend off the blows of thelance and other weapons, and to prevent the left leg from being crushedagainst the barrier. Some of the rarer Maximilian suits not onlyreproduce the cloth skirts of the civil costume in steel, but alsoinnumerable puffings and slashings, which were the fashion of theday. Sometimes the helmets belonging to these suits have the mask-shapedvisors, a specimen of which, also a present to Henry VIII.from Maximilian, still exists in the Tower. This formed part of atilting harness, and is described in the 1547 inventory as “a hedde pecew^t a Rammes horne silver pcell guilte.” In 1660 it was attributed toWill Sommers, the king’s jester, and has subsequently been renderedmore grotesque by paint and a pair of spectacles. A complete helmetof the same kind is preserved at Warwick Castle, as well as one of therarer Italian helmets, with curling woolly hair represented in embossediron, but without the visor.

All this armour was made for the shocks and pleasurable excitementof jousts, tilts, and tourneys, which its perfection and strengthdeprived of nearly every element of danger. Its weight and closeness[Pg 74]would indeed have made it insupportable on active service. The greatrevolution in the equipments for war, commenced by the artillery trainand nearly unarmoured pikeman and estradiot, was now being completed bythe reiter, pistolier and arquebusier. The massed man-at-arms, armedcap-à-pied, had borne down for the last time all before him with thelance, and was ceasing to play a decisive or even an important part inwarfare. Armour in campaigning was becoming of little consequence, andeven for the tourney a reaction was setting in against the extravagantand ponderous precautions devised by Maximilian and his admirer Henry.

The decision of battles now belonged to pike, bill, and musket. Theinfantry and light troops, who had hitherto been left to arm themselvesas best they could, began to be dressed in some sort of uniform, withweapons and armour selected with some care, and used in definiteproportions. It is certainly strange to read that the archers who did suchsplendid service at Agincourt were left to pick up any kind of helmet,bassinet, or cap, whether of leather or wicker bound with iron, and anydescription of side-arms, and were mostly without armour, save the pourpoint,with stockings hanging down or bare feet. Only the bows, arrows,and stakes were obligatory. In pictures, archers and the foot generallyare represented in every kind of old brigandine, mail, bits of plate, or“jakkes” of linen, which inventories tell us were stuffed with horn ormail. It was only when the kings and nobles thought it worth theirwhile to clothe and equip the foot-soldier that his costume became distinctive,and even sumptuous in the case of the bodyguards to CharlesVII., Louis XI., or Henry VII. and VIII. A larger proportion of archersbecame mounted as the fifteenth century wore on, Edward IV. invadingFrance with no less than 14,000, besides the foot. Picked men, and thoseof the bodyguards of kings and princes, like the Duke of Burgundy,were sometimes magnificently dressed. The uniform of the archers ofthe Duke of Berri in 1465 was a brigandine covered with black velvetand gilt nails, and a hood ornamented with silver gilt tassels. Atthe entry into Rouen, 1460, the archers of the King of France, theKing of Sicily and the Duke of Maine wore plate-armour under jacketsof various colours, with greaves, swords, daggers and helms rich withsilversmiths’ work. The leaders of other corps were in jackets stripedred, white and green, covered with embroidery. English archers are[Pg 75]sometimes spoken of as gallantly accoutred. Under Henry VIII. thebodyguard called the “retinewe of speres” comprised two mountedarchers in uniform to each man-at-arms, as in France. Every laymanwith an estate of £1000 and upwards had to furnish thirty long-bows,thirty sheaves of arrows, and thirty steel caps. In 1548 the uniformof the English archer was a coat of blue cloth guarded with red, righthose red, the left blue, or both blue with broad red stripes, and aspecial cap to be worn over the steel cap or sallad, to be bought in Londonfor 8d. They were provided with brigandines or coats of littleplates, mawles of lead five feet long, with two stakes, and a dagger. Thedistinguishing mark of the various bands was embroidered on the leftsleeve. In 1510 Henry ordered 10,000 bows from the bowyers of London,and applied for leave to import 40,000 from Venice. In 1513 hetook 12,000 archers to France, and in 1518 agreed to furnish 6000archers to the emperor. In this reign they did good service, as inrepelling the descent of the French at Brighton, 1515, and at Flodden,where the King of Scots was found among the dead pierced by an arrow.Some bow-staves of yew were recovered from the wreck of theMaryRose, and are now in the Tower. At Dover Castle there are a long-bowand a cross-bow, stated to be part of the original armament.

The cross-bow was rarely favoured by Englishmen, though animposing force of 4000 appeared in the united forces of England andBurgundy in 1411, each attended by two varlets to load, so that theweapons were always ready to shoot. In 1415, however, Henry V. onlytook ninety-eight from England in his whole force of 10,500 men,eighteen of whom were mounted. In 1465 the so-called mountedarchers were very variously armed in France, with cross-bows, veuglaires,and hand culverins.

If so formidable a body as the English archers could be left to theirown devices as to accoutrements in the first half of the century, the restof the foot, armed with long weapons called staves, bills, and halbards,must have presented the appearance of a mere rabble. The Frenchfoot, armed with partisans, halbards, or javelins, bore the suggestivename of “brigans,” and were much despised, but at Montlhéry in 1465the greater part of the slaughter was by the “rascally Burgundian foot,”with their pikes and other weapons tipped with iron.

The Swiss victory at Morat in 1476 undoubtedly led the French,and later the English, to introduce a disciplined infantry armed withthe pike as a serious element into the army. In 1480 the French tookthe extreme course of disbanding the whole body of archers, substitutingSwiss pikemen, and causing a prodigious number of pikes,halbards, and daggers to be made by the cutlers. Thus in 1482 thearmy of Picardy is composed of no more than 1400 men-at-arms,6000 Swiss, and 8000 pikes. The proportions in England, tenyears later, may be gauged by the Earl of Surrey’s contingent of fivemen-at-arms, each with cushet and page, twelve demi-lances, twentyarchers mounted, forty-six on foot, and thirteen bills. The archersremained an important force with us till long after Henry VIII., but itis only in his reign that the billmen and halbardiers occupy a definiteposition in the country’s armed forces. These were armed with bill,sword, shield, sallad, and corselet. The costume of the foot and eventhe yeomen of the guard, 1000 strong under Henry VIII., changedwith the civil dress, but always included the royal badge and crown.Henry proceeded to the siege of Boulogne in the midst of his pikemenwith fifty mounted archers on the right and fifty mounted gunners onthe left. Their costumes are seen in the Hampton Court pictures. In1598 it was scarlet profusely spangled. Under Philip and Mary theywere an even more important force, and under Elizabeth the backboneof the army was its pikemen, billmen, and harquebusiers, now armed,as in France, with Milanese corselets and morions. The bill was six feetlong, of native production, the head at least twelve inches long, and boundwith iron like the halbard, which was shorter, to at least the middle of thestaff. The black bills were also shorter and from Germany, but thebest halbards were Milanese. The partisan with us seems to have beenmore a weapon of parade, various in form, with or without wings, andrichly decorated with engraving, painting, and gilding. The pike waseighteen to twenty-two feet long, with a tassel to prevent the waterrunning down. The “Staves” in the Tower under Henry VIII. included20,100 morris pikes, some highly decorated, and 2000 javelins, mostlyrichly mounted, as if for the Court guards. The army taken to Francein 1513 comprised, according to the Venetian ambassador, 6000 halbardiersand 12,000 men with holy-water sprinklers, a weapon never seen[Pg 77]before, six feet long, surmounted by a ball with six steel spikes. Thename was a quaint joke, like the Flemish Godendag or the Swiss Wasistdasand Morgenstern. Besides these there were tridents, pole-axes, collencleves, boar-spears, rawcons, partisans, and other forms of staff weaponsin smaller quantities.

An English army sometimes comprised light cavalry even in theearliest times, perhaps none more singular than a miserably-accoutredforce of mounted Irish armed with target, short javelin, and great outlandishknives, but without using saddles, in the reign of Henry V.The army of Henry VIII. in 1513 comprised 9000 to 10,000 heavybarbed cavalry and 8000 light horse, and 2000 mounted archers. His“Retinewe of speres” comprised a page, a cushet with javelin or demi-lance,and two archers, all mounted, to each man-at-arms. An Englishforce of about 400 demi-lances serving Henri II. in 1552 “for theirpleasure,” were in short petticoats, red bonnets, body with brassarts ofplate, and high leather boots above the knee, mounted on swift littlehorses and armed with a lance like a demi-pike.

The infantry, though not yet a permanent standing force, except inthe case of the Royal bodyguards, was now a recognised arm into whichmen enlisted as a professional career for the term of their lives or untildisabled. To handle the pike or arquebus efficiently required longtraining, and veterans were always accepted before recruits. It was theirsteadiness and power of manœuvring in action that lessened the value ofheavy cavalry, and consequently contributed, more than any other circumstance,to the rapid disuse of the cap-à-pied suit of armour in thefield, so noticeable in the next chapter.

V
The Age of Enriched Armour

Armour began from about the accession of Edward VI. to cease tobe a military necessity, and those engaged in practical warfare were moreready to dispense with its doubtful protection than to encumber themselveswith its certain disadvantages. Excuses were found for appearingin the field without armour, or with an imperfect equipment, andpunishments were inflicted in the vain attempt to stem the tide ofchange. Those who served on foot had naturally the strongest objectionto bearing its weight, since when opposed to firearms it ceased to haveany practical utility. A battle-scene at Hampton Court, the battle ofForty by Snayers, furnishes the strongest justification for its disuse amongmen-at-arms. It represents a number of mounted men in completearmour, who discharge horse-pistols point blank at each other’s breastplates,the individual struck falling in every case dead or wounded fromhis horse. The wheel-lock pistol, the arm of the German Reiters, whowore black armour, mail sleeves, and a visored morion, was in the fieldin 1512. From this time, therefore, armour was worn rather for displaythan service, and the purchaser came to value its defensive qualitiesfar less than the magnificence of its decoration. Nor was ostentationin arms confined to the noble or knight alone. Brantôme says thatamong the pikemen and musketeers of Strozzi, De Brissac, and theDuc de Guise, thousands of gilt and engraved morions and corseletswere to be seen on parade days, and the armour worn by the pickedforce of Spaniards and Italians sent by Philip of Spain to occupy theNetherlands was a splendid sight. The great and wealthy have seldom[Pg 79]
[Pg 80]
[Pg 81]cared to stint in matters of personal adornment, and in days when therewere fewer ways in which a taste for extravagant expenditure could becombined with a high appreciation of art, fortunes were spent upon thecoverings of the body. Nothing more sumptuous in applied art exists, inregard either to design or execution, than the work lavished on the armourproduced for the French, Spanish, and other monarchs in the second halfof the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth centuries. Among thisthe most exquisitely beautiful is the damascened work, scattered overEurope, persistently though erroneously attributed to Cellini, of which,perhaps, one of the finest examples is the target at Windsor. It is noexaggeration to say that neither chiselling, embossing, nor damasceningon metal has ever rivalled or even approached that bestowed at this timeupon royal arms and armour. The chief seats of production were inGermany and Italy, at Milan above all, then Innsbrück, Augsburg,Nuremberg; and in a less degree Florence, Brescia and Venice. It issingular that few fine suits can be attributed to France, and fewer stilleither to Spain, the Netherlands, or England. The youth of Edward,the fact that female sovereigns succeeded, and finally, the timidity andhorror of war felt by James, account for none of the known chef-d’œuvresuits being made for English wearers. Such extraordinary and magnificentarmour was meet for none but the high-spirited and rivalprinces of Europe, and no king distinguished for valour occupied thethrone of England during the period when enriched armour reachedits culminating point of grandeur.

There are, however, a certain number of richly engraved and gilt suitswhich have been in the possession of English families from time immemorial,and the fortunate acquisition for the South Kensington MuseumArt Library of an Armourers’ Album of the time of Elizabeth, hasenabled many of the original wearers of them to be identified. This MS.,as Lord Dillon relates, was in the possession, in 1790, of the Duchess ofPortland, daughter of Harley, Earl of Oxford, who permitted Pennant toengrave from it a suit of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, for hisaccount of London; while Strutt was allowed to reproduce that ofGeorge, Earl of Cumberland, for his work on dresses and costumes.The book undoubtedly once formed part of the great Harleian Library,but was lost until seen in Paris some years ago by Baron de Cosson. It[Pg 82]was sold at the Spitzer sale, acquired by M. Stein, and offered to theKensington Museum, by whom it was wisely purchased.

The drawings are in pen and ink and water-colours and representtwenty-nine full suits, besides the extra pieces for tilting. Someof them are inscribed “Made by me Jacobe,” the name of the masterarmourer at Greenwich during part of Elizabeth’s reign, and mentionedby Sir Henry Lee, the Master of the Armoury, in a letter to the LordTreasurer, dated 12th October 1590, published by Lord Dillon in thefifty-first volume ofArchæologia. Wendelin Böheim, the curator of theImperial collections of armour at Vienna, has recently identified thisJacobe with Jacob Topf, one of three brothers, natives of Innsbrück orits vicinity, and who suddenly appears as court armourer in 1575. Thispost he seems to have retained and worked at Schloss Ambras till hisdeath in 1597. Suits made by him during this period for the ArchdukeFerdinand of Tyrol and Archduke Charles of Styria certainly bear someresemblance to those in the Album. Böheim infers from the Italianinfluence seen in his work, especially in the ornament, that Topf musthave proceeded from the atelier of Jörg Seusenhofer to Milan or Brescia,about the year 1558, and taken up his abode in England between 1562and 1575.

To support the identification of the Jacobe of the Album with JacobTopf of Innsbrück, it is necessary either that all the suits should havebeen produced before 1575, or that those made at a later time should beregarded as by some other hand. The first two, for Rutland and Bedford,who died respectively in 1563 and 1564, are relatively plain, and haveM.R. over them, and the rest E.R., which can only, it would appear,have reference to the initials of the reigning queens. All the figuresare practically drawn from one model, though sometimes reversed, andare in an easy and graceful pose. Two of the richest, namely the secondsuit for Sir Henry Lee, the Master Armourer, No. 19, and the first suitof Sir Christopher Hatton, No. 15 of the Album, are here reproduced infacsimile, though reduced in scale (Plates II. and III.). One holds a maceand the other a truncheon in one hand, with the butt resting upon the hip,while the other arm is bent and the extended palm rests upon the thigh.They wear the close helmet or armet of Italian fashion, with a high comband a large sharply-pointed visor. The gorgets are laminated, the[Pg 83]
[Pg 84]
[Pg 85]pauldrons large and massive, the breastplates long-waisted, known asthe peascod shape, ending in a point, with a ridge down the centrecalled the tapul; the tassets are short and laminated. Only the frontof the thigh is protected by laminated cuissarts, and the rest of theleg by close-fitting knee-caps and greaves. The sollerets are completeand take the shape of the foot. The swords appear to be simply cross-hiltedand worn in scabbards. Both the suits reproduced are richlyengraved with vertical bands of gilt arabesqued ornament in the Italianfashion: Sir Christopher Hatton’s being on a russet ground with a goldcorded pattern connecting the bands; and Sir Henry Lee’s on a whiteground with a knotted reticulated pattern between. The minor detailsare considerably varied in the other suits, two of which have beenreproduced by Lord Dillon, and two by Böheim in the publications alreadyreferred to. The complete list comprises the names of many of theleading nobles and captains of Elizabeth’s reign, only two in it beingforeigners.

The ornament is sufficiently distinct to admit of the suits beingidentified where they still exist. Thus the Earl of Pembroke’s suit isstill at Wilton, in perfect preservation; the suit of George, Earl ofCumberland, is in the possession of Lord Hothfield at Appleby Castle.The grand-guard of this suit, with volant attached, forms the subject ofPlate IV., in which the original russet and gilding is somewhat restored.The ornament on the bands is an interlacing strap upon a foliatedarabesque ground, with a figure of Mercury near the top, and twoE’s at intervals addorsed and crowned, coupled by a true-lover’s knot.Between are large roses and fleurs-de-lis united by knots. The helmetof Sir Henry Lee’s second suit,Plate II., is now in the Tower, havingbeen identified by Lord Dillon, while a locking gauntlet belonging toit is in the Hall of the Armourers’ Company. This gauntlet, calledthe “forbidden gauntlet,” was in form of a closed right hand, thefingers fastened by a hook and staple, leaving an aperture for the passageof the weapon which, if a lance, or sword with cross-guard and pommel,could not be dislodged. In the Tower are also the vamplate of SirChristopher Hatton’s second suit, and the complete armour of the Earl ofWorcester, with both the headpieces. A helmet of Lord Sussex’s suit isin the Tower, and two gauntlets belonging to it were in the Spitzer sale.[Pg 86]Lord Bucarte’s suit is in the Wallace collection at Hertford House, andanother fine suit is in Armourers’ Hall.

The first Sir Christopher Hatton suit,Plate III., has also recentlyreached this country, fortunately in almost perfect condition. It wasdisposed of in the Spitzer sale, and was purchased by Mr. Davies ofNew Bond Street. It will be a misfortune if this historic piece is notadded to the national collection.Fig. 30 represents the upper partof this suit, taken from a photograph, with the high neck-guardsattached to the pauldrons. The original front-plate seems to be lost,but the extra breastplate for tilting and some other extra pieces arepreserved.

If Boheim is correct in his identification of Jacobe with Jacob Topf,and in his dates, the armour in the Album must be by different hands.Thus Topf, arriving in 1562, could hardly have made the first two suitsmarked M.R., the owners of which died, as we have mentioned, in 1563and 1564 respectively. The mail defence for the instep and the relativelybroad toes are features of an earlier time, which the letters M.R. identifyas that of Mary, and show that the very broad stirrup of Henry VIII.was still in use. Neither could he, being settled in Innsbrück or atAmbras in 1575, have made the suits for Sir Henry Lee, as Master ofthe Armoury; nor that for Sir Thomas Bromley, as Lord Chancellor,though the latter suit may have been for Sir Nicholas Bacon, the previousLord Chancellor. The chief difficulty is the date of Sir Henry Lee’sappointment, which Lord Dillon in his able treatise, in theArchæologicalJournal for June 1895, gives as 1580, and the fact that the solitarymention of Jacobe in any document is by Sir Henry Lee himself, andis dated October 1590, in which he speaks of him as “the M^r workmanof Grenewhyche,” and in a way that could not well have reference toone who had quitted the post fifteen years before. These difficultiesmay, however, it is possible, yet be reconciled.

