Transcriber’s Note

The cover was created by Transcriber, using text and artwork from the orignal book, and placed in the Public Domain.

THE DEFENSIVE ARMOUR AND THE WEAPONS AND ENGINES OF WAR OF MEDIÆVAL TIMES, AND OF THE “RENAISSANCE.”

Fig. 1.—Transitional Gothic Suit at Munich.

THE DEFENSIVE ARMOUR AND THE WEAPONS AND ENGINES OF WAR OF MEDIÆVAL TIMES, AND OF THE “RENAISSANCE.”

BY
Robert Coltman Clephan,
OF SOUTHDENE TOWER, GATESHEAD.

With 51 Illustrations from Specimens in his own and in other
English Collections, and also from others in some of
the Great Collections of Europe.

London: Walter Scott, Limited,
PATERNOSTER SQUARE.
1900.

PREFACE.

This volume has grown out of some “notes” printed in the Archæologia Æliana in 1898, and added to as any new facts and lights presented themselves to me. The text is compressed as much as possible, with a view to publishing at a moderate cost; and as a more general interest in arms and armour is decidedly growing, I venture to hope that this volume, however imperfect, may supply a want, and that it does not contain too many manifest errors and inaccuracies. The subject is treated chronologically, and no further detail entered into than seemed necessary for presenting it in a consecutive and concrete form.

All students, myself among the number, owe much to those experts whose original research and delineation of nice points of detail go to make history in the several branches of my subject, and it is to be regretted that more of them do not undertake further comprehensive work.

Defensive armour is the section I am most conversant with, and it is perhaps the one affording the most concrete materials for chronological classification and analysis.

The question of the weapons of the “middle ages” and of the “renaissance,” their chronology, description and classification, is far from being in a satisfactory state. There are no books dealing with the subject as a whole, and many of the “notes” and “papers” I have seen spread over many years are, most of them, very sectional and fragmentary in their scope and character. Technical terms vary exceedingly among the different writers, and some more generally intelligible codification is very desirable. International it cannot be, as Germany naturally has her own terms, while those of England are perhaps as necessarily mixed up with Norman-French.

There are often great difficulties in the way of reasonably approximating the date and nationality of both weapons and armour, owing to causes which will be touched upon later in these pages; but these apparent inconsistencies must needs be grappled with as far as possible, and herein lies the work of the archæologist. In the case of sword specimens, it very often happens that blades and hilts belong to widely different periods, and even nationalities, and cases of this kind often give rise to much doubt and perplexity; indeed, unless there is evidence that a blade and hilt are contemporaneous, it is always well to consider that they may not be so; for blades were passed down from father to son, and often re-hilted more than once. Hilts also were often re-bladed.

The great question of smiths’ marks could only be adequately dealt with in a volume devoted entirely to that subject. This will be seen from the complexity arising from the piracy of marks—such, for instance, as that of the running wolf of Passau, or Scottish blades with the many variations of “Ferrara” impressed upon them. These marks came to be regarded merely as “standards,” and were often used without any intention to defraud—in the sense, in fact, of the name “Wallsend” being applied to express a certain quality in coals. A book dealing comprehensively with this branch of the subject has yet to be written.

While gratefully acknowledging much information and infinite assistance from other writers, I have found many manifest errors, which have been both inherited and perpetuated, handed down, so to speak, through long generations of book-making. I have taken as little as possible from books, especially over the period where actual specimens are available, but have endeavoured, by carefully studying many important collections, both at home and abroad, to compare, as far as possible, the types and fashions prevailing at the different periods dealt with, which, however, greatly interweave, especially among European nations, where easy facilities for interchange existed.

It takes many years and opportunities of study to achieve much in the direction of judging armour, and it is only by a close comparison, not merely of individual pieces, with a careful examination of every detail, but also a knowledge of the makes of steel of the various ages covered, their composition, manipulation, and relative degrees of hardness, that a reasonable amount of certainty can be arrived at. Much ingenuity has been applied in faking up and partially restoring many suits, still, it is obvious to an expert, in most instances, which pieces are of comparatively modern construction, especially in the cases where ornamentation has been applied, for here the best work of the “renaissance” cannot be adequately reproduced. Many suits, even in national collections, are not only doubtful, but now known to be spurious, while in others the restoration process has left much to be desired. The uninitiated would be surprised if they knew how comparatively few suits are absolutely homogeneous, so many having been set up by dealers, often more or less of pieces of various types and dates.

It is most interesting to trace what may be termed the evolution of arms and armour, and to follow the craft and ingenuity of the armour-smith as pitted against that of the makers of weapons; indeed, all through the history of the armour period this contest has proceeded with varying fortune. Fashion also has always been a potent and arbitrary factor in the direction of change, and hence so many preposterous departures, such as both the extravagantly long and ridiculously wide sollerets of the “Gothic” and “Maximilian” periods respectively. Expansive skirts of steel, which must have been very crippling to the wearers, were used at one time by all cavaliers who had the least pretensions to be considered à la mode.

At the risk of the general subject occasionally overlapping, and of some repetition in matters of historical retrospection, I have concluded to divide these pages into two main sections, viz., “Defensive Armour” and “Weapons of War” over the period set forth in the title-page. This has been done in the interests of conciseness and perspicuity, and more especially with a view to an easy reference to any branch of the subject under discussion.

ROBERT COLTMAN CLEPHAN.

Southdene Tower, Gateshead,
March, 1900.

CONTENTS.

ILLUSTRATIONS.

THE DEFENSIVE ARMOUR AND THE WEAPONS AND ENGINES OF WAR OF MEDIÆVAL TIMES, AND OF THE “RENAISSANCE.”

SECTION I.
DEFENSIVE ARMOUR.

PART I.
INTRODUCTORY AND GENERAL.

The phrases, “the Stone,” “Bronze,” and “Iron Ages” are mere generalizations fast losing their significance, and the purposes of this volume will not permit of any special disquisition on the weapons of these mixed and merging classifications of periods, or even those recorded of the Egyptian, Etruscan, Greek, Roman, and Eastern peoples; beyond what, in some instances, may seem necessary for showing any prototypes or analogies of arms or armour in use during the “Middle Ages” and the “Renaissance.”

The more remote ages of Egypt would have been a blank to us but for the character of the tombs, which preserved so wonderfully the papyri and frescoes we find so valuable, and, above all, the inscriptions and bas-reliefs on stone, affording infinite information concerning the arms of this ancient people and their martial achievements; indeed, we really know more of the weapons of the ancient Egyptians, and even those of the times of Hesiod, Homer, and Cambyses, than we do of those of the Goths, Vandals, Huns, and Ancient Britons during the centuries immediately following on the final evacuation of Britain by the Roman legions. The vigorous races that had been vanquished by imperial Rome, and those that in their turn had invaded and conquered Italy, inherited much from the earlier Roman wars and domination, more than has been thoroughly understood by historians of the nebulous centuries partly preceding and closely following on the final overthrow of the Western Empire; and the Romans had already gathered together many of the forms of the nations and empires that had preceded them, to say nothing of adaptations from the armament of contemporary tribes and peoples; still, in the main, the Romans had imposed their own methods and civilisation on all the nations they conquered. On a monument recently brought to light by M. de Morgan at Susa, erected by Naram-Sin about B.C. 3750, is a figure of the king wearing a horned helm, and armed with an arrow in his right hand and a bow in his left; a dagger is thrust into his girdle.

The granite sculptures of Persepolis show the weapons of the Assyrians to have been mainly those perpetuated for many ages and under many degrees of civilisation—viz., the sword, the lance or javelin, the sling and the bow; and in the rusty fragments of solidified iron rings in the British Museum, found at Nineveh, we see the ancestor of the Roman lorica, the bright byrnie of the “Sagas,” and hauberk of the “middle ages.” The same monumental inscriptions clearly indicate to which ancient people the Romans were indebted for their missile-casting engines, for here you have the catapulta and ballista, differing but little from those which were used by the Romans in the third century of our era, and doubtless handed down in their turn principally through the Franks to mediæval times. Strange it is that the principle involved, nay, the very machines themselves, have hibernated, so to speak, again and again!

An antique Greek drawing, representing Amazons fighting, in conjunction with Scythians, against Theseus at Attica, shows the following armament, viz.[1]:—Helmets of the Phrygian type; tunics coming half-way down the thighs, fortified with scales; and complete leg armour looking on the drawing like chain-mail, but probably, like the tunics, of small scale armour similar to that found at Æsica, referred to later in these pages. Two of the figures brandish long spears with leaf-formed heads, while the third is in the act of bending a bow, the arrow having a barbed head, and wears a quiver slung over the shoulder. They all have belts, and the tunics are ornamented with a geometrical border. Such long spears were also the weapons of the heavy Greek infantry. We owe, then, the inception of much of the arms and armour of European countries to the ancient civilisations of Asia and Egypt, and much also to the Etrurians, Greeks, and Romans; for, up to the middle of the fifth century, the countries as far as the Danube, in form at least, were still under the domination of Rome, so that Roman influence on armament must still have been very considerable; but with the final break-up of the empire of the West, at the end of the century, the old national and patriotic forms, which were of a more ponderous character, began to reassert themselves. These, again, became much modified, at a later period, in a considerable revival in the direction of Roman forms among the Franco-Germans, who aimed at a continuation or reconstruction of the traditional Western Empire. Another potent influence in the direction of change and interchange, concerning which we can merely speculate, was the swarming out of Eastern peoples, as well as the constant pressure from the frozen North towards the sunny South.

The analysis of the suits hereinafter presented will be prefaced by a short and concise sketch of mediæval and “renaissance” armour in general, and under its own section, that of the weapons of war, etc. This, no doubt, will be helpful in making the explanations clearer as regards nationality, fashion, and chronology.

During the earlier periods, and in fact throughout the entire time covering the use of defensive armour to its decadence, great difficulties constantly arise regarding the precise antiquity and nationality of specimens preserved, and, consequently, the fashions generally prevailing in a given country at a particular time. This uncertainty is greatly owing to immigration, invasions, and to the importation of foreign artificers, as well as of arms and armour from the more advanced countries to others less forward in mechanical skill, as applied to armour and weapon-making.

Some of the manuscripts, seals, effigies, brasses, and illuminated missals preserved, afford great help in deciding doubtful points; but very little of this kind of evidence goes farther back than the ninth century, besides being sometimes of a more or less fanciful and inaccurate character, and it is only by closely weighing and comparing that some reasonable degree of certainty can be got at.

In English brasses we have the best consecutive representation of armour, extending from that of Sir John Daubernoun, in the reign of Edward I., to that found at Great Chart, near Ashford, Kent, of the reign of Charles II.; but few have been preserved that date from earlier than the fourteenth century, though there are many military effigies. There was formerly a brass in St. Paul’s Church, Bedford, of Sir John Beauchamp (1208), and this would have been the oldest brass known had it been still to the fore. There is now an Elizabethan brass of a knight in this church. The figure on the brass of Sir John Daubernoun (1277), Stoke d’Abernon, near Leatherhead, Surrey, is entirely encased in mail, excepting, of course, the face. A large number of brasses may be seen in Boutell and Creeny, and you have the best series of effigies in Stothard and the continuation by Hollis. There are, besides, many other books treating both on brasses and effigies. The best German series exists in Hefner’s Trachten. Some of the foreign brasses are most artistic, but the iconoclast has left us only a couple of hundred, while the English brasses are to be numbered by thousands. The great majority of Continental brasses now left are in Germany and Belgium, while some half-dozen examples cover those of France, and there is only one in Spain. It must be borne in mind that the date on ancient monuments is that of death, so that the armour indicated may be the make of a quarter of a century earlier; besides, it may have been inherited by the defunct. There are also cases where these memorials were executed during the subject’s lifetime, or from contemporary models after his death. Suits were also sometimes “restored” by the armourer to correspond with a later fashion, and cases of this kind naturally give rise to some difficulty; and, as in the case of some Egyptian tombs, we have instances of misappropriation in English monuments. A case in point is the memorial of “Vicecomes et Escheator Comitatus Lincolniæ,” who died in the reign of Henry VIII. The armour is late fourteenth century, but to whom the monument was originally raised is unknown. Of course, the armour for the back is not shown on brasses and effigies. The Beauchamp effigy at Warwick affords, however, a notable exception, though this is of less importance owing to the fact of there being real armour of that period existing. Another valuable source of information arises from the custom prevailing during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, of leaving arms and armour as mortuaries to churches, and several helms and shields have come down to us in this way.

Later in these pages will be found a chapter headed “Details of Defensive Plate Armour.” This section deals as fully as a reasonable regard for space will allow with each important piece of armour, as regards its form, history, and chronology. It will serve also, to some extent, as a glossary of terms. It will be seen that there is usually a period of transition between the different well-marked styles of armour, just as is the case in architecture.

PART II.
CHAIN-MAIL AND MIXED ARMOUR.

Remarkably little is known of Britain during the centuries immediately following the Roman occupation, and the question as to when real chain-mail was first used in Europe is both difficult and obscure. There is a representation of loricas on the column of Trajan that looks remarkably like chain-mail, and it is almost certain that the Romans used iron chain-mail in Britain. The bronze scales of a lorica, or Roman cuirass, found at Æsica, do not help us;[2] but interlinked bronze rings of Roman origin have also been found, and if in bronze, why not in iron? This question is adequately answered by the masses of corroded iron rings of Roman times found at Chester-le-Street, and referred to in the report of a meeting held by the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Society of Antiquaries as far back as 1856.[3] These rings could hardly be massed together as they are without having been interlinked. The extract from the report of this early meeting of the Society runs thus:—“The Rev. Walker Featherstonhaugh had presented two pieces of chain armour, corroded into lumps, from Chester-le-Street.” Similar masses of rings of Roman date have been found at South Shields, and may be seen in “The Blair Collection” at the Black Gate Museum. These are of a date certainly not later than the fourth century. We may then reasonably conclude that these masses of corroded iron rings were once loricas of iron chain-mail. But the Romans were not the first to use chain-mail, for they got it probably, like so much besides, from Asia. In the British Museum are some corroded masses of links brought from Nineveh, similar in character to those found at Chester-le-Street, so it may be taken that this kind of armour is of a remote antiquity.

The Dano-Anglo-Saxon epic poem of “Beowulf,” written doubtless during the second half of the eighth century, bears frequent reference to the hero’s arms and armour:—

This poem has been cited as proof that chain-mail was in use in early Saxon England, and by the Vikings also, and there is some supposed confirmation of this idea as regards the latter in the finds of chain armour in the peat mosses of Denmark, which have been freely ascribed to the fifth and sixth centuries; but this mail is of such excellent workmanship, and so similar to that made at a much later period, as to cast grave doubts on this deduction, and there is really nothing whatever to show that it was of so early a date. Every ring of the Danish mail is interlinked with four surrounding rings, and so on throughout the garment. This is the prevailing fashion of all periods, and there is a great variety of mesh. It would seem that the “war-nets” alluded to in “Beowulf” were not chain-mail at all, but leathern or quilted armour with pieces of iron, shaped like the drawn meshes of a net, or steel rings sewn on to it, and that this combination constituted the “bright byrnie”[4] referred to in the poem, and that the chain-mail found at Vemose, Flensburg, and other places, was made much later. Quite independent of other evidence, the line in the poem, “The war-net sewn by the skill of the smith,” would point to the leathern or quilted tunic being fortified with rings or scales sewn on to the garment; and this was the general method up to and even beyond the time of William the Conqueror.

There are, however, other words in the poem referred to, such as “hand-locen” (hand-locked), and “handum gebroden.” The latter words might well read either twisted or embroidered with hands, while both might point to interlinked mail, so it clearly cannot be affirmed with certainty that there were no instances of real chain-mail in use in Britain at this very early period after the Romans; but if there were any hauberks of the kind it might indicate a much greater continuity from the Roman occupation than the historians of those shadowy times have hitherto imagined. Possibly chain-mail was introduced from Asia, through the Vikings, and that the byrnies mentioned in Beowulf were really made of interlinked rings; but it is probable that there was no real chain-mail in Northern Europe between Roman times and the ninth or tenth century. That it was in use in the East at an early period is shown by the discovery of a chain-mail tunic in a “barrow” in the Ukraine.[5]

The Arab hordes which were driven back by Charles Martel at the decisive battle of Poitiers in 732 were despoiled of their body-armour, which was of a rich Saracenic character, by the conquerors. This was probably of leather or quilted stuff fortified with small plates or scales; and such armour was henceforth adopted by the Franks, while Charlemagne grafted Roman fashions and traditions on to the armament.

Up to the later middle ages the sizes of the links of chain-mail, which are of hammered iron, vary considerably, extending from one-sixth of an inch to an inch in diameter, and they were soldered, welded, or butted in the earlier times, and often riveted in the later. Most of the earlier Oriental mail is riveted. It is said that the art of wire drawing was discovered by Rudolph of Nuremberg in 1306. At all events its application at this time rendered chain-mail much cheaper and more generally used than when each ring was separately wrought. This discovery was possibly only the revival of an ancient art. Very much was lost during the “dark ages” which followed the disruption of the Roman empire, when so many landmarks were swept away; and the same kind of thing has happened often before in the cycles of obscuration that preceded it. Much was preserved in “Chronicles,” as was also the case in the earlier periods of obliteration, when hieratic writings on stone, papyrus, or parchment restored so much to the newly-awakening times. Double-ringed mail is mentioned by some authorities, but the author has never seen any, and it seems probable that the indistinct drawings on manuscripts, brasses, or tapestry gave rise to the idea—very small ringed mail might easily be taken for double; still, many effigies show what looks very like double-ringed mail.[6] The Danes of the eighth century generally adopted the Phrygian tunic, reinforced with steel rings, probably obtained through their intercourse with the Byzantine empire; and both Meyrick and Strutt agree that such a tunic was then in use. The paladins of Charlemagne wore jazerant and scale armour of strongly marked Roman characteristics, and, according to the monk of St. Gall, the emperor’s panoply consisted of an iron helmet and breastplate of classic form, with leg and arm armour. This period represents to a certain extent a classic revival, and such forms were clearly then reverted to. It was under this reign that heavy cavalry attained the pre-eminence which sustained its first check with the successes of the English yeoman with the longbow. Charlemagne adopted the service of the ban, and formed a standing militia of his own vassals.

The real mediæval coat of chain-mail was probably somewhat of a rarity in the tenth century, but that it was in general use by the greater knights late in the eleventh is clear from the testimony of the Princess Anna Comnena, daughter of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus, who says, in describing the body armour of the knights of the first crusade, “it was made entirely of steel rings riveted together.” She further remarks that this kind of armour was unknown at Byzantium up to the time of the first crusade. Mail armour is mentioned by a monk of Mairemoustier (temp. Louis VII., a contemporary of Stephen, 1137), in a description of the armament of Geoffrey of Normandy.[7]

The inception and principles of chivalry were the romantic outcome of the lessons of Christianity as taught in the earlier “middle ages,” though confined to a narrow and privileged class; which class assumed a concrete form under Charlemagne, who did his best to divide society into “the noble” and “the base”; thus promoting the feudal system, the symbol of which became the sword. The earlier stages of the movement were characterised by great fervour and self-abnegation, operating in various ways according to the modes of thought of the different nations brought under its domination. It gradually declined, and by the end of the thirteenth century had degenerated into a fantastic fashion rather than a principle; and culminated, like the church of the period, in licentiousness and frivolity. Froissart alludes to it in this sense. The influence exercised by the laws of chivalry was on the whole beneficent in subjugating the rude passion of combat to some of the limitations of Christian ethics; and the knightly watchword “God and his lady” raised the social status of women of the privileged class. The conquest of England by the Normans, the stirring incidents of the first crusade, when we have the shrewd account of the arms and armour of the crusaders by the Byzantine Princess Anna Comnena, and the general martial spirit of the age, lent an immense impetus in the eleventh and twelfth centuries to warlike equipment of all kinds; but this was more in the direction of improving old forms, rather than in the introduction of new ones.

