THE PROOF OF ARMOUR

As soon as the armed man realized that iron and steel were the best defences for his body, he would naturally insist that some sort of a guarantee should be given him of the efficacy of the goods supplied by his armourer. This system of proving armour would be effected by using those weapons most commonly in use, and these, in the early times, were the sword, the axe, the lance, the bow, and the crossbow. The latter seems to have been the more common form of proof, though as late as the seventeenth century we have evidence that armour was proved with the “estramaçon” or sword blow.[77]

In considering the proof of mail we are met with certain terms which are somewhat difficult of explanation, but which evidently are intended to convey the fact that the mail mentioned was of especially good quality. These terms are “haute cloueur,” “demi-cloueur,” “botte cassée,” and “botte.”

M. Charles Buttin,[78] in his studies on the arms used for proving armour, considers that “botte” is here used to denote a blow in the sense that it is used in fencing for a thrust or a lunge (It. botta). The word “cassée” he takes to be derived also from the Italian “casso,” vain or empty.

The term “haute” or “demi-cloueurs” seems rather to suggest the single or double riveting of each link of mail. Ordinary mail is either welded or joined with one rivet, but in some cases, as in III, 339, Tower, two rivets are used to obtain increased strength for the fabric (see also page 44).

Mail seems to have been proof against arrows at a very early period, for we find in the Chronicon Colmariense, under the year 1398, the statement that the men-at-arms wore “camisiam ferream, ex circulis ferreis contextam, per quae nulla sagitta arcus poterat hominem vulnerare.” The earliest entry of this mail of proof is found in the Inventory of Louis X (le Hutin) of France, which is here given together with other entries of the different expressions used with regard to proof of this nature.

In this entry there is evidently a variety of mail which is even stronger than that of “haute cloueur,” but this may possibly be of stouter or better-tempered metal. The horse-armour would not need to be of such high proof as that of the man, because from its form it would be more or less in folds when the horse was in action and would therefore present double thicknesses to the weapon. An illustration of the mail-clad horse is given in the present writer’s Armour and Weapons, and also in Monumenta Vetusta, Vol. VI.

This expression “de toute botte” suggests that the armour was proof against all blows, that is from the sword, the axe—the “estramaçon” above alluded to—and also against the bow and the crossbow. In 1612 Sturtevant in his Metallica writes on page 62 that the ironworker should “make things stronger than the Exact strength which the thing is to have,” and we find this borne out in an extract from the Armerie di Roma, Arch. Stat. c. 150, of the date 1627, which mentions old armour “a botta” which had been proved with “due e tre colpi dell’ arma alla quale dovevano resistere.”[80]

The proof by the crossbow is mentioned by Angellucci in a note, quoting from the Arch. Gonz. Copialett., T. II, c. 65: “et si te manderemo doi veretoni di nostri saldi, como i quali tu farai aprovare la ditta coraza corno uno bono balestro di cidello.”[80] The last-mentioned weapon is the “arbalest à tour” or windlass crossbow. It would seem from M. Buttin’s researches that the armour “à toute épreuve” was proved by crossbow and sword, and that “à demi épreuve” by the smaller lever crossbow or by the javelin thrown by hand. These varieties of proof were indicated by the marks stamped upon them, one mark for the single and two for the double (see page 65). In some documents we have definite entries of arrows used for proof, which would naturally have exceptionally well-tempered points:—

The “vireton” was a crossbow-bolt which had spiral wings of metal or wood so fitted that it revolved in its course.

Here the “feathering” of the arrow with copper is specified, for it was this metal wing which, acting like the propeller of a boat, caused the arrow to revolve with increased velocity.

These arrows of proof cost double the price of ordinary arrows, for we have entries of such projectiles in the year 1419 costing 8s. the dozen, while the ordinary quality cost but 4s. the dozen.[81]

Details of the regulations of setting proof marks upon armour will be found in Appendices B, E, K.

The proving of brigandines was most carefully carried out, for in some instances every separate plate was stamped with the proof mark. In the Paris Collection double proof marks are found on the brigandine G, 206, and a similar double mark appears stamped on the Missaglia suit G, 3, but of a different design. The helmet of Henry VIII on II, 29 (Tower) also bears the double proof mark of one of the Missaglia family (Plate X). It would be tedious and unnecessary to give a list of those armours which bear these proof marks, for they are to be found in every armoury of note in Europe; but it will be of some profit to quote various extracts showing the reason and the effects of proofs or trials of armour.

The “arbaleste à tilloles” was the large bow bent with a windlass, the “arbaleste à crocq” was smaller and was bent with a hook fastened to the waist of the archer (see Payne Gallwey, The Crossbow).

