The Helmet of a Commander
Bronze, silver, and ivory. Greek, mid-VI century B.C.
From a Greek colony at Metaponto, Italy

ARMOR AND ARMS

An elementary handbook and guide to the collection in the
City Art Museum of St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.

by
Thomas T. Hoopes
Curator of the Museum

State sword, German, Augsburg, XVI century

St. Louis, Missouri
1954

PREFACE

This publication is a guide to the armor and arms in the City Art Museum of St. Louis and, incidentally, a very elementary introduction to the history of arms and armor in general. The major part of the Museum’s collection, comprising the European armor and arms of the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, is displayed in a single armor gallery. Other specimens are shown with the exhibition of their own special cultures.

The City Art Museum is, as its name implies, restricted to objects of art, to objects which, independently of their usefulness, are more or less beautiful by the intention of their makers. There are numerous items in the vast range of armor and arms which do not fill this requirement, and are purely utilitarian. The Museum possesses specimens of some of these. As they are not considered objects of art they are not on exhibition, but have been assembled in a special study collection where they can be seen on application to the Curator.

When individual specimens are illustrated, they are given, in the list of illustrations, their identifying Museum serial numbers. If a reader fails to find on exhibition any such specimen in which he is interested, he has only to ask for it by this serial number at the information desk. If its place of exhibition has been changed he will be told where to find it; if for any reason it has been temporarily removed from exhibition, arrangements will be made, if possible, for him to see it.

The subject of armor and arms is neither short nor simple, and it is quite impossible, in a publication the size of this one, to do more than give the barest kind of outline. Many points of interest are not discussed in detail, some technical terms are unexplained, many fascinating items are not mentioned at all. If the subject interests you, you will find helpful information in the books listed on page 43, most of which will be available at any public library. If specific questions concerning armor and arms are addressed to the Curator, City Art Museum, Forest Park, St. Louis 5, Missouri, accompanied by a self-addressed, stamped envelope, they will be answered as far as practicable, but research problems cannot be undertaken.

List of illustrations viii
The earliest arms and armor 1
Chain mail 5
“Gothic” armor 8
“Maximilian” armor 9
Armor of the late xvi century: decorated armor 10
Late armor 16
Questions concerning armor 18
Middle Eastern armor 20
Arms: striking and cutting weapons 22
Lances and pole arms 26
Middle Eastern edged weapons 28
Projectile weapons: bows and crossbows 30
Projectile weapons: firearms 32
Bibliography 43

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure		Acc. No.	Page
	Frontispiece Helmet, bronze with silver crest, Greek, mid-VI century B.C.	282:49
	Title Page State sword, German, Augsburg, XVI century	173:26
1	Ceremonial axe blade (Ch’i), bronze, Chinese, An-yang, Shang dynasty (ca. 1523-ca. 1028 B.C.), gift of J. Lionberger Davis	36:51	1
2	Helmet, bronze, Chinese, Shang dynasty (ca. 1523-ca. 1028 B.C.)	283:49	2
3	Ceremonial dagger of a shaman, bronze, Siberian steppes, ca. 1000 A.D.	34:43	2
4	Lock of a crossbow, bronze, Chinese, Han dynasty (206 B.C.-220 A.D.), with model to show operation of interlocking interior parts	1106:20	3
5	Disk, probably the central plate of a shield, bronze, Italian, from Picenum, near Ancona, VII-VI century B.C.	51:22	4
6	Figure of a warrior, bronze, Etruscan, ca. 500 B.C. Gift of J. Lionberger Davis	40:51	4
7	Ink rubbing of engraved brass plate on tomb of Sir Roger de Trumpington, a Crusader, in the church at Trumpington, Cambridgeshire, England		7
8	“Bishop’s mantle” of chain mail, German or Swiss, XVI century	87:39	7
9	Salade, Gothic, German, ca. 1475	58:39	8
10	Full suit of Maximilian armor, German, ca. 1510	171:26	10
11	Breastplate, Italian, Pisan style, ca. 1575	170:26	11
12	Morion, Italian, ca. 1560	319:25	11