The Bayeux tapestry—worked, there is little doubt, in the middle of the eleventh century, but whether embroidered in England by order of Matilda for an English cathedral, or in Normandy by noble ladies or hirelings—is of comparatively little moment so long as its authenticity as an approximately contemporaneous monument of the reign of the Conqueror is generally admitted, and this is happily the case. It shows that the Conqueror’s chivalry wore conical helms with the nose-guard and hood of mail for protecting the neck, shoulders, and part of the face. The hauberks reached down over the thighs, with a slit in the middle of the skirt for convenience on horseback; and the mail on the arms usually came nearly to the elbows, but sometimes to the wrists; and the continuous coif occurs frequently. The hauberk of this period had no division down the front, but was drawn on over the warrior’s head. The Norman knights bear pear-shaped, convex shields with a point at the bottom, secured to the arm by a leathern strap, and large enough to cover the body from the shoulders to the hips; some with a rough device. Some of the shields shown are polygonally formed, with a central spike. The Saxon shields on the tapestry are round or oval, with a central umbo. Maces are shown in the hands of some of the figures. With the exception of William himself, whose legs are encased in chausses, probably of leather, with reinforcing scales or rings, the limbs of his knights are simply swathed in thongs. Probably only the richer knights wore chain-mail, the majority having hauberks of cuir-bouilli (boiled leather) strengthened by continuous rings sewn on to it, side by side or overlapping. Some also had the pieces of lozenge-shaped metal already mentioned, called jazerine or jazerant; or scales, which were occasionally of horn, fixed on to the leather. It is impossible to determine these details absolutely, as all the armour looks very much alike on the tapestry in its present condition, this being especially the case where rings were used; and it is only by careful comparison with other contemporary evidence that any reasonable certainty can be assured. This has naturally given rise to a great diversity of interpretation; and the same difficulty arises with seals. The knights wore no surcoats over their mail. The great seal of William the Conqueror shows him in a hauberk coming down to the knees, with short sleeves and no leg armour. Under the hauberk was the gambeson and tunic. The helm is hemispherical, and fastened under the chin. The Germans were probably before us in the general use of real chain-mail, for the epic poem of Gudrun, written in the tenth century, states how Herwig’s clothes “were stained with the rust of his hauberk.”

The panoply of knights was very much the same during the century preceding the Conqueror’s time, as shown in the illuminations of a “Biblia Sacra” of the tenth century. Helms with rounded crowns were worn then, and this is all confirmed by the “Martyrologium,” a MS. of the same period in the library at Stuttgart.

Defensive armour continued much the same during the reign of Rufus, whose seal shows him in a long-armed hauberk without gloves of mail, and a low conical helm with the nasal; but in the reign of his successor, Henry I. (1100–1135), the reinforcing rings of the hauberk were sometimes oval and set on edgeways, “rustred” mail as it was termed; and this fashion became common in the next reign. The seal of Henry I. shows a conical cap without nasal, and that of Stephen a kite-shaped shield with a sharp spike in the centre. The king wears a hauberk of scales, sewn or riveted on the gambeson. The nasal first appeared in England about the end of the tenth century, and the Bayeux tapestry shows it to have been common among the Normans in the eleventh. Among the seals of the English kings, that of Henry II. is the first to show the hood of mail. The hauberk of the Norman kings was in one piece from the neck. Under Richard I. the hauberk is somewhat lengthened, and armorial bearings become general. The sleeves of the hauberk are lengthened, and terminate in gloves of mail. The first seal of Richard Cœur-de-Lion shows the king on horseback in a hauberk of mail. His spiked shield, shaped like half a pear cut lengthwise and pointed at the bottom, is ensigned with a lion rampant. The arm is mail-clad to the finger tips, and brandishes a simple cross-handled sword; the chausses are of mail, and terminate in a spurred solleret. Over the continuous hood, which is in one piece with the hauberk, he carries a high conical helm without flaps or nasal, bound round with iron bars. On Richard’s second seal he bears the great helm with a fan crest, ensigned with a lion; his hauberk is rather longer than in the first seal. The shield on this seal is ensigned with three lions passant gardant, and this is still retained on the royal escutcheon of England, which becomes quartered with the lilies of France in the royal arms of Edward III. Both seals show the plain goad spur. There is a good example of an undoubted suit of chain-mail on an effigy of Robert de Vere (died 1221) in Hatfield Broad Oak Church. This suit was probably made in the reign of King John. An effigy in Haseley Church, Oxfordshire, of the reign of Henry III., shows a hood somewhat flattened at the crown, hauberk reaching to the knees, and surcoat coming nearly to the ankles.

It is stated that Richard sent home from the crusade numerous suits or rather hauberks of chain-mail. There is a riveted sleeveless shirt of chain-mail, with a fringe of brass rings, dating from the thirteenth century, in the Rotunda, Woolwich; these brass rings are a common feature of the period.

The question as to when coats of arms were first introduced is very uncertain, but it is thought that the custom had its origin in the first crusade, when distinguishing marks among such a motley crowd of warriors were more especially needful. During this crusade the several nationalities taking part in it were distinguished by different coloured crosses sewn on to their garments, each leader displaying his own colour and device; but heraldic bearings first became generally hereditary in the reign of Henry III. His seal shows the king with the fingers of his chain-mail gloves articulated, and wearing the great helm. An early example of a helm with a heraldic device occurs on an effigy of Johan le Botiler about 1300. It is figured in Hewitt. The shield on the brass of Sir John Daubernoun bears a distinctly heraldic device. Heraldry seems to have been most studied, prized, and practised during the fourteenth century. An illumination in the Loutterell Psalter, dating from the middle of the same century, shows heraldic devices spread over the entire person of a knight; being emblazoned over the body, ailette, banner, pennon, saddle, shield, and on the housings of the steed, as well as on the dresses of the ladies of the knight’s family. The numerous tournaments of this period encouraged its use and development, mainly in the sense of ostentation and pride of birth. In the Tower collection is a figure on horseback clad entirely in chain-mail. To the hood is attached a fillet of iron round the head. The hauberk has long arms terminating in gloves of mail. A leathern belt with strong iron clasps encircles the waist. Excepting the legs the horse is fully barded with leathern armour, fortified with iron scales. The armour on the figure is labelled “Indian,” and the horse “Persian.” There are two hauberks at Carlsruhe of riveted chain-mail, hood and tunic in one piece, but the head bears no fillet. On the breast, over nipples and navel, are three small palettes inscribed with Oriental characters; and inscribed clasps at the waist fasten the tunic. These suits are chiefly remarkable for the presence of the hood, and the date of the mail is about fourteenth century. There are two shirts of mail at Brancepeth Castle, Durham, which are riveted, and probably of early fourteenth century date. It was not uncommon for hauberks to be provided with reinforcements of leathern thongs, which were intertwined through the rings; there is an example of this kind in the Rotunda at Woolwich. This description of reinforced chain-mail is referred to later under the paragraph dealing with “banded” mail. An effigy of a knight in the Temple Church, that of Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex (1144), in the reign of King Stephen, engraved by Stothard, shows the warrior armed completely in chain-mail, having a hood of mail over the head and shoulders, surmounted by a cylindrical helmet without nasal. The hauberk is in one piece with the arms and gloves, the last without any articulation; this form of gauntlet is the earliest. Chausses going above the knee, in one web with the demi-poulaine or slightly-pointed shoes; globular triangular shield extending from the shoulder to the hip; and the belt of knighthood above the hips. There is a singular point in connection with this and two other effigies in the church, viz., that the sword is worn on the right side. This peculiarity is noticeable in other figures of the period. The effigy of a knight in the same church, that of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury (1200–1227), wears mail gloves, the fingers of which are articulated; the sword is on the left side. Both figures wear surcoats. Like most continuous hoods of early thirteenth century date, this example is somewhat flattened at the top. They were usually rounded in the second half of the century, as shown on the Daubernoun brass; and the gloves generally divided into fingers, as may be seen on two of the sleeping guards in Lincoln Cathedral; this form continued well into the fourteenth century; The “Coif de mailles,” or separate hood of chain-mail, followed the same lines as the continuous one, and examples of all may be seen in Stothard’s series, and one of the effigies in the Temple Church shows how they were lapped round the face and fastened. What the separate hood perhaps gained in convenience, it certainly lost in invulnerability, as it left the neck less adequately guarded against a thrust from below. The effigies in the Temple Church are perhaps the most artistic, as well as the most interesting, of any series existing. It is not known that any of them really represented a knight templar, although several of them did crusaders. The only effigy of a knight templar that is known to have existed is that of Jean de Dreux, who was living in 1275. The figure was unarmed, but bore the mantle of the order. The effigy was formerly in the church of St. Yved de Braine, near Soissons.

A knight in Walkerne Church, Hertfordshire, wears the great helm, rising slightly at the crest, pierced with eye-slits, and showing breathing holes over the mouth.

Coutes or coudières for the elbow are seen but rarely in the thirteenth century; but genouillières (knee pieces) began to appear over mail towards the middle of the century. Examples of both pieces, dating about 1250, may be seen in Stothard. Genouillières occur on the Daubernoun brass (1277), while both pieces appear on that of Sir John D’Argentine (1382). The adoption of these defences and the plastron-de-fer was the first step in the direction of plate armour. Something of the kind had become absolutely necessary by reason of the number of casualties caused by the general use of the deadly battle-axe and mace.

The cuisse and jamb (plate armour for the thigh and shin) are not seen in England before the close of the century. They were first strapped on over the chausses, and only covered the front of the leg. Chain-mail continued in use in the East up to a recent date.

A spirited drawing of a mediæval water ewer of bronze is given in the Archæologia Æliana, old series, vol. iv., p. 76, Plate XXII. This ewer, which was found about four miles west of Hexham, represents a knight of the thirteenth century on horseback, wearing chain-mail, and over it a sleeveless chequered surcoat. The figure wears a flat-topped cylindrical helm.

The epoch of chain-mail armour, pure and simple, may be said to close during the reign of Edward I., although in more remote and less advanced countries, such as Ireland and Scandinavia, it was to be met with very much later. There was a revival in the use of scale armour in the fourteenth century, and there are many instances. It was usually applied in pieces such as chaussons, chausses, gauntlets, or sollerets. It is often met with on German monuments. An English example occurs on the brass of Thomas Cheyne, Esquire (1368), at Drayton Beauchamp, Bucks. The mailed horseman continued the main force in every army in the field up to the reign of Edward III.

A good idea of the equipment prevailing towards the close of the century is shown in the will of Odo de Rossilion, dated 1298: he bequeaths “my visored helmet, my bascinet, my pourpoint of cendal silk, my godbert (hauberk), my gorget, my gaudichet (mail shirt), my steel greaves, my thigh-coverings and chausses, my great coutel, and my little sword.”

The surcoat was a device for protecting the armour against wet, and to mitigate the rays of the sun. It is rare towards the close of the twelfth century, when you have an instance in King Sverrer, who wore a rose-coloured surcote (“raudan hiup”). The garment becomes common in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when the ground of the fabric was usually green. There are both sleeveless and sleeved varieties, but the latter did not come into vogue before the second half of the thirteenth century. There is a north-country example referred to in Surtees’s History of Durham (vol. iii., p. 155); one on the effigy of an unknown knight in Norton Church; and another in the Temple Church, London. Among the seals of the kings of England this garment first appears on that of John. Chaucer, writing in the reign of Edward III., says:—

“And over that a fin hauberk
Full strong it was of plate,
And over that his cote-armoure.”

The “cote-armoure of Sir Thopas” is the surcoat. There is an admirable example of a thirteenth century surcoat on the figure on the ewer found at Hexham, which has already been referred to. This surcoat is long and sleeveless, with a slit in front. It is embellished by a diamond pattern, interspersed with fleurs-de-lis and stars of six rays. The garment has an ornamental border. A representative example may be seen on the Daubernoun brass. It reaches below the knee, is slit half-way up the front, and is fastened by a cord at the waist. The border is fringed. The surcoat early in the fourteenth century was long, but became gradually shortened and tightened. There are, however, earlier examples of the shorter surcoat, as shown on the Whitworth effigy, which does not reach the knee. The D’Argentine brass (1382) furnishes a good example of the short fourteenth century surcoat, and another may be seen on the effigy of the Black Prince (1376) in Canterbury Cathedral. It is a sleeveless garment reaching a little below the hips, and was variously fastened, being buttoned, laced, or buckled. On an effigy engraved by Hollis in his Plate II., it is held together by a brooch. The fabrics were rich and costly, and usually ornamented with heraldic devices. The surcoat on the figure of the Black Prince is charged with England and France quarterly, with a label of three points. At this period but little of the trunk armour showed through the “cyclas.” The helm on the figure of the Black Prince was gilt or silvered, and had its scarlet mantling. The surcoat of the fifteenth century presents heraldic devices on the front and arms, both before and behind, indeed it was a “tabard of arms,” and so it continued in the sixteenth century as a herald’s tabard. The garment, of course, gave rise to the term “the coat of arms.” An effigy of Sir John Pechey, figured by Stothard, shows a tabard of arms over the armour; and so does the brass of Sir John Say (1473) at Broxbourne, in Hertfordshire. The short surcoat had almost ceased with the second quarter of the century, although there are still isolated examples, such as the short-sleeved tabard on the Ogle effigy at Bothal, Northumberland, which is early sixteenth century. During the first half of the fourteenth century, English knights wore a garment under the surcoat, called “upper pourpoint”; the true “pourpoint” was the surcoat itself.

A description of the “Ehrenpforte,” written in 1559, gives a representation of the meeting between Henry VIII. and the Emperor Maximilian, which occurred in 1519. The emperor wears a surcoat with slashed sleeves and plaited skirt, obviously suggested by the civil dress of the period, called “bases.” The knightly mantle is but rarely seen on monuments. It was one of the insignia of the Garter, and was usually blue in colour. There is an instance figured by Stothard, Plate LVIII. There were two grades of knights instituted—the banneret and the bachelor. The former had his square banner as well as pennon, and square shield for armorial bearings; his retinue consisted of fifty men-at-arms and their followers. The knight-banneret, so called from having the right to bear a banner, was always a man of large estate, with a great number of retainers. Knight-bannerets first appear during the reign of Philip Augustus, and disappear by ordinance in the reign of Charles VII. The Gloss du Droit, Fr. de Laurica defines the etymology of the term “bachelor” as here applied. It does not signify “bas chevalier,” as has often been supposed, but refers to the minimum extent of land that a candidate for the honour must be possessed of, viz., four “bachelle” of land. The “bachelle” contained ten “max” or “meix” (farms or domains); each of which contained a sufficiency of land for the work of two oxen, during a whole year. It would thus appear that the dignity of knighthood was only conferred on men possessing a suitable estate, and that the two grades were based on the extent of estate; which, of course, implied the number of vassals available for military service. Although the pennon was the ensign of a knight-bachelor, we have the authority of Du Fresne that an esquire could also bear one, always providing that he could ride with a sufficient number of vassals.

Orders of knighthood appear to have originated in France, and were introduced into England probably by the Normans. The most ancient order was the “Gennet,” instituted in 706. It was a military order, but always partook, more or less, of a religious character. The aspirant was usually trained to arms as a page, then he became an esquire, in attendance on a knight. It was unusual to confer the dignity of knighthood before the age of twenty-one had been reached. Knighthood was conferred by the “Accolade,” which appears to have been originally an embrace, but later consisted in the administering of a blow on the neck by the flat of a sword. There was an intermediate grade between a knight and an esquire in the pursuivant-at-arms, but the dignity of knighthood was very often conferred on a simple esquire.

Mamillières were circular plates over the paps, with rings affixed. Chains passed through the rings, one being usually attached to the sword and scabbard. These pieces were introduced in the reign of Edward I., and prevailed during the fourteenth century, more especially in the first half. Instances are comparatively rare. There is a beautiful example on an effigy of Otto von Piengenau (1371) in the church at Ebersberg. The chains are attached over the right breast, one fastened to the sword and the other to the dagger. Another on the tomb of Alb. v. Hohenlohe, died 1318. An instance of a mamillière over the left pap, with a thin chain attached to the helmet, occurs on an effigy of Berengar v. Berlichingen, 1377. On an effigy of Conrad von Seinsheim (1369), on his tomb at Schweinfurt, chains connect dagger, sword, and helm. The wood carving in Bamberg Cathedral (1370) affords two remarkable cases, where they directly appear on the almost heart-shaped “plastron-de-fer.”[8] An English example may be seen on the figure of a knight in St. Peter’s Church, Sandwich. This interesting effigy is also remarkable for skirts of scale-work. The scales are ridged, and are probably of iron. They form the skirt of a garment which is worn between the hauberk of chain-mail and the surcoat. The effigy would appear to date from very early in the fourteenth century. Scale-work frequently occurs on monuments of this century, seldom covering the whole body, but more generally defending the hands and feet. Mamillières are present on an effigy in Tewkesbury Abbey Church, the date of which is doubtless about the middle of the century. A beautiful instance may be seen on an effigy at Alvechurch, Worcestershire (1346), showing clearly the one chain connected with the scabbard and another with the hilt. There is a brass in Minster Church, Isle of Sheppey, which represents an armed figure with only one “mamillière”; it is on the left pap, with the chain going up over the left shoulder—early fourteenth century. The derivation of the word is interesting, being from mamilla, the breast. Its origin was a leather band worn by the Roman ladies to support the breasts.

In effigies the knight’s head is usually pillowed on a helm, while a dog or lion crouches at his feet; this latter feature is supposed to be emblematic of fidelity.

There are frequent representations on monuments and in MSS. of a kind of armour that appeared towards the end of the thirteenth century, “banded mail” as it is called; but there has not been any general determination arrived at as to what it really was, and there are no actual specimens for reference. It presents somewhat the appearance of the “rustred” mail of the middle of the twelfth century—that is, of rings set on to the hauberk edgeways. On monuments and drawings these rings frequently appear to be set in continuous rows, whereon the rings turn in a right or left direction alternately; each line of rings being “banded,” or framed with what looks like a rim. Examples of this mail may be seen in Stothard’s series.[9]

We reach the highest point of mediæval culture during the fourteenth century, and broadly the “renaissance” towards its close. Like all periods of transition, it presents many points of interest, especially in armament. It was not before the middle of the century was reached that arms and armour approached to anything like uniformity. In the first moiety the greatest possible irregularity prevailed. Scale armour was still largely used throughout the century, and splint armour also, though to a less extent. An example of the latter may be seen on the effigy in Ash Church.

