Part 5

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.

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.”

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.