Armour in England, from the Earliest Times to the Reign of James the First
by John Starkie Gardner · English · Gutenberg #44538 · 323,637 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Armour in England, from the Earliest Times to the Reign of James the First
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Armour in England, from the Earliest Times to the Reign of James the First
Author: John Starkie Gardner
Contributor: V. A. Farquharson
Release date: December 29, 2013 [eBook #44538]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44538
Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Paul Clark and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ARMOUR IN ENGLAND, FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE REIGN OF JAMES THE FIRST ***
Transcriber's Note:
This text contains two books which were bound in a single volume:
"Armour in England" and "Foreign Armour in England", both by
J. Starkie Gardner.
Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as
possible, including inconsistent hyphenation. The tables of
contents were created by the transcriber.
In the first book, Sir Noël Paton's Christian name was spelled
"Noel"; this has been retained.
On page 47, in the sentence starting
"A little later, as at the battle of Montlhéry,"
"Montlhéry" is a correction of "Montlhery".
Italic text has been marked with _underscores_.
Letters preceded by carets appeared as superscipts.
OE ligatures have been expanded.
[Illustration: PLATE I.--Full suit of armour of Henry, Prince of
Wales, in the guard-chamber at Windsor Castle. Attributed to William
Pickering, master armourer.]
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND
FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES
TO THE REIGN OF JAMES THE FIRST
_By_
J. STARKIE GARDNER
[Illustration]
LONDON
SEELEY AND CO. LIMITED, GREAT RUSSELL STREET
NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1897
CONTENTS
PAGE
I. The Britons--An Early Age of Plate-Armour 5
II. The Mailed Warrior 9
III. The Transition Period--From about the Reign of Edward I.
to that of Richard II., 1272-1399 27
IV. The Age of Plate-Armour 45
V. The Age of Enriched Armour 78
INDEX 99
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
_COLOURED PLATES_ PAGE
I. Full suit of armour of Henry, Prince of Wales, in the
Guard-chamber at Windsor Castle. Attributed to
William Pickering, master-armourer _Frontispiece_
II. Second suit of Sir Henry Lee, Master of the Armoury,
reduced facsimile of No. 19 in the Armourers' Album in
the South Kensington Museum 28
III. First suit of Sir Christopher Hatton, Captain of the
Guard, and subsequently Lord Chancellor. Reduced
facsimile of No. 15 in the Armourers' Album in the
South Kensington Museum 40
IV. Grand-guard of the suit of George, Earl of Cumberland, in
the possession of Lord Hothfield. This is a part of the
20th suit in the Armourers' Album in the South
Kensington Museum 46
V. Grand-guard, used for tilting, belonging to the suit of
Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, with the gilding
restored. In the Tower of London 58
VI. Profile of the helmet belonging to the French suit
(Fig. 32). In the Guard-chamber of Windsor Castle 76
VII. Ornament on the tapul of the breastplate belonging to the
half-suit of the Earl of Essex (Fig. 35), with the
original gilding slightly restored. In the
Guard-chamber of Windsor Castle 90
VIII. The sword of Charles I. when Prince of Wales, 1616. The
hilt entirely covered with raised gold damascened work
on blue steel matrix, except the grip of silver wire
work. Preserved in Windsor Castle 96
_ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT_
1. Hauberk, or byrnie, of chain-mail, of the fourth or fifth
century, found at Vimose 11
2. Norman knights in mail hauberks and conical helmets 13
3. A complete suit of mail, with coif and mufflers; A
thirteenth-century suit, with reinforcing plates 17
4. Mail coif, flat-topped, with leather thong 19
5. Mail coif, round-topped, with jewelled fillet 19
6. Mail coif, conical top, with coronet and mantelet 19
7. Helmet of bronze and iron, from County Down 21
8. Illustration of the development of plate-armour 23
9. The sleeping guards, from the Easter Sepulchre in Lincoln
Cathedral 25
10. Melée. From MS. of the fourteenth century 29
11. The helm and crest of the Black Prince, with his shield,
from his monument in Canterbury Cathedral 31
12. The helm of Richard Pembridge, K.G., from Hereford Cathedral 32
13. Bassinet from the tomb of Sir John de Melsa, Aldborough
Church, Holderness 32
14. A bassinet transformed into a sallad in the fifteenth century 33
15. A ridged bassinet with banded camail; Combed and jewelled
bassinet 35
16. Effigy of the Black Prince on his tomb in Canterbury
Cathedral 37
17. Gauntlet from the effigy of Ralph Neville, Earl of
Westmoreland, in Staindrop Church, Durham; Gauntlet from
the effigy of Sir Thomas Cawne, Ightham Church, Kent 41
18. Helm from the tomb of Henry V. in Westminster Abbey 48
19. Effigy of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, on his tomb
in St. Mary's Church, Warwick 53
20. The Earl of Warwick slays a "mighty Duke." From the
Beauchamp MS. 55
21. The Duke of Gloucester and Earls of Warwick and Stafford
chase the Duke of Burgundy from the walls of Calais. From
the Beauchamp MS. 57
22. Sallad in St. Mary's Hall, Coventry; Helm of Sir Giles Capel 59
23. English tournament helm over the tomb of John Beaufort,
Duke of Somerset, in Wimborne Minster 60
24. Helm of Sir John Gostwick, in Willington Church 61
25. The entry of Queen Isabel into Paris in 1390. From MS.
of Froissart 63
26. Armet of Sir George Brooke, K.G., 8th Lord Cobham 65
27. English armet from the collection of Seymour Lucas, A.R.A. 65
28. Complete suit for fighting on foot, made for Henry VIII. 67
29. Suit made for Henry VIII. by Conrad Seusenhofer of
Innsbrück, 1511-1514 71
30. Part of a suit made for Sir Christopher Hatton 79
31. Armour of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, 1566-1588 83
32. A suit of French armour, early seventeenth century 87
33. Italian suit of blued and gilded steel covered with appliqués
of gold 89
34. A part of the ornament of the Italian suit (Fig. 33),
drawn real size 91
35. Demi-suit of the Earl of Essex, with closed helmet,
magnificently engraved and gilt 93
36. Sword, probably of James I., with basket hilt, entirely
covered with raised gold damascening 95
37. The sword of John Hampden, with hilt of carved steel 97
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND
I
_The Britons--An Early Age of Plate-Armour_
It is the nature of islands to exhibit some peculiarities in their
fauna and flora, and this insularity is no less pronounced in the
manners and customs of the human beings inhabiting them. Thus even the
stone implements of Britain of remote prehistoric days can readily be
distinguished by the expert; and we have the authority of Sir John
Evans for regarding our types of bronze celts and weapons as both
peculiar and indigenous. On first taking a place in history several
strange and extra-European customs were noticed in these isles by
Cæsar, such as the use of chariots in war, and dyeing the skin blue
with woad: British nations were, moreover, frequently ruled by queens,
and some practised the rare and difficult, and very far from barbaric,
art of enamelling on bronze.
Modern opinion is at present opposed to the theory that the culture
and civilisation of Western Europe originated exclusively in the East,
and is inclined to regard our primitive arts and crafts as indigenous.
That this must in a large measure be true appears sufficiently
established; but the large and excellently-made bronze bucklers with
concentric rings of bosses or studs, called the clypeus, the singular
art of enamelling, the use of studs of coral for embellishing weapons
and trinkets, the chariots of war and the government by women, all
so remote from savagery, and so intimately connected with Eastern
civilisation, compel the belief that these isles did actually at some
distant time possess a privileged and intimate communication with the
East. The old and rooted tradition of a direct traffic in tin between
Britain and Phoenicia cannot yet in fact be safely abandoned.
These arts and practices, however, only fall within the scope of our
subject so far as they were applied to arms and weapons. One of these,
very rarely used for the embellishment of arms in later times, is that
of enamelling, a process unknown to the Romans. Philostratus, who wrote
in the third century, referring to some coloured horse-trappings,
observed, "They say that the Barbarians who live in the Ocean pour
these colours on to heated bronze, and that they adhere, become hard as
stone, and preserve the designs which are made in them." The bronze to
be enamelled was cast with the pattern upon it, and the colours used
were varied and bright, but opaque. Some brilliant horse-trappings with
purely Celtic decorations and a few sword-hilts are known, but the bulk
of cast bronze enamelled ware consisted of brooches, seal-boxes, cups,
and vases, all Romano-British in design. A much rarer enamel is found
on beaten or repoussé bronze armour. Pliny, in the Natural History,
remarks that the Gauls were in the habit of adorning their swords,
shields, and helmets with coral, but an immense demand springing up
in India, it became unprocurable. We find accordingly that resort was
had in England to enamel to reproduce the effect of the coral studs.
In the British Museum is an oblong shield of Celtic design, found in
the Witham, embellished with coral, but a smaller and handsomer shield
beside it, found in the Thames, has gold cloisonné studs of blood-red
enamel. The curious Celtic reproduction of the Roman peaked helmet,
and the horned helmet found in the Thames, both from the Meyrick
collection, are also decorated with small raised bosses cross-hatched
to retain red enamel, some of which still adheres. The horned brazen
helmet should, according to Diodorus Siculus, be a relic of, or
borrowed from, the Belgic Gauls, who inhabited so much of this part
of England. The gem-like effect of the enamelled studs, like single
drops of red on the golden bronze, must have been most refined; it is
altogether too restrained to have originated with the enameller, who
usually covers his surfaces. The identity of workmanship of these arms
with the Irish bronze and enamel work suggests that some of those who
produced them passed over and found with their traditions and arts a
peaceful refuge in the sister isle.
Tacitus, however, states most explicitly that the Britons wore neither
helmets nor armour, and were not able, therefore, under Caractacus, to
maintain their resistance. Herodianus also, relating the expedition of
Severus 250 years after Cæsar's invasion, presents an extraordinary
picture of savagery. He observes that the Britons were a most warlike
and sanguinary race, carrying only a small shield and a spear, and a
sword girded to their naked bodies. "Of a breastplate or helmet they
knew not the use, esteeming them an impediment through the marshes."
They encircled their necks and loins with iron rings as an evidence of
wealth, instead of gold, and went naked rather than conceal the tattoos
of different animals which covered and gave a blue cast to their bodies.
In striking contrast to this picture are the large number of chariots
employed in war and the extraordinary skill displayed in handling
them. Cæsar states that Cassivelaunus, when totally defeated and a
fugitive, was still accompanied by 4000 charioteers; the basis probably
of Pomponius Mela's later statement that 4000 two-horsed chariots
armed with scythes formed part of that chieftain's army. Having proved
ineffectual against Roman discipline, this arm was perhaps soon
abandoned, since we find little further mention of war-chariots, though
cavalry did not cease to form part of a British army. In process of
time the subjugated Britons must have become completely Romanised as to
arms, and accustomed to wear the helmet, greaves, and corselet, either
of one piece or formed of smaller and more flexible plates or scales.
Though the manhood of the country enrolled in disciplined cohorts and
legions had deserted it, Roman weapons must have been the arms of those
who remained when the Romans finally retired from Britain in 410.
In the two succeeding centuries, which were to elapse before the
country definitely inclined to become English, an intensely Celtic
feeling, embodied in the legends of King Arthur and wholly opposed to
Roman ideas, had time to spring up. Judged by their ornament, it is
to this period that most of the bronze enamelled arms and trappings
in the British Museum belong. The golden corselet found in a barrow
in Flint, together with many traditions of the finding of golden
armour, such as the helmet of pure gold set with gems found in a bronze
vase and presented to Katharine of Arragon, suggest the idea that
serviceable qualities became sacrificed to a love of display. At this
time it is said the Britons, in obsolete and fantastic panoply, bore an
evil reputation, as being vain and fruitful in menaces, but slow and
little to be feared in action. Their frightfully demoralised state,
if not greatly overdrawn by Gildas, called for a day of reckoning and
the condign, almost exterminating, punishment which overtook them.
The agents destined to execute the vengeance of Providence were the
Frisian pirates, the scourge of the Channel, who had with difficulty
been kept in awe by the most powerful Roman fleets. The country,
left to the divided rule of clergy, nobles, and municipalities, and
described as "glittering with the multitude of cities built by the
Romans," presented a tempting and easy prey to these professors of
rapine. They were Teutons, who relied mainly on the Fram or spear-like
javelin, as when Tacitus described them, and still carried the round
gaudily-painted buckler, though then strengthened with an iron umbo
and rim. Their weapons had been perfected in a long series of grim
experiences in actual war, and they had added to their equipment a
sword and dagger, and some kind of simple headpiece. That they had
adopted any complete defence of plate-armour in the Roman fashion
is improbable, but they were apparently entirely unacquainted with
chain-mail. In the history of armour in Britain this period, taken as a
whole, can only be regarded as a very primitive age of plate. To be an
efficient protection plate-armour must, however, be of an intolerable
weight, at least to men on foot, making celerity of movement
impossible. We cannot close the chapter better than by instancing the
dreadful fate of the Æduan Crupellarians, related by Tacitus, who
clothed themselves in unwieldy iron plate, impenetrable to sword and
javelin. Though the main army was overthrown, these kept their ranks as
if rooted to the ground, until, fallen upon with hatchets and pickaxes,
armour and men were crushed together and left on the ground an
inanimate mass. This lesson was not forgotten by the nations of Europe
who fought on foot with Rome, and no such use of body-armour among them
is again recorded.
II
_The Mailed Warrior_
The appearance of the mail-clad warrior opens up an entirely new era in
the history of European armour. The light plate defences worn by the
Mediterranean nations, whether Greeks, Etruscans, or Romans, were never
calculated to secure immunity from wounds; and as a fighting equipment
they went down before mail, as stone before bronze, or bronze before
iron. Chain-mail body-armour is distinctly represented on the Trajan
column, and wherever worn, whether by the Scythian, the Parthian who
was armoured down to his horse's hoofs, or the dreaded Sassanian horse,
it seems to have flashed like a beacon of victory, and its wearers ever
appear in history as Rome's most dreaded and formidable foes.
The Scandinavian also, isolated so long and unknown in history,
suddenly burst upon Europe as a new and even more redoubtable mail-clad
warrior. How so remote a people became acquainted with chain-mail can
only be surmised, but it was perhaps through some Scythian channel
not open to Western Europe. That the ravaging Viking landed on our
shores equipped in mail, the "war nets" of Beowulf, "woven by the
smiths, hand-locked, and riveted"; "shining over the waters" or in "the
ranks of battle," is sufficiently recorded by the Chroniclers. Shirts
of mail, called "byrnies," attributed to even the fourth and fifth
centuries, are found in Danish peat-bogs fashioned of rings welded
and riveted in alternate rows as neatly and skilfully as can possibly
be, and all made by the hammer, if it be a fact that wire-drawing was
not invented till nearly a thousand years later. The almost perfect
specimen we figure, one-tenth the natural size, was found at Vimose,
with portions of others. Some have also been found at Thorsberg, and
in a burial-place of Roman age in Jutland.
Besides the mail defence, the Danes were armed with a shield, an iron
cap, lance, axe, and sword. Thus equipped they proved for a long time
almost irresistible, and ventured on the most dangerous and desperate
undertakings. When we reflect on their adventurous voyages, the
reckless attacks on powerful nations made by mere handfuls of men, and
the gallant pertinacity they at all times displayed, it is impossible
not to admire their exalted courage. It is easy to detect a rugged
poetry, almost chivalry of a kind, underlying the Viking nature,
in spite of ruthless cruelty, while the exaltation of deceit when
practised on an enemy into a virtue is but a germ of modern statecraft.
Their lives depending at every moment on the quality of their weapons
caused these to be invested, particularly the sword, with a mystic
glamour, which scarcely died out with chivalry itself, and lingers even
yet in the more important functions of state. The chieftain's sword was
in fact his inseparable companion, known and endeared to his followers
by a name symbolic of the havoc they had seen it wreak upon the enemy,
and its fame in sagas was as undying as its owner's. Tradition elevated
the maker of the sword of Odin, a smith, we must believe, who forged
swords of uncommon excellence, into a demigod; and has handed down the
story of how he made a blade called Mimung so keenly tempered that when
challenged to try conclusions with one Amilias, a rival, it sliced him
so cleanly in two as he sat in his armour, that the cut only became
apparent when, as he rose to shake himself, he fell dead in two halves.
The name of this prince of craftsmen yet lives in the mysterious
Wayland Smith of English folklore. Another vaunting smith Mimer was
slain by the sword Grauer wielded by Sigurd; and the sword Hrunting
is made famous by its owner Beowulf, the father of English lyrics. A
Danish sword in the British Museum is inscribed in runes Ægenkoera,
the awe-inspirer. From the Danes the exaltation of the sword passed to
the English, and we find Ethelwulf, Alfred, and Athelstan bequeathing
their swords by will as most precious possessions, equivalent to a
brother's or sister's portion. Thence it passed, in legend at least,
to the Britons, King Arthur's sword Calibon, or Excalibur, presented
ultimately by Richard I. to Tancred when in Sicily, being almost as
famous as Arthur himself. Even Cæsar is provided by history with a
sword named "Crocea mors," captured from him in combat by our valiant
countryman Nennius. The hilts of the Danish swords are described in the
_Edda_ as of gold, and Beowulf speaks of hilts that were treasures of
gold and jewels. Canute's huiscarles and Earl Godwin's crew had swords
inlaid with the precious metals, and some English swords were valued at
eighty mancuses of gold.
[Illustration: FIG. 1.--_Hauberk, or byrnie, of chain-mail, of the
fourth or fifth century, found at Vimose, one-tenth of the real size;
and part of another, full size, from Thorsberg. From "Danish Arts,"
published for the Science and Art Department_.]
The origin of the remarkable veneration for arms and armour, so
apparent in the history of chivalry, is thus traced to wearers of
mail, the first figures also to appear in something like what we
regard as knightly equipment. The dress of Magnus Barefoot, described
in 1093, differed probably but little from that of his predecessors,
and consisted of helmet, a red shield with a golden lion, his sword
called Leg-biter, a battle-axe, and a coat-of-mail, over which he wore
a red silk tunic with a yellow lion.
The wearing of armour, particularly mail, on land, necessitated riding,
and the northern rovers, finding the weight intolerable on their
inland forays, took to horse whenever possible, harrying by this means
an extent of country otherwise almost inaccessible. They even learnt
in time to transport their horses over the sea, and in the ninth and
tenth centuries landed in England from France as a mounted force, as
their descendants after them did at Hastings. The English, on the
other hand, rarely wore mail, though the spoils of the Danes might
have furnished a fair supply, and they only used cavalry as a small
force for scouting. An English king of the eighth century is, however,
represented in mail by Strutt, and Harold and his immediate companions
may have worn mail at Hastings, as represented in the Bayeux tapestry,
and as he certainly did when assisting William in his war against Conan
of Brittany. Handsome presents of Norman arms and armour were then made
to him by Duke William. A little later we have the curious testimony of
Anna Comnena, 1083-1146, that this mail, made entirely of steel rings
riveted together, was wholly unknown in Byzantium, and only worn by the
inhabitants of Northern Europe.
The definite conversion of the Northmen from sea-rovers to mounted
men-at-arms when they settled in Normandy enabled them to lengthen
their coats-of-mail, as well as their shields, lances, and swords, and
to adopt many French manners and customs. But in facing the infantry
wedge at Hastings, the time-honoured fighting formation of Teutonic
stocks from the days of Tacitus, they did not disdain to fall back
on the old Viking tactics of a pretended flight and rally, practised
already by them during two centuries of warfare in England. That the
English should have allowed their impenetrable ranks to be broken by so
threadbare a stratagem is indeed extraordinary.
[Illustration: FIG. 2.--_Norman knights in mail hauberks and conical
helmets. From the Bayeux Tapestry._]
The Norman Conquest introduced into England a permanent mail-clad
cavalry as the chief strength of the battle, as in France, and
infantry was discredited until the disputes of the sons of the
Conqueror led once more to an English infantry force taking the
field. The mail coat of the cavalry had in the meantime been further
lengthened, and changed into a complete sheathing of steel by the
addition of long sleeves and mufflers falling over the hands; leggings
covering the thighs, shins, and feet; and a capuchin-like hood only
leaving the eyes and nose exposed, but which could be thrown back. Thus
enveloped, with a thickly-padded garment under the mail, a conical or
flat-topped steel helmet, a large kite-shaped shield, and long-reaching
weapons, he had little to fear when opposed to light-armed cavalry or
infantry. The mail and helmets were always kept bright, as we know,
but Anna Comnena adds that even the shields of steel and brass were so
brightly polished as to dazzle beholders. Combined with the pennons and
banners of various forms, with their glittering emblazonry, the massed
men-at-arms of that day must have presented a magnificent spectacle,
as the Chroniclers so frequently remind us. The coat-of-mail remained
with but trifling variations the chief knightly defence until the
close of the thirteenth century, and the protection it afforded was
so complete that of 900 combatants who once entered battle in steel
armour but three were slain. At Joppa in 1192, during a battle lasting
from the rising to the setting sun, only three were killed on the side
of the Crusaders; at the battle of Lincoln only three, at Evesham
(1260) one knight and two esquires, at Falkirk (1295) but one knight
and thirty foot on the winning side. These somewhat random examples
seem fairly to represent the loss on the side of the victors, though
terrible massacres overtook the losers. The protection was such that
Saladin's bravest warriors reported our men to be impenetrable; blows,
they said, fell as if on rocks of flint, for our people were of iron
and would yield to no blows. But though so terrible on horseback,
the mailed knight, as observed by Anna Comnena, was little dangerous
when dismounted. Neither had the English failed to observe this, and
thus directed all their efforts to dismount the enemy. They had been
severely galled by the bow at Hastings, and they came to recognise it
as the one weapon likely to render them really formidable to their
Norman oppressors. Henry I. encouraged its use, and we soon find the
English arrows described as falling in battle like a shower on the
grass or as falling snow. In a skirmish at Bourgthéroude in 1124, the
first discharge brought forty horses to the ground before a stroke was
struck, and eighty men-at-arms soon fell prisoners into the victors'
hands. At the battle of the Standard, the cloud of arrows pierced the
unarmoured Scots, and chiefly contributed to the dreadful slaughter,
set down at 11,000. The effects of missile weapons were such that the
mailed period of which we are speaking saw three English kings fall
victims to the bow, while a fourth, Edward I., escaped a like fate
by a miracle. The accounts handed down of the extraordinary range
and precision attained soon afterwards by this weapon appear wholly
incredible in the light of modern toxophilite displays.