PART III.
THE TRANSITION PERIOD.

A combination of mail and plate armour, the latter strapped on, was in general use in England late in the reign of Edward the Second, when the helm, cuirass, or rather breastplate, and gauntlets were all of plate, and sometimes the cuisse and jamb; but the leg armour was often of cuir-bouilli. Chaucer says; “His jambeux were of cure-buly.” An inventory, dated 1313, of the armour which belonged to Piers Gaveston, includes breast and back plates, and two pairs of “jambers of iron”; but most of the monumental figures are still clad in chain-mail and genouillières. These “jambers” were only front plates for strapping on. An effigy of Sir William de Ryther, who died in 1308, shows genouillières of plate on a suit of chain-mail, with the hood covered by a bassinet. This was probably thirteenth century armour, although somewhat early for an example of the bassinet. The earliest brass we have, that of Sir John Daubernoun (1277), exhibits genouillières in a most artistic form. An effigy in Bedale Church, Yorkshire, that of Brian Lord Fitz Alan, wears genouillières over chain-mail, like the Daubernoun brass. He died 1302. Mixed armour continued longer in use in England and Belgium than in Germany, which latter country and Italy always led the way in defensive armour.

An effigy in Hereford Cathedral Church of Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Constable of England (died 1321), engraved by Hollis, wears the camail, a tippet of mail laced to the bassinet, which falls like a curtain over the shoulders, hauberk of mail to the knees, rerebrace, vambrace and gauntlets of plate, the fingers covered with laminated plates, genouillières, jambs with hinges and very slightly pointed sollerets, all of steel, with rondelles to protect the inside of the elbow. Here we have a good example of the transition to full plate armour, as attaching plates are replaced by rounded ones, fitting round the limbs, but still strapped on. An inventory of the earl’s effects (1322) appears in the Archæological Journal, vol. ii., p. 349. The bassinet is mentioned as being covered with leather. Other good examples of the lacing of the camail occur on the D’Argentine brass, and on an effigy of a knight of the De Sulney family in Newton Solney Church, Derbyshire. A figure standing in the nave of Hereford Cathedral, that of Sir Richard Pembridge, K.G., who died a year before the Black Prince, wears mixed armour—camail and bassinet with the great helm.

Both the goad and rowel spurs were in use throughout the fourteenth century. The figure of the Black Prince (1376) in Canterbury Cathedral is clad almost entirely in plate, and shows the prince wearing a conical bassinet with camail attached. Breastplate, épaulières, rerebrace, vambrace, coudières, leg armour, and gauntlets, all of plate—his great crested helm has a mantling, or lambrequin, and cap of maintenance, and is surmounted by a gilded leopard; besides the ocularium, it has a number of perforations on the right side in front, in the form of a crown, for giving air. There are gads (knobs) on the knuckles for the mêlée, which take the form of small leopards, with the usual spikes on alternate first joints of the fingers. The surcoat is quilted to a thickness of three-quarters of an inch; and this precious relic is the only actual garment of the kind that has come down to us. The material is buckram faced with velvet—lions and fleurs-de-lis embroidered in gold thread. This surcoat is short, and laced at the back. The brass of Sir John D’Argentine, Horseheath, Cambridgeshire (1382), shows a bassinet with camail. The brassards are complete, with articulated shoulder-plates, and gauntlets with finger articulations. The chaussons are of studded mail, and jambs, genouillières, and sollerets of steel, while a short surcoat covers the trunk, and the spurs are of the rowel type. Shields disappear from brasses and effigies in this century, the last example on a brass occurs in 1360.[10]

A brass in Wotton-under-Edge Church, Gloucestershire, shows a figure in mixed armour of Thomas Lord Berkeley, who died in 1417. The sollerets are “à la poulaine,” though not in the extreme form, and the gauntlets have articulated fingers and a sharp gad over each knuckle. The figure wears a collar of mermaids, the family cognizance. We now get very near to full-plate armour on an effigy of Sir Robert Harcourt, K.G., in Stanton Harcourt Church, Oxfordshire. The figure wears a horizontally fluted bassinet; a standard of mail; coudières sharply pointed at the elbow; cuirass with lance-rest; laminated taces, and long triangular tuilles; sollerets slightly laminated and pointed. There is a great crested helm with the figure. Sir Robert died in 1471, and the armour was probably made in the first half of the fifteenth century. This is a late example of the use of the standard of mail, but it probably covered a defence of plate, as was often the case. The steel gorget came in with the House of Lancaster. Several of these effigies and brasses have been engraved by Hollis.

It may profitably be mentioned again here that dates on monuments are those of demise. The armour, therefore, may be much earlier, sometimes a generation or so before the date of death; and it was common, nay, usual, for a knight to bequeath his suit or suits to his sons or other persons. For instance, Guy de Beauchamp, who died in 1316, bequeathed to his eldest son his best coat of mail, helmet, etc.; and to his son John, his second suit. It is obvious, however, that many effigies represent the fashion of armour prevailing at the date of demise, or even later. Mixed armour in France went well into the fifteenth century. Broadly speaking, mixed armour was used in England during the last quarter of the thirteenth to the end of the fourteenth century, but nearly full-plate armour began to be seen there in the reign of Richard II. It had, however, been in vogue in Germany and Italy for some decades before it was generally worn by the English, and it is probable that the earlier complete suits in England were imported from Germany or Italy, which countries set the fashion. Studded armour was not uncommon during the second half of the fourteenth century, and even earlier. The effigy of Gunther von Schwarzburg, King of the Romans (1349), shows the body armour to have been of mail, with reinforcing plates for the arms and legs, on which blank and studded lengths are interspersed. He wears the bassinet with camail. The following examples will show to some extent the progress of the evolution in Belgium. A figure in the library at Ghent, of Willem Wenemaer, wears genouillières and jambs of plate, otherwise clad in mail (1325). The sword is covered with a Latin inscription. A brass at Porte de Hal, Brussels, shows John and Gerard de Herre (1398) in mixed armour. On a brass in the Cathedral at Bruges, dated 1452, Martin de Visch has a full armament of plate, excepting the gorget, which is covered by a standard of mail.

This continuous strengthening of armour was clearly rendered necessary by the ever-increasing power and temper of weapons of attack, which was met by a corresponding effort at defence on the part of the armour-smith. We have the same sort of thing to-day in the constant competition between armour-plates and heavy guns. Then, again, weapons were invented to attack some vif de l’harnois, or vulnerable place, which was parried in its turn by an alteration or addition in the harness to resist it. The mortality in these days in battle was chiefly on the defeated side, and it took place mostly among the unhorsed combatants.

The crusades exercised a cosmopolitan influence over both arms and armour in Europe, not only in the introduction of new forms from the East, but also in a general assimilation of fashion among the nations of chivalry. The military administration of these two centuries of disastrous warfare, in and towards Palestine, was simply deplorable; and no reasonable provision was made against eventualities; hence plague, leprosy, and famine played havoc among the Christian hosts. The institution of quasi-religious orders of knighthood, however, did much to redeem these ill-starred expeditions from absolute chaos.

The formation of these religious military orders was an outcome of the proselytising zeal of the earlier “middle ages,” brought into play by the first crusade. The movement was, to some extent, a fusion of the Church with the military caste for warring against the infidel for the recovery of the Holy Sepulchre. A living faith, boundless devotion, and self-sacrifice characterised these orders in the early stages of their existence, and the principles of charity and humility were strictly enjoined and practised with all men except the infidel, against whom they waged a pitiless war, not only in the East but in Europe also. The Grand Master of the order of St. Lazarus was always chosen from among lepers. The vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience soon, however, became “more honoured in the breach than in the observance;” and as these orders became rich, luxurious, and powerful, they began to nourish ambitions and practices quite at variance with the principles under which they were instituted. As their machinations began to be directed against all authority, and even against thrones and religion itself, they were deprived of many of their privileges, and some were suppressed altogether.

The shoulder-pieces called “ailettes” first appeared in France. They were in use in England late in the thirteenth century, but, as they fell into disuse in the fourteenth, there are not likely to be any actual examples preserved, and they rarely occur on monuments. These pieces assume various shapes, but the usual one is a rectangular figure, longer than it is broad, standing over the shoulders horizontally, perpendicularly, or diagonally, rising either in front or from behind; there are, however, instances of their being round, pentagonal, and lozenge formed. The use of these curious appendages is not very apparent, but the most natural explanation is that they were applied as a defence against strokes glancing off the helmet. They were usually ensigned with a device or crest; and, when worn in front, were often large enough to protect the armpits, instead of palettes or rondelles. They are mentioned in the roll of purchases for the Windsor tournament in 1278. There is an interesting letter in the Proceedings of the Newcastle Society of Antiquaries, vol. iv., p. 268, concerning these somewhat puzzling pieces of armour. It is addressed to Dr. Hodgkin, by Captain Orde Browne. The writer refers to the ailettes which he noticed on the effigy of Peter le Marechal, in the cathedral church of St. Nicholas, Newcastle. This highly interesting figure lies immediately behind the monument to Dr. Bruce. Captain Orde Browne mentions examples of ailettes in the churches of Ash, Clehongre in Herefordshire, and Tew in Oxfordshire, and quotes two authorities who state that these three are the only churches in which effigies with these appendages have been found; the names, however, have not been preserved in the letter. At all events, the authorities in question had overlooked the Newcastle example, on the shield of which there seems to be a bend. We refer to this effigy as attributed to Peter le Marechal. Brand believed it to be the effigy of the founder of St. Margaret’s chantry, Peter de Manley, a baron who bore, according to Guillim, “or,” a bend sable. He was associated with the Bishop of Durham, and others, for guarding the East Marches, and died in 1383. His arms therefore correspond with those on the shield of the effigy. The late Mr. Longstaffe, however, ascribes the figure to Peter le Marechal, who died in 1322.

As to the question between Peter de Manley and Peter le Marechal there can be no doubt whatever, as the presence of ailettes, and the general character of the armour, undoubtedly date the figure about the end of the thirteenth century or very early in the fourteenth, and there is an interval of sixty-one years between the deaths of the two knights. Peter le Marechal was sword-bearer to Edward I., and is buried in St. Nicholas’s Church. It appears from the king’s wardrobe account that a sword was placed on the body by the king’s command. According to M. Viollet le Duc, this innovation, the employment of ailettes, dates from the end of the thirteenth century, but M. Victor Gay cites an example of the employment of ailettes in 1274. There is, however, one of a still earlier date, occurring in a MS. dated 1262, in which is a figure of Georges de Niverlee. This manuscript does not say where this figure is or was. There is an ailette on the right shoulder only, and we may possibly infer that this piece was first used singly. A very interesting example of this kind occurs on an illumination on the psalter executed for Sir Geoffrey Loutterell, who died in 1345; and the single ailette bears his arms, “azure,” a bend between six martlets “argent.” We see from the roll of purchases made for the tournament of Windsor Park (1278) that the ailettes specified for were to be of leather and carda.[11] Ailettes were worn by Sir Roger de Trumpington in the Windsor tournament, but these were of leather; and are figured on his monumental brass rising from behind the shoulders. An incised monumental slab in the church of St. Denis, Gotheim, Belgium, shows a figure of Nenkinus de Gotheim (1296) with these appendages. These are remarkable for their diagonal pose. If any device existed it has been worn off. There is an example of another Gotheim (1307) charged with a rose, and a couple in the Porte de Hal Museum, at Brussels, dated 1318 and 1331 respectively. A very elaborate pair of ailettes appears in the inventory of Piers Gaveston (1313): “les alettes garniz et frettez de perles.” There is a German example on the statue of Rudolph von Hierstein at Bâle (died 1318).

PART IV.
HELMS UP TO THE END OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD.

Helms with horns were worn by the Vikings, and in all probability the headpiece with these appendages dredged up with a shield in the Thames, and now deposited in the British Museum, is of early Scandinavian origin. Horned helms were probably originally emblematic of the goddess Hathor or Isis, and came to Northern Europe through the Greeks. A helm with horns, about B.C. 3750, found at Susa, has been already referred to in Part I. We have an example of an Etruscan helm with horns, and Meyrick says that such were worn by the Phrygians, though rarely. Diodorus Siculus refers to this form as used by the Belgic Gauls. There are instances of helms with horns as late as the fourteenth and even fifteenth centuries. One occurs on the tomb of Diether von Hael, at Borfe, in the Tyrol, near Moran. This helm has ears as well as horns. The warrior died 1368. Other examples, one on the effigy of Burkhard von Steenberg (died 1379), in the Museum at Hildesheim, and another on that of Gottfried von Furstenberg (died 1341), in the Church of Hasbach; and there is a grotesque helmet in the Tower of London, presented to Henry VIII. by the Emperor Maximilian, with ram’s horns; and such appendages were sometimes used on chanfreins of the sixteenth century—there are examples at Madrid and Berlin. The early Anglo-Saxons wore four-cornered helms with a fluted comb-like crest.

The great variety in mediæval and renaissance headgear is somewhat bewildering, but it may all be brought down to a few types with certain salient characteristics, which, however, greatly interweave. The knights of chivalry, or their armour-smiths, seem to have given as great a rein to their fancy and imagination as the constructors of feminine headgear of all time; still the change and application of weapons of attack played the most important part in the constant modifications of warlike headpieces, as of other defensive armour.

Both Normans and Anglo-Saxons used the word “helm”[12] (of Gothic or Scandinavian derivation) in the eleventh century, as applied to the conical steel cap with the nasal then in use. The equivalent in French was “heaume.” The word “helmet” is of course the diminutive of “helm,” and is specially applied to the close-fitting casques, first used in the fifteenth century, of which more anon. The seal of Henry I. shows that monarch as wearing a conical helm.

The form of helm of the Bayeux tapestry is a quadrilateral pyramid with a narrow strip of iron extending over the nose; but this nasal is but rarely met with after the twelfth century, although it occurs in every century up to the seventeenth. The Norman helm was probably wholly of iron, and sometimes had a neckpiece.

The great helm or heaume, without a movable visor, is of English origin. It first appeared about the middle of the twelfth century, and was worn over a hood of mail, which was then found inadequate to resist either the lance or a heavy blow from a battle-axe or mace, or even a stroke from the then greatly improved sword. The helm had the effect of distributing the force of the blow, and to a certain extent parried it. The second seal of Richard I. shows him in a great helm, which is either flat-topped or conical, with the nasal, and is obviously derived from the antique. The cylindrical or flat-topped variety came into vogue towards the end of the twelfth century. There is an example of the conical form in the Museum of Artillery at Paris, and one of the nearly flat-topped variety, rising very slightly towards the centre, in the Tower of London. The great helm is often represented as a pillow for the head in effigies.

The next form, which is in great variety, the knight’s early tilting helm, was used pre-eminently for jousting; the visored bassinet being worn generally in battle. It was introduced to resist the heavy lance charge. This form was hemispherical, conical, or cylindrical, with an aventail to cover the face,[13] and ocularia or slits for vision, and sometimes a guard for the back of the neck. Breathing holes first appear early in the reign of Henry III. It formed a very heavy single structure, sometimes with bands of iron in front constituting a cross; and in the earlier forms the head bore the whole weight; but later it was constructed to rest on the shoulders, and the crossbands disappeared. It was fastened to the saddle-bow when not in use. The movable aventail appears on the second seal of Henry III. An excellent example may be seen on the male effigy in Whitworth Churchyard, which is described in the Proceedings of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Society of Antiquaries, vol. iv., p. 250. This monument shows two recumbent figures—male and female. We are concerned with the male effigy, and have the authority of Mr. Longstaffe that it represented a member of the family of Humez of Brancepeth. The character of the armour would indicate a date in the second quarter of the thirteenth century. The helm is cylindrical and flat-topped. There are two other north-country effigies of about the same date, one at Pittington, the helmet of which is round-topped, and the other at Chester-le-Street (both in the county of Durham). The round-topped helm appeared late in the thirteenth century. A very early thirteenth century helm may be seen on an effigy in Staunton Church, Nottingham, and a flat-topped cylindrical specimen surmounts the figure on the curious water ewer shown in Plate XXII. of Archæologia Æliana, vol. iv. (O.S.). There are instances of this form as early as the last quarter of the twelfth century.

De Cosson gives drawings of several of these helms in his resumé of the specimens exhibited in 1880 (for which see Proceedings of the Royal Archæological Institute). That on the seal of Henry III. has breathing holes, and that of Edward II. shows his helm to have been cylindrical, with a grated aventail. Helms at this period were sometimes made of brass. The helm formerly hanging over the tomb of Sir Richard Pembridge, K.G., in the nave of Hereford Cathedral, and now in the possession of Sir Noel Paton,[14] is a good example of the reign of Edward III. This helm has been minutely described by De Cosson in his catalogue of the helmets already referred to. The great jousting helm of the fifteenth century will be described later. The bassinet, lined with leather, basin-shaped as its name implies, was lighter and close fitting; and in England usually provided with staples for a camail. It was often used under a crested helm of large size, but, as mentioned before, when the bassinet became visored it was worn heavier, and then largely superseded the great helm. The bassinet was generally worn in England in the fourteenth century and late in the preceding. This helmet is more fully described later.

The chapel-de-fer is an iron helmet of the twelfth century, with or without a broad brim. It was often holed for a camail, and was worn sometimes under a hood of mail. The one without brim is often termed a chapeline, and is, we take it, the small bassinet. Illustrations of two great helms at the Zeughaus, Berlin, are given in [Fig. 2].

PART V.
PLATE ARMOUR.

It was late in the reign of Edward II. when considerable progress was made in the direction of full “plain” armour in England, but, as shown in the section headed “Chain-mail,” etc., the use of the standard of mail survived until the beginning of the fifteenth century and even later. It is, in fact, impossible to lay down any arbitrary dates, or anything like a clear line of demarcation in respect to the relative proportions of chain and plate armour in use by English men-at-arms up to the beginning of the fifteenth century; but the fortunate preservation in our churches of the remarkable series of effigies and monumental brasses helps us greatly. There is, however, very little evidence of this kind before the middle of the thirteenth century. Breastplates, as distinguished from the old plastrons-de-fer, were to be met with early in the reign of Edward II., but the general rule was still a hauberk of mail, with épaulières, coudières of plate, and some splint plates on the arms, all fastened with straps and buckles; the legs were still generally encased in mail, with, of course, genouillières at the knees.

Fig. 2.—Great Helms at Berlin.

1250–1300. 1350–1400.

