The battle of Courtray, fought in 1302, was the turning point in the greater estimation of the use of infantry combinations, when the French chivalry was so completely routed by the Flemish guild-bands, armed with the goedendag, which, whatever its form really was, then proved a most effective weapon against a rush of horsemen. About six thousand of the chevaliers were killed, a heavy blow struck at the nobility of France. The object-lesson thus afforded showed, even at this early period, that heavy horsemen charging with the lance, or striking with the mace or battle-axe, had ceased to be “the strength of the battle.” This experience was amply confirmed at a later period at the decisive battles—Granson, Morat, and Nancy. After the death of Charles the Bold at Nancy, in 1477, a victory won by the Swiss infantry with staff weapons, the “chivalry” of battle became much discredited, and the extreme feudalism which had hitherto dominated the military systems of Europe underwent its first serious check in the diminished importance of the mailed horseman, and the growing power of the third estate, which henceforward became a more weighty factor in warlike tactics and combinations. This process, which had been growing for some time in the gradual enfranchisement of the communes, developed from the motley swarms of yeomen and peasants at length into a communal militia. To these were now added “condottieri” and other free companies, such as stradiots, routiers, brabançons, and tard-venus, and with these more stable elements of an army, tactics and generalship, which had hitherto been of the most elementary character, soon made great strides. There are, however, early instances of the addition of “mercenary bands” to armies in the field. William the Conqueror’s army at Hastings contained a large proportion of these troops, which were placed in the first division during the battle. The Plantagenets also used them very freely. Mercenary troops, however efficient in action, had many drawbacks in campaigning. They were not unfrequently known to change sides at a critical moment, such as on the eve of, or even during an engagement. A notable instance of this may be cited in the case of the battle of Pavia, in 1525, when Francis I. was made prisoner.
The growing power of the Hanseatic Bund did more than anything else in Germany towards the enfranchisement of the towns from the galling fetters of feudalism. This mighty organisation, in the heyday of its power, consisted of over a hundred of the most important towns, scattered over Germany and Northern Europe, and extending as far as Wisby in the Gulf of Bothnia, and even to Novgorod in Russia. Its power became so great that even the Emperor exercised but a nominal supremacy over the German cities enrolled. Almost the entire commerce and banking of the time in Northern Europe centred in this powerful association, fenced in its walled towns. It supplied the sinews of war, and the equipments for nearly every campaign; often indeed for both the opposing armies. Its power and monopolies in England, where it had stations, especially in London, were immense.[16] Feudalism thus became greatly banished to the country districts, which constantly underwent a depletion of able-bodied men by a rush of serfs towards freedom under the syndics. Soon the standards and war-cries of the great seigniors ceased to cause confusion in the ranks.
The equipment of each man-at-arms in the fifteenth century was two archers with two mounted followers; and a little later a sixth man and horse were added. An army of fifteen hundred “complete lances” required a contingent of at least five thousand mounted archers.
It was not uncommon for armour to be imported from Italy during the fourteenth century. Froissart states that Henry IV., when Duke of Hereford, sent messengers to Milan asking Duke Galeazzo to forward him a harness. The Duke complied with the request, sending four Italian armourers with the suit.
Broadly, the period of full plate body armour is reached in England early in the fifteenth century, when the mentonnière, rondelles, cuirass, taces and tuilles, garde de reine, épaulières, gauntlets, cuisse, genouillières, jambs and sollerets were all of plate. The ingenious application of overlapping or lobster-tail plates, first applied to the solleret and rerebrace, had now extended to the shoulders and taces, and we find this system gradually developing towards the fine ridged and escalloped armour, which originated in Italy in the second quarter of the fifteenth century. Effigies of the first quarter of the fifteenth century are characterised by the bassinet, standard of mail, and beautiful fan-shaped coudières pointed over the elbow-joint. The skirt of mail shows itself beneath the taces, with an escalloped fringing. Articulated épaulières prevailed until towards the middle of the century, when pauldrons began to displace rondelles over the armpits; an early example of which may be seen on a brass in Arkesdon Church, Essex. Pauldrons are, however, exceptional until the “Maximilian” period. Examples of most of the features of the period may be seen in the series of plates published by Stothard, Hollis, Creeny, and others. We pass now out of the period during which we have been mainly indebted to effigies, brasses, and pictorial representations for our knowledge of armour, and enter on much surer ground, when there are actual and contemporaneous specimens to deal with. Still there is but too frequently ground for doubt and perplexity, as comparatively few suits are quite homogeneous; in many cases some of the parts are often restorations, faulty enough, as most restorations are. Pieces sometimes belonged to other suits, and not unfrequently to widely different periods. New tactics in battle had to be parried by the armour-smith with changes and modifications in armour; for instance, at the battle of Creçy the English men-at-arms fought for the first time in foot formation, and they adopted the same tactics at the battle of Poitiers on the 19th September, 1356. This innovation having been copied by the French, the armourer