The cross-bow was an even more powerful weapon, whose use had been
forbidden in war, but allowed by the Pope to the Crusaders in 1139.
Richard I. appears to have introduced it into the English army, which
became so expert in its use that in some of the sieges conducted
during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the enemies' walls could
not be manned. It is related of Richard, both at the sieges of Acre
and Nottingham, that he himself slew men with this weapon. The
numbers of cross-bowmen in our armies appear, however, to have been
always relatively small. King John, with 400 knights, had but 250
cross-bowmen, used as skirmishers, keeping a mile in front of the army.
The splendid army of Edward I. assembled at Poitou (1242), numbering
1600 knights and 20,000 foot, comprised but 700. The battle of Lincoln,
however, was gained by them owing to their shot mowing down the
horses of the barons, who were rendered helpless when dismounted. The
cross-bow was at first bent by the hand and foot, but was afterwards
of steel, when it required mechanical aids to charge it. The short and
heavy bolts, called quarrels, struck with greater force than arrows,
and the knight hit full on the head or breast by one was fortunate if
only stunned. Instances are recorded of twofold mail and the quilted
coat being penetrated by them. Cross-bowmen for a long time formed
corps d'élite, the weight of the weapon and the armour causing them
to be frequently mounted, and so early as King John the mounted
"balistarii" were provided with one, two, or even three horses each,
with carts to carry the quarrels and even the cross-bows as well.
Notwithstanding superior accuracy in aim and penetrating power, it fell
into disuse in England soon after the close of the thirteenth century,
owing to its heavy weight and liability to damage by wet, and above
all, on account of the greater rapidity with which arrows could be
discharged from the longbow,--in a ratio of something like ten to one.
Nothing is more constantly met with in chronicles than accounts of the
destructive effects of missiles, whether from bow or cross-bow, upon
the horses of mounted combatants; yet, apart from the poetic fancy of
Wace, who mounts Fitz-Osbert on an iron-clad steed at Hastings, the
first mention of horse-armour at all connected with English history is
at the battle of Gisors in 1198, when Richard I. speaks of the capture
of 140 sets in terms which plainly show that he then met with it for
the first time. It has, however, been concluded, from the absence of
any mention of horse-armour in English statutes until 1298, that it was
unknown here till the close of the thirteenth century. At this time a
man-at-arms in France received half as much again in pay if his horse
was armoured, and in 1303 every man with an estate of 500 livres was
bound to provide horse-armour. A mailed horse appears in the effigy
of Sir Robert de Shirland in Sheppey, and a fine figure of a steed
completely clad in mail is among the figures of _The Painted Chamber_,
published by the Society of Antiquaries.
The English custom of fighting on foot, it is almost needless to add,
had been adopted by the Danish and even the Norman settlers here, and
during the civil wars of Henry I., Stephen, and Henry II., the leaders
on both sides, including the kings in person, fought their battles
dismounted, rendering horse-armour of relatively small importance.
A permanent force was raised by a law of Henry II. in 1181, compelling
every burgess or freeman to possess an iron headpiece, a lance, and
either a mail hauberk or a gambeson, according to his means: and this
was supplemented by the addition, under Henry III. in 1253, of swords
and knives to the infantry equipment, and the calling up of a reserve
of those possessed of less than 40s. of land, armed with scythes,
long-handled axes, knives, and other rustic weapons. Soon afterwards a
wild Welsh and Cornish infantry was enrolled, and we hear of lagers and
intrenchments, and in 1302 one of the first really crushing defeats is
inflicted on chivalry at the hands of burghers by the men of Bruges,
who slew forty counts and barons at Cambray.
This extensive arming of the population led to the formation of bands
of outlaws, who devastated the country, something in the manner of the
free-companies of France at a later time. A young man named William,
declining to acknowledge Lewis of France in 1216, drew together a
thousand bowmen and conducted a guerilla warfare in the forests
of Sussex. The still more renowned Adam Gordon infested the woody
country between Wilts and Hants until Prince Edward at last, about
1267, overcame him in single combat. The ancient Ballads abound with
instances of such exploits, which are embodied in the romance of Robin
Hood.
A contemporary of Richard I. describes the equipment of an English
foot-soldier as consisting of an iron headpiece, a coif and
coat-of-mail, and "a tissue of many folds of linen, difficult of
penetration and artificially worked with the needle, vulgarly called
a pourpoint." He was taught to receive cavalry with the right knee on
the ground, the left leg bent, the shield in the left hand and the butt
of the lance in the ground with the point to the enemy. Between every
two lances was a cross-bowman with a rear rank to load while the front
shot. Against this formation the Moslem cavalry's "surging charges
foamed themselves away," and as at Waterloo, the retreating squadrons
were charged again and again by our heavy-armed horse. On the other
hand, the same tactics, when employed against forces largely composed
of English archers, were unsuccessful; thus the Welsh in 1295 set their
long spears on the ground with points towards the cavalry, but the Earl
of Warwick placed an archer between every two horsemen and routed them.
Wallace's massed pikemen, three years later, were broken by Edward's
archers and military engines, and routed by the men-at-arms, who dashed
into the openings.
[Illustration: FIG. 3.
1. A complete suit of mail, with coif and mufflers, late twelfth
century, said to have been found in a coffin in Goring Church.
2. A thirteenth-century suit, with reinforcing plates, said to have
been found with the other.]
It does not appear that any special study of mail has been undertaken,
or that any good collection of mail has been formed, nor have the many
varieties been arranged chronologically in the order in which they
appeared. Materials for such a study exist, though not very abundantly,
in the Tower, the British Museum, the collection at Woolwich and Dover
Castle, the Armourers' Hall, Warwick Castle, Parham, and in other
private collections, and from these and the effigies of mailed knights
it can be seen that an almost endless variety exists, not only in the
sizes of the links, which vary from 1/6 to 3/4 of an inch in diameter,
but in the sections of the wire used, which may be round, flat,
triangular, trapeziform, quadrate, polygonal, etc. Nor is there less
diversity in the method of closing the rings, which was accomplished
either by welding, single or double riveting, with a flattening and
more or less overlapping of the links, soldering or merely butting.
Again, there are many ways of arranging the links, producing mail
of very different weights, either double or single, as well as mail
in which certain parts are stronger than the rest. In European mail
four links are usually made to pass through a centre one, though this
is not an invariable rule. The statement in Beckman's _History of
Inventions_, that wire-drawing was invented in the fourteenth century,
was held for a long time to furnish a safe date, but two Corporations
of wire-drawers occur in Etienne Boileau's _Paris Livres des Mestiers_,
in the middle of the thirteenth century, and the art is actually of
unknown antiquity. The mail, we read, was kept bright by barreling, but
does not appear to have presented much scope for decoration. The _Edda_
speaks of a byrnie of gold, and there are other allusions to gilded
mail, and we find hauberks scalloped at the extremities, and finished
off with rings of brass.
Two suits of mail (see Fig. 3), illustrated in the catalogue of the
loan collection of Ironmongers' Hall in 1861, now in the possession
of Mr. J. E. Gardner, F.S.A., are formed of unriveted links, the ends
of the rings being merely butted. Their authenticity has therefore
been questioned. The description of them printed in 1861 was to the
effect that they had been found in a chest or in a vault of a church in
Oxfordshire. In the manuscript catalogue of the collection at Parham
is a note to the effect that they were found in stone coffins built
in the wall of the church at Goring, Berks, supposed to be coffins
of the Beche or De Beche family, and contained skeletons, a third
suit having been destroyed except the hood, which is now at Parham.
However this may be, the larger suit affords a good representation
of the mailed figure of the end of the twelfth, and the small one of
that of the thirteenth century, with reinforcing pieces of plate. The
possibility of their having been made for lying in state or funerals
deserves perhaps a passing note, especially in view of their respective
dimensions; and it is in any case very questionable whether the prices
paid for them would have remunerated the labour of producing forgeries.
Another hauberk of large size was found in Phoenix Park, Dublin, thirty
years ago, but a silver badge of an O'Neil found with it showed it to
have been buried not earlier than the middle of the fifteenth century.
In the thirteenth century the curious and well-known banded mail
appears on effigies and other representations, which Mr. J. G. Waller,
F.S.A., regards as caused by the passing of a leather thong through
each alternate row of rings, for the sake of extra strength. This
variety may have originated with the single thong passed through the
links of the coif over the forehead and below the knee, seen in early
effigies like that of William Longespée (Fig. 4) at Salisbury.
[Illustration: FIG. 4.--_Mail coif, flat-topped, with leather thong._
From the effigy of William Longespée, son of Henry II. by Fair
Rosamond, who died 1227. Salisbury Cathedral.]
[Illustration: FIG. 5.--_Mail coif, round-topped, with jewelled fillet._
From the effigy of Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, died 1221. Hatfield
Broad-Oak Church.]
[Illustration: FIG. 6.--_Mail coif, conical top, with coronet and
mantelet._
From the effigy of John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall, died 1334.
Westminster Abbey.]
The defence of the body was for a time wholly left to the mail with
the underlying gambeson, and the shield, but the head had always
received the additional protection of a cap of steel, called the
chapelle-de-fer, worn indifferently under or over the coif of mail.
Effigies of the first half of the thirteenth century show it both round
and flat at the top (Figs. 4, 5, 6, and 7). The nasal piece associated
with the conical helm (Fig. 2) of the eleventh century tended to
disappear in the twelfth.
The fact that English armies under Richard I. were made to abandon
their ancient formation and to engage on horseback, and to rely on
the battle-axe and mace as their chief weapons, and the presence of
the large bodies of archers and arbalisters which he brought into the
field, led to the introduction, probably by Richard himself, of the
great heaume worn over the steel cap and padding, and only put on at
the moment of battle. It is first seen on Richard's second seal, and
consisted of a cylinder, usually flat-topped, with two horizontal
clefts for vision, and strengthened by bands crossing each other over
the face and top. Breathing-holes were added towards the middle of
the century, and the grated front was introduced soon after, to admit
more air. This is seen in the first seal of Henry III., and another
advance, the movable vantail, hinged at the side, in his second seal.
An oft-described specimen in the Tower weighs 13 lb. 8 oz., but is
regarded by Lord Dillon, the present Curator of the Armouries, as a
forgery. About 1270 we sometimes find it with a round top, though the
flat top did not go quite out till the beginning of the fourteenth
century. The attempts made to seize and drag it off, so often noticed
by Chroniclers, led to its being secured by a chain. The further
changes seen were improvements in the visor, giving better vision and
more air, fixing it more securely, and so transferring the weight from
the head to the shoulders, and changing the flat top to a cone, on
which blows fell with less stunning effect.
These heaumes, by concealing the face, intensified a difficulty
already felt at Hastings, when Duke William was obliged to raise his
helmet to contradict a rumour of his death. Recognition, now become
impossible, led to the use of heraldic badges, at first painted on the
helm, as they already were on the shield; and of crests, first in the
fan or peacock's feather shape, as on the second seal of Richard I.,
and afterwards to more distinctive crests and badges. The Crusading
Chroniclers relate that the crests were brilliant with jewels, and they
are represented as circled by coronets in the seals of Henry III. and
his son Edward. The heaume of St. Louis, 1249, was gilded. Richard
himself, in gala dress, on the day after his marriage with Berengaria,
is described by Vinsauf as wearing a Damascus sword with gold hilt
and silver-scaled scabbard, his saddle inlaid with precious stones,
his horse bitted with gold, and in place of the high defensive plates
before and behind in general use two little golden lions with raised
paws.
[Illustration: FIG. 7.--_Helmet of bronze and iron, from County Down.
Twelfth century._]
Next to the headpiece the most urgent necessity was to protect the
breast against the direct shock of the lance, and for this a rigid
defence was of the utmost importance. Thus a beginning was made even
during the mail period towards the introduction of plate-armour.
Jazerant and scale armour of small plates had been adopted to this end
by the Franks, and Charlemagne had introduced the classic breastplate.
Something of the kind was perhaps even known to the Viking, and by
the twelfth century Scandinavians certainly used a defence called a
briostbiorg beneath the mail, extending from the neck to the waist.
Chroniclers allude to shining breastplates long before there is the
slightest appearance of them in illustrations, though from the time
that surcoats were worn over the armour it becomes difficult to see
what is beneath. Allusion is often made to a plastron-de-fer; and in
the combat between Richard, when Earl of Poitou, and William des Barres
we read that an iron defence was worn over the breast. One of the
effigies in the Temple Church is equipped with a back and breast plate
of single plates united by straps. It is stated that the bodyguard of
Henry III., 400 strong, which fled at the battle of Lewes in 1244, wore
breastplates; and in 1277, 300 cavalry so armed were sent to Wales.
[Illustration: FIG. 8.--_Illustration of the development of
plate-armour._
1. The gambeson appearing below the chausses, but covering the
chaussons of mail, forming an extra protection to the knee. From the
effigy of Robert of Normandy.
2. The same, but apparently with an extra applied cap. From the effigy
ascribed to one of the Pembrokes in the Temple Church.
3. The quilted gambeson appearing below the chausses and drawn over
the chaussons, with the additional protection for the knee-cap of an
octagonal plate. From the effigy of Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford.
4. The chausses and chaussons overlapping, forming a double thickness
of mail, with the addition of a quatrefoil plate over the knee-cap.
From the effigy attributed to the second Longespée at Salisbury.
5. A ridged knee-defence of cuir-bouilli or plate enveloping the knee,
over the mail. From the effigy of Robert Ros in the Temple.
6. Globose knee-cap of Aymer de Valence. Westminster Abbey.
7. Decorated knee-defence from an effigy in Whatton Church.
8. Cross-ridged knee-defence from an effigy of Robert de Bois.]
Following the head and breast, the limbs received protection from
plate-armour, the knees and shins of mounted men-at-arms being
peculiarly exposed to injury in melées with infantry, from blows of
the two-handed battle-axe and mace. Additional security was absolutely
essential against these weapons, which were introduced both for horse
and foot by Richard I., and had grown in favour ever since. These even
penetrated mail, the Irish axe in particular being reputed to cut off
limbs in spite of its protection. The Scandinavians, with their keen
military instincts, had provided themselves in the twelfth century with
knee-caps of iron attached to overalls worn over the mail. Our earlier
mailed effigies, however, show no special defence for the knee, though
the one at Salisbury, attributed by Stothard to William Longespée,
already noticed, has a stout thong passing between the links of mail
just under it. The effigy of Robert of Normandy, of which there is a
cast in the National Portrait Gallery, shows a thick overall under
the chausses of mail, and drawn over the mail chaussons at the knee
(Fig. 8, No. 1), and a similar appearance is seen in the first seal
of Richard I.; in the sleeping guards of the Easter Sepulchre at
Lincoln (Fig. 9); and other monuments of the same date. In the effigy
attributed to William, Earl of Pembroke, in the Temple, who died in
1289 (Fig. 8, No. 2), and in Stothard's drawing of the effigy at
Whitworth, an appearance of a thick cap is also to be seen, perhaps
the extremity of a padded overall overlapping the knee; and in other
examples the thick quilted gambeson leg-defence is clearly seen below
the mail, covering the knee, and in the case of De Vere, who died
1221, it has the interesting addition of an octagonal plate (Fig. 8,
No. 3), apparently of iron, over the kneecap. The effigy, called the
second Longespée, at Salisbury (Fig. 8, No. 4), about 1260, exhibits
an apparently double thickness of mail at this point, caused by the
overlapping of the chausses and chaussons, with the addition of a
circular plate with a quatrefoil upon it. Contemporary Chroniclers also
mention that greaves were worn by knights in the time of Richard I.,
though the earliest manuscript illustration of them occurs in Matthew
of Paris's _Lives of the Offas_.
The feet were cased in mail, and the spurs were simple straight spikes
or goads, perhaps worn on one heel only and called the prick-spur.
Under the early Plantagenets the point was fixed on a ball, while the
rowel spur is seen in the monument to Le Botiler of the reign of Henry
III.
Under the heroic Richard the powers of defence seem to have definitely
triumphed over those of attack. Knights sheathed in mail over quilted
work, and wearing the great battle-helm, appeared invulnerable and
able to encounter the most fearful odds, and even to rescue each other
when dismounted amidst swarming enemies. The further changes during
the mailed period were in the direction of military display, which has
always offered an attractive field. Whenever the pressure for improved
armament was relieved through the defensive equipment for the time
satisfying the wearer, whether a naked savage or well-equipped soldier,
attention was turned to the warrior's personal embellishments, partly
to gratify the wearer's vanity, partly to captivate and dazzle, but
chiefly to affright and awe the enemy. The fact that the French and
English wore the same armour and equipment, and the common occurrence
of internecine wars at this time, rendered distinguishing costumes
particularly necessary. By simply throwing away their cognisance at
the battle of Noyon, Peter de Maule and others escaped recognition and
mingled with the pursuers, while Ralph de Courci mistook the French for
his own side and was taken prisoner. Nothing but the different-coloured
crosses sewn to the garments of the French, English, and Flemish
Crusaders served to distinguish them, and white crosses alone
distinguished the party of Simon de Montfort, 1264, from their enemies.
Nothing approaching to any uniform is heard of in this age, unless when
Richard of Gloucester traversed France in 1250, with a retinue of forty
knights equipped all alike, with new harness glittering with gold, on
his visit to the Pope.
The beautifully-sculptured guards of the early fourteenth century
Easter Sepulchre in Lincoln Cathedral (Fig. 9) present fine examples
of the costume of the knight armed with the mace, sword, and shield
towards the end of the mailed period. The bassinet on the figure to the
right is particularly noteworthy.
[Illustration: FIG. 9.--_The sleeping guards, from the Easter Sepulchre
in Lincoln Cathedral._]
III
_The Transition Period--From about the Reign of Edward I. to that of
Richard II., 1272-1399_
The warrior sheathed in mail, mounted on his charger, whether pricking
alone or in troops over hill and dale, was a picturesque and portentous
figure, and when massed for battle presented an awe-inspiring sight.
The gray burnished steel, glittering in the sun or under lowering
skies, relieved by the fluttering pennons and banners and emblazoned
shields, formed a picture that the old Crusading Chroniclers loved to
dwell on, filling the imagination with those great gatherings of the
chivalry of Europe. In the days of the last of the Paladins, of Godfrey
de Bouillon and Richard Coeur de Lion, the dress of burnished mail
was the knight's especial pride, and no garment concealed it. But as
progress and love of change are universal, and the mail itself could
not well be embellished, an embroidered surcoat was worn over it in
the more degenerate days of John and his son Henry, concealing all but
the limbs and head. This garment became the vehicle for distinguishing
marks and colours, like the modern racing-jacket. A little later, when
emblazoned with heraldry, it served to distinguish the individual.
The transfer of the surcoat from under to over the mail gave rise
to the custom of concealing the steel panoply under rich materials,
which distinguished the Transition Period in armour. While it lasted
we literally and constantly meet with the "iron hand under the velvet
glove." This and the continual piling of one coat of defence upon
another, in the fruitless attempt to secure immunity for life and limb,
are the chief characteristics of the period we are now to treat.
Until the Transition, the mounted knight, cap-à-pied in mail over
the quilted gambeson, with the steel cap, and the great helm for the
supreme moment of combat, seemed completely invulnerable unless to
missile weapons mechanically projected. Few men-at-arms fell in actual
battle on the winning side, and great slaughters were only consequent
on the complete rout of one of the parties. Under the warlike Edward
I. the powers of attack must have gathered renewed force, for a long
period of tentative changes set in which finally ended in the suit of
mail being completely hidden beneath an outer shell of steel plates.
The qualities of steel for offensive weapons must also at this same
time have undergone marked improvements, and we now begin to hear
of definite seats of manufacture attaining world-wide celebrity.
Cologne, Lorraine, Poitou produced weapons which are said to have
pierced mail and quilted armour with ease. The heavy blows given by
the battle-axe and mace, used by horse and foot, must, however, have
been chiefly instrumental in introducing extra means of defence. These
were by no means at first universally of steel, for cuir-bouilli or
boiled leather, a very impervious substance when properly prepared,
seemed at one time likely to rival it for general use; and trial was
made of every other kind of material that could be used for defence,
such as horn, whalebone, ivory, padded wool, leather, either alone
or strengthened with metal studs or splints, brass, and small plates
of iron fixed to textiles. It is almost certain that for a time the
moulded surface of cuir-bouilli, with its gilded and perhaps coloured
surfaces, was preferred to steel. During this tentative period every
combination of these materials with chain-mail is to be met with, and
the triumph of steel-plate armour only became definite after every
possible substitute, combined in every practicable way, had been tried
either at home or abroad and found wanting. It is at least improbable
that any armour pictured with enriched designs at this date was of
steel.