Among the fine suits in the Tower is the equestrian armour of RobertDudley, Earl of Leicester (Fig. 31), not however one of the suits in theAlbum. It is, like the Jacobe suits, banded in the Italian fashion, with asimilar kind of design upon the bands, and between them a broad impresseddiaper of crossed ragged staves and leaves filled with fine arabesques.Among the enrichments can also be seen the George of the Garter,[Pg 87]
[Pg 88]
[Pg 89]the bear and ragged staff, the initials R.D., and the collar of the Orderof St. Michael and St. George, conferred upon this favourite of QueenElizabeth in 1566. In the illustration of this suit,Fig. 31, the bearand ragged staff is plainly visible on the horse’s chamfron, from which[Pg 90]issues a twisted spike. The armet is combed, but differs in form fromthe Jacobe type, and the visor is pierced on one side with round holes.In other respects the fashion of the armour is very similar to that of hisenemy, Sir Christopher Hatton. The grand-guard and pass-guard orelbow-guard are preserved with it. The former is illustrated,Plate V.,with its original gilding restored, the military cleaning and scouring towhich it has been subjected for so many years, not wisely but too well,having obliterated every trace of the original splendour of colour. Aportrait of the Earl in this very suit exists, however, to show what it was.He died, it is well known, in 1588.

Several splendid and historic suits are preserved in the Guard-roomat Windsor Castle. Among these, one, the suit of Prince Henry ofWales, son of James I. (frontispiece), bears a remarkable resemblanceto the Jacobe suits, recalling especially the design of the Cumberlandsuit,Plate IV. But for the alternation of thistles among the fleurs-de-lisand roses between the bands of gilded ornament, the body armour inboth would be nearly identical. The monogram H.P. appears on thegilt bands of strap and arabesque work. The gilding is in fine preservation,and except that the steel was formerly a deep blue, in the Milanesefashion, it is still as represented in the portrait of Prince Henry inthe possession of the Marquis of Lothian. It has been attributedto William Pickering, Master of the Armourers’ Company of Londonin 1608-9, on the faith of some payments made to him, which Mr.St. John Hope has noted as follows: “In March 1613, a warrant issuedunder sign manual, for the payment to Sir Edward Cecil of a balanceof £300 due for armour value £450 for the late Prince Henry: andin July 1614 a warrant issued to pay William Pickering, Master of theArmoury at Greenwich, £200 balance of £340 for armour gilt andgraven for the late Prince.” The helmet somewhat resembles that ofthe Leicester suit, but has a singularly stiff, vertically-ridged gorgetwith scalloped edge, and heavier gauntlets. The leg-defences and solleretsdo not differ appreciably from those already noticed. A number of theextra pieces and some of the horse armour belonging to the suit arepreserved with it. If really by Pickering he was a close copyist ofJacobe. An apparently companion suit of Prince Charles is looked onwith suspicion by Lord Dillon. Another of Prince Henry’s suits,[Pg 91]presented by the Prince de Joinville, and now in the Tower, was originallyof blued steel richly ornamented with classical designs in gold.There are also in the Tower a fine suit made for Charles I. when a boy,some silvered pieces, and the richly gilt and engraved armour presentedto him by the City of London.

Another suit at Windsor of extraordinary magnificence is thatrepresented inFig. 32. It is, unfortunately, not well set up, and differsconsiderably in construction from those hitherto noticed, and is of laterdate than the Jacobe suits. The tassets are replaced by laminar cuissartsextending to the knee, below which the suit is not continued. Theornament is banded vertically, like that of the suits previously figured,[Pg 92]but is of a richer character. Its details and colouring are reproducedon a larger scale in the helmet,Plate VI., which is combed, fluted, and ofsingularly graceful outline, with all its fastenings, plume-holders, andthe stiffly-ribbed gorget in most perfect condition. The whole appearsto be a specimen of rare French armour, but nothing is known of itshistory. Even more sumptuous, if possible, is the Italian suit,Fig. 33,which also exhibits some peculiar characters, such as the single platesin place of the tassets and the construction of the arm-defences andgauntlets. The setting up in this suit is also unfortunately defective.The extraordinary richness of the damascening and appliqué work isreproduced inFig. 34, in which a portion is sketched real size. Nearlyall the escutcheon-like appliqués have been picked off at some period,either for mischief or for the gold. The original owner of this suit isalso unknown, but it may, with the one last described, have possiblybeen a present to Prince Henry, whose passion for military exercisesand display is matter of history. The last of our illustrations (Fig. 35)taken from suits in the Windsor Guard-chamber is a demi-suit of theEarl of Essex, and is a war suit, something like a pikeman’s, except thatthe closed helmet was not worn by dismounted men. This is combed,and introduces a shade or peak over the sight. It has no visor, but abavier in two pieces protects the face. It should perhaps be describedas a burgonet with gorget and movable mentonières. Probably onlya part of the suit is present, that for use on foot, and the helmet maybelong to the missing equipment for a rider, or if worn on foot it wouldhave been as an open burgonet. The Jacobe Album introduces us tothe burgonet and cabasset, a lighter morion, and shows that these wereused when fighting on foot by even the greatest captains. This suit isalso decorated in bands, a fashion almost universal during the reign ofElizabeth. The breastplate is the peascod with tapul form, and thecuissarts “à écrivisse” form the only protection for the legs. Theornament is more finely and delicately chased than that of any suit yetnoticed. The design on the bands is an interlacing and knotted strap,filled with arabesqued foliage enclosing medallions with emblematicfigures and flowers encircled by mottoes, as Futura præteritis, on aground etched down, but with foliage and bright points like grains ofseed, left on it. A part of this ornament is drawn full size inPlate VII.[Pg 93]
[Pg 94]
[Pg 95]There is a suit in the Tower attributed to the same Robert Devereux,Earl of Essex, who was executed in 1601, also richly engraved and gilt.

The suits now divided between Windsor and the Tower evidentlyformed part of a single collection. Those at Windsor are placed on[Pg 96]brackets at such a height that they can only be inspected from a ladder,and they sadly require setting up, in the way that Lord Dillon hasmounted those in the Tower. It is perhaps unfortunate that thenational collection of armour is so scattered, parts being, besides thegreat collections at the Tower and Windsor, in the British and SouthKensington Museums, Hertford House, Woolwich Rotunda, and DoverCastle, while most of the earlier English and historic pieces are still inchurches and cathedrals. If brought together, properly displayed andadded to in a reasonable manner by the purchase of such suits as thatrecently sold in the Spitzer sale, a suit of fine quality and directlyconnected with our national history, it might become worthy the country,and rank in time with the great armouries of Vienna, Paris, Madrid,Turin, or Dresden.

Besides the half-dozen really magnificent suits in the Guard-chamberat Windsor, there is a vast collection of arms and weapons in the NorthCorridor, formed in a great measure by Her Majesty. Among these arethree swords intimately connected with our history. Of these, that ofCharles I. has a pommel and guard of steel overlaid with raised golddamascening, and a grip covered with silver wire woven like basket-work(Plate VIII.). The blade is decorated with Latin inscriptions inRoman capitals along both margins, back and front, and in circles atintervals. Between these are panels, alternately of emblems and ornament,and of arabesqued scrolls, damascened so minutely that the work isalmost invisible until magnified. The small portion of the blade in ourfigure shows the character of the work. The royal arms, Prince ofWales’ feathers, and date 1616 on the blade show that it was made forCharles I. when Prince of Wales. The second sword, with the magnificently-workedbasket hilt of chased gold inlay on steel (Fig. 36), hasa similar blade, marvellously fine arabesques taking the place of themarginal inscriptions. It is otherwise nearly identical with the last, thespread eagles, griffins, etc., being common to both. The presence ofthe lion of England under a royal crown points to James I. as its owner.The third sword (Fig. 37) is that of John Hampden. Its blade is plain,but the hilt is of superb workmanship and of carved steel. The grip issmall, and, like the pear-shaped pommel, covered with warriors in reliefin Roman dress. The quillons are slightly curved, and carved with[Pg 97]pomegranates and foliage, with figures reclining horizontally to form theextremities. The smaller front guard over the blade, known as the“pas-d’âne,” and most elaborately worked with figures and medallions, isa prominent feature of the hilt. All three swords bear the unicorn’s[Pg 98]head mark of Nuremberg, but the two enriched blades can be identified,thanks to the assistance of Baron de Cosson, as the work of ClemensHorn of Solingen, 1580-1625. There is a similar sword in the RoyalArmoury at Madrid, belonging to the suits made by Desiderius Kolmanfor Philip II., and another is in the Baron’s own collection. The sword,as the emblem of knightly honour and faith, was from the remotest timesa vehicle for the richest decoration; but it is doubtful whether anyspecimens were ever produced, even by the combined efforts of theswordsmith and jeweller, to equal the work of those here represented,which are not only connected with the history of our country, but happilyalso the property of the nation.

INDEX

LONDON
SEELEY AND CO., LIMITED, GREAT RUSSELL STREET
NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY1898

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FOREIGN ARMOUR IN ENGLAND

I
INTRODUCTORY

A former monograph,Armour in England, treated of weapons andarmour made either in this country or connected historically with Englishwearers. The more extensive field of foreign armour brought into Englandby wealthy and enthusiastic collectors is now embraced.

The enthusiasm felt for armour is not surprising; its interest is somany-sided. Not only are collectors fascinated by it, but studentsof history, artists, and antiquaries. As mere decoration it appeals tosome, and finds a place in their abodes; but it is among artistic peoplethat its more ardent admirers are found. Hence it is far from rare tofind the glint of arms and weapons lighting up the artist’s walls.

From the artistic standpoint nothing can be more picturesque thanthe varied forms assumed by armour and weapons in obedience to the all-powerfuldictates of self-preservation, or to the more arbitrary changes offashion. To realise what these changes mean, to appropriate them to thescenes and episodes of history, belongs to the painter, sculptor, and scenicartist. If anything in art should be accurately portrayed, it is the menand the events which make up history. Historic painting and sculpture,which might live long in art, may be disregarded by posterity owing tothe anachronisms due to neglect of this important study. Most of thechanges were perhaps efforts to avert the recurrence of some accident inthe lists or field of battle. To definitely track them to their actual[Pg 6]origin, to seek out the causes for the singular and ceaseless modificationsarms and armour have undergone, is, however, work only possible to theantiquary. It is his province to open the door to the artist.

The quality of the art lavished as decoration on the gala suits ofprinces and nobles is superb. In mediæval days it was the prerogativeof the male sex, the fighting sex, to deck itself like a game bird ingorgeous plumage; women’s raiment was more subdued. To the male,no richness of dress that ingenuity could invent or wealth procure wasdenied. In preparation for those stately festivals when the courtier wasto shine in the presence of the fair sex, his sovereign, and his peers,nothing was spared. The armour of parade intended for royal joustsand tournaments is as sumptuous as the wit of man could devise, withtime and money unstinted. Chasing, embossing, engraving, damascening,and gilding of the most exquisite quality were lavished upon it, the designs,and possibly the actual work, being by the best artists of the day. Thelater suits, when cap-à-pie armour was mainly consecrated to festivals andlittle regarded in battle, were especially loaded with decoration. Besidesits excellence of design and richness of ornament, the mere craftsmanshipof the armour itself is of a quality that never can be excelled, and themodern counterfeiter, with all his skill and appliances, is baffled in thereproduction oftours-de-force, such as the high-combed morions of Italyand Spain.

To study the evolution of armour is like observing the works ofnature. Necessity, it is well known, is the great stimulator of theinventive faculty of man, and no necessity is more cogent than that ofself-preservation. In the long trials of skill, in which for generationafter generation the armourer was pitted against the guilds concerned inthe production of lethal weapons, the means of defence seemed once ortwice so entirely perfected as to defy the weapons of the assailants. Butere long, the attacking forces, gathering energy, calling on the ingenuityof bowyers, fletchers, sword- and gun-smiths, seem again to emergetriumphant, armed with yet more deadly and powerful weapons. Thestruggle on the one hand to encase the man, like Achilles, in invulnerablearmour, and on the other to break down his armour of proof, waslike that between the gunners and naval architects to-day, but it lastedfor centuries. It ended, as all such struggles must, in the complete[Pg 7]discomfiture of the armourer; the increasing use and accuracy of firearmsfinally reducing defensive armour to a costly incumbrance. Nature,indeed, seems to will that all things, animate or inanimate, shouldsuccumb to persistent attack. Viewed in its true light, armour revealsall the stages, and is the very embodiment of, perhaps, the most prolongedand determined struggle that the development of civilisation has witnessed.It presents a gauge of the extent and limitation of man’s inventivefaculties, in other words, of his brain capacity, in the ages so-calledmediæval.

Concerning the history of the vast bulk of the armour that falls intothe possession of the collector, all is speculation, and its very nationalityperhaps matter of conjecture. The place whence it has come is oftenpurposely concealed by the dealer, and a legend concocted to invest itwith a higher market value. The weapon may have played its part inthe stern realities of war; the armour may have saved its owner, or,failing in the hour of need, contributed to the deaths of those who trustedto it. Little armour perished with the wearer. Next to gold and silver,the harvest of arms was the most coveted spoil of victory, and noneremained ungleaned on the battle-field. What harvests such holocaustsas Flodden Field must have presented, affording opportunities of refittingto the man-at-arms, archer, hobiler, billman, down to the rapacious camp-follower.Though etiquette may have hindered the squire of low degreefrom donning the full cap-à-pie armour of the knight he overcame, nodoubt many a captor of rich armour sacrificed life to indulgence in thedangerous vanity of dressing beyond his station.

The historic and personal associations connected with the arms andweapons present at, and by whose agency were enacted, the decisivebattles, the most stirring incidents of history humanity can witness,are not the least of the many-sided interests of armour.

Though but a small proportion of the vast number of suits, helmets,and weapons that have come down to us can be assigned to definitewearers, and most of even these were but the parade suits of royalty andthe court, the few pieces of real actual fighting armour identified withparticular owners are invested with extraordinary interest. Most of theseowe their preservation to the ancient and poetic custom of hanging thearms of knightly personages over their tombs, a custom linked with the[Pg 8]still older dedication of arms and armour at the obsequies of the dead,either by placing them in the grave or hanging them in the temples ofthe gods. The reality of the connection between the pagan and Christiancustoms is apparent by such incidents as that of William of Toulouse,early in the thirteenth century, who dedicated his helm, shield, andweapons to St. Julian, hanging them over his shrine; or that of the Kingof France, who, after the battle of Cassel in 1327, presented his victoriousarms to the neighbouring church. The churches in fact ought to havebeen the great treasure-houses for actual armour, as they are of representationsof armour on monuments and brasses. Unfortunately, however,the old veneration for the person of the dead which led to the consecrationof the armour and weapons he had actually used, hardly survived theclose of the thirteenth century. Cupidity induced the prelate to claimthem as a perquisite of the burial function, as when the Prior ofWestminster received £100 as ransom for the horse and accoutrements ofJohn of Eltham; while the temptation natural to the survivor to retain thefinely tempered weapons and armour, whose quality had been tested inthe field, had always to be reckoned with. This reluctance to sacrificethem is beautifully expressed in such ancient ballads as those on thedeath of King Arthur.

Armour was moreover specially devised by will to be kept as heirlooms.Grose in theAntiquities states that Thomas Beauchamp, Earl ofWarwick in the time of Henry IV., left to his son Richard by will thesword and coat of mail said to belong to the celebrated Guy, Earl ofWarwick, he having received them as an heir-loom from his father. SirThomas Poynings, in 1369, devised to his heir the helmet and armourwhich his father devised to him. It also became penal to make awaywith armour. Enactments, such as that of 1270, commanded that allarmour was to be viewed and kept in safe keeping under good securitynot to be let go, for the king’s use at reasonable valuation. The custom,which prevailed extensively, of leaving the undertaker to provide propertyhelmets and arms in place of those the departed had himself used, alsotended to lessen the interest of even the arms which yet remain. That thehelmet of Henry V. was provided by the undertaker is well known, andthat he continued to provide arms down to Elizabeth’s time, is shownby accounts of funerals such as of Lord Grey de Wilton in 1562, when[Pg 9]among the items of the undertaker’s bill are a “cote of arms,” bannerand bannerolles, a “helmett of stele gylt with fyne golde,” with a crestgilt and coloured, a “swerde with the hyltes, pomell, chape, buckle, andpendant, likewise gylte, with a gurdle and sheathe of velvet.” Thiscustom of substituting spurious insignia at the solemn interment of thedead was set by the Church, who consigned mock croziers and chalices ofno intrinsic value to the graves of even the most exalted prelates. Butof the true and the spurious armour alike, time, rust, and above all,changes of religious sentiment in regard to the churches, have sparedlittle besides an occasional helmet. The claims of neighbouring magnates,to the custody of what they regard as family relics, the temptation tosell, and lack of interest, have further sadly reduced this residue withinthe present century.

Yet neglect and depredations notwithstanding, the preservation ofnearly all the English fighting helms known, from the time of the BlackPrince to that of Henry VIII., and of many swords of early date, is dueto their having been deposited in churches. Other magnificent fourteenthand even thirteenth century swords owe their preservation to theirinclusion in the insignia of Municipal Corporations. Lincoln, Bristol,Kingston on Hull, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Southampton, Gloucester, Hereford,Exeter, Chester, Coventry, are among the cities still possessingthese interesting relics.

If our national collections are less imposing than those of Spain,Austria, Italy, France, and Germany, the enthusiasm of wealthy amateurshas made this country second to none in the richness of its privatecollections of European arms and armour.