The long reign of Edward III. (1327–77) saw great strides towards the general use of full plate armour. An illumination on the psalter of Sir Geoffrey Loutterell (died 1345) furnishes an interesting example of the time. The knight is on horseback, sheathed in plate; he wears the pointed bassinet, a rectangular ailette on his right shoulder. His coat-of-arms (“azure,” a bend between six martlets “argent”) is repeated wherever possible: on the ailette, helm, pennon, shield, and housings; and again on the dress of a lady who is handing up the helm. Another lady holds the shield: her dress impales “azure,” a bend “or,” a label “argent” for Scrope of Masham. The saddle is the “well,” and the spurs rowelled. The lance-rest (an adjustable hook of iron for supporting the lance shaft) was introduced about 1360. A brass of Sir John Lowe, at Battle, Sussex, gives a good idea of the armour prevailing late in the reign of Richard II. and in that of Henry IV. The surcoat is omitted, so that in this instance the whole front panoply is exposed to view, though the garment continues to appear occasionally on monuments well into the fifteenth century, as shown on the brass of Sir William de Tendering in Stoke-by-Nayland Church (1408). The bassinet becomes less acutely pointed than on the effigy of the Black Prince. Épaulières show articulations, and gauntlets are articulated at the fingers. This is the case on the brass of Sir John Lowe, where the armpits are protected by rondelles, and the now visible taces of steel hoops form a skirt of from six to eight laminations. The cuisse is articulated, and the sollerets are “à la poulaine,” though not in the extreme form. The spurs are of the rowel type, and the figure is armed with sword and dagger.

Full plate armour was used in Germany and Italy earlier than in England. There is ample evidence of this, but care must be taken in sifting the testimony of old “Chronicles.” In the “Tristan and Isolde” MS., by Godfrey of Strasburg, of the second half of the thirteenth century, the German men-at-arms are represented in “white” armour; helms with the bevor attached to the cuirass, the upper part of the face open, jambs of plate and sollerets “à la poulaine.” Their horses appear with bards. A statute of Florence of the year 1315 is remarkable for the following statement, viz.:—“Every knight to have a helm, breastplate, gauntlets, cuisses, and jambs, all of iron!”

These manuscripts, however, must not be taken as conclusive. On the contrary, they really represent what is now considered to be a late stage of mixed armour. An Italian example figured in Hewitt (Plate XXVII.) shows the statue of a knight in a church at Naples (1335). He wears a hauberk of mail, with rondelles at the shoulders and elbows, rounded plates strapped over the upper arm, and jambs of iron. The sollerets are in chain-mail. The heavy horsemen of the “middle ages” are often referred to as “knights,” but of course there could only be a very small percentage of them enjoying that degree. Presumably many were eligible for the honour of knighthood for marked bravery in the field.

* * * * *

Before the use of gunpowder in warfare the baronial fortress was almost impregnable, but cannon turned the tables on the feudal nobility, dealing a severe blow at extreme feudalism, of which these castles were the invariable centres.

The reason for the introduction of the cuirass proper was the exceeding weight of the hauberk of chain-mail, in conjunction with the heavy plates often riveted on to it, and the quilted gambeson, etc., underneath; and also by reason of the inefficient protection it afforded against the lance in full career, or strokes from the greatly improved and heavier swords, or blows from the deadly battle-axe; indeed, it often happened that a portion of the chain-mail itself was driven into a wound. It was, however, far from uncommon early in the fifteenth century for a hauberk of chain-mail to be worn under the cuirass, with a gambeson next the body, and another between the mail and the cuirass; but this multiplicity of garments was far too heating, heavy and cumbersome, and at least one of them, and generally two, were discarded on the full introduction of plate armour. These cast-off garments were, however, utilised by the lighter troops. The gambeson is a quilted tunic, often worn in battle in early times without other armour, having been made tough enough to turn a sword stroke; but when plate armour became general it was of quilted linen, fortified with rings under the arms and breastplate. There is a most interesting gambeson of the kind in the national museum at Munich, an example of late fourteenth century date, and the only one known as surviving; it also covers the legs, and is strengthened with mail over the knees. There is a specimen at Munich, thought to be unique, of the familiar horizontal belt one sees on effigies of the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. The underclothing varied greatly at the different periods, and there is often some confusion of terms among the “Chroniclers” regarding these garments. Chaucer calls the gambeson a “haketon,” the habergeon of his day being a shirt of chain-mail. He says:—

“Next his shirt an haketon,
And over that an habergeon,
And over that a fin hauberke,
Full strong it was of plate.”

There is a fine specimen of a fifteenth century habergeon in the Porte de Hal Museum, Brussels. A MS. of this period says that esquires were not allowed a sautoir (stirrup) to their saddles. The order had a distinct status, even to its costume. The esquire was the auxiliary and companion of the knight. His duty consisted in carrying the knight’s arms, breaking-in and seeing to his horses, and generally looking after him; he fought at his side and guarded his prisoners. The spurs of the knight were of gold, those of the esquire of silver. To “win his spurs” and be dubbed a knight, he was required to have performed some valiant deed. There was an intermediate grade between a knight and an esquire in the pursuivant-at-arms. There was a varied and costly elaboration of ornament used by the more courtly cavaliers of the fourteenth century and later times. The figure of the Black Prince in Canterbury Cathedral is highly decorated. The knightly belt has a blue enamel ground, with bosses of gilt leopards’ heads. The bassinet bears a coronet embellished with precious stones. The sword scabbard is inlaid with lapis-lazuli, and the spurs are gilt. Inventories of the period often divulge items such as rich velvet and embroideries, gold and silver. Pearls and carbuncles among gems were especially affected for decorative purposes. The inventory of Piers Gaveston (1313) has been already referred to as mentioning “les alettes garniz et frettez de perles.” Mr. Hewitt mentions the inventory of Louis Hutin, temp. 1316, which has “Item, cote, bracières, houce d’escu, et chapel de veluyan, et couvertures a cheval des armes du Roy, les fleurs de lys d’or de Chypre broudées de pelles [pearls]. Item, picières et flanchières de samit [satin] des armes le Roy, les fleurs de lys d’or de Chypre. Item, uns gantelez couvers de velveil vermeil.” Such portable and valuable adjuncts induced a deal of looting among the fallen champions after a battle, and many wounded lost their lives from this cause who would otherwise have been put to ransom. Stringent sumptuary laws were very rife at this time, but these severe enactments were found very difficult to enforce, and were much evaded; indeed, this has always been the case. Single feathers were worn in the fourteenth century; but in the fifteenth and sixteenth great plumes, drooping gracefully behind, were the rule. The degradation of a knight under King René d’Anjou was a very elaborate ceremony: he was stripped of his armour, which was broken to pieces before him, and his spurs were thrown on a dunghill; there was also much besides. In later times, the knight’s spurs were hacked off by the king’s master-cook.

Early representations of bards are very rare; they probably originated in the twelfth century, when they were most likely of fortified leather. They did not become general in England until towards the close of the thirteenth century. Wace says that the horse of William Fitz-Osbert was housed in chain-mail at the battle of Hastings, but this is incredible.

As already mentioned, German men-at-arms appear with barded horses in the second half of the thirteenth century, but it was towards its close, or at the beginning of the fourteenth, that they became common. The earliest English official mention occurs in the statute of 27 Edward I., when bards were of chain-mail, leather, or quilted material. In the inventory of the armour of Louis X. occurs, “item, a chanfrein.” Nothing like a full equipment in steel plate for horses was attained before the second quarter of the fifteenth century, when, according to a picture in the imperial arsenal at Vienna, “Der Ritter sitzt auf seinem, bis auf die Hufe, verdeckten Hengst.” The material differs very much in the fifteenth century, being of full plate, fortified mail, quilted cloth, or cuir-bouilli.

Bards comprised the chamfron or chanfrein, for the face, worn sometimes with a crest; picière, breast; flanchière, flanks; croupière, hinder parts; estivals, legs. The crinet, neck, appears first in England on the seal of Henry V. The horses were gaily caparisoned. The emblazoned housings were often made of costly material, such as satin embroidered with gold or silver. Examples are given in Figs. 3 and 24.

The horsemen of late in the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries consisted of men-at-arms or heavy cavalry,[15] hobilers and armati, or common horse troops. The infantry consisted of spear and billmen,—that is, men armed with long-handled weapons,—crossbowmen and archers. Hobilers were light cavalry taken from the better class of yeomen. The “hobby” horse was a much lighter steed than that used by a knight or man-at-arms, clad in his armour of proof. Part of the light cavalry consisted of bowmen. The gynours had charge of the catapultæ, ballistæ, and other siege engines.

Grose, in his Military Antiquities, vol. i., p. 278, cites an old Latin MS., giving the numbers of the army of King Edward III. in Normandy and before Calais, in the twentieth year of his reign, with their several stipends, as follows, viz.:—

It would appear from this “establishment” that King Edward’s main force consisted of foot archers, and that the predominance of this item largely accounts for the English victories of the time, against greatly superior numbers on the side of the French. It will be observed that gunners and artillerymen are mentioned in this MS., but they were probably for serving siege-guns before Calais.

The institution of feudalism, which was in direct opposition to the Roman system, exercised an immense influence on the form and constitution of the armies of Northern and Central Europe during the “middle ages” and later. The inauguration of the movement proceeded mainly from the division of lands by Clovis among his followers; but it was the policy of Charlemagne that gave it form and substance in the direct creation of a martial and a sacerdotal aristocracy. Europe then became dotted over with seigniories and strong places, erected originally with a view to save the countries from being overrun and enslaved by barbarous hordes; and by these means the invaders were compelled to confine their depredations mainly to the sea-coast regions, which they ravaged without mercy. Each vassal swore fealty to his liege-lord in the ceremonial “homage-lige.” The vassal was bound to fight under the banner of his liege-lord for a continuous term of from twenty to sixty days when called upon, and to assist him in many other ways; and as long as his duties were faithfully and diligently performed he remained master of his fief, and was also permitted to infeudate or sub-feudalise it. The seignior on his part extended his protection to his vassals, and was bound to render them full justice; and in cases of default an appeal to the suzerain of the seignior was provided for. This was the theory, but the practice too often meant an organised system for the oppression of the weaker classes, and so on down to the lowest rung of the feudal ladder. The church itself united in exercising a feudal as well as a spiritual jurisdiction, and bishops wielded this double power over the seigniory in their bishoprics.

The rise of the third estate, and especially that of communal government, brought about modifications of the system as time moved on. These causes, with their influence on military matters, will be lightly touched upon in these pages as they arise; but it must be borne in mind that though feudalism was the same in principle everywhere, it differed in its application in the various countries it dominated, according to the characteristics and circumstances of the peoples.

The principle of the ban or feudal levy was that those holding land should contribute to the king’s army in war time a certain fixed proportion of retainers, according to the acreage of their holding; but in cases of great national peril the levy, the arrière-ban, was much larger, and there was often an arrangement under which actual service might be compounded by a money payment called “scutage.” The arrière-ban or the ban-fieffé dates from the sixth century. It summoned the vassals, which the suzerain alone had a right to command. The increasing number of mercenary troops employed steadily diminished the importance of the ban, and “scutage” became more general.

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.

Monograms are not often seen on armour of English make, but they were common in Germany towards the end of the fifteenth century, when armour was occasionally inscribed with the year. The comparatively few instances of dated armour are intensely valuable, as we have then no inferences or doubtful ancestral legends, but the actual year of make. Examples of both fifteenth and sixteenth centuries occur at Nuremberg and Berlin. There is an idea generally prevailing that the stature of the men of the middle ages was shorter than nowadays. After the comparison of many suits, both at home and abroad, it is certain that this is not the case, but the average development of the calf of the leg is greater now. An ordinary-sized leg of to-day would not fit into the average cuisse and jamb of the sixteenth century, but it must be remembered that a very large proportion of the suits preserved, made in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, were for Italy, South Germany, France, and Spain. The build and stature of these peoples were slighter than that of the Englishman. The wearers spent such a large proportion of their time on horseback, that the calves of their legs were naturally like those of the “horsey” man of to-day.

From early in the sixteenth century the changes were greatly matters of detail, the differences in suits being principally those of form. The shell or tile-formed tuilles, after having been in use for nearly a century, gave place to the more comprehensive tassets of overlapping plates. Épaulières developed into pauldrons, which gradually increased in size, covering both shoulders and upper-arm, and at length extended over each breast, and then diminished again in size. Pikeguards were introduced to protect the neck from pike thrusts, and there are instances of these plates as early as the middle of the century. Sometimes they are double on each shoulder—see the brass at Qui, Cambridgeshire. In cases where a pikeguard appears on one shoulder only, a close examination will generally reveal holes for the fixing of its fellow. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, or a few years later, the so-called “Maximilian” armour superseded that termed “Gothic,” when a large proportion of this armour (the “Maximilian”) was fluted everywhere except the jambs. It had pauldrons, with pikeguards, and great “bear-paw” or “cow-mouth” shaped sollerets. This style became à la mode, in imitation of the prevailing fashion in dress, which was then largely puffed and slashed. It must be understood, however, that fluted suits were in a majority of the armour made, but not to the exclusion of plain armour. The cuirass is shorter than in the later Gothic form; it is more globose, with the top cut straight, and the breastplate is usually in one piece. The headpiece is the armet and burgonet. Sliding rivets (Almayne) gave increased elasticity to armour of this period. As may be seen from some notes in Archæologia, vol. li., p. 168, written by Viscount Dillon, P.S.A., the term “Almayne rivets” was sometimes applied to complete harnesses; for an order sent to Florence by Henry VIII., in 1512, runs: “The 2000 complete harness, called Almayne ryvettes, were to be alway a salet, a gorget, a breastplate, a backplate, and a pair of splints (tassets) for every complete harness at 16s. the set.” There is a sixteenth century specimen of an armourer’s pincers, with claw and hammer head for riveting armour, in the Rotunda collection at Woolwich. It was soon found that arms of attack would not glance so well off fluted suits, and smooth armour was again generally reverted to. Blackened armour was not uncommon at this time; and a black, white, or coloured tunic of stuff was often worn over bright. The first instance of black armour that we have met with is mentioned by Froissart, under the year 1359.[18] While in “Gothic” armour the taste of the period found expression in beauty of outline, already in the fifteenth century it had become fashionable to have armour engraved and otherwise ornamented. Perhaps the only brass that is to be seen in Spain represents a beautiful specimen of inlaid armour; the figure is of Don Parafan, Duke of Alcola, who died in 1571. The pikeguard has ceased, sollerets are the shape of the foot, and he wears a morion. The morion and cabasset were late sixteenth and seventeenth century helmets, while armets and burgonets were greatly worn early in the sixteenth. Late in the fifteenth and during the sixteenth centuries there was a description of armour called “penny-plate.” It consisted of round pieces of steel riveted on to leather. There is a specimen of this kind of armour at the Rotunda, Woolwich.

By the end of the fifteenth century heavy tilting-suits had attained their greatest strength, and as the sixteenth century advanced so did ornamentation. Under the Emperor Maximilian skirts or petticoats of plate began to be worn—another illustration of the influence exercised on armour by the prevailing fashion in dress, in fact the form was reproduced in the surcoat before 1470; and indeed the application of taces during the fourteenth and early in the fifteenth centuries, before the introduction of tuilles, was also something in the same fashion. These skirts were called bases or lamboys. There is an example in the Tower of London, and another on the Hertford tomb (1568). Another example is in the author’s collection, of which a detailed description and drawing is given later in these pages ([Fig. 25]). These lamboys were specially designed for fighting on foot, but there is often an arrangement by which a portion is detachable in order to enable the wearer to sit on horseback. There is a style of armour the Germans call “Pfeifenharnisch,” which has embossed pipings in high relief like puffs. Such a harness was made by Hans Seusenhofer for Prince Charles, later the Emperor Charles V. Visors of this period were often wrought in the form of a grotesque face. There is more than one example at Vienna, and indeed they were far from uncommon; the author possesses a couple. Bards had become highly decorated, and with the housings were sometimes designed in close imitation of the dress fabrics of the period. Such a suit of bards on a charger, on which is mounted a rider in a piped suit of the “Maximilian” type, may be seen in the Kungl. Lifrustkammar, in Stockholm. An illustration is given in [Fig. 3].

Fig. 3.—Mounted Suit with Bards, in the Kungl. Lifrustkammar Collection, Stockholm.

Towards the end of this century (the sixteenth) defensive armour had reached its highest point of development. Tassets gradually became lowered to cover the knees in a series of lobster-shell plates, as on a brass of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, that of Sir William Harper, in St. Paul’s Church, Bedford. Examples of these elongated cuisses occur, however, much earlier. Jambs and sollerets were at length laid aside in favour of jackboots, and plate armour fell gradually into disuse, mainly owing to the new tactics rendered necessary by the general use of firearms, and the growing desirability of lightly-armed squadrons and companies; indeed, before the accession of Elizabeth the use of armour in campaigning had ceased to be a sine qua non, and, all regulations notwithstanding, a constantly increasing proportion of campaigners, especially among the infantry, insisted on discarding it. It became at length more used for purposes of display rather than for actual service, and hence armour became more and more decorative. There is a scarcity of plate armour of the fourteenth century, and but little remains of the fifteenth. This is not surprising, as the quantity made in those days was strictly limited; but what does seem strange is the scarcity of armour of the sixteenth century, and especially of the first half, over which time such immense quantities were in use. One explanation of this may be found in Archæologia, vol. li., p. 222, when Viscount Dillon gives examples of great quantities of armour having been converted, during Elizabeth’s reign, into “targets” and “jacks” for the navy.

* * * * *

Now that the armour period has been roughly covered, the evolution of each important piece will be followed to its decadence, when hand-to-hand fighting was rarer, and strategy in masses more developed, as the proud knight had at length become of minor importance as against organised infantry, which was now “the strength of the battle,” and when the use of various weapons of attack, especially the harquebus, became general. Tactics in warfare were at a very low ebb during the fourteenth century, and the military scandals of that time were many. Agincourt is an example of confusion among the French ranks that had many parallels at the time; but with the advent of the fifteenth century, much systematic improvement was effected. It was not before the reign of Elizabeth that any large body of troops could advance in close column without breaking its formation. Armies in the sixteenth century no longer consisted of mere feudal and communal levies, but were organised into companies and regiments, the battalion becoming the recognised unit for the infantry in the reign of James I. Systematic tactics were introduced, and the proper proportions of horse, foot, and artillery in the field determined. The effective use of gunpowder in battle, and its influence on armour and tactics, was very gradual, but during the sixteenth century it progressively compassed great changes in both. Boys in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were taught the use and practice of arms at an early age. An interesting group of boys’ harnesses, of various sizes and periods, may be seen at the Dresden Museum. Numerous dints on the armour, some of them heavy, show that very hard knocks had been exchanged.

The mode indicated of treating the subject will be clearer than any attempt made at elaborate contemporary classification as a whole. Representative suits, especially from local and foreign collections, will now be taken more or less in detail, thus showing the combinations of the various periods they represent, leaving separate chapters for tilting suits, extra tilting pieces, and the tournament generally, besides enriched armour and a slight sketch of prominent armour-smiths, and some of the most important collections of arms and armour.

A large proportion of the armour used in England continued to be imported from Italy and Germany. Henry VIII. bought and received in presents, harnesses, both for foot-fighting and horseback, from these countries; indeed, the trade in armour and arms formed a not inconsiderable item in the importations of the Hanseatic Bund already mentioned, and the bulk of the armour in private collections of fifteenth and sixteenth century make is of German or Italian origin. Not only was armour imported, but foreign smiths and artificers, principally of German nationality, known as Almayne armourers, were introduced. Milan armourers were working at Greenwich in 1514.[19] Exportation from England was not allowed without royal licence.

