The armourer and his craft from the XIth to the XVIth century

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The armourer and his craft from the XIth to the XVIth century
Author: Ffoulkes, Charles John
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The armourer and his craft from the XIth to the XVIth century" ***

produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

Bold text is denoted by =equal signs=.

Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been
placed at the end of each chapter or Appendix. The numbers [376] to
[383] in Appendix C are part of the quoted document, and are not
footnotes.

A superscript is denoted by ^{xx} or ^x, for example vj^{li} or xv^s
(six pounds or fifteen shillings).

Basic fractions are displayed as ½ ¼ ⅜ etc; the only other fraction is
one-sixteenth, displayed as 1/16. Currency (shillings and pence) is
displayed as a/b or a/-, for example 4/8 is 4 shillings and 8 pence,
2/- is two shillings.

An overline above a or abc for example is shown as [=a] or [=abc].

Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.

THE ARMOURER AND HIS CRAFT

UNIFORM WITH THIS VOLUME

PASTE BY A. BERESFORD RYLEY

[Illustration: VENUS AT THE FORGE OF VULCAN. JAN BRUEGHEL AND
HENDRICK VAN BALEN. CIRCA 1600

KAISER FRIEDRICH MUSEUM, BERLIN]

THE ARMOURER
AND HIS CRAFT

FROM THE XITH TO THE XVITH CENTURY

By CHARLES FFOULKES, B.Litt.Oxon.

WITH SIXTY-NINE DIAGRAMS IN THE TEXT AND THIRTY-TWO PLATES

METHUEN & CO. LTD.
36 ESSEX STREET W.C.
LONDON

_First Published in 1912_

_Printed in Great Britain_

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE

THE VISCOUNT DILLON, Hon. M.A. Oxon.

V.P.S.A., Etc. Etc.

CURATOR OF THE TOWER ARMOURIES

PREFACE

I do not propose, in this work, to consider the history or
development of defensive armour, for this has been more or less
fully discussed in works which deal with the subject from the
historical side of the question. I have rather endeavoured to
compile a work which will, in some measure, fill up a gap in the
subject, by collecting all the records and references, especially
in English documents, which relate to the actual making of armour
and the regulations which controlled the Armourer and his Craft.
At the same time it is impossible to discuss this branch of the
subject without overlapping in some details the existing works on
Arms and Armour, but such repetition has only been included because
it bears directly on the making, selling, or wearing of armour.

I have intentionally omitted all reference to the sword and other
weapons of offence, for this would have unduly increased the size
of the present work, and the subject is of such importance that it
deserves a full consideration in a separate volume.

The original limits of this work have been considerably enlarged
since it was offered as a thesis for the Degree of Bachelor of
Letters in the University of Oxford in the Michaelmas Term, 1911.
A polyglot glossary has been included, as this is a detail which
has been practically overlooked by all English writers. The subject
of Arms and Armour has not, up to the present time, received the
attention in England that it deserves, but I would be the first to
admit the value of the works of Meyrick and Hewitt, which are the
foundations upon which German and French as well as all English
authors have based their investigations. At the same time it should
be remembered that these two authors were pioneers, and statements
which they made have been contradicted or modified by more recent
research. Two examples of this will suffice. Meyrick named the
upstanding neck-guards on the pauldron the “passguards” and the
neck-armour of the horse the “mainfaire.” From the researches of
Viscount Dillon we learn that the passguard was a reinforcing piece
for the joust and the mainfaire was a gauntlet (_main de fer._)
Both these mistakes are still perpetuated in foreign works on the
subject, which shows the influence of Meyrick’s work even at the
present day.

The subject of the Armourer and his Craft has never received much
attention in England, even at the hands of Meyrick and Hewitt. On
the Continent, however, writers like the late Dr. Wendelin Boeheim,
Gurlitt, Buff, and Angellucci have all added greatly to our store
of information on the subject. Boeheim’s work on the Armourers of
Europe (_Meister der Waffenschmiedekunst_) is the only work in any
language which has given us some account of the armour craftsmen
of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and I should be indeed
remiss if I did not take this opportunity of acknowledging the
assistance which this collection of biographies has been in the
preparation of the present work. Signori Gelli and Moretti have
collected interesting documents relating to the Missaglia family,
but apart from this no other writers have made a study of the
Armourer.

Gay’s _Encyclopædia_, which unfortunately was cut short after the
letter G by the death of the author, is also invaluable as far as
it goes, in that it gives in every case contemporary references
relating to the use of each word. The late J. B. Giraud published
certain records dealing with the Armourer in various French
archæological journals, and M. Charles Buttin has placed all those
interested in the subject under a deep obligation for his minute
researches on the subject of the proving of armour.

Of living English writers I would express the indebtedness not
only of myself, but also of all those who are true _amateurs
d’armes_, to Baron de Cosson, who, with the late J. Burges, A.R.A.,
compiled the Catalogue of Helmets and Mail which is to this day the
standard work on the subject. Last of all I would offer my sincere
thanks to Viscount Dillon, Curator of the Tower Armouries, not
only for his minute researches printed in the _Archæologia_ and
_Archæological Journal_, which have brought to light much valuable
information respecting the Armourer and his Craft in English
records, but also for very great personal interest and assistance
in the compilation of this work.

CHARLES FFOULKES

S. JOHN’S COLLEGE,
OXFORD, 1912

CONTENTS

PAGE

PREFACE ix

THE ARMOURER 1

TOOLS, APPLIANCES, ETC. 22

IRON AND STEEL 38

THE CRAFT OF THE ARMOURER 44

THE PROOF OF ARMOUR 62

THE DECORATION OF ARMOUR 73

THE CLEANING OF ARMOUR 78

THE USE OF FABRICS AND LINEN 83

THE USE OF LEATHER 96

THE WEARING OF ARMOUR 104

THE ARMOURERS’ COMPANY OF THE CITY OF LONDON 120

LISTS OF EUROPEAN ARMOURERS 126

SHORT BIOGRAPHIES OF NOTABLE ARMOURERS 131

LIST OF ARMOURERS’ MARKS 147

POLYGLOT GLOSSARY OF WORDS DEALING WITH ARMOUR AND WEAPONS 153

APPENDICES

A. EXTRACT FROM THE RECORDS OF THE ARMOURERS’ COMPANY OF
LONDON, 1322 (Lib. C, fol. 33) 169

B. REGULATIONS OF THE HEAUMERS’ COMPANY, 1347 (City of
London Letter Book F, cxlii) 171

C. TREATISE OF WORSHIP IN ARMS, BY JOHAN HILL, ARMOURER,
1434 (Bod. Lib., Ashmole. 856, art. 22, fol. 376) 173

D. TRAITÉ DU COSTUME MILITAIRE, 1446 (Du Costume Militaire
des Français en 1446, Bib. Nat., Paris, 1997) 177

E. EXTRACT FROM THE ORDINANCES OF THE ARMOURERS OF ANGERS,
ETC., 1448 (Ordonn. des Rois, XX, 156. Rev. d’Aquitaine,
XII, 26. Arch. des B. Pyrénées, E, 302) 180

F. EXPENSES IN THE ROYAL ARMOURIES, TEMP. HENRY VIII (Brit.
Mus., Cotton. App. XXVIII, f. 76) 182

G. PETITION OF ARMOURERS TO QUEEN ELIZABETH (Lansdowne MS.
63, f. 5) 184

H. UNDERTAKING OF THE ARMOURERS’ COMPANY OF LONDON TO
SUPPLY ARMOUR (Records of the Company, 1618) 186

I. PROCLAMATION AGAINST THE USE OF GOLD AND SILVER EXCEPT
IN THE CASE OF ARMOUR (State Papers Dom. Jac. I, cv) 187

J. ERECTION OF PLATING-MILLS AT ERITH (State Papers Dom.
Jac. I, clxxx) 188

K. REGULATIONS AS TO THE HALL-MARK OF THE ARMOURERS’
COMPANY (Rymer, XIX, 314) 191

L. PETITION OF ARMOURERS (State Papers Dom. Car. I,
cclxxxix, 93) 192

M. EXTRACT FROM THE SURVEY OF THE TOWER ARMOURY, 1660
(Brit. Mus., Harl. MS. 7457) 193

INDEX 195

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT

PAGE

1. Diagram showing the “glancing surface” 4

2. Diagram showing the position of the lance in jousting,
from _Arch. Journ._, LV. 5

3. Pauldrons on the statue of Colleoni, Venice, and of a
Missaglia suit in the Waffensammlung, Vienna (Plate II) 6

4. The solleret, practical and unpractical 6

5. Horse-armour 8

6. Harnischmeister Albrecht, from a painting in the
Arsenal, Vienna 9

7. Cuissard for the off hock of a horse. Musée Porte de
Hal, Brussels 10

8. Arms of the Armourers’ Gild, Florence. From the Church
of Or San Michele 14

9. S. George, by Hans Multscher, 1458. Augsburg 14

10. Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, arming. Brit. Mus.,
Cott., Jul., E, IV, fol. 12 b 15

11. The Westminster helm 17

12. The Brocas helm 17

13. The Fogge helm 17

14. The Barendyne helm 17

15. The Mail-maker, from Jost Amman’s _Stande und
Handwerker_, _circ._ 1590 23

16. The Armourer, from the same source as the above 24

17. Burring-machine or “jenny,” from the picture by
Breughel given on the frontispiece 36

18. Method of making mail, from _Arch. Journ._, XXXVII 45

19. Representations of double and single mail, from the
effigy of Robert de Mauley, formerly in York Minster,
_Archæologia_, XXXI 45

20. The coif of mail, from the effigy of William, Earl of
Pembroke, Temple Church, and an unnamed effigy in Pershore
Church, Worcs, after Fairholt 46

21. Attachment of the camail, from the effigy of Sir R.
Pembridge, Clehonger Church, Hereford 46

22. Attachment of the camail reconstructed 46

23. Suggested arrangement of “banded” mail, from _Arch.
Journ._, XXXVII, figure from _Romance of Alexander_, Paris,
Bib. Nat., _circ._ 1240, and the effigy at Newton Solney,
Derbs. 47

24. Foot-soldier wearing a jack, from the _Chasse of S.
Ursula_, by Memling, 1475-1485. Bruges. 49

25. Construction of jack, from _Arch. Journ._, XXXVII 50

26. Brigandine in the Waffensammlung, Vienna, No. 130 50

27. Detail from the picture of S. Victor and donor, by Van
der Goes, Glasgow 51

28. Effigy in Ash Church, Kent, XIV cent. 51

29. Statue of S. George at Prague, 1375 51

30. The sliding rivet 52

31. Sections of brassards in the Tower 54

32. Locking gauntlet of Sir Henry Lee. Armourers’ Hall,
London 55

33. Locking hooks, turning pins, and strap cover 55

34. Bracket for jousting-sallad. Dresden, C, 3, 4 57

35. Detail showing proof mark on the breast of suit of
Louis XIV. Paris, G, 125 69

36. Proof marks on a brigandine plate in the Darmstadt
Museum 71

37. Poleynes on the brass of Sir Robert de Bures, Acton,
Suffolk, 1302 74

38. Beinbergs on the statue of Guigliemo Berardi, 1289, in
the Cloisters of the Church of the Annunziata, Florence 74

39. Brass of an unknown knight at Laughton, Lincs, 1400 75

40. Pourpointed cuisses, from the brass of Sir John de
Argentine, Horseheath Church, Cambs, 1360 83

41. Padded horse-armour, from King René’s _Traicté d’un
Tournois_ 85

42. Padded “harnische-kappe” and helm showing the
attachment of the cap, after Dürer 89

43. Sallad-cap, from a picture by Paolo Morando, 1486-1522,
No. 571. Uffizi Gallery, Florence 89

44. Helmet-cap, from a XVI-cent. engraving of Jacob Fugger 89

45. Detail of eyelet coats, XVI-XVII cent. Musée
d’Artillerie and Musée Cluny, Paris 91

46. Sallad with cover, from a XVI-cent. engraving 93

47. Cuirass, from the sketch-book of Willars de Honecourt,
XIII cent. 96

48. Leather gauntlet, XVII cent. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford 96

49. Brassard of leather and cord for the tourney, from King
René’s _Traicté d’un Tournois_ 97

50. Leather and steel hat of Bradshaw the regicide.
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford 99

51. Stripping the dead, from the Bayeux Tapestry 105

52. Knight arming, from the _Livre des Nobles Femmes_, Bib.
Nat., Paris, XIV cent. 105

53. Brass of Sir John de Creke, 1325, Westley Waterless,
Cambs. 106

54. Arming-points, from the portrait of a navigator.
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford 108

55. Attachment of brassard, from the portrait of the Duc de
Nevers. Hampton Court Palace 108

56. Moton attached by points. Harl. MS. 4826 109

57. Arming-points on the foot, from a picture of S.
Demetrius by Ortolano. National Gallery, London 109

58. Sixteenth-century suit of plate with the several parts
named in English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish 110

59. Attachment of jousting-helms to the cuirass 112

60. Side view of the above 112

61. The armourer in the lists. Heralds’ Coll., MS. M, 6,
fol. 56 113

62. Arms of the Armourers’ Company of London 120

63. Design on a gauntlet of the suit made for Henry, Prince
of Wales, by William Pickering, _circ._ 1611. Windsor
Castle 122

64. Mark of Bernardino Cantoni on a brigandine, C, II. Real
Armeria, Madrid 133

65. Detail of shield by Desiderius Colman (Plate XXIV) 135

66. Capital formerly in the Via degli Spadari, Milan,
showing the mark of the Missaglia family 138

67. Design on the left cuisse of Henry VIII’s suit, made by
Conrad Seusenhofer. Tower of London, II, 5 141

68. Design by Jacobe Topf for gauntlet and armet of Sir
Henry Lee, from the _Armourer’s Album_. Victoria and Albert
Museum 146

69. Design on the breast of Sir Henry Lee’s suit by Topf.
Armourers’ Hall, London 146

LIST OF PLATES

Venus at the Forge of Vulcan, by Jan Breughel and Hendrik
van Balen, _circ._ 1600. Kaiser Friedrich Museum,
Berlin _Frontispiece_

FACING PAGE
I. Armour for the “Stechzeug,” XV-XVI cent. Germanische
Museum, Nuremberg 4

II. Armour of the fifteenth century exemplified by the
effigy of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, S. Mary’s
Church, Warwick, cast by Bartholomew Lambspring and Will
Austin, _circ._ 1454, from Blore’s _Monumental Remains_. S.
George, by Andrea Mantegna, 1431-1506, Accademia, Venice.
Armour of Roberto di Sanseverino, by Antonio da Missaglia,
_circ._ 1480; Waffensammlung, Vienna, No. 3 8

III. A Contrast. Armour of Count Sigismond of Tirol,
1427-1496; Waffensammlung, Vienna, No. 41. Armour of Louis
XIV, by Garbagnus, 1668; Musée d’Artillerie, Paris, G, 125 12

IV. Armourers at work, Brit. Mus., Roy. MS. 16, G, v, fol.
II. Wood-carving of Duke William of Aquitaine, XV cent., S.
William’s Church, Strasburg. Venus and Vulcan, XIII cent.,
Königl. Bib., Berlin, Codex MS. Germ., fol. 282, p. 79 16

V. Anvils in the British Museum (Burges Bequest) and in the
possession of Mme. Bellon, Avignon 20

VI. The Workshop of Conrad Seusenhofer, from the _Weisz
Künig_, by Hans Burgmair, 1525 24

VII. Armour of Kurfürst Moritz, by Matthäus Frauenpreis,
1548. Königl. Hist. Museum, Dresden, G, 39 28

VIII. Armour of Henry VIII for fighting on foot in the
lists. Tower of London, II, 28 32

IX. Italian brassard (front and back), cuisse, 1470;
Ethnological Museum, Athens. Inside of leg-armour of suit
shown on Plate VIII 36

X. Helmets of Henry VIII; Tower of London. (1, 2) Made by
one of the Missaglia family; II, 29. (3, 4) Made by Conrad
Seusenhofer, 1514. (5) Bevor for the latter; II, 5. The
last three numbers form part of the suit shown on Plate XII 40

XI. Brigandine (inside and outside), XV cent.; Musée
d’Artillerie, Paris, G, 204, 205. Breast-plate of a
brigandine, 1470; Ethnological Museum, Athens. Right cuisse
of suit for fighting on foot in the lists, early XVI cent.;
Musée d’Artillerie, Paris, G, 178 44

XII. “Engraved Suit,” by Conrad Seusenhofer, presented to
Henry VIII by the Emperor Maximilian I, 1514. Tower of
London, II, 5 48

XIII. Helmet of Sir Henry Lee, by Jacobe Topf, 1530-1597.
Tower of London, IV, 29 52

XIV. Armour of King Sebastian of Portugal, by Anton
Peffenhauser, 1525-1603. Pageant armour of Charles V, by
Bartolomeo Campi, 1546. Real Armeria, Madrid, A, 290, 188 56

XV. Alegoria del Tacto, by Jan Breughel. Prado, Madrid 60

XVI. Venetian sallad, XVI cent.; Bayerischen National
Museum, Munich. Back-plate of a brigandine, 1470;
Ethnological Museum, Athens. Morion, XVI-XVII cent.;
Stibbert Collection, Florence. Surcoat of the Black Prince;
Canterbury Cathedral 64

XVII. Cast of ivory chessman, XIV cent. The original of
this was in the possession of the Rev. J. Eagles in 1856,
but has since disappeared. Ivory mirror-case showing
squires arming their masters, XIV cent. Carrand Collection,
Museo Nationale, Florence 68

XVIII. Portraits of two unknown noblemen, by Moroni,
1510-1578, showing the arming-doublet and mail sleeves.
National Gallery, London 72

XIX. Helm for fighting on foot in the lists, XVI cent. It
formerly hung over the tomb of Sir Giles Capel, in Raynes
Church, Essex, and was sold as old iron to Baron de Cosson,
from whom it passed to the collection of the Duc de Dino,
and from thence to the Metropolitan Museum, New York.
Arming a knight for combat in the lists, from a MS. of the
XV cent., in the possession of Lord Hastings 76

XX. Armour of Henry, Prince of Wales, son of James I, by
William Pickering, 1591-1630, Master of the Armourers’
Company of London. Royal Armoury, Windsor Castle 80

XXI. Suit of “puffed and slashed” armour, _circ._ 1520;
formerly in the Meyrick Collection; Wallace Collection,
No. 380. Tonlet suit for fighting on foot in the lists,
by Conrad Lochner, 1510-1567; Musée d’Artillerie, Paris,
G, 182. Armour of Ruprecht von der Pfalz, _circ._ 1515;
Waffensammlung, Vienna, No. 198 84

XXII. Gauntlets. (1, 2) Left and right hand gauntlets,
probably by Jacobe Topf, 1530-1597; Tower, II, 10. (3)
Bridle gauntlet of James I; Tower, II, 24. (4) Left-hand
gauntlet, XV cent.; Madrid, E, 87. (5) Locking gauntlet,
XVI cent.; Tower, III, 59. (6) Left-hand bridle gauntlet,
XVI cent.; Tower, III, 95. (7) Left-hand gauntlet of
Kurfürst Christian II, by Heinrich Knopf, _circ._ 1590;
Dresden, E, 7. (8) Left-hand gauntlet for fighting on
foot at barriers, XVI cent.; Tower, III, 58. (9) Gorget
of Kurfürst Johann Georg II, showing the Garter badge and
motto, by Jacob Joringk, 1669; Dresden, D, 29 88

XXIII. Armour for horse and man, middle of XV cent. Musée
d’Artillerie, Paris, G, 1 92

XXIV. Pageant shield, by Desiderius Colman, 1554. Real
Armeria, Madrid, A, 241 96

XXV. Drawing by Jacobe Topf, 1530-1597, No. 15 in the Album
in the Art Library, Victoria and Albert Museum, London 100

XXVI. Armour of Sir Christopher Hatton; formerly in the
Spitzer Collection, now in the Royal Armoury, Windsor
Castle 100

XXVII. Drawing by Jacobe Topf, from the same source as
Plate XXV, 18 in the Album 104

XXVIII. Armour of Sir John Smith, by Jacobe Topf. Tower of
London, II, 12 104

XXIX. (1) Armet, middle of the XVI cent.; Musée
d’Artillerie, Paris, H, 89. (2) Armet, engraved and gilt
with heavy reinforcing plates on the left side, end of XVI
cent.; Paris, H, 108. (3) Helm from the tomb of Sir Richard
Pembridge, Hereford Cathedral, _circ._ 1360. It was given
by the Dean of Hereford to Sir Samuel Meyrick, and passed
from him to Sir Noel Paton, and is now in the Museum at
Edinburgh. (4) Parade casque, after Negroli, middle of XVI
cent.; Musée d’Artillerie, Paris, H, 253. (5) Sallad, by
one of the Negroli family, end of XV cent.; Real Armeria,
Madrid, D, 13 108

XXX. Armour of Friedrich des Siegreichen, by Tomaso da
Missaglia, _circ._ 1450; Waffensammlung, Vienna, No. 2.
Armour, _circ._ 1460; Musée d’Artillerie, Paris, G, 5 112

XXXI. Portrait medal of Coloman Colman (Helmschmied),
1470-1532. Designs for saddle steel and visor, by Albert
Dürer, 1517, from the Albertina, Vienna 116

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author desires to express his thanks for permission to
reproduce illustrations contained in this work to the following:--

Viscount Dillon, Curator of the Tower Armouries; Mr. Guy Laking,
M.V.O., King’s Armourer; M. Charles Buttin, Paris; Mr. Albert
Calvert, London; The Society of Antiquaries; The Archæological
Institute; The Burlington Fine Arts Club; The Curators of the
Musée d’Artillerie, Paris; and of the Johanneum, Dresden; Messrs.
Mansell and Co., Hanfstaengl, Griggs and Co., London; Sgi. Fratelli
Alinari, Florence; Sig. Anderson, Rome; Herren Teufel, Munich;
Löwy, Vienna (publishers of Boeheim’s _Waffensammlungen_); Moeser,
Berlin (publishers of Boeheim’s _Meister der Waffenschmiedkunst_);
Christof Müller, Nuremberg; Seeman, Leipzig (publishers of
Boeheim’s _Waffenkunde_); and Sen. Hauser and Menet, Madrid.

WORKS OF REFERENCE

Allgemeine Zeitung. Various vols.

Angellucci. Doccumenti inediti.

Antiquarian Repertory.

Archæologia. Various vols.

Archæological Journal. Various vols.

Archives Civiques de Lille.

Archives Camerales di Torino.

Armourers’ Company, London, Records of.

Beckman. History of Inventions. 1846.

Belleval, Marquis de. Costume Militaire Français de 1445.

Boeheim. Waffenkunde. 1890.

” Meister der Waffenschmiedekunst. 1897.

” Articles in Jahrbuch des Kunsthist. Sammlungen.

Boileau, Étienne. Livres des Métiers. Edit. 1837.

Buff, A. Augsburger Platner Allge. Zeit. 1892.

Buttin. Notes sur l’Épreuve. (Rev. Savoisienne, 1906, fasc. 4.)

” Le Guet de Genève. 1910.

Calendar of State Papers. Various entries.

Carteggio ined. artisti.

Cellini, Benvenuto. Arte Fabrile, Plon. 1883.

” ” Life, Cust. 1910.

Chambres des Comptes, Paris. Various entries, 1765.

Chronique de Bertrand du Guesclin. Edit. 1837.

City of London Letter Books.

Cosson, Baron de:--

Arch. Journ., XXXVII. Catalogue of Helmets and Mail.

” ” XLI. Gauntlets.

” ” XLVIII. Arsenals and Armouries of Southern Germany.

Catalogue of the Duc de Dino’s Collection.

Daniele, Père Gabriel. Hist. de la Milice Français. 1721.

Demmin. Guide des Amateurs d’Armes.

Dillon, Viscount:--

Archæologia, LI. Arms and Armour at Westminster, the Tower, and
Greenwich. 1547.

” LI. Trial of Armour. 1590.

” LVII. Ordinances of Chivalry, XV cent.

Arch. Journ., XLIV. The Besague or Moton.

” ” XLVI. The Pasguard and the Volant Piece.

” ” LI. An Elizabethan Armourer’s Album, 1590.

” ” LV. Tilting in Tudor Times.

” ” LX. Armour Notes.

” ” LXV. Armour and Arms in Shakespeare.

” ” LXIX. Horse Armour.

An Almain Armourer’s Album, Introduction and Notes. 1905.

Dudley, Dud. Metallum Martis. 1665.

Essenwein. Die Helm. 1892.

Fauchet, Claude. Origines des Chevaliers, etc. 1610.

ffoulkes, Charles:--

Armour and Weapons. 1909.

Gaya’s Traité des Armes. 1911.

Arms and Armour at Oxford. 1912.

Archæologia, LXII, LXIII.

Arch. Journ., LXVIII.

Burlington Mag. April, 1911.

Connoisseur. June, Sept., Nov., 1909.

Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenkunde, V. 10.

Forestie. Livres des Comptes des Frères Bonis.

Garnier. L’Artillerie des Ducs de Bourgogne.

Gay. Glossaire Archéologique.

Gaya. Traité des Armes, 1687. (Edit. by C. ffoulkes.) 1911.

Gazette de Beaux Arts. Various articles.

Gelli, J. Guida del Amatore di Armi Antiche. 1900.

Gelli and Moretti. I Missaglia. 1903.

Giraud. Les Armuriers Français et Étrangers, 1898.

Gurlitt. Deutschen Turniere, Rüstungen und Plattner. 1889.

Gwynne, John. Memoirs of the Great Civil War. 1822 edit.

Hastings MS. Ordinances of Chivalry. (Archæologia, LVII.)

Hefner-Altneck. Tracten des Christlichen Mittelalters. 1840.

Herbert, William. Hist. of 12 Livery Companies of London. 1834-7.

Hewitt. Ancient Armour. 1855.

Holinshed, R. Chronicles

Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorische Sammlungen des Allerhöchster Kaiserhause.
Various vols.

Langey. Discipline Militaire.

La Noue. Discours Politiques et Militaires, trans. by E. A. 1587.

Letters and Papers Foreign and Domestic, Record Office. Various entries.

Markham, G. Decades of Epistles of War. 1662. Souldiers’ Accidence. 1643.

Memorials of the Verney Family.

Mémoires de la Soc. Arch. de Touraine.

Meyrick. Antient Armour.

Montgomery. Milice Français.

Morigia. Hist. dell’ Antichita di Milano.

Oliver de la Marche. Memoirs, etc. 1616 edit.

Ordonnances des Métiers de Paris.

Ordonnances des Rois.

Patent Office, London, Records of.

Pennant. History of London.

Pelegrini. Di un Armajuolo Bellunese. Arch. Venez., X.

René. Traicté d’un Tournoi.

Revue Savoisienne. Various vols.

Rogers, J. Thorold. History of Agriculture and Prices. 1866.

Rymer. Fœdera. Various entries.

Saulx-Tavannes. Mém. rel. à l’hist. de France, Vol. VIII. 1866.

Saxe, Marshal. Rêveries. Edit. 1756.

Scott, Sir S. History of the British Army.

Speculum Regale. Edit. 1768.

Smith, Sir John. Instructions and Orders Militarie. 1593. Discourses.
1590.

Sussex Archæological Journal. Various articles.

Walsingham. Historia Anglicana, Rolls Series.

Wardroom Accounts of Edward I. Soc. of Ant.

Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenkunde. Various articles.

_Catalogues_ of Windsor Castle; the Tower; Wallace Collection;
Rotunda, Woolwich; Musée d’Artillerie, Paris; Armeria Reale, Turin;
Real Armeria, Madrid; Waffensammlung, Vienna; Zeughaus, Berlin;
Porte de Hal, Brussels; Historische Museum, Dresden; Ashmolean and
Pitt-Rivers Museums, Oxford; British Museum; etc. etc.

_Articles in various Journals and Periodicals_ by Viscount Dillon,
Baron de Cosson, Burgess, Waller, Way, Meyrick, Hewitt, ffoulkes,
Boeheim, Angellucci, Beaumont, Buttin, Yriarte, Giraud.

_Various MSS._ from the British Museum; Bib. Nat., Paris; Königl.
Bibliothek, Berlin; Bodleian Library; etc. etc.

So yff hit stoode than no wer ware
Lost were the craffte of Armoreres

LYDGATE, _The hors, the shepe & the gosse_, line 127

THE ARMOURER AND HIS CRAFT

THE ARMOURER

The importance of the craft of the armourer in the Middle Ages
can hardly be overestimated, for it is, to a large extent, to the
excellence of defensive armour and weapons that we owe much of the
development of art and craftsmanship all over Europe. The reason
for this somewhat sweeping statement is to be found in the fact
that up to the sixteenth century the individual and the personal
factor were of supreme importance in war, and it was the individual
whose needs the armourer studied. In the days when military
organization was in its infancy, and the leader was endowed by
his followers with almost supernatural qualities, the battle was
often won by the prowess of the commander, or lost by his death or
disablement. It would be tedious to quote more than a few instances
of this importance of the individual in war, but the following are
typical of the spirit which pervaded the medieval army.

At the battle of Hastings, when William was supposed to have been
killed he rallied his followers by lifting his helmet and riding
through the host crying, “I am here and by God’s grace I shall
conquer!” The success of Joan of Arc need hardly be mentioned, as
it is an obvious example of the change which could be effected
in the spirit of an army by a popular leader. This importance of
the individual was realized by the leaders themselves, and, as a
safeguard, it was often the custom to dress one or more knights
like the sovereign or commander to draw off the attack. At Bosworth
field Richmond had more than one knight who personated him;
Shakespeare gives the number as five, for Richard says, “There be
six Richmonds in the field; five have I slain instead of him.”

When the importance of the leader is realized it will be obvious
that the craft of the man who protected him in battle was of the
utmost importance to the State; and when once this is admitted, we
may fairly consider that, in an age of ceaseless wars and private
raids, the importance of all the other applied arts which followed
in the train of a victorious leader depended to a very great extent
on the protection afforded him by his armourer.[1]

It would be indeed superfluous to dwell upon the artistic
influences which may be traced directly to the military operations
of the Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, and at a later date the Northern
tribes of Europe, for every writer on the subject bases his
opinions upon this foundation. In more modern periods the conquest
of Spain by the Moors introduced a type of design which has never
been wholly eradicated from Spanish Art, and in our own country the
Norman Conquest gave us a dignified strength of architecture which
would never have been established as a national phase of art if the
victory had been to Harold and the English. The improvements in
the equipment and military organization of the foot-soldier in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries necessitated a more complete
style of defensive armour for the mounted man, and the elaborate
leg armour of plate may be directly traced to the improvement in
the weapons of the former. As is the case at the present day in
the navy, the race between weapon and defence was ceaseless, each
improvement of the one being met by a corresponding improvement in
the other, till the perfection of the firearm ruled any form of
defence out of the competition. More peaceful influences were at
work, however, due to the interchange of visits between European
princes; and German and Italian fashions of armour, as well as of
the other applied arts, competed with each other all over Europe,
though their adoption may generally be traced to a ruler of note
like Maximilian or Charles V.

So without undue exaggeration we may fairly claim for the craft
of the armourer a foremost place as one of the chief influences
in the evolution of modern art and, as such, an important factor
in the development of all the arts which follow in the train of
conquest.

There are certain essential rules which must be observed in
the practice of every craft; but in most cases only one or two
are necessary for the production of good work, because of the
limitations either of the craft or of the needs of those for whom
it is practised. It would be out of place to go through the various
applied arts and to consider the rules which guide them; but,
on examination of these rules as they apply to the craft of the
armourer, it will be seen how each and all are essential for the
production of satisfactory work.

The rules are these:--

1. Suitability for purpose.
2. Convenience in use.
3. Recognition of material.
4. Soundness of constructional methods.
5. Subservience of decoration to the preceding rules.

It may be advantageous to examine these rules one by one and see
how they are observed to the full in the best specimens of armour
and how their neglect produced inferior work.

1. =Suitability for purpose.=--The object of defensive armour was
to protect the wearer from attack of the most powerful weapon in
use at the period when it was made. This was obtained not only by
thickness of metal, but also by so fashioning the planes of the
metal that they presented a “glancing surface” to the blow. An
early example of this consideration of the needs of the wearer
is to be found in the first additions of plate to the suit of
mail which were made in the leg armour of the thirteenth century
(Fig. 38). The reason for this was the increased efficacy of the
weapons of the foot-soldier, who naturally attacked the legs of the
mounted man. The use of mail was far from practical, except in the
form of gussets or capes, which could not be made so conveniently
in plate. The mail armour of the thirteenth century was only a
partial protection, for although it defended the wearer from arrows
and from sword-cut or lance-thrust, it was but little protection
against the bruise of the blow, even when, as was always the case,
a padded garment was worn underneath. Up to the sixteenth century
the shield was used for this reason and provided a smooth movable
surface which the knight could oppose to the weapon and thus
present a glancing surface to the blow.

An examination of a suit of armour of the fifteenth century will
show how this glancing surface was studied in every part. The lames
of the arm-pieces are overlapped downwards so that the blow might
slip off, and the elbow-cop presents a smooth rounded surface which
will direct the blow off the arm of the wearer. The breastplate,
which was at first simply smooth and rounded, became in the
sixteenth century fluted; and a practical experiment will show that
when the thrust of a lance--the favourite weapon at that time--met
one of these flutings it was directed to the strong ridge at neck
or arm hole and thence off the body (Plate 30, 2). The upstanding
neck-guards, wrongly called “passe-guards,” were also intended to
protect the weak part where helmet and gorget met. The fan-plate
of the knee-piece protected the bend of the knee, especially when
bent in riding, the normal position of the mounted man, and the
sollerets were so fashioned that the foot was best protected when
in the stirrup.

[Illustration: _PLATE I_

ARMOUR FOR THE STECHZEUG

XV-XVI CENT.]

[Illustration: FIG. 1. The “glancing surface.”]

The helm and helmet are especially good examples of the craft of
the armourer in this respect. The early flat-topped helm of the
thirteenth century was soon discarded because it was found that the
full force of the downward blow was felt, which was not the case
when the skull of the head-piece was pointed or rounded (Fig. 1).
A treatise on the subject of Military Equipment in the fifteenth
century (Appendix D) distinctly enjoins that the rivets on the
helm should be filed flat: “Et les autres ont la teste du clou
limée affin que le rochet ny prengne.” This is not often found in
existing helms, but the fact that it is mentioned shows that the
smooth surface of the helm was an important consideration. In
helms made for jousting these considerations were minutely studied
by the armourer, for the object of jousters in the sixteenth
century was simply to score points and not to injure each other.
The occularium of the jousting-helm is narrow and is so placed that
it is only of use when the wearer bends forward with his lance in
rest. The lance was always pointed across the horse’s neck and was
directed to the left side of his opponent, therefore the left side
of the helm is always smooth with no projection or opening (Fig.
2). These are found, in cases where they occur, on the right side,
where there would be no chance of their catching the lance-point.
Again, the skull and front plate of the helm are generally thicker
than those at the back, where there is no chance of a blow being
delivered.

[Illustration: FIG. 2. Position of lance in jousting (Arch. Journ.,
LV).]

2. =Convenience in use.=--Besides protecting the fighting man the
armourer had to remember that his patron had to ride, sometimes
to walk, and always to use his arms with convenience, and at the
same time had to be protected while so doing. At first the cuirass
was made simply in two pieces, the back and the front fastened
under the arms with straps. In the middle of the fifteenth century
each of these was made in two or more pieces joined with a rivet,
working loose in a slot cut in the uppermost of the plates, so
that a certain amount of movement of the torse was possible. The
pauldrons, which often appear unnecessarily large, almost meeting
in front and, as is the case in the statue of Colleoni in Venice,
crossing at the back, are so made that they would protect the
armpit when the arm was raised in striking a blow (Fig. 3). The
upper part of the arm-piece or rerebrace is made of overlapping
lames held together by sliding rivets, which allow a certain amount
of play outwards and forwards, but the defence becomes rigid if
the arm is moved backwards, for this movement is not necessary in
delivering a blow (see page 52). The arm and leg pieces are hinged
with metal hinges on the outside of the limb and fastened with
straps or hooks and staples on the inside. In most cases modern
theatrical armour errs in this respect, for it is obvious that
if the straps were on the outside the first object of the enemy
would be to cut them and render the armour useless. The vambrace
or cannon and the lower portion of the rerebrace are in single
cylindrical plates, for here no movement is possible independently
from the shoulder and elbow. The rerebrace, however, is generally
formed with a collar which turns in a groove bossed out in the
upper portion, so that the arm can turn outwards or inwards without
moving the shoulder (see page 54). The cuisse and the front and
back of the jamb are for the same reasons each made in one piece,
joined to the knee-cop and solleret by narrow lames working loose
on rivets. The cuisse only covers the top part of the thigh for
convenience on horseback, and wherever a cuisse is found that
protects the back of the thigh we may be sure that the owner
fought on foot (Plate IX). The solleret is made so that the foot
can move naturally in walking. The upper part is formed of small
lames working on loose rivets and overlapping downwards towards a
centre-plate which covers the tread of the foot; beyond this the
toe-plates overlap upwards and thus perfect freedom of movement is
obtained.

[Illustration: FIG. 3. Back of Pauldrons of A. Statue of Colleoni,
Venice. B. Missaglia Suit, Waffensammlung, Vienna.]

[Illustration: FIG. 4. (1) The practical solleret at rest and (2)
in action. (3) Unpractical solleret, late sixteenth century.]

The various forms of head-piece all more or less exemplify this
need of convenience in use, for they protected the head and at
the same time gave as much opportunity for seeing, hearing, and
breathing as was compatible with their defensive qualities. The
armet or close helmet is perhaps the most ingenious, with its
single or double visor, which could be lifted up so as to leave
the face completely exposed till the moment of attack, when it was
closed and fastened with a locking hook (Plate XIII). Examples of
the armourer adapting his work to the requirements of his patrons
are to be found in the globose helm for fighting at barriers
made by one of the Missaglia family (Tower, II, 29). Here the
vision-slits were evidently found to be too large and too dangerous
to the wearer. An inner plate was added with smaller holes through
which no weapon used at barriers could penetrate (Plate X). A
second example shown in Fig. 14 has a plate added at the lower
edge to increase the height of the helm, which suggests that
the last wearer had a longer neck than the original owner. This
convenience in use is also to be noticed in the gauntlet, which,
as the science of sword-play developed, was gradually discarded in
favour of a defence formed of the portes or rings on the sword-hilt
(Plate XXII). In jousting-armour there was only one position to be
considered, namely, the position with hand on bridle and lance in
rest. The armourer therefore strove to protect his patron when he
assumed that position alone. The arm defences of jousting-armour
with elbow-guard and poldermitton would be useless if the wearer
had to raise his arm with a sword, but, when the lance was held in
rest, the plates of the defences were so arranged that every blow
slipped harmlessly off. As the right hand was protected with the
large shield or vamplate fixed to the lance a gauntlet for this
hand was frequently dispensed with, and, as the left hand was only
employed to hold the reins, a semi-cylindrical plate protected the
hand instead of the articulated gauntlet in use on the field of war
(Plate I).

[Illustration: _PLATE II_

EFFIGY OF RICHARD BEAUCHAMP, EARL OF WARWICK
S. MARY’S CHURCH, WARWICK, 1454

S. GEORGE, BY MANTEGNA, 1431-1506
ACCADEMIA, VENICE

ARMOUR BY ANTONIO DA MISSAGLIA, 1480]

[Illustration: FIG. 5. Horse Armour, sixteenth century.

ENGLISH FRENCH GERMAN ITALIAN SPANISH
1. chanfron chanfrein ross-stirn testiera testera

2. peytral poitrail brust panzer pettiera pechera

3. crinet crinière {mähnen panzer }collo cuello
{kanze }

4. pommel {pommeau }sattel-knopf primo pomo del
{arcade de } arcione arzon
{devant }

{troussequin rückenstück }secondo zaguero
5. cantel {arcade de pausch }arcione
{derrière

6. crupper croupière {krup panzer }groppa grupera
{lenden panzer }

7. tail-guard garde-queue schwanzriem guardacorda guardamalso
panzer

8. flanchard {flançois }flanken panzer fiancali flanqueras
{flanchière }
]

Horse armour or “barding” was of necessity more cumbrous and but
little was attempted beyond the covering of the vital parts of the
body with plates or padded trappings (Fig. 5). Mail was used for
the whole “bard” in the thirteenth century, as we know from the
decorations in the “Painted Chamber” at Westminster.[2] It was
still in use for the neck-defence or “crinet” in the middle of
the fifteenth century. Examples of the latter are to be found in
Paris (Plate XXIII) and in the Wallace Collection, No. 620. Some
attempt to make an articulated suit was evidently made; for we have
a portrait of Harnischmeister Albrecht (1480) mounted on a horse
whose legs are completely covered by articulated plates similar
to those on human armour (Fig. 6). A portion of the leg-piece of
this or of a similar suit is in the Musée Porte de Hal, Brussels
(Fig. 7). Besides the obvious advantage of plate armour over mail
for defensive purposes, it should be noted that in the former the
weight is distributed over the body and limbs, while with the
latter the whole equipment hangs from the shoulders, with possibly
some support at the waist. Hence the movements of the mail-clad
man were much hampered both by the weight of the fabric, and also
by the fact that in bending the arm or leg the mail would crease
in folds, and would thus both interfere with complete freedom and
would probably produce a sore from chafing.

[Illustration: FIG. 6. Harnischmeister Albrecht, 1480. From a
painting in the Arsenal, Vienna.]

[Illustration: FIG. 7. Cuissard for the off hock of a horse. Musée
Porte de Hal, Brussels, IV, 9.]

3. =Recognition of material.=--It would seem at first sight
superfluous to give examples of this when considering armour; but
in the sixteenth century, when the craftsman desired to show off
his technical skill, we find many suits made to imitate the puffed
and slashed velvets and silks of civilian dress. A notable example
of this is to be found on the famous “Engraved Suit” made by Conrad
Seusenhofer for Henry VIII in the Tower, in which the cloth “bases”
or skirts of civilian dress are imitated in metal (Plates XII,
XXI). The human form, head and torse, were also counterfeited in
metal in the sixteenth century, with no great success from the
technical point of view.

4. =Soundness of constructional methods.=--This rule is really
contained in those that have preceded it, but some notice should
be paid to the various methods of fastening different plates and
portions of the suit together. There are many ingenious forms
of turning hook and pin by which these plates can be joined or
taken apart at will (page 55). The sliding rivet is one of the
most important of these constructional details. The lower end of
the rivet is burred over the back of the lower plate, and the
upper plate has a slot cut of less width than the rivet-head,
but sufficiently long to allow the plate to move backwards and
forwards, generally from three-quarters to one inch (page 52).

5. =Subservience of decoration to the preceding rules.=--The best
suits are practically undecorated, but at the same time there are
many which are ornamented with incised or engraved lines and
gilding which do not detract from the utility of the armour. This
last rule is best understood by examples of the breach rather than
the observance; so we may take the rules in order and see how each
was broken during that period known as the Renaissance.

(1) The “glancing surface” was destroyed by elaborate embossing,
generally of meaningless designs, in which the point or edge of a
weapon would catch.

(2) The convenience was also impaired by the same methods, for the
lames and different portions of the suit could not play easily one
over the other if each had designs in high relief. Plates were set
at unpractical angles, sometimes overlapping upwards, in which
the weapon would catch and would not glance off. We find that
foot-armour was made in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
with the lames all overlapping upwards or downwards, and with no
centre-plate for the tread. In the suit given to Henry, Prince of
Wales, by the Prince de Joinville in 1608 (Tower, II, 17) the lames
of the solleret all overlap downwards (see also Fig. 4). It will be
obvious that with such a foot-covering it would be impossible to
walk with ease.

(3) The observance of this rule may be taken as a matter of course
and its neglect has been noticed above.

(4) The careless arrangement of the foot-armour, as mentioned
in No. 2, is an example of the disregard of this rule. Another
instance is the embossing the metal of various parts of the suit
so as to simulate lames or separate plates. They do not ornament
the suit and of course do not add to its convenience; they merely
create a false impression and save the craftsman some labour. The
same may be said of the “clous perdus” or false rivets, which are
found in late suits, doing no work in the construction of the suit,
but giving an appearance of constructional work which is lacking.

(5) One has only to keep the above rules in mind and then to
examine an embossed suit by Piccinino or Peffenhauser to see how
this rule was broken to the detriment of the work as a good piece
of craftsmanship, though perhaps the result may have increased the
artistic reputation of the craftsman (Plate XIV).

It should be noticed that the craftsman of the Renaissance, in
spite of his disregard of the craft rules, did not deteriorate
as a worker; for some of the suits of the Negrolis or of the two
above-mentioned armourers could hardly be equalled at the present
day as specimens of metal-work. But his energies were directed
into different channels and his reputation as an honest craftsman
suffered. By the sixteenth century everything concerned with the
defensive qualities and the constructional details of armour
had been discovered and carried to a high pitch of perfection.
The craftsman therefore had to find some way of exhibiting his
dexterity. Add to this the love of ostentation and display of
his patron, one of the most noticeable traits of the so-called
Renaissance, and we find that by degrees the old craft-excellence
became neglected in the advertisement of the craftsman and the
ostentation of his patron.

In dealing with the first rule no mention was made of the defensive
qualities of armour against firearms, and this from the middle
of the sixteenth century was an important detail in the craft of
the armourer. The glancing surface was of some use; but the armed
man could not afford to take chances. So his equipment was made
to resist a point-blank shot of pistol or arquebus. This will be
noticed with details as to the proof of armour on page 65. It was
the fact that armour _was_ proof against firearms which led to
its disuse, and not that it was of no avail against them, as is
the generally accepted idea. The armourer proved his work by the
most powerful weapons in use, and by so doing found that he had to
increase the weight of metal till it became insupportable (see page
117).

[Illustration: _PLATE III_

ARMOUR OF SIGISMOND OF TIROL, 1427-96

ARMOUR OF LOUIS XIV, BY GARBAGNAUS, 1668]

In the days when travelling was difficult and the difficulties
of transportation great, both on account of the condition of the
roads and also because of the insecurity of life and property,
due to national and personal wars, it was but natural that each
country and district should be in a large measure self-supporting,
especially with respect to armour and weapons. At the same time,
by degrees, some localities produced superior work, either because
they possessed natural resources or because some master founded
a school with superior methods to those of his neighbours. Thus
we find Milan famous for hauberks, Bordeaux[3] for swords, Colin
cleeves (Cologne halberds), Toulouse swords, misericordes of
Versy, chapeaux de Montauban (steel hats), Barcelona bucklers,
arbalests of Catheloigne, and of course swords of Solingen, Toledo,
and Passau.

The principal centres for the making of armour were Italy and
Germany, and it is quite impossible to say which of the two was the
superior from the craftsman’s point of view. If anything, perhaps
the German school favoured a rather heavier type of equipment, due,
no doubt, to the natural characteristics of the race as compared
with the Italian, and also, when the decadence of armour began,
perhaps the German armourer of the Renaissance erred more in
respect of useless and florid ornamentation than did his Italian
rival. But even here the types are so similar that it is almost
impossible to discriminate. France produced no great armourers,
at least we have no records of craft-princes such as the Colmans,
the Seusenhofers, the Missaglias, or the Negrolis, and the same
may be said of England. We have isolated examples here and there
of English and French work, but we have no records of great
schools in either country like those of Milan, Brescia, Nuremberg,
Augsburg, and Innsbruck. A few scattered entries from state or
civic documents will be found under the various headings of this
work and portions of regulations respecting the trade; but of the
lives of the craftsmen we know but little. At a time when personal
safety in the field was of the utmost importance, it can be easily
understood that the patron would take no risks, but would employ
for choice those craftsmen who held the highest repute for their
work, just as till recently the prospective motorist or airman
would not risk a home-made machine, but patronized French makers.
It may seem strange that the local craftsmen did not attempt to
improve their work when examples of foreign skill were imported
in great quantities; but against this we must set the fact that
the detail of the first importance in the craft of the armourer
was the tempering of the metal and this the craftsman kept a close
secret. We have various accounts of secret processes, miraculous
springs of water, poisoned ores, and such-like which were employed,
fabulously no doubt, to attain fine temper for the metal, but no
details are given. It may be that the metal itself was superior in
some districts, as witness the Trial of Armour given on page 66.
Seusenhofer when provided with inferior metal from the mines by
Kugler suggested that it should be classed as “Milanese,” a clear
proof that the German craftsmen, at any rate, considered the
Italian material to be inferior to their own. Little is known as
to the production of the Florentine armourers. Mr. Staley in his
_Guilds of Florence_ has unfortunately found little of importance
under this heading in the civic records of the city.

[Illustration: FIG. 8. Arms of the Armourers’ Gild, from the church
of Or San Michele, Florence.]

The “Corazzi e spadai” of Florence will, however, be always known
by their patron S. George, whose statue by Donatello stood outside
the gild church of Or San Michele. At the base of the niche in
which it stood are carved the arms given in Fig. 8.

[Illustration: FIG. 9. S. George, by Hans Multscher, 1458,
Augsburg.]

Armourers were imported by sovereigns and princes to produce
armour for their personal use and thus to avoid the difficulties
of transit, but they seem to have kept their craft to themselves
and to have founded no school. Henry VIII brought over the “Almain
Armourers” to Greenwich at the beginning of his reign, but most
of them went back in time to their own country, and few took out
denization papers. In 1624 we find that only one of the descendants
of these foreigners was left and he resolutely refused to teach any
one the “mysterie of plating” (page 188). A colony of armourers
migrated from Milan to Arbois towards the end of the fifteenth
century, but no celebrated craftsmen seem to have joined them
except the Merate brothers, who worked for Maximilian and Mary of
Burgundy. It is difficult, in fact impossible, to say which country
led in the beginnings of the armourer’s craft. We have the suit
of Roberto di Sanseverino (Vienna, Waffensammlung, No. 3) signed
with the mark of Antonio Missaglia, _circ._ 1470, and we also have
a statuette by Hans Multscher at Augsburg, _circ._ 1458, which
represents S. George in a suit of armour of precisely the same
design (Fig. 9). It should be noted, however, that the treatment of
this figure shows a strong Italian influence. In European history
of the fifteenth century we have few records of German armourers
being employed, during the first half, at any rate, by the rulers
of other states. We know that Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick,
travelled in Italy and wore armour of a distinctly Italian style,
for it is depicted in the _Beauchamp Pageants_ (Fig. 10) and
is also shown on his magnificent monument in S. Mary’s Church,
Warwick. The likeness of the armour on this monument to that shown
in the picture of S. George, by Mantegna, in the Accademia, Venice,
is so striking that we are bound to admit that the two suits must
have been produced by the same master, and on comparison with the
suit in Vienna above alluded to, that master must have been one of
the Missaglia family. The Earl of Warwick died in 1439 and Mantegna
was born about 1431, so that it is quite possible that the former
purchased a suit of the very latest fashion when in Italy, and that
the latter, realizing the beauty of work produced when he was but a
boy, used a similar suit as a model for his picture (Plate II). As
early as 1398 the Earl of Derby had armour brought over to England
by Milanese armourers, and by the year 1427 Milan had become such
an important factory town that it supplied in a few days armour for
4000 cavalry and 2000 infantry.

[Illustration: FIG. 10. Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick (Cot.
Jul. E, IV, F, 12 b).]

The impetus given to the craft in Germany was due to the interest
of the young Emperor Maximilian, who encouraged not only the
armourer, but every other craftsman and artist in his dominions.
In the _Weisz Künig_ we find him teaching the masters of all
crafts how best to do their own work, though this is probably an
exaggeration of the sycophantic author and illustrator. Still
we are forced to admit that the crafts in Germany attained to a
very high level during his reign. In the description of his visit
to Conrad Seusenhofer, the armourer, it is recorded that the
latter wished to employ certain devices of his own in the making
of armour, to which the young Emperor replied, “Arm me according
to my own wish, for it is I and not you who will take part in the
tournament.” From Germany came armour presented by the Emperor to
Henry VIII, and it is clear that such a master as Seusenhofer,
working so near the Italian frontier as Innsbruck, must have
influenced the Milanese work, just as the Milanese in the first
instance influenced the German craftsmen. With the succession of
Charles V to the thrones of Spain and Germany we find a new impetus
given to German armourers. In Spain there seems to have been a
strong feeling in favour of Milanese work, and the contest between
the two schools of craftsmen was bitter in the extreme. So personal
did this feud become that we find Desiderius Colman in 1552 making
a shield for Charles V on which the maker is represented as a bull
charging a Roman soldier on whose shield is the word “Negrol,”
a reference to the rivalry between the Colmans and the Negrolis
of Milan (Plate XXIV). With the demand for decorated armour the
rivalry between the two centres of trade increased, and there
is little to choose between the works of the German and Italian
craftsmen, either in the riotous incoherence of design or in the
extraordinary skill with which it was produced and finished.

[Illustration: _PLATE IV_

ARMOURERS AT WORK. XV CENT.
BRIT. MUS. ROY. MS. 16, G. V, FOL. II

WOODCARVING OF DUKE WILLIAM OF AQUITAINE
AND HIS ARMOURER. XV CENT.