Of collections commenced and handed down from the time thatarmour was still in use, by far the most important is the TowerArmoury. Its history can be gathered from Lord Dillon’s paper inthe fifty-first volume ofArchæologia, “Arms and Armour at Westminster,the Tower, and Greenwich.” The collection had its originin Henry VIII.’s passion for arms and armour, which was ministeredto by Continental sovereigns, especially Maximilian, who shared thistaste, and with whom he maintained a close friendship. His extensivearray of tilting and jousting suits was kept at Greenwich, and aninventory taken of them upon his death. They were not removed to[Pg 10]the Tower until perhaps 1644, though the armoury there was already,during the reign of Henry, one of the sights of London. The armsstored at Westminster were probably removed to the Tower as early asthe beginning of the reign of Edward VI. The armoury was no doubtregarded more as an arsenal for use, than in the light of a collection, andperhaps was drawn upon constantly until the Civil Wars, when it wasextensively depleted. Five of the Greenwich complete suits of HenryVIII. still exist, however, three mounted upon barded horses, as well asother pieces. The collection becoming on its removal a national one,several suits of distinguished nobles of Elizabeth’s reign, and some of theroyal armour of the Stuarts, were added. During the present centuryattempts to render it more complete have been made, by purchasingexamples of enriched foreign armour, and more especially of pieces illustratingthe armour of more ancient days. Many of the latter, however,are now pronounced to be spurious, and none of them are remarkable.

It appears that the Tower collection has been drawn upon, at somecomparatively recent period, for the decoration of Windsor Castle. Somehalf-dozen of the richest suits are now in the Guard Chamber. Arrayedin cases in the north corridor is a most extensive collection of magnificentweapons, many intimately connected with the history of the country, aswell as a matchless collection of oriental arms and armour, formed to alarge extent from the collection at Carlton House and added to by HerMajesty.

The Museum of Artillery in the Rotunda at Woolwich contains avaluable collection of armour and weapons, formed partly from theTower collection, and by judicious purchases. The series of Gothicarmour from Rhodes is very remarkable. There are also a few piecesin the Royal Artillery Institution not far distant, and a small part of thecollection has been placed in Dover Castle.

The British Museum contains a limited but choice collection, chieflybequeathed by Mr. Burges, of Mediæval and Renaissance armour, aswell as its unrivalled series of antique arms and weapons.

The South Kensington Museum also possesses a few interesting armsand weapons, besides collections deposited on loan.

The munificent bequest of the Wallace Collection has put the nationin possession of a superb series of armour only rivalled by that in the[Pg 11]Tower Armoury. It must unfortunately remain inaccessible, beingpacked away in cases until the rearrangement of Manchester House iscompleted; consequently none of its contents could be illustrated. Itcontains perhaps over 1200 specimens, without counting the Orientalarms, all of them choice and some unsurpassed. It is rich in Gothic, fluted,and highly decorated armour, and comprises a matchless series of swordsand other weapons. Of private collections in this country that arehistoric, the Earl of Warwick’s is undoubtedly the most interesting, partof it having been in the Castle from the days when armour was inconstant use. Besides the few almost legendary pieces, it claims tocontain armour of Lord Brooke, killed at Lichfield, of Montrose, thetarget of the Pretender, and Cromwell’s helmet.

Among the armour at Wilton House are the superb suits of theDukes of Montmorency and Bourbon, captured by the Earl of Pembrokeat the battle of St. Quentin, together with the suit worn by the Earl, andpictured in the Jacobe Album. With these are a good number of lancers’demi-suits marked with the family initial. The armour of the Earl ofCumberland, also figured in the Jacobe Album, yet remains in perfectpreservation in the possession of Lord Hothfield. The collection atPenshurst Castle comprises some good armour, including helmets andweapons of the Sidneys, its former owners. Sir Wheatman Pearsonpossesses the barded suit of fluted armour said to have been worn by aTalbot of Shrewsbury at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. Many otherancient seats still contain family armour, either relics of the Civil Wars, asat Littlecote and Farleigh Castle, or removed from the neighbouringchurch, or discovered in some attic, vault, or even well, as at Arundel.

The Armourers and Braziers Company possess one of the Jacobe suitsin their small collection; the Benchers of the Middle Temple own somearmour; and there are a few pieces in the United Service Museum inWhitehall. Mr. Leonard Brassey possesses a fine historic cap-à-pie suit ofthe hereditary challengers, the Dymoke family. Some of the CorporationMuseums, especially at Edinburgh, comprise examples of armour andweapons.

It is unfortunate that nearly all the notable private collections madewithin the present century have been dispersed, either on the death oftheir owners, or before. The Walpole, Bernal, Meyrick, Londesborough,[Pg 12]Shrewsbury, Coutts-Lindsay, Brett, De Cosson, and many other collectionshave been scattered far and wide under the hammer. The Warwick andothers have suffered severely by fire; and of collections made by the pastgeneration probably only that of Lord Zouche at Parham remains intact.

A great deal of armour is absorbed as decoration, not only insuch stately homes of the nobility as Arundel, Eaton Hall, Hatfield,Knebworth, but in private houses. Armour is also hidden away insmall and unknown collections, like two in the writer’s family, whichwould well repay careful examination. But undoubtedly the richesttreasures are in the collections of wealthy amateurs, like Mr. DavidCurrie, Sir Noël Paton, and above all in those of members of theKernoozer’s Club. It is impossible to convey, in a slight sketch, anyadequate idea of the wealth of armour in the country, the real extent ofwhich is as yet only to be surmised; but in spite of sales it is doubtlessincreasing yearly.

The fact cannot be ignored that, of all this mass of armour, verylittle has been made in England. By far the larger part was indeedcertainly made in Germany, a country devoted to metal-working fromthe earliest periods of its history.

The first dawning of anything like European reputation for the productionof arms and armour, since the collapse of the Roman Empire,was achieved by Germany. Owing to its political constitution, andperhaps extent and population, its towns were more enterprising inmediæval ages than ours, and acquired a name for particular manufacturesat a relatively early period. The necessity the trading townswere under of arming their citizens to defend their freedom and privileges,amidst the semi-independent princelings and nobles who kept armedretainers and combined to levy blackmail, induced many to take up themanufacture of arms in self-defence, for which they afterwards sought amarket among neighbours and abroad. In the thirteenth century, whenSt. Louis bore a German sword to the Crusades, the names of Cologne,Passau, Heilbronn appear almost simultaneously as seats famous for theproduction of lethal weapons. Cologne soon assumed the ascendency, atleast in English eyes, for its weapons are spoken of with respect in manyan early ballad. Thus the battle of Otterbourne is fought “with swordsof fyne Collayne,” and King Arthur’s sword hails from Cologne:—

The Duke of Norfolk having sent for armour out of Germany provesthat its armour was already regarded as of superior excellence in the timeof Richard II. German armour might have been used more largely inEngland and at an earlier period, but for want of sympathy, perhapsinherited from the Crusades. These, which knitted so many of theraces of Europe into close contact, happened not to promote anycamaraderie between Germany and ourselves. Their Crusades wereundertaken independently, or were ill-timed relatively to ours. Theunfortunate differences between Richard and the Archduke of Austria,which drained our country of so much gold and silver that even thechalices were melted, rendered Germany unpopular, and the feeling wasnot improved by the further great loss of treasure on the abortiveelection of Richard of Cornwall as Emperor. Princely intermarriageswere unable to effect a union of hearts, for the Kings of Almayne nevercome out well in contemporary poetry. Nor was the perpetual presenceof enterprising Hansa merchants in factories, such as the London Steleyard,calculated to promote good feeling, though introducing a largebulk of German goods into the country. Steel, itself a German word,was certainly amongst the imports, probably not only as a raw product,but manufactured into articles such as the “Colleyne clowystes” and“Cullen cleavers,” and possibly sometimes defensive armour as well.Until late in the fifteenth century, however, the differences between themilitary equipment of Germany and England is more marked thanbetween that of England and France, which country with the Netherlandsformed a natural barrier that only strong common interests wouldeffectively bridge. When bonds of trade began to knit peoples together,German armour, from its excellent quality, divided the market of theworld with Italy. The accession of Henry VIII. opened the Englishmarket wide to it, his ambition to again dismember France, his alliancewith Maximilian and relationship to Charles V. leading to distinctrapprochements. Natural inclination and political necessity stronglybiassed him in favour of his wife’s kinsmen, until his unhappy divorceleft him isolated.

Italy vied with Germany in the production of armour, Milan taking[Pg 14]the lead. Matthew of Paris heard, in 1237, from a credible Italian thatMilan and its dependencies could turn out 6000 men on iron-clad horses.An item in the inventory of Louis Hutin, 1316, is “2 haubergeons deLombardi”; and that of Humphrey de Bohun, in 1322, mentionsBologna “un haubergeon qu’est apele Bolioun.” Italian armourerswere established in Paris as early as 1332. Ancient British balladsabound in references to Myllan and Myllen steel. The Earl of Derby,afterwards Henry IV., sent to procure armour from Sir Galeas, Duke ofMilan, and when he had selected all he wished for in plated and mailarmour, the Lord of Milan ordered four of the best armourers in Milanto accompany the knight to England. In the fifteenth century Milan wasable, after the battle of Macado in 1427, to furnish within a few days 4000suits of armour for cavalry and 2000 for infantry. At a great Spanishtournament held in 1434, only Italian armour and weapons were permitted.Louis XI. and the Duke of Burgundy settled Italian armourersin their dominions. This king seized in 1481 a heavy convoy ofcuirasses, sallads, etc., packed in cotton to prevent them rattling andimitating bales of silk, on the way to the Duke of Brittany, giving themto John Doyac as a reward for their discovery. Monstrelet mentions thatthe Milanese gave corselets and other armour to the Swiss, with the finestpromises, before the battle of Marignano. Henry VIII. kept 1000Myllen swords for the tourney in the Tower, and sent to Milan topurchase 5000 suits of “almain rivets.” The most eloquent testimonyto the excellence of Milanese arms is, however, to be found in the pages ofBrantôme, a very keen observer on all matters military. Milan furnishedthe finest engraved and most elegant corselets forhommes de pieds“tant de M. de Strozzi que de Brissac.” “Ce genre de cuirasselegère eut la plus grande vogue à la cour de France”; and “on yapprouvoit fort les corselets gravés de Milan et ne trouvoit point que nosarmoriers parvinssent à la mesme perfection, non plus qu’aux morions.”Strozzi, insisting that his armaments should be Milanese, “pria voirequasy contraignit tous ses capitaines de n’avoir plus autres armes, tantharquebuses, fourniments, que corselets de Milan”: while Guise wishedhis infantry to be armed not with muskets, but good harquebuzes deMilan—“de bonne trampe pour ne crever.” Milanese armourers, likethe Gambertis, were enticed to Paris; Pompée a Milanese was selected to[Pg 15]teach the King fencing, and Maistre Gaspar de Milan is pronounced “lemeilleur forgeur qui jamais eut.” Brantôme further describes the troopson their way to relieve Malta, “portant sa belle harquebuze et son beaufourniment de Milan,” and adds, “car nous avions passé par Milan, oùnous nous estions accommodez d’habillements et d’armes si superbementqu’on ne scavait pour quelz nous prendre, ou pour gentilshommes,soldats, ou pour princes, tant nous foisoit beau veoir.”

Florence became later a great rival of Milan, and we find Wolseynegotiating with a Florentine for “2000 complete harness of Almaynerivettes at 16s. per set.” Brescia was famed for its steel, and probablysupplied the vast requirements of Venice, whose arsenals contained, inthe seventeenth century, arms for 800,000 combatants. Henry VIII.requested permission from the Doge of Venice, in 1544, to purchase 1500Brescian harquebuses, and over 1000 suits of horse and foot-armour.Pisa, Lucca, Mantua, Verona, Pistoja also produced armour and weaponsof high quality.

Spain, with the most abundant and accessible supplies of the finestiron ores in the world, celebrated for its weapons from the time of thePunic wars, and with the immeasurable advantage of commanding theservices of the Moorish steel-workers who were masters of the armourer’scraft, ought to have maintained the first rank as armourers of the world.It probably did for centuries supply its own requirements. We findthe Spanish warrior under James of Arragon, 1230, sheathed horse andman in mail, with his quiltedperpunto or pourpoint beneath, and theirongonio or breast-plate above; the iron greaves and shoes, helmet andshield. Thus equipped, the Christian rode down the Moslem by superiorweight of man, horse, and arms, the Moors dispensing with pourpointand breast-plate, and riding unarmoured horses. The helmets were ofZaragossa steel, and James’s “very good sword, lucky to those whohandled it,” was from Monzon and called Tizo, as the more celebratedsword of the Cid was called Tizona. The most dreaded weapon, however,at this time, was the windlass cross-bow, whose bearers weremounted and carried large shields.

Little of the Moorish armourer’s work has come down, though theyworked steel extensively in Toledo and Seville. No Hispano-moresqueswords exist of earlier date than the fifteenth century, and these have[Pg 16]richly-worked hilts in the Arab taste. A few Moorish helmets arepreserved, also of the fifteenth century, two of which, attributed toBoabdil, are in the Madrid armoury, and are also richly decorated in theArab manner. The fame of Moorish armour is preserved in the wordsMorion and Morris pike. The famed swords of Toledo did not obtainrenown until the Renaissance, and were not produced after the seventeenthcentury. Real Spanish armour appears very clumsy, and probablylittle, if any, was made much after the accession of Charles V. One ofthe latest suits in the armoury at Madrid is late Gothic in feeling, with atilting helm of Henry VII., and marked with the poinçon of the city ofValencia.

France is very much in the same position as England in regard toarmour, for no city in it ever established any permanent reputation as aseat of manufacture. Louis X. had a Toulouse sword—Louis Hutin’sinventory comprises mail from Chambly. Metz, Pignerol, Abbeville arementioned by Brantôme as producing armour inferior to Italian.Froissart speaks repeatedly of the excellence of Bordeaux weapons, but atthe time when Bordeaux was English. The same is true of the Limogessteel. But Paris must after all have been the metropolis of Frencharmourers. The description by Froissart of the battle of Rosebecque,fought in 1382, where the hammering on the helmets of the combatantsmade a noise that could not have been exceeded if all the armourers ofParis and Brussels had been there working at their trade, shows that thesecities were great centres for the production of armour. The names ofvery few French armourers have escaped oblivion, however; and Italianworkmen were employed in France from at least the time of Louis XI.Some beautifully decorated French armour exists, chiefly early seventeenthcentury, but in France, as in England, most of the armour wasprobably obtained from Italy and Germany, when once the superiority oftheir work was definitely established.

Netherlandish armour was always in high repute, and some of theBrussels armourers achieved European fame. It even set the fashion,as we read that Sir Gilbert Talbot, 1353, provided himself with “a curascomplete of Flanderis makyng of the new turn for £20.” Very fewspecimens that can be identified as Belgian or Flemish exist, however, incollections.

II
CHAIN MAIL

The immense antiquity of chain mail, and that it originated in the East,are the two facts beyond dispute in its history. Its fine-linked structureexposes, however, the maximum surface of the perishable iron to atmosphericdecay, and hence few specimens of great antiquity are known.The two shapeless masses of iron rust in the British Museum, brought fromNineveh by Layard, only reveal on close examination that they were oncesupple and glittering coats of mail. Whether these are to be assigned tothe Nineveh of Sennacherib or to the Sassanian period, they equally claimto be the oldest actual relics of chain mail in existence. The jacketssculptured on the Trajan column are unusually faithful and realisticrenderings of chain-mail armour, for the labour and difficulty of an exactreproduction of the minute and complicated repetitions of form intowhich the links of mail group themselves are generally evaded by avariety of conventional ways of expressing its texture.

The wearers of mail were nomadic horse—Persian, Parthian, andScythian, and inhabited a belt stretching obliquely from the Caspian inthe direction of Scandinavia, the mysterious and imperfectly knownamber trade perhaps keeping these peoples in touch. The Viking becameacquainted with mail and brought a knowledge of it to Western Europe;his descendants wore it in their expeditions to the East, completing thecircle when the mail-clad Crusaders under Cœur de Lion met the mail-cladhorse in alliance with the Saracens on the plains of Ascalon. Coatsof Eastern mail called gasigans, as told by Geoffrey de Vinsauf, formedpart of the spoils of victory taken by Richard, especially on the captureof the great caravan near Galatin in 1192.

Although an immense quantity of mail exists in collections at homeand abroad, it can as yet neither be dated nor located upon its intrinsicstructure. The links of the Viking suits discovered in the peat morassesof Denmark are as carefully formed as those from Persia or India of thepresent century. The fashion of the garment is the only guide, butwhether the mail is of the period of the garment, or older material madeup, cannot be determined. It continued to be used in the West until theseventeenth century, and to a much later time in Eastern Europe; andit is probable that no scrap of such a costly material was ever discarded.It was not passed on and absorbed by foot soldiers, who seem rarely tohave cared to use it.