[Illustration: PLATE II.--Second suit of Sir Henry Lee, master of the
armoury, reduced fac-simile of No. 19 in the Armourer's Album, in the
South Kensington Museum.]
It would be impossible within the limits of this work, and of little
interest, to endeavour to describe the constant changes, often due
to individual caprice, that occur; for when groups of soldiery are
represented, even long after the Transition, it is rare to find two
individuals accoutred in precisely the same manner. We may rest
assured, however, that each piece as it successively appears was
introduced to meet some new perfection in the weapons of attack, or
to cope with some new tactics, in short, to protect some part that
had been proved by the practical experience of armed strife to be
vulnerable. These additions were naturally subject to modification,
according to the passing dictates of military display, or the changing
fashions of civilian dress.
Fig. 10 is taken from one of the English MSS. most valuable for
the knightly costume of the Transition. The armour is in this MS.
almost entirely mail, of the banded variety, worn beneath a surcoat,
which is hardly ever emblazoned. Plate-armour is only represented
by the kneecaps, with an occasional roundel and shoulder-plate.
The great helm, always with a fan-crest, the chapelle-de-fer worn
beneath or above the mail coiffe, the bassinet, often visored, and
the broad-brimmed round helmet are worn, except in jousts, quite
indifferently.
[Illustration: FIG. 10.--_Melée._
From the early fourteenth-century English MS. known as Queen Mary's
Psalter, 2 B. vii., in the British Museum. The combatants are in banded
mail and long surcoats, and some wear the great helms with fan-crests.
Ailettes and knee-caps are the only plate-armour visible. Some of the
horses have long housings and also bear the fan-crest.]
The head, being the most vulnerable part of the body and the most
difficult to protect, received the greatest amount of attention. The
great helm, with bands and cross-cuts for the sight, continued in use
throughout the Transition, but with a sugar-loaf crown, and rendered
less insupportable in the reign of Edward I. by transferring the weight
from the head to the shoulders. It was occasionally of brass--Chaucer
mentions the knight's "helm of latoun bright," a metal used so far
back as Henry I.--and much more frequently of cuir-bouilli, as in the
tournament at Windsor in 1278, when twelve of the thirty-eight knights
had gilded helms, and were called digniores. There can be no doubt,
however, that a helm of Poitou steel was even then the surest defence.
[Illustration: FIG. 11.--_The helm and crest of the Black Prince, with
his shield, from his monument in Canterbury Cathedral._]
To the custom of hanging arms in churches we are indebted for the
preservation of all the most valuable historic pieces. The first
record of this poetic usage occurs early in the thirteenth century,
when William of Toulouse hung his helm and splendid shield over St.
Julien's tomb at Brives, and his lance and sword, bow and quiver,
outside. By the middle of the century it had become the practice,
when a brave knight died, to hang his shield and helm on the walls
above his grave, and it appears in addition, from the instance of the
King of France after the battle of Cassel in 1328, that the victor
in some cases presented his arms to the nearest church. The helm of
the Black Prince, still suspended above his tomb at Canterbury (Fig.
11), is an illustration familiar to all. By the kindness of Sir Noel
Paton we are enabled to present an even finer helm (Fig. 12), in
more perfect preservation, which formerly hung above the tomb of Sir
Richard Pembridge, K.G., in Hereford Cathedral, who died one year
before the Prince of Wales, in 1375. Its admirable workmanship has
been fully described by Baron de Cosson, its fine steely quality
being such that no penknife would scratch its polished surface. It is
formed of three pieces--the cone, the cylinder, and the top-piece,
welded so beautifully that no seam is visible, and these are joined by
round-headed nails clinched on the inside. Every practical detail, down
to the minutest, has received careful attention. The metal is thickened
and turned outwards round the eye-piece, which is thus efficiently
guarded, and the bottom edge is rolled inwards over a thick wire, so
as not to cut the surcoat. These and other details given by Baron de
Cosson in the Catalogue of Armour exhibited at the Royal Archæological
Institute in 1880, show conclusively that this specimen at least is a
real war helm, fitted to resist and to strike fire under the shock of a
lance that might unhorse its wearer. The conical helm was worn over the
visorless bassinet next described, as the previous helms had been worn
over the chapelle-de-fer, and being only donned in the hour of danger,
is rarely represented in monuments, except as a pillow under the head.
When worn the face was invisible and recognition impossible, so that a
moulded crest of linen, leather, or some light material surmounted it
and became its most important feature. A mantling was also introduced,
at first in the simple form of a puggaree, as seen in the effigy
of the Black Prince (Fig. 16), but later of more ample dimensions,
fantastically shredded to represent the supposed rents of battle. When
the taste for military display increased, these mantles were usually of
scarlet lined with ermine. A wide-rimmed helm is often represented as
worn over or in place of the bassinet, and jewelled and crested. This
form reappears continually, its first introduction dating so far back
as the Bayeux tapestry.
[Illustration: FIG. 12.--_The helm of Richard Pembridge, K.G., from
Hereford Cathedral. Sir Noel Paton._]
[Illustration: FIG. 13.--_Bassinet from the tomb of Sir John de Melsa,
Aldborough Church, Holderness. From a photograph by Baron de Cosson._]
The bassinet, used with or without the helm, enjoyed a prolonged period
of favour from Edward I. to Henry VI. It differed from the older
chapelle-de-fer worn with the hood of mail, in having the mail hung
round it, instead of passing over or under it. This mail, now called
the camail or gorget, was laced to a series of staples along the edges
of the bassinet and fell like a curtain on to the shoulders. At the
outset merely a skull-cap, it was gradually prolonged at the back and
sides so as to leave only the face exposed. Early in the fourteenth
century its appearance was profoundly modified by the addition of a
movable visor, at first hinged at the side, but subsequently raised and
lowered from above the forehead. Being readily removed, the visor was
only worn in action, and is thus rarely represented in effigies and
brasses. No helm was worn over the visored bassinet, which became the
battle head-piece of the fourteenth century and part of the fifteenth,
the helm being reserved for jousts and tournaments. We are able, by
the kindness of Baron de Cosson, to give an illustration (Fig. 13) of
a real bassinet of large size, from the tomb of Sir John de Melsa in
Aldborough Church, Holderness. It is described in the Catalogue of Arms
already referred to as of the second half of the fourteenth century,
and was worn with a large visor. A second bassinet is illustrated
(Fig. 14) from Sir Noel Paton's collection, described by Baron de
Cosson as transformed into a sallad about the middle of the fifteenth
century. Fine bassinets are in the Tower and at Woolwich, and in the
Burgess, Christy, and Wallace collections, all happily belonging to the
nation, and in Warwick Castle and at Parham, but none are directly
connected with English wearers. The beaked visor, represented in so
many manuscripts of about the close of the fourteenth century, is a
fine defensive and not unpicturesque form. There are several real
examples in the Musée d'Artillerie in Paris, two of which are regarded
as English.
[Illustration: FIG. 14.--_A bassinet transformed into a sallad in the
fifteenth century. From Sir Noel Paton's collection._]
The bassinet, like the rest of the knight's armour, did not necessarily
exhibit a surface of plain burnished steel. It was frequently covered
with leather, as mentioned in the inventories of Humphrey de Bohun,
1322, and of Dover Castle, 1344; while the King of France at one time
wore his bassinet covered with white leather. One of cuir-bouilli, in
Simon Burley's inventory, 1388, is coloured white and green. It was
also tinned or gilded, and even of pure gold, as prizes for tourneys,
or like one set with gems, sent to Edward I. by his father-in-law in
1334. In a bequest of William Langford, 1411, is a headpiece covered
with red velvet, and actual specimens so covered are not unknown. The
richness of the decorations bestowed on these helmets is shown in the
goldsmith's account of one made for the King of France in 1352, and
of another made in the same year for the Dauphin with a band of forty
large pearls. Effigies and brasses show that coronets and jewelled
fillets commonly adorned them, even in the case of simple knights,
and that these are not imaginary decorations may be gathered from
Froissart, who mentions that the King of Castille actually entered a
battle in 1385 with his bassinet enriched with 20,000 francs' worth of
gems. Sir Guy of Warwick, in the Romance, is given a helmet adorned
with a circle of gold set with most precious stones.
Some notable champions, like Sir John Chandos and the Earl of
Warwick, prided themselves on a disregard of danger and habitually
fought without a visor, yet the tendency to close every crevice with
plate defences developed continuously, and the frequent accidents at
tourneys, when the lance-point glanced upward and entered the throat
under the camail, led to the introduction, about 1330, of a gorget of
plate or scales, which with the visor converted the bassinet into a
closed helmet.
The defence of the breast was always considered next in importance
to the head, and fourteenth-century inventories constantly refer to
"pairs of plates large," perhaps like those till recently worn in
Persia, corsets de fer, cors d'acier, brust plate pour justes, and
other defences of plate. Chaucer writes, "Some would be armed in an
haubergeon, a bright breastplate and a gypoun." The globose form given
to the chests of effigies, such as that of the Black Prince, seems to
imply the presence of a rigid defence under the emblazoned surcoat.
[Illustration: FIG. 15.
1. Example of a ridged bassinet with banded camail, from the brass of
Sir John d'Abernon, died 1327.
2. Combed and jewelled bassinet from the effigy in Ash Church, of about
the same date.]
The limbs began to be definitely protected over the mail in the second
half of the thirteenth century. Effigies and manuscript illustrations
of that date commonly represent globose knee-caps, sometimes ridged
down the front, and usually gilt. In the fourteenth century they are
always present and frequently treated very decoratively, with shields,
roundels, scalloped edges, etc. The technical name for these appendages
is "Genouillière," or "knee-cap." Subsidiary plates often appear below
the knee, and sometimes above it, and are continued under the mail.
The greave was a rigid gaiter fitting at first only over the front of
the leg below the knee, but afterwards enveloping it; and it was either
of metal or cuir-bouilli. When seen on English fourteenth-century
monuments it usually seems to be of steel fitting closely over the
mail, and laced or buckled at the back, but at times it is so richly
decorated as to suggest cuir-bouilli. Greaves are usually omitted on
early monuments, and are only commonly seen when they had become an
integral part of the suit of armour. As yet they were not habitually
worn except in battle, and knights were not at this time represented
in their effigies accoutred for war, but in ordinary military costume.
Thus the effigy of Aymer de Valence shows no plate armour, except
the genouillière; but the two mounted figures of the canopy present
the visored bassinet, the high gorget, the arm and elbow plates, the
tubular greaves and steel sollerets for the feet. The tubular leg
defence is not seen in earlier representations, and its introduction
may coincide with the first recorded appearance in the field of large
bodies of Welsh armed with long knives. It was usually hinged and
buckled, and becomes more general as the century advances. This appears
in the inventory of Piers Gaveston, 1313, who possessed three pairs of
such greaves. Monstrelet relates that the bailiff of Evreux, sallying
out without his greaves, had his leg badly broken by the kick of a
horse.
Defences of plate armour for the feet are called sollerets, and are
first, if somewhat indistinctly, visible in the small equestrian figure
on the canopy of the tomb of Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster,
in Westminster Abbey, the mail not being continued over the front
of the feet as in the older effigies. One of the small equestrian
figures of the adjoining tomb of Aymer de Valence has the feet, though
mutilated, distinctly covered with small rectangular plates, arranged
longitudinally in continuation of the greaves. In the D'Abernon and
other brasses of the second quarter of the fourteenth century laminar
plates are fastened across the upper part of the foot. Other varieties
are the scaled sollerets of the De Cheney brass, 1375; the De Sulney
brass, with sollerets of laminar plates, and one large plate over
the instep; the Littlebury effigy, with longitudinal plates like
those of De Valence. In the effigy of John of Eltham, 1334, we seem
for the first time to meet with the whole foot visible incased in
plate, as it continued to be during the rest of the century. In the
Warwick collection a pair of sollerets are made each of one piece like
sabots. The long curved sollerets with pointed toes of the second half
of the fourteenth century are called pouleynes or poulaines, from
the souliers à la Polaine, and differ slightly from those known as
Cracowes, introduced by Richard II. from Bohemia. There are two fine
pointed sollerets at Warwick, one measuring twenty-five inches from
toe to heel, or with the spur thirty-two and a half inches. Another
beautifully-made one attached to leg armour has the plates scalloped
along the edges, and is attributed to Edward, son of Henry VI.
[Illustration: FIG. 16.--_Effigy of the Black Prince on his tomb in
Canterbury Cathedral. From the cast in the Crystal Palace, Sydenham._]
The gilt spur was the honorific and distinguishing badge of the knight,
and was put on in the ceremony of investiture, and hacked off by the
king's cook if the knight was formally degraded. An immense spoil of
gilt spurs fell to the victors after the battle of Courtrai. Both the
goad and rowel forms were in use throughout the century, and when
knights habitually dismounted to fight, they were taken off. Froissart
mentions instances where they were fixed in the ground like caltrops.
The extravagantly long, rowelled spurs of Henry VI.'s time must have
been peculiarly inconvenient.
No great time could well have elapsed before similar defences of
plate were found necessary to protect the shoulders and elbows, which
were scarcely less vulnerable than the legs. The shoulder-pieces,
however, are rarely visible in illustrations and effigies, being much
concealed by the surcoat. The earliest arm-defence is in the form of
an elbow-guard, and appears in the effigy at Salisbury, date about
1260, consisting of one cupped rosette over another. Elbow-guards are
more commonly seen in the second quarter of the fourteenth century,
when they consist of cups and discs, or both combined, the latter
occasionally spiked. The equestrian figures of the De Valence monument,
already mentioned, show in one case gilt rosettes on the shoulders
and elbows, and in the other the forearms sheathed in plate. John of
Eltham, 1334, has a roundel on the elbow, with articulated plates
beneath. In the Ifield effigy the arms are shown by Stothard completely
sheathed, and with shoulder and elbow roundels bearing embossed lions'
heads. Plain roundels, rosettes, shells, or lion masks were worn on
the shoulders, and articulated plates are seen between 1320 and 1350.
The singular and exaggerated plates known as ailettes, picturesque
objects which rose above the shoulders like epaulettes, were as useless
apparently as the shoulder-knots of the present day. They first appear
on the scene in the Windsor tournament, 1278, and disappear in the
first quarter of the fourteenth century. They are of many shapes and
sizes, and are well seen in our illustration (Fig. 10) from Queen
Mary's Psalter, in an elegant brass in Weaver's _Funeral Monuments_, as
well as in many others, and in several stained-glass windows. Usually
they bear the armorial bearings of the owner, though those of Piers
Gaveston, 1311, were "frettez de perles."
Mail gloves continued to be worn, though with divided fingers, during
the first part of the fourteenth century. The first effigy to show
any change is that of a Whatton, engraved by Stothard, of the time of
Edward II. Gloves of leather were sometimes worn between 1311 and 1360,
as well as others of whalebone, metal studs and splintwork, iron scales
and brass. Plate-armour gauntlets first appear towards the middle of
the century with articulated fingers and a broad plate for the back of
the hand and wrist; whilst a steel cuff, sometimes articulated, was
shortly afterwards added. They are at times spiked, or with gads like
knuckle-dusters, as in the case of the Black Prince, and frequently
richly jewelled. The jewelled example given from the effigy of Sir
Thomas Cawne, of the time of Edward III., is reproduced from Stothard's
drawing. The other is from the monument of the Earl of Westmoreland, of
the first years of Henry VI. Gauntlets are constantly represented as
gilt in MSS. of these periods.
[Illustration: PLATE III.--First suit of Sir Christopher Hatton,
Captain of the Guard, and subsequently Lord Chancellor. Reduced
fac-simile of No. 15 in the Armourer's Album in the South Kensington
Museum.]
The knight's dress for war now consisted, in addition to any ordinary
civilian underclothing, of a more or less complete suit of gambeson or
quilted material, sometimes called the haketon, as in Chaucer's _Sir
Thopas_:--
Next his shert an haketon
And over that an habergeon,
And over that a fin hauberk
Was all ywrought of Jeweswork,
Ful strong it was of plate;
And over that his cote-armoure.
The habergeon is the mail in this case, and the hauberk is of plate or
splint armour, while the cote-armoure is the surcoat, possibly thickly
padded, as in the still-existing surcoat of the Black Prince. In the
mutilated effigy at Sandwich the thick quilted gambeson is distinctly
seen at the knee and wrist underlying the mail, while the fine hauberk
of plate overlies it, and the surcoat is worn over all. The effigy at
Ash shows the plate armour, under the surcoat, fashioned in the curious
armadillo-like Jazerant or brigandine form, with an upper gambeson
under it, as well as the usual second gambeson under the mail. That two
separate quilted defences were worn at this time is supported by the De
Crell brass, 1325, the D'Abernon brass, 1327, and the Ifield and John
of Eltham brasses, 1334. The colours of these various garments, the
edges of which were allowed to show one above the other, were no doubt
effectively contrasted, while the edges of the mail, as we have seen,
were pinked, vandyked, or scalloped and gilt or finished with brass
rings, while the plate-armour finishes most commonly in a fringe-like
arrangement of small vertical plates.
[Illustration: FIG. 17.
1. Gauntlet from the effigy of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland, in
Staindrop Church, Durham. Time of Henry VI.
2. Gauntlet from the effigy of Sir Thomas Cawne, Ightham Church, Kent.
Time of Edward III.]
The splendid glitter of polished steel, so associated in our minds with
the knight in armour, appealed scarcely at all to its wearers in this
Transition age. In fact, no decided preference can be discovered even
for the defensive qualities of steel, and this constitutes perhaps
the most marked peculiarity of the age. In the halcyon days of mail,
the steel was kept bright and bare, the helm and shield burnished,
with nothing to conceal its brilliancy but a coronet and the rich
sword-belts which merely enhanced the effect. But in Chaucer's _Sir
Thopas_ there is no mention of steel forming part of the visible
equipment:--
His jambeux were of cuirbouly,
His swerdes sheth of ivory,
His helme of latoun bright.
Over the body armour was a garment, called by Chaucer "the cote-armoure,
as white as is the lily floure."
His sheld was all of gold so red,
And thereon was a bores hed
A charbouncle beside.
The helmets were almost hidden by the large crests and the scarlet
mantling, and the metal exposed was generally gilt. The trunk armour
was concealed under the emblazoned surcoat or pourpoint; and when the
thighs and legs are visible below this they are seen to be clothed over
the mail by splinted or brigandine armour, showing velvet or satin
externally attached by gilt or silver nails; the knee-caps and greaves
are often richly moulded and probably cuir-bouilli, as seen in the
statues on the front of Exeter Cathedral, and in the paintings from St.
Stephen's Chapel they are also shown as gilt. The arms and at times
the hands are similarly clothed. The horse-armour was almost entirely
concealed by rich caparisons, as in Chaucer's _Knightes Tale_:--
Upon a stede bay, trapped in stele,
Covered with cloth of gold diapered wele.
The figures from the tomb of Edmund Crouchback and Aymer de Valence,
engraved by Stothard, show the emblazoned housings of the time of
Edward II. The equestrian figures in Queen Mary's Psalter show that the
fully-equipped knight of this period, when in full war panoply, was a
gorgeous object, blazing in colours and gold, and exhibiting little to
recall the stern realities of campaigns and sieges.
A few examples from inventories will best illustrate the colours and
the magnificence of the materials used to conceal the steel. Humfrey de
Bohun had breastplates covered with "vert velvet"; the Earl of March
used "rouge samyt" and "drap d'or," and others had "cendal vermeil,
samit vermeil, zatony, veluyau asuré, veluyau vert ouvré de broderie,"
etc. Piers Gaveston's pair of breastplates were "enclouez et garnie
d'argent od 4 cheynes d'argent covery d'un drap de velvet vermail
besaunté d'or." Two pairs of plates for the King of France required
3000 crescentic and 3000 round gilt nails to fix the velvet. Exposed
pieces of armour were gilt, if not jewelled, pearls and carbuncles
being the favourite gems. The baldric, knightly belt, sword-belt, hilt,
and scabbard furnished a field for the goldsmith. The magnificence
indulged in was often destructive to the wearers, who might have
otherwise escaped in battle. They were "hunted for their hides," or
slain for the sake of their spoils.
The weight and fashion of the armour largely determined the tactics in
war. The English appear at this time to have reverted to their ancient
practice, once more dismounting to engage in battle. At Cressy the
horses were sent to the rear, while the army, forming into battalions
of archers supported by dismounted men-at-arms, took up its ground and
waited the attack. The weight of armour carried by the men-at-arms made
any forward movement on their part impossible on foot. By good fortune
the 15,000 Genoese cross-bowmen, who might have inflicted severe loss
on the English, were unable to use their bows, and the French coming
up quite out of hand, charged and retreated as the spirit moved them,
without deploying into any battle formation, and so fell into the
utmost confusion, with the well-known results. Our archers "shot their
arrows with such force and quickness that it seemed as if it snowed,"
piercing the Genoese and dismounting the horsemen; upon which a body of
1000 Welsh foot with long knives advanced through the men-at-arms, who
made way for them, and slew numbers of the French chivalry, so that the
battle was "murderous and cruel."
At Poitiers, 1356, the English similarly selected a strong position and
awaited the attack dismounted. The French, uncertain how to meet the
enemy, commenced by attacking with a mounted division, which was routed
by the effect of the English arrows on the horses before getting to
close quarters. Their retreat threw the second battalion, which also
appears to have been mounted, into a confusion, which quickly developed
into a panic. Deeming an advance necessary at this critical moment,
the English men-at-arms sent to the rear for their horses and charged,
completing the destruction and dispersal of all but the rear battalion.