VENUS AND VULCAN. XIII CENT.
BERLIN, KÖNIGL. BIB. CODEX MS. GERM. 282, 79]

From entries in the State Papers preserved in the Record Office,
it would seem that Milanese armourers were employed by Henry VIII
during the first years of his reign. By the year 1515 the Almain
or German armourers from Brussels had evidently taken their place,
for they are entered as king’s servants with liveries. Only one
Milanese name is found in the list of armourers, Baltesar Bullato,
1532, so that it is clear that Henry, owing, no doubt, to the
influence of Maximilian, had definitely committed himself to German
armour as opposed to Italian. England seems to have remained
faithful to this German influence, but her rulers and nobles never
indulged in the exaggerated and over-elaborate productions which
held favour in Spain and Germany, a fact which is noticeable even
at the present day, when the so-called “Art Nouveau” disfigures
many German and Italian cities but has never obtained a serious
foothold in England. Simplicity and practicality were always the
chief features in English armour. The few known specimens of
English work of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries,
the jousting-helms at Westminster, Woolwich, Ashford, Petworth,
and the Wallace Collection, are examples of this, and the armour
of later years has the same qualification (Figs. 11-14). Even the
suits of Topf, who worked in England at the end of the sixteenth
century and produced the magnificent work that is shown at the
Tower, Windsor, and elsewhere, the designs for which are contained
in an album in the Art Library at South Kensington, are marked
by a restraint which is not found in the works of Piccinino
and Peffenhauser. The decoration never impairs the utility of
the armour, and the designs are always those suitable for work
in tempered steel, and are not in any way suggestive of the
goldsmith’s work of his foreign contemporaries. In the English
national collections we have but little eccentric armour, which is
so common in Continental museums; all is severe and yet graceful,
practical even if decorated, a tribute to the characteristics of
the English race of fighting men.

[Illustration: FIG. 11. The Westminster Helm, _circ._ 1500.
Westminster Abbey. 17 lb. 12 oz.

FIG. 12. The Brocas Helm, Rotunda, Woolwich. 22 lb. 8 oz.]

[Illustration: FIG. 13. The Fogge Helm, Ashford, Sussex. 24 lb.

FIG. 14. The Barendyne Helm, Great Haseley, Oxon. 13 lb. 8 oz.]

The ornamentation of armour with gilding had obtained such a firm
hold that in the seventeenth century James II was obliged to make
an exception in its favour in his proclamation against the use of
“gold and silver foliate,” an extract of which is given in Appendix
I, page 187. In discussing the craft of the armourer it should be
remembered that we can only base our conclusions on the scattered
entries of payments, inventories, and other documents in State or
private collections, and by examination of suits which have been
preserved in the armouries and collections of Europe and England.
These suits represent but a very small percentage of the large
stores of armour of all kinds which must have been in existence
at the beginning of the seventeenth century, and it is only the
fine and exceptional examples which have survived. The material
was so costly in the making that it was made and remade over and
over again; which will account for the absence of complete suits of
the fourteenth century and the scarcity of those of the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries now in existence. Occasionally we have
local collections which give us a suggestion of what the standing
armoury must have been, such as the armour stores at Gratz,
Zurich, the collection of helmets and armour found in the castle
of Chalcis,[4] and village armouries like that at Mendlesham,
Suffolk. Two examples of the treatment of armour must suffice.
In the Inventory of the Tower, taken in 33 Hen. VI, 1455, is the
entry: “Item viij habergeons some of Meleyn and some of Westewale
of the which v of Melyn were delyv’ed to the College of Eyton and
iij broken to make slewys and voyders and ye’s.” Here clearly the
hauberk is cut up and used to make sleeves and gussets, which
were more useful when the complete plate body-defences had come
into fashion than the shirt of mail. This is also another example
of the competition between Milan and Germany (Westphalia) in the
matter of armour-making. As an example of the other reason for the
absence of armour in national and private collections in any great
quantities, we may cite Hearne’s account of his visit to Ditchley,
given in his _Remains_ under the date 1718. He says: “In one of the
outhouses I saw strange armour which belonged to the ancestors[5]
of the Earl of Litchfield, some of the armour very old.” In the
steward’s accounts of but a few weeks later Viscount Dillon has
discovered an entry, “received of Mr. Mott, the brazier for the old
armour wayed 14 cwt. 1 qr. 21 lb. at 10s. the cwt. £7. 4. 6.” The
saddles had been previously cut up to nail up the fruit trees.[6]
From the weight of armour sold there were probably about twenty
suits, some of which must certainly have been of value, possibly
one or more of the missing suits designed by Topf for Sir Henry
Lee and illustrated in the _Almain Armourer’s Album_ now in the
South Kensington Art Library. It can be readily understood that
when the historic or artistic value of armour was not appreciated
it was a cumbrous and useless possession, which soon deteriorated
if not kept clean and bright, and therefore it was melted down just
as are the broken stoves and domestic ironmongery which litter
the rubbish-heaps to-day. We find interesting examples of the
application of munitions of war to peaceful purposes in the use of
sword-pommels as weights for steelyards, helmets for buckets and
scale-bowls, and portions of body armour cut up and fashioned into
lock-covers in the Stibbert Museum, Florence, in the collection
of the Marchese Peruzzi, and elsewhere.[7] Even as late as the
year 1887 the value of armour was not realized, for in that year
two half-suits, stamped with the college mark, were sold from
New College, Oxford, as old iron (_Arms and Armour in Oxford_, C.
ffoulkes).

State and civic records have frequent entries of regulations and
disputes connected with the various craft-gilds, and the armourers
were no exception. The right of search was a privilege jealously
guarded, for it prevented the competition of those outside the gild
and was also a check against foreign competition, which was always
a thorn in the side of the armourer. Every country enacted laws
against importation of arms, and yet for really fine work every
country had to look to Italy or Germany. But this was probably the
case only among the richest, and it is the elaborate workmanship
on the armour which has ensured the survival of many suits of this
type. The ordinary hosting or war-harness was made quite as well
in England as elsewhere; just as the Englishwoman of to-day can be
dressed as well in London as in Paris; but, if she can afford it,
elects to pay large sums for the _cachet_ of the Parisian name.
With regard to the documents bearing on the life of individual
armourers, we have such records as wills, registers of baptisms
and marriages, and also trade accounts and bills. In the latter
the armourer seems to have been no better off than the painter
or sculptor of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. He was always in
financial difficulties and was ceaselessly pressing his patron for
payment. An example of this is given on page 59, where we find
that W. Pickering was paid £200 in 1614, the balance of his bill
for £340, for a suit made for Henry, Prince of Wales, who died in
1612; so that he had to wait at least two years before he received
the whole amount. Conrad Seusenhofer suffered in the same way and
his life was one long struggle with Maximilian and the Diet for
payments for his work. The armourer, however, had the advantage
over his fellow-craftsmen; for when a war or a tournament was
imminent he made his own terms and refused delivery till he had
received payment.

[Illustration: _PLATE V_

ARMOURER’S ANVIL AND PINCERS. XVI CENT.
BRITISH MUSEUM, BURGES BEQUEST

ANVIL. XIV CENT.
IN THE POSSESSION OF MME. BELLON, AVIGNON]

The craft of the armourer merits far more study than has hitherto
been bestowed upon it, for in its finest examples it fulfils
all the essential laws of good craftsmanship to the uttermost.
Added to this the works of the armourer have what may be called a
double personal interest. In the first place, they are the actual
wearing apparel of kings, princes, and other persons of note,
made to their measure and often exhibiting some peculiarity of
their owner. Owing to the perishable nature of fabrics but little
of wearing apparel has survived to us of the periods anterior
to the seventeenth century, and therefore the suit of armour is
most valuable as an historical record, especially when taken in
conjunction with portraits, historical paintings, and sculpture. In
addition to this we have the personality of the maker. The boldly
grooved breast-plate, the pauldrons, and the wide elbow-cops of the
Missaglia, the distinctive hook for the armet which appears only
on Topf suits can be recognized at once, and besides this we have
the _poinçon_ or signature of the craftsman, which it is almost
impossible to imitate, and which at once proclaims the authorship
of the armour.

The whole subject of the armourer and his craft, his limitations,
his success at his best period, and his decadence in later years
can be best summed up in the illustration given on Plate III. Here
we have the graceful and light yet serviceable suit of Sigismond of
Tirol, made by an unknown armourer about the year 1470, placed side
by side with the cumbrous defence made for Louis XIV by Garbagnus
of Brescia in 1668. Though this craftsman must have had fine work
by his forefathers at hand to study, and though the other arts and
crafts were tending towards a light and flowing, if meaningless,
style of design, the craft of the armourer had by this time reached
a depth of sheer utilitarian ugliness which was never equalled even
in the most primitive years of its history.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See Regulations of the “Heaumers,” Appendix B, p. 171.

[2] _Vetusta Monumenta_, VI, and _Armour and Weapons_, p. 88, C.
ffoulkes.

[3] Haute Savoye, near Aix-les-Bains.

[4] Charles ffoulkes “Italian Armour at Chalcis,” _Archæologia_,
LXII.

[5] Sir Henry Lee.

[6] _Arch. Journ._, June, 1895.

[7] Sir Thomas Gresham’s steelyard in the London Museum is
decorated with portions of sword hilts.

TOOLS, APPLIANCES, ETC.

The tools used by the armourers of all nations differ but little
from the implements of the blacksmith and, as will be seen in
considering the various inventories that survive, these have
scarcely varied in form during the centuries. When once invented
the hammer, the anvil, the vice, the chisel, and the pincers are
open to but few improvements, and even with the advent of steam and
mechanical power, the functions of the tool remain and are simply
guided by a machine instead of by the hand.

The chief work of the armourer was the beating out of plates
from the solid ingot of metal and therefore we find that all
illustrations dealing with this craft show the workmen engaged in
this operation. When once the rough shape of the piece was obtained
a great deal of the work was done when the metal was cold, as will
be seen from examination of the illustrations.

When the craft of the armourer became important and when a large
trade was done in these munitions of war, it was found more
convenient to have the plates beaten out in special mills before
they were handed over to the armourer to make up into armour. These
battering-mills are noticed on pages 35, 188.

In many instances they were probably owned by the armourers
and were often under the same roof; but the fact that we find
hammermen, millmen, platers, and armourers mentioned together in
records and bills of payment to armouries seems to suggest that
they had different duties assigned to them.

That the work of the plater was quite distinct from that of the
armourer in the sixteenth century we gather from entries in the
State Papers Domestic, and in the reign of James I, which will be
discussed more fully farther on in this chapter.

The earliest European illustration of an armourer at work at
present known is to be found in the thirteenth-century _Aeneid_
of Heinrich von Waldec (codex MS. Germ. fol. 282, p. 79) in the
Königl. Bib. Berlin (Plate IV). From the fact that the armourer
(Vulcan) is holding the helm with pincers we may infer that he is
working it hot. The anvil as shown in this miniature (Plate IV) is
square and of primitive form and would seem to be quite useless for
the work, but this may be due to the inexperience of the artist.
The hammer, however, is carefully drawn and is evidently from some
real example in which the face is rounded in a slightly convex form
and the toe ends in a small blunted point which may be for riveting
small objects or for making small bosses.

[Illustration: FIG. 15. The Mail-maker (from Jost Amman’s _Stände
und Handwerker_), _circ._ 1590.]

In the fifteenth century we find more care as to details and more
operations shown in the illustration on the same plate, taken
from a miniature by Boccace in _Les Clercs et Nobles Femmes_
(Bib. Reg. 16, G, v. fol. II) in the British Museum. Here we have
several men at work under the superintendence of a lady who is
generally supposed to be the Countess Matilda, while their labours
are enlivened by a flute-player. The man at the bench appears
to be putting together a defence composed of circular plates
laced to a leather or linen foundation which strongly resembles
the culet of so-called “penny plate” armour in the Tower (III,
358). The helm-smith is working on a bascinet which he holds with
pincers, but he is using the toe of the hammer and not the face,
which hardly seems a likely operation. He holds the helmet on a
helmet-stake which probably has a rounded surface for finishing
off the curves. The seated man is perhaps the most interesting
figure, for he is a rare example of a mail-maker at work, closing
up the rings with a pair of pincers. Up to the present we have no
definite idea as to how the intricate operation of mail-making
was accomplished so as to turn out rapidly coats of mail. It is
probable that some form of pincer was used which pierced the
flattened ends of the ring and closed up the rivet when inserted.
Possibly investigations in the East, where mail is still made, may
throw some light upon the subject.[8] The illustration by Jost
Amman (Fig. 15) certainly shows the craftsman using a punch and
hammer for his work and the only other tool shown is a pair of
shears. Mail was in use up to the first years of the seventeenth
century, so we may be sure the artist drew his figure from life.

[Illustration: FIG. 16. The Armourer (from the same source as Fig.
15).]

Few of the actual tools of the armourer survive to us at the
present day. In the Burges Bequest in the British Museum is a fine
anvil decorated with figures of saints in relief of the sixteenth
century, which appears to have been used by a craftsman dealing
with metal in plates or sheets, for the face of the anvil is burred
over in a manner that would not be the case if the smith had
worked with bars or rods, the usual materials of the blacksmith.
In the same case is a pair of armourer’s pincers which resemble
the _multum in parvo_ tools of to-day, for they include hammer,
wire-cutter, nail-drawer, and turnscrew (Plate V). A similar pair
of pincers exists in the Rotunda Museum, Woolwich (XVI, 200). In
the Wallace Collection (No. 88) is an armourer’s hammer of the
sixteenth century with a faceted copper head, the reason for which
was probably the need for avoiding scratching the surface when
finishing a piece. In the same collection is a finely decorated
farrier’s hammer (1002), which also includes a nail-drawer and
turn-nut. The handle is inlaid with brass and mother-of-pearl and
is decorated with engravings of S. George and a musketeer of about
1640. A decorated anvil and vice which were catalogued as those of
an armourer, the property of Mr. Ambrose Morell, were exhibited
in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, in 1911, but from the form
and size of the tools they would appear to have been rather those
of the silversmith than of the armourer. Jost Amman’s “Armourer”
(Fig. 16) calls for no special notice, as no tools are shown in the
workshop, and is merely of interest as being included in this _Book
of Trades_, published in 1590.

[Illustration: _PLATE VI_

MAXIMILIAN AND HIS ARMOURER, CONRAD SEUSENHOFER

FROM THE WEISZ KÜNIG]

The earliest inventory containing armourers’ tools is found in the
archives of the city of Lille. It is dated 1302 and refers to the
effects of the Constable de Nesle in the Hôtel de Soissons,
Paris. The inventory is a long one and includes many interesting
details of furniture, fabrics, and armour. That portion relating to
the tools runs as follows:--

_Arch. Dept. du Nord. Fonds de la Chambre des Comptes de Lille,
No. 4401._

Une englume et fos a souffler lx s.
Unes tenailes bicournes, i martel et menus instruments de forge
xiii s. vi d.
Item unes venterieres v s.
” xxxviii fers faites xii s. viii d.
” sas a cleus, tenons environs v sommes xxi l. v s.
” xiii douzaines de fer de Bourgoyne xxii s. vi d.

Another early inventory is that of Framlingham Castle, Norfolk, of
the year 1308:--

ix capellae ferratae at iv s.
iii vices ad eandem tendentes at ii s.

The earliest complete English inventory of tools connected with
the craft of the armourer occurs in the _Accounts of the Constable
of Dover Castle_. Two separate lists are given at different dates,
which may be studied with more convenience if placed side by
side:--[9]

_Dec. 20. 17 Edw. III, 1344._ _Jan. 26. 35 Edw. III, 1361._

Item in Fabrica. En la Forge.

ij maides[10] ij andefeltes de fer[10]
ij bicorn[11] j andefelte debruse
iij martellos magnos j bikore[11]
iij martellos parvos iij slegges[12]
ij tenaces magnas[13] iiij hammeres
v tenaces parvas[13] vj paires tanges dount deux grosses
ij instrumenta ad ferram iiij pensons febles[14]
cinendum[14] iij nailetoules per clause en icels
iiij instrumenta ferrea ad fair[14]
claves inficiendos[15] iij paire bulghes dount une nouvell[16]
ij paria flaborum[16] j peer moler[18]
j folour de ferro[17] ij fusels de feer aicele[19]
j mola de petra versatilis j paire de wynches[21] as meme la peer
pro ferreo acuendo[18] j trow de peer pur ewe[22]
ij ligamina de ferreo pro j hurthestaf de feer[23]
j buketto[20] j cottyngyre[24]
j markingyre[25] une cable vels et
pourz

All the above tools are in use at the present day, except perhaps
the “nailetoules” for closing the rivets, and, as has been stated
above, if we could but discover what this implement was we might
find that it is also used at the present day for some other
purpose. The nearest approach to such a tool is the eyelet-hole
maker and riveter used by bootmakers. The “bicornes” are still
known to-day as bickirons. They are small anvils with long horns
which are used when riveting tubes or turning over long pieces of
metal. It is a little uncertain as to whether the “folour” derives
its name from the same root as the modern French “fouloir,” a
“rammer,” or from the Latin “follis,” “bellows.” The former would
seem more probable, as it was made of iron. The “fusels de feer
aicele” present some difficulty, but they may be taken to be
spindles of some kind, possibly for the grindstones. The “wynches”
explain themselves, but the addition of “as meme la peer” is not so
clear, for from the next item “peer” evidently means “stone,” for
it is a trough of stone for water; at the same time the word “pair”
is often written “peer” at this period, so it may refer to a pair
of winches. The bellows, shears, and grindstone call for no special
comment, but the “hurthestaf” presents some difficulty. It would
seem to be derived from the word “hearth” or “herth,” in which case
it would probably be a long iron rod, rake, or poker, used for
tending the forge-fire. This seems to be borne out in the inventory
of 1514, where it is spelt “harth stake.” The “cottyngyre” and
“markingyre” may be found in every blacksmith’s shop to-day as
cold-chisels and marking-iron.

The next entry bearing upon the subject of tools and workshop
requirements is found in an _Inventory under Privy Seal of Henry
VI_, dated 1485, at which time John Stanley, of Wyrall, Cheshire,
was Sergeant of the Armoury of the Tower.[26] Here we find the
following items recorded:--

it’m ij yerds iij q’ters of corse rede sylke } All splendid and moch
It’m d’yerds d’q’reters of rede vele wet } more to coom of the
It’m iiij grosses of poyntes[27] } king’s harneys
It’m vj armyng nales[28] }
It’m hamer, j bequerne, j payr of pynsonys, iij pounde of wyre
which was sold by Mastr. Wylliam Fox amerer

The “bequerne” is the same as the “bicorn” mentioned in the Dover
Castle inventory.

In the earlier periods we have no records as to the material
used or the quantities required. It is only when we come to the
sixteenth century that we find detailed accounts kept to assist our
investigations respecting the making of armour.

The next inventory worthy of note contains a list of payments made
to John Blewbery, who was in charge of the workshops in 3 Henry
VIII, 1514.

_Public Record Office._

xviii September Also payde by Owre Commandement to John Blewbery
for the new fforge at Greenwiche made for the
Armarers of Brussells these peces ensuynge.

s. d.

a vyce xiii iv
a greate bekehorne lx
a smalle bekehorne xvi
a peyre of bellowes xxx
a pype stake[29] iii iv
a Creste stake[30] iv
a vysure stake[31] iv
a hanging pype stake[32] iv iv
a stake for the hedde pecys[33] v
ii curace stakes[34] x
iv peyre of Sherys[35] xl
iii platynge hamers[36] viii
iii hamers for the hedde pecys v
a creste hamer for the hedde peces xx
ii hamers ii viii
ii greve hamers[37] iii iv
a meeke hamer[38] xvi
ii pleyne hamers ii
ii platynge hamers ii
ii chesels wt. an halve viii
a creste hamer for the curace xii
ii Rewetinge hamers[39] xvi
a boos hamer[40] xii
xi ffylys[41] xi
a payre of pynsors xviii
ii payre of tongs xvi
a harth stake[42] vi
ii chesels & vi ponchons ii
a watr. trowgh xviii
a temperinge barrelle xii
one Andevyle xx
vi stokks to set the Tolys x
xvi dobles at xvi d every doble xxi iv
xviii quarters of Colys vi ix

in alle xiii li. xvi s. xi d.

Here we find the outfit more elaborate than that scheduled at
Dover. The various “stakes” in use show that there were special
appliances for making every part of the armour, both as regards the
anvils and the hammers. The “halve” with the two chisels is, of
course, the haft or handle, which could be fitted to either. The
“vi stokks to set the Tolys” are presumably handles in which the
tools were fixed. The “ponchons” are punches used in the repoussé
work. The “xvi dobles” were probably heavy iron models on which the
various pieces were shaped. Two specimens in the Tower (a morion,
IV, 227, and a breastplate, III, 209), are considered by the
present Curator to be dobles, for they are cast and not wrought,
are far too heavy for actual use, and have no holes for rivets or
for attaching the lining.

In the illustration given on Plate VI, taken from Hans Burgmair’s
_Weisz Künig_, many of these tools are shown in use. The engraving
was produced by an artist who was also a designer of armour, so
they would certainly be correctly drawn. The various small stakes
are all in use and all the work is being done with the metal cold,
for the men are holding it with their hands. This working of the
cold metal tends to compress the crystals and to make the metal
hard, and is more than once alluded to in works upon armour. Gaya,
in his _Traité des armes_,[43] mentions this detail, and again Jean
de Saulx-Tavannes[44] mentions “cuirasses battues à froid” when
speaking of armour of “proof,” which is also noticed in the present
work under that heading.

[Illustration: _PLATE VII_

ARMOUR OF KURFÜRST MORITZ. BY MATTHAÜS FRAUENPREIS, 1548]

The following extracts from various books and documents relate to
the tools and appliances of the armourer:--

1278. _Roll of Expenses for a tournament in Windsor Park._

It qualibet cresta j per chaston

These chastones or clavones were rivets for fastening the crests of
the knights and also of the horses. Most of the items in this roll
were supplied by curriers or tailors, for the weapons and armour
were of wood or leather, and metal does not seem to have been used.

1300. _Wardrobe Expenses of Edward I._[45]

Una Cresta cum clavis argenti pro eodem capello.

1301. _An indenture on the delivery of the Castle of Montgomery
by William de Leyburn to Hugo de Knoville._[46]

Unum incudem et i martellum et ii suffletis ovi valoris.

These are evidently the contents of the castle armourer’s workshop:
an anvil, a hammer, and a small pair of bellows of no value.
Perhaps such items are hardly worth chronicling, but in a work of
this nature it seems to be advisable to collect every entry bearing
upon the subject, so as to make it a complete study of the craft
of the armourer both technically and historically, as far as is
possible with the very limited material obtainable.

1369. _Dethe Blaunche, l. 9964._ Chaucer.

As hys brothres hamers ronge
upon hys anuelet up and doon.

1386. _Knight’s tale, l. 1649._ Chaucer.

Faste the armurers also
with fyle and hamer prikynge to and fro.

This refers to the travelling armourer who accompanied his lord to
the tournament or to war.

1465. _Acts. of Sir John Howard._

20,000 Bregander nayle 11s. 8d.

These are the small rivets used in making the brigandine. A
brigandine with sleeves at Madrid (c. 11) is composed of 3827
separate plates and over 7000 rivets were used in putting it
together.

1460 (?). _Ordinances of Chivalry, fol. 123b._[47]

Also a dosen tresses of armynge poyntis.
Also a hamyr and pynsones and a bicorne.
Also smale nayles a dosen.

The “tresses” were plaited laces for fastening the various portions
of armour to the wearer. These may be seen in the portrait of the
Duc de Nevers(?) at Hampton Court, the picture of S. Demetrius
by L’Ortolano in the National Gallery, and more clearly in the
portrait of an unknown navigator in the Fortnum Room of the
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. The arming-points will be found described
and illustrated on page 109.

1513. _Equipage of Henry, Earl of Northumberland._[48]

Emmery & oile for dressing my Lord’s harnes.
Leather, bokills & naylles for mendyng my Lords harnes.

Towles conserning the mending of my Lord’s harnes. Item a payre
of nyppers, a payre of pynsores, a pomyshe,[49] & ij fylles.
Item a small sti’the, a hammer, and all ouy^r stuffe and tooles
belonginge an armorer. Item viij yards of white blaunkett for
trussing of my Lord’s harnes in.

The emery and oil were used in cleaning the armour and will be
noticed in due course on page 78. The nippers, pincers, etc., have
been alluded to before. The “sti’the” is an anvil, a term used up
to Shakespeare’s time, as may be found in _Hamlet_, iii. 2, 89. All
these “Towles” or tools would be part of the travelling equipment
of the armourer who accompanied his lord on active service.

1514. _Record Office, 9 July, to John Blewbery._

For a millwheel with stondard, 2 beams & brasys [braces]
belonging thereto and two small wheels to drive the
glasys 40s.
For two elm planks for lanterns for the same mill 5s.
13 lbs. of tin at 5d. a lb. 5s. 5d.
28 lbs. of white soap for tempering the said mill at 2d. lb. 4s. 10d.
500 gauntlet nailes 8d.
100 & a half of iron 4/8, 3 rivetting hamers 2/- 6s. 8d.
a payre of pynsers 2/8, 4 crest fylys 4/- 6s. 8d.
2 greate fylys 5s.
100 & a half of steele for vambraces & gaunteletes 60s.

The mill-wheel was for the water-power used for turning the
grind-stones and other appliances which will be noticed later on
in this chapter. The “glasys” are probably the glazing-wheels for
putting the final polish upon the finished armour. The white soap
was for lubricating the axle of the mill-wheel or for the final
polish of the metal on the wheel or buff. The “gauntlet nailes” are
small rivets for gauntlets which, being of thinner metal, would
require a smaller-sized rivet than the rest of the body armour. The
steel for vambraces and gauntlets was probably thinner than that
used for other portions of the suit.

1514. _Record Office, 22 July, to John Blewbery._

for the glasyers of the said mill and one spindle to
the same glasyers £4 0 0
for a grind stone & the beam for the same mill 1 0 0

_Kings Book of Payments, Record Office._

1516. _Feb., to Edith, widow of Fountain, millman._

for milling & carriage of harness 15 0 0

1516. _Record Office_, _loc. cit._, _May, John Hardy, fishmonger_.

4 bundles of Isebrooke stuff for making parts of
harness £8 6 8

It is difficult to see why this payment should have been made
unless the fishmonger had imported the Innsbruck metal in one of
his boats. The term “Isebroke” will be found mentioned under the
chapter dealing with the Proving of Armour.

1517. _Record Office_, _loc. cit._, _April, to John de Mery_.

2541 lbs. of steel plates of Isebroke and Lymbrickes
stuff £26 12 0

The “Lymbricke” metal came from Limburg, in North Brabant.

1517. _Record Office_, _loc. cit._, _May, to Sir Edw. Guylford_.

making two forges & the repairs in the Armory at
Southwark £19 2 0

1520. _Record Office,[50] April, Richd. Pellande, Rauffe Brand,
Richd. Cutler, and Hans_, four of the King’s armourers, brought
to the Field of the Cloth of Gold all sorts of necessaries for
armour, such as buckles, files, chisels, punches, hinges, hides,
and rivets.

The glazing-mill was taken down at Greenwich and was set up at
Guisnes with four forges.

1544. _Cott. App. XXVIII, f 69, Brit. Mus._

Working in the privy Armoury upon the filing of the king’s
Majestie’s harnes & other necessaries from May 11-July 16. (This
is part of the account of Erasmus, the King’s armourer, who is
noticed elsewhere.)

1544. _Loc. cit., f. 76. Charges of the King’s Armoury._

Item 8 bundles of steel to the said Armoury for
the whole year 38/- the bundle li. xv iiii

(Lockers and Millmen are mentioned in this entry.)

On page 31 it was noted that in 1516 four bundles of steel cost £8
6s. 8d., in 1517 2541 lb. cost £26 12s., that is about 2½d. per lb.
From these three entries taken together we gather that the “bundle”
was about 20 lb.

1544. _Cott. App._[51] XXVIII, f. 76.

Item for 16 bundles of steel to serve both shops
a whole year at 38/- per bundle li. xxx viii
Item i hide of buff leather every month for both
shops at 10/- the hide vi x
Item to every of the said shops 4 loads of
charcoal a month 9/- the load xl xix
Item for both shops 1 cowhide every month at
6/8 the hide iv vi viii
Item 100 of iron every month for both shops at
6/8 the 100 iv vi viii
Item in wispe steel for both shops every month
15 lbs. at 4d. lb. lxv
Item in wire monthly to both shops 12 lb.
monthly at 4d. the lb. lii
Item in nayles & buckles for both shops monthly lxv

This record contains other details in connection with the two
workshops of Greenwich and Westminster, in which 12 armourers, 2
locksmiths, and 2 millmen and 2 prentices are employed who “will
make yearly, with the said 16 bundles of steel and the other stuff
aforesaid, 32 harnesses complete, every harness to be rated to the
king’s Highness at £12, which amounteth in the year towards his
Grace’s charge iii^c iiii^{xx} iiii^{li}” (£384).

From these details we can find approximately that the 32 suits
required 13 hundred of iron and 195 lb. of whisp steel. Therefore
each suit took 40¾ lb. of iron and about 6 lb. of whisp steel.

[Illustration: _PLATE VIII_

ARMOUR OF HENRY VIII FOR FIGHTING ON FOOT IN THE LISTS]

The leather was either for straps and linings for the armour, or
may have been used for facing the polishing-wheels or “buffs.” The
year was divided into thirteen lunar months.

1559. _Henry V, iv, chorus._ Shakespeare.

The Armourers accomplishing the knights
With busy hamers closing riuets up.

This is more or less a poetic licence, for the riveting was only
done on each separate piece, and these were joined on the wearer
with straps, arming-points, or turning-pins. Of course this entry
should be taken as made at the year when Shakespeare wrote, and not
as representing an actual occurrence at Agincourt.

1562. _State Papers Domestic, Elizabeth, Vol. XXI_, 14.

Due also to the armorers of the Tower for their wages &
for leather, buckels, nailes & other paiments in indent
to the said armory at the feast of Christmas last past vj^{li} xv^s

In this entry are mentioned arming nails, butret nails, hammers,
punshions, sheres, fyles, sand for scouring, cords, points,
oyletholes, tow and butten nails.

1574. _State Papers Domestic, Elizabeth, Vol. XCIX_, 50.

The monthly charge ordinary, vez coles, stele
Iron nayles, buckills & lether &c. vij^{li}

1593. _Auditor’s Privy Seal Book_, 353.

Elizabeth to the Treasurer & Chamberlain of the Exchequer.

Whereas we ... are informed that the mills serving for our
Armoury at Greenwich are decayed, you are to pay to Sir H. Lee
such sums as are necessary for the repairs ... for the mills not
to exceed £80.

1622. _Record Office, Sir Henry Lee’s Accounts of the Armoury._

The following details are mentioned:--

Redskins for bordering of armour, calfskins for the same, leather
for gauntlets, Round headed nails, Tynned nails, flat headed
nails, white nails, yellow nails, double buckels, buckels, nails
and taches for gantlets, copper nails, brockases, tacejoyntz.

The “nails” here mentioned are rivets of iron or brass or copper.
Some were tinned to prevent rusting, a custom which was practised
as early as 1361, for we find in one of the inventories of Dover
Castle[52] under that date “xiii basynetz tinez.” The “taches” for
gauntlets were fastenings of some kind, possibly turning-pins. The
“brockases” were also probably brooches or fastenings of some sort,
and the “tacejoyntz” hinges for attaching the tassets to the taces.

1624. _State Papers Domestic, Jac. I, Vol. CLXXX_, 71, 72.
_Erection of Plating-mills by Capt. Martin at Erith._ (This
document is quoted at length in Appendix J, p. 188.)

The rates for Plaetes and armors exectly examined for the prices the
strength and lightness considered are thus reduced.
The chardge of a tun of Armer plaetes £18 0 0
Two chaldron of coles wt. carriadge will be 11 2 0
Reparation for the mill 12 0
The workmen for battering this tun of plaetes 4 0 0
The armourers may make them wt due shape black
nayle and lether them for 7 10 0
etc. etc.

The entries in this document will be examined fully on page 41.

1631. _Fœdera, xix, p_. 312. Rymer.

Unstriking new fyling russetting new nayling lethering
and lyning of a cuirassiers armor i iii 0

This entry occurs in a document under the Privy Seal of Charles
I, dated Westminster, June 29, which refers to the using of a
hall-mark for armour. The principal portion of this is given in
Appendix K, page 191.

1643. _State Papers Domestic, Car. I, Nov. 20._

Letter from Privy Seal to treasurer & under Treasurer of
Exchequer to pay Wm. Legg Master of the Armoury £100 by way
of imprest upon account to be employed in building a mill at
Woolvercote near Oxford for grinding swords & for building forges
providing tools & other necessaries for sword blade makers to be
employed to make swords for our service.

1644. _State Papers Domestic, Car. I, D, Feb. 26._

Warrant of the Privy seal to Exchequer.

By our special command Legg has caused to be erected a mill
for grinding swords at Woolvercote co Gloucester & forges at
Gloucester Hall, you are therefore to pay upon account to Wm.
Legg Master of the Armory a sum not exceeding £2000 for grinding
swords and belts in the office of the armory the same to be made
at the usual price and according to pattern as by us appointed
also to provide tools and other necessaries for sword blade
making employed by the said Master of the Armory.

In the second of these extracts “co Gloucester” is a slip of the
pen due to the close proximity of “Gloucester Hall.” It should of
course read “Oxford.” The mill was originally owned by the nuns
of Godstow, who received it from Henry I. It is now used by the
Clarendon Press for paper-making. Gloucester Hall is now Worcester
College. There are no records either in the city or university to
throw more light on these entries.

1649. _Parliamentary Survey, Feb., No. 30._

The Armory Mill consisted of two little rooms and one large one
in which stood two mills, then lately altered. The mill with
stables stood in an acre of ground abutting on Lewisham Common
and was used till about twelve years before the above date for
grinding armour and implements for the King’s tilt-yard.

The mill is described in the rental of the manor, 44 Edw. III,
1371, as one for grinding steel and valued at 3s. 4d. per ann.

1660. _Harl. MSS._ 7457.

A view and Survey of all the Armour and other Munitions or
Habiliaments of Warr remayneing at the Tower of London.[53]

Armorers Tooles.

Small bickernes, Tramping stakes,[54] Round stake,[55] Welting
stake,[56] straite sheres,[57] fileing tonges, Hamers, Old tew
iron,[58] Great square anvill, Bellows, Smiths vices, Threstles.

The entry which refers to the loss of the “Great Bear,” a large
anvil formerly at Greenwich, is given in full in Appendix M.

Before leaving the subject of tools and appliances, some notice
should be taken of the picture by Jan Breughel (1575-1632) entitled
“Venus at the Forge of Vulcan” (Kais. Friedrich Mus., Berlin,
No. 678), which measures 54 cm. by 93 cm. Here all the various
operations of the armourer and gun-founder are shown, with a
large quantity of armour, weapons, bells, coins, and goldsmith’s
work. The details of especial interest are the grindstones and
“glazing-wheels,” and the “tilt-hammers” worked by water-power,
which were probably the machines used in the “battering-mills” more
than once alluded to above. These water-turned hammers continued
in use in England up to the first quarter of the nineteenth
century,[59] and are still found in Italy at the present day.
They are raised by wooden cams or teeth set round the axle of the
water-wheel, to which a handle is fixed on the near side for use
when water-power was not available. The chisel-edge of the hammer
is for stretching the metal by means of a series of longitudinal
hammerings. Of the grindstones actuated by the same water-power,
the larger would be for rough work, the second for finer finish,
and the smallest, which is probably a wooden “buff,” would be used
for the high polish at the end.

It is impossible here to give a detailed description of this
very interesting picture, which has been considered elsewhere by
the present author.[60] At the same time the tools shown in this
workshop are worthy of notice as being part of the stock-in-trade
of the armourer of the seventeenth century.

[Illustration: _PLATE IX_

FRONT AND BACK OF BRASSARD, 1470

INSIDE OF LEG ARMOUR OF SUIT ON PLATE VIII

CUISSE, 1470]

[Illustration: FIG. 17. Burring-machine or “Jenny” (see
frontispiece).]

To the left of the tilt-hammers, in the foreground, are a pair
of large bench-shears, and above them, on a cooling-trough, just
below the magpie, is a long-handled swage for stamping grooves and
edgings on metal plates. Tongs, pincers, and hammers are found in
many parts of the picture, and dies for stamping coins or medals
are seen immediately below the bench-shears. Directly under the
right foot of Vulcan is a tracing-wheel, similar to that shown
on Jost Amman’s engraving of the “Compass Maker” in his _Book of
Trades_. A small bench-vice lies near the lower margin of the
picture under the figure of Cupid, and a hand-vice and repoussé
hammer on the three-legged stool to the left. In the distance,
over the figure of Venus, is the primitive contrivance for boring
a cannon, the mould for casting which is seen close by in the
floor. The most interesting detail is to be found in the machine
which lies at the foot of the small anvil at Cupid’s right hand.
This bears a strong resemblance to the modern burring-machine or
“jenny,” used for turning up the edge of thin metal plates (Fig.
17).

The armour shown, with its strongly marked volutes and
decoration, is of a type very common in the Madrid and Turin
armouries, some of which has been ascribed to Pompeo della Chiesa.
We have no clue as to whose workshop this picture represents,
but if taken from life, it must certainly have been that of some
master like Bartolomeo Campi, who, besides being an armourer, was
a bronze-founder and goldsmith as well (see Frontispiece).

FOOTNOTES:

[8] The present writer is commissioning research to this end in
Syria, where the craft still survives.

[9] _Arch. Journ._, XI, 380.

[10] Anvils.

[11] Bickiron.

[12] Sledge-hammer.

[13] Pincers and tongs.

[14] Tools for closing rivets.

[15] Shears.

[16] Bellows.

[17] Rammer (bellows?).

[18] Grindstone.

[19] Spindles (?).

[20] Bucket-hoops.

[21] Winches.

[22] Stone water-trough.

[23] Hearth-stick, poker.

[24] Cutting-iron, shears or cold-chisel.

[25] Marking-iron.

[26] _Archæologia_, XIV, 123; also Meyrick, _Antient Armour_, II, 119.

[27] See page 109.

[28] Rivets.

[29] Round-horned anvil for making tubes.

[30] For beating up a helmet-crest.

[31] For visors.

[32] Uncertain.

[33] Helmet-stake.

[34] For the cuirass.

[35] Shears.

[36] Heavy hammers.

[37] hammers for greaves.

[38] (?)

[39] Riveting-hammer.

[40] Embossing-hammer.

[41] Files.

[42] Poker.

[43] Reprint (Clar. Press, Oxon, 1911), edited by Charles ffoulkes.

[44] _Mém. rel. à l’hist. de France_ (Paris, 1866), p. 191, col. 1.

[45] _Archæologia_, XVIII, 305.

[46] Cott. MS., Vit. c. 10, fol. 154.

[47] _Archæologia_, LVII, also _Arch. Journ._, IV, 226.

[48] _Antiquarian Repertory_, IV, 367.

[49] Pumice-stone.

[50] Expenses of Sir Edw. Guilford, Master of the Armoury.

[51] See also Appendix F.

[52] _Arch. Journ._, XI.

[53] Given in full, Meyrick, _Antient Armour_, III, 106.

[54] A pick? (_Eng. Dialect Dict._)

[55] Bottom stake.

[56] For turning over edges of iron.

[57] This shows that curved shears were also used.

[58] Possibly a nozzle for bellows (_N. E. Dict._).

[59] _Cabinet Cyclopædia_, “Manufacture of Metals,” Lardner, 1831.

[60] _Burlington Magazine_, April, 1911. _Zeitschrift für
Historische Waffenkunde_, V, 10.

IRON AND STEEL

There is but little information to be obtained regarding the
actual materials used by the armourer. The chief source from
which he drew his supplies seems to have been Innsbruck. Why this
was so is not clear from the contemporary records, but we may be
sure that the German metal was harder and better tempered than
that of other countries, or there would not have been the demand
for it that there evidently was. In the various entries in the
State Papers Domestic we find specific mention of “Isebruk” iron,
and the merits of this metal must have been appreciated even in
Shakespeare’s time, for we have in _Othello_, v. 2, 253, “a sword
of icebrook’s temper.” In the earliest editions of the play the
word is “Isebrooke,” which is obviously the anglicized version of
Innsbruck.[61]

Sheffield steel must have been appreciated as early as Chaucer’s
time, for the Miller carries a “Sheffield thwyrtel” (knife), and in
1402 the arrows used at the battle of Homildon were pointed with
Sheffield steel, so sharp that no armour could repel them.

It is possible that the German iron-smelters had discovered the
properties of manganese, which hardens steel, and thus obtained a
superior metal to that produced in other countries.

The discovery of steel was probably a fortuitous accident, due to
the fact that the first smelting-works were fuelled with charcoal,
which deoxidizes iron and turns some portion of the metal into
natural steel. The Germans themselves realized the superiority
of their material, for in 1511 Seusenhofer complained that his
merchant was not giving him good metal, and advised that it should
be classed as “Milanese,” so as not to lessen the fame of Innsbruck
iron.

Till the seventeenth century English iron seems to have been
largely used for domestic purposes, for we find on examining
Professor Rogers’s _Agriculture and Prices_ that German iron is
never mentioned, but there are frequent references to English and
Spanish metal. The following prices from the above work show the
fluctuations in prices of iron in England.

1436. Spanish iron, 24 lb., 1s. 6d., or about £14 the ton.
1462. Iron, 42 lb. at 5d., or £17 10s. the ton.
1562. Raw English iron, £12 10s. the ton.
Bilbow (Bilboa), £11 8s. the ton.
Spanish, £12 the ton.
1570. Iron gun-stocks, made up, £28 the ton.
1571. Steel bar, £10 the ton.
Bar steel, £37 4s. the ton.
1584. Spanish iron, £14 the ton. 50 bars to the ton, or about
45 lb. to the bar.
1622. Steel, £32 the ton.
1623. Spanish iron, £14 10s. to £15 10s.
1624. Iron bars of 24 lb. at £37 4s. the ton.

These prices vary so greatly that we must be sure that there was a
great difference in the quality, and also in the state in which the
metal is delivered. In some cases there must have been a great deal
of preparation and finishing of the raw material to account for the
high price paid.

In 1517 an entry in the State Papers Domestic, given on page 31,
states that 2541 lb. of Isebroke steel cost £26 12s., which gives
about £23 for the ton.

In the _Sussex Archæological Journal_, II, 200, Walter Burrel
gives an account of Sussex ironworks in the seventeenth century.
He states that when once the furnace was lit it was kept going
sometimes for forty weeks, the period being reckoned in “foundays.”
During each founday eight tons were made with twenty-four loads of
charcoal. The metal was cast into “sows” weighing from 600 to 2000
lb. He states that “they melt off a piece of the sow about three
quarters of a hundredweight and beat it with sledges near a fire
so that it may not fall to pieces, treating it with water they
thus bring it to a ‘bloom,’ a four square piece 2 ft. long.”[62]
Modern bar-iron 1 in. by 1 in. by 12 in. weighs 3.4 lb. Therefore
this bloom would approximately make a plate 33 sq. ft. by 1/16 in.
thick.[63] Even with these data it is impossible to tell the size
of the plates delivered to the armourer; for the appliances in the
Middle Ages were but crude, and it is doubtful if rolling-mills
were used in the sixteenth century. From the picture by Breughel,
given as the frontispiece, we know that tilt-hammers were in use,
but these would hardly have been used to flatten plates of any
great size.

It would appear that iron in some localities was tainted with
some poison; for in a _Géographie d’Edrisi_ quoted in _Gay’s
Encyclopædia_, 699, reference is made to a mountain in Armenia
where the iron ore is poisoned and which, when made into knives
and swords, produced mortal wounds. It may have been that this
was actually the case, but it is more probable that it was an
invention of the owner of the mine designed to give his productions
a fictitious value.

A few details of interest in connection with the manufacture of
iron in England may be gathered from the _Metallum Martis_ of Dud
Dudley, a natural son of Edward, Lord Dudley. The treatise was
printed in 1665 and refers to the author’s endeavours to interest
the Crown in his project for smelting iron with sea-coal instead
of wood or charcoal. In his address to the King (Charles II) and
Council he prefaces his technical remarks as follows:--

“Our predecessors in former Ages had both serious Consultations
and Considerations before they made these many Wholesome and Good
Lawes for the preservation of Wood and Timber of this Kingdome.
1 Eliz. 15, 23 Eliz. 5, 27 Eliz. 19, 28 Eliz. 3, 5.... Therefore
it concerns His Sacred Majesty, his high Court of Parliament ...
to lay it to heart and helping hands upon fit occasions in these
laudable Inventions of making Iron & melting of mines and refyning
them with Pitcoal, Seacoal, Peat, and Turf; ... for maintenance
of Navigation, men of War, the Fishing and Merchants trade, which
is the greatest strength of Great Britain ... whose defence and
offence next under God consists by his sacred Majestie’s assisting
care and view of his men of War ... Ordinance of Copper, Brass and
Iron, Armories, Steels, and Irons of all sorts.”

[Illustration: _PLATE X_

HELMETS OF HENRY VIII

1, 2. FRONT AND BACK OF HELMET BY THE MISSAGLIAS

3, 4. ” ” ” PART OF THE SUIT SHOWN ON PLATE XII, BY
CONRAD SEUSENHOFER

5. BEVOR FOR THE LATTER

THE ARMOURER’S MARKS APPEAR ON 2 AND 4]

In his letter to the King he mentions Shippings, Stores, Armories,
Ordnance, Magazines, and Trade. He mentions several counties as
mining centres, but does not include Sussex or Shropshire. The
first of these two was probably ruled out, as the industry there
depended on the use of wood, against which Dudley’s introduction
of coal was levelled. We find Shropshire mentioned in the Trial of
Armour given in the chapter on “Proof” (page 66).

Dudley seems to have formed a company in May, 1638, into which he
took one Roger Foulke, “a Counsellor of the Temple and an ingenious
man,” as partner.

Before this his father, Lord Dudley, had employed a certain Richard
Parkes or Parkhouse to carry iron merchandise to the Tower, which
James I ordered to be tested by his “Artists,” that is, of course,
his armourers. Parkes made a sample fowling-piece of the new
“Dudley Ore,” smelted from pit-coal, and signed his name in gold
upon the barrel. The gun was taken from him by Colonel Levison and
was never returned.

Dudley gives three qualities of iron: grey iron, the finest, and
best suited for making bar-iron; motley iron, a medium quality; and
white iron, the least refined.

It is curious that in all his calculations and specifications he
never actually mentions the making of armour and but seldom the
casting of ordnance.

In considering the weights of suits as given in Appendix J we find
the following details. By the prices given 20 cwt. make one ton.
The cwt. at the time of James I was 112 lb.

Now we are told that “Sixe hundred of iron will make five hundred
of plates,” so we gather that in turning the pig-iron into plates
one hundredweight was lost. The above entries give the following
weights per suit or portion of a suit scheduled:--

Five hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 cuirasses
of pistol proofe with pauldrons.
Therefore one set will weigh 28 lb.

Four hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 pair (or 40
sets) of cuirasses without pauldrons.
Therefore one set will weigh 11 lb. 3 oz.

Sixteen hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 lance-armours.
Therefore one lance-armour[64] will weigh 89 lb. 10 oz.

Five hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 proof
targets.
Therefore one target will weigh 28 lb.

Twelve hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 pairs
(40 sets) of strong cuirasses with caps.
Therefore one set of cuirass and cap will weigh 33 lb. 10 oz.

Four “platers” will make up 3700 weight or 37 cwt. of plates in one
week, therefore one plater will make up 9 cwt. 28 lb. in a week or
1 cwt. 57 lb. or thereabouts in one day.

For comparison with existing suits of which the weights are known
we may use the following details:--

lb. oz.
Paris (G, 80), _circ._ 1588. Cuirass, arm-pieces,
and tassets 73 0
Head-piece 22 0
-------
95 0

Stanton Harcourt, Oxon, _circ._ 1685. Cuirass 25 0
Head-piece 22 10
Arm-pieces (2) 6 0
------
53 10

Tower (II, 92), _circ._ 1686. Cuirass 27 4
Head-piece 7 8
Long gauntlet 3 0
-------
37 12

Tower (II, 92), of XVII cent. Cuirass 24 0
Head-piece 6 8
The whole of this suit weighs 48 8

It should be noted that two of the items in the Appendix are
described as of “proof” and one is described as “strong.” The
lance-armours are not qualified in any way, but from their weight
they must have been proof against musket or arquebus.

It is impossible to discover what size the “plates” were made
before they were handed over to the armourers. The largest single
plate in the Tower is a portion of the horse-armour of II, 5, known
as the “Engraved Suit.” This piece measures 27½ in. at top and
28½ in. at bottom by 17 in. and 18½ in. high, or roughly speaking
28½ in. by 18½ in., about 1/16 in. thick, weighing about 6 lb.
4 oz. If the numbers given on page 41 represent plates and not
hundredweights, each plate 1/16 in. thick would be 6 in. by 11
in., and this is obviously absurd. It is more likely that, with the
crude appliances in use, an ingot of metal was beaten out into such
a plate as the weight of the ingot might give, larger or smaller
as the case might be, and not standardized in any way. Dud Dudley
writing in 1665 describes the methods of ironworkers before his
introduction of sea-coal.

“They could make but one little lump or bloom of Iron in a day, not
100 weight and that not fusible, nor fined, or malliable, until it
were long burned and wrought under hammers.”[65]

FOOTNOTES:

[61] The quotation continues: “a sword of Spain.” We find
many Solingen and Passau blades bearing the marks of Spanish
sword-smiths.

[62] This would be a piece about 2 ft. by 3½ in. by 3½ in.

[63] Large plates of horse-armour are about 1/16 in. thick.

[64] For particulars of “lance-armour” see Appendix I.

[65] _Metallum Martis_, p. 37.

THE CRAFT OF THE ARMOURER

The actual craft-work of the armourer differed but little from
that of the smith, but there are some details which the armourer
had to consider which were not part of ordinary blacksmith’s work.
There are no contemporary works of a technical nature, and our
investigations can only be based on actual examination of suits,
assisted by scattered extracts from authorities who mention the
subject in military works. In 1649 J. Cramer printed a work, _De
Armorum Fabricatione_, but it throws no light upon the subject and
quotes from Roman authorities.

In the first place, the making of mail was a distinct craft which
had no counterpart in other branches of smithing. At first the wire
had to be beaten out from the solid, and thus the few fragments
which remain to us of early mail show a rough, uneven ring of
wire, clumsily fashioned and thicker than that of later dates.
The invention of wire-drawing is generally ascribed to Rudolph
of Nuremberg, about the middle of the fourteenth century,[66]
but there were two corporations of wire-drawers in Paris in the
thirteenth century mentioned in Étienne Boileau’s _Livre des
Métiers_, written about 1260.

[Illustration: _PLATE XI_

BRIGANDINE, OUTSIDE AND INSIDE. XV CENT.

BREASTPLATE FOR BRIGANDINE, 1470, SHOWING ARMOURER’S MARK

RIGHT CUISSE OF ARMOUR FOR BARRIERS SHOWING ARMOURER’S MARK]

When the wire was obtained, either hammered out or drawn, it was
probably twisted spirally round a rod of the diameter of the
required ring. It was then cut off into rings, with the ends
overlapping. The two ends were flattened and punched or bored with
holes through the flat portion. A small rivet, and in some cases
two, was then inserted, and this was burred over with a hammer or
with punches (Fig. 15, 18; also Plate IV). It is possible that some
kind of riveting-pincers were used, but no specimens of this kind
of tool are known.[67] Sometimes the ends of the rings are welded,
which would be done by heating them and hammering them together.
Before the rings were joined up they were interlaced one with
another, each ring passing through four others. Occasionally,
to obtain increased strength, two rings were used for every one
of the ordinary mail, but representations of this double mail are
rare. The terms “haubert doublier,” “haubert à maille double,” and
“haubert clavey de double maille” are found in French inventories,
and in the inventory of Louis X which has been quoted before we
find “33 gorgieres doubles de Chambli, un pans et uns bras de
roondes mailles, une couverture de mailles rondes demy cloies.”
These different items suggest that there were various ways of
making mail and of putting it together. The double mail has been
noticed, and the mail “demy cloues” was probably mail in which
the ends of the links were closed with only one rivet. The “maile
roond” being specially scheduled points to the fact that sometimes
mail was made of flat rings, but whether cut from the sheet of
metal or merely of flattened wire it is impossible to say.

[Illustration: FIG. 18. Method of making mail.]

Where the covering of mail was not made in one piece--that is,
when the shirt, leggings, sleeves, or coif were made to open--they
were fastened by laces. The chausses, or leggings of mail, were
often laced at the back of the leg, as is shown in the sketch-book
of Wilars de Honecourt, thirteenth century, figured in _Armour
and Weapons_ (Plate I) by the present author. The coif of mail
was generally kept close to the head by a thong round the temples
(Fig. 23, 8), and was in some instances fastened in front with an
overlapping flap and a lace (Fig. 20).

[Illustration: FIG. 19. Sculptured representation of (1) double and
(2) single mail on the effigy of R. de Mauley, 1242, formerly in
York Minster (_Archæologia_, XXXI).]

The Camail, or tippet of mail, which is the distinctive detail of
the armour of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century, was
either hung from a flat plate of metal which was fitted over the
vervelles or staples on the bascinet and kept in place by a lace
or a thick wire, or the mail itself was hung over the vervelles and
the plate fitted over it and secured in the same way. This latter
method appears to have been more commonly in use, to judge from
sculptured effigies and brasses. A bascinet in the Ethnological
Museum, Athens,[68] shows the vervelles, plate, and wire that
secured it still in place, but the mail has all corroded and
disappeared. A good restoration of the camail on a bascinet with a
leather band instead of a flat plate is to be found in the Wallace
Collection (No. 74).