The Norman hauberk did not open down the front, but was drawnover the head by the attendants just before the engagement commenced.Wace relates that Duke William’s mail was drawn on wrong side in frontin sight of the English. The Norman Duke is the only person representedwith leggings of mail in the Bayeux tapestry, and to the absenceof these Harold’s death and the fate of the day were directly due. Hisfirst wound was the turning-point of the battle, twenty Norman knightsbreaking in and securing the standard. An armed man, says Wace,struck him on the ventaille of the helmet and beat him to the ground,and as he sought to recover himself a knight beat him down again, cuttinghim on the thick of the thigh to the bone. Girth and Leofwine fell inthis onset. The manner of a death which sealed the fate of Englandmust have made a deep impression on the victors, and thenceforthmail chausses became an essential part of the knight’s equipment. Thatany genuine specimens of either the sleeveless or the long-sleevedhauberks of the eleventh or twelfth or even the thirteenth century havebeen handed down, is improbable. Many mail suits, however, have beenacquired in the belief that they were European, and of great antiquity, tothe disappointment of their owners, like those adorning the Hall of theMiddle Temple, which are modern Persian. One of the oldest, perhaps,is that said to have been found in making a road in Phœnix Park in1876, and alluded to inArmour in England. The oft-repeated statementthat it was found associated with a silver badge of the O’Neills has beenascertained by Mr. T. H. Longfield, F.S.A., to be baseless, the badgehaving been purloined from the ancient harp in Trinity College, Dublin,[Pg 19]on which it is now replaced. The hauberk, now in the writer’s possession,is of large size and reaches to the middle of the thighs, with short sleeves,and is exquisitely made. Mail shirts, sleeves, etc., of later date than thefourteenth century are far from uncommon, and are represented in everycollection. By the kindness of Sir Noël Paton a most perfect fourteenthcentury specimen is illustrated. It is close fitting, and was exhibited in1880, and described by Burgess as “one of the few coats of mail which[Pg 20]have any decided history.” In Meyrick’sCritical Enquiry we are toldthat “it had been purchased by a Jew from an ancient family at Sinigaglia,near Bologna, in whose possession it had been beyond any of theirrecords.” A note further informs us that “the Jew bought it by theounce and paid for it forty guineas.” Sir Samuel Meyrick observes thatit corresponds to the coat of mail on the statue of Bernabo Visconti atMilan. It may be described as a single coat of mail with no slits and noreinforcement. It measures 2 feet 9 inches from the top of the collar,and has sleeves which are 10 inches long from the armpit. “It is widerat the bottom than at the waist, two gussets being inserted for this purpose.The rings average a good half-inch in their interior diameter; half areriveted and half are continuous, the latter have a pear-like section, therounded parts being on the inside circumference. The riveted ringsappear to have been made of circular wire, but have become ratherflattened, probably by wear. The rivets are of the pyramid shape, likethose of the Dublin coat of mail, but much bolder and larger. There isa row of brass rings round the neck, and the bottom of the edge andsleeves are finished by vandykes, also in brass rings, riveted with iron.This is probably the finest coat of mail that has come down to us.” Oneof the figures guarding the Maximilian cenotaph wears a precisely similarhauberk. Italian pictures in the National Gallery show that the custom offinishing off mail defences with several rows of brass links, to form somesort of scolloped edging, was universal in Italy during the fifteenth andsixteenth centuries. French and English monuments and manuscriptsprove that this custom extended to Western Europe, thescolloped edge commonly showing over the tassets from beneath thepourpoint.

Vestiges of the camail are found on fourteenth century bassinets justas they are seen in the conical helmets from Nineveh and on the Trajancolumn. The standing collar or gorget superseded it.Fig. 2 reproducesa perfect specimen belonging to the Royal Artillery Institution atWoolwich, of exquisite work, with the links round the throat reinforcedor doubled. Though gorgets of plate were introduced as early as 1330,many still preferred to wear the mail, so that they continued more orless in use for two centuries longer. Mail was generally worn bright.In the fourteenth centuryAnturs of Arthur we read:

An early fourteenth century stanza, the 39th of the “Armynge of KingArthur,” suggests that the surcoat over mail was to keep off rain andnot sun. The colour green was almost universally used from the reignof King John.

For a brief period in the sixteenth century, mail was again wornwithout plate armour. The custom was revived in Italy when assassinationwas rife, and is seen in portraits of Italian noblemen in the NationalGallery.

The costume of the unfortunate Wyatt on his rebellion is describedin the chronicles of Jane and Queen Mary as “a shert of mayll withsleves, very fayre and thereon a velvet cassoke and an yellowe lace withthe windelesse of his dag hanging thereon, and a paire of botes andspurres on his legges; on his hedd he had a faire hat of velvet withbroade bonne-work lace about it.” Soon after a “shippe laden withshertes of mayll” was brought in by Strangwyshe the Rover, “who camefrom the French king and submitted to the Queen’s mercy.” The[Pg 22]celebrated duel between Jarnac and La Chateigneraye was fought in shirtsof mail.

In the Scottish wars of Edward I. it was a common saying that“arrows can penetrate the hardest mail”; and more efficient armourhad to be devised. Simon de Montfort, standing like a tower andwielding his sword with both hands, was pierced in the back by a footsoldier who lifted up his mail. The hero died with “Dieu merci” on hislips; not the only victim who met his death in this manner. Thechange in the fashion of armour was hastened by such events. Theprocess has already been traced: it began at the knee-caps, which werecovered by plates called poleyns. Three actual and perfectly uniquespecimens of these, belonging to Sir Noël Paton, show that they werenot laid upon or over the mail, but replaced it, as represented in monumentaleffigies. One pair with parallel sides is finely embossed andvandyked, closely resembling those of some early fourteenth centuryeffigies. A globose example formed of three articulated plates is stillmore interesting, having been richly damascened with an arabesque designworked in thin brass lines, the field being delicately and closely cross-hatchedwith incised lines. The really remarkable and unexpectedsurface decoration this discloses explains the nature, and confirms theaccuracy, of certain fourteenth century representations of black armourcovered with fine gold arabesques. The cross-hatching served to retainthe black pigment, and gave a dark cast to the steel surface, enhancingthe value of the delicate brass inlay.

The process of reinforcing the mail defence was continued, as we haveseen, until it was entirely cased with an outer shell of plate. A quiltedcoat was worn beneath the mail, if not a second one between the mail andplate armour. These multiplied defences must have made active fightingdifficult and most fatiguing, and were discarded so soon as a light armourof fine steely quality, and without crevices, was procurable.

III
GOTHIC ARMOUR

Plate armour reached the perfection of workmanship in the second half ofthe fifteenth century. At no period was it so light, yet impervious, withcurves and angles so admirably directed to deflect the impact of swordor lance, and articulations so skilfully devised to mitigate the restrainton freedom of movement necessarily imposed by a sheathing of steel.Never was armour so closely fitted to the contour of the body, and thusso elegant, so easily and therefore so constantly worn. This, theso-called “Gothic Armour,” is the cynosure of collectors, and is sorarely to be obtained that a fairly perfect cap-à-pie suit may commandsome £2000.

This Gothic armour is the armour of the Van Eycks and Memling,of Perugino and Leonardo, and of the earlier works of Albert Dürer.The sumptuously illuminated French and English manuscripts of thefifteenth century depict it in use in every vicissitude of war or combat,by sea and land, on horse and foot, and testify how little it impeded thefreedom of action of the wearer. They show that it was rarely concealedin campaigning by any textile garment, and also that when worn byprince or noble, it might be gilded, entirely or partially, even almostfantastically. Thus the upper half may be gilt, and the nether limbs leftburnished steel; or these gilt and the body steel; but more often thealternate plates of the articulated breast and back defences, the arms, orthe elbow and knee pieces, are gilt, while the rest presents the normalsheeny surface of steel.

The general characteristics of Gothic armour have been described inArmour in England, illustrated inFig. 19, by the fine and accurately[Pg 24]modelled suit of the Beauchamp effigy at Warwick. Though many finesuits have been brought to this country from abroad, none are in any wayconnected with English wearers, and none could therefore be illustratedin the former monograph. It seems incredible that nothing should havebeen preserved either of the weapons or armour with which the longstruggle for supremacy in France was maintained during the minorityand rule of a king, too studious and placable for days when his turbulentsubjects cared only for war. Of the armour and weapons of the thousandsof men-at-arms who fell victims to the Wars of the Roses, the directoutcome of the disappointing issue of the French Wars, and so annihilatingto English art, perhaps but a helmet and a few weapons remain.The extermination of the old nobility; the completeness of the changein habit and thought introduced into this country by the Renaissance,affecting alike art, literature, and costume; the change in religion, therevolution in the science of warfare, and the absolute centralisation ofthe ambitious and luxurious nobility in the court or camp of Henry VIII.,together with that vainglorious and wealthy despot’s passion for extravagantdress, novelty and pomp, combined to break most effectually withthe past and to render all Gothic armour mere obsolete lumber. Contemporarypictures of Henry VIII.’s proceedings, especially of his meetingwith Maximilian, in which the English retinue is equipped in the newclosed armet while Germans wear the old visored sallad, as well as theaccounts of his forces and his purchases of arms, convince us that out-of-datearmour and weapons, even if still serviceable, were no longer, asheretofore, passed on to the lower ranks of retainers. Hall relates ofthe muster of the city bands in the thirty-first year of Henry VIII. that“all were put aside who had Jackes, coates of plate, coates of mail, andbryganders, and appointed none but such as had whyte harness, exceptsuch as should bear the morish pykes, which had no harness but skulles.”The destruction of obsolete armour in this reign must have been verycomplete, for no suits of the Gothic armour worn down to this dateby the fathers and grandfathers of the courtiers of Henry have beenpreserved.

France and the Low Countries have been swept nearly as bare, anythingthat might have been spared by former ages having been finallydestroyed when the houses of the nobility were gutted during the[Pg 25]Revolution. In more conservative Italy and Spain a few Gothic suitshave escaped destruction, and though the Art Renaissance of the one,and wealth and pride of the other, were inimical to the preservation ofobsolete arms, yet probably some few specimens have passed from thehands of private possessors into those of wealthy amateurs of France andEngland. Germany, however, has ever been the inexhaustible treasure-housewhence Gothic arms and armour have leaked from the hands ofprivate possessors into those of collectors. In Germany even the tradingtowns had clung to their ancient buildings, walls, and traditions, and inmany of the old Town Halls the furniture, arms, and weapons of thecivic guards, and the old implements of punishment and torture, are stillpreserved. The innumerable feudal castles of the lesser nobility have toa yet greater extent preserved the belongings of their ancient occupants,who clung to their titles, heraldry, arms, and weapons as symbols ofvanishing rights and power, and of ancient pretensions and privileges, soout of harmony with the world beyond. The ubiquitous and assiduousdealer has long found in them a happy hunting-ground for arms andweapons, whence to obtain the bulk of those he disposed of.

In addition, some important stores of Gothic armour have been disgorgedfrom the Levant, trophies of the incessant wars maintained by theTurks against Christendom. A large quantity existed at Constantinople,and the story goes that a ship, some fifty years ago, was actually freightedto Genoa with old armour as ballast. The indefatigable dealer Pratt ofNew Bond Street became possessed of some of this armour, which hemade up into suits in the best way he could, restoring but too liberallythe parts that were missing. The suit illustrated,Fig. 3, is in LordZouche’s collection at Parham, where it is catalogued as from the Churchof Irene at Constantinople: it no doubt formed part of this consignment.The head-piece, an Italian sallad, is of later date, while the remainder,though so beautiful in form, does not appear to be either entirely homogeneousor complete. Other suits in Lord Zouche’s extensive collectionare from the same source. Another much smaller series of Gothic armourwas brought to England from the Isle of Rhodes and most fortunatelydid not pass through the hands of any dealer, and is thus in an absolutelytrustworthy condition, the very rust not having been removed.It consists of a number of pieces, approximately of one date, many of[Pg 26]particular elegance and interest, both on account of the armourer’s marks,and the examples of engraving they present.

By the kindness of Sir Noel Paton two of his four fine Gothic cap-à-[Pg 27]piesuits are illustrated. The first, Figs. 4 and 5, is German work ofthe second half of the fourteenth century.

Sir Noël observes that “the upper part of the suit especially isremarkable for its perfect condition, the original straps being intact, and[Pg 28]the inner and outer surface of the metal having been scarcely touched byrust.” The graceful and doubly articulated and engrailed breast andback-plates are beautifully designed, and finished in the manner of thegreat master armourer Lorenz Colman of Augsburg. The curiously plaincollar is attached to the pectoral by a bolt and staple, and there is a fixedlance-rest, these appliances adapting the suit for tilting rather than war.There are no tuilles, one of the most persistent features of Gothic suits,and no pauldrons or shoulder-guards. The brassards, coudières, genouillières,formed of an unusual number of plates, and especially thegauntlets, are of great beauty, and resemble those of Lorenz Colman’ssuits. These and thesolerets à la poulaine retroussé, to quote Sir Noël’sdescription, “are exceptionally beautiful and artistic in design. Of thesollerets, however, unfortunately only the left, with its fine, long-neckedspur silvered and thickly patinated, is genuine.” “The head-piece is astrong bassinet of the type styled barbute by Viollet le Duc, and possiblyof somewhat earlier date, and bears on either side the armourer’s mark.”The fine preservation of the metal “is due no doubt to the fact thatthe suit had remained for many generations in one place—an old mansionin the northern Tyrol, whence so late as 1872 or 1873 it was obtainedby a well-known Parisian dealer, from whom it passed to Pratt of NewBond Street; after whose death it came into my hands.”

The second of Sir Noël’s suits (Fig. 6), of about the same date,resembles more the armour of Italian pictures and actual Italian suits.The articulated and channelled breast-plate is remarkably bold and gracefulin its lines, as are the entire brassards, more especially the coudières. “Thespiked rondelles and the gauntlets have much picturesque character, and thetuilles are exceptionally fine in form. The sollerets are of the kind calledarc tiers point. The head-piece is a close helmet of good design and apparentlycontemporary.” In general effect the armour is light but dignified:though the breast-plate bears a Gothic R, no history attaches to it.

The great interest and beauty of the Parham suit,Fig. 3, lies in theparticularly elegant and finely laminated and engrailed breast and back-plates.Like Sir Noël’s German suit, it has no tuilles and retains thestaple for fastening the collar and the lance-rest. The sollerets andperhaps some other pieces are restorations. It is without armourer’smarks, but resembles Nuremberg work in general form and detail.

Two magnificent Nuremberg Gothic cap-à-pie suits are in the WallaceCollection, at present inaccessible. One is on foot, partly fluted, consistingof sallad with movable visor, mentonnière, jointed breast and back-plate,and quite complete body armour with pointed-toed sollerettes, and skirt[Pg 30]of riveted mail. The other, for man and horse, is equally complete andornamented with brass bands, the sallad with visor and mentonnièrebeing of fine form and contemporary.

For suits of Gothic armour which have belonged to known wearers, andhave been handed down with unbroken pedigree, we must go to the greatcollections of Europe, and especially to those which, like the Viennese,were commenced while armour was still worn. Of sculptured representationsof Gothic armour none surpass the Beauchamp effigy at Warwick.A no less accurate figure is that by Peter Vischer, also in gilt bronze,of Count Otto IV. of Henneburg, 1490, from the Church of Romhild inThuringia. There is a cast of this in the South Kensington Museum, aswell as one of the gilt bronze effigy of Count Weinsberg at Munich, inarmour which is remarkable in several respects. Italian Gothic armour ofdifferent periods can best be studied in the National Gallery. A suit(Fig. 7) of about the close of the century is from one of the compartmentsof the famous altar-piece by Perugino, removed from the Certosa atPavia in 1786, and painted according to Vasari about 1490. It representsSt. Michael in full armour, except the head. The underlying mail shows,as usual in Italian pictures, at the elbows, the skirt, and below the knees,and has a deep edging of brass rings. The breast-plate, though in two, isarranged so that the body could not easily be bent. The shoulder-guardsare less exaggerated than in contemporary French and English armour,but the elbow-guards seem large, angular, and loosely fitting. Thesollerets are well made, unpointed, and leave the red stocking exposed atthe toe and heel. The sword, on the left hip, is in a velvet scabbardwith a beautifully and simply worked steel hilt and cross quillons slightlycurved towards the blade. The shield is fine in form and typicallyItalian, bearing a Medusa’s head and other classic ornaments, boldlyembossed. The hands are bare, the right holding a slender staff or wand.In the figure of St. William by Ercole di Giulio Cesare Grandi of Ferrara,the head is bare and there are no plate defences to the neck, shoulders, orforearms. The top of the mail shirt shows as a narrow band round thethroat, and covers the shoulders with short and very wide-open sleeves, itslower edge appearing between the tuilles over a second skirt of mail.Mail appears again below the knees and forms the covering of the feet,all edges being finished with rings of brass as usual. The breast-plate is[Pg 31]large, plain, and of one piece; there are but three taces, with bold, finelyformed, and ridged tuilles. The brassards, including the large butterfly-shapedcoudière, appear from beneath the widely open sleeves of mail.The leg armour is also plain, but with the wings of the genouillières exceptionallylarge. The sword, unsheathed, is a magnificent weapon with giltor brass pommel and grip and horizontally curved quillons. The strikingfigure of St. George by Pisano, in the broad-brimmed Tuscan hat, is[Pg 32]of earlier date, as the artist died in 1451 or 1452. The mail showsbeneath a thick quilted surcoat over which the great ill-fitting shoulderand other body defences are fixed. The limbs are almost completelysheathed in plate over the mail, but the pieces fit so loosely that thewhole has a shambling appearance and seems ready to fall off. Thesollerets are square-toed with long rowelled spurs. The armourrepresented in Boccacino’s Procession to Calvary is almost identical, savethat the mail sleeves are less baggy and shoulder pieces are worn. TheSt. William in Garofalo’s Madonna and Child from Ferrara, thoughprobably painted in the 16th century, preserves the exaggerated butterflywings to the coudières and genouillières, and the Gothic tuilles, but hasfluted sollerets and shows no mail. The St. Demetrius of L’Ortolano, whopainted in the first quarter of the sixteenth century, shows fluted shoulderpieces and coudières, and half sollerets, leaving the front of the foot to adefence of mail.

The most interesting picture in the National Gallery (Fig. 8) to thestudent of armour, however, is that representing the battle of Sant’ Egidioby Uccello, fought in 1416, when Carlo Malatesta, Lord of Rimini, andhis nephew Galeazzo, were taken prisoners by Braccio di Montone.Uccello was born in 1397 and died in 1475, but there is no evidence as tothe year in which the picture was painted. It appears to represent anattempt to rescue the Lord of Rimini, by a knight clothed cap-à-pie in veryadvanced plate armour and wielding a horseman’s hammer. The breastand back plates are articulated; tuilles, where worn, are very short; thelarge pauldrons are of very varied construction, and either roundels orcoudières with butterfly expansions are worn indifferently; in all casesthe figures are completely cased in plate armour, though some wear mailgorgets, except that Malatesta has been partly disarmed and is protectedby mail alone. De Commines observes that it was the law of arms inItaly to strip those taken to their shirts and dismiss them. The chiefinterest lies in the head-pieces, which, except in the cases of the prisonersand some trumpeters, are closed armets with baviers and visors hingedat the side, of varied form, the occularia being in all cases notched outat the upper margin of the visor and forming either round or half-roundholes or slits. These armets are provided with most fantastic crestsand plumes, the crown of the helmet being in several cases covered with[Pg 33]
[Pg 34]
[Pg 35]velvet, overlaid with goldsmith’s work and merging into the crest. Allhave the roundels at the back of the neck.