This was dismounted in order to fight on foot, and armed with sword and
battle-axe presented a most stubborn front, under the king in person,
numerous parties from the broken battalions rallying and dismounting
to join in its advance. The English resumed the defensive and remained
immovable, the archers plying their arrows with the usual effect. The
only English force capable of movement and able to skirmish in the
field was the archery, while the men-at-arms kept their ground or
advanced very slowly in compact order, until, seeing the day won, they
again mounted to complete the discomfiture and engage in pursuit.
At the battle of Auray, 1364, the French dismounted and fought on
foot, when the arrows did little execution among them, and the fight
developed into a hand-to-hand engagement with battle-axes, in which
the leaders, Sir Oliver de Clisson and Sir John Chandos, greatly
distinguished themselves. In all subsequent battles and skirmishes
between French and English, until the close of the century, we find
that both sides invariably fought on foot, riding up till almost within
striking distance, and then dismounting as if by common consent. To
advance any distance on foot after dismounting in order to engage was,
in fact, almost impossible. The old knightly weapon, the lance, was in
consequence almost discarded, and could now only be used effectively if
shortened to about five feet, and thus with the shield fell into disuse
as a weapon of battle, while the presence of artillery also began to
make itself felt.
IV
_The Age of Plate-Armour_
Any line dividing what has here been termed a Transition Age from the
age of fully-developed plate-armour must of necessity be a purely
arbitrary one. Roughly speaking, the age of plate commenced when mail
no longer formed the outer defence of any part of the body. The last
chink, leaving the mail exposed under the armpit, was a vulnerable
opening in the armour called the "vif de l'harnois," or the "defaut
de la cuirasse"; and even this now became protected by small plates
of steel called gussets. The necessity for such defences was often
proved in tournaments: it is related that the lance pierced "au vif
de l'harnois" for lack of the crescent or "gouchet." When these last
plates were added the knights appeared more invulnerable than Achilles.
We find at almost every period, however, that a fair blow delivered "au
pas de charge" with a well-steeled lance might penetrate every defence;
and that no armour could be made actually proof against downright blows
from a two-handed battle-axe wielded by a powerful and expert rider.
One of the most marked characteristics of this age of plate-armour
was a growing appreciation of the intrinsic beauty of steel, and a
new desire to invest steel armour with graceful lines. The tendency
is best exemplified in the fine Gothic armour of the second half of
the fifteenth century, of which much is fortunately preserved. This
combines most splendidly picturesque outlines with graceful fan or
shell-like ridgings, which please the more when examined critically,
since every curve and fluting serves some definite and practical end.
[Illustration: PLATE IV.--Grand-guard of the suit of George, Earl of
Cumberland, in the possession of Lord Hothfield. This is a part of the
20th suit in the Armourer's Album in the South Kensington Museum. From
a photograph communicated by Baron de Cosson.]
The casing of plate-armour, which had been so long elaborating,
having at last become complete, the work of the armourer was directed
to further perfecting its parts, and to disencumbering the wearer,
with the least risk, of his weighty underlying chain-mail, quilted
gambesons, and padded surcoats. This process had not proceeded far
when Agincourt was fought, if we may credit the testimony of a French
knight, who was present and describes the armour as consisting of the
long hauberk of chain-mail reaching below the knee, and very heavy,
with the leg-armour beneath, and over this the plate or white armour
with the bassinet and camail. One Allbright, noted particularly as
"mail-maker," and twelve other armourers, were in the suite of the
king on this expedition. The weight of armour would, therefore, have
rendered a repetition advisable, on the part of the English, of the
tactics of Cressy or Poitiers in this battle, had not the French
disconcerted us by dismounting and seating themselves, and refusing to
advance. They had also, copying the English, brought a large force of
archers and cross-bowmen into the field, and, in addition, kept bodies
of men-at-arms in the saddle on either wing, to make flank attacks
when opportunities occurred. The English having in vain endeavoured to
provoke the enemy to advance by sending out archers to fire a house and
barn, posted an ambuscade and moved forward, the archers in front as
usual and the men-at-arms behind. The archers thus gave up the shelter
of their pointed stakes, and the men-at-arms suffered the fatigue of
an advance in armour of an almost insupportable weight to men on foot.
They advanced, however, with repeated huzzas, but, as the Chroniclers
inform us, "often stopping to take breath." The French, stooping their
visors under the amazing hail of arrows that began to fall upon them,
gave way a few paces, and the English, coming close up, pressed them
soon afterwards so hardly, "that only the front ranks with shortened
lances could raise their hands." Our archers, flinging away their
bows, fought lustily with swords, hatchets, mallets, or bill-hooks,
supported manfully by King Henry and his men-at-arms. Pressing on and
slaying all before them, they routed the van and reached the main
body, which was also quickly destroyed. The rear battalion of the
French, which had remained mounted, then fled panic-struck, and the
battle terminated in some desultory charges made by a few parties of
nobles and their men-at-arms, which were easily repulsed; 10,000 French
perished, all but 1600 being gentlemen! many in the massacre of
prisoners consequent on a false alarm. The battle of Verneuil, so fatal
nine years later to the Scots, who lost the Earls of Douglas, Murray,
and Buchan, with the flower of their army, was fought on precisely
the same lines; the main French battalion with their Scottish allies
on foot being first shaken by the storm of arrows, and then destroyed
at close quarters by the advance of the archers with the usual "loud
shouts," supported by the Duke of Bedford and the men-at-arms. These
defeats caused the French to again waver in their plan for meeting the
enemy, for at the battle of Herrings, and the skirmish at Beauvais in
1430, they made their attack mounted, the English archers receiving the
first charge behind their palisade of pointed stakes, and defeating
the enemy by the clouds of arrows taking their usual deadly effect on
the horses. These stakes, six feet long and sharpened at both ends,
formed an important item of the archers' equipment, and were planted in
the ground by the front rank, sloping towards the enemy, the next rank
fixing theirs intermediately to affright the enemy's horse. Throughout
the Anglo-Burgundian alliance, the Burgundians of all arms were often
compelled "under pain of death" to fight dismounted, the Picards
especially adopting the tactics and perhaps equalling the English. A
little later, as at the battle of Montlhéry, 1465, both Burgundian
and English archers are armed with the formidable long-handled leaden
mauls or mallets, which the armour of the men-at-arms was incapable of
resisting. In the account of one of these battles we learn incidentally
that the duty of the varlets who invariably formed part of the retinue
of each man-at-arms was to succour and refresh their masters during the
heat of the engagement, and to carry the prisoners they took to the
rear.
As the various hauberks of mail, brigandines, gambesons, and other
defences became more or less obsolete and discarded by men-at-arms
armed cap-à-pied, they were relegated to a lighter-armed cavalry and
the infantry; but so long as a suit of mail continued to be worn by the
man-at-arms as a defence underlying the armour of plate, flexibility in
the latter was of paramount importance.
[Illustration: FIG. 18.--_Helm from the tomb of Henry V. in Westminster
Abbey, date 1400-1420. From a photograph lent by Baron de Cosson._]
Regarding the armour of Henry V. as the earliest complete cap-à-pied
plate-armour, we find it thus composed. The breast and back plates are
each of one piece, the gorget is usually in one, though a standard of
mail sometimes replaces it; the limb-defences are of few pieces and
rigid, except at the joints, which are guarded by caps or roundels;
while the armour of the fingers, toes, and upper surfaces of the
shoulders is articulated or protected by narrow laminar plates. The
introduction of the gussets, and more particularly of the horizontal
bands of plate forming a short petticoat below the waist, materially
altered the appearance of the armour of the fifteenth century from that
of the fourteenth. The plates of the petticoat, called the tassets,
are first seen in the brass of Nicholas Hawberk, at Cobham, who died
in 1406, and they gradually increase in number till about 1420. At
Agincourt, where the fighting was on foot, the visored bassinet would
have been worn by the king and his men-at-arms, and not the great
helm. The example of the latter suspended in the chantry of Henry V.
in Westminster Abbey, though a real helm, was only purchased from
Thomas Daunt, for 33s. 4d., according to Rymer, with the crest, for
the funeral. The bassinet was probably plumed with ostrich feathers,
which were taking the place of crests, and was encircled by a coronet,
damaged in the melée by a blow from the Duke of Alençon, which among
its jewels comprised the ruby of the Black Prince, now in the regalia.
The diamond-hilted sword was not taken into the fray, unfortunately,
as it happened, and fell a prey to the baggage-looters. The king is
generally represented wearing a tabard of arms on this occasion, a
garment differing from the surcoat in being loose and cut like the
modern herald's tabard, emblazoned before and behind and on the broad
flaps which do duty for sleeves. The horses, borrowing the custom of
Lombardy, wore a heavy chamfron or headpiece of plate, of which a
specimen still exists in Warwick Castle, and an articulated crinet
or neck-defence of overlapping plates, put together on the same plan
as the tassets, and probably some mail defences concealed by the
emblazoned caparisons. The ostentatious magnificence which had hitherto
covered the body armour of the knight with silks and satins, velvet
and bullion and gems, especially among the Burgundian French, was
now in process of being transferred to the horse. The housings are
described as of silks and satins of every colour, or velvet crimson
and blue, or cloth of gold, and sweeping the ground, besprinkled with
escutcheons of arms, and loaded with silversmith's work, or raised
work of solid gold. We read of trappings of white silver fringed with
cloth of gold, and of cloth of gold interwrought with solid silver; and
it appears that no materials were too rich to deck out the favourite
destrier or war-horse. It is unlikely that the English were at this
time behind the French in display, for so early as 1409, of the six
pages of Sir John de Cornewall, two rode horses covered with ermine,
and four horses with cloth of gold; and in 1414 the English embassy
carried themselves so magnificently that the French, and especially the
Parisians, were astonished. Splendid, however, as were the housings,
the headpieces of the horses eclipsed them. The horse of the Count de
Foix at the entry into Bayonne had a headpiece of steel enriched with
gold work and precious stones to the value of 15,000 crowns. The Count
de St. Pol's horse's headpiece on leaving Rouen was estimated to be
worth 30,000 francs, while those of the Dukes of Burgundy and Cleves
on the entry of Louis XI. into Paris were still more magnificent. That
of the king, however, was on this occasion merely of fine gold with
ostrich plumes of various colours. As with the armour in the fourteenth
century, the rich trappings of the horse naturally led at times to the
pursuit and capture of the owner. It is difficult to believe, in days
of such magnificence, that the pay of the Duke of York under Henry V.
was only 13s. 4d. per day, an earl received but 6s. 8d., a baron or
banneret 4s., a knight 2s., an esquire 1s., and an archer 6d.
Though Henry V. wore royal armour at Agincourt it does not appear
that he followed the prudent custom, first noticed in the battle of
Viterbo, 1243, of dressing several knights in an identical manner with
himself. At Viterbo, on a knight dressed like the emperor being slain,
the result was a panic, and the emperor himself had to press with his
trumpets into the thickest of the fight to restore confidence. At
Poitiers, though nineteen knights were dressed like the king, it did
not preserve him from capture. In England, however, the king was saved
on many a field by this precaution, as at the battle of Shrewsbury,
when the earl, Sir Walter Blount and two others in royal armour were
slain. The passages in Shakespeare will be present to the mind of all:--
Another king! they grow like hydras' heads;
I am the Douglas fatal to all those
That wear those colours on them. Who art thou,
That counterfeit'st the person of a king?
and again, when Richard exclaims at Bosworth--
I think there be six Richmonds in the field:
Five have I slain to-day instead of him.
The appreciation of steel, called by the Chroniclers plain or white
armour, for its own sake, had not progressed very far by the time of
Henry V.'s invasion of France, but the more lavish splendours were
at least reserved for gala occasions. The next modifications were
evidently devised to increase the flexibility of the armour, and can
be traced with greater precision in England than elsewhere, owing to
the fortunate preservation in our churches of a matchless series of
military monumental brasses. These clearly indicate that the tendency
during the first half of the fifteenth century was to increase the
number of joints or articulations in every part of the armour. By the
close of the reign of Henry V. things had proceeded so far in this
direction that in some cases the greater part of the limb-defences are
made up of laminated plates.
The next important change in the appearance of the man-at-arms occurs
in the early years of Henry VI., and is due to a striking development
of the fan-shaped elbow-guards, first seen in a rudimentary form in
1425, as well as to an addition of short hinged plates called tuilles
to the bottom of the hoop-like skirt of tassets which lay closer to the
body. By 1435 these tuilles are ridged or fluted perpendicularly and
scalloped along the lower edge, and shortly after they take the more
developed, elongate and elegant forms familiar in Gothic armour. By
1440 we have the addition of great shoulder and elbow plates attached
by nuts and screws, and concealing the articulated shoulder-pieces or
epaulettes. These extra plates usually differ in size, being often
very much larger on the left side, which received the blows, and thus
conferring a quite peculiar character on the plate-armour of the middle
of the century. A scarcely less important modification, introduced
about 1445, is the articulation of the breastplate in two pieces, the
lower overlapping and sliding over the upper, and made flexible by
straps.
The Daundelyon brass of this date, at Margate, exhibits a left
elbow-piece of immense size, and pointed and ridged tuilles below the
tassets, which are almost repeated again in form by the plates below
the knee-caps. John Gaynesford's brass at Crowhurst, 1450, presents
strong reinforcing shoulder-guards over articulated plates, and
repeats the same long peaked and ridged plates below the knee-cap. We
continue for the next few years to find the limb-defences constantly
varying in the number and form of the pieces composing them, according
to the dictates of conflicting requirements, namely flexibility and
impenetrability. The frequent absence of tuilles at this time is held
to imply that they were not used in combats on foot, then very popular.
It is obvious that when the immensely long and pointed solleret came in
with the equally preposterous spur, the fashion of fighting on foot was
on the wane, and the men-at-arms generally fought mounted during the
Wars of the Roses.
We see by manuscript illustrations that a few suits were still gilded,
and we find Jack Cade after his victory in 1450 flourishing about
in a suit of gilt armour, the spoils of Sir Humphrey Stafford. But
the ever-growing appreciation of the intrinsic beauty of the steel
panoply and its fine military qualities is now distinctly felt, and
the armourer sought more and more to invest his work with beauty of
form. All is still entirely dictated by fitness to its purpose, and
the requirements of jousts and war; and the decorative and subtle
shell-like ridgings and flutings are really present more to deflect
the weapon's point than as ornament, while the engrailing, dentelling,
scalloping and punching of the margins of the plates unmistakably
indicate that the decorative spirit is applied to embellishing and not
to concealing the steel. The superb gilded metal effigy (Fig. 19) of
Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, presents a faithful model of the
most beautiful type of Gothic armour known. Every fastening, strap,
buckle or hinge is represented with scrupulous fidelity, not only on
the front, but on the unseen back. Baron de Cosson, who has minutely
described it, expresses the belief that it is a faithful reproduction
of a suit actually worn by the Earl, and therefore earlier than 1439;
although the effigy itself was only produced in 1454, and the armour
agrees with that worn in England at the latter date. He regards the
suit represented as the work of the celebrated contemporary Milanese
armourers, the Missaglias. Italian armour is shown by sculptures,
medals and paintings to have been many years in advance of English,
and the two known contemporary suits by Tomaso di Missaglia greatly
resemble it. The Earl of Warwick knew Milan in his youth, when he had
tilted successfully at Verona; and it was a practice among the great
to obtain armour there, dating from so far back as 1398, when the
Earl of Derby had his armour brought over by Milanese armourers; the
Baron's view presents therefore no improbabilities. Wherever made,
the Earl of Warwick's suit appears to have solved the armourer's
problem, being at once light, flexible, yet impenetrable. Indeed, in
its beautiful proportions and admirably perfect adaptation to all
requirements, it appears more like a work of nature than of art. The
contours of the pieces and their graceful fan-like flutings, to give
strength and deflect opponents' blows, are artistically splendid.
The great shoulder-guards and elbow-pieces, the cuissarts and winged
kneecaps, the tuilles, the jointed breast and back plates, the upright
neck-guard, not hitherto seen, are all fashioned with consummate skill.
In such a suit the preux and gallant knight for three days held his
tournament victoriously against all comers, presenting each of his
discomfited adversaries with new war-chargers, feasting the whole
company, and finally "returning to Calais with great worship." The two
cuts (Figs. 20 and 21), illustrating scenes from his life, are taken
from the exquisitely drawn illustrations to the contemporary Beauchamp
manuscript, now in the British Museum. The incidental testimonies to
the excellence of Italian armour of the middle of the fifteenth century
are abundant. A stalwart Burgundian champion tried in vain during a
tournament in 1446 to penetrate or find a crevice in the armour of the
Duke of Milan's chamberlain, whom it was impossible to wound; and in
1449 the suit of another knight in the service of the same Duke was
said to be steeped in some magic liquid, as so light a harness could
not possibly have otherwise withstood the heavy blows it received.
[Illustration: FIG. 19.--_Effigy of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick,
on his tomb in St. Mary's Church, Warwick. About 1454. From the cast in
the Crystal Palace, Sydenham._]
No word ever escapes the chronicler in praise of English armour;
but the splendid model of the Earl of Warwick's suit is by William
Austin, founder, and Thomas Stevyns, coppersmith, both of London,
with the gilding, chasing, and polishing by Bartholomew Lambespring,
Dutchman and goldsmith of London. The will directs that the effigy
shall be made according to patterns, directions obviously most
scrupulously carried out.
[Illustration: FIG. 20.
The Earl of Warwick slays a "mighty Duke" who has challenged him to
combat for his lady's sake, and wins the favour of the Empress, to whom
he makes a present of pearls and precious stones. The costume is about
fifteen or twenty years later than the death of Earl Richard, and shows
the extra pieces worn in the tilt-yard, 1450-60.]
In contemplating the lithe figure we may well believe that the
steely quality and workmanship of such a suit would confer immunity
on the wearer; and that the relative elasticity and lightness of a
perfectly-fitting suit might confer such superiority on an active and
sinewy champion engaging with men swathed like mummies beneath their
armour in thick gambeson or mail, as to enable him to emerge from his
deeds of arms as triumphantly as the heroes of romance. Nothing was
worn beneath but the fustian doublet, well padded and lined with satin,
with the small lozenge-shaped gussets of mail under the limb-joints and
the short petticoat of mail tied round the waist. It is also unlikely
that such armour was concealed under any garment, and we may observe
that while some princes and nobles are still wearing brigandines of
velvet and cloth of gold in pageants, many more are in "plain armour,"
presenting, except when standing collars of mail were worn, a uniform
surface of smooth polished steel.
The Missaglia suit remained the type with little modification
for several years, almost to the close of the Gothic period. The
Quatremayne brass in Thame Church, of the year 1460, presents a
magnificent example of it with singularly exaggerated elbow-guards.
During the next few years the limb-pieces and gorget become more
articulated and flexible, and the breast and back plates are formed
of as many as three or four overlapping articulated plates, cut
chevron-wise, and notched and indented in an interesting manner. The
gauntlets and sollerets are also of excellent workmanship. There are
a number of peculiarly fine examples in the Museum of Artillery in
the Rotunda at Woolwich, from the Isle of Rhodes, which exhibit the
graceful outlines and ornament of later fifteenth-century Gothic armour
in perfection, and also present early and interesting examples of
engraving on armour. Lord Zouche has also some remarkable suits, said
to be from the Church of Irene at Constantinople, in his collection at
Parham. Sir Noel Paton's fine collection also comprises several Gothic
suits, and there are some in the Tower. None, however, are connected
historically with English wearers, and the destruction of Gothic
armour in this country appears to have been unusually complete. The
illustrations from the _Life of the Earl of Warwick_, an English MS.
of the second half of the fifteenth century (Figs. 20 and 21); and the
scene (Fig. 25) from the late fifteenth-century MS. of Froissart, which
belonged to Philip de Commines, both now in the British Museum, give
excellent ideas of the armour of this period in actual use, while the
brasses supply exact figures of the details.
[Illustration: FIG. 21.
The Duke of Gloucester and Earls of Warwick and Stafford chase the
Duke of Burgundy from the walls of Calais. They wear loose sleeves and
skirts of mail, and the round broad-brimmed helmet very fashionable
for a time among the higher French nobility. The balls and tufts are
probably Venice gold, with which the helmet was perhaps also laced,
over some rich material. This and Fig. 20 are from the Beauchamp MS. in
the British Museum, an exquisite production by an English hand.]
Turning now to head-defences, the great crested helm, still represented
as pillowing the head in effigies, had long since been relegated to
the joust and tilt, while the bassinet with a visor, already seen in
the Transition period, remained the fighting helmet till about the
middle of the century. The visor, however, was not unfrequently struck
or wrenched off in tourneys, and the neck pierced by the lance. Some
hardy warriors, indeed, like Sir John Chandos and the Earl of Warwick,
dispensed with it and went into the fray with faces bare, but this was
exceptional, and the pig-faced and beaked visored bassinets occur in
all delineations of combats of the first half of the century.
The bassinet began to be superseded towards the middle of the fifteenth
century by the sallad, which remained in fashion almost to its close.
Its merits were, the free supply of air it afforded, and the readiness
with which the face could be concealed and protected. It was the
headpiece of the Gothic armour, such as that of the Warwick effigy,
though monuments of this date almost always leave the head bare. The
origin of the sallad, whether German or Italian, is unknown, but the
term occurs in Chaucer. In its simplest form it was low-crowned,
projecting behind, and strapped under the chin, something like a
"sou'wester" or the heraldic chapeau, and in this form it was worn by
archers and billmen. Another kind had a higher crown, with two slits
in front as an ocularium, and could be pulled over the brows till
this came level with the eyes (Fig. 22). A hinged nose-piece was also
sometimes present, to be let down in time of danger. It was also made
more completely protective by a chin-piece called the bavier, strapped
round the neck or fastened to the breastplate for tilting; while a
lighter bavier was in two pieces, of which the upper was hinged at the
side and could be raised for speaking. It was frequently furnished
with a visor to let down. The tail-piece was occasionally so prolonged
that sallads measure as much as eighteen inches from back to front.