13	Closed helmet, German, ca. 1575	79:39	12
14	Tilting helmet, Spanish, ca. 1580	444:19	13
15	Parade shield, Italian, XVI century	47:27	14
16	Helmet, German, made for Hungarian or Polish market, XVI century	71:42	14
17	Mitten gauntlet for left hand, English, Greenwich school, second half of XVI century	80:39	14
18	Parade shield, wood, painted, Hungarian, XV century	88:42	15
19	Stirrups, pair, bronze gilt, French, early XVII century	54:26 55:26	16
20	Three-quarter suit of armor, South German, ca. 1620	172:26	17
Drawings to illustrate methods of attaining flexibility in plate armor:
21	By use of leather straps		19
22	By use of ordinary rivets at pivot points		19
23	By use of rivets and slotted holes, (so-called Almain or sliding rivets) to allow motion in two directions		19
24	Breastplate of char aina, Persian, Ispahan, XVI-XVII century	34:15	20
25	Helmet, Persian, late XVI century	16:22	21
26	Helmet, Turkish, XV century	36:42	21
27	Mace, Italian, second quarter XVI century	231:23	22
28	Sword, bronze, Chinese, Han dynasty (206 B.C.-220 A.D.)	1108:20	22

29	Group of swords, as displayed		23
	1. State sword, German, XVI century	173:26
	2. Two-handed landesknecht sword, Swiss, dated 1617	60:39
	3. Swept-hilted rapier, Italian, late XVI century	430:19
	4. Dress sword, German, Saxon, ca. 1620	62:39
	5. Left-hand dagger, companion to No. 4	63:39
	6. Cup-hilted rapier, Italian, XVII century	49:25
	7. Left-hand dagger, Italo-Spanish, XVII century	81:39
	8. Cup-hilted rapier, Spanish, XVII century	233:23
30	Hilt and guard of court sword, Italian or Spanish, XVII century	174:26	24
31	Rondel dagger, Italian, XV century	82:39	25
32	Trousse, German, XVI century	65:39	25
33	Group of spear-type pole arms, XV-XVII centuries		27
	1. Ox-tongue pike, Austrian, Salzburg, ca. 1500	433:19
	2. Hunting spear, Italian, XVI century	42:19
	3. Partisan, Italian, XVI century	450:19
	4. Partisan of State Guard of William V of Bavaria, ca. 1615	169:26
	5. Partisan of State Guard of Augustus the Strong of Saxony, King of Poland, ca. 1597	166:26
34	Group of axe-type pole arms, XV-XVII centuries		28
	1. Military axe, Spanish, XVI century	43:19

	2. Military axe, Italian, XVI century	44:19
	3. Halberd, Swiss, XV century	67:39
	4. Halberd, North Italian, XVI century	451:19
	5. Halberd of State Guard of Christian II of Saxony, ca. 1590	167:26
	6. Halberd of State Guard of the Princes of Liechtenstein, XVII century	168:26
35	Two dagger-knives		29
	1. Persian, Ispahan, XVII century	13:22
	2. Persian, Shiraz, XVII century	14:22
36	Sword hilt, gold, Persian, XIII-XIV century	45:24	29
37	Crossbow, Flemish, XV century	41:19	30
38	Prodd, Italian, XVI century	69:39	30
39	Crossbow and cranequin, Swiss, XVII century	68:39	31
40	Drawing, mechanism of cranequin		31
41	Drawing, mechanism of crossbow lock		31
42	Engraving after de Gheyn, 1606: musketeer about to give fire		31
43	Matchlock musket, Dutch, XVII century, and detail of its decoration. Gift of the John M. Olin Trust	302:51	33
44	Wheellock gun, German, ca. 1550 and detail of engraved inlays after Beham	74:39	34
45	Engraving by Hans Sebald Beham, (1500- ca. 1550) The Rape of Iole	58:14	35

