As the experience of the armourer increased, and as the science of war developed, the armed man trusted more to the fixed defences of his person than to the more primitive protection of the movable shield. In the tilt-yard and also in war the mounted man endeavoured to present his left side to his adversary. On consideration the reason for this will be plain, for the right arm was required to be free and, as far as possible, unhampered by heavy armour, but the left arm, held at rest at the bridle, could be covered with as heavy defences as the wearer might choose. This form of unequal arming is well shown on the Frontispiece. The left shoulder wears a large pauldron with a high neck-guard, and the elbow wears the pa.s.se-guard which we have noticed in detail in the preceding chapter. The leg armour in this suit should be noticed, for it is extremely fine and graceful in line, and yet proclaims its material. The suit of Henry VIII (Plate VI) is a good specimen of armour of the Maximilian period, but without the flutings which generally distinguish this style of plate. The neck-guards are high and the large coudes show the glancing surface plainly. This detail also is shown on the fan plates at the genouillieres, which in the Tower Inventories are called by the more English term 'knee-cops'. The bridle-hand of the rider wears the Manifer (main-de-fer). Those writers who still follow blindly the incorrect nomenclature of Meyrick give the name Mainfaire or Manefer to the Crinet or neck defence of the horse. How this absurd play upon words can ever have been taken seriously pa.s.ses understanding.

The manifer is solely the rigid iron gauntlet for the bridle-hand, where no sudden or complicated movement of the wrist or fingers was needed; another instance of the difference in arming the two sides of the body.

This difference of arming is more noticeable in the jousting armour, for in military sports, especially during the sixteenth century, the object of the contestants was to score points rather than to injure each other. We find, therefore, such pieces as the Grand-guard, and with it the Volant piece, the Pa.s.se-guard, the Poldermitton--so called from its likeness to the 'epaule de mouton', and worn over the bend of the right arm--and the various reinforcing breastplates which were screwed on to the left side of the tilting suit to offer a more rigid defence and also to present additional glancing surface to the lance-point. In some varieties of joust a small wooden shield was fastened to the left breast, and when this was the case the heavy pauldron was dispensed with. The large Vamplate (Plate XI) sufficiently protected the right arm from injury. The Nuremberg suit (Plate VII) shows this form of arming for the joust. The great helm is firmly screwed to the back and breast, the two holes on the left side of the breastplate are for the attachment of the shield, the rigid bridle-cuff, covers the left hand, and the curved elbow-guard--this is not the pa.s.se-guard--protects the bend of the left arm as the poldermitton protects the right. The large circular disc defends the _vif de l'harnois_, and is _bouche_ or notched at its lower end to allow the lance to be couched, resting on the curved lance-rest in front and lodged under the Queue at the back. The legs, in this variety of joust, were not armed; for the object of the jousters was to unhorse each other, and it was necessary to have perfect freedom in gripping the horse's sides. Sometimes a great plate of metal, curved to cover the leg, was worn to protect the wearer from the shock of impact. This was called the Dilge, or Tilting Cuisse, which is shown on Plate VIII behind the figure of Count Sigismond, and also on Plate VII. The large-bowed saddle also was used for this end.

There is one of these saddles in the Tower which measures nearly 5 feet in height. Behind the saddle-bow are two rings which encircled the rider's legs. It is needless to point out that in this form of joust the object was to break lances and not to unhorse; for, if the latter were intended, the rider stood a good chance of breaking his legs owing to his rigid position in the saddle.

The Tonlet suit (Fig. 35) was used solely for fighting on foot. The bell-shaped skirt of plate was so constructed with the sliding rivets or straps which have been before referred to, that it could be pulled up and down. Sometimes the lower lame could be taken off altogether. When fighting with axes or swords in the lists this plate skirt presented a glancing surface to the weapon and protected the legs. The tonlet is variously called by writers upon armour, Bases, Lamboys, or Jamboys; of the two latter terms jamboys is the more correct. The Bases were originally the cloth skirts in vogue in civilian dress at the time of Henry VIII, and when defensive armour followed civilian fashion the name came to be applied to the steel imitation.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 35. Tonlet suit. Madrid.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 36. War suit, 1547. Vienna Armoury.]

