Chapter III: A Contrast. Armour of Count Sigismond of Tirol, (2)

The earliest European illustration of an armourer at work at present known is to be found in the thirteenth-century _Aeneid_ of Heinrich von Waldec (codex MS. Germ. fol. 282, p. 79) in the Königl. Bib. Berlin (Plate IV). From the fact that the armourer (Vulcan) is holding the helm with pincers we may infer that he is working it hot. The anvil as shown in this miniature (Plate IV) is square and of primitive form and would seem to be quite useless for the work, but this may be due to the inexperience of the artist. The hammer, however, is carefully drawn and is evidently from some real example in which the face is rounded in a slightly convex form and the toe ends in a small blunted point which may be for riveting small objects or for making small bosses.

In the fifteenth century we find more care as to details and more operations shown in the illustration on the same plate, taken from a miniature by Boccace in _Les Clercs et Nobles Femmes_ (Bib. Reg. 16, G, v. fol. II) in the British Museum. Here we have several men at work under the superintendence of a lady who is generally supposed to be the Countess Matilda, while their labours are enlivened by a flute-player. The man at the bench appears to be putting together a defence composed of circular plates laced to a leather or linen foundation which strongly resembles the culet of so-called “penny plate” armour in the Tower (III, 358). The helm-smith is working on a bascinet which he holds with pincers, but he is using the toe of the hammer and not the face, which hardly seems a likely operation. He holds the helmet on a helmet-stake which probably has a rounded surface for finishing off the curves. The seated man is perhaps the most interesting figure, for he is a rare example of a mail-maker at work, closing up the rings with a pair of pincers. Up to the present we have no definite idea as to how the intricate operation of mail-making was accomplished so as to turn out rapidly coats of mail. It is probable that some form of pincer was used which pierced the flattened ends of the ring and closed up the rivet when inserted. Possibly investigations in the East, where mail is still made, may throw some light upon the subject.[8] The illustration by Jost Amman (Fig. 15) certainly shows the craftsman using a punch and hammer for his work and the only other tool shown is a pair of shears. Mail was in use up to the first years of the seventeenth century, so we may be sure the artist drew his figure from life.

Few of the actual tools of the armourer survive to us at the present day. In the Burges Bequest in the British Museum is a fine anvil decorated with figures of saints in relief of the sixteenth century, which appears to have been used by a craftsman dealing with metal in plates or sheets, for the face of the anvil is burred over in a manner that would not be the case if the smith had worked with bars or rods, the usual materials of the blacksmith. In the same case is a pair of armourer’s pincers which resemble the _multum in parvo_ tools of to-day, for they include hammer, wire-cutter, nail-drawer, and turnscrew (Plate V). A similar pair of pincers exists in the Rotunda Museum, Woolwich (XVI, 200). In the Wallace Collection (No. 88) is an armourer’s hammer of the sixteenth century with a faceted copper head, the reason for which was probably the need for avoiding scratching the surface when finishing a piece. In the same collection is a finely decorated farrier’s hammer (1002), which also includes a nail-drawer and turn-nut. The handle is inlaid with brass and mother-of-pearl and is decorated with engravings of S. George and a musketeer of about 1640. A decorated anvil and vice which were catalogued as those of an armourer, the property of Mr. Ambrose Morell, were exhibited in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, in 1911, but from the form and size of the tools they would appear to have been rather those of the silversmith than of the armourer. Jost Amman’s “Armourer” (Fig. 16) calls for no special notice, as no tools are shown in the workshop, and is merely of interest as being included in this _Book of Trades_, published in 1590.

MAXIMILIAN AND HIS ARMOURER, CONRAD SEUSENHOFER

FROM THE WEISZ KÜNIG]

The earliest inventory containing armourers’ tools is found in the archives of the city of Lille. It is dated 1302 and refers to the effects of the Constable de Nesle in the Hôtel de Soissons, Paris. The inventory is a long one and includes many interesting details of furniture, fabrics, and armour. That portion relating to the tools runs as follows:--

_Arch. Dept. du Nord. Fonds de la Chambre des Comptes de Lille,
No. 4401._

Une englume et fos a souffler lx s.
Unes tenailes bicournes, i martel et menus instruments de forge
xiii s. vi d.
Item unes venterieres v s.
” xxxviii fers faites xii s. viii d.
” sas a cleus, tenons environs v sommes xxi l. v s.
” xiii douzaines de fer de Bourgoyne xxii s. vi d.

Another early inventory is that of Framlingham Castle, Norfolk, of the year 1308:--

ix capellae ferratae at iv s.
iii vices ad eandem tendentes at ii s.

The earliest complete English inventory of tools connected with the craft of the armourer occurs in the _Accounts of the Constable of Dover Castle_. Two separate lists are given at different dates, which may be studied with more convenience if placed side by side:--[9]

_Dec. 20. 17 Edw. III, 1344._ _Jan. 26. 35 Edw. III, 1361._

Item in Fabrica. En la Forge.

ij maides[10] ij andefeltes de fer[10]
ij bicorn[11] j andefelte debruse
iij martellos magnos j bikore[11]
iij martellos parvos iij slegges[12]
ij tenaces magnas[13] iiij hammeres
v tenaces parvas[13] vj paires tanges dount deux grosses
ij instrumenta ad ferram iiij pensons febles[14]
cinendum[14] iij nailetoules per clause en icels
iiij instrumenta ferrea ad fair[14]
claves inficiendos[15] iij paire bulghes dount une nouvell[16]
ij paria flaborum[16] j peer moler[18]
j folour de ferro[17] ij fusels de feer aicele[19]
j mola de petra versatilis j paire de wynches[21] as meme la peer
pro ferreo acuendo[18] j trow de peer pur ewe[22]
ij ligamina de ferreo pro j hurthestaf de feer[23]
j buketto[20] j cottyngyre[24]
j markingyre[25] une cable vels et
pourz