It occurs both smooth-topped and combed, and with a slot for plumes
approaches nearer to classic models than any other form of mediæval
helmet. This picturesque headpiece is the one so frequently represented
by Albert Dürer, and was favoured for a longer time in Germany than
elsewhere, many of the Germans in the picture of the meeting of
Maximilian and Henry VIII. appearing in it, while all the English wear
the later close helmet or armet. The form represented has the addition
of articulated pieces behind and a double visor moving on pivots at the
sides, which make it a near approach to a closed helmet.
The sallad was the principal helmet in use throughout the Wars of the
Roses, and is constantly represented in manuscripts of that period. But
one solitary example has been preserved in England from the time of
those destructive wars, in which its first wearer may have taken part.
It hangs in St. Mary's Hall, Coventry, and owes its preservation to its
use as a stage property in the Godiva processions. There are specimens,
however, in all the important collections in England and abroad.
[Illustration: PLATE V.--Grand-guard, used for tilting, belonging
to the suit of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, with the gilding
restored. In the Tower of London.]
The bassinet was sometimes richly decorated, covered with velvet,
plumed, crested, and of considerable value, Sir John de Cornwall
wagering his helmet in 1423, which he offered to prove to be worth 500
nobles. The pretty custom of garlanding them with may, marguerites,
or other flowers specially favoured by a queen or princess, or with
chaplets of pearls and other gems, seen in the early part of the
century, lasted until after the introduction of the sallad, which
provided a better field for such display. A sallad belonging to the
Duke of Burgundy, decorated with rubies and diamonds to the estimated
value of 100,000 crowns, figured in the entry of Louis XI. into Paris
in 1443. In the expenses of Henry VII. precious stones and pearls are
bought from the Lombards to the value of £3800 for embellishing sallads
and other helmets, and in France even the sallads of the mounted
archers are continually mentioned as garnished with silver.
[Illustration: FIG. 22.
1. Sallad in St. Mary's Hall, Coventry.
2. Helm of Sir Giles Capel, date 1510-1525. Formerly in Rayne Church,
Essex. Now in the possession of Baron de Cosson.]
The sallad was a relatively dangerous headpiece in tourneys on foot,
and a large-visored bassinet is often mentioned as being retained in
use for this purpose down to the sixteenth century. The Baron de Cosson
has identified this form, seen to have been fixed to the breast by two
staples and a double buckle behind, and himself possesses a magnificent
example, which once hung over the tombs of the Capels in Rayne Church.
Sir Giles Capel was one of the knights who with Henry VIII. challenged
all comers for thirty days on the Field of the Cloth of Gold. The visor
in this example is very massive, the holes so small that no point
could possibly enter, and the helm being fixed the head moved freely
inside. A second and possibly earlier example has the visor thrown into
horizontal ridges and a small bavier. The visor is hinged at the sides,
and the sight and breathing holes are short slots, parallel to and
protected by the ridges. It hangs over the tomb of John Beaufort, Duke
of Somerset, in Wimborne Minster, who died in 1444, but it is of later
date; and another belonging to the suit of Henry VIII. in the Tower,
made for fighting on foot, is not dissimilar. Baron de Cosson calls
attention to the fact that this form, called a bassinet, is shown in
the miniature of the manuscript entitled, "How a man shalle be armyd at
his ese when he schal fighte on foote."
[Illustration: FIG. 23.--_English tournament helm over the tomb of John
Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, in Wimborne Minster. Weight 14¼ lbs. Date
1480-1520. From a photograph lent by Baron de Cosson._]
Another very interesting and thoroughly English form of helm, intended,
according to De Cosson, for the tilt with lances, is preserved in
a specimen in Broadwater Church, another in Willington Church over
Sir John Gostwick's tomb, and a third in Cobham Church, the helm of
Sir Thomas Brooke, who died 1522. These all present considerable
differences of detail. A not dissimilar helm of slightly later date
with a barred visor, or the bars riveted to the helm, affording plenty
of breathing space, was used for the tourney with sword or battle-axe,
and has become the Royal and the nobles' helmet of heraldry.
A form of helm used for tilting with the lance and also frequently
depicted in heraldry, is the great helm of the time of Henry VII. and
Henry VIII., of immense weight and strength, resting on the shoulders,
and securely fixed to the back and breast. It was relatively flat
on the crown, produced in front into a kind of blunt beak, giving a
bird-like aspect with no distinct neck. The ocularium, or slit for
vision, is large and in the crown, and can only be used by bending
the body forward; the head being raised before the moment of impact
to avoid the danger of the lance penetrating. This helm is well
represented in the tournament roll of Henry VIII. in Heralds' College,
and from its massive strength and the fact that by no possibility could
a combatant be accidentally unhelmed, afforded absolute protection to
the head. Le Heaulme du Roy is represented in this roll as silvered,
with a crown-like border round the neck of pearls and gems set in gold.
There is a magnificent specimen in the Museum of Artillery at Woolwich,
one in Westminster Abbey, two in St. George's Chapel, one in Petworth
Church, and one at Parham. This form of helm was the most massive and
secure, and the last that remained in use. A very early delineation of
a helmet of this type is seen in the late fourteenth-century French
MS. (Burney, 257) in the British Museum. Some exceedingly interesting
delineations of the same kind of tilting helm in actual use are to be
seen in Philip de Commines' Froissart, Harl. MS., 4379-80 (Fig. 25).
It is there represented plain and fluted, and with various crests and
mantling, one of the most singular, and a favourite, being a close copy
of the lady's head-dress of the period, with the lady's long gauze veil
reaching below the waist. This manuscript is of late fifteenth-century
date, and very remarkable for the apparently faithful representations
of the armour worn by the English and French at that time. In one group
of soldiery alone, in the second volume, page 84, the helm of the early
fourteenth century, the beaked bassinet of the early fifteenth, and
various forms of visored and unvisored sallads are assembled together.
[Illustration: FIG. 24.--_Helm of Sir John Gostwick, died 1541._
Believed to have been worn at the Field of the Cloth of Gold, 1520, and
now hanging over his tomb in Willington Church, Bedfordshire. From a
photograph by the Rev. Augustus Orlebau, Vicar.]
All these forms of helm were more or less contemporary with the sallad,
which gave place in turn to the armet or closed helmet, first heard of
in 1443. Like, perhaps, the sallad, the armet was invented in Italy,
and did not reach England or even Germany till about 1500. In France,
however, a page of the Count de St. Pol bore a richly-worked armet on
the entry into Rouen of Charles VII.; and the royal armet of Louis XI.,
crowned and richly adorned with fleurs-de-lis, was carried before him
on his entry into Paris in 1461. It is also mentioned in 1472, in an
edict of the Duke of Burgundy.
The fundamental difference between it and all helms and helmets that
had preceded it is, that while others had either fitted the top of the
head, as a cap does, or were put right over it, the armet closed round
the head by means of hinges, following the contour of the chin and
neck. Its advantages were neatness, lightness, and general handiness,
and it conveyed the weight by the gorget directly on to the shoulders.
Its use was exclusively for mounted combatants, though the great helm
continued in use for jousts and tilts during the time of Henry VIII.
It does not appear in English costume much before this reign, but in
all the pictures of the triumphs and battle-pieces of Henry VIII. at
Hampton Court, the English men-at-arms invariably wear it, and it is
abundantly represented in works of art during the remainder of the
Tudor period.
[Illustration: FIG. 25.--_The entry of Queen Isabel into Paris in 1390._
The knights wear the great tilting helms, and the foremost has a copy
of the ladies' head-dress for crest, from which depends a fine lawn
veil. The housings are embroidered with gold. From the Philip de
Commines copy of Froissart, Harl. MS. 4379, vol. 1, fol. 99, in the
British Museum, late fifteenth century.]
An early armet, identified by Baron de Cosson as Italian, with a
double bavier riveted together, but without a visor, hangs over the
tomb of Sir George Brooke, eighth Lord Cobham, K.G. (Fig. 26), and
dates from 1480 to 1500. Baron de Cosson describes it as having a
reinforcing piece on the forehead, hinged cheek-pieces joined down the
middle of the chin, and of peculiarly delicate and beautiful outline.
It originally had a camail hanging to a leather strap. The wooden
Saracen's head may date from the funeral of this Lord Cobham in 1558,
"but was certainly never worn on any helmet." Its owner served under
Norfolk in Ireland, in 1520, and was subsequently Governor of Calais.
[Illustration: FIG. 26.--_Armet of Sir George Brooke, K.G., 8th Lord
Cobham. From his tomb in Cobham Church, Kent. 1480-1500._]
[Illustration: FIG. 27.--_English armet from the collection of Seymour
Lucas, A.R.A. Date about 1500. From a photograph by Baron de Cosson._]
English armets dating from about 1500 are not uncommon, but, as
frequently observed, "they want that perfection and delicacy to be
found in fine Italian or German work." The earlier open down the
front, and the later at the side. They are generally combed, the ridge
or comb running from the forehead to the back of the neck, and
being beaten or raised out of the metal in the most able way. There
is generally, but not always, a reinforcing piece over the forehead.
The visor is of one piece, and works on a pivot, but in a few of the
early specimens the pin and hinge arrangement of the older Italian
examples is preserved, rendering it removable. The slit for vision is
generally made in the body of the visor, but is sometimes obtained by
cutting out a piece of its upper edge. It is beaked, thrown into few or
several ridges, with the slits or holes for breathing principally on
the right side. The English armet was rarely furnished with a bavier
or movable chin-piece, and the fixed one, called a mentonière, was
small. Baron de Cosson obtained one from Rayne Church in Essex, when
it was pulled down, and Meyrick procured a similar one from Fulham
Church, and Mr. Seymour Lucas, A.R.A., has two very fine specimens, now
exhibited at South Kensington, while specimens are to be met with in
most great collections. The not inelegant fluted Maximilian armets of
the same date are, however, far more frequent. Like the later English
armets, they have no baviers. Between 1510 and 1525, a hollow rim
was introduced round the base of the helmet, fitting closely into a
corresponding ridge round the upper edge of the gorget. This manifest
improvement was considered by Meyrick to constitute the Burgonet.
Between 1520 and 1540 the visor was formed of two parts, the upper of
which closed inside the lower, and was capable of being raised without
unfixing the latter. It remained in this form until the closed helmet
fell into disuse in the seventeenth century. The armet frequently
comprised, especially in the later examples, a fixed gorget, generally
of two or more articulated plates. A number of these are included
in the sixteenth and seventeenth century suits illustrated in the
succeeding pages, one of the most singular being the helmet of the
mounted suit of Henry VIII., made for the king by Conrad Seusenhofer
of Innsbrück in 1511-14. It consists of six pieces fitting one within
another without hinge or rivet, and seems originally to have had one of
the curious discs at the back seen in Italian fifteenth-century armets
and contemporary illustrations.
[Illustration: FIG. 28.--_Complete suit for fighting on foot, made for
Henry VIII. In the Tower of London._]
Towards the beginning of the sixteenth century knightly armour
underwent some profound modifications. The exaggerated elbow-guards
and shoulder-pieces were reduced, the tuilles, the laminated corselets
with their handsome flutings and indented margins, and the pointed
sollerets were either modified or seen no more; and with them disappear
much of the angulated, defensive mannerism, and the grace peculiar to
the armour of the third quarter of the fifteenth century. That which
followed appears smoother, rounder, and heavier, less mobile, and less
apt for real campaigning. The modifications tending to this result may
have been in a large degree due to the personal tastes of the three
great monarchs of Europe. Maximilian and Henry VIII. preferred at heart
the pomp and pageantry to the realities of war; while the classic
bias of Francis I. banished all Gothic feeling so far as his personal
influence extended. The short-waisted, podgy, globular breastplate,
the stolid limb-pieces, rounded knee-caps and strikingly splay-footed
sollerets, appear as if invented to altogether banish the very idea
of agility, if not of movement; and contrast in the strongest manner
with the lithe and supple-looking armour of the Beauchamp effigy. The
Tower collection, so relatively poor in Gothic armour, is fortunately
extremely rich in that of the period of Henry VIII., containing four
or five suits actually made for his personal use. One of the finest
of these, and an admirably perfect suit, is shown in our illustration
(Fig. 28). Though without any decoration or marks, it was undoubtedly
made expressly for the king, and is a chef-d'oeuvre of the armourer's
craft, being formed, according to Lord Dillon, of no less than 235
separate pieces, which are used about one half below and the rest above
the waist. The principal pieces are fitted with a hollow groove along
the inferior margin, and overlap others provided with a corresponding
ridge: so that the whole suit thus interlocks, and the plates cannot
be separated or the armour taken apart except by removing the helmet
and beginning at the neck-pieces. To the left shoulder-piece or
pauldron one of the upright neck-guards is still fixed by rivets. The
breastplate is globose, and has a central ridge called the tapul. The
arms are sheathed in rigid plates, separated by a series of narrow
laminar plates, by which power of movement is obtained. The elbows are
guarded by not inelegant caps, and the gauntlets are miton-fashioned,
of eleven small plates, and very flexible. The leg-armour is in large
pieces ridged down the centre, similarly to the breastplate, except
above and below the knee-cap, and at the ankle, where laminar plates
give the necessary play. The sollerets being made, like the gauntlets,
each of thirteen pieces, are also extremely flexible, and reproduce
in an exaggerated way the great broad toes of the civil dress. Like
the helm, already noticed, the suit is intended for combats on foot
and in the lists, which were greatly in fashion. No mail gussets were
needed, for there were no crevices between the plates, and the wearer
inside his armour was as well defended as a lobster in its shell; but
this security, as with all armour-plate, was purchased, notwithstanding
the perfection of manufacture, at the expense of unwieldiness and
fatigue, for the suit weighs over 92 lbs. There are three other suits
which belonged to Henry VIII., besides the magnificent equestrian one
next figured. The second dismounted one was also intended for combats
on foot, and is known as a tonlet suit from the long, laminated skirt
of horizontal plates reaching to the knee, and sliding over each
other. It is decorated with some engraved bands or borders, while the
fine headpiece to it is Italian, bearing the marks of the celebrated
Missaglias of Milan. We meet at this time with the sliding rivets,
a new mode of attachment for the plates, which enabled them to play
freely over each other without parting company. The overlapping tassets
of most of the close-fitting skirts are made in this fashion, to
which the term Almayne rivets, so frequently met with in inventories,
is believed to apply. Some of the suits are provided with a locking
gauntlet, to prevent the sword from being struck out of the wearer's
hand, the so-called forbidden gauntlet, though its prevalence in
collections negatives the idea that its use was disallowed. In one
mounted suit the insteps are protected by the great ungainly stirrups
necessitated by the broad-toed sollerets, and therefore only covered
with mail. This suit is enriched with a picturesque banded ornament,
partly gilt.
[Illustration: FIG. 29.--_Suit made for Henry VIII. by Conrad
Seusenhofer of Innsbrück, 1511-1514. A present from the Emperor
Maximilian I. In the Tower._]
The superbly-mounted suit in our illustration (Fig. 29), one of the
finest of its date in existence, was constructed to the order of
Maximilian expressly for Henry VIII., by Conrad Seusenhofer, one
of the most celebrated armourers of Innsbrück, whose mark it bears
on the helmet. It was sent as a gift in 1514, and was originally
silvered all over, and finely engraved in every part with the legend
of St. George and the badges of Henry VIII. and Katharine of Arragon.
The Tudor cognisances are the rose, portcullis and red dragon; and
Katharine's the pomegranate and sheaf of arrows, with finely-scrolled
arabesque work between. This ornament seems to be engraved and not
etched, as in later times. The most remarkable feature is the steel
skirt called base, of great rarity, and made in imitation of the
folds of the cloth bases so much in vogue at this time. These skirts
were used for fighting on foot, and there is provision for fixing an
additional piece to complete it in front, the absence of which alone
permitted the wearer to sit on horseback, though the difficulty of
getting into the saddle must have been considerable. The skirt is
edged with a finely-modelled border of brass in high relief, with
the initials H. and K. united by true-lover's knots. The suit is
complete in every respect except the gauntlets, and is mentioned in
the Greenwich inventory of 1547, published in the fifty-first volume
of _Archæologia_ by Lord Dillon. It is there described as "a harnesse
given unto the King's Maiestie by Th^e Empero^r Maximilian w^t a Base
of stele and goldesmythes worke." The brass border to the base thus
appears to have been regarded as silver and gilt goldsmiths' work.
The horse armour matching the suit, which was to be used on foot, as
Lord Dillon points out, did not exist at this period, and the figure
was seated on the Burgundian horse armour of repoussé steel of the
time of Henry VII., which still stands next to it in the Tower. The
engraving on the horse armour or bard is designed in the same spirit
as that of the armour itself, but is by an inferior hand. The subjects
are treated in the style of Albert Dürer or Burgkmair, and represent
incidents in the lives of St. George and St. Barbara, and besides the
badges on the armour which are reproduced, the castle and the rose
and pomegranate impaled appear, with the motto DIEV ET MON DROYT many
times repeated round the edge. All these badges and engravings were
illustrated, almost real size, by Meyrick, in the twenty-second volume
of _Archæologia_. The horse armour was silvered and probably parcel
gilt, like the body armour, and was made, it is supposed, by some of
the German armourers brought over and established in Greenwich by Henry
VIII. It is stiff and unwieldy, and does not very efficiently protect
the horse, though its effect is dignified and even magnificent. The
singular construction of the helmet has already been alluded to.
Contemporary with these suits is the fine German late Gothic fluted
armour, known as Maximilian, nearly perfect examples of which are to
be seen in every collection of importance. This was used for tilts,
with the immensely massive outwork of plates to fend off the blows of
the lance and other weapons, and to prevent the left leg from being
crushed against the barrier. Some of the rarer Maximilian suits not
only reproduce the cloth skirts of the civil costume in steel, but also
innumerable puffings and slashings, which were the fashion of the day.
Sometimes the helmets belonging to these suits have the mask-shaped
visors, a specimen of which, also a present to Henry VIII. from
Maximilian, still exists in the Tower. This formed part of a tilting
harness, and is described in the 1547 inventory as "a hedde pece w^t a
Rammes horne silver pcell guilte." In 1660 it was attributed to Will
Sommers, the king's jester, and has subsequently been rendered more
grotesque by paint and a pair of spectacles. A complete helmet of the
same kind is preserved at Warwick Castle, as well as one of the rarer
Italian helmets, with curling woolly hair represented in embossed iron,
but without the visor.
All this armour was made for the shocks and pleasurable excitement
of jousts, tilts, and tourneys, which its perfection and strength
deprived of nearly every element of danger. Its weight and closeness
would indeed have made it insupportable on active service. The great
revolution in the equipments for war, commenced by the artillery train
and nearly unarmoured pikeman and estradiot, was now being completed by
the reiter, pistolier and arquebusier. The massed man-at-arms, armed
cap-à-pied, had borne down for the last time all before him with the
lance, and was ceasing to play a decisive or even an important part in
warfare. Armour in campaigning was becoming of little consequence, and
even for the tourney a reaction was setting in against the extravagant
and ponderous precautions devised by Maximilian and his admirer Henry.
The decision of battles now belonged to pike, bill, and musket. The
infantry and light troops, who had hitherto been left to arm themselves
as best they could, began to be dressed in some sort of uniform, with
weapons and armour selected with some care, and used in definite
proportions. It is certainly strange to read that the archers who
did such splendid service at Agincourt were left to pick up any kind
of helmet, bassinet, or cap, whether of leather or wicker bound with
iron, and any description of side-arms, and were mostly without armour,
save the pourpoint, with stockings hanging down or bare feet. Only the
bows, arrows, and stakes were obligatory. In pictures, archers and
the foot generally are represented in every kind of old brigandine,
mail, bits of plate, or "jakkes" of linen, which inventories tell us
were stuffed with horn or mail. It was only when the kings and nobles
thought it worth their while to clothe and equip the foot-soldier that
his costume became distinctive, and even sumptuous in the case of the
bodyguards to Charles VII., Louis XI., or Henry VII. and VIII. A larger
proportion of archers became mounted as the fifteenth century wore on,
Edward IV. invading France with no less than 14,000, besides the foot.
Picked men, and those of the bodyguards of kings and princes, like the
Duke of Burgundy, were sometimes magnificently dressed. The uniform
of the archers of the Duke of Berri in 1465 was a brigandine covered
with black velvet and gilt nails, and a hood ornamented with silver
gilt tassels. At the entry into Rouen, 1460, the archers of the King
of France, the King of Sicily and the Duke of Maine wore plate-armour
under jackets of various colours, with greaves, swords, daggers and
helms rich with silversmiths' work. The leaders of other corps were
in jackets striped red, white and green, covered with embroidery.
English archers are sometimes spoken of as gallantly accoutred. Under
Henry VIII. the bodyguard called the "retinewe of speres" comprised
two mounted archers in uniform to each man-at-arms, as in France.