Towards the end of the sixteenth century we find the weight of the war harness gradually decrease. The richly-ornamented suits which mark this period were in no way suited for any practical purpose and were used only for parades. Extended campaigns and long marches necessitated lighter equipment, and we find in contemporary records instances, not only of the men-at-arms discarding their armour owing to its inconvenience, but also of commanders ordering them to lighten their equipment for greater rapidity of movement. Sir Richard Hawkins, in his _Observations_ on his voyage into the South Sea (1593), writes: 'I had great preparation of armours as well of proofe as of light corsletts, yet not a man would use them, but esteemed a pott of wine a better defence than an armour of proofe.' Again, Sir John Smythe, in his _Instructions, Observations and Orders Militarie_ (1595), writes: ... 'I saw but very few of that army (at the camp at Tilbury) that had any convenience of apparrell to arme withal.' Edward Davies, in 1619, mentions the fact that men armed 'with a heavie shirt of mail and a burganet, by that time they have marched in the heat of summer or deepe of winter ten or twelve English miles, they are apt more to rest than readie to fight'. As early as the year 1364 we find that at the Battle of Auray Sir Hugh Calverley ordered his men to take off their cuisses that they might move more rapidly. In the armour of the late sixteenth century one of the chief points of difference from the former fashions is to be found in the cuisses. Whereas these defences were formerly made of one, or possibly two plates, we now find them laminated from waist to knee and joined by the strap and sliding rivet arrangement which we have noted in the arm defences and ta.s.sets. The ta.s.sets are now no longer used (Fig. 36). Very soon the jambs were given up in favour of buff boots, and when once this was established the next step was the half suit which will be noticed in a succeeding chapter.

[Ill.u.s.tration: PLATE IX

Design for a suit of armour for Sir Henry Lee, from the _Almain Armourer's Alb.u.m_.]

After the fourteenth century the great helm was but seldom used for war, but for jousting it was still retained, and, as this form of military sport was practised more scientifically, so the weight and shape of the helm were made to suit the necessary conditions. The Brocas helm (Plate V) is the finest example of English helm of this period; it weighs 22 lb. The other known examples of home manufacture are the Westminster helm, which was discovered in the Triforium of Westminster Abbey in 1869, and weighs 17 lb. 12 oz.; the Dawtray helm at Petworth (21 lb. 8 oz.); the Barendyne helm at Haseley, near Thame (13-1/2 lb.); the Fogge helm at Ashford, Suss.e.x (24 lb.); the Wallace helm, in the collection at Hertford House (17 lb.); and the great headpiece in the possession of Captain Lindsay of Sutton Courtenay, Abingdon, which turns the scale at 25 lb. 14 oz. It will be seen from the weight of these helms that they could only be used for the jousting course and were put off on the first opportunity. The details of their construction have been noticed in Chapter III.

On referring to Plate V it will be seen that the bascinet was the precursor of the Salade, which may be considered the typical headpiece of the fifteenth century. The rear peak of the bascinet is prolonged over the neck, and in a later form of German origin the peak is hinged to allow the wearer to throw back his head with ease. The ocularium, or vision slit, is sometimes cut in the front of the salade, but more often it is found in a pivoted visor which could be thrown back. The Beavor is generally a separate piece strapped round the neck or, in tilting, bolted to the breastplate. Some writers call this the Mentoniere, but this name should rather be applied to the tilting breastplate which also protected the lower portion of the face. Shakespeare uses the term beavor very loosely, and frequently means by it the whole helmet.

The German 'Schallern', or salade, so called from its sh.e.l.l-like form, seems to have been evolved from the chapel-de-fer or war-hat by contracting the brim at the sides and prolonging it at the back. In fact, in Chastelain's account of the fight between Jacques de Lalain and Gerard de Roussillon the salade worn by Messire Jacques is described as 'un chapeau de fer d'ancienne facon'.[23] The salade was often richly decorated. Baron de Cosson, in the preface to the Catalogue of Helmets exhibited at the Archaeological Inst.i.tute in June, 1880[24], instances a salade made for the Duke of Burgundy in 1443, which was valued at 10,000 crowns of gold. More modest decoration was obtained by covering the salade with velvet and fixing ornaments over this of gilded iron or bra.s.s. There are several of these covered salades in the various collections in England and on the Continent. Sometimes the salade was painted, as we see in an example in the Tower.