All the above tools are in use at the present day, except perhaps the “nailetoules” for closing the rivets, and, as has been stated above, if we could but discover what this implement was we might find that it is also used at the present day for some other purpose. The nearest approach to such a tool is the eyelet-hole maker and riveter used by bootmakers. The “bicornes” are still known to-day as bickirons. They are small anvils with long horns which are used when riveting tubes or turning over long pieces of metal. It is a little uncertain as to whether the “folour” derives its name from the same root as the modern French “fouloir,” a “rammer,” or from the Latin “follis,” “bellows.” The former would seem more probable, as it was made of iron. The “fusels de feer aicele” present some difficulty, but they may be taken to be spindles of some kind, possibly for the grindstones. The “wynches” explain themselves, but the addition of “as meme la peer” is not so clear, for from the next item “peer” evidently means “stone,” for it is a trough of stone for water; at the same time the word “pair” is often written “peer” at this period, so it may refer to a pair of winches. The bellows, shears, and grindstone call for no special comment, but the “hurthestaf” presents some difficulty. It would seem to be derived from the word “hearth” or “herth,” in which case it would probably be a long iron rod, rake, or poker, used for tending the forge-fire. This seems to be borne out in the inventory of 1514, where it is spelt “harth stake.” The “cottyngyre” and “markingyre” may be found in every blacksmith’s shop to-day as cold-chisels and marking-iron.

The next entry bearing upon the subject of tools and workshop requirements is found in an _Inventory under Privy Seal of Henry VI_, dated 1485, at which time John Stanley, of Wyrall, Cheshire, was Sergeant of the Armoury of the Tower.[26] Here we find the following items recorded:--

it’m ij yerds iij q’ters of corse rede sylke } All splendid and moch
It’m d’yerds d’q’reters of rede vele wet } more to coom of the
It’m iiij grosses of poyntes[27] } king’s harneys
It’m vj armyng nales[28] }
It’m hamer, j bequerne, j payr of pynsonys, iij pounde of wyre
which was sold by Mastr. Wylliam Fox amerer

The “bequerne” is the same as the “bicorn” mentioned in the Dover Castle inventory.

In the earlier periods we have no records as to the material used or the quantities required. It is only when we come to the sixteenth century that we find detailed accounts kept to assist our investigations respecting the making of armour.

The next inventory worthy of note contains a list of payments made to John Blewbery, who was in charge of the workshops in 3 Henry VIII, 1514.

_Public Record Office._

xviii September Also payde by Owre Commandement to John Blewbery
for the new fforge at Greenwiche made for the
Armarers of Brussells these peces ensuynge.

s. d.

a vyce xiii iv
a greate bekehorne lx
a smalle bekehorne xvi
a peyre of bellowes xxx
a pype stake[29] iii iv
a Creste stake[30] iv
a vysure stake[31] iv
a hanging pype stake[32] iv iv
a stake for the hedde pecys[33] v
ii curace stakes[34] x
iv peyre of Sherys[35] xl
iii platynge hamers[36] viii
iii hamers for the hedde pecys v
a creste hamer for the hedde peces xx
ii hamers ii viii
ii greve hamers[37] iii iv
a meeke hamer[38] xvi
ii pleyne hamers ii
ii platynge hamers ii
ii chesels wt. an halve viii
a creste hamer for the curace xii
ii Rewetinge hamers[39] xvi
a boos hamer[40] xii
xi ffylys[41] xi
a payre of pynsors xviii
ii payre of tongs xvi
a harth stake[42] vi
ii chesels & vi ponchons ii
a watr. trowgh xviii
a temperinge barrelle xii
one Andevyle xx
vi stokks to set the Tolys x
xvi dobles at xvi d every doble xxi iv
xviii quarters of Colys vi ix

in alle xiii li. xvi s. xi d.

Here we find the outfit more elaborate than that scheduled at Dover. The various “stakes” in use show that there were special appliances for making every part of the armour, both as regards the anvils and the hammers. The “halve” with the two chisels is, of course, the haft or handle, which could be fitted to either. The “vi stokks to set the Tolys” are presumably handles in which the tools were fixed. The “ponchons” are punches used in the repoussé work. The “xvi dobles” were probably heavy iron models on which the various pieces were shaped. Two specimens in the Tower (a morion, IV, 227, and a breastplate, III, 209), are considered by the present Curator to be dobles, for they are cast and not wrought, are far too heavy for actual use, and have no holes for rivets or for attaching the lining.

In the illustration given on Plate VI, taken from Hans Burgmair’s _Weisz Künig_, many of these tools are shown in use. The engraving was produced by an artist who was also a designer of armour, so they would certainly be correctly drawn. The various small stakes are all in use and all the work is being done with the metal cold, for the men are holding it with their hands. This working of the cold metal tends to compress the crystals and to make the metal hard, and is more than once alluded to in works upon armour. Gaya, in his _Traité des armes_,[43] mentions this detail, and again Jean de Saulx-Tavannes[44] mentions “cuirasses battues à froid” when speaking of armour of “proof,” which is also noticed in the present work under that heading.

ARMOUR OF KURFÜRST MORITZ. BY MATTHAÜS FRAUENPREIS, 1548]

The following extracts from various books and documents relate to the tools and appliances of the armourer:--

1278. _Roll of Expenses for a tournament in Windsor Park._

It qualibet cresta j per chaston

These chastones or clavones were rivets for fastening the crests of the knights and also of the horses. Most of the items in this roll were supplied by curriers or tailors, for the weapons and armour were of wood or leather, and metal does not seem to have been used.

1300. _Wardrobe Expenses of Edward I._[45]

Una Cresta cum clavis argenti pro eodem capello.

1301. _An indenture on the delivery of the Castle of Montgomery
by William de Leyburn to Hugo de Knoville._[46]

Unum incudem et i martellum et ii suffletis ovi valoris.

