CHAPTER V

Fig.68.—From an Anglo-Saxon Psalter.Respecting the defensive equipment of the Anglo-Saxons we are forced to the conclusion that the helmet and the shield were the principal portions, and that in numberless cases these only were adopted, others being considered subsidiary or superfluous. Indeed in the earlier periods of the Saxon occupation they are invariably represented with these defences only, the byrnie, &c., being essentially reserved for the leaders; but as the nation increased in prosperity so the additional defences were slowly added.Fig.69.—Saxon arrow-heads.Fig.70.—Saxon slinger.PLATE VI*Italian Rondache, Sixteenth CenturyA. F. CalvertThe Saxon Helmetwas commonly of the Phrygian shape, but examples are plentiful of the hemispherical, the conical, and the combed hemispherical, side by side with the Phrygian. The foundation of the helmet was a framework of bronze or iron bands riveted together, of which the principal was the piece passing round the head, and that reaching from the forehead over the head to its junction with the plate at the back. These two were of thicker materialthan the rest. Occasionally the latter band was produced so as to form a nasal which became universal at the end of the tenth century. Upon this sub-structure a leather cap of varying forms was fixed, sometimes with ornamental additions in leather crowning it. The commonest form is seen inFig. 75, while other varieties are perceived in Figs.71,76, and77.Fig.71.—Saxon helmets.Fig.72.—Saxon helmet with comb. (Add. MS., 18043.)Fig.73.-Saxon umbos.The Shield.—The shield was of wood covered with leather, invariably round in shape, but at times oval and convex. The lime was the favourite wood used in its construction, the “yellow linden” being often mentioned by Saxon poets. The distinguishing characteristic of this defence was the central boss or umbo, of which such a large number have been found in Saxon interments (Fig. 73). It was a hollow boss of varying form and dimensions, but generally about six inches in diameter, and projecting three or four inches from the outer surfaceof the shield; the wood was cut away to allow of its being fixed, and across the hollow at the back a piece of metal was carried, riveted at both ends to the boss. This formed a grasp for the left hand by which the shield was carried, the umbo protecting the hand from injury. As it was often spiked there is reason to suppose that at times the shield was used as an offensive weapon (Fig. 75). To strengthen it, radiating strips of iron or bronze were occasionally carried from the umbo to the edges of the shield, the simplest being a prolongation of the grip. It was not a heavy shield, in no way comparable to those of some other nations. The mode of carrying the shield when not in use is seen inFig. 76.Fig.74.—Saxon umbos, from the Herts County Museum, St. Albans.Fig.75.—Saxon king and shield bearer. (MS., end of 10th century.)Fig.76.—Anglo-Saxon horseman. (Cott. MS., Cleop. C. 8.)Fig.77.—Saxon byrnie of leather. (Cott. MS., Cleop. C. 8.)Fig.78.—Leather armour, 10th century.The Byrnie or Battle-Sarkwas at times made of leather. In the figure reproduced from a British Museum MS. (Fig. 77) the coat appears to be of hide with much of the hair apparently left upon it; its lower edges are dagged, and it defends the body and a part of the legs, whereas inFig. 78the defensive covering appears only upon the upper part of the body. The byrnie was also made of padded stuff judging from the illustrations, but the earlier examples are so excessively crude and inartistic that it is rash to make authoritative statements. When a forest is indicatedby four leaves and a twig, a mountain pass by a bulbous mole-hill, and elaborate Saxon embroidery by half-a-dozen scattered dots, it will readily be perceived that such a technical detail as body armour cannot be definitely settled by these rude drawings. Hence a controversy has arisen, which can by no means be considered as definitelydecided, upon the question as to whether the Anglo-Saxons possessed byrnies of true interlinked chain mail. Hewitt in his “Ancient Armour” maintains the affirmative, and contends that the references in the poem of “Beowulf” to the “twisted breast-net,” the “hard battle-net,” the “locked battle-shirt,” the “byrnie twisted with hands,” the “war byrnie, hard and hand-locked,” can only mean chain-mail. He further refers to the Bayeux Tapestry where a body is being stripped, and the links show inside the hauberk as they are represented on the outside. These arguments certainly carry weight, but until abonâ-fideexample of Anglo-Saxon manufacture is brought to light the question must apparently be left in abeyance. One of the modes of defence concerning which there is no doubt was the sewing on of separate flat rings of iron to a tunic of woven material or leather, andalso the covering of the same with metal or leather plates, either cut into the form of scales and overlapping, or square or oblong.PLATE VII*Milanese Salade, Fifteenth CenturyA. F. CalvertA very interesting little group is shown inFig. 79from a Saxon MS., Cleopatra B. 4, in the British Museum. The book is Ælfric’s Paraphrase of the Pentateuch and Joshua, and the subject of the drawing is the battle of the three kings against the cities of the plain. One king is habited in a ringed byrnie which extends to the knees and half way down the arms; he wields a sword with a trilobed pommel and short quillons, and defends himself with a shield having a spiked umbo. His armour-bearer carries another shield, but is quite unarmed, his duty merely being to defend his master. The Phrygian cap and simple tunic he wears are probably those of everyday life. The second king has no defensive armour and no armour-bearer, unless the figure seen behind him in a grotesque attitude fulfils that office. The bifid beards and the characteristic Saxon wrinkling of the sleeves should be noticed, as also that the legs of the group appear to be bare.Fig.79.—Group from Cott. MS., Cleop. B. 4.c.1000.Fig.80.—From Anglo-Saxon MS., Prudentius, 11th century.The leg-bands seen upon the Saxon soldiery were similar to those worn by all civilians, and adjusted in the same manner; if, however, they were of leather instead of the usual textile fabric a certain amount of defence could be obtained (Figs.77and80). It is curious to observe that a number of soldiers are habited precisely as the civilians, with no other defences than the helmet and the shield, from which we conclude that the Anglo-Saxon of an early period simply dropped his implements of husbandry at the call to arms and took up the shield, helmet, and the spear.Towards the latter end of the Saxon period the arms and armour became almost identical with that in use on the Continent owing to the constant intercourse which occurred in the reign of Edward the Confessor, so that in 1066 the difference in accoutrement was simply small matters of detail.THE DANESFig.81.—Danish helmet, shield, and sword.The military equipment of the Danes was very similar to that of other northern Teutonic nations, and no single piece of their arms and armour has been immortalised as of special significance with the single exception of the Danish axe. Upon their first appearance in England the only armour worn was a defence for the chest, consisting of a broad collar encircling the neck, with depending pieces upon which were sewn flat rings, plates of metal, horn, &c. In addition to this pectoral, if it may be so termed, greaves were used, consisting of stout pieces of leather affixed after the form of shin-pieces, and, judging by representations in illuminated MSS., carefully moulded to the limb, inasmuch as the prominent muscles are shown upon them. This was probably effected by boiling the leather and subsequently pressing it into shape. After their settlement in England they gradually adopted other defences in imitation of the Saxons, but more especially of the Normans, until their equipment in the first half of the eleventh century became in every respect a replica of that of the latter nation.The Danish helmet in its early form was a close-fitting skull-cap fitting well down into the back of the neck; upon this as a foundation the chiefs wore protruding horns, andat times wings of metal, imparting a highly-ornamental aspect to the headpiece. Later a conical helmet having a knob upon the top and being made of metal or leather, or a mixture of both, was adopted; this in its fully-developed state was fitted with a nasal (Fig. 81).Fig.82.