Although the matchless Beauchamp effigy ([Fig. 16]) was the work of an Englishman, it is probable that most of the fine suits in English collections, with the least possible pretensions to any historic connection with this country, were principally of Italian or German make, up to the meeting of Henry VIII. with the Emperor Maximilian; but a good deal of English armour was turned out later in Henry’s reign, and in that of Elizabeth, by the “Almayne” smiths, already referred to, brought over from Germany and Italy. The Armourers’ Album at South Kensington, with drawings of twenty-nine harnesses, throws much light on the armour of the earlier Elizabethan period, and some of the suits mentioned therein have been identified. It is certain, however, that the influence exercised by the imported German and Italian smiths on armour of English make was of comparatively short duration, for suits made by armour-smiths in this country after the early portion of Elizabeth’s reign were characterised by a vast inferiority in design, execution, and material to those turned out by their German and Italian confrères. With the exception of the fine specimens in the collection at the Tower of London, it is in Germany where most of the Gothic and Maximilian suits have been preserved, and a few are still to be met with in Italy and Spain. It is a great pity that the armour possessed by the nation should be scattered over so many places, instead of being concentrated in one grand national collection. Could this be arranged, we would possess an armoury worthy of the empire. The Wallace armour is a great accession to our store, but this collection still remains unpacked. The almost constant warfare, both in Germany and Italy, during the middle ages naturally made the manufacture of armour more of a speciality in these countries than in England, and the effect of the Italian “renaissance” was especially seen in profuse and artistic ornamentation, which at length came to be more regarded even than strength itself—it was, in fact, a fine art. Much of the armour was covered with embossed figures, engraved, chased, and damascened with gold. The work of the Augsburg, Nuremberg, and Innsbruck armourers was really, if not quite, equal, both in design and workmanship, to that of Italy; and many historic suits until recently classed as Italian have been since proved to be of German workmanship.

The counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Durham are not rich in armour, especially in that of the sixteenth century, and the only Gothic suit is, we believe, one in the author’s possession, and there is no perfect harness of the “Maximilian” type in the district. As many as possible of what may be termed north-country examples will be given in these pages.

Military experts of the sixteenth and even seventeenth centuries differ widely in their estimation of the value of steel armour in battle, and many of them strove valiantly against its growing partial abandonment. James I. is said to have made the remark that body-armour was a double protection; for it secured the wearer from being injured, and also prevented him from injuring others! It became impossible to forge armour, for man and horse, proof against the improved musketry fire; and little by little the old chivalry of battle had to give way against overwhelming odds. The full effect of the movement was, however, much retarded by various causes. The earlier firearms were clumsy, dilatory, heavy to carry, and ineffective in practice; besides new supports, formations and tactics took time to organise and develop before firearms could reap the full benefit of their superiority, which they eventually achieved with the musket, in conjunction with “covers” of halbardiers, and especially pikemen, before these footmen’s weapons were superseded by the bayonet. These causes, and the increasing demand for lighter and more easily manœuvred troops, and newer tactics demanding greater mobility and longer marches, brought about the downfall of the man-at-arms, who was effective only on the level; and with his disuse plate-armour had ceased to be generally worn.

PART VI.
A SLIGHT SKETCH OF SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT COLLECTIONS ABROAD.

The Königliche Zeughaus at Berlin.

This museum is rich in staff weapons and firearms, and is rapidly accumulating a very fine collection of armour, which has been greatly enriched by the purchase of the remarkably fine series of suits and weapons formerly belonging to Prince Carl of Prussia. The present emperor takes a great interest in the place, and has himself added several suits of armour.

The Königliche Historische Museum at Dresden.

This is perhaps the best collection for the student to visit, and is intensely valuable by reason of the strictly historic character of most of the specimens. The only weak spot is in the absence of any complete “Gothic” harness, but there are some fine pieces on exhibition. Next to suits with the date inscribed, those that are known to have been worn by historic personages provide valuable means of comparison for the student, and define the features and details presented within narrow limits as to time. The collection was, in a manner, begun by dukes Georg and Heinrich of Saxony from 1471 to 1541, and continued under the Kurfürsts. The first inventory was ordered by Kurfürst August, 1526–86, and then comprised twenty-eight mounted tournament suits for “rennen,” with their accessories and reinforcing pieces, as well as thirty-four tournament suits for “stechen.” Under the section in this volume headed “Tournaments” will be found explanations regarding the differences between “rennen” and “stechen.” The next inventory taken, 1576–84, exhibits the addition of a number of enriched suits, and between this time and 1611 many more were added. A large number of these historic suits stand, so to speak, almost in situ. In 1893 many suits and weapons were secured by purchase from the collection of Richard Zschille, and the gathering together of suits and arrangement of the foot-tournament hall accomplished. The collection thus forms a historic series of armament most unique and instructive, and at the same time most decisive in its influence on the many questions of form and opinion that have so agitated the minds of many writers on the subject. The collection of weapons of the “renaissance” and later may be described as unique in its beauty and arrangement. This section was founded in 1730, and contains an immense number of the choicest specimens, including many weapons for the chase. The collection of tools used during the sixteenth century for armour-making is most instructive and comprehensive. The catalogue by the curator, Direktor Max von Ehrenthal, is an educational book of the first order.

The Armeria Real, Madrid.

This collection has most in common with that at Vienna; and if not actually founded by the Emperor Charles V., it contains a good deal of his armour, and many weapons used by him. It was Philip II. who ordered the arrangement of the collection then existing, and his successors continually added to it; and when one considers how it has suffered from the robberies of Napoleon, and the neglect consequent upon the unsettled state of Spain for so many years, it is a matter of surprise that it has survived in its present fine condition. The collection comprises a number of most beautiful examples of armour, especially of the reigns of Charles V. and the Philips II. and III. A harness made by Koloman Helmschmied of Augsburg, for the emperor, is very notable. It bears the armourer’s mark, in conjunction with the guild monogram of the city; the suit has tuilles. There are many mounted suits, all remarkable specimens of the armourer’s art; and with the bards of one of them is a chanfrein with ram’s horns. Suits with lamboys are finely represented; as also is enriched armour. The collection of helmets, swords, shields, daggers, and separate pieces of armour and arms generally, represents almost all schools and varieties. The “Catálogo” prepared by Count Valencia is very fully and splendidly illustrated.

Die Waffensammlung des Kaiserl. Hauses at Vienna.

This collection includes that of Ambras, and the range of examples, especially armour, is even more complete and comprehensive than that at Madrid. It is rich in the most important of all schools, viz., the “Gothic”; and the general arrangement of the examples leaves little to be desired. With Custos Wendelin Boeheim at its head, it has provided the great educational agency in Europe in the determination of both arms and armour of the different periods covered in this book.

The Musée d’Armures at Brussels.

This collection has been placed in the Porte de Hal tower, an old fortress built in 1381, and all there is remaining of the old fortifications of the city. The museum is not in possession of a complete “Gothic” suit, but “Maximilian” fluted armour is worthily represented; and a later suit, with a tournament shield, is very notable. Armour of late sixteenth and early seventeenth century is there in quantity, and the collection of arms and cannon is very important. The catalogue, compiled by the accomplished antiquary, the late Hermann Van Duyse, leaves little to be desired.

The Historische Vaabensamling at Copenhagen.

This collection is placed in the old historic Töjhus, built in the reign of Christian IV. It is practically an arsenal. The collection of arms is arranged under the reign of each king, this giving obvious chronological data. A harness, with a tournament shield, reminds one strongly of the work of Peter von Speyer; the leg armour is missing in this case. Another suit in this collection is mentioned in our text.

The Armeria Reale at Turin.

This collection is especially rich in weapons of the sixteenth century, and is one of the most important in Europe.

The Germanisches Museum at Nuremberg.

This is a worthy national collection, and one of the most important and educational in Europe, by reason of the great range and excellence of the specimens both of arms and armour. Gothic armour is well represented. Examples are mentioned in our text.

The National Museum at Munich.

This collection is large, excellent, and varied, containing many important and historic examples of arms and armour. It possesses three Gothic harnesses, and each period is fully represented. Examples occur in our text.

Kungliga Lifrust Kammaren, Stockholm.

This collection contains some very fine specimens, most of them historic. One of the suits of armour is mentioned in our text ([Fig. 3]). A fine set of drawings, with an interesting and very correct text, has been given to the world by the curator, C. A. Ossbahr.

The Musée d’Artillerie at Paris.

Many specimens in this museum have been alluded to in our text. The collection has been exposed to frequent casualties, but it is worthy of France. It is, however, regrettable that so many of the excellent examples are incomplete. This collection deals more especially with the sixteenth century, and is very rich in guns and artillery.

* * * * *

There are important collections of arms and armour at Erbach, Sigmaringen, St. Petersburg, Graz, Emden, Antwerp, and many other cities of Europe.

PART VII.
THE TOURNAMENT.

The word is derived from the French “tournoyer,” to wheel round, and the name in old French was “tournoiement.” Tournaments were first instituted as training schools for the practice of arms, and were later tempered by the rules of chivalry. Jousts or justs of peace (hastiludia pacifica) were single combats, or a succession of such, for a prize or trial of skill; while the tourney was troop against troop. The term “passage of arms” is often used somewhat generally; but, strictly interpreted, it was a combat where several knights on each side were engaged, some fighting on foot, others on horseback. The sword was often blunt and pointless, being of whalebone covered with leather and silvered over. When actual swords were used no thrusting was permitted, but striking only. The length of the lance proper was usually about fourteen feet, the shaft being of ash; but there were several varieties of the weapon for the different “courses”; and in very early times, like the lance for battle, it was both thinner and shorter. An ordinance of the thirteenth century provides that the lance should be blunted, but this having been systematically evaded, another ordinance of the century following required the lance-head to be in the form of a coronal; and this law was for a time strictly enforced. There are examples in the Tower of London, and specimens exist in most museums abroad, notably at Dresden. The courses to be run were generally three in number. “Joustes à outrance” were to the death. Tournaments had their birth in Germany, in which country warlike games, probably inherited from the Romans, prevailed as early as the ninth century; indeed, there was an important “passage of arms” at Strasburg in the year 842.[20] They continued very popular after the breaking up of the Franco-Germanic empire, and formed the pastime of the higher class up to the Thirty Years’ War. These early warlike games, in spite of all precautions, were often attended with great loss of life, and as many as sixty combatants have been put hors de combat at one “passage of arms.” They were always popular in France, and held there on a large scale; indeed, it is claimed that the “tournoiement,” properly so called, had its birth in that country, where it is said to have been instituted by Geoffrey de Preuilli, who died in 1066; and these warlike games were very much in vogue during the reign of Philip Augustus. The armour and weapons for the tournament at this time were the same as those used for battle, and continued so until after the reign of Edward III.; but the lighter form of lance was common in France long after it had been discarded in the other countries mentioned, and the French shaft was made of sycamore or fir. It was not before the beginning of the twelfth century that jousting or fighting with lance in rest became common; in fact, until then the lances in use were unsuitable for that purpose. Much information regarding the armament of combatants, the usages to be observed, and the regulations as to heralds, pursuivants-at-arms, esquires, and varlets, besides many interesting details, is contained in the Statutum Armorum ad Torniamenta, written towards the end of the thirteenth century. New and more stringent rules had become necessary, because of the frequency of the “joust of peace” degenerating into one “à outrance.” This evil had become so great that the Pope forbade the games in England, and King Edward III. repeatedly issued fiats against them, and so also did his successor; still the Crown frequently issued licences for tournaments being held. An excellent description of the arms and armour employed at a later age may be found in the Tourney Book of King René d’Anjou (Tournois du Roi René), illuminated by himself, with a most minute statement of the rules, ceremonial, and courses; and in it is a graphic account of the combat between the Dukes of Brittany and Bourbon. A miniature in this book exhibits a knight entering the lists with great ceremony. The first regular tournament in England occurs in the reign of Stephen, and another was held very early in that of Henry II., but its consequences were of such a nature as to induce that monarch, at the pressing instance of the priesthood, to forbid these games. So great, however, was their popularity that they continued to be held in spite of the king’s fiat, though it was not before the reign of his heroic son that they became common, and were then kept in strict bounds by royal ordinances. Henry III. charges his subjects that “they offend not by tourneying,” and, as already mentioned, even as late as 1299 edicts were issued against the games. There were only five authorised centres for lists in England, and four of these were south of the Trent. Tournaments in the northern counties required a special licence. Earls competing were obliged to pay twenty marks to the king, barons ten marks, and knight-bannerets and bachelors two to four marks, according to estate. The plan of the earliest lists was circular with palisades, but the form was afterwards changed to square rather longer than broad, and the latest were often made oblong. They varied very much in size, and were ornamented with tapestry and heraldic devices. Permanent lists were often enclosed by a ditch or moat. Roofed-in wooden erections, sometimes with sloping galleries for the spectators, were usually placed at the sides of the lists, and were often highly decorated. The marshals of the lists, heralds and pursuivants-at-arms, were stationed within the enclosure to take note of the various incidents taking place among the combatants, and it was the duty of the first-named to see that the rules of chivalry were strictly observed. Varlets were in attendance to assist the esquires in looking after their masters, especially when unhorsed. Trumpets announced the entry of each competitor, who was followed by his esquires into the lists. Each knight usually bore on his person some token from his lady-love, which was disposed on his helmet, lance, or shield. A prize was bestowed after a tournament, and presented with great pomp and ceremony. The arms and armament of the vanquished fell as spoil to the victors, unless ransomed by a payment in money. This was, however, only the case in jousts of courtesy, not in combats “à outrance.”

During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries an immense amount of artistic skill was freely lavished on armour for the lists, as well as on that for purposes of parade. It was common to hold a “passage of arms” for three days; two of them for contending on horseback, and the third on foot. Lances were used on the first day, swords and maces on the second, and pole-axes on the third. Those open to all comers were termed “joutes plenières.” Pluvinel, who wrote at the close of the reign of James I., says: “There ought to be at each end of the lists a little scaffold, the height of the stirrup, on which two or three persons can stand, viz., the knight, the armourer to arm him and his assistant, and hence he mounts his steed.” Froissart, writing towards the end of the fourteenth century, gives a graphic account of the tournament in his day. Judicial combats were common throughout the century, and usually took place within the nearest lists. Trial “by ordeal,” or the judgment of God, was a strange outcome of the Christian faith as practised during the “dark ages” of our era. It implied, of course, a strictly personal God, who specially interested himself in the doings of every one, and a simple, child-like faith that the Omnipotent would order victory to the just cause and protect the innocent from injustice. The “ordeal” was by fire, hot iron, boiling water, and by the sword. It was suppressed towards the end of the twelfth century, and was followed by that of single combat, “God shewing the right.” This method was in full accord with the chivalrous spirit of the times. Old persons, women, and minors were represented by “champion.” The combat might continue from noon to sundown, and if it lasted as long the innocence of the accused was established and proclaimed. This form of combat was only applied in the cases of crimes punishable with death, and only when merely circumstantial evidence was available. A figure of a judicial combat occurs in the Conquêtes de Charlemagne, a manuscript of the fifteenth century in the National Library at Paris. The combatants wore chain-mail, with genouillières and coudières, the period represented being late thirteenth or early fourteenth century. An angel superintends the duel.[21]

The custom of “judicial combats” fell into disuse in the fifteenth century.——We must confess to a lively partiality for the history of Sir Walter Scott, in spite of his facile imagination and palpable inaccuracies, and think the graphic picture of “The Gentle and Joyous Passage of Arms” at Ashby-de-la-Zouche, with “La Royne de la Beauté et des Amours,” gives as delightful an account of a tournament in the times of Richard Cœur-de-Lion as need be wished for. The gallant knights are distinguished by their belts and gilded spurs.

“The knights are dust
And their good swords are rust,
Their souls are with the saints, we trust.”

In the specification for arms and armour for the tournament of Windsor Park (1278) we see of what each suit consisted, viz., “one coat of fence, one surcoat, one pair of ailettes, two crests (one for the horse), one shield (heraldically ensigned), one helm of leather (gilded or silvered), and one sword made of whalebone.” The cost of each armament varied in price from about ten to thirty shillings. The shields were of wood, costing fivepence each. The total cost of the combined thirty-eight armaments was about £80. Chaucer refers to tournaments in the following lines:—

“The heralds left their pricking up and down,
Now ringen trumpets loud and clarion.
There is no more to say, but east and west,
In go the speares sadly in the rest,
In goth the sharp spur into the side,
There see men who can just, and who can ride;
There shiver shaftes upon shieldes thick,
He feeleth through the heart-spone the prick;
Up springen speares, twenty feet in height,
Out go the swordes to the silver bright,
The helms they to-hewn and to-shred:
Out burst the blood with stern streames red.”

The leading “courses” of the tourney are fully described later in the paragraph devoted to German methods, which, though there were many more varieties, were practically those of England, where there was also the round-table game, etc. Matthew Paris mentions a “round table game” held at the Abbey of Wallenden in 1252; and Earl Roger de Mortimer held one at his castle of Kenilworth in 1280, and Edward III. another at Windsor in 1344. This form of tournament seems to have been very popular in England during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; but there is no clear definition of its peculiarities given by any of the few chroniclers who mention the subject. The idea of the knights sitting round the table seems to have been an assertion of the principle of equality so as to avoid questions of precedence—one full of difficulty in all ages.

Tilting was practised during the fourteenth century very much as in the century following. A joust of about 1330 is figured on “The Codex Balduin Treverenses,”—the horses bear housings, and the knights mantles. The armament for jousting and battle began in this century to show some difference from that of earlier times. The games continued in unabated vigour throughout the middle ages and the “renaissance,” and until the general use of firearms rendered such exercises no longer of much practical value.

The necessary limits of this work will not admit of any detailed description of the many and curious rules, usages, and limitations which were absolutely necessary for carrying on these dangerous games without great and unnecessary bloodshed and the loss of many valuable lives, but much can be seen in a set of regulations prevailing under Henry VIII. in the tournament roll preserved in the Heralds’ College. Students of the subject will do well to read an able paper in the Archæological Journal, vol. lv., No. 219, entitled “Tilting in Tudor Times,” written by Viscount Dillon in 1898; and a most excellent and comprehensive account of the German “turnier,” and weapons used, exists in Herr Wendelin Boeheim’s work, Handbuch der Waffenkunde. This is a veritable text-book.

Tournaments and tilting generally were, however, rendered less dangerous than might have been expected by the addition of reinforcing armour, which pieces were screwed on over the more vulnerable places, on armour made for ordinary fighting purposes, and for some courses of the tournament, mainly on the left side, which received most of the blows; indeed, these extra pieces constituted a double defence of iron for the head, chest, and left shoulder. This was obviously rendered necessary when one considers the terrible impact of the lance in full career with the breastplate or helmet. These extra tilting pieces made their appearance in the reign of Edward IV., but they were known in Germany several decades earlier. It was early when suits of armour were made differently for battle and for tournaments, as William Lord Bergavenny bequeathed to his son “the best sword and harness for justs of peace and that which belong to war.”