These are evidently the contents of the castle armourer’s workshop: an anvil, a hammer, and a small pair of bellows of no value. Perhaps such items are hardly worth chronicling, but in a work of this nature it seems to be advisable to collect every entry bearing upon the subject, so as to make it a complete study of the craft of the armourer both technically and historically, as far as is possible with the very limited material obtainable.

1369. _Dethe Blaunche, l. 9964._ Chaucer.

As hys brothres hamers ronge
upon hys anuelet up and doon.

1386. _Knight’s tale, l. 1649._ Chaucer.

Faste the armurers also
with fyle and hamer prikynge to and fro.

This refers to the travelling armourer who accompanied his lord to the tournament or to war.

1465. _Acts. of Sir John Howard._

20,000 Bregander nayle 11s. 8d.

These are the small rivets used in making the brigandine. A brigandine with sleeves at Madrid (c. 11) is composed of 3827 separate plates and over 7000 rivets were used in putting it together.

1460 (?). _Ordinances of Chivalry, fol. 123b._[47]

Also a dosen tresses of armynge poyntis.
Also a hamyr and pynsones and a bicorne.
Also smale nayles a dosen.

The “tresses” were plaited laces for fastening the various portions of armour to the wearer. These may be seen in the portrait of the Duc de Nevers(?) at Hampton Court, the picture of S. Demetrius by L’Ortolano in the National Gallery, and more clearly in the portrait of an unknown navigator in the Fortnum Room of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. The arming-points will be found described and illustrated on page 109.

1513. _Equipage of Henry, Earl of Northumberland._[48]

Emmery & oile for dressing my Lord’s harnes.
Leather, bokills & naylles for mendyng my Lords harnes.

Towles conserning the mending of my Lord’s harnes. Item a payre
of nyppers, a payre of pynsores, a pomyshe,[49] & ij fylles.
Item a small sti’the, a hammer, and all ouy^r stuffe and tooles
belonginge an armorer. Item viij yards of white blaunkett for
trussing of my Lord’s harnes in.

The emery and oil were used in cleaning the armour and will be noticed in due course on page 78. The nippers, pincers, etc., have been alluded to before. The “sti’the” is an anvil, a term used up to Shakespeare’s time, as may be found in _Hamlet_, iii. 2, 89. All these “Towles” or tools would be part of the travelling equipment of the armourer who accompanied his lord on active service.

1514. _Record Office, 9 July, to John Blewbery._

For a millwheel with stondard, 2 beams & brasys [braces]
belonging thereto and two small wheels to drive the
glasys 40s.
For two elm planks for lanterns for the same mill 5s.
13 lbs. of tin at 5d. a lb. 5s. 5d.
28 lbs. of white soap for tempering the said mill at 2d. lb. 4s. 10d.
500 gauntlet nailes 8d.
100 & a half of iron 4/8, 3 rivetting hamers 2/- 6s. 8d.
a payre of pynsers 2/8, 4 crest fylys 4/- 6s. 8d.
2 greate fylys 5s.
100 & a half of steele for vambraces & gaunteletes 60s.

The mill-wheel was for the water-power used for turning the grind-stones and other appliances which will be noticed later on in this chapter. The “glasys” are probably the glazing-wheels for putting the final polish upon the finished armour. The white soap was for lubricating the axle of the mill-wheel or for the final polish of the metal on the wheel or buff. The “gauntlet nailes” are small rivets for gauntlets which, being of thinner metal, would require a smaller-sized rivet than the rest of the body armour. The steel for vambraces and gauntlets was probably thinner than that used for other portions of the suit.

1514. _Record Office, 22 July, to John Blewbery._

for the glasyers of the said mill and one spindle to
the same glasyers £4 0 0
for a grind stone & the beam for the same mill 1 0 0

_Kings Book of Payments, Record Office._

1516. _Feb., to Edith, widow of Fountain, millman._

for milling & carriage of harness 15 0 0

1516. _Record Office_, _loc. cit._, _May, John Hardy, fishmonger_.

4 bundles of Isebrooke stuff for making parts of
harness £8 6 8

It is difficult to see why this payment should have been made unless the fishmonger had imported the Innsbruck metal in one of his boats. The term “Isebroke” will be found mentioned under the chapter dealing with the Proving of Armour.

1517. _Record Office_, _loc. cit._, _April, to John de Mery_.

2541 lbs. of steel plates of Isebroke and Lymbrickes
stuff £26 12 0

The “Lymbricke” metal came from Limburg, in North Brabant.

1517. _Record Office_, _loc. cit._, _May, to Sir Edw. Guylford_.

making two forges & the repairs in the Armory at
Southwark £19 2 0

1520. _Record Office,[50] April, Richd. Pellande, Rauffe Brand,
Richd. Cutler, and Hans_, four of the King’s armourers, brought
to the Field of the Cloth of Gold all sorts of necessaries for
armour, such as buckles, files, chisels, punches, hinges, hides,
and rivets.

The glazing-mill was taken down at Greenwich and was set up at
Guisnes with four forges.

1544. _Cott. App. XXVIII, f 69, Brit. Mus._

Working in the privy Armoury upon the filing of the king’s
Majestie’s harnes & other necessaries from May 11-July 16. (This
is part of the account of Erasmus, the King’s armourer, who is
noticed elsewhere.)

1544. _Loc. cit., f. 76. Charges of the King’s Armoury._

Item 8 bundles of steel to the said Armoury for
the whole year 38/- the bundle li. xv iiii

(Lockers and Millmen are mentioned in this entry.)

On page 31 it was noted that in 1516 four bundles of steel cost £8 6s. 8d., in 1517 2541 lb. cost £26 12s., that is about 2½d. per lb. From these three entries taken together we gather that the “bundle” was about 20 lb.

1544. _Cott. App._[51] XXVIII, f. 76.