Every layman with an estate of £1000 and upwards had to furnish thirty
long-bows, thirty sheaves of arrows, and thirty steel caps. In 1548
the uniform of the English archer was a coat of blue cloth guarded
with red, right hose red, the left blue, or both blue with broad red
stripes, and a special cap to be worn over the steel cap or sallad,
to be bought in London for 8d. They were provided with brigandines
or coats of little plates, mawles of lead five feet long, with two
stakes, and a dagger. The distinguishing mark of the various bands
was embroidered on the left sleeve. In 1510 Henry ordered 10,000 bows
from the bowyers of London, and applied for leave to import 40,000
from Venice. In 1513 he took 12,000 archers to France, and in 1518
agreed to furnish 6000 archers to the emperor. In this reign they did
good service, as in repelling the descent of the French at Brighton,
1515, and at Flodden, where the King of Scots was found among the dead
pierced by an arrow. Some bow-staves of yew were recovered from the
wreck of the _Mary Rose_, and are now in the Tower. At Dover Castle
there are a long-bow and a cross-bow, stated to be part of the original
armament.
The cross-bow was rarely favoured by Englishmen, though an imposing
force of 4000 appeared in the united forces of England and Burgundy
in 1411, each attended by two varlets to load, so that the weapons
were always ready to shoot. In 1415, however, Henry V. only took
ninety-eight from England in his whole force of 10,500 men, eighteen
of whom were mounted. In 1465 the so-called mounted archers were very
variously armed in France, with cross-bows, veuglaires, and hand
culverins.
If so formidable a body as the English archers could be left to their
own devices as to accoutrements in the first half of the century, the
rest of the foot, armed with long weapons called staves, bills, and
halbards, must have presented the appearance of a mere rabble. The
French foot, armed with partisans, halbards, or javelins, bore the
suggestive name of "brigans," and were much despised, but at Montlhéry
in 1465 the greater part of the slaughter was by the "rascally
Burgundian foot," with their pikes and other weapons tipped with iron.
The Swiss victory at Morat in 1476 undoubtedly led the French, and
later the English, to introduce a disciplined infantry armed with the
pike as a serious element into the army. In 1480 the French took the
extreme course of disbanding the whole body of archers, substituting
Swiss pikemen, and causing a prodigious number of pikes, halbards, and
daggers to be made by the cutlers. Thus in 1482 the army of Picardy
is composed of no more than 1400 men-at-arms, 6000 Swiss, and 8000
pikes. The proportions in England, ten years later, may be gauged by
the Earl of Surrey's contingent of five men-at-arms, each with cushet
and page, twelve demi-lances, twenty archers mounted, forty-six on
foot, and thirteen bills. The archers remained an important force with
us till long after Henry VIII., but it is only in his reign that the
billmen and halbardiers occupy a definite position in the country's
armed forces. These were armed with bill, sword, shield, sallad, and
corselet. The costume of the foot and even the yeomen of the guard,
1000 strong under Henry VIII., changed with the civil dress, but always
included the royal badge and crown. Henry proceeded to the siege of
Boulogne in the midst of his pikemen with fifty mounted archers on
the right and fifty mounted gunners on the left. Their costumes are
seen in the Hampton Court pictures. In 1598 it was scarlet profusely
spangled. Under Philip and Mary they were an even more important force,
and under Elizabeth the backbone of the army was its pikemen, billmen,
and harquebusiers, now armed, as in France, with Milanese corselets and
morions. The bill was six feet long, of native production, the head at
least twelve inches long, and bound with iron like the halbard, which
was shorter, to at least the middle of the staff. The black bills were
also shorter and from Germany, but the best halbards were Milanese. The
partisan with us seems to have been more a weapon of parade, various
in form, with or without wings, and richly decorated with engraving,
painting, and gilding. The pike was eighteen to twenty-two feet long,
with a tassel to prevent the water running down. The "Staves" in the
Tower under Henry VIII. included 20,100 morris pikes, some highly
decorated, and 2000 javelins, mostly richly mounted, as if for the
Court guards. The army taken to France in 1513 comprised, according
to the Venetian ambassador, 6000 halbardiers and 12,000 men with
holy-water sprinklers, a weapon never seen before, six feet long,
surmounted by a ball with six steel spikes. The name was a quaint joke,
like the Flemish Godendag or the Swiss Wasistdas and Morgenstern.
Besides these there were tridents, pole-axes, collen cleves,
boar-spears, rawcons, partisans, and other forms of staff weapons in
smaller quantities.
[Illustration: PLATE VI.--Profile of the helmet belonging to the French
suit (Fig. 32). In the guard-chamber of Windsor Castle.]
An English army sometimes comprised light cavalry even in the earliest
times, perhaps none more singular than a miserably-accoutred force of
mounted Irish armed with target, short javelin, and great outlandish
knives, but without using saddles, in the reign of Henry V. The army
of Henry VIII. in 1513 comprised 9000 to 10,000 heavy barbed cavalry
and 8000 light horse, and 2000 mounted archers. His "Retinewe of
speres" comprised a page, a cushet with javelin or demi-lance, and two
archers, all mounted, to each man-at-arms. An English force of about
400 demi-lances serving Henri II. in 1552 "for their pleasure," were in
short petticoats, red bonnets, body with brassarts of plate, and high
leather boots above the knee, mounted on swift little horses and armed
with a lance like a demi-pike.
The infantry, though not yet a permanent standing force, except in
the case of the Royal bodyguards, was now a recognised arm into which
men enlisted as a professional career for the term of their lives or
until disabled. To handle the pike or arquebus efficiently required
long training, and veterans were always accepted before recruits. It
was their steadiness and power of manoeuvring in action that lessened
the value of heavy cavalry, and consequently contributed, more than
any other circumstance, to the rapid disuse of the cap-à-pied suit of
armour in the field, so noticeable in the next chapter.
V
_The Age of Enriched Armour_
Armour began from about the accession of Edward VI. to cease to be
a military necessity, and those engaged in practical warfare were
more ready to dispense with its doubtful protection than to encumber
themselves with its certain disadvantages. Excuses were found for
appearing in the field without armour, or with an imperfect equipment,
and punishments were inflicted in the vain attempt to stem the tide of
change. Those who served on foot had naturally the strongest objection
to bearing its weight, since when opposed to firearms it ceased to
have any practical utility. A battle-scene at Hampton Court, the
battle of Forty by Snayers, furnishes the strongest justification for
its disuse among men-at-arms. It represents a number of mounted men
in complete armour, who discharge horse-pistols point blank at each
other's breastplates, the individual struck falling in every case dead
or wounded from his horse. The wheel-lock pistol, the arm of the German
Reiters, who wore black armour, mail sleeves, and a visored morion,
was in the field in 1512. From this time, therefore, armour was worn
rather for display than service, and the purchaser came to value its
defensive qualities far less than the magnificence of its decoration.
Nor was ostentation in arms confined to the noble or knight alone.
Brantôme says that among the pikemen and musketeers of Strozzi, De
Brissac, and the Duc de Guise, thousands of gilt and engraved morions
and corselets were to be seen on parade days, and the armour worn by
the picked force of Spaniards and Italians sent by Philip of Spain to
occupy the Netherlands was a splendid sight. The great and wealthy
have seldom cared to stint in matters of personal adornment, and
in days when there were fewer ways in which a taste for extravagant
expenditure could be combined with a high appreciation of art, fortunes
were spent upon the coverings of the body. Nothing more sumptuous in
applied art exists, in regard either to design or execution, than the
work lavished on the armour produced for the French, Spanish, and
other monarchs in the second half of the sixteenth and beginning of
the seventeenth centuries. Among this the most exquisitely beautiful
is the damascened work, scattered over Europe, persistently though
erroneously attributed to Cellini, of which, perhaps, one of the
finest examples is the target at Windsor. It is no exaggeration to say
that neither chiselling, embossing, nor damascening on metal has ever
rivalled or even approached that bestowed at this time upon royal arms
and armour. The chief seats of production were in Germany and Italy,
at Milan above all, then Innsbrück, Augsburg, Nuremberg; and in a less
degree Florence, Brescia and Venice. It is singular that few fine
suits can be attributed to France, and fewer still either to Spain,
the Netherlands, or England. The youth of Edward, the fact that female
sovereigns succeeded, and finally, the timidity and horror of war felt
by James, account for none of the known chef-d'oeuvre suits being made
for English wearers. Such extraordinary and magnificent armour was meet
for none but the high-spirited and rival princes of Europe, and no king
distinguished for valour occupied the throne of England during the
period when enriched armour reached its culminating point of grandeur.
[Illustration: FIG. 30.--_Part of a suit made for Sir Christopher
Hatton._
From the Spitzer collection, and now in the possession of Mr. Charles
Davis. This is No. 15 in the Armourers' Album in the South Kensington
Museum, reproduced in our Plate III.]
There are, however, a certain number of richly engraved and gilt
suits which have been in the possession of English families from time
immemorial, and the fortunate acquisition for the South Kensington
Museum Art Library of an Armourers' Album of the time of Elizabeth, has
enabled many of the original wearers of them to be identified. This
MS., as Lord Dillon relates, was in the possession, in 1790, of the
Duchess of Portland, daughter of Harley, Earl of Oxford, who permitted
Pennant to engrave from it a suit of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester,
for his account of London; while Strutt was allowed to reproduce that
of George, Earl of Cumberland, for his work on dresses and costumes.
The book undoubtedly once formed part of the great Harleian Library,
but was lost until seen in Paris some years ago by Baron de Cosson. It
was sold at the Spitzer sale, acquired by M. Stein, and offered to the
Kensington Museum, by whom it was wisely purchased.
The drawings are in pen and ink and water-colours and represent
twenty-nine full suits, besides the extra pieces for tilting. Some
of them are inscribed "Made by me Jacobe," the name of the master
armourer at Greenwich during part of Elizabeth's reign, and mentioned
by Sir Henry Lee, the Master of the Armoury, in a letter to the
Lord Treasurer, dated 12th October 1590, published by Lord Dillon
in the fifty-first volume of _Archæologia_. Wendelin Böheim, the
curator of the Imperial collections of armour at Vienna, has recently
identified this Jacobe with Jacob Topf, one of three brothers, natives
of Innsbrück or its vicinity, and who suddenly appears as court
armourer in 1575. This post he seems to have retained and worked at
Schloss Ambras till his death in 1597. Suits made by him during this
period for the Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol and Archduke Charles of
Styria certainly bear some resemblance to those in the Album. Böheim
infers from the Italian influence seen in his work, especially in
the ornament, that Topf must have proceeded from the atelier of Jörg
Seusenhofer to Milan or Brescia, about the year 1558, and taken up his
abode in England between 1562 and 1575.
To support the identification of the Jacobe of the Album with Jacob
Topf of Innsbrück, it is necessary either that all the suits should
have been produced before 1575, or that those made at a later time
should be regarded as by some other hand. The first two, for Rutland
and Bedford, who died respectively in 1563 and 1564, are relatively
plain, and have M.R. over them, and the rest E.R., which can only, it
would appear, have reference to the initials of the reigning queens.
All the figures are practically drawn from one model, though sometimes
reversed, and are in an easy and graceful pose. Two of the richest,
namely the second suit for Sir Henry Lee, the Master Armourer, No. 19,
and the first suit of Sir Christopher Hatton, No. 15 of the Album,
are here reproduced in facsimile, though reduced in scale (Plates II.
and III.). One holds a mace and the other a truncheon in one hand,
with the butt resting upon the hip, while the other arm is bent and
the extended palm rests upon the thigh. They wear the close helmet or
armet of Italian fashion, with a high comb and a large sharply-pointed
visor. The gorgets are laminated, the pauldrons large and massive,
the breastplates long-waisted, known as the peascod shape, ending in
a point, with a ridge down the centre called the tapul; the tassets
are short and laminated. Only the front of the thigh is protected by
laminated cuissarts, and the rest of the leg by close-fitting knee-caps
and greaves. The sollerets are complete and take the shape of the foot.
The swords appear to be simply cross-hilted and worn in scabbards. Both
the suits reproduced are richly engraved with vertical bands of gilt
arabesqued ornament in the Italian fashion: Sir Christopher Hatton's
being on a russet ground with a gold corded pattern connecting the
bands; and Sir Henry Lee's on a white ground with a knotted reticulated
pattern between. The minor details are considerably varied in the
other suits, two of which have been reproduced by Lord Dillon, and
two by Böheim in the publications already referred to. The complete
list comprises the names of many of the leading nobles and captains of
Elizabeth's reign, only two in it being foreigners.
[Illustration: FIG. 31.--_Armour of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester,
1566-1588. In the Tower._]
The ornament is sufficiently distinct to admit of the suits being
identified where they still exist. Thus the Earl of Pembroke's suit
is still at Wilton, in perfect preservation; the suit of George, Earl
of Cumberland, is in the possession of Lord Hothfield at Appleby
Castle. The grand-guard of this suit, with volant attached, forms
the subject of Plate IV., in which the original russet and gilding
is somewhat restored. The ornament on the bands is an interlacing
strap upon a foliated arabesque ground, with a figure of Mercury near
the top, and two E's at intervals addorsed and crowned, coupled by a
true-lover's knot. Between are large roses and fleurs-de-lis united by
knots. The helmet of Sir Henry Lee's second suit, Plate II., is now
in the Tower, having been identified by Lord Dillon, while a locking
gauntlet belonging to it is in the Hall of the Armourers' Company. This
gauntlet, called the "forbidden gauntlet," was in form of a closed
right hand, the fingers fastened by a hook and staple, leaving an
aperture for the passage of the weapon which, if a lance, or sword with
cross-guard and pommel, could not be dislodged. In the Tower are also
the vamplate of Sir Christopher Hatton's second suit, and the complete
armour of the Earl of Worcester, with both the headpieces. A helmet
of Lord Sussex's suit is in the Tower, and two gauntlets belonging to
it were in the Spitzer sale. Lord Bucarte's suit is in the Wallace
collection at Hertford House, and another fine suit is in Armourers'
Hall.
The first Sir Christopher Hatton suit, Plate III., has also recently
reached this country, fortunately in almost perfect condition. It was
disposed of in the Spitzer sale, and was purchased by Mr. Davies of
New Bond Street. It will be a misfortune if this historic piece is not
added to the national collection. Fig. 30 represents the upper part of
this suit, taken from a photograph, with the high neck-guards attached
to the pauldrons. The original front-plate seems to be lost, but the
extra breastplate for tilting and some other extra pieces are preserved.
If Boheim is correct in his identification of Jacobe with Jacob Topf,
and in his dates, the armour in the Album must be by different hands.
Thus Topf, arriving in 1562, could hardly have made the first two
suits marked M.R., the owners of which died, as we have mentioned,
in 1563 and 1564 respectively. The mail defence for the instep and
the relatively broad toes are features of an earlier time, which the
letters M.R. identify as that of Mary, and show that the very broad
stirrup of Henry VIII. was still in use. Neither could he, being
settled in Innsbrück or at Ambras in 1575, have made the suits for Sir
Henry Lee, as Master of the Armoury; nor that for Sir Thomas Bromley,
as Lord Chancellor, though the latter suit may have been for Sir
Nicholas Bacon, the previous Lord Chancellor. The chief difficulty
is the date of Sir Henry Lee's appointment, which Lord Dillon in his
able treatise, in the _Archæological Journal_ for June 1895, gives as
1580, and the fact that the solitary mention of Jacobe in any document
is by Sir Henry Lee himself, and is dated October 1590, in which he
speaks of him as "the M^r workman of Grenewhyche," and in a way that
could not well have reference to one who had quitted the post fifteen
years before. These difficulties may, however, it is possible, yet be
reconciled.
[Illustration: FIG. 32.--_A superb suit of French armour in perfect
preservation. Early seventeenth century. In the Guard-chamber of
Windsor Castle._]
Among the fine suits in the Tower is the equestrian armour of Robert
Dudley, Earl of Leicester (Fig. 31), not however one of the suits in
the Album. It is, like the Jacobe suits, banded in the Italian fashion,
with a similar kind of design upon the bands, and between them a broad
impressed diaper of crossed ragged staves and leaves filled with fine
arabesques. Among the enrichments can also be seen the George of the
Garter, the bear and ragged staff, the initials R.D., and the
collar of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, conferred upon this
favourite of Queen Elizabeth in 1566. In the illustration of this suit,
Fig. 31, the bear and ragged staff is plainly visible on the horse's
chamfron, from which issues a twisted spike. The armet is combed, but
differs in form from the Jacobe type, and the visor is pierced on one
side with round holes. In other respects the fashion of the armour
is very similar to that of his enemy, Sir Christopher Hatton. The
grand-guard and pass-guard or elbow-guard are preserved with it. The
former is illustrated, Plate V., with its original gilding restored,
the military cleaning and scouring to which it has been subjected for
so many years, not wisely but too well, having obliterated every trace
of the original splendour of colour. A portrait of the Earl in this
very suit exists, however, to show what it was. He died, it is well
known, in 1588.
[Illustration: FIG. 33.--_Italian suit of blued and gilded steel
covered with appliqués of gold. In the Guard-chamber of Windsor
Castle._]
Several splendid and historic suits are preserved in the Guard-room at
Windsor Castle. Among these, one, the suit of Prince Henry of Wales,
son of James I. (frontispiece), bears a remarkable resemblance to the
Jacobe suits, recalling especially the design of the Cumberland suit,
Plate IV. But for the alternation of thistles among the fleurs-de-lis
and roses between the bands of gilded ornament, the body armour in
both would be nearly identical. The monogram H.P. appears on the gilt
bands of strap and arabesque work. The gilding is in fine preservation,
and except that the steel was formerly a deep blue, in the Milanese
fashion, it is still as represented in the portrait of Prince Henry
in the possession of the Marquis of Lothian. It has been attributed
to William Pickering, Master of the Armourers' Company of London in
1608-9, on the faith of some payments made to him, which Mr. St. John
Hope has noted as follows: "In March 1613, a warrant issued under
sign manual, for the payment to Sir Edward Cecil of a balance of £300
due for armour value £450 for the late Prince Henry: and in July 1614
a warrant issued to pay William Pickering, Master of the Armoury at
Greenwich, £200 balance of £340 for armour gilt and graven for the late
Prince." The helmet somewhat resembles that of the Leicester suit,
but has a singularly stiff, vertically-ridged gorget with scalloped
edge, and heavier gauntlets. The leg-defences and sollerets do not
differ appreciably from those already noticed. A number of the extra
pieces and some of the horse armour belonging to the suit are preserved
with it. If really by Pickering he was a close copyist of Jacobe. An
apparently companion suit of Prince Charles is looked on with suspicion
by Lord Dillon. Another of Prince Henry's suits, presented by the
Prince de Joinville, and now in the Tower, was originally of blued
steel richly ornamented with classical designs in gold. There are also
in the Tower a fine suit made for Charles I. when a boy, some silvered
pieces, and the richly gilt and engraved armour presented to him by the
City of London.
[Illustration: PLATE VII.--Ornament on the tapul of the breastplate
belonging to the half-suit of the Earl of Essex, (fig 35) with the
original gilding slightly restored. In the guard-chamber of Windsor
Castle.]
[Illustration: FIG. 34.--_A part of the ornament of the Italian suit
(Fig. 33), drawn real size._]
Another suit at Windsor of extraordinary magnificence is that
represented in Fig. 32. It is, unfortunately, not well set up, and
differs considerably in construction from those hitherto noticed, and
is of later date than the Jacobe suits. The tassets are replaced by
laminar cuissarts extending to the knee, below which the suit is not
continued. The ornament is banded vertically, like that of the suits
previously figured, but is of a richer character. Its details and
colouring are reproduced on a larger scale in the helmet, Plate VI.,
which is combed, fluted, and of singularly graceful outline, with all
its fastenings, plume-holders, and the stiffly-ribbed gorget in most
perfect condition. The whole appears to be a specimen of rare French
armour, but nothing is known of its history. Even more sumptuous,
if possible, is the Italian suit, Fig. 33, which also exhibits some
peculiar characters, such as the single plates in place of the tassets
and the construction of the arm-defences and gauntlets. The setting
up in this suit is also unfortunately defective. The extraordinary
richness of the damascening and appliqué work is reproduced in
Fig. 34, in which a portion is sketched real size. Nearly all the
escutcheon-like appliqués have been picked off at some period, either
for mischief or for the gold. The original owner of this suit is also
unknown, but it may, with the one last described, have possibly been
a present to Prince Henry, whose passion for military exercises and
display is matter of history. The last of our illustrations (Fig. 35)
taken from suits in the Windsor Guard-chamber is a demi-suit of the
Earl of Essex, and is a war suit, something like a pikeman's, except
that the closed helmet was not worn by dismounted men. This is combed,
and introduces a shade or peak over the sight. It has no visor, but a
bavier in two pieces protects the face. It should perhaps be described
as a burgonet with gorget and movable mentonières. Probably only a
part of the suit is present, that for use on foot, and the helmet may
belong to the missing equipment for a rider, or if worn on foot it
would have been as an open burgonet. The Jacobe Album introduces us to
the burgonet and cabasset, a lighter morion, and shows that these were
used when fighting on foot by even the greatest captains. This suit is
also decorated in bands, a fashion almost universal during the reign
of Elizabeth. The breastplate is the peascod with tapul form, and the
cuissarts "à écrivisse" form the only protection for the legs. The
ornament is more finely and delicately chased than that of any suit yet
noticed. The design on the bands is an interlacing and knotted strap,
filled with arabesqued foliage enclosing medallions with emblematic
figures and flowers encircled by mottoes, as Futura præteritis, on a
ground etched down, but with foliage and bright points like grains of
seed, left on it. A part of this ornament is drawn full size in Plate
VII. There is a suit in the Tower attributed to the same Robert
Devereux, Earl of Essex, who was executed in 1601, also richly engraved
and gilt.