Late in the fifteenth century there were complete tilting harnesses of such immense weight that a knight once unhorsed lay on the ground absolutely helpless, and often could not rise without the assistance of his varlets. His movements when on horseback were very restricted. These suits were of such resisting power as to give practical immunity to the wearers so far as wounds were concerned, but they were far too heavy to be used in the mêlée. A tilting harness with the Nuremberg mark, in the splendid collection at that city, is of immense weight and strength, and the example is specially valuable, as the date 1498 is inscribed on the cuirass. The knight could barely move in the saddle, and was able only to guide his horse and aim his lance. Armour made specially for the tilt-yard will be described later in these pages, and illustrations given.

There is an account of a tournament held in the reign of Henry VIII., in a tournament roll preserved in the Heralds’ College. The challenged (Les Venantz) were nine in number. The armour worn was of the heavy tilting class, with lamboys; and the horses were fully barbed, with housings. It would appear from the barrier between which the knights ride that this was the “Italian course,” known in Germany as the “Welsche Gestech.” This barrier was first of cloth hung on a rope, but afterwards of wood; and then the great knee-guard came into use to protect the knee from being crushed against the barrier, the height of which was usually about five, or even six feet. The meeting between Henry and Francis on the Field of the Cloth of Gold, in 1520, was the occasion of at least one tournament. The king himself was one of the challengers. One of the drawings shows him as breaking a lance with his opponent. It is certainly desirable at this point to give somewhat full particulars of the leading modes of jousting as practised in Germany at the end of the fifteenth, and during the sixteenth century, as it was here where these games were most frequently practised, and the German archives fortunately yield us very full particulars, which throw much light on the subject generally.

The Emperor Maximilian and our Henry VIII. were great patrons of the tournament, often taking part in it, and so were all the German princes of the sixteenth century. We find very full particulars of Maximilian tournaments, as held during the emperor’s reign, in the Turnierbuch des Kaisers Maximilian I., a synopsis of which has been written by Quirin von Leitner. This “Triumph of Maximilian,” dictated by the emperor in 1512, affords much information on this subject; and in it many of the forms of tourney are represented, with the various weapons and armour used in the different courses. The Turnierbuch of the Emperor Maximilian I. would have been both incomplete and inconclusive without the masterly drawings by Hans Burgkmair, painter and engraver, of Augsburg. This artist seems to have been closely associated with the great master Lorenz Kolman, surnamed “Helmschmied,” and doubtless did designing and engraving work for him. Courses of rather a later period are described in Hans Schwenkh’s Wappenmeistersbuch, written in Munich in 1554; besides which there are several “tournament books” of the German courts giving not only general descriptions of the games, with the rules and regulations practised, but also full accounts of particular encounters concerning which we have the harnesses fought in standing before us for reference to-day. There are also many original prints preserved giving particular examples of these games. Furthermore, Dr. Cornelius Gurlitt has given an excellent resumé of tournaments from the middle of the sixteenth century up to the Thirty Years’ War, derived greatly from the archives at Dresden. Herr Wendelin Boeheim, the curator of the imperial collection of Vienna, gives many details in his great work, Handbuch der Waffenkunde. The author has had the advantage of many personal hints concerning the German forms of tournament from Max von Ehrenthal, the accomplished curator of the Dresden collection, and he owes much information and several of the illustrations given under this heading to this gentleman’s kindness and liberality. Dr. von Ubisch, the director of the collection at the Zeughaus, Berlin, has also assisted him greatly, especially concerning ordinary fighting suits and other matters.

Tournaments of the sixteenth century were mostly for diversion and practice, and it was very rarely that any great injury was sustained. It will be seen from the descriptions here given that it was mainly a question of concussion, in the splintering of lances, or being rolled on the ground, the hardness of which was greatly modified by a liberal covering of tanning refuse. The stunning effects from the strokes of the sword and mace, as felt on the inside of the thick defences used, must have been very trying, and one fails to understand how so comparatively little damage to life and limb was experienced in the riders being hurled from their steeds, encased in their heavy panoply of more than two hundred pounds in weight; and what makes this the more extraordinary is that the rider was helped on to his horse again after a fall and ran again, and this sometimes happened several times: but judging from the records preserved, and there are many, the casualties in the tilt-yard of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were little, if at all more numerous and serious than those in the hunting or football fields of to-day; or in the duels that were common so recently at German universities; or for the matter of that in the accidents arising from the use of the cycle. This comparative immunity from serious injury in the tilt-yard was partly accounted for by the assistance rendered by the varlets in helping the horse to keep his feet, and the rider his seat after impact, and also in assisting in breaking the fall of the rider.

SHARFRENNEN.

This form is characterised by heavy lances “sharp,” as the name for the course implies. The main object was “unhorsing,” and the saddle was unprovided with front and rear supports; it was, in fact, quite unlike the ordinary war-horse saddle—indeed, more resembling the English saddle of to-day. The object of this was that there should be nothing to impede the rider’s fall. The lances used in this course were not expected to break or splinter, though they did so sometimes. On the moment of impact each combatant dropped his lance to avoid injury to the arm from splintering, and this was the case in the other courses also. The consequence of a true impact was, as a rule, that at least one rider was unhorsed; but sometimes both riders fell, and occasionally both horses as well, so that all four combatants, for the horses may be said to have fought also, bit the dust. In cases where a rider was able to keep his saddle for a moment after impact and swaying in the endeavour to retain his seat, his varlets rushed forward to support him. Sometimes in case of lances slightly deflecting, or missing altogether, one and even both horses have been known to fall forward. There was a “rennen” between the Emperor Maximilian and Duke John of Saxony at Innsbruck in 1498.

The tournaments held at the imperial and princely courts were strictly games, the hosts often personally challenging their guests to a trial of skill. Much depended naturally on the training of the horses, which were sometimes ridden blindfold. The legs and feet of the competitors were without armour, except the “diechlinge,” so that the rider could sit firmly supported on the saddle. The “diechlinge” served as a protection for the thigh and knee. Such a defence was necessary, owing to the risk of these limbs of the combatants colliding. In the Dresden Museum, in the “Turnierwaffen-Saal,” an interesting and very realistic representation of a German “Sharfrennen” may be seen, the combatants facing each other, fully armed, with lances in rest. The defences are double throughout, each harness weighing about two hundred pounds. The period is 1550–53, and most of the riders in the “Saal” have sat their horses since the year 1591. The body-armour is engraved and fluted, and the helmet is the sallad. The breastplate of the harness nearest the entrance to the hall bears the monogram of the armour-smith Sigmund Rockenberger of Wittenberg, the other was made by Hans Rosenberger of Dresden. The grand-guard, volant-piece, and left shoulder-guard are of wood, strengthened with plate, and covered with leather. A curved plain shield is screwed on over the left shoulder, while an enormous vamplate, or shield with a bouche, guards the right, and through this the butt end of the lance rests.

The armour itself is of the heavy tilting kind, over which is a dress of stuff with bases, a sort of petticoat like the civil dress of the day. Stockings and slippers are worn, and there is no defence of plate over them excepting at the knee, over which is the great “diechlinge” already mentioned. The woollen stockings and slippers in these instances are restorations; but there is an actual tilting shoe of the period in one of the museum cases at Dresden. Spurs with long necks are used. The horses are barded and fully housed. Housings reaching nearly to the ground are usually highly and fancifully decorated, bearing the “arms” or “cognizance” of the rider, and are often ornamented with the figures of birds or animals. In the Royal Library at Dresden is a representation on parchment of a “Sharfrennen” between Kurfürst August of Saxony and Johann von Ratzenberg, and afterwards with Hans von Schönfeld, in 1545, at Minden. It was drawn by Heinrich Goding, the court painter in 1584. This combat was termed a “Gedritts,” signifying that the victor, in order to gain the prize, had after the first encounter still to dispose of a second antagonist—three were thus engaged, and hence the term. A copy of this interesting record follows in [Fig. 4]. An example of the armour worn in this course is given in [Fig. 5]. It was made for Kurfürst August, by Sigmund Rockenberger of Wittenberg in 1554. The form is graceful, and the ornamentation of a chaste character. The details are clearly marked, such as the screw for the volant-piece; the sharp-pointed, spearhead-like projection standing forward from the centre of the breastplate, a fashion that only endured for a few decades; the ponderous lance-rest, and heavy abdominal extra plate,—all being characteristic of a suit used for “rennen.” The elegant sallad differs materially from the earlier form, and is very shapely. Only persons of noble birth or those subsequently granted “arms” were permitted to take part in “rennen.”

DAS DEUTSCHE STECHEN (THE GERMAN GESTECH).

Herr Wendelin Boeheim, in an article in the Zeitschrift für historische Waffenkunde,[22] says that the “old German Gestech” was far from having been introduced during the reign of the Emperor Maximilian I., as has often been supposed, but is of much earlier origin. This course depends much more on adroitness and skill than in the Italian joust, when the knights tilt with a barrier between them, and the rider gets no assistance from his charger, as the chanfrein is without ocularia, and sometimes its ears were stopped with wool. The lance, unlike that used in “rennen,” is tipped with a coronal.[23] The “Stechtarsche,” or small ribbed shield which is tied to the left shoulder by laces, affords grip to the coronal of the lance; and this is the point aimed at. The saddle used for this course has an upright front plate, but none behind, so that there was no impediment in “unhorsing.” Later, the front plate disappeared. The horse bears no bards beyond the chanfrein, but there is a cushion filled with straw fastened over the horse’s breast, as a protection against collision. There are several kinds of “Stechen,” but the rule in all is to have no leg armour, and this was in order to give the rider greater command over his seat: the lance hand bore no gauntlet. Quirin von Leitner gives a figure of the Emperor Maximilian I. armed for the German Gestech.

Fig. 4.—Sharfrennen at Minden, ran in 1545.

Fig. 5.—Suit at Dresden for Sharfrennen, date 1554.

Instead of the fifteenth century sallad, a “Stechhelm” was worn in the sixteenth; and it was shaped something like a bucket. Brassards were always used in this course, while jambs and sollerets were usually dispensed with.

Early examples of armour made for this course may be seen in two very fine suits on exhibition at Nuremberg. The ponderous lance-rest stands free by reason of the cuirass being flattened on the right side. The breastplate, which bears the date 1498 and the Nuremberg guild monogram, is in two pieces, one of which is a reinforcing plate for the extra protection of the lower body, and this is fastened on to the main plate by large screws with very big heads. The lance-rest is supplemented with a queue screwed on behind, and curving downwards to hold the butt end of the lance. The right arm has heavy brassards; while on the left the heavy vambrace and gauntlet are in one solid piece, and quite plain. There is an immense rondelle on the right side, with a bouche cut out of the lower part to make room for the lance. The older of these suits has a sallad, while the one that is rather later is provided with a “Stechhelm,” which is very heavy and in one solid piece with the mentonnière, and strongly fastened on to the breastplate by screws; while a permanent socket and screw attach it to the backplate. The helm is thus immovable when fixed; it is roomy, and permits the head to move about freely within. These suits are so heavy and ponderous that the combatants could do little more than hold their lances in position; and if unhorsed, lay like logs where they fell, being unable to rise without the assistance of their varlets. In arming, each piece required to be screwed on, one after the other. The later of these suits is taken for illustration in [Fig. 6], as it bears the more characteristic “Stechhelm.”

THE ITALIAN COURSE, OR “WELSCHES (ITALIAN) GESTECH,” ÜBER DIE PALLIA (OVER THE BARRIERS).

This course first appeared in Germany about 1510, but it doubtless originated in Italy, as its name implies, and the Italian name for barrier is “pallia.” It was fought with lances tipped with a coronal, the same as in “the German Gestech,” but the main difference between that course and the others under discussion is the presence of a wooden barrier about five feet high, along which the two riders charge, with it between them. In this course the legs and feet were generally armoured, though there were exceptions to the rule. There are very full particulars in Freydal, the book in which the tournaments of the reign of the Emperor Maximilian I. are drawn and described; and this form of tournament is figured in the tournament roll of King Henry VIII. preserved in the Heralds’ College. The knights in their career had to hold their lances on the left side of the horse’s head. Originally the main intention was to unhorse: still the splintering of lances was of more frequent occurrence than in the before-named courses, as the saddle here was furnished with high front and rear supports, rendering it in fact “well” shaped, so that the riders sat much more firmly in their seats than on the “renn” saddles, especially those which were without supports. Soon after the middle of the sixteenth century a change took place in the armour for tournaments; and with this came a modification in the lances also, which became lighter, so that they mostly splintered on impact, and in such cases the riders were but rarely hurled from their saddles. For the later Italian course harnesses were worn, as in [Fig. 7].

Fig. 6.—Tilting Suit at Nuremberg, for the German Gestech.

Fig. 7.—Tournament Suit for the Italian Course (Welsches Gestech).

Fig. 8.—An Italian Course at Augsburg in 1510 (Welsches Gestech).

The helm for this course differs somewhat from that worn in the others in being provided with a little opening or window on the right side for fresh air. The cuirass is not flattened on that side, as in [Fig. 6]. There are other differences, all of which may be seen on a suit in the Armeria Real de Madrid. In the old form of “Welsche Gestech” the rider wore sometimes the armour used for the ordinary “Stechen” course. In Leitner’s Freydal an example is figured; and there is an actual harness, by Wolf von Speyer of Annaberg, in the Turnierwaffen-Saal at Dresden.

The illustration ([Fig. 8]) gives an excellent rendering of this course as it was run between Duke Wilhelm IV. of Bavaria and the Pfalzgraf Friedrich bei Rhein, at Augsburg, in 1510. It has been taken from Duke Wilhelm’s tournament book.

THE FREITURNIER, OR FREE COURSE.

This course received its name in contradistinction to the “Welsches Gestech,” because it was run in the free field or lists, without any barrier between the combatants. In this respect it resembled the old German “Stechen,” and to a certain extent grew out of it. This form however does not occur, under the name, before the second half of the sixteenth century. The armour for the Freiturnier differs from that of the “Welsches Gestech” (Italian Course) in the particulars that a grand-guard was screwed on to the left shoulder and chest, instead of the tournament shield used in the Italian course. To the left elbow was screwed a garde-de-bras of larger dimensions than that used for the Welsches Gestech. Armour for the tournament was now usually so arranged that by the interchange of reinforcing plates the same suit could be made available for both these forms of tournament. The lance and horse furniture were exactly the same in both cases, and the body armour of the rider very similar, subject to the interchange of the reinforcing pieces already alluded to. The suit selected for illustrating the armour used for this course ([Fig. 9]) forms part of the remarkable collection at Dresden. It is a fine example in plain armour of about 1580. The breastplate, it will be observed, is the “peascod.”

THE FUSSTURNIER.

This is the foot-tournament which originated in the sixteenth century, and is very different from the courses on horseback. Full particulars can be seen in the Akten des Dresdener Oberhof-marshallamtes, anno. 1614. An extract (in translation) from this work by Dr. Cornelius Gurlitt runs as follows, viz.:—

“The one who shivers the greatest number of lances in the most adroit manner shall have the lance prize; and he who in five courses strikes the bravest and strongest with the sword shall have the sword prize.”

This extract furnishes a sufficient outline of the game. Like the “tourney,” it was troop against troop. Each combatant had to exchange three charges with the lance across a sort of barrier; and five strokes with the sword, all directed towards the head, not only with one but with every opponent on the opposing side; and prizes were awarded as set forth in the extract. No prize was awarded unless the lance splintered, nor was any given in cases where a combatant had stepped or been driven backwards in any way. Striking below the belt was forbidden, for no leg armour was worn. The locking gauntlet was expressly forbidden.

Fig. 9.—Armour for the Freiturnier at Dresden.

It is very interesting to find that a suit used in a “fussturnier” by Kurfürst Johann Georg I. of Saxony is now in the Dresden collection. It is by Anton Peffenhauser of Augsburg. The harness used was the ordinary fighting kind. The lance was held in both hands.

KOLBENTURNIER, OR BASTON COURSE.

This is a variety that first appeared early in the fifteenth century. It was a dual combat on horseback, and was not in vogue for more than a century. The weapon used was a “baston,” a short wooden polygonally cut mace, thickening towards the end. The helmet for this course was heavy and round, with a strong grated front. The head did not touch the helmet at all, for the “baston,” being made of very heavy wood, was a dangerous weapon for striking. An example of the saddle used in this course may be seen at the Nuremberg Museum. It is so constructed that the rider cannot well fall off.

There were a number of other courses, but the differences were only trifling, consisting mainly in humorous devices and fashions in costume. During the closing twenty years of the sixteenth century, and the first twenty in the following, the Hungarian tourney was much in vogue. This course obtained its name solely from the dress worn—the spurs used were very long.

Running at the ring can hardly be classed under the tournament category. It was called “Ringelrennen” in Germany, and was much in favour at the Saxon court from 1570 to the end of the seventeenth century. The lance used was shorter and much lighter than that for tournaments. There is a specimen at Dresden which is tipped with a cone, to hold the ring when hit, and there is naturally no vamplate.

REINFORCING PIECES FOR THE TILT-YARD.

These may be divided into two classes, viz., those extra pieces appertaining to purely tilting armour, made specially for the lists, and those used to augment the strength of ordinary fighting suits donned for the lists. The former class comprises the grand-guard and volant-piece, often in one plate, but sometimes screwed together, the latter piece being provided with an ocularium on the right side only. These plates defend the breast and face. A small wooden shield, plated and covered with leather for the left shoulder, screwed or tied on. This piece is in some courses the objective of the lance. The heavy elbow-guard which protects the elbow, and half-way up and down the arm. The German tilting arm-guard and gauntlet was often in one piece from the shoulder. The right side is further protected by an enormous vamplate, which in the German form covered half the arm on both sides of the elbow. There is also a large knee-plate, the Germans call a “diechlinge,” which is sometimes fastened to the saddle, the leg passing between it. This piece is more especially used in “Sharfrennen.” Suits for “rennen” and “stechen” were usually made so that they could be worn by any man of anything like medium height, and it was quite common for one knight to borrow the harness of another.

Fig. 10. Reinforcing Pieces.

No. 1 is the Breastplate for Tilting, and on it are the holes for the insertion of the screws of the Lance rest. It differs but little from the ordinary Fighting Breastplate with the suit.

No. 2 is an extra protection for the left breast and shoulder. This is the Grandguard.

No. 3 is the Volant-piece, a protection for breast, neck, and face.[24]

No. 4 is the Cabasset for the suit.

Fig. 11.—Reinforcing Pieces.

No. 5, the Chanfrein for the horse’s head.

No. 6, the Extra Shoulder-guard.

No. 7, the Manifer or Tournament Gauntlet for the bridle hand.

No. 8, the Elbow-guard, or Pass-guard.[25]

As to the reinforcing pieces for screwing on to ordinary armour, drawings are given of a series of these plates, belonging to a splendid suit at Munich that was worn by the Prince-Bishop of Salzburg (Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau), illustrated in [Fig. 35]. The pieces are numbered on the drawings for reference, one and upwards in Figs. 10 and 11.