[Illustration: FIG. 20. Coif of Mail, (1) Effigy of William
Mareschal, Earl of Pembroke, Temple Church. (2) Effigy in Pershore
Church, Worcs. (from Fairholt).]

In the thirteenth century we find one of the most unpractical of
all the armourer’s contrivances in the nasal flap-hinged or laced
to the camail, hanging down over the chin when not in use, and
fastened, when required, to the bascinet by a pin or hook. The
nasal of the eleventh century, figured on the Bayeux Tapestry and
elsewhere, was practical because it provided a defence for the nose
and face which was as rigid as the helmet itself; but this later
nasal could only protect the wearer from the actual cutting of
the skin, for the full force of the blows would be felt almost as
much as if there were no defence at all. These nasals are figured
so frequently in Hewitt, Hefner, and elsewhere that no special
illustration is necessary in the present work.

A variety of mail which, from the sculptured effigies and from
miniatures of the thirteenth century, appears to have been in high
favour, has come to be known as “Banded Mail.”

[Illustration: FIG. 21. Attachment of Camail, effigy of Sir R.
Pembridge, Clehonger Church, Hereford.

FIG. 22. Attachment of Camail.]

In both painted and sculptured records the methods of
representation differ considerably from those employed to suggest
the ordinary mail of interlaced rings.

In the middle of the last century, when the subject of armour began
to be seriously studied, this banded mail was the subject of many
theories and suggestions. Meyrick considered that it was composed
of rings sewn on to a fabric, overlapping each other sideways; but
a practical experiment will prove that such an arrangement would be
impossible, as the weight would be excessive and the curve of the
body would cause the rings to “gape.” Other writers have considered
that the same arrangement of rings, covered with leather which
would prevent the “gaping,” is the correct solution; but here again
the heat would be a grave drawback.[69]

[Illustration: FIG. 23. Banded Mail.

1, 2, 3. Suggested reinforcements of chain mail by leather thongs.
4. Rings covered with leather; 5, section of same.
6. Meyrick’s suggestion; 7, section of same.
8. From _Romance of Alexander_, Bib. Nat., Paris, _circ._ 1240.
9. Effigy at Newton Solney, Derbs; 10, section of same.]

An important point on all representations of banded mail is that,
when part of the garment is shown turned back, the back is the same
as the front. The most practical suggestion was put forward by the
late J. G. Waller,[70] who considered that it was simply chain mail
with leather thongs threaded through every row or every alternate
row of links. This would give a solidity to an otherwise too-pliant
fabric, and would keep the mail in its place, especially on the
arms and legs. It would also show the same arrangement of rings
back and front.

The drawing from the _Romance of Alexander_ goes far to prove that
Waller’s theory is the right one, for here the thongs are not
shown on hands and head, where greater pliability of the mail was
required, and yet these defences appear to be part of the same
garment which shows the “banded” lines.

It is almost superfluous to add that no specimen of this kind of
defence survives to-day, but Oriental mail is sometimes found
stiffened in this manner with leather thongs.

The wearing of mail survived longer than is generally supposed.
Holinshed, writing in 1586 (page 90 of the present work),
mentions shirts of mail as part of the ordinary equipment of the
foot-soldier. On Plate 8 of Derricke’s _Image of Ireland_ the
mounted officer wears mail sleeves, and in an inventory of Hengrave
Hall, Suffolk, taken in 1603, we find gorgets and shirts of mail,
and barrels for cleaning the same. Edward Davies, writing in 1619
(_The Art of Warre_), distinctly states that the arquebussiers wore
a shirt of mail (see page 115).

[Illustration: _PLATE XII_

ARMOUR PRESENTED TO HENRY VIII BY THE EMPEROR MAXIMILIAN, MADE BY
CONRAD SEUSENHOFER, 1514]

The Brigandine and splinted armour were made by riveting small
plates or horizontal lames on to a fabric foundation. In the former
the fabric was outside, and rich ornamentation was obtained by the
gilt rivet-heads which held the plates to the outer covering (see
page 150). In the latter case the metal was on the outside and
was riveted on to a foundation of linen. In some cases the rows
of small plates are divided by strips of fine mail. There was no
particular craft needed in making the brigandine, but the metal
used was often of proof and was marked with the maker’s name to
attest it.

As may be seen on Plate XI and Fig. 36, the small plates of the
brigandine are wider at the top than at the bottom, and overlap
upwards. The reason for this is that the human torse is narrower at
the waist than at the chest, and the plates could not overlap each
other and yet conform to the lines of the figure if they overlapped
downwards.

[Illustration: FIG. 24. Figure wearing Jack (from _Chasse of S.
Ursula_, by Memling, 1475-85, Bruges).]

Although lighter and more pliable defences than the cuirass, the
brigandine and jack were very effectual for protection against
arrows, for we find, according to Walsingham,[71] that the rioters
under Wat Tyler shot at a jack belonging to the Duke of Lancaster,
but were unable to damage it, and eventually cut it to pieces with
swords and axes.

The jack or canvas coat of Sir John Willoughby, _temp._ Elizabeth,
now at Woolaton Hall, is formed of stout canvas inside and out
stuffed with two layers of tow with horn discs in between. The
whole is kept together by a series of lacings which appear on the
outside as lines and triangles of the same kind as those shown on
Fig. 25. It is composed of six panels, two for the breast, two
for the back, and two small ones for the shoulders. A portrait of
Willoughby in the Painted Gallery at Greenwich shows such a jack
with red cords. The jack was generally lined with metal plates and
examples of this may be seen in the Tower (III, 335, 336). These
are also made up of six panels and weigh about 17 lb. each. They
are composed of about 1164 metal plates[72] (Fig. 25). In the
Shuttleworth accounts published by the Chetham Society are to be
found entries of 9¼ yards of linen to make a “steel coat,” a pound
of slape or pitch, two dozen points or laces for two coats, and
1650 steel plates. The cost of the coat, inclusive of making, would
come to about £1. A cap, constructed in the same manner of small
plates, is shown in the Burges Collection at the British Museum and
is figured in the _Guide to the Mediæval Room_ on page 62.

[Illustration: FIG. 25. Construction of Jack.

A. Outside.
B. Plates with cover and cords removed.]

[Illustration: FIG. 26. Brigandine at Vienna, No. 130.]

The brigandine was sometimes reinforced with large placcates of
steel, one on each breast, riveted to the fabric which composed
the whole defence. An example of this nature exists in the
Waffensammlung at Vienna, and there are also several of these
reinforcing plates, the brigandines of which have perished, in
the Ethnological Museum at Athens (Fig. 26). These latter were
found in the castle of Chalcis, which was taken by the Turks from
the Venetians in 1470, so they can be dated with accuracy.[73] On
one of the plates is a mark which strongly resembles the mark of
Antonio Missaglia (see Plates XI, XVI). These brigandines with
solid breast-pieces are described in Appendix D, page 177. Both
these plates and the example at Vienna are fitted with lance-rests
which seem to be eminently unpractical, as the garment is more or
less pliant and would not be of much use in sustaining the weight
of a lance. The most curious of these reinforcing plates is to
be found in the picture of S. Victor by Van der Goes, _circ._
1450, which is now in the Municipal Gallery at Glasgow. Here the
uppermost part of the torse is protected by strong plates of steel,
but the abdomen is only covered by the brigandine (Fig. 27).
As an example of this fashion of armour and as a most careful
representation of detail this picture is as valuable as it is
unique. Splinted armour is practically the brigandine without a
covering, but made usually of stronger plates or lames. The fact
that the body was covered by a series of small plates ensured
greater freedom and ease in movement than was possible with solid
breast and back plates. The monument in Ash Church and the statue
of S. George at Prague are good examples of the splinted armour of
the fourteenth century (Figs. 28, 29).

[Illustration: FIG. 27. S. Victor, by Van der Goes, Glasgow.]

[Illustration: FIG. 28. Effigy at Ash Church, Kent, fourteenth
century.]

That the skill of the sixteenth-century armourer surpassed that
of the present-day craftsman is evident after careful examination
of some of the triple-combed Burgonets and Morions of the middle
of the century. They are often found forged in one piece with no
sign of join or welding, and what is more remarkable still, there
is but little difference in the thickness of the metal all over
the piece. Now, when a smith hollows out a plate of metal into a
bowl-like form, the edges are generally thicker than the inside of
the bowl; but in many of these head-pieces the metal is almost of
equal thickness all over, a _tour de force_ which few metal-workers
to-day could imitate.[74] This thinning of the metal was utilized
to a great extent in the different portions of the suit which
were not exposed to attack. As will be found in the chapter on
“Proof,” the back-plates were generally thinner than the breasts.
In jousting-helms the top of the skull, which, from the position
of the rider when jousting, was most exposed to the lance, was
generally much thicker than the back of the helm, where there was
no chance of attack.

[Illustration: FIG. 29. Statue of S. George, Prague, 1375.]

Again, the left side of both jousting and war harness is frequently
thicker than the right, for it was here that the attack of both
lance and sword was directed. Up to the middle of the fifteenth
century the shield, hung on the left arm, was used as an extra
protection for this the more vulnerable side of the man-at-arms,
but it seriously interfered with the management of the horse. By
the sixteenth century it was discarded and the armour itself made
stronger on the left side both by increased thickness and also by
reinforcing pieces such as the Grandgarde, the Passgarde, and the
Manteau d’armes.

[Illustration: FIG. 30. Sliding rivet showing (1) front, (2) side,
(3) back.]

Perhaps the most ingenious contrivance used in making the suit of
armour is the sliding rivet (Fig. 30). This contrivance has come to
be called the “Almain rivet” in modern catalogues in a sense never
found in contemporary documents. In these documents the “Almain
rivet” is a light half-suit of German origin, made up of breast,
back, and tassets, with sometimes arm-pieces. The word “rivet” was
employed in the sixteenth century for a suit of armour, for Hall
uses the word frequently in his Chronicles. This word is therefore
more probably derived from the same root as the French _revêtir_,
rather than from the rivets which were used in the making of the
suit. Up to the sixteenth century the rivet as we know it to-day
is always called an “arming-nail,” and it is only in the middle of
the sixteenth century that we find the word rivet used as part of
the armourer’s stock-in-trade. These light suits were put together
with sliding rivets, which have at the present day received the
name originally given to the whole suit. The head of the rivet is
burred over and fixed in the upper plate, but the lower plate is
slotted for about three-quarters of an inch, so that it will play
up and down on the shank of the rivet and give more freedom of
action than the fixed rivet; at the same time it will not allow the
two plates to slide so far apart as will uncover the limb or body
of the wearer. These sliding rivets were used to join the upper and
lower portions of the breastplate which was in fashion in the last
years of the fifteenth century, so as to allow a certain amount
of movement for the torse backwards and forwards. They were also
employed to join the taces, which needed a certain amount of play
when mounting a horse or when sitting. When the “lobster-tail”
cuisse superseded the taces and tassets in the late sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries they were used instead of the fixed rivets
for joining the lames of the cuisse.

[Illustration: _PLATE XIII_

ARMET OF SIR HENRY LEE, BY JACOB TOPF, 1530-1597]

The most ingenious arrangement of sliding rivets, however, is to
be found on the brassards of the late fifteenth to the seventeenth
century. As has been noticed on page 6, the armourer had to
consider in this case both the defensive needs of his patron
and also the necessity for using his arm as conveniently as was
consistent with safety.

Now the only actions needed for the right arm are those of holding
the lance in rest and of striking with the sword. The arm-defence
therefore had to be so constructed that the arm could be bent for
the former and raised for the latter. To do this the lames of the
rerebrace are joined with sliding rivets at the hinder corners,
but at the front corners they are joined with a strap fastened
vertically to the top plate of the brassart and riveted, when
extended straight, to each lame.

This allows play for the lames in the two above-mentioned
positions, but when the arm is dropped, after the blow has been
delivered, the lames automatically close one over the other and
completely protect the arm and allow no backward movement.

The same arrangement is found on the laminated cuisses and tassets,
in which the inner edges of the lames are joined by a strap and
the outer by sliding rivets. This combination of sliding rivet and
strap is shown on Fig. 7 and on Plate IX.

Another ingenious arrangement on the brassard is the turned-over
edge or the embossed rim fitting in a collar, both of which allow
the lower part of the rerebrace to turn horizontally to adapt it to
the outward action of the hand and arm. In most suits the bossings
of the rims are outside, but on the “Engraved Suit” (II, 5) in
the Tower they are inside. The former gives a smooth surface to
the wearer’s arm and the latter presents a smooth surface to the
opposing weapon (Fig. 31).

[Illustration: FIG. 31. Sections of Rerebraces.

1. “Engraved Suit,” Tower, II, 5, 1514.
2. Tower, II, 6, 1540.
3. Tower, II, 7, 1570.
4. Wallace Collection, 340.]

A similar rim and collar are found on close helmets and gorgets
of the sixteenth century (Plate XIII). Meyrick,[75] misreading
Fauchet’s[76] reference to the burgonet, considered this helmet
with a lower edge fitting into the gorget to be the burgonet, but
he brought no real evidence to support his assertion. Although
the helmet and gorget fitted one over the other and therefore
surmounted one of the chief dangers in war or joust, when the lance
might penetrate the space between these two portions of the suit,
it will be seen on examination of any suit of this kind that from
the oblique position of the gorget the embossed rim of the helmet
could not possibly turn in the hollowed rim of the gorget, so that
it can only be considered as a defensive improvement which in no
way added to the convenience in use, if anything it rather hampered
the wearer, as he could only turn his head inside the helmet and
that to no great extent. In some late suits a pin fixed at the back
of the gorget comes through a hole in the lower edge of the helmet
and _prevents_ any possible movement.

It is almost superfluous to mention the straps which join the
various portions of the suit. These are always placed, where
possible, in positions where they are protected from injury; as,
for example, on the jambs they are on the inside of the leg, next
to the horse when the wearer is mounted, and the hinge of the jamb
being of metal is on the outside. In some cases the end of the
strap after being buckled fits into a “shoe” bossed out of the
armour plate (Fig. 33).

[Illustration: FIG. 32. Locking Gauntlet of Sir Henry Lee,
Armourers’ Hall, London.]

It is practically impossible to notice the various forms of turning
or locking pins used for joining parts of a suit. The general
principle is that of a turning rivet with a flat, fan, or hook
shaped head which, fitting into an oblong slot in the upper plate,
can be turned at right angles to hold the two plates together.
There are many varieties of this fastening, based upon the same
principle, but those existing at the present day are often modern
restorations. In suits for the joust or tourney these adjustable
fastenings could not always be depended upon, and the great helm,
the manteau d’armes, and the passgarde were often screwed on to the
suit with square or polygonal headed bolts tightened with a spanner.

The gauntlet was sometimes capable of being locked, for the
unfingered flap which covered the fingers was prolonged so as to
reach the wrist, where it fastened over a pin. This was used in
foot jousts to prevent the weapon from being struck out of the
hand and is sometimes called the “forbidden gauntlet,” an absurd
term when we consider that many fine suits are provided with this
appliance, which would not be the case if its use were not allowed
(Fig. 32, also Plate XXII).

[Illustration: FIG. 33. Locking hooks, turning pins, and
strap-cover.]

A few of the fastenings used to hold the different parts of the
suit together are shown on Fig. 33. The hook (No. 1) is found on
the armets made by Topf (page 21 and Plate XIII). Here the hook A
is shown in position fastening the visor over a button D. When it
is necessary to open the visor a leather thong which was attached
at C is pulled and at the same time the button F is pressed. This
depresses a spring riveted to the visor at G and projecting with a
small tongue at E. The depression of E allows the hook to be moved
back and the visor to be raised. When the hook is moved forward to
close the visor the tongue E springs up and locks the whole firmly.
No. 2 of the same figure is another contrivance for locking plates
together, and is found on 695, Wallace Collection, and elsewhere.
C C C is the section of the armour plate. The hook is pivoted
at C and is fitted with a spring at D. When the leather lace at
A is pulled the tongue of the hook B is brought back flush with
the plate C and allows the visor to be raised. When the visor is
closed the hook springs back to its position and locks the plates
together. No. 3 is a catch of the same kind, but is worked by a
spring of the same kind as that which locks the “Topf” hook. The
pressing of the button A sets back the hook B, which is riveted to
the plate at D. No. 4 is a “spring pin,” or “federzapfen” as they
are called in German and “auberon” in French. The small flange let
into the pin is kept pressed outwards by a spring and is pressed
back to slip the pauldron, in which is a hole cut for the purpose,
over the pin. No. 5 shows a series of turning pins which are
riveted to the lower plate in taces, cuisses, tassets, etc., but
can be turned at will. The upper plates that are fastened by these
pins are pierced with narrow oblong slits through which the flat
head of the pin can be passed; a turn at right angles locks the two
plates closely. No. 6 is an ingenious contrivance found on 1086,
Wallace Collection. The armour plate is bossed upwards to form a
covering for the free end of the strap when buckled, to prevent the
chance of this loose piece of leather being cut off or of hindering
the wearer in any way.

[Illustration: FIG. 34. Bracket for jousting-sallad and reinforcing
bevor, Dresden, C, 3, 4.]

On Fig. 34 is shown the support for the jousting-sallad, without
which it was always liable to be struck off. It is screwed with
wing nuts to the crest of the sallad and to the back of the
cuirass. The reinforcing piece for face and breast of the same
nature as the mentonnière and grand-guard. These various methods of
fastening plates together can be only studied to advantage by
careful examination of actual suits, and even here there is always
the chance that they may be modern restorations. Perhaps the most
elaborately contrived suit in existence is that made for Henry VIII
for fighting on foot in the lists (Tower, II, 28). This covers the
wearer completely with lames back and front, and allows as much
movement as is possible in a suit weighing 93 lb. (Plate VIII). It
is composed of 235 separate pieces, all of different form. There
are similar suits in the Musée d’Artillerie, Paris (G, 178, 179)
of a more ornate character. The cuisse of one of these suits is
shown on Plate XI and the inside of the cuisse of the Tower suit
on Plate IX. While dealing with this question of the pieces that
compose a suit, it should be noted that the “Leicester” suit in the
Tower (II, 10) is made up of 194 pieces, and a suit at Madrid (A,
164, the “Muhlberg” suit of Charles V) requires one mounted and six
unmounted figures to show it off completely.

[Illustration: _PLATE XIV_

PARADE ARMOUR

1. FOR KING SEBASTIAN OF PORTUGAL, BY ANTON PEFFENHAUSER, 1525-1603
2. FOR CHARLES V, BY BARTOLOMEO CAMPI, 1546]

THE MAKING OF ARMOUR IN ENGLAND, FROM CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTS

1321. Edward II sends David le Hope, armour-smith, to Paris to
learn the method of making sword-blades for battle.

1322. Regulations concerning the covering of helmets with fabric
and the selling of old and broken helmets. _Arm. Co., Lond._ (see
Appendix A).

1347. Regulations of the Heaumers’ Co. _City of London Letter
Book, F, fol. cxlii_ (see Appendix B).

1355. The Mayor and Sheriffs of London ordered to appraise the
armour in the armourers’ shops. _Rymer, III, v_, 817.

1365. The armourers of London are in full work, but the results
are not satisfactory. The King (Edward III) insists on proof or
trade marks. “Certa signa sua super omnibus operationibus suis
ponant.” _Rymer, III_, 772.

1386. Armourers are forbidden to increase the prices of their
wares. _Rymer, III_, 546.

1408. Oct. 12. Petition to the Mayor and Aldermen of London
against foreign importers who use marks similar to English marks,
and praying to keep the price fixed and regulated by the masters
of the cutlers and bladesmiths jointly. Agreed to by the Mayor.
_City of London Letter Books, 1, fol. lxxi._

1434. This is very similar to the Ordinances of the Hastings MS.
noticed in _Archæologia_, LVII. It is given here in full, as
it is the only literary effort of an armourer that is known in
England. _Treatise on Worship in Arms_, by Johan Hill, armourer
(Bod. Lib. Ash., 856) (see Appendix C).

1436. Proclamation forbidding the armourers to increase their
prices. _Fœdera_, Rymer, X, 647.

1509. Sir Nicholas Vaux, Lieutenant at Guisnes, orders all the
garrison to be English except gunners, crossbow-makers, spies,
beer-brewers, armourers, and smiths. _Cal. State Papers, Hen.
VIII, Vol. I._

1511. Payments made for a forge for Milanese armourers at
Greenwich.

1514. The armourers from Brussels are installed by Henry VIII at
Greenwich.

1515. Almain or German armourers mentioned as King’s servants.

1544. A complete account of the charges of the King’s Armoury,
with wages of the workmen. _Brit. Mus., Cott. App. XXVIII_, 75
(see Appendix F).

1556. Sir John Mason reports to the Council that he has obtained
50 fardels of plate for harness provided by the Schorers from
Augsburg. In _Considerations delivered to Parliament in 1559_
it is suggested “that iron mills be banished out of the realme,
where wood was formerly 1d. the load at the stalk now by reason
of the iron mills it is 2/- the load. Formerly Spanish iron was
sold for 5 marks the ton now there are iron mills English iron is
sold at 9/-.” This may be the key to the question of importation
of armour ready made. Evidently the use of wood in iron-smelting
presented a serious difficulty. As may be seen in the chapter on
Iron (p. 40), the use of wood in the furnaces was considered a
grave danger, as it took material which should have been used for
shipbuilding. The English forests were limited and had not the
vast acreage of the German woods, so that the deforestation was
merely a question of time.

1578. Inquiry as to a dispute between the armourers and
blacksmiths as to right of search for armour, etc. The judges
state that “the Armourers did show us that King Edward the Second
did grant to the Lord Maior and his bretheren the searche with
the armourers.” _Records Arm. Co., London._

1580. Sir Henry Lee made Master of the Armouries.

1590. Petition of the armourers of London to Queen Elizabeth
against the importation of foreign armour and workmen. _Lansdowne
MS._, 63, 5 (see Appendix G).

1611. Survey and inventory of all armour, etc., in the armouries
of the Tower, Greenwich, and Windsor in the late custody of Sir
Henry Lee, deceased, and now of Sir Thos. Monson, Master of the
Armoury. _State Papers Domestic, Jac. I, lxiv, June 8._

1614. Warrant to pay to Wm. Pickering, Master of the Armoury at
Greenwich, £200, balance of £340, for armour gilt and graven for
the late Prince. _Sign. Man., Vol. IV_, 29.

This suit, made for Henry, Prince of Wales, is now in the Royal
Collection at Windsor (see Plate XX).

1618. Undertaking of the Armourers’ Company to make certain
armours every six months and the prices of the same. _Records of
the Armourers’ Company of London_ (see Appendix H).

1619. Proclamation against the excessive use of gold and silver
foliate except for armour and ensigns of honour. _S.P.D. Jac. I,
cv, Feb., Proclamations_, 65 (see Appendix I).

1621. Gild of Armourers and Smiths incorporated at Shrewsbury by
James I. The “Arbor” of the Gild existed at Kingsland in 1862.
The Gild carried a figure of Vulcan dressed in black armour in
their processions. Their motto was “With hammer and hand all
hearts do stand.” The armour is in the Museum at Shrewsbury.
_Reliquary, Vol. III._

1624. Erection of plating-mills at Erith by Capt. John Martin.
_S.P.D. Jac. I, clxxx_, 71 (see Appendix J).

1625. Falkner asks for an inquiry as to the condition of the
Royal Armouries. _S.P.D. Car. I, xiii_, 96.

1627. Report of George, Earl of Totnes, on Falkner’s petition
advising John Cooper, Keeper of the King’s Brigandines, to
surrender his patent. _S.P.D. Car I, liv_, 1.

Cooper refuses to surrender unless his arrears of 16d. a day for
a year and a half are paid. _S.P.D. Car. I, lv_, 70.

1627. Petition of Falkner (Fawcknor) as to the condition of the
armouries. _S.P.D. Car. I, lxxxiv_, 5.

1628. Order to gun-makers, saddlers, and cutlers to bring
patterns of their wares. _S.P.D. Car. I, xcv_, March 10.

1628. Whetstone’s project to make armour lighter and as good as
proof. _S.P.D. Car. I, lxxxix_, 23. No details as to the process
are given in this entry.

1630. Inquiry into the work done in the State armouries of the
Tower, Greenwich, etc., with lists of the Remaines, moved by
Roger Falkenor. _S.P.D., clxxix_, 65. The whole of this document
is given in _Antient Armour_, Sir S. Meyrick, III, 78.

1631. Regulations respecting the use of a hall-mark by the
Armourers’ Company. _Rymer, XIX_, 309 (see Appendix K).

1635. Petition of the Workmen Armourers of London who are now old
and out of work. _S.P.D. Car. I, cclxxxix_, 93 (see Appendix L).

1636. Benjamin Stone, blade-maker, of Hounslow Heath, states
that he has, at his own charge of £6000, perfected the art of
blade-making, and that he can make “as good as any that are made
in the Christian world.” _S.P.D. Car. I, cccxli_, 132.

1660. A survey of the Tower Armoury and the Remaines contained
therein. This was taken after the Civil War and shows that much
of the working plant had been scattered. _Harl. MS._ 7457 (see
Appendix M).

1666. “Armour of the Toyras provision with headpeeces whereof
made in England to be worn with the said armes.” _Tower Inv. sub
ann._ Meyrick considers that this was made at Tours, but brings
no evidence to support his statement. It may have been part of
the equipment of the infantry under Marechal de Toiras, who
assisted Charles I against the Huguenots in La Rochelle in 1625.
Several breastplates in the Tower are stamped “Toiras.”

1666. Col. Wm. Legge appointed Master of the Armoury. Legge was
Governor of Chester in 1644, Governor of Oxford in 1645, was
offered and declined an earldom by Charles II, and died in 1672.
His eldest son was created Baron Dartmouth.

1685. An ordinance of James II that all edged tools, armour, and
all copper and brass made with the hammer in the city of London
should be approved by the Armourers’ Company. _Records of the
Company._

[Illustration: _PLATE XV_

ALEGORIA DEL TACTO, BY JAN BRUEGHEL, CIRC. 1600

PRADO, MADRID]

There are no details relating to the lives of any of the known
English armourers that are worth recording. Pickering, the pupil
of Topf, was the most celebrated, and the record of his position
of Master of the Armourers’ Company will be found under that
heading. John Blewbery, whose name occurs in several entries in
the Letters and Papers Foreign and Domestic, seems to have been
merely the master-workman, and we have no evidence that he attained
to a higher position. His name does not appear in the existing
records of the Armourers’ Company. Asamus or Erasmus Kyrkenor
first appears in a list of payments in 1518. He was employed to
make candlesticks and for “garnishing books” with clasps, etc.,
in 1529, when presumably there was a slack time in the armouries.
There are further entries of this nature in 1530, 1531, and 1532,
in which year he “garnished” eighty-six books. In 1538 he was made
Brigandarius to the King, vice John Gurre, deceased; but we find
no details as to the duties of this office, which was continued to
the reign of Charles I, when it became the subject of a complaint
from Roger Falknor (Appendix J). In 1547 we find Erasmus in charge
of the Greenwich Armoury, and in 1593 a note of the will of Wm.
and Robt. Mighill states that they were the grandsons of Erasmus
Kirkenor, deceased.

A list of English armourers is given on page 126.

FOOTNOTES:

[66] _The History of Inventions._ Beckman.

[67] See _Dover Castle Inventory_, p. 25. The “nailtoules” may have
been used for this purpose.

[68] _Archæologia_, LXII.

[69] _Arch. Journ._, XXXVII.

[70] _Archæologia_, LIX.

[71] _Historia Anglicana_, Rolls Series, p. 457.

[72] _Arch. Journ._, LX.

[73] “Italian Armour at Chalcis,” C. ffoulkes, _Archæologia_, LXII.

[74] Cf. Baron de Cosson, _Arch. Journ._, XXXVII, p. 79.

[75] _Antient Armour_, II, 164.

[76] _Origines des Chevalivers, etc._, 1606, p. 142.

THE PROOF OF ARMOUR

As soon as the armed man realized that iron and steel were the best
defences for his body, he would naturally insist that some sort
of a guarantee should be given him of the efficacy of the goods
supplied by his armourer. This system of proving armour would be
effected by using those weapons most commonly in use, and these, in
the early times, were the sword, the axe, the lance, the bow, and
the crossbow. The latter seems to have been the more common form of
proof, though as late as the seventeenth century we have evidence
that armour was proved with the “estramaçon” or sword blow.[77]

In considering the proof of mail we are met with certain terms
which are somewhat difficult of explanation, but which evidently
are intended to convey the fact that the mail mentioned was
of especially good quality. These terms are “haute cloueur,”
“demi-cloueur,” “botte cassée,” and “botte.”

M. Charles Buttin,[78] in his studies on the arms used for proving
armour, considers that “botte” is here used to denote a blow in
the sense that it is used in fencing for a thrust or a lunge (It.
botta). The word “cassée” he takes to be derived also from the
Italian “casso,” vain or empty.

The term “haute” or “demi-cloueurs” seems rather to suggest the
single or double riveting of each link of mail. Ordinary mail is
either welded or joined with one rivet, but in some cases, as in
III, 339, Tower, two rivets are used to obtain increased strength
for the fabric (see also page 44).

Mail seems to have been proof against arrows at a very early
period, for we find in the _Chronicon Colmariense_, under the year
1398, the statement that the men-at-arms wore “camisiam ferream, ex
circulis ferreis contextam, per quae nulla sagitta arcus poterat
hominem vulnerare.” The earliest entry of this mail of proof is
found in the Inventory of Louis X (le Hutin) of France, which is
here given together with other entries of the different expressions
used with regard to proof of this nature.

1316. _Inventory of Louis le Hutin. Bib. Richel., MS. fr._, 7855.

Item uns pans[79] et uns bras de roondes mailles de haute cloueur.

Uns de meme d’acier plus fors.

Item uns couverture a cheval ... de jaseran de fer, uns de mailes
rondes demy clouées.

In this entry there is evidently a variety of mail which is even
stronger than that of “haute cloueur,” but this may possibly be of
stouter or better-tempered metal. The horse-armour would not need
to be of such high proof as that of the man, because from its form
it would be more or less in folds when the horse was in action
and would therefore present double thicknesses to the weapon.
An illustration of the mail-clad horse is given in the present
writer’s _Armour and Weapons_, and also in _Monumenta Vetusta_,
Vol. VI.

1390. _Archives Camerales de Turin Comptes Tres. gen. de Savoie,
No. 38, fol. 62v._

Achettez de Simond Brufaler armeur, de mons ... per le pris de un
auberjon d’acier de toute botte.

This expression “de toute botte” suggests that the armour was
proof against all blows, that is from the sword, the axe--the
“estramaçon” above alluded to--and also against the bow and the
crossbow. In 1612 Sturtevant in his _Metallica_ writes on page 62
that the ironworker should “make things stronger than the Exact
strength which the thing is to have,” and we find this borne
out in an extract from the Armerie di Roma, Arch. Stat. c. 150,
of the date 1627, which mentions old armour “a botta” which had
been proved with “due e tre colpi dell’ arma alla quale dovevano
resistere.”[80]

The proof by the crossbow is mentioned by Angellucci in a note,
quoting from the _Arch. Gonz. Copialett._, T. II, c. 65: “et si
te manderemo doi veretoni di nostri saldi, como i quali tu farai
aprovare la ditta coraza corno uno bono balestro di cidello.”[80]
The last-mentioned weapon is the “arbalest à tour” or windlass
crossbow. It would seem from M. Buttin’s researches that the armour
“à toute épreuve” was proved by crossbow and sword, and that “à
demi épreuve” by the smaller lever crossbow or by the javelin
thrown by hand. These varieties of proof were indicated by the
marks stamped upon them, one mark for the single and two for the
double (see page 65). In some documents we have definite entries
of arrows used for proof, which would naturally have exceptionally
well-tempered points:--

1378. _Reg. de la Cloison d’Angers, No. 6._

Pour deux milliers de fer pour viretons partie d’espreuve et
autre partie de fer commun.

The “vireton” was a crossbow-bolt which had spiral wings of metal
or wood so fitted that it revolved in its course.

1416. _Compt de Gilet Baudry, Arch. Mun. Orleans._

Flêches à arc empannées a cire et ferres de fers d’espreuve.

Here the “feathering” of the arrow with copper is specified, for
it was this metal wing which, acting like the propeller of a boat,
caused the arrow to revolve with increased velocity.

These arrows of proof cost double the price of ordinary arrows, for
we have entries of such projectiles in the year 1419 costing 8s.
the dozen, while the ordinary quality cost but 4s. the dozen.[81]

Details of the regulations of setting proof marks upon armour will
be found in Appendices B, E, K.

The proving of brigandines was most carefully carried out, for in
some instances every separate plate was stamped with the proof
mark. In the Paris Collection double proof marks are found on the
brigandine G, 206, and a similar double mark appears stamped on the
Missaglia suit G, 3, but of a different design. The helmet of Henry
VIII on II, 29 (Tower) also bears the double proof mark of one of
the Missaglia family (Plate X). It would be tedious and unnecessary
to give a list of those armours which bear these proof marks, for
they are to be found in every armoury of note in Europe; but it
will be of some profit to quote various extracts showing the reason
and the effects of proofs or trials of armour.

[Illustration: _PLATE XVI_

1. VENETIAN SALLAD COVERED WITH VELVET, XVI CENT.
2. BACK PLATE OF BRIGANDINE COVERED WITH FABRIC, 1470
3. MORION WITH COVER, XVI-XVII CENT.
4. SURCOAT OF THE BLACK PRINCE]

In the sixteenth century the firearm had become a serious factor in
warfare, therefore the proof was decided by submitting the armour
to pistol or musket shot.

1347. _Regulations of the Heaumers of London_ (original in
Norman-French), _City of London Letter Book, F, fol. cxlii_.

Also that helmetry and other arms forged by the hammer ... shall
not from henceforth in any way be offered for sale privily or
openly until they have been properly assayed by the aforesaid
Wardens and marked with their marks (see Appendix B).

1448. _Statutes des Armuriers Fourbisseurs d’Angers._

It. les quels maisters desd. mestiers seront tenus besoigner
et faire ouvrage et bonnes étoffes, c’est assavoir pour tant
que touche les armuriers, ils feront harnois blancs pour hommes
d’armes, de toute épreuve qui est à dire d’arbalestes à tilloles
et à coursel à tout le moins demie espreuve ... marquées de
2 marques ... et d’espreuve d’arbaleste à crocq et traict
d’archier, marquées d’une marque (see Appendix E).

The “arbaleste à tilloles” was the large bow bent with a windlass,
the “arbaleste à crocq” was smaller and was bent with a hook
fastened to the waist of the archer (see Payne Gallwey, _The
Crossbow_).

1537. _Discipline Militaire_, Langey, I, chap, xxii, pp. 79, 80.

... les Harnois soient trop foibles pour résister à l’Artillerie
ou à l’Escopeterie, néantmoins ils défendent la personne des
coups de Pique de Hallebarde, d’Epée, du Trait, des Pierres, des
Arbalestes, et des Arcs.... Et par fois une Harquebuze sera si
mal chargée ou si fort eschauffée ou pourra tirer de si loin, que
le Harnois pour peu qu’il soit bon sauvera la vie d’un homme.

The above writer considers, and with reason, that when the
uncertainty of firearms was taken into consideration defensive
armour was of much practical use; and this theory was held as
late as the eighteenth century, for Marshal Saxe in his _Les
Rêveries_[82] warmly recommends the use of defensive armour,
especially for cavalry, as he considers that a large proportion
of wounds were caused by sword, lance, or spent bullets. It was
evidently from reasons such as the above that a reliable proof by
pistol or musket shot was insisted upon, for the armour of the Duc
de Guise in the Musée d’Artillerie (G, 80) is of great thickness
and weighs 42 kilos. It has either been tested by the maker or has
seen service, for there are three bullet marks on the breastplate,
neither of which has penetrated.[83]

1569. _Arch. cur. de Nantes_, I, col. 305.

612 corps de cuyrace ... garnis de haulzecou ... desquelz le
devant sera a l’espreuve d’arquebuse et le derrière de pistol.

The terms “high proof,” “caliver proof,” and “musket proof” often
occur in writings of this period and onwards up to the time when
armour was discarded; but it is difficult to get any definite
information as to how the proof was made. In the above entry there
are two kinds of proof, which show that the back-plate was thinner
than the breastplate, the resisting power being obtained not only
by temper of metal, but also by its thickness.

1568. _Les Armuriers français et étrangers_, Giraud, pp. 191, 192.

Ung corps de cuirasse lequel sera a l’espreuve de la pistolle,
ung habillement de teste a l’esprouve de la pistolle, brassartz
... a l’esprove de la pistolle, tassettes courtes a l’esprouve de
la pistolle.

Here is evidently a necessary definition of each piece. Probably
on some former occasion the armourer had classed the whole suit as
of proof when such a description might only be honestly given to
the cuirass. Accounts of actual trials are rare, but the following
extract is of interest as showing the methods employed in England.
It is given in full, with many valuable extracts bearing on the
craft of the armourer, by Viscount Dillon, in _Archæologia_, Vol.
LI. The extract is taken from a letter from Sir Henry Lee, Master
of the Armoury in 1580, to Lord Burghley, and bears the date Oct.
12, 1590.

The first part of the letter states that a gentleman of Shropshire
was anxious that the metal mined in his county should be used for
armour instead of the German iron which at this time was considered
to be the best in the market. Sir Henry writes: “To give the more
credyte to that stuffe to the armourers of London and to Jacobi the
Mr. workman of Grenewhyche, the Counsell apoynt in there presence
that Sr. Robarte Constable and my cossyn John Lee shoulde see a
proofe made wh. by tryall proved most usefull.” The “Shropshire
gentleman” sent Sir Henry “a new brest beyng sent owt of the
country of gret litenes and strengthe as he was made beleve,” and
entrusted him to “cause another of the very same wayght to be made
in her Matys office of Greenwhyche, wh. I presently performed.”
Pistols were then loaded with equal charges and fired at the two
breastplates, with the result that “that made in the Offyce and of
the metall of Houngere[84] helde out and more than a littel dent
of the pellet nothinge perced, the other clene shotte thereowe and
much tare the overpart of a beme the brest studde upon as longe as
my fyngeers. Thus muche for the Ynglyshe metall.”

From time to time, as has been noticed before, there had been
efforts to wrest the monopoly of the supply of metal for armour
from the foreigner, but here was a very tangible proof of the
superiority of the alien material. It is true that the Shropshire
breastplate appears to have been sent from that county for the
test, while the foreign metal was made up by the highly skilled
workmen in the Royal Armoury at Greenwich under the eye of Jacobi
(Topf), a master-craftsman who can have had but few rivals at that
time. Possibly he may have possessed some secrets of tempering
and hardening his metal which were unknown to less experienced
smiths, and so have obtained the award of superiority for the metal
of his own country. Topf had migrated to England from Innsbruck
and must certainly have had friends among the iron-merchants of
that locality. So his interests were obviously on the side of the
foreign metal.

It may be only romance or it may be fact, but certainly Oliver de
la Marche,[85] writing about the year 1450, describes some such
process of tempering armour after it was made. “Boniface avoit
trempe son harnois d’une eau qui le tenoit si bon que fer ne povoit
prendre sus.” It is not to be suggested that it was a special kind
of water that was used for this, but rather that it was some method
of heating and cooling the metal which was employed. Angellucci, in
the _Catalogue of the Armeria Reale, Turin_ (p. 129), quotes, from
documents of the sixteenth century, the account of a breastplate
made by Colombo, an armourer of Brescia, being spoiled because he
had used excessive charges for his pistol or musket.

1602. _Milice français_, Montgomery, Pt. II, p. 187.

Les chevau-légers estoient armez d’armes complètes d’une cuirasse
à l’épreuve. Le reste estoit à la légère.

The last detail shows that the back-pieces were much lighter than
the proof breastplates, and this is borne out by other similar
entries during the century. Evidently the efficacy of the musket
had increased in the first years of the seventeenth century and
with it the weight of the proved armour. In later entries we find
that pistol proof is of more frequent occurrence, and from this we
may gather that the weight of metal was a serious hindrance to the
soldier and that he preferred the risk of a bullet.

Still there are cases to be found of complete proof, for in 1605
even the brayette was of proof (_Arch. Gov. Brescia Privil., R. 7,
V_, p. 10),[86] and if this small, in fact the smallest, portion
of the armour was proved, we may be sure that the whole suit was
tested equally.

In 1628-9 we learn from the State Papers Domestic, lxxxix, 23,
that one Whetstone had a project for making light armour as good
as proof, but there are no details of his methods. It is quite
probable, in most cases, that when one piece of the armour was
proved the rest were made of similar material and tempered in the
same way, and that actual proof was not expected or given. An
interesting extract from the _Memorials of the Verney Family_, IV,
30, gives us some information as regards the proof of armour:--

1667, Feb. Richard Hals is choosing some armour for his cousin in
London: he has tested it with as much powder as will cover the
bullet in the palme of his hand.

This rough-and-ready method of estimating the charge is borne out
in Gaya’s _Traité des Armes_, p. 30 (Reprint 1911, Clarendon Press).

The Verney extract goes on to say that Verney wished to have the
armour tested again, but the armourer refused, for by this time it
was finished, and he said that “it is not the custom of workmen to
try their armour after it is faced and filed.”

[Illustration: _PLATE XVII_

CAST OF IVORY CHESSMAN, XIV CENT.

IVORY MIRROR CASE, XIV CENT.]

This suit cost £14 2s. 8d., and when it was delivered Verney was
by no means pleased, as it did not fit.[87] A clear proof that
armour was tested before it was finished is to be found on the
suit made by Garbagnus of Brescia for Louis XIV of France, now in
the Musée d’Artillerie (G, 125). M. Buttin[88] in noticing this
suit describes it as “La magnifique armure offerte à Louis XLV
par la République de Venise,” but in this we must certainly hold
a different opinion, for the production, although elaborately
engraved, is perhaps the best example of the decadence of the craft
of the armourer, so graceless and clumsy are its lines and
proportions. The proof mark is upon the left of the breastplate, at
the point where the lower edge of the pauldron ends. It has been
made the centre of a double-petalled rose, showing plainly that the
bullet mark was there before the engraver began his work. A similar
mark at the back is made the centre of a flower (Fig. 35). The
document relating to the “proof mark” of the Armourers’ Company of
London will be found in Appendix K.

[Illustration: FIG. 35. Detail showing proof mark on breast of suit
of Louis XIV, Mus. d’Art, Paris, G, 125.]

Gaya in his _Traité des Armes_, 1678, referred to above, states
on page 53 that the casque and front of the cuirass should be of
musket proof, but the other parts need only be of pistol or carbine
proof. In speaking of head-pieces he states, on the same page,
that the heavier kinds were proved with musket-shot, but the light
varieties were only tested with “estramaçon” or sword-cut; and he
adds that for armour to be good it must be beaten and worked cold
and not hot.

We have seen how armour was proved and how the proof mark of
crossbow-bolt or bullet is often found as a witness to the fact.
In addition to this we frequently find the mark or poinçon of
the armourer, which invariably means that the piece is of good
workmanship and worthy of notice.

Like all the other craft gilds, that of the armourer was very
jealous of the reputation of its members. The tapestry weavers of
Flanders were obliged to mark, in some cases, every yard of their
production; and so in fine suits of armour we find many of the
individual pieces that go to make up the suit stamped with the
maker’s mark and also with the stamp of the town. These town stamps
are mostly found in German work from Nuremberg, Augsburg, etc. We
find the name Arbois used on some Burgundian armour, but never
are the names of Italian or French towns stamped. With the sword
this rule does not hold good, for the Spanish, Italian, and German
makers frequently used the town of origin as a mark in addition
to their own. Toledo, Passau, Ferara, Solingen are all found upon
swords, and are very often stamped upon blades of an entirely
different nationality. This forgery of the stamp may have been
perpetrated with the intent to defraud, or it may simply have been
used as a mark of excellence, like “Paris fashions” or “Sheffield
steel” at the present day. The forgery of marks on suits of armour
is very seldom met with and where it exists it is obviously done
for ulterior reasons.

The stamps take the form of signs such as the trefoil of Treytz,
the monogram such as the “M Y” of the Missaglias, and the crowned
“A” of the Armourers’ Company of London; the rebus, as for example
the helm used by the Colman (Helmschmied) family, or a combination
of two or more of the above variety.

About the year 1390 we have the following entry:--

Achetiez de Symond Brufaler armeur ... 1 auberion d’acier de
botte cassé duquel toutes les mailes sunt seignier du seignet du
maistre.[89]

This shows that in some cases every link of mail was stamped with
the armourer’s mark. In Oriental mail letters and sometimes words
from the Koran are stamped on each link, but we have no examples
extant of European mail stamped with the maker’s mark on each link.

On May 11, 1513, Richard Thyrkyll writes to Henry VIII from Antwerp
saying that he can find no “harness of the fleur de lys” in any
part of Brabant (Brit. Mus. Galba, B, III, 85).

This probably refers to a trade-mark or poinçon well known as
denoting metal of high temper. A brigandine in the Museum at
Darmstadt bears this mark repeated twice on each plate, showing
that it was proof against the large crossbow (Fig. 36). Demmin
(_Guide des Amateurs d’Armes_) gives a mark of a lion rampant as
stamped on the plates of a brigandine in his collection, and an
example in the Musée d’Artillerie has the Nuremberg mark on each of
the plates.

[Illustration: FIG. 36. Proof marks on a Brigandine plate,
Darmstadt Museum (full size).]

In the case of mail a small label is sometimes found, riveted on to
the fabric, on which is the maker’s stamp; an example of this is
the eagle which is stamped on a label attached to the mail skirt
G, 86, in the Armeria Reale, Turin (see Table of Marks, 59). In
brigandines we sometimes find each of the small plates stamped with
the maker’s mark, which is held to be evidence of “proof.”

As we have seen from the entry under the date 1448, on page 65, the
single stamp signified proof against the small crossbow and the
double stamp proof against the heavy windlass-bow.

As has been noticed above, the forgery or imitation of marks is
more common on sword-blades than on defensive armour, and of these
the wolf, dog, or fox of Passau is most frequently imitated. In
some instances the representation is more or less life-like, but in
others there is simply a crude arrangement of straight lines that
suggest the head, legs, body, and tail of the animal.

Stamping of armour was practised early in the middle of the
fourteenth century, as will be seen in the Regulations of the
Company of Heaumers transcribed in Appendix B.

In Rymer’s _Fœdera_ (XIX, p. 312) we find accounts for repairing
and remodelling armour in the year 1631, and at the end of the list
comes the entry “For stamping every harness fit to be allowed
£ 0 0 0”, which shows that even armour that was remade from old
material was subjected to tests, and also that these tests were
recorded by a gratuitous stamp of the craftsman or of the company
to which he belonged.

The only entry extant which actually refers to the making of these
stamps for armourers is given in the _Mem. de la Soc. Arch. de
Touraine, T. XX, pp. 268-9_ (_Arch. de Tours, Grandmaison_).

1470. A Pierre Lambert orfèvre, la somme de 55 s. t. ... pour
avoir fait et gravé 6 poinsons de fer acérez pour marquer les
harnois blancs et brigandines qui seroient faiz et délivrez en
lad. ville, de la façon que le roy l’avait ordonné, et pour
avoir retaillé et ressué 2 desd. poinsons qui estoient fenduz en
marquant les harnois.

A Jehan Harane orfèvre, pour avoir gravé les armes de la ville en
2 poinsons de fer pour marquer les harnois et brigandines vendues
en lad. ville 30 s.

The number of armourers’ marks known at present amounts to several
hundred, but of the majority nothing is known as to ownership and
history. A few of the principal marks in English and Continental
collections are given on page 148.

FOOTNOTES:

[77] Gaya, _op. cit._

[78] _Revue Savoisienne_, 1906, fasc. 4.

[79] Panzer, body-armour.

[80] _Cat. Armeria Reale Turin_, 129.

[81] _Rev. Savoisienne_, 1906, fasc. 4, p. 3.

[82] Edit. 1756, p. 58.

[83] A half-suit in the possession of H. Moffat, Esq., Goodrich
Court, formerly the property of New College, Oxford, has a heavy
“plastron” or reinforcing piece. The bullet has dented this and
also the cuirass underneath. The head-piece and back-plate are
pierced by bullets.

[84] Hungarian or Innsbruck iron.

[85] _Memories_, I, xxi (edit. 1884).

[86] _Cat. Armeria Reale Turin_, p. 73 note.

[87] See page 105.

[88] _Rev. Savoisienne_, 1901, fasc. 2 and 3.

[89] Arch. Cam. de Turin, Compte des Très. gén. de Savoie, Vol.
XXXIX, f. 163.

THE DECORATION OF ARMOUR

From the earliest times defensive armour has been more or less
decorated and ornamented with more or less elaborate detail as the
armourer became skilled in his craft and as the patron indulged
in vanity or caprice. Perhaps the most astonishing work in this
direction is the shoulder-piece of a cuirass known as the Siris
bronze in the British Museum, which is of such elaborate repoussé
work that it is difficult to see how the tool can have been used
from the back. It is not, however, the intention of this work to
deal with Greek or Roman armour, or indeed with armour previous
to the eleventh century; otherwise its limits would have to be
considerably enlarged. The ornamentation of early armour, the
employment of brass or latten rings, which formed patterns on the
hauberk, called for no special skill on the part of the craftsman,
and it is only when we come to the thirteenth century that we find
traces of actual decoration on the pieces of plate which composed
the suit.

[Illustration: _PLATE XVIII_

PORTRAITS BY MORONI

NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON]

And here it should be remembered that the axiom of suitability
was, in later years, forgotten, and the ever-important “glancing
surface” was destroyed by designs in high relief, which not only
retained the full shock of the opposing weapon, but also hindered
the free movement of the several plates one over the other. The
word “decoration” in itself suggests a “decorous” or suitable
adornment, and this suitability was not always considered by the
sixteenth and seventeenth century armourers.

The use of jewels was always favoured among the nobility, and
we find in the inventory of the effects of Piers Gaveston[90]
plates ornamented with gold and silver and ailettes “frettez de
perles.” In 1352 King John of France and the Dauphin had elaborate
head-pieces ornamented with jewels, and in 1385 the King of Castile
wore a helmet at the battle of Aljubertota which was enriched with
gold and valued at 20,000 francs.[91]

[Illustration: FIG. 37. Poleynes on the brass of Sir Robert de
Bures, Acton, Suffolk, 1302.]

The well-known brass of Sir John d’Aubernon, 1277, shows the first
traces of the actual ornamentation of armour, which culminated in
the work of Piccinino and Peffenhauser in the sixteenth century.
Similar ornamentation is found on the brass of Sir Robert de Bures,
1302 (Fig. 37). It is possible that the poleynes shown on this
brass and also the beinbergs on the figure of Guigliemo Berardi in
the Cloisters of the Annunziata at Florence (Fig. 38) were made
of cuir-bouilli and not metal, for there is not much incised or
engraved iron found in domestic objects of this period (Fig. 37).
But when we reach the end of the century we find a richly decorated
suit of complete plate shown on the brass of an unknown knight of
about the year 1400 which in no way suggests any material but iron
or steel (Fig. 39).

[Illustration: FIG. 38. Beinbergs on the statue of Guigliemo
Berardi, Florence, 1289.]

This engraving of armour, either by the burin or by etching with
acid, was employed with more or less intricacy of detail from the
beginning of the fifteenth century up to the period when armour was
discarded; for the suits of Charles I (Tower, II, 19) and of Louis
XIV of France (Musée d’Artillerie, G, 125) are almost entirely
covered with fine engraving. The tradition is well known that the
art of engraving and printing the results on paper was discovered
by the Florentine metal-workers of the fifteenth century, who
employed this expedient for proving their ornamental work upon
various metals. In some cases the engraving of armour was merely
the first process of the niello-work, in which the lines and
spaces cut out were filled in with a black compound. Neither the
engraving alone nor the niello-work in any way interfered with the
utility of the armour, for the surface was still capable of a high
polish and would still deflect the weapon. No better example of
this could be found than the “Engraved Suit” made for Henry VIII
by Conrad Seusenhofer (Tower, II, 5). Here the entire surface is
covered with fine engraving of scenes from the lives of SS. George
and Barbara, and of decorative designs of the royal badges--the
Rose, the Portcullis, and the Pomegranate. Originally the whole
suit was washed with silver, of which traces remain, but there was
no attempt to destroy the utility of the armour. Indeed, it would
have been a daring armourer who would have essayed such decoration
when making a suit which was to be a present from Maximilian to
Henry VIII, both of whom were among the most practised jousters
in Europe (Plate XII). It was only when work in high relief was
produced that this utility was destroyed. While condemning the
neglect of true craft principles in this respect, we cannot but
give our unstinted admiration for the skill in which this embossed
armour was produced. The Negrolis, the Colmans, Campi, Lucio
Piccinino, Peffenhauser, and Knopf were all masters of this form
of applied art; but the admiration which their work compels is
that which we have for the work of a gold or silver smith, and
not for that of the armourer. In some cases, it is true, there is
some definite idea in the craftsman’s mind of a subject, as for
example the parade suit of Christian II (Johanneum, Dresden, E,
7), in which the artist, who is generally considered to have been
Heinrich Knopf, embossed scenes from the labours of Hercules on
the horse-armour. As a rule, however, the ornamentation is merely
fantastic and meaningless, and consists for the most part of
arabesques, masks, and amorini based upon classical models of the
worst period and style. For sheer incoherence of design, and at the
same time for technique which could hardly be surpassed, we have no
better example in any of the applied arts than the parade suit made
for King Sebastian of Portugal by Anton Peffenhauser of Augsburg
in the second half of the sixteenth century (Real Armeria, Madrid,
A, 290). Here we have tritons, nereids, dolphins and sea-horses,
combats of classical warriors, elephants, allegorical figures of
Justice, Strength, and Victory, gods, goddesses, heroes, virtues,
and symbolic figures spread broadcast among a wealth of arabesques
and foliation which leaves the beholder breathless at the thought
that this was simply produced for parade purposes, when but little
of the detail could be seen and none of it could be adequately
studied or admired. In fact the whole equipment may be described in
a sentence originally used in far different circumstances: “C’est
magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre” (Plate XIV).