46	Group of hand firearms of the XVII century		37
	1. Miguelet lock gun, Italian, Brescia, for the Balearic trade, by Lazari Cominaz, XVII century	76:39
	2. Wheellock rifle, German, Dresden, by Martin Süssebecker (1593-1668), gunmaker to the Saxon court, ca. 1635	75:39
	3. Wheellock tschinke, German-Silesian, XVII century	73:39
	4. Wheellock rifle, French, Épinal (Vosges), by Claude Thomas, 1623	70:39
	4A,B. Pair of wheellock pistols. Companions to No. 4	71:39 72:39
	5. Flintlock pistol, Italian, Brescia, by Lazaro Lazarino, XVII century	77:39
	6. Flintlock pistol, Italian, Brescian, by Lazarino Cominazzo; Giovanni Bourgognone, mid-XVII century	85:39
47	Details of decoration of guns:		39
	1. Miguelet lock gun, Italian, Brescia, for the Balearic trade, signed “Lazari Cominaz”, XVII century	76:39
	2. Wheellock rifle, German, Dresden, by Martin Süssebecker (1593-1668), ca. 1635	75:39
	3. Wheellock tschinke, German-Silesian, XVII century	73:39
48	Wheellock pistol, Italian, Brescia, ca. 1630	84:39	40
49	Flintlock powder tester, German, ca. 1690	24:25	40
50	Flintlock pistol set (two brace) with accessories, Portuguese, Lisbon, by Jacinto Xavier, 1799	185:42	41
51	Flintlock repeating pistol, French, Paris, by Derby, late XVIII century	43:39	42

THE EARLIEST ARMOR AND ARMS

Once upon a time there probably were men who had neither armor nor arms. They did not last long, for wild animals or other men with stones or sticks in their hands killed them and ate them up. The first men about whom we know anything definite already had weapons of stone. Arms and, later, armor have accompanied man throughout his history.

The first obvious weapons were stones, roughly shaped to make them more effective. Such are not to be found in the City Art Museum, but we do have examples of the next type to develop, the weapons of the bronze age.

Bronze is a mixture of copper and tin, and it was invented a very long time ago, and in many different places. It was known in ancient Egypt, in the Far East and in Europe. Two thousand years before Christ the Chinese were making bronze arms and domestic and ceremonial objects of all sorts, and were making them so beautiful that such objects are considered proper exhibits for an art museum. We have a very fine collection of ancient Chinese bronzes, exhibited in the Museum’s Chinese galleries, and among them are numerous weapons. The earliest include axes and dagger-axes (Fig. 1). These date from the Shang Dynasty, (ca. 1523-ca. 1028 B.C.) This too is the period of a bronze helmet (Fig. 2) in the form of a hood with smooth sides which come down well over the cheeks, while leaving the front of the face exposed. Helmets of almost precisely this form, but made of steel, were worn in Italy in the fifteenth century, more than two thousand years later! This helmet has a small plume-holder at its very top, and is peculiar in having, as its only decoration, a pair of eyes embossed in relief on the forehead.

Fig. 1. A Chinese bronze axe more than 3000 years old, with a crouching monster in relief.

From the Ordos region of Siberia, where a primitive culture lasted for a very long time, comes a particularly fine ceremonial dagger (Fig. 3) of bronze with inlays of turquoise. From China again, dating throughout the thousand years before Christ, come numerous bronze weapons now in the Museum’s Study Collection, including swords, daggers, and, from about the beginning of the Christian Era, most ingenious mechanisms for the crossbow (Fig. 4) a weapon which was not known in Europe until many centuries later.

An Etruscan grave has yielded the large bronze disk of Fig. 5. On stylistic grounds it is believed that this originated not in Etruria, but on the other, Eastern, shore of Italy in Picenum, in the second half of the seventh century before Christ. It was probably the central reinforcement of a large leather shield.

Fig. 2. A bronze helmet as old as the axe in Fig. 1, but in form closely resembling Italian steel helmets of the fifteenth century.

Fig. 3. The thin flat-bladed ceremonial bronze dagger of a shaman or sorcerer from the steppes of Siberia.

But of all the specimens of antique armor and arms in this (and possibly in any other) museum, none surpasses the helmet shown in our frontispiece. This helmet, together with fragments of armor, a shield rim and a spear point, all now in the Museum, was found in a tomb near Metaponto, in Southern Italy, where once there was a Greek colony. It is believed to date from about the middle of the sixth century B.C. The helmet is of bronze, the upper part of the bowl formed as the neck and head of a ram. This is surmounted by a great crest of silver, resting on a support of ivory. The cheek pieces of the helmet have rams’ heads in profile embossed in relief. The eyes, the horns of the main ram’s head, the ivory crest holder and part of the silver crest are restorations, but enough original fragments of the crest were found with the helmet to indicate exactly how the crest was shaped. Moreover the existence of such metallic crests is verified by a bronze statuette of similar origin (Fig. 6).