The Armet, or close helmet, followed the salade, and is mentioned by Oliver de la Marche as early as 1443.[25] The name is supposed to be a corruption of 'heaumet', the diminutive of 'heaume', the great helm of the fourteenth century.[26] Whereas the salade is in form a hat-like defence, the armet fits the head closely and can only be put on by opening the helmet, as is shown on Plate V and Fig. 31. The various parts of the armet have been already described in Chapter III. The armet does not appear in monumental effigies in England before the reign of Henry VIII. The English were never in a hurry to take up new fashions in armour; being to a large extent dependent on the work of foreign craftsmen, they seem to have waited to prove the utility of an innovation before adopting it. Against this, however, we must place the fact that in the picture at Hampton Court of the meeting of Henry VIII and Maximilian, the English are all shown wearing armets, while the Germans still wear the salade. The armet on the Seusenhofer suit in the Tower, which has been noticed in this chapter, is a very perfect example of this style of headpiece.

The Burgonet is an open helmet, and, as the name implies, of Burgundian origin. To those students who consult Meyrick it is advisable to give a word of warning as to this author's theory of the burgonet. He a.s.sumes that it is a variety of the armet, but with a grooved collar which fitted over the gorget. His authority for this a.s.sertion is a single reference in the _Origines des Chevaliers Armories et Heraux_, by Fauchet.[27] s.p.a.ce will not allow of the investigation of this authority, but Baron de Cosson in the Catalogue above quoted effectively disposes of Meyrick's theory.[28] The salient points of the burgonet, as may be seen on Plate V, are the Umbril or brim projecting over the eyes, and the upstanding comb or (in some cases) three combs that appear on the skull-piece. In the best examples these combs are forged with the skull out of one piece of metal, a _tour de force_ in craftsmanship that could hardly be surpa.s.sed. The ear-flaps are hinged at the sides, and at the base of the skull is fixed the Panache, or plume-holder. The faceguard, when used with the burgonet, is called the Buffe,[29] and, like the beavor worn with the salade, is held in place by a strap round the neck. This form of helmet was chiefly used by light cavalry.

The Morion and the Caba.s.set are both helmets worn by foot-soldiers, and appear about the middle of the sixteenth century. The caba.s.set is generally to be distinguished by the curious little point projecting from the apex. Often the comb and upturned brim of the morion are extravagant in form and tend to make the helmet exceedingly heavy and inconvenient.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 37. Pavis. Cotton MS. Julius E. iv, 1485.]

The shields of the fifteenth and sixteenth century were more for display than for use, except in the tilt-yard. As we have seen, the development of plate armour, especially on the left side, made the shield not only unnecessary, but also inconvenient. In the joust, however, where it was important that the lance should find no hold on a vital part of the body, such as the juncture of the arm, the shield was used to glance the weapon off, or, where unhorsing was the object, it was ribbed with diagonally crossing ridges to give the lance-point a surer hold. The Pavis or Pavoise (Fig. 37) was more generally used by archers and crossbowmen as a cover. A good specimen of the pavis exists in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, and there are two large examples of heavier make with peepholes for the archer, and wooden props as shown in our ill.u.s.tration, at Brussels and Berlin.

[Ill.u.s.tration: PLATE X

_Photograph by Viscount Dillon._

Horse armour of the Emperor Maximilian. Tower.]

CHAPTER V

HORSE ARMOUR

The fully-equipped knight, whether in the c.u.mbrous garments of mail or in the more adaptable suit of plate, was so entirely dependent on his horse, both in active warfare and in the tilt-yard, that some notice of the defences of the Destrier or war-horse is necessary in this short examination of the history of defensive armour. On the Bayeux Tapestry there is no suggestion of armour of any kind upon the horses, but Wace writes in the _Roman de Rou_ (line 12,627)--

Vint Williame li filz Osber Son cheval tot covert de fer.