[Illustration: FIG. 39. Brass of an unknown knight at Laughton,
Lincs, 1400.

1. Vervelles.
2. Camail.
3. “Vif de l’harnois,” “défaut de la cuirasse.”
4. Baldrick.
5. Jupon.
6. Gadlings or gauntlets.
7. Bascinet.
8. Edge of hauberk.]

Much of this embossed work was blackened or oxidized so that the
full value of the relief-work could be appreciated. Gilding and
gold inlay were also in high favour, but the latter art never
reached the high pitch of excellence which we find in Oriental
weapons, though the arrogant Cellini asserted that he could
damascene swords as well as any Oriental craftsman, and better.
That the art was not seriously attempted we gather from Cellini’s
own words, for he says that it “differed from any he had as yet
practised.”[92]

In all this ostentatious riot of ornament we in England
preserved a dignified reticence. It is true that the City of
London commissioned Petit of Blois to make the cumbersome gilded
and engraved suit for Charles I, but we have in our national
collections no specimens of elaborately embossed parade armour
which were made for kings, princes, or nobles in England.

The master-craftsman Jacobi Topf and his pupil William Pickering
both produced suits of great richness and beauty, but they were
always eminently practical, and their utility and convenience
were never hampered or destroyed. Where there is embossing it is
shallow, and as the relief is not sharp there is no edge which
might catch the lance-point or sword. Much of the work of Topf was
russeted and gilt, a method which produced a highly ornate and yet
never a trivial or confused effect.

The parade suit by Bartolomeo Campi, made for Charles V (Real
Armeria, Madrid, A, 125), is so obviously a fantastic costume for
masque or pageant that it can hardly be criticized as armour. It
is based upon a classical model, for the cuirass is moulded to the
torse after the manner of the armour of the late Roman Empire. As
metal-work it will rank with the finest specimens extant, but as
armour it completely fails to satisfy (see page 132 and Plate XIV).

[Illustration: _PLATE XIX_

HELM OF SIR GILES CAPEL. XVI CENT.

ARMING FOR COMBAT IN THE LISTS

FROM THE HASTINGS MS., XV CENT.]

Although not in any way decorative, the “puffed and slashed”
armour copied from the civilian dress of the sixteenth century
is an example of the armourer making use of embossing apart from
the actual requirements of the constructive side of his craft.
Radiating lines of repoussé work, simple, fine, and delicate,
had been introduced into the later forms of Gothic armour, the
pauldrons had been fluted like the cockle-shell, and these flutings
had been made of practical use in Maximilian armour, giving
increased rigidity without weight, a factor which is found in
modern corrugated iron.

The imitation of fabrics in steel is, however, unpardonable, and
has not even the richness or minute technique of the parade suits
mentioned above. It is true that the embossing gives greater
rigidity to the metal, but we can have none of the admiration for
these unnatural forms of armour that we have for those in which the
goldsmith and armourer worked together. The style of dress which
was imitated was in itself designed to create a false impression,
for the slashings were intended to convey the idea that the wearer
was a swashbuckler, fresh from the wars. We can only, therefore,
regard it as an absurdity to represent fabrics, which were supposed
to have been frayed and cut by weapons, in weapon-proof steel. That
the fashion was popular we know from the number of suits extant,
and even Conrad Seusenhofer himself did not disdain to produce
them. The vogue did not endure for more than about twenty years,
for as soon as the fashion in civilian dress changed the armour
became simpler and the imitation ceased (Plate XXI).

FOOTNOTES:

[90] _New Fœdera_, II, 203.

[91] Froissart (Johnes’ trans.), II, 124.

[92] _Life of Benvenuto Cellini_, 1910 edition, I, 112.

THE CLEANING OF ARMOUR

An important part of the work of the armourer was the cleaning and
keeping in repair his master’s effects. This was especially the
case with mail, which from its nature is peculiarly susceptible
to the action of rust. It is to this cause and to the incessant
remaking of armour that we owe the loss of all authentic mail
armour of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. A good example of
this may be cited in the hoard of plate armour and helmets, of
which last nearly a hundred were collected, found in a cistern
in the castle of Chalcis, in Eubœa, in the year 1840.[93] They
had lain there since the year 1470, when the castle was taken by
the Turks, and are in many instances in excellent preservation
considering the condition in which they were found. The collection
was brought to light and catalogued in a very unscientific manner
by the historian Buchon, but there is no trace of mail of any kind
except one link attached to a helmet.

In the early part of the fifteenth century mail was used
extensively both for complete defence and for protecting vital
parts not covered by plate, of which details will be found on
page 109; therefore it is most improbable that a large collection
such as this should have been left with no vestiges of mail. It
is obvious, therefore, that the delicate fabric was attacked
and destroyed by rust long before the same agent could make any
effect on the solid plate. The following extracts will give in
chronological order the various entries which concern the cleaning
and repairing of armour:--

1250 (?). _The Avowynge of King Arthur, stanza 39._

Gay gownus of grene
To hold thayre armur clene
And were[94] hitte fro the wette.

Here we find the reason, or at any rate one of the reasons, for
wearing the surcoat. Some writers have suggested that it was worn
to protect the Crusader from the sun in his Oriental campaigns,
but the quotation given definitely asserts that it was to keep off
the rain. This is certainly a practical reason, for, as has been
stated before in this chapter, the intricate fabric of mail was
peculiarly susceptible to damp.

1296. 23-24 _Edw. I_ (_Duchy of Lancaster Accounts_).

Itm. xx s. xj d. in duobus saccis de coreo pro armatura comitis.

This refers to leather sacks used either for keeping the armour in
or for cleaning it by shaking it with sand and vinegar.

1344. _Inventory of Dover Castle_ (see also page 25).

i barrele pro armaturis rollandis.

The barrel was here used in the same way. The mail was placed
inside with sand and vinegar and rolled and shaken. The same method
is still practised in some districts for cleaning barrels for cider
or ale. Chains are placed in the barrel with sand to obtain the
same result. On Plate XV a barrel is shown on the extreme left of
the picture with a mail shirt hanging over the edge.

1364. _Inventory of the donjon of Vostieza._[95]

i barellum ad forbiendum malliam.

1369. _Prologue, Canterbury Tales_, Chaucer.

Of fustyan he wered a gipoun
Alle sysmoterud with his haburgeoun.

This extract shows clearly the need for the barrel and sand. The
mail had evidently rusted with rain and perspiration, and left
stains and marks on the quilted undergarment. We find the term
“rokked” used in the poem of _Syr Gawayn_, which means cleaned by
rolling.

1372. Froissart _uses the expression_

a rouler leurs cottes de fer.

1417. _Inventory of Winchester College._

i barelle pro loricis purgandis.

1423. _Roll of Executors of Henry Bowet, Archbishop of York, Oct.
20._

j barrelle cum suis pertinentiis ad purgandos loricas et alia
arma de mayle.

1467. _Howard Household Book._ (_Dom. Expenses in England_, 416).

9d. to an armerer at Pawles Cheyne for an harneys barelle.

1513. _Earl of Northumberland’s Equipage_ (see also page 30).

a paommyshe.

Eight yards of white blaunkett for trussing of my Lord’s harnes
in.

The pumice was for cleaning off the rust, and the blanket was used
for packing the armour when in store or on a journey.

1515. _King’s Book of Payments, Record Office, under various
payments to armourers._

Oct. 11. Payment to Adrian Brand for hire of his mill house for
cleaning the king’s harness, 26s. 8d. the month.

1517. April. Wm. Gurre, armourer, making clean of certain
harness, bockeling & ledering of 400 Almain rivets for the
Armoury at Eltham £24 7 8.

The “bockeling & ledering” of course refers to the fitting of new
leather straps and buckles. The Almain rivet was the half-suit of
the foot-soldier and has been explained on page 52.

1520. April. William Gurre for scouring 1000 pr. of Almain rivets
at 12d. a pair.

1530. Hans Clerc armorer for furbishing and keeping clean the
king’s armour in the armoury in the Tilt yard at Greenwich which
John Diconson late had at 6d. a day.

Thos. Wollwarde for keeping & making the king’s harnes att
Windsor & York Place 30s. 5d.

1567. _S.P.D. Eliz., Addenda xiii_, 101.

Payments are made in this entry to paint black various corselets
which had become “fowle and rustie” and had “taken salt water in
the sea” at a charge of 5d. each.

[Illustration: _PLATE XX_

ARMOUR OF HENRY, PRINCE OF WALES, BY WILLIAM PICKERING, 1591-1630]

Froissart describes the champion Dimeth, at the coronation of
Henry IV, as being “tout couvert de mailles de vermeil, chevalier
et cheval.”[96] This painting of armour was frequently indulged
in both for the above practical reason and also for personal
adornment. Tinning was also used for protecting armour from wet
(_vide_ page 33 _sub ann._ 1622). Armour in the Dresden Armoury and
elsewhere is painted black. Hall in his Chronicles in the account
of the funeral of Henry V states that men-at-arms in black armour
rode in the procession. The armour in the seventeenth century was
often blacked or russeted. Suits of this kind are to be seen in
the Gun Wharf Museum at Portsmouth and elsewhere. Haselrigg’s
“lobsters” were so called, according to Clarendon,[97] because of
their “bright shells.” It is quite possible that their armour was
blacked. In the Lansdowne MS. 73, William Poore suggested a remedy
for “preserving armour from pewtrifying, kankering or rusting,”
but there are no details given of the method he employed; it was
probably some kind of lacquer or varnish. Among the Archives of the
Compte du tresor de Savoie (63 f. 157) is mentioned a payment to
Jehan de Saisseau “por vernicier une cotte d’aciel,” and in one of
the Tower inventories (Harl. MS. 1419) of the year 1547 “a buckler
of steel painted” occurs.[98]

1567. _S.P.D. Eliz., Add. xiii_, 104.

Sundry payments for cleaning and repairing armour at the Tower,
Hampton Court, and Greenwich at 10d. the day.

1580. _S.P.D. Eliz., cxli_, 42.

A document written on the death of Sir George Howard ordering the
cleaning and putting in order of the arms and armour at the Tower.

1628. _S.P.D. Car. I, xciii_, 61.

Capt. John Heydon to Wm. Boswell, Clerk to the Council, for the
new russeting of a corslet, 5sh.

1603. _Inventory of the Armoury at Hengrave._

Item one barrel to make clean the shirt of maile & gorgets.

1671. _Patent_ applied for by Wolfen Miller (John Caspar Wolfen,
and John Miller), for twenty-one years, “for a certain oyle to
keep armour and armes from rust and kanker” for £10 per annum.

1647 (_circ._). _Laws and Ordinances of Warr, Bod. Lib., Goodwin
Pamphlets, cxvii_, 14.[99]

Of a Souldiers duty touching his Arms.

II. Slovenly Armour.--None shall presume to appeare with their
Armes unfixt or indecently kept upon pain of Arbitrary correction.

With regard to the keeping of armour in store two instances have
been mentioned above under the dates 1296 and 1513. In addition
to these we find that in 1470 in the _Chronique de Troyes_, the
French soldiers were forbidden to carry their arms and armour in
“paniers,” which, from the statement, was evidently a practice.

In the Wardrobe Account of Edward I, 1281, published by the Society
of Antiquaries, we find payments to Robinet, the King’s tailor, for
coffers, sacks, boxes, and cases to contain the different parts of
the armour.

In the Wardrobe Expenses of Bolingbroke, Earl of Derby (Camden
Soc.), 1393, are found the following entries:--

fol. 32. pro j cofre ... ad imponendum scuta domini. xvij scot.
fol. 33. pro j house[100] pro scuto domini ix scot. xij d.
fol. 40. pro i breastplate domini purgando ibidem iij li. vij s.

The “buckler of steel painted” mentioned above is scheduled as
being in “a case of leather.” In an engraving of Charles I by W.
Hole, in the British Museum, a box is shown for holding the breast
and back plates.[101]

FOOTNOTES:

[93] Charles ffoulkes, “Italian Armour at Chalcis,” _Archæologia_,
LXII.

[94] Protect.

[95] _Arch. Journ._, LX, 106.

[96] Vol. IV, c. 114. This detail is not given either in Johnes’ or
Lord Berners’ translation.

[97] _Rebellion_, VII, 104.

[98] _Archæologia_, LI.

[99] _Cromwell’s Army_, Firth, 413.

[100] Cover.

[101] _Arch. Journ_., LX.

THE USE OF FABRICS AND LINEN

An important variety of defensive armour, which has not hitherto
received the notice which it deserves, is the padded and quilted
armour of linen, which was always popular with the foot-soldier on
account of its cheapness, and was in the thirteenth century held in
high esteem by the wealthier knight. In the case of crushing blows
it would of course protect the body from breaking of the skin,
but would not be of such use as the more rigid defence of plate.
It was, however, very effectual against cutting blows, and had
the advantage of being more easily put on and off, and, although
hot, was less oppressive than metal in long marches. In miniatures
of the fourteenth century we frequently find parts of the armour
coloured in such a way as to suggest that it is either not metal
or else metal covered with fabric. Where there was no metal and
where the wearer depended entirely on the fabric for protection it
was heavily quilted and padded, or else several thicknesses of the
material were used (Fig. 40). Where metal was used the defence was
the ordinary plate armour covered with fabric, or the metal was
inserted in small plates as is the case in the brigandine.

[Illustration: FIG. 40. Pourpointed cuisses from the brass of Sir
John de Argentine, Horseheath, Cambs, 1360.]

It is not the intention of the present section to deal with the
various details of defensive armour except only as far as those
details bear directly on the employment of fabrics, therefore the
construction of the brigandine, which is well known to all students
of the subject of armour and weapons, will be found under the
heading of the Craft of the Armourer on page 49. The same may be
said of the horn and metal jacks which were a humbler form of the
brigandine. The most concise descriptions of such armour will be
found in the Catalogue of Helmets and Mail by de Cosson and Burgess
(_Arch. Journ._, XXXVII). Guiart in his Chronicles, written in the
early part of the fourteenth century, speaks of “cotes faitices de
coton a pointz entailliez.” These were probably common doublets,
quilted or laced like the jack.

Few of these defences of fabric have survived, owing to the ravages
of moth and damp.

In the Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford, are a pair of culottes or
drawers lined with thin busks of steel, and also two sets of
rose-pink silk doublets, breast, back, and fald padded with cotton,
both presumably of the late sixteenth century; they are noticed in
_Arms and Armour at Oxford_, by the present writer, but no definite
history is known of either of the specimens. Doublets and “coats
of fence” of this nature occur frequently in inventories and other
documents, but the following extracts give certain definite details
which bear directly on the subject.

1150-1200 (?). _Speculum Regale, Kongs-Skugg-Sio_, edit. 1768,
pp. 405-6 (actual date unknown).

For the rider the following accoutrements are necessary:
coverings for the legs, made of well-blacked soft linen sewed,
which should extend to the kneeband of his chaucons or breeches;
over these steel shin-pieces so high as to be fastened with a
double band. The horseman to put on linen drawers, such as I have
pointed out.

(Of the horse) let his head, bridle, and neck, quite to
the saddle, be rolled up in linen armour, that no one may
fraudulently seize the bridle or the horse.

[Illustration: _PLATE XXI_

HALF ARMOUR, CIRC. 1520

TONLET SUIT BY CONRAD LOCHNER, 1510-1567

“MAXIMILIAN” ARMOUR, CIRC. 1515]

There is a doubt as to the actual date of this manuscript. In
the edition from which the above translation is taken it is
described as of Icelandic origin about the year 1150, but it may
be possibly as late as the beginning of the thirteenth century.
The details of the dress worn under the armour may be compared on
the one hand with the leggings shown on the Bayeux tapestry and
on the other hand with those mentioned in the Hastings MS. of the
fifteenth century (_Archæologia_, LVII), which gives the details of
undergarments worn by the armed man at this date (page 107). The
horse-armour is the “couverture” or trapper so frequently mentioned
in inventories, which was often decorated with fine embroidery.
Even altar-hangings were used for this purpose, as was the case in
the sack of Rome in 1527. Padded horse-armour was used in the
fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries for tournaments, minute
regulations for which are found in the _Traité d’un Tournoi_ by
King René of Anjou, which will be referred to farther on in this
chapter.

[Illustration: FRONT. BACK.

FIG. 41. Padded Horse-armour for the Tourney (from King René’s
_Traité d’un Tournoi_).]

1286. _Comptus Ballivorum Franciæ._[102]

Expense pro cendatis, bourra ad gambesones, tapetis.

This item is evidently for stuffing gambesons with cendal[103] and
tow. Cendal is somewhat of a mystery as to its exact nature. Like
all fabrics of past ages, we can but guess at its nature. It has
been discussed under its name in Gay’s _Glossaire Archæologic._

1296. _Ordonnances des Métiers de Paris_, p. 371.

Que nus (armuriers) ne puisse fère cote ne gamboison de tèle
dont l’envers et l’endroit ne soit de tèle noeve, et dedenz de
coton et de plois de toiles, et einsi que est qu’il soient dedenz
d’escroes.

It. Si l’en fait cote ne gamboison dont l’endroit soit de cendal
et l’envers soit de tèle, si veulent il que ele soit noeve et se
il i a ploit dedenz de tèle ne de cendal, que le plus cort ploit
soit de demie aune et de demi quartier de lonc au meins devant,
et autant derrières, et les autres plois lons ensuians. Et si il
i a borre de soie qui le lit de la bourre soit de demi aune et
demy quaritier au meins devant et autant derrières et se il i a
coton, que le coton vienge tout contreval jusques au piez.

The first of these regulations concerns the materials used, and
is very similar to that of the Armourers’ Company of London made
in 1322, which is given in full in Appendix A. So much of the
work of the padding and lining was hidden from sight that these
regulations were most necessary to prevent the use of old rags and
bad materials. The second entry seems to refer to the manner in
which canvas and cendal were to be used and in what proportions.
It should be noticed that at this period the surcoat, in England
at any rate, was being gradually shortened. The regulation above
quoted, however, suggests in the last sentence that in France it
was still worn long.

1311. _From the same source as the above._

Que nules d’ores en avant ne puisse faire cote gamboisée où il
n’ait 3 livres de coton tout neit, se elles ne sont faites en
sicines et au dessous soient faites entre mains que il y ait un
pli de viel linge emprès l’endroit de demi aune et demi quartier
devant et autant derrière.

Here the quantity of cotton is given and it is ordered to be new.
It seems to have been allowed to put old linen, but this may
possibly only mean seasoned linen, between the folds.

1322. _Chamber of Accounts, Paris._

Item Adae armentario 40 sol 4 d. pro factoris gambesonorum.

The name “Ada” of the armentarius rather suggests that it might be
a female who provided these gambesons.

1383. _Chronique de Bertrand du Guesclin_ (_T. II, p. 95_, 235.)

Ainsois l’ala d’une lance tranchant
L’escu li a rompu et le bon jaserant
Mais l’auqueton fu fort qui fu de bougeran

* * * * *

Et prendre auquetons de soie ou de bougerans.

From the context of the first extract this haketon of buckram would
appear to be a very serviceable defence, for the lance which had
penetrated the shield and the jaserant, or coat of plate, had not
penetrated the undergarment of buckram. Like all other fabrics
mentioned in medieval writings, we cannot definitely say of what
material this buckram was composed, but from the second extract it
seems to have been used equally with silk for the haketon.

1450. _Ordinance of Louis XI of France, Chambres des Compts,
Paris._[104]

... l’abillement de jacques leur soit bien proufitable et
avantageux pour faire la guerre, veu qui sont gens de pié, et que
en ayant les brigandines il leur faut porter beaucoup de choses
que en homme seul et à pied ne peut faire. Et premièrement leur
faut des dits jacques trente toilles, ou de vingt-cinq, à un
cuir de cerf a tout le moins: et si sont de trente-un cuirs de
cerf ils sont des bons. Les toiles usées et déliées moyennement
sont les meilleures; et doivent estre les jacques a quartre
quartiers, et faut que manches soient fortes comme le corps,
réservé le cuir. Et doit estre l’assiette pregne pres du collet,
non pas sur l’os de l’épaule, qui soit large dessoulz l’assielle
et plantureux dessoulz les bras, assez faulce et large sur les
costez bas, le collet fort comme le demourant des jacques; et que
le collet ne soit bas trop hault derrière pour l’amour de salade.
Il faut que ledit jacque soit lasse devant et qu’il ait dessoulz
une porte pièce de la force dudit jacque. Ainsi sera seur ledit
jacques et aise moienant qu’il ait un pourpoint sans manches ne
collet, de deux toiles seulement, qui naura que quatre doys de
large seur lespaulle; auquel pourpoint il attachera ses chausses.
Ainsi flottera dedens son jacques et sera à son aise. Car il ne
vit oncques tuer de coups-de-main, ne de flêches dedens lesdits
jacques ses hommes.

These very minute regulations show that the “jack” was considered a
most serviceable defence in the fifteenth century. At the same time
it must have been a hot and uncomfortable garment, for twenty-nine
or thirty thicknesses of linen with a deerskin on the top, or worse
still thirty-one thicknesses of deerskin, would make a thick,
unventilated defence which would be almost as insupportable as
plate armour. The last item may be a clerical error, and indeed
from the context it would appear to be thirty thicknesses of linen
with one of deerskin, for the leather would be far more costly to
work up than the linen. The extract has been given in full because
it is so rare to come across practical details of construction of
this nature.

1470. _Harl. MS. 4780. Inventory of Edward IV._

Item a doublet of crimson velvet lined with Hollande cloth and
interlined with busk.

This may be only an ordinary doublet, or it may be some kind of
“coat of fence” or “privy coat” lined with plates of steel, horn,
or whale-bone. These “busks” of steel are found as late as the
seventeenth century, for Gustavus Adolphus had a coat lined with
them (Lifrustkammer, Stockholm) and Bradshaw’s hat (Ashmolean Mus.,
Oxford) is strengthened with steel strips. (Fig. 50.)

1450 (_circ._). _Traité d’un Tournoi_, King René.

... que ledit harnoys soit si large et si ample que on puisse
vestir et mettre dessoulz ung porpoint ou courset; et fault que
le porpoint soit faultre de trys dois d’espez sur les espaules,
et au long des bras jusques au col.

* * * * *

En Brabant, Flandre et Haynault et en ce pays-la vers les
Almaignes, ont acoustome d’eulx armer de la personne autrement au
tournoy: car ils prennent ung demy porpoint de deux toilles ...
de quatre dois d’espez et remplis de couton.

It would seem from the above that in France the garment worn under
the tourney-armour was folded till it was three fingers thick on
the shoulders. In the Low Countries, however, the pourpoint was
of a different fashion, for there they made the garment of two
thicknesses and stuffed this with cotton-waste to the thickness
of four fingers. The difference of thickness can be accounted
for by the fact that folded linen would not compress so much as
cotton-waste. It should be noted in the extract from the Ordinances
of Louis XI that old material is advised as being more pliable
and softer. At the same time we may be sure that it was carefully
chosen. It is interesting to note that in 1322 the material is
ordered to be new, but in 1450 old linen is recommended.

[Illustration: _PLATE XXII_

GAUNTLETS AND GORGET

1. BRIDLE GAUNTLET.
2. RIGHT HAND GAUNTLET BY JACOB TOPF, PART OF THE “LEICESTER” SUIT.
3. BRIDLE GAUNTLET OF JAMES I.
4. XV CENT. GAUNTLET WITH “GADLINGS” ON THE KNUCKLES.
5. LOCKING GAUNTLET, XVI CENT.
6. BRIDLE GAUNTLET, XVI CENT.
7. PARADE GAUNTLET BY HEINRICK KNOPF, 1590.
8. GAUNTLET FOR FIGHTING AT BARRIERS, XVI CENT.
9. GORGET BY JACOP JORINGK, 1669.]

Besides the making of undergarments or complete defences of linen
overgarments, pourpoints, the Linen Armourers, as we find them
called in the City of London Records, made linings for helmets.
This was a most important detail in the equipment of a man, for the
helm or helmet was worse than useless if it did not fit securely
and if the head was not adequately padded to take off the shock
of the blow. In the Sloane MS. 6400, we find among the retinue of
Henry V at Agincourt, “Nicholas Brampton, a stuffer of bacynets,”
and in the Oxford City Records under the date 1369 are the entries
“Bacynet 13/4, stuffing for ditto 3/4.” In the Hastings MS.
(_Archæologia_, LVII), among the items given as the “Abilment for
the Justus of the Pees,” the first on the list is “a helme well
stuffyd.” This stuffing consisted of a thickly padded cap or lining
tied to the head-piece with strings, which are clearly shown in
the well-known engraving of Albert Dürer, of a man and a woman
supporting a shield on which is a skull (Fig. 42, 2). There are
some of these caps in the Waffensammlung, Vienna, which have been
noticed in Vol. II of the _Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenkunde_.

[Illustration: FIG. 42.

1. Padded “harnisch-kappe,” Vienna.
2. Helm showing attachment of cap and lining (after Dürer).]

The original lining of Sir Henry Lee’s helmet (Plate XIII) is still
_in situ_; this, however, is riveted to the helmet and follows
the shape of the head. In this respect it is different from the
helmet-cap, which was padded. A padded cap was worn independently
of the lining of the helmet. These are shown on Figs. 43, 44.
Similar caps are shown on the following works of Dürer: S. George
on foot, S. George (Stephan Baumgartner) and Felix Hungersbourg.

[Illustration: FIG. 43. Sallad-cap (from a picture by Paolo
Morando, 1486-1522, No. 571, Uffizi, Florence).

FIG. 44. Helmet-cap (from a sixteenth-century engraving of Iacob
Fugger).]

1586. _Chronicles_, Raphael Holinshed (edit. 1807, II, xvi, 333).

Our armour differeth not from that of other nations, and
therefore consisteth of corselets, almaine riuets, shirts of
maile, iackes quilted and couered ouer with leather, fustian,
or canuas, ouer thicke plates of iron that are sowed in the
same, & of which there is no towne or village that hath not hir
conuenient furniture.

These defences are of the same nature as the jack shown on Figs.
24, 25. The brigandine was more elaborate and costly, for it was
composed of small plates riveted to the foundation and covering
of fabric and was therefore the work of a skilled artificer. The
jack, on the other hand, was more easily put together and could be
done by the wearer himself or by his wife. An interesting example
of one of these village armouries mentioned above is to be found
at Mendlesham Church, Suffolk, in the strong-room of which are
portions of suits and half-suits dating from the late fifteenth to
the middle of the seventeenth century. The church also preserves
the records of the upkeep of the equipment, one of the last entries
being in 1613, a payment of 1s. 4d. to an armourer for “varnishinge
the town head-piece and the corslitt and for setting on leathers
and rivettes.”

1591-5. _Instructions, Observations and Orders Militarie, p.
185_, Sir John Smith.

Archers should weare either Ilet holed doublets that will resist
the thrust of a sword or a dagger and covered with some trim and
gallant kinde of coloured cloth to the liking of the Captain ...
or else Iackes of maile quilted upon fustian.

From the nature of their composition these “eyelet doublets” are
rarely to be met with. They were made of twine or thread knitted
all over in eyelets or button-holes. The appearance is much the
same as modern “tatting” and macramé work. The best-known examples
are in the Musée Porte de Hal, Brussels (II, 81), in the Cluny
Museum, and in the Musée d’Artillerie, G, 210 (Fig. 45).

1662. _Decades of Epistles of War_, Gervase Markham.

The shot should have on his head a good and sufficient Spanish
morian well lined in the head with a quilted cap of strong linen
and bound with lined ear plates.

1643. _Souldier’s Accidence_, Gervase Markham.

... the shot should have good comb caps well lined with quilted
caps.

It will be obvious that the maker of linings and undergarments for
the soldier had to be in constant touch with the armourer, for he
had to make allowances for the style and cut of the armour.

[Illustration: FIG. 45. Details of Eyelet Coats.

1. Musée d’Artillerie, Paris, G, 210. 2. Musée de Cluny, Paris.]

In the Wardrobe Accounts of Edward I quoted on page 79 there are
entries of payments to Robinet, the King’s tailor, for armour,
banners, crests, helmets, and robes for the King, his son, and
John of Lancaster. At the end of this chapter we shall notice this
combining of the crafts of the armourer and tailor when dealing
with the linen armourers.

It was obviously important that the tailor should be in touch with
the armourer and suit his material and cut to the equipment worn
over them.

1591-5. _Instructions and Orders Militarie, p. 185_, Sir John
Smith.[105]

No armed man should weare any cut doublets, as well in respect
that the wearing of armour doth quicklie fret them out and also
by reason that the corners and edges of the lames and jointes
of the armours doo take such holde uppon such cuttes as they do
hinder the quicke and sudden arming of men.

All parts of the suit were lined, for in spite of the padded
undergarment there was bound to be a certain amount of chafing
which, if the armour was unlined, would in time rub through the
undergarment. In many portraits, especially those of the late
sixteenth century, the linings are shown projecting below the edges
of the various pieces of the suit. The edges of these linings are
generally scalloped.

In the picture by Breughel on the frontispiece a cuisse is shown,
immediately beneath the basket of glass bottles in the centre
of the picture, which clearly has a padded lining. In a list of
payments for work done to Henry VIII’s armour we find “9 yards of
Cheshire cotton at 7d. for lining the king’s pasguard grandguard
great mayn de fer.” A similar charge is made in 1521 for two yards
of yellow satin at 7/4 for lining two head-pieces, two pair of
tasses, a pasguard, and two maynd fers. In 1510 we find an entry of
payment of 25 fl. 29 kr. to Walter Zeller of Innsbruck for lining
armour with black velvet and silk.[106] Frequently the padding
is shown in miniatures, especially on the inside of shields and
bucklers. The Highland targes are generally padded on the inside
with straw to take some of the shock of a blow from the arm. The
lining of such pieces as the taces and pauldrons was added to
prevent the metal over which they worked from being scratched, and
also to lessen the metallic noise, which would be a serious factor
in night attacks. Horse-armour, of course, needed heavy lining,
but little of this remains. An excellent reconstruction of lined
horse-armour is to be found on No. 620, Wallace Collection.

The stuffing of these padded garments was not always of cotton.
In the inventory of the goods of Sir John Falstoffe, 1459
(_Archæologia_, XXI), we find “i. jack of black linen stuffed with
mail and vi. jacks stuffed with horne, xxiiij. cappes stuffed with
horne and mayle, vj. payre of glovys of mayle of shepys skynne.”
Under the heading “Gambeson,” Du Cange[107] states that the
gambeson was stuffed with wool soaked with vinegar, to resist iron,
and he gives a reference to Pliny, Bk. VIII, c. 48, as bearing
on this statement. This was probably done to keep out vermin, a
serious factor when long marches with bad camping arrangements were
undertaken.

In all the defences which were mainly composed of fabrics, the
object seems to have been to provide a substance which would resist
cut or thrust and at the same time would offer a certain resiliency
to the blow. A practical experiment upon thick leather and upon
folded or padded cloth will prove this. Till recent years the
Japanese made much of their armour of quilted fabrics, the chief
drawback to which was its heat and want of ventilation.

[Illustration: _PLATE XXIII_

MAN AT ARMS. MIDDLE OF XV CENT.]

This linen armour or linen and fabric covering for armour was a
distinct craft in itself, and was practised by the linen armourers,
who had the sole right to cover armour or to make such defences as
have been enumerated above. That they were also tailors we know
from their subsequent incorporation with the Merchant Tailors and
also from the Wardrobe Accounts[108] of Edward I, in which Robinet,
the King’s tailor, is mentioned as making robes and armours and
banners.

Besides the lining of armour and the provision of padded defences
of fabric, there was a large field of employment in the covering of
armour. As may be noticed in Appendix A, this covering of helmets
seems to have been common in the first years of the fourteenth
century. There were three reasons for covering the steel head-piece
with fabric. Firstly, as Chaucer writes with regard to the mail
hauberk (page 78), to keep it from wet, the enemy of all iron and
steel work; secondly, as Roger Ascham writes of the peacock-wing
for arrows, “for gayness”; and thirdly, to prevent the glitter of
metal attracting attention.[109] In the _Treatise_ of Johan Hill,
written in 1434 (Appendix C, page 173), the covering of the armour,
especially for the legs, is ordered to be of scarlet “because his
adversarie shall not lightly espye his blode.” Helmet-bags are
mentioned in inventories, etc. In 1578 we find “steel caps with
covers” noticed in more than one will,[110] and in the Lieutenancy
Accounts for Lancashire, _temp._ Elizabeth, the archer’s dress
includes a “scull and Scottish cap to cover the same” (Fig. 46).
Several helmets in the Waffensammlungen at Vienna still show the
silk and satin coverings, and in Munich a triple-crowned burgonet
has a black velvet cover. The highly ornate Venetian sallads,
covered with crimson velvet, over which is set a gilt open-work
decoration of metal, are fairly common in collections (Plate XVI).

[Illustration: FIG. 46. Sallad with cover, from a sixteenth-century
engraving.]

The surcoat and tabard hardly come within the province of the
armourer, for they were quite distinct from the armour. They
were, however, in fashion in various forms till the middle of the
reign of Henry VIII, who landed in France, according to Hall,
in 1514 with a garment of “white cloth of gold bearing a red
cross.” Padded and quilted defences appear to have been worn in
the early seventeenth century, for the Hon. Roger North in his
_Examen_ writes that “there was great abundance of silk armour,”
which in many cases was said to be of pistol proof. Some of these
backs, breasts, and taces, wadded with cotton and covered with
salmon-coloured silk, are preserved in the Pitt-Rivers Museum,
Oxford.

THE LINEN ARMOURERS

As we have seen on page 91, in the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries the tailor was often also a purveyor of armour. M.
Buttin[111] quotes several extracts from documents of the
fourteenth century in which different names of craftsmen appear
classed as “Brodeurs et Armuriers.” It may not be out of place to
notice here that the “milliner” of the present day was originally
the Milaner or Milanese pedlar, who purveyed armour, weapons, and
clothing of all sorts.

The Linen Armourers, as they were called, were a gild distinct from
the Armourers, for in 1272 they were instituted as “The Fraternity
of Tailors and Linen Armourers of Linen Armour of S. John the
Baptist in the City of London.” Edward III was an honorary member
of the gild, and Richard II also became a member when he confirmed
their charter. Their first patent of arms was granted by Edward
IV in the year 1466, and in this document the society is called
“Gilda Armorarii.”[112] This naturally causes some confusion with
the Armourers’ Company, and in many documents it is uncertain
which gild is referred to. The first master was Henry de Ryall,
who was called the Pilgrim or Traveller. As has been stated above,
their first charter was from Edward III. Richard II confirmed by
“inspeximus” this charter. Henry IV also confirmed the charter, and
Henry VI granted right of search, which allowed the gild to inspect
shops and workshops and confiscate any work which did not come up
to their standard. It is doubtful whether the document given in
Appendix A refers to this gild or to that of the Armourers, for
it contains regulations which would affect both gilds. It gives
details as to that “right of search” which was an important part of
the duties of the gilds.

In the reign of Edward IV the gild was incorporated, and under
Henry VII it became the Merchant Tailors’ Company, with the charter
which is held by that company at the present day. This charter was
confirmed by Henry VIII, Edward VI, Philip and Mary, Elizabeth, and
James I.

FOOTNOTES:

[102] Meyrick, _Antient Armour_, I, 139.

[103] Cf. jupon of Black Prince at Canterbury, wadded with cotton.

[104] See also Du Cange, _Glossaire_, under “Jacque.”

[105] Cousin of Edward VI, and knighted by Elizabeth in 1576. His
free criticism on military matters led to the suppression of his
“Discourses on the form and effects of divers sorts of weapons,”
and he was committed to the Tower.

[106] _Jahrbuch des Kunsthist. Sammlungen_, II, 995.

[107] Johnes’ edit., I, 131.

[108] _Lib. Gardrobæ_, 28 Ed. I, 1300. Soc. of Antiq.

[109] _Vide_ modern War Office regulations of the present day as to
scabbards of swords, Highland kilts, etc.

[110] _Arch. Journ._, LX, “Armour Notes.”

[111] _Le Guet de Genève_, Geneva, 1910.

[112] _Hist. of 12 Livery Co.’s of London_, Herbert, 1836.

THE USE OF LEATHER

From the earliest times leather has been a favourite material for
defensive armour. The shield of Ajax was fashioned of seven bulls’
hides, and the soldiers of the King and of the Parliament in the
Civil War favoured the buff coat. Between these periods leather
was utilized in many ways, and when specially treated was a most
serviceable protection which had the merit of being lighter and
less costly than metal. The word “cuirass” itself is derived from
the body-defence of leather (cuir).

[Illustration: FIG. 47. Cuirass from the sketch-book of Willarsde
Honecourt, thirteenth century.]

The Hon. Robert Curzon, writing in 1869, mentions a cuirass of
three thicknesses of leather found in a stone coffin of the
thirteenth century (_Arch. Journ._, XXII, p. 6).

At a time when the weaving of fabrics was in a more or less
primitive state, the skins of beasts were used either as the sole
defence of the warrior or were reinforced with plates of metal
applied over the most vital parts of the body (Figs. 47, 48).

It is always a matter of some difficulty, especially in the earlier
examples, to tell what materials are intended in illuminated
miniatures, for we find what appears to be plate armour painted
brown or parti-coloured, and this points to the fact that armour of
all kinds was frequently painted, even chain mail being coloured to
suit the taste of the wearer, and also, a more important reason,
to preserve it from wet and rust. In some representations of scale
armour, the drawing of the scales, as for example the figure given
on Plate 1, 2, of my book on Armour and Weapons, suggests
leather rather than metal, and certainly the much-debated-upon
“banded mail” must have been a mixture of leather and metal.

[Illustration: FIG. 48. Leather Gauntlet, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.]

Towards the end of the twelfth century we find the material known
as “cuir-bouilli” or “cuerbully” mentioned as being used for the
armour of man and horse. The hide of the animal was cut thick,
boiled in oil or in water, and, when soft, moulded to the required
shape. When cold it became exceedingly hard and would withstand
nearly as much battle-wear as metal.

It had the advantage of being easily procured, easily worked, and
also of being much lighter than the metal. For this reason it was
used largely for jousts and tourneys, which up to the fifteenth
century were more of the nature of mimic fights than was the case
at a later date, when the onset was more earnest and the armour was
made correspondingly heavy to withstand it.

[Illustration: _PLATE XXIV_

PARADE SHIELD BY DESIDERIUS COLMAN, 1554

THE DETAIL IS GIVEN ON PAGE 135]

The best leather seems to have come from Spain and especially from
Cordova. Among the _Ordonnances des rois_ in the Bib. Nat. Français
(T. II, 357) we find it distinctly stated that Cordova leather was
far better than that of France or Flanders. This may have been due
to the breed of horses or cattle found there, but it is more likely
that the tanners of that town had made a speciality of treating the
hides.

On the sculptured effigies and monumental brasses of the fourteenth
century we find the jambs and poleynes often richly decorated and
moulded with more skill than the other parts of the armour,[113]
and these were probably of cuir-bouilli.

The d’Aubernon, Setvans, and Gorleston brasses are good examples
of this. Chaucer in his _Rime of Sir Thopas_ mentions jambs of
cuir-bouilli as being part of the ordinary equipment of the knight
(see page 100).

[Illustration: FIG. 49. Brassard of leather and cord for the
tourney (from René’s _Traité d’un Tournoi_).]

Both King Rene and Antoine de la Salle prescribe cuir-bouilli as
the material for the brassards used in the tourney (Fig. 49),
and this fashion seems to have lasted from the last quarter
of the thirteenth century, at which date we have cuir-bouilli
armour mentioned in the roll of purchases for the tournament at
Windsor Park, held by Edward I, down to the last quarter of the
fifteenth century. Oliver de la Marche, writing at the end of the
same century, describes the armour of Mahiot and Jacotin Plouvier
fighting in a duel as being of cuir-bouilli sewn on the body, legs,
and arms.[114] In his _Advis de gaige de battaile_ the same author
mentions leather armour as being only fit for the man who is “point
gentilhomme.”

As late as the year 1500 cuir-bouilli was much used for
horse-armour on account of its lightness. Of this we have two
specimens remaining to us in the full suit at Turin (G, 2) and
the crupper at the Tower (VI, 89). The horse on Plate XVII
is apparently armed with mail which is covered with trappers
of leather. The original, which was an ivory chessman in the
possession of Rev. Eagles, has disappeared. It was figured by
Hewitt in _Ancient Armour_, Vol. I, and was cast. The photograph
given here is from the cast. Among the few specimens of leather
armour for the man may be noted a morion in the Zeughaus, Berlin
(60_b_), and a pair of seventeenth-century leather “lobster-tail”
cuisses at Goodrich Court, Herefordshire.

The reason for this dearth of examples of leather armour in
collections at the present day is twofold. Much of the discarded
armour of this nature would be used for various domestic purposes,
such as jugs, horse-furniture, and such-like uses, and also much
would be thrown away as useless, for leather unless carefully kept
and oiled tends to crack and warp out of shape.

The above-mentioned bards for horses appear frequently in paintings
of the early sixteenth century. The picture of the battle of
Pavia in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford,[115] shows many of these
brilliantly painted with armorial and fancy designs, and the
absence of rivet-heads points to the fact that they are not of
metal.

The painting of bards seems to have been a distinct trade, for we
find in the Statuto de’ pittori Fiorentini rubr. 79 (_Carteggio
ined. d’artisti_, T. II, p. 40) regulations forbidding any but the
registered bard-painters to undertake such work.

That cuir-bouilli was not proof against firearms we learn from Jean
de Troyes (page 260), who writes: “Si y eut un cheval tout barde de
cuir bouilli qui fut tue d’un coup de coulverine.” This refers to
the date 1465, when firearms were but primitive weapons. Dressed
leather, however, in the form of the buff coat was used up to the
middle of the seventeenth century, when the penetrating power of
the bullet was greater. At the same time we should remember, as
Marshal Saxe very truly points out in his advocacy of plate armour
(_Rêveries_, p. 58), that many wounds at this time were caused
by sword, lance, and spent bullet, all of which might have been
avoided by the use of some thick material. The Marshal suggests
sheet-iron sewn upon a buff coat, but the buff coat itself, ⅜ in.
thick, would be a very adequate, though hot and heavy, protection
without the addition of metal.

The leather guns of Gustavus Adolphus will be found mentioned in
the following pages, but these were only covered with leather,
presumably to protect them from wet, and were not made entirely of
this material. We have no record of cuir-bouilli being employed
to make artillery, and of course the chief reason against its use
would be the weakness of the seam or join.

[Illustration: FIG. 50. Hat of Bradshaw the regicide, of leather
and steel. Ashmolean Mus., Oxford.]

The only use of leather or cuir-bouilli for defensive armour found
at the present day is found in the small bucklers of the hill
tribes of India. These are often so skilfully treated that the
leather is transparent and is almost impervious to a sword-cut,
forming a very fair defence against the bullet from the primitive
flintlocks in use among those tribes.

The leather hat reinforced with steel plates given at Fig. 50 was
worn by the regicide Bradshaw at the trial of Charles I.[116]

REFERENCES TO LEATHER AND CUIR-BOUILLI FROM CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTS

1185. _Chanson d’Antioche._

Moult fu riches qu’il li a chief mi
Son poitrail lui laca qui fu de cuir bolis.

The “poitrail” in this extract is the breastplate of the knight and
not of the horse.

1278. _Roll of Purchases for the Tournament at Windsor Park._

De Milon le Cuireur xxxviij quiret: p’c pec iij s.

Itm. ij Crest & j Blazon & una galea cor & j ensis de Balon de
Rob’o Brunnler xxxviij galee de cor p’c galee xiv.

This tournament seems to have been more of a pageant than a serious
contest like those of the fifteenth century. No armour of metal is
mentioned among the purchases and the weapons are of whalebone,
a material which was used also for gauntlets, as we know from
Froissart’s[117] description of the equipment of the troops of
Philip von Artevelde at the battle of Rosebecque in 1382. Whalebone
was also employed for “privy coats” or brigandines, in which it
was inserted between the lining and the cover. Buckram is also
mentioned as being used for body-armour, which material will be
found alluded to in the section devoted to the Linen Armourers.

1345. _Les Livres de Comptes des Freres Bonis_, I. 174, Forestie.

Item deu per un brasalot ... de cuer negre.

1351. _Ordonnances du roi Jean IV_, 69.

Ordenons que l’arbalestrier ... sera arme de plates ... et de
harnois de bras de fer et de cuir.

These brassards of cuir-bouilli seem to have been common in the
fourteenth century; their popularity being doubtless due to their
lightness and cheapness as compared with metal. M. Buttin in
his interesting pamphlet _Le Guet de Genève_[118] gives several
extracts from inventories and other documents which bear out this
statement.

1350. _Rime of Sir Thopas_, Chaucer.

His jambeux were of curebully.

[Illustration: _PLATE XXV_

DRAWING BY JACOB TOPF, 1530-1597

FROM THE “ARMOURER’S ALBUM,” VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM]

[Illustration: _PLATE XXVI_

ARMOUR OF SIR CHRISTOPHER HATTON, BY JACOB TOPF]

The skilfully modelled jambs and poleynes which appear on many
brasses and effigies of the fourteenth century rather suggest that
leather was used and not metal, as the rest of the armour does not
show such skill of forging. These leg-pieces are nearly always
shown as richly engraved, which also points to the suggestion that
they were of cuir-bouilli, which would be an easier material to
decorate with painting or modelling than metal.

1411. _Inventorie de l’ecurie du roi, f. 108 vo._

Une armure de cuir de Surie pour armer l’homme et le cheval.

1450. _Traité d’un Tournoi_, Roi René.

En Brebant, Flandres et Haynault at en ces pays la vers Almaignes
... mettant unes bracieres grosses de 4 dois d’espez et remplies
de cotton sur quoys ils arment les avant bras et les garde-bras
de cuir bouilly.

This entry may be compared with that of the Windsor Park
Tournament quoted above. King René’s book has the advantage of
being illustrated with drawings of these and all the other details
mentioned in his regulations for a tourney. The brassards shown in
the drawing have cords fixed lengthways so as to provide an extra
protection against the blow of the mace or wooden sword which René
describes as the weapons to be used. Brassards of a similar kind
are mentioned in Antoine de la Salle’s _Des anciens tournois et
Faictz d’Armes_ (edit. B. Prost., p. 120).

1471. _Inv. du Roi Rene à Angers, fo. 3 vo._

Quatre targetes de cuir bouilly a la facon de Tunes.

These targets, made after an Oriental model, would probably
resemble those which are frequently seen in India and Persia at the
present day, in which the leather is hard and often highly polished
and decorated with painting and gilding. The Highland targe is
fashioned differently, for the foundation is of wood and the skin
or hide stretched over it.

1480. _L’Artillerie des Ducs de Bourogne, Garnier, appendix, p.
230._

Onze gands et huit brasselets de cuir pour archiers.

Here the “brasselets” are not arm-defences, but are simply the
“bracer” or arm-guard which protected the wrist of the archer from
the string of his own bow when released.

1493. _L’advis de gaige de battaille_, O. de la Marche.

S’il n’est point gentilhomme il peut combattre selon l’ancienne
coustume armé de cuir bouilly.

This evidently refers to the regulations laid down by King René
in 1450, and suggests that by the end of the fifteenth century
they had become obsolete and that full plate armour was the only
equipment for the joust or tourney.

1500. _Inv. de Francois Ier. de Luxembourg, p. 6._

Plusiers bardes de chevaux de cuyr de cartes ou cartons.

The last-named materials were obviously only employed for parade
or masque. They would be early forms of papier-maché, but were
probably more like the modern cardboard than the hard papier-maché
now in use.

1559. _Notes sur Dioscoride, II, chap. 21_, Matthée.

Le cheval marin une beste du Nil [the hippopotamus] de la peau
l’on en fait des écus, animes et rondelles; aussi n’y ha il
armes n’y poinctures quelles qu’elles soyent qui la puissent
transpercer, si premièrement elle n’est baignée.

This entry shows clearly that even the hide of the hippopotamus
was not held to be weapon-proof till it had been soaked (in water
or oil). One of these leather bards exists in the Armeria Reale,
Turin, B, 2. It is catalogued as being of hippopotamus hide. A
crupper of cuir-bouilli (VI, 89) is the only specimen of leather
armour in the Tower.

1630 (_circ._). _Hist. of London, p. 26_, Pennant (1790).

Robert Scot ... was the inventor of leather artillery which he
introduced into the army of Gustvus Adolphus.

1644. _Military Memoirs of the Great Civil War, p. 42_, Gwynne.

At Crobredery Bridge (Cropredy) we overtook Waller’s army which
we engaged and beat, took Wemes General of their army prisoner
and withal took his leather guns which proved serviceable to the
King.

These leather guns were formed of a cylinder of copper round
which was twisted thick hempen cord and the whole enveloped in a
leather jacket. An example which is traditionally stated to be
one of Scot’s guns used by Gustavus Adolphus, is exhibited in the
Rotunda Museum, Woolwich (II, 173). The dolphins on this specimen
are fashioned to the letter “G” placed horizontally. There are two
similar guns in the Musée d’Artillerie.

1678. _Traité des Armes, p. 55_, Gaya.

Quoy que les Bufles ne soient proprement que les habillemens de
Cavaliers, nous pouvons neanmoins les mettre au nombre de leurs
armes deffensives, plus qu’ils peuvent aisement résister à l’Epée
lors qu’ils sont d’une peau bien choissie.

Les Bufles ... sont faits en forme de Juste-au-corps à quatre
basques qui descend jusqu’aux genoux.

Il n’y a pas un Cavalier dans les trouppes de France qui n’ait un
habillement de Bufle.

The buff coat of leather or “cuir de bœuf” was a part of the
military equipment as early as 1585 and was in common use during
the Civil War. It was worn by the Life Guards at the Coronation of
James II in 1685 and by a detachment of the Artillery Company at
the entry of George I in 1714. It ceased to be worn as part of the
uniform in the following reign.[119]

1591-5. _Instructions, Observations and Orders Militarie, p.
185_, Sir John Smith.

... halbadiers ... armed with burganets and with short skirted
Ierkins of buffe with a double buffe on their breasts and the
sleeves of their doublets with stripes of maile or serecloth
aforesaide.

Here we find a return to the primitive defence of the eleventh
century, due to the increased weight of armour which was necessary
against the improved firearms which were by this time a serious
factor in war. The serecloth recommended was probably a stout
waxed or oiled canvas. In recommending sleeves of mail, which are
shown on Plate XVIII, Sir John Smith considers that they are more
convenient for the handling of the halberdier’s weapon than the
more rigid brassards worn by the cavalry. These strips of chain are
shown on one of the figures painted by Memling for the “Chasse of
S. Ursula” at Bruges, 1486, which is given on Fig. 24 of this work.
They have been re-introduced as shoulder-straps for heavy cavalry
at the present day.

FOOTNOTES:

[113] The Pembridge effigy in Hereford Cathedral has thigh-pieces
which apparently represent leather laced on the inside.

[114] _Memoirs_, Vol. I, ch. 33.

[115] _Arms and Armour at Oxford_, C. ffoulkes.

[116] _Arms and Armour at Oxford_, C. ffoulkes.

[117] Johnes’ trans., I, 739.

[118] Kündig, Geneva, 1910.

[119] Cannon, _Historical Records of the Life Guards_, p. 74.

THE WEARING OF ARMOUR

Though perhaps the wearing and putting on of armour was not
directly part of the craft of the armourer, it was certainly a part
of his duties to be present during the process and be ready to
carry out any small alterations which might be needed on the spot.

As has been noticed in a preceding chapter, as late as 1625 we
find this insisted upon by de Pluvinel (see page 115). Shakespeare
describes the armourers as busy “accomplishing the knights” before
Agincourt (page 33), and the fact that the travelling knight took
his armourer with him shows that he was indispensable during the
operation of dressing for war or joust.

Armour of the best kind was made to measure, and for ordinary
purposes a mould or “dobble” was kept on which to make the ordinary
harness for the man-at-arms (page 28). The following extracts show
the methods employed for sending measurements, which were often
obtained by submitting the clothes of the patron to the armourer:--

1406. In the will of Sir Ralph Bulmer, “armatura mea corpori
talliata.”[120]

1470. _Archives de Bruxelles._[121]

Baltazar du Cornet, armourer at Bruges, delivers for the Duke
of Burgundy “2 cuiraches complettes faites a la mesure de
Monseigneur.”

Lazarus de St. Augustin delivers “un harnais complet fait naguere
a la mesure de Monseigneur et pour son corps.”

1512. A jacket and hose of Prince Charles (afterwards Charles V)
are sent to Conrad Seusenhofer.[122]

1520. _Brit. Mus., Calig. D, VIII_, 181.

16 March. Francis I asks for an “arming doublet” of Henry VIII
that he may have made a new kind of cuirass which he will send
him as a present.