The above writer considers, and with reason, that when the uncertainty of firearms was taken into consideration defensive armour was of much practical use; and this theory was held as late as the eighteenth century, for Marshal Saxe in his Les Rêveries[82] warmly recommends the use of defensive armour, especially for cavalry, as he considers that a large proportion of wounds were caused by sword, lance, or spent bullets. It was evidently from reasons such as the above that a reliable proof by pistol or musket shot was insisted upon, for the armour of the Duc de Guise in the Musée d’Artillerie (G, 80) is of great thickness and weighs 42 kilos. It has either been tested by the maker or has seen service, for there are three bullet marks on the breastplate, neither of which has penetrated.[83]

The terms “high proof,” “caliver proof,” and “musket proof” often occur in writings of this period and onwards up to the time when armour was discarded; but it is difficult to get any definite information as to how the proof was made. In the above entry there are two kinds of proof, which show that the back-plate was thinner than the breastplate, the resisting power being obtained not only by temper of metal, but also by its thickness.

Here is evidently a necessary definition of each piece. Probably on some former occasion the armourer had classed the whole suit as of proof when such a description might only be honestly given to the cuirass. Accounts of actual trials are rare, but the following extract is of interest as showing the methods employed in England. It is given in full, with many valuable extracts bearing on the craft of the armourer, by Viscount Dillon, in Archæologia, Vol. LI. The extract is taken from a letter from Sir Henry Lee, Master of the Armoury in 1580, to Lord Burghley, and bears the date Oct. 12, 1590.

The first part of the letter states that a gentleman of Shropshire was anxious that the metal mined in his county should be used for armour instead of the German iron which at this time was considered to be the best in the market. Sir Henry writes: “To give the more credyte to that stuffe to the armourers of London and to Jacobi the Mr. workman of Grenewhyche, the Counsell apoynt in there presence that Sr. Robarte Constable and my cossyn John Lee shoulde see a proofe made wh. by tryall proved most usefull.” The “Shropshire gentleman” sent Sir Henry “a new brest beyng sent owt of the country of gret litenes and strengthe as he was made beleve,” and entrusted him to “cause another of the very same wayght to be made in her Matys office of Greenwhyche, wh. I presently performed.” Pistols were then loaded with equal charges and fired at the two breastplates, with the result that “that made in the Offyce and of the metall of Houngere[84] helde out and more than a littel dent of the pellet nothinge perced, the other clene shotte thereowe and much tare the overpart of a beme the brest studde upon as longe as my fyngeers. Thus muche for the Ynglyshe metall.”

From time to time, as has been noticed before, there had been efforts to wrest the monopoly of the supply of metal for armour from the foreigner, but here was a very tangible proof of the superiority of the alien material. It is true that the Shropshire breastplate appears to have been sent from that county for the test, while the foreign metal was made up by the highly skilled workmen in the Royal Armoury at Greenwich under the eye of Jacobi (Topf), a master-craftsman who can have had but few rivals at that time. Possibly he may have possessed some secrets of tempering and hardening his metal which were unknown to less experienced smiths, and so have obtained the award of superiority for the metal of his own country. Topf had migrated to England from Innsbruck and must certainly have had friends among the iron-merchants of that locality. So his interests were obviously on the side of the foreign metal.

It may be only romance or it may be fact, but certainly Oliver de la Marche,[85] writing about the year 1450, describes some such process of tempering armour after it was made. “Boniface avoit trempe son harnois d’une eau qui le tenoit si bon que fer ne povoit prendre sus.” It is not to be suggested that it was a special kind of water that was used for this, but rather that it was some method of heating and cooling the metal which was employed. Angellucci, in the Catalogue of the Armeria Reale, Turin (p. 129), quotes, from documents of the sixteenth century, the account of a breastplate made by Colombo, an armourer of Brescia, being spoiled because he had used excessive charges for his pistol or musket.

The last detail shows that the back-pieces were much lighter than the proof breastplates, and this is borne out by other similar entries during the century. Evidently the efficacy of the musket had increased in the first years of the seventeenth century and with it the weight of the proved armour. In later entries we find that pistol proof is of more frequent occurrence, and from this we may gather that the weight of metal was a serious hindrance to the soldier and that he preferred the risk of a bullet.

Still there are cases to be found of complete proof, for in 1605 even the brayette was of proof (Arch. Gov. Brescia Privil., R. 7, V, p. 10),[86] and if this small, in fact the smallest, portion of the armour was proved, we may be sure that the whole suit was tested equally.

In 1628–9 we learn from the State Papers Domestic, lxxxix, 23, that one Whetstone had a project for making light armour as good as proof, but there are no details of his methods. It is quite probable, in most cases, that when one piece of the armour was proved the rest were made of similar material and tempered in the same way, and that actual proof was not expected or given. An interesting extract from the Memorials of the Verney Family, IV, 30, gives us some information as regards the proof of armour:—

This rough-and-ready method of estimating the charge is borne out in Gaya’s Traité des Armes, p. 30 (Reprint 1911, Clarendon Press).

The Verney extract goes on to say that Verney wished to have the armour tested again, but the armourer refused, for by this time it was finished, and he said that “it is not the custom of workmen to try their armour after it is faced and filed.”

