The scarcity of good armour—Considerations for the collector—Counterfeit armour—The twelve periods in armour—The characteristics of each period—Glossary

There is much that is fascinating in the study of armour, and the seeker after military curios will do well to consider the advisability of making a collection of armour pieces. In praise of this particular form of treasure-hunting we could write a good deal, but, as space is necessarily limited, it will be wise to content ourselves, at the outset, with stating the drawbacks rather than the advantages which attend this hobby.

In the first case, really good complete suits of period armour are scarce, and consequently command enormous sums. Of course there is no reason why detached pieces should not be collected: these can be obtained freely and at reasonable prices. Probably the best bargains are to be had at country-house sales, where the specimens are not sufficiently numerous to warrant the attendance of London dealers. But the smaller bric-À-brac shops, especially those off the beaten track, often contain oddments which may be picked up at tempting prices.

The second drawback concerns questions of space. Armour collecting takes up a good deal of room and, in these days of small suburban houses and town flats, it is not every one who can house such treasures without causing them untold damage.

The third point is the most serious of all; it may be stated briefly. There are so many dangerous forgeries to be met with that the untutored collector may become bewildered and so lose his love for the hobby.

Upon the Continent there are thriving factories where armour, of the rarest kinds, is imitated, not for sale as reproductions but in order to cheat the uninitiated. The antique appearance is imparted to the bright metal surfaces by artfully smearing with lithographic ink and then dabbing with muriatic acid. The ink protects the parts which it covers from the corrosive action of the acid, and when the metal is subsequently washed and greased it has the exact appearance of an aged piece of armour, eaten and worn by time. How is the amateur to detect such worthless specimens when he runs across them?

Under the title of "Forgeries that were not Forged," The Connoisseur,[6] a few years ago, made some very pertinent remarks on this subject. "Foreign museums are not entirely free from the presence of forgeries," the article began; "in Paris may be seen suits and parts of suits which will not satisfy the connoisseur in the matter of freedom from faking. At Berlin at least one suit will strike the observer as decidedly not what it claims to be. At Stockholm, among the interesting objects in the Lifrustkammer are many pieces which one regrets are not real. And if in public collections many pieces arouse scepticism, how much more so is it the case with private collections, where all the geese are swans.

"In the Tower of London, on the upper shelf of one of the cases, is a row of helms and helmets described as copies or trophy work. These certainly exemplify the expression 'forgeries that were not forged.' They were bought for the National Collection between the years 1851 and 1858, and were then no doubt considered valuable examples of ancient armour. One, indeed, figured at Manchester in 1857 among the treasures of art. In them we may observe every rule of the construction of real armour violated, and further insulted by artificial rust and injuries.

"It may be asked, in the words of the song, 'How shall I my true love know?' and seeing how much more trouble is taken to deceive than to detect deceit, it is difficult to lay down any complete system of defence for the collector from the ever-increasing attacks of the forger." It is certain, however, that the best way of detecting forgeries is to get acquainted with the styles of armour that were worn at certain periods, to find out what processes were available for constructing the armour at these periods, what uses each section of the armour was put to, and how it was fitted on to the rest of the suit.

Of course, a good deal may be learnt from visits to public collections. The uninitiated collector is, therefore, advised to study the specimens shown in the Tower, the Royal United Service Museum, the Wallace Collection, and the Rotunda at Woolwich. On the Continent there are many fine displays, not only of armour but also of weapons, notably at the MusÉe d'Artillerie, Paris, the Industrial Museum of Vienna, the Copenhagen National Museum, and the Rijks Museum at Amsterdam. These are all well worth inspecting.

---

Having discussed matters concerned with the collecting of armour, we will now turn to questions relating to the actual armour itself.

Armour may be conveniently divided into twelve periods, as follows[7]:—

1. Pre-Norman.
2. Norman period to 1180.
3. The Chain Mail Period, 1180-1250.
4. Chain Mail Reinforced, 1250-1325.
5. The Cyclas Period, 1325-35.
6. The Studded and Splintered Armour Period, 1335-60.
7. The Camail and Jupon Period, 1360-1410.
8. The Surcoatless Period, 1410-30.
9. The Tabard Period, 1430-1500.
10. The Transition Period, 1500-25.
11. Maximilian Armour, 1525-1600.
12. The Half-Armour Period, after 1600.

The Pre-Norman Period is, in reality, composed of a number of preparatory eras which paved the way for the Norman period, the first to use complete suits of protective covering. The Greeks with their Boeotian helms and cuirasses, the Romans with their "skullcap" helmets, the Saxons and Danes with their head, chest, and leg coverings, all led up to the armour as we see it depicted by the Bayeux Tapestry. This period is of little interest to collectors, as specimens are quite unobtainable.

