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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The battle of Courtray, fought in 1302, was the turning point in the greater estimation of the use of infantry combinations, when the French chivalry was so completely routed by the Flemish guild-bands, armed with the goedendag, which, whatever its form really was, then proved a most effective weapon against a rush of horsemen. About six thousand of the chevaliers were killed, a heavy blow struck at the nobility of France. The object-lesson thus afforded showed, even at this early period, that heavy horsemen charging with the lance, or striking with the mace or battle-axe, had ceased to be “the strength of the battle.” This experience was amply confirmed at a later period at the decisive battles—Granson, Morat, and Nancy. After the death of Charles the Bold at Nancy, in 1477, a victory won by the Swiss infantry with staff weapons, the “chivalry” of battle became much discredited, and the extreme feudalism which had hitherto dominated the military systems of Europe underwent its first serious check in the diminished importance of the mailed horseman, and the growing power of the third estate, which henceforward became a more weighty factor in warlike tactics and combinations. This process, which had been growing for some time in the gradual enfranchisement of the communes, developed from the motley swarms of yeomen and peasants at length into a communal militia. To these were now added “condottieri” and other free companies, such as stradiots, routiers, brabançons, and tard-venus, and with these more stable elements of an army, tactics and generalship, which had hitherto been of the most elementary character, soon made great strides. There are, however, early instances of the addition of “mercenary bands” to armies in the field. William the Conqueror’s army at Hastings contained a large proportion of these troops, which were placed in the first division during the battle. The Plantagenets also used them very freely. Mercenary troops, however efficient in action, had many drawbacks in campaigning. They were not unfrequently known to change sides at a critical moment, such as on the eve of, or even during an engagement. A notable instance of this may be cited in the case of the battle of Pavia, in 1525, when Francis I. was made prisoner.

The growing power of the Hanseatic Bund did more than anything else in Germany towards the enfranchisement of the towns from the galling fetters of feudalism. This mighty organisation, in the heyday of its power, consisted of over a hundred of the most important towns, scattered over Germany and Northern Europe, and extending as far as Wisby in the Gulf of Bothnia, and even to Novgorod in Russia. Its power became so great that even the Emperor exercised but a nominal supremacy over the German cities enrolled. Almost the entire commerce and banking of the time in Northern Europe centred in this powerful association, fenced in its walled towns. It supplied the sinews of war, and the equipments for nearly every campaign; often indeed for both the opposing armies. Its power and monopolies in England, where it had stations, especially in London, were immense.16 Feudalism thus became greatly banished to the country districts, which constantly underwent a depletion of able-bodied men by a rush of serfs towards freedom under the syndics. Soon the standards and war-cries of the great seigniors ceased to cause confusion in the ranks.

The equipment of each man-at-arms in the fifteenth century was two archers with two mounted followers; and a little later a sixth man and horse were added. An army of fifteen hundred “complete lances” required a contingent of at least five thousand mounted archers.

It was not uncommon for armour to be imported from Italy during the fourteenth century. Froissart states that Henry IV., when Duke of Hereford, sent messengers to Milan asking Duke Galeazzo to forward him a harness. The Duke complied with the request, sending four Italian armourers with the suit.