We should remember, however, that Wace wrote in the second half of the twelfth century and, like the other chroniclers of the Middle Ages, both in picture and text, portrayed his characters in the dress of his own time. The Trapper of mail shown on Fig. 38 is taken from Stothard's drawing of one of the paintings in the Painted Chamber at Westminster, now destroyed.[30] These decorations are supposed to have been executed about the year 1237. Here the horse is shown covered with a most inconvenient housing of mail, which can hardly have been in very general use, in this particular form at any rate; for it would be almost impossible for a horse to walk, let alone to trot or gallop, with such a defence. The textile trapper was, of course, lighter, and was used merely for ornament and display, though it may have been designed, as the surcoat was, to protect the mail defence beneath from wet.

Jean Chartier, in his _Histoire de Charles VI_ (p. 257), states that sometimes these rich trappings or housings were, after the death of their owner, bequeathed to churches, where they were used for altar hangings, or inversely, when trappings were needed, the churches were despoiled of their embroideries to provide them.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 38. Trapper of Mail, from the Painted Chamber, Westminster, thirteenth century.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 39. Ivory chessman, from Hewitt's _Ancient Armour_, fourteenth century.]

The mailed horse appears as early as the Roman period, and is shown on the Column of Trajan, but in Europe he does not seem to have been commonly in use much before the thirteenth century. As the man was sometimes defended entirely by garments of quilted fabrics, so the horse also wore pourpointed housings. We can only surmise, from the folds and lines shown on seals or drawings, which variety is intended; but the stiff lines of the housing on the seal of Roger de Quinci, Earl of Winchester (1219-64), and its raised lozenges, seem to suggest a thicker substance than does the more flowing drapery on Fig. 11. Matthew Paris, in describing the Battle of Nuova Croce in 1237, writes that 'A credible Italian a.s.serted that Milan with its dependencies raised an army of six thousand men-at-arms with iron-clad horses'. An ordinance of Philip the Fair, in 1303, provides that every holder of an estate of 500 livres rental should furnish a man at-arms well mounted on a horse 'couvert de couvertures de fer ou de couverture pourpointe'. The caparisoned horse first appears on royal seals in the reign of Edward I. In the Roll of Purchases of Windsor Park Tournament (1278), the horses are provided with parchment crests, and the Clavones or rivets used for fixing these crests are mentioned in the Wardrobe Accounts of Edward I in 1300: 'c.u.m clavis argenti pro eodem capello.' The earliest note we have of a rigid defence for the horse is in the Windsor Roll, which contains the following item:--'D Milon le Cuireur x.x.xviij copita cor de similitud' capit equoz.' This headpiece was of leather, either used in its natural state or as cuirbouilli, and seems to be the material suggested in the ivory chessman (Fig. 39) ill.u.s.trated in Hewitt (vol. ii, p. 314). In the Will of the Earl of Surrey (1347) is mentioned a breastpiece of leather for a horse. In the fifteenth century we find the horse protected with plate like his rider, and usually the lines of the Barding or horse armour follow those of the man. Fig. 40 shows the armed horse with the various portions of his defence named.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 40. Horse armour. A, Chamfron; B, Crinet; C, Peytral; D, Flanchards; E, Arcon; F, Cantel; G, Crupper; H, Tail-guard; J, Metal rein-guard; K, Glancing-k.n.o.b.]