Another notable representation of an Italian battle (Fig. 9), in whichthe mounted combatants are clothed in complete typical Gothic armour, isto be seen in the cast from the Visconti Tomb of the Certosa, Pavia, inthe South Kensington Museum. The armour is of the most beautifultype, and the figures are singularly supple and full of action. The armetis more fully developed and almost uniform in type. The visor works on[Pg 36]pivots, the occularium is a slit above it, and the bavier is a separate piecefastened by straps at the back. The event represented is the battle beforeBrescia in 1402. As a full-sized representation of the latest Italian Gothicarmour nothing can perhaps be finer than the fifteenth century effigy ofGuidarello Guidarelli surnamed Braccioforte from Ravenna, of which thereis also a cast in the South Kensington Museum. The tuilles are flexibleand pointed, formed of narrow horizontal plates; the shoulder-plates arebossed into lions’ heads; and the armet has a double visor without bavier.

The statue of St. George, made by Donatello for the Florentine corporationof armourers in 1416, is almost Roman in costume and of littleinterest.

The account of the almost contemporary battle of Fornovo, 1495, byPhilip de Commines bears testimony to the excellence of this Italianarmour, especially of the close armets. The flower of the allied forces ofItaly consisted of 2500 men-at-arms under the Marquis of Mantua,Count di Cajazzo, and Signor John Bentivoglio of Bologna, with othernobles, all well barded, with fine plumes of feathers and bourdonasses,or hollow lances, brightly painted, and used in tournaments. Greatbodies of men-at-arms were in reserve. The French van contained 350men-at-arms, 200 mounted crossbow-men of the king’s guard—whofought on foot, however—300 archers and 3000 Swiss foot, several of thehighest nobility dismounting to fight amongst them. In the main bodywere the king’s guards, pensioners, 100 Scottish archers, about 900men-at-arms, and 2500 Swiss, the whole army not exceeding 9000 men.The Italian men-at-arms delivered a charge, with lances couched, at agentle gallop; the Estradiots, who should have supported them withtheir scimitars, retired to plunder the sumpter-horses; whereupon themen-at-arms who had charged and broken their lances fled, and theirinfantry gave ground. Those who had not charged also threw awaytheir lances and fled, sword in hand, and were pursued and cut up.With the French were “a great number of grooms and servants, whoflocked about the Italian men-at-arms, when they were dismounted,and knocked most of them on the head. The greatest part of themhad their hatchets (which they cut their wood with) in their hands, andwith them they broke up their head-pieces, and then knocked out theirbrains, otherwise they could not easily have killed them, they were so[Pg 37]very well armed; and to be sure there were three or four of our mento attack one man-at-arms. The long swords also which our archersand servants wore did very good execution.” The losses on the Frenchside were but three gentlemen, nine Scottish archers, twenty horse of thevanguard, and some servants. The Italians lost 3500 men on the field,of whom 350 were men-at-arms, including six or eight of the Marquisof Mantua’s relatives and other persons of quality. The lances “layvery thick upon the field, and especially the bourdonasses; but theywere good for nothing, for they were hollow and light, and weighed nomore than a javelin, yet they were finely painted.”

Battles in England were much more serious affairs and were stubbornlycontested. Those of the Wars of the Roses opened with a cannonade,after which the archers engaged and the billmen followed, nobles fightingon foot in their ranks to encourage them. Lord Richard Herbert“twice by fine force passed through the battaill of his adversaries,” atBanbury, “polle axe in hand”: at the battle of Towcester many weretaken because they left their horses and decided to fight on foot. TheEarl of Warwick dismounted at Barnet to “try the extremity of handstrokes”; but penetrating too far among the enemy to encourage his men,and not being properly supported, he was slain.

At Bosworth the archers formed the forward on both sides. Richard’sarchers “with a sodein clamour lette arrowes flee at theim. On the othersyde they paied theim home manfully again with the same. But whenthey came nere together, they laied on valeauntly with swordes.” TheEarl of Oxford, however, kept his men in close order, and the enemy gaveway, wholesale desertion sealing the fate of the battle. Henry was notengaged, but kept afar off “with a fewe companye of armed menne.”Richard on horseback made a desperate attempt to get at him, but wasunsupported and slain.

The English costume is described in the Plumpton Correspondence,when the Archbishop of York, having dues to collect in 1441, quartered200 men-at-arms in Ripon and held it “like a towne of warre.” Theseborderers wore “breast-plate, vambrace, rerebrace, greves and guischers,gorgett and salett, long spears and lancegayes.” English levies werenot always so well armed. The 5000 men who came down from thenorth in the reign of Richard III. were “evell apparelled and worsse[Pg 38]harneysed in rustic harneys.” Under Henry VII. the Duke of Bedfordtook out “3000 mene which were harneysed but barely, for theyr bresteplates were for the most parte lether.” The array taken to Calais byEdward IV. in 1475 is in striking contrast to this. Hall relates that“the men were so well armed and so surely in all things appoynted andprovided that the Frenche naciõ were not onely amased to behold them,but much more praysed them and there order. In this army were 1500men of armes well horsed, of the which the moste parte were barded andrychely trapped, after the most galiard fashion, havyng many horsesdecked in one suyte. There were farther 15,000 archers beryngbowes and arrowes, of the which a greate parte were on horsebacke.There were also a great number of fighting men and others, aswell to set up Tentes and Pavillions, as to serve their Artilarie.”De Commines adds that the men-at-arms, comprising the flower ofthe English nobility, were richly accoutred after the French fashion,well mounted, most of them barded, and each one with several personsin his retinue.

This Gothic armour, the lightest and most graceful ever produced,was ideal so long as it was customary for men-at-arms to fight indifferentlyon foot or mounted. The mixed tourney was still in vogue, fought thefirst day with sharp spears, the second day with swords, the third on footwith poll-axes. The Lord Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy, and theDuke of Albany and Duke of Orleans fought such tourneys, the latterhaving the misfortune to kill his antagonist by a spear-thrust. It was,in battle too, most honourable to fight on foot among the archers, andthere was always a large number of gentlemen volunteering among themto “encourage the infantry” and make them fight the better. “TheBurgundians had learnt this custom from the English when Duke Philipmade war upon France during his youth for two-and-thirty years togetherwithout any truce.” De Commines adds that at Montlhéry the orderwas given to the Burgundians that every man should alight without anyexception. Knights equipped by the most renowned of the armourersof Italy and Germany were almost invulnerable until overthrown; butEnglish and Burgundian armour was not an equal protection, as the rashDuke of Burgundy, who seems to have had all his armour home-made atDijon or Hesdin, discovered to his cost on the field of Nancy, when his[Pg 39]skull was cloven by a halberd, and two pike-thrusts penetrated the lowerpart of his body.

This fashion of armour appears to have been devised in the ateliersof the Missaglias of Milan. A work by Wendelin Böheim, custodianof the Imperial collections of armour in Vienna, published last yearin Berlin (Meister der Waffenschmiedekunst vom xiv bis im xviii Jahrhundert),gives a short biographical sketch of this renowned family ofarmourers, who migrated to Milan towards the middle of the fourteenthcentury, from Ello, a village not distant from Asti and Lake Lecco.Petrajolo da Missaglia, the founder of the family, settled in Milan as anarmourer towards the middle of the fourteenth century, and built thehouse in the Via degli Spadari where his sculptured poinçon or armourer’smark is still to be seen. The work of his son Tomaso da Missagliagreatly augmented the already world-wide reputation of the armour ofMilan, and deserved in 1435 the recognition of Filipo Maria Visconti, whofreed him in 1450 from taxes until his death somewhere about 1469.The armour by him is plain, the best known being that at Vienna ofthe Palsgrave Frederick the Victorious about 1450, with closed helm,roundels, unfingered gauntlets, and pointed sollerets over 13 inches inlength. The suit is less graceful than German Gothic armour. Theequally renowned son of Tomaso, Antonio, was born about 1430, assistingin his father’s extensive business at the age of twenty. Large commissionswere received, such as that in 1466, of the value of 20,000 lire, for 100harness for the ducal mercenaries, and others from Duke Francesco, thePope, Don Alfonso of Arragon, afterwards King of Naples, etc. On hisfather’s death in 1469, their great patron the Duke presented him withan estate and mill, and in 1470 he added the iron mines near Canzo tohis patrimony. Soon after, in 1492, a Venetian envoy sent home anaccount of Missaglia’s works, finding finished harness to the value ofmany thousand ducats. His death took place near the end of thecentury; the exact date being unknown, like the name of his immediatesuccessor. There are mentions of several Missaglias about whom little isknown, one working in 1466 for Louis XI. Antonio was the last tobear the name of Missaglia, succeeding members of the family assumingthat of Negroli, a name first met with about 1515, when a GiovanniNegroli appears as master of the works. The tomb in St. Satyro, Milan,[Pg 40]preserves the inscriptionNegroli da Ello qualunque detto Missaglia.Few examples of Antonio’s work are known. One of these, a plainsuit made for the Neapolitan Count Cajazzo about 1480, is in theVienna Imperial collections. The breast and back plates are not articulated,the pauldrons and tuilles are large and massive, coudières elegant,only the right gauntlet fingered, the leg-pieces with few articulations, andthe suit, as so often seen in illustrations, is minus the sollerets. Thehead-piece is a sallad singularly painted in oils with the Count’s armorialbearings, reminding us of the beautifully painted armour of Pisano’s St.George published by the Arundel Society, which must have been executedprior to 1450. A jousting suit by him of much later date is engravedand partly gilded, apparently made in 1498 for an envoy of LudovicoMoro to the Emperor Maximilian.

Italian Gothic armour is very much rarer than German. Thoroughnessis a German characteristic, and once embarked on a given course theGerman pursues it until, as is so apparent in their general iron-work, theresult becomes exaggeration verging on the grotesque. The Missagliasintroduced a certain grace of line into Milanese armour, and the Germanarmourers pursued this vein, making the figures erect and slender and imbuingthe waist and bust with womanly elegance. The Italians probablykept to much the same lines, for most representations of armour towardsthe third quarter of the fifteenth century display the same graceful characteristics,brought to a pitch, however, but little consonant with the sternrealities of war, and brusquely set aside before the close of this century.

One of the most formidable of Missaglia’s competitors north of theAlps was Hans Grünewalt, born about 1440 and died 1503, regarded byBöheim as one of the foremost armourers of his day. The founder of thebells of St. Sebaldus in 1396, Heinrich Grünewalt, appears to have beenthe grandfather of a family which became considerable in Nuremberg,building the still standing Pilatus House, properly the “Zum geharnischtenMann.” Hans was employed by Maximilian when King of the Romans,and no armourer in Germany was more sought after. While he flourishedNuremberg was the most renowned of any city of Germany for theproduction of armour, but on his death Augsburg was allowed to entirelysupplant it.

The Colman family migrated from Bâle to Augsburg about 1377,[Pg 41]to again quote from Böheim. Georg, the father of Lorenz, was wellestablished as an armourer when he was joined in 1467 by his famousson. In 1477 they were honoured with a commission from Maximilian,then King of the Romans, for a complete harness for horse and man, whichwas executed to his entire satisfaction. Georg died two years later. In1490 Lorenz was appointed Court Armourer, and he had prospered so faras to be able to afford pecuniary assistance to the ever-needy Maximilian.Towards 1506 he worked for the Court of Mantua, receiving throughthe house of Fugger a payment of no less than 4000 florins for a harnesswhich gave such satisfaction that a further sum was sent him as a present.In 1507 Maximilian again employed him, and in 1508 begged him torepair personally to Court, when probably the important change in thefashion of armour, resulting in the Maximilian fluted armour, was devisedpersonally between Lorenz and himself. The first edition of HansBurgkmair’s woodcut engraving of the Emperor in a full suit of thisarmour for horse and man appeared in this same year. Lorenz died in1516. The only authentic suits by him known to Böheim are in theImperial collections of Vienna. One is the magnificent Gothic suitmade in 1493 for Maximilian, a far more complete and defensive suitthan those we have figured, but with similar fleur-de-lis pattern engrailingto the margins of the plates, while some of the upper edges on the limbpieces are rolled over and finished with a cable border. The suit isgraceful and of exquisite workmanship, slightly fluted in the arms, withfingered gauntlets and moderately long and pointed sollerets. Three othertilting suits bear the Colman mark, the close-helmet surmounted by across, with the Augsburg badge and guild mark.

The Germans, however, as a race were not all lithe and supple men,and the burly high-living barons could not follow, and hence must havedetested the elegancies of Gothic armour. They soon affected an oppositeextreme, the clumsy sturdiness seen in so many of the portrait statues ofthe contemporaries of Maximilian round his cenotaph in Innsbrück.Fig. 10 represents a complete and characteristic suit of this kind belongingto Mr. Morgan Williams. It greatly resembles one figured by Böheim,made for Count Andreas von Sonnenberg about 1508, by Koloman Colman,and now in Vienna. Our suit, preserved in a Rhenish Castle, bears evidence,however, of being considerably earlier, and is regarded by its owner[Pg 42]as of about 1495. It is perfectly plain except for some slight fluting onthe mittened gauntlets, made to look as if fingered, and on the square-toedsollerets. The tuilles are still an important feature, but wide and plain.Some German suits of this date look affectedly ungainly; such as a[Pg 43]mounted suit attributed to Duke John of Saxony, which is slightly flutedand bears the great tilting helm.

The Maximilian fluted armour is a development of this, belonging,however, rather to Renaissance than Gothic times. With its introduction[Pg 44]the elegance so distinctive of late Gothic armour passed definitely out offashion and gave place to armour in which the opposite characteristicswere sought. The flutings which invest the Maximilian suits with somuch character must have been suggested more or less by the shell-likeridgings and flutes of Gothic armour. The leading idea was the substitutionof a stiff unyielding defence for one that was supple and pliable.The articulations of the breast and back plates—except in rare instances,such as the magnificent Nuremberg suit formerly worn by Lord Stafford, inwhich the breast-plate was formed of two pieces and decorated with gracefulopen-work tracery—were wholly abolished, and replaced by a stout andrigid pectoral more adapted to receive the shock of the lance in the tilt-yard.The form of tourney had changed, and was now chiefly tilting witha light and hollow lance, calculated to shiver at the impact, as may beseen in specimens still preserved in the Tower. The pliable Gothicsuits adapted for mixed tourneys and for actual warfare were out ofplace in the tilt as now practised; and the heavy man-at-arms in fullcap-à-pie armour had ceased to play the preponderating part in war andwas shortly destined to disappear from the field. No longer was hisfunction, as hitherto, to engage in the melée, and bear the brunt of thebattle: this was sustained by the pike, arquebus, light-armed cavalry andartillery; the heavy-armed cavalry being reserved for charges in whichthe weight of man and horse sheathed in steel might ride down theopposing force.

All the cap-à-pie suits of fluted Maximilian armour resemble eachother in their more salient characteristics. They are extremely defensiveand well made, with every piece more or less fluted, except the greaves,which are usually perfectly plain. Many of the pieces have turned-overedges worked into cable patterns. The pauldrons and coudières are welldeveloped, the gauntlets mittened, sollerets with very broad and squaretoes, breast-plate generally globose, but sometimes brought to a bluntpoint, often with a roundel guarding the left arm-pit. The armet hasusually a low central cabled comb with parallel flutes on either side,occasionally there are three or five combs. The visor is usually throwninto three or four horizontal peaks or ridges, often with the underhunglook believed to have been introduced in compliment to the House ofHapsburgh. An almost equally common form is the puffed visor, but[Pg 45]the form of the head-piece is generally more varied than that of the restof the suit. The fine Nuremberg suit,Fig. 11, owned by Mr. PercyMacquoid, shows the bellows visor and the rope crest, and in it all theleading characteristics of Maximilian armour are well displayed, especiallythe duck-bill sollerets, the flutings of which boldly finish in ram’s horns.[Pg 46]The suit formerly belonged to the King of Prussia, and seems to beperfect, except the collar, an apparent restoration.

Maximilian armour is greatly favoured by collectors. There arecap-à-pie and barded suits in the Tower and the Wallace collections, atWarwick, and in the collections of Mr. Panmure Gordon and SirWheatman Pearson. The horse armour, which nearly entirely sheathesthe head, neck, and fore- and hind-quarters, is fluted, gracefully curved,and except the crinière, worked in large pieces, the lower margins curvingwell away from the flanks. Three-quarter and half suits are well representedin the Tower and the Wallace collections, the one figured,Fig. 12,being a finely typical example brought from Strawberry Hill, and now[Pg 47]the property of the Duke of Westminster. This armour seems to havebeen at times partly gilded, and instances exist where small badges arerepeated to form bands of raised work between the flutes. It is sometimesengraved with borders of floral design, either edging the differentpieces, or more boldly treated as inFig. 13 from the Burges Collection inthe British Museum. Though mainly worn in Germany, fluted armourbecame everywhere the fashion, the portrait by Piero di Cosimo,Fig. 14, inthe National Gallery affording an admirable representation of a breast-platewith delicate flutes on the lower half. An actual specimen resembling this,[Pg 48]but engraved, is in the collection from Rhodes at Woolwich. Thecorselets furnished to the Swiss pike-men by the Milanese appear also tohave been of this pattern. Besides the bellows visor, and one puffedout to give breathing space and fluted, the visor was at times embossedinto the form of a grotesque face with mustachios. Sometimes thehelmets in which this occurs had a pair of fan-like appendages in piercedand fluted steel, forming a dignified and wing-like crest. The remarkableexample in the Tower,Fig. 15, once silvered, and presented byMaximilian himself to Henry VIII., has a pair of ram’s horns insteadof wings. It has since been painted and rendered more absurd byspectacles, and assigned without any reason to the King’s jester, WillSomers.