—Danish weapons.The shield is reputed to have been of the shape shown inFig. 81, which is taken from the prayer-book of King Canute, MSS., Cal. A. 7, in the British Museum. Presuming that the illuminator has not allowed his imagination to run riot we must admire the highly ornamental form there delineated, evidently founded upon the universal circular shield of the Teutonic nations.The Danish sword was similar to that of the Anglo-Saxons, and differed only in the scabbard, upon which more labour was spent in ornamentation.The spear illustrated (Fig. 82, No. 2) is that of Canute as shown upon his coins, while the companion weapon is that of the ordinary soldiery.The Danish axe (Fig. 82, No. 3) was the famed bipennis, consisting of two axe-blades of similar form on either side of the shaft, which latter in a few cases was furnished with a spike. The axe could be used as a pole-axe for close combat, or, if furnished with a shorter handle, be hurled in a similar way to the francisca. A variation of the bipennis is seen in the companion axe, which is furnished upon one side with a diamond-pointed cutting blade of steel in substitution for the axe-blade.PLATE VIIIThe Bayard Armour in the Rotunda, WoolwichCHAPTER VTHE NORMAN PERIOD TO 1180With the advent of the Normans in 1066 the subject of arms and armour in England becomes more definite and exact. This is chiefly owing to the Bayeux Tapestry, to the multiplication of MSS., carvings in ivory and metal, and the records preserved upon seals. The date of the famous tapestry has long been a matter of dispute, but it is universally agreed that if it was not woven by Matilda and her handmaidens it was certainly begun and completed within fifty years of the Conquest. Hence its reliability is undoubted upon contemporaneous arms and armour.Fig.83.—Norman pennons (Bayeux Tapestry).The Lance.—The head of the lance was commonly of the leaf form, and sometimes approached that of the lozenge; it was very seldom barbed, although this variety, together with the others, appears upon the Bayeux Tapestry. The horizontal bar-guards, so characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon spear, are very rarely pictured; they were not, however, relinquished by the conquered nation, but are seen at times in MSS. written subsequently to the Conquest. Nearly all the Norman spears were embellished with pennons of from two to five points (Fig. 83). The length of the spear appears to have differed little from that of the Anglo-Saxon, and like that weapon they were of uniform thickness throughout (Figs.88,91,92,93, &c.).Fig.84.—Figure from “Massacre of the Innocents.” (Cott. MS., Nero, C. 4,c.1125.)The Sword.—Remembering that the Normans were essentially a Scandinavian nation, we might fairly expect to discover traces of their origin in the sword of the period, and this we find to be the case. It was still straight, long, and double-edged, slightly tapering towards the acute-angled point. The quillons were straight at the time of the Conquest, but became bent in a small degree towards the close of the period; the grip was without swell, and a spherical knob formed the pommel. The scabbard was suspended upon the left side by a small cord round the waist, but occasionally was supported by the hauberk by being passed through a hole in the garment, which thus concealed a portion of it. SeeFig. 84, which dates fromc.1125, and exhibits this peculiarity.The Bow.—At the battle of Hastings the Normans appear to have been extremely well provided with bowmen, in contradistinction to the Saxons. The Conqueror is said to have reproached the latter for this omission, but archers appear in the ranks of the Saxons on the Bayeux Tapestry, grouped in small numbers among the axemen, and arrow-heads of iron are occasionally found in Saxon graves. It would appear that all the Norman foot soldiers carried bows, and we know that the rain of arrows from the sky had a marked effect upon the fortunes of the day at Hastings. The bow was of very simple construction at that time, and the quivers were without covers, and at times slung upon the back, so that the arrows are seen over the right shoulder.The Mace.—At Hastings the Saxons appear to have used the stone hammer and the Normans a mace having the head heart-shaped; they had recourse to this after the lance had been splintered. The axe is not seen in the hands of the Normans, though it subsequently came into high favour with them, but many of the Saxons wield the weapon which, from its handle being four or five feet in length, may justly be termed the pole-axe.Fig.85.—Details of armour (Bayeux Tapestry).Fig.86.—Figure showing coif worn under mail.The body armour of this period is of great interest by reason of its complexity and variety. Upon the Bayeux Tapestry there are delineated seven different kinds, which are reproduced inFig. 85. No. 1 is undoubtedly the ringed byrnie which we have noted during the Saxon period, and No. 2 is either intended to represent interlinked chain mail or, what is more probable, scale armour, as it is invariably represented with the points of the scales downwards. These scales were of various materials, such as iron, bronze, leather, cuir-bouilli, and horn. Cuir-bouilli was leather softened by boiling (generally in oil), and stamped or moulded into a definite form when in that condition; upon drying it became intensely hard and tough. It was a favourite agent for defence for centuries, and did not eventually disappear in England as such until the close of the fourteenth century. Nos. 3 and 4 may possibly be composed of iron rings or discs of metal lying upon leather or padded material, with strips of leather sewn on between the rings. Some authorities profess to discover jazeraint work in this representation, which was a method of defence much used in later centuries for archers’ jacques and various other garments, but we have no right to assume that the Normans at that period carried such a heavy weight of armour as this would necessitate, or were acquainted with such a technical and complicated manufacture as jazeraint work implies. The circles, moreover, are too large to represent studs. Nos. 5 and 6 are the ordinary markings used for the Gambeson (or Wambeys), the plain quilted defence which is perhaps the most ancient of all armours and was known to the early Egyptians. It was padded with a soft material such as wool, or tow, or cloth reduced to shreds, which was enclosed between two layers of material and then sewn together. Although offering but littleopposition to a lance-thrust it was highly efficacious in warding off a sword-cut, or stopping arrows when not delivered at short range. Against the mace, or a stone from a sling, it was of little use in preventing bones from being broken. This defence, with various styles of quilting and varieties of stuffing materials, was in use for many centuries in England as an under garment, to prevent the chafing of chain mail and plate, besides affording additional protection, while among the rank and file of our English armies it was often the only defence worn. In MSS. it is shown in different tints, invariably self-colours, but occasionally in stripes, chequers, &c., and this serves to prove, if proof were needed, that the surface exposed to view was not metal but material. No. 7 is a crude representation of the ordinary conical helmet, furnished with a nasal, to which is attached a coif or camail of quilted material, defending the back and sides of the head and falling upon the shoulders. As a rule, this quilting was continued over the head, and protected the wearer from the chafing of the helmet, while at the same time it distributed its weight. At times, however, this method was not in use, but a separate covering of soft or padded material was adopted; inFig. 86it is represented cut into the shape of a coif and tied under the chin. No. 8 is an example of different markings upon the same dress which is very common in MSS.; it is invariably introduced in those places where additional defence was required or desirable, and probably consisted of metal reinforcing the under garment.Fig.87.