The Chamfron is sometimes provided with hinged cheek-plates and usually has a holder for a plume. On the forehead are often shown the arms of the owner or a tapered spike. Angellucci, in his preface to the Catalogue of the Turin Armoury, differentiates between the chamfron (tesera) and the Frontale or plate protecting the front of the head alone. There are fine suits of Gothic horse armour both in the Musee d'Artillerie in Paris and also in the Wallace Collection at Hertford House. The latter is one of the best-arranged mounted suits in existence. The different pieces of the horse armour bear the delicate sweeping lines embossed on the surface in the same way that the armour of the man is treated. The restored linings of leather and skin show how the horse was protected from the chafing of the metal. The Peytral or Poitrel is hung from the neck and withers, and is frequently provided with large bosses, called _Bossoirs_, _Pezoneras_, or _Glancing-k.n.o.bs_, to direct the lance-thrust away from the horse. It is often hinged in three pieces. The Flanchards hang from the saddle on either side, and are sometimes, as on Plate IV and the Frontispiece, curved upwards in the centre to admit of the use of the spur. The back of the horse is protected by the Croupiere or Crupper, which is made up of several pieces riveted or hinged together. The root of the tail is covered by a tubular plate called the Gardequeue, which is often moulded into the form of a dragon or dolphin. All these plates were lined with leather or wadded with cotton to prevent chafing. Often, however, cuirbouilli was used instead of metal and was richly decorated with painting and gilding.

A picture of the Battle of Pavia in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, shows many of these painted bards, and the same material is doubtless intended in the relief of the Battle of Brescia on the Visconti monument at Pavia.

These leather bards have entirely disappeared and are not to be found in any collections except for a portion of a crupper of this material in the Tower. The saddle, with its high Arciones or peaks, back and front, was in itself an efficacious protection for the waist and loins. The term Cantle is sometimes used for either plate, but it is generally accepted as the name for the rear peak. Both this part and the front plate are often covered with metal. The great jousting saddles have been noticed in the preceding chapter. The reins are protected from being cut by hinged plates, as shown on Plate X.[31]

These pieces const.i.tute the armour of the horse as usually found in museums and in painting and sculpture. There is, however, in the Zeughaus in Vienna a curious portrait of Harnischmeister Albrecht, dated 1480. The horse on which he rides is armed completely with plate except for an aperture in the flanchards for using the spur. The legs are covered with hinged and bolted defences very similar to those of the armour for men. It might be supposed that this was but a fantastic idea of the painter, if Viscount Dillon had not discovered a Cuissard, or thigh-piece, which much resembles those shown on the picture, in the Musee de la Porte de Hal, Brussels. In the days of the Decadence, when the craft of the armourer was to a great extent overwhelmed by the riotous fancy of the decorator, the horse shared with his rider in this display. The armour shown on Plate X, known as the Burgundian armour from the badges of the Emperor Maximilian which adorn it, does not offend in this respect, because the embossing serves to give rigidity to the metal without interfering with its defensive qualities. The same may be said of the barding shown on the Frontispiece, but on Plate IV the loss of dignity in line, and the embossed hemisphere--which, for its purpose, should be smooth--show the beginning of the decay in constructional skill. The highly ornamented pageant armour made for the Elector Christian II, now in the Dresden Museum, though extraordinarily perfect in workmanship, should be cla.s.sed rather as the work of goldsmith or sculptor than as that of the armourer.

CHAPTER VI

THE DECADENCE OF ARMOUR

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 41. Grotesque helmet, sixteenth century. Nuremberg.]