The Norman Period introduced the peculiar but distinctive helmet, conical in shape and provided with a nose protection or "nasal." The body covering was worn from head to toes, the feet and legs being enveloped in "chausses" made of a pliable substance provided with a generous supply of metal studs. The shield was, of course, an important feature of the Norman dress; it was more or less heart-shaped, and bent so as to fit round the body.

The Chain Mail Period.—Between 1180 and 1250 the armour suit underwent considerable changes. The Norman conical helmet gave place to the heaume, which usually had a flat surface, squared at the top, curved lines under the chin, and peepholes or ocularia in front. A surcoat or tunic, without sleeves, which was fitted over the usual armour, was also a feature of this era. But, of course, the introduction of chain mail was the outstanding point of interest.

Chain Mail Reinforced.—This period saw the gradual introduction of heaumes with curved crowns, often bearing ornamental devices, or ailettes to protect the shoulders and neck, of banded mail, and of chain mail reinforced with sections of plate.

The Cyclas Period.—"Probably at no time in the history of defensive armour," says Ashdown,[8] "has it presented a more picturesque appearance than during the brief ten years of the Cyclas Period. Fitting closely to the figure, the various garments followed the outlines of the human form, and in no parts showed any marked peculiarities or eccentricities. The evolution of the style was undoubtedly derived from the experience gained during the Chain Mail Period, when that defence was proved to be ineffectual against the terrible effects of lance and sword. Both of these weapons, even if they did not actually pierce the mail, either bruised the body or broke bones, and thereby incapacitated the wearer; while the protection afforded by the loosely hanging folds of the surcoat of previous periods, especially against sword-cuts, had been duly noted. Hence, during the Cyclas Period we meet with the introduction of multitudinous coverings, whereby the lance, the sword, and the arrow were opposed by plate and mail, and by various padded garments of a textile nature."

The Studded and Splintered Armour Period.—This form of armour directly owes its introduction to the conflicts between the English and French, and the ideas for improvement which were prompted by actual experience on the battlefield. The style was none other than a piecing together of the best features of chain mail, plate, and cuir-bouilli. The bascinets of this time were unusual, having much the appearance of metal hoods, provided or not provided with visors. The surcoat and the chausses were essential features of the period.

The Camail and Jupon Period.—This is probably one of the most interesting and picturesque periods in the history of armour. The headgear was usually pointed and fitted down closely over the ears, but left the face free. Laced to the helmet and falling over the shoulders was a plastron of camail which protected the throat and neck from violence. The jupon was a garment which covered the body from the camail to just above the knees. It consisted of whatever material the wearer thought was the most impervious to blows, with, usually, a velvet covering, embroidered with a heraldic device.

The Surcoatless Period is easily recognized, as it was the earliest period in which a full set of armour was worn with no textile covering placed over it.[9] A feature of note was the loss of the camail throat-guard and the introduction of a light sheet-metal gorget. The camail was, undoubtedly, an efficient safeguard, but it was extremely weighty and so caused much inconvenience to the wearer.

The Tabard Period saw the introduction of many changes, which had for their object the greater protection of the armoured soldier; but the most distinguishing feature was the arrival of the tabard, a kind of sleeved surcoat, which covered the wearer down to the knees. It was of no fighting value, but gave dignity to those who displayed it. The salade also belongs to this period, both those with and those without visors, as well as the pauldron, a protection for the elbow, and the palette, which shielded the underneath portion of the shoulder-joint.

The Transition Period brought helmets which, by reason of their movable visors, cheek-pieces, and mentonniÈres, gave greater safety to the head. But the period is more readily distinguished by the mail skirt, which was worn suspended from the waist. Of this period Ashdown writes: "Very important alterations occurred in armour of this period, differentiating it from that of the preceding. The great pauldrons, exaggerated coudiÈres, and general angularity, and one might almost say prickliness, of the later Tabard Period was modified to a smoother and rounder style, while it lost entirely that remarkable beauty of form which, however much distorted by fanciful additions, characterized the Gothic armour as a whole. The beautiful flutings and ornamental curves disappeared to make way for a heavy, cumbersome style indicative of German stolidity, and in direct antagonism to the mobile quickness and agility suggested by the majority of suits dating from the latter half of the previous century."[10]

Maximilian Armour.—With the gradual employment of gunpowder even the best kinds of armour lost their military value, and, consequently, the sixteenth century saw a decline in the use of steel suits for purposes of warfare. There was no reason, however, why steel-clad men should not continue to be seen at tilting tournaments, even though the arquebus had proved its value in dealing death and destruction. Consequently we find that armour was still used during this century at these functions of chivalry, and it was the kind favoured by Emperor Maximilian which was mostly worn—hence the name. Its outstanding features were excessive ornamentation and artistic finish.