Item for 16 bundles of steel to serve both shops
a whole year at 38/- per bundle li. xxx viii
Item i hide of buff leather every month for both
shops at 10/- the hide vi x
Item to every of the said shops 4 loads of
charcoal a month 9/- the load xl xix
Item for both shops 1 cowhide every month at
6/8 the hide iv vi viii
Item 100 of iron every month for both shops at
6/8 the 100 iv vi viii
Item in wispe steel for both shops every month
15 lbs. at 4d. lb. lxv
Item in wire monthly to both shops 12 lb.
monthly at 4d. the lb. lii
Item in nayles & buckles for both shops monthly lxv

This record contains other details in connection with the two workshops of Greenwich and Westminster, in which 12 armourers, 2 locksmiths, and 2 millmen and 2 prentices are employed who “will make yearly, with the said 16 bundles of steel and the other stuff aforesaid, 32 harnesses complete, every harness to be rated to the king’s Highness at £12, which amounteth in the year towards his Grace’s charge iii^c iiii^{xx} iiii^{li}” (£384).

From these details we can find approximately that the 32 suits required 13 hundred of iron and 195 lb. of whisp steel. Therefore each suit took 40¾ lb. of iron and about 6 lb. of whisp steel.

ARMOUR OF HENRY VIII FOR FIGHTING ON FOOT IN THE LISTS]

The leather was either for straps and linings for the armour, or may have been used for facing the polishing-wheels or “buffs.” The year was divided into thirteen lunar months.

1559. _Henry V, iv, chorus._ Shakespeare.

The Armourers accomplishing the knights
With busy hamers closing riuets up.

This is more or less a poetic licence, for the riveting was only done on each separate piece, and these were joined on the wearer with straps, arming-points, or turning-pins. Of course this entry should be taken as made at the year when Shakespeare wrote, and not as representing an actual occurrence at Agincourt.

1562. _State Papers Domestic, Elizabeth, Vol. XXI_, 14.

Due also to the armorers of the Tower for their wages &
for leather, buckels, nailes & other paiments in indent
to the said armory at the feast of Christmas last past vj^{li} xv^s

In this entry are mentioned arming nails, butret nails, hammers, punshions, sheres, fyles, sand for scouring, cords, points, oyletholes, tow and butten nails.

1574. _State Papers Domestic, Elizabeth, Vol. XCIX_, 50.

The monthly charge ordinary, vez coles, stele
Iron nayles, buckills & lether &c. vij^{li}

1593. _Auditor’s Privy Seal Book_, 353.

Elizabeth to the Treasurer & Chamberlain of the Exchequer.

Whereas we ... are informed that the mills serving for our
Armoury at Greenwich are decayed, you are to pay to Sir H. Lee
such sums as are necessary for the repairs ... for the mills not
to exceed £80.

1622. _Record Office, Sir Henry Lee’s Accounts of the Armoury._

The following details are mentioned:--

Redskins for bordering of armour, calfskins for the same, leather
for gauntlets, Round headed nails, Tynned nails, flat headed
nails, white nails, yellow nails, double buckels, buckels, nails
and taches for gantlets, copper nails, brockases, tacejoyntz.

The “nails” here mentioned are rivets of iron or brass or copper. Some were tinned to prevent rusting, a custom which was practised as early as 1361, for we find in one of the inventories of Dover Castle[52] under that date “xiii basynetz tinez.” The “taches” for gauntlets were fastenings of some kind, possibly turning-pins. The “brockases” were also probably brooches or fastenings of some sort, and the “tacejoyntz” hinges for attaching the tassets to the taces.

1624. _State Papers Domestic, Jac. I, Vol. CLXXX_, 71, 72.
_Erection of Plating-mills by Capt. Martin at Erith._ (This
document is quoted at length in Appendix J, p. 188.)

The rates for Plaetes and armors exectly examined for the prices the
strength and lightness considered are thus reduced.
The chardge of a tun of Armer plaetes £18 0 0
Two chaldron of coles wt. carriadge will be 11 2 0
Reparation for the mill 12 0
The workmen for battering this tun of plaetes 4 0 0
The armourers may make them wt due shape black
nayle and lether them for 7 10 0
etc. etc.

The entries in this document will be examined fully on page 41.

1631. _Fœdera, xix, p_. 312. Rymer.

Unstriking new fyling russetting new nayling lethering
and lyning of a cuirassiers armor i iii 0

This entry occurs in a document under the Privy Seal of Charles I, dated Westminster, June 29, which refers to the using of a hall-mark for armour. The principal portion of this is given in Appendix K, page 191.

1643. _State Papers Domestic, Car. I, Nov. 20._

Letter from Privy Seal to treasurer & under Treasurer of
Exchequer to pay Wm. Legg Master of the Armoury £100 by way
of imprest upon account to be employed in building a mill at
Woolvercote near Oxford for grinding swords & for building forges
providing tools & other necessaries for sword blade makers to be
employed to make swords for our service.

1644. _State Papers Domestic, Car. I, D, Feb. 26._

Warrant of the Privy seal to Exchequer.

By our special command Legg has caused to be erected a mill
for grinding swords at Woolvercote co Gloucester & forges at
Gloucester Hall, you are therefore to pay upon account to Wm.
Legg Master of the Armory a sum not exceeding £2000 for grinding
swords and belts in the office of the armory the same to be made
at the usual price and according to pattern as by us appointed
also to provide tools and other necessaries for sword blade
making employed by the said Master of the Armory.

In the second of these extracts “co Gloucester” is a slip of the pen due to the close proximity of “Gloucester Hall.” It should of course read “Oxford.” The mill was originally owned by the nuns of Godstow, who received it from Henry I. It is now used by the Clarendon Press for paper-making. Gloucester Hall is now Worcester College. There are no records either in the city or university to throw more light on these entries.

1649. _Parliamentary Survey, Feb., No. 30._

The Armory Mill consisted of two little rooms and one large one
in which stood two mills, then lately altered. The mill with
stables stood in an acre of ground abutting on Lewisham Common
and was used till about twelve years before the above date for
grinding armour and implements for the King’s tilt-yard.

The mill is described in the rental of the manor, 44 Edw. III, 1371, as one for grinding steel and valued at 3s. 4d. per ann.