These grotesque helmets were sometimes worn with armour puffedand slashed to imitate civilian dress. A few pieces of this kind are inthe Tower, but the Wallace Collection possesses a three-quarter suit,slashed, puffed, engraved, and gilt, the armet having the bellows visorand five-roped comb. The extreme of exaggeration to which Germanarmourers were carried is seen in the suit in the Ambras Collection,figured by Hefner and by Hewett, in which the cloth bases as well asthe puffed sleeves of the civilian are carefully imitated in steel. The[Pg 49]
[Pg 50]
[Pg 51]visor is singularly grotesque, and the whole presents a ludicrous andungainly appearance, as well as being quite unserviceable.

The cap-à-pie suit of Henry VIII.,Fig. 16, belongs to this group, andthough not fluted, is made like the Maximilian armour, the high erectshoulder-piece and large coudières giving it a striking character. Thearmet is of fine form, with the visor thrown into the series of peaks andridges common to fluted armour, and known to collectors as the bellowsshape. The bridle-hand wears the mainfere (main-de-fer), while theright hand grasping the spear is gauntleted. The horse armour, thoughso boldly embossed, is of earlier date, not later than Henry VII. Thefoliated scrolls surround thecross ragulé and steel brickets and fire-stones,so that it probably presents a rare specimen of the Burgundian armourer’scraft.

The head-piece for tilting used in Germany and England during thereign of Henry VII. and first years of Henry VIII., and known a centuryearlier, is represented,Fig. 17, by the remarkably perfect specimen foundin the triforium of Westminster Abbey in 1869. It weighs 17½ lbs.,the few others known in England weighing, with one exception, considerablyover 20 lbs. When fixed, the helm itself was immovable, butas there were quite three inches of space round the head, movement insidewas possible. The occularium is placed so that the head must be lowered[Pg 52]to see out, the combatants sighting each other like bulls before makingtheir rush, and throwing up the head to escape splinters of the lance.

The abandonment of this heavy helm for a much lighter form mayhave been due to Henry VIII. himself. Hall narrates that tilting on oneoccasion in 1524, with his great friend and brother-in-law Brandon,Duke of Suffolk, he had on a helmet of a new fashion, devised by himself,the like of which had not before been seen. It had a visor, whichwas up and unfastened, leaving the king’s face exposed, when by somemischance the word was given to Brandon to start. No doubt in the oldhelm, and remarking that he could not see, he couched his lance, strikingthe king on the brow of the skull-piece or main portion of his helmet.Appalled at the narrow escape, he vowed he would never tilt with hissovereign more. One of the lighter forms of tilting helmet,Fig. 18,from Penshurst, shows the small trap-door for speaking or breathing, butnow riveted down. A second helmet,Fig. 19, of rather later date, issurmounted by the porcupine crest in wood, removed in the illustration,and is interesting as having belonged to the grandfather of Sir PhilipSidney. Both these helmets perhaps hung in Penshurst Church.

The sallad, the head-piecepar excellence of Gothic armour, continuedin use, especially in Germany, until far into the sixteenth century. Inits simplest form it was the archer’s head-piece: but provided with slitsfor vision, pulled over the brow in time of danger to meet the chindefence or bavier, it became almost a closed helmet; and with the further[Pg 53]addition of a visor and other reinforcing pieces, it was used for battle ortilting by the mounted knight. It was never a very safe head-piece, DeCommines relating how the Count of Charolois received a sword-woundon the neck at Montlhéry, 1465, for want of his bavier, “which, beingslightly fastened in the morning, dropped from his head in the battle—Imyself saw it fall.” The Venetian form survived during theseventeenth century, though for pageantry rather than use, being coveredwith red velvet richly ornamented with beaten iron foliage and scrolls,gilded and sometimes surmounted by a swan-like crest. The richness ofdecoration of the sallad has been alluded to in the former monograph.The battle picture by Paolo Uccello,Fig. 8, shows one covered with redvelvet and studded with nails. Elizabeth with her own hands garnishedthe sallad of Henry VII. with jewels, and in 1513 Erasmus Kirkenerreceived £462:4:2 for “garnishing a salet” and a head-piece, “andmending a shapewe.” Pope Pius V. sent Alva a sallad and sword for hisbrave fights for the Church. Wooden shields covered with painted canvas,embossed leather, or gesso, continued in use in Germany down to aboutthe end of the reign of Maximilian. The magnificent specimen,Plate I.,is now in the British Museum. Of late fifteenth century date, it is ofwood lined with leather, faced with canvas, over which a layer of gesso hasbeen laid to receive the gilding. Upon the gold ground the design hasbeen painted, a knight in Gothic armour, with armet and poll-axe on theground before him, kneeling to a lady, with the appropriate legendVousou la mort. The surfaces are finely curved. In the Tower inventory,quoted by Lord Dillon, among the jewels is a target of the Passion withOur Lady and St. George.

The splendid decoration of the sword-hilts used with Gothic armourhas already been noticed. By the kindness of Sir Noël Paton an exquisitespecimen in the finest preservation is illustrated inFig. 20. Thepommel and cross-hilt are plated with silver gilt, and the former bearsa shield with the arms of Battle Abbey and the initials T. L. of AbbotThomas de Lodelowe, 1417-1434. It came into the possession of SirJohn Gage, K.G., on the suppression of the monasteries, his descendantpresenting it to the Meyrick Collection. Few existing swords, exceptthose used as municipal insignia, are in equal preservation, but richlyworked hilts are represented in brasses and monuments. Swords[Pg 54]abounded in churches, but few are left besides the royal swords atWestminster, Canterbury, and Windsor. Part of the glamour surroundingJoan of Arc was due to the consecrated sword taken by her from St.Catherine’s Church at Tours. The sword of Guy, Earl of Warwick, wasspecially mentioned in a will of the time of Henry IV., and its custodyconfirmed to the family after the accession of Henry VIII. It is curiousto note that in 1319 the wearing of swords in London was forbidden, andthose confiscated were hung up beneath Ludgate, within and without.

The interesting sword,Fig. 21, from Her Majesty’s collection atWindsor, dates from about the end of the fourteenth or early in thefifteenth century. Its peculiarity is the semicircular guard for the forefingergrowing out of one of the quillons, the first step, as Baron deCosson remarks, “towards the evolution of the beautiful and complicated[Pg 55]rapier of the sixteenth century.” “The pommel and guard are of ironfully gilt, the grip of wood.” The blade is gilt and engraved for a fewinches where it shows dark in the illustration, and is inscribed with thename of the Cid Marchio Rodericus Bivar and a shield of arms, thesehaving been added, in the Baron’s opinion, in the sixteenth or seventeenthcentury. Only four swords with the little semicircular guard or “halfpas d’ane” were known when he described them, being introduced owingto the Italian custom of bending the forefinger round the quillon whenslashing.

IV
ENRICHED ARMOUR

Armour was enriched in almost all ages, sometimes ostentatiously so, andat other times left affectedly plain. It was, however, only when wearingit in battle ceased to be a paramount necessity, that armour definitelybecame little more than a mere vehicle for lavish display. Lightlyarmed and easily manœuvred troops and artillery were steadily becomingincreasingly important factors in deciding the fortunes of battle, andat last men could with difficulty be brought to undergo the fatigue ofcarrying weighty armour which they regarded as no efficient protection.Sir James Smith’s complaint in 1530 puts the matter clearly: “But thatwhich is more strange, these our new fantasied men of warre doo despiseand scorne our auncient arming of ourselves, both on horseback and onfoot, saying that wee armed ourselves in times past with too much armour, orpeeces of yron (as they terme it). And therefore their footmen piqueursthey do allow for very well armed when they weare their burgonets, theircollars, their cuirasses, and their backs, without either pouldrons, vambraces,gauntlets, or tasses.” This arming is even lighter than Mr.J. F. Sullivan’s picturesque Marauder of Picardie (Plate II.). The Battleof the Spurs perhaps did much to break the prestige of men-at-arms, whowere routed by one-tenth their number of English horse. The Frenchchivalry, armed cap-à-pie, came on in three ranks thirty-six deep, and weretargets as usual for the English archers, who lined a hedge, “and shotteapace and galled the French horse.” The English horse, and a fewmounted archers who had gone forward with spears, “set on freshly cryingSt. George,” whereupon the French fled, throwing away “speres, swordes,and mases,” and cutting the bards of their horses. The Estradiots[Pg 57]
[Pg 58]
[Pg 59]coming down in front of the French host caught sight of the Englishhorse, and mistaking the king’s battaille of foot for horse also, turnedand fled, chased by the Burgundians and Walloons; the main bodyof English, on foot with the king, having no opportunity of engaging.

The large proportion of mercenaries retained on either side contributedmore perhaps than anything else to the disuse of armour. Nicander Nuciusrelates that in Henry VII.’s expedition to Scotland there were “Italiansin no small number, and of Spaniards, and also moreover of Argivesfrom Peloponnesus.” In 1546 Lord Grey de Wilton brought his“Bullenoyes and Italian harquebuziers” from Boulogne. In invadingScotland two years later he divided “his menne of armes, demilaunces,and light horsemenne into troops, appointing the Spanish and Italianhagbutters on horsebacke to keepe on a wing.” Captain Gambo, aSpaniard, and others held command, and, “being backed by the Almaynefootmen, entered againe into Scotland.”

In proceeding to quell the insurrection in Devonshire, Lord Grey’sforces included, among other strangers, a band of horsemen “most partAlbanoyses and Italians,” and a band of Italian footmen under CaptainPaule Baptist Spinola of Genoa. These mercenaries armed themselvesin their own fashion and were not to be controlled. Nor does it appearthat the Tudor kings were anxious to put even their body-guards inanything like complete armour. Henry VII.’s guard consisted “of fiftyyeomen, tall personable men, good archers, and divers others.” A littlelater, on the marriage of Prince Arthur, the guard consisted of 300 carryinghalberts, in white and green damask, with garlands of vine embroideredback and front, richly spangled in front and enclosing a red rose workedin bullion and goldsmith’s work. Nicander Nucius says that “theyconsisted of halberdmen and swordsmen who used bucklers and Italianswords, so that resting the bucklers on the ground, they could dischargearrows.” Perkin Warbeck, posing as the “Whyte Rose Prince ofEngland,” had a guard of thirty in “Murray and blewe.” Henry VIII.appointed a guard of fifty “speeres” in the first year of his reign, eachto be attended by an archer, demilaunce, and a custrell, on great horses.They were so extravagantly dressed, “trapped in cloth of golde, silver, andgoldsmithes woorke, and their servants richly appareled also,” that “theyendured not long the apparell and charges were so greate.” They were[Pg 60]not reinstated until the thirty-first year of his reign. Edward VI.’sguard was 400 strong, all very tall, and dressed in crimson velvetdoublets embroidered with golden roses. In meeting Philip of Spainon his way to Winchester in 1554, Lord Arundel took 100 archers inyellow cloth striped with red velvet with their bows ready, Mary’scolours, however, being white and green.

The taste for sumptuous armour became definitely fixed on theaccession of Henry VIII. in 1509. Harding relates that, at the Coronationjousts, Brandon “turneyed in harneyes all over gylte from the heade-peeceto the Sabattons.” Hall devotes scores of pages to descriptions ofthe magnificence of Henry, especially in presence of rival potentates ortheir ambassadors. Before Terouenne, the weather being very foul,Maximilian and his retinue came to the rendezvous in black cloth, butHenry was attended by a large retinue extravagantly dressed, comprisinghis usual “nine henxmen” in white and crimson cloth of gold richlyembroidered with goldsmith’s work, on great coursers as richly caparisoned,with the addition of many gold bells, and “tassels of fyne goldin bullion”—these bore his helm; “the two grangardes,” his spears, axe,etc. He entered Terouenne as a conqueror in “armure gilt and graven”;and Maximilian set out on his return “toward Almaine in gilte harness,and his nobles in white harness and rich cotes.” On the occasion of theFrench ambassador’s visit to Greenwich, the king disported himself atthe “tilte in a newe harnesse all gilte of a strange fashion that had notbeen seen.” No less than 286 spears were broken. Charles V. is oftenrepresented in very richly embossed armour, and some of the suits madefor him, such as by the Colmans of Augsburg, show that these sculpturedand pictorial representations were not wholly imaginary.

It is not, however, until the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth that theculminating point of richness in armour is attained, when poems aboundin allusions to it. In Spenser’sFaerie Queen armour always glitterswith gold, and in Camoens’Lusiad there are “breast-plates flamingwith a thousand dyes.”

Little sumptuously decorated armour was made in England, the finestthat can claim to have been made here being five existing suits out ofthe twenty-nine in the Jacobe album. One only of these belongs to thenation, Lord Bucarte’s bequeathed with the Wallace Collection; the[Pg 61]
[Pg 62]
[Pg 63]opportunity of acquiring Sir Christopher Hatton’s, notwithstanding itshistoric interest, being hitherto neglected.

Of foreign armour the suits of the Dukes of Bourbon and Montmorencyat Wilton are spoils of victory, and others in the Tower andat Windsor were royal presents. The vast bulk of foreign armour in[Pg 64]the country, however, has been acquired by purchase, and of late years.Of small collections one of the least known is that made by the grandfatherof the Duke of Westminster, who purchased it from Sir HoraceWalpole. The light peascod breast-plate and tassets (Fig. 22), richlyengraved and gilt in bands, are probably German of about 1570, and thegauntlets of approximately the same date, while the close helmet is abouttwenty years earlier. The finely engraved and parcel-gilt breast-plate andtassets (Plate III.) are probably Italian, dating from about 1540. Adeep peascod breast-plate and tassets richly arabesqued with dolphins on a[Pg 65]
[Pg 66]
[Pg 67]blue ground, bears an engraved escutcheon with the figure of a porcupine,motto and date.

One of the most sumptuously decorated suits in the Tower, for longdescribed as that of the Black Prince, is reproduced inFig. 23. It islate Italian, much of it embossed with lions’ heads, etc., while the plainersurfaces are entirely covered with very delicate gold ornament on russetground. Detail of the damascening is shown inPlate IV.

Several of our illustrations are taken from Mr. David Currie’smagnificent collection, part of which is deposited in the South Kensington[Pg 68]Museum. Very little armour is finer in its way than the breast-plate(Fig. 24) formerly in the Bernal and Londesborough collections. Therepoussé work, designed in the best Italian taste of the sixteenth century,is enhanced by gold damascening on backgrounds gilt and inlaid withsilver. It is said to have been worn by Philip of Spain, the steelgauntlets (Fig. 25), of similar work, having perhaps formed part of thesame suit. It recalls one in Madrid presented to the Infant Philip III.by the Duke of Terranova. The finely embossed breast-plate (Plate V.),and gorget (Fig. 26), are French, but unfortunately no history attachesto them.

This extremely costly armour, with no defensive quality, was intendedfor parade rather than use, and an appropriate head-piece was alsoespecially devised for triumphal display. This was the casque, basedon classic models, which left the face entirely uncovered. Artists ofhigh renown, like Verrocchio and Pollajuolo, designed and worked uponthesecasques d’honneur, and the Negrolis, Colmans, and other famousarmourers vied with each other in their production. Superb examplesexist in the great national collections of Europe, but rarely find their wayinto private hands.Plate VI., not one of the finest examples, was formerlyin Lord Londesborough’s, and now in Mr. Currie’s collection. It hasa triple comb and plume-holder, and is believed to have formed partof the armour of an officer of the guard to Cosmo de’ Medici.

The casque passes almost insensibly into the more serviceable burgonet,a classic-looking helmet with ear-pieces and neck-covering, dear toSalvator Rosa and his contemporaries. This developed into the spider[Pg 69]
[Pg 70]
[Pg 71]helmet with bars to protect the face, and the open and barred helmets ofCharles I. and the Commonwealth.Fig. 27 represents an extremely richexample of the latter, made with cuirass and gorget in repoussé silver forCharles II. when prince. The defensive quality of the armet, not beingso purely consecrated to parade, was rarely impaired by embossing, andeven when made for monarchs, the decoration was mainly confined toetching and gilding. A rare form with double visor, five rope-like[Pg 72]combs, and bands of engraving, is illustrated (Fig. 28) from the collectionof Mr. Cozens Smith of Benyeo. The armet continued to be used bymounted officers until the middle of the seventeenth century, a picture ofRocroy, 1643, showing Condé in a hat, but his staff in visored helmets.One of the latest cap-à-pie suits, probably never worn, is that in theTower, richly worked and gilded all over, presented to Charles I. by theCity of London.

The high-combed morions and cabassets of the pikemen andmusketeers are generally richly etched in vertical bands, or coveredwith interlacing arabesques, which we gather, from numerous passages inBrantôme’s works, were usually gilt. Thus 4000 harquebuziers steppedout of the ranks asenfans perdus, at the call of Mons. d’Andelet “tousmorions gravez et dorez en teste.”

The buckler or target appears an archaic defence, but survived withus, sometimes in high favour like the sword, at others nearly obsolete,until the reign of James I., and in Scotland till recent times. It wasbanished while the Spanish rapier and left-handed dagger were in use.

