Arms and Armour

ARMS AND ARMOUR. In considering the history of defensive armour in the middle ages it is essential that some notice should be taken of the armourer on whose skill depended the lives of his patrons and with them often the security of king doms and empires, for the early battles were won to a large extent by the prowess of individuals, and a gap in the joints of the harness of a leader might well spell defeat for the whole army.

In all craftsmanship there are certain essential rules which must be observed and without which the productions of the craftsman are valueless. These are : (1) suitability, (2) convenience in use, (3) recognition of material, (4) soundness of constructional methods, (5) subservience of decorations to the preceding rules. In Greek and Roman armour we have defences which, being practical, finely con structed and convenient in use, achieve their object in the best possible manner, and indeed after experiments for many centuries the armourer reverted to very similar designs in the middle of the 17th century.

With the conquest of Europe by barbarians, however, the armour of the Roman legionary disappeared and the evolution of a practical defence had to begin all over again. At first armour was composed of leather, or quilted fabrics, and, in the case of wealthier fighting men, interlaced chain mail brought from the East. The only details of plate armour were the shield, which as often as not was toughened leather or wood, and the helmet and helm. The Normans adopted a very satisfactory headpiece, conical in shape and provided with a nasal, or nose guard; its shape was practical in the extreme, for it provided that essential quality of all the best armour: a "glancing surface" from which blows from sword or axe would slide. For some unknown reason in the 13th century this helmet gave place to the barrel helm with a flat top which was about as unpractical a defence as it was possible to devise, for not only did it op pose a flat surface to the weapon but it so completely enclosed the head and was so supported by a padded cap which covered the head, that a blow on the side would place the wearer hors de combat.

The padded and quilted defences were no doubt sufficient defence against the crude weapons in use in the earlier periods, but, by degrees, piece by piece, small portions of plate were added—first to the knees, then to the shins and then to the arms—until by the year 1400 the knight was encased entirely in plate metal with articulated joints. It is unnecessary to point out that this fabrication of plate armour was only evolved by slow degrees, for it required very considerable skill to forge the various pieces so that they not only defended the wearer adequately but also gave him as far as pos sible freedom of movement. In 1300 there was a gild of linen armourers in London, at a later date the merchants Taylor's Com pany, and these supplied defences of fabric. In 1347 we find a gild of heaumers, who dealt solely in helms and helmets, a clear proof that the armourers as such did not exist at that time. It is not till that the armourers company received its charter and ab sorbed the heaumers. It is one of the mysteries in the history of armour how the crusaders can have fought under the scorching sun of the East in thick quilted garments covered with excessively heavy chain mail for this equipment was so cumbersome to take on and off that it must have been worn frequently night and day, and the very nature of the fabric made it almost impossible to move the sword arm with more than a wide swing ing cut. A practical experiment with a thick padded garment or a shirt of mail, or better still with both, will show that the whole weight of the defence is borne by the shoulders alone and that the action of raising a sword collects folds in the bight of the arm and is further hampered by the dragging weight from the waist upwards. One of the principal drawbacks of the i4th century armour must have been that the superimposed small plates of metal were attached to the mail or the fabric by laces or thongs of leather which if cut laid the wearer open to attack or hampered his movements very con siderably. The complete armour of mail appears definitely at the end of the 13th century though it is probable that it was worn as early as the Norman Conquest. Under the mail was worn a gambe son of leather or quilted fabric and this was added to early in the i4th century when a pourpoint, similar to the gambeson, but lighter, was worn over the mail and over all a surcoat, known also as the cyclas or jupen.