1660. _Harl. MSS._ 7457.

A view and Survey of all the Armour and other Munitions or
Habiliaments of Warr remayneing at the Tower of London.[53]

Armorers Tooles.

Small bickernes, Tramping stakes,[54] Round stake,[55] Welting
stake,[56] straite sheres,[57] fileing tonges, Hamers, Old tew
iron,[58] Great square anvill, Bellows, Smiths vices, Threstles.

The entry which refers to the loss of the “Great Bear,” a large anvil formerly at Greenwich, is given in full in Appendix M.

Before leaving the subject of tools and appliances, some notice should be taken of the picture by Jan Breughel (1575-1632) entitled “Venus at the Forge of Vulcan” (Kais. Friedrich Mus., Berlin, No. 678), which measures 54 cm. by 93 cm. Here all the various operations of the armourer and gun-founder are shown, with a large quantity of armour, weapons, bells, coins, and goldsmith’s work. The details of especial interest are the grindstones and “glazing-wheels,” and the “tilt-hammers” worked by water-power, which were probably the machines used in the “battering-mills” more than once alluded to above. These water-turned hammers continued in use in England up to the first quarter of the nineteenth century,[59] and are still found in Italy at the present day. They are raised by wooden cams or teeth set round the axle of the water-wheel, to which a handle is fixed on the near side for use when water-power was not available. The chisel-edge of the hammer is for stretching the metal by means of a series of longitudinal hammerings. Of the grindstones actuated by the same water-power, the larger would be for rough work, the second for finer finish, and the smallest, which is probably a wooden “buff,” would be used for the high polish at the end.

It is impossible here to give a detailed description of this very interesting picture, which has been considered elsewhere by the present author.[60] At the same time the tools shown in this workshop are worthy of notice as being part of the stock-in-trade of the armourer of the seventeenth century.

FRONT AND BACK OF BRASSARD, 1470

INSIDE OF LEG ARMOUR OF SUIT ON PLATE VIII

CUISSE, 1470]

To the left of the tilt-hammers, in the foreground, are a pair of large bench-shears, and above them, on a cooling-trough, just below the magpie, is a long-handled swage for stamping grooves and edgings on metal plates. Tongs, pincers, and hammers are found in many parts of the picture, and dies for stamping coins or medals are seen immediately below the bench-shears. Directly under the right foot of Vulcan is a tracing-wheel, similar to that shown on Jost Amman’s engraving of the “Compass Maker” in his _Book of Trades_. A small bench-vice lies near the lower margin of the picture under the figure of Cupid, and a hand-vice and repoussé hammer on the three-legged stool to the left. In the distance, over the figure of Venus, is the primitive contrivance for boring a cannon, the mould for casting which is seen close by in the floor. The most interesting detail is to be found in the machine which lies at the foot of the small anvil at Cupid’s right hand. This bears a strong resemblance to the modern burring-machine or “jenny,” used for turning up the edge of thin metal plates (Fig. 17).

The armour shown, with its strongly marked volutes and decoration, is of a type very common in the Madrid and Turin armouries, some of which has been ascribed to Pompeo della Chiesa. We have no clue as to whose workshop this picture represents, but if taken from life, it must certainly have been that of some master like Bartolomeo Campi, who, besides being an armourer, was a bronze-founder and goldsmith as well (see Frontispiece).

FOOTNOTES:

[8] The present writer is commissioning research to this end in Syria, where the craft still survives.

[9] _Arch. Journ._, XI, 380.

[10] Anvils.

[11] Bickiron.

[12] Sledge-hammer.

[13] Pincers and tongs.

[14] Tools for closing rivets.

[15] Shears.

[16] Bellows.

[17] Rammer (bellows?).

[18] Grindstone.

[19] Spindles (?).

[20] Bucket-hoops.

[21] Winches.

[22] Stone water-trough.

[23] Hearth-stick, poker.

[24] Cutting-iron, shears or cold-chisel.

[25] Marking-iron.

[26] _Archæologia_, XIV, 123; also Meyrick, _Antient Armour_, II, 119.

[27] See page 109.

[28] Rivets.

[29] Round-horned anvil for making tubes.

[30] For beating up a helmet-crest.

[31] For visors.

[32] Uncertain.

[33] Helmet-stake.

[34] For the cuirass.

[35] Shears.

[36] Heavy hammers.

[37] hammers for greaves.

[38] (?)

[39] Riveting-hammer.

[40] Embossing-hammer.

[41] Files.

[42] Poker.

[43] Reprint (Clar. Press, Oxon, 1911), edited by Charles ffoulkes.

[44] _Mém. rel. à l’hist. de France_ (Paris, 1866), p. 191, col. 1.

[45] _Archæologia_, XVIII, 305.

[46] Cott. MS., Vit. c. 10, fol. 154.

[47] _Archæologia_, LVII, also _Arch. Journ._, IV, 226.

[48] _Antiquarian Repertory_, IV, 367.

[49] Pumice-stone.

[50] Expenses of Sir Edw. Guilford, Master of the Armoury.

[51] See also Appendix F.

[52] _Arch. Journ._, XI.

[53] Given in full, Meyrick, _Antient Armour_, III, 106.

[54] A pick? (_Eng. Dialect Dict._)

[55] Bottom stake.

[56] For turning over edges of iron.

[57] This shows that curved shears were also used.

[58] Possibly a nozzle for bellows (_N. E. Dict._).

[59] _Cabinet Cyclopædia_, “Manufacture of Metals,” Lardner, 1831.

[60] _Burlington Magazine_, April, 1911. _Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenkunde_, V, 10.