[Illustration: _PLATE XXVII_

DRAWING BY JACOB TOPF, 1530-1597

FROM THE “ARMOURER’S ALBUM,” VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM]

[Illustration: _PLATE XXVIII_

ARMOUR OF SIR JOHN SMITH, BY JACOB TOPF]

1564. _S.P.D. Elizabeth, Jan. 30._

Warrant to the Master of the Armoury. To cause to be made one
armour complete fit for the body of our well beloved servant
Christopher Hatton, one of our Gentlemen Pensioners, he paying
according to the just value thereof.

1667. _Verney Memoirs, IV_, 301. Rich. Hals to Edmond Verney.

The armour fits well enough only the man did cut away to much
just under the arme pit both of back and breast, but for the head
piece it is something heavy, yet I think it well enough if it did
not come downe so low upon my forhead as to cover all my eyes and
offend my nose when I put my head backwards to look upwards.

[Illustration: FIG. 51. Stripping the dead (Bayeux Tapestry).]

In the preceding chapter some notice was taken of the part which
the linen armourer played in the equipment of the armed man, and it
was to him that the clothing which was worn under the armour was
entrusted. Under the heading of the “Cleaning of Armour” mention
has been made of Chaucer’s knight whose “gipoun” was “besmoturyd
with his haubergeon,” but this garment was an outer garment or
surcoat. In the age of plate armour a complete dress was worn for
legs, arms, body, and head to prevent the chafing of the armour,
which in spite of its own lining of silk, velvet, cloth, leather,
or other fabric would cause grave inconvenience, if not danger
to the wearer. Besides this reason there was also a question
of warmth, which was of importance, for in long marches and
expeditions there was no warmth in a suit of plate, in fact there
was an added cold which had to be counteracted by warm garments
worn underneath.

[Illustration: FIG. 52. Knight arming (from _Livre des Nobles
Femmes_, Bib. Nat., Paris, fourteenth century).]

In the eleventh and twelfth centuries we have not much in the
way of documentary evidence which will help us as to the clothes
worn under the armour. The Bayeux Tapestry shows us the wounded
and dead being stripped of their hauberks, under which nothing
was apparently worn (Fig. 51). It should be remembered, however,
that these hauberks were probably of quilted fabric, which
therefore did not gall the body of the wearer. The drawing from a
fourteenth-century manuscript on Fig. 52 gives some hint at the
arming-doublet, which will be noted farther on in this chapter,
and shows also the laces or points that held up the hose. Towards
the end of the fourteenth century, however, we find on the incised
brasses, which are such valuable records of the military equipment
of the period, very distinct garments represented. On the brass
to Sir John de Creke at Westley Waterless, Cambs, 1325, we see
the “cyclas” or outer surcoat, the “upper pourpoint,” of fabric,
studded with metal, “the hauberk,” and under all the “haketon”
or “gambeson” (Fig. 53). According to William de Guilleville, in
the _Pèlerinage de l’Ame_, written in the fourteenth century, the
“pourpoint” was so called because of its quiltings:--

De pontures de gambison
Pourquoi pourpoint l’appelle-t-on.

[Illustration: FIG. 53. Brass of Sir John de Creke, Westley
Waterless, Cambs, 1325.

1. Bascinet.
2. Vervelies and camail.
3. Cyclas or surcoat.
4. Upper pourpoint.
5. Hauberk.
6. Gambeson or haketon.
7. Poleynes.
8. Beinbergs or jambs.]

The gambeson continued in use up to the seventeenth century
under the name of “arming-doublet,” with but little change
except in shape and form, as the style of armour required. Of
the undergarments of the early fifteenth century we have little
or nothing to guide us, and we are often at a loss to know even
what armour was worn under the tight-fitting, small-waisted jupon
or surcoat which distinguishes the end of the fourteenth and the
beginning of the fifteenth century. We have, however, a valuable
record under this head in the monument at Ash, which shows
“splinted armour” of lames worn instead of a cuirass.

The illustration on Plate IV is from a wood-carving in the church
of S. William, Strasburg. It represents the travelling armourer
riveting what appear to be bands of iron on arms and legs. Whether
these are some contrivance used in arming in the fifteenth century,
or whether they are some instrument of torture used upon the
saint, Duke William of Acquitaine, it is impossible to discover, as
no other instances of the kind can be found.

For full details of the equipment of the latter half of the
fifteenth century we cannot do better than refer to the Hastings
MS. of the fifteenth century, which has been discussed by the late
Albert Way,[123] and more fully by Viscount Dillon.[124] Under the
heading of “The Abilment for the Justes of Pees” we find much that
is of value in this respect. On page 122_b_ of the manuscript we
find the following minute directions for dressing a man for the
joust, which should be compared with those given in Appendix C,
page 173.

How a man schall be armyd at his ese when he schal fighte on
foote:

He schal have noo schirte up on him but a dowbelet of ffustean
lyned with satene cutte full of hoolis. the dowbelet must be
strongeli boude there the pointis muste be sette aboute the greet
[bend] of the arm. and the b ste [_sic_] before and behynde and
the gussetis of mayle muste be sowid un to the dowbelet in the
bought of the arme. and undir the arme the armynge poyntis muste
ba made of fyne twyne suche as men make stryngys for crossebowes
and they muste be trussid small and poyntid as poyntis. Also
they muste be wexid with cordeweneris coode. and than they will
neyther recche nor breke Also a payr hosyn of stamyn sengill
and a payre of shorte bulwerkis of thynne blanket to put aboute
his kneys for chawfynge of his lighernes Also a payre of shone
of thikke Cordwene and they muste be frette with smal whipcorde
thre knottis up on a corde and thre cordis muste be faste swoid
on to the hele of the shoo and fyne cordis in the mydill of the
soole of the same shoo and that ther be betwene the frettis of
the hele and the frettis of the mydill of the shoo the space of
three fvngris.

To arme a man

ffirste ye muste sette on Sabatones and tye them up on the shoo
with smale poyntes that wol breke And then griffus [greaves] &
then quisses & [=he] the breeche of mayle And [=the] tonletis
And the brest And [=he] vambras And [=he] rerebras And then
glovys And then hange his daggere upon his right side And then
his shorte swered upon the lyfte side in a rounde rynge all nakid
to pull it oute lightlie. And then putte his cote upon his back
And then his basinet pynid up on two greet staplis before the
breste with a dowbill bokill behynde up on the bak for to make
the bassinet sitte juste. And then his long swerde in his hande.
And then his pensil in his hande peyntid of seynt George or of
oure lady to blesse him with as he goeth towards the felde and in
the felde.

[Illustration: FIG. 54. Arming-points (from the portrait of a
Navigator, Ashmolean Mus., Oxford).

FIG. 55. Attachment of brassard by points (from the portrait of the
Duc de Nevers, Hampton Court).]

From the above extract it will be seen that the undergarments
consisted of a thick doublet lined with silk, but with no shirt
underneath; the reason for this being one that we at the present
day can well appreciate, for when the body is hot from exertion and
exercise a shirt is apt to “ruck up,” and it would be impossible to
readjust it when fully armed. In the _Paston Letters_ we have the
following request from Edward IV:--

Item I praye you to send me a newe vestmente off whyght damaske
ffor a Dekyn, whyche is among myn other geer, I will make an
armyng Doublet off it.

[Illustration: _PLATE XXIX_

ARMET, MIDDLE OF XVI CENT.

ARMET ENGRAVED AND GILT, END OF XVI CENT.

HELM OF SIR RICHARD PEMBRIDGE, CIRC. 1360

PARADE CASQUE, AFTER NEGROLI, MIDDLE OF XVI CENT.

SALLAD BY ONE OF THE NEGROLIS, END OF XV CENT.]

[Illustration: FIG. 56. Moton attached by points (from Harl. MS.
4826).]

The gussets and, in the sixteenth century, the sleeves of mail
protected the bend of the arm and armpit, and sometimes the bend
of the knee, which were not adequately covered with plate. The two
portraits of unknown noblemen by Moroni (National Gallery) show
these details of the equipment very clearly (Plate XVIII). The
arming-points or “tresses” were used in civilian as well as in
military attire and joined the hose to the doublet, laced sleeves,
and held coats together, much as laces are used in ladies’ dresses
at the present day (Figs. 54-57). They are also shown tying up the
hose on Fig. 52 and the brayette on Plate VIII.

[Illustration: FIG. 57. Arming-points on the foot (from the picture
of S. Demetrius, by Ortolano, Nat. Gall.).]

Lord Dillon explains the hose of “stamyn sengill” as being a
worsted cloth made in Norfolk. The “bulwerkis” were pads of
blanketing fastened over the hose at the knees to prevent the
chafing of the knee-cop, and the shoes were of Cordova leather
fastened with laces. A complete underdress of this kind, with
quilted doublet and hose with gussets of mail at the knees, is to
be found in the Museum at Munich. The arming of a man began at the
feet, and as far as was possible each piece put on overlapped that
beneath it, to ensure that glancing surface upon the utility of
which such stress has been laid in the first chapter of this book.

The arming of a man, therefore, was carried out in the following
order and his equipment put on in the following order: Sollerets or
sabatons, jambs, knee-cops, cuisses, skirt of mail, gorget, breast
and back plates, brassards with elbow-cops, pauldrons, gauntlets,
sword-belt, and helmet (Fig. 58).

The “tonlet” would appear to be a bell-shaped skirt of plate
or deep taces such as is shown on Plate XXI, and is another
example of the use of the “glancing surface,” especially in
combats with axe and sword at barriers, for in these jousts the
legs were often unarmed and were not attacked. The rerebrace,
elbow-cop, and vambrace are usually joined by rivets in which
there is a certain amount of play. Where this was not the case,
each piece was separately strapped to the arm, as may be seen in
the brasses of Sir John de Creke, 1325 (Fig. 53), and of Sir
Hugh Hastings, 1347. When the three pieces, called collectively
the Brassard, were joined together, they were kept in place on
the arm by arming-points fastened to the “haustement” or doublet
just below the shoulder. The operation of tying on the brassard
is shown on the portrait now labelled the “Duc de Nevers” at
Hampton Court (Fig. 55). In the list of the equipment taken
by the Earl of Northumberland to France in 1513[125] we find
mention of arming-pateletts of white satin quilted, for wearing
under the armour, trussing-bolsters to wear round the waist to
keep the weight of the cuirass from the shoulders, arming-hose,
arming-doublets, arming-shoes, garters to wear under the armour,
and coffers in which to keep the armour.

[Illustration: FIG. 58. Sixteenth-century Suit of Plate.

ENGLISH FRENCH GERMAN ITALIAN SPANISH
1. scull timbre scheitelstück coppo calva
2. visor visière visier visiera vista
3. ventail ventail schembart ventaglio ventalle
4. bevor {bavière } kinreff baviera barbote
{mentonnière }
5. crest crête kamm cresta cresteria
6. plume-holder{porte-plume } pennachiera penacho
{porte-panache}
7. nape-guard couvre-nuque nackenschirm gronda cubrenuca
8. gorget colletin kragen goletta gorjal
9. spring-pin piton à federzapfen
ressort
10. neck-guard garde-collet brechränder guarda- bufeta
goletta
11. pauldron épaulière achseln spallaccio guardabrazo
12. rerebrace arrière-bras oberarmzeug bracciali brazali
13. lance-rest faucre rüsthaken resta restra de
muelle
14. rondel or } rondelle achselhöhl- {rotellino } luneta
besague } scheibe {da bracciale}
15. breast plastron brust petto peto
16. back dossière rücken schiena dos
17. elbow-cop }
or coude } coudière armkasheln cubitiera codales
18. vambrace avant-bras unterarmzeug bracciali brazali
19. gauntlet gantelet handschuhe mittene manopla
20. taces bracconière bauchreisen panziera faldaje
21. loin-guard garde-reins gesassreifen falda ”
22. fald or } {stahlmaschen-}
skirt } brayette { unterschutz } braghetta
of mail }
23. tasset tassette beintaschen fiancale escarcela
24. upper cuishe cuissard oberdiechlinge cosciali quijotes
25. cuishe ” unterdiechlinge ” ”
26. knee-cop genouillière kniebuckel ginocchielli guarda o
rodillera
27. jamb or } jambière, beinröhen gambiera greba
greave } grève
28. solleret or} soleret schuhe scarpe escarpe
sabbaton }
29. fan-plate ailerons
]

There is no mention of the pauldron in the Hastings MS., but when
this was worn it was strapped to the neck-opening of the cuirass or
hung from spring-pins which project from the shoulder-plate of the
cuirass.

The staples mentioned in the Hastings MS. are often very elaborate
contrivances, especially in jousting-armour, and the foremost
fastening was called the “charnel.” Fig. 59 shows the methods of
attaching jousting-helms to the cuirass. No. 1 shows the adjustable
plate which fixes the front of the helm of the suit of Philip II
(Madrid, A, 16). A similar contrivance was used with the “Brocas”
helm (Fig. 12). No. 2 is the front of a helm (Mus. d’Art, Paris,
G, 163) in which the lower plate is bolted to the breast and
can be released from the helm by withdrawing the hinge-pin. No.
3 shows the back of the same helm. Fig. 60 is a larger sketch of
the fixing-hook of this helm. A is the back-plate of the helm, E
the pillar hinged at D and hooked into a lug on the back of the
cuirass. B is a solid block of steel of circular section pierced
with holes and connected to a screw in E. B can be turned by
inserting a pin in the holes and the screw tightened or loosened.
Minute details as to the fastenings of the helm will be found in
Appendix D, page 178.

[Illustration: FIG. 59. Attachment of jousting-helms to the
cuirass.]

It can therefore be easily imagined that the work of arming a man
was a serious business, and it was necessary that the armourer or
an expert assistant should be present in case some portion of the
suit or its fastenings gave way.

[Illustration: FIG. 60. Side view of attachment on Fig. 59, 3.]

Details of the different parts that went to make up the complete
suit, with the thickness of each plate, the laces or points, and
various fastenings and methods of attachment, will be found in the
fifteenth-century Treatise on Military Costume of which a portion
is given in Appendix D.

The Marquis de Belleval published an interesting monograph on this
manuscript in 1866, which is now scarce and difficult to obtain.

In the illustration on Plate XVII the squires are shown arming
their masters from horseback, which appears to involve some
gymnastic exercises.

That such agility of the armed man was by no means an artistic
licence we may gather from the fact that Froissart[126] mentions
Sir John Assueton leaping fully armed behind his page on to his
war-horse. Again, Shakespeare makes Henry V (Act V, Sc. 2) say, “If
I could win a lady at leapfrog or by vaulting into my saddle with
my armour on my back,” and Oliver de la Marche states that Galliot
de Balthasin in 1446 leaped fully armed out of the saddle as though
he had on a pourpoint only. That this was no mere figure of speech
we may judge from a little book entitled _The Vaulting Master_,
written by W. Stokes, an Oxford riding-master, in 1641.

[Illustration: _PLATE XXX_

ARMOUR OF THE MIDDLE XV CENT.

ARMOUR OF FRIEDRICH DES SIEGREICHEN, BY TOMASO DA MISSAGLIA, 1460]

[Illustration: FIG. 61. Armourer in the lists (Heralds’ Coll., MS.
M, 6, f. 56).]

In the preface he writes: “In war the nimble avoydance of a man’s
horse if wounded or killed under him, and in like manner the ready
ascent into his enemies saddle if it be his hap to unhorse him, and
much more which the experienced souldier shall find.”

There is an engraving on Plate I of the work showing a cuirassier
in half-armour about to vault into the saddle without stirrups.
Stokes occasionally breaks out into verse as follows:--

Here’s that will make a stubborne armour weare
Gentle as Persian silks and light as air,

which refers to the ease of mounting which his prescribed exercises
ensured.

On the subject of the wearing of armour we have much valuable
information from the works of the great military reformer of
the sixteenth century, Sir John Smith, who, as has been stated
previously, suffered imprisonment for his opinions. In his
_Instructions and Observations and Orders Militarie_, 1591-5, he
writes:--

Page 183. “No man can be conveniently armed unlesse he be first
fitly apparelled.” He states that at Tilbury he saw “but very few
of that army that had any convenience of apparel and chieflie of
doublets to arme upon, whereof it came to passe that the most of
them did weare their armors verie uncomelie and uneasilie.... But
because the collars of their armours doe beare the chief waight
of all the rest of the armour, I would wish that the souldiers
... should have under Collars of Fustian convenientlie bombasted
to defende the heveth weight, and poise of their armours from the
paining or hurting of their shouldiers.”

On page 193 he writes: “Also I would have them to have pouldrons
of a good compasse and size, and vambraces both joined together,
and not asunder, because that the poise of the pouldrons and
vambraces, hanging upon the pinnes and springes of their collars,
they doe not weigh so much, nor are not so wearisome as when they
are separated; and that they weare their vambraces tied with
points to their doublets under their pouldrons.” Here the author,
who was pre-eminently a practical soldier, saw the discomfort
and inconvenience caused by the drag of the arming-point on the
sleeve and wisely considered that the whole arm-defence should
hang from a pin or strap from the gorget or cuirass, so that the
weight might be on the shoulders and not on the arms.

The armour for the joust in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
was far too heavy to allow of such vagaries. Pluvinel in his
_Maneige Royale_, 1625, gives an imaginary conversation between
himself and the King which bears upon the subject:--

The King.

It seems to me that such a man would have difficulty in getting
on his horse and being on to help himself.

Pluvinel.

It would be very difficult, but with this armament the case has
been provided for. In this way, at triumphs and tourneys where
lances are broken, there must be at the two ends of the lists a
small scaffold the height of the stirrup, on which two or three
persons can stand; that is to say, the rider, an armourer to
arm him, and one other to help him, as it is necessary in these
dangerous encounters that an armourer should always be at hand
and that all should be ready. Then the rider being armed, and the
horse brought near to the stand, he easily mounts him ... for
this reason the horses must be steady.

A little pen-drawing of the sixteenth century in a manuscript
dealing with jousts (Heralds’ Coll., M, 6, 56) shows the armourer
on one of these scaffolds at the end of the lists (Fig. 61).

In the chapter on the Proving of Armour the question of disuse on
account of weight was considered. From the sixteenth century and
even earlier we have records of the discarding of armour because
it hampered the wearer or for some equally cogent reason. The
following extracts bear upon the subject:--

1383. _Chroniques de Dugesclin_, line 5973 (edit. 1839).

Leurs cuissieres osterent tres tous communement
Par coi aler peussent trop plus legierement.

This refers to the action of Sir Hugh Calverly at the battle of
Mont Auray, who ordered his men to take off their cuisses in order
to move more easily.

1590. _Discourses_, p. 4, Sir John Smith.

But that which is more strange, these our such new fantasied men
of warre doe despise and scorne our auncient arming of ourselves
both on horseback and on foote saying that wee armed ourselves in
times past with too much armour, or peces of yron as they terme
it. And therefore their footmen piquers they doo allow for verie
well armed when they weare their burganets, their collars, their
cuirasses, and their backs, without either pouldrons, vambraces,
gauntlets or tasses.

Sir John Smith goes on to say that it was the discarding of his
cuisses that cost Sir Philip Sidney his life, for he received a
wound from a spent bullet which his armour might have deflected.

1619. _The Art of Warre_, Edward Davies.

[the arquebusiers were loaded] with a heavie shirt of male and a
burganet, by the time they have marched in the heat of summer or
deepe of winter ten or twelve English miles they are more apt to
rest than readie to fight.

1625. _Souldiers’ Accidence_, Markham.

As for the pouldron or the vant-brace they must be spared because
they are but cumbersome.

Against these extracts we must place the opinions of military
leaders who deplored the disuse of armour:--

1632. _Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie_, Cruso.

Captain Bingham in his Low Countrie exercise appointeth him [the
harquebusier] a cuirass pistoll proofe which condemneth the late
practice of our trained Harquebusiers to be erroneous which have
wholly left off their arms and think themselves safe enough in a
calf’s skin coat.

1756. _Rêveries_, Marshal Maurice of Saxe, p. 56.

Je ne sais pourquoi on a quitte les Armures, car rien n’est si
beau ni si avantageux. L’on dira peut-etre que c’est l’usage de
la poudre qui les a abolis; mais point du tout car du tems de
Henri IV. et depuis jusq’en l’annee 1667 on en a porter, et il y
avoit deja bien longtems que la poudre etoit en usage: mais vous
verrez que c’est la chere commodite qui les a fait quitter.

Marshal Saxe further suggests that the large proportion of wounds
are received from sword, lance, or spent bullet, and that all these
might be guarded against by wearing armour or a buff coat of his
own invention which when reinforced with steel plates weighed 30 lb.

THE WEIGHT OF ARMOUR

We have but few records in contemporary documents of the actual
weight of the different parts of the suit of armour, but we can
obtain these from examples of the sixteenth century onwards from
specimens in the different museums and collections.

That armour had become burdensome in the extreme owing to the
necessity of subjecting it to pistol and musket proof we know from
various writers on the subject.

La Noue in his _Discours Politiques et Militaires_, translated by
“E. A.” 1587, writes on page 185: “For where they had some reason
in respect of the violence of harquebuzes and dagges [muskets and
pistols] to make their armor thicker and of better proofe than
before, they have now so farre exceeded, that most of th[=e] have
laden themselves with stithies [anvils] in view of clothing their
bodies with armour ... neither was their armour so heavie but that
they might wel bear it 24 hours, where those that are now worne
are so waightie that the peiz [weight] of them will benumme a
Gentleman’s shoulders of 35 yeres of age.”

[Illustration: _PLATE XXXI_

PORTRAIT MEDAL OF COLOMAN, COLMAN, 1470-1532

DESIGNS FOR ARMOUR BY ALBERT DURER, 1517]

On page 196 of Sir John Smith’s _Instructions, Observations, and
Orders Militarie_, the author strongly objects to the discarding of
the arm and leg defences which was advised by other authorities. He
insists that these limbs are as important as the “breste, belly,
and backe,” and should be adequately protected. His opinions are
also held by Marshal Maurice of Saxe in his _Rêveries_, quoted
above.

Edward Ludlow, at the battle of Edgehill, 1642,[127] was dismounted
in getting through a hedge, and says: “I could not without
great difficulty recover on horse-back again being loaded with
cuirassiers arms as the rest of the guard were also.”

It would be superfluous to mention the different occasions on
which unhorsed knights were captured or killed through their
inability to remount in battle. Froissart in describing the battle
of Poitiers says that when once dismounted men could not get up
again, and other historians bear equal witness of the disadvantage
of armour when unmounted; and the Sieur de Gaya, who has been so
often referred to in these pages, writing in 1678, says in his
_Traité des Armes_, page 60: “Ils n’avoient trop de tort à mon avis
d’équiper ainsi leurs chevaux parce qu’un Cavalier armé n’est plus
propre à rien quand il est démonté.”

Although this may be taken as a reason put forward by the writer
for more armour for man and horse, it shows at the same time that
the fully armed man was considered to be comparatively useless when
unhorsed, as the Spanish proverb ran: “Muerto el Cavallo, perdido
el hombre d’armas.”

It may be somewhat of a surprise to learn that the present-day
equipment is but little lighter than that of the fifteenth century.
The Under Secretary for War, speaking in the House of Commons on
November 28th, 1911, stated that the infantry soldier marched on an
average thirty miles a day during the manœuvres, carrying 59 lb. 11
oz. of equipment and kit. Against this we may place the weight of
some suits of foot-soldiers’ armour of the sixteenth century, which
weigh with the helmet at the outside 25 lb.; leaving therefore
a wide margin for underclothes and weapons. And this comparison
of weight carried is even more interesting when considering the
cavalry equipment, as will be seen from the annexed table on the
opposite page.

Of course all these figures represent “dead weight”; and here
we are brought back to one of those fundamental rules of good
craftsmanship--the recognition of “Convenience in Use.”

Even in the Golden Age of armour, the fifteenth century, the
armourer was hampered by material and by methods of construction
which even the most expert craftsman could not overcome; but when
we reach the period of decadence in the seventeenth century, the
excellence of craftsmanship had deteriorated to an alarming extent
and these difficulties were still greater. The secret therefore of
the weight-carrying powers of man and horse at the present day is
greater convenience in carrying, the scientific distribution of
weight, and a more adaptable material, which when taken together
give greater freedom and greater mobility, even though the actual
weight be the same as the equipment of steel.

The following table gives the weights of typical suits from the
fifteenth century onwards:--

ARMOUR FOR THE JOUST

XV-XVI.--HELMS (ENGLISH). lb. oz.

Barendyne, Great Haseley, Oxon 13 8
Wallace Collection, No. 78 17 0
Westminster Abbey 17 12
Brocas, Rotunda, Woolwich 17 12
Dawtrey, Petworth, Sussex 21 8
Captain Lindsay, Sutton Courtenay, Berks 24 14
1518. Madrid, A, 37 41 9

SUITS.
1520. Tower, II, 28, for fighting on foot 93 0
1530 (_circ._). Madrid, A, 26 { man 79 0
{ horse 79 0
1590. Tower, II, 9, man 103 0

WAR HARNESS

1439. Musée d’Artillerie, Paris, G, 1, man and horse 163 0
1514. Tower, II, 5 { man 64 13
{ horse 69 3
1588. Musée d’Artillerie, G, 80, man 92 6
1590. Tower, II, 10 79 0
1590. Tower, II, 12 55 8
1612. Tower, II, 18 77 14

CAVALRY

1450 1875 1909
+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+----------+
|G, 1, Musée d’Artillerie, Paris. | | | |
| _Man, about 140 lb._ } | | | |
| _Armour for man and horse, } | | | |
| 163 lb._[128] } | 333 lb. | | |
| _Arms, clothes, saddlery, etc., } | | | |
| about 30 lb._ } | | | |
+======================================+ | | |
|British Household Cavalry | | 308 lb. |} |
| ” Heavy ” | | 280 lb. |} |
| ” Medium ” | | 266 lb. |} 246 lb. |
| ” Light ” | | 259 lb. |} [130] |
| | | [129] | |
|German Cuirassier | | | 334 lb. |
| _All the above are Service equipment,| | | |
| including rider and saddlery._ | | | |
+--------------------------------------+---------+---------+----------+

INFANTRY

1550 1875 1911
+----------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
|106-8, Rotunda, Woolwich, Maltese Suits.| | | |
| _Half-armour and helmet, 25 lb._ } | | | |
| _Clothes and arms, about 15 lb._ } | 40 lb.| | |
+========================================+ | | |
|British Infantry. | | | |
| _Service equipment, including arms_ | | 52 lb.|59 lb. 11 oz.|
| | | [129]| [131] |
+----------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+

FOOTNOTES:

[120] _Arch. Journ._, LX.

[121] _Archives de Bruxelles_, Cat. Mus. Porte de Hal, 1885.

[122] _Jahrbuch des Kunsthist. Sammlungen_, II, 1032.

[123] _Arch. Journ._, IV.

[124] _Archæologia_, LVII.

[125] _Antiquarian Repertory_, IV.

[126] Johnes’ edition, I, 449.

[127] _Ludlow’s Memoirs_, Firth, I, 44.

[128] Catalogue of the Museum.

[129] Sir G. P. Colley, K.S.I., _Encyc. Brit._, 1875.

[130] Col. F. N. Maude, _Encyc. Brit._, 1910.

[131] _Morning Post_, December 9, 1911.

THE ARMOURERS’ COMPANY OF THE CITY OF LONDON, ARMOURERS’ HALL,
COLEMAN STREET, E.C.

At the present day this Company is combined with that of the
Braziers, but this combination only dates from the beginning
of the eighteenth century, when it had ceased to deal with the
making of armour and was more concerned with other branches of the
craft of the metal-worker. The objects of the craft-gild of the
armourers were the same as all those of like nature in the Middle
Ages. Members were protected from outside piracy of methods and
trade-marks, they were cared for in body when ill or incapable of
working, and in soul by masses and religious exercises.

[Illustration: FIG. 62. Arms of the Armourers’ Company of London.]

An important detail in the organization of these craft-gilds and
one sadly lacking in modern trade combinations was the examination
and approval of the members’ work by the gild-masters. In this way
was the craftsman encouraged to produce good work, and also the
purchaser was protected against inferior workmanship. A reference
to the Appendices B, K will exemplify this, for in these two
instances alone we find that careless work is condemned by the
Company. In the document of the reign of Edward II it is noted that
“old bascute broken and false now newly covered by men that nothing
understood of ye mystery wh. be put in pryvie places and borne out
into ye contrye out of ye said Citye to sell and in ye same citie
of wh. men may not gaine knowledge whether they be good or ill of
ye wh. thinge greate yill might fall to ye king and his people.”

Again, under Charles I, in the appeal of the Company to the Crown,
leave to use the mark is requested “because divers cutlers,
smythes, tynkers & other botchers of arms by their unskillfulness
have utterly spoiled many armes, armours, &c.”

The Company seems to have existed during the reign of Edward II,
but was not then incorporated, and with the exception of the
document transcribed in Appendix A, there is but little evidence
of their existence before the date of 31st Henry VI, in which year
a Charter of Incorporation was granted. This deals mostly with
questions relating to religious observances, the gild-chapel and
like matters. A report to the Court of Aldermen, dated 20th Eliz.
(1578), as to right of search for armour, etc., states that “the
Armourers did shewe us that in Kinge Edward the Second his time,
the Lord Maior and his bretheren did then graunte the serche unto
the Armourers.”

As has been noticed before, the fact that armour plates were
expensive and difficult to forge will account for the scarcity of
examples of the defensive equipment up to the sixteenth century.
Either the suit was remade or, having been cast aside, it was
utilized by the common soldier as well as might be. It was only
when the age of the firearm was reached that armour was left in
its perfect state and was not improved upon. We have therefore but
little to show whether the English armourers of the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries were more or less expert than their foreign
rivals, but, from other examples of metal-work that remain to
us, we are forced to the conclusion that the foreigner was our
superior. At the same time we find on more than one occasion
that the English armourer claims to equal his foreign rival; but
whether these claims were ever proved we are unable to decide
without actual examples of the craft work or documentary evidence.
In Appendix J is printed an appeal from Capt. John Martin in 1624
for leave to import German “platers” to teach English armourers,
with the hope that this will establish a home trade and will stop
the import of foreign work. At the same time the very fact of this
request shows that the craft in England in the reign of James I was
not in a very flourishing condition. On the other hand, in 1590 the
Armourers of London petitioned Queen Elizabeth to purchase only
home products, because they can furnish her with “farre better
armors than that wch cometh from beyond the seas.”

[Illustration: FIG. 63. Design on manifer of suit made for Henry,
Prince of Wales, by Pickering, _circ._ 1611. Windsor Castle.
Half-size (from a rubbing).]

In the year 1580 the Armourers’ Company endeavoured to obtain
an Act of Parliament to protect and encourage the craft of the
Armourer, but with no result owing to the opposition of other
Companies. In the minutes of the Company detailing this effort
occurs the following passage, which is of interest as bearing upon
the skill of English workmen at that date: “It was the Master’s
chance to speak with Sir Walter’s[132] honor again, Dr. Doull, one
of the Masters of Requests, being with him, praying him to have the
Armourers’ Bill in remembrance. ‘What,’ said Mr. Doctor, ‘there is
none of your Company that can make an armor.’ ‘Yes, sir,’ said the
Master, ‘that there is verily good workmen, and skilful as needeth
to be.’ ‘Tell me not that,’ saith he, ‘for I will hould you a
hundred pounds that there is none in England that can “trampe” an
armor for “the Cappe to the Soul of the foot.”’ ‘I will lay with
your worship afore Sir Walter’s honor if you will give me leave
that we have in England that shall work with any in the world from
the toe to the crown of the head from 100 to 1000’; and then he
made as though he would have laid it. ‘No,’ saith Sir Walter, ‘ye
shall not lay, for he will win of you, for they have very good
workmen, and I know of the workmanship myself.’”

This skill in craftsmanship was doubtless attained under the
tutelage of the Almaine armourers that have been referred to
before who were brought over by Henry VIII to Greenwich. As an
example of this we may notice the work of Pickering,[133] to whom
is attributed the suit made for Henry, Prince of Wales, now at
Windsor Castle, which bears a strong resemblance to the work of
Jacob Topf, who was Master Armourer at Greenwich in 1590 (Fig. 63).

In 1595 a Court of the Armourers’ Company was held to examine
targets and other pieces of armour, and the decision arrived at
was that it was “not of the proportion that cometh from beyond the
seas, the Breast and Back Plates were too short and too narrow
everywhere.” Again in the year 1620 at a Court it was certified
that a Sussex smith “did alter old Armour, persuading the Countrey
that they were workmanly done, which notwithstanding were utterly
unserviceable.” This matter was reported to the Justices at
Guildford to be dealt with by them. From these entries it will be
seen that the control of the Company was very real and that in the
main the English craftsman was of not much account until he had
learned his trade from foreign experts.

It was doubtless due to the instruction given by the foreigner
that the Company possessed skilled hammermen. Under Elizabeth in
1560 these hammermen were employed to assist in the process of
coin-striking and were sent, two to the Clothworkers’ Hall, two
to the Sessions Hall, Southwark, and two to the Merchant Taylors’
Hall, to strike and stamp “with portcullis and greyhound the
several pieces of money called ‘Testons,’ there to continue until
the end of fourteen days from the date of precept.”[134]

Many of the foreign immigrants took out letters of naturalization
and became members of the Company, but none of these seem to have
been craftsmen of note, for the expert workmen were generally
recalled to the German Court after some time, where there was a
wider scope and, possibly, higher remuneration for their services.

The Company, like other Corporations, suffered severely during the
Reformation. Religious observances were so much a part of the gild
life that the members soon fell under suspicion, as practising
superstitious rites. Heavy fines were enacted, and it was only
by the generosity of John Richmond, a member of the Company, who
bought part of the corporate property of the Farringdon estate for
£120 and left it back to the Company in his will, that the fine was
paid.

Informers, of whom Tipper and Dawe were the chief, levied blackmail
on the Company up to the end of the reign of Elizabeth, and
continued to suggest that superstitious practices were indulged in
till their demands were met at heavy expense.

The Armourers had, in 1515, absorbed the whole craft of the
Blade-smiths, which seems to have caused much friction with
the Cutlers. The books of the Company are full of appeals and
negotiations before the Court of Aldermen on the question of search
for unlicensed craftsmen and faulty goods, which was one of the
important duties of the Company. These were finally arranged by
a joint search being made by the two Companies. The Company was
from the beginning dedicated to S. George, who was the patron
of armourers all over Europe. His statue by Donatello, formerly
outside the gild-church of Or San Michele in Florence, is well known.
The figure of S. George appears on the charter granted by Henry VI
in 1453, and also upon the matrix of a seal of about the same date.
The registered mark of the Company was “A,” surmounted by a crown,
and this was ordered to be stamped upon all weapons, armours, and
guns supplied by the Company when tested and approved.

There are many interesting details dealing with the apprentices
of the Company which, although they do not bear directly upon the
craft of the armourer, are nevertheless worth recording as typical
of the craft laws and regulations as practised in England.

In most craft-gilds it was considered sufficient for an apprentice
to serve for seven years before he was free of the gild; but in
the Armourers’ Company we frequently find entries of apprentice
bonds for nine years, and in some instances ten and fourteen.
There are records of misbehaviour of one of the apprentices, who
is ordered “honest correction as that a Servant shall be used.”
This correction was sometimes administered in the Hall before the
Gild-Court, and is described as being “indifferently well” carried
out. The case of the Sussex smith who produced unworkmanly armour
has been referred to above. In a letter from the Lord Mayor in
1560 we read that the apprentices are not to use “swearing and
blaspheming, haunting evil women or Schools of Fence, Dancing,
Carding, Dicing, Bowling, Tennis play, using of Ruffs in their
shirts, Tavern haunting or Banqueting, and if any shall be found
faulty the same be forwith punished by whipping openly in your Hall
in the sight of other Apprentices, and ye shall give in charge
that the said Masters shall not permit nor suffer any of their
Apprentices to wear in their hosen any cloth of other colours than
are here expressed, that is to say, White, Russet, Blue, Watchet,
and the said Hosen to be made without great Breeches in most plain
manner without stitching of Silk or any mannar of Cuts.”

The most valuable of the possessions of the Armourers’ Company from
the technical point of view is the suit of armour made by Jacobe,
who is now considered to be the same as Jacob Topf, an Innsbruck
craftsman who was Master Armourer at Greenwich in 1590. The design
for this suit appears in the _Almain Armourer’s Album_, which
is noticed under the heading of German Armourers. There is also
a “locking-gauntlet,” which is sometimes erroneously called the
“forbidden gauntlet,” by the same craftsman (Fig. 32).

The Company at one time possessed a model suit of armour made
in 1567 by John Kelk, a naturalized German member, which, when
completed, was brought into the Hall with much ceremony and laid
upon the high table. It was intended to be a pattern of the armour
made by the Company. There are various entries in the Company’s
Records of payments for repairing and keeping up this “Mannakine,”
as it was called. It has since disappeared; but Hewitt, the noted
authority on medieval armour, seemed to think that it was in the
Tower in 1855 (II, 52).

FOOTNOTES:

[132] Sir Walter Mildmay, Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[133] William Pickering was Master of the Company 1608-9.

[134] In September, 1575, “Hopkins, a maker of coining irons in the
Mint, has also been making calivers and great iron pieces.”--State
Papers, _sub ann._

LISTS OF EUROPEAN ARMOURERS

The following short notices give what details are known of some of
the more important armourers. In many instances they are only known
by their works, and no details are forthcoming about their private
or professional lives. The dates given are those of the earliest
and latest mention of the individual in contemporary chronicles.

ENGLAND

(K.A., Q.A. = KING’S OR QUEEN’S ARMOURER)

Albert, Hans. 1515.

Ashton, John. 1633. K.A. and Armourers’ Co.

Aynesley, Edward. 1633. K.A. and Armourers’ Co.

Baker, Thomas.[135] 1547. Armourers’ Co.

Basyn, John. 1524-44. (Naturalized Norman.)

Bawdesonne, Alen. 1547. King’s Armourer, Westminster.

Blewbery, John. 1511-16. (Yeoman of the Armoury at Greenwich, 1515.)

Boreman, W., also called Alias Hynde. 1599-1609. (Appointed
armourer at Greenwich, 1599. Will dated 1645.)

Brande, Rauffe.[136] 1520.

Baltesar Bullato. 1532. Milanese, King’s Armourer.

Carter, William. 1534. Ludlow.

Clere, Hans. 1530. K.A., Greenwich.

Clynkerdager, Hans. 1542-4. K.A., Greenwich.

Clynkerdager, John. 1525.

Copeland. 1529. London.

Cooper, John. 1627-9. Keeper of the King’s Brigandines.

Cowper, Thomas. 1559. K.A., Greenwich.

Coxe, Wm. 1633. K.A. and Armourers’ Co.

Croche, Francis. 1528-9. K.A., Greenwich.

Crochet, John. 1515-20. K.A., Greenwich.

Crompton, John. 1544. Southwark.

Crouche, Wm. 1633. K.A. and Armourers’ Co.

Cutler, Richard.[137] 1520.

Dael, Thomas. 1515. K.A., Greenwich.

Daniele, Edmond.[138] 1547.

Daniele, John.[138] 1547.

Darwin, William. 1613. Yeoman of the Armoury at Greenwich.

Dawson. 1515. K.A., Greenwich.

Dedikes, Dirike. 1530. Yeoman of the Armoury at Greenwich.

Dericke or Diricke, Mathew. 1559-74. K.A., Greenwich.

Dericke or Diricke, Robert. 1524.

Diconson, John. 1528. K.A., Greenwich.

Faulkenor, Roger.[139] 1625-31.

Fevers, Peter. 1512-18. K.A., Greenwich.

Foster, Rowland. 1633. K.A. and Armourers’ Co.

Franklin, John. 1633. K.A. and Armourers’ Co.

Fuller, James. 1559. Yeoman of the Armoury, Greenwich.

Garret, John. 1559-1601 (date of will). Q.A., Greenwich.

Gurre, Wm. 1511-38. Brigandarius.

Halder, Jacob. 1574. Q.A., Greenwich.

Halore (?), Jacob. 1559. Q.A., Greenwich. (Possibly the same as
Halder.)

Harford, Richard. 1590. London.

Herste, Martyn. 1574. Q.A., Greenwich.

Hill, Johan. 1434. Armourer to Henry VI. See page 173.

Horne, Geofrey. 1516-18.

Hotton, Richard. 1592.

Hunter, Hans.[138] 1547. Westminster.

Jacobi or Jacobe.[140] 1530-90. Master Armourer, Greenwich.

Kelte, John. 1559-74. Q.A., Greenwich.

Kemp, Jasper. 1544. K.A., Greenwich.

Keymer, Roger. 1571. Q.A., Greenwich.

Kirke, John. 1577. Master Armourer at Greenwich.

Kirkener, Erasmus or Asamus. 1519-93. Brigandarius, 1538; Chief
Armourer, 1544.

Kornelys. 1515. K.A., Greenwich.

Lasy, John. 1533. Nottingham.

Lincoln, Thomas. 1604-8. Yeoman of the Armoury at Greenwich.

Mare de la, Will. K.A., 1672.

Marshall, Nicholas. 1533. K.A. and Armourers’ Co.

Martyn, “Old.” 1544. K.A., Greenwich.

Mightner, Hans. 1559-74. Q.A., Greenwich.

Oliver, Jermyn. 1514-44. (Naturalized Norman.)

Pellande, Richard. 1520.

Pellysonne, Frances. 1524-44. (Naturalized “from the domains of
the Emperor.”)

Pickering, William. 1591-1630. Master Armourer at Greenwich, 1604-14.

Pipe, Nighel. 1559. Q.A., Greenwich.

Pitwell, Giles. 1516-44. (Naturalized Gascon.)

Polston, John. 1552. K.A., Greenwich.

Pounde, John de. 1520.

Poyes, Francis. 1525-44. (Naturalized Norman.)

Purday, John. 1562.

Sewell, John. 1590-1.

Sherman, Nicolas. 1629. Chief Armourer at Greenwich.

Spirarde, Carries or Tarys. 1574. Q.A., Greenwich.

Spyltherup or Speldrup, Francis.[141] 1532.

Stephens, Thos. 1626. K.A. and Armourers’ Co.

Stile, John.[142] 1524. K.A., Greenwich.

Stone, Benjamin. 1636. Sword-smith, Hounslow.

Ureland, Peter van. 1515. Gilder and Graver, Greenwich.

Watt Copyn Jacob de. 1512-26. K.A., Greenwich.

Whetstone. 1628.

White, Thomas. 1416. Master Armourer.

Wolf, John. 1538-42. K.A., Greenwich.

Wollwarde, Thomas. 1530-41. K.A., Greenwich.

Woode, Richard. 1590. London.

GERMAN ARMOURERS

Aldegraver, Heinrich. 1502-58.

Brabenter, Wilhelm, Solingen. Sixteenth century.

Colman, Coloman. 1470-1532. Augsburg. Mark No. 40. See page 133.

Colman (Helmschmied), Desiderius. 1552. Mark No. 40. See page 134.

Colman (Helmschmied), Lorenz. 1490-1516. Mark Nos. 2, 23, 41. See
page 133.

Frauenpreis, Matthaias. 1549. Mark No. 38. See page 135.

Frauenpreis, Matthaias, the younger. See page 135.

Grofsschedl, Franz. Landshut. 1568. Mark No. 39.

Grünewalt, Hans. Nuremberg. 1503. Mark No. 54. See page 135.

Hopfer, Daniel. 1566. See page 136.

Jövingk, Jakob. Dresden. 1650-9.

Knopf, Heinrich. 1604.

Lochner, Conrad. Nuremberg. 1567. Mark No. 46. See page 136.

Obresch, Heinrich. Grätz. 1590. Mark No. 47.

Peffenhauser, Anton. Augsburg. 1566-94. Mark No. 48.

Ringler, Hans. Nuremberg. 1560. Mark No. 49.

Rockenberger or Rosenberger, Hans. 1543-70. Dresden.

Rockenburger, Sigmund. 1554-72. Mark No. 79.

Rotschmied. Nuremberg. 1597. Mark No. 6.

Seusenhofer, Conrad. Innsbruck. 1502-18. Mark No. 7. See page 141.

Seusenhofer, Jorg. Innsbruck. 1558. Mark No. 8. See page 141.

Seusenhofer, Wilhelm. Augsburg. 1547.

Siebenburger, Valentine. Nuremberg. 1547. Mark Nos. 20, 74.

Sigman, George. 1560. Mark No. 76.

Speyer, Peter. Dresden. 1560. Mark No. 60.

Speyer, Wolf. Dresden. 1580.

Topf, Jacob. Innsbruck. 1530-90. See page 143.

Treytz, Adrian. Innsbruck. 1469-1517. Mark No. 15.

Veit. Nuremberg. Sixteenth century. Mark No. 16.

Wolf, Sigismond. Landshut. 1554.

Worms, Wilhelm (father and son). Nuremberg. 1539. Mark No. 17.

FRANCE

Petit, M. Seventeenth century. Mark No. 83.

NETHERLANDS

Merate, Gabriel and Francesco. Arbois. 1495. Mark Nos. 18, 51, 53.
See page 136.

Voys, Jacques. Brussels. Fifteenth to sixteenth century. Mark No. 56.

ITALY

Campi, Bartolomeo. Milan. 1573. See page 132.

Camelio, Victor. Brescia. 1500. See page 131.

Cantoni, Bernardino. Milan. 1500. See page 133.

Chiesa, Pompeo della. Milan. 1590.

Missaglia, Antonio. 1492. Mark Nos. 24, 25, 26. See page 138.

Missaglia, Petrajolo. Milan. 1390. Mark Nos. 27, 78.

Missaglia, Tomaso. Milan. 1468. Mark Nos. 27, 78. See page 137.

Mola, Gesparo. Rome. 1640. See page 139.

Negroli, Philip and Jacopo. Milan. 1530-90. Mark Nos. 42, 43, 44.
See page 140.

Piccinino, Lucio. Milan. 1550-70. See page 140.

FOOTNOTES:

[135] At funeral of Henry VIII.

[136] Sent to Flanders in this year to provide armour, etc., for
the Field of the Cloth of Gold.

[137] Sent to Flanders in this year to provide armour, etc., for
the Field of the Cloth of Gold.

[138] At funeral of Henry VIII.

[139] Made sundry petitions for inquiry as to the state of the
Armouries, S.P.D. Car. I, xiii, 96, etc.

[140] Now considered to be the same as Topf. Only mention as
armourer in England, 1590.

[141] Appropriated gold intended to gild armour, also clipped money.

[142] Died by burning in this year.

SHORT BIOGRAPHIES OF NOTABLE ARMOURERS

[Sidenote: _Hans Burgmair_, Augsburg, 1473-1531.]

This celebrated engraver was the son of Hans Burgmair or Burgkmair.
There is some confusion between the father and son, but the former
seems to have worked either as a maker or a decorator of armour.
The family were neighbours of the famous Colmans, the armourers,
who lived in the Lange Schmiede gasse, while the Burgmairs had a
house close by in Mauerburg. In 1526 Coloman Colman left his house
to live with Hans Burgmair the elder, while Hans the younger took
Colman’s house. The two families seem to have been on most intimate
terms. S. Quirin. Leitner considered that the bard of A, 149,
Madrid, which represents the labours of Hercules and Samson, was
designed by Burgmair, and Wendelin Boeheim[143] also inclined to
this view. His principal works were the Triumph of Maximilian and
the illustrations of the _Weisz Künig_, both of which show such
endless varieties of armour and weapons that we cannot but feel
that the artist must have had a very practical knowledge of the
craft of the armourer.

It would enlarge the present work beyond its original scope if
mention were made of all the artists who designed armour and
weapons, for in all ages the painter and sculptor have been
employed in this direction. It will be sufficient to note that
designs of this nature are to be found in the sketch-books of
Donatello, Giulio Romano, Holbein, Leonardo da Vinci, Benvenuto
Cellini, and Albert Dürer. Reproductions of two drawings by the
latter are given on Plate XXXI.

[Sidenote: _Vittore Camelio_, Venice, _circ._ 1450-1509.]

Camelio was born either at Venice or Vincenza. He was a fine
engraver and medallist, and is considered by Nägler to have
invented the process of striking coins and medals from steel dies.
He was especially noted for light steel armour of high temper. He
was granted a patent or concession for the sole working of his
invention by the Senate of Venice from 1509 for five years.

[Sidenote: _Bartolomeo Campi_, Pesaro, Venice, Paris, 1573.]

Campi was born at Pesaro, but the exact date of his birth is
unknown. He was a goldsmith, and engraver and maker of arms and
armour of such merit that they elicited the highest praise from
Pedro Aretino in his letters from Venice to Bartolomeo Egnazio
in 1545. About this date he made a magnificent pageant suit
of pseudo-Roman armour for Guidobaldo II, Duke of Urbino, who
presented it to Charles V. The cuirass is superbly modelled on
the human torse and is decorated with a Medusa’s head and bands
of gold with silver flowers. The shoulder-pieces are of blackened
steel in the form of masks with golden eyes, and the lambrequins
hanging from the cuirass end in medallions and masks. The helmet
is decorated with a crown of golden leaves. On the cuirass is the
inscription: “BARTOLOMEVS CAMPI AVRIFEX TOTIVS OPERIS ARTIFEX QVOD
ANNO INTEGRO INDIGEBAT PRINCIPIS SVI NVTVI OBTEMPERANS GEMINATO
PERFECIT.” If this inscription is not an exaggeration, it is little
short of miraculous that this suit should have been made in one
year. It is now at Madrid (A, 188). In 1547 Campi directed the
fêtes held in honour of the marriage of Guidobaldo II and Vittoria
Farnese at Pesaro. He was military engineer to the Republic of
Siena, to that of Venice, and to the King of France between the
years 1554 and 1560. He assisted the Duc de Guise at the siege
of Calais in 1562, and in 1568 served with the Duke of Alba in
Flanders, where he was given a commission as chief engineer of
fortifications at a salary of 500 escudi. The Duke, writing to the
King on June 3, 1569, says: “I tell your Majesty that you have a
good man in Captain B. Campi, because in truth he is a soldier and
has art, although not so well founded as Pachote ... and he is the
best man I have met with since I have known men--I do not say only
engineers, but men of any sort--very happy and steady in his work.”
Campi was killed by an arquebus shot at the siege of Haarlem on
March 7th, 1573, to the great grief of the Duke and the whole army.
His brother was an armourer about 1555, but we have no records of
his work. The magnificent specimen of Bartolomeo’s work at Madrid
is the only example of his craft as an armourer that has come down
to us (Plate XIV).

[Sidenote: _Jacopo and Bernardino Cantoni_, Milan, 1477-1500.]

[Illustration: FIG. 64. Cantoni’s mark on a brigandine, C, 11,
Madrid.]

But little definite information is to be obtained respecting
the Cantoni family. They worked for Galeazzo Maria Sforza and
other princes, and are mentioned as “magistri armorum” in the
gild-records of Milan. Bernardino worked for the Emperor Maximilian
I and produced the brigandine (Madrid, C, 11) which bears his
signature (Fig. 64). This is the only work which can be directly
ascribed to this family.

[Sidenote: _Lorenz Colman_, Augsburg, d. 1516. Mark Nos. 23, 41.]

This armourer is also known as Colman Helmschmied. Little is known
of his history except that one of his ancestors was living in
Augsburg in 1377. His father George was also an armourer who worked
in Augsburg in the Harbruc and in the Luginsland, craft-streets
of that city. He died in 1479. The name of his son Lorenz first
appears in the civic records in 1467, and his work must have soon
attracted attention, for in 1477 we find him making armour for
Maximilian I and obtaining the freedom of the city. In 1491 he was
created Hof Platner to the Emperor and established himself in a
house in Innsbruck. From commissions entrusted to him for buying
metal in 1498 he appears to have been still at Innsbruck, and in
1506 the records of Mantua show that he was making armour for
that court. After this he seems to have been employed entirely by
Maximilian, and in 1508 he received a large contract for armour for
his army. His work is marked with a helm surmounted by a cross, and
always bears in addition the pine, the Augsburg city stamp. Armour
from his hand is to be found at Madrid, A, 44, and Vienna, 62,
1005, 1016, 1023.

[Sidenote: _Coloman Colman_, Augsburg, 1476-1532. Mark No. 40.]

Coloman was the son of Lorenz, and with the rest of his family took
the craft-name of Helmschmied, a fact which makes investigations of
records, documents, etc., of some difficulty. This is especially
the case with Coloman, whose name is spelt sometimes with a “C”
and sometimes with a “K.” The first mention of Coloman in civic
documents is in 1507. In 1512 we find him working for Charles V,
and shortly after he entered the service of Maximilian I. In 1516 a
silver suit of armour (steel plated with silver) was ordered from
him by Maximilian, but in 1519 this suit seems still to have been
unfinished, probably owing to lack of payments, a reason which was
and is always being advanced by craftsmen of all kinds for work
delayed at this period. He employed the two Burgmairs, father and
son, to decorate his armour.

Although Charles V frequently urged him to come to Spain, his
numerous commissions at home prevented him. He seems to have
been prosperous in 1525, for he bought the “Schmied haus in the
Karoline strasse” from the widow of Thomas Burgmair. Two portrait
medals were struck for him in 1518, 1532. His clientele extended
to Italy, and in 1511 he wrote a letter to the Marchesa Francesco
di Mantua describing a project for completely arming a horse with
laminated and jointed defences of plate covering head, body, and
legs. A picture in the Zeughaus at Vienna shows Harnischmeister
Albrecht riding a horse armed in this fashion, and a portion of the
leg-piece of such a suit is preserved in the Musée Porte de Hal,
Brussels (see page 9).

