Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/armourinenglandf00gard_0 
 
THE 
 
 PORTFOLIO 
 
 MONOGRAPHS ON ARTISTIC SUBJECTS 
 WITH MANY ILLUSTRATIONS 
 ISSUED PERIODICALLY 
 
 No. 33 
 July, 1897 
 
 Armour 
 in England 
 
 by 
 
 J. STJRKIE GJRDNER 
 
 London: SEELEY AND CO., LIMITED, 38 GREAT RUSSELL STREET 
 
 Sold by 
 
 Hatchard, 187 Piccadilly 
 
 Paris : Librairie Galignani, 224 Rue de Rivoli. Berlin : A. Asher & Co., 13 Unter den Linden 
 
 New York : The Macmillan Co. 
 
 Price 3-y. 6 d. net. 
 
THE FOR TFOL 10. 
 
 THE AUTOTYPE FINE ART GALLERY 
 
 74 NEW OXFORD STREET, LONDON, W.C. 
 
 PRODUCERS AND PUBLISHERS OF 
 
 PERMANENT PHOTOGRAPHIC REPRODUCTIONS OF FAMOUS WORKS 
 
 OF ART. 
 
 Autotypes of the Old Masters in the Great Continent 
 
 Galleries. 
 
 Autotypes of Modern English Art. 
 
 Autotypes of Pictures in the National Gallery. 
 Autotypes of Drawings by the Old Masters. 
 Autotypes of Pictures in the French Salons. 
 
 Those interested in Art, and in the recent developments of the Photographic Reproduction of Pictun 
 are invited to inspect the Company’s extensive Collection of Autotypes and Autogravures of all Schools, m 
 on view at their Gallery, 74 New Oxford Street, where may also be seen a series of framed examples, 
 specially designed patterns, made in oak, walnut, and other hard woods. 
 
 Catalogues and Price Lists Post Free on Application to 
 
 THE AUTOTYPE COMPANY, 74 New Oxford Street, London, W. 
 
 
 A vi. 
 
 m 
 
 mm 
 
 By Special Appointment to 
 H.R.H. the Prince of Wales. 
 
 ZAEHNSDORF, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE WORKS, 
 
 144-146 SHAFTESBURY AVENUE, W.C. 
 
 Highest Awards j 
 London, Paris, Chicago, &c. 
 
 bookbinding. 
 
 Post Free, 
 
 “SHORT HISTORY OF BOOKBINDING.” 
 
 permanent ^f)otograpijs* 
 
 THE WORKS OF 
 
 Sir EDWARD BURNE-JONES, Ba 
 G. F. WATTS, R.A., 
 
 D. G. ROSSETT 
 
 AND OTHERS. 
 
 THE COMPLETE COLLECTION 
 
 THE HOLBEIN DRAWINGS 
 
 AT 
 
 WINDSOR CASTLE 
 
 {Photographed by the gracious permission of Her Majesty 
 Queen). 
 
 CAN NOW BE OBTAINED FROM 
 
 FREDERICK HOLLYER, 
 
 9 PEMBROKE SQUARE, KENSINGTON 
 
 Lists of Subjects and Prices will be sent post free on applies 
 or Illustrated Catalogue for Twelve Stamps. 
 
 Communications respecting advertisements must be addressed to Mr. JOHN HART, 6 Arundel Street, Strand, London, 
 
 
Plate I. — Full suit of armour of Henry, Prince of Wales, in the guard-chamber at 
 Windsor Castle. Attributed to William Pickering, master armourer. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES 
 TO THE REIGN OF JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 By 
 
 l. STARKIE GARDNER 
 
 V 
 
 LONDON 
 
 SEELEY AND CO. LIMITED, GREAT RUSSELL STREET 
 
 NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 1897 
 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 COLOURED PLATES 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I. Full suit of armour of Henry, Prince of Wales, in the Guard-chamber at 
 
 Windsor Castle. Attributed to William Pickering, master-armourer Frontispiece 
 
 II. S econd suit of Sir Henry Lee, Master of the Armoury, reduced facsimile of 
 
 No. 19 in the Armourers’ Album in the South Kensington Museum . 28 
 
 III. First suit of Sir Christopher Hatton, Captain of the Guard, and subsequently 
 
 Lord Chancellor. Reduced facsimile of No. 15 in the Armourers’ Album 
 in the South Kensington Museum . . . . .40 
 
 IV. Grand-guard of the suit of George, Earl of Cumberland, in the possession of 
 
 Lord Hothfield. This is a part of the 20th suit in the Armourers’ Album 
 in the South Kensington Museum . . . . .46 
 
 V. Grand-guard, used for tilting, belonging to the suit of Robert Dudley, Earl of 
 
 Leicester, with the gilding restored. In the Tower of London . . 58 
 
 VI. Profile of the helmet belonging to the French suit (Fig. 32). In the Guard- 
 
 chamber of Windsor Castle . . . . . .76 
 
 VII. Ornament on the tapul of the breastplate belonging to the half-suit of the 
 Earl of Essex (Fig. 35), with the original gilding slightly restored. In the 
 Guard-chamber of Windsor Castle . . . . .90 
 
 VIII. The sword of Charles I. when Prince of Wales, 1616. The hilt entirely 
 covered with raised gold damascened work on blue steel matrix, except the 
 grip of silver wire work. Preserved in Windsor Castle . . .96 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT 
 
 1. Hauberk, or byrnie, of chain-mail, of the fourth or fifth century, found at Vimose 1 1 
 
 2. Norman knights in mail hauberks and conical helmets . . . .13 
 
 3. A complete suit of mail, with coif and mufflers ; A thirteenth-century suit, 
 
 with reinforcing plates . . . . . . .17 
 
 4. Mail coif, flat-topped, with leather thong . . . . .19 
 
 5. Mail coif, round-topped, with jewelled fillet . . . . .19 
 
 6. Mail coif, conical top, with coronet and mantelet . . . .19 
 
 7. Helmet of bronze and iron, from County Down . . . .21 
 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 8. Illustration of the development of plate-armour . , . .23 
 
 9. The sleeping guards, from the Easter Sepulchre in Lincoln Cathedral . 25 
 
 10. Melee. From MS. of the fourteenth century . . . .29 
 
 1 1. The helm and crest of the Black Prince, with his shield, from his monument in 
 
 Canterbury Cathedral . , . . . . .31 
 
 12. The helm of Richard Pembridge, K.G., from Hereford Cathedral . . 32 
 
 13. Bassinet from the tomb of Sir John de Mclsa, Aldborough Church, Holderness 32 
 
 ip. A bassinet transformed into a sallad in the fifteenth century . . -33 
 
 15. A ridged bassinet with banded camail ; Combed and jewelled bassinet . 35 
 
 16. Effigy of the Black Prince on his tomb in Canterbury Cathedral . . 37 
 
 17. Gauntlet from the effigy of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland, in Staindrop 
 
 Church, Durham ; Gauntlet from the effigy of Sir Thomas Cawne, Ightham 
 Church, Kent . . . . . . . .pi 
 
 18. Helm from the tomb of Henry V. in Westminster Abbey . . p8 
 
 19. Effigy of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, on his tomb in St. Mary’s 
 
 Church, Warwick . . . . . . -53 
 
 20. The Earl of Warwick slays a “mighty Duke.” From the Beauchamp MS. . 55 
 
 21. The Duke of Gloucester and Earls of Warwick and Stafford chase the Duke 
 
 of Burgundy from the walls of Calais. From the Beauchamp MS. . 57 
 
 22. Sallad in St. Mary’s Hall, Coventry ; Helm of Sir Giles Capel . . 59 
 
 23. English tournament helm over the tomb of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, 
 
 in Wintborne Minster . . . . , , .60 
 
 2p. Helm of Sir John Gostwick, in Willington Church . . .61 
 
 25. The entry of Oueen Isabel into Paris in 1390. From MS. of Froissart . 63 
 
 26. Armet of Sir George Brooke, K.G., 8th Lord Cobhani . . .65 
 
 27. English armet from the collection of Seymour Lucas, A.R.A. . . .65 
 
 28. Complete suit for fighting on foot, made for Henry VIII. . . .67 
 
 29. Suit made for Henry VIII. by Conrad Seusenhofer of Innsbruck, 1511-151P . 71 
 
 30. Part of a suit made for Sir Christopher Hatton . . . .79 
 
 31. Armour of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, 1566-1588 . . .83 
 
 32. A suit of French armour, early seventeenth century . . . .87 
 
 33. Italian suit of blued and gilded steel covered with appliques of gold . . 89 
 
 3p. A part of the ornament of the Italian suit (Fig. 33), drawn real size . .91 
 
 35. Demi-suit of the Earl of Essex, with closed helmet, magnificently engraved and 
 
 gilt ......... 93 
 
 36. Sword, probably of James I., with basket hilt, entirely covered with raised 
 
 gold damascening . . . . . . -95 
 
 37. The sword of John Hampden, with hilt of carved steel . . .97 
 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 i 
 
 The Britons — An Early Age of Elate -Armour 
 
 It is the nature of islands to exhibit some peculiarities in their fauna 
 and fora, and this insularity is no less pronounced in the manners and 
 customs of the human beings inhabiting them. Thus even the stone 
 implements of Britain of remote prehistoric days can readily be distin- 
 guished by the expert ; and we have the authority of Sir John Evans for 
 regarding our types of bronze celts and weapons as both peculiar and 
 indigenous. On first taking a place in history several strange and extra- 
 European customs were noticed in these isles by Ca;sar, such as the 
 use of chariots in war, and dyeing the skin blue with woad : British 
 nations were, moreover, frequently ruled by queens, and some practised 
 the rare and difficult, and very far from barbaric, art of enamelling on 
 bronze. 
 
 Modern opinion is at present opposed to the theory that the culture 
 and civilisation of Western Europe originated exclusively in the East, 
 and is inclined to regard our primitive arts and cratts as indigenous. That 
 this must in a large measure be true appears sufficiently established; but 
 the large and excellently-made bronze bucklers with concentric rings of 
 bosses or studs, called the clypeus, the singular art of enamelling, the 
 use of studs of coral for embellishing weapons and trinkets, the chariots 
 of war and the government by women, all so remote from savagery, and 
 so intimately connected with Eastern civilisation, compel the belief that 
 
6 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 these isles did actually at some distant time possess a privileged and 
 intimate communication with the East. The old and rooted tradition of 
 a direct traffic in tin between Britain and Phoenicia cannot yet in fact be 
 safely abandoned. 
 
 These arts and practices, however, only fall within the scope of our 
 subject so far as they were applied to arms and weapons. One of these, 
 very rarely used for the embellishment of arms in later times, is that 
 of enamelling, a process unknown to the Romans. Philostratus, who 
 wrote in the third century, referring to some coloured horse-trappings, 
 observed, “ They say that the Barbarians who live in the Ocean pour these 
 colours on to heated bronze, and that they adhere, become hard as stone, 
 and preserve the designs which are made in them.” The bronze to be 
 enamelled was cast with the pattern upon it, and the colours used were 
 varied and bright, but opaque. Some brilliant horse-trappings with 
 purely Celtic decorations and a few sword-hilts are known, but the bulk 
 of cast bronze enamelled ware consisted of brooches, seal-boxes, cups, 
 and vases, all Romano-British in design. A much rarer enamel is found 
 on beaten or repousse bronze armour. Pliny, in the Natural History, 
 remarks that the Gauls were in the habit of adorning their swords, 
 shields, and helmets with coral, but an immense demand springing up in 
 India, it became unprocurable. We find accordingly that resort was 
 had in England to enamel to reproduce the effect of the coral studs. 
 In the British Museum is an oblong shield of Celtic design, found in the 
 Witham, embellished with coral, but a smaller and handsomer shield 
 beside it, found in the Thames, has gold cloisonne studs of blood-red 
 enamel. The curious Celtic reproduction of the Roman peaked helmet, 
 and the horned helmet found in the Thames, both from the Meyrick 
 collection, are also decorated with small raised bosses cross-hatched to retain 
 red enamel, some of which still adheres. The horned brazen helmet 
 should, according to Diodorus Siculus, be a relic of, or borrowed from, 
 the Belgic Gauls, who inhabited so much of this part of England. 
 The gem-like effect of the enamelled studs, like single drops of red on 
 the golden bronze, must have been most refined ; it is altogether too 
 restrained to have originated with the enameller, who usually covers his 
 surfaces. The identity of workmanship of these arms with the Irish 
 bronze and enamel work suggests that some of those who produced them 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 7 
 
 passed over and found with their traditions and arts a peaceful refuge in 
 the sister isle. 
 
 Tacitus, however, states most explicitly that the Britons wore neither 
 helmets nor armour, and were not able, therefore, under Caractacus, to 
 maintain their resistance. Herodianus also, relating the expedition of 
 Severus 250 years after Caesar’s invasion, presents an extraordinary picture 
 of savagery. He observes that the Britons were a most warlike and 
 sanguinary race, carrying only a small shield and a spear, and a sword 
 girded to their naked bodies. “ Of a breastplate or helmet they knew 
 not the use, esteeming them an impediment through the marshes.” 
 They encircled their necks and loins with iron rings as an evidence of 
 wealth, instead of gold, and went naked rather than conceal the tattoos of 
 different animals which covered and gave a blue cast to their bodies. 
 
 In striking contrast to this picture are the large number of chariots 
 employed in war and the extraordinary skill displayed in handling them. 
 Caesar states that Cassivelaunus, when totally defeated and a fugitive, was 
 still accompanied by 4000 charioteers ; the basis probably of Pomponius 
 Mela’s later statement that 4000 two-horsed chariots armed with scythes 
 formed part of that chieftain’s army. Having proved ineffectual against 
 Roman discipline, this arm was perhaps soon abandoned, since we find 
 little further mention of war-chariots, though cavalry did not cease to 
 form part of a British army. In process of time the subjugated Britons 
 must have become completely Romanised as to arms, and accustomed to 
 wear the helmet, greaves, and corselet, either of one piece or formed of 
 smaller and more flexible plates or scales. Though the manhood of the 
 country enrolled in disciplined cohorts and legions had deserted it, Roman 
 weapons must have been the arms of those who remained when the 
 Romans finally retired from Britain in 410. 
 
 In the two succeeding centuries, which were to elapse before the 
 country definitely inclined to become English, an intensely Celtic feeling, 
 embodied in the legends of King Arthur and wholly opposed to Roman 
 ideas, had time to spring up. Judged by their ornament, it is to this 
 period that most of the bronze enamelled arms and trappings in the 
 British Museum belong. The golden corselet found in a barrow in Flint, 
 together with many traditions of the finding of golden armour, such as 
 the helmet of pure gold set with gems found in a bronze vase and pre- 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 sented to Katharine of Arragon, suggest the idea that serviceable qualities 
 became sacrificed to a love of display. At this time it is said the Britons, 
 in obsolete and fantastic panoply, bore an evil reputation, as being vain 
 and fruitful in menaces, but slow and little to be feared in action. Their 
 frightfully demoralised state, if not greatly overdrawn by Gildas, called 
 for a day of reckoning and the condign, almost exterminating, punishment 
 which overtook them. The agents destined to execute the vengeance of 
 Providence were the Frisian pirates, the scourge of the Channel, who had 
 with difficulty been kept in awe by the most powerful Roman fleets. 
 The country, left to the divided rule of clergy, nobles, and municipalities, 
 and described as “glittering with the multitude of cities built by the 
 Romans,” presented a tempting and easy prey to these professors of 
 rapine. They were Teutons, who relied mainly on the Fram or spear- 
 like javelin, as when Tacitus described them, and still carried the round 
 gaudily-painted buckler, though then strengthened with an iron umbo 
 and rim. Their weapons had been perfected in a long series of grim 
 experiences in actual war, and they had added to their equipment a sword 
 and dagger, and some kind of simple headpiece. That they had 
 adopted any complete defence of plate-armour in the Roman fashion is 
 improbable, but they were apparently entirely unacquainted with chain- 
 mail. In the history of armour in Britain this period, taken as a whole, 
 can only be regarded as a very primitive age of plate. To be an 
 efficient protection plate -armour must, however, be of an intolerable 
 weight, at least to men on foot, making celerity of movement impossible. 
 We cannot close the chapter better than by instancing the dreadful fate 
 of the dEduan Crupellarians, related by Tacitus, who clothed themselves 
 in unwieldy iron plate, impenetrable to sword and javelin. Though 
 the main army was overthrown, these kept their ranks as if rooted to 
 the ground, until, fallen upon with hatchets and pickaxes, armour and 
 men were crushed together and left on the ground an inanimate mass. 
 This lesson was not forgotten by the nations of Europe who fought on 
 foot with Rome, and no such use of body-armour among them is again 
 recorded. 
 
'The Mailed Warrior 
 
 The appearance of the mail-clad, warrior opens up an entirely new era in 
 the history of European armour. The light plate defences worn by the 
 Mediterranean nations, whether Greeks, Etruscans, or Romans, were never 
 calculated to secure immunity from wounds ; and as a fighting equipment 
 they went down before mail, as stone before bronze, or bronze before 
 iron. Chain-mail body-armour is distinctly represented on the Trajan 
 column, and wherever worn, whether by the Scythian, the Parthian who 
 was armoured down to his horse’s hoofs, or the dreaded Sassanian horse, it 
 seems to have flashed like a beacon of victory, and its wearers ever appear 
 in history as Rome’s most dreaded and formidable foes. 
 
 The Scandinavian also, isolated so long and unknown in history, sud- 
 denly burst upon Europe as a new and even more redoubtable mail-clad 
 warrior. How so remote a people became acquainted with chain-mail can 
 only be surmised, but it was perhaps through some Scythian channel not 
 open to Western Europe. That the ravaging Viking landed on our 
 shores equipped in mail, the “war nets” of Beowulf, “woven by the 
 smiths, hand-locked, and riveted ” ; “ shining over the waters ” or in “ the 
 ranks of battle,” is sufficiently recorded by the Chroniclers. Shirts of mail, 
 called “ byrnies,” attributed to even the fourth and fifth centuries, are 
 found in Danish peat-bogs fashioned of rings welded and riveted in alter- 
 nate rows as neatly and skilfully as can possibly be, and all made by the 
 hammer, if it be a fact that wire-drawing was not invented till nearly a 
 thousand years later. The almost perfect specimen we figure, one-tenth 
 the natural size, was found at Vimose, with portions of others. Some 
 
IO 
 
 4R MO UR IN ENGLAND 
 
 have also been found at Thorsberg, and in a burial-place of Roman age 
 in Jutland. 
 
 Besides the mail defence, the Danes were armed with a shield, an iron 
 cap, lance, axe, and sword. Thus equipped they proved for a long time 
 almost irresistible, and ventured on the most dangerous and desperate 
 undertakings. When we reflect on their adventurous voyages, the reck- 
 less attacks on powerful nations made by mere handfuls of men, and the 
 gallant pertinacity they at all times displayed, it is impossible not to 
 admire their exalted courage. It is easy to detect a rugged poetry, 
 almost chivalry of a kind, underlying the Viking nature, in spite of 
 ruthless cruelty, while the exaltation of deceit when practised on an enemy 
 into a virtue is but a germ of modern statecraft. Their lives depending 
 at every moment on the quality of their weapons caused these to be 
 invested, particularly the sword, with a mystic glamour, which scarcely 
 died out with chivalry itself, and lingers even yet in the more important 
 functions of state. The chieftain’s sword was in fact his inseparable 
 companion, known and endeared to his followers by a name symbolic of 
 the havoc they had seen it wreak upon the enemy, and its fame in sagas 
 was as undying as its owner’s. Tradition elevated the maker of the 
 sword of Odin, a smith, we must believe, who forged swords of uncommon 
 excellence, into a demigod ; and has handed down the story of how he 
 made a blade called Mimung so keenly tempered that when challenged to 
 try conclusions with one Amilias, a rival, it sliced him so cleanly in two 
 as he sat in his armour, that the cut only became apparent when, as he rose 
 to shake himself, he fell dead in two halves. The name of this prince 
 of craftsmen yet lives in the mysterious Wayland Smith of English folk- 
 lore. Another vaunting smith Mimer was slain by the sword Grauer 
 wielded by Sigurd ; and the sword Hrunting is made famous by its 
 owner Beowulf, the father of English lyrics. A Danish sword in the 
 British Museum is inscribed in runes iEgenkoera, the awe-inspirer. 
 From the Danes the exaltation of the sword passed to the English, and 
 we find Ethelwulf, Alfred, and Athelstan bequeathing their swords by 
 will as most precious possessions, equivalent to a brother’s or sister's 
 portion. Thence it passed, in legend at least, to the Britons, King 
 Arthur’s sword Calibon, or Excalibur, presented ultimately by Richard I. 
 to Tancred when in Sicily, being almost as famous as Arthur himself. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 1 1 
 
 Even Caesar is provided by history with a sword named “ Crocea mors,” 
 captured from him in combat by our valiant countryman Nennius. The 
 hilts of the Danish swords are described in the Edda as of gold, and 
 Beowulf speaks of hilts that were treasures of gold and jewels. Canute’s 
 
 Fig. i. — Hauberk , or byrnie , of chain-mail of the fourth or fifth century, found at Vimose, one- 
 tenth of the real size ; and part of another , full size , from Thorsberg. From “ Danish 
 Arts," published for the Science and Art Department. 
 
 huiscarles and Earl Godwin’s crew had swords inlaid with the precious 
 metals, and some English swords were valued at eighty mancuses of gold. 
 