A projection called the queue, screwed on to the back plate, supports the butt-end of the lance. The suit and all the pieces are richly inlaid with gold, with the Bishop’s arms engraved on the breastplate. There is a suit very similar in form and details of the pieces in the Töjhus, Copenhagen, but the ornamentation of that suit is much bolder, having the thistle for its theme throughout. It is of French make. As in the Alnwick suit ([Fig. 33]), the cuisses are in two parts, the upper being detachable, and the tassets bear evidence of missing detachable portions. An interesting feature of this suit is that the lance-rest is so adapted as to be capable of being either raised or lowered. Boeheim states that he has not seen any examples of these reinforcing pieces of an earlier date than about 1510. These pieces, with interchangeable plates, were very numerous in some cases where expense was no object. A suite made for the Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol, by Jörg Seusenhofer, consisting of a field-harness and a suit for foot-fighting, had appertaining to the two suits as many as thirty-four interchangeable and reinforcing pieces. They were made in 1547, and are now at Vienna.

PART VIII.
DETAILS OF DEFENSIVE PLATE ARMOUR.

THE GREAT HELM.

The real great crested helm, so often seen pillowing the head in effigies, dates from the last quarter of the thirteenth century, but it was rarely used except in tournaments after the fourteenth. This helm has been described in a previous section. It was replaced for fighting purposes by the visored bassinet, the movable aventail being added about the reign of Edward II. There is a perfect specimen of this helm at Berlin; it was found near Bubad, in Pomerania. An illustration has been given in [Fig. 2].

The great jousting helm of the fifteenth century was made wide, very strong, heavy, large, somewhat flat at the crown, and often in the lighter tilting helm had an aperture on the side for speaking. It was crested, and rested on the shoulders, being attached to the body armour by screws front and rear, and was so large that the head of the wearer did not touch it in any part; a cap was worn over the head. The attachment to the cuirass was a new departure. The top is flatter, and the ocularium, which is wider than in the older forms, can only be used for sighting by lowering the head. The plates meet sharply in front, producing a ridge, the higher end forming a beak-like projection. It fell a good deal into disuse during the reign of Henry VIII. There are two very fine tilting helms in the Rotunda collection, Woolwich, one of which was formerly in the triforium of Westminster Abbey, and weighs 18 lb.; the other, which was acquired from the “Brocas” collection, weighs 23 lb. A north-country example of the German “Stechhelm” ([Fig. 12]) is in the collection of W. D. Cruddas, Esq., M.P., of Haughton Castle, Northumberland. The kolbenturnier helm is a variety specially used for that course; the whole front is composed of transverse bars. These helms were firmly screwed on to the breastplate and therefore immovable, as may be seen on the tilting suit ([Fig. 6]).

Fig. 12.—Tilting Helm at Haughton Castle, Northumberland.

THE BASSINET.

This helmet, the German “beckenhaube,” was round or conical, with a pointed apex. The large bassinet of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was very similar in all the countries of chivalry. It fitted close to the head, and was covered by the great helm in tilting. An example may be seen in Lincoln Cathedral. Before the visor appeared it was often fitted with a detachable nasal. As soon as the helm became visored, say in the first half of the fourteenth century (see an example in Alvechurch, Worcester), it assumed a great variety of form, and towards the end of the century often projected to a point like a beak. Other forms were concave, convex, and angular. Most of these may be seen in Stothard. There was also the small bassinet or cervelière, sometimes called cerebrerium. It was often worn under the hood, with a small quilted cap next the head. In the reign of Henry V. the bassinet became more like the sallad. The effigy of the Black Prince shows how the camail was attached to the bassinet by a silken lace through staples. There are some fine examples of the visored bassinet in the Johanneum at Dresden.

THE SALLAD.

Visored sallads, with a peak behind and slits for vision, appear in the reign of Henry VI. The form is a low obtuse oval ridged in the middle; it replaced the bassinet, but was never used as an under helmet. It was generally associated with armour of the second half of the fifteenth century, and used with the mentonnière, which, when fixed, afforded excellent protection for the face and throat. The distinguishing feature is the peaked collar behind, which rests between the shoulders, and the helmet was occasionally, in the earlier forms, provided with a hinged nose-guard. It was worn at an angle, so that the ocularium came in the direct line of vision, and had often a movable visor. It measured in extreme cases as much as nineteen inches from back to front. An example of the time of the Roses hangs in St Mary’s Hall, Coventry, and there is another in the Priory Church at Hexham. The earliest representation of this form of helmet in England, that the author knows of, may be seen at Castle Donnington, Leicestershire, on a brass of Sir Robert Staunton, who died in 1458. This sort of helm is in several varieties, and a simple form was in use among the rank and file, especially by archers. There are several of these helmets in the “Rhodes” collection at the Rotunda, Woolwich, and actual specimens of typical Italian and German forms are to be found in most of in the German collections of armour; there are examples in the Tower. Illustrations of sallads are given in [Fig. 13].

ARMET AND CLOSE HELMET.

This is the most perfect form of helmet and the most familiar, so much so indeed as to render any description almost unnecessary. It may be said to have been evolved from the sallad and mentonnière, in the sense that the bavier took the place of the latter; but instead of being slipped on over the head like the bassinet and sallad, it was constructed to hinge over it, and strictly followed the outline of the head and neck. Its form is globular, with a guard for the back of the neck, and in front round the chin is the bevor or bavier. The space between this piece and the rim of the crown-piece is filled in by a movable visor, which is pierced with narrow openings for vision and air. It thus consists of at least three pieces—the skull-piece, the visor, and the bevor; the visor is usually in one piece. It is beaked, and exhibits a series of ridges with air slits in the indentations. The crown-piece is usually combed. During the second quarter of the sixteenth century the visor was made in two plates, the upper closing inside the lower—the upper plate could be lowered at pleasure, without moving the one below. The Seusenhofer armet in the Tower is a masterpiece of the kind, being composed of six pieces, working one within the other. English armets date from the last decade of the fifteenth century, perhaps a little later. They were to be met with in Germany as early as the middle of that century. It is impossible to make much distinction between the armet and close helmet, which latter was the improved armet of the sixteenth century. A camail was sometimes used with the earliest form of armet. Illustrations of this head-piece may be seen on several of the suits given in this volume.

Fig. 13.—Sallads and an early Burgonet.

BURGONET.

This is a helmet of the sixteenth century of Burgundian origin, as its name implies, with a hollow rim at the bottom, which fitted over the projecting edge of the gorget. It was made in close imitation of the head, and in either three or four parts. This helmet was designed to meet a defect in the armet, for there was a weak place, where the casque came in contact with the body armour. This arrangement permitted the head to move freely to the right or left without leaving the neck unguarded. There is a handsome specimen of the first half of the sixteenth century at the Rotunda, Woolwich, weighing nearly eight pounds, with a fluted crown-piece, and round the neck a wreath of roses is engraved. There are holes in the crown for the wreath and mantling. There are some important beaked varieties at Dresden and Berlin. The more modern burgonet has neck-guard and oreillettes or ear-flaps of steel. An illustration of an early burgonet is given in [Fig. 13].

MORION, CABASSET, AND CASQUE.

The morion first appeared in England in the reign of Henry VI., and was introduced into Europe by the Spaniards, who got the design from the Moors, as the word implies. It is an oval helmet, and has a high comb-like crest and almost semicircular brim, peaked at both ends. The cabasset is a helmet similar in character to the morion, and generally peaked. Both varieties were worn for foot fighting, and are often lighter than earlier helmets, and usually richly engraved. The Baron de Cosson[26] says that “the cabasset first appears in an ‘ordonnance’ of Francis I., who orders that men-at-arms wear the armet, light horse the sallad, and ‘les arquebusiers seulement le cabasset pour viser mieux et avoir la tête plus délivre.’ The cabasset did not impede the aim, and was therefore the proper headpiece of the musketeer.” Casques are open helmets like the others, and of classical design. There are illustrations of a cabasset in [Fig. 11], and of bassinets, morions, etc., in [Fig. 49].

GORGET AND MENTONNIÈRE, OR BAVIER (BEVOR).

The mentonnière was used specially with the sallad, and the chin-piece fulfils the same purpose with that helmet as the bavier does with the armet; it fastens on to the breastplate by a staple and cusped catch, or goes partly under that piece. The upper portion, to cover the mouth and chin, is of laminated plates, which move up and down at pleasure, but always from below. In conjunction with the sallad, it has this advantage over the visored bassinet of allowing a free supply of air, and only required to be closed just before an onset. This piece is generally omitted in effigies, for obvious reasons; but there is an example on a brass already referred to at Qui, Cambridgeshire, of a date near the middle of the fifteenth century. The actual piece is, of course, to be seen on almost any suit of the period. There is a specimen at the Royal Artillery Institute. The portion going over the chest is, of course, a sort of gorget; but the gorget proper is the piece for the neck, going all round towards the shoulders and back, closing with sliding rivets. This piece followed the mentonnière, and was certainly not common before the beginning of the sixteenth century; but there are much earlier examples, for instance, a gorget with a turned-down collar at the throat is attributed to Albrecht Achilles of Brandenburg, 1414–86. It is a piece closely connected with “Maximilian” armour, and prevailed up to the decadence and after. We find an early instance of the plate gorget on a brass of the D’Eresby family in Spilsby Church, Lincolnshire, representing armour of a date very late in the fourteenth century—this covers a gorget of chain-mail. A brass of Sir John Fitzwaryn in Wantage Church, Berkshire, shows the plate gorget pure and simple. The date of this monument is 1414. Towards the end of the sixteenth century it was far from uncommon to find the gorget joined on to the shoulder-pieces.

THE CUIRASS.

The cuirass consists of breastplate and backplate, which pieces are usually fastened together by straps and buckles, but screws are sometimes used, especially for tournament armour. It was probably introduced into England in the reign of Henry V., and the form is an excellent guide as to date. The word, or rather its prototype “quirettæ,” occurs in a “Roll of Purchases” (1278) preserved in the Tower of London. The armour for the breast was considered next in importance to that for the head, and inventories of the fifteenth century frequently refer to “pairs of plates, large, globose,” which sufficiently indicate the period. Breastplates were used by the Franks in the eighth century, and probably by the Norsemen about the same time; that of the fourteenth century was without the salient ridge in front called the tapul. The Rev. T. N. Roberts, vicar of Cornforth, county Durham, to whom the author is indebted for several hints, reminds him that it is difficult to say whether it is correct to speak of the fourteenth century breastplate as a cuirass or not. In effigies, brasses, and illuminations this part of the armour is always concealed by the jupon. When the jupon disappeared (temp. Henry V.) the breastplate is revealed always in two pieces; afterwards (temp. Edward IV.) in only one piece, as a true cuirass. On a monument in Ash Church, Kent (dating about 1335), where the lacing of the surcoat at the side permits the body defences to be seen, “rectangular plates like tiles riveted into a flexible garment” are discernible. The only remains of an actual cuirass of fourteenth century date were found at the castle of Tannenberg. The figure of St. George in the Cathedral square at Prague has a flexible garment covered with very small rectangular plates like tiles, and over this a breastplate—not a complete cuirass. All this leads one to suppose that fourteenth century breastplates were not cuirasses so much as additional plates of various shapes over the hauberk, the skirts of which appear below the jupon on effigies, etc., of the fourteenth century. Still, it must be remembered that an effigy of the preceding century in the Temple Church exhibits both front and back plates. The standard of mail is a feature of the close of the fourteenth and beginning of the fifteenth centuries. It was designed to protect the weak place between the gorget and top of the cuirass—it grew, in fact, out of the camail. Almost all effigies of the period exhibit these pieces. The tapul first appeared in the fifteenth century; this ridge after being discontinued reappears later, when it often swelled out to a hump, either over or below the navel. This, indeed, was a decided feature of the second half of the sixteenth century, when the cuirass had often one overlapping plate under the arm. Occasionally it was provided with transverse bars, forming a cross. The Gothic type is very beautiful, and is usually in two or three plates, the second rising to a point in the middle of the breast, and the third running nearly parallel with it and converging to a point below it. At the top of the breast is a socket for attachment to the mentonnière by a cusp-headed bolt. There are, however, exceptions to this, as shown in examples at the Dresden Museum, where the top of the breastplate projects in a piping. In one of these cases an open helmet had been worn, and the suit probably used by the leader of a company. A suit of which an illustration is given in [Fig. 18], shows how the mentonnière goes under the cuirass. The same would also be the case in [Fig. 19], but here the mentonnière is missing. The English form of the fifteenth century is usually in two plates, as in the Redmarshal and Downes effigies.[27] The first examples occur before the middle of the century.

The lance-rest is on the right breast, and on the left are screw holes for a tilting shoulder-guard when this piece is used, or for a grand-guard. The Maximilian form, which followed the Gothic, is sometimes in one piece with the taces—that is to say, riveted with them—and is more globular in character. In the sixteenth century the cuirass is lower and flatter, and cut straight at the top, and frequently had the tapul already mentioned. In the middle of the century it tends to lengthen somewhat, and is provided with a ridge along the top and round the arm-holes for turning a stroke, and has often, as already mentioned, a single lamination round the arm-holes. A feature of the breastplate about 1560 is the hump or projection over the navel; while usually a little later we have the “peascod” form, where the projection is found lower down. The “peascod” is obviously copied from the doublet of the period, but whence the idea of the middle hump sprang we cannot say. The cuirass made specially for tilting is fully described under the heading of “tilting suits.” In the seventeenth century the breastplate becomes very flat and very short.

ÉPAULIÈRES AND PAULDRONS.

It is not easy to follow the development of épaulières in the earlier stages, as the shoulders on monumental effigies are usually draped by the surcoat, but the principle of laminated or overlapping plates, so early applied to sollerets, was not long in being extended to the upper arm and shoulder, where special mobility for striking and parrying was so needful—indeed, we have instances of articulated épaulières late in the first quarter of the fourteenth century. These pieces at their highest development were admirably adapted for giving great freedom to the arm. Plates over the shoulders, as distinctive from ailettes, first appeared in England late in the thirteenth or very early in the fourteenth century, but they were merely rondelles or discs. Articulations, as already mentioned, came a little later, and rondelles protect the shoulder-pit and inner arm. A brass of a knight of the Cuttes family in Arkesdon Church, Essex (1440), is a good example of what may be termed the development of épaulières into pauldrons. Pikeguards, generally applied to “Maximilian” armour, are to be found occasionally much earlier—see example in Southerly Church (1479).[28] The Beauchamp latten figure at Warwick (1454) shows these pieces. Viscount Dillon mentions an example as early as 1424. Suits are often seen with only one of these projections, but it will always be noticed on examination that there are screw holes in the other pauldrons for its fellow. They are guards against pike thrusts, and are occasionally found double on each shoulder. These shoulder-guards are usually known by English writers as pass-guards, but Viscount Dillon considers this to be a mistake, as he thinks the real pass-guard to have been an extra tilting-piece. The absence of these pieces is far from always implying that they have been omitted, for in many cases a close examination will reveal holes on the shoulders, showing that they have been originally present. Pauldrons were usually attached to the cuirass by straps and buckles, and consist of plates in successive lames over the shoulders and upper arm. Sometimes the attachment is by a pin, as in [Fig. 22]. In armour of the second half of the fifteenth century the upper plate scarcely reached beyond the shoulder, while in “Maximilian” and later armour they came well over the chest, assuming a resting wing-like form before and behind. They were sometimes very large and uneven in size, that for the right arm being the smaller, for using the lance. There are many instances late in the sixteenth century where gorget and pauldrons are joined together in one piece, and then elbow-gauntlets are used. This is the case in armour called “allecret.” In the second half of the sixteenth century pauldrons were often smaller and wingless—indeed, more like the older épaulières, and then rondelles reappear for the protection of the weak place, “defaut de la cuirasse.”

PALETTES, RONDELLES, OR DISCS,

were plates attached to the armour, variously applied for the shoulders or any weak places, later specially to defend the armpits, where there was a vulnerable place called “vif de l’harnois,” and later, “defaut de la cuirasse,” and leave the arms free to parry or strike. These pieces assume various forms, and were not invariably in pairs; in cases where they differ, that over the right armpit is the smaller—an instance of this may be seen on a brass in Harpham Church, Yorkshire (1420). In this instance the left rondelle is round, while the other is scroll-shaped. There is a portion of a “Gothic” suit at Dresden with an oblong rondelle on the right side, while a projection on the épaulière, to a certain extent, protects the left armpit. They appear very early, and may be seen freely and beautifully applied on a figure in Alvechurch, Worcestershire, of the earlier half of the fourteenth century. They vary very much in size, and in armour of the next century were very handsome, being ridged throughout with escalloped flutings, and often charged with a heraldic rose, and sometimes spiked in the centre. They became very large in tilting suits, little short of a foot in diameter. The earliest application of these discs was to the elbow-guard. Rondelles for the armpits reappear freely in the second half of the sixteenth century, as shown in examples at Dresden and Berlin. They are frequently on the right side only.

REREBRACE, COUDIÈRES, AND VAMBRACE (FRENCH BRASSARD, ITAL. BRACCIALE).

These pieces are the armguards—the rerebrace for the upper arm, the vambrace for the lower; they first appear in plate in the second quarter of the fourteenth century, and became general a quarter of a century later. Coudières for the elbows first appeared in the thirteenth century in the disc form, about the same time as genouillières for the knees; and these pieces exhibit one of the earliest applications of plate to body armour. Both may be seen on an effigy of William Longespee the younger (1233) in Salisbury Cathedral. Coudières are elementary in the early stages, with rondelle, then cup-formed and laminated both above and below the elbow, with shell-like side expansions to protect the inner bend of the arm, and later going all round the elbow joint. This was the completed form, but all these improvements did not come at once. The De Bohun effigy exhibits the second-mentioned form. The outer guard assumes many forms, fan-shaped, bivalve, escalloped, etc., and is sometimes preposterously large. The rerebrace and vambrace do not appear in England before the fourteenth century. The effigy of the Black Prince at Canterbury exhibits these pieces. The armour for the arm, that is the three pieces dealt with, is termed brassards or brassarts. The garde-de-bras, an additional protection for the left arm for tilting, attachable to the elbow plate by a screw, was introduced in the fifteenth century.

GAUNTLETS.

The earliest form after chain-mail was of cuir-bouilli, both plain and fortified with scale work, and such largely prevailed in the thirteenth century, and even later. An example occurs on the tomb of Sir Richard de Burlingthorpe, of about 1310. The earliest form of plate gauntlets occurs in the middle of the fourteenth century, and shows articulated fingers—see an example on a brass of Thomas Cheyne, Esq. (1368), at Drayton Beauchamp, Bucks; after which mitten gauntlets of laminated plates, with a separate thumb-guard and peaked cuffs, prevailed. Late in the fourteenth century an attempt is made to copy the finger nails. An example occurs on the monument of Sir Robert de Grey, at Rotherfield Greys, Oxfordshire. Late in the fifteenth century, the earlier form, with articulated fingers, was reverted to. Gadlings, or knuckle and finger spikes, were in vogue throughout the century—a truly dangerous weapon of offence for the mêlée. Again, later we have the fingers covered with overlapping plates, very narrow and flexible. Another common form, though late, is the elbow gauntlet. There is a pair in the Castle of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and there are others at Naworth Castle and in the author’s collection. A locking gauntlet was invented in the latter part of the sixteenth century, the object of which was to prevent the weapon from being knocked out of the hand, to which it was fastened by a hook and staple. It is stated that this gauntlet was often barred in single combats, it certainly was in foot-tournaments. There is an example of this contrivance in a suit in the Tower of London. Gauntlets were sometimes made of brass.