The most magnificent targets were made solely for parade, and wereborne in front of princely personages by their esquires. The broadsurfaces they presented for decoration, and the esteem they were held in,induced even very great artists, like Giulio Romano, not only to designthem, but actually to work upon them. It is far from rare to find incollections of drawings by old masters, designs for shields, like thosesigned Polydore and B. Franco hanging in the corridors at Chatsworth.Under the Tudor and later Valois kings they were usually round andof steel, but sometimes elliptical, obovate, vesica-shaped, rectangular,and even heater-shaped, with painted arms. One of the finest everproduced is the Milanese buckler at Windsor, believed to have beenin England since the time of Francis I. The repoussé work is of mostexquisite finish and the gold damascening of extraordinary delicacy.Others not inferior to it are at Dresden, Turin, and Madrid, the latterby Colman of Augsburg. The shield of Charles IX. in the Louvre isalso superbly damascened. Magnificent specimens are known from thehands of the Negrolis and Picinino of Milan, Gasparo Mola of Florence,Giorgio Ghisi of Mantua. A description of one, now lost, by HieronymusSpacini of Milan, states that it comprised forty-eight engravings in[Pg 73]gold upon niello. Hans Mielich has left several designs, some of whichwere carried out by Colman. The finely-embossed target in the KensingtonMuseum is signed by Georgius Sigman of Augsburg. TheBernal, Meyrick, Soltykoff, and other collections now dispersed, includedexamples illustrating the story of Coriolanus, Siege of Troy, Judgmentof Paris, etc.

Those intended to receive the hard knocks of active service must havepresented unembossed surfaces, though perhaps richly etched and gildedlike the morions. The specimen (Fig. 30) belonging to Mr. Currie isrich enough for parade, with its bands of embossing and fine damascening,[Pg 74]while the second illustration (Fig. 31) might have been the war target ofan Italian or Spanish Captain under Philip II. It is remarkable that thefirst Greenwich inventory only contains eight bucklers, “of steele, sevenguilte and wroughte.” They were probably somewhat likeFig. 31.Another among the jewels was of silver gilt, with the arms of England,roses, castles, and pomegranates. This, like the quaint little roundel belongingto Lord Kenyon (Fig. 32), was probably English. It appears thatLondon bucklers acquired some celebrity in the time of Elizabeth, wholimited the length of their steel points to two inches, for the young Kingof Scots greatly desired to possess one. George Brownfelde, RogerMorgan, Tothill Street, and Richard Hamkyn, King Street, Westminster,were buckler-makers to Henry VIII.; and Peter Lovat, a Frenchman,supplied steel pavices at the sign of the cock in Fleet Street at eightshillings each. They are seldom mentioned as playing a part in actualwarfare, though when Lord Grey de Wilton called for forlorn hopes atthe siege of Guynes, fifty stept out “with swordes and roondelles to viewand essaye the breatches.” The celebrated Jarnac duel, witnessed byHenri II., was fought with sword and target.

The chanfron or head-piece to the horse’s armour, originally calledthe chevron, received as much attention as the helmet or buckler of itsrider. It was the pride of the noble, when Monstrelet wrote, to makethe horse’s head-front blaze with jewels. Designs for horse-armour byHans Mielich, and that actually executed for Christian II. at Dresden,are as rich as the suits themselves. The latter illustrates the labours of[Pg 75]
[Pg 76]
[Pg 77]Hercules, and is the one for which Colman received 14,000 crowns. Thechanfron bears a spike, an appendage dating back to the time of EdwardIII. In theAnturs of Arthur we read—

The charger ridden by Lord Scales in his tourney with the Bastardof Burgundy had a “schaffrõ with a large sharpe pyke of stele,” which,penetrating the nostrils of the Bastard’s steed, caused it to rear and throwhim. The oldest chanfron handed down is that in Warwick Castle,which was there when visited by Sir William Dugdale. The lower partof one belonging to the suit,Fig. 29, is seen inPlate VII.

Swords varied considerably in the sixteenth century, the extremessometimes meeting in the same army, the two-handed sword, scimitar,rapier, sabre, cinquedea, falchion, and malchus, being borne perhapssimultaneously by the mercenary bands comprised in it. The two-handedsword represents the largest dimensions ever attained by thisweapon, perhaps originating in the sword of state, like that of Edward III.in Westminster Abbey. It was used in Scotland at an early period; ifnot wielded by whole clans, certainly by champions of exceptional vigour.Thus Froissart relates that Sir Archibald Douglas fought on foot andwielded an immense sword, the blade of which was two ells long, and soheavy that scarcely any other man could have lifted it from the ground.This great sword is the real claymore, though the name has been misappropriatedto the Scottish basket-hilted broadsword of the last century.The Swiss and Germans were the only people who made it an offensive[Pg 78]weapon for large disciplined bodies of troops, and in the sixteenthcentury it had become an essentially Teutonic weapon. Henry VIII.’sgreat personal strength and agility enabled him to wield it, as a youngman, and to withstand all-comers. The fine hilt illustrated (Fig. 33)from Penshurst, with the pommel and quillons carved and chased out ofthe solid steel into the bears and ragged staff of the Leicesters, is undoubtedlythe most beautiful in the country. The blade has beenshortened, perhaps under the edict of Queen Elizabeth, who postedguards at the City Gates to break all swords that were too long.

In striking contrast to this is the well-known Cinquedea, the Italian[Pg 79]
[Pg 80]
[Pg 81]translation of the FrenchSang de dez. The name of a spear,langue-de-bœuf,has been improperly applied to it since the eighteenth century.The handles were frequently ivory with pierced brass insertions, like theillustration (Fig. 34), belonging to the Duke of Norfolk; but the finestexamples are of chased steel, exquisitely worked and silvered. TheCinquedea was highly esteemed in Venice.

Until the introduction of the Spanish rapier the sword used with thebuckler was short and heavy in the blade, though with handles sometimesrichly worked and inlaid with silver. The rapier appeared about 1570to 1580, the slender tapering blade being relatively of great length,[Pg 82]rendering it difficult to sheathe. The guards to the hilts were generallyof open work, the variety of form, though endless, falling into threeleading groups, the swept-hilted, shell-guard, and cup-hilted, the finestworkmanship being as a rule found on the latter. The quillons, generallyvery long, are either straight or curved. With the rapier, a longdagger held in the left hand and called themain-gauche was used toparry, the blade being notched near the base to entangle and break theopponent’s weapon. Two varieties are figured, both with superbly chasedhilts; the one of steel belonging to Mr. Percy Macquoid (Fig. 35), andone with silver guard (Fig. 36), belonging to Her Majesty. The cup-hiltedrapier (Fig. 37), reproduced on a slightly smaller scale, is thecompanion to the latter dagger and is also partly silver-hilted and chasedwith representations of combats. The quillons are engraved with flowers,and the blade is signed Heinrich Coell, Solingen. The blades and hiltswere frequently, perhaps usually, made in different workshops. Many ofthose in Vienna have German hilts and Italian blades, others haveSolingen blades and Milanese hilts. Toledo blades were, however,preferred, and their marks were frequently imitated by German makers.The first ship of the ill-fated Spanish Armada to fall a prey to Drakeand Howard was theCapitana of the Andalusian squadron, which amongits treasures carried a chest of swords, richly mounted, and intended forpresentation to the English Catholic peers. Frequent reference is madein Elizabethan plays to Bilbao and Toledo blades, but more especially to“Foxes,” so called from the Nuremberg mark. Certain passages showthat these were used with the buckler, in this country at least; and in theengraving of the funeral of Sir Philip Sidney, targets both round andoval are carried.

The staves, bills, pikes, morris-pikes, holy-water sprinklers, etc.,played a very important part in war at this period. The halberds andpartisans carried by officers of the harquebusiers, royal guards, and officialswere the vehicles for an immense amount of decoration, especiallythroughout the seventeenth century. Albert Dürer, writing from Veniceto Pirkheimer, mentions that the Italian lansquenets “have roncoins with218 points, and if they pink a man with any of these, the man is dead,as they are all poisoned.” This could hardly have been serious, but asheet of drawings by Leonardo da Vinci shows some very extraordinary[Pg 83]forms. Most of the varieties of staves were no doubt originally developmentsof the peasant scythes, bill-hooks, pitch-forks, and the poll-axe;each country preserving some peculiar form. The cross-bow had longceased to be a military weapon, but was, owing to its silent fire, still ingreat repute for sport. It was usually inlaid with ivory, engraved,sometimes stained and heightened with pearl. A fine specimen inthe Tower is illustrated (Fig. 38).

V
FIREARMS AND GUNLOCKS

The actual date of the first employment of portable firearms is uncertain,but representations of them are frequently met with in the illustratedMSS. of the early part of the fifteenth century, their form at first beingsimply a tube fastened to a wooden stock, and, according to the coloureddrawings, the tube was either of brass or iron. The manner of firingwas to apply a match by hand to a touch-hole situated on the upper partof the barrel. The first improvement was to drill the touch-hole in theside of the barrel, with the priming held in a pan formed in a projectionalso on the side of the barrel, which had a cover, moving on a pivot, thusprotecting the powder from the wet or wind till the moment of firing,when it was pushed back by hand. This was the general kind of firearmused during the first half of the fifteenth century. For some timeafter their introduction, hand firearms were viewed with disfavour, andit was considered more or less unfair to employ them, seeing that theGothic armour worn by the knights had power to resist the ordinaryweapons of the field, but took no account of the effects of missiles fromthe clumsy “gonner.” That they were in use in 1453 is evident, as thegreat Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, buried at Whitchurch, came to hisend from this cause. “Though at first with manfull courage and sorefighting the Earle wanne the entre of their camp, yet at length theycompassed him about, and,shooting him through the thigh with anhand-gonne, slew his horse and finally killed him lying on the ground,[Pg 85]whom they never durst look in the face, while he stood on his feet”(Hollinshed’sChronicle). This was at Chatillon, 20th July 1453.

The first lock was apparently a curved piece of metal in the shapeof an S and pivoted in the centre, the upper point holding the match,the lower part, which was prolonged like the lever in the cross-bow, byits weight keeping the match from the pan till this lower part wascompressed to the stock on firing.

The next stage was the matchlock proper. This is the first lockwhere the mechanism is complete on a plate. The cock is kept backby a spring acting on the long arm of a lever, while fastened to theshort end was a sear or trigger. The pan still projects on the side ofthe barrel, a principle seen in modern Eastern matchlocks. The nextmatchlocks had the pan fixed to and forming part of the plate; latermatchlocks only vary in the shape of the plate. In the reign of WilliamIII. the plates are of the same size as the flint-lock, so that the lockscould be changed when required. The matchlock was altogether inuse for nearly 200 years, owing to its great simplicity and cheapness.There is a variation of the matchlock in which, by elaborate mechanism,the match is caused to descend on the priming with a snap-action. Itis difficult to see the advantage to be obtained from this, as the matchit would appear must have broken by contact with the pan, unless itmay have taken the form of a stick of hard composition. The headof the match-holders in these locks is a short tube, which gives someprobability to this theory, but there is no record to prove it.

Thewheel-lock is supposed to have been invented in 1517, althougha lock belonging to the writer has the date of 1509, yet it is not certainif 1569 is not meant. Nuremberg is reported to be the place of itsinvention, where indeed, at the time, most things were claimed to havebeen invented; and the city mark is constantly met with on early locks.It was an important invention, and, except for the delicacy of itsmechanism and great expense of production, it was an efficient lock.It consisted briefly of a steel wheel, having from two to four groovesaffixed to an axle which passed through the lock-plate, the edge of thewheel appearing through the bottom of the pan. The outer part of theaxle was square for a key to fit on, and the inner had a shoulder orcrank, which was connected by a shackle chain of three links to an[Pg 86]extremely strong spring. The fire stone (pyrites) was fixed in a holder,screwed to the farther end of the lock-plate. The pan had a slidingcover. To put the lock in action a key or “spanner” was placed onthe outer end of the axle, and given a ¾ turn; by this the spring wascompressed, and kept at tension by the nose of a sear, connected withthe trigger, entering a small hole on the inner surface of the wheel.The pan was then primed, the sliding cover brought over it, and thepyrites holder depressed, bringing the pyrites down on the cover. Onpulling the trigger the wheel revolved, its axle shoulder knocked backthe pan cover and allowed the grooves to grate sparks from the fire-stone,thus firing the priming. There are numerous variations in thewheel-lock of all dates and of many nationalities. By the shape of thefeeds, the number of grooves, and by the internal mechanism, and ofcourse by the ornamentation, a tolerable idea can be got of the dateor origin of a piece. It is remarkable that the earliest locks were morecomplete and had appliances that we fail to find in the later. Thus inFig. 40, a type of the earliest pistol, the lock possesses a safety catchto prevent premature discharge, also a spring-catch to keep the pancover back. Those, which would be thought advantages, are not tobe found in the two examples inPlate VIII. of later date and finerworkmanship. In some cases the wheel winds itself, when the pyritesholder is drawn back, thus dispensing with a key. This principle issuch an obvious improvement that it seems strange it was not universallyadopted.

A result of the introduction of the wheel-lock was the invention ofpistols, which never carry match-locks. The name may have beenderived from Pistoia in Tuscany, or, as it has been suggested, from thename of the coin pistole, referring to the bore. There is a wordin Italianpistolese, but it signifies a knife.Fig. 40 is a good exampleof an early pistol. It is of the class used by the Reiters, Germancavalry, the first body of troops armed with pistols. The barrelsat this time are of great thickness, owing to the dread of bursting,and the stocks sloped abruptly, being terminated by a ball butt. Thiswas probably to act as a counterpoise, and also to facilitate drawing thepiece from the holster. It would be more efficient, too, when used as aclub, as it very frequently was, according to pictures of the time. In[Pg 87]
[Pg 88]
[Pg 89]early engravings of the Reiter he is armed not only with a pair, but onoccasion with four of these pistols, two in the holsters and two fastenedto his belt by hasps (Fig. 40 is furnished with a hook or hasp on thereverse side). The Reiter also had a sword. The introduction of thepistol altered the tactics of war; the bodies of horse no longer chargedhome, but galloped up by ranks, within a few paces of the enemy,discharged their pistols, and then wheeled outward by half troops towardseach flank, leaving the front clear for the succeeding rank to take theirplace. They then reloaded and re-formed ready for another advance.Many of the earlier pistols were wholly of steel. The smaller pistolshad a flat butt, cut slanting, and were called Dags. In course of time thebarrels were made longer and thinner, the stocks became more straight,and the ball butt elongated, and finally disappeared. The wheel-lock wasused for pistols up to 1650. Crusoe, in the Instructions for the Cavallerie,1632, gives some fifteen motions for the “firing Exercise” of the wheelpistol.

The Queen possesses a double-barrelled wheel rifle, in which onebarrel was placed vertically over the other, dated 1588. It is fired bymeans of two wheel-locks on one plate, in one of which the works areoutside, and the other has them hidden by the plate, the stock is of darkwood, and the fittings of the locks are of chased and gilt metal. Itsdouble barrel, date of the rifling, and the fact of its having a steel ramrod,all make it remarkable. The Dresden arms are on the heel plate, acypher HF on the stock, and the barrel has a bear as armourer’s mark.

The wheel-lock was rarely used for infantry arms, but was ofnecessity employed by cavalry, where the match was inconvenient.

The next form of lock was theSnap-hance, evolved from the wheel-lockby converting the pyrites holder into a fire-steel, and replacing thewheel by a hammer, acted on by a spring and affixed to the opposite sideof the pan. The pan and cover remained the same, and the latterslid back as the hammer fell on the steel, leaving the powder bare for thesparks to fall on.

The earliest actual lock of this sort is on a pair of pistols in theDresden Armoury, dated 1598. The pistols are of the Scotch form, butare probably of Spanish make, as the Highlanders obtained their firearmslargely from Spain.

The exampleFig. 42 is a snap-hance of Italian make, but of later type(about 1640). It was selected on account of the beautiful chiselled steelof which it is composed. This is in three degrees of relief. The hammerhas two dragons entwined on it, and the plate and fire-steel are veryrichly fashioned, having the armourer’s signature on it,GIOVANNI · VATE ·BORGOGNONE · IN · BRESCIA. Part of the fire-steel is missing.

The most famous makers of firearms of the middle of the seventeenthcentury lived in Brescia, such as Lazarino Cominazzo, father and son,Lazaro Lazarino, Francino, and others. Their weapons were famed forextreme lightness and beauty of decoration.

Fig. 39 is a late example of Cominazzo’s work. The barrel has abeautiful fluted twist on it, and the lock-plate and hammer, as well as thebutt, are chiselled in high relief. These armourers made weapons witheach class of lock. It was quite the thing for any one on their grandtour to visit Brescia, and bring back one of these famed weapons.Evelyn in hisDiary tells us how he paid a visit to “old LazarinoCominazzo,” and got from him a carbine for which he paid a good dealof money. He seems to have been rather proud of his acquisition, as hemore than once alludes to it.

The Civil War in England showed firearms in use with all fourclasses of lock. The infantry on both sides were chiefly armed with theheavy musket fired from a rest, having the match-lock. The cavalryhad carbines fitted with snap-hances or the early complete flint, or wereprovided with wheel-locks.

The wheel-lock disappears from military arms about 1670, butcontinued in use in Germany for sporting rifles until a much later date.TheFlint-lock proper came into use about 1630. The earliest specimensappear to be Spanish. The mainspring in these was on the outside ofthe lock-plate, and the mechanism of the simplest character, consisting ofa catch forming a ledge, protruding to the outside of the lock-plate, forthe foot of the hammer to rest on when cocked, and on this ledge beingdrawn back on pressing the trigger the hammer falls, striking the steel,which also covers the pan.

The exampleFig. 43 is one of a class where the ornamentation is veryelaborate. The design is formed mostly by the chisel and hammer, andeven in the internal mechanism the file appears scarcely to have been[Pg 91]
[Pg 92]used. Many of these fine locks exist, but never have any armourer’smark on them; the mechanism, however, points to their Spanish origin.Works of this description were found in Spanish locks to the latter endof the eighteenth century. In both English and French flint-locksthe mechanism was on the inside of the lock-plate, and a tumblerconnected the hammer with the action of the mainspring. A laterimprovement was to add a bridle to give two bearings for the tumbleraxle, and a small swivel connecting the tumbler with the mainspring,both of these improvements ensuring greater smoothness in the action.This form of improved mechanism was continued in the percussion lock,after the use of a flint was discontinued, and, indeed, the hammer used inthe first military breechloader generally employed in our army, the Snider,was acted on by mechanism of much the same sort.