Broadly, the period of full plate body armour is reached in England early in the fifteenth century, when the mentonnière, rondelles, cuirass, taces and tuilles, garde de reine, épaulières, gauntlets, cuisse, genouillières, jambs and sollerets were all of plate. The ingenious application of overlapping or lobster-tail plates, first applied to the solleret and rerebrace, had now extended to the shoulders and taces, and we find this system gradually developing towards the fine ridged and escalloped armour, which originated in Italy in the second quarter of the fifteenth century. Effigies of the first quarter of the fifteenth century are characterised by the bassinet, standard of mail, and beautiful fan-shaped coudières pointed over the elbow-joint. The skirt of mail shows itself beneath the taces, with an escalloped fringing. Articulated épaulières prevailed until towards the middle of the century, when pauldrons began to displace rondelles over the armpits; an early example of which may be seen on a brass in Arkesdon Church, Essex. Pauldrons are, however, exceptional until the “Maximilian” period. Examples of most of the features of the period may be seen in the series of plates published by Stothard, Hollis, Creeny, and others. We pass now out of the period during which we have been mainly indebted to effigies, brasses, and pictorial representations for our knowledge of armour, and enter on much surer ground, when there are actual and contemporaneous specimens to deal with. Still there is but too frequently ground for doubt and perplexity, as comparatively few suits are quite homogeneous; in many cases some of the parts are often restorations, faulty enough, as most restorations are. Pieces sometimes belonged to other suits, and not unfrequently to widely different periods. New tactics in battle had to be parried by the armour-smith with changes and modifications in armour; for instance, at the battle of Creçy the English men-at-arms fought for the first time in foot formation, and they adopted the same tactics at the battle of Poitiers on the 19th September, 1356. This innovation having been copied by the French, the armourer had to meet the occasion, and different harnesses began to be made for foot-fighting and horseback; and somewhat later additional pieces were added to screw on to the other armour, for further protection in tilting and in battle. These pieces were devised for the protection of the more vulnerable places, on the principle that energy always takes the line of the least resistance. Besides this, at various periods when defence was stronger than attack, improvements in the arms then in use took place; and new weapons were devised with a view to the attack of weak points in armour. Before the battle of Poitiers the French men-at-arms were ordered to shorten their lances to five feet, and to take off their spurs; and the lances were similarly shortened at the battle of Auray in 1364. The great helm was now rarely used, giving place to the visored bassinet, the visor to be raised or lowered at pleasure. The bassinet was in its turn superseded by the sallad in the first quarter of the fifteenth century, and the latter towards its close by the armet, followed closely by the burgonet. A monument in the cathedral at Posen gives a good idea of the armour in use in Germany in the first half of the fifteenth century—it is a figure of Lucas de Corta, who died in 1475. The armament consists of a mentonnière of several laminated plates to be raised or lowered, cuirass with rondelles, taces of five or more overlapping plates, going right across the lower body, but no tuilles, cuisse with genouillières and hinged jambs; laminated rerebraces, and large pointed coudières. The fingers of the gauntlets are articulated, with a sharp gadling over each knuckle, and sollerets “à la poulaine.” This monument doubtless represents armour of the first half of the century. A brass in the church at Altenberg gives a figure of Gerart, Duke of Gulich, who died in 1475, with a similar armament excepting that he wears an early form of armet, and the tuilles are attached to the taces. The armour of this period, with its pretty shell-like ridgings, is both graceful and practical, and also lithe and supple.

The armour of the second half of the fifteenth century, which is usually styled “Gothic,” it is impossible to say why, is by far the most graceful of all the periods, combining beauty of form and contour with excellence of material and workmanship; together with an admirable adaptability for defence against the then existing weapons of attack. The main features of this remarkable period are the escalloped and shell-like form of some of the pieces, and especially the presence of tuilles. The coudières are excessively large, sometimes preposterously so, and channelled with a view to the lance glancing off them. The breastplate is rendered both stronger and more elastic by being made in two and even three laminated plates. Sollerets are “à la poulaine.” The helmet of this armour is the sallad with the mentonnière. An excellent English example may be seen on the Beauchamp effigy at Warwick (1454); and another on the brass of Sir Robert Staunton at Castle Donnington (1458). There is a very instructive series of monumental effigies at Meissen, engraved by Hollis, of successive dukes of Saxony, showing the continuous advances in armour. Albert, who died in 1500, wears the armet, pauldrons with pikeguards,17 and broad sollerets. Another duke, who died seventeen years later, shows tassets of five lames, and “bear-paw” sollerets. The armour of Duke Frederick, who died in 1539, shows mitten gauntlets of numerous narrow lames.

Gothic armour is the most perfect of all. It is more “mobile” than any of the later schools, and was made to fit almost like a glove; and as the details of suits are no longer obscured by the surcoat on effigies, we have these representations to guide us, as well as actual specimens. The steel, which looks as if it had an admixture of silver, is stronger in texture, brighter and tougher than that of any other period. Sad it is that there are so few perfect specimens of this armour left to us, for most of the armour wrought up to the middle of the century has become the prey of rust, the iconoclast, and the melting pot. The suits at Sigmaringen, Munich, Nuremberg, Vienna, and Berlin are among the most homogeneous the author has seen.

Armour made at Milan was already famous at the end of the fourteenth century, and many suits were ordered there at that time for English account; and later in Germany, for it took a considerable time before the wave of the “renaissance” reached the more northern country. The famous Milan armour-smiths, the Missaglias and Negrolis, and in Germany, the Kolmans of Augsburg, Hans Grünewald of Nuremberg, and the Seusenhofers of Innsbruck, all turned out work of the highest character and finish; as also did many of the later masters, such as Anton Peffenhauser of Augsburg, Lucio Piccinino of Milan, and Georgio Ghisi of Mantua. Both armour and weapons of a high quality were produced in other towns in Italy, such as Florence, Brescia, Lucca, Pisa, and Pistoja. The work of the armour-smith, pure and simple, seems generally to have reached its highest point of excellence during the second half of the fifteenth century, the force of the “renaissance” expending itself more on ornamentation.