[Illustration: FIG. 35.--_Demi-suit of the Earl of Essex, with closed
helmet, magnificently engraved and gilt. From the Guard-chamber at
Windsor Castle._]
[Illustration: FIG. 36.--_Sword, probably of James I., with basket
hilt, entirely covered with raised gold damascening. Preserved in
Windsor Castle_.]
The suits now divided between Windsor and the Tower evidently formed
part of a single collection. Those at Windsor are placed on brackets
at such a height that they can only be inspected from a ladder, and
they sadly require setting up, in the way that Lord Dillon has mounted
those in the Tower. It is perhaps unfortunate that the national
collection of armour is so scattered, parts being, besides the great
collections at the Tower and Windsor, in the British and South
Kensington Museums, Hertford House, Woolwich Rotunda, and Dover Castle,
while most of the earlier English and historic pieces are still in
churches and cathedrals. If brought together, properly displayed and
added to in a reasonable manner by the purchase of such suits as that
recently sold in the Spitzer sale, a suit of fine quality and directly
connected with our national history, it might become worthy the
country, and rank in time with the great armouries of Vienna, Paris,
Madrid, Turin, or Dresden.
[Illustration: PLATE VIII.--The sword of Charles I. when Prince of
Wales, 1616. The hilt entirely covered with raised gold damascened work
on blue steel matrix; except the grip of silver wire work. Preserved in
Windsor Castle.]
Besides the half-dozen really magnificent suits in the Guard-chamber at
Windsor, there is a vast collection of arms and weapons in the North
Corridor, formed in a great measure by Her Majesty. Among these are
three swords intimately connected with our history. Of these, that of
Charles I. has a pommel and guard of steel overlaid with raised gold
damascening, and a grip covered with silver wire woven like basket-work
(Plate VIII.). The blade is decorated with Latin inscriptions in
Roman capitals along both margins, back and front, and in circles
at intervals. Between these are panels, alternately of emblems and
ornament, and of arabesqued scrolls, damascened so minutely that the
work is almost invisible until magnified. The small portion of the
blade in our figure shows the character of the work. The royal arms,
Prince of Wales' feathers, and date 1616 on the blade show that it was
made for Charles I. when Prince of Wales. The second sword, with the
magnificently-worked basket hilt of chased gold inlay on steel (Fig.
36), has a similar blade, marvellously fine arabesques taking the place
of the marginal inscriptions. It is otherwise nearly identical with
the last, the spread eagles, griffins, etc., being common to both. The
presence of the lion of England under a royal crown points to James I.
as its owner. The third sword (Fig. 37) is that of John Hampden. Its
blade is plain, but the hilt is of superb workmanship and of carved
steel. The grip is small, and, like the pear-shaped pommel, covered
with warriors in relief in Roman dress. The quillons are slightly
curved, and carved with pomegranates and foliage, with figures
reclining horizontally to form the extremities. The smaller front guard
over the blade, known as the "pas-d'âne," and most elaborately worked
with figures and medallions, is a prominent feature of the hilt. All
three swords bear the unicorn's head mark of Nuremberg, but the two
enriched blades can be identified, thanks to the assistance of Baron de
Cosson, as the work of Clemens Horn of Solingen, 1580-1625. There is a
similar sword in the Royal Armoury at Madrid, belonging to the suits
made by Desiderius Kolman for Philip II., and another is in the Baron's
own collection. The sword, as the emblem of knightly honour and faith,
was from the remotest times a vehicle for the richest decoration; but
it is doubtful whether any specimens were ever produced, even by the
combined efforts of the swordsmith and jeweller, to equal the work of
those here represented, which are not only connected with the history
of our country, but happily also the property of the nation.
[Illustration: FIG. 37.--_The sword of John Hampden, with hilt of
carved steel. Preserved at Windsor Castle._]
INDEX
d'Abernon brass, 36, 40
Acre, Siege of, 14
Agincourt, Battle of, 46, 48, 49
Aldborough Church, 33
Alençon, Duke of, 48
Alfred, King, 10
Allbright (armourer), 46
Almayne rivets, 70
Appleby Castle, 85
Archæological Institute, 30
Archers, 17, 20, 43, 46, 47, 58, 74-76
Armet, The, 58, 62, 65, 66, 82, 90
Armourers' Album, 81, 82, 86, 92
Armourers' Hall, 18, 86
Arthur, King, 7, 10
Ash, Effigy at, 40
Athelstan, 10
Augsburg, 81
Auray, Battle of, 44
Austin, William (armourer), 52
Bacon, Sir Nicholas, 86
Badges, Heraldic, 20
Barres, William de, 22
Base, The, 70
Bassinets, 24, 29, 30, 32-34, 36, 46, 48, 56-61
Battle-axes, 45
Bavier, The, 58, 62, 65, 92
Bayeux Tapestry, 12, 32
Beauchamp, Richard. _See_ Warwick, Earl of
Beauchamp MS., 52
Beauvais, Battle of, 47
Beche, De (monument), 19
Beckman, 18
Beowulf, 9-11
Bills, 46, 76
Black Prince, The, 30, 32, 35, 40, 48
Blount, Sir Walter, 50
Böheim, Wendelin, 82, 85, 86
Bohun, Sir Humphrey de, 34, 42
Boileau, Etienne, 18
Boulogne, Siege of, 76
Bourgthéroude, Battle of, 14
Bows and arrows, 14, 43, 74
Brantôme, 78
Breastplates, 7, 22, 34, 35, 42, 47, 51, 52, 66, 69, 85, 86
Brescia, 81, 82
Brigandine, The, 42, 47, 56, 74, 75
British Museum, 6, 7, 10, 18, 52, 56, 61, 96
Brives, 30
Broadwater Church (helmet in), 60
Bromley, Sir Thomas, 86
Brooke, Sir George, 62
Brooke, Sir Thomas, 60
Bucarte, Lord, 86
Burgess Collection, 33
Burgonet, The, 65, 92
Burley, Simon, 34
"Byrnies," 9, 18
Cabasset, The, 92
Cade, Jack, 51
Camail, The, 32, 46, 62
Cambray, Battle of, 16
Canterbury, 30
Canute, 11
Capel family, 59
Caractacus, 7
Cassel, Battle of, 30
Cassivelaunus, 7
Cawne, Sir Thomas (effigy of), 40
Cellini, Benvenuto, 81
Chain-mail. _See_ Mail armour
Chamfron, The, 48, 89
Chandos, Sir John, 34, 44, 56
Chapelle-de-fer, The, 20, 29, 30, 32
Chariots, 5, 7
Charlemagne, 22
Charles VII., 62
Charles Stuart, Prince, 90, 91
Chausse and Chausson, 22, 23
Cheney, De, brass, 36
Christy Collection, 33
Clisson, Sir Oliver de, 44
Clypeus, The, 5
Cobham, 48, 62
Cognizances, 24
Commines, Philip de, 56, 61
Comnena, Anna, 12-14
Cornewall, Sir John de, 49, 58
Corselets, 66, 78
Cosson, Baron de, 30, 33, 51, 59, 60, 62, 65, 81, 98
Courci, Ralph de, 24
Courtrai, Battle of, 39
Coventry (sallad at), 58
Cracowes, 36
Crell, de, brass, 40
Cressy, Battle of, 43, 46
Crests, 20, 21, 29, 30
Crinet, The, 48
Crossbows, 14, 15, 43, 75
Crossbow-men, 16, 46
Cuir-bouilli, 28, 29, 34, 42
Cuissarts, 52, 85, 91, 92
Cumberland, Earl of, 81, 85
Damascened armour, 81
Danes, The, 12
Danish armour, 10
Daundelyon brass, The, 51
Daunt, Thomas, 48
Dillon, Lord, 20, 69, 70, 81, 82, 85, 86, 90, 96
Diodorus Siculus, 6
Dover Castle Collection, 18, 34, 75, 96
Easter Sepulchre, Lincoln, 22, 24
Edda, The, 11, 18
Edward I., 15-17, 32, 34
Elbow-guards, 39, 50, 52, 56, 66
Enamelling on bronze, 5-7
Enriched armour, 78-81
Epaulettes, 50
Essex, Earl of, 92, 95
Ethelwulf, 10
Evans, Sir John, 5
Evesham, Battle of, 14
Exeter Cathedral, 42
Falkirk, Battle of, 14
Flint, 7
Flodden, Battle of, 75
Florence, 81
Fluted armour, 73
Foix, Comte de, 49
Fram, The, 8
Francis I., 66
Frisian Pirates, 8
Froissart, 34, 39, 56, 61
Gambeson, The, 16, 19, 23, 28, 40, 46, 47, 55
Gardner, Mr. J. E., 18
Gauntlets, 39, 40, 56, 69, 70, 85, 90, 92
Gauntlets, Forbidden. _See_ Gauntlets, Locking
Gauntlets, Locking, 70, 85
Gaveston, Piers, 36, 39, 42
Gaynesford, John (his brass), 51
Genouillière. _See_ Knee-cap
Gildas, 8
Gilded armour, 7, 30, 40-42, 51, 73, 91
Gisors, Battle of, 15
Gloucester, Richard of, 24
Godwin, Earl, 11
Gordon, Adam (outlaw), 16
Gorget, The, 32, 34, 36, 56, 62, 65, 82, 90, 92
Gostwick, Sir John, 60
Grand-guard, The, 85, 90
Greaves, 23, 35, 36, 42, 74, 85
Gussets, 45, 48, 55, 69
Habergeon, The, 40
Haketon, The, 40
Halbards, 75, 76
Hampton Court, 62, 76, 78
Hanging arms in churches, 30
Harold, 12
Hastings, Battle of, 12, 14, 15, 20
Hatton, Sir Christopher, 82, 85, 86, 90
Hauberk, The, 16, 18, 19, 40, 46, 47
Hawberk, Sir Nicholas, 48
Helmets, 7, 12, 20, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 42, 56-66, 90, 92
Helm or Heaume, The Great, 20, 24, 28, 29, 48, 56, 60, 61, 62
Henry I., 14, 16
Henry II., 16
Henry III., 16, 20, 22, 24
Henry V., 46-50, 75
Henry VI., 32, 50
Henry VII., 59, 60
Henry VIII., 58-62, 66, 69, 70, 73-77
Henry Stuart, Prince, 90, 92
Hereford Cathedral, 30
Herrings, Battle of, 47
"Holy-water sprinklers," 76, 77
Hood, Robin, 16
Horn, Clemens (armourer), 98
Horse-armour, 15, 42, 49, 73, 90
Housings, 49
Ifield effigy, 39, 40
Innsbrück, 81, 82, 86
Jacobe (armourer), 82, 86, 90-92
John of Eltham (his effigy), 36, 39, 40
John, King, 15
Joinville, Prince de, 91
Joppa, Battle of, 14
Julius Cæsar, 5, 7, 11
Katharine of Arragon, 8, 70
Knee-caps, 22, 29, 35, 36, 42, 52, 66, 85
Kolman, Desiderius (armourer), 98
Lambespring, Bartholomew (goldsmith), 55
Lancaster, Earl of (Edmund Crouchback), 36, 42
Lances, 44-46, 74
Langford, William, 34
Le Botiler, 24
Lee, Sir Henry, 82, 85, 86
Leicester, Earl of, 81, 86
Lewes, Battle of, 22
Lincoln, Battle of, 14, 15
Littlebury effigy, 36
Long-bows, 75
Lothian, Lord, 90
Louis XI., 49, 59, 62
Lucas, Mr. Seymour, 65
Madrid armoury, 98
Magnus Barefoot, 12
Mail armour, 9, 12, 13, 16, 18, 22, 24, 27, 29, 45-47
Mantling, 32
March, Earl of, 42
Matthew of Paris, 24
Maule, Peter de, 24
Maximilian, The Emperor, 58, 66, 70, 73, 74
Melsa, Sir John de, 33
Men-at-arms, 43, 46, 47
Mentonière, The, 65, 92
Meyrick, 6, 65, 73
Milan, 82
Milanese armour, 52, 81
Missaglias, The (armourers), 52, 56, 69
Montfort, Simon de, 24
Montlhéry, Battle of, 47, 75
Monstrelet, 36
Morat, Battle of, 76
Morions, 78, 92
Musée d'Artillerie, 34
National Portrait Gallery, 22
Neck-guard, The, 52
Nottingham, Siege of, 14
Noyon, Battle of, 24
Nuremberg, 81, 98
Parham Collection, 18, 19, 34, 56, 61
Partisan, The, 75, 76
Paton, Sir Noel, 30, 33, 56
Pauldron, The, 69, 85, 86
Peascod, The, 92
Pembridge, Sir R., 30
Pembroke, Earl of, 22, 85
Pennant, 81
Petticoat, The, 50, 69
Philip II., 78, 98
Pickering, William (armourer), 90
Pikes, 75, 76
Pistols, 78
Plastron-de-fer. _See_ Breastplate
Plate armour, 21, 22, 28, 29, 45, 47, 50, 74
Pliny, 6
Poitiers, Battle of, 43, 46, 49
Portland, Duchess of, 81
Pouleynes, 36
Pourpoint, The, 16
Quatremayne brass, The, 56
Queen Mary's Psalter, 39, 42
Rayne Church, 65
Richard I., 10, 14-16, 20-22, 24
Robert of Normandy, 22
St. George's Chapel, 61
St. Pol, Comte de, 49, 62
St. Stephen's Chapel, 42
Sallads, 33, 57-59, 61, 62, 75
Sandwich, effigy at, 40
Scale-armour, 21
Scandinavians, The, 9, 22
Schloss Ambras, 82, 86
Seusenhofer, Conrad (armourer), 66, 70
Seusenhofer, Jörg (armourer), 82
Shields, 6, 19, 44
Shirland, Sir Robert de, 15
Shoulder-pieces, 39, 50, 52, 66
Shrewsbury, Battle of, 49
Sollerets, 36, 51, 56, 66, 69, 70, 90
Somerset, Duke of, 60
Sommers, Will, 73
South Kensington Museum, 65, 81, 82, 96
Spitzer Sale, 82, 85, 96
Spurs, 24, 39, 51
Staff-weapons, 75-77
Stafford, Sir Humphrey, 51
Standard, Battle of the, 14
Standard of mail, The, 47
Stephen, King, 16
Stevyns, Thomas (armourer), 55
Stothard, C. A., 22, 39, 40
Strutt, 12, 81
Sulney, De (brass), 36
Surcoats, 27, 35, 39, 40, 42, 46, 48
Sussex, Earl of, 85
Sword, Charles I.'s, 96
Sword, James I.'s, 96
Sword, John Hampden's, 96
Swords, 10, 85, 96-98
Swords, Legendary, 10, 11
Tabard, The, 48
Tacitus, 7, 8, 12
Tancred, 10
Tapul, The, 69, 85, 92
Tassets, 48, 50, 69, 85, 91, 92
Temple Church, The, 22
Topf, Jacob (armourer), 82, 86
Tower, The, 18, 20, 33, 66, 75, 76, 85, 86, 95, 96
Tuilles, 50, 51, 52, 66
Valence, Aymer de, 36, 39, 42
Vantail, The, 20
Venice, 81
Vere, De, 23
Verneuil, Battle of, 47
Vimose, 9
Vinsauf, 21
Visor, The, 32-34, 46, 56-60, 65, 66, 82
Viterbo, Battle of, 49
Wace, 15
Wallace Collection, 33, 86, 96
Wallace, William, 17
Waller, J. G., 19
Warwick Castle Collection, 18, 34, 36, 48, 73
Warwick, Earl of, 17, 51-55, 56, 66
Weaver, 39
Westminster Abbey, 36, 48, 61
Westmoreland, Earl of, 40
Whatton effigy, The, 40
William the Conqueror, 12, 20
William Longespée, 19, 22, 23
William the Outlaw, 16
William of Toulouse, 30
Wilton House, 85
Windsor Collection, 81, 90, 91, 92, 95, 96
Windsor Tournament, The, 29, 39
Woolwich Collection, 18, 33, 56, 61, 96
Worcester, Earl of, 85
Zouche, Lord, 56
_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.
[Illustration: PLATE I.--Painted Wooden Shield of the Fifteenth
Century. Burges Collection, British Museum.]
FOREIGN ARMOUR
IN ENGLAND
_By_
J. STARKIE GARDNER
[Illustration]
LONDON
SEELEY AND CO., LIMITED, GREAT RUSSELL STREET
NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1898
CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTORY 5
II. CHAIN MAIL 17
III. GOTHIC ARMOUR 23
IV. ENRICHED ARMOUR 56
V. FIREARMS AND GUNLOCKS
By Major V. A. FARQUHARSON 84
INDEX 95
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
_COLOURED PLATES_ PAGE
I. Painted Wooden Shield of the fifteenth century. British
Museum _Frontispiece_
II. A Marauder of the "Bandes de Picardie." Mr. J. F. Sullivan 14
III. Half Suit, engraved and parcel-gilt. Duke of Westminster 24
IV. Gold Damascening on russet ground. Late Italian suit.
Tower of London 30
V. Breast-plate, embossed and parcel-gilt. French. Mr. David
Currie 38
VI. Casque of an Officer of the Guard of Cosmo de' Medici.
Mr. David Currie 44
VII. Lower part of enriched Chanfron. Suit of Charles I. when
prince. Tower of London 72
VIII. Two Wheel-locks. German and French. Of the seventeenth
century. Major Farquharson 84
_ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT_
1. Mail Hauberk from Sinigaglia. Sir Noël Paton's Collection 19
2. Standard Collar of Mail. Royal Artillery Institution 21
3. Gothic Armour. Said to be from the Church of Irene at
Constantinople. At Parham 26
4, 5. Gothic Armour. Said to be from an old mansion in the
Tyrol. Front and Back views. Sir Noël Paton's Collection 27
6. Gothic Armour. Probably Italian. Sir Noël Paton's Collection 29
7. St. Michael. By Perugino. National Gallery 31
8. The Battle of Sant' Egidio. By Uccello. National Gallery 33
9. Carved Relief from the Visconti Tomb in the Certosa at
Pavia. South Kensington Museum 35
10. German late Gothic Suit. Collection of Mr. Morgan Williams 42
11. Suit of Maximilian Fluted Armour. Belonging to Mr. Percy
Macquoid 43
12. Maximilian Armour from Eaton Hall. In the possession of the
Duke of Westminster, K.G. 45
13. Engraved Maximilian Breast-plate. Burges Collection in the
British Museum 46
14. Portrait. By Piero di Cosimo. National Gallery 47
15. Helmet. Presented by Maximilian to Henry VIII Tower of London 48
16. Cap-à-pie Suit of Henry VIII., on a Horse barded with
Embossed Burgundian Armour of the time of Henry VII.
Tower of London 49
17. Tilting Helm. Time of Henry VII. Westminster Abbey 51
18. Tilting Helmet. Early sixteenth century. At Penshurst 52
19. Tilting Helmet of an Ancestor of Sir Philip Sidney. Penshurst 52
20. The Sword of Battle Abbey. Fifteenth century. Collection of
Sir Noël Paton 54
21. Sword of the Fourteenth Century with Guard for the
Forefinger. Windsor Castle 54
22. German Armour. Date about 1570. The Duke of Westminster, K.G. 57
23. Suit of late Italian Armour. Embossed and damascened. Tower
of London 61
24. Fine Italian Breast-plate, c. 1550. Said to have been worn
by Philip of Spain. Collection of Mr. David Currie 63
25. Pair of fine Italian Gauntlets. Possibly belonging to the
same Suit as the Breast-plate. Collection of Mr. David
Currie 64
26. Embossed Gorget. French, c. 1550. Collection of Mr. David
Currie 65
27. Silver Armour of Charles II. when prince. Tower of London 67
28. Sixteenth century Armet of rare form, with double visor.
Mr. E. Cozens Smith 68
29. Suit of parcel-gilt Armour. Made for Charles I. when prince.
Tower of London 69
30. Richly Embossed and Damascened Target. Italian, sixteenth
century. Mr. David Currie's Collection 71
31. Target of Etched Steel. Italian or German, about 1550.
Mr. P. Davidson's Collection 73
32. Roundel, with National Badges and Inscription. Belonging to
Lord Kenyon 74
33. Hilt of Two-handed Sword with the Bear and Ragged Staff on
the Pommel and Quillons in chased steel. Penshurst 75
34. Venetian Cinquedea, engraved, with Ivory Handle. The Duke
of Norfolk 77
35. Main-Gauche with Steel Hilt. Belonging to Mr. Percy Macquoid 78
36. Main-Gauche with Silver Guard. Windsor Castle 79
37. Rapier with Silver Guard. Windsor Castle 79
38. Inlaid Ivory Cross-bow. Tower of London 81
39. Pistol by Lazarino Cominazzo. Collection of Major Farquharson 87
40. Early German Wheel-lock Pistol, used by the Reiters.
Collection of Major Farquharson 87
41. Richly Decorated Flint-lock. Probably Spanish. Collection
of Major Farquharson 91
42. Snap-hance of Italian make, about 1640. Collection of Major
Farquharson 91
43, 44. Highland Pistols. Collection of Major Farquharson 92
FOREIGN ARMOUR IN ENGLAND
I
INTRODUCTORY
A former monograph, _Armour in England_, treated of weapons and armour
made either in this country or connected historically with English
wearers. The more extensive field of foreign armour brought into
England by wealthy and enthusiastic collectors is now embraced.
The enthusiasm felt for armour is not surprising; its interest is so
many-sided. Not only are collectors fascinated by it, but students
of history, artists, and antiquaries. As mere decoration it appeals
to some, and finds a place in their abodes; but it is among artistic
people that its more ardent admirers are found. Hence it is far from
rare to find the glint of arms and weapons lighting up the artist's
walls.