Fig. 4. A crossbow lock two thousand years old, with a model to show how the parts interlock. An ingenious bit of early mechanical engineering.

At first glance, the helmet proclaims itself a great work of sculpture, and proves that arms and armor can properly belong in a museum of art. How very well this piece deserves its place here is still more apparent on close examination. It seems incredible that so long ago a craftsman could, without any of our modern tools, have formed from a single plate of bronze such a deep and difficult forging as this helmet bowl. It is equally amazing that, in a period still considered as archaic, his artistic imagination could have produced so naturalistic yet so noble a rendition of an animal form. The technical skill and taste of the engraving and embossing are also noteworthy: the suggestion of locks of hair around the forehead, the eyebrows which terminate as snakes’ heads, the suggestions of skin texture on the rams’ heads. It is indeed one of the world’s masterpieces of armor.

Although the Greeks made their armor out of bronze, they did have knowledge of iron, at least as early as the fifth century B.C. But it was extremely difficult for them to prepare, as they had not yet discovered efficient methods of smelting it from iron ore, so that what little they had was very precious. It could not be spared for making armor, but was restricted to edged weapons where a relatively small amount of this hard new metal could be most effective. The Romans too used iron, and as their technical skill improved they used more and more of it.

After the Roman empire was overwhelmed by the barbarian hordes from the North the making of fine arms languished. It did not cease; occasionally discoveries are made of beautifully inlaid sword pommels and shield bosses belonging to the so-called “dark ages”. Sword blades too turn up occasionally, skillfully constructed of many layers of alternately hard steel and soft iron, so that they may retain a keen cutting edge yet still be tough rather than brittle.

Fig. 5. Embossed bronze disk, probably the central reinforcement of a leather shield, from Picenum, East-Central Italy, second half VII century B. C.

Fig. 6. An Etruscan warrior in battle dress. Note the rivets on the helmet crest.

(Steel, you will remember, is not a separate metal; it is just iron which contains from about .5% to about 2.5%, of carbon. This gives it the peculiar property that if it is heated to redness and quickly cooled, it becomes much harder than before. It also becomes more brittle. If hardened steel be heated a second time, not red hot but to a much lower temperature, and again chilled, the hardness is reduced somewhat, while the brittleness is reduced a great deal; the metal becomes tough and suitable for making into tools. This second heating and chilling is called “tempering”. Contrary to popular belief, “to temper” steel does not mean “to make it harder”. It means “to make fully hardened steel somewhat softer and much tougher”. If the iron has too much or too little carbon it cannot be hardened at all; if there is too little it is very soft and malleable and is called “wrought iron”. If there is too much carbon it is harder than mild steel, but is very brittle indeed; this is called “cast iron”.)

CHAIN MAIL

Except for the rare finds just mentioned, we know little about the armor and arms of the period from the fall of Rome to about the twelfth century. The paintings, drawings, and statues which have survived suggest, but give no clear information. We have reason to believe that armor was made of small plates of iron attached to cloth or leather garments, or of chain mail, a fabric made of interlinked rings of iron wire. Towards the end of this period we know that chain mail was extensively employed, for it often appears, especially in England, on the engraved brass plates attached to the tombs of important people of the time (Fig. 7). The Museum has a small collection of paper impressions of these “brasses” which are well worthy of study by anyone interested in early armor. Some are exhibited on the walls of the armor gallery.