The following works bear Coloman Colman’s mark or are known from
documentary evidence to be from his hand: Vienna, 175. Wallace
Collection, 402. Madrid, A, 19; A, 37-42; A, 59; A, 93-107 (Tonlet
suit “The Chase”); A, 108-11; E, 57; E, 59. Dresden, G, 15.

[Sidenote: _Desiderius Colman_, Augsburg, _circ._ 1532. Marks, the
same as No. 40.]

[Illustration: FIG. 65. Detail of Shield by Desiderius Colman
(Plate XXIV).]

Desiderius was the son of Coloman Colman. In 1532 he took over the
workshops in the Mauerburg at Augsburg, which his father had shared
with the Burgmair family. He worked at first with the armourer
Lutzenberger, who married the stepmother of Desiderius in 1545.
In 1550 he became a member of the City Council, and in 1556 he
was made Court Armourer to Charles V. This title was afterwards
confirmed by Maximilian II. Desiderius seems to have used the same
mark as his father, hence there is some confusion between the two
craftsmen. The suits known to be by him are at Madrid, A, 157,
158, 239, 142--the splendid parade suit made for Philip II, which
is signed and dated 1550, and the richly embossed and chased round
shield A, 241, which is also signed and dated 15 April, 1552. It
is upon this shield that he recorded his rivalry with the Negrolis
(Plate XXIV, Fig. 65, also page 16).

[Sidenote: _Matthaias Frauenpreis_, Augsburg. Father, 1529-49. Son,
1530-1604. Mark No. 38.]

The elder Frauenpreis or Frauenbreis was a pupil of the Colman
family (q.v.), and in 1529 married the widow of a helm-smith. He
is first heard of as an independent workman in 1530. The following
works are ascribed to him or his son:--

Madrid. A, 198. A brassard forming part of the suit A, 190, made
by Desiderius Colman.

D, 68. A shield signed with his name on which the figure of
Fortuna is ascribed to Hans Burgmair.

M, 6. A small shield marked with his stamp No. 38.

Vienna. 950. Field suit of Archduke Maximilian.

397. A white and gold suit bearing the mark No. 38.

Dresden. G, 39. A fine suit of Kurfürst Moritz, bearing the mark
No. 38. Illustrated on Plate VII.

[Sidenote: _Hans Grünewalt_, Nuremberg, 1440-1503. Mark No. 54.]

His grandfather was a bell-founder of Nuremberg, who made the bells
for the church of S. Sebald in 1396. In 1465, after his father’s
death, Hans built a large house and workshop, after much litigation
with the city over his glazing or polishing mills. In 1480 he owned
many houses in Nuremberg, and built the “Pilatus” house near the
Thiergartner-Thor, close to the house of Albert Dürer. He worked
for the Emperor Maximilian I, and was the most serious rival of
the Missaglia family of Milan, who at this time were the most
celebrated armourers of Europe. The mark No. 54 is ascribed by
Boeheim to Grünewalt. Works bearing this mark are to be found in
the Waffensammlung, Vienna, 66, 995.

[Sidenote: _Daniel Hopfer_, Augsburg, _circ._ 1495-1566.]

Hopfer was in the first instance a painter, a designer and maker
of stained glass, and an engraver. He settled in Augsburg in 1495.
According to Heller he died in 1549, but this is not borne out by
the entries in the account books of Maximilian II, who employed
him and his brother. In the Hofzahlantsbuch, under the date 1566,
it is stated that Daniel and his brother George, both of Augsburg,
were ordered by Maximilian II to make 110 new helmets for the
Trabantengarde and to decorate them with engraving. Four were
made in March as samples, and the remainder were to be delivered
in July at a cost of 397 gulden 42 kreutzer. Much of the work
of the brothers Hopfer consisted in decorating armour made by
other masters, of whom Coloman Colman was the chief. In Madrid
are several examples of the work of Daniel: A, 26 and 65 are
horse-armours which are decorated in Hopfer’s style, and A, 27, 57
are jousting-shields which are certainly from his hand; the latter
is signed and dated 1536.

[Sidenote: _Conrad Lochner_, Nuremberg, 1510-67. Mark No. 46.]

In 1544 Conrad, or Kuntz as he is sometimes called, was Hofplatner
to Maximilian II with a retaining fee of 14 florins 10 kronen, and
in 1547 Maximilian gave him a settled yearly pension. He must have
given up his appointment in 1551, for we find Hans Siefert Court
Armourer in this year. He was born at Nuremberg in 1510, where his
father followed the trade of an armourer, and had two brothers who
worked with him, but the names of the Lochners do not often appear
in the royal accounts. Like most of his craft, he was frequently
in money difficulties, and had great trouble in collecting his
debts from the King of Poland. His works are found at Berlin, 116,
a horse-armour; Paris, G, 166, 182, 565, 566; Madrid, A, 243;
Dresden, E, 5 and G, 165; Vienna, 334. He frequently used tritons
and sea-monsters as a motif for his decorations.

[Sidenote: _Gabrielle and Francesco Merate_, Milan and Arbois,
_circ._ 1494-1529. Marks, possibly 18, 51, 53.]

In 1494 the Merate brothers were sent for by Maximilian I and did
work for him personally. They also obtained a contract for three
years, for which they received 1000 francs and 1000 gulden, under
which they pledged themselves to set up a forge, workshops, and
mill at Arbois, in Burgundy. Gabrielle was also to receive 100
francs a year and to be free of taxes, an advantage frequently
granted to master-armourers. For this he had to deliver annually
fifty suits stamped with his mark, each suit costing 40 francs,
and one hundred helmets at 10 francs each, one hundred pair of
grandgardes at 5 francs, and one hundred pair of garde-bras at 40
francs the pair.

The enumeration of the last two items in pairs is unusual, as they
were defences only worn on the left shoulder and arm and would not
be sold in pairs. At the same time we should remember that the
terms used for different portions of the suit are often confused,
and a word which now has a certain definite meaning in collections
was often used in a totally different sense. The Merates were
bound by this contract to work only for the Emperor. Their stamp
is generally supposed to be a crown and the word “Arbois,” but
it is uncertain as to what actual specimens now in existence are
by their hands. Possibly the “Burgundian Bard” (II, 3) in the
Tower was made by them. It bears a crescent and the letter “M,”
and is decorated with the cross ragule and the flint and steel,
the Burgundian badges which were brought to Maximilian by his
wife, Mary of Burgundy. Their names are mentioned in the list of
tax-payers in the parish of S. Maria Beltrade, the church of the
Sword-smiths’ Gild, at Milan under the date 1524-9, and they are
also mentioned in a letter from Maximilian to Ludovico il Moro in
1495 as excellent armourers. They took their name from the village
of Merate, which is near Missaglia, a township which was the
birthplace of the famous Missaglia family.

Work stamped with the word “Arbois” and the crown is found at
Vienna, 917, 948, and the “M” with the crescent is marked on the
bard of A, 3 at Madrid, on II, 3 and II, 5, Tower of London.

[Sidenote: _Thomaso Missaglia_, Milan, _circ._ 1415-1468. Marks 27,
78.]

[Illustration: FIG. 66. Capital formerly in the Via degli Spadari,
Milan.]

The family name of Thomaso and his descendants was Negroni, as
is proved by a tombstone formerly in the church of San Satiro at
Milan on which the two names appear. They came from the township
of Missalia, near Ello, on the lake of Como. Petrajolo, the father
of Thomaso, was also an armourer, and worked about the year 1390,
but we have little knowledge of his history. The house occupied
by the Missaglias was in the Via degli Spadari, Milan, and was
decorated with the family badges and monograms (Fig. 66). It was
demolished in 1901 in the course of street improvements, but was
first carefully drawn and described by Sigs. Gelli and Morretti
in their monograph on the Milanese armourers. The heavy work of
the armourers was carried out at a mill near the Porta Romana, for
which the Missaglias paid a rent of one sallad a year to the Duke
of Milan. Thomaso da Missaglia was ennobled in 1435 by Philip Maria
Visconti and was made free of taxes in 1450. There are many records
of commissions to him and of taxes and other municipal matters
connected with the family in the Archives of Milan. He died in 1469
and was buried in the church of S. Maria Beltrade, Milan. The only
known work by this master is No. 2 in the Vienna Collection (Plate
XXX). Baron de Cosson[144] has pointed out the strong resemblance
between this suit, the effigy of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of
Warwick, in S. Mary’s Church, Warwick, and the picture of S. George
by Mantegna in the Accademia, Venice.

[Sidenote: _Antonio Missaglia_, Milan, _circ._ 1430-92. Marks 24,
25, 26.]

Antonio was the son of Thomaso Missaglia, and was one of the
foremost of the Milanese armourers. As has been noticed in the
Introduction, the style of armour which was evolved by him and his
father seems to have been adopted by German craftsmen. There are
numerous records of payments and letters connected with Antonio in
the Archives of Milan from the year 1450 onwards. He worked for
Galeazzo Maria Visconti and for Bona di Savoia and after the death
of the former became Ducal Armourer. In 1456 he made armour for the
Papal troops, and about this time he enlarged the workshops of the
family in the Via degli Spadari. In 1469 the Duke of Milan gave
him a mill near the S. Angelo Canal. In 1470 he received a lease
of iron-mines near the forest of Canzo, near the Lago del Segrino,
from the Ducal Chamber, and in 1472, in recognition of his services
to the State, he was allowed to purchase the property.

The last entry in the Milanese Archives relating to Antonio
refers to his mines and furnaces in a letter to Bona di Savoia,
April 20th, 1480. In the MSS. Lib., Trivulziano, is a report of
the Venetian Embassy which came to Milan on its way to Germany,
written by Andrea de Francesca. This report states that Antonio’s
workshops were visited and armour was seen there to the value of
1000 ducats. He seems to have had a son Scabrino, but there are
no records of him as an armourer. Antonio died at the end of the
fifteenth century and is the last of the family who used the name
of Missaglia. His successors reverted to the family name of Negroni
or Negroli. The suit No. 3 in the Vienna Collection is stamped
with his mark (Plate II), and many helmets of the sallad type and
various pieces of armour bear a similar stamp in other armouries,
such as the Wallace Collection, the Porte de Hal, Brussels, etc.
etc. The close helmet on the “Tonlet suit” in the Tower, II, 29
(Plate X), is engraved with the Collar of the Garter and bears the
Missaglia stamp, and a suit in the Musée d’Artillerie, G, 3, bears
the same mark.

[Sidenote: _Gasparo Mola_, Rome, _circ._ 1590-1640.]

Mola is the only armourer whom we can identify as having worked in
Rome. He was born about the year 1590 at Breglio, where his father
was an architect. He came to Milan at an early age and worked there
as a goldsmith. In 1607 he made various objects in gold and silver
for the Duke of Savoy. In the same year he was summoned by Duke
Ferdinand de Medici to Florence, where he worked for two years.
In the years 1613-14 he produced medals for Mantua and Guastalla,
and about the same time he executed work for Carlo Emmanuele I of
Savoy. He committed suicide in 1640. Though we have no data for the
theory, it seems not unlikely that it was the studio of Mola which
Breughel has represented in his picture of Venus at the Forge of
Vulcan. The ruins in the background certainly suggest some of the
buildings in Rome, which might have been used for this purpose.
There are also many medals and examples of goldsmith’s work shown
on this picture in addition to the armour.

He was an expert in enamel-work and made richly decorated pistols,
and in 1642 produced a fine helmet and shield which are now in the
Bargello Museum, Florence.

[Sidenote: _Philippo and Jacomo Negroli_, Milan, _circ._ 1521-80.
Marks 42, 43, 44.]

Philippo and Jacomo Negroli were sons of Bernardino who worked in
Rome. It is uncertain whether their father still kept the name
of Missaglia, which was used by Antonio and Thomaso Negroni. The
earliest known work by these masters is dated 1532. For some
years they were assisted by their brother Francesco, who left
them about this date and worked alone for the Mantuan Court.
Brantome and Vasari both mention Philip as being a craftsman of
very high repute. His armour was always very costly, and Brantome
states that a morion made by him would cost 40 thalers and that
in sixteen years he had amassed 50,000 thalers. He seems to have
been ennobled, for Brantome calls him Seigneur de Negroli. He had
a house in the Porta Comassina, the wealthy quarter of Milan. His
work is always ornate, but does not transgress the craft-laws to
such an extent as did the armour of Peffenhauser and Piccinino
(Plate XXIX). Work by the Negrolis is to be found as follows: In
Madrid, A, 139-46; D, 13, 30, 64. Vienna, 330. Paris, G, 7, 10, 178.

[Sidenote: _Anton Peffenhauser_, Augsburg, 1525-1603.]

We have no details of the life of this craftsman beyond the
dates of his birth and death. He is best known as the maker of
elaborately decorated armour. The suit made for King Sebastian
of Portugal (Madrid, A, 290) is one of the most ornate suits in
existence (Plate XIV, also p. 75). His works are found as follows:
Madrid, A, 290. Dresden, C, 10, 13, 15_a_, 20; D, 11; E, 6_a_, 10;
G, 146. Vienna, 489, 490.

[Sidenote: _Lucio Piccinino_, Milan, _circ._ 1590.]

Lucio was the son of Antonio Piccinino, the famous sword-smith. It
is uncertain whether he actually produced armour himself or whether
he was solely concerned with the decoration. Like Peffenhauser he
delighted in lavish display of ornament without any consideration
to its fitness for armour. His work is extraordinarily minute and
the technical skill displayed is extreme. His work is only to be
found at Madrid, A, 291-4, and at Vienna, 543.

[Sidenote: _Pompeo della Chiesa_, Milan, 1590.]

The son of a noted craftsman, Pompeo was one of the foremost
armourers in the latter years of the sixteenth century. He was
Court Armourer to Philip III of Spain, and to the Archduke of
Milan, Alessandro Farnese. His work is found in the Armeria Reale,
Turin, C, 21, 70; in Vienna, 858, 859.

[Sidenote: _Conrad, Hans, and Jorg Seusenhofer_, 1470-1555. Marks
7, 8.]

The brothers Conrad and Hans at different periods filled the
position of Court Armourer to Maximilian I. Conrad was born between
the years 1450 and 1460. He was cousin to Treytz, who produced
the _Weisz Künig_, that chronicle of the doings and artistic
endeavours of the young Maximilian which, while it is amusing in
its sycophantic adulation of the Emperor is, at the same time, an
invaluable record of the operations of the applied arts of the
period and of costumes and armour then in fashion.

[Illustration: FIG. 67. Engraving on the left cuisse of Henry
VIII’s Suit, made by Conrad Seusenhofer (Tower, II, 5).]

In 1504 Conrad was appointed Court Armourer for a period of six
years with a further agreement for a pension of 50 fl. afterwards
for life. In the same year he received money for enlarging his
workshops, but after much correspondence it was deducted from
his salary. The young Emperor had theories about the making of
armour as he had about every other art and craft, and working in
conjunction with his armourer, and, presumably, taking credit for
his craftsman’s expert knowledge, evolved the fluted style of plate
armour which still bears his name. It was based upon Italian models
of the Gothic type which, at the end of the fifteenth century, was
distinguished by certain graceful flutings which Conrad and his
master elaborated till they covered the whole surface of the armour.

At this time the craftsmen of Brussels were noted experts in the
tempering of steel, and both Maximilian and Henry VIII employed
ironworkers from this city in their armouries.

Much of the raw material was drawn from Styria, and was exported
in such large quantities to England that the supply was in danger
of running short; so a monopoly was established and exportation
forbidden. This naturally raised the price, and was one of the
many causes which combined to keep up a ceaseless friction between
Maximilian, his Diet, and his armourers.

Seusenhofer favoured elaborate ornament on his armour, and this did
not please the officials who were responsible for the equipment
of the army. He was urged to produce plainer and more serviceable
work, a suggestion which Maximilian with his love of pageantry
ignored. In 1511 we find Seusenhofer complaining that Kügler, the
mine-master, was sending him inferior metal, and as he considered
that the use of it would be detrimental to the reputation of
Innsbruck as a factory of armour, he suggested that it should be
classed as Milanese. In 1511 the famous “Engraved Suit,” now in the
Tower of London, was put in hand as a present from Maximilian to
Henry VIII.

From the State Archives of Innsbruck (Jahrbuch II, reg. 1028) we
find that two cuirasses were ready for the King of England, one
gilded. There were apparently five others to be made, one of which
was to be silvered. This was probably the suit above mentioned.

The whole of the suit is covered with fine engraving representing
the stories of S. George and S. Barbara, with foliage and heraldic
badges. The designs have been engraved and a detailed description
given by Sir S. Meyrick in _Archæologia_, XXII.

The horse-armour is not by the same hand, for the engraving is
coarser. It may have been executed in England by German craftsmen
to match the rider’s armour (see Plates X, XII, Fig. 67).

There were ceaseless troubles over the payment and delivery of work
from the royal workshop. Sometimes Seusenhofer would retain work
for which the Emperor had pressing need till payment was made, and
on one occasion, when speedy delivery was not made, Maximilian
ordered the armourers to be placed in the forefront of the battle,
with no armour on, to show them what inconvenience their delay was
causing! It is needless to say that the armour was delivered at
once. So obsessed with the idea of his omniscience was the Emperor
that when, in the _Weisz Künig_, Seusenhofer suggests some secret
method of working the metal, he replies: “Arm me according to
my own wishes, for it is I and not you who will take part in the
tournament.” Again, Maximilian writes: “If you have forgotten the
art which I have taught you let me know and I will instruct you
again.”

The date of Conrad’s death is unknown, but it was, as far as can be
ascertained, about the year 1517.

He was succeeded as Court Armourer by his younger brother Hans, and
he in turn gave place to his nephew Jorg, who produced the suits
which exist at the present day in Paris, G, 41, 117; Vienna, 283,
407. The only authentic work of Conrad is in the Tower of London,
II, 5.

[Sidenote: _Jacob Topf_, Innsbruck, 1530-90.]

We have but little information respecting Topf, in spite of the
minute researches of the late Dr. Wendelin Boeheim. From civic
records at Innsbruck he appears to have been one of three brothers.
David, the youngest, was in service with Archduke Ferdinand at
Ambras and died in 1594. In 1575 we find Jacob working for the
Archduke at Innsbruck. Boeheim discovered in his investigations
that Topf was absent from Germany between the years 1562 and 1575
and was probably employed in Italy, England, and elsewhere. There
are no records of his employment in England except in a letter
written by Sir Henry Lee in 1590, where mention is made of “Master
Jacobe,”[145] who is now considered to be Topf. We have, however,
a most valuable record of work which was in all probability his
in the _Almain Armourer’s Album_, now in the Art Library of the
Victoria and Albert Museum.

This book consists of large drawings in ink and water-colour (17
in. by 11½ in.), thirty-one in number, which show twenty-nine suits
of armour with details of extra pieces for the joust.

On No. 14 is the signature: “These Tilte peces made by me Jacobe,”
but the name Topf does not occur in the Album.

In the year 1790 the book was in the possession of the Duchess of
Portland, at which time Pennant engraved the second suit of Robert
Dudley, Earl of Leicester, for his _History of London_. Strutt also
engraved the suit of George, Earl of Cumberland, in his _Dresses
and Costumes_ (II, Plate CVLI). The library of the Duchess of
Portland was sold in 1799 and the Album disappeared till the year
1894, when it passed into the Spitzer Collection. At the Spitzer
sale it was bought by M. Stein, of Paris, and on the advice and
through the personal efforts of Viscount Dillon, the present
Curator of the Tower Armouries, it was acquired for the nation.

Several of the drawings have been carefully reproduced by Mr.
Griggs in a book, edited by Viscount Dillon, under the title of _An
Almain Armourer’s Album_, and it is by the courtesy of the editor
and publisher that the accompanying illustrations are reproduced in
the present work.

The following list gives the complete series of plates in the Album
and shows which of the suits illustrated in the original are now in
existence.

DRAWINGS SUITS IN EXISTENCE
(None complete in all parts.)
1. The Earle of Rutlande.
2. The Earle of Bedforde.
3. The Earle of Lesseter (1st suit).
4. The Earle of Sussex The gauntlets were in the Spitzer
Collection.
5. Duke John of ffineland Prince of
Sweden.
6. Ser William Sentle.
7. My Lorde Scrope.
8. The Earle of Lesseter (2nd suit) A portion of a suit in the Tower
of London (II, 10) is of very
similar design--evidently by
the same hand.
9. My Lord Hundson.
10. Ser George Howarde.
11. My Lorde Northe.
12. The Duck of Norfocke.
13. The Earle of Woster A portion of this suit in the
Tower (II, 9). At Windsor
Castle a burgonet, buffe,
breast, back, placcate, gorget,
bevor, taces, lance-rest,
sollerets.
14. Ser Henry Lee (1st suit).
15. Sur Cristofer Hattone (1st suit) Windsor Castle. The gorget is a
restoration (Plates XXV, XXVI).
16. The Earle of Penbrouke Wilton House.
17. Ser Cristofer Hattone (2nd suit) The suit of Prince Henry at
Windsor was copied from this
and from No.17 by W. Pickering
(see Plate XX).
18. Ser John Smithe Tower, II, 12. This suit has
brassards which are not shown
in the sketch in the Album
(Plates XXVI, XXVIII).
19. Sr. Henry Lee, Mr. of tharmerie Armet in the Tower (IV, 29).
(2nd suit). Locking-gauntlet in the Hall of
the Armourers’ and Braziers’
Co., London (Plate XIII, Figs.
32, 68). Burgonet, buffe, and
leg-armour at Stockholm.
20. The Earle of Cumberlande Appleby Castle.
21. Sr. Cristopher Hatton (3rd suit).
22. Mr. Macke Williams.
23. My L. Chancellor [Sir Thomas
Bromley].
24. My L. Cobbon.
25. Sir Harry Lea Mr. of the Armore Hall of the Armourers and Braziers’
(3rd suit). Company, London. On each side of
the breast in the band of
engraving are the initials A. V.
(Fig. 69), which probably stand
for Anne Vavasour, natural
daughter of Sir T. Vavasour and
Lady of the Bedchamber to Queen
Elizabeth. The _Nat. Dict. of
Biog._ states that she was Sir
Henry Lee’s mistress.
26. My Lorde Cumpton Portions of this and of the next
suit were formerly at Home Lacy
and are now in the Metropolitan
Museum, New York.
27. Mr. Skidmur [John Scudamor].
28. My Lorde Bucarte Wallace Collection, 435.
29. Sr. Bale Desena.

There is also a suit at Vienna (491), made for Archduke Carl of
Steiermark, which Boeheim considered to be from Topf’s hands.

Fuller details of the above suits will be found in the reproduction
of the Album above referred to, and also in _Arch. Journ._, LI, 113.

[Illustration: FIG. 68. Gauntlet and armet of Sir Henry Lee (from
the _Armourer’s Album_, Victoria and Albert Museum). See also Plate
XIII and Fig. 32.]

[Illustration: FIG. 69. Rubbing of design on breast of Sir Henry
Lee’s suit, Armourers’ Hall, London.]

FOOTNOTES:

[143] Meister der Waffenschmiedkunst.

[144] _Arch. Jour._, XLVIII.

[145] See page 66.

LIST OF ARMOURERS’ MARKS

The following have been taken from rubbings, drawings, and prints,
and the authorship of the marks is that given in the several
catalogues. The nationality of the armour is given first as German,
Italian, Spanish, or French; following this is the approximate
date; and lastly the Museums in which the mark is found with the
catalogue number. The Roman figures denote the century to which the
mark is ascribed.

A = Athens, Ethnological Mus.
B = Brussels, Porte de Hal.
Ber = Berlin, Zeughaus.
D = Dresden, Johanneum.
G = Geneva.
L = London, Tower.
M = Madrid, Real Armeria.
N = Nuremberg.
P = Paris, Musée d’Artillerie.
S = Stockholm, Lifrustkammer.
T = Turin, Armeria Reale.
V = Vienna, Waffensammlung.
Ven = Venice, Museo civico and Arsenale.

[Illustration: ARMOURERS’ MARKS.]

1. XIV. =P=, H, 23.
2. XV. =P=, H, 27.
3. XV. =P=, H, 41.
4. Germ., XV. =P=, G, I.
5. XV. =P=, H, 36.
6. Rotschmied, Germ. 1597. =G=.
7. Conrad Seusenhofer, Germ. 1518. =L=, II, 5.
8. Jörg Seusenhofer, Germ. 1558. =V=, 283, 407. =P=, G, 41, 117.
9. Valentine Siebenbürger, Germ. 1531-47. =V=, 226.
10. Germ., XV. =P=, H, 11.
11. Germ., XV-XVI. =P=, H, 42.
12. It., XVI. =P=, H, 55, 305.
13. It., XVI. =P=, H, 54.
14. Germ., XVI. =P=, G, 23.
15. Adrian Treytz, Germ. 1469-1517. =V=, 66, 1018.
16. Veit, Germ., XV-XVI. =N=, =V=.
17. Wilhelm von Worms, Germ., XVI. =V=, 226, 296.
18. Merate brothers, It. 1495. =V=, 917.
19. Germ., XV-XVI. =P=, G, 18.
20. F. Siebenburger, Germ., XVI. =P=, G, 22, 568.
21. Germ., XVI-XVII. =P=, H, 166. =D=, E, 556 (see also 97).
22. City of Augsburg, XV-XVII _passim_.
23. Lorenz Colman or Helmschmied, 1516. =P=, G, 536; =V=, 1005.
24. Antonio da Missaglia, It. 1492 _passim_ (see also 36).
25. Antonio da Missaglia.
26. Antonio da Missaglia.
27. Petrajolo and Tomaso da Missaglia. 1400-68. =V=, 2, 3, 897;
=P=, H, 29 (see also No. 78).
28. Germ., XVI. =P=, H, 158.
29. Germ., XV-XVI. =P=, G, 382.
30. Sigismund Wolf, Germ. 1554. =P=, G, 63, 64, etc.; =M=, A, 231.
31. It. (?), XVI. =P=, G, 36.
32. Germ., XVI. =P=, G, 147, H, 97.
33. It., XV. =A= (possibly a Missaglia mark, see No. 24).
34. It., XV. =A=.
35. It., XV. =M=, D, 14.
36. Antonio da Missaglia, It., XV-XVI. =P=, H, 29.
37. XVI. =P=, G, 84.
38. Matthaias Fraüenpreis, Germ. 1549-75. =V=, 397, 950; =D=, G, 39.
39. Franz Grofsschedl, Germ. 1568. =V=, 989; =D=, C, 1, 2.
40. Coloman Colman or Helmschmied, Germ. 1470-1532. =V=, 175;
=D=, G, 15; =M=, A, 19, 59, 73, etc.
41. Lorenz Colman or Helmschmied, Germ. 1516. =V=, 62 (see also
No. 23).
42. Philipp Negroli, It. 1530-90 } =V=, 330; =M=, A,
43. Philipp and Jacomo Negroli ” } 139-46; =D=, 13, 30, 64.
44. Philipp and Jacomo Negroli (?). =P=, G, 7, 10, 178.
45. City of Nuremberg, XV-XVII _passim_.
46. Kunz or Conrad Lochner, Germ. 1567. =V=, 334; =P=, G, 182,
etc.; =M=, A, 243; =S=, 64.
47. Heinrich Obresch, Germ. 1590.
48. Anton Peffenhauser, Germ. 1566-95. =V=, 489; =M=, A, 290.
49. Hans Ringter, Germ. 1560. =V=.
50. XVI-XVII. =P=, G, 124.
51. Possibly the Merate brothers, It. XV-XVI. =V=, 60; =L=,
VI, 28; =M=, A, 3.
52. Germ., XVI. =V=, 9.

[Illustration: ARMOURERS’ MARKS.]

53. Possibly the Merate brothers, It., XV-XVI. =V=, 948.
54. Possibly Hans Grünewalt, Germ., XV-XVI. =V=, 66, 995.
55. It., XV. =V=, 5.
56. J. Voys, Netherland, XV-XVI. =B=, II, 39, 40; =M=, A, 11
57. XV. =M=, A, 4.
58. XV. =M=, A, 6.
59. On a mail skirt, XV-XVI. =T=, G, 86.
60. Peter von Speyer, Germ., 1560. =B=er.
61. It., XV. =G=en.
62. It., XV. =G=en.
63. Germ., XV-XVI. =P=, H, 76.
64. It., XV. =G=en.
65. Germ., XVI. =V=, 63.
66. It., XV-XVI. =V=en. Mus. civico.
67. It., XVI. =V=en. Arsenale.
68. On a sallad with Missaglia mark, It., XV. =V=en. Mus. civico.
69. Germ., XVI. =B=, II, 101.
70. Germ., XV-XVI. =V=, 1022.
71. Armourers’ Company, London, XVII. =L=.
72. Germ., XV. =D=, A, 75.
73. Netherlands, XV. =D=, A, 75.
74. Siebenburger (?), Germ., XVI. =B=, II, 92.
75. It., XVI. =M=, A, 147.
76. Jorg Sigman, Germ., XVI. =M=, A, 238.
77. It, XV. =A=.
78. T. and P. da Missaglia, It., 1400-1468. =P=, H, 29; =V=, 2, 3;
=L=, II, 29 (see Nos. 24-7).
79. Sigmund Rosenburger, Germ. XVI. =D=, C, 3, 4.
80. City of Augsburg (?), XVI. =D=.[146]
81. City of Augsburg (?), XVI. _passim_.
82. Germ., XVI. =D=.
83. M. Petit. Fr. XVII. =P=, H, 150; =V=, 711; =M=, A, 379.
84. Sp., XV. =M=, D, 24.
85. It., XV. =A=.
86. It., XV. =A=.
87. XVII. =M=, B, 11; =T=, C, 14.
88. XV. =P=, H, 141.
89. Germ., XV-XVI. =L=, II, 37.
90. XVI. =L=, III, 186.
91. Germ., XVI. =L=, II, 3.
92. Sp., XV. =M=, C, 10.
93. Sp., XV. =M=, C, 10.
94. It., XV. =A=.
95. XV. =M=, D, 18.
96. Germ., XV. =B=, II, 170.
97. Germ., XVI. =B=, II, 182; =D=, E, 556 (see also No. 21);
=S=, on a crossbow, 143.
98. Germ., XVI. =B=, II, 30.
99. Germ., XVI. =B=, II, 3.
100. Possibly the city of Wittenburg, XVI. =B=, II, 4, 41.
101. Sp., XV. =M=, C, 10.
102. Sp., XV. =M=, C, 10.
103. It., XV. =A=.
104. Germ. XV. =V=.

FOOTNOTE:

[146] A similar mark was used by the Armourers’ Company, London,
about 1640.

POLYGLOT GLOSSARY OF WORDS DEALING WITH ARMOUR AND WEAPONS

The meanings of the words in this Glossary are given either from
comparison of various scattered entries in contemporary documents
or from the following works:--

Boeheim. _Waffenkunde._ 1890.
Cotgrave. _Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues._ 1611. =C.=
Du Cange. _Glossaire Français._ Edit. 1879.
Florio. _A Worlde of Woordes._ 1598. =F.=
Gay. _Glossaire Archéologique_, A-G (never completed). 1887. =G.=
Harford. _English Military Discipline._ 1680. =H.=
Meyrick. _Antient Armour_ (glossary). 1842.
Roquefort. _Glossaire de la Langue Romaine._ 1808. =R.=
Valencia. _Catalogue of Real Armeria, Madrid._

Where no reference letter is given the meaning given is that
generally accepted at the present day.

The names of the different parts of the suit of plate armour are
given in English; French, German, and Italian and Spanish are given
on pp. 110, 111.

_Abzug_, Germ. the trigger of a gun.

_Achsel_, Germ. see pauldron.

_Achselhohlscheibe_, Germ. see rondel.

_Achselschilde_, Germ. see ailette.

_Acroc_, a hook or clasp.

_Adargue_, a heart-shaped buckler, =G=.

_Affust_, } gun-carriage.
_Afut_, }

_Agaric_, tinder used with flint-lock gun.

_Agier_, O.F. darts.

_Aguinia_, machines or engines of war.

_Aguzo_, It. the point of the spear.

_Aiguilettes_, tags at the ends of laces for fastening the
various pieces of armour.

_Ailettes_, wing-like pieces of plate or cuir-bouilly worn on the
shoulders. Very rare and seldom seen on monuments. XIII-XIV cent.

_Aketon_, see gambeson.

_Alabarda_, It. halberd.

_Alaguès_, _Halaguès_, O.F. soldiers of fortune, free-lances, =R=.

_Alarica_, a heavy triangular-pointed spear.

_Alberc_, Germ. see hauberk.

_Alberia_, a shield without armorial bearings.

_Alborium_, a bow of hazel, XI cent.

_Alemèle_, Fr. the lame or blade of the sword.

_Alemella_, It. a knife or dagger, XIV cent.

_Alfange_, Sp. cutlass.

_Alferanna_, Sp. a banner.

_Algier_, O.F. dart.

_Allecret_, a variety of half-armour, end of XVI cent.

_Almarada_, Sp. a stiletto or dagger.

_Almayne rivet_, suit of light half-armour, XVI cent.

_Almete_, Sp. a close, round helmet, armet.

_Alzo_, It. the “sight” of the firearm.

_Amadue_, Fr. see agaric.

_Ameure_, a dagger.

_Amorce_, priming.

_Amorcoir_, Fr. powder-flask.

_Amussette_, Fr. a breech-loading musket, XVIII cent.

_Anelace_, a broad-bladed dagger, early XIV cent.

_Angon_, a javelin used in the VI cent. The head was heavy and
the top part of the shaft thin, so that it bent on impact and thus
hampered the stricken man, =G=.

_Animes_, a cuirass of horizontal lames, =R=.

_Antebrachia_, see vambrace.

_Antela_, see poitrel.

_Antia_, the handle of a buckler.

_Anzerdecke_, Germ. see barde.

_Appogiar_, the cantle of the saddle.

_Arbalest_, a crossbow.

_Arbalest à cric_, a heavy crossbow used in sieges.

_Arbalest à cranequin_, a crossbow drawn with a windlass.

_Arbrier_, the tiller of a crossbow.

_Arcabuz_, Sp. see arquebus.

_Archet de fer_, the moulded ring on the breech of a cannon,
base-ring.

_Archegaye_, a staff sharpened at both ends carried by estradiots,
XV cent.

_Archibuso_, It. see arquebus.

_Arcioni_, It. the fore and aft peaks of the saddle.

_Arcon_, the saddle-bow.

_Arescuel_, the grip of a lance, =R=.

_Arest de lance_, vamplate, later the lance-rest, =G=.

_Arganello_, It. the windlass of a crossbow.

_Argolets_, French mounted arquebussiers, XVI-XVII cent., =R=.

_Arma bianca_, It. } sword.
_Arme blanche_, Fr. }

_Armacudium_, an indefinite weapon of offence.

_Arma d’asta_, It. any long-shafted weapon.

_Armatoste_, Sp. the windlass of a crossbow.

_Armes à l’épreuve_, pistol-proof armour.

_Armet_, a close helmet with bevor and movable visor.

_Armil_, see surcoat.

_Armin_, an ornamental hand-grip for the pike made of velvet or
leather.

_Arming-bonett_, a padded cap worn under the helmet.

_Arming-doublet_, worn under the armour.

_Arming-hose_, long hose worn under leg-armour.

_Arming-points_, laces for tying on parts of the suit of armour.

_Arming-sword_, a short sword worn on the right side.

_Armkachen_, Germ. elbow-cops.

_Armoyer_, O.F. armourer, maker of sword-hilts, =R=.

_Armröhen_, Germ. cannon of the vambrace.

_Armrust_, Germ. crossbow.

_Armure cannelée_, Fr. fluted armour.

_Armzeug_, Germ. brassard.

_Arnesi_, It. harness as used for “armour.”

_Arquebus_, a musket of XVI cent.

_Arrêt_, Fr. small decorated tabs used on straps for armour and
horse-furniture, =G=.

_Arrêt de lance_, Fr. lance-rest.

_Arrière-bras_, Fr. see rerebrace.

_Arrière-hilt_, the counter-guard or knuckle-bow of the sword.

_Asbergo_, a breastplate or cuirass, a vamplate, =F=.

_Asper_, _aspar_, the “grip” of the lance.

_Aspergès_, O.F. a mace, =R=; see holy-water sprinkle.

_Astile_, It. the shaft of a lance.

_Astonne_, a lance, =R=.

_Astregal_, a moulding on a cannon.

_Atilt_, the position in which the lance was held in charging.

_Attry_, O.E. artillery.

_Auber_, see alborium.

_Ausfatz_, Germ. the “sight” of a firearm.

_Avance_, Fr. the front peak of the burgonet.

_Avant-bras_, see vambrace.

_Avant plat_, see vamplate.

_Aventail_, breathing aperture in helmet, the earliest form of visor.

_Azza_, It. a long-shafted axe.

_Azzimino_, It. fine inlay work on Oriental weapons, =F=.

_Bacchetta_, It. a ramrod.

_Back-sword_, sword with single-edged blade.

_Bacul_, O.F. crupper of horse-trappings, =R=.

_Bacyn_, see bascinet.

_Badelaire_, Fr. a short cutlass.

_Bagonet_, } a dagger fitted to the musket, _circ._ 1672.
_Bayonet_, }

_Bagordare_, O.It. to hold a burlesque tournament.

_Baguette_, ramrod, also brayette, q.v.

_Bainbergs_, shin-defences of metal or cuir-bouilly.

_Baldrick_, } an ornamented belt to carry the sword, XIV cent.
_Bawdric_, }

_Balestra_, It. see arbalest.

_Balloch knife_, a knife or dagger with balls instead of quillons,
XV-XVI cent.

_Balayn_, } whalebone used for crests or the swords for tourneys.
_Balon_, }

_Balottera_, a stone bow, =F=.

_Banded mail_, mail formed of rings through which a leathern thong
was passed horizontally on the hauberk.

_Bandes_, Fr. see lames.

_Bandes de bout d’affust_, trail-plate of a cannon, =H=.

_Bandes de dessus_, axle-tree bands, cape squares, =H=.

_Bandolier_, musketeer’s belt to carry gun-charges in separate cases
of wood or metal.

_Bannerets_, those knighted on the field of battle and entitled to
carry banners.

_Banquelets_, Fr. strips of decorated metal on a sword-belt to keep
the belt rigid, =G=.

_Barbazzale_, It. the “grummet” of a bridle.

_Barbera_, Sp. see mentonière.

_Barbière_, Fr. }
_Barbote_, Sp. } see bevor.
_Barbotto_, It. }

_Barbuta_, a piece of head-armour, a bevor, =F=.

_Barbute_, } a form of bascinet of unknown type, also
_Barbet_, } a light horseman.

_Bardes_, } horse-armour.
_Barding_, }

_Barde de crinière_, Fr. see crinet.

_Bardiche_, a variety of pole-axe.

_Barducium_, see morning star.

_Barthaube_, Germ. chin-guard of plate.

_Barriers_, the division of wood which separated combatants in
foot-jousts, also the jousts themselves.

_Bascinet_, a light helmet of ovoid form tapering to a point at
the summit, worn with or without a visor, XIII-XV cent.

_Bascuette_, O.E. see bascinet.

_Base_, O.F. a short sword or cutlass, =R=.

_Bases_, skirts of fabric or, in armour, of plate, XVI cent.

_Basilard_, a curved civilian sword, XIV cent.

_Bask sword_, a stout, single-edged blade.

_Bassinet_, Fr. priming-pan of a firelock.

_Bastard sword_, a long sword for cut and thrust with grip
sufficiently long for two hands, or a blunted sword for practice.

_Baston_, a mace or club with polygonally cut head.

_Baston, gros_, O.F. large ordnance, =R=.

_Battecul_, see garde-rein.

_Batticuli_, taces or loin-guards of plate, =F=.

_Bauchreifen_, Germ. see taces.

_Baudik_, see baldrick.

_Baudrier_, Fr. cross-belt.

_Bavier_, Fr. } see bevor.
_Baviera_, It. }

_Bergaman_, O.F. a cutlass or dagger from Bergamo, =R=.

_Bear-paw_, } a form of solleret with obtuse point.
_Bec du cane_, }

_Becco di corvo_, It. see martel de fer.

_Bec de faucon_, Fr. a war-hammer.

_Beckenhaube_, Germ. see bascinet.

_Beinröhren_, Germ. see jambe.

_Beintaschen_, Germ. see tassets.

_Beinzeug_, Germ. see cuissard.

_Beringt_, Germ. ringed mail.

_Beruier_, Fr. a light head-piece with ear-flaps and chin-strap,
XV cent., =G=.

_Besagues_, O.E. small plates to protect the armpits, any small
plates of metal.

_Bessa_, a pickaxe used by pioneers, XV cent.

_Beavor_, } chin-piece of an armet or a sallad.
_Bevor_, }

_Bicoquet_, Fr. a species of bascinet with neck and chin piece,
XV cent., =G=.

_Bicorn_, } small anvil.
_Bickiron_, }

_Bigateno_, O.F. a javelin or dart, =R=.

_Bilbo_, a small rapier.

_Bill_, a weapon with scythe-like blade and six-foot shaft.

_Billette_, F., see toggle.

_Biro_, O.F., a dart, javelin, or arrow, =R=.

_Bisacuta_, } the military pick or two-edged axe,
_Bisague_, O.F., } XIII-XIV cent.

_Bishop’s mantle_, a cape of mail.

_Blacon_, O.F., a buckler or shield, =R=.

_Blanc haubert_, Fr., coat of mail.

_Blanchon_, O.F., a kind of pike, =R=.

_Blank wafte_, Germ. see arme blanche.

_Boetes_, boxes, =H=.

_Bohordicum_, a burlesque joust in which sham lances (bohours)
were used.

_Bombarde_, an early form of ordnance resembling a mortar.

_Bonbicinium_, see bascinet.

_Bordon_, }
_Bordonasse_, } a lance used for jousting.
_Borto_, }

_Boson_, an arrow with a blunt point.

_Bossoirs_, the bosses on the peytral of a horse.

_Botafogo_, Sp. see linstock.

_Botta a_, It. } armour proof against sword, axe, or
_Botte à_, Fr. } lance blow.

_Botte cassée_, Fr., armour proof against all weapons,
“high proof.”

_Botton_, a button or buckle for fastening the gorget to the
breast-piece.

_Bouche_, the hole cut in the corner of the shield through which
to point the lance; also the circular hole in the vamplate.

_Boucles_, Fr. see genouillière.

_Boudrier_, Fr. see bandolier.

_Bougeran_, } buckram used for tournament armour.
_Bougran_, }

_Bougon_, } blunt-headed arrow for shooting game.
_Boujon_, }

_Bougeon_, }
_Boujon_, } a crossbow quarrel, =R=.
_Boulon_, }

_Bourdonasse_, Fr. see bordon.

_Bourlet_, Fr. a coif.

_Bourlet_, Fr. the swell of the muzzle of a cannon.

_Bourlette_, Fr. a mace.

_Bourrelet, à_, Fr. a method of attaching two plates together
sliding in burrs or slots.

_Boutefeu_, Fr. linstock.

_Bouterolle_, Fr. the chape of a sword.

_Boutreaux_, Fr. the pendent strips of leather or fabric which
decorated the horse-trappings of the XV-XVI cent., =G=.

_Bracciale_, It. brassard.

_Bracciaiuola_, It. a small shield with arm-guard and “sword-breaker”
in one piece.

_Bracciali_, It. see brassard.

_Bracconnière_, Fr. see taces.

_Bracelet_, Fr. the ring of metal which joined the vambrace to the
rerebrace, the elbow-cop, =C=.

_Bracer_, a leathern wrist-guard used by archers of the long-bow.

_Bracheta_, O.It. } see brayette.
_Braghetta_, }

_Brandistocco_, It. a three-pronged spear, a swine-feather.

_Braquemart_, a short, broad-bladed cutting sword.

_Brasalot_, O.F. see elbow-cop.

_Brassard_, the whole arm-defence, including vambrace, elbow-cop,
and rerebrace.

_Brasselet_, see bracer.

_Bratspiess_, Germ. see ranseur.

_Brayette_, O.F. for codpiece.

_Brazale_, Sp. brassard.

_Brechenmesser_, Germ. see falcione.

_Brechränder_, Germ, neck-guards on the pauldrons.

_Bretelles_, Fr. straps for joining breast and back pieces.

_Briccola_, O.It. a tiller or crossbow to shoot stones or arrows, =F=.

_Brichette_, armour for loins and hips.

_Brichette_, } breast-armour, XV cent.
_Brikette_, }

_Brigandine_, a body-defence of small plates riveted to a cover
and lining of fabric.

_Briquet_, Fr. a sword of cutlass form, early XIX cent.

_Brise-cuirass_, Fr. a short, strong dagger.

_Brise-épée_, Fr. see sword-breaker.

_Brochiero_, It. a small buckler used for sword and buckler fights.

_Broigne_, a shirt of mail.

_Broke_, O.F. a kind of dagger, =R=.

_Broquel_, Sp. see rondache.

_Brújula_, Sp. see visor.

_Brunt_, O.E. the front or peytral of a horse-trapper.

_Brustpanzer_, Germ. see peytral.

_Brustschild mit schönbart_, Germ, tilting-breastplate with
mentonière.

_Bruststück_, Germ. breastplate.

_Brygandyrons_, see brigandine.

_Budrière_, It. cross-belt for a sword.

_Bufe_, a movable bevor used with an open casqe.

_Bufeta_, Sp. neck-guards on a pauldron.

_Buffa_, the buffe or face-plate of a burgonet.

_Bufle_, a coat of buff leather.

_Buffetin_, Fr. see colletto.

_Burdo_, see borto.

_Bukel_, Germ. see rondache.

_Burghera_, a gorget, =F=.

_Burgonet_, a light, open helmet, generally found with ear-flaps
and sometimes a face-guard, XVI-XVII cent.

_Burr_, the iron ring on the lance below the “grip” to prevent the
hand slipping back.

_Buttafuoco_, It. see linstock.

_Buttière_, Fr. a type of arquebus.

_Buzo_, It. see quarrel.

_Cabasset_, a helmet with narrow brim all round, XVI cent.

_Cairelli_, O.It. see quarrel.

_Caissia_, It. a case or quiver for arrows.

_Calce_, the vamplate of a lance, also the butt end, also stockings,
=F=.

_Caliver_, a short firelock.

_Calote_, a skull-cap worn under the hat by cavalry, XVII cent.

_Caltrop_, a ball with four spikes placed on the ground to receive
cavalry.

_Calva_, Sp. skull or bowl of a helmet.

_Camaglio_, It. see camail.

_Camail_, a hood or tippet of chain mail, XIV-XV cent.

_Camba_, O.It. see jambs.

_Camberia_, see jambières.

_Camisado_, It. the wearing of white shorts over armour for night
attacks.

_Campane_, { O.F. the part of the horse-trappings on the
_Campanelle_, { haunches, decorated with large bells, XV-XVI cent.

_Cambrasia_, O.It. a dart or arrow, =F=.

_Cannon_, the tubular vambrace.

_Cantle_, the rear peak of the saddle.

_Capel de nerfs_, a whalebone or leather helmet, XIV cent.

_Capelina_, It. a skull-cap of steel.

_Capellum_, the sword sheath or scabbard.

_Caperuza_, Sp. see chapel-de-fer.

_Carcasse_, Fr. a bomb.

_Carcasse_, It. a quiver.

_Cardelli_, It. see quarrel.

_Cargan_, a collar or gorget of mail.

_Carnet_, the visor.

_Carousella_, } a mimic fight with clay balls and shields.
_Carousel_, }

_Carquois_, Fr. a quiver.

_Carreau_, Fr. see quarrel.

_Cartouche_, Fr., a charge of powder and shot wrapped up in paper;
a cartridge.

_Casque_, open helmet, often of classical design, late XVI cent.

_Casquetel_, an open head-piece with brim and back peak reaching far
down the neck, XVII cent.

_Cassa_, It. the stock of a firearm.

_Castle_, O.E. a variety of helmet.

_Cataffratto_, } a mail-clad horse.
_Cataphractus eques_, }

_Cataye_, O.F. a javelin or a catapult, =R=.

_Catchpole_, a long-handled spring fork used to catch the opposing
knight round the neck and unhorse him.

_Catocio_, the charge of powder for musket or cannon, =F=.

_Caxeo_, } Sp. see casque.
_Caxa_, }

_Cazoleta_, Sp. the “pan” of the arquebus.

_Celada de engole_, Sp. a helm worn for foot-jousts with axe, sword,
or spear.

_Celata_, It. see sallad.

_Celata da incastro_, It. see armet.

_Celata Veneziana_, It. a Venetian form of sallad with a nose-piece,
XV cent.

_Cerbatane_, some kind of ordnance, =G=.

_Cerveliera_, It. a metal skull-cap, a secrete.

_Cervicale_, Fr. see crinet, =G=.

_Cesello_, It. repoussé-work used in the decoration of armour.

_Chamfron_, }
_Chanfrein_, } defence of plate for the horse’s head.
_Chanfron_, }

_Champ-clos_, O.F. see lists.

_Chape_, the metal tip at the lower end of a sword or dagger sheath.

_Chapel d’acier_, Fr. a steel war-hat.

_Chapel-de-fer_, Fr. a broad-brimmed helmet used from XII to XVI cent.

_Chapel de Montauban_, Fr. a steel war-hat made at Montauban, XIV cent.

_Chapewe_, see chapel-de-fer.

_Chapras_, the brass badge worn by a messenger.

_Chard_, the string of a sling.

_Charnel_, O.E. the bolt that fixed the tilting-helm to the
breastplate.

_Chausses_, covering for the lower leg and foot of chain mail.

_Chaussons_, trews or breeches of chain mail.

_Cheeks_, the strips of iron that fix the pike-head to the shaft.

_Cheminée_, Fr. the nipple of a gun.

_Cherval_, a gorget.

_Chastones_, rivets.

_Chianetta_, a helmet, =F=.

_Chiave da mota_, It. key for a wheel-lock.

_Chien_, Fr., cock of a firelock.

_Chiodo da voltare_, It. a turning-rivet.

_Choque_, some kind of firearm, variety unknown.

_Cimier_, the crest on the helm.

_Cinquedea_, It. a short, broad-bladed dagger for ceremonial use,
made in Venice and Verona, five fingers (_cinque ditta_) wide at
the base.

_Ciseau_, a blunt-headed quarrel for the crossbow, =G=.

_Clavel_, O.F., a lace for fastening the coif of mail or the
hauberk, =G.=

_Clavones_, rivets.

_Claid heamh_, a sword, Gaelic.

_Claid mor_, a broadsword, Gaelic.

_Claid crom_, a sabre, Gaelic.

_Claid caol_, a small sword, Gaelic.

_Claymore_, a Scottish two-hand sword (see above). The modern use of
the word is erroneous.

_Clef_, trigger.

_Clevengi_, studs to fasten the fendace or gorget.

_Clibanion_, a jack of scale armour, =G=.

_Clipeus_, It. a circular shield.

_Clous perdus_, Fr., false and useless rivet-heads found in
XVII-cent. armour.

_Cnémide_, Fr. see jambs.

_Coche_, the notch of an arrow, the nut of a crossbow, =C=.

_Coda di gambero_, It. see lobster-tail.

_Codole_, Sp. elbow-cop.

_Codpiece_, a piece of plate to protect the fore-body.

_Coif de mailes_, hood of chain mail, see camail.

_Colichemarde_, swords invented by Königsmark about 1661-86.

_Colet_, }
_Coletin_, } Fr. a gorget, also a jerkin.
_Collettin_, }

_Colletto_, It. a buff coat.

_Collo_, It. see crinet.

_Colodrillo_, Sp. the plate of the helmet that covered the nape of
the neck.

_Coltellaccio_, It. see cutlass.

_Cophia_, a coif of mail.

_Coppo_, It. the skull of a helm or helmet.

_Corale_, see cuisses.

_Coracina_, Sp. cuirass.

_Corium_, armour composed of leather.

_Cornel_, } O.E. the rosette or button fixed on the
_Coronall_, } tip of the lance in some forms of tilting.

_Corpel_, O.F. the hilt of a sword, =R=.

_Corregge_, It. see bretelles.

_Corseque_, Fr. a species of partizan, =G=.

_Corsesca_, It. see ranseur.

_Cosciale_, }
_Coscioni_, } see cuissard.
_Costale_, }

_Coschewes_, O.E. see cuisses.

_Costa_, It. the wings on the head of the war-mace.

_Coat-armour_, see surcoat.

_Coterel_, O.F. a large knife, =R=.

_Cotta di maglia_, It. a coat of mail.

_Cottyngyre_, cold-chisel.

_Coude_, }
_Coudière_, } elbow-pieces of plate.
_Coute_, }

_Coup de poing_, Fr. a small pistol.

_Coursel_, Fr. windlass for a crossbow, =G=.

_Coussart_, a demi-glaive, XV cent.

_Coustile_, Fr. a knife and possibly a staff-weapon with cutting
point, =G=.

_Coustil à croc_, } short, single-handed sword with two-edged blade.
_Coutel_, }

_Couvrenuque_, Fr. the neck-plate of the back of the armet or sallad.

_Cracowes_, } sometimes used for poleynes and also
_Crakoes_, } for pointed shoes, XIV cent.

_Crampon_, a bolt for attaching the helm to the cuirass.

_Cranequin_, the wheel and ratchet machine for bending the crossbow.

_Cravates_, French mounted militia.

_Cresta_, It. }
_Cresteria_, Sp. } crest of a helmet.
_Crête_, Fr. }

_Crête-échelle_, a support fixed from helm to back-plate to take
the shock when tilting.