TACES, TUILLES, TASSETS, BRAYETTE, AND GARDE-DE-REINE OR RUMP GUARD.

Taces were the laminated plates at the bottom of the cuirass, and to these the tuilles or upper thigh guards were attached by straps and buckles. It was common to wear mail below the taces, often with escalloped edges, but the lower portion was often the bottom of a shirt of mail still worn beneath the cuirass. The mail skirt appears so late as 1578 on an effigy at Whitchurch, Denbigh. Taces usually consisted of three, and sometimes of five, and even of eight lames, as noticeable in the brass of Sir John Lysle (died 1407), whose armament is entirely of plate; but early examples are in one piece, and indeed late examples also. An early example, with taces only, is to be found on the brass of Sir John Drayton, but part of the lower portion is missing. Laminated taces first appear late in the fourteenth century; the brass of Nicholas Hawberk (died 1406), at Cobham, is an example. The introduction of “Almayne” rivets (sliding) gave great elasticity to the armour. Tuilles are peculiar to armour dating from the second quarter of the fifteenth century; the earlier form is short and square, but later it becomes pointed and an escalloped shell or tile-like plate in one piece, extended down so as to cover the top of the cuisse, and was attached to the taces by straps and buckles as a guard against an underthrust of the sword. There is an early example on the brass of John Leventhorpe, in Sawbridgeworth Church, Hertfordshire (1433). This, like all tuilles of its time, was small and attached by straps or hinges to the lowest rim of the taces—indeed, it differed but little in shape from the plate to which it was attached. It lingered long in England, as shown in the Stanley and Lementhorp brasses in Westminster Abbey and Great St. Helen’s Church, 1505 and 1510 respectively; and there is a very late example on a suit of armour of the time of Philip II. of Spain, but this may perhaps more properly be looked upon as a solid tasset, the suit having been used for tilting. The Beauchamp effigy shows four tuilles, two large and two small. Tassets followed on these pieces, though they were for a time contemporaneous. They were practically the same piece as the tuille in laminated plates, but were generally attached directly to the bottom rim of the cuirass, taces being then usually dispensed with, unless in one plate, forming the connecting link. It was not uncommon to find them in two parts during the second half of the sixteenth century, as shown in the Alnwick example ([Fig. 33]), and there are also cases where they are in one solid piece, as shown on a gilded suit in Windsor Castle, and in the other example referred to. Tassets gradually increased in length as time went on until they reached the knees, forming then the cuisse itself of laminated plates. This was the last stage before the introduction of the jackboot. The brayette or cod-piece is a hollow cap-like projecting plate for fixing on to the bottom of the cuirass for the protection of the fore-body. Fig. 14 represents this piece in chain-mail. We are not aware of the existence of another specimen in chain-mail. The fortunate possessor of this unique piece is Dr. Edgar von Ubisch of Berlin, and we are indebted to his kindness for the illustration. The garde-de-reine was a projecting piece attached to the rim of the backplate; it was of overlapping plates, and protected the rump and small of the back.

Fig. 14.—Brayette in Chain-mail, at Berlin.

CUISSE, GENOUILLIÈRE, AND JAMB.

Up to the Conquest there was probably no leg armour in England other than thongs, but there are early German examples. Chausses would naturally suggest themselves after Hastings, as William bore them; while Harold, who did not, was wounded in the leg. The term applied to the upper leg armour, or breeches of mail, was chaussons. Soon after the Conquest cuir-bouilli was largely used, and this was followed by stockings of mail and sollerets of the same, as may be seen on the seals of Richard I. Wace mentions iron chausses. Even up to the middle of the fourteenth century it continued common in England to wear these pieces in chain-mail with attachable genouillières. An example of this kind may be seen on the effigy of Robert de Vere (died 1221) in Hatfield Broad Oak Church.

The cuisse was the plate going round the front of the lower thigh, fastened by strap and buckle. It first appeared in France and England in the second quarter of the fourteenth century, and became general towards the close. In armour of the latter half of the fifteenth century it was often embellished by consecutive laminations at the top. In the second half of the sixteenth century it was sometimes in two detachable pieces, for foot fighting and horseback.

Genouillières (defences for the knee) were the first body pieces of plate, except perhaps the plastron-de-fer or breastplate, and possibly the coudière also. They were called poleyns, and first appear in the thirteenth century; an example, about 1250, is figured in Plate XXX. of Stothard. The side of the knee became further protected by rondelles later in the century; and from that time these appendages became more ornate and comprehensive. As soon as plate armour was completed, genouillières became articulated both above and below the knee. In armour of the second half of the fifteenth century they are specially beautiful, assuming a shell-like form, often bivalve and butterfly shape with escalloped edges and flutings. The chausse, or shin-piece, was used in chain-mail, indeed earlier still in fortified leather, and early in the fourteenth century it became plate and was termed jamb; first only in front attached by strap and buckle, and later going round the leg hinged, and fastened by sliding rivets. These pieces were also called greaves. The inventory of Piers Gaveston (1313) catalogues “three pairs of hinged jambs.” These pieces were generally plain. Both they and sollerets disappeared with the advent of the jackboot.

SOLLERETS.

Sollerets are a better guide as to date of armour even than gauntlets, particularly after the fourteenth century, for reasons given under the head of the last-named. The earlier sollerets of overlapping plates were of extravagant length. This form followed the prevailing fashion in shoes, and hence the name “à la poulaine” from “souliers à la poulaine.” The long form was much modified during the last quarter of the fourteenth century and well into the fifteenth, but it became in vogue again later in the century with enormous tips, the length from toe to heel being up to twenty-four inches. The instep of chain-mail was not uncommon in the fourteenth century and even later. The sollerets of the Black Prince were of enormous length. The tips could, however, be disconnected at pleasure. The shorter form was styled “demi-poulaine” or “ogivale lancette.” A variety called “ogivale tiers-point” largely prevailed in the second half of the fifteenth century. When ridged and escalloped armour was replaced by “Maximilian,” sollerets were wide and short—in fact the shape of a bear’s paw or cow’s mouth, spreading out at the sides, and requiring very broad stirrups; but when fluted armour was discontinued the shape became gradually narrower, and after the middle of the century more like that of the foot; still there are very late instances of the “bear-paw” form. This variety was styled “bec-de-cane,” which differs, however, from the “tiers-point” of the fifteenth century. Sollerets disappeared altogether with the jamb, the jackboot taking their place.[29] These pieces in laminated plates are shown on the Daubernoun brass, and continue to occur on such monuments.

SHIELDS.

This subject is too vast for more than a mere outline in these pages. The kite-shaped, round, and triangular shield appears in the twelfth century. The two first-named are long, and either bowed or flat. They were held over the breast by a strap going round the nape of the neck, called a “guige.” Shields of the thirteenth century were either small and “heater” shaped, or larger and rounded. Pavises were very large shields to be placed before the bowmen as a defence, and were provided with an inner prop to hold them upright on the ground. As to ordinary shields, most of the thirteenth century forms extended into the fourteenth, when the bouche, or hole cut in the right corner as a spear-rest, was introduced. They were pear-shaped, triangular, heart-shaped, circular, oval, curved, and sometimes nearly square. The round buckler was carried in the hand, while the larger shield was borne on the arm. The material was generally of wood or leather, or both combined—the latter often embossed. They were more or less fortified or bossed, and sometimes partly or wholly of iron. For tyros, basket-work was used. Shields generally bore a heraldic device, or other cognizance, and were frequently curved, bossed, and spiked. The usual shield of a knight of the fifteenth century had the bouche, was convex, and about two and a half feet long by about a third of that broad, and pointed at the bottom. In the sixteenth century ordinary shields were seldom used, but an immense amount of fine artistic work was lavished on the pageant shields of that period, an example of which is given in [Fig. 15]. The tournament shield is described under the heading devoted to these games.

Fig. 15.—Pageant Shield, formerly in the collection of Prince Carl of Prussia.

CALTROP, OR CROW’S FOOT.

This, the Roman murex or tribulus, was a sharp point of iron standing upright, fashioned like a crow’s foot. They were strewn broadcast on the ground, for the purpose of maiming horses in a charge of cavalry, or placed on a moat filled up with fascines, or on a breach to resist an attempt at escalade. Knightly spurs have been known to have been used for this purpose. The name is an abbreviation for cheval-trap. There are some specimens in the Rotunda, Woolwich, varying in height from 1.25 to 2.5 inches.[30]

SPURS.

These goads were used by the Romans, and the gilded spur was one of the badges of the knight of mediæval times. The earlier are of the “goad” type, and fastened by a single strap; they were probably first used singly, and were called “prick spurs.” An example of the goad prick may be seen in the Daubernoun brass (1277). We get the rowel prick late in the thirteenth century. The D’Argentine brass (1382) furnishes an example of a spur of the fourteenth century. The number of points or pricks in specimens of the middle ages approximate the date. Early in the fourteenth century there are usually eight, but in the fifteenth as many as twelve points to the rowel, and spurs were long-necked. Later, the fashion in style and form was “legion.” In heraldry the knightly spur was a “goad” up to 1320, and called a “pryck-spur,” later the “rouelle-spur.” The tournament spur of the sixteenth century was straight and long in the neck. In the case of a knight’s degradation his spurs were hacked off by the king’s master-cook. During the fourteenth century it was usual, when orders were given to men-at-arms to fight on foot, for their spurs to be taken off, so as not to impede their movements; and these were then often used as caltrops. This was notably the case at the battles of Courtray and Poitiers.

PART IX.
“GOTHIC” ARMOUR, 1440–1500; AND SOME ARMOUR-SMITHS OF THE PERIOD.

The “Gothic”[31] school, as it is termed, exhibits the highest embodiment of artistic beauty as applied to defensive armour; and it inaugurated a new epoch in warlike panoply. The armour-smith’s best efforts were directed not only to give increased protection to the limbs and make the armour light, flexible, and impenetrable; but the flutings and escalloped edges were designed to produce beauty of form and outline, as well as with a view to deflecting the weapon of attack from vital points; and the armour was equally mobile for fighting on foot or on horseback. We owe its initiation doubtless to Italy, in which country, together with Germany, it reached its highest pitch of excellence; but the style itself is really a reproduction of the mediæval Florentine dress. Gothic armour is greatly associated with the sallad, large mentonnière, tuilles, and sollerets “à la poulaine.” The cuirass is decorative; the earlier form being somewhat short with many taces, and the later with a longer breastplate and fewer taces, thus exhibiting the evolution from the still earlier fashion. It has been fully described under the heading devoted to this piece. There is an English example of this style of armour shown on a brass in St. Mary’s Church, Thame, Oxfordshire, about 1460; and another in the effigy already mentioned of Sir Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, in St. Mary’s Church, Warwick. There are only very few Gothic suits preserved in this country, our practical people having used up so many as old iron, just as they let the weather into our fine abbeys and churches by tearing off the roofing lead for the melting pot.

A few suits are attributed to particular ancestors in some of the castles of long-descended German families, but, in almost every case, with but slender foundation in fact; the only specimens in England that may be termed historic are those in the Rotunda at Woolwich, and these are only fragments. Few of the “Gothic” suits in this country, if indeed in any other, are quite homogeneous, and many of them are more or less made up of odd pieces. This is the case with the “Gothic” armour at Parham, which is said to have come from the Church of St. Irene at Constantinople. Many of the details of this armour are of the most exquisite and obviously authentic character, while pieces, such as the sallads, apparently never went with the other armour. Reliable armour of this period is very scarce, and difficult to buy. Four thousand pounds was recently asked in London for a suit! Fashion was as absolute regarding armour as in dress; and with the advent of the “Maximilian” period the “Gothic” form was greatly laid aside, for it could not be adapted, and therefore became obsolete. This is the main cause why so few specimens have been preserved. A historic example in the collection at Sigmaringen Castle, the cradle of the Hohenzollerns, is described in detail, and an illustration given ([Fig. 17]). Another example may be seen on the brass of Sir Robert Staunton at Castle Donnington (died 1458), on which the épaulières extend over the armpits. This brass probably presents the earliest English instance of the sallad. The “Beauchamp” effigy in latten, a “species of fine brass metal,” affords a beautiful example of the earlier Gothic school. The suit from which the models were taken is probably the work of Tomaso da Missaglia of Milan. This effigy, and its probable origin, raises the question as to which country we are indebted for the “Gothic” form until comparatively recently freely attributed to Germany; but it is tolerably certain that it originated with the Missaglias. There is a further interesting point brought out by the effigy itself, which was the work of an Englishman, viz.: that the smith who could copy a suit so faithfully would probably be able to make real armour of a high character. We read in Blore’s Monumental Remains all about the contracts for this truly magnificent monument, where it is stated that Dugdale, the historian of Warwickshire, has very fortunately preserved a recapitulation of the agreement between the executors of the Earl and the artisans employed in its erection. This document is given in extenso in Blore’s work, and, as he says, it throws considerable light, and affords some extremely important information, on the construction of ancient monuments in general. The original was found among the muniments of the bailiff and burgesses of Warwick, and bears the date June 13, 32 Henry VI. The Earl died in 1439, so that the contract for the monument was given out in 1454. Various subsidiary agreements of an early date are included in the main contract. The names of the contractors were John Essex, marbler; William Austin, founder; and Thomas Stevyns, coppersmith. The clause of the contract regarding the effigy runs as follows, viz.:—

“The said Will. Austin, xi. Feb., 28 Henry VI., doth covenant to cast and make an image of a man armed of fine latten, garnished with certain ornaments, viz., with sword and dagger; with a garter; with a helm and crest under his head, and at his feet a bear musled, and a griffon, perfectly made of the finest latten, according to patterns, all which to be brought to Warwick, and layd on the tombe, at the perill of the said Austin: the said executors paying for the image, perfectly made and laid, and all the ornaments in good order, besides the cost of the said workmen to Warwick, and working there to lay the image, and besides the cost of the carriages, all which are to be born by the said executors, in totall xl li.”

A further clause refers to the agreement made with Bartholomew Lambespring, Dutchman, and goldsmyth of London, 23 Maii, 27 Hen. VI., who “covenanteth to repaire, whone, and pullish, and to make perfect to the gilding, an image of latten of a man armed, that is in making, to lye over the tombe, and all the apparell that belongeth thereunto, as helme, crest, sword, &c., and beasts; the said executors paying therefore xiii li.” The accounts of one of the executors show that the monument took twenty-one years to erect and finish, and that the total cost was £2481 4s. 7½d. Mr. Blore continues: “The monument of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, consists of an altar-tomb of grey marble, in the finest preservation. Within canopies admirably wrought, are whole-length sculptures of fourteen of the immediate relatives of the deceased, executed in latten, which was a species of fine brass metal, and richly gilt; these figures are disposed five on each side, and two at either end of the tomb. Underneath every figure, in starred quatrefoils, is a shield with armorial bearings enamelled on brass, and between the larger canopies, alternately, a smaller, containing an angel executed in similar metal with the portraiture of the mourners, and holding in one hand a scroll, on which is engraven in Gothic letter,

“Sit deo laus et gloria, defunctis misericordia.”

The image, excepting the hands and head, is in complete armour, with the garter encircling the left leg. The head rests upon a helm, surmounted by the family crest, and at the feet are a bear muzzled and a griffin, badges of the ancient house of Warwick. The armour may be considered as real, from the extreme care and exactness that have been bestowed on it by the original artist. Mr. Charles Stothard had the figure turned over, and found that the armour for the back was as carefully and minutely finished as that on the front. The suit exhibits the cuirass as shorter than we find it in later “Gothic,” while the taces are correspondingly more extended, and consist of five lames. The breastplate has a gracefully curved groove on either side, and a catch for the mentonnière on the breast. The mentonnière is usually omitted in effigies for obvious reasons. A remarkable feature of the effigy is that there are four tuilles; the larger two do not converge so abruptly to a point as they usually do rather later, but the smaller ones are more sharply pointed. The coudières are of the beautiful butterfly type, and very large; while the sollerets are far from being extravagantly tipped. The most unusual feature of this effigy is the early presence of pikeguards. The Earl died in 1439, so the figure could not well be copied from any armour he left behind him, for the general aspect of the suit would fix the date about 1450–60, which would correspond with the date of the contract for the tomb. As already stated, the figure was probably fashioned after models supplied by Tomaso da Missaglia, and seems to represent his later work. This impression is strengthened by the following comparisons with two harnesses at Vienna, viz.: a suit by this master, made for the Pfalzgraf Friedrich am Rhein, about the middle of the century, exhibits points of contact with the Warwick figure, especially in respect to the number of the taces; while another by Antonio da Missaglia, made about thirty years later for the Count of Gajazzo (died 1487), shows a relatively longer breastplate and fewer taces. The latter suit bears pikeguards, which the earlier does not. One may perhaps deduce from these examples that the Beauchamp effigy represents the later work of Tomaso. The illustration given in [Fig. 16] represents the effigy in an upright position. It is a reproduction of that given in Blore.

Fig. 16.—Effigy of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, in St. Mary’s Church, Warwick.

Tomaso and Antonio da Missaglia, the illustrious sire and son, were the great Milan armour-smiths of from the end of the first quarter to the close of the fifteenth century. To the first it seems certain that we are indebted for the form called “Gothic,” which was, however, merely a graceful improvement on the fashion immediately preceding it. There was nothing very abrupt in the transition, as was the case in the radical change from “Gothic” to “Maximilian.” The work of Tomaso is conspicuous for purity of style and nobility of form, and, from an artistic point of view, it has no rivals. Armour of his period was generally plain, but the more pronounced passion for decoration of the time found expression in the work of his son; an example of whose skill may be seen in the case of a helmet in the Tower of London, and at Vienna is the superb Gothic suit with pikeguards, already referred to, made for the Count of Gajazzo. Tomaso was, it is believed, the first master to use armourer’s marks. His monogram is the letter “M,” surmounted by a crown. The Negrolis, who worked after the Missaglias, seem to have been of the same family, and, as Boeheim points out, the name “Missaglia,” like that of Ferrara, seems to have originated as a “place” designation. Examples of the work of the Negrolis may be seen both at Vienna and Madrid. Their work represents the full swing of the “renaissance.”

Milan, where the Missaglias worked, is not the only town in Italy where there is a Via degli Armorari and a Via degli Spadari, showing that there were then separate guilds for armour- and sword-making in that country.

SIGMARINGEN SUIT.

This beautiful “Gothic” suit, by Lorenz Kolman of Augsburg ([Fig. 17]), is said to have belonged to one of the Counts of Hohenzollern-Eitel. Demmin refers to it as being erroneously ascribed to Eitel Frederick I. of the thirteenth century. The mistake is obvious, as there were no Counts of Hohenzollern-Eitel then! There were two Eitel Fredericks in the fifteenth century. On consulting the Stammbaum at Hohenzollern it appears that