Until comparatively recently very little was known concerning the great armour-smiths and their coadjutors of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and even seventeenth centuries; but much has now been accomplished in this direction by Dr. Wendelin Boeheim in Vienna, and given to the world in his work, Der Waffenschmiede, etc. Dr. Cornelius Gurlitt has also thrown much light on the masters of Saxony in his booklet entitled Deutsche Turnier, etc., of the sixteenth century. We owe much to these savants for their arduous labours in rescuing the names, and much besides, of so many of these great artists from an undeserved oblivion; and also by the identification of their work in providing valuable and reliable material for fixing the dates of armour within comparatively narrow limits.

Scale armour is but very rarely found in the fifteenth century.

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

From early in the sixteenth century the changes were greatly matters of detail, the differences in suits being principally those of form. The shell or tile-formed tuilles, after having been in use for nearly a century, gave place to the more comprehensive tassets of overlapping plates. Épaulières developed into pauldrons, which gradually increased in size, covering both shoulders and upper-arm, and at length extended over each breast, and then diminished again in size. Pikeguards were introduced to protect the neck from pike thrusts, and there are instances of these plates as early as the middle of the century. Sometimes they are double on each shoulder—see the brass at Qui, Cambridgeshire. In cases where a pikeguard appears on one shoulder only, a close examination will generally reveal holes for the fixing of its fellow. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, or a few years later, the so-called “Maximilian” armour superseded that termed “Gothic,” when a large proportion of this armour (the “Maximilian”) was fluted everywhere except the jambs. It had pauldrons, with pikeguards, and great “bear-paw” or “cow-mouth” shaped sollerets. This style became à la mode, in imitation of the prevailing fashion in dress, which was then largely puffed and slashed. It must be understood, however, that fluted suits were in a majority of the armour made, but not to the exclusion of plain armour. The cuirass is shorter than in the later Gothic form; it is more globose, with the top cut straight, and the breastplate is usually in one piece. The headpiece is the armet and burgonet. Sliding rivets (Almayne) gave increased elasticity to armour of this period. As may be seen from some notes in Archæologia, vol. li., p. 168, written by Viscount Dillon, P.S.A., the term “Almayne rivets” was sometimes applied to complete harnesses; for an order sent to Florence by Henry VIII., in 1512, runs: “The 2000 complete harness, called Almayne ryvettes, were to be alway a salet, a gorget, a breastplate, a backplate, and a pair of splints (tassets) for every complete harness at 16s. the set.” There is a sixteenth century specimen of an armourer’s pincers, with claw and hammer head for riveting armour, in the Rotunda collection at Woolwich. It was soon found that arms of attack would not glance so well off fluted suits, and smooth armour was again generally reverted to. Blackened armour was not uncommon at this time; and a black, white, or coloured tunic of stuff was often worn over bright. The first instance of black armour that we have met with is mentioned by Froissart, under the year 1359.18 While in “Gothic” armour the taste of the period found expression in beauty of outline, already in the fifteenth century it had become fashionable to have armour engraved and otherwise ornamented. Perhaps the only brass that is to be seen in Spain represents a beautiful specimen of inlaid armour; the figure is of Don Parafan, Duke of Alcola, who died in 1571. The pikeguard has ceased, sollerets are the shape of the foot, and he wears a morion. The morion and cabasset were late sixteenth and seventeenth century helmets, while armets and burgonets were greatly worn early in the sixteenth. Late in the fifteenth and during the sixteenth centuries there was a description of armour called “penny-plate.” It consisted of round pieces of steel riveted on to leather. There is a specimen of this kind of armour at the Rotunda, Woolwich.

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

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

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

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

A large proportion of the armour used in England continued to be imported from Italy and Germany. Henry VIII. bought and received in presents, harnesses, both for foot-fighting and horseback, from these countries; indeed, the trade in armour and arms formed a not inconsiderable item in the importations of the Hanseatic Bund already mentioned, and the bulk of the armour in private collections of fifteenth and sixteenth century make is of German or Italian origin. Not only was armour imported, but foreign smiths and artificers, principally of German nationality, known as Almayne armourers, were introduced. Milan armourers were working at Greenwich in 1514.19 Exportation from England was not allowed without royal licence.

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

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

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