Chain mail is more interesting than it appears at first glance, and the Museum’s specimens deserve to be looked at carefully. In the first place, it was made of wire. Nowadays wire is so common that we think nothing of it; it is produced by the mile with automatic machinery. But in medieval times wire was scarce and valuable, for every bit of it had to be made by hand. At first this was done with the hammer: a billet of iron was pounded with a hammer held in one hand, while the other kept the billet rotating so that its diameter became less and less until it was small enough to be made up into links of mail. Of course, only short bits of wire could be made in this way and the diameter was naturally irregular. It was slow and tedious work, but the earliest mail was so made. Later it was found that a rod of iron could be pulled by tongs through a hole in a hardened steel plate, thus reducing its diameter and giving it a uniform thickness. By drawing it through a number of holes of progressively smaller diameter, the wire could be made quite thin and entirely uniform. Then such wire could be wound in a coil around an iron rod, and the coil then cut lengthwise with a chisel or saw giving a large number of links all of the same size. All later chain mail was so made. Such links were interlaced, each link with four others, to form a fabric much like that of a lady’s mesh bag. However, if the ends of the links were simply brought together the fabric would not be very strong. An arrow or dagger point could easily spread open a link, and penetrate to the wearer’s body. So all good chain mail was strengthened by having the ends of every link overlapped, slightly flattened, and then riveted. In that part of the world we now call “Middle East”—where the Mohammedan and Hindu cultures flourished—the rivet was a separate piece of fine wire. European chain mail is more of a mystery—principally because there is so very little old European chain mail still in existence. The probability is that a separate rivet was used as in the Eastern mail, but that its insertion was more skillfully performed. However, some scholars feel that European chain mail was welded or was riveted by a swaging process, that a special tool in the form of tongs or a pair of dies forced a small part of the lower end of the link of chain mail through a slit in the upper end and then riveted it over. Careful microscopical research on sections of links of mail could doubtless solve this problems, but who wants to cut off links from a rare and precious genuine, documented piece? As yet it may be said that no such ingenious swaging tool has been discovered, nor have we any unquestionably contemporary illustrations which would prove this theory.

In places where special strength was required, as around the throat, the rings were made of the same size but of heavier wire, which was flattened by hammering in the neighborhood of the rivet. In this way the overlapping of the rings became so close that not even a needle could penetrate the fabric (Fig. 8). In other cases, unflattened rings were used, but strands of leather were drawn through the rows, giving additional rigidity and protection. It is believed that this practice accounts for the appearance of what is known as “banded mail” in numerous monuments and engraved brasses.

Chain mail was a good protection against cuts and stabs, but it had a number of serious disadvantages. In the first place, it was expensive. Even the most skillful armorer could make it but slowly. The mail cape of Fig. 8 contains about 44,235 links, each separately forged and riveted; some complete coats of mail contain over 200,000! Forgeries of antique chain mail are practically non-existent, for they would cost more to make than genuine specimens, rare as they are, would be worth today.

Again, chain mail was very easily attacked by rust, and, once it was rusted, was most difficult to clean. (The usual way was to put a rusted mail shirt in a barrel with some oily sawdust and to set an apprentice to rolling the barrel around for hour after hour.) Consequently very little early mail is left—most of it just rusted away to nothing. It was heavy and uncomfortable, for the whole weight hung from the shoulders.

But its worst disadvantage lay in its flexibility. It would resist a cut, but was of little protection against a blow. To make it of any use in battle against heavy swords, maces, and battle axes it was necessary to wear beneath it a very heavily padded garment which, of course, was hot. How the Crusaders in their chain mail must have sweated in the hot sun of the Holy Land! And how many mail-clad knights must have been pounded to death without necessarily losing one drop of blood!

Fig. 7. An ink rubbing taken from the engraved brass plate on the tomb of Sir Roger de Trumpington, an English knight who died in 1289. Note the complete suit of chain mail, the supplementary knee defenses and big pot helmet attached by a chain, the cloth surcoat, and the shield with his punning badge of a trumpet.

Fig. 8. Cape of chain mail, with extra wide links at the collar, and ornamental links of brass around the lower edge.

To protect against blows, therefore, it became necessary to produce a rigid protection. The primitive state of iron metallurgy did not permit the making of more than small pieces of iron at a time. Nevertheless, iron head coverings were already in use by the eleventh century, and from that time on pieces of plate armor increased in size and number. After the head defense, the most vulnerable part of a rider’s body (for remember that only knights could afford mail, and knights fought on horseback) was the knees. Have you ever had a really hard bump on the kneecap, and, if you remember one, should you have liked to go on fighting just after receiving it? The knight represented in the brass of Fig. 7, who died in 1289, wears knee-guards, and rests his head on his great “pot-helm”, which was normally attached to his body by a chain, so that it could not easily be lost if he took it off to get a breath of air. The City Art Museum has no specimens of plate armor of this early period.

“GOTHIC” ARMOR

Fig. 9. A helmet called a salade: made like a deep salad bowl, with a slit to see through.