IRON AND STEEL

There is but little information to be obtained regarding the actual materials used by the armourer. The chief source from which he drew his supplies seems to have been Innsbruck. Why this was so is not clear from the contemporary records, but we may be sure that the German metal was harder and better tempered than that of other countries, or there would not have been the demand for it that there evidently was. In the various entries in the State Papers Domestic we find specific mention of “Isebruk” iron, and the merits of this metal must have been appreciated even in Shakespeare’s time, for we have in _Othello_, v. 2, 253, “a sword of icebrook’s temper.” In the earliest editions of the play the word is “Isebrooke,” which is obviously the anglicized version of Innsbruck.[61]

Sheffield steel must have been appreciated as early as Chaucer’s time, for the Miller carries a “Sheffield thwyrtel” (knife), and in 1402 the arrows used at the battle of Homildon were pointed with Sheffield steel, so sharp that no armour could repel them.

It is possible that the German iron-smelters had discovered the properties of manganese, which hardens steel, and thus obtained a superior metal to that produced in other countries.

The discovery of steel was probably a fortuitous accident, due to the fact that the first smelting-works were fuelled with charcoal, which deoxidizes iron and turns some portion of the metal into natural steel. The Germans themselves realized the superiority of their material, for in 1511 Seusenhofer complained that his merchant was not giving him good metal, and advised that it should be classed as “Milanese,” so as not to lessen the fame of Innsbruck iron.

Till the seventeenth century English iron seems to have been largely used for domestic purposes, for we find on examining Professor Rogers’s _Agriculture and Prices_ that German iron is never mentioned, but there are frequent references to English and Spanish metal. The following prices from the above work show the fluctuations in prices of iron in England.

1436. Spanish iron, 24 lb., 1s. 6d., or about £14 the ton.
1462. Iron, 42 lb. at 5d., or £17 10s. the ton.
1562. Raw English iron, £12 10s. the ton.
Bilbow (Bilboa), £11 8s. the ton.
Spanish, £12 the ton.
1570. Iron gun-stocks, made up, £28 the ton.
1571. Steel bar, £10 the ton.
Bar steel, £37 4s. the ton.
1584. Spanish iron, £14 the ton. 50 bars to the ton, or about
45 lb. to the bar.
1622. Steel, £32 the ton.
1623. Spanish iron, £14 10s. to £15 10s.
1624. Iron bars of 24 lb. at £37 4s. the ton.

These prices vary so greatly that we must be sure that there was a great difference in the quality, and also in the state in which the metal is delivered. In some cases there must have been a great deal of preparation and finishing of the raw material to account for the high price paid.

In 1517 an entry in the State Papers Domestic, given on page 31, states that 2541 lb. of Isebroke steel cost £26 12s., which gives about £23 for the ton.

In the _Sussex Archæological Journal_, II, 200, Walter Burrel gives an account of Sussex ironworks in the seventeenth century. He states that when once the furnace was lit it was kept going sometimes for forty weeks, the period being reckoned in “foundays.” During each founday eight tons were made with twenty-four loads of charcoal. The metal was cast into “sows” weighing from 600 to 2000 lb. He states that “they melt off a piece of the sow about three quarters of a hundredweight and beat it with sledges near a fire so that it may not fall to pieces, treating it with water they thus bring it to a ‘bloom,’ a four square piece 2 ft. long.”[62] Modern bar-iron 1 in. by 1 in. by 12 in. weighs 3.4 lb. Therefore this bloom would approximately make a plate 33 sq. ft. by 1/16 in. thick.[63] Even with these data it is impossible to tell the size of the plates delivered to the armourer; for the appliances in the Middle Ages were but crude, and it is doubtful if rolling-mills were used in the sixteenth century. From the picture by Breughel, given as the frontispiece, we know that tilt-hammers were in use, but these would hardly have been used to flatten plates of any great size.

It would appear that iron in some localities was tainted with some poison; for in a _Géographie d’Edrisi_ quoted in _Gay’s Encyclopædia_, 699, reference is made to a mountain in Armenia where the iron ore is poisoned and which, when made into knives and swords, produced mortal wounds. It may have been that this was actually the case, but it is more probable that it was an invention of the owner of the mine designed to give his productions a fictitious value.

A few details of interest in connection with the manufacture of iron in England may be gathered from the _Metallum Martis_ of Dud Dudley, a natural son of Edward, Lord Dudley. The treatise was printed in 1665 and refers to the author’s endeavours to interest the Crown in his project for smelting iron with sea-coal instead of wood or charcoal. In his address to the King (Charles II) and Council he prefaces his technical remarks as follows:--

“Our predecessors in former Ages had both serious Consultations and Considerations before they made these many Wholesome and Good Lawes for the preservation of Wood and Timber of this Kingdome. 1 Eliz. 15, 23 Eliz. 5, 27 Eliz. 19, 28 Eliz. 3, 5.... Therefore it concerns His Sacred Majesty, his high Court of Parliament ... to lay it to heart and helping hands upon fit occasions in these laudable Inventions of making Iron & melting of mines and refyning them with Pitcoal, Seacoal, Peat, and Turf; ... for maintenance of Navigation, men of War, the Fishing and Merchants trade, which is the greatest strength of Great Britain ... whose defence and offence next under God consists by his sacred Majestie’s assisting care and view of his men of War ... Ordinance of Copper, Brass and Iron, Armories, Steels, and Irons of all sorts.”

HELMETS OF HENRY VIII

1, 2. FRONT AND BACK OF HELMET BY THE MISSAGLIAS

3, 4. ” ” ” PART OF THE SUIT SHOWN ON PLATE XII, BY
CONRAD SEUSENHOFER

5. BEVOR FOR THE LATTER

THE ARMOURER’S MARKS APPEAR ON 2 AND 4]

In his letter to the King he mentions Shippings, Stores, Armories, Ordnance, Magazines, and Trade. He mentions several counties as mining centres, but does not include Sussex or Shropshire. The first of these two was probably ruled out, as the industry there depended on the use of wood, against which Dudley’s introduction of coal was levelled. We find Shropshire mentioned in the Trial of Armour given in the chapter on “Proof” (page 66).

Dudley seems to have formed a company in May, 1638, into which he took one Roger Foulke, “a Counsellor of the Temple and an ingenious man,” as partner.