 The origin oi the remarkable veneration for arms and armour, so 
 apparent in the history of chivalry, is thus traced to wearers of mail, 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 I 2 
 
 the first figures also to appear in something like what we regard as 
 knightly equipment. The dress of Magnus Barefoot, described in 1093, 
 differed probably but little from that of his predecessors, and consisted 
 of helmet, a red shield with a golden lion, his sword called Leg-biter, 
 a battle-axe, and a coat-of-mail, over which he wore a red silk tunic 
 with a yellow lion. 
 
 The wearing of armour, particularly mail, on land, necessitated riding, 
 and the northern rovers, finding the weight intolerable on their inland 
 forays, took to horse whenever possible, harrying by this means an 
 extent of country otherwise almost inaccessible. They even learnt in 
 time to transport their horses over the sea, and in the ninth and tenth 
 centuries landed in England from France as a mounted force, as their 
 descendants after them did at Hastings. The English, on the other 
 hand, rarely wore mail, though the spoils of the Danes might have 
 furnished a fair supply, and they only used cavalry as a small force 
 for scouting. An English king of the eighth century is, however, 
 represented in mail by Strutt, and Harold and his immediate companions 
 may have worn mail at Hastings, as represented in the Bayeux tapestry, 
 and as he certainly did when assisting William in his war against Conan 
 of Brittany. Handsome presents of Norman arms and armour were 
 then made to him by Duke William. A little later we have the 
 curious testimony of Anna Comnena, 1083-1146, that this mail, made 
 entirely of steel rings riveted together, was wholly unknown in Byzantium, 
 and only worn by the inhabitants of Northern Europe. 
 
 The definite conversion of the Northmen from sea-rovers to mounted 
 men-at-arms when they settled in Normandy enabled them to lengthen 
 their coats-of-mail, as well as their shields, lances, and swords, and to 
 adopt many French manners and customs. But in facing the infantry 
 wedge at Hastings, the time-honoured fighting formation of Teutonic 
 stocks from the days of Tacitus, they did not disdain to fall back on 
 the old Viking tactics of a pretended flight and rally, practised already 
 by them during two centuries of warfare in England. That the English 
 should have allowed their impenetrable ranks to be broken by so thread- 
 bare a stratagem is indeed extraordinary. 
 
 The Norman Conquest introduced into England a permanent mail- 
 clad cavalry as the chief strength of the battle, as in France, and infantry 
 

 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 was discredited until the disputes of the sons of the Conqueror led 
 once more to an English infantry force taking the field. The mail coat 
 of the cavalry had in the meantime been further lengthened, and changed 
 into a complete sheathing of steel by the addition of long sleeves and 
 mufflers falling over the hands ; leggings covering the thighs, shins, 
 and feet; and a capuchin -like hood only leaving the eyes and nose 
 exposed, but which could be thrown back. Thus enveloped, with a 
 
 
 Fig. 2. — Norman knights in mail hauberks and conical helmets. From the Bayeux Tapestry. 
 
 thickly-padded garment under the mail, a conical or flat-topped steel 
 helmet, a large kite-shaped shield, and long-reaching weapons, he had 
 little to fear when opposed to light-armed cavalry or infantry. The 
 mail and helmets were always kept bright, as we know, but Anna 
 Comnena adds that even the shields of steel and brass were so brightly 
 polished as to dazzle beholders. Combined with the pennons and banners 
 of various forms, with their glittering emblazonry, the massed men- 
 at-arms of that day must have presented a magnificent spectacle, as the 
 Chroniclers so frequently remind us. The coat-of-mail remained with 
 but trifling variations the chief knightly defence until the close of the 
 
14 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 thirteenth century, and the protection it afforded was so complete that of 
 900 combatants who once entered battle in steel armour but three were 
 slain. At Joppa in 1192, during a battle lasting from the rising to the 
 setting sun, only three were killed on the side of the Crusaders ; at the battle 
 of Lincoln only three, at Evesham (1260) one knight and two esquires, 
 at Falkirk (1295) but one knight and thirty foot on the winning side. 
 These somewhat random examples seem fairly to represent the loss on 
 the side of the victors, though terrible massacres overtook the losers. The 
 protection was such that Saladin’s bravest warriors reported our men to be 
 impenetrable ; blows, they said, fell as if on rocks of flint, for our people 
 were of iron and would yield to no blows. But though so terrible on 
 horseback, the mailed knight, as observed by Anna Comnena, was little 
 dangerous when dismounted. Neither had the English failed to observe 
 this, and thus directed all their efforts to dismount the enemy. They 
 had been severely galled by the bow at Hastings, and they came to 
 recognise it as the one weapon likely to render them really formidable to 
 their Norman oppressors. Henry I. encouraged its use, and we soon 
 find the English arrows described as falling in battle like a shower on 
 the grass or as falling snow. In a skirmish at Bourgtheroude in 1124, 
 the first discharge brought forty horses to the ground before a stroke 
 was struck, and eighty men-at-arms soon fell prisoners into the victors’ 
 hands. At the battle of the Standard, the cloud of arrows pierced the 
 unarmoured Scots, and chiefly contributed to the dreadful slaughter, 
 set down at 11,000. The effects of missile weapons were such that 
 the mailed period of which we are speaking saw three English kings 
 fall victims to the bow, while a fourth, Edward I., escaped a like fate 
 by a miracle. The accounts handed down of the extraordinary range 
 and precision attained soon afterwards by this weapon appear wholly 
 incredible in the light of modern toxophilite displays. 
 
 The cross-bow was an even more powerful weapon, whose use had 
 been forbidden in war, but allowed by the Pope to the Crusaders in 1 139. 
 Richard I. appears to have introduced it into the English army, which 
 became so expert in its use that in some of the sieges conducted during the 
 twelfth and thirteenth centuries the enemies’ walls could not be manned. 
 It is related of Richard, both at the sieges of Acre and Nottingham, that 
 he himself slew men with this weapon. The numbers of cross-bowmen 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 
 in our armies appear, however, to have been always relatively small. 
 King John, with 400 knights, had but 250 cross-bowmen, used as 
 skirmishers, keeping a mile in front of the army. The splendid army of 
 Edward I. assembled at Poitou (1242), numbering 1600 knights and 
 20,000 foot, comprised but 700. The battle of Lincoln, however, was 
 gained by them owing to their shot mowing down the horses of the 
 barons, who were rendered helpless when dismounted. The cross-bow 
 was at first bent by the hand and foot, but was afterwards of steel, when 
 it required mechanical aids to charge it. The short and heavy bolts, 
 called quarrels, struck with greater force than arrows, and the knight hit 
 full on the head or breast by one was fortunate if only stunned. 
 Instances are recorded of twofold mail and the quilted coat being pene- 
 trated by them. Cross-bowmen for a long time formed corps d’elite, 
 the weight of the weapon and the armour causing them to be 
 frequently mounted, and so early as King John the mounted “ balistarii ” 
 were provided with one, two, or even three horses each, with carts to 
 carry the quarrels and even the cross-bows as well. Notwithstanding 
 superior accuracy in aim and penetrating power, it fell into disuse in 
 England soon after the close of the thirteenth century, owing to its heavy 
 weight and liability to damage by wet, and above all, on account of the 
 greater rapidity with which arrows could be discharged from the long- 
 bow, — in a ratio of something like ten to one. 
 
 Nothing is more constantly met with in chronicles than accounts of 
 the destructive effects of missiles, whether from bow or cross-bow, upon 
 the horses of mounted combatants ; yet, apart from the poetic fancy of 
 Wace, who mounts Fitz-Osbert on an iron-clad steed at Hastings, the 
 first mention of horse- armour at all connected with English history 
 is at the battle of Gisors in 1198, when Richard I. speaks of the 
 capture of 140 sets in terms which plainly show that he then met 
 with it for the first time. It has, however, been concluded, from the 
 absence of any mention of horse-armour in English statutes until 1298, 
 that it was unknown here till the close of the thirteenth century. At this 
 time a man-at-arms in France received half as much again in pay if 
 his horse was armoured, and in 1303 every man with an estate of 500 
 livres was bound to provide horse-armour. A mailed horse appears in 
 the effigy of Sir Robert de Shirland in Sheppey, and a fine figure of a 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 1 6 
 
 steed completely clad in mail is among the figures of The Painted. 
 Chamber , published by the Society of Antiquaries. 
 
 The English custom of fighting on foot, it is almost needless to add, 
 had been adopted by the Danish and even the Norman settlers here, and 
 during the civil wars of Henry I., Stephen, and Henry II., the leaders 
 on both sides, including the kings in person, fought their battles dis- 
 mounted, rendering horse-armour of relatively small importance. 
 
 A permanent force was raised by a law of Henry II. in 1181, 
 compelling every burgess or freeman to possess an iron headpiece, a 
 lance, and either a mail hauberk or a gambeson, according to his 
 means : and this was supplemented by the addition, under Henry 
 III. in 1253, of swords and knives to the infantry equipment, and the 
 calling up of a reserve of those possessed of less than 40s. of land, armed 
 with scythes, long-handled axes, knives, and other rustic weapons. 
 Soon afterwards a wild Welsh and Cornish infantry was enrolled, and we 
 hear of lagers and intrenchments, and in 1302 one of the first really 
 crushing defeats is inflicted on chivalry at the hands of burghers by the 
 men of Bruges, who slew forty counts and barons at Cambray. 
 
 This extensive arming of the population led to the formation of bands 
 of outlaws, who devastated the country, something in the manner of the 
 free-companies ot France at a later time. A young man named William, 
 declining to acknowledge Lewis of France in 1216, drew together a 
 thousand bowmen and conducted a guerilla warfare in the forests of 
 Sussex. The still more renowned Adam Gordon infested the woody 
 country between Wilts and Hants until Prince Edward at last, about 
 1267, overcame him in single combat. The ancient Ballads abound with 
 instances of such exploits, which are embodied in the romance of Robin 
 Hood. 
 
 A contemporary of Richard I. describes the equipment of an English 
 foot-soldier as consisting of an iron headpiece, a coif and coat-of-mail, 
 and “ a tissue of many folds of linen, difficult of penetration and artificially 
 worked with the needle, vulgarly called a pourpoint.” He was taught 
 to receive cavalry with the right knee on the ground, the left leg bent, 
 the shield in the left hand and the butt of the lance in the ground with 
 the point to the enemy. Between every two lances was a cross-bowman 
 with a rear rank to load while the front shot. Against this formation 
 
 
4RM0UR IN ENGLAND 
 
 
 the Moslem cavalry’s “ surging charges foamed themselves away,” and as 
 at Waterloo, the retreating squadrons were charged again and again by 
 our heavy -armed horse. On the other hand, the same tactics, when 
 employed against forces largely composed of English archers, were 
 
 Fig. 3. 
 
 1. A complete suit of mail, with coif and mufflers, late twelfth century, said to have been found in a coffin 
 
 in Goring Church. 
 
 2. A thirteenth-century suit, with reinforcing plates, said to have been found with the other. 
 
 unsuccessful ; thus the Welsh in 1295 set their long spears on the ground 
 with points towards the cavalry, but the Earl of Warwick placed an 
 archer between every two horsemen and routed them. Wallace’s massed 
 pikemen, three years later, were broken by Edward’s archers and military 
 engines, and routed by the men-at-arms, who dashed into the openings. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 It does not appear that any special study of mail has been undertaken, 
 or that any good collection of mail has been formed, nor have the many 
 varieties been arranged chronologically in the order in which they 
 appeared. Materials for such a study exist, though not very abundantly, 
 in the Tower, the British Museum, the collection at Woolwich and Dover 
 Castle, the Armourers’ Hall, Warwick Castle, Parham, and in other private 
 collections, and from these and the effigies of mailed knights it can be 
 seen that an almost endless variety exists, not only in the sizes of the 
 links, which vary from <1 to ^ of an inch in diameter, but in the sections 
 of the wire used, which may be round, flat, triangular, trapeziform, 
 quadrate, polygonal, etc. Nor is there less diversity in the method of 
 closing the rings, which was accomplished either by welding, single or 
 double riveting, with a flattening and more or less overlapping of the links, 
 soldering or merely butting. Again, there are many ways of arranging 
 the links, producing mail of very different weights, either double or single, 
 as well as mail in which certain parts are stronger than the rest. In 
 European mail four links are usually made to pass through a centre one, 
 though this is not an invariable rule. The statement in Beckman’s History 
 of Inventions , that wire-drawing was invented in the fourteenth century, 
 was held for a long time to furnish a safe date, but two Corporations of 
 wire-drawers occur in Etienne Boileau’s Paris Livres des Mestiers , in the 
 middle of the thirteenth century, and the art is actually of unknown 
 antiquity. The mail, we read, was kept bright by barreling, but does 
 not appear to have presented much scope for decoration. The Edda 
 speaks of a byrnie of gold, and there are other allusions to gilded mail, 
 and we find hauberks scalloped at the extremities, and finished off" with 
 rings of brass. 
 
 Two suits of mail (see Fig. 3), illustrated in the catalogue of 
 the loan collection of Ironmongers’ Hall in 1861, now in the possession 
 of Mr. J. E. Gardner, F.S.A., are formed of unriveted links, the ends 
 of the rings being merely butted. Their authenticity has therefore been 
 questioned. The description of them printed in 1861 was to the effect 
 that they had been found in a chest or in a vault of a church in Oxford- 
 shire. In the manuscript catalogue of the collection at Parham is a note 
 to the effect that they were found in stone coffins built in the wall of 
 the church at Goring, Berks, supposed to be coffins of the Beche or 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 l 9 
 
 De Beche family, and contained skeletons, a third suit having been 
 destroyed except the hood, which is now at Parham. However this 
 may be, the larger suit affords a good representation of the mailed figure 
 of the end of the twelfth, and the small one of that of the thirteenth 
 century, with reinforcing pieces of plate. The possibility of their having 
 been made for lying in state or funerals deserves perhaps a passing note, 
 especially in view of their respective dimensions ; and it is in any case 
 very questionable whether the prices paid for them would have re- 
 munerated the labour of producing forgeries. Another hauberk of large 
 size was found in Phoenix Park, Dublin, thirty years ago, but a silver 
 badge of an O’Neil found with it showed it to have been buried not 
 
 Fig. 4. — Mail coif , flat-topped, with leather thong. 
 
 From the effigy of William Longespee, son of Henry It. by Fair Rosamond, who died 1227. Salisbury Cathedral. 
 
 Fig. 5. — Mail coif, round-topped, zvith jewelled f.llet. 
 
 From the effigy of Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, died 1221. Hatfield Broad-Oak Church. 
 
 Fig. 6. — Mail coif, conical top, with coronet and ?nantelet. 
 
 From the effigy of John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall, died 1334. Westminster Abbey. 
 
 earlier than the middle of the fifteenth century. In the thirteenth 
 century the curious and well-known banded mail appears on effigies and 
 other representations, which Mr. J. G. Waller, F.S.A., regards as caused 
 by the passing of a leather thong through each alternate row of rings, 
 for the sake of extra strength. This variety may have originated with 
 the single thong passed through the links of the coif over the forehead 
 and below the knee, seen in early effigies like that of William Longespee 
 (Fig. 4) at Salisbury. 
 
 The defence of the body was for a time wholly left to the mail with 
 the underlying gambeson, and the shield, but the head had always 
 
20 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 received the additional protection of a cap of steel, called the chapelle- 
 de-fer, worn indifferently under or over the coif of mail. Effigies of the 
 first half of the thirteenth century show it both round and flat at the top 
 (Figs. 4, 5, 6, and 7). The nasal piece associated with the conical helm 
 (Fig. 2) of the eleventh century tended to disappear in the twelfth. 
 
 The fact that English armies under Richard I. were made to 
 abandon their ancient formation and to engage on horseback, and to 
 rely on the battle-axe and mace as their chief weapons, and the presence 
 of the large bodies of archers and arbalisters which he brought into the 
 field, led to the introduction, probably by Richard himself, of the great 
 heaume worn over the steel cap and padding, and only put on at the 
 moment of battle. It is first seen on Richard’s second seal, and con- 
 sisted of a cylinder, usually flat-topped, with two horizontal clefts for 
 vision, and strengthened by bands crossing each other over the face and 
 top. Breathing-holes were added towards the middle of the century, 
 and the grated front was introduced soon after, to admit more air. This 
 is seen in the first seal of Henry III., and another advance, the movable 
 vantail, hinged at the side, in his second seal. An oft-described specimen 
 in the lower weighs 13 lb. 8 oz., but is regarded by Lord Dillon, the 
 present Curator of the Armouries, as a forgery. About 1270 we some- 
 times find it with a round top, though the flat top did not go quite out 
 till the beginning of the fourteenth century. The attempts made to seize 
 and drag it off, so often noticed by Chroniclers, led to its being secured 
 by a chain. The further changes seen were improvements in the visor, 
 giving better vision and more air, fixing it more securely, and so 
 transferring the weight from the head to the shoulders, and changing 
 the flat top to a cone, on which blows fell with less stunning effect. 
 
 These heaumes, by concealing the face, intensified a difficulty already 
 felt at Hastings, when Duke William was obliged to raise his helmet to 
 contradict a rumour of his death. Recognition, now become impossible, 
 led to the use of heraldic badges, at first painted on the helm, as they 
 already were on the shield ; and of crests, first in the fan or peacock’s 
 feather shape, as on the second seal of Richard I., and afterwards to more 
 distinctive crests and badges. The Crusading Chroniclers relate that the 
 crests were brilliant with jewels, and they are represented as circled by 
 coronets in the seals of Henry III. and his son Edward. The heaume of 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 1 i 
 
 St. Louis, 1249, was gilded. Richard himself, in gala dress, on the day 
 after his marriage with Berengaria, is described by Vinsauf as wearing a 
 Damascus sword with gold hilt and silver-scaled scabbard, his saddle 
 inlaid with precious stones, his horse bitted with gold, and in place 
 of the high defensive plates before and behind in general use two little 
 golden lions with raised paws. 
 
 Fig. 7. — Helmet of bronxe and iron, from County Dozen. Tzvelfth century. 
 
 Next to the headpiece the most urgent necessity was to protect 
 the breast against the direct shock of the lance, and for this a rigid 
 defence was of the utmost importance. Thus a beginning was made 
 even during the mail period towards the introduction of plate-armour. 
 Jazerant and scale armour of small plates had been adopted to this end by 
 
22 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 the Franks, and Charlemagne had introduced the classic breastplate. 
 Something of the kind was perhaps even known to the Viking, and 
 by the twelfth century Scandinavians certainly used a defence called a 
 briostbiorg beneath the mail, extending from the neck to the waist. 
 Chroniclers allude to shining breastplates long before there is the 
 slightest appearance of them in illustrations, though from the time that 
 surcoats were worn over the armour it becomes difficult to see what 
 is beneath. Allusion is often made to a plastron-de-fer ; and in the 
 combat between Richard, when Earl of Poitou, and William des Barres 
 we read that an iron defence was worn over the breast. One of the 
 effigies in the Temple Church is equipped with a back and breast plate 
 of single plates united by straps. It is stated that the bodyguard of 
 Henry III., 400 strong, which fled at the battle of Lewes in 1244, wore 
 breastplates ; and in 1277, 300 cavalry so armed were sent to Wales. 
 