_Crêtu_, O.F. a sword-breaker, =R=.

_Crinet_, armour for the horse’s neck.

_Crochets de retraits_, trail-hooks of a cannon, =H=.

_Crinière_, see crinet.

_Croissante_, see moton.

_Crosse_, the butt of a gun or a crossbow.

_Croupière_, armour for the hinder part of a horse.

_Cubitiera_, It. elbow-cop.

_Cubrenuca_, Sp. see couvrenuque.

_Cuirass_, body-armour, originally of leather, afterwards of plate.

_Cuir-bouilly_, } defences for horse and man made of
_Cure-buly_, } boiled and moulded leather.

_Cuissards_, leg-armour, comprising cuisses and knee-cops and jambs.

_Cuishe_, }
_Cuisse_, } thigh-pieces of plate.
_Cuyshe_, }

_Cuissots_, see cuisse.

_Culasse_, the breech of a gun.

_Culet_, kilt or skirt.

_Cullotes_, Fr. breeches.

_Culverin_, a hand-gun or light piece of ordnance, XV, XVII cent.

_Curatt_, see cuirass.

_Curtale_, O.It., a variety of cannon, =F=.

_Curtana_, the blunted “sword of Mercy” used at the Coronation.

_Curtelaxe_, O.E. for cutlass.

_Ciclaton_, } a tight-fitting surcoat shorter in front
_Cyclas_, } than behind, XIV cent.

_Cyseau_, O.F. an arrow or dart, =R=.

_Daburge_, a ceremonial mace.

_Dag, Tag_, a short pistol, XVI-XVII cent.

_Dague à couillettes_, Fr. see balloch knife.

_Dague à oreilles_, a dagger with the pommel fashioned like two
circular wings.

_Dague à rognons_, Fr. a dagger with kidney-shaped projections above
the quillons.

_Dague à ruelle_, Fr. a dagger with thumb-ring.

_Dard_, Sp. javelin.

_Degen_, Germ. sword, dagger.

_Demi-poulaine_, pointed sollerets of medium length.

_Demy-teste_, O.E. a steel skull-cap, =C=.

_Destrier_, a war-horse.

_Détente_, Fr. the trigger.

_Diechlinge_, } Germ. see cuisse.
_Dieling_, }

_Dilge_, Germ. leg-guard for jousts.

_Dobbles_, O.E. probably moulds or patterns on which armour was made.

_Dolch_, Germ. poniard.

_Dolequin_, a dagger, =R=.

_Doloire_, a short-handled axe, =G=.

_Dolon_, O.E. a club, =R=.

_Dorso_, It. the back of a gauntlet.

_Dos_, Sp. back-plate of a cuirass.

_Dossière_, Fr. the back-piece of the cuirass.

_Dussack_, Hungarian and German sword of cutlass form.

_Écrevisse_, Fr. see lobster-tail.

_Écu_, Fr. shield.

_Écouvillon_, sponge of a cannon.

_Eisenkappe_, Germ. a skull-cap of steel.

_Eisenschuhe_, Germ. see sollerets.

_Elbow-cops_, elbow-pieces of plate armour.

_Elbow gauntlet_, a metal or leather glove with cuff reaching to
the elbow, XVI, XVII cent.

_Elingue_, O.F. a sling, =R=.

_Ellenbogenkachel_, Germ. see coude.

_Elmo di giostra_, It. a tilting-helm.

_Elsa_, }
_Elso_, } the hilt of a sword or dagger, =F=.
_Elza_, }

_Enarmes_, the loops for holding a shield.

_Encoche_, see coche.

_Enlace_, see anelace.

_Épaulière_, } shoulder-defence, of plate.
_Éspalière_, }

_Épaule-de-Monton_, Fr. see poldermitton.

_Épieu_, a spear; a spear with crossbar or toggle, =G=.

_Esca_, It. tinder.

_Escarcelas_, Sp. tassets.

_Escarpes_, Sp. sollerets.

_Esclaivine_, O.F. a dart, =R=.

_Escopette_, a pistol or carbine with a firelock, =C=.

_Espada_, Sp. a long sword.

_Espadin_, Sp. a short sword.

_Espaldar_, Sp. pauldron.

_Espare_, O.F. a dart, =R=.

_Espieu_, see épieu.

_Espingardier_, an arquebussier, =C=.

_Esponton_, Fr. see spontoon.

_Espringale_, a siege crossbow on wheels, a piece of siege
ordnance, =G=.

_Espuello_, Sp. spur.

_Estival_, leg-armour for a horse; exceedingly rare in MSS.; only
one example of this armour exists, in Brussels.

_Estoc_, a thrusting sword.

_Estradiots_, Greek horsemen, temp. Charles VIII.

_Estramaçon_, the edge of a sword, a sword-cut.

_Étoupin_, a quick-match.

_Étrière_, a military flail, =G=.

_Étrier_, Fr. stirrup.

_Exsil_, O.F. the scabbard of a sword, =R=.

_Falcione_, It. see falk.

_Falda_, It. see taces.

_Falarique_, an arrow headed with tow, for incendiary purposes, =G=.

_Faldaje_, Sp. taces.

_Falk_, a primitive weapon formed of a scythe-blade fixed on a pole;
a glaive.

_Falsaguarda_, Sp. the wings on the blade of the two-hand sword.

_Fan-plate_, the “wing” on the outside of the knee-cop.

_Fauchard_, see glaive.

_Faucre_, Fr. a lance-rest.

_Fautre_, Fr. thigh-armour.

_Faux_, see falk.

_Feather-staff_, a staff in which are concealed spikes released by
a spring.

_Federzapfen_, Germ. spring-pins to which the pauldrons are hung,
XVI cent.

_Fendace_, a species of gorget, XV cent.

_Feure_, O.F. a scabbard, =R=.

_Fiancali_, It. see tasset, also flanchard.

_Fioreti_, It. a thrusting foil.

_Flail_, the military flail was like the agricultural implement, but
as a weapon of war the thresher was of iron instead of wood.

_Flambard_, } a two-hand sword with wavy blade.
_Flamberge_, }

_Flamberg_, Germ. rapier with wavy blade.

_Flanchard_, O.E. }
_Flancoîs_, Fr. } armour for the flanks of a horse.
_Flankenpanzer_, Germ. }
_Flanqueras_, Sp. }

_Flaon_, Fr. a wedge fastened to the breast-piece which took the
shock of the shield; see poire.

_Fleau_, Fr. military flail.

_Flechière_, see flanchard.

_Fletcher_, a maker of arrows.

_Fleuret_, thrusting foil.

_Flight_, an arrow for distance shooting.

_Flo_, O.E. arrow.

_Forcina_, It. a gun-fork.

_Forconi_, It. a military fork for escalades.

_Fornimento_, It. the hilt of a sword.

_Fouchard_, see glaive.

_Fouloir_, the rammer of a cannon.

_Framée_, O.F. a mallet or mace, =R=.

_Francesca_, It. a battle-axe or pole-axe.

_Francisque_, a long-handled axe, =R=.

_Freccia_, It. an arrow.

_Freiturnier_, Germ. a joust run without a barrier, XVI cent.

_Frête_, O.F. a variety of arrows, =R=.

_Frog_, the hanger of a sword-belt.

_Fronde_, Fr. a sling.

_Frontale_, It. see chamfron.

_Fronteau_, F. see chamfron.

_Fueille_, the blade of a sword, =C=.

_Fusetto_, It. see misericorde.

_Fusil_, short musket with a firelock.

_Fussturnier_, Germ. joust on foot, XVI cent.

_Fust_, the stock of a firearm.

_Gadlings_, knuckle or finger spikes fixed to the gauntlet.

{ Gay derives this from canepin, sheep or
_Gagnepain_, { goat leather, hence a glove of leather, mail,
_Gaynpayne_, { or plate. Meyrick explains it as a sword.

_Galapentin_, O.F. a sword or sabre, =R=.

_Galea_, It. a helm.

_Gambeson_, a quilted tunic, XI cent.

_Gambiera_, It. see jambs.

_Gardaignes_, O.F. arms, clothing, etc., =R=.

_Garde-de-bras_, reinforcing piece for the left arm, used in tilting.

_Garde-faude_, Fr. see codpiece.

_Garde-ferre_, O.F. the rest of the lock of the arquebus (pan cover?),
=C=.

_Garde-collet_, Fr. neck-guards on the pauldron.

_Garde-rein_, E.Fr. loin-guard of armour.

_Garde-queue_, Fr. the tail-guard of a horse.

_Garrock_, } used for the quarrel of the crossbow
_Garrot_, } and also for the lever.

_Gaudichet_, O.F. a mail shirt.

_Gaveloc_, }
_Gaveloche_, } a species of javelin.
_Gavelot_, }

_Gavette_, It. the string of the crossbow.

_Genestare_, O.F. a javelin, =R=.

_Gedritts_, a German form of joust in which the challenger fought
two opponents in succession.

_Gefingerte handschuh_, Germ. gauntlet with separate articulated
fingers.

_Geldière_, O.F. a kind of lance, =R=.

_Genetaire_, a javelin, XV. cent.

_Genouillières_, jointed knee-pieces of plate.

_Gentilhomme_, a wooden cannon bristling with spikes, XVI cent., =G=.

_Gesäfreifen_, Germ. rein or loin guard.

_Gestech_, various forms of the joust as practised in Germany, run
without barriers.

_Ghiazarino_, It. see jazerant.

_Gibet_, a military mace.

_Gibicière_, Fr. a cartridge box, also pouch.

_Ginocchietti_, see genouillière.

_Gisarme_, a staff weapon of the glaive order.

_Giostra_, It. joust.

_Glaive_, a species of bill with a large blade.

_Glazing-wheel_, polishing-wheel for armour plates.

_Gliedschirm_, Germ. see codpiece.

_Goat’s-foot_, a lever for bending the crossbow.

_Godbert_, see hauberk.

_Godendar_, }
_Goedendag_, } a species of short club at the top of
_Goudendar_, } which is a spike, XIII-XIV cent.

_Goie_, } a hedging-bill, =C=.
_Goy_, }

_Goiz_, O.F. a sword, =R=.

_Gola_, Sp. } gorget.
_Goletta_, It. }

_Gonpillon_, Fr. see holy-water sprinkle.

_Gonfanon_, Fr. a flag or standard.

_Gorget_, }
_Gorgiera_, It. } a wide plate collar to protect the
_Gorjal_, Sp. } throat, XVIII cent.; purely ornamental.
_Gougerit_, Fr. }

_Gossets_, see gussets.

_Graffe_, Fr. a small dagger.

_Grand-guard_, reinforcing piece for tilting, worn on the left
shoulder.

_Grano d’orzo_, It. chain mail closed with a rivet.

_Grappes_, Fr. { a toothed ring on the “grip” of the lance which
_Grappers_, { held the weapon firmly against the wood or lead
_Grates_, { block behind the lance rest.

_Greave_, }
_Greve_, Fr. } shin-defence, of plate.
_Greba_, Sp. }

_Gronda_, It. see couvrenuque.

_Groppa_, It. } see crupper.
_Grupera_, Sp. }

_Guanciali_, It. ear-flaps of a burgonet.

_Guardabrazos_, Sp. see pauldron.

_Guardacorda_, It. see garde-queue.

_Guardacuore_, It. see mentonière.

_Guardagoletta_, It. the neck-guards on the pauldrons.

_Guarda-o-rodillera_, Sp. knee-cop.

_Guardastanca_, It. see grand-guard.

_Guige_, the strap round the neck to carry the shield, XII cent.

_Guiterre_, O.F. a small buckler of leather, =R=.

_Gusset_, pieces of chain mail, tied with points to the “haustement”
to cover those portions of the body not protected with plate armour;
they were usually eight in number, viz. for armpits, inner side of
elbows, knees and insteps.

_Guyders_, straps to fasten the various pieces that went to make up
the suit of plate armour, also gussets.

_Gynours_, the servers of catapults and the like siege engines.

_Hackbuss_, see arquebus.

_Hake, demi-hake_, O.E. the former an arquebus, the latter a short
firearm, XVI cent.

_Hagbuttes_, arquebus.

_Haketon_, see gambeson.

_Halacret_, see alacret.

_Halagues_, crossbowmen, =R=.

{ a long-shafted weapon with crescent-shaped blade on one
_Halebarde_, { side and a hook or spur on the other, surmounted
_Halbert_, { by a spear-head; sometimes found with double blade,
_Harlbart_, { XV and XVI cent.

_Halsberge_, Germ. see gorget.

_Hampe_, the staff of a halbert or pike.

_Hand and half sword_, see bastard sword.

_Hansart_, O.F. a missile weapon of the javelin order, =R=.

_Harnischekappe_, Germ. the padded cap worn under the tilting-helm.

_Hars_, O.F. a bow, =R=.

_Harthstake_, a rake or poker for the forge.

_Haubergeon_, } short { shirt of chain mail, XI to XII cent.
_Hauberk_, } long {

_Haulse-col_, } Fr. see gorget.
_Hausse-col_, }

_Hausecol de mailes_, Fr. see standard of mail.

_Haustement_, Fr. a close-fitting undergarment to which the hose
and the chausses were fastened with points.

_Haute barde_, Fr. a high-peaked saddle.

_Haute cloueure_, Fr. high-proof armour, especially mail.

_Hauste_, O.F. the staff of a pike, =R=.

_Heaume_, a heavy helm without movable visor and only an eye-slit
or occularium, mostly used for tilting.

_Hendeure_, Fr. the “grip” of the sword.

_Hentzen_, Germ. mitten gauntlets.

_Hinterarm_, Germ. see rerebrace.

_Hinterfluge_, Germ. the back-plate of the pauldron.

_Hinterschurz_, Germ. see garde-rein.

_Hobilers_, common light-horse troopers.

_Hoguines_, see cuisse.

_Holy-water sprinkle_, a shaft of wood fitted with an iron
spike-studded ball, XVI cent.

_Horse-gay_, a demi-lance, XV cent.

_Hosting harness_, armour for war as distinct from that of the joust.

_Hufken_, a light head-piece worn by archers, XVI cent.

_Huque_, long surcoat worn over the armour, XV cent.

_Huvette_, Fr. a head-piece of leather or cloth stiffened with
wicker or metal, XIV cent.

_Hwitel_, Anglo-Saxon, knife.

_Imbracciatura_, It. see enarmes.

_Imbricated mail_, see jazerant.

_Jack_, a loose-fitting tunic of leather, either quilted or
reinforced with plates of metal or horn.

_Jambers_, } see jambs.
_Jambeux_, }

_Jamboys_, skirts of plate, XVI cent., see bases.

_Jambs_, armour for the lower leg.

_Janetaire_, see javelin.

_Jarnac, Brassard à la_, a jointless arm-piece of plate reaching
from shoulder to wrist.

_Jarnac, Coup de_, a cut on the back of the leg or a “hamstringing
cut.”

_Jazerant_, body-armour made of small plates, of the brigandine type.

_Jeddartstaff_, a long-shafted axe.

_Jupon_, a short surcoat, XIV-XV cent.

_Justes of peace_, jousts at barriers.

_Kamm_, Germ. the crest or ridge of the helmet as distinct from the
heraldic crest.

_Kamfhandschuhe_, Germ. gauntlet.

_Kehlstück_, Germ. the neck-plate in the front of an armet.

_Kettyl-hat_, a wide-brimmed steel war-hat, XIV cent.

_Kinnreff_, Germ. bevor.

_Knee-cops_, { knee-defences of plate, first worn
_Kniebuckel_, Germ. { over chain-mail chaussons, and
_Kniestück_, Germ. { afterwards with complete plate armour.

_Knuckle-bow_, the part of the sword-guard that protects the knuckle.

_Kragen_, Germ. gorget.

_Krebs_, Germ. see tasset.

_Lama_, It. sword-blade.

_Lama a biscia_, It. see flamberge.

_Lamboys_, see jamboys.

_Lambrequin_, a species of hood of cloth attached to the helmet with
“points,” and falling down at the back to protect the wearer from heat
and rain.

_Lames_, narrow strips of steel riveted together horizontally as in
the taces.

_Lance a böete_, a lance with blunted point.

_Lance de carrière_, a lance for tilting at the ring, =C=.

_Lance a rouèt_, or _courtoise_, blunted lances for tournaments, =R=.

_Lance-rest_, an adjustable hook or rest fixed on the right side of
the breastplate.

_Lancegay_, } O.F. a short spear, hence light horseman, =R=.
_Launcegay_, }

_Lanciotto_, It. javelin.

_Lansquenette_, } a broad-bladed double-edged
_Landsknecht_, } sword, and also German mercenary
_Lanzichenecco_, It. } infantry, XVI cent.

_Leva_, It. see goat’s-foot lever.

_Lendenplatte_, Germ. a large cuisse for tilting.

_Lingua di bue_, It. see cinquedea.

_Linstock_, a combination of pike and match-holder, used by gunners
for firing cannon.

_Lobster-tail_, back peak of a helmet, or cuisses, made of
overlapping lames like a lobster-shell, XVII cent.

_Lochaber axe_, a long-shafted axe. Scottish, XVII, XVIII cent.

_Locket_, the metal socket at the top of the sword sheath with
button for hanging to the belt.

_Locking gauntlet_, a gauntlet of plate in which the finger-plates
lap over and fasten to a pin on the wrist, used for fighting at
barriers, XVI cent.

_Loque_, O.F. a quarter-staff, =R=.

_Luchet_, O.F. an iron pike, =R=.

_Luneta_, Sp. rondel.

_Lunette_, Fr. open sword-guard, late XVII cent.

_Maglia gazzarrina_, It. see jazerant.

_Maglia piatta_, It. see ringed mail.

_Mähenpanzer_, Germ. see crinet.

_Maillet_, Fr. a martel de fer, XIV cent.

_Mainfaire_, } a right-hand gauntlet.
_Manifer_, }

_Main gauche_, dagger used with the left hand when the right hand
held the sword.

_Maleus_, a falchion, =F=.

_Mamillières_, circular plates worn over the breast to hold chains
to which the sword and dagger were attached, XIV cent.

_Mancina_, It. see main gauche.

_Manetta_, It. the trigger of a gun, also a spanner.

_Manezza di ferro_, an arming-gauntlet, =F=.

_Manicle_, gauntlet.

_Manico_, It. the grip of a sword.

_Manoglia_, It. the handle of a small buckler.

_Manopla_, Sp. } gauntlet.
_Manople_, It. }

_Manteau d’armes_, a rigid cape-like shield fixed to the left breast
and shoulder for tilting.

_Mantling_, see lambrequin.

_Martel de fer_, Fr. } a war-hammer used by horse and foot.
_Martello d’arme_, It. }

_Martinetto_, }
_Martinello_, } It. see cranequin.

_Mascled_, _mail_, { lozenge-shaped plates of metal, sometimes
_Macled_, _mail_, { overlapping, sewn upon a tunic of leather or
{ quilted linen, XI, XII cent. (Meyrick).

_Massüe_, Fr. a mace or club.

_Matchlock_, a firearm with touch-hole and fired with a match,
early XV cent.

_Mattucashlass_, a Scottish dagger carried under the armpit.

_Maule_, a mace or club.

_Maximilian armour_, a style of plate armour distinguished by shallow
vertical flutings, said to have been devised by the Emperor Maximilian I,
XVI cent.

_Mazza d’arme_, It. war-mace.

_Mazzafrustro_, It. see flail, also morning star.

_Méche soufrée_, a slow-match.

_Mell_, see maule.

_Mentonière_, a piece used with the sallad to protect chin and breast.

_Merlette_, O.F. a sergeant’s staff, =R=.

_Meris_, O.F. a javelin, =R=.

_Meusel_, Germ, see elbow-cop.

_Mezail_, Fr. visor.

_Miccia_, It. a gun-match.

_Migerat_, O.F. a dart or arrow, =R=.

_Minion_, a four-pounder, XVI cent.

_Misericorde_, short dagger used for the _coup de grâce_.

_Missodor_, O.F. a war horse, =R=.

_Mitten-gauntlet_, } gauntlet in which the fingers are
_Mittene_, It. } not separate.

_Moresca_, It. see taces.

_Morion_, light helmet with crest and inverted crescent brim, latter
end of XV cent.

_Morning star_, a spike-studded ball hung by a chain from a short
staff, XIV-XV cent.

_Morso_, It. the horse’s bit.

_Moschetto_, It. see matchlock.

_Mostardo_, a musket, =F=.

_Moton_, plates to protect the armpits, especially the right,
XIV cent.

_Moulinet_, the windlass used for drawing the crossbow.

_Moyenne_, see minion.

_Murice_, a caltrop, =F=.

_Musacchino_, see pauldrons.

_Muschettæ_, It. projectiles used with the crossbow.

_Muserag_, a missile weapon of some kind, =F=.

_Musoliera_, It. a horse-muzzle.

_Nackenschirm_, Germ. neck-plate at the back of an armet.

_Naide_, anvil.

_Naitoules_, some appliance for closing rivets.

_Nasal_, a bar of steel fixed or movable on the front of the helmet
to protect the nose, in more general use during XI cent., revived
afterwards in XVII cent.

_Neighletts_, the metal tags of the arming-points.

_Nowchys_, embossed buckles and ornaments for armour, XV cent.

_Noyeau_, the core of a gun.

_Oberarmzeug_, Germ. rerebrace.

_Occularium_, the eye-slit in the helm.

_Oreillettes_, ear-pieces, found in the later forms of the casque
and burgonet.

_Orle_, the wreath or twisted scarf worn on the helmet immediately
beneath the crest.

_Oriflamme_, the ancient banner of the Abbey of S. Denis used by
the kings of France.

_Ospergum_, see hauberk.

_Ottone_, It. brass or latten, used for edging armour, etc., =F=.

_Paefustum_, a battle-axe, XV cent.

_Palet_, a small skull-cap of cuir-bouilly or steel.

_Palettes_, circular plates to protect the armpits.

_Panart_, O.F., a large knife, =R=.

_Panache_, Fr. the plume of feathers on the helmet.

_Pansier_, Fr. the lower portion of the cuirass when it is formed of
two pieces.

_Panzer_, body-armour, XI-XIV cent.

_Panziera_, It. see codpiece.

_Parement_, a surcoat or ceremonial dress of rich fabric.

_Parma_, It. a small shield or buckler.

_Partigiana_, It. { a long-shafted weapon with broad-pointed blade,
_Partizan_, { in form allied to the pike and the halbert.

_Partlet_, O.E. gorget, =F=.

_Pas d’âne_, Fr. loops of bar steel immediately over the cross-hilt
of the sword.

_Pasguard_, a reinforcing piece for the left elbow, used in tilting.

_Passe-garde_, Fr. the French, following Meyrick, use this word
_wrongly_ for neck-guards.

_Passadoux_, a Gascon arrow, =C=.

_Passe_, the rack for stringing the crossbow, =C=.

_Passot_, O.F. a dagger, =R=.

_Patelet_, a padded vest worn under armour, XVI cent.

_Patrel_, see poitrel.

_Patron_, a case for pistol cartridges.

_Patula_, a short sword or dagger.

_Pauldrons_, shoulder-pieces of plate.

_Pavade_, a long dagger.

_Pavache_, Fr. }
_Pavesche_, } a large shield used by bowmen.
_Pavise_, }
_Pavois d’assout_, O.F. }

_Pavon_, a large triangular flag.

_Peascod_, a form of breastplate made with a central ridge, and
pointed slightly downward at the lower extremity, XVII cent.

_Pectoral_, a breast defence of mail. See also peytral.

_Pell_, } a sharpened stake used by the Norman peasants.
_Pill_, }

_Pellegrina di maglia_, It. mail cape or collar.

_Pennacchiera_, It. } see porte-panache.
_Penacho_, Sp. }

_Pennon_, a pointed banner used by knights bachelor and esquires.

_Pentina_, O.I. a short pike, =F=.

_Pertuisan_, Fr. partizan.

_Peto_, Sp. breastplate.

_Petail matres_, a large-headed dart or arrow, =R=.

_Petronel_, a short firearm fired with a flint or pyrites (the common
explanation that it was discharged held at the chest is erroneous).

_Pettiera_, It. see peytral.

_Petto_, It. breastplate.

_Peytral_, the breastplate of a horse.

_Pezonaras_, Sp. see bossoirs.

_Pfeifenharnisch_, Germ. embossed armour to imitate puffed silk or
velvet, XVI cent.

_Pheon_, a barbed javelin used by the sergeant-at-arms.

_Picca_, It. see pike.

_Picière_, Fr. see peytral.

_Pieces of advantage_, reinforcing pieces for the joust.

_Pied de biche_, Fr. see goat’s-foot lever.

_Pied de chèvre_, a crowbar.

_Pike_, a long-shafted weapon used by footmen only. It had a
lance-like head, and was shod at the butt-end with iron for fixing
in the ground to receive cavalry, XIV-XVIII cent.

_Pike-guard_, a ridge of metal set upright on the pauldrons, on the
left side, erroneously called pasguard.

_Pile_, the head of the arrow.

_Pistolese_, a large dagger or knife, =F=.

_Pizane_, Fr. breastplate.

_Placard_, } a reinforcing breastplate, XVI-XVII cent.
_Placcate_, }

_Plater_, the maker of armour plates as distinct from the armourer
who made up the plates into armour.

_Platner_, Germ. armourer.

_Plastron_, the upper portion of the cuirass when it is formed of
two pieces.

_Plastron-de-fer_, a defence of plate, usually circular, worn on the
breast under or over the hauberk.

_Plates, Pair of_, back and breast plates, XIV-XV cent.

_Platine_, Fr. the lock of a firelock.

_Plommée_, Fr. a leaden mace; also holy-water sprinkler.

_Poignard_, a dagger.

_Poinçon_, the stamp or trade-mark of the armourer.

_Points_, laces for securing the gussets of mail to the undergarment,
and also the lambrequin to the helm.

_Poire_, Fr. a pear-shaped button through which the laces passed that
held the shield to the left breast, XVI cent.

_Poitrel_, breast-armour for a horse.

_Poldermitton_, a defence for the inner bend of the right arm, used
in the joust.

_Pole-axe_, a long-shafted axe with beak and spear point.

_Poleynes_, see knee-cops, XIII-XIV cent.

_Polion_, some part of the crossbow.

_Pommel_, the finishing knob of the sword-grip; also the fore peak
of the saddle.

_Pompes_, see poleynes.

_Pontale_, the chape of a sword or dagger; also the tag on an
arming-point or lance, =F=.

_Porte-panache_, Fr. the plume-holder on the helmet.

_Posolino_, It. see croupière.

_Pot_, a broad-brimmed helmet worn by pikemen, XVII cent.

_Poulaine, À la_, sollerets with extremely pointed toes, XIV cent.

_Pourpoint_, a padded and quilted garment of leather or linen.

_Pourpointerie_, quilted material with metal studs at the
intersection of the quilting seams.

_Pryke-spur_, a spur with a single point and no rowel.

_Pugio_, } It. a small dagger.
_Pugnale_, }

_Pully-pieces_, } see poleynes.
_Putty-pieces_, }

_Pusane_, } see pizane.
_Puzane_, }

_Quadrelle_, It. a small mace with leaf-like projections, also
quarrel.

_Quarrel_, the bolt or projectile used with the crossbow.

_Quetyll_, O.E. a knife.

_Queue_, a projecting hook on the back-piece of the cuirass to take
the butt-end of the lance when held in rest.

_Quijotes_, Sp. see cuisse.

_Quillions_, the cross-hilt of the sword.

_Raillon_, O.F. a kind of arrow, =R=.

_Rainoise_, an unknown type of arquebus.

_Ranfort_, the reinforce ring of a cannon.

_Ranseur_, a large trident with sharpened blades set on a long shaft;
a species of partizan.

_Rennen_, German jousting courses with sharp spear-head.

_Rennhutschraube_, Germ. see crête-échelle.

_Rerebrace_, armour for the upper arm.

_Rest of advantage_, some detail of armour forbidden in jousts of the
XVI cent.; possibly some kind of lance-rest.

_Resta_ } lance-rest.
_Restra de muelle_, Sp. }

_Ricasso_, the squaring of the base of the sword-blade next above
the quillons.

_Ringed mail_, formed of flat rings sewn side by side on a tunic of
leather or quilted linen, XI cent.

_Rivet_, a suit of armour; afterwards the small nails that hold it
together.

_Rochet_, the blunt lance-point for jousting.

_Rodete_, O.F. a spur, =R=.

_Roelle_, O.F. a buckler or small shield.

_Roncone_, It. see gisarme.

_Rondache_, a circular shield, XV-XVI cent.

_Rondel_, } circular plate protecting the armpit;
_Rondelle_, Fr. } also at the back of early armets.

_Rondel of the guard_, possibly a vamplate.

_Ross-stirn_, Germ. see chamfron.

_Rodela_, } a circular shield.
_Rotela_, It. }

_Rotellina da bracciale_, It. rondel.

_Rüchenstück_, Germ. back-plate of the cuirass.

_Rüsthaken_, Germ. lance-rest.

_Rustred mail_, see banded mail (Meyrick).

_Rustung_, Germ. armour.

_Sabataynes_, } O.E. see sollerets.
_Sabatons_, }

_Sacheboute_, O.F. a horseman’s lance, =R=.

_Sagetta_, a casque or helmet, =F=.

_Salade_, } helmet with wide brim at the back, worn
_Salett_, } with or without visor and mentonière,
_Sallad_, } XVI cent.

_Sautoir_, O.F. stirrup.

_Sbalzo_, It. see cesello.

_Scarpa a becco d’anatra_, It. see bear-paw.

_Scarpa a punta articolata_, It. see poulaine.

_Scarpa a piè d’orso_, It. see bear-paw.

_Scarsellone_, It. see tasset.

_Schale_, } Germ. sallad.
_Schalern_, }

_Schamkapsel_, Germ. see bravette.

_Scheitelstuck_, Germ. skull of the helmet.

_Schembart_, Germ. the lower part of the visor, the ventail.

_Schenkelschiene_, Germ. see cuishe.

_Schiavona_, It. a basket-hilted cut-and-thrust sword.

_Schiena_, It. the back-plate of the cuirass.

_Schiessprügel_, Germ, see holy-water sprinkle.

_Schiniere_, It. see jambs.

_Schioppo_, O.I. a dag or pistol, =F=.

_Schlaeger_, Germ. student’s fencing-sword.

_Schulterschild_, Germ. see grand-guard.

_Schulterschild mit Rand_, Germ. a pauldron with neck-guard attached.

_Schwanzel_, } Germ. the tail-guard of a horse.
_Schwanzriempanzer_, }

_Schwebescheibe_, Germ. see vamplate.

_Sciabola_, It. sabre.

_Scudo_, It. a triangular shield.

_Scure d’arme_, It. battle-axe.

_Seax_, a dagger.

_Secreta_, } a thin steel cap worn under the hat,
_Secrete_, } XVI-XVII cent.

_Sella d’arme_, It. war-saddle.

_Semitarge_, O.F. a scimitar, =R=.

_Serpentina_, It. the cock of a matchlock.

_Setzschild_, Germ. see pavise.

_Shaffron_, see chamfron.

_Sharfrennen_, Germ. variety of joust with sharp-pointed lances,
XVI cent.

_Sharfrennentarsche_, Germ. a shield-like reinforcing piece for
the above joust.

_Shell-guard_, a form of sword-guard.

_Sfondagiaco_, It. see misericorde.

_Sisarmes_, see gisarme.

_Slaughsword_, a two-hand sword carried by the whiffler, IV cent.

_Sliding rivet_, a rivet fixed on the upper plate and moving in a
slot on the lower plate.

_Snaphaunce_, an early form of flint-lock in which the pan has to
be uncovered before firing.

_Sockets_, a thigh-defence similar to the German diechling.

_Soffione_, It. a musket or caliver.

_Sollerets_, shoes of laminated plate, usually pointed.

_Spada_, It. sword.

_Spadone_, It. a long sword.

_Spadroon_, flat-bladed sword for cut-and-thrust.

_Spallacci_, It. pauldrons.

_Spallière_, Fr. see pauldrons.

_Spasmo_, O.It. a dart or javelin, =F=.

_Spetum_, } see ranseur.
_Spiede_, It. }

_Spight_, a short or flight arrow.

_Spigo_, O.It. the plume-holder of a helmet, =F=.

_Splint armour_, narrow overlapping plates as opposed to armour made
of large plates.

_Spright_, a wooden arrow discharged from a gun.

_Springal_, see espringale.

_Spontoon_, a half-pike carried by officers, XVIII cent.

_Squarcina_, O.It. a short sword or cutlass, =F=.

_Staffa_, It. stirrup.

_Standard of mail_, a collar of chain mail, XV cent.

_Stecca_, It. the locket of a dagger.

_Steccata_, It. the place of combat for duels.

_Stechhelm_, Germ. heavy tilting-helm.

_Stechen_, Germ. jousting course with coronal-tipped lances.

_Stechtarsche_, Germ. a ribbed tilting-shield used in the “gestech”
courses.

_Stinchieri_, O.It. armour for the shin, =F=.

_Stirnstulp_, Germ. the upper part of the visor of an armet.

_Stithe_, O.E. anvil.

_Striscia_, It. rapier.

_Sturmhaube_, Germ. see burgonet.

_Sturmwand_, Germ. see pavise.

_Supeters_, O.E. see sollerets.

_Surcoat_, a garment worn over the armour to protect it from sun and
rain, and usually blazoned heraldically.

_Sword-breaker_, a short heavy sword with back edge toothed for
breaking opponent’s sword, XVI cent.

_Swyn-feather_, see feather-staff.

_Tabard_, the armorially emblazoned coat worn by heralds; see also
surcoat.

_Taces_, laminated plates at the lower edge of the cuirass.

_Tache_, O.E. strap.

_Talevas_, Sp. shield.

_Tapul_, the vertical ridge in the centre of some forms of
breast-piece.

_Tarcaire_, O.F. a quiver, =R=.

_Targe_, a small circular shield.

_Tarques_, O.F. some kind of engine of war, =R=.

_Tartsche_, Germ. a small shield or targe.

_Tartschen_, Germ. see ailettes.

_Tassets_, plates, usually lozenge-shaped, attached by strap and
buckle to the taces to protect the upper or front surface of the
thigh.

_Taurea_, O.It. a buckler of bull’s hide, =F=.

_Tegulated armour_, overlapping tile-like square plates, end of
XII cent. (Meyrick).

_Tertiare_, to “third” the pike, i.e. to shorten either for
shouldering or for receiving cavalry.

_Tesa_, It. the shade or brim of the burgonet.

_Tester_, O.E. } see chanfron.
_Testiera_, It. }

_Testière_, Fr. a metal skull-cap; also the chanfron of a horse.

_Têtrière_, Fr. see tester.

_Thyrtel_, } O.E. knife or dagger.
_Thwyrtel_, }

_Tilt_, the barrier used to separate knights when jousting, XIV cent.
and onwards; first, a stretched cloth; later, of wood.

_Timbre_, Fr. the skull of a helmet.

_Tiloles, Arbalest à_, Fr. windlass crossbow.

_Toggle_, the cross-bar of a boar-spear. In modern use a button for
joining two ends of a strap or thong.

_Toile_, see tilt.

_Tolys_, O.E. tools.

_Touch-box_, probably a box for flint and steel carried by the musket.

_Tourney_, { a contest of many knights in the lists as opposed
_Tournois_, Fr. { to the joust or single combat at barriers.

_Tournicle d’eschaille_, Fr. a small tunic or a large gorget composed
of overlapping scale armour.

_Toyle_, a contrivance fixed over the right cuisse to hold the lance
when carried upright; a lance bucket.

_Trubrico_, Sp. blunderbuss.

_Traguardo_, It. see visor.

_Trapper_, horse-trappings of fabric or mail.

_Trellised armour_, quilted linen or leather with leather bands sewn
trellis-wise and having studs of metal in the trellis openings
(Meyrick).

_Tresses_, plaited laces or arming-points.

_Trilobed scales_, triple scales in one piece sewn upon the
brigandine.

_Trombone_, It. a heavy pistol, blunderbuss.

_Trousse_, Fr. a quiver.

_Trumelière_, Fr. see jamb.

_Tuck_, see estoc.

_Tuile_, Fr. see tassets.

_Tuilette_, Fr. small tassets as on tomb of Rich. Beauchamp,
Earl of Warwick.

_Turcasso_, It. quiver.

_Turves_, probably a turban or orle worn on the helmet.

_Umbo_, the boss upon a shield.

_Umbril_, the shade or brim of head-pieces of XVII cent.

_Uncin_, war pickaxe.

_Uncino_, O.It. a broad-pointed arrow, a hook, =F=.

_Unterarmzeug_, Germ. vambrace.

_Usbergo_, O.It. breastplate, vamplate, =F.=

_Vambrace_, the plate defence for the fore-arm.

_Vamplate_, a circular shield through which the tilting and war
lances were fixed above the grip.

_Vedoil_, a weapon used by foot-soldiers, possibly a voulge.

_Velette_, O.It. a horse-soldier’s coat, =F=.

_Venetian sallad_, a sallad of the XV-XVI cent.; formed like the
ancient Greek helmet with fixed visor, but evolved from the bascinet.

_Ventaglio_, It. }
_Ventail_, Fr. } the lower part of the visor when it is
_Ventalle_, Sp. } made in two parts.

_Vervelles_, the staples on the bascinet to which the carvail was
laced.

_Vireton_, an arrow for the crossbow with curving wings, to produce
a spinning motion.

_Visera_, It. }
_Visor_, } that part of the helmet, movable or fixed,
_Vista_, Sp. } which protects the eyes.

_Volant-piece_, reinforcing piece for the tilt to protect the breast
and lower half of the face; possibly a spring breastplate.

_Volet_, the round disc at the back of the armet.

_Volet_, Fr. an arrow or dart.

_Vor-arm_, Germ. see vambrace.

_Vorderfluge_, Germ. the front plate of the pauldron.

_Vorhelm_, Germ. see placcate.

_Voulge_, a weapon somewhat similar to the Lochaber axe; used mostly
by the peasants.

_Voyders_, see gussets.

_Voyding knife_, a knife for disembowelling deer.

_Vuiders_, } see gussets.
_Vuyders_, }

_Wafter_, English dummy blade for fencing, XVI cent.

_Wambais_, see gambeson.

_Wappen rock_, Germ. a cloak decorated heraldically.

_Welsches gestech_, German name for the Italian course of jousting
over the tilt or barrier with blunted lance.

_Whiffler_, a two-hand swordsman who cleared the way in processions.

_Wifle_, a practice-sword, possibly a two-hander.

_Winbrede_, } see gagnepain.
_Wynbred_, }

_Wire hat_, see coif.

_Zucchetto_, It. a species of burgonet, XVII cent.

_Zweyhander_, Germ. two-handed sword.

APPENDIX A

DOCUMENT FROM THE RECORDS OF THE ARMOURERS’ COMPANY, LONDON, 1322

This is a regulation that no armourer should attempt to sell
_Bascuettes_ (Bascinets) covered with fabric, but should show them
uncovered, so that the workmanship might be seen and approved.

ARMOURERS’ COMPANY OF LONDON

Lib. C, fol. 33, 15 Edw. II, 1322

Edward ye Second

Be it remembered that in ye hustinge of comon plaes holden ye
Mondaie in ye feaste of ye conversion of Saint Paule, ye yere of ye
reigne of our Lord ye king Edward, ye son of king Edward, xv th.,
in ye presence of Sir Hamen de Chigewelle then Maior, Nicholas de
farringdon and by assent of Hugh de Auggeye, &c. Armorers. It is
was ordeyned for ye comon proffyt and assented that from henceforth
all Armor made in ye Cytie to sell be good and convenable after ye
forme that henceforth That is to saie that an Akton and Gambezon
covered with sendall or of cloth of Silke be stuffed with new
clothe of cotten and of cadar and of oldn sendal and not otherwise.
And that ye wyite acketonnes be stuffed of olde lynnen and of
cottone and of new clothe wth in and wth out. Also forasmuch as
men have founde old bascuette broken and false now newly covered
by men that nothing understand of ye mystery wh be putt in pryvie
places and borne out into ye contrye out of ye said Cytie, to sell
and in ye same citie of wh men may not gaine knowledge whether they
be good or ill, of ye wh thinge greate yill might fall to ye king
and his people, and a greate slaunder to ye Armorers aforesaid
and to all ye Cytie. It is ordeyned and assented that no Farrar
ne other man that maketh ye Irons of bascuette hereafter so to
be covered no bascuett by himself to sell be free but that he
shall sell out of his hande will open and ungarnished as men have
used before this tyme. And ye which shall abide ungarnished until
they be sene by the myor that shall be sworn or by ny of Cz’ens
whether they be convenable to garnishe or no. And there be found
in any Court of Armorers or else where in wch Court is Armor for
to sell, whatsoever it be, that is not proffytable or otherwise
than is ordeyned and none be it taken and brought before ye Maior
and Aldermen and hys Czens to be demed good or ill after their
discretion. And for the wch thing well and lawfully to be kept and
surveyed Roger Savage Willm. De Langgull, Richard Johonnez (John
Conny) being sworne. And if they myor may not attend that ij of
them Do that longeth thereto.

Fol. 135. ffirst it is a general Article ordeyned for all ye crafte
of London and centred in ye Chamber of ye Guildhall of ye said City
in ye booke wth ye letter C in ye xxxv leaffe in ye tyme of Adam
Bury Maior, in ye yere of ye reigne of king Ed. ye thirde after ye
conquest.

Lib. v. xd. It is ordeyned that all ye crafte of ye citie of
London be truely ruled and governed every person in his nature in
due maner so that no falsehood ne false workemanshipp nor Deceipt
be founde in no maner wise in any of ye foresaid crafte for ye
worshipp of ye good folke of all ye same crafte and for the comon
proffytt of ye people.

APPENDIX B

REGULATIONS OF THE HEAUMERS, 21 EDWARD III, 1347

City of London Letter Book F, fol. cxlii

The Points of the Articles touching the trade of Helmetry
accepted by Geffrey de Wychingham, Mayor, and the Aldermen at the
suit and request of the folks of the said trade:--

In the first place that no one of the said trade shall follow
or keep seld of the trade aforesaid within the franchise of the
City of London until he shall have properly bought his freedom,
according to the usages of the said City, on pain of losing his
wares.

Also forasmuch as heretofore some persons coming in who are
strangers have intermeddled and still do intermeddle in the making
of helmetry, whereas they do not know the trade, by reason whereof
many great men and others of the realm have been slain through
their default, to the great scandal of the said trade: It is
ordained that no person shall from henceforth intermeddle with or
work at helmetry if he be not proved to be a good, proper, and
sufficient workman by the Wardens of the said trade on pain of
forfeiture to the use of the Chamber.

Also that three or four if need be of the best workmen of the said
trade shall be chosen and sworn to rule the trade well and properly
as is befitting for security and safety of the great men and others
of the realm, and for the honour and profit of the said City and of
the workers of the said trade.

Also that no apprentice shall be received by any master of the said
trade for less than seven years; and that without collusion or
fraud on paying to the said Chamber 100 shillings.

Also that no one of the said trade or other person of the Franchise
shall set any stranger to work who is of the said trade if he be
not a proper and lawful person, and one for whom the master will
answer as to his good behaviour, on pain of paying to the said
Chamber 20 shillings.

Also that no apprentice of the said trade who shall be indebted to
his master in any sum of money at the end of his term shall serve
henceforth any other person than his own master, nor shall he
depart from such service or be into the service of another person
in any way received until he shall have fully given satisfaction
for his debt to his master. And he who shall receive in any other
manner the servant or apprentice of another person shall pay to the
said Chamber 20 shillings.

Also that helmetry and other arms forged by the hammer which are
brought from the parts without this land beyond the seas, or
from any other place unto the said City for sale, shall not from
henceforth be in any way offered for sale privily or openly until
they have been properly assayed by the aforesaid Wardens and marked
with their mark, on pain of forfeiting such helmetry and arms to
the said Chamber as shall be so offered for sale.

Also that each one of the makers aforesaid shall have his own mark
and sign, and that no one of them shall counterfeit the sign or
mark of another on pain of losing his freedom until he shall have
bought the same back again and made satisfaction to him whose sign
he shall have so counterfeited, and further he shall pay to the
Chamber 40 shillings.

Wardens of the same trade chosen and sworn,
ROBERT DE SHIRWODE,
RICHARD BRIDDE,
THOMAS CANOUN.

APPENDIX C

TREATISE OF WORSHIP IN ARMS, BY JOHAN HILL, ARMOURER TO HENRY VI,
1434

TRAYTESE OF THE POYNTES OF WORSHIP IN ARMES BY JOHAN HYLL, ARMORER
SERGEANT IN THE KINGE’S ARMORY 1434

Bod. Lib., Ashmole. MS. 856, art. 22, pp. 376-83

[376] Too my leve Lordes here nowe next folowinge is a Traytese
compyled by Johan Hyll Armorier Sergeant in the office of Armory
wt. Kinges Henry ye 4th and Henry ye 5th of ye poyntes of Worship
in Armes and how he shall be diversely Armed & gouverned under
supportacion of faveur of alle ye Needes to coverte adde & amenuse
where nede is by the high comandement of the Princes that have
powair so for to ordeyne & establishe

The first Honneur in Armes is a Gentilman to fight in his Souverain
Lords quarell in a bataille of Treason sworne withinne Listes
before his souverain Lorde whether he be Appellant or Defendant ye
honneur is his that winneth ye feelde.

As for the appellant thus Armed by his owne witte or by his
counsaille wch is assigned to him before Conestable & Marchall ye
wch Counsaille is ordeyned & bounden to teche hym alle maner of
fightynge & soteltees of Armes that longeth for a battaile sworne

First hym nedeth to have a paire of hosen of corde wtoute vampeys
And the saide hosen kutte at ye knees and lyned wtin wt Lynnen
cloth byesse as the hose is A payre of shoen of red Lether thynne
laced & fretted underneth wt whippecorde & persed, And above
withinne Lyned wt Lynnen cloth three fyngers in brede double &
byesse from the too an yncle above ye wriste. And so behinde at ye
hele from the Soole halfe a quarter of a yearde uppe this is to
fasten wele to his Sabatons And the same Sabatons fastened under
ye soole of ye fote in 2 places hym nedeth also a petycote of an
overbody of a doublett, his petycote wt oute sleves, ye syses of
him 3 quarters aboute wt outen coler. And that other part noo
ferther thanne [377] ye waste wt streyte sieves and coler and
cutaine oylettes in ye sleves for ye vaunt bras and ye Rerebrase

Armed in this wise First behoveth Sabatouns grevis & cloos quysseux
wt voydours of plate or of mayle & a cloos breche of mayle wt
5 bokles of stele ye tisseux of fyne lether. And all ye armyng
poyntes after they ben knytte & fastened on hym armed that ye
poyntes of him be kutte of

And thanne a paire of cloos gussetts strong sclave not drawes and
thatye gussets be thre fingers withinne his plates at both assises
And thanne a paire of plattes at xx li lib weight his breste & his
plats enarmed to ... wt wyre or wt poyntes. A pair of Rerebraces
shitten withinne the plates before wt twi forlockes and behinde wt
thre forlocks. A paire of vaunt bras cloos wt voydours of mayle &
fretted. A pair of gloves of avantage wche may be devised. A basnet
of avauntage for ye listes whiche is not goode for noon other
battailles but man for man save that necessitie hath noo lawe, the
basnet locked baver & vysour locked or charnelled also to ye brest
& behynde wt two forlockes. And this Gentilman appellent aforesaide
whanne he is thus armed & redy to come to ye felde do on hym a cote
of armes of sengle tarten ye beter for avauntage in fighting. And
his leg harneys covered alle wt reed taritryn the wche ben called
tunictes for he coverynge of his leg harneys is doen because his
adversarie shal not lightly espye his blode. And therefore also
hen his hosen reed for in alle other colours blode wol lightly
be seyne, for by the oolde tyme in such a bataile there shulde
noo thing have be seyn here save his basnett & his gloves. And
thanne tye on hym a payre of besagewes. Also it fitteth the [378]
foresaide counsaille to goo to ye kyng the daye before ye bataille
& aske his logging nigh ye listes. Also ye foresaide Counsaille
must ordeyne hym the masses ye first masse of ye Trinitie ye
seconde of ye Holy Goste & ye thirde of owre Ladye or elles of what
other sainte or saintes that he hath devocion unto

And that he be watched alle that night ... hym that he is watched
and light in his Chambre alle that night that his counsaille may
wite how that he slepeth. And in ye mornyng whanne he goeth to his
Masses that his herneys be leyed at ye North end of ye Auter and
covered wt a cloth that ye gospell may be redde over it and at ye
laste masse for to be blessed wt ye preist and whanne he hath herde
his Masses thanne to goo to his dyner. And soo to his Armyng in
ye forme aforesaide. And whanne he is armed and alle redy thanne
to come to ye feelde in forme to fore rehersed, thanne ... his
counsaille bounden to counsaille hym & to teche hym how he shal
gouverne hym of his requests to ye kyng or he come into ye feelde
and his entrie into ye felde and his gouvernance in the feelde
for ye saide Counsaille hath charge of hym before Constable and
Mareschal til that Lesses les aller be cryed. The whiche requestes
ben thus that ye saide Appellant sende oon his counsaille to the
kyng for to requeste hym that whanne he cometh to ye barrers to
have free entrie wt his counsaille Confessour & Armorers wt alle
maner of Instruments wt breede & wyne hymself bringing in in an
Instrument that is to saye a cofre or a pair of bouges. Also their
fyre cole & belyes and that his chayre wt [379] certaine of his
Servants may be brought into ye feelde and sette up there the houre
of his comyng that it may cover hym and his counsaille whanne he is
comen into ye feelde this forsaide gentilman Appellant comyng to
ye Listes whether he wol on horsebak or on fote wt his counsaille
Confessour & other Servaunts aforesaide havyng borne be fore hym
by his counsaille a spere a long swerde a short swerde & a dagger
fastined upon hymself his swerdes fretted and beasagewed afore ye
hiltes havyng noo maner of poyntes for and ther be founden that
day on hym noo poyntes of wepons thanne foirre, it shall tourne
hym to gret reproof. And this gentilman appellant that come to ye
barrers at ye Southeest sone, his visier doune And he shal aske
entrie where shal mete hym Constable and Mareschal and aske hym
what art thou. And he shal saye I am suche a man & telle his name
to make goode this day by ye grace of God that I have saide of
suche a man and tell hys name bifore my Souain Lord and they shal
bidde hym putte up his visier and whanne he hath put up his visier
they shal open the barrers and lette hym inne and his counsaille
before hym & wt hym his Armorers & his servaunts shal goo streight
to his chayer wt his breed his wyne & alle his instruments that
longe unto hym save his weppons. And whanne he entreth into the
felde that he blesse hym soberly and so twys or he come to before
his Souverain Lord And his Counsailles shall do thair obeisaunce
before thair souverain Lord twys or they come to the degrees of
his scaffolde and he to obeye him wt his heed at both tymes Then
whanne they to fore thair souverain Lord they shal knele a downe
and he also they shal aryse or he aryse he shal obeye hym at his
heed to his souverain Lord and then aryse and whanne he is up on
his feete he shal blesse hym and turne hym to his chayre and at the
entryng of his chayr [380] soberly tourne hym his visage to his
souverain Lord wards and blesse hym and thanne tourne hym againe
and soo go into his chayre and there he maye sitte hym downe and
take of his gloves and his basnet and so refresh hym till the houre
of hys Adversarie approche wt breed and wyne or wt any other thing
that he hath brought in wt hym. And whanne the Defendaunt his
Adversarie cometh in to the feelde that he be redy armed againe or
that he come into the feelde standing withoute his chayre taking
hede of his Adversaries comyng in and of his countenance that he
may take comfort of. And whanne the defendant his Adversarie is
come int ye felde and is in his chayre thanne shal the kyng send
for his wepons and se him and the Conestable and the Marschal also
and if they be leefull they shal be kept in the feelde & kutte
the same day by ye comaundement of the kyng and the Conestable
and Mareschal in ye kynge’s behalve. And thanne fitteth to the
foresaide counsaille to arme hym and to make hym redy against that
he be called to his first ooth and whanne he is called to his
first oothe thanne fitteth it to alle his counsaille to goo wt hym
to his first ooth for to here what the Conestable and Mareschal
seyen unto hym and what contenaunce he maketh in his sweryng And
whanne he hath sworne they shl ryse up by ye comaundement of the
Conestable and Mareschal. And whanne he is on his feete he shal
obey hym to his Souverain Lord and blesse hym and thanne turne hym
to his chayre his visage to his souveraine Lord wards and in his
goinge blesse hym twys by ye weye or he come to his chayre. And at
ye [381] entryng to his chayre soberly tourne hym his visage to his
Souverain Lord wards and blesse hym and soo go into his chayre.
Thanne fitteth it to his fore saide Counsaille to awayte where
the defendaunt shal come to his first ooth and that they be ther
as sone as he for to here how he swereth for he must nedes swere
that al that ever th appellant hath sworne is false substance and
alle. And if he wol not swere that every worde & every sillable
of every worde substance and alle is false the Counsaille of ye
saide appellant may right wisly aske jugement by lawe of Civile and
raison of Armes forafter ye juge is sette there shulde noo plee be
made afore hym that daye.