But little of the early 15th century armour survives, for most of it was remade to suit new fashions, but what there is shows that the material was light and the methods of construction simple, with none of the exaggerations which are such a notable feature of the armour of the later part of the century. At this period the flat-topped helm had been discarded in favour of the conical basinet, from which hung the camail, or mail defence for the neck. Under the plate defence a shirt of comparatively light mail was worn which protected the parts of the body, not covered by plate, such as the armpits and forebody. In later years the complete shirt was given up in favour of a leather jerkin to which small pieces of mail were attached. Towards the end of the i 5th century the armourer began to experiment, taking his cue from the tailor who at this period produced civilian cos tumes which were extravagant in the ey treme. As an example we may cite the solleret or steel shoe which almost invari ably followed the design of the civilian footwear. In the middle of the 15th cen tury sollerets of absurd length were worn, and as it was impossible for the wearer to use them when on foot, the toe was added with a turning pin after he was mounted. This form of defence was changed again in the 16th century and the wide-toed sol leret, known as the bear paw was adopted, again copying the civilian fashion. We learn from monumental brasses, e.g., that in Thame church, Oxfordshire, that the elbow cops, or defences for the elbow, were of enormous size and must have made easy movement almost an impossibility ; and we also see in the delightful painting of St. George and St. Anthony in the National Gallery, London, by Pisanello, that the pauldrons, or defences for the shoulder, were equally cumbersome. It is more than probable that the fighting man blindly followed fashions in armour precisely as do his descendants of the present day in civilian dress irrespective of his practical needs; but that the ex pert man-at-arms had his own ideas on the subject we may be sure from the fact that the Emperor Maximilian I., in discussing a new suit of armour with his armourer Conrad Seusenhofer, is recorded to have said, "You shall arm me according as I wish, for it is I and not you who have to take part in the tournament." By the middle of the i Sth century a light and graceful helmet appeared called the sallade. This when worn with the chin piece was of certain practical value, but it had the same disadvantages as the flat-topped helm in that it was loose on the wearer's head and a smart blow would displace it. To wards the end of the i nth and through the i6th century a new helmet appears called the armet or close helm and this in its finest form, about the year 1S40, is the best possible defence for the head, for it is provided with a movable visor and face defence, or mezail, which can be locked when in use or opened as required. The later pattern is further fitted with an em bossed rim which engages a smaller rim on the gorget, thereby protecting the head and neck entirely and making it impossible for the helmet to be displaced. It has been found that if all the joints of the movable parts of the suit, such as elbows and knees, are measured exactly to the wearer, there is little inconvenience experienced except in the actual weight of the metal, but this is so well distributed that a comparatively heavy suit can be worn without much discomfort.

Again referring to the Emperor Maximilian I., it is to him and his armourer Seusenhofer that is credited the invention of the fluted or channelled armour, now commonly known as Maxi milian. Here the craftsman had discovered that increased strength and rigidity could be obtained by fluting the metal without adding to the weight, a principle which has been adopted at the present day not only in the case of corrugated iron and girders, but also in cars for racing craft. Another advantage of this fluted armour was that it provided to the fullest extent possible the glancing surface, for wherever the weapon, which in the i6th century was principally the lance, struck the armour it was deflected up or down the fluting until it glanced harm lessly from the wearer's body.

The armour for the joust exemplifies this glancing surface to the fullest possible extent, the wearer being heavily armed on the left side, which was opposed to the lance of the adversary, all the pieces being smooth and curved so that the lance would find but little hold on them. Perhaps the finest suit which was ever designed from a constructional point of view was that made for Henry VIII. as a young man for fight ing on foot in the lists, preserved in the Tower armouries. This completely covers the wearer back and front, under the arms, at the back of the legs and every part of his body, with lames or narrow plates working easily on rivets.

Armour for Horses.

From the i3th to the middle of the i6th centuries the horse, like his rider, was overloaded with defences which protected the head, neck and body but left the vital parts unprotected. The legs were entirely at the mercy of the foot soldier, and the added weight of metal appreciably diminished that mobility which is the essential quality of the mounted man in action. In the i3th century the horse was covered by a trapper of heavy fabric, down to his hocks, a useful defence, it is true, but so inconvenient as to bring the level of efficiency of his rider down to that of the slowest footman. At the battle of Nueva Croce in 1237 it is recorded that 6,000 mail-clad horses were in action, and a wall painting, formerly in the painted chamber, Westminster, suggests that this mail must have been chain-mail, which was almost insupportable, even when lined with fabric or leather. In the i6th century horse armour was generally made to match that of his rider, of solid plate reaching to his quarters and often weighing as much as 8o pounds.

Effects of the Renaissance.