—Methods of representing different kinds of defences, other than plate.It may not be out of place to deal at this point with various armours, quite apart from plate, which will be referred to or illustrated in this work. Hewitt has dealt with this subject perhaps more fully and lucidly than any other author, and the woodcut on opposite page (Fig. 87) is taken from his work. No. 1 is perhaps the commonest of all, and will be referred to as “banded mail.” Its construction is fully dealt with inChapter VII. Occasionally the lines between the alternate crescents are shown double, but probably that is only a modification of this style of defence. During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries it was in constant use, and did not altogether die out for some considerable time afterwards. It is interesting to compare the variations in this style either of the actual defence or of the modes of delineation by the artists; the brasses of Bacon, Creke, d’Aubernoun, Northwode, Raven, Cheyne, &c., may be cited as examples worthy of interest in this respect, though many more may be found upon careful inspection. No. 2 is very common in illuminated MSS., and is occasionally found chiselled upon effigies; the Trumpington brass is an example of its incision in metal. No. 3 is generally found exemplified in brasses and effigies of the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries, and is by far the finest method for representing interlinked chain armour. It has a richness and reality which is unsurpassed by any other method. On the brass of Sir Thomas Burton it is shown in perpendicular chains; horizontal on that of Sir William Bagot; large rings are engraved in the case of Sir John Hanley, and there are many examples of small rings. On the brass of Sir Robert Russell there is a remarkable width between the parallel rows of chains, from which it may be inferred that although the chain-mail proper linked laterally, and also above and below, occasionally parallel chains linked at the sides only were in vogue. It is probable that the mail shown on the d’Aubernoun brass is of the latter pattern. No. 4: early examples of this are to be found on the Septvans and Buslingthorpe brasses. No. 5 is taken from one of the Temple Church effigies; a modification of this method, in which the lines are straight, may be seen upon an incised figure of a knight at Avenbury, Herefordshire,c.1260. No. 6 occurs upon foreign effigies. No. 7 is an example of the mail shown upon the monumental statue of Sir William Arden, in Aston Church, Warwickshire. No. 8 is from early woodcuts. Nos. 9 and 10 are probably intended to represent banded mail, and No. 11 appears upon an ivory chessman of the thirteenth century. No. 12: this has been mentioned as occurring in the Bayeux Tapestry, and there are many other instances of its use. No. 13 occurs upon the Great Seal of King Stephen and other examples of early seals. No. 14, a variety of No. 12. No. 15, from a steel statuette; the indentations appear to have been made with a punch. No. 16 is from an effigy in Bristol Cathedral. No. 17, from Roy. MS. 14, E. IV., a manuscript written and illuminated for King Edward IV. No. 18 is much used upon seals—one of King Stephen, for example. Nos. 19 and 20, from Add. MSS. 15295 and 15297. No. 21, from two MSS. of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (Egerton MS. 809; Add. MS. 15268). No. 22, from Harl. MS. 2803.PLATE IXThe “Rhodes” Suit at the Rotunda, WoolwichFig.88.—Armour,c.1190.Under the gambeson or the hauberk or both was worn a tunic reaching nearly to the knees, and as a rule a little longer than the defensive garments. It is well shown in the accompanying figure (Fig. 88, from Harleian Roll, Y 6, “The Life of St. Guthlac,” a work of the close of the twelfth century).Fig.89.—Norman hauberk, 1066.The Hauberk.—The hauberk was to the Norman what the byrnie was to the Saxon, the chief method of bodily defence. The coif for the head was generally a part of it, with only a small opening for the face, but at times it is shown made in two pieces, the lower extending upwards to the neck and the coif falling over it. This was doubtless to afford better means of adjustment for the gorget, plastron-de-fer, or other reinforcement which was undoubtedly worn under it upon the breast. The lower part of the garment was generally made to open up the front in order to afford convenience in riding, but occasionally examples are met with where openings are made upon both sides. For foot soldiers no opening was, as a rule, necessary. In some cases the reinforcement for the breast appears upon the outside of the hauberk in the shape of a square or oblong pectoral; when worn thus it was possibly of metal plates or studs attached to leather (Fig. 89).Fig.90.—Tegulated armour,c.1090.Fig.91.—Scale armour. (Harl. MS., 603.)Towards the end of the eleventh century the different distinct styles of armour became more numerous, and do not present such uniformity as at the time of the Conquest. Hefner gives an illustration of tegulated armour (Fig. 90) from a painting on vellum dating fromc.1090, when this system appears to have been introduced. In the original the plates are silvered, and some bosses on pendant scales of a figure shown upon the right are gilded. The square or oblong scales are shown as overlapping like slates upon a roof, and being probably sewn upon leather would afford a good protection to the wearer. Two soldiers also in the same group have chausses of mail of the same description, and the coif is continuous with the body portions of the hauberk.Fig.92.—Armour, 1148. (Add MS., 14789.)Fig.93.—Goliath. (Harl. MS., 2803.)Chaussesof mail of various patterns apparently came into general use about the commencement of the twelfth century. They are mentioned above, and apparently in the figure referred to (No. 90) are continuous scale work round the limbs; in other examples they partake of the character of half-leggings protecting only the knees and shins of the wearer (Fig. 86). An excellent example of this (Fig. 92) is afforded by a small representation in an illuminated manuscript Bible of the date 1148, where, in a capital letter F, the figures of David and Goliath are introduced, the giant lying prone upon the central projection of the letter with a stone in his forehead and the neck of the hauberk partly cut through. This is beautifully illustrated in Shaw’s “Dresses and Decorations.” The hauberk is shown continuous with the coif; the legs are protected by chausses of some pliable material, thickly covered with protective studs. These evidently fasten down the back, and are drawn over the feet by bands or straps meeting underneath. Later still, in a MS. written about 1170 (Fig. 93), we have an example of Goliath wearing chausses consisting of a thin material which creases near the calf, and only a single row of the protective studsdown the shin. The short boot is analogous with those worn inFig. 88, though here defended, or ornamented, with a few studs.Fig.94.—Great Seal of Alexander I., King of Scotland.The Norman Shield.—The shield generally adopted by the Norman cavalry was kite-shaped and probably of Sicilian origin; it was either flat, or round so as to encircle the body to some extent. The protection afforded by such a shield is obvious, inasmuch as it guarded the upper part of the body where it was the broadest, and by tapering downwards defended the left leg. It was invariably made of wood and covered on both sides with leather, in addition to which extra defences of metal were added. Shields of this description are referred to which intimate that the whole of the exterior was of polished metal, though they seem to be exceptional. On the great seal of Alexander I., King of Scotland (Fig. 94), the rivet heads are shown upon the reverse of the shield, which fastened the plates in position. It was held in the left hand by a bar or strap near the inside upper portion as shown in the figure. The length varied, but may be taken as approximately four feet in height with a maximum width of two feet. The shield for foot soldiers was somewhat small, as may be seen inFig. 