 Following the head and breast, the limbs received protection from 
 plate-armour, the knees and shins of mounted men-at-arms being peculiarly 
 exposed to injury in melees with infantry, from blows of the two-handed 
 battle-axe and mace. Additional security was absolutely essential against 
 these weapons, which were introduced both for horse and foot by Richard 
 I., and had grown in favour ever since. These even penetrated mail, the 
 Irish axe in particular being reputed to cut off limbs in spite of its 
 protection. The Scandinavians, with their keen military instincts, 
 had provided themselves in the twelfth century with knee-caps of iron 
 attached to overalls worn over the mail. Our earlier mailed effigies, 
 however, show no special defence for the knee, though the one at 
 Salisbury, attributed by Stothard to William Longespee, already noticed, 
 has a stout thong passing between the links of mail just under it. 
 The effigy of Robert of Normandy, of which there is a cast in the 
 National Portrait Gallery, shows a thick overall under the chausses of 
 mail, and drawn over the mail chaussons at the knee (Fig. 8, No. 1), 
 and a similar appearance is seen in the first seal of Richard I. ; in the 
 sleeping guards of the Easter Sepulchre at Lincoln (Fig. 9) ; and other 
 monuments of the same date. In the effigy attributed to William, Earl 
 of Pembroke, in the Temple, who died in 1289 (Fig. 8, No. 2), and 
 in Stothard’s drawing of the effigy at Whitworth, an appearance of a 
 thick cap is also to be seen, perhaps the extremity of a padded overall 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 23 
 
 overlapping the knee ; and in other examples the thick quilted gambeson 
 leg-defence is clearly seen below the mail, covering the knee, and in 
 the case of De Vere, who died 1221, it has the interesting addition 
 of an octagonal plate (Fig. 8, No. 3), apparently of iron, over the knee- 
 cap. The effigy, called the second Longespee, at Salisbury (Fig. 8, 
 No. 4), about 1260, exhibits an apparently double thickness of mail at 
 this point, caused by the overlapping of the chausses and chaussons, with 
 
 Fig. 8 . — Illustration of the development of plate-armour. 
 
 1 . The gambeson appearing below the chausses, but covering the chaussons of mail, forming an extra protection 
 
 to the knee. From the effigy of Robert of Normandy. 
 
 2. The same, but apparently with an extra applied cap. From the effigy ascribed to one of the Pembrokes in 
 
 the Temple Church. 
 
 3. The quilted gambeson appearing below the chausses and drawn over the chaussons, with the additional pro- 
 
 tection for the knee-cap of an octagonal plate. From the effigy of Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford. 
 
 4. The chausses and chaussons overlapping, forming a double thickness of mail, with the addition of a quatre- 
 
 foil plate over the knee-cap. From the effigy attributed to the second Longespee at Salisbury. 
 
 5. A ridged knee-defence of cuir-bouilli or plate enveloping the knee, over the mail. From the effigy of 
 
 Robert Ros in the Temple. 
 
 6. Globose knee-cap of Aymer de Valence. Westminster Abbey. 
 
 7. Decorated knee-defence from an effigy in Whatton Church. 
 
 8. Cross-ridged knee-defence from an effigy of Robert de Bois. 
 
 the addition of a circular plate with a quatrefoil upon it. Con- 
 temporary Chroniclers also mention that greaves were worn by knights 
 
24 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 in the time of Richard I., though the earliest manuscript illustration 
 of them occurs in Matthew of Paris’s Lives of the Offas. 
 
 The feet were cased in mail, and the spurs were simple straight spikes 
 or goads, perhaps worn on one heel only and called the prick-spur. 
 Under the early Plantagenets the point was fixed on a ball, while the rowel 
 spur is seen in the monument to Le Botiler of the reign of Henry III. 
 
 Under the heroic Richard the powers of defence seem to have 
 definitely triumphed over those of attack. Knights sheathed in mail over 
 quilted work, and wearing the great battle-helm, appeared invulnerable 
 and able to encounter the most fearful odds, and even to rescue each other 
 when dismounted amidst swarming enemies. The further changes during 
 the mailed period were in the direction of military display, which has 
 always offered an attractive field. Whenever the pressure for improved 
 armament was relieved through the defensive equipment for the time 
 satisfying the wearer, whether a naked savage or well-equipped soldier, 
 attention was turned to the warrior’s personal embellishments, partly to 
 gratify the wearer’s vanity, partly to captivate and dazzle, but chiefly to 
 affright and awe the enemy. The fact that the French and English 
 wore the same armour and equipment, and the common occurrence of 
 internecine wars at this time, rendered distinguishing costumes particularly 
 necessary. By simply throwing away their cognisance at the battle of 
 Noyon, Peter de Maule and others escaped recognition and mingled 
 with the pursuers, while Ralph de Courci mistook the French for his 
 own side and was taken prisoner. Nothing but the different-coloured 
 crosses sewn to the garments of the French, English, and Flemish Crusaders 
 served to distinguish them, and white crosses alone distinguished the 
 party of Simon de Montfort, 1264, from their enemies. Nothing 
 approaching to any uniform is heard of in this age, unless when Richard 
 of Gloucester traversed France in 1250, with a retinue of forty knights 
 equipped all alike, with new harness glittering with gold, on his visit to 
 the Pope. 
 
 The beautifully -sculptured guards of the early fourteenth century 
 Easter Sepulchre in Lincoln Cathedral (Fig. 9) present fine examples 
 of the costume of the knight armed with the mace, sword, and shield 
 towards the end of the mailed period. The bassinet on the figure to 
 the right is particularly noteworthy. 
 
Fig. 9. — The sleeping guards, from the Easter Sepulchre in Lincoln Cathedral. 
 
The 'Transition Period — From about the Reign of Edward I. to that of 
 
 Richard //., 1272-1399 
 
 The warrior sheathed in mail, mounted on his charger, whether pricking 
 alone or in troops over hill and dale, was a picturesque and portentous 
 figure, and when massed for battle presented an awe-inspiring sight. 
 The gray burnished steel, glittering in the sun or under lowering skies, 
 relieved by the fluttering pennons and banners and emblazoned shields, 
 formed a picture that the old Crusading Chroniclers loved to dwell on, 
 filling the imagination with those great gatherings of the chivalry of 
 Europe. In the days of the last of the Paladins, of Godfrey de Bouillon 
 and Richard Cceur de Lion, the dress of burnished mail was the knight’s 
 especial pride, and no garment concealed it. But as progress and love of 
 change are universal, and the mail itself could not well be embellished, an 
 embroidered surcoat was worn over it in the more degenerate days of 
 John and his son Henry, concealing all but the limbs and head. This 
 garment became the vehicle for distinguishing marks and colours, like the 
 modern racing-jacket. A little later, when emblazoned with heraldry, 
 it served to distinguish the individual. The transfer of the surcoat from 
 under to over the mail gave rise to the custom of concealing the steel 
 panoply under rich materials, which distinguished the Transition Period 
 in armour. While it lasted we literally and constantly meet with the 
 “iron hand under the velvet glove.” This and the continual piling of 
 one coat of defence upon another, in the fruitless attempt to secure 
 immunity for life and limb, are the chief characteristics of the period we 
 are now to treat. 
 
28 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 Until the Transition, the mounted knight, cap-a-pied in mail over 
 the quilted gambeson, with the steel cap, and the great helm for the 
 supreme moment of combat, seemed completely invulnerable unless to 
 missile weapons mechanically projected. Few men-at-arms fell in actual 
 battle on the winning side, and great slaughters were only consequent on 
 the complete rout of one of the parties. Under the warlike Edward I. 
 the powers of attack must have gathered renewed force, for a long period 
 of tentative changes set in which finally ended in the suit of mail being 
 completely hidden beneath an outer shell of steel plates. The qualities 
 of steel for offensive weapons must also at this same time have undergone 
 marked improvements, and we now begin to hear of definite seats of 
 manufacture attaining world-wide celebrity. Cologne, Lorraine, Poitou 
 produced weapons which are said to have pierced mail and quilted armour 
 with ease. The heavy blows given by the battle-axe and mace, used 
 by horse and foot, must, however, have been chiefly instrumental in 
 introducing extra means of defence. These were by no means at first 
 universally of steel, for cuir-bouilli or boiled leather, a very impervious 
 substance when properly prepared, seemed at one time likely to rival it 
 for general use ; and trial was made of every other kind of material that 
 could be used for defence, such as horn, whalebone, ivory, padded wool, 
 leather, either alone or strengthened with metal studs or splints, brass, 
 and small plates of iron fixed to textiles. It is almost certain that for a 
 time the moulded surface of cuir-bouilli, with its gilded and perhaps 
 coloured surfaces, was preferred to steel. During this tentative period 
 every combination of these materials with chain-mail is to be met with, 
 and the triumph of steel-plate armour only became definite after every 
 possible substitute, combined in every practicable way, had been tried 
 either at home or abroad and found wanting. It is at least improbable 
 that any armour pictured with enriched designs at this date was of steel. 
 
 It would be impossible within the limits of this work, and of little 
 interest, to endeavour to describe the constant changes, often due to 
 individual caprice, that occur ; for when groups of soldiery are represented, 
 even long after the Transition, it is rare to find two individuals accoutred 
 in precisely the same manner. We may rest assured, however, that each 
 piece as it successively appears was introduced to meet some new perfec- 
 tion in the weapons of attack, or to cope with some new tactics, in short, 
 
4RM0UR IN ENGLAND 
 
 29 
 
 to protect some part that had been proved by the practical experience of 
 armed strife to be vulnerable. These additions were naturally subject to 
 modification, according to the passing dictates of military display, or the 
 changing fashions of civilian dress. 
 
 Fig. 10 is taken from one of the English MSS. most valuable for the 
 knightly costume of the Transition. The armour is in this MS. almost 
 entirely mail, of the banded variety, worn beneath a surcoat, which is 
 hardly ever emblazoned. Plate-armour is only represented by the knee- 
 caps, with an occasional roundel and shoulder-plate. The great helm, 
 always with a fan-crest, the chapelle-de-fer worn beneath or above the 
 
 
 
 J — 
 
 • 
 
 ■ 
 
 . .... . . -■■-a 
 
 Fig. 10. — Melee. 
 
 From the early fourteenth -century English MS. known as Queen Mary’s Psalter, 2 B. vii., in the British 
 Museum. The combatants are in banded mail and long surcoats, and some wear the great helms with 
 fan-crests. Ailettes and knee-caps are the only plate-armour visible. Some of the horses have long 
 housings and also bear the fan-crest. 
 
 mail coiffe, the bassinet, often visored, and the broad-brimmed round 
 helmet are worn, except in jousts, quite indifferently. 
 
 The head, being the most vulnerable part of the body and the most 
 difficult to protect, received the greatest amount of attention. The great 
 helm, with bands and cross-cuts for the sight, continued in use through- 
 out the Transition, but with a sugar-loaf crown, and rendered less 
 insupportable in the reign of Edward I. by transferring the weight 
 from the head to the shoulders. It was occasionally of brass — Chaucer 
 mentions the knight’s “ helm of latoun bright,” a metal used so far back as 
 Henry I. — and much more frequently of cuir-bouilli, as in the tourna- 
 
30 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 ment at Windsor in 1278, when twelve of the thirty-eight knights had 
 gilded helms, and were called digniores. There can be no doubt, how- 
 ever, that a helm of Poitou steel was even then the surest defence. 
 
 To the custom of hanging arms in churches we are indebted for 
 the preservation of all the most valuable historic pieces. The first record 
 of this poetic usage occurs early in the thirteenth century, when William 
 of Toulouse hung his helm and splendid shield over St. Julien’s tomb 
 at Brives, and his lance and sword, bow and quiver, outside. By the 
 middle of the century it had become the practice, when a brave knight 
 died, to hang his shield and helm on the walls above his grave, and it 
 appears in addition, from the instance of the King of France after the 
 battle of Cassel in 1328, that the victor in some cases presented his arms 
 to the nearest church. The helm of the Black Prince, still suspended 
 above his tomb at Canterbury (Fig. 11), is an illustration familiar to all. 
 By the kindness of Sir Noel Paton we are enabled to present an even 
 finer helm (Fig. 12), in more perfect preservation, which formerly hung 
 above the tomb of Sir Richard Pembridge, K.G., in Hereford Cathedral, 
 who died one year before the Prince of Wales, in 1375. Its admirable 
 workmanship has been fully described by Baron de Cosson, its fine steely 
 quality being such that no penknife would scratch its polished surface. 
 It is formed of three pieces — the cone, the cylinder, and the top-piece, 
 welded so beautifully that no seam is visible, and these are joined by 
 round-headed nails clinched on the inside. Every practical detail, down 
 to the minutest, has received careful attention. The metal is thickened 
 and turned outwards round the eye-piece, which is thus efficiently 
 guarded, and the bottom edge is rolled inwards over a thick wire, so as 
 not to cut the surcoat. These and other details given by Baron 
 de Cosson in the Catalogue of Armour exhibited at the Royal Archaeo- 
 logical Institute in 1880, show conclusively that this specimen at least 
 is a real war helm, fitted to resist and to strike fire under the shock of a 
 lance that might unhorse its wearer. The conical helm was worn over 
 the visorless bassinet next described, as the previous helms had been 
 worn over the chapelle-de-fer, and being only donned in the hour of 
 danger, is rarely represented in monuments, except as a pillow under 
 the head. When worn the face was invisible and recognition 
 impossible, so that a moulded crest of linen, leather, or some light 
 
Fig. i I . — The helm and crest of the Black Prince , with his shield, from his monument in 
 
 Canterbury Cathedral. 
 
32 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 material surmounted it and became its most important feature. A 
 mantling was also introduced, at first in the simple form of a puggaree, as 
 seen in the effigy of the Black Prince (Fig. 1 6), but later of more ample 
 dimensions, fantastically shredded to represent the supposed rents of 
 battle. When the taste for military display increased, these mantles 
 were usually of scarlet lined with ermine. A wide-rimmed helm is 
 often represented as worn over or in place of the bassinet, and jewelled 
 and crested. This form reappears continually, its first introduction 
 dating so far back as the Bayeux tapestry. 
 
 The bassinet, used with or without the helm, enjoyed a prolonged 
 period of favour from Edward I. to Henry VI. It differed from the 
 
 Fig. 12. — The helm of Richard Pe?n- Fig. it,.— Bassinet from the totnb of Sir John 
 bridge , K.G . , from Hereford de Melsa , Aldborough Church , Hold.erness. 
 
 Cathedral. Sir Noel Paton. From a photograph by Baron de Cosson. 
 
 older chapelle-de-fer worn with the hood of mail, in having the mail 
 hung round it, instead of passing over or under it. This mail, now 
 called the camail or gorget, was laced to a series of staples along the 
 edges of the bassinet and fell like a curtain on to the shoulders. At the 
 outset merely a skull-cap, it was gradually prolonged at the back and sides 
 so as to leave only the face exposed. Early in the fourteenth century 
 its appearance was profoundly modified by the addition of a movable 
 visor, at first hinged at the side, but subsequently raised and lowered 
 from above the forehead. Being readily removed, the visor was only 
 worn in action, and is thus rarely represented in effigies and brasses. 
 No helm was worn over the visored bassinet, which became the 
 battle head-piece of the fourteenth century and part of the fifteenth, 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 33 
 
 the helm being reserved for jousts and tournaments. We are able, 
 by the kindness of Baron de Cosson, to give an illustration (Fig. 13) 
 of a real bassinet of large size, from the tomb of Sir John de Melsa 
 in Aldborough Church, Holderness. It is described in the Catalogue of 
 
 Fig. 14. — A bassinet transformed into a sallad in the fifteenth century. 
 From Sir Noel Pat on's collection. 
 
 Arms already referred to as of the second half of the fourteenth century, 
 and was worn with a large visor. A second bassinet is illustrated (Fig. 
 14) from Sir Noel Paton’s collection, described by Baron de Cosson as 
 transformed into a sallad about the middle of the fifteenth century. 
 Fine bassinets are in the Tower and at Woolwich, and in the Burgess, 
 Christy, and Wallace collections, all happily belonging to the nation, and 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 in Warwick Castle and at Parham, but none are directly connected 
 with English wearers. The beaked visor, represented in so many 
 manuscripts of about the close of the fourteenth century, is a fine defensive 
 and not unpicturesque form. There are several real examples in the 
 Musee d’Artillerie in Paris, two of which are regarded as English. 
 
 The bassinet, like the rest of the knight’s armour, did not necessarily 
 exhibit a surface of plain burnished steel. It was frequently covered 
 with leather, as mentioned in the inventories of Humphrey de Bohun, 
 1322, and of Dover Castle, 1344 ; while the King of France at one time 
 wore his bassinet covered with white leather. One of cuir-bouilli, in 
 Simon Burley’s inventory, 1388, is coloured white and green. It was 
 also tinned or gilded, and even of pure gold, as prizes for tourneys, or like 
 one set with gems, sent to Edward I. by his father-in-law in 1334. In 
 a bequest of William Langford, 1411, is a headpiece covered with red 
 velvet, and actual specimens so covered are not unknown. The richness 
 of the decorations bestowed on these helmets is shown in the goldsmith’s 
 account of one made for the King of France in 1352, and of another 
 made in the same year for the Dauphin with a band of forty large pearls. 
 Effigies and brasses show that coronets and jewelled fillets commonly 
 adorned them, even in the case of simple knights, and that these are not 
 imaginary decorations may be gathered from Froissart, who mentions 
 that the King of Castille actually entered a battle in 1385 with his 
 bassinet enriched with 20,000 francs’ worth of gems. Sir Guy of 
 Warwick, in the Romance, is given a helmet adorned with a circle of 
 gold set with most precious stones. 
 
 Some notable champions, like Sir John Chandos and the Earl of 
 Warwick, prided themselves on a disregard of danger and habitually 
 fought without a visor, yet the tendency to close every crevice with plate 
 defences developed continuously, and the frequent accidents at tourneys, 
 when the lance-point glanced upward and entered the throat under the 
 camail, led to the introduction, about 1330, of a gorget of plate or 
 scales, which with the visor converted the bassinet into a closed helmet. 
 
 The defence of the breast was always considered next in importance 
 to the head, and fourteenth-century inventories constantly refer to “ pairs 
 of plates large,” perhaps like those till recently worn in Persia, corsets de 
 fer, cors d’acier, brust plate pour justes, and other defences of plate. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 35 
 
 Chaucer writes, “ Some would be armed in an haubergeon, a bright 
 breastplate and a gypoun.” The globose form given to the chests of 
 effigies, such as that of the Black Prince, seems to imply the presence 
 of a rigid defence under the emblazoned surcoat. 
 
 The limbs began to be definitely protected over the mail in the 
 second half of the thirteenth century. Effigies and manuscript 
 illustrations of that date commonly represent globose knee-caps, some- 
 times ridged down the front, and usually gilt. In the fourteenth 
 century they are always present and frequently treated very decoratively, 
 with shields, roundels, scalloped edges, etc. The technical name for 
 these appendages is “ Genouilliere,” or “knee-cap.” Subsidiary plates 
 
 Fio. 15. 
 
 1. Example of a ridged bassinet with banded camail, from the brass of Sir John d’Abernon, died 1327. 
 
 2. Combed and jewelled bassinet from the effigy in Ash Church, of about the same date. 
 
 often appear below the knee, and sometimes above it, and are continued 
 under the mail. 
 
 The greave was a rigid gaiter fitting at first only over the front of 
 the leg below the knee, but afterwards enveloping it ; and it was either 
 of metal or cuir-bouilli. When seen on English fourteenth -century 
 monuments it usually seems to be of steel fitting closely over the mail, 
 and laced or buckled at the back, but at times it is so richly decorated as 
 to suggest cuir-bouilli. Greaves are usually omitted on early monuments, 
 and are only commonly seen when they had become an integral part of 
 the suit of armour. As yet they were not habitually worn except in 
 battle, and knights were not at this time represented in their effigies 
 accoutred for war, but in ordinary military costume. Thus the effigy 
 
36 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 of Aymer de Valence shows no plate armour, except the genouilliere ; 
 but the two mounted figures of the canopy present the visored bassinet, 
 the high gorget, the arm and elbow plates, the tubular greaves and 
 steel sollerets for the feet. The tubular leg defence is not seen in earlier 
 representations, and its introduction may coincide with the first recorded 
 appearance in the field of large bodies of Welsh armed with long knives. 
 It was usually hinged and buckled, and becomes more general as the 
 century advances. This appears in the inventory of Piers Gaveston, 1313, 
 who possessed three pairs of such greaves. Monstrelet relates that the 
 bailiff of Evreux, sallying out without his greaves, had his leg badly 
 broken by the kick of a horse. 
 
