Part 12

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.”

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.

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.”

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.