88. At the time of the Conquest flat shields werefrequently used, but all were eventually bowed. The umbo occasionally appears in illuminated MSS., but its use was exceptional. In nearly every case a guige, which is very plainly shown in many of the engravings, is provided for suspending the shield round the neck. The round shield (Fig. 95) is of much rarer occurrence. It is shown in Harl. MS. 603 and other MSS. of the close of the eleventh century, and was very probably confined entirely to foot soldiers.Fig.95.—Circular shield,c.1090. (Harl. MS., 603.)The Helmet.—The characteristic defence for the head at this period is the conical helmet fitted with a nasal, thus distinguishing it from the Saxon type, which did not possess this extra defence for the face until a few years previous to the Conquest, when Norman influence began to prevail in England. In the Bayeux Tapestry the nasal is shown upon practically all the Norman helmets, which are invariably conical and not very high; they were secured to the head by straps under the chin, and at times by laces to the body armour. The nasal continued in use until about 1140, when it was generally discarded, but isolated examples may be found in every succeeding century down to the seventeenth. It was fixed or movable, and that worn by the Conqueror at Hastings was of the latter description, as he removed it to reassure his force by a sight of his features when a report spread that he had been slain.A neck defence was at times fitted to the helmet, which reached to the ears on either side and depended to the shoulders: it is shown inFig. 85, No. 7. Cheek-guards also were in use.It must not be supposed that the Phrygian-shaped helmet affected by the Saxons became obsolete in the Norman period; on the contrary it is frequently represented in MSS. (cf.Harl. MS. 603, eleventh century; Harl. MS. 2800, twelfth century, &c.).During the period under discussion (1066-1180) various additional weapons were introduced which the exigencies of warfare appeared to necessitate. Foremost among these was the military pick called variously the Bisacuta, Oucin, and Besague, designed to perforate the joints between the metal plates of the hauberk. It is shown inFig. 109, furnished with one point only, though it commonly had two, as might be inferred from the name Bisacuta. It was a modification of the martel-de-fer. A dagger for the use of foot soldiers was also in use, adapted for rushing upon and disabling knights who had been unhorsed in a cavalry charge; it was termed the Cultellus, and appears to have attained occasionally the dimensions of a short sword. One of the most ancient of weapons is the Guisarme, which, in its earliest forms, is conjectured to have been a combination of the scythe and the prong. The advantage of having a weapon with a cutting edge and also adapted for thrusting, while at the same time serving to ward off a blow by entangling another weapon in the angle formed by the junction of the two, would appeal very strongly to the foot soldier, by whom it was chiefly used. The term “bisarme,” by which it was occasionally known, would indicate the dual nature of the weapon, which consisted essentially, in all its multitudinous variations, of a cutting glaive with a rising spike at the back. It was always fixed to a staff six or more feet in length, and at times the knife edge partook more of the nature of an ornamental axe than of the glaive. Frequent mention of “grinding of the guisarmes” occurs in ancient writers, from which we infer that the cutting edge was one of its valuable characteristics, while references to the “deadly” or “destructive” guisarme are very common. Some appear to have had small bells attached to their extremities to frighten the horses of the cavalry. So common was the weapon that in Scotland it became one of the recognised means of offence with which the foot soldier was required to be provided.The bipennis, or double axe, was still in use, but only by the Saxon element; the complete fusion of the conquerors and the conquered led to its gradual extinction as a national weapon.PLATE X*Armour of Charles V. (Work of Negroli)A. F. CalvertCHAPTER VITHE CHAIN MAIL PERIOD, 1180-1250Fig.96.The essential differences between this period and the last are: (1) the substitution of chain mail for the jazeraint, mascled, and scale armour which had formerly been used; (2) the adoption of the pot-helm or heaume as a secondary defence for the head in place of the conical helmet, the coif-de-mailles, or the pot-de-fer under the mail; (3) the introduction of the sleeveless surcoat and the crest.Fig.97.—Painted “Pot Helmet,”c.1241.The Heaume.—The term “heaume” may perhaps by some be deemed to be hardly applicable to the head-defence when first introduced, inasmuch as it was small in size, fitted closely to the head, and was in most respects a helmet. But inasmuch as a second defence was worn underneath it from its very inception, the word “heaume” is an appropriate designation, as it infers a reinforcement to an existing protection in the next few centuries during which it is constantly in evidence. It may readily be divided into two distinct classes, namely, those in which the plates composing it are riveted together so as to form one piece, and secondly, those in which a movable ventail can be affixed. Further subdivisions may be made if desired, such as flat-topped, round-topped, and sugar-loaf. The word “heaume” or helm among the northern nations simply meant a covering of any kind for the head, and we have an example in the Anglo-Saxon wærhelm, of which examples have been given in this work. Of the first heaumes the flat-topped, orthose with slightly curved crowns, were probably the earliest, of which the woodcut No. 96 furnishes an example.A helm which is preserved in the Musée d’Artillerie in Paris probably exemplifies the transition between the Norman helmet and the barrel heaume. The conical Norman crown is preserved, but instead of the pendent neck and cheek guards and nasal, the head and face are entirely covered by a cylinder of iron, which is complete but for a vertical slit covered by a projecting nasal and two transverse occularia, one on either side. In England very early examples may be seen upon the monumental effigy of Hugh Fitz Eudo, in Kirkstead Chapel, Lincolnshire, and in a slightly modified form in the carvings of the Presbytery arcade of Worcester Cathedral, also in the groups of the Painted Chamber, Westminster. Holes for breathing purposes are entirely absent, the sole openings being a pair of horizontal occularia separated by a perpendicular band. In this class may be included the painted pot-heaume on a parchment MS. dating approximately from the year 1241, which is shown coloured in green and white diagonal stripes, and is now in the town library of Leipzic (Fig. 97). This flat-topped variety appears to have been viewed with much favour, for we have many examples of it in this period and in that immediately following. For instance, the seal of Roger de Bigod, Earl of Norfolk (1231 to 1240) (Fig. 98), exhibits a heaume which is flat-topped,furnished with two occularia, and nine small square breathing holes on either side, strengthened with cross pieces of iron. The seal of Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, who died in 1262 (Fig. 99), shows a flat topped helmet of cylindrical fashion, in which the occularium is formed by one ornamental wavy slit of which the lower edge is slightly cusped. The helmet of Hamelin, Earl of Surrey and Warenne, 1202 (Fig. 100), is of the round-topped variety, and is remarkable for the narrow occularium and the complete absence of any breathing holes. It is taken from the Cott. MS., Julius, C. VII.Fig.98.—From the seal (1231-1240) of Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk.Fig.99.—From the seal of Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford (d.1262).It is difficult to see the protection against a lance or sword-thrust afforded by the heaume of Hugh de Vere, Earl of Oxford,d.1263 (Fig. 101), unless an interior plate was in use to reinforce the numerous openings in the fore part. The peculiarity of the surcoat covering the neck should be noticed, as it is uncommon at this period. From the examples given it will be apparent that from the year 1180 to 1250, the era under discussion, no heaume is represented with a movable visor, and this may be taken as a distinguishing feature, inasmuch as they appear shortly afterwards.