This suit cost £14 2s. 8d., and when it was delivered Verney was by no means pleased, as it did not fit.[87] A clear proof that armour was tested before it was finished is to be found on the suit made by Garbagnus of Brescia for Louis XIV of France, now in the Musée d’Artillerie (G, 125). M. Buttin[88] in noticing this suit describes it as “La magnifique armure offerte à Louis XLV par la République de Venise,” but in this we must certainly hold a different opinion, for the production, although elaborately engraved, is perhaps the best example of the decadence of the craft of the armourer, so graceless and clumsy are its lines and proportions. The proof mark is upon the left of the breastplate, at the point where the lower edge of the pauldron ends. It has been made the centre of a double-petalled rose, showing plainly that the bullet mark was there before the engraver began his work. A similar mark at the back is made the centre of a flower (Fig. 35). The document relating to the “proof mark” of the Armourers’ Company of London will be found in Appendix K.

Gaya in his Traité des Armes, 1678, referred to above, states on page 53 that the casque and front of the cuirass should be of musket proof, but the other parts need only be of pistol or carbine proof. In speaking of head-pieces he states, on the same page, that the heavier kinds were proved with musket-shot, but the light varieties were only tested with “estramaçon” or sword-cut; and he adds that for armour to be good it must be beaten and worked cold and not hot.

We have seen how armour was proved and how the proof mark of crossbow-bolt or bullet is often found as a witness to the fact. In addition to this we frequently find the mark or poinçon of the armourer, which invariably means that the piece is of good workmanship and worthy of notice.

Like all the other craft gilds, that of the armourer was very jealous of the reputation of its members. The tapestry weavers of Flanders were obliged to mark, in some cases, every yard of their production; and so in fine suits of armour we find many of the individual pieces that go to make up the suit stamped with the maker’s mark and also with the stamp of the town. These town stamps are mostly found in German work from Nuremberg, Augsburg, etc. We find the name Arbois used on some Burgundian armour, but never are the names of Italian or French towns stamped. With the sword this rule does not hold good, for the Spanish, Italian, and German makers frequently used the town of origin as a mark in addition to their own. Toledo, Passau, Ferara, Solingen are all found upon swords, and are very often stamped upon blades of an entirely different nationality. This forgery of the stamp may have been perpetrated with the intent to defraud, or it may simply have been used as a mark of excellence, like “Paris fashions” or “Sheffield steel” at the present day. The forgery of marks on suits of armour is very seldom met with and where it exists it is obviously done for ulterior reasons.

The stamps take the form of signs such as the trefoil of Treytz, the monogram such as the “M Y” of the Missaglias, and the crowned “A” of the Armourers’ Company of London; the rebus, as for example the helm used by the Colman (Helmschmied) family, or a combination of two or more of the above variety.

About the year 1390 we have the following entry:—

This shows that in some cases every link of mail was stamped with the armourer’s mark. In Oriental mail letters and sometimes words from the Koran are stamped on each link, but we have no examples extant of European mail stamped with the maker’s mark on each link.

On May 11, 1513, Richard Thyrkyll writes to Henry VIII from Antwerp saying that he can find no “harness of the fleur de lys” in any part of Brabant (Brit. Mus. Galba, B, III, 85).

This probably refers to a trade-mark or poinçon well known as denoting metal of high temper. A brigandine in the Museum at Darmstadt bears this mark repeated twice on each plate, showing that it was proof against the large crossbow (Fig. 36). Demmin (Guide des Amateurs d’Armes) gives a mark of a lion rampant as stamped on the plates of a brigandine in his collection, and an example in the Musée d’Artillerie has the Nuremberg mark on each of the plates.

In the case of mail a small label is sometimes found, riveted on to the fabric, on which is the maker’s stamp; an example of this is the eagle which is stamped on a label attached to the mail skirt G, 86, in the Armeria Reale, Turin (see Table of Marks, 59). In brigandines we sometimes find each of the small plates stamped with the maker’s mark, which is held to be evidence of “proof.”

As we have seen from the entry under the date 1448, on page 65, the single stamp signified proof against the small crossbow and the double stamp proof against the heavy windlass-bow.

As has been noticed above, the forgery or imitation of marks is more common on sword-blades than on defensive armour, and of these the wolf, dog, or fox of Passau is most frequently imitated. In some instances the representation is more or less life-like, but in others there is simply a crude arrangement of straight lines that suggest the head, legs, body, and tail of the animal.

Stamping of armour was practised early in the middle of the fourteenth century, as will be seen in the Regulations of the Company of Heaumers transcribed in Appendix B.

In Rymer’s Fœdera (XIX, p. 312) we find accounts for repairing and remodelling armour in the year 1631, and at the end of the list comes the entry “For stamping every harness fit to be allowed £ 0 0 0”, which shows that even armour that was remade from old material was subjected to tests, and also that these tests were recorded by a gratuitous stamp of the craftsman or of the company to which he belonged.

The only entry extant which actually refers to the making of these stamps for armourers is given in the Mem. de la Soc. Arch. de Touraine, T. XX, pp. 268–9 (Arch. de Tours, Grandmaison).

The number of armourers’ marks known at present amounts to several hundred, but of the majority nothing is known as to ownership and history. A few of the principal marks in English and Continental collections are given on page 148.