Before this his father, Lord Dudley, had employed a certain Richard Parkes or Parkhouse to carry iron merchandise to the Tower, which James I ordered to be tested by his “Artists,” that is, of course, his armourers. Parkes made a sample fowling-piece of the new “Dudley Ore,” smelted from pit-coal, and signed his name in gold upon the barrel. The gun was taken from him by Colonel Levison and was never returned.

Dudley gives three qualities of iron: grey iron, the finest, and best suited for making bar-iron; motley iron, a medium quality; and white iron, the least refined.

It is curious that in all his calculations and specifications he never actually mentions the making of armour and but seldom the casting of ordnance.

In considering the weights of suits as given in Appendix J we find the following details. By the prices given 20 cwt. make one ton. The cwt. at the time of James I was 112 lb.

Now we are told that “Sixe hundred of iron will make five hundred of plates,” so we gather that in turning the pig-iron into plates one hundredweight was lost. The above entries give the following weights per suit or portion of a suit scheduled:--

Five hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 cuirasses
of pistol proofe with pauldrons.
Therefore one set will weigh 28 lb.

Four hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 pair (or 40
sets) of cuirasses without pauldrons.
Therefore one set will weigh 11 lb. 3 oz.

Sixteen hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 lance-armours.
Therefore one lance-armour[64] will weigh 89 lb. 10 oz.

Five hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 proof
targets.
Therefore one target will weigh 28 lb.

Twelve hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 pairs
(40 sets) of strong cuirasses with caps.
Therefore one set of cuirass and cap will weigh 33 lb. 10 oz.

Four “platers” will make up 3700 weight or 37 cwt. of plates in one week, therefore one plater will make up 9 cwt. 28 lb. in a week or 1 cwt. 57 lb. or thereabouts in one day.

For comparison with existing suits of which the weights are known we may use the following details:--

lb. oz.
Paris (G, 80), _circ._ 1588. Cuirass, arm-pieces,
and tassets 73 0
Head-piece 22 0
-------
95 0

Stanton Harcourt, Oxon, _circ._ 1685. Cuirass 25 0
Head-piece 22 10
Arm-pieces (2) 6 0
------
53 10

Tower (II, 92), _circ._ 1686. Cuirass 27 4
Head-piece 7 8
Long gauntlet 3 0
-------
37 12

Tower (II, 92), of XVII cent. Cuirass 24 0
Head-piece 6 8
The whole of this suit weighs 48 8

It should be noted that two of the items in the Appendix are described as of “proof” and one is described as “strong.” The lance-armours are not qualified in any way, but from their weight they must have been proof against musket or arquebus.

It is impossible to discover what size the “plates” were made before they were handed over to the armourers. The largest single plate in the Tower is a portion of the horse-armour of II, 5, known as the “Engraved Suit.” This piece measures 27½ in. at top and 28½ in. at bottom by 17 in. and 18½ in. high, or roughly speaking 28½ in. by 18½ in., about 1/16 in. thick, weighing about 6 lb. 4 oz. If the numbers given on page 41 represent plates and not hundredweights, each plate 1/16 in. thick would be 6 in. by 11 in., and this is obviously absurd. It is more likely that, with the crude appliances in use, an ingot of metal was beaten out into such a plate as the weight of the ingot might give, larger or smaller as the case might be, and not standardized in any way. Dud Dudley writing in 1665 describes the methods of ironworkers before his introduction of sea-coal.

“They could make but one little lump or bloom of Iron in a day, not 100 weight and that not fusible, nor fined, or malliable, until it were long burned and wrought under hammers.”[65]

FOOTNOTES:

[61] The quotation continues: “a sword of Spain.” We find many Solingen and Passau blades bearing the marks of Spanish sword-smiths.

[62] This would be a piece about 2 ft. by 3½ in. by 3½ in.

[63] Large plates of horse-armour are about 1/16 in. thick.

[64] For particulars of “lance-armour” see Appendix I.

[65] _Metallum Martis_, p. 37.

THE CRAFT OF THE ARMOURER

The actual craft-work of the armourer differed but little from that of the smith, but there are some details which the armourer had to consider which were not part of ordinary blacksmith’s work. There are no contemporary works of a technical nature, and our investigations can only be based on actual examination of suits, assisted by scattered extracts from authorities who mention the subject in military works. In 1649 J. Cramer printed a work, _De Armorum Fabricatione_, but it throws no light upon the subject and quotes from Roman authorities.

In the first place, the making of mail was a distinct craft which had no counterpart in other branches of smithing. At first the wire had to be beaten out from the solid, and thus the few fragments which remain to us of early mail show a rough, uneven ring of wire, clumsily fashioned and thicker than that of later dates. The invention of wire-drawing is generally ascribed to Rudolph of Nuremberg, about the middle of the fourteenth century,[66] but there were two corporations of wire-drawers in Paris in the thirteenth century mentioned in Étienne Boileau’s _Livre des Métiers_, written about 1260.

BRIGANDINE, OUTSIDE AND INSIDE. XV CENT.

BREASTPLATE FOR BRIGANDINE, 1470, SHOWING ARMOURER’S MARK

RIGHT CUISSE OF ARMOUR FOR BARRIERS SHOWING ARMOURER’S MARK]

When the wire was obtained, either hammered out or drawn, it was probably twisted spirally round a rod of the diameter of the required ring. It was then cut off into rings, with the ends overlapping. The two ends were flattened and punched or bored with holes through the flat portion. A small rivet, and in some cases two, was then inserted, and this was burred over with a hammer or with punches (Fig. 15, 18; also Plate IV). It is possible that some kind of riveting-pincers were used, but no specimens of this kind of tool are known.[67] Sometimes the ends of the rings are welded, which would be done by heating them and hammering them together. Before the rings were joined up they were interlaced one with another, each ring passing through four others. Occasionally, to obtain increased strength, two rings were used for every one of the ordinary mail, but representations of this double mail are rare. The terms “haubert doublier,” “haubert à maille double,” and “haubert clavey de double maille” are found in French inventories, and in the inventory of Louis X which has been quoted before we find “33 gorgieres doubles de Chambli, un pans et uns bras de roondes mailles, une couverture de mailles rondes demy cloies.” These different items suggest that there were various ways of making mail and of putting it together. The double mail has been noticed, and the mail “demy cloues” was probably mail in which the ends of the links were closed with only one rivet. The “maile roond” being specially scheduled points to the fact that sometimes mail was made of flat rings, but whether cut from the sheet of metal or merely of flattened wire it is impossible to say.