Fig.68.—From an Anglo-Saxon Psalter.

Respecting the defensive equipment of the Anglo-Saxons we are forced to the conclusion that the helmet and the shield were the principal portions, and that in numberless cases these only were adopted, others being considered subsidiary or superfluous. Indeed in the earlier periods of the Saxon occupation they are invariably represented with these defences only, the byrnie, &c., being essentially reserved for the leaders; but as the nation increased in prosperity so the additional defences were slowly added.

Fig.69.—Saxon arrow-heads.Fig.70.—Saxon slinger.

Fig.69.—Saxon arrow-heads.

Fig.70.—Saxon slinger.

PLATE VI*Italian Rondache, Sixteenth CenturyA. F. Calvert

PLATE VI*

Italian Rondache, Sixteenth Century

A. F. Calvert

The Saxon Helmetwas commonly of the Phrygian shape, but examples are plentiful of the hemispherical, the conical, and the combed hemispherical, side by side with the Phrygian. The foundation of the helmet was a framework of bronze or iron bands riveted together, of which the principal was the piece passing round the head, and that reaching from the forehead over the head to its junction with the plate at the back. These two were of thicker materialthan the rest. Occasionally the latter band was produced so as to form a nasal which became universal at the end of the tenth century. Upon this sub-structure a leather cap of varying forms was fixed, sometimes with ornamental additions in leather crowning it. The commonest form is seen inFig. 75, while other varieties are perceived in Figs.71,76, and77.

Fig.71.—Saxon helmets.Fig.72.—Saxon helmet with comb. (Add. MS., 18043.)Fig.73.-Saxon umbos.

Fig.71.—Saxon helmets.

Fig.72.—Saxon helmet with comb. (Add. MS., 18043.)

Fig.73.-Saxon umbos.

The Shield.—The shield was of wood covered with leather, invariably round in shape, but at times oval and convex. The lime was the favourite wood used in its construction, the “yellow linden” being often mentioned by Saxon poets. The distinguishing characteristic of this defence was the central boss or umbo, of which such a large number have been found in Saxon interments (Fig. 73). It was a hollow boss of varying form and dimensions, but generally about six inches in diameter, and projecting three or four inches from the outer surfaceof the shield; the wood was cut away to allow of its being fixed, and across the hollow at the back a piece of metal was carried, riveted at both ends to the boss. This formed a grasp for the left hand by which the shield was carried, the umbo protecting the hand from injury. As it was often spiked there is reason to suppose that at times the shield was used as an offensive weapon (Fig. 75). To strengthen it, radiating strips of iron or bronze were occasionally carried from the umbo to the edges of the shield, the simplest being a prolongation of the grip. It was not a heavy shield, in no way comparable to those of some other nations. The mode of carrying the shield when not in use is seen inFig. 76.

Fig.74.—Saxon umbos, from the Herts County Museum, St. Albans.Fig.75.—Saxon king and shield bearer. (MS., end of 10th century.)

Fig.74.—Saxon umbos, from the Herts County Museum, St. Albans.

Fig.75.—Saxon king and shield bearer. (MS., end of 10th century.)

Fig.76.—Anglo-Saxon horseman. (Cott. MS., Cleop. C. 8.)Fig.77.—Saxon byrnie of leather. (Cott. MS., Cleop. C. 8.)

Fig.76.—Anglo-Saxon horseman. (Cott. MS., Cleop. C. 8.)

Fig.77.—Saxon byrnie of leather. (Cott. MS., Cleop. C. 8.)

Fig.78.—Leather armour, 10th century.

The Byrnie or Battle-Sarkwas at times made of leather. In the figure reproduced from a British Museum MS. (Fig. 77) the coat appears to be of hide with much of the hair apparently left upon it; its lower edges are dagged, and it defends the body and a part of the legs, whereas inFig. 78the defensive covering appears only upon the upper part of the body. The byrnie was also made of padded stuff judging from the illustrations, but the earlier examples are so excessively crude and inartistic that it is rash to make authoritative statements. When a forest is indicatedby four leaves and a twig, a mountain pass by a bulbous mole-hill, and elaborate Saxon embroidery by half-a-dozen scattered dots, it will readily be perceived that such a technical detail as body armour cannot be definitely settled by these rude drawings. Hence a controversy has arisen, which can by no means be considered as definitelydecided, upon the question as to whether the Anglo-Saxons possessed byrnies of true interlinked chain mail. Hewitt in his “Ancient Armour” maintains the affirmative, and contends that the references in the poem of “Beowulf” to the “twisted breast-net,” the “hard battle-net,” the “locked battle-shirt,” the “byrnie twisted with hands,” the “war byrnie, hard and hand-locked,” can only mean chain-mail. He further refers to the Bayeux Tapestry where a body is being stripped, and the links show inside the hauberk as they are represented on the outside. These arguments certainly carry weight, but until abonâ-fideexample of Anglo-Saxon manufacture is brought to light the question must apparently be left in abeyance. One of the modes of defence concerning which there is no doubt was the sewing on of separate flat rings of iron to a tunic of woven material or leather, andalso the covering of the same with metal or leather plates, either cut into the form of scales and overlapping, or square or oblong.

PLATE VII*Milanese Salade, Fifteenth CenturyA. F. Calvert

PLATE VII*

Milanese Salade, Fifteenth Century

A. F. Calvert

A very interesting little group is shown inFig. 79from a Saxon MS., Cleopatra B. 4, in the British Museum. The book is Ælfric’s Paraphrase of the Pentateuch and Joshua, and the subject of the drawing is the battle of the three kings against the cities of the plain. One king is habited in a ringed byrnie which extends to the knees and half way down the arms; he wields a sword with a trilobed pommel and short quillons, and defends himself with a shield having a spiked umbo. His armour-bearer carries another shield, but is quite unarmed, his duty merely being to defend his master. The Phrygian cap and simple tunic he wears are probably those of everyday life. The second king has no defensive armour and no armour-bearer, unless the figure seen behind him in a grotesque attitude fulfils that office. The bifid beards and the characteristic Saxon wrinkling of the sleeves should be noticed, as also that the legs of the group appear to be bare.

Fig.79.—Group from Cott. MS., Cleop. B. 4.c.1000.

Fig.80.—From Anglo-Saxon MS., Prudentius, 11th century.

The leg-bands seen upon the Saxon soldiery were similar to those worn by all civilians, and adjusted in the same manner; if, however, they were of leather instead of the usual textile fabric a certain amount of defence could be obtained (Figs.77and80). It is curious to observe that a number of soldiers are habited precisely as the civilians, with no other defences than the helmet and the shield, from which we conclude that the Anglo-Saxon of an early period simply dropped his implements of husbandry at the call to arms and took up the shield, helmet, and the spear.

Towards the latter end of the Saxon period the arms and armour became almost identical with that in use on the Continent owing to the constant intercourse which occurred in the reign of Edward the Confessor, so that in 1066 the difference in accoutrement was simply small matters of detail.

Fig.81.—Danish helmet, shield, and sword.

The military equipment of the Danes was very similar to that of other northern Teutonic nations, and no single piece of their arms and armour has been immortalised as of special significance with the single exception of the Danish axe. Upon their first appearance in England the only armour worn was a defence for the chest, consisting of a broad collar encircling the neck, with depending pieces upon which were sewn flat rings, plates of metal, horn, &c. In addition to this pectoral, if it may be so termed, greaves were used, consisting of stout pieces of leather affixed after the form of shin-pieces, and, judging by representations in illuminated MSS., carefully moulded to the limb, inasmuch as the prominent muscles are shown upon them. This was probably effected by boiling the leather and subsequently pressing it into shape. After their settlement in England they gradually adopted other defences in imitation of the Saxons, but more especially of the Normans, until their equipment in the first half of the eleventh century became in every respect a replica of that of the latter nation.