 Defences of plate armour for the feet are called sollerets, and are 
 first, if somewhat indistinctly, visible in the small equestrian figure on 
 the canopy of the tomb of Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster, in 
 Westminster Abbey, the mail not being continued over the front of the 
 feet as in the older effigies. One of the small equestrian figures of the 
 adjoining tomb of Aymer de Valence has the feet, though mutilated, 
 distinctly covered with small rectangular plates, arranged longitudinally 
 in continuation of the greaves. In the D’Abernon and other brasses 
 of the second quarter of the fourteenth century laminar plates are 
 fastened across the upper part of the foot. Other varieties are the 
 scaled sollerets of the De Cheney brass, 1375 > the De Sulney brass, with 
 sollerets of laminar plates, and one large plate over the instep; the 
 Littlebury effigy, with longitudinal plates like those of De Valence. In 
 the effigy of John of Eltham, 1334, we seem for the first time to meet 
 with the whole foot visible incased in plate, as it continued to be during 
 the rest of the century. In the Warwick collection a pair of sollerets 
 are made each of one piece like sabots. The long curved sollerets with 
 pointed toes of the second half of the fourteenth century are called 
 pouleynes or poulaines, from the souliers a la Polaine, and differ slightly 
 from those known as Cracowes, introduced by Richard II. from Bohemia. 
 There are two fine pointed sollerets at Warwick, one measuring twenty- 
 five inches from toe to heel, or with the spur thirty -two and a half 
 inches. Another beautifully-made one attached to leg armour has the 
 plates scalloped along the edges, and is attributed to Edward, son of 
 Henry VI. 
 
p IG _ 1 6. — Effigy of the Black Prince on his tomb in Canterbury Cathedral. From the cast in the Crystal Paiace , Sydenham. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 39 
 
 The gilt spur was the honorific and distinguishing badge of the 
 knight, and was put on in the ceremony of investiture, and hacked off 
 by the king’s cook if the knight was formally degraded. An immense 
 spoil of gilt spurs fell to the victors after the battle of Courtrai. Both 
 the goad and rowel forms were in use throughout the century, and when 
 knights habitually dismounted to fight, they were taken off. Froissart 
 mentions instances where they were fixed in the ground like caltrops. 
 The extravagantly long, rowelled spurs of Henry VI. ’s time must have 
 been peculiarly inconvenient. 
 
 No great time could well have elapsed before similar defences of plate 
 were found necessary to protect the shoulders and elbows, which were 
 scarcely less vulnerable than the legs. The shoulder-pieces, however, are 
 rarely visible in illustrations and effigies, being much concealed by the 
 surcoat. The earliest arm-defence is in the form of an elbow-guard, and 
 appears in the effigy at Salisbury, date about 1260, consisting of one 
 cupped rosette over another. Elbow-guards are more commonly seen in 
 the second quarter of the fourteenth century, when they consist of cups 
 and discs, or both combined, the latter occasionally spiked. The eques- 
 trian figures of the De Valence monument, already mentioned, show in 
 one case gilt rosettes on the shoulders and elbows, and in the other the 
 forearms sheathed in plate. John of Eltham, 1334, has a roundel on the 
 elbow, with articulated plates beneath. In the Ifield effigy the arms are 
 shown by Stothard completely sheathed, and with shoulder and elbow 
 roundels bearing embossed lions’ heads. Plain roundels, rosettes, shells, 
 or lion masks were worn on the shoulders, and articulated plates are seen 
 between 1320 and 1350. The singular and exaggerated plates known 
 as ailettes, picturesque objects which rose above the shoulders like 
 epaulettes, were as useless apparently as the shoulder- knots of the 
 present day. They first appear on the scene in the Windsor tournament, 
 1278, and disappear in the first quarter of the fourteenth century. They 
 are of many shapes and sizes, and are well seen in our illustration (Fig. 10) 
 from Queen Mary’s Psalter, in an elegant brass in Weaver’s Funeral 
 Monuments , as well as in many others, and in several stained-glass windows. 
 Usually they bear the armorial bearings of the owner, though those of 
 Piers Gaveston, 13 11, were “ frettez de perles.” 
 
 Mail gloves continued to be worn, though with divided fingers, during 
 
4 o 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 the first part of the fourteenth century. The first effigy to show any 
 change is that of a Whatton, engraved by Stothard, of the time of 
 Edward II. Gloves of leather were sometimes worn between 13 11 and 
 1 360, as well as others of whalebone, metal studs and splintwork, iron scales 
 and brass. Plate-armour gauntlets first appear towards the middle of the 
 century with articulated fingers and a broad plate for the back of the 
 hand and wrist ; whilst a steel cuff, sometimes articulated, was shortly 
 afterwards added. They are at times spiked, or with gads like knuckle- 
 dusters, as in the case of the Black Prince, and frequently richly jewelled. 
 The jewelled example given from the effigy of Sir Thomas Cawne, of 
 the time of Edward III., is reproduced from Stothard’s drawing. The 
 other is from the monument of the Earl of Westmoreland, of the first 
 years of Henry VI. Gauntlets are constantly represented as gilt in 
 MSS. of these periods. 
 
 The knight’s dress for war now consisted, in addition to any ordinary 
 civilian underclothing, of a more or less complete suit of gambeson or 
 quilted material, sometimes called the haketon, as in Chaucer’s Sir 
 T hop as : — 
 
 Next his shert an haketon 
 And over that an habergeon, 
 
 And over that a fin hauberk 
 Was all y wrought of Jeweswork, 
 
 Ful strong it was of plate ; 
 
 And over that his cote-armoure. 
 
 The habergeon is the mail in this case, and the hauberk is of plate 
 or splint armour, while the cote-armoure is the surcoat, possibly thickly 
 padded, as in the still -existing surcoat of the Black Prince. In the 
 mutilated effigy at Sandwich the thick quilted gambeson is distinctly seen 
 at the knee and wrist underlying the mail, while the fine hauberk of plate 
 overlies it, and the surcoat is worn over all. The effigy at Ash shows the 
 plate armour, under the surcoat, fashioned in the curious armadillo-like 
 Jazerant or brigandine form, with an upper gambeson under it, as well 
 as the usual second gambeson under the mail. That two separate quilted 
 defences were worn at this time is supported by the De Crell brass, 1325, 
 the D’Abernon brass, 1327, and the Ifield and John of Eltham brasses, 
 
Plate III. — First suit of Sir Christopher Hatton, Captain of the Guard, and subsequently 
 Lord Chancellor. Reduced fac-simile of No. 15 in the Armourer’s Album 
 in the South Kensington Museum. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 4i 
 
 1334. The colours of these various garments, the edges of which were 
 allowed to show one above the other, were no doubt effectively contrasted, 
 while the edges of the mail, as we have seen, were pinked, vandyked, 
 or scalloped and gilt or finished with brass rings, while the plate-armour 
 finishes most commonly in a fringe-like arrangement of small vertical 
 plates. 
 
 The splendid glitter of polished steel, so associated in our minds 
 with the knight in armour, appealed scarcely at all to its wearers in this 
 Transition age. In fact, no decided preference can be discovered even 
 for the defensive qualities of steel, and this constitutes perhaps the most 
 
 Fig. 1 7. 
 
 1. Gauntlet from the effigy of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland, in Staindrop Church, Durham. Time 
 
 of Henry VI. 
 
 2. Gauntlet from the effigy of Sir Thomas Cawne, Ightham Church, Kent. Time of Edward III. 
 
 marked peculiarity of the age. In the halcyon days of mail, the steel 
 was kept bright and bare, the helm and shield burnished, with 
 nothing to conceal its brilliancy but a coronet and the rich sword-belts 
 which merely enhanced the effect. But in Chaucer’s Sir Thopas there 
 is no mention of steel forming part of the visible equipment : 
 
 His jambeux were of cuirbouly, 
 
 His swerdes sheth of ivory, 
 
 His helme of latoun bright. 
 
 Over the body armour was a garment, called by Chaucer “ the cote- 
 armoure, as white as is the lily floure.” 
 
42 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 His sheld was all of gold so red, 
 
 And thereon was a bores hed 
 A charbouncle beside. 
 
 I he helmets were almost hidden by the large crests and the scarlet 
 mantling, and the metal exposed was generally gilt. The trunk armour 
 was concealed under the emblazoned surcoat or pourpoint ; and when 
 the thighs and legs are visible below this they are seen to be clothed 
 over the mail by splinted or brigandine armour, showing velvet or satin 
 externally attached by gilt or silver nails ; the knee-caps and greaves 
 are often richly moulded and probably cuir-bouilli, as seen in the 
 statues on the front of Exeter Cathedral, and in the paintings from 
 St. Stephen’s Chapel they are also shown as gilt. The arms and at times 
 the hands are similarly clothed. The horse-armour was almost entirely 
 concealed by rich caparisons, as in Chaucer’s Knightes Tale : — 
 
 Upon a stede bay, trapped in stele, 
 
 Covered with cloth of gold diapered wele. 
 
 The figures from the tomb of Edmund Crouchback and Aymer de 
 Valence, engraved by Stothard, show the emblazoned housings of the 
 time of Edward II. The equestrian figures in Queen Mary’s Psalter show 
 that the fully-equipped knight of this period, when in full war panoply, 
 was a gorgeous object, blazing in colours and gold, and exhibiting little 
 to recall the stern realities of campaigns and sieges. 
 
 A few examples from inventories will best illustrate the colours and 
 the magnificence of the materials used to conceal the steel. Humfrey 
 de Bohun had breastplates covered with “ vert velvet ” ; the Earl of 
 March used “ rouge samyt ” and “ drap d’or,” and others had “ cendal 
 vermeil, samit vermeil, zatony, veluyau asure, veluyau vert ouvre de 
 broderie,” etc. Piers Gaveston’s pair of breastplates were “ enclouez et 
 garnie d’argent od 4 cheynes d’argent covery d’un drap de velvet vermail 
 besaunte d’or.” Two pairs of plates for the King of France required 
 3000 crescentic and 3000 round gilt nails to fix the velvet. Exposed 
 pieces of armour were gilt, if not jewelled, pearls and carbuncles being 
 the favourite gems. The baldric, knightly belt, sword-belt, hilt, and 
 scabbard furnished a field for the goldsmith. The magnificence indulged 
 in was often destructive to the wearers, who might have otherwise 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 43 
 
 escaped in battle. They were “ hunted for their hides,” or slain for the 
 sake of their spoils. 
 
 The weight and fashion of the armour largely determined the tactics 
 in war. The English appear at this time to have reverted to their 
 ancient practice, once more dismounting to engage in battle. At Cressy 
 the horses were sent to the rear, while the army, forming into 
 battalions of archers supported by dismounted men-at-arms, took up its 
 ground and waited the attack. The weight of armour carried by the 
 men-at-arms made any forward movement on their part impossible on 
 foot. By good fortune the 15,000 Genoese cross-bowmen, who might 
 have inflicted severe loss on the English, were unable to use their bows, 
 and the French coming up quite out of hand, charged and retreated as 
 the spirit moved them, without deploying into any battle formation, and 
 so fell into the utmost confusion, with the well-known results. Our 
 archers “ shot their arrows with such force and quickness that it seemed 
 as if it snowed,” piercing the Genoese and dismounting the horsemen ; 
 upon which a body of 1000 Welsh foot with long knives advanced 
 through the men-at-arms, who made way for them, and slew numbers 
 of the French chivalry, so that the battle was “ murderous and cruel.” 
 
 At Poitiers, 1356, the English similarly selected a strong position 
 and awaited the attack dismounted. The French, uncertain how to 
 meet the enemy, commenced by attacking with a mounted division, which 
 was routed by the effect of the English arrows on the horses before getting 
 to close quarters. Their retreat threw the second battalion, which also 
 appears to have been mounted, into a confusion, which quickly developed 
 into a panic. Deeming an advance necessary at this critical moment, the 
 English men-at-arms sent to the rear for their horses and charged, com- 
 pleting the destruction and dispersal of all but the rear battalion. This 
 was dismounted in order to fight on foot, and armed with sword 
 and battle-axe presented a most stubborn front, under the king in 
 person, numerous parties from the broken battalions rallying and dis- 
 mounting to join in its advance. The English resumed the defensive 
 and remained immovable, the archers plying their arrows with the usual 
 effect. The only English force capable of movement and able to 
 skirmish in the field was the archery, while the men-at-arms kept their 
 ground or advanced very slowly in compact order, until, seeing the day 
 
44 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 won, they again mounted to complete the discomfiture and engage in 
 pursuit. 
 
 At the battle of Auray, 1364, the French dismounted and fought 
 on foot, when the arrows did little execution among them, and the fight 
 developed into a hand-to-hand engagement with battle-axes, in which 
 the leaders, Sir Oliver de Clisson and Sir John Chandos, greatly distin- 
 guished themselves. In all subsequent battles and skirmishes between 
 French and English, until the close of the century, we find that both 
 sides invariably fought on foot, riding up till almost within striking 
 distance, and then dismounting as if by common consent. To advance 
 any distance on foot after dismounting in order to engage was, in fact, 
 almost impossible. The old knightly weapon, the lance, was in con- 
 sequence almost discarded, and could now only be used effectively if 
 shortened to about five feet, and thus with the shield fell into disuse 
 as a weapon of battle, while the presence of artillery also began to make 
 itself felt. 
 
IV 
 
 The Age of Plate -Armour 
 
 Any line dividing what has here been termed a Transition Age from 
 the age of fully-developed plate-armour must of necessity be a purely 
 arbitrary one. Roughly speaking, the age of plate commenced when 
 mail no longer formed the outer defence of any part of the body. The 
 last chink, leaving the mail exposed under the armpit, was a vulnerable 
 opening in the armour called the “vif de l’harnois,” or the “ defaut de la 
 cuirasse ” ; and even this now became protected by small plates of steel 
 called gussets. The necessity for such defences was often proved in 
 tournaments: it is related that the lance pierced “ au vif de l’harnois ” 
 for lack of the crescent or “gouchet.” When these last plates were added 
 the knights appeared more invulnerable than Achilles. We find at 
 almost every period, however, that a fair blow delivered “ au pas de charge ” 
 with a well-steeled lance might penetrate every defence ; and that no 
 armour could be made actually proof against downright blows from a 
 two-handed battle-axe wielded by a powerful and expert rider. 
 
 One of the most marked characteristics of this age of plate-armour 
 was a growing appreciation of the intrinsic beauty of steel, and a new 
 desire to invest steel armour with graceful lines. The tendency is best 
 exemplified in the fine Gothic armour of the second half of the fifteenth 
 century, of which much is fortunately preserved. This combines most 
 splendidly picturesque outlines with graceful fan or shell-like ridgings, 
 which please the more when examined critically, since every curve and 
 fluting serves some definite and practical end. 
 
 The casing of plate -armour, which had been so long elaborating, 
 
4 6 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 having at last become complete, the work of the armourer was directed 
 to further perfecting its parts, and to disencumbering the wearer, with 
 the least risk, of his weighty underlying chain-mail, quilted gambesons, 
 and padded surcoats. This process had not proceeded far when Agincourt 
 was fought, if we may credit the testimony of a French knight, who was 
 present and describes the armour as consisting of the long hauberk of 
 chain-mail reaching below the knee, and very heavy, with the leg-armour 
 beneath, and over this the plate or white armour with the bassinet and 
 camail. One Allbright, noted particularly as “ mail-maker,” and twelve 
 other armourers, were in the suite of the king on this expedition. The 
 weight of armour would, therefore, have rendered a repetition advisable, 
 on the part of the English, of the tactics of Cressy or Poitiers in this 
 battle, had not the French disconcerted us by dismounting and seating 
 themselves, and refusing to advance. They had also, copying the 
 English, brought a large force of archers and cross-bowmen into the 
 field, and, in addition, kept bodies of men-at-arms in the saddle on 
 either wing, to make flank attacks when opportunities occurred. The 
 English having in vain endeavoured to provoke the enemy to advance 
 by sending out archers to fire a house and barn, posted an ambuscade 
 and moved forward, the archers in front as usual and the men-at-arms 
 behind. The archers thus gave up the shelter of their pointed stakes, 
 and the men-at-arms suffered the fatigue of an advance in armour 
 of an almost insupportable weight to men on foot. They advanced, 
 however, with repeated huzzas, but, as the Chroniclers inform us, 
 “ often stopping to take breath.” The French, stooping their visors 
 under the amazing hail of arrows that began to fall upon them, gave way 
 a few paces, and the English, coming close up, pressed them soon after- 
 wards so hardly, “ that only the front ranks with shortened lances could 
 raise their hands.” Our archers, flinging away their bows, fought lustily 
 with swords, hatchets, mallets, or bill-hooks, supported manfully by King 
 Henry and his men-at-arms. Pressing on and slaying all before them, 
 they routed the van and reached the main body, which was also quickly 
 destroyed. The rear battalion of the French, which had remained 
 mounted, then fled panic-struck, and the battle terminated in some 
 desultory charges made by a few parties of nobles and their men-at-arms, 
 which were easily repulsed ; 10,000 French perished, all but 1600 being 
 
Plate IV. — Grand-guard of the suit of George, Earl of Cumberland, in the possession of 
 Lord Hothfield. This is a part of the 20th suit in the Armourer’s Album 
 in the South Kensington Museum. From a photograph 
 communicated by Baron de Cosson. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 47 
 
 gentlemen ! many in the massacre of prisoners consequent on a false 
 alarm. The battle of Verneuil, so fatal nine years later to the Scots, 
 who lost the Earls of Douglas, Murray, and Buchan, with the flower of 
 their army, was fought on precisely the same lines ; the main French 
 battalion with their Scottish allies on foot being first shaken by the 
 storm of arrows, and then destroyed at close quarters by the advance of 
 the archers with the usual “ loud shouts,” supported by the Duke of 
 Bedford and the men-at-arms. These defeats caused the French to 
 again waver in their plan for meeting the enemy, for at the battle 
 of Herrings, and the skirmish at Beauvais in 1430, they made their attack 
 mounted, the English archers receiving the first charge behind their 
 palisade of pointed stakes, and defeating the enemy by the clouds of 
 arrows taking their usual deadly effect on the horses. These stakes, six feet 
 long and sharpened at both ends, formed an important item of the archers’ 
 equipment, and were planted in the ground by the front rank, sloping 
 towards the enemy, the next rank fixing theirs intermediately to affright 
 the enemy’s horse. Throughout the Anglo -Burgundian alliance, the 
 Burgundians of all arms were often compelled “under pain of death” 
 to fight dismounted, the Picards especially adopting the tactics and 
 perhaps equalling the English. A little later, as at the battle of 
 Montlhery, 1465, both Burgundian and English archers are armed 
 with the formidable long-handled leaden mauls or mallets, which the 
 armour of the men-at-arms was incapable of resisting. In the account 
 of one of these battles we learn incidentally that the duty of the varlets 
 who invariably formed part of the retinue of each man-at-arms was 
 to succour and refresh their masters during the heat of the engagement, 
 and to carry the prisoners they took to the rear. 
 
 As the various hauberks of mail, brigandines, gambesons, and other 
 defences became more or less obsolete and discarded by men-at-arms 
 armed cap-a-pied, they were relegated to a lighter-armed cavalry and the 
 infantry ; but so long as a suit of mail continued to be worn by the man- 
 at-arms as a defence underlying the armour of plate, flexibility in the 
 latter was of paramount importance. 
 