And if so be that the Defendant swere duly thanne ye Counsaille of
the foresaide Appellant shal goo to his chayre agayne and abide
ther til they be sent for. And thanne shal they bringe hym to hys
second Ooth and here how he swereth and whanne he hath sworne they
shal goo wt hym to hys chayre againe in the forme aforesaide. And
whanne he is in his chayre the saide Counsaille shal awayte whanne
ye Defendaunt cometh to his seconde ooth and here how he swereth
and if he swere under any subtil teerme cantel or cavellacion the
foresaide Counsaille of th appellant may require the jugement.
And if he swere duely thanne shal ye Counsaille of ye foresaide
Appellant goo to his chayre againe and abide there til they be
sent for. And thanne shal they brynge hym to his thirde ooth
and assuraunce. And whanne they be sworne and assured the saide
appellant wt his Counsaile shal goo againe to his chayre in the
fourme afore saide and there make [382] hym redy and fastene upon
hym his wepons and so refresche hym til ye Conestable and Mareschal
bid hym come to ye feeld. Thanne shal his Armorers and his
Servaunts voyde the Listes wt his chayre and alle his Instruments
at ye Comandement of ye Conestable and Mareschal. Thanne fitteth it
to the Counsaille of the saide Appellant to ask a place of ye kyng
afore hym withinne the barres upon his right hande that ye saide
Counsaille of th appellant may come and stande there whanne they be
discharged of ye saide Appellant.

The cause is this that suche pyte may be given to ye kyng if God
that noon of hem shal dye that daye for he may by his prowaie royal
in such a cas take it into his hande the foresaide Counsaille of
the Appellant to abyde in the saide place til the kyng have geven
his jugement upon him--And thanne ye Conestable and Mareschal shal
deliwer the foresaide Appellant by ye Comandement of the kyng to
his foresaide Counsaille to govern hym of his going out of ye
feelde as wele as they did of his comyng in his worship to be
saved in al that lyeth en hem. And soo to bryng hym to his Logging
agayne to unarme hym comforte hym and counsaille hym And some of
his Counsaille may goo to the kyng and comon wt hym and wite of the
kyng how he shal be demeaned. This enarmyng here aforesaide is best
for a battaille of arreste wt a sworde a dagger an Ax and a pavys
til he come to th asseblee his sabatons & his tunycle evoyded And
thanne the Auctor Johan Hyll dyed at London in Novembre the xiii th
yere of kyng Henry the Sixt so that he accomplished noo mor of ye
compylyng of this [383] trayties on whose soulle God have mercy for
his endles passion Amen.

APPENDIX D

TRAITÉ DU COSTUME MILITAIRE, 1446

_Bib. Nat., Paris_ (fonds Français, 1997)

Given in full in _Du Costume Militaire des Français en 1446_, René
de Belleval, 1866

Mais quant à la faczon de leur harnoys de jouste, suis content de
le vous déclairer plus largement, affin que pour lavenir ceulx qui
voudront jouster y preignent exemple, soit de y adjouster ou de y
oster, comme mieulx verront et congnoisteront y estre nécessaire.

Et tout premièrement vueil commancer au harnoys de teste, cest
assavoir au heaume, lequel est fait en ceste faczon, comme cy après
me orrez déclairer; et premièrement lesdiz heaumes sont, sur le
sommet de la teste jusques à la veue, fors et espes et ung pou sur
le rondelet, par faczon que la teste ne touche point encontre,
ainçois y peut avoir espace de troiz doiz entre deux.

Item, de dessobz de la veue du heaume, qui arme par davant tout le
visaige depuis les deux aureilles jusques à la poitrine et endroit
les yeulx qui s’appelle la veue, avance et boute avant troiz bons
doiz ou plus que n’est le bort de dessus; entre lequel bort de
dessus et celuy de dessobz ny a bonnement despace que ung bon doy
et demy pour y povoir veoir, et n’est ladicte veue, tant dun cousté
que dautre, fendue que environ dun espan de long, mais voulentiers
vers le cousté sénestre est ladicte veue plus clouse et le bort
plus en bouty dehors que n’est de lautre costé droict.

Item, et ledit dessobz ladicte veue marche voluntiers sur la pièce
de dessus la teste deux bons doiz, tant dun cousté que dautre de
la veue, et cloué de fors clox qui ont les uns la teste enbotie,
et les autres out la teste du clou limée affin que le rochet ny
prengne.

Item, la pièce dessusditte qui arme le visaige est voluntiers large
et destendant presque dune venue jusques à la gorge, ou plus bas,
affin quelle ne soit pas si près des visaiges quant les cops de
lance y prennent. Ainçois qui le veult faire à point fault quil
y ait quatre doiz despace du moins entre deux. Et à ceste dicte
pièce, du costé droict de la lance, endroit la joue, deux ou trois
petites veues qui viennent du long depuis le hault de la joue
jusques au collet du pourpoint, affin que l’en nait schault dedens
le heaulme, et aussi affin que on puisse mieulx ouir ou veoir celuy
qui le sert de la lance.

Item, l’autre pièce dudit heaume arme depuis les aureilles par
darrière le long du coul jusques trois doiz sur les espaulles par
bas, et par hault, aussi jusques à trois doiz sur la nuque du coul.
Et vient faczonnée une arreste aval qui vient en estroississant sur
le collet du pourpoint, et se relargist sur les espaulles en deux;
laquelle pièce dessusdicte nest jamais faicte forte ne espesse,
ainçois la plus legière que on la peult faire est la meilleure; et
pour conclusion faire ces trois pièces dessusdictes font le heaulme
entier.

* * * * *

Item, quant à larmeure du corps, il y en a de deux faczons; cest
assavoir: la première comme curasse à armer saufve que le voulant
est clox et arresté à la pièce, par faczon que le voulant ne peut
aller ne jouer hault ne bas.

Item, lautre faczon est de brigandines ou aultrement dit
currassines, couvertez et clouées par pièces petittes depuis la
poitrine en a bas, ne ny a aultre différance de celle cy aux
brigandines que on porte en la guerre, sinon que tout ce que
contient la poitrine jusques aux faulx est dune seulle pièce et
se lace du costé de la main droite ou par darrière du long de
leschine. Item, larrest est espès, grox et matériel au plaisir de
celui qui le fait faire.

Item, oudit harnoys de corps y a principallement deux boucles
doubles, ou une boucle double et ung aneau limé, ou meilleu de
la poitrine, plus hault quatre doiz que le faulx du corps, et
lautre du cousté sénestre longues; de lautre ung pou plus haulte:
lesquelles deux boucles ou aneau sont pour atacher ledit heaume
à la curasse ou brigandine; cest assavoir: la première sert pour
metre une tresse ou corroye oudit heaulme à une autre pareille
boucle comme celle là, qui est oudit heaume clouée sur la pate
dudit heaume davant le plus à lendroit du meillieu du travers que
len peult, et out voulentiers lesdictes tresses et couvertures
de cueur trois doubles lun sur lautre; lautre seconde boucle ou
aneau à main sénestre respont pareillement à une aultre boucle
ou aneau qui est oudit heaulme à la sénestre partie sur la pate
dudit heaulme; et ces deux boucles ou aneaux sénestres servent
espéciallement pour la buffe, cest assavoir que quand le rochet
atache (_a touché_) sur le hault de lescuczon ou heaume, ceste
tresse ou courroye dessusdicte garde que le heaulme ne se joigne à
la joe sénestre par la faczon que ledit jousteur en puisse estre
depis.

Item, en ladicte brigandine ou curasse y a en la senestre partie en
la poitrine, près du bort du braz senestre, à ung doy près endroit
le tour du braz hault, troiz doiz plus bas que la boucle de quoy
on lasse ladicte brigandine sur lespaulle, ung crampon de fer du
gros dun doy en ront, dont les deux chefz sont rivez par dedens
et ladicte pièce au mieulx quil se puet faire, et dedens dudit
crampon se passe deux ou trois tours une grosse tresse bonne et
forte qui depuis passe parmy la poire, laquelle poire est assise et
cache ledit crampon; de laquelle poire la haulteur est vouluntiers
dun bon doy, sur laquelle lescu repose, et est ataché par lesdits
pertuys dudit escu de la tresse qui est atachée audit crampon,
laquelle sort par le meilleu de ladicte poire.

Item, en ladicte curasse y a darrière, ou meilleu du creux de
lespaulles, une boucle ou aneau qui sert pour atacher une tresse ou
courroie à une autre boucle du heaulme darrière, si que le heaulme
ne chée davant, et affin aussi que la veue soit de la haulteur et
demeure ferme que le jousteur la vieult.

Item, oultre plus en ladicte curasse y a ung petit aneau plus has
que nul des aultres, assis plus vers le faillement des coustez à la
main sénestre, auquel len atache dune aultre legière tresse la main
de fer, laquelle main de fer est tout dune pièce et arme la main et
le braz jusques troiz ou quatre doiz oultre le code.

Item, depuis le code jusques au hault, cache (_cachant_) tout
le tour de lespaulle y a ung petit garde braz dune pièce, et se
descent jusques sur le code quatre doiz.

Item, à la main droite y a ung petit gantellet lequel se appelle
gaignepain; et depuis le gantellet jusques oultre le code, en lieu
de avant braz, y a une armeure qui se appelle espaulle de mouton,
laquelle est faczonnée large endroit le code, et se espanouist
aval, et endroit la ploieure du braz se revient ploier par faczon
que, quant len a mis la lance en larrest, laditte ploieure de
laditte espaulle de mouton couvre depuis la ploieure du braz ung
bon doy en hault.

Item, pour armeure de lespaulle droite y a ung petit garde braz
fait à lames, sur lequel y a une rondelle joignant une place,
laquelle rondelle se haulse et se besse quant on vieult metre la
lance en larrest, et se revient recheoir sur la lance quant elle
est oudit arrest, par telle faczon quelle couvre ce que est désarmé
en hault dentre la lance et ledit garde braz.

Item, aussi oudit royaulme de France se arment de harnoys de jambes
quant ilz joustent.

Item, quant à la faczon des estacheures dudit harnoys par bas,
si que il ne sourmonte point encontremont par force des copz, je
men passe à le déclairer pour le présent, car il y en a pluseurs
faczons. Ne aussi daultre part ne me semble pas si quil se doye
divulguer si publicquement.

Item, quant est des lances, les plus convenables raisons de
longueur entre grappe et rochet, et aussy celles de quoy on use
plus communuement est de treze piez ou de treze piez et demy de
long.

Item, et lesdiz rochez sont vouluntiers de ouverture entre chascune
des trois pointes de deux doiz et demy ou trois au plus.

Item, lesdictes grappes sont voulentiers plaines de petittes
pointes agues (_aiguës_) comme petiz dyamens, de grosseur comme
petittes nouzilles, lesquelles pointes se viennent arrester dedens
le creux de larrest, lequel creux de larrest plain de bois ou de
plomb affin que lesdittes pointes ne puissent fouir, par quoy
vient ladicte lance à tenir le cop: en faczon quil fault que elle
se rompe en pièces, que len assigne bien ou que le jousteur ploye
leschine si fort que bien le sente.

Item, les rondes dessusdictes lances ne couvrent tout autour au
plus aller que ung demy pié, et sont vouluntiers de trois doiz
despès de bourre feutrée entre deux cuirs, du cousté devers la main
par dedens.

Et oultre plus pour faire fin à la manière que len se arme en
fait de jouxtes ou pais et contrée que jay cy desous déclaié, ne
diray aultre chose pour le présent, sinon que ung bon serviteur
dun jousteur doit regarder principallement trois choses sur son
maistre avant quil luy donne sa lance; cest assavoir que ledit
jousteur ne soit désarmé de nulles de ses armeures par le cop
précédent; laultre si est que ledit jousteur ne soit point estourdy
ou méhaigné pareillement par ledit cops précédent quil aura eu; le
tiers si est que ledit serviteur doit bien regarder sil y a autre
prest sur les rengs qui ait sa lance sur faulte, et prest pour
jouster contre sondit maistre, affin que sondit maistre ne tienne
trop longuement sans faire course la lance en larrest, ou quil ne
face sa course en vain et sans que autre vienne à lencontre de luy.

APPENDIX E

EXTRACTS FROM THE ORDINANCES OF THE ARMOURERS OF ANGERS

STATUTS DES ARMURIERS FOURBISSEURS D’ANGERS, 1448

1. Quiconque vouldra estre armurier ou brigandinier, fourbisseur et
garnisseur d’espées et de harnois ... faire le pourra....

2. It. les quels maistres desd. mestiers seront tenus besoigner
et faire ouvrage de bonnes étoffes, c’est assavoir pour tant
que touche les armuriers, ils feront harnois blancs pour hommes
d’armes de toute épreuve qui est à dire d’arbalestes à tilloles
et à coursel a tout le moins demie espreuve, qui est a entendre
d’arbaleste a crocq et traict e’archiers, et pour tant que touche
les brigandiniers ils seront tenus pareillement faire brigandines,
c’est assavoir les plus pesantes de 26 à 27 livres poix de marc
tout au plus, tenant espreuve d’arbaleste a tillolles et marquées
de 2 marques, et les moindres de 18 a 20 livres, tel poix que
dessusu et d’espreuve d’arbaleste a crocq et traict d’archier,
marquées d’une marque. Et seront icelles brigandines d’assier,
trampees partout et aussi toutes garnies de cuir entre les lames
et la toile, c’est assavoir en chacune rencontre de lames, et ne
pourront faire lesd. brigandines de moindre poix de lame....

3. It. et fauldra qe lesd. lames soient limees tout a l’entour a ce
que tes ettoffes durent plus largement....

10. Que las marchans et ouvriers desd. mestiers, tant faiseurs
d’espées, haches, guysarmes, voulges, dagues et autres habillemens
de guerre, seront tenus de faire tout ouvrage bon, loyal, et
marchant.

11. It. que tous fourbisseurs et garnisseurs d’espées, tant vielles
que neuves, seront tenus de faire fourraux de cuirs de vache et de
veau, et les jointures de cuir de vache, la poignee d’icelles nouee
de fouer [fouet?] et se aucunes poignées sont faictes de cuir,
icelles poignées seront garnies de fisselles par dessouez, led.
cuir.

12. Et pareillement les atelles des fourreaux seront neufvs et de
bois de fouteau sec....

18. It. que nuls marchans ne maistres forains ne pourront tenir
ouvrouers ne boutiques de harnois, brigandines, javelines, lances,
picques ne espees, ne choses deppendantes desd. mestiers en ceste
ville s’ils ne sont maistres en cette ville.

_Ordonn. des rois_, T. XX, p. 156, etc.

AGREEMENT TO SUPPLY ARMOUR BY FOREIGN ARMOURERS IN BORDEAUX

1375. Conegude cause sie que Guitard de Junquyères, armurer de
Bordeu, Lambert Braque, d’Alemaine, armurer de cotes de fer,
reconegon e autreyan e en vertat confessan aver pres e recebut
de la man de Moss. de Foxis 100 florins d’aur d’Aragon, per los
quans lo prometan e s’obligan aver portat a Morlaas 60 bacinetz ab
capmalh e 60 cotes de fer o plus si plus poden, boos e sufficientz.

_Arch. des B. Pyrénées_, E, 302, fol. 129.

PERMISSION GRANTED BY LOUIS XI TO FOREIGN ARMOURERS TO PRACTISE IN
BORDEAUX FOR TWENTY YEARS

1490. Sachent tous ... que cum le temps passe de 6 ans ou environ
Estienne Daussone, Ambroye de Caron, Karoles et Glaudin Bellon
natifs du pays de Mylan en Lombardie et Pierre de Sonnay natif de
la duché de Savoye, les quels ce fussent associés, acompaignés et
adjustez entre eulx l’un avecques l’autre, de faire leur résidence
pesonnelle et continuelle a ouvrer et trafiquer du mestier de
armurerie et pour l’espace de 20 ans ou environ....

_Min. dec. not. Frapier, Arch. de la Gironde, Rev. d’Aquitaine_,
XII, 26.

APPENDIX F

EXPENSES OF THE ROYAL ARMOURIES, _TEMP._ HENRY VIII

Brit. Mus., Cotton., Appendix XXVIII, f. 76

1544

The charges of the king’s own armoury accounting the Master of the
Armourie’s fee, the Clerk & Yeoman’s wages and 5 armourers for his
Highness’ own person with 1 Gilder 2 Lockyers, 1 Millman and a
prentice, in the year.

In primis the Master of the Armouries fee by the year
and is paid by the Customer of Cichister’s hands xxxi xi

Item the Clerk and Yeoman both, for their wages 22/-
the month apiece and is paid by the Treasurer of
the Chamber by the year xxviii xii

Item Erasmus the chief Armourer hath for his wages
by the month 26/8 and is paid by the said Treasurer xvii vi viii

Item Old Martyn hath 38/10 the month which is by the
year xxv v x

Item Mathew Dethyke hath 24/- the month which is
by the year xv xii

Item Hans Clinkedag hath 24/- the month which is by
the year xv xii

Item Jasper Kemp hath 24/- the month which is by
the year xv xii

Item the Gilders wages by the year xl

Item the 2 Lockyers have 20/- a month apiece which
is by the year xxvi

Item 1 Millman 24/- a month which is by the year xv xii

Item for the prentice 6d. for the day ix x

Item for 8 bundles of steel to the said armoury for
the whole year 38/- the bundle xv iiii

Item for the costs of the house at £7 0 0 the month
which is by the year xxiiii xi
----------------
c. li. s. d.

Sm. iii viii viii iiii

In primis the wages of 12 armourers, 2 locksmiths and
4 prentices to be divided into two shops, every of
the Armourers their wages at 24/- the month and
the Locksmiths at 20/- a month and every prentice
6d. the day amounteth by the year to clv xii

Item the wages of 2 millmen at 24/- the month xxxi iiii

Item to every of the said shops 4 loads of charcoal a
month at 9/- the load xlvi xix

Item for 16 bundles of steel to serve both shops a
whole year at 38/- the bundle xxx viii

Item 1 hide of buff leather every month for both shops
at 10/- the hide vi x

Item for both shops 1 cowhide a month at 6/8 the hide iiii vi viii

Item one 100 of iron every month for both shops at
6/8 the 100 iiii vi viii

Item in wispe steel for both shops every month 15 4⅛
at 4d. the lb. lxv

Item in wire monthly to both shops 12 lb. at 4d. lb. lii

Item in nails & buckles for both shops monthly 5/- lxv

Item to every of the said Armourers Locksmiths &
Millmen for their liveries 4 yards broad cloth at 5/-
the yard and 3 yards of carsey at 2/- the yard which
amounteth in the year for 12 armourers 2 Locksmiths
and 2 Millmen at 26/- for a man xx xvi

So that these 12 armourers 2 Locksmiths 2 Millmen
and 4 prentices will make yearly with the said 16
bundles of steel and the other stuff aforesaid 32
harnesses complete, every harness to be rated to the c xx
kings Highness at £12 0 0 which amounteth in the iii iiii
year towards his Grace’s charge iiii

Item of the said Armourers to be divided into 2 shops
as is aforesaid 4 of them shall be taken out of
Erasmus’ shop wherein his Grace shall save yearly
in their wages and living the sum of lxviii

APPENDIX G

PETITION OF THE ARMOURERS OF LONDON TO QUEEN ELIZABETH

July 13th, 1590 (Lansdowne MS. 63, 5)

To the Right Honourable the Lords & others of the Queens Most
honourable Privie Counseil.

In most humble wise shew & beseche your honours your poor
suppliants the Armourers of London that whereas we having been
at great charges these six or seven years as well in making &
providing tools & instruments as in entertaining and keeping of
foreign men from beyond the seas to learn & practice the making of
armour of all sorts which by the goodness of God we have obtained
in such sort that at this time we make not onlie great quantitie
But also have farre better armors than that wch cometh from beyond
the Seas as is sufficiently proved, and fearing that for lack of
sale and utterance of the same we shall not be able to keep &
maintain the number of our apprentices & servants which are vy
well practised in making of all sorts of armors. Our humble suite
therfore to yr honors is that it shall please you to be a means to
Her Mtie that we may be appointed to bring into her Mties Store
at reasonable prices monthly or quarterly the Armor that we shall
make till Her Mties Store shall be furnished with all sorts of
Armor in such numbers as Her Mtie shall think good & appoint. And
we and our posterity shall not only pry for your Honors but also
being strengthened by your Honors we do not doubt to serve this
land of Englishe Armor in future years as well as it is of Englishe
Calyvers and muskets wch within this thirtie years or thereabouts
was servd altogether with Outlandish peces with no money in respect
of those wch are now made in this land, And we are the more bould,
to make this our sute to your Honors because it is not a particular
Comoditie to us but a benefit to the whole land as may be proved by
these reasons viz:

1. Armour made in this land being not good, the makers may be
punished by the laws provided for the same.

2. It is a means to set a great number of Her Majesty’s subjects on
work in this land, which now setteth a great number of foreigners
on work in other lands.

3. It will furnish the land with skillfull men to make and fit
armour to men’s bodies in far better order than it hath been
heretofore.

4. We shall be provided within this land of good armour, what
restrayntments or quarrels so ever be in other lands, whereas
hertofore we have been beholding to other countries for very bad
armour.

5. We shall be free from all those dangers that may ensue by the
number of bad and insufficient armour which are brought into this
land by unskilfull men that know not what they buy and sell it
again to them that know not where to have better for their money
although they know it to be very bad.

Her Majesties armories at this parte are very weakly furnished and
that wch remaynes is neither good in substance nor yet in fashion.
So as if it might stande in wth yor. LL. good liking it is very
needfull the same should be supplied wth better choise.

The armor that is here made is accompted far better than that wch
cometh from beyond the Seas and would well servi for he Mties store
So as it might be delivered in good tyme wch the Armorers will
undertake to prove but the armor wch they make is wholly blacke,
so that unless they will undertake to serve white wth al it will
not be so serviceable. The proportion that shall be delivered I
refer to yor ll. consideracion theire offer is to deliver to the
number of eight thousand wth in fyve yeres and so after a further
proporcion it so shall seem good to yor LL. Theire severll prices
are hereunder written wch is as lowe as can bring it unto.

Launce armor compleat iii li vi s. viii d.
Corslets compleate xxx s.
Curate of proofe wth poldrons xl s.
Ordinary curate wth poldrons xxvi s. viii d.
Target of proofe xxx s.
Murrions iii s. iiii d.
Burgonetts iiii s.

Endorsed the humble petition of the Armorers of London.

It is signed by RICHARD HARFORD.
JOHN SEWELL.
RICHARD WOODE RW.
WM. PICKERING. 13 July 1590.
Lee to inform.

APPENDIX H

UNDERTAKING OF THE ARMOURERS’ COMPANY OF LONDON TO MAKE CERTAIN
ARMOURS EVERY SIX MONTHS AND THE PRICES OF THE SAME

From records of the Company dated 17th March, 1618

The Privy Council on the 15th of March, 1618, made inquiry:--

“Who be the ingrossers of Plate to make Armor in London, and
secondly what is the reason of the scarcity of Armor, and how it
may be remedied?”

The Company agreed to the following answer being sent:--

“That concerning the first we know no ingrossers of such Plate and
we have called to our Hall all the workmen of Armor in London and
we find them very few, for that in regard of the long peace which,
God be thanked, we have had, they have settled themselves to other
trades, not having imployment for making of Armor, nor the means
to utter the same if they should make it, for the remedy of which
scarcity, if it please the Privy Council to take order that the
Armorers’ work to be by them made in London, may be taken and paid
for at every six months’ end. They will undertake, if continually
employed, to use their best means for provision of stuff to make
armor in every six months to furnish One hundred Lance Armor, Two
hundred Light Horsemen’s Armor, and Two hundred Footmen’s Armor at
such rates and prices as followeth.”

The Lance Armor, containing Breast, Back, Gorget, Close Head piece,
Poulderons and vambraces, Gushes, and one Gauntlett, to colored
Russet, at the price of £4 0 0

The Light Horseman’s Armor being Breast, Back, Gorgett a barred
Head piece, Pouldrons, and an Elbowe Gauntlett, to be Russet, at
the price of £2 10 0

The Footman’s Armor, containing Breast, Back, Gorgett, head
piece, and laces, with iron joints, to be colored russet, at the
price of £1 10 0

APPENDIX I

PROCLAMATION AGAINST EXCESSIVE USE OF GOLD AND SILVER FOLIATE,
WHICH IS TO BE CONFINED TO ARMOUR AND ENSIGNS OF HONOUR

S.P.D. Jac. I, cv, February 4th, 1618. Procl. Collec. 65

... and furthermore the better to keepe the gold and silver of
this kingedome not onely within the Realme from being exported,
but that it may also bee continued in moneys and coyne, for the
use and commerce of his Majestie and his loving subjects and not
turned into any dead masse of Plate nor exhausted and consumed in
vanities of Building and pompous use of Gold and Silver Foliate
which have beene in the Reignes of divers kings of this Realme
... and the better to prevent the unnecessary and excessive waste
of Gold and Silver Foliate within this realeme; His Majestie doth
likewise hereby prohibit and forbid That no Gold or Silver Foliate
shall be from henceforth wrought, used or imployed in any Building,
Seeling, Waniscot, Bedsteds, Chayres, Stooles, Coaches or any other
ornaments whatsoever, Except it be Armour or Weapons or in Armes
and Ensignes of Honour at Funerals.

Feb. 4, 1618.

APPENDIX J

ERECTION OF PLATING-MILLS AT ERITH BY CAPT. JOHN MARTIN

1624

State Papers Domestic, Jac. I, Vol. CLXXX, 71

King Henry the eight being resolved to have his armorye alwayes
stronge and richly furnished wt thirtie or fowertie thousand armes
to be in Rediness to serve all the necessities of th times (how
suddaine so evr) caused a batterie mill to be built at Detford nere
Grenew^{ch} for the batteringe of plaetes for all sorts of armes
but dyed before the bsiness was perfected.

In the time of Queen Elizabeth Captain John Martin and myself
resolvinge on endeavors to the furtheringe so good a worke resolved
y^t I should go to Inspurge wch is uppon the Germaine Alpes and
into Lukland likewise to bring over into England seven or eight
plaeters, the beste that might be found (wch was donne to ow^r very
great chardges) and i[=m] ediately ther upp[=o] fallinge to worke
in a batterie mill wch we likewise erected nere unto Erith in Kent
and in y^t place wrought as many plates of all sorts as served
very nere for twentie thousand armors and targets never having the
misterie of plaeting mills in England before. All wch plaeters
formerly brought over are now dead save one, and he of so cunninge
and obstinate a disposition that he would nev^r yet be brought to
teach any Englishman the true misterie of plaeting unto this day.

The beste plaetes that have been formerly knowen to be in
Christendome have been made of Inspurg stuff wch place hath
continually served Milan Naples and other nations, and latelie
England also, wch place beinge so remote and in the Emperor his
owne countrie, it is not possible that wth any conveniencey any
stronge plaetes can be now bought from thence as formerly we
have had. But if his Ma^{tie} will be plesed to have his armorie
continually furnished wth thirtie or fortie thousand armes or more
to what number he shall be beste plesid as hath been the course
and resolution of his Roiall pdecessors, y^t may now be done wth
Englishe Irone, by a misterie yet unknown, either to smolten
plaetes or armour and to be of such strength and lightnes, for the
ease and pservation of the life of the souldier as none can be
better found in any nation in Christendome from the pistole to the
musket.

It hath been observed in all antient histories and in the rule of
our later moderne wars, that the goodness strength and lightness
of armes hath been so great an incoradgement unto the souldier as
hath made him stand faste in the time of great and strong chardges
of the enemye, and to give valiant and couradgeous chardges, and
assaults when they have been assured of the strength and goodness
of theyre armes.

The raetes for Plaetes and armors exactly examined for the prices
the strength and lightness considered are thus reduced.

The chardge of a tun of Armor plaetes £18 0 0
Two chaldron of coles wt. carriage will be 1 12 0
The workmen for battering this tun of plaetes will have
uppon every hundred 4/- 4 0 0
Reparation weekly for the mill 12 0
A clarke’s wages weekly 12 0
Extraordinary chardges toe & froe for carridges 10 0
----------
These particular chardges come to £25 6 0

The true chardge of all such sorts of armor as they will stand you
in wt. their severall [=p]portions and such apporveable goodness as
we never heretofore have had.

Sixe hundred of iron will make five hundred of plaetes
wch. will be a skore of ordinary curatts of pistoll
proofs wch. cometh toe wth pouldrons 5 10 0
The Armourers may make them wt due shape black
nayle and lether them for 7 10 0
These twentie armours will yeild 26 0 0
So in these twentie armours is clerely gained the
sum of 13 0 0
Fower hundred of plates will make 20 paier of curatts
wt out pouldrons 3 12 0
The Armorers may [=p]portion them, black lether & naile
them for 6 0 0
These 20 paire of curatts will yeld 20 0 0
In these 20 paire of curatts is clerely gained 10 8 0

The chardge of 20 lance armours.
Sixteen hundred of plaetes will make twentie lance
armours wch come to 14 8 0
The Armourers may finishe them upp for fourtie shillings
the armour wch comes to 40 0 0
These 20 launce armours will yeld fower pounds a piece
wch amounteth unto 80 0 0
So yt in these 20 launce armours is clerely gained 25 12 0
Five hundred of plaetes will make twentie proof targetts
wch will come to 4 10 0
The armourers may finishe them lether them and blacke
them with all other chardges for 12 0 0
Thes targets will yeld (24s.[147]) the piece 26 0 0
In these targetts may be cleared 9 10 0
Twelve hundred of plaetes will make 20 paire of stronge
curatts with stronge capps wch will stand in 10 16 0
The Armourers may finishe them for (30s.) the paire
wch amounteth unto 30 0 0
These 20 paier of stronge curatts wt their capps will
yeld 4 li. the paier wch cometh toe 80 0 0
So that by these 20 paier of stronge curatts will be
clerely gayned 39 10 0
[148]
With fower plaeters may be wrought up in one weeke
3700 weight of plates. The pfitt of wch weekly,
as by the particulars may appear will be 98 14 0
And if these fower plaeters be emploied the whole year
(abating one month in the year for idle dayes) it
amounteth unto per ann 4737 li. 12 0

FOOTNOTES:

[147] An error in the original--this should be 26s.

[148] Should be 4s.

APPENDIX K

HALL-MARK OF THE ARMOURERS’ COMPANY

Carolus I, ann. 7, 1631. Rymer, Vol. XIX, 309

“John Franklin, William Crouch, John Ashton, Thomas Stephens,
Rowland Foster, Nicholas Marshall, William Coxe, Edward Aynesley,
Armourers & freemen of the company of Armourers ar ordered to
deliver 1500 armours each month with arms, pikes &c. and to train
prentices and to mend, dress & stamp armours.” The document goes on
to state “you ar to approve of all such armour of the said common
armes & trayned bands as shall be found fit for service, and shall
trye all sorts of gunnes, pikes, bandaliers of the said common
armes and trayned bands before they be used or excersied and to
approve of such as are serviceable for warres at the owners charges
and being proved shall allow as fit for service and allowing
shall stamp the same with A. and a Crown being the hall mark for
the company of workmen armourers of London which marke or stamp
our pleasure is shall with consent of the lord lieutenant or his
deputy lieutenant remayne in their custodye who shall have the
charge to be intrusted with the execution of this service.... And
because diverse cutlers, smythes, tynkers & othe botchers of armes
by their unskilfulness have utterly spoiled many armes, armours
gunnes and pykes, and bandoliers ... we doe hereby prohibit that
noe person or persons whatever, not having served seven years or
been brought up as an apprentice or apprentices in the trade and
mysterie of an armourer, gun-maker, pyke-maker and bandolier-maker
and thereto served their full tyme of seven years as aforesaid ...
do make, alter, change, dress or repayr, prove or stamp any armes,
armours, gunnes, pykes or bandoliers ... we do absolutely forbid
that no ironmonger, cutler or chandler or other person whatsoever
doe vent or sell any armours, gunnes, pikes or bandoliers or any
part of them except such as shall be proved and stamped with the
said hall marke of the company of workmen armourers aforesaid being
the proofe marke ... that hereafter there shall be but one uniform
Fashion of Armour of the said Trayned Bands throughout our said
Kingdome of England & Dominion of Wales ... whereof the Patterns
are and shall remayne from tyme to tyme in our said Office (of
Ordinance).”

APPENDIX L

PETITION OF THE WORKMEN ARMOURERS OF LONDON TO THE COUNCIL

S.P.D. Car. I, cclxxxix, 93, May, 1635

Petitioners being few in number & most of them aged about 7 years
past sued to Her Mtie for some employment for preservation of
the manufacture of armour making within the kingdom. Her Mtie on
advice & report of the Council of War granted petitioners a patent
which 2 years passed the great seal & was then called for by the
Council for further consideration. Pray them to take the same into
consideration and the distress of petitioners & either to pass the
patent or if there be any omission in it to give orders for drawing
up another.

APPENDIX M

EXTRACT FROM SURVEY OF THE TOWER ARMOURY, 1660

Harl. MS. 7457

[Sidenote: _Greenwich._]

Wee doe find aswell upon our owne view as upon the information
of diverse officers of the Armoury stoorekeeper and others That
dureing the time of the late distraccions The severall Armes
amunition and Habiliments of Warre formerly remaineing in the
greene Gallery at Greenwich were all taken and carryed away by
sundry Souldiers who left the doore open; That sundry of the said
Armes were afterwards brought into the Tower of London by Mr.
Anneslye where they are still remaineing; That the Wainescot in
the said Gallery is now all pull’d downe and carryed away; and (as
We are informed) was imployed in wainescotting the house in the
Tower where the said Mr. Anneslye lived; That a great part of the
severall Tooles and other utensils for makeing of Armour formerly
remaineing in the Master Armourers workehouse there and at the
Armourers Mill, were alsoe within the tyme of the said distraccions
taken and carryed away (saving two old Trunkes bound about with
Iron, which are still remaineing in the said workehouse, One old
Glazeing wheele, still at the Mill, and one other glazeing wheele
sold to a Cutler in Shoo lane): That sundry of the said Tooles
and other utensills have since byn converted and sold to private
uses, by those who within the tyme of the late distraccions had the
Command and care of the said armes and Tooles, both at Greenwich
and at the Tower: That diverse of the said Tooles are still in
other private mens hands, who pretend they bought them: That the
great Anville (called the great Beare) is now in the custodye of
Mr. Michaell Basten, locksmith at Whitehall, and the Anville knowne
by the name of the little Beare, is in the custodie of Thomas Cope,
one of His Majesties Armourers; And one Combe stake in the Custody
of Henry Keeme one other of his Majesties Armourers And that the
said Mill formerly employed in grinding and glazeing and makeing
cleane of Armes, is destroyed and converted to other uses by one
Mr. Woodward who claims it by virtue of a Graunt from King James
(of blessed memorye) but the officers of the Armorye (for his
Majesties use) have it now in their possession.

[Sidenote: _Memorandum._]

That the severall distinguishments of the Armors and Furnitures
before mencioned, viz^t The first serviceable, The second
defective, and to be repaired, The third unserviceable, in their
owne kinds, yet may be employed for necessary uses, are soe
reported by Richard Kinge and Thomas Cox, two of his Majesties
Armorers at Greenwich, who were nominated and appointed in his
Majesties Commission, under his signe Manual before recited, to be
assistant in this Service: And we doe thinke the same to be by them
faithfully and honestly soe distinguished.

WILL. LEGGE, Master of his Majesties Armories.
J. ROBINSON, Lt: Ten: Toure.
JO. WOOD, Barth Beale.

INDEX

Alba, Duke of, 132

Albrecht, Harnischmeister, 9, 134

Almain armourers, 14

-- -- settle in England, 16

Almain Armourer’s Album, 19, 143

Almain rivet, 52

Amman, Jost, 24, 36

Angellucci, Major, on “proof,” 63, 67

Anvils, 24

Arbois, 14, 136

Armenia, Poisoned ore in, 40

Arming-doublet, 106

Arming-nails, 52

Arming-points, 30, 109, 111

Armour, Simplicity of English, 16

-- Boxes for, 82

-- cut up for lock-plates, 19

-- Disuse of, 116

-- Painted, 80

-- reinforced on left side, 52

-- Scarlet covering for, 93

-- Tinned, 33

-- Weights of, 42, 116

Armourers’ Company of London, 120

-- -- -- absorb the Bladesmiths, 124

-- -- -- and the informers Tipper and Dawe, 123

-- -- -- employed for coin-striking, 123

-- -- -- examine imported armour, 123

-- -- -- Hall-mark of, 124, 191

-- -- -- Regulations for apprentices of, 124

Armourers, Regulations for, 57

-- Marks of, 70

-- -- Illustrations of, 22-4, 36

Arrows for proving armour, 64

Ash, Monument at, 51, 106

Ashford, Helm at, 17, 18

Ashmolean Museum, Pictures in, 30, 98

-- -- Leather gauntlet in, 96

-- -- -- hat, 99

Banded mail, 46

Barcelona, 12

Bards of leather in Tower and Armeria Reale, Turin, 102

-- Painting of, 98

Barendyne helm, 17, 119

Barrel for cleaning armour, 79

Baskets for armour, 81

Battering-mills, 22, 35, 188

Beauchamp, Richard, Earl of Warwick, effigy of, 15, 138

-- Pageants, 15

Belleval, Marquis de, 113

Berardi, Guigliemo, Statue of, 74

Blewbery, John, 60

-- -- Tools of, 27, 30

Bordeaux, 12

Bottes, Armure à, 62

-- cassées, 62

Bracers for archers, 101

Bracket for sallad, 56

Bradshaw, Hat of, 99

Brampton, Nicholas, 88

Brassard, Construction of, 53

-- of cuir-bouilli, 100

Brescia, 13

Breughel, Picture by, 35, 92

Brigandarius, Office of, 61

Brigandine, Construction of, 29, 49

-- Marking of, 71

-- Proving of, 64

-- Reinforcing plates for the, 50

British Museum, Anvil and pincers in the, 24

-- -- Brigandine cap, 30

Brocas helm, 17, 111, 119

Buckram used for armour, 86

Buff coat, Last use of, 103

Bullato, Baltesar, 16

Burgmair, Hans, 131

Burgonet, Skilful forging of, 51

-- Meyrick’s views on the, 54

Burrel, Walter, on iron-smelting, 39

Burring machine, 36

Buttin, Charles, x, 62, 68, 100

Calverly, Sir Hugh, discards leg-armour, 115

Camail, Construction of, 45

Camelio, Vittore, 131

Campi, Bartolomeo, 37, 76, 132

Cantoni brothers, 133

Castile, Helmet of King of, 73

Catheloigne, 13

Cavalry, Weight of modern equipment of, 119

Cellini, Benvenuto, on damascening, 76

Chalcis, Italian armour from, 18, 78

-- Brigandine-plates from, 50

Charnel, The, 111

Charles I, Armour of, 76

Charles V, 2, 16, 132, 134

Chiesa, Pompeo della, 37, 140

Christian II, Armour in Dresden of, 75

Cloueur, Demi, 62

-- Haute, 62

Clous perdus, 11

Coats of fence, 84, 87

Colleoni, Pauldrons on statue of, 5

Colman, Coloman, 133

-- Desiderius, 134

-- -- his rivalry with the Negrolis, 16

-- Lorenz, 133

Cologne, 12

Cosson, Baron de, x, 84, 138

Craft rules, 3

Cramer, J., 44

Cuir-bouilli, 97

Cuisse for foot-soldier, 6

Curzon, The Hon. R., 96

D’Aubernon, Brass of Sir John, 74

Davies, Edward, 48

Dawtrey helm, 119

De Bures, Brass of Sir Robert, 74

Deforestation due to iron-smelting, 58

Derby, Earl of, brings over Milanese armourers, 15

Derrick’s _Image of Ireland_, 48

Dillon, Viscount, x, 107, 109, 144

-- -- Ditchley accounts, 19

-- -- on proof of armour, 66

Dobbles, 28, 104

Doul, Dr., and the Armourers’ Company, 122

Dover Castle inventory, 25, 33, 79

Dresden, Armour in, 75, 80, 134-7, 140

Dudley, Dud, 40, 41

Dürer, Albrecht, 89, 131

Edward II and the Armourers’ Company, 121

England, Documents relating to armourers in, 57-60

“Engraved suit,” Tower, 10, 53, 74, 142

Eyelet coats, 90

Erasmus (Kirkenor), 60

Erith, Plating-mills at, 34, 188

Estramaçon, Proof by, 62

Fabrics imitated in armour, 77

Falkenor, Petition by, 59

Falstoffe, Inventory of Sir John, 92

Field of the Cloth of Gold, Armourers at, 31

Florence, Armourers of, 14

Fogge Helm, 17

Foulke, Roger, 41

Framlingham Castle inventory, 25

Frauenpreis, Matthaias, 135

Galeazzo Maria Sforza, 133

Galliot de Balthasin, 113

Gambesons, Regulations for making, 85

-- soaked in vinegar, 92

Garbagnus, 21, 68

Gauntlet discarded for complex sword-hilt, 7

Gaya mentions proof of armour, 28, 69

“Glancing surface,” The, 3, 4

Glazing-wheels, 31

Goodrich Court, Leather armour at, 98

-- -- New College armour at, 65

Gratz, Armoury at, 18

“Great Bear” anvil, 35, 193

Greenwich, Workshops at, 32

-- Painting of a jack at, 49

Gresham, Steelyard of Sir Thomas, 19

Grünewalt, Hans, 135

Guiart, 84

Guidobaldo II, 132

Guise, Armour of the Duc de, 65, 118

Gustavus Adolphus, Leather coat of, 88

-- -- -- guns of, 99, 102

Hall-mark of the Armourers’ Company, 60, 70, 120

Hampton Court, Portrait of the Duc de Nevers at, 30, 111

Haselrigg’s “lobsters,” 81

Hastings MS. mention of padding, 88

-- -- regulations for undergarments, 107

-- Battle of, 1

Haustement, The, 111

Hearne, his visit to Ditchley, 19

Helm for “barriers,” 7

-- Fastenings for, 112

Helmet-caps, 89

Helmschmied, see Colman

Helmsmith at work, 23

Hengrave Hall inventory, 48

Henry VIII, suit for fighting on foot, 57

-- “Engraved” suit, 10, 53, 74, 142

Henry VIII imports armourers, 16

Henry, Prince of Wales, Armour of, 11, 20, 59

Hewitt, John, ix, 125

Hill, Treatise of Johan, 93, 173

Hippopotamus hide used for armour, 102

Holinshed’s description of jacks, 90

Homildon, Arrows at the battle of, 38

Hope, David le, 57

Hopfer, Daniel, 136

Horse-armour, 8

-- padded, 85

-- of leather, 102

-- laminated, 9, 134

Horse-trappers, 84

-- of leather, 98

Infantry, Weight of modern equipment of, 118, 119

Iron mills, 58

-- ore, Poisoned, 40

-- Prices of, 39

Isebrook, as used by Shakespeare, 38

Jack, Construction of, 49, 50

-- Regulations of Louis XI for, 87

-- stuffed with horn and mail, 92

Jacobi mentioned as master workman, 66

James II, Proclamation against use of gold and silver foliate, 59, 187

Joinville, Armour given by the Prince de, 11

Jousting, Position of rider in, 5

Jousting-armour, Construction of, 7

Jousting-helm, Occularium of, 5

-- Fastenings of, 112

Kelk, John, and the Armourers’ “Mannakine,” 125

Knopf, Heinrich, 75

Kugler supplies inferior metal to Seusenhofer, 13, 38, 142

Kyrkenor, Erasmus, 60

Lames simulated by embossing, 11

La Noue criticizes weight of armour, 117

Leather horse-armour, 102

-- guns, 99, 102

-- cuisses and morion, 98

Lee, Sir Henry, Armour of, 19, 144

-- -- Helmet of, 89, 145

-- -- Trial of armour by, 66

-- -- Master of the Armouries, 59

Legg, Col. William, Master of the Armouries, 34, 193

“Leicester” suit in the Tower, 57, 144

Lewisham, Armoury mill at, 35

Lindsay helm, 119

Linen armourers, 88, 94

Lochner, Conrad, 136

Locking-gauntlet in Armourers’ Hall, 55, 125, 145

Locking-hooks, 55, 56

Locking-pins, 55

Louis XIV, Armour of, 21

-- Proof mark on armour of, 68

Madrid, Armour in, 16, 29, 57, 75, 76, 111, 119, 131-7, 140

Mail cut up for gussets and sleeves, 19

-- Construction of, 44

-- Double, 45

-- Proof of, 62

-- Marking of, 70

-- Painted, 80

-- used at end of sixteenth century, 103

-- Banded, 146

-- makers, 23

Manifer, Main faire, Main de fer, x, 92

Mantegna, Picture of S. George by, 15, 138

Mantua, Francesco di, 134

Marche, Oliver de la, mentions secret tempering for armour, 67

-- -- -- -- leather for duelling-armour, 98

Martin, John, Erection of plating-mills by, 34, 188

-- -- appeals for German platers, 121, 188

Mary of Burgundy, 14

Maximilian I, 133-7

Maximilian II, 2, 14, 134, 136, 141, 142

-- his theories on making armour, 16, 143

Mendlesham, Village armoury at, 18, 90

Merate brothers, 14, 136

Merchant Tailors, 95

Meyrick, Sir Samuel, ix

-- -- his theories on banded mail, 48

-- -- -- -- the burgonet, 54

Milan, 12, 13, 138

-- Important factories of armour in, 15

Milanese armourers employed by Henry VIII, 16, 58

Mildmay, Sir Walter, and the Armourers’ Company, 122

“Milliner” derived from Milaner, 94

Missaglia, The, 21, 137

-- Helm in the Tower by, 7

-- Antonio, Marks of, 50

-- -- Armour by, 14, 139

-- Tomaso, Armour by, 138

Mola, Gasparo, 139

Montauban, Chapeaux de, 12

Moroni, Portraits by, 109

“Muhlberg” suit of Charles V, 57

Multscher, Hans, Statue of S. George by, 14

Musée d’Artillerie, Armour in, 21, 57, 64, 65, 68, 71, 74, 111, 119,
136, 139, 140, 143

-- -- Eyelet coat in, 90

-- -- Horse-armour in, 8

-- -- Leather guns in, 102

Nasal, The, 46

Negrolis, 12, 16, 75, 140

New College, Armour from, 19, 65

New York, Anvil in Metropolitan Museum, 24

Niello-work as decoration for armour, 74

North, The Hon. Robert, describes padded armour, 94

Northumberland, Equipage of the Earl of, 30, 111

Or San Michele, Statue of S. George in, 14

Ortolano, Picture by, 30

Painted Chamber, Westminster, Frescoes in, 8

Passau, 13

-- Mark of the city of, 71

Parkes, his fowling-piece of “Dudley ore,” 41

Passe-guard, x, 52, 92

-- wrong use of the word, x, 4

Pauldrons, Large, 5

Pavia, Picture of the battle of, 98

Peffenhauser, Anton, 11, 75, 140

Peruzzi, Marchese, 19

Petit of Blois, 76

Petworth, Helm at, 18

Piccinino, Lucio, 11, 140

Pickering, William, 20, 59, 122

Piers Gaveston, Inventory of, 73

Pitt-Rivers Museum, Culottes and coats of fence in the, 84

Plate armour on legs, Reasons for, 3

Platers, 22

Plates, Size of, 42

Plating-mills, 34, 188

Pluvinel, De, 114

Poldermitton, The, 7

Poore, William, suggests a preservative for armour, 81

Porte de Hal Musée, Horse-cuissard in, 9

-- -- -- Eyelet coat in, 90

Privy coats, 87

Proof of armour, 62-72

-- -- -- by Sir Henry Lee, 66

-- marks on bascinet in Tower, 64

-- -- on armour of Louis XIV, 68

René, King, 85, 88, 101

Rerebrace, Construction of the, 5

Richmond at Bosworth Field, 2

Richmond, John, and the Armourers’ Company, 123

Rivets filed flat, 4

Rivet, Sliding, 52, 53

-- word used for a suit of armour, 52

Robinet, the King’s tailor, 82, 91

Rogers, Prof. Thorold, 38

Rosebecque, Battle of, 101

Rudolph of Nuremberg, 44

Ryall, Henry de, 94

S. Demetrius, Picture of, 30

S. George, Statuette by Multscher of, 15

-- -- at Prague of, 51

-- Engravings by Dürer of, 89

S. Victor, Picture at Glasgow of, 51

S. William, Carving at Strasburg of, 106

Sallad cap, 89

-- Cover for, 93

-- Venetian, 93

Sanseverino, Armour of Roberto di, 14

Saulx-Tavannes, J. de, 28

Saxe, Marshal, 65, 99

Search, Right of, 20, 58, 121

Sebastian, Armour of King, 75, 140

Seusenhofers, The, 141

Seusenhofer, Conrad, 10, 74, 77, 141

-- -- complains of inferior metal, 13

-- -- his workshop described in the _Weisz Künig_, 15

Shrewsbury, Gild of Armourers at, 59

Sidney, Sir Philip, 115

Sigismond of Tirol, Armour of, 21

Siris bronzes, 73

Sliding rivet, Construction of, 10, 52, 53

Smith, Sir John, 91, 113, 145

Solingen, 13

Solleret, Construction of, 6

-- Unpractical, 11

_Speculum Regale_, 84

Splinted armour, 49, 51

Spring-pins, 56

Staley, E., 14

Stamps, Armourer’s, 72

Stanley, John, Sergeant Armourer, 26

Staples for helms, 111

Stibbert Museum, 19

Stokes, W., _The Vaulting Master_, 113

Stone, Benjamin, blade-maker, 60

Sturtevant’s _Metallica_, 63

Surcoat, The use of, 79

Sword-pommels used for weights, 19

Thyrkill, Richard, 71

Tilt-hammers, 35, 40

Toledo, 13

Tonlet, 109

Tools, 24-31

Topf, Jacob, 143

-- -- Armour by, 19, 76

-- -- Armour in Armourers’ Hall by, 125

-- -- Peculiarity of hook on armets by, 21

Toulouse, 12

Tower of London, Armour in, 11, 53, 57, 74, 119, 137, 139, 142, 144, 145

-- -- Helm by the Missaglias in, 7, 64

-- -- Jacks in, 49

“Toiras” armour, 60

Tresses, 109

Turin, Armeria Reale, 71, 102, 141

Tyler, Wat, destroys a jack, 49

Undergarments, 106

Vambrace, Construction of, 6

Van der Goes, Picture in Glasgow by, 50

_Vaulting Master, The_, 113

_Verney Memoirs_, mention of proof of armour, 68

-- -- -- -- fit of armour, 105

Versy, 12

Vervelles, 46

Vienna, Armour in, 14, 133-41, 143, 145

-- Brigandine in, 50

-- Helm-cap in, 89

-- Helmet-covers in, 93

Vireton, 64

Wallace helm, 18, 117

-- Collection, Horse-armour in, 9

-- -- Armour in, 134, 139, 145

-- -- Bascinet and camail in, 46

-- -- Tools in, 24

Waller, J. G., his views on banded mail, 48

Walsingham, 49

Way, Albert, 107

_Weisz Künig_, 15, 141, 142

-- -- Armourer’s tools figured in, 28

Westminster helm, 17, 18, 119

-- Workshops in, 32

Whalebone used for gloves and jacks, 100

Whetstone, his project for light armour of proof, 59

Willars de Honnecourt, 45

William the Conqueror, 1

Willoughby, Jack of Sir John, 49

Windsor Park Tournament, 29, 100

Wire-drawing, Invention of, 44

Woolvercote, Sword-mills at, 34

Woolwich Rotunda, Tools in the, 24

-- -- helm, 18

-- -- leather guns, 102

Zeller, Walter, 92

Zurich, 18

PRINTED BY
WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD.
PLYMOUTH

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Footnotes [10] to [18] have multiple anchors on page 25.
Footnote [80] has two anchors on page 63.
Footnote [129] has two anchors on page 119.
Footnote [138] has three anchors on page 127.

Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.

Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.

Pg xiii: page number ‘vii’ replaced by ‘ix’.
Pg 20: ‘often exhibition some’ replaced by ‘often exhibiting some’.
Pg 26: ‘but the “hurthestaff”’ replaced by ‘but the “hurthestaf”’.
Pg 26: ‘The “cottyngyr” and’ replaced by ‘The “cottyngyre” and’.
Pg 40: ‘Gay’s Encylopædia’ replaced by ‘Gay’s Encyclopædia’.
Pg 87: ‘seur ledii jacques’ replaced by ‘seur ledit jacques’.
Fig. 48 caption: ‘Ashmolean Musem’ replaced by ‘Ashmolean Museum’.
Pg 111: ‘26 genouillère’ replaced by ‘26 genouillière’.
Pg 129: ‘Grünewald, Hans’ replaced by ‘Grünewalt, Hans’.
Pg 151: ‘Hans Guïnewalt’ replaced by ‘Hans Grünewalt’.
Pg 163: ‘Oberarmzeng’ replaced by ‘Oberarmzeug’.
Pg 173: ‘blank space’ replaced by ‘ ... ’.
Pg 174: ‘blank space’ replaced by ‘ ... ’.

GLOSSARY.
Entries for ‘javelin’ ‘bravette’ ‘lists’ are referenced but they
do not exist.
Section ‘O’: ‘Oberarmzeng’ replaced by ‘Oberarmzeug’.

INDEX.
There were several references to the Preface at pages ‘vii’ and ‘viii’.
This numbering was incorrect and has been changed to ‘ix’ and ‘x’.
Kelk: ‘“Manakine,” 125’ replaced by ‘“Mannakine,” 125’.
La Noue: ‘armour, 116’ replaced by ‘armour, 117’.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The armourer and his craft from the XIth to the XVIth century" ***

Home