The Danish helmet in its early form was a close-fitting skull-cap fitting well down into the back of the neck; upon this as a foundation the chiefs wore protruding horns, andat times wings of metal, imparting a highly-ornamental aspect to the headpiece. Later a conical helmet having a knob upon the top and being made of metal or leather, or a mixture of both, was adopted; this in its fully-developed state was fitted with a nasal (Fig. 81).

Fig.82.—Danish weapons.

The shield is reputed to have been of the shape shown inFig. 81, which is taken from the prayer-book of King Canute, MSS., Cal. A. 7, in the British Museum. Presuming that the illuminator has not allowed his imagination to run riot we must admire the highly ornamental form there delineated, evidently founded upon the universal circular shield of the Teutonic nations.

The Danish sword was similar to that of the Anglo-Saxons, and differed only in the scabbard, upon which more labour was spent in ornamentation.

The spear illustrated (Fig. 82, No. 2) is that of Canute as shown upon his coins, while the companion weapon is that of the ordinary soldiery.

The Danish axe (Fig. 82, No. 3) was the famed bipennis, consisting of two axe-blades of similar form on either side of the shaft, which latter in a few cases was furnished with a spike. The axe could be used as a pole-axe for close combat, or, if furnished with a shorter handle, be hurled in a similar way to the francisca. A variation of the bipennis is seen in the companion axe, which is furnished upon one side with a diamond-pointed cutting blade of steel in substitution for the axe-blade.

PLATE VIIIThe Bayard Armour in the Rotunda, Woolwich

PLATE VIII

The Bayard Armour in the Rotunda, Woolwich

With the advent of the Normans in 1066 the subject of arms and armour in England becomes more definite and exact. This is chiefly owing to the Bayeux Tapestry, to the multiplication of MSS., carvings in ivory and metal, and the records preserved upon seals. The date of the famous tapestry has long been a matter of dispute, but it is universally agreed that if it was not woven by Matilda and her handmaidens it was certainly begun and completed within fifty years of the Conquest. Hence its reliability is undoubted upon contemporaneous arms and armour.

Fig.83.—Norman pennons (Bayeux Tapestry).

The Lance.—The head of the lance was commonly of the leaf form, and sometimes approached that of the lozenge; it was very seldom barbed, although this variety, together with the others, appears upon the Bayeux Tapestry. The horizontal bar-guards, so characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon spear, are very rarely pictured; they were not, however, relinquished by the conquered nation, but are seen at times in MSS. written subsequently to the Conquest. Nearly all the Norman spears were embellished with pennons of from two to five points (Fig. 83). The length of the spear appears to have differed little from that of the Anglo-Saxon, and like that weapon they were of uniform thickness throughout (Figs.88,91,92,93, &c.).

Fig.84.—Figure from “Massacre of the Innocents.” (Cott. MS., Nero, C. 4,c.1125.)

The Sword.—Remembering that the Normans were essentially a Scandinavian nation, we might fairly expect to discover traces of their origin in the sword of the period, and this we find to be the case. It was still straight, long, and double-edged, slightly tapering towards the acute-angled point. The quillons were straight at the time of the Conquest, but became bent in a small degree towards the close of the period; the grip was without swell, and a spherical knob formed the pommel. The scabbard was suspended upon the left side by a small cord round the waist, but occasionally was supported by the hauberk by being passed through a hole in the garment, which thus concealed a portion of it. SeeFig. 84, which dates fromc.1125, and exhibits this peculiarity.

The Bow.—At the battle of Hastings the Normans appear to have been extremely well provided with bowmen, in contradistinction to the Saxons. The Conqueror is said to have reproached the latter for this omission, but archers appear in the ranks of the Saxons on the Bayeux Tapestry, grouped in small numbers among the axemen, and arrow-heads of iron are occasionally found in Saxon graves. It would appear that all the Norman foot soldiers carried bows, and we know that the rain of arrows from the sky had a marked effect upon the fortunes of the day at Hastings. The bow was of very simple construction at that time, and the quivers were without covers, and at times slung upon the back, so that the arrows are seen over the right shoulder.

The Mace.—At Hastings the Saxons appear to have used the stone hammer and the Normans a mace having the head heart-shaped; they had recourse to this after the lance had been splintered. The axe is not seen in the hands of the Normans, though it subsequently came into high favour with them, but many of the Saxons wield the weapon which, from its handle being four or five feet in length, may justly be termed the pole-axe.

Fig.85.—Details of armour (Bayeux Tapestry).

Fig.86.—Figure showing coif worn under mail.

The body armour of this period is of great interest by reason of its complexity and variety. Upon the Bayeux Tapestry there are delineated seven different kinds, which are reproduced inFig. 85. No. 1 is undoubtedly the ringed byrnie which we have noted during the Saxon period, and No. 2 is either intended to represent interlinked chain mail or, what is more probable, scale armour, as it is invariably represented with the points of the scales downwards. These scales were of various materials, such as iron, bronze, leather, cuir-bouilli, and horn. Cuir-bouilli was leather softened by boiling (generally in oil), and stamped or moulded into a definite form when in that condition; upon drying it became intensely hard and tough. It was a favourite agent for defence for centuries, and did not eventually disappear in England as such until the close of the fourteenth century. Nos. 3 and 4 may possibly be composed of iron rings or discs of metal lying upon leather or padded material, with strips of leather sewn on between the rings. Some authorities profess to discover jazeraint work in this representation, which was a method of defence much used in later centuries for archers’ jacques and various other garments, but we have no right to assume that the Normans at that period carried such a heavy weight of armour as this would necessitate, or were acquainted with such a technical and complicated manufacture as jazeraint work implies. The circles, moreover, are too large to represent studs. Nos. 5 and 6 are the ordinary markings used for the Gambeson (or Wambeys), the plain quilted defence which is perhaps the most ancient of all armours and was known to the early Egyptians. It was padded with a soft material such as wool, or tow, or cloth reduced to shreds, which was enclosed between two layers of material and then sewn together. Although offering but littleopposition to a lance-thrust it was highly efficacious in warding off a sword-cut, or stopping arrows when not delivered at short range. Against the mace, or a stone from a sling, it was of little use in preventing bones from being broken. This defence, with various styles of quilting and varieties of stuffing materials, was in use for many centuries in England as an under garment, to prevent the chafing of chain mail and plate, besides affording additional protection, while among the rank and file of our English armies it was often the only defence worn. In MSS. it is shown in different tints, invariably self-colours, but occasionally in stripes, chequers, &c., and this serves to prove, if proof were needed, that the surface exposed to view was not metal but material. No. 7 is a crude representation of the ordinary conical helmet, furnished with a nasal, to which is attached a coif or camail of quilted material, defending the back and sides of the head and falling upon the shoulders. As a rule, this quilting was continued over the head, and protected the wearer from the chafing of the helmet, while at the same time it distributed its weight. At times, however, this method was not in use, but a separate covering of soft or padded material was adopted; inFig. 86it is represented cut into the shape of a coif and tied under the chin. No. 8 is an example of different markings upon the same dress which is very common in MSS.; it is invariably introduced in those places where additional defence was required or desirable, and probably consisted of metal reinforcing the under garment.

Fig.87.—Methods of representing different kinds of defences, other than plate.