 Regarding the armour of Henry V. as the earliest complete cap-a-pied 
 plate-armour, we find it thus composed. The breast and back plates are 
 each of one piece, the gorget is usually in one, though a standard of mail 
 
4 8 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 sometimes replaces it ; the limb -defences are of few pieces and rigid, 
 except at the joints, which are guarded by caps or roundels ; while the 
 armour of the fingers, toes, and upper surfaces of the shoulders is 
 articulated or protected by narrow laminar plates. The introduction of 
 the gussets, and more particularly of the horizontal bands of plate forming 
 a short petticoat below the waist, materially altered the appearance of 
 the armour of the fifteenth century from that of the fourteenth. The 
 plates of the petticoat, called the tassets, are first seen in the brass of 
 Nicholas Hawberk, at Cobham, who died in 1406, and they gradually 
 increase in number till about 1420. At Agincourt, where the 
 
 fighting was on foot, the visored bas- 
 sinet would have been worn by the king 
 and his men-at-arms, and not the great 
 helm. The example of the latter sus- 
 pended in the chantry of Henry V. 
 in Westminster Abbey, though a real 
 helm, was only purchased from Thomas 
 Daunt, for 33s. 4d., according to 
 Rymer, with the crest, for the funeral. 
 The bassinet was probably plumed 
 with ostrich feathers, which were taking 
 the place of crests, and was encircled 
 by a coronet, damaged in the melee 
 by a blow from the Duke of Alen^on, 
 which among its jewels comprised the ruby of the Black Prince, now in 
 the regalia. The diamond-hilted sword was not taken into the fray, un- 
 fortunately, as it happened, and fell a prey to the baggage-looters. The 
 king is generally represented wearing a tabard of arms on this occasion, a 
 garment differing from the surcoat in being loose and cut like the modern 
 herald’s tabard, emblazoned before and behind and on the broad flaps which 
 do duty for sleeves. The horses, borrowing the custom of Lombardy, 
 wore a heavy chamfron or headpiece of plate, of which a specimen still 
 exists in Warwick Castle, and an articulated crinet or neck-defence of over- 
 lapping plates, put together on the same plan as the tassets, and probably 
 some mail defences concealed by the emblazoned caparisons. The osten- 
 tatious magnificence which had hitherto covered the body armour of the 
 
 Fig. 18 . — Helm from the tomb of Henry V. 
 in Westminster Abbey, date 1400 - 
 1420 . From a photograph lent by 
 Baron de Cos son. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 49 
 
 knight with silks and satins, velvet and bullion and gems, especially among 
 the Burgundian French, was now in process of being transferred to the 
 horse. The housings are described as of silks and satins of every colour, 
 or velvet crimson and blue, or cloth of gold, and sweeping the ground, 
 besprinkled with escutcheons of arms, and loaded with silversmith’s work, 
 or raised work of solid gold. We read of trappings of white silver 
 fringed with cloth of gold, and of cloth of gold interwrought with solid 
 silver ; and it appears that no materials were too rich to deck out the 
 favourite destrier or war-horse. It is unlikely that the English were at 
 this time behind the French in display, for so early as 1409, of the six 
 pages of Sir John de Cornewall, two rode horses covered with ermine, 
 and four horses with cloth of gold ; and in 1414 the English embassy 
 carried themselves so magnificently that the French, and especially the 
 Parisians, were astonished. Splendid, however, as were the housings, the 
 headpieces of the horses eclipsed them. The horse of the Count de Foix 
 at the entry into Bayonne had a headpiece of steel enriched with gold 
 work and precious stones to the value of 15,000 crowns. The Count 
 de St. Pol’s horse’s headpiece on leaving Rouen was estimated to be 
 worth 30,000 francs, while those of the Dukes of Burgundy and Cleves 
 on the entry of Louis XI. into Paris were still more magnificent. That 
 ot the king, however, was on this occasion merely of fine gold with 
 ostrich plumes of various colours. As with the armour in the fourteenth 
 century, the rich trappings of the horse naturally led at times to the 
 pursuit and capture of the owner. It is difficult to believe, in days of 
 such magnificence, that the pay of the Duke of York under Henry V. 
 was only 13s. 4d. per day, an earl received but 6s. 8d., a baron or banneret 
 4s., a knight 2s., an esquire is., and an archer 6d. 
 
 Though Henry V. wore royal armour at Agincourt it does not 
 appear that he followed the prudent custom, first noticed in the battle 
 of Viterbo, 1243, of dressing several knights in an identical manner with 
 himself At Viterbo, on a knight dressed like the emperor being slain, the 
 result was a panic, and the emperor himself had to press with his trumpets 
 into the thickest of the fight to restore confidence. At Poitiers, though 
 nineteen knights were dressed like the king, it did not preserve him 
 from capture. In England, however, the king was saved on many a 
 field by this precaution, as at the battle of Shrewsbury, when the earl, 
 
 D 
 
50 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 Sir Walter Blount and two others in royal armour were slain. The 
 passages in Shakespeare will be present to the mind of all : — 
 
 Another king ! they grow like hydras’ heads ; 
 
 I am the Douglas fatal to all those 
 
 That wear those colours on them. Who art thou, 
 
 I'hat counterfeit’st the person of a king ? 
 
 and again, when Richard exclaims at Bosworth — 
 
 I think there be six Richmonds in the field : 
 
 Five have I slain to-day instead of him. 
 
 The appreciation ot steel, called by the Chroniclers plain or white 
 armour, for its own sake, had not progressed very far by the time 
 of Henry V.’s invasion of France, but the more lavish splendours were 
 at least reserved for gala occasions. The next modifications were 
 evidently devised to increase the flexibility of the armour, and can be 
 traced with greater precision in England than elsewhere, owing to the 
 fortunate preservation in our churches of a matchless series of military 
 monumental brasses. These clearly indicate that the tendency during 
 the first half of the fifteenth century was to increase the number of 
 joints or articulations in every part of the armour. By the close of the 
 reign of Henry V. things had proceeded so far in this direction that 
 in some cases the greater part of the limb - defences are made up of 
 laminated plates. 
 
 The next important change in the appearance of the man-at-arms 
 occurs in the early years of Henry VI., and is due to a striking develop- 
 ment of the fan-shaped elbow-guards, first seen in a rudimentary form 
 in 1425, as well as to an addition of short hinged plates called tuilles 
 to the bottom of the hoop-like skirt of tassets which lay closer to the 
 body. By 1435 these tuilles are ridged or fluted perpendicularly and 
 scalloped along the lower edge, and shortly after they take the more 
 developed, elongate and elegant forms familiar in Gothic armour. By 
 1440 we have the addition of great shoulder and elbow plates attached 
 by nuts and screws, and concealing the articulated shoulder -pieces or 
 epaulettes. These extra plates usually differ in size, being often very 
 much larger on the left side, which received the blows, and thus conferring 
 a quite peculiar character on the plate-armour of the middle of the 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 A 
 
 century. A scarcely less important modification, introduced about 1445, 
 is the articulation of the breastplate in two pieces, the lower overlapping 
 and sliding over the upper, and made flexible by straps. 
 
 The Daundelyon brass of this date, at Margate, exhibits a left 
 elbow-piece of immense size, and pointed and ridged tuilles below the 
 tassets, which are almost repeated again in form by the plates below 
 the knee-caps. John Gaynesford’s brass at Crowhurst, 1450, presents 
 strong reinforcing shoulder -guards over articulated plates, and repeats 
 the same long peaked and ridged plates below the knee-cap. We 
 continue for the next few years to find the limb-defences constantly 
 varying in the number and form of the pieces composing them, according 
 to the dictates of conflicting requirements, namely flexibility and im- 
 penetrability. The frequent absence of tuilles at this time is held to 
 imply that they were not used in combats on foot, then very popular. 
 It is obvious that when the immensely long and pointed solleret came in 
 with the equally preposterous spur, the fashion of fighting on foot was 
 on the wane, and the men-at-arms generally fought mounted during the 
 Wars of the Roses. 
 
 We see by manuscript illustrations that a few suits were still gilded, 
 and we find Jack Cade after his victory in 1450 flourishing about in a 
 suit of gilt armour, the spoils of Sir Humphrey Stafford. But the ever- 
 growing appreciation of the intrinsic beauty of the steel panoply and 
 its fine military qualities is now distinctly felt, and the armourer sought 
 more and more to invest his work with beauty of form. All is still 
 entirely dictated by fitness to its purpose, and the requirements of jousts 
 and war ; and the decorative and subtle shell-like ridgings and flutings 
 are really present more to deflect the weapon’s point than as ornament, 
 while the engrailing, dentelling, scalloping and punching of the margins 
 of the plates unmistakably indicate that the decorative spirit is applied 
 to embellishing and not to concealing the steel. The superb gilded 
 metal effigy (Fig. 19) of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, presents 
 a faithful model of the most beautiful type of Gothic armour known. 
 Every fastening, strap, buckle or hinge is represented with scrupulous 
 fidelity, not only on the front, but on the unseen back. Baron 
 de Cosson, who has minutely described it, expresses the belief that 
 it is a faithful reproduction of a suit actually worn by the Earl, and 
 
5 2 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 therefore earlier than 1439 ; although the effigy itself was only 
 produced in 1454, and the armour agrees with that worn in England 
 at the latter date. He regards the suit represented as the work 
 of the celebrated contemporary Milanese armourers, the Missaglias. 
 Italian armour is shown by sculptures, medals and paintings to have been 
 many years in advance of English, and the two known contemporary 
 suits by Tomaso di Missaglia greatly resemble it. The Earl of 
 Warwick knew Milan in his youth, when he had tilted successfully at 
 Verona ; and it was a practice among the great to obtain armour there, 
 dating from so far back as 1398, when the Earl of Derby had his armour 
 brought over by Milanese armourers ; the Baron’s view presents therefore 
 no improbabilities. Wherever made, the Earl of Warwick’s suit appears 
 to have solved the armourer’s problem, being at once light, flexible, yet 
 impenetrable. Indeed, in its beautiful proportions and admirably perfect 
 adaptation to all requirements, it appears more like a work of nature than 
 of art. The contours of the pieces and their graceful fan-like flutings, to 
 give strength and deflect opponents’ blows, are artistically splendid. The 
 great shoulder-guards and elbow-pieces, the cuissarts and winged knee- 
 caps, the tuilles, the jointed breast and back plates, the upright neck-guard, 
 not hitherto seen, are all fashioned with consummate skill. In such a 
 suit the preux and gallant knight for three days held his tournament 
 victoriously against all comers, presenting each of his discomfited 
 adversaries with new war-chargers, feasting the whole company, and 
 finally “ returning to Calais with great worship.” The two cuts (Figs. 20 
 and 21), illustrating scenes from his life, are taken from the exquisitely 
 drawn illustrations to the contemporary Beauchamp manuscript, now in the 
 British Museum. The incidental testimonies to the excellence of Italian 
 armour of the middle of the fifteenth century are abundant. A stalwart 
 Burgundian champion tried in vain during a tournament in 1446 to 
 penetrate or find a crevice in the armour of the Duke of Milan’s 
 chamberlain, whom it was impossible to wound; and in 1449 the suit 
 of another knight in the service of the same Duke was said to be steeped 
 in some magic liquid, as so light a harness could not possibly have 
 otherwise withstood the heavy blows it received. 
 
 No word ever escapes the chronicler in praise of English armour ; 
 but the splendid model of the Earl of Warwick’s suit is by William Austin, 
 
Fig. 19. — Effigy of Richard Beauchamp , Earl of Warwick , on his tornb in St. Marys Church, Warwick. About 1454. 
 
 From the cast in the Crystal Palace , Sydenham. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 55 
 
 founder, and Thomas Stevyns, coppersmith, both of London, with 
 the gilding, chasing, and polishing by Bartholomew Lambespring, 
 Dutchman and goldsmith of London. The will directs that the 
 effigy shall be made according to patterns, directions obviously most 
 scrupulously carried out. 
 
 In contemplating the lithe figure we may well believe that the 
 steely quality and workmanship of such a suit would confer immunity 
 
 Fig. 20. 
 
 The Earl of Warwick slays a “mighty Duke ” who has challenged him to combat for his lady’s sake, and wins 
 the favour of the Empress, to whom he makes a present of pearls and precious stones. The costume is 
 about fifteen or twenty years later than the death of Earl Richard, and shows the extra pieces worn in 
 the tilt-yard, 1450-60. 
 
 on the wearer ; and that the relative elasticity and lightness of a perfectly- 
 fitting suit might confer such superiority on an active and sinewy champion 
 engaging with men swathed like mummies beneath their armour in 
 thick gambeson or mail, as to enable him to emerge from his deeds of 
 arms as triumphantly as the heroes of romance. Nothing was worn 
 beneath but the fustian doublet, well padded and lined with satin, with 
 the small lozenge-shaped gussets of mail under the limb-joints and the 
 short petticoat of mail tied round the waist. It is also unlikely that such 
 
56 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 armour was concealed under any garment, and we may observe that 
 while some princes and nobles are still wearing brigandines of velvet 
 and cloth of gold in pageants, many more are in “ plain armour,” 
 presenting, except when standing collars of mail were worn, a uniform 
 surface of smooth polished steel. 
 
 The Missaglia suit remained the type with little modification for 
 several years, almost to the close of the Gothic period. The Quatre- 
 mayne brass in Thame Church, of the year 1460, presents a magnificent 
 example of it with singularly exaggerated elbow-guards. During the next 
 few years the limb-pieces and gorget become more articulated and flexible, 
 and the breast and back plates are formed of as many as three or four 
 overlapping articulated plates, cut chevron- wise, and notched and 
 indented in an interesting manner. The gauntlets and sollerets are 
 also of excellent workmanship. There are a number of peculiarly fine 
 examples in the Museum of Artillery in the Rotunda at Woolwich, from 
 the Isle of Rhodes, which exhibit the graceful outlines and ornament 
 of later fifteenth-century Gothic armour in perfection, and also present 
 early and interesting examples of engraving on armour. Lord Zouche 
 has also some remarkable suits, said to be from the Church of Irene at 
 Constantinople, in his collection at Parham. Sir Noel Paton’s fine 
 collection also comprises several Gothic suits, and there are some in the 
 Tower. None, however, are connected historically with English wearers, 
 and the destruction of Gothic armour in this country appears to have 
 been unusually complete. The illustrations from the Life of the Earl of 
 IVarwick, an English MS. of the second half of the fifteenth century (Figs. 
 20 and 21) ; and the scene (Fig. 25) from the late fifteenth-century MS. 
 of Froissart, which belonged to Philip de Commines, both now in the 
 British Museum, give excellent ideas of the armour of this period in 
 actual use, while the brasses supply exact figures of the details. 
 
 Turning now to head-defences, the great crested helm, still repre- 
 sented as pillowing the head in effigies, had long since been relegated to 
 the joust and tilt, while the bassinet with a visor, already seen in 
 the Transition period, remained the fighting helmet till about the middle 
 of the centur.y. The visor, however, was not unfrequently struck or 
 wrenched off in tourneys, and the neck pierced by the lance. Some 
 hardy warriors, indeed, like Sir John Chandos and the Earl of Warwick, 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 57 
 
 dispensed with it and went into the fray with faces hare, but this was 
 
 ill* H 
 
 ,H,IU iff 
 
 
 
 Fig. 21. 
 
 The Duke of Gloucester and Earls of Warwick and Stafford chase the Duke of Burgundy from the walls of 
 Calais. They wear loose sleeves and skirts of mail, anti the round broad-brimmed helmet very fashionable 
 for a time among the higher French nobility. The balls and tufts are probably Venice gold, with which 
 the helmet was perhaps also laced, over some rich material. This and Fig. 20 are from the Beauchamp 
 MS. in the British Museum, an exquisite production by an English hand. 
 
 exceptional, and the pig -faced and beaked visored bassinets occur in 
 all delineations of combats of the first half of the century. 
 
58 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 The bassinet began to be superseded towards the middle of the 
 fifteenth century by the sallad, which remained in fashion almost to its 
 close. Its merits were, the free supply of air it afforded, and the 
 readiness with which the face could be concealed and protected. It 
 was the headpiece of the Gothic armour, such as that of the Warwick 
 effigy, though monuments of this date almost always leave the head 
 bare. The origin of the sallad, whether German or Italian, is unknown, 
 but the term occurs in Chaucer. In its simplest form it was low- 
 crowned, projecting behind, and strapped under the chin, something 
 like a “ sou’wester ” or the heraldic chapeau, and in this form it was 
 worn by archers and billmen. Another kind had a higher crown, with 
 two slits in front as an ocularium, and could be pulled over the brows 
 till this came level with the eyes (Fig. 22). A hinged nose-piece 
 was also sometimes present, to be let down in time of danger. It was 
 also made more completely protective by a chin-piece called the bavier, 
 strapped round the neck or fastened to the breastplate for tilting ; while 
 a lighter bavier was in two pieces, of which the upper was hinged at 
 the side and could be raised for speaking. It was frequently furnished 
 with a visor to let down. The tail -piece was occasionally so prolonged 
 that sal lads measure as much as eighteen inches from back to front. It 
 occurs both smooth-topped and combed, and with a slot for plumes 
 approaches nearer to classic models than any other form of mediaeval 
 helmet. This picturesque headpiece is the one so frequently represented 
 by Albert Diirer, and was favoured for a longer time in Germany than 
 elsewhere, many of the Germans in the picture of the meeting of 
 Maximilian and Henry VIII. appearing in it, while all the English wear 
 the later close helmet or armet. The form represented has the addition 
 of articulated pieces behind and a double visor moving on pivots at the 
 sides, which make it a near approach to a closed helmet. 
 
 The sallad was the principal helmet in use throughout the Wars of 
 the Roses, and is constantly represented in manuscripts of that period. 
 But one solitary example has been preserved in England from the time of 
 those destructive wars, in which its first wearer may have taken part. It 
 hangs in St. Mary’s Hall, Coventry, and owes its preservation to its 
 use as a stage property in the Godiva processions. There are specimens, 
 however, in all the important collections in England and abroad. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 59 
 
 The bassinet was sometimes richly decorated, covered with velvet, 
 plumed, crested, and of considerable value, Sir John de Cornwall wagering 
 his helmet in 1423, which he offered to prove to be worth 500 nobles. 1 he 
 pretty custom of garlanding them with may, marguerites, or other flowers 
 specially favoured by a queen or prin- 
 cess, or with chaplets of pearls and 
 other gems, seen in the early part of the 
 century, lasted until after the introduc- 
 tion of the sallad, which provided a 
 better field for such display. A sallad 
 belonging to the Duke of Burgundy, 
 decorated with rubies and diamonds to 
 the estimated value of 100,000 crowns, 
 figured in the entry of Louis XI. into 
 Paris in 1443. In the expenses of 
 Henry VII. precious 'stones and pearls 
 are bought from the Lombards to the 
 value 0^3800 for embellishing sallads 
 and other helmets, and in France even 
 the sallads of the mounted archers are 
 continually mentioned as garnished 
 with silver. 
 
 The sallad was a relatively danger- 
 ous headpiece in tourneys on foot, and 
 a large-visored bassinet is often men- 
 tioned as being retained in use for this 
 purpose down to the sixteenth century. 
 
 The Baron de Cosson has identified 
 this form, seen to have been fixed to 
 the breast by two staples and a double 
 buckle behind, and himself possesses 
 a magnificent example, which once hung over the tombs of the Capels in 
 Rayne Church. Sir Giles Capel was one of the knights who with Henry 
 VIII. challenged all comers for thirty days on the Field of the Cloth of 
 Gold. The visor in this example is very massive, the holes so small that no 
 point could possibly enter, and the helm being fixed the head moved freely 
 
 Fig. 22. 
 
 1. Sallad in St. Mary’s Hall, Coventry. 
 
 2. Helm of Sir Giles Capel, date 1510- 1525. 
 
 Formerly in Rayne Church, Essex. Now in 
 the possession of Baron de Cosson. 
 
6o 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 inside. A second and possibly earlier example has the visor thrown into 
 horizontal ridges and a small bavier. The visor is hinged at the sides, 
 and the sight and breathing holes are short slots, parallel to and protected 
 by the ridges. It hangs over the tomb of John Beaufort, Duke of 
 Somerset, in Wimborne Minster, who died in 1444, but it is of later 
 date ; and another belonging to the suit of Henry VIII. in the Tower, 
 made for fighting on foot, is not dissimilar. Baron de Cosson calls 
 attention to the fact that this form, called a bassinet, is shown in the 
 miniature of the manuscript entitled, “ How a man shalle be armyd at his 
 
 Another very interesting and 
 thoroughly English form of helm, 
 intended, according to De Cosson, for 
 the tilt with lances, is preserved in 
 a specimen in Broadwater Church, 
 another in Willington Church over 
 Sir John Gostwick’s tomb, and a third 
 in Cobham Church, the helm of Sir 
 Thomas Brooke, who died 1522. 
 These all present considerable differ- 
 ences of detail. A not dissimilar 
 helm of slightly later date with a 
 barred visor, or the bars riveted to 
 the helm, affording plenty of breath- 
 ing space, was used for the tourney 
 with sword or battle-axe, and has become the Royal and the nobles’ 
 helmet of heraldry. 
 
 A form of helm used for tilting with the lance and also frequently de- 
 picted in heraldry, is the great helm of the time of Henry VII. and Henry 
 VIII., of immense weight and strength, resting on the shoulders, and 
 securely fixed to the back and breast. It was relatively flat on the crown, 
 produced in front into a kind of blunt beak, giving a bird-like aspect 
 with no distinct neck. The ocularium, or slit for vision, is large and in 
 the crown, and can only be used by bending the body forward ; the head 
 being raised before the moment of impact to avoid the danger of the 
 lance penetrating. T his helm is well represented in the tournament roll 
 
 ese when he schal fighte on foote.” 
 
