Part 7

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.

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._

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.

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.