It may not be out of place to deal at this point with various armours, quite apart from plate, which will be referred to or illustrated in this work. Hewitt has dealt with this subject perhaps more fully and lucidly than any other author, and the woodcut on opposite page (Fig. 87) is taken from his work. No. 1 is perhaps the commonest of all, and will be referred to as “banded mail.” Its construction is fully dealt with inChapter VII. Occasionally the lines between the alternate crescents are shown double, but probably that is only a modification of this style of defence. During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries it was in constant use, and did not altogether die out for some considerable time afterwards. It is interesting to compare the variations in this style either of the actual defence or of the modes of delineation by the artists; the brasses of Bacon, Creke, d’Aubernoun, Northwode, Raven, Cheyne, &c., may be cited as examples worthy of interest in this respect, though many more may be found upon careful inspection. No. 2 is very common in illuminated MSS., and is occasionally found chiselled upon effigies; the Trumpington brass is an example of its incision in metal. No. 3 is generally found exemplified in brasses and effigies of the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries, and is by far the finest method for representing interlinked chain armour. It has a richness and reality which is unsurpassed by any other method. On the brass of Sir Thomas Burton it is shown in perpendicular chains; horizontal on that of Sir William Bagot; large rings are engraved in the case of Sir John Hanley, and there are many examples of small rings. On the brass of Sir Robert Russell there is a remarkable width between the parallel rows of chains, from which it may be inferred that although the chain-mail proper linked laterally, and also above and below, occasionally parallel chains linked at the sides only were in vogue. It is probable that the mail shown on the d’Aubernoun brass is of the latter pattern. No. 4: early examples of this are to be found on the Septvans and Buslingthorpe brasses. No. 5 is taken from one of the Temple Church effigies; a modification of this method, in which the lines are straight, may be seen upon an incised figure of a knight at Avenbury, Herefordshire,c.1260. No. 6 occurs upon foreign effigies. No. 7 is an example of the mail shown upon the monumental statue of Sir William Arden, in Aston Church, Warwickshire. No. 8 is from early woodcuts. Nos. 9 and 10 are probably intended to represent banded mail, and No. 11 appears upon an ivory chessman of the thirteenth century. No. 12: this has been mentioned as occurring in the Bayeux Tapestry, and there are many other instances of its use. No. 13 occurs upon the Great Seal of King Stephen and other examples of early seals. No. 14, a variety of No. 12. No. 15, from a steel statuette; the indentations appear to have been made with a punch. No. 16 is from an effigy in Bristol Cathedral. No. 17, from Roy. MS. 14, E. IV., a manuscript written and illuminated for King Edward IV. No. 18 is much used upon seals—one of King Stephen, for example. Nos. 19 and 20, from Add. MSS. 15295 and 15297. No. 21, from two MSS. of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (Egerton MS. 809; Add. MS. 15268). No. 22, from Harl. MS. 2803.

PLATE IXThe “Rhodes” Suit at the Rotunda, Woolwich

PLATE IX

The “Rhodes” Suit at the Rotunda, Woolwich

Fig.88.—Armour,c.1190.

Under the gambeson or the hauberk or both was worn a tunic reaching nearly to the knees, and as a rule a little longer than the defensive garments. It is well shown in the accompanying figure (Fig. 88, from Harleian Roll, Y 6, “The Life of St. Guthlac,” a work of the close of the twelfth century).

Fig.89.—Norman hauberk, 1066.

The Hauberk.—The hauberk was to the Norman what the byrnie was to the Saxon, the chief method of bodily defence. The coif for the head was generally a part of it, with only a small opening for the face, but at times it is shown made in two pieces, the lower extending upwards to the neck and the coif falling over it. This was doubtless to afford better means of adjustment for the gorget, plastron-de-fer, or other reinforcement which was undoubtedly worn under it upon the breast. The lower part of the garment was generally made to open up the front in order to afford convenience in riding, but occasionally examples are met with where openings are made upon both sides. For foot soldiers no opening was, as a rule, necessary. In some cases the reinforcement for the breast appears upon the outside of the hauberk in the shape of a square or oblong pectoral; when worn thus it was possibly of metal plates or studs attached to leather (Fig. 89).

Fig.90.—Tegulated armour,c.1090.Fig.91.—Scale armour. (Harl. MS., 603.)

Fig.90.—Tegulated armour,c.1090.

Fig.91.—Scale armour. (Harl. MS., 603.)

Towards the end of the eleventh century the different distinct styles of armour became more numerous, and do not present such uniformity as at the time of the Conquest. Hefner gives an illustration of tegulated armour (Fig. 90) from a painting on vellum dating fromc.1090, when this system appears to have been introduced. In the original the plates are silvered, and some bosses on pendant scales of a figure shown upon the right are gilded. The square or oblong scales are shown as overlapping like slates upon a roof, and being probably sewn upon leather would afford a good protection to the wearer. Two soldiers also in the same group have chausses of mail of the same description, and the coif is continuous with the body portions of the hauberk.

Fig.92.—Armour, 1148. (Add MS., 14789.)

Fig.93.—Goliath. (Harl. MS., 2803.)

Chaussesof mail of various patterns apparently came into general use about the commencement of the twelfth century. They are mentioned above, and apparently in the figure referred to (No. 90) are continuous scale work round the limbs; in other examples they partake of the character of half-leggings protecting only the knees and shins of the wearer (Fig. 86). An excellent example of this (Fig. 92) is afforded by a small representation in an illuminated manuscript Bible of the date 1148, where, in a capital letter F, the figures of David and Goliath are introduced, the giant lying prone upon the central projection of the letter with a stone in his forehead and the neck of the hauberk partly cut through. This is beautifully illustrated in Shaw’s “Dresses and Decorations.” The hauberk is shown continuous with the coif; the legs are protected by chausses of some pliable material, thickly covered with protective studs. These evidently fasten down the back, and are drawn over the feet by bands or straps meeting underneath. Later still, in a MS. written about 1170 (Fig. 93), we have an example of Goliath wearing chausses consisting of a thin material which creases near the calf, and only a single row of the protective studsdown the shin. The short boot is analogous with those worn inFig. 88, though here defended, or ornamented, with a few studs.

Fig.94.—Great Seal of Alexander I., King of Scotland.

The Norman Shield.—The shield generally adopted by the Norman cavalry was kite-shaped and probably of Sicilian origin; it was either flat, or round so as to encircle the body to some extent. The protection afforded by such a shield is obvious, inasmuch as it guarded the upper part of the body where it was the broadest, and by tapering downwards defended the left leg. It was invariably made of wood and covered on both sides with leather, in addition to which extra defences of metal were added. Shields of this description are referred to which intimate that the whole of the exterior was of polished metal, though they seem to be exceptional. On the great seal of Alexander I., King of Scotland (Fig. 94), the rivet heads are shown upon the reverse of the shield, which fastened the plates in position. It was held in the left hand by a bar or strap near the inside upper portion as shown in the figure. The length varied, but may be taken as approximately four feet in height with a maximum width of two feet. The shield for foot soldiers was somewhat small, as may be seen inFig. 88. At the time of the Conquest flat shields werefrequently used, but all were eventually bowed. The umbo occasionally appears in illuminated MSS., but its use was exceptional. In nearly every case a guige, which is very plainly shown in many of the engravings, is provided for suspending the shield round the neck. The round shield (Fig. 95) is of much rarer occurrence. It is shown in Harl. MS. 603 and other MSS. of the close of the eleventh century, and was very probably confined entirely to foot soldiers.