Figs. 43 and 44 show specimens of the Highland pistol, a class whichstands quite by itself. These weapons no doubt were evolved from theearly steel wheel dags in common use in Germany. Many Highlanderswere to be found in the armies of other European nations, whence theyprobably took the fashion and also procured their firearms. The earliestweapons of the sort, as well as the latest, were all of steel (or rarely brass).The stocks had a heart-shaped butt, and were furnished with snap-hancelocks. There is one of this description, undoubtedly a Scotch weapon,[Pg 93]in the armoury in the old castle of Nürnberg, where the arms have alwaysbeen stored, belonging probably to one of the many Scotch officersemployed in Germany during the wars of the seventeenth century.Later on the butt of the pistol assumed a claw form and the ordinaryflint-lock was employed, the mechanism, however, being of a distinctivesort, possibly of Dutch origin. The latest of these pistols have a roundedbutt as inFig. 44. The ornament found on the back of the hammer inFig. 43 is not to be seen in any other class of lock.

The Highlanders looking at length on their weapons as part of theequipment of their national garb, a colony of armourers sprang up inthe village of Doune in Stirlingshire, a place where “trysts” or fairswere held, and where the Highlanders resorted to exchange their cattlefor other goods. The following account is given inScottish NationalMemorials, of this trade of Doune. “The only remains of any of theancient branches of trade is the making of Highland pistols. Thereputation of Doune for this manufacture, about the time of the Germanwar, was very great. This art was introduced to Doune about the year1646 by Thomas Caddell, who having been instructed in his craft atMuthil, a village in Strathearn in Perthshire, came and settled at Doune.This famous tradesman possessed a most profound genius, and an inquisitivemind, and though a man of no education and remote from everymeans of instruction in the mechanical arts, his study and perseveringexertions brought his art to so high a degree of perfection that nopistols made in Britain excelled or perhaps equalled those of his makingeither for sureness, strength, or beauty. He taught the trade to hischildren and several apprentices, of whom was one John Campbell,whose son and grandson carried on the business. While the ancientdress of Caledonia was worn, that is, the ‘philabeg’ belted-plaid, pistols,and dirk, the pistols made in Doune excelled all others, and acquiredsuperior reputation over France and Germany; a pair superbly ornamentedwere fabricated by a tradesman taught in Doune, and by thecity of Glasgow given in compliment to the Marquis de Bouillé. Theabove Mr. Campbell’s grandson, who has now given over business, madepistols for the first nobility in Europe, as Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick,the Hereditary Prince of Brunswick, the Duke of Cumberland, andothers. The trade is now (1798) carried on by John Murdoch (the[Pg 94]maker ofFig. 44). These pistols were sold (1798) at from four totwenty-four guineas a pair.”

The names of some of these armourers were the Caddells, JamesSutherland, Thomas Murdoch, John Murdoch, S. Michie, John Campbell,J. Stuart, David M‘Kenzie, and others. The trade died out at thecommencement of this century.

These weapons were remarkable for grace of outline and great lightness.The butt has a small knob, which, when unscrewed, forms apicker to clear the touch-hole with. The mainsprings in many casesappear to be weak, having little room to work in the slender stocks.

INDEX

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ARMOUR IN ENGLAND, FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE REIGN OF JAMES THE FIRST ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions willbe renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyrightlaw means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the UnitedStates without permission and without paying copyrightroyalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use partof this license, apply to copying and distributing ProjectGutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by followingthe terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for useof the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything forcopies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is veryeasy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creationof derivative works, reports, performances and research. ProjectGutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you maydo practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protectedby U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademarklicense, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the freedistribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “ProjectGutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the FullProject Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online atwww.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree toand accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by allthe terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return ordestroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in yourpossession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to aProject Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be boundby the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the personor entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only beused on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people whoagree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a fewthings that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic workseven without complying with the full terms of this agreement. Seeparagraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with ProjectGutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of thisagreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“theFoundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collectionof Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individualworks in the collection are in the public domain in the UnitedStates. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in theUnited States and you are located in the United States, we do notclaim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long asall references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hopethat you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promotingfree access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping theProject Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easilycomply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in thesame format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License whenyou share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also governwhat you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries arein a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of thisagreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or anyother Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes norepresentations concerning the copyright status of any work in anycountry other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or otherimmediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appearprominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any workon which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which thephrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work isderived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does notcontain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of thecopyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone inthe United States without paying any fees or charges. If you areredistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “ProjectGutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must complyeither with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 orobtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is postedwith the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distributionmust comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and anyadditional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional termswill be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all worksposted with the permission of the copyright holder found at thebeginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of thiswork or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute thiselectronic work, or any part of this electronic work, withoutprominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 withactive links or immediate access to the full terms of the ProjectGutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, includingany word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide accessto or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a formatother than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the officialversion posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expenseto the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a meansof obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “PlainVanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include thefull Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ worksunless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providingaccess to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic worksprovided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a ProjectGutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms thanare set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writingfrom the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager ofthe Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as setforth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerableeffort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofreadworks not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the ProjectGutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, maycontain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurateor corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or otherintellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk orother medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage orcannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Rightof Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the ProjectGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the ProjectGutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a ProjectGutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim allliability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legalfees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICTLIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSEPROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THETRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BELIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE ORINCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCHDAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover adefect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you canreceive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending awritten explanation to the person you received the work from. If youreceived the work on a physical medium, you must return the mediumwith your written explanation. The person or entity that provided youwith the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy inlieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the personor entity providing it to you may choose to give you a secondopportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. Ifthe second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writingwithout further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forthin paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NOOTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOTLIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain impliedwarranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types ofdamages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreementviolates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, theagreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer orlimitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity orunenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void theremaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, thetrademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyoneproviding copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works inaccordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with theproduction, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any ofthe following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of thisor any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, oradditions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) anyDefect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution ofelectronic works in formats readable by the widest variety ofcomputers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. Itexists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donationsfrom people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with theassistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’sgoals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection willremain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the ProjectGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secureand permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and futuregenerations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg LiteraryArchive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, seeSections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of thestate of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the InternalRevenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identificationnumber is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg LiteraryArchive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted byU.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and upto date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s websiteand official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project GutenbergLiterary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespreadpublic support and donations to carry out its mission ofincreasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can befreely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widestarray of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exemptstatus with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulatingcharities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the UnitedStates. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes aconsiderable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep upwith these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locationswhere we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SENDDONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular statevisitwww.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where wehave not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibitionagainst accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states whoapproach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot makeany statements concerning tax treatment of donations received fromoutside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donationmethods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of otherways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. Todonate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the ProjectGutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could befreely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced anddistributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network ofvolunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printededitions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright inthe U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do notnecessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paperedition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG searchfacility:www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg LiteraryArchive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how tosubscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Movatterモバイル変換

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofArmour in England, from the Earliest Times to the Reign of James the First

Armour in England

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

COLOURED PLATES

ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT

ARMOUR IN ENGLAND

I
The Britons—An Early Age of Plate-Armour

II
The Mailed Warrior

III
The Transition Period—From about the Reign of Edward I. to that ofRichard II., 1272-1399

IV
The Age of Plate-Armour

V
The Age of Enriched Armour

INDEX

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

COLOURED PLATES

ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT

FOREIGN ARMOUR IN ENGLAND

I
INTRODUCTORY

II
CHAIN MAIL

III
GOTHIC ARMOUR

IV
ENRICHED ARMOUR

V
FIREARMS AND GUNLOCKS

INDEX

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

CHAPTER		PAGE
I.	The Britons--An Early Age of Plate-Armour	5
II.	The Mailed Warrior	9
III.	The Transition Period--From about the Reign of Edward I. to that ofRichard II., 1272-1399	27
IV.	The Age of Plate-Armour	45
V.	The Age of Enriched Armour	78
	INDEX	99

	COLOURED PLATES	PAGE
I.	Full suit of armour of Henry, Prince of Wales, in the Guard-chamber atWindsor Castle. Attributed to William Pickering, master-armourer	Frontispiece
II.	Second suit of Sir Henry Lee, Master of the Armoury, reduced facsimile ofNo. 19 in the Armourers’ Album in the South Kensington Museum	28
III.	First suit of Sir Christopher Hatton, Captain of the Guard, and subsequentlyLord Chancellor. Reduced facsimile of No. 15 in the Armourers’ Albumin the South Kensington Museum	40
IV.	Grand-guard of the suit of George, Earl of Cumberland, in the possession ofLord Hothfield. This is a part of the 20th suit in the Armourers’ Albumin the South Kensington Museum	46
V.	Grand-guard, used for tilting, belonging to the suit of Robert Dudley, Earl ofLeicester, with the gilding restored. In the Tower of London	58
VI.	Profile of the helmet belonging to the French suit (Fig. 32). In the Guard-chamberof Windsor Castle	76
VII.	Ornament on the tapul of the breastplate belonging to the half-suit of theEarl of Essex (Fig. 35), with the original gilding slightly restored. In theGuard-chamber of Windsor Castle	90
VIII.	The sword of Charles I. when Prince of Wales, 1616. The hilt entirelycovered with raised gold damascened work on blue steel matrix, except thegrip of silver wire work. Preserved in Windsor Castle	96
	ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
1.	Hauberk, or byrnie, of chain-mail, of the fourth or fifth century, found at Vimose	11
2.	Norman knights in mail hauberks and conical helmets	13
3.	A complete suit of mail, with coif and mufflers; A thirteenth-century suit,with reinforcing plates	17
4.	Mail coif, flat-topped, with leather thong	19
5.	Mail coif, round-topped, with jewelled fillet	19
6.	Mail coif, conical top, with coronet and mantelet	19
7.	Helmet of bronze and iron, from County Down	21[Pg 4]
8.	Illustration of the development of plate-armour	23
9.	The sleeping guards, from the Easter Sepulchre in Lincoln Cathedral	25
10.	Melée. From MS. of the fourteenth century	29
11.	The helm and crest of the Black Prince, with his shield, from his monument inCanterbury Cathedral	31
12.	The helm of Richard Pembridge, K.G., from Hereford Cathedral	32
13.	Bassinet from the tomb of Sir John de Melsa, Aldborough Church, Holderness	32
14.	A bassinet transformed into a sallad in the fifteenth century	33
15.	A ridged bassinet with banded camail; Combed and jewelled bassinet	35
16.	Effigy of the Black Prince on his tomb in Canterbury Cathedral	37
17.	Gauntlet from the effigy of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland, in StaindropChurch, Durham; Gauntlet from the effigy of Sir Thomas Cawne, IghthamChurch, Kent	41
18.	Helm from the tomb of Henry V. in Westminster Abbey	48
19.	Effigy of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, on his tomb in St. Mary’s Church, Warwick	53
20.	The Earl of Warwick slays a “mighty Duke.” From the Beauchamp MS.	55
21.	The Duke of Gloucester and Earls of Warwick and Stafford chase the Dukeof Burgundy from the walls of Calais. From the Beauchamp MS.	57
22.	Sallad in St. Mary’s Hall, Coventry; Helm of Sir Giles Capel	59
23.	English tournament helm over the tomb of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset,in Wimborne Minster	60
24.	Helm of Sir John Gostwick, in Willington Church	61
25.	The entry of Queen Isabel into Paris in 1390. From MS. of Froissart	63
26.	Armet of Sir George Brooke, K.G., 8th Lord Cobham	65
27.	English armet from the collection of Seymour Lucas, A.R.A.	65
28.	Complete suit for fighting on foot, made for Henry VIII.	67
29.	Suit made for Henry VIII. by Conrad Seusenhofer of Innsbrück, 1511-1514	71
30.	Part of a suit made for Sir Christopher Hatton	79
31.	Armour of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, 1566-1588	83
32.	A suit of French armour, early seventeenth century	87
33.	Italian suit of blued and gilded steel covered with appliqués of gold	89
34.	A part of the ornament of the Italian suit (Fig. 33), drawn real size	91
35.	Demi-suit of the Earl of Essex, with closed helmet, magnificently engraved andgilt	93
36.	Sword, probably of James I., with basket hilt, entirely covered with raisedgold damascening	95
37.	The sword of John Hampden, with hilt of carved steel	97

CHAPTER		PAGE
I.	INTRODUCTORY	5
II.	CHAIN MAIL	17
III.	GOTHIC ARMOUR	23
IV.	ENRICHED ARMOUR	56
V.	FIREARMS AND GUNLOCKS By Major V. A. FARQUHARSON	84
	INDEX	95

	COLOURED PLATES	PAGE
I.	Painted Wooden Shield of the fifteenth century. British Museum	Frontispiece
II.	A Marauder of the “Bandes de Picardie.” Mr. J. F. Sullivan	14
III.	Half Suit, engraved and parcel-gilt. Duke of Westminster	24
IV.	Gold Damascening on russet ground. Late Italian suit. Tower of London	30
V.	Breast-plate, embossed and parcel-gilt. French. Mr. David Currie	38
VI.	Casque of an Officer of the Guard of Cosmo de’ Medici. Mr. David Currie	44
VII.	Lower part of enriched Chanfron. Suit of Charles I. when prince. Towerof London	72
VIII.	Two Wheel-locks. German and French. Of the seventeenth century.Major Farquharson	84
	ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
1.	Mail Hauberk from Sinigaglia. Sir Noël Paton’s Collection	19
2.	Standard Collar of Mail. Royal Artillery Institution	21
3.	Gothic Armour. Said to be from the Church of Irene at Constantinople. AtParham	26
4,	5. Gothic Armour. Said to be from an old mansion in the Tyrol. Frontand Back views. Sir Noël Paton’s Collection	27
6.	Gothic Armour. Probably Italian. Sir Noël Paton’s Collection	29
7.	St. Michael. By Perugino. National Gallery	31
8.	The Battle of Sant’ Egidio. By Uccello. National Gallery	33
9.	Carved Relief from the Visconti Tomb in the Certosa at Pavia. SouthKensington Museum	35
10.	German late Gothic Suit. Collection of Mr. Morgan Williams	42
11.	Suit of Maximilian Fluted Armour. Belonging to Mr. Percy Macquoid	43
12.	Maximilian Armour from Eaton Hall. In the possession of the Duke ofWestminster, K.G.	45
13.	Engraved Maximilian Breast-plate. Burges Collection in the British Museum	46
14.	Portrait. By Piero di Cosimo. National Gallery	47[Pg 4]
15.	Helmet. Presented by Maximilian to Henry VIII Tower of London	48
16.	Cap-à-pie Suit of Henry VIII., on a Horse barded with Embossed BurgundianArmour of the time of Henry VII. Tower of London	49
17.	Tilting Helm. Time of Henry VII. Westminster Abbey	51
18.	Tilting Helmet. Early sixteenth century. At Penshurst	52
19.	Tilting Helmet of an Ancestor of Sir Philip Sidney. Penshurst	52
20.	The Sword of Battle Abbey. Fifteenth century. Collection of Sir NoëlPaton	54
21.	Sword of the Fourteenth Century with Guard for the Forefinger. WindsorCastle	54
22.	German Armour. Date about 1570. The Duke of Westminster, K.G.	57
23.	Suit of late Italian Armour. Embossed and damascened. Tower of London	61
24.	Fine Italian Breast-plate, c. 1550. Said to have been worn by Philip of Spain.Collection of Mr. David Currie	63
25.	Pair of fine Italian Gauntlets. Possibly belonging to the same Suit as theBreast-plate. Collection of Mr. David Currie	64
26.	Embossed Gorget. French, c. 1550. Collection of Mr. David Currie	65
27.	Silver Armour of Charles II. when prince. Tower of London	67
28.	Sixteenth century Armet of rare form, with double visor. Mr. E. CozensSmith	68
29.	Suit of parcel-gilt Armour. Made for Charles I. when prince. Tower ofLondon	69
30.	Richly Embossed and Damascened Target. Italian, sixteenth century. Mr.David Currie’s Collection	71
31.	Target of Etched Steel. Italian or German, about 1550. Mr. P. Davidson’sCollection	73
32.	Roundel, with National Badges and Inscription. Belonging to Lord Kenyon	74
33.	Hilt of Two-handed Sword with the Bear and Ragged Staff on the Pommeland Quillons in chased steel. Penshurst	75
34.	Venetian Cinquedea, engraved, with Ivory Handle. The Duke of Norfolk	77
35.	Main-Gauche with Steel Hilt. Belonging to Mr. Percy Macquoid	78
36.	Main-Gauche with Silver Guard. Windsor Castle	79
37.	Rapier with Silver Guard. Windsor Castle	79
38.	Inlaid Ivory Cross-bow. Tower of London	81
39.	Pistol by Lazarino Cominazzo. Collection of Major Farquharson	87
40.	Early German Wheel-lock Pistol, used by the Reiters. Collection of MajorFarquharson	87
41.	Richly Decorated Flint-lock. Probably Spanish. Collection of MajorFarquharson	91
42.	Snap-hance of Italian make, about 1640. Collection of Major Farquharson	91
43,	44. Highland Pistols. Collection of Major Farquharson	92

Movatterモバイル変換

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofArmour in England, from the Earliest Times to the Reign of James the First

Armour in England

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

COLOURED PLATES

ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT

ARMOUR IN ENGLAND

IThe Britons—An Early Age of Plate-Armour

IIThe Mailed Warrior

IIIThe Transition Period—From about the Reign of Edward I. to that ofRichard II., 1272-1399

IVThe Age of Plate-Armour

VThe Age of Enriched Armour

INDEX

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

COLOURED PLATES

ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT

FOREIGN ARMOUR IN ENGLAND

IINTRODUCTORY

IICHAIN MAIL

IIIGOTHIC ARMOUR

IVENRICHED ARMOUR

VFIREARMS AND GUNLOCKS

INDEX

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

I
The Britons—An Early Age of Plate-Armour

II
The Mailed Warrior

III
The Transition Period—From about the Reign of Edward I. to that ofRichard II., 1272-1399

IV
The Age of Plate-Armour

V
The Age of Enriched Armour

I
INTRODUCTORY

II
CHAIN MAIL

III
GOTHIC ARMOUR

IV
ENRICHED ARMOUR

V
FIREARMS AND GUNLOCKS