 Fig. 23 . — English tournament helm over 
 the tomb of John Beaufort , Duke 
 of Somerset , in Witnborne Minster. 
 Weight 14 \ lbs. Date 1480-1520. 
 From a photograph lent by Baron de 
 C osson. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 6 1 
 
 of Henry VIII. in Heralds’ College, and from its massive strength and 
 the fact that by no possibility could a combatant be accidentally unhelmed, 
 afforded absolute protection to the head. Le Heaulme du Roy is 
 represented in this roll as silvered, with a crown-like border round the neck 
 of pearls and gems set in gold. 
 
 There is a magnificent specimen 
 in the Museum of Artillery at 
 Woolwich, one in Westminster 
 Abbey, two in St. George’s Chapel, 
 one in Petworth Church, and one 
 at Parham. This form of helm 
 was the most massive and secure, 
 and the last that remained in use. 
 
 A very early delineation of a 
 helmet of this type is seen in the 
 late fourteenth - century French 
 MS. (Burney, 257) in the British 
 Museum. Some exceedingly in- 
 teresting delineations of the same 
 kind of tilting helm in actual 
 use are to be seen in Philip de 
 Commines’ Froissart, Hark MS., 
 
 4379-8° (Fig. 25). It is there 
 represented plain and fluted, and 
 with various crests and mantling, 
 one of the most singular, and a 
 favourite, being a close copy of 
 the lady’s head-dress of the period, 
 with the lady’s long gauze veil 
 reaching below the waist. This 
 manuscript is of late fifteenth-century date, and very remarkable for the 
 apparently faithful representations of the armour worn by the English and 
 French at that time. In one group of soldiery alone, in the second 
 volume, page 84, the helm of the early fourteenth century, the beaked 
 bassinet of the early fifteenth, and various forms of visored and un- 
 visored sallads are assembled together. 
 
 Fig. 24. — Helm of Sir Join Gostzvick , died 
 
 15 + K 
 
 Believed to have been worn at the Field of the Cloth of 
 Gold, 1520, and now hanging over his tomb in 
 Willington Church, Bedfordshire. From a photo- 
 graph by the Rev. Augustus Orlebau, Vicar. 
 
62 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 All these forms of helm were more or less contemporary with the 
 sallad, which gave place in turn to the armet or closed helmet, first 
 heard of in 1443. Like, perhaps, the sallad, the armet was invented 
 in Italy, and did not reach England or even Germany till about 1500. 
 In France, however, a page of the Count de St. Pol bore a richly-worked 
 armet on the entry into Rouen of Charles VII. ; and the royal armet of 
 Louis XI., crowned and richly adorned with fleurs-de-lis, was carried 
 before him on his entry into Paris in 1461. It is also mentioned in 
 1472, in an edict of the Duke of Burgundy. 
 
 The fundamental difference between it and all helms and helmets 
 that had preceded it is, that while others had either fitted the top of the 
 head, as a cap does, or were put right over it, the armet closed round 
 the head by means of hinges, following the contour of the chin and 
 neck. Its advantages were neatness, lightness, and general handiness, 
 and it conveyed the weight by the gorget directly on to the shoulders. 
 Its use was exclusively for mounted combatants, though the great helm 
 continued in use for jousts and tilts during the time of Henry VIII. 
 It does not appear in English costume much before this reign, but in 
 all the pictures of the triumphs and battle-pieces of Henry VIII. at 
 Hampton Court, the English men-at-arms invariably wear it, and it is 
 abundantly represented in works of art during the remainder of the 
 Tudor period. 
 
 An early armet, identified by Baron de Cosson as Italian, with 
 a double bavier riveted together, but without a visor, hangs over the 
 tomb of Sir George Brooke, eighth Lord Cobham, K.G. (Fig. 26), 
 and dates from 1480 to 1500. Baron de Cosson describes it as having 
 a reinforcing piece on the forehead, hinged cheek-pieces joined down the 
 middle of the chin, and of peculiarly delicate and beautiful outline. It 
 originally had a camail hanging to a leather strap. The wooden Saracen’s 
 head may date from the funeral of this Lord Cobham in 1558, “but 
 was certainly never worn on any helmet.” Its owner served under 
 Norfolk in Ireland, in 1520, and was subsequently Governor of Calais. 
 
 English armets dating from about 1500 are not uncommon, but, as 
 frequently observed, “ they want that perfection and delicacy to be found 
 in fine Italian or German work.” The earlier open down the front, and 
 the later at the side. They are generally combed, the ridge or comb 
 
sw#***#*! 
 
 Fig. 25. — The entry of Queen Isabel into Paris in 139°. 
 
 The knights wear the great tilting helms, and the foremost has a copy of the ladies' head-dress for crest, from which depends a fine lawn veil. The housings aie 
 embroidered with gold. From the Philip de Commines copy of Froissart, Hail. MS. 4379, vol. 1, fol. 99, in the British Museum, late fifteenth century. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 65 
 
 running from the forehead to the back of the neck, and being beaten 
 or raised out of the metal in the most 
 able way. There is generally, but not 
 always, a reinforcing piece over the 
 forehead. The visor is of one piece, 
 and works on a pivot, but in a few of 
 the early specimens the pin and hinge 
 arrangement of the older Italian 
 examples is preserved, rendering it 
 removable. The slit for vision is 
 generally made in the body of the 
 visor, but is sometimes obtained by 
 cutting out a piece of its upper edge. 
 
 It is beaked, thrown into few or 
 several ridges, with the slits or holes 
 for breathing principally on the right 
 side. The English armet was rarely 
 furnished with a bavier or movable 
 chin-piece, and the fixed one, called a 
 mentoniere, was small. Baron de 
 Cosson obtained one from Rayne 
 Church in Essex, when it was pulled down, and Meyrick procured a 
 
 similar one from Fulham Church, and 
 Mr. Seymour Lucas, A.R.A., has two 
 very fine specimens, now exhibited at 
 South K ensington, while specimens are 
 to be met with in most great collec- 
 tions. The not inelegant fluted 
 Maximilian armets of the same date 
 are, however, far more frequent. 
 Like the later English armets, they 
 have no baviers. Between 1510 and 
 1525, a hollow rim was introduced 
 round the base of the helmet, fitting 
 closely into a corresponding ridge round the upper edge of the gorget. 
 This manifest improvement was considered by Meyrick to constitute the 
 
 Fig. 26. — Armet of Sir George Brooke , 
 K.G . , 8 th Lord Cobkam. From his 
 to?nb in Cobham Church , Kent. 
 1480-1 500. 
 
 Fig. 27. — English armet from the collec- 
 tion of Seymour Lucas , A.R.A. Date 
 about 1 500. From a photograph by 
 Baron de Cosson. 
 
66 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 Burgonet. Between 1520 and 1540 the visor was formed of two parts, 
 the upper of which dosed inside the lower, and was capable of being raised 
 without unfixing the latter. It remained in this form until the closed 
 helmet fell into disuse in the seventeenth century. The armet frequently 
 comprised, especially in the later examples, a fixed gorget, generally of two 
 or more articulated plates. A number of these are included in the six- 
 teenth and seventeenth century suits illustrated in the succeeding pages, 
 one of the most singular being the helmet of the mounted suit of Henry 
 VIII., made for the king by Conrad Seusenhofer of Innsbruck in 151 1-14. 
 It consists of six pieces fitting one within another without hinge or rivet, 
 and seems originally to have had one of the curious discs at the back 
 seen in Italian fifteenth-century armets and contemporary illustrations. 
 
 Towards the beginning of the sixteenth century knightly armour 
 underwent some profound modifications. The exaggerated elbow-guards 
 and shoulder -pieces were reduced, the tuilles, the laminated corselets 
 with their handsome flutings and indented margins, and the pointed 
 sollerets were either modified or seen no more ; and with them disappear 
 much of the angulated, defensive mannerism, and the grace peculiar to 
 the armour of the third quarter of the fifteenth century. That which 
 followed appears smoother, rounder, and heavier, less mobile, and 
 less apt for real campaigning. The modifications tending to this result 
 may have been in a large degree due to the personal tastes of the three 
 great monarchs of Europe. Maximilian and Henry VIII. preferred 
 at heart the pomp and pageantry to the realities of war ; while the 
 classic bias of Francis I. banished all Gothic feeling so far as his 
 personal influence extended. The short-waisted, podgy, globular 
 breastplate, the stolid limb - pieces, rounded knee-caps and strik- 
 ingly splay-footed sollerets, appear as if invented to altogether banish 
 the very idea of agility, if not of movement ; and contrast in the 
 strongest manner with the lithe and supple -looking armour of the 
 Beauchamp effigy. The Tower collection, so relatively poor in Gothic 
 armour, is fortunately extremely rich in that of the period of Henry 
 VIII., containing four or five suits actually made for his personal 
 use. One of the finest of these, and an admirably perfect suit, is 
 shown in our illustration (Fig. 28). Though without any decora- 
 tion or marks, it was undoubtedly made expressly for the king, 
 
Fig. 28. — Complete suit for fighting on foot , made for Henry VIII, 
 In the Tower of London. 
 

ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 69 
 
 and is a chef-d’oeuvre of the armourer’s craft, being formed, accord- 
 ing to Lord Dillon, of no less than 235 separate pieces, which 
 are used about one half below and the rest above the waist. 
 The principal pieces are fitted with a hollow groove along the inferior 
 margin, and overlap others provided with a corresponding ridge : so 
 that the whole suit thus interlocks, and the plates cannot be separated 
 or the armour taken apart except by removing the helmet and begin- 
 ning at the neck-pieces. To the left shoulder-piece or pauldron one 
 of the upright neck -guards is still fixed by rivets. The breastplate 
 is globose, and has a central ridge called the tapul. The arms are 
 sheathed in rigid plates, separated by a series of narrow laminar plates, by 
 which power of movement is obtained. The elbows are guarded by not 
 inelegant caps, and the gauntlets are miton-fashioned, of eleven small 
 plates, and very flexible. The leg-armour is in large pieces ridged 
 down the centre, similarly to the breastplate, except above and below 
 the knee-cap, and at the ankle, where laminar plates give the neces- 
 sary play. The sollerets being made, like the gauntlets, each of 
 thirteen pieces, are also extremely flexible, and reproduce in an exagger- 
 ated way the great broad toes of the civil dress. Like the helm, 
 already noticed, the suit is intended for combats on foot and in the 
 lists, which were greatly in fashion. No mail gussets were needed, 
 for there were no crevices between the plates, and the wearer inside 
 his armour was as well defended as a lobster in its shell ; but this 
 security, as with all armour-plate, was purchased, notwithstanding the 
 perfection of manufacture, at the expense of unwieldiness and fatigue, 
 for the suit weighs over 92 lbs. There are three other suits which 
 belonged to Henry VIII., besides the magnificent equestrian one next 
 figured. The second dismounted one was also intended for combats 
 on foot, and is known as a tonlet suit from the long, laminated skirt 
 of horizontal plates reaching to the knee, and sliding over each 
 other. It is decorated with some engraved bands or borders, while 
 the fine headpiece to it is Italian, bearing the marks of the celebrated 
 Missaglias of Milan. We meet at this time with the sliding rivets, a 
 new mode of attachment for the plates, which enabled them to play 
 freely over each other without parting company. The overlapping 
 tassets of most of the close-fitting skirts are made in this fashion, to 
 
7 o 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 which the term Almayne rivets, so frequently met with in inventories, is 
 believed to apply. Some of the suits are provided with a locking 
 gauntlet, to prevent the sword from being struck out of the wearer’s 
 hand, the so-called forbidden gauntlet, though its prevalence in collections 
 negatives the idea that its use was disallowed. In one mounted suit 
 the insteps are protected by the great ungainly stirrups necessitated by 
 the broad-toed sollerets, and therefore only covered with mail. This 
 suit is enriched with a picturesque banded ornament, partly gilt. 
 
 The superbly-mounted suit in our illustration (Fig. 29), one of the 
 finest of its date in existence, was constructed to the order of Maximilian 
 expressly for Henry VIII., by Conrad Seusenhofer, one of the most 
 celebrated armourers of Innsbruck, whose mark it bears on the helmet. 
 It was sent as a gift in 1514, and was originally silvered all over, and 
 finely engraved in every part with the legend of St. George and 
 the badges of Henry VIII. and Katharine of Arragon. The Tudor 
 cognisances are the rose, portcullis and red dragon ; and Katharine’s 
 the pomegranate and sheaf of arrows, with finely-scrolled arabesque work 
 between. This ornament seems to be engraved and not etched, as in later 
 times. The most remarkable feature is the steel skirt called base, of 
 great rarity, and made in imitation of the folds of the cloth bases so 
 much in vogue at this time. These skirts were used for fighting on 
 foot, and there is provision for fixing an additional piece to complete 
 it in front, the absence of which alone permitted the wearer to sit on 
 horseback, though the difficulty of getting into the saddle must have been 
 considerable. The skirt is edged with a finely-modelled border of brass 
 in high relief, with the initials H. and K. united by true-lover’s knots. 
 The suit is complete in every respect except the gauntlets, and is 
 mentioned in the Greenwich inventory of 1547, published in the fifty- 
 first volume of Arch<eologia by Lord Dillon. It is there described as “ a 
 harnesse given unto the King’s Maiestie by Th e Empero r Maximilian 
 w l a Base of stele and goldesmythes worke.” The brass border to the 
 base thus appears to have been regarded as silver and gilt goldsmiths’ 
 work. The horse armour matching the suit, which was to be used 
 on foot, as Lord Dillon points out, did not exist at this period, 
 and the figure was seated on the Burgundian horse armour of 
 repousse steel of the time of Henry VII., which still stands next 
 
Fig. 29. — Suit made for Henry VIII. by Conrad Seusenhofer of Innsbruck , 1 5 1 1-1 5 14. A present from the 
 
 Emperor Maximilian 1. In the Tozver. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 73 
 
 to it in the Tower. The engraving on the horse armour or bard 
 is designed in the same spirit as that of the armour itself, but is 
 by an inferior hand. The subjects are treated in the style of 
 Albert Diirer or Burgkmair, and represent incidents in the lives 
 of St. George and St. Barbara, and besides the badges on the armour 
 which are reproduced, the castle and the rose and pomegranate impaled 
 appear, with the motto diev et mon droyt many times repeated round 
 the edge. All these badges and engravings were illustrated, almost real 
 size, by Meyrick, in the twenty-second volume of ArcJueologia. The 
 horse armour was silvered and probably parcel gilt, like the body armour, 
 and was made, it is supposed, by some of the German armourers brought 
 over and established in Greenwich by Henry VIII. It is stiff and 
 unwieldy, and does not very efficiently protect the horse, though its effect 
 is dignified and even magnificent. The singular construction of the 
 helmet has already been alluded to. 
 
 Contemporary with these suits is the fine German late Gothic fluted 
 armour, known as Maximilian, nearly perfect examples of which are to 
 be seen in every collection of importance. This was used for tilts, with 
 the immensely massive outwork of plates to fend off the blows of the 
 lance and other weapons, and to prevent the left leg from being crushed 
 against the barrier. Some of the rarer Maximilian suits not only 
 reproduce the cloth skirts of the civil costume in steel, but also 
 innumerable puffings and slashings, which were the fashion of the 
 day. Sometimes the helmets belonging to these suits have the mask- 
 shaped visors, a specimen of which, also a present to Henry VIII. 
 from Maximilian, still exists in the Tower. This formed part of a 
 tilting harness, and is described in the 1547 inventory as “a hedde pece 
 w l a Rammes home silver pcell guilte.” In 1660 it was attributed to 
 Will Sommers, the king’s jester, and has subsequently been rendered 
 more grotesque by paint and a pair of spectacles. A complete helmet 
 of the same kind is preserved at Warwick Castle, as well as one of the 
 rarer Italian helmets, with curling woolly hair represented in embossed 
 iron, but without the visor. 
 
 All this armour was made for the shocks and pleasurable excite- 
 ment of jousts, tilts, and tourneys, which its perfection and strength 
 deprived of nearly every element of danger. Its weight and closeness 
 
74 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 would indeed have made it insupportable on active service. The great 
 revolution in the equipments for war, commenced by the artillery train 
 and nearly unarmoured pikeman and estradiot, was now being completed by 
 the reiter, pistolier and arquebusier. The massed man-at-arms, armed 
 cap-a-pied, had borne down for the last time all before him with the 
 lance, and was ceasing to play a decisive or even an important part in 
 warfare. Armour in campaigning was becoming of little consequence, and 
 even for the tourney a reaction was setting in against the extravagant 
 and ponderous precautions devised by Maximilian and his admirer Henry. 
 
 The decision of battles now belonged to pike, bill, and musket. The 
 infantry and light troops, who had hitherto been left to arm themselves 
 as best they could, began to be dressed in some sort of uniform, with 
 weapons and armour selected with some care, and used in definite 
 proportions. It is certainly strange to read that the archers who did such 
 splendid service at Agincourt were left to pick up any kind of helmet, 
 bassinet, or cap, whether of leather or wicker bound with iron, and any 
 description of side-arms, and were mostly without armour, save the pour- 
 point, with stockings hanging down or bare feet. Only the bows, arrows, 
 and stakes were obligatory. In pictures, archers and the foot generally 
 are represented in every kind of old brigandine, mail, bits of plate, or 
 “jakkes” of linen, which inventories tell us were stuffed with horn or 
 mail. It was only when the kings and nobles thought it worth their 
 while to clothe and equip the foot-soldier that his costume became dis- 
 tinctive, and even sumptuous in the case of the bodyguards to Charles 
 VII., Louis XI., or Henry VII. and VIII. A larger proportion of archers 
 became mounted as the fifteenth century wore on, Edward IV. invading 
 France with no less than 14,000, besides the foot. Picked men, and those 
 of the bodyguards of kings and princes, like the Duke of Burgundy, 
 were sometimes magnificently dressed. The uniform of the archers of 
 the Duke of Berri in 1465 was a brigandine covered with black velvet 
 and gilt nails, and a hood ornamented with silver gilt tassels. At 
 the entry into Rouen, 1460, the archers of the King of France, the 
 King of Sicily and the Duke of Maine wore plate-armour under jackets 
 of various colours, with greaves, swords, daggers and helms rich with 
 silversmiths’ work. The leaders of other corps were in jackets striped 
 red, white and green, covered with embroidery. English archers are 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 IS 
 
 sometimes spoken of as gallantly accoutred. Under Henry VIII. the 
 bodyguard called the “ retinewe of speres ” comprised two mounted 
 archers in uniform to each man-at-arms, as in France. Every layman 
 with an estate of _£iooo and upwards had to furnish thirty long-bows, 
 thirty sheaves of arrows, and thirty steel caps. In 1548 the uniform 
 of the English archer was a coat of blue cloth guarded with red, right 
 hose red, the left blue, or both blue with broad red stripes, and a 
 special cap to be worn over the steel cap or sallad, to be bought in Lon- 
 don for 8d. They were provided with brigandines or coats of little 
 plates, mawles of lead five feet long, with two stakes, and a dagger. The 
 distinguishing mark of the various bands was embroidered on the left 
 sleeve. In 1510 Henry ordered 10,000 bows from the bowyers of Lon- 
 don, and applied for leave to import 40,000 from Venice. In 1513 he 
 took 12,000 archers to France, and in 1518 agreed to furnish 6000 
 archers to the emperor. In this reign they did good service, as in 
 repelling the descent of the French at Brighton, 1515, and at Flodden, 
 where the King of Scots was found among the dead pierced by an arrow. 
 Some bow-staves of yew were recovered from the wreck of the Mary 
 Rose, and are now in the Tower. At Dover Castle there are a long-bow 
 and a cross-bow, stated to be part of the original armament. 
 
 The cross-bow was rarely favoured by Englishmen, though an 
 imposing force of 4000 appeared in the united forces of England and 
 Burgundy in 1411, each attended by two varlets to load, so that the 
 weapons were always ready to shoot. In 1415, however, Henry V. only 
 took ninety-eight from England in his whole force of 10,500 men, 
 eighteen of whom were mounted. In 1465 the so-called mounted 
 archers were very variously armed in France, with cross-bows, veuglaires, 
 and hand culverins. 
 