Fig.95.—Circular shield,c.1090. (Harl. MS., 603.)

The Helmet.—The characteristic defence for the head at this period is the conical helmet fitted with a nasal, thus distinguishing it from the Saxon type, which did not possess this extra defence for the face until a few years previous to the Conquest, when Norman influence began to prevail in England. In the Bayeux Tapestry the nasal is shown upon practically all the Norman helmets, which are invariably conical and not very high; they were secured to the head by straps under the chin, and at times by laces to the body armour. The nasal continued in use until about 1140, when it was generally discarded, but isolated examples may be found in every succeeding century down to the seventeenth. It was fixed or movable, and that worn by the Conqueror at Hastings was of the latter description, as he removed it to reassure his force by a sight of his features when a report spread that he had been slain.

A neck defence was at times fitted to the helmet, which reached to the ears on either side and depended to the shoulders: it is shown inFig. 85, No. 7. Cheek-guards also were in use.

It must not be supposed that the Phrygian-shaped helmet affected by the Saxons became obsolete in the Norman period; on the contrary it is frequently represented in MSS. (cf.Harl. MS. 603, eleventh century; Harl. MS. 2800, twelfth century, &c.).

During the period under discussion (1066-1180) various additional weapons were introduced which the exigencies of warfare appeared to necessitate. Foremost among these was the military pick called variously the Bisacuta, Oucin, and Besague, designed to perforate the joints between the metal plates of the hauberk. It is shown inFig. 109, furnished with one point only, though it commonly had two, as might be inferred from the name Bisacuta. It was a modification of the martel-de-fer. A dagger for the use of foot soldiers was also in use, adapted for rushing upon and disabling knights who had been unhorsed in a cavalry charge; it was termed the Cultellus, and appears to have attained occasionally the dimensions of a short sword. One of the most ancient of weapons is the Guisarme, which, in its earliest forms, is conjectured to have been a combination of the scythe and the prong. The advantage of having a weapon with a cutting edge and also adapted for thrusting, while at the same time serving to ward off a blow by entangling another weapon in the angle formed by the junction of the two, would appeal very strongly to the foot soldier, by whom it was chiefly used. The term “bisarme,” by which it was occasionally known, would indicate the dual nature of the weapon, which consisted essentially, in all its multitudinous variations, of a cutting glaive with a rising spike at the back. It was always fixed to a staff six or more feet in length, and at times the knife edge partook more of the nature of an ornamental axe than of the glaive. Frequent mention of “grinding of the guisarmes” occurs in ancient writers, from which we infer that the cutting edge was one of its valuable characteristics, while references to the “deadly” or “destructive” guisarme are very common. Some appear to have had small bells attached to their extremities to frighten the horses of the cavalry. So common was the weapon that in Scotland it became one of the recognised means of offence with which the foot soldier was required to be provided.

The bipennis, or double axe, was still in use, but only by the Saxon element; the complete fusion of the conquerors and the conquered led to its gradual extinction as a national weapon.

PLATE X*Armour of Charles V. (Work of Negroli)A. F. Calvert

PLATE X*

Armour of Charles V. (Work of Negroli)

A. F. Calvert

Fig.96.

The essential differences between this period and the last are: (1) the substitution of chain mail for the jazeraint, mascled, and scale armour which had formerly been used; (2) the adoption of the pot-helm or heaume as a secondary defence for the head in place of the conical helmet, the coif-de-mailles, or the pot-de-fer under the mail; (3) the introduction of the sleeveless surcoat and the crest.

Fig.97.—Painted “Pot Helmet,”c.1241.

The Heaume.—The term “heaume” may perhaps by some be deemed to be hardly applicable to the head-defence when first introduced, inasmuch as it was small in size, fitted closely to the head, and was in most respects a helmet. But inasmuch as a second defence was worn underneath it from its very inception, the word “heaume” is an appropriate designation, as it infers a reinforcement to an existing protection in the next few centuries during which it is constantly in evidence. It may readily be divided into two distinct classes, namely, those in which the plates composing it are riveted together so as to form one piece, and secondly, those in which a movable ventail can be affixed. Further subdivisions may be made if desired, such as flat-topped, round-topped, and sugar-loaf. The word “heaume” or helm among the northern nations simply meant a covering of any kind for the head, and we have an example in the Anglo-Saxon wærhelm, of which examples have been given in this work. Of the first heaumes the flat-topped, orthose with slightly curved crowns, were probably the earliest, of which the woodcut No. 96 furnishes an example.

A helm which is preserved in the Musée d’Artillerie in Paris probably exemplifies the transition between the Norman helmet and the barrel heaume. The conical Norman crown is preserved, but instead of the pendent neck and cheek guards and nasal, the head and face are entirely covered by a cylinder of iron, which is complete but for a vertical slit covered by a projecting nasal and two transverse occularia, one on either side. In England very early examples may be seen upon the monumental effigy of Hugh Fitz Eudo, in Kirkstead Chapel, Lincolnshire, and in a slightly modified form in the carvings of the Presbytery arcade of Worcester Cathedral, also in the groups of the Painted Chamber, Westminster. Holes for breathing purposes are entirely absent, the sole openings being a pair of horizontal occularia separated by a perpendicular band. In this class may be included the painted pot-heaume on a parchment MS. dating approximately from the year 1241, which is shown coloured in green and white diagonal stripes, and is now in the town library of Leipzic (Fig. 97). This flat-topped variety appears to have been viewed with much favour, for we have many examples of it in this period and in that immediately following. For instance, the seal of Roger de Bigod, Earl of Norfolk (1231 to 1240) (Fig. 98), exhibits a heaume which is flat-topped,furnished with two occularia, and nine small square breathing holes on either side, strengthened with cross pieces of iron. The seal of Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, who died in 1262 (Fig. 99), shows a flat topped helmet of cylindrical fashion, in which the occularium is formed by one ornamental wavy slit of which the lower edge is slightly cusped. The helmet of Hamelin, Earl of Surrey and Warenne, 1202 (Fig. 100), is of the round-topped variety, and is remarkable for the narrow occularium and the complete absence of any breathing holes. It is taken from the Cott. MS., Julius, C. VII.

Fig.98.—From the seal (1231-1240) of Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk.Fig.99.—From the seal of Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford (d.1262).

Fig.98.—From the seal (1231-1240) of Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk.

Fig.99.—From the seal of Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford (d.1262).

It is difficult to see the protection against a lance or sword-thrust afforded by the heaume of Hugh de Vere, Earl of Oxford,d.1263 (Fig. 101), unless an interior plate was in use to reinforce the numerous openings in the fore part. The peculiarity of the surcoat covering the neck should be noticed, as it is uncommon at this period. From the examples given it will be apparent that from the year 1180 to 1250, the era under discussion, no heaume is represented with a movable visor, and this may be taken as a distinguishing feature, inasmuch as they appear shortly afterwards.

Back to Index Next