had to meet the occasion, and different harnesses began to be made for foot-fighting and horseback; and somewhat later additional pieces were added to screw on to the other armour, for further protection in tilting and in battle. These pieces were devised for the protection of the more vulnerable places, on the principle that energy always takes the line of the least resistance. Besides this, at various periods when defence was stronger than attack, improvements in the arms then in use took place; and new weapons were devised with a view to the attack of weak points in armour. Before the battle of Poitiers the French men-at-arms were ordered to shorten their lances to five feet, and to take off their spurs; and the lances were similarly shortened at the battle of Auray in 1364. The great helm was now rarely used, giving place to the visored bassinet, the visor to be raised or lowered at pleasure. The bassinet was in its turn superseded by the sallad in the first quarter of the fifteenth century, and the latter towards its close by the armet, followed closely by the burgonet. A monument in the cathedral at Posen gives a good idea of the armour in use in Germany in the first half of the fifteenth century—it is a figure of Lucas de Corta, who died in 1475. The armament consists of a mentonnière of several laminated plates to be raised or lowered, cuirass with rondelles, taces of five or more overlapping plates, going right across the lower body, but no tuilles, cuisse with genouillières and hinged jambs; laminated rerebraces, and large pointed coudières. The fingers of the gauntlets are articulated, with a sharp gadling over each knuckle, and sollerets “à la poulaine.” This monument doubtless represents armour of the first half of the century. A brass in the church at Altenberg gives a figure of Gerart, Duke of Gulich, who died in 1475, with a similar armament excepting that he wears an early form of armet, and the tuilles are attached to the taces. The armour of this period, with its pretty shell-like ridgings, is both graceful and practical, and also lithe and supple.
The armour of the second half of the fifteenth century, which is usually styled “Gothic,” it is impossible to say why, is by far the most graceful of all the periods, combining beauty of form and contour with excellence of material and workmanship; together with an admirable adaptability for defence against the then existing weapons of attack. The main features of this remarkable period are the escalloped and shell-like form of some of the pieces, and especially the presence of tuilles. The coudières are excessively large, sometimes preposterously so, and channelled with a view to the lance glancing off them. The breastplate is rendered both stronger and more elastic by being made in two and even three laminated plates. Sollerets are “à la poulaine.” The helmet of this armour is the sallad with the mentonnière. An excellent English example may be seen on the Beauchamp effigy at Warwick (1454); and another on the brass of Sir Robert Staunton at Castle Donnington (1458). There is a very instructive series of monumental effigies at Meissen, engraved by Hollis, of successive dukes of Saxony, showing the continuous advances in armour. Albert, who died in 1500, wears the armet, pauldrons with pikeguards,[17] and broad sollerets. Another duke, who died seventeen years later, shows tassets of five lames, and “bear-paw” sollerets. The armour of Duke Frederick, who died in 1539, shows mitten gauntlets of numerous narrow lames.
Gothic armour is the most perfect of all. It is more “mobile” than any of the later schools, and was made to fit almost like a glove; and as the details of suits are no longer obscured by the surcoat on effigies, we have these representations to guide us, as well as actual specimens. The steel, which looks as if it had an admixture of silver, is stronger in texture, brighter and tougher than that of any other period. Sad it is that there are so few perfect specimens of this armour left to us, for most of the armour wrought up to the middle of the century has become the prey of rust, the iconoclast, and the melting pot. The suits at Sigmaringen, Munich, Nuremberg, Vienna, and Berlin are among the most homogeneous the author has seen.
Armour made at Milan was already famous at the end of the fourteenth century, and many suits were ordered there at that time for English account; and later in Germany, for it took a considerable time before the wave of the “renaissance” reached the more northern country. The famous Milan armour-smiths, the Missaglias and Negrolis, and in Germany, the Kolmans of Augsburg, Hans Grünewald of Nuremberg, and the Seusenhofers of Innsbruck, all turned out work of the highest character and finish; as also did many of the later masters, such as Anton Peffenhauser of Augsburg, Lucio Piccinino of Milan, and Georgio Ghisi of Mantua. Both armour and weapons of a high quality were produced in other towns in Italy, such as Florence, Brescia, Lucca, Pisa, and Pistoja. The work of the armour-smith, pure and simple, seems generally to have reached its highest point of excellence during the second half of the fifteenth century, the force of the “renaissance” expending itself more on ornamentation.
Until comparatively recently very little was known concerning the great armour-smiths and their coadjutors of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and even seventeenth centuries; but much has now been accomplished in this direction by Dr. Wendelin Boeheim in Vienna, and given to the world in his work, Der Waffenschmiede, etc. Dr. Cornelius Gurlitt has also thrown much light on the masters of Saxony in his booklet entitled Deutsche Turnier, etc., of the sixteenth century. We owe much to these savants for their arduous labours in rescuing the names, and much besides, of so many of these great artists from an undeserved oblivion; and also by the identification of their work in providing valuable and reliable material for fixing the dates of armour within comparatively narrow limits.
Scale armour is but very rarely found in the fifteenth century.