 If so formidable a body as the English archers could be left to their 
 own devices as to accoutrements in the first half of the century, the rest 
 of the foot, armed with long weapons called staves, bills, and halbards, 
 must have presented the appearance of a mere rabble. The French 
 foot, armed with partisans, halbards, or javelins, bore the suggestive 
 name of “ brigans,” and were much despised, but at Montlhery in 1465 
 the greater part of the slaughter was by the “ rascally Burgundian foot,” 
 with their pikes and other weapons tipped with iron. 
 
76 
 
 {. RMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 I he Swiss victory at Morat in 1476 undoubtedly Jed the French, 
 and later the English, to introduce a disciplined infantry armed with 
 the pike as a serious element into the army. In 1480 the French took 
 the extreme course of disbanding the whole body of archers, sub- 
 stituting Swiss pikemen, and causing a prodigious number of pikes, 
 halbards, and daggers to be made by the cutlers. Thus in 1482 the 
 army of Picardy is composed of no more than 1400 men-at-arms, 
 6000 Swiss, and 8000 pikes. The proportions in England, ten 
 years later, may be gauged by the Earl of Surrey’s contingent of five 
 men-at-arms, each with cushet and page, twelve demi-lances, twenty 
 archers mounted, forty -six on foot, and thirteen bills. The archers 
 remained an important force with us till long after Flenry VIII., but it 
 is only in his reign that the billmen and halbardiers occupy a definite 
 position in the country’s armed forces. These were armed with bill, 
 sword, shield, sallad, and corselet. The costume of the foot and even 
 the yeomen of the guard, 1000 strong under Flenry VIII., changed 
 with the civil dress, but always included the royal badge and crown. 
 Henry proceeded to the siege of Boulogne in the midst of his pikemen 
 with fifty mounted archers on the right and fifty mounted gunners on 
 the left. Their costumes are seen in the Hampton Court pictures. In 
 1598 it was scarlet profusely spangled. Under Philip and Mary they 
 were an even more important force, and under Elizabeth the backbone 
 of the army was its pikemen, billmen, and harquebusiers, now armed, 
 as in France, with Milanese corselets and morions. The bill was six feet 
 long, of native production, the head at least twelve inches long, and bound 
 with iron like the halbard, which was shorter, to at least the middle of the 
 staff. The black bills were also shorter and from Germany, but the 
 best halbards were Milanese. The partisan with us seems to have been 
 more a weapon of parade, various in form, with or without wings, and 
 richly decorated with engraving, painting, and gilding. The pike was 
 eighteen to twenty-two feet long, with a tassel to prevent the water 
 running down. The “Staves” in the Tower under Henry VIII. included 
 20,100 morris pikes, some highly decorated, and 2000 javelins, mostly 
 richly mounted, as if for the Court guards. The army taken to France 
 in 1513 comprised, according to the Venetian ambassador, 6000 halbar- 
 diers and 12,000 men with holy-water sprinklers, a weapon never seen 
 
Plate VI. — Profile of the helmet belonging to the French suit (tig 32). 
 In the guard-chamber of Windsor Castle. 
 

ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 77 
 
 before, six feet long, surmounted by a ball with six steel spikes. The 
 name was a quaint joke, like the Flemish Godendag or the Swiss Wasist- 
 das and Morgenstern. Besides these there were tridents, pole-axes, collen 
 cleves, boar-spears, rawcons, partisans, and other forms of staff weapons 
 in smaller quantities. 
 
 An English army sometimes comprised light cavalry even in the 
 earliest times, perhaps none more singular than a miserably-accoutred 
 force of mounted Irish armed with target, short javelin, and great out- 
 landish knives, but without using saddles, in the reign of Henry V. 
 The army of Henry VIII. in 1513 comprised 9000 to 10,000 heavy 
 barbed cavalry and 8000 light horse, and 2000 mounted archers. His 
 “ Retinewe of speres ” comprised a page, a cushet with javelin or demi- 
 lance, and two archers, all mounted, to each man-at-arms. An English 
 force of about 400 demi-lances serving Henri II. in 1552 “for their 
 pleasure,” were in short petticoats, red bonnets, body with brassarts of 
 plate, and high leather boots above the knee, mounted on swift little 
 horses and armed with a lance like a demi-pike. 
 
 The infantry, though not yet a permanent standing force, except in 
 the case of the Royal bodyguards, was now a recognised arm into which 
 men enlisted as a professional career for the term of their lives or until 
 disabled. To handle the pike or arquebus efficiently required long 
 training, and veterans were always accepted before recruits. It was their 
 steadiness and power of manoeuvring in action that lessened the value of 
 heavy cavalry, and consequently contributed, more than any other cir- 
 cumstance, to the rapid disuse of the cap-a-pied suit of armour in the 
 field, so noticeable in the next chapter. 
 
V 
 
 The Age of Enriched, Armour 
 
 Armour began from about the accession of Edward VI. to cease to 
 be a military necessity, and those engaged in practical warfare were more 
 ready to dispense with its doubtful protection than to encumber them- 
 selves with its certain disadvantages. Excuses were found for appearing 
 in the field without armour, or with an imperfect equipment, and 
 punishments were inflicted in the vain attempt to stem the tide of 
 change. Those who served on foot had naturally the strongest objection 
 to bearing its weight, since when opposed to firearms it ceased to have 
 any practical utility. A battle-scene at Hampton Court, the battle of 
 Forty by Snayers, furnishes the strongest justification for its disuse among 
 men-at-arms. It represents a number of mounted men in complete 
 armour, who discharge horse-pistols point blank at each other’s breast- 
 plates, the individual struck falling in every case dead or wounded from 
 his horse. The wheel-lock pistol, the arm of the German Reiters, who 
 wore black armour, mail sleeves, and a visored morion, was in the field 
 in 1512. From this time, therefore, armour was worn rather for display 
 than service, and the purchaser came to value its defensive qualities 
 far less than the magnificence of its decoration. Nor was ostentation 
 in arms confined to the noble or knight alone. Brantome says that 
 among the pikemen and musketeers of Strozzi, De Brissac, and the 
 Due de Guise, thousands of gilt and engraved morions and corselets 
 were to be seen on parade days, and the armour worn by the picked 
 force of Spaniards and Italians sent by Philip of Spain to occupy the 
 Netherlands was a splendid sight. The great and wealthy have seldom 
 
Fig. 30. — Part of a suit ?nade for Sir Christopher Hatton. 
 
 From the Spitzer collection, and now in the possession of Mr. Charles Davis. This is No. 15 in the Armourers’ 
 Album in the South Kensington Museum, reproduced in our Plate III. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 cared to stint in matters of personal adornment, and in days when there 
 were fewer ways in which a taste for extravagant expenditure could be 
 combined with a high appreciation of art, fortunes were spent upon the 
 coverings of the body. Nothing more sumptuous in applied art exists, in 
 regard either to design or execution, than the work lavished on the armour 
 produced for the French, Spanish, and other monarchs in the second half 
 of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth centuries. Among this 
 the most exquisitely beautiful is the damascened work, scattered over 
 Europe, persistently though erroneously attributed to Cellini, of which, 
 perhaps, one of the finest examples is the target at Windsor. It is no 
 exaggeration to say that neither chiselling, embossing, nor damascening 
 on metal has ever rivalled or even approached that bestowed at this time 
 upon royal arms and armour. The chief seats of production were in 
 Germany and Italy, at Milan above all, then Innsbruck, Augsburg, 
 Nuremberg ; and in a less degree Florence, Brescia and Venice. It is 
 singular that few fine suits can be attributed to France, and fewer still 
 either to Spain, the Netherlands, or England. The youth of Edward, 
 the fact that female sovereigns succeeded, and finally, the timidity and 
 horror of war felt by James, account for none of the known chef-d’oeuvre 
 suits being made for English wearers. Such extraordinary and magnifi- 
 cent armour was meet for none but the high-spirited and rival 
 princes of Europe, and no king distinguished for valour occupied the 
 throne of England during the period when enriched armour reached 
 its culminating point of grandeur. 
 
 There are, however, a certain number of richly engraved and gilt suits 
 which have been in the possession of English families from time im- 
 memorial, and the fortunate acquisition for the South Kensington Museum 
 Art Library of an Armourers’ Album of the time of Elizabeth, has 
 enabled many of the original wearers of them to be identified. This MS., 
 as Lord Dillon relates, was in the possession, in 1790, of the Duchess of 
 Portland, daughter of Harley, Earl of Oxford, who permitted Pennant to 
 engrave from it a suit of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, for his 
 account of London ; while Strutt was allowed to reproduce that of 
 George, Earl of Cumberland, for his work on dresses and costumes. 
 I he book undoubtedly once formed part of the great Harleian Library, 
 but was lost until seen in Paris some years ago by Baron de Cosson. It 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 was sold at the Spitzer sale, acquired by M. Stein, and offered to the 
 Kensington Museum, by whom it was wisely purchased. 
 
 The drawings are in pen and ink and water-colours and represent 
 twenty - nine frill suits, besides the extra pieces for tilting. Some 
 of them are inscribed “ Made by me Jacobe,” the name of the master 
 armourer at Greenwich during part of Elizabeth’s reign, and mentioned 
 by Sir Henry Lee, the Master of the Armoury, in a letter to the Lord 
 Treasurer, dated 12th October 1590, published by Lord Dillon in the 
 fifty-first volume of Archceologia. Wendelin Boheim, the curator of the 
 Imperial collections of armour at Vienna, has recently identified this 
 Jacobe with Jacob Topf, one of three brothers, natives of Innsbruck or 
 its vicinity, and who suddenly appears as court armourer in 1575. This 
 post he seems to have retained and worked at Schloss Ambras till his 
 death in 1597. Suits made by him during this period for the Archduke 
 Lerdinand of Tyrol and Archduke Charles of Styria certainly bear some 
 resemblance to those in the Album. Boheim infers from the Italian 
 influence seen in his work, especially in the ornament, that Topf must 
 have proceeded from the atelier of Jorg Seusenhofer to Milan or Brescia, 
 about the year 1558, and taken up his abode in England between 1562 
 and 1575. 
 
 To support the identification of the Jacobe of the Album with Jacob 
 Topf of Innsbruck, it is necessary either that all the suits should have 
 been produced before 1575, or that those made at a later time should be 
 regarded as by some other hand. The first two, for Rutland and Bedford, 
 who died respectively in 1563 and 1 564, are relatively plain, and have 
 M.R. over them, and the rest E.R., which can only, it would appear, 
 have reference to the initials of the reigning queens. All the figures 
 are practically drawn from one model, though sometimes reversed, and 
 are in an easy and graceful pose. Two of the richest, namely the second 
 suit for Sir Henry Lee, the Master Armourer, No. 19, and the first suit 
 of Sir Christopher Hatton, No. 15 of the Album, are here reproduced in 
 facsimile, though reduced in scale (Plates II. and III.). One holds a mace 
 and the other a truncheon in one hand, with the butt resting upon the hip, 
 while the other arm is bent and the extended palm rests upon the thigh. 
 They wear the close helmet or armet of Italian fashion, with a high comb 
 and a large sharply-pointed visor. The gorgets are laminated, the 
 
Fig. 31 . — Arsnour of Robert Dudley , Earl of Leicester, 1566 - 1588 . In the Tozver. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 85 
 
 pauldrons large and massive, the breastplates long- waisted, known as 
 the peascod shape, ending in a point, with a ridge down the centre 
 called the tapul ; the tassets are short and laminated. Only the front 
 of the thigh is protected by laminated cuissarts, and the rest of the 
 leg by close-fitting knee-caps and greaves. The sollerets are complete 
 and take the shape of the foot. The swords appear to be simply cross- 
 hilted and worn in scabbards. Both the suits reproduced are richly 
 engraved with vertical bands of gilt arabesqued ornament in the Italian 
 fashion : Sir Christopher Hatton’s being on a russet ground with a gold 
 corded pattern connecting the bands; and Sir Henry Lee’s on a white 
 ground with a knotted reticulated pattern between. The minor details 
 are considerably varied in the other suits, two of which have been 
 reproduced by Lord Dillon, and two by Boheim in the publications already 
 referred to. The complete list comprises the names of many of the 
 leading nobles and captains of Elizabeth’s reign, only two in it being 
 foreigners. 
 
 The ornament is sufficiently distinct to admit of the suits being 
 identified where they still exist. Thus the Earl of Pembroke’s suit is 
 still at Wilton, in perfect preservation ; the suit of George, Earl of 
 Cumberland, is in the possession of Lord Hothfield at Appleby Castle. 
 The grand-guard of this suit, with volant attached, forms the subject of 
 Plate IV., in which the original russet and gilding is somewhat restored. 
 The ornament on the bands is an interlacing strap upon a foliated 
 arabesque ground, with a figure of Mercury near the top, and two 
 E’s at intervals addorsed and crowned, coupled by a true-lover’s knot. 
 Between are large roses and fleurs-de-lis united by knots. The helmet 
 of Sir Henry Lee’s second suit, Plate II., is now in the Tower, having 
 been identified by Lord Dillon, while a locking gauntlet belonging to 
 it is in the Hall of the Armourers’ Company. This gauntlet, called 
 the “forbidden gauntlet,” was in form of a closed right hand, the 
 fingers fastened by a hook and staple, leaving an aperture for the passage 
 of the weapon which, if a lance, or sword with cross-guard and pommel, 
 could not be dislodged. In the Tower are also the vamplate of Sir 
 Christopher Hatton’s second suit, and the complete armour of the Earl of 
 Worcester, with both the headpieces. A helmet of Lord Sussex’s suit is 
 in the Tower, and two gauntlets belonging to it were in the Spitzer sale. 
 
86 
 
 IRMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 Lord Bucarte’s suit is in the Wallace collection at Hertford House, and 
 another fine suit is in Armourers’ Hall. 
 
 The first Sir Christopher Hatton suit, Plate III., has also recently 
 reached this country, fortunately in almost perfect condition. It was 
 disposed of in the Spitzer sale, and was purchased by Mr. Davies of 
 New Bond Street. It will be a misfortune if this historic piece is not 
 added to the national collection. Fig. 30 represents the upper part 
 of this suit, taken from a photograph, with the high neck -guards 
 attached to the pauldrons. The original front-plate seems to be lost, 
 but the extra breastplate for tilting and some other extra pieces are 
 preserved. 
 
 If Boheim is correct in his identification of Jacobe with Jacob Topf, 
 and in his dates, the armour in the Album must be by different hands. 
 Thus Topf, arriving in 1562, could hardly have made the first two suits 
 marked M.R., the owners of which died, as we have mentioned, in 1563 
 and 1564 respectively. The mail defence for the instep and the relatively 
 broad toes are features of an earlier time, which the letters M.R. identify 
 as that of Mary, and show that the very broad stirrup of Henry VIII. 
 was still in use. Neither could he, being settled in Innsbruck or at 
 Ambras in 1575, have made the suits for Sir Henry Lee, as Master of 
 the Armoury ; nor that for Sir Thomas Bromley, as Lord Chancellor, 
 though the latter suit may have been for Sir Nicholas Bacon, the previous 
 Lord Chancellor. The chief difficulty is the date of Sir Henry Lee’s 
 appointment, which Lord Dillon in his able treatise, in the Archeological 
 Journal for June 1895, gives as 1580, and the fact that the solitary 
 mention of Jacobe in any document is by Sir Henry Lee himself, and 
 is dated October 1590, in which he speaks of him as “ the M'' workman 
 of Grenewhyche,” and in a way that could not well have reference to 
 one who had quitted the post fifteen years before. These difficulties 
 may, however, it is possible, yet be reconciled. 
 
 Among the fine suits in the Tower is the equestrian armour of Robert 
 Dudley, Earl of Leicester (Fig. 31), not however one of the suits in the 
 Album. It is, like the Jacobe suits, banded in the Italian fashion, with a 
 similar kind of design upon the bands, and between them a broad impressed 
 diaper of crossed ragged staves and leaves filled with fine arabesques. 
 Among the enrichments can also be seen the George of the Garter, 
 
Fig. 32. — A superb suit of French armour in perfect preservation. Early seventeenth century. 
 In the Guard-chamber of Windsor Castle. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 89 
 
 the bear and ragged staff, the initials R.D., and the collar of the Order 
 of St. Michael and St. George, conferred upon this favourite of Queen 
 
 Fig. 33. — Italian suit of blued and gilded steel covered with appliques of gold. In the Guard- 
 
 chamber of Windsor Castle. 
 
 Elizabeth in 1566. In the illustration of this suit, Fig. 31, the bear 
 and ragged staff is plainly visible on the horse’s chamfron, from which 
 
90 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 issues a twisted spike. The armet is combed, but differs in form from 
 the Jacobe type, and the visor is pierced on one side with round holes. 
 In other respects the fashion of the armour is very similar to that of his 
 enemy, Sir Christopher Hatton. The grand-guard and pass-guard or 
 elbow-guard are preserved with it. The former is illustrated, Plate V., 
 with its original gilding restored, the military cleaning and scouring to 
 which it has been subjected for so many years, not wisely but too well, 
 having obliterated every trace of the original splendour of colour. A 
 portrait of the Earl in this very suit exists, however, to show what it was. 
 He died, it is well known, in 1588. 
 
 Several splendid and historic suits are preserved in the Guard-room 
 at Windsor Castle. Among these, one, the suit of Prince Henry of 
 Wales, son of James I. (frontispiece), bears a remarkable resemblance 
 to the Jacobe suits, recalling especially the design of the Cumberland 
 suit, Plate IV. But for the alternation of thistles among the fleurs-de-lis 
 and roses between the bands of gilded ornament, the body armour in 
 both would be nearly identical. The monogram H.P. appears on the 
 gilt bands of strap and arabesque work. The gilding is in fine preserva- 
 tion, and except that the steel was formerly a deep blue, in the Milanese 
 fashion, it is still as represented in the portrait of Prince Henry in 
 the possession of the Marquis of Lothian. It has been attributed 
 to William Pickering, Master of the Armourers’ Company of London 
 in 1608-9, 011 the faith °f some payments made to him, which Mr. 
 St. John Hope has noted as follows: “In March 1613, a warrant issued 
 under sign manual, for the payment to Sir Edward Cecil of a balance 
 of £300 due for armour value ^450 for the late Prince Henry : and 
 in July 1614 a warrant issued to pay William Pickering, Master of the 
 Armoury at Greenwich, ^200 balance of ^340 for armour gilt and 
 graven for the late Prince.” The helmet somewhat resembles that of 
 the Leicester suit, but has a singularly stiff, vertically -ridged gorget 
 with scalloped edge, and heavier gauntlets. The leg-defences and sollerets 
 do not differ appreciably from those already noticed. A number of the 
 extra pieces and some of the horse armour belonging to the suit are 
 preserved with it. If really by Pickering he was a close copyist of 
 Jacobe. An apparently companion suit of Prince Charles is looked on 
 with suspicion by Lord Dillon. Another of Prince Henry’s suits, 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 91 
 
 presented by the Prince de Joinville, and now in the Tower, was origin- 
 ally of blued steel richly ornamented with classical designs in gold. 
 There are also in the Tower a line suit made for Charles I. when a boy, 
 some silvered pieces, and the richly gilt and engraved armour presented 
 to him by the City of London. 
 
 Fig. 34 .. — A part of the ornament of the Italian suit (Fig. 33), drawn real size. 
 