By the middle of the i6th tury the craft of the armourer suffered as did all the other crafts, under that influence generally known as the Renaissance. The craftsman had learned all there was to be known about the practical side of defensive armour; he had defended his patron as perfectly as was possible; he had given him freedom of ment; he had dealt respectfully with his material. Skill, indeed, could go no ther, and his reputation was second to none in all the crafts of Europe. His cessors, however, were not content merely to carry on these fine traditions and looked for some new way of emphasizing their skill. This being the age of extravagance and personal advertisement the arts and crafts began to be debased; decoration was added by degrees to their fine and splendid simplicity. At first it was restrained and did not destroy the utility of the defence, as it consisted of etching, engraving or inlaying with gold, but this afterwards came more extravagant, and such men as Negroli, Cellini, the Picinini and the mysterious Louvre school were pressed into service and designed richly embossed armour which entirely destroyed the ing surface and turned what was once a magnificent example of craftsmanship into a piece of jewellery. So far did this craze for extravagance go that actually the puffed and slashed civilian dress was copied in steel, even down to minute reproductions of the stitches. These over-elaborated armours are mostly to be found in Germany, Italy and Spain; the English craftsmen, of whom Jacobe Holder of Greenwich, and William Pickering are the chief masters, avoided excessive ornamentation and ently produced work which though splendid in appearance, had all the practical advantages of the earlier examples. But the blight of the Renaissance had done its work and as the craftsman employed himself more and more in decorating his productions so by degrees he lost the constructive skill of his forefathers till in the i 7th cen tury the rudiments of construction are lost and armour such as that of Charles I. in the Tower, or of Louis XIV. in the Musee d'Artillerie in Paris are simply arrangements of stove-piping of little technical value and of no grace whatsoever.

By the 17th century fire-arms began to be practical weapons and the armourer who had previously been only concerned with providing a defence against sword, spear, axe or arrow was called upon to in crease the weight of the armour and was obliged to test his material by musket or pistol shot. This he did in a fairly satis factory manner but as the efficiency of the fire-arm increased he was obliged to in crease the weight of the metal, for steel as we know it to-day was in its infancy, and the race continued between the mus keteer and the armourer in precisely the same manner as the contest raged between gun and armour plate in the navies of the world during the 19th century. Still the armourer held his own for a time and it was only because the weight of his de fences was so great that they were eventually discarded.

We have noted the graceless forms of the armour of the mounted man of the middle of the 17th century, but the same cannot be said of the armour of the foot soldier, which, following very closely the lines of Greek and Roman ar mour, defended the vital parts of the body without unduly ham pering the movements of the wearer; but in the end the fire-arm was triumphant and piece by piece the metal defences were aban doned. They were entirely discarded until the World War, when the British adopted a helmet of somewhat similar type to the sallade of the 15th century, and the German army produced bul let-proof body armour very similar to that of the pikeman of Oliver Cromwell.

Weapons.

The weapons in use from the 13th century were the sword, axe, mace, lance, halberd and long pike. Both axe and mace were essentially practical weapons, especially so when one remembers that their function was to break up defensive armour of metal, but the sword has ever been of unpractical de sign. Up to the i 5th century it was heavy and badly balanced with merely a cross guard and, though pointed, of little use for the thrust. When the gauntlet was dis carded the rapier with complex guard came into favour—a better weapon, but still, on account of its length, badly balanced. It was not till modern times that we get the fine cutting sword of the light cavalry, 1784, and the well nigh perfect thrusting sword of the cavalry, 1908, both admirably adapted for the purpose for which they were designed. The lance and pike were practical as thrusting staff weapons, but the inordinate length of the latter in Crom wellian times (i8ft.) became a source of grave inconvenience in an organized army and it was soon discarded. The halberd with its offshoots, the bill, gisarme and glaive, are useful only in their early and simpler forms. The later halberd and the gisarme with their hooks, and pro jections must have been seriously inconvenient as weapons for fighting at close quarters. (See METAL-WORK.) (C. FF.) BIBLIOGRAPHY.-A. Demmin, Guide des Amateurs des Armes, (Eng. Bibliography.-A. Demmin, Guide des Amateurs des Armes, (Eng. trans., Weapons of War by C. C. Black, 1870) ; C. J. Ffoulkes, Armour and Weapons (5909) and The Armourer and His Craft, from the Xlth to the XVlth Century (1912) ; J. Hewitt, Ancient Armour and Weapons in Europe, 3 vols. (1855-60) ; Sir Guy F. Laking, A Record of European Armour and Arms Through Seven Centuries, 5 vols. (1920-22) ; Catalogues of Windsor and Tower Armouries and Wallace Collection.