From the artistic standpoint nothing can be more picturesque than
the varied forms assumed by armour and weapons in obedience to the
all-powerful dictates of self-preservation, or to the more arbitrary
changes of fashion. To realise what these changes mean, to appropriate
them to the scenes and episodes of history, belongs to the painter,
sculptor, and scenic artist. If anything in art should be accurately
portrayed, it is the men and the events which make up history.
Historic painting and sculpture, which might live long in art, may be
disregarded by posterity owing to the anachronisms due to neglect of
this important study. Most of the changes were perhaps efforts to avert
the recurrence of some accident in the lists or field of battle. To
definitely track them to their actual origin, to seek out the causes
for the singular and ceaseless modifications arms and armour have
undergone, is, however, work only possible to the antiquary. It is his
province to open the door to the artist.
The quality of the art lavished as decoration on the gala suits of
princes and nobles is superb. In mediæval days it was the prerogative
of the male sex, the fighting sex, to deck itself like a game bird in
gorgeous plumage; women's raiment was more subdued. To the male, no
richness of dress that ingenuity could invent or wealth procure was
denied. In preparation for those stately festivals when the courtier
was to shine in the presence of the fair sex, his sovereign, and
his peers, nothing was spared. The armour of parade intended for
royal jousts and tournaments is as sumptuous as the wit of man could
devise, with time and money unstinted. Chasing, embossing, engraving,
damascening, and gilding of the most exquisite quality were lavished
upon it, the designs, and possibly the actual work, being by the
best artists of the day. The later suits, when cap-à-pie armour was
mainly consecrated to festivals and little regarded in battle, were
especially loaded with decoration. Besides its excellence of design and
richness of ornament, the mere craftsmanship of the armour itself is
of a quality that never can be excelled, and the modern counterfeiter,
with all his skill and appliances, is baffled in the reproduction of
_tours-de-force_, such as the high-combed morions of Italy and Spain.
To study the evolution of armour is like observing the works of
nature. Necessity, it is well known, is the great stimulator of the
inventive faculty of man, and no necessity is more cogent than that
of self-preservation. In the long trials of skill, in which for
generation after generation the armourer was pitted against the guilds
concerned in the production of lethal weapons, the means of defence
seemed once or twice so entirely perfected as to defy the weapons of
the assailants. But ere long, the attacking forces, gathering energy,
calling on the ingenuity of bowyers, fletchers, sword- and gun-smiths,
seem again to emerge triumphant, armed with yet more deadly and
powerful weapons. The struggle on the one hand to encase the man, like
Achilles, in invulnerable armour, and on the other to break down his
armour of proof, was like that between the gunners and naval architects
to-day, but it lasted for centuries. It ended, as all such struggles
must, in the complete discomfiture of the armourer; the increasing use
and accuracy of firearms finally reducing defensive armour to a costly
incumbrance. Nature, indeed, seems to will that all things, animate
or inanimate, should succumb to persistent attack. Viewed in its true
light, armour reveals all the stages, and is the very embodiment
of, perhaps, the most prolonged and determined struggle that the
development of civilisation has witnessed. It presents a gauge of the
extent and limitation of man's inventive faculties, in other words, of
his brain capacity, in the ages so-called mediæval.
Concerning the history of the vast bulk of the armour that falls into
the possession of the collector, all is speculation, and its very
nationality perhaps matter of conjecture. The place whence it has come
is often purposely concealed by the dealer, and a legend concocted
to invest it with a higher market value. The weapon may have played
its part in the stern realities of war; the armour may have saved its
owner, or, failing in the hour of need, contributed to the deaths of
those who trusted to it. Little armour perished with the wearer. Next
to gold and silver, the harvest of arms was the most coveted spoil of
victory, and none remained ungleaned on the battle-field. What harvests
such holocausts as Flodden Field must have presented, affording
opportunities of refitting to the man-at-arms, archer, hobiler,
billman, down to the rapacious camp-follower. Though etiquette may
have hindered the squire of low degree from donning the full cap-à-pie
armour of the knight he overcame, no doubt many a captor of rich armour
sacrificed life to indulgence in the dangerous vanity of dressing
beyond his station.
The historic and personal associations connected with the arms and
weapons present at, and by whose agency were enacted, the decisive
battles, the most stirring incidents of history humanity can witness,
are not the least of the many-sided interests of armour.
Though but a small proportion of the vast number of suits, helmets,
and weapons that have come down to us can be assigned to definite
wearers, and most of even these were but the parade suits of royalty
and the court, the few pieces of real actual fighting armour identified
with particular owners are invested with extraordinary interest. Most
of these owe their preservation to the ancient and poetic custom of
hanging the arms of knightly personages over their tombs, a custom
linked with the still older dedication of arms and armour at the
obsequies of the dead, either by placing them in the grave or hanging
them in the temples of the gods. The reality of the connection between
the pagan and Christian customs is apparent by such incidents as that
of William of Toulouse, early in the thirteenth century, who dedicated
his helm, shield, and weapons to St. Julian, hanging them over his
shrine; or that of the King of France, who, after the battle of Cassel
in 1327, presented his victorious arms to the neighbouring church.
The churches in fact ought to have been the great treasure-houses for
actual armour, as they are of representations of armour on monuments
and brasses. Unfortunately, however, the old veneration for the person
of the dead which led to the consecration of the armour and weapons
he had actually used, hardly survived the close of the thirteenth
century. Cupidity induced the prelate to claim them as a perquisite of
the burial function, as when the Prior of Westminster received £100
as ransom for the horse and accoutrements of John of Eltham; while
the temptation natural to the survivor to retain the finely tempered
weapons and armour, whose quality had been tested in the field, had
always to be reckoned with. This reluctance to sacrifice them is
beautifully expressed in such ancient ballads as those on the death of
King Arthur.
Armour was moreover specially devised by will to be kept as heirlooms.
Grose in the _Antiquities_ states that Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of
Warwick in the time of Henry IV., left to his son Richard by will the
sword and coat of mail said to belong to the celebrated Guy, Earl of
Warwick, he having received them as an heir-loom from his father. Sir
Thomas Poynings, in 1369, devised to his heir the helmet and armour
which his father devised to him. It also became penal to make away with
armour. Enactments, such as that of 1270, commanded that all armour was
to be viewed and kept in safe keeping under good security not to be
let go, for the king's use at reasonable valuation. The custom, which
prevailed extensively, of leaving the undertaker to provide property
helmets and arms in place of those the departed had himself used, also
tended to lessen the interest of even the arms which yet remain. That
the helmet of Henry V. was provided by the undertaker is well known,
and that he continued to provide arms down to Elizabeth's time, is
shown by accounts of funerals such as of Lord Grey de Wilton in 1562,
when among the items of the undertaker's bill are a "cote of arms,"
banner and bannerolles, a "helmett of stele gylt with fyne golde,"
with a crest gilt and coloured, a "swerde with the hyltes, pomell,
chape, buckle, and pendant, likewise gylte, with a gurdle and sheathe
of velvet." This custom of substituting spurious insignia at the
solemn interment of the dead was set by the Church, who consigned mock
croziers and chalices of no intrinsic value to the graves of even the
most exalted prelates. But of the true and the spurious armour alike,
time, rust, and above all, changes of religious sentiment in regard
to the churches, have spared little besides an occasional helmet. The
claims of neighbouring magnates, to the custody of what they regard
as family relics, the temptation to sell, and lack of interest, have
further sadly reduced this residue within the present century.
Yet neglect and depredations notwithstanding, the preservation of
nearly all the English fighting helms known, from the time of the
Black Prince to that of Henry VIII., and of many swords of early date,
is due to their having been deposited in churches. Other magnificent
fourteenth and even thirteenth century swords owe their preservation
to their inclusion in the insignia of Municipal Corporations. Lincoln,
Bristol, Kingston on Hull, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Southampton, Gloucester,
Hereford, Exeter, Chester, Coventry, are among the cities still
possessing these interesting relics.
If our national collections are less imposing than those of Spain,
Austria, Italy, France, and Germany, the enthusiasm of wealthy amateurs
has made this country second to none in the richness of its private
collections of European arms and armour.
Of collections commenced and handed down from the time that armour
was still in use, by far the most important is the Tower Armoury. Its
history can be gathered from Lord Dillon's paper in the fifty-first
volume of _Archæologia_, "Arms and Armour at Westminster, the Tower,
and Greenwich." The collection had its origin in Henry VIII.'s
passion for arms and armour, which was ministered to by Continental
sovereigns, especially Maximilian, who shared this taste, and with whom
he maintained a close friendship. His extensive array of tilting and
jousting suits was kept at Greenwich, and an inventory taken of them
upon his death. They were not removed to the Tower until perhaps 1644,
though the armoury there was already, during the reign of Henry, one
of the sights of London. The arms stored at Westminster were probably
removed to the Tower as early as the beginning of the reign of Edward
VI. The armoury was no doubt regarded more as an arsenal for use, than
in the light of a collection, and perhaps was drawn upon constantly
until the Civil Wars, when it was extensively depleted. Five of the
Greenwich complete suits of Henry VIII. still exist, however, three
mounted upon barded horses, as well as other pieces. The collection
becoming on its removal a national one, several suits of distinguished
nobles of Elizabeth's reign, and some of the royal armour of the
Stuarts, were added. During the present century attempts to render
it more complete have been made, by purchasing examples of enriched
foreign armour, and more especially of pieces illustrating the armour
of more ancient days. Many of the latter, however, are now pronounced
to be spurious, and none of them are remarkable.
It appears that the Tower collection has been drawn upon, at some
comparatively recent period, for the decoration of Windsor Castle. Some
half-dozen of the richest suits are now in the Guard Chamber. Arrayed
in cases in the north corridor is a most extensive collection of
magnificent weapons, many intimately connected with the history of the
country, as well as a matchless collection of oriental arms and armour,
formed to a large extent from the collection at Carlton House and added
to by Her Majesty.
The Museum of Artillery in the Rotunda at Woolwich contains a valuable
collection of armour and weapons, formed partly from the Tower
collection, and by judicious purchases. The series of Gothic armour
from Rhodes is very remarkable. There are also a few pieces in the
Royal Artillery Institution not far distant, and a small part of the
collection has been placed in Dover Castle.
The British Museum contains a limited but choice collection, chiefly
bequeathed by Mr. Burges, of Mediæval and Renaissance armour, as well
as its unrivalled series of antique arms and weapons.
The South Kensington Museum also possesses a few interesting arms and
weapons, besides collections deposited on loan.
The munificent bequest of the Wallace Collection has put the nation in
possession of a superb series of armour only rivalled by that in the
Tower Armoury. It must unfortunately remain inaccessible, being packed
away in cases until the rearrangement of Manchester House is completed;
consequently none of its contents could be illustrated. It contains
perhaps over 1200 specimens, without counting the Oriental arms, all
of them choice and some unsurpassed. It is rich in Gothic, fluted, and
highly decorated armour, and comprises a matchless series of swords
and other weapons. Of private collections in this country that are
historic, the Earl of Warwick's is undoubtedly the most interesting,
part of it having been in the Castle from the days when armour was in
constant use. Besides the few almost legendary pieces, it claims to
contain armour of Lord Brooke, killed at Lichfield, of Montrose, the
target of the Pretender, and Cromwell's helmet.
Among the armour at Wilton House are the superb suits of the Dukes
of Montmorency and Bourbon, captured by the Earl of Pembroke at the
battle of St. Quentin, together with the suit worn by the Earl, and
pictured in the Jacobe Album. With these are a good number of lancers'
demi-suits marked with the family initial. The armour of the Earl of
Cumberland, also figured in the Jacobe Album, yet remains in perfect
preservation in the possession of Lord Hothfield. The collection
at Penshurst Castle comprises some good armour, including helmets
and weapons of the Sidneys, its former owners. Sir Wheatman Pearson
possesses the barded suit of fluted armour said to have been worn
by a Talbot of Shrewsbury at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. Many
other ancient seats still contain family armour, either relics of the
Civil Wars, as at Littlecote and Farleigh Castle, or removed from the
neighbouring church, or discovered in some attic, vault, or even well,
as at Arundel.
The Armourers and Braziers Company possess one of the Jacobe suits in
their small collection; the Benchers of the Middle Temple own some
armour; and there are a few pieces in the United Service Museum in
Whitehall. Mr. Leonard Brassey possesses a fine historic cap-à-pie
suit of the hereditary challengers, the Dymoke family. Some of the
Corporation Museums, especially at Edinburgh, comprise examples of
armour and weapons.
It is unfortunate that nearly all the notable private collections made
within the present century have been dispersed, either on the death of
their owners, or before. The Walpole, Bernal, Meyrick, Londesborough,
Shrewsbury, Coutts-Lindsay, Brett, De Cosson, and many other
collections have been scattered far and wide under the hammer. The
Warwick and others have suffered severely by fire; and of collections
made by the past generation probably only that of Lord Zouche at Parham
remains intact.
A great deal of armour is absorbed as decoration, not only in such
stately homes of the nobility as Arundel, Eaton Hall, Hatfield,
Knebworth, but in private houses. Armour is also hidden away in small
and unknown collections, like two in the writer's family, which would
well repay careful examination. But undoubtedly the richest treasures
are in the collections of wealthy amateurs, like Mr. David Currie, Sir
Noël Paton, and above all in those of members of the Kernoozer's Club.
It is impossible to convey, in a slight sketch, any adequate idea of
the wealth of armour in the country, the real extent of which is as yet
only to be surmised; but in spite of sales it is doubtless increasing
yearly.
The fact cannot be ignored that, of all this mass of armour, very
little has been made in England. By far the larger part was indeed
certainly made in Germany, a country devoted to metal-working from the
earliest periods of its history.
The first dawning of anything like European reputation for the
production of arms and armour, since the collapse of the Roman Empire,
was achieved by Germany. Owing to its political constitution, and
perhaps extent and population, its towns were more enterprising
in mediæval ages than ours, and acquired a name for particular
manufactures at a relatively early period. The necessity the trading
towns were under of arming their citizens to defend their freedom and
privileges, amidst the semi-independent princelings and nobles who kept
armed retainers and combined to levy blackmail, induced many to take
up the manufacture of arms in self-defence, for which they afterwards
sought a market among neighbours and abroad. In the thirteenth century,
when St. Louis bore a German sword to the Crusades, the names of
Cologne, Passau, Heilbronn appear almost simultaneously as seats
famous for the production of lethal weapons. Cologne soon assumed the
ascendency, at least in English eyes, for its weapons are spoken of
with respect in many an early ballad. Thus the battle of Otterbourne is
fought "with swords of fyne Collayne," and King Arthur's sword hails
from Cologne:--
For all of Coleyne was the blayde
And all the hilte of precious stone.
The Duke of Norfolk having sent for armour out of Germany proves that
its armour was already regarded as of superior excellence in the time
of Richard II. German armour might have been used more largely in
England and at an earlier period, but for want of sympathy, perhaps
inherited from the Crusades. These, which knitted so many of the races
of Europe into close contact, happened not to promote any _camaraderie_
between Germany and ourselves. Their Crusades were undertaken
independently, or were ill-timed relatively to ours. The unfortunate
differences between Richard and the Archduke of Austria, which drained
our country of so much gold and silver that even the chalices were
melted, rendered Germany unpopular, and the feeling was not improved by
the further great loss of treasure on the abortive election of Richard
of Cornwall as Emperor. Princely intermarriages were unable to effect
a union of hearts, for the Kings of Almayne never come out well in
contemporary poetry. Nor was the perpetual presence of enterprising
Hansa merchants in factories, such as the London Steleyard, calculated
to promote good feeling, though introducing a large bulk of German
goods into the country. Steel, itself a German word, was certainly
amongst the imports, probably not only as a raw product, but
manufactured into articles such as the "Colleyne clowystes" and "Cullen
cleavers," and possibly sometimes defensive armour as well. Until late
in the fifteenth century, however, the differences between the military
equipment of Germany and England is more marked than between that of
England and France, which country with the Netherlands formed a natural
barrier that only strong common interests would effectively bridge.
When bonds of trade began to knit peoples together, German armour, from
its excellent quality, divided the market of the world with Italy.
The accession of Henry VIII. opened the English market wide to it,
his ambition to again dismember France, his alliance with Maximilian
and relationship to Charles V. leading to distinct _rapprochements_.
Natural inclination and political necessity strongly biassed him in
favour of his wife's kinsmen, until his unhappy divorce left him
isolated.
Italy vied with Germany in the production of armour, Milan taking the
lead. Matthew of Paris heard, in 1237, from a credible Italian that
Milan and its dependencies could turn out 6000 men on iron-clad horses.
An item in the inventory of Louis Hutin, 1316, is "2 haubergeons de
Lombardi"; and that of Humphrey de Bohun, in 1322, mentions Bologna "un
haubergeon qu'est apele Bolioun." Italian armourers were established in
Paris as early as 1332. Ancient British ballads abound in references
to Myllan and Myllen steel. The Earl of Derby, afterwards Henry IV.,
sent to procure armour from Sir Galeas, Duke of Milan, and when he had
selected all he wished for in plated and mail armour, the Lord of Milan
ordered four of the best armourers in Milan to accompany the knight to
England. In the fifteenth century Milan was able, after the battle of
Macado in 1427, to furnish within a few days 4000 suits of armour for
cavalry and 2000 for infantry. At a great Spanish tournament held in
1434, only Italian armour and weapons were permitted. Louis XI. and
the Duke of Burgundy settled Italian armourers in their dominions.
This king seized in 1481 a heavy convoy of cuirasses, sallads, etc.,
packed in cotton to prevent them rattling and imitating bales of silk,
on the way to the Duke of Brittany, giving them to John Doyac as a
reward for their discovery. Monstrelet mentions that the Milanese gave
corselets and other armour to the Swiss, with the finest promises,
before the battle of Marignano. Henry VIII. kept 1000 Myllen swords
for the tourney in the Tower, and sent to Milan to purchase 5000 suits
of "almain rivets." The most eloquent testimony to the excellence of
Milanese arms is, however, to be found in the pages of Brantôme, a
very keen observer on all matters military. Milan furnished the finest
engraved and most elegant corselets for _hommes de pieds_ "tant de
M. de Strozzi que de Brissac." "Ce genre de cuirasse legère eut la
plus grande vogue à la cour de France"; and "on y approuvoit fort
les corselets gravés de Milan et ne trouvoit point que nos armoriers
parvinssent à la mesme perfection, non plus qu'aux morions." Strozzi,
insisting that his armaments should be Milanese, "pria voire quasy
contraignit tous ses capitaines de n'avoir plus autres armes, tant
harquebuses, fourniments, que corselets de Milan": while Guise wished
his infantry to be armed not with muskets, but good harquebuzes de
Milan--"de bonne trampe pour ne crever." Milanese armourers, like the
Gambertis, were enticed to Paris; Pompée a Milanese was selected to
teach the King fencing, and Maistre Gaspar de Milan is pronounced "le
meilleur forgeur qui jamais eut." Brantôme further describes the troops
on their way to relieve Malta, "portant sa belle harquebuze et son beau
fourniment de Milan," and adds, "car nous avions passé par Milan, où
nous nous estions accommodez d'habillements et d'armes si superbement
qu'on ne scavait pour quelz nous prendre, ou pour gentilshommes,
soldats, ou pour princes, tant nous foisoit beau veoir."
[Illustration: PLATE II.--A Marauder of the "Bandes de Picardie." In
the possession of Mr. J. F. Sullivan.]
Florence became later a great rival of Milan, and we find Wolsey
negotiating with a Florentine for "2000 complete harness of Almayne
rivettes at 16s. per set." Brescia was famed for its steel, and
probably supplied the vast requirements of Venice, whose arsenals
contained, in the seventeenth century, arms for 800,000 combatants.
Henry VIII. requested permission from the Doge of Venice, in 1544, to
purchase 1500 Brescian harquebuses, and over 1000 suits of horse and
foot-armour. Pisa, Lucca, Mantua, Verona, Pistoja also produced armour
and weapons of high quality.
Spain, with the most abundant and accessible supplies of the finest
iron ores in the world, celebrated for its weapons from the time of
the Punic wars, and with the immeasurable advantage of commanding
the services of the Moorish steel-workers who were masters of
the armourer's craft, ought to have maintained the first rank as
armourers of the world. It probably did for centuries supply its own
requirements. We find the Spanish warrior under James of Arragon,
1230, sheathed horse and man in mail, with his quilted _perpunto_ or
pourpoint beneath, and the iron _gonio_ or breast-plate above; the iron
greaves and shoes, helmet and shield. Thus equipped, the Christian
rode down the Moslem by superior weight of man, horse, and arms, the
Moors dispensing with pourpoint and breast-plate, and riding unarmoured
horses. The helmets were of Zaragossa steel, and James's "very good
sword, lucky to those who handled it," was from Monzon and called Tizo,
as the more celebrated sword of the Cid was called Tizona. The most
dreaded weapon, however, at this time, was the windlass cross-bow,
whose bearers were mounted and carried large shields.
Little of the Moorish armourer's work has come down, though they
worked steel extensively in Toledo and Seville. No Hispano-moresque
swords exist of earlier date than the fifteenth century, and these
have richly-worked hilts in the Arab taste. A few Moorish helmets are
preserved, also of the fifteenth century, two of which, attributed
to Boabdil, are in the Madrid armoury, and are also richly decorated
in the Arab manner. The fame of Moorish armour is preserved in the
words Morion and Morris pike. The famed swords of Toledo did not
obtain renown until the Renaissance, and were not produced after the
seventeenth century. Real Spanish armour appear
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/44538