 Another suit at Windsor of extraordinary magnificence is that 
 represented in Fig. 32. It is, unfortunately, not well set up, and differs 
 considerably in construction from those hitherto noticed, and is of later 
 date than the Jacobe suits. The tassets are replaced by laminar cuissarts 
 extending to the knee, below which the suit is not continued. "Phe 
 ornament is banded vertically, like that of the suits previously figured, 
 
92 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 but is of a richer character. Its details and colouring are reproduced 
 on a larger scale in the helmet, Plate VI., which is combed, fluted, and of 
 singularly graceful outline, with all its fastenings, plume -holders, and 
 the stiffly-ribbed gorget in most perfect condition. The whole appears 
 to be a specimen of rare French armour, but nothing is known of its 
 history. Even more sumptuous, if possible, is the Italian suit, Fig. 33, 
 which also exhibits some peculiar characters, such as the single plates 
 in place of the tassets and the construction of the arm -defences and 
 gauntlets. The setting up in this suit is also unfortunately defective. 
 The extraordinary richness of the damascening and applique work is 
 reproduced in big. 34, in which a portion is sketched real size. Nearly 
 all the escutcheon-like appliques have been picked off at some period, 
 either for mischief or for the gold. The original owner of this suit is 
 also unknown, but it may, with the one last described, have possibly 
 been a present to Prince Henry, whose passion for military exercises 
 and display is matter of history. The last of our illustrations (Fig. 35) 
 taken from suits in the Windsor Guard-chamber is a demi-suit of the 
 Earl of Essex, and is a war suit, something like a pikeman’s, except that 
 the closed helmet was not worn by dismounted men. This is combed, 
 and introduces a shade or peak over the sight. It has no visor, but a 
 bavier in two pieces protects the face. It should perhaps be described 
 as a burgonet with gorget and movable mentonieres. Probably only 
 a part of the suit is present, that for use on foot, and the helmet may 
 belong to the missing equipment for a rider, or if worn on foot it would 
 have been as an open burgonet. The Jacobe Album introduces us to 
 the burgonet and cabasset, a lighter morion, and shows that these were 
 used when fighting on foot by even the greatest captains. This suit is 
 also decorated in bands, a fashion almost universal during the reign of 
 Elizabeth. The breastplate is the peascod with tapul form, and the 
 cuissarts “a ecrivisse ” form the only protection for the legs. The 
 ornament is more finely and delicately chased than that of any suit yet 
 noticed. The design on the bands is an interlacing and knotted strap, 
 filled with arabesqued foliage enclosing medallions with emblematic 
 figures and flowers encircled by mottoes, as Futura prasteritis, on a 
 ground etched down, but with foliage and bright points like grains of 
 seed, left on it. A part of this ornament is drawn full size in Plate VII. 
 
Fig. 35 . — -Demi-suit of the Earl of Essex, zvith closed helmet , magnificently engraved 
 and gilt. From the Guard-chamber at Windsor Castle. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 95 
 
 There is a suit in the Tower attributed to the same Robert Devereux, 
 Earl of Essex, who was executed in 1601, also richly engraved and gilt. 
 
 Fig. 36 . — Sword, probably of fames I., with basket hilt, entirely covered with raised 
 gold damascening. Preserved in Windsor Castle. 
 
 The suits now divided between Windsor and the Tower evidently 
 formed part of a single collection. Those at Windsor are placed on 
 
9 6 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 brackets at such a height that they can only be inspected from a ladder, 
 and they sadly require setting up, in the way that Lord Dillon has 
 mounted those in the Tower. It is perhaps unfortunate that the 
 national collection of armour is so scattered, parts being, besides the 
 great collections at the Tower and Windsor, in the British and South 
 Kensington Museums, Hertford House, Woolwich Rotunda, and Dover 
 Castle, while most of the earlier English and historic pieces are still in 
 churches and cathedrals. If brought together, properly displayed and 
 added to in a reasonable manner by the purchase of such suits as that 
 recently sold in the Spitzer sale, a suit of fine quality and directly 
 connected with our national history, it might become worthy the country, 
 and rank in time with the great armouries of Vienna, Paris, Madrid, 
 Turin, or Dresden. 
 
 Besides the half-dozen really magnificent suits in the Guard-chamber 
 at Windsor, there is a vast collection of arms and weapons in the North 
 Corridor, formed in a great measure by Her Majesty. Among these are 
 three swords intimately connected with our history. Of these, that of 
 Charles I. has a pommel and guard of steel overlaid with raised gold 
 damascening, and a grip covered with silver wire woven like basket- 
 work (Plate VIII.). The blade is decorated with Latin inscriptions in 
 Roman capitals along both margins, back and front, and in circles at 
 intervals. Between these are panels, alternately of emblems and ornament, 
 and of arabesqued scrolls, damascened so minutely that the work is 
 almost invisible until magnified. The small portion of the blade in our 
 figure shows the character of the work. The royal arms, Prince of 
 Wales’ feathers, and date 1 6 1 6 on the blade show that it was made for 
 Charles I. when Prince of Wales. The second sword, with the magnifi- 
 cently-worked basket hilt of chased gold inlay on steel (Fig. 36), has 
 a similar blade, marvellously fine arabesques taking the place of the 
 marginal inscriptions. It is otherwise nearly identical with the last, the 
 spread eagles, griffins, etc., being common to both. The presence of 
 the lion of England under a royal crown points to James I. as its owner. 
 The third sword (Fig. 37) is that of John Hampden. Its blade is plain, 
 but the hilt is of superb workmanship and of carved steel. The grip is 
 small, and, like the pear-shaped pommel, covered with warriors in relief 
 in Roman dress. The quillons are slightly curved, and carved with 
 
Plate VIII. — The sword of Charles I. when Prince of Wales, 1616. The hilt entirely 
 covered with raised gold damascened work on blue steel matrix ; except 
 the grip of silver wire work. Preserved in Windsor Castle. 
 
ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 97 
 
 pomegranates and foliage, with figures reclining horizontally to form the 
 extremities. The smaller front guard over the blade, known as the 
 
 Fig. 37 . — The sword of 'John Hampden , ivith hilt of carved steel. Preserved at 
 
 Windsor Castle. 
 
 “ pas-d’ane,” and most elaborately worked with figures and medallions, is 
 a prominent feature of the hilt. All three swords bear the unicorn’s 
 
98 
 
 ARMOUR IN ENGLAND 
 
 head mark of Nuremberg, but the two enriched blades can be identified, 
 thanks to the assistance of Baron de Cosson, as the work of Clemens 
 Horn of Solingen, 1580-1625. There is a similar sword in the Royal 
 Armoury at Madrid, belonging to the suits made by Desiderius Kolman 
 for Philip II., and another is in the Baron’s own collection. The sword, 
 as the emblem of knightly honour and faith, was from the remotest times 
 a vehicle for the richest decoration ; but it is doubtful whether any 
 specimens were ever produced, even by the combined efforts of the 
 swordsmith and jeweller, to equal the work of those here represented, 
 which are not only connected with the history of our country, but happily 
 also the property of the nation. 
 
INDEX 
 
 d’Abernon brass, 36, 40 
 Acre, Siege of, 14 
 Agincourt, Battle of, 46, 48, 49 
 Aid borough Church, 33 
 Alengon, Duke of, 48 
 Alfred, King, 10 
 Allbright (armourer), 46 
 Almayne rivets, 70 
 Appleby Castle, 85 
 Archaeological Institute, 30 
 Archers, 17, 20, 43, 46, 47, 58, 
 74-76 
 
 Armet, The, 58, 62, 65, 66, 82, 90 
 
 Armourers’ Album, 81, 82, 86, 92 
 
 Armourers’ Hall, 18, 86 
 
 Arthur, King, 7, 10 
 
 Ash, Effigy at, 40 
 
 Athelstan, 10 
 
 Augsburg, 81 
 
 Auray, Battle of, 44 
 
 Austin, William (armourer), 52 
 
 Bacon, Sir Nicholas, 86 
 Badges, Heraldic, 20 
 Barres, William de, 22 
 Base, The, 70 
 
 Bassinets, 24, 29, 30, 32-34, 36, 
 46, 48, 56-61 
 Battle-axes, 45 
 Bavier, The, 58, 62, 65, 92 
 Bayeux Tapestry, 12, 32 
 Beauchamp, Richard. See War- 
 wick, Earl of 
 Beauchamp MS., 52 
 Beauvais, Battle of, 47 
 Beche, De (monument), 19 
 Beckman, 18 
 Beowulf, 9-1 1 
 Bills, 46, 76 
 
 Black Prince, The, 30, 32, 35, 40, 
 48 
 
 Blount, Sir Walter, 50 
 Boheim, Wendelin, 82, 85, 86 
 Bohun, Sir Humphrey de, 34, 42 
 Boileau, Etienne, 18 
 Boulogne, Siege of, 76 
 Bourgtheroude, Battle of, 14 
 Bows and arrows, 14, 43, 74 
 Brantome, 78 
 
 Breastplates, 7, 22, 34, 35, 42, 47, 
 51, 52, 66, 69, 85, 86 
 Brescia, 81,82 
 
 Brigandine, The, 42, 47, 56, 74, 75 
 British Museum, 6, 7, 10, 18, 52, 
 56, 61, 96 
 Brives, 30 
 
 Broadwater Church (helmet in), 60 
 Bromley, Sir Thomas, 86 
 Brooke, Sir George, 62 
 Brooke, Sir Thomas, 60 
 Bucarte, Lord, 86 
 Burgess Collection, 33 
 Burgonet, The, 65, 92 
 Burley, Simon, 34 
 “ Byrnies,” 9, 18 
 
 Cabasset, The, 92 
 Cade, Jack, 5 1 
 Camail, The, 32, 46, 62 
 Cambray, Battle of, 16 
 Canterbury, 30 
 Canute, 1 1 
 Capel family, 59 
 Caractacus, 7 
 Cassel, Battle of, 30 
 Cassivelaunus, 7 
 
 Cawne, Sir Thomas (effigy of), 40 
 Cellini, Benvenuto, 81 
 Chain-mail. See Mail armour 
 Chamfron, The, 48, 89 
 Chandos, Sir John, 34, 44, 56 
 Chapelle-de-fer, The, 20, 29, 30, 32 
 Chariots, 5, 7 
 Charlemagne, 22 
 Charles VII., 62 
 Charles Stuart, Prince, 90, 91 
 Chausse and Chausson, 22, 23 
 Cheney, De, brass, 36 
 Christy Collection, 33 
 Clisson, Sir Oliver de, 44 
 Clypeus, The, 5 
 Cobham, 48, 62 
 Cognizances, 24 
 Commines, Philip de, 56, 61 
 Comnena, Anna, 12-14 
 Cornewall, Sir John de, 49, 58 
 Corselets, 66, 78 
 
 Cosson, Baron de, 30, 33, 51, 59, 
 60, 62, 65, 81, 98 
 Courci, Ralph de, 24 
 Courtrai, Battle of, 39 
 Coventry (sallad at), 58 
 Cracowes, 36 
 Crell, de, brass, 40 
 Cressy, Battle of, 43, 46 
 Crests, 20, 21, 29, 30 
 Crinet, The, 48 
 Crossbows, 14, 15, 43, 75 
 Crossbow-men, 16, 46 
 Cuir-bouilli, 28, 29, 34, 42 
 Cuissarts, 52, 85, 91, 92 
 Cumberland, Earl of, 81, 85 
 
 Damascened armour, 8 1 
 Danes, The, 12 
 Danish armour, 10 
 Daundelyon brass. The, 51 
 Daunt, Thomas, 48 
 Dillon, Lord, 20, 69, 70, 81, 82, 
 85, 86, 90, 96 
 Diodorus Siculus, 6 
 Dover Castle Collection, 18, 34, 
 75 . 9 6 
 
 Easter Sepulchre, Lincoln, 22, 24 
 Edda, The, 11, 18 
 Edward I., 15-17, 32, 34 
 j Elbow-guards, 39, 50, 52, 56, 66 
 Enamelling on bronze, 5-7 
 Enriched armour, 78-81 
 Epaulettes, 50 
 
 Essex, Earl of, 92, 95 
 Ethelwulf, IO 
 Evans, Sir John, 5 
 Evesham, Battle of, 14 
 Exeter Cathedral, 42 
 
 Falkirk, Battle of, 14 
 Flint, 7 
 
 Flodden, Battle of, 75 
 Florence, 8 1 
 Fluted armour, 73 
 Foix, Comte de, 49 
 Fram, The, 8 
 Francis I., 66 
 Frisian Pirates, 8 
 Froissart, 34, 39, 56, 61 
 
 Gambeson, The, 16, 19, 23, 28, 40, 
 
 46 , 47 , 55 
 
 Gardner, Mr. J. E., 18 
 Gauntlets, 39, 40, 56, 69, 70, 85, 
 90, 92 
 
 Gauntlets, Forbidden. &cGauntlets, 
 Locking 
 
 Gauntlets, Locking, 70, 85 
 Gaveston, Piers, 36, 39, 42 
 Gaynesford, John (his brass), 5 1 
 Genouilliere. See Knee-cap 
 Gildas, 8 
 
 Gilded armour, 7, 30, 40-42, 51, 
 
 73 , 9 ' 
 
 Gisors, Battle of, 15 
 Gloucester, Richard of, 24 
 Godwin, Earl, 1 1 
 Gordon, Adam (outlaw), 16 
 Gorget, The, 32, 34, 36, 56, 62, 
 65, 82, 90, 92 
 Gostwick, Sir John, 60 
 Grand-guard, The, 85, 90 
 Greaves, 23, 35, 36, 42, 74, 85 
 Gussets, 45, 48, 55, 69 
 
 H ABERGEON, 4 he, 4^ 
 
 Haketon, The, 40 
 Halbards, 75, 76 
 Hampton Court, 62, 76, 78 
 Hanging arms in churches, 30 
 Harold, 12 
 
 Hastings, Battle of, 12, 14, 15, 20 
 Hatton, Sir Christopher, 82, 85, 
 86, 90 
 
 Hauberk, The, 16, 18, 19, 40, 46, 47 
 Hawberk, Sir Nicholas, 48 
 Helmets, 7, 12, 20, 28, 29, 32, 33, 
 34, 42, 56-66, 90, 92 
 Helm or Heaunre, The Great, 20, 
 24, 28, 29, 48, 56, 60, 61, 62 
 Henry I., 14, 16 
 Henry II., 16 
 Henry III., 16, 20, 22, 24 
 Henry V., 46-50, 75 
 Henry VI., 32, 50 
 Henry VII., 59, 60 
 Henry VIII., 58-62, 66, 69, 70, 
 73-77 
 
IOO 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Henry Stuart, Prince, go, 92 
 Hereford Cathedral, 30 
 Herrings, Battle of, 47 
 “ Holy-water sprinklers,” 76, 77 
 Hood, Robin, 16 
 Horn, Clemens (armourer), 98 
 Horse-armour, 15, 42, 49, 73, 90 
 Housings, 49 
 
 Ifield effigy, 39, 40 
 Innsbruck, 81, 82, 86 
 
 Jacobe (armourer), 82, 86, 90-92 
 John of Eltham (his effigy), 36, 39, 
 40 
 
 John, King, 15 
 Joinville, Prince de, 91 
 Joppa, Battle of, 14 
 Julius Caesar, 5,7, 1 1 
 
 Katharine of Arragon, 8, 70 
 Knee-caps, 22, 29, 35, 36, 42, 52, 
 66, 85 
 
 Kolman, Desiderius (armourer), 98 
 
 Lambespring, Bartholomew (gold- 
 smith), 55 
 
 Lancaster, Earl of (Edmund Crouch- 
 back), 36, 42 
 Lances, 44-46, 74 
 Langford, William, 34 
 Le Botiler, 24 
 Lee, Sir Henry, 82, 85, 86 
 Leicester, Earl of, 81, 86 
 Lewes, Battle of, 22 
 Lincoln, Battle of, 14, 15 
 Littlebury effigy, 36 
 Long-bows, 75 
 Lothian, Lord, 90 
 Louis XI., 49, 59, 62 
 Lucas, Mr. Seymour, 65 
 
 Madrid armoury, 98 
 Magnus Barefoot, 12 
 Mail armour, 9, 12, 13, 16, 18, 22, 
 24, 27, 29, 45-47 
 Mantling, 32 
 March, Earl of, 42 
 Matthew of Paris, 24 
 Maule, Peter de, 24 
 Maximilian, The Emperor, 58, 66, 
 70 , 73 - 74 
 
 Melsa, Sir John de, 33 
 Men-at-arms, 43, 46, 47 
 Mentoniere, The, 65, 92 
 Meyrick, 6, 65, 73 
 Milan, 82 
 
 Milanese armour, 52, 81 
 Missaglias, The (armourers), 52, 
 56, 69 
 
 Montfort, Simon de, 24 
 Montlhery, Battle of, 47, 75 
 Monstrelet, 36 
 
 Morat, Battle of, 76 
 Morions, 78, 92 
 Musee d’Artillerie, 34 
 
 National Portrait Gallery, 22 
 Neck-guard, The, 52 
 Nottingham, Siege of, 14 
 Noyon, Battle of, 24 
 Nuremberg, 81, 98 
 
 Parham Collection, 18, 19, 34, 
 56, 61 
 
 Partisan, The, 75, 76 
 Paton, Sir Noel, 30, 33, 56 
 Pauldron, The, 69, 85, 86 
 Peascod, The, 92 
 Pembridge, Sir R., 30 
 Pembroke, Earl of, 22, 85 
 Pennant, 8 1 
 Petticoat, The, 50, 69 
 Philip II., 78, 98 
 
 Pickering, William (armourer), 90 
 Pikes, 75, 76 
 Pistols, 78 
 
 Plastron-de-fer. See Breastplate 
 Plate armour, 21, 22, 28, 29, 45, 
 
 47 , 5 °, 74 
 
 Pliny, 6 
 
 Poitiers, Battle of, 43, 46, 49 
 Portland, Duchess of, 81 
 Pouleynes, 36 
 Pourpoint, The, 16 
 
 Quatremayne brass, The, 56 
 Queen Mary’s Psalter, 39, 42 
 
 Rayne Church, 65 
 
 Richard I., 10, 14-16, 20-22, 24 
 
 Robert of Normandy, 22 
 
 St. George's Chapel, 6 1 
 St. Pol, Comte de, 49, 62 
 St. Stephen's Chapel, 42 
 Sallads, 33, 57-59, 61, 62, 75 
 Sandwich, effigy at, 40 
 Scale-armour, 21 
 Scandinavians, The, 9, 22 
 Schloss Ambras, 82, 86 
 Seusenhofer, Conrad (armourer), 66, 
 70 
 
 Seusenhofer, Jorg (armourer), 82 
 Shields, 6, 19, 44 
 Shirland, Sir Robert de, 15 
 Shoulder-pieces, 39, 50, 52, 66 
 Shrewsbury, Battle of, 49 
 Sollerets, 36, 51, 56, 66, 69, 70, 90 
 Somerset, Duke of, 60 
 Sommers, Will, 73 
 South Kensington Museum, 65, 81, 
 82, 96 
 
 Spitzer Sale, 82, 85, 96 
 Spurs, 24, 39, 5 1 
 Staff- weapons, 75-77 
 
 Stafford, Sir Humphrey, 51 
 
 Standard, Battle of the, 14 
 
 Standard of mail, The, 47 
 
 Stephen, King, 16 
 
 Stevyns, Thomas (armourer), 55 
 
 Stothard, C. A., 22, 39, 40 
 
 Strutt, 12, 8 1 
 
 Sidney, De (brass), 36 
 
 Surcoats, 27, 35, 39, 40, 42, 46, 48 
 
 Sussex, Earl of, 85 
 
 Sword, Charles I.’s, 96 
 
 Sword, James I.’s, 96 
 
 Sword, John Hampden's, 96 
 
 Swords, 10, 85, 96-98 
 
 Swords, Legendary, 10, 1 1 
 
 Tabard, The, 48 
 Tacitus, 7, 8, 12 
 Tancred, 10 
 Tapul, The, 69, 85, 92 
 Tassets, 48, 50, 69, 85, 91, 92 
 Temple Church, The, 22 
 Topf, Jacob (armourer), 82, 86 
 Tower, The, 18, 20, 33, 66, 75, 
 76, 85, 86, 95, 96 
 Tuilles, 50, 51, 52, 66 
 
 Valence, Aymer de, 36, 39, 42 
 Vantail, The, 20 
 Vence, 8 1 
 Vere, De, 23 
 Verneuil, Battle of, 47 
 Vimose, 9 
 Vinsauf, 21 
 Viterbo, Battle of, 49 
 Visor, The, 32-34, 46, 56-60, 65, 
 66, 82 
 
 Wace, 15 
 
 Wallace Collection, 33, 86, 96 
 Wallace, William, 17 
 Waller, J. G., 19 
 
 Warwick Castle Collection, 18, 34, 
 
 3 6 , 48 , 73 
 
 Warwick, Earl of, 17, 51-55, 56, 66 
 Weaver, 39 
 
 Westminster Abbey, 36, 48, 61 
 Westmoreland, Earl of, 40 
 Whatton effigy, The, 40 
 William the Conqueror, 12, 20 
 William Longespee, 19, 22, 23 
 William the Outlaw, 16 
 William of Toulouse, 30 
 Wilton House, 85 
 Windsor Collection, 81, 90, 91, 92, 
 95 , 9 6 
 
 Windsor Tournament, The, 29, 39 
 Woolwich Collection, 18, 33, 56, 
 61, 96 
 
 Worcester, Earl of, 85 
 Zouche, Lord, 56 
 
 Printed by R. & R. Clark, Limited, Edinburgh.