The Half-Armour Period.—This is the period during which steel dress was gradually dying out. "The period exhibits a brutal strength and crudity in armour which forcibly suggests boiler-plate work. The defences were simply made to cover the vital parts of the body with the maximum amount of efficiency, without any consideration whatever for gracefulness of outline or beauty of surface."[11] The metal covering of these times was obviously fashioned with the idea of making a compromise between protection and mobility, and it gradually dwindled until the head alone was safeguarded.

So passed away the armour which, as James I once said, was a very useful invention, for it saved not only the wearer from being killed, but it was so hampering that it prevented him from killing any one else.

---

Many technical terms are used in armoury which need explaining. The following are those which occur most frequently:—

Barded.—A horse fully armoured.

Bascinet.—A helmet which protected the back of the head and neck.

Brassarts.—Plate armour for the upper part of the arm, reaching from the shoulder to the elbow, sometimes in a single piece, sometimes in a series of overlapping plates.

Brigandine.—Armour worn at one time by brigands—hence the name. It consisted of a foundation of quilted leather, upon which was sewn a number of small metal plates, and thus formed a good defence for the body against the sword and the pike.

Burgonet.—A fifteenth-century helmet, usually round to fit the head, but provided with a peak to protect the eyes.

Cabasset.—Like the morion, it was a simple metal hat with a dome-shaped crown and a brim. It had no visor, gorget, neck-guard, etc.

Chain Mail.—A covering which consisted of an endless number of rings laced one into the other. Each ring had four others threaded into it. The individual rings were known as "grains d'orge."

Chamfrien.—The metal covering for a horse's face; often provided with a spike.

Chausses.—The metal leggings used in armour.

Corslet.—A suit of armour worn chiefly by pikemen. The word was used, not only to denote the body covering but the whole outfit from head to knees.

CoudiÈre.—An elbow guard.

CriniÈre.—A number of plates hooked together to guard a horse's neck; it rested on the mane.

Cuirass.—Armour for the breast and back, consisting of two plates united at the sides of the body. They were originally fashioned out of leather (cuir = leather).

EspaliÈre.—Covering for the shoulders and the upper part of the arm.

Gauntlet.—The protection used for covering the hands.

GenouilliÈre.—Flexible knee pieces with joints reminiscent of those possessed by lobsters.

Gorget.—A protection for the throat; it also sustained the weight of the whole armour outfit.

Greeves.—Plate armour for the legs.

Haubergeon.—A coat made probably of plate or chain mail but without sleeves.

Hauberk.—This was a complete covering of mail from head to foot, consisting of a hood joined to a jacket, with sleeves, breeches, stockings, and shoes of double chain mail, to which were added gauntlets.

Heaume.—A head covering, introduced in the Chain-mail period. (See p. 75).

Hufden.—A head piece which fitted closely round the skull; it was worn by archers in Queen Elizabeth's time.

Jazeran.—A hauberk which was covered with overlapping plates.

MentonniÈre.—A portion of the head piece which protected the chin and the lower part of the face.

Morion.—See Cabasset.

Ocularium.—The peep-hole of the helmet.

Palette.—A shield or covering used to protect the arm and shoulder-joint.

Pauldrons.—Pieces of armour for the shoulders; the origin of epaulettes.

Plate mail.—This consisted of a number of small lamenÆ of metal, commonly iron, which were so arranged as to slightly overlap like the scales of a fish. Usually a leather foundation was provided.

Poitrinal.—The covering for a horse's hindquarters; a guard against sword slashes.

Pot.—A cabasset or morion.

Rerebrace.—A protection for the part between the elbows and shoulders.

Rondelle.—A guard for the inner side of the arm which wields the weapon.

Salade.—A light casque, sometimes provided with a visor, but without crest.

Sollerets.—Overlapping plates which formed the shoe of an armed knight. Cf. Chausses.

Tapul.—The perpendicular ridge down the middle of a breastplate.

Targe.—A shield.

Tassets.—A series of flexible plates hooked to the skirt of the cuirass, protecting the thighs.

Visor.—The movable face-guard of a helmet.

---