Where the covering of mail was not made in one piece--that is, when the shirt, leggings, sleeves, or coif were made to open--they were fastened by laces. The chausses, or leggings of mail, were often laced at the back of the leg, as is shown in the sketch-book of Wilars de Honecourt, thirteenth century, figured in _Armour and Weapons_ (Plate I) by the present author. The coif of mail was generally kept close to the head by a thong round the temples (Fig. 23, 8), and was in some instances fastened in front with an overlapping flap and a lace (Fig. 20).

The Camail, or tippet of mail, which is the distinctive detail of the armour of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century, was either hung from a flat plate of metal which was fitted over the vervelles or staples on the bascinet and kept in place by a lace or a thick wire, or the mail itself was hung over the vervelles and the plate fitted over it and secured in the same way. This latter method appears to have been more commonly in use, to judge from sculptured effigies and brasses. A bascinet in the Ethnological Museum, Athens,[68] shows the vervelles, plate, and wire that secured it still in place, but the mail has all corroded and disappeared. A good restoration of the camail on a bascinet with a leather band instead of a flat plate is to be found in the Wallace Collection (No. 74).

In the thirteenth century we find one of the most unpractical of all the armourer’s contrivances in the nasal flap-hinged or laced to the camail, hanging down over the chin when not in use, and fastened, when required, to the bascinet by a pin or hook. The nasal of the eleventh century, figured on the Bayeux Tapestry and elsewhere, was practical because it provided a defence for the nose and face which was as rigid as the helmet itself; but this later nasal could only protect the wearer from the actual cutting of the skin, for the full force of the blows would be felt almost as much as if there were no defence at all. These nasals are figured so frequently in Hewitt, Hefner, and elsewhere that no special illustration is necessary in the present work.

A variety of mail which, from the sculptured effigies and from miniatures of the thirteenth century, appears to have been in high favour, has come to be known as “Banded Mail.”

FIG. 22. Attachment of Camail.]

In both painted and sculptured records the methods of representation differ considerably from those employed to suggest the ordinary mail of interlaced rings.

In the middle of the last century, when the subject of armour began to be seriously studied, this banded mail was the subject of many theories and suggestions. Meyrick considered that it was composed of rings sewn on to a fabric, overlapping each other sideways; but a practical experiment will prove that such an arrangement would be impossible, as the weight would be excessive and the curve of the body would cause the rings to “gape.” Other writers have considered that the same arrangement of rings, covered with leather which would prevent the “gaping,” is the correct solution; but here again the heat would be a grave drawback.[69]

1, 2, 3. Suggested reinforcements of chain mail by leather thongs.
4. Rings covered with leather; 5, section of same.
6. Meyrick’s suggestion; 7, section of same.
8. From _Romance of Alexander_, Bib. Nat., Paris, _circ._ 1240.
9. Effigy at Newton Solney, Derbs; 10, section of same.]

An important point on all representations of banded mail is that, when part of the garment is shown turned back, the back is the same as the front. The most practical suggestion was put forward by the late J. G. Waller,[70] who considered that it was simply chain mail with leather thongs threaded through every row or every alternate row of links. This would give a solidity to an otherwise too-pliant fabric, and would keep the mail in its place, especially on the arms and legs. It would also show the same arrangement of rings back and front.

The drawing from the _Romance of Alexander_ goes far to prove that Waller’s theory is the right one, for here the thongs are not shown on hands and head, where greater pliability of the mail was required, and yet these defences appear to be part of the same garment which shows the “banded” lines.

It is almost superfluous to add that no specimen of this kind of defence survives to-day, but Oriental mail is sometimes found stiffened in this manner with leather thongs.

The wearing of mail survived longer than is generally supposed. Holinshed, writing in 1586 (page 90 of the present work), mentions shirts of mail as part of the ordinary equipment of the foot-soldier. On Plate 8 of Derricke’s _Image of Ireland_ the mounted officer wears mail sleeves, and in an inventory of Hengrave Hall, Suffolk, taken in 1603, we find gorgets and shirts of mail, and barrels for cleaning the same. Edward Davies, writing in 1619 (_The Art of Warre_), distinctly states that the arquebussiers wore a shirt of mail (see page 115).

ARMOUR PRESENTED TO HENRY VIII BY THE EMPEROR MAXIMILIAN, MADE BY CONRAD SEUSENHOFER, 1514]

The Brigandine and splinted armour were made by riveting small plates or horizontal lames on to a fabric foundation. In the former the fabric was outside, and rich ornamentation was obtained by the gilt rivet-heads which held the plates to the outer covering (see page 150). In the latter case the metal was on the outside and was riveted on to a foundation of linen. In some cases the rows of small plates are divided by strips of fine mail. There was no particular craft needed in making the brigandine, but the metal used was often of proof and was marked with the maker’s name to attest it.

As may be seen on Plate XI and Fig. 36, the small plates of the brigandine are wider at the top than at the bottom, and overlap upwards. The reason for this is that the human torse is narrower at the waist than at the chest, and the plates could not overlap each other and yet conform to the lines of the figure if they overlapped downwards.

Although lighter and more pliable defences than the cuirass, the brigandine and jack were very effectual for protection against arrows, for we find, according to Walsingham,[71] that the rioters under Wat Tyler shot at a jack belonging to the Duke of Lancaster, but were unable to damage it, and eventually cut it to pieces with swords and axes.