During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries it became the fashion to wear a long cloth garment, called a surcoat, over armor. Pictures and statues of this period show armored figures only with such surcoats, and it is, therefore, impracticable to follow the exact development of the pieces of plate armor which were added to reinforce the chain mail. By the beginning of the fifteenth century complete outfits of plate armor were in use, but the earliest surviving suits of the so-called “Gothic” armor date from about 1460. They are exceedingly rare. The City Art Museum possesses only a gauntlet of about 1450 and a helmet (Fig. 9) from about 1475, yet we feel lucky to have these two pieces, for “Gothic” armor is not only rare: it is very beautiful. It was at this period that armorers did their best work, from every standpoint. It was best metallurgically, with inner surfaces of pure soft iron, but with outer surfaces skillfully converted into almost glass-hard steel. It was best functionally, for its simple clean curved lines were admirably designed to turn a blow harmlessly aside, with no unnecessary decorative forms to catch descending edge or point. It was best artistically (as is usually the case with things that function perfectly), depending for beauty on its own pure sculptural lines rather than on extraneous ornament.

The helmet of Fig. 9 is of a type called salade. It is a simple steel hat, like that of a modern soldier, and originally had a padded lining. Unlike the modern military helmet, however, it covers the head down to the end of the nose; there is a narrow slit in front of the eyes which permits surprisingly good vision while leaving the eyes quite well protected. The lines of this helmet are clean and elegant, typical of the “Gothic” style. This type of helmet was often worn in combination with an upstanding guard for the lower part of the face which was attached to the top of the neck-defense. The lower edge of the helmet overlapped the upper edge of this face-guard; thus the entire face was protected, yet the wearer had reasonable ventilation and could obtain more when circumstances permitted by taking off his helmet.

“MAXIMILIAN” ARMOR

At the beginning of the sixteenth century the most important single personality in Europe was probably King (later Emperor) Maximilian I of Germany and Austria. A contemporary of Leonardo da Vinci, he lived at a time when versatility was one of the characteristics of an educated man, and as sovereign he set his subjects a good example in this respect. He wrote books on genealogy, hunting and woodsmanship, horse breeding, architecture, and landscape gardening. He was greatly interested in arms and armor, and frequently visited his court armorer in his workshop. It is not surprising, therefore, that he had a great influence on the design of armor, and that the new and sharply different fashion which appeared at this time became known as the “Maximilian”. It was characterized by parallel, or almost parallel, fluting, especially on breastplate and thigh guards, by broad-toed foot guards (sollerets) as compared with the long pointed toes of the Gothic period, and by strongly roped edges of the plates. The City Art Museum has an excellent suit of Maximilian armor (Fig. 10). The breastplate, thigh guards (tassets) and main shell of the helmet illustrate the characteristic flutings, while the sollerets are fully developed Maximilian style. The suit was made in Nuremberg in the first quarter of the sixteenth century, and was formerly in the armory of Prince Liechtenstein.

Fig. 10. A full suit of Maximilian armor from the early sixteenth century.

ARMOR OF THE LATE XVI CENTURY: DECORATED ARMOR

By the middle of the sixteenth century the techniques of the armorer were fully developed. From the smelters he was able to obtain iron in good-sized lumps, and he had learned so to weld it as to produce plates of any desired size. He could keep it soft and malleable or could add minute amounts of carbon and thus convert it into steel, which he could, by heat treatment, give any desired degree of hardness. He no longer bothered to harden the surface of his breastplate and helmets to the glassy hardness which was the pride of the Gothic armorers, but he made good, reasonably homogeneous mild steel which was hard enough for sword or dagger blades, yet tough enough to avoid brittleness. He could hammer his metal into even the most fantastic shapes, could color or gild it, or could inlay it with precious metals. Armorers began to vie with one another to produce magnificent and elaborate armor; many and strange were the results. Instead of only one kind of armor, as in the past, there were three: military, tournament and parade armor.

In the military armor, intended for actual fighting, taste was usually conservative. Extravagances, such as excessively wide or narrow sollerets, over-elaborate elbow guards, or extremely large shoulder guards, were avoided. A moderate amount of decoration was considered quite permissible, provided it did not lessen the functionality of the armor; such decoration most frequently was in the form of etching.

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Armor and Arms