Part 2

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).