In the practice of any of the crafts, or applied arts as they are now called, the surest and most manifest signs of decadence are to be found in two aspects of that craft. The first of these is that which refers to the material used. With regard to armour this consideration is faithfully adhered to in most examples of the armourer's work up to the end of the fifteenth century; but by the beginning of the sixteenth century we find the craftsman becoming wearied of his technical perfection and the simplicity and constructional dignity which invariably accompanies such perfection. His efforts are now directed to fashioning his metal into such forms as in no way suggest his material, but only show a certain meretricious skill in workmanship. Fig. 41 shows a very favourite form of this artistic incoherence. The defensive properties of the helmet are in no way increased, but rather are annulled by presenting hollows and projections where before a smooth surface existed. It is superfluous to point out the grotesque and bizarre effect of this human face in metal.[32] Another instance of this wilful disregard of material is to be noticed in those suits which imitate the puffed and slashed dress in fashion for civilian wear during the sixteenth century. Many of these suits exist in English and European armouries, which proves that they were popular, but to the true craftsman there is something degrading in the efforts of the expert ironworker, expending his energies, not to produce a finely constructed piece of work, but rather to imitate the seams and pipings of the work of a tailor or dressmaker; and, however much we may admire his technical skill, we must, perforce, place his artistic aspirations side by side with the 'grainer and marbler' who was so conspicuous a factor in domestic decoration in the middle of the nineteenth century. Fig. 42 shows this decadence carried to its furthest pitch. By the middle of the sixteenth century the Renaissance, which had been, in the first instance, the birth of all that is best in European art and craftsmanship, became a baneful influence. The expert painter, having mastered the intricacies of his art, turned them into extravagant channels and exaggerated action; foreshortened figures and optical illusions took the place of the dignified compositions of the earlier period. Nor could the crafts escape this deadly poison. To the credit of the craftsmen we may hope that the luxurious indulgence and ostentatious display of the princely patron was the cause of decadence in the crafts, rather than the inclination of the workers themselves. Still the fact remains that, as soon as the plain and constructionally sound work began to be overspread with ornament, architecture, metal-work, wood-carving, and all the allied arts began to be debased from their former high position. With the decoration of armour its practical utility began to decline. It must be admitted, however, that one reason for the decoration was that armour was, by degrees, less and less used for war and only retained for pageant, joust, and parade in which personal display and magnificence were demanded.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 42. Puffed suit, sixteenth century. Vienna.[33]]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 43. Casque after Negroli, sixteenth century. Paris.]

The engraved and inlaid suits of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although they offend the craftsman's eye as does the decorated bicycle of the Oriental potentate to-day, do not transgress that important law, on which so much stress has been laid, of offering a glancing surface to the opposing weapon. It is when we come to the embossed suits with their hollows and projections that we find the true character of armour lost and the metal used only as a material for exhibiting the dexterity of the workman without any consideration for its use or construction. This interference with the glancing surface is noticeable in the suit ill.u.s.trated in Fig. 42, but even here there is some excuse, in that the designer had reason for his embossing of the metal--if the imitation of the puffed suit was to be carefully portrayed. The same, however, cannot be urged for those suits which are simply covered with ornament with no purpose, little meaning, and less composition or design. If we set aside our opinions as to the suitability of the ornament, we are compelled to admire the wonderful technical skill which produced such pieces as the suit made for King Sebastian of Portugal by Anton Pfeffenhauser of Augsburg, and now in the Madrid Armoury. Here every deity of Olympus, the allegorical figures of Justice, Strength, and the Cardinal Virtues, crowd together with Navigation, Peace, and Victory; Roman warriors fighting with elephants are found among Amorini, Satyrs, and Tritons; while every inch of the metal not devoted to this encyclopaedia of history and legend is crowded with foliage and scroll-work of that debased and unnatural form which has become the branding mark of this period of the Renaissance.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 44. Pageant shield, sixteenth century. Vienna.]

It will be sufficient to give one example of this prost.i.tution of art and craftsmanship. This helmet after Negroli (Fig. 43), and a similar example, signed by Negroli, at Madrid, show how the canons of the armourer's craft were ignored at this period. It is true that the casque still provides a metal covering for the head, and that the comb gives an additional protection to the skull, but when we examine the embossed figures at the side--and marvellously good the embossing is--we find lodgements for the sword or spear which would most certainly help to detach the helmet from its wearer. As to the comb, it may fairly be cited as an example of all that is artistically worst in the late Renaissance. Its technical merits only emphasize this. The warrior is laid on his back to suit the required shape of the helmet, and to give point to his position his hair is held by two figures whose attributes seem to suggest that intercrossing of birds, beasts, and fishes which delighted the decadent mind of the period.

The figures are human to the waist and end in a dolphin's tail. Angels'

wings spring from their shoulders and leopards' claws from the junction of tail and waist. Not content with this outrage to the dignity of art, the craftsman ends his warrior in an architectural base which has not even the slight merit of probability which the tail of the merman might offer. In short it is an example of technical skill at its highest, and artistic perception at its lowest point. The shield from the Vienna collection (Fig. 44) is another example, like King Sebastian's suit, of meaningless decoration. The strap work does not in any way follow the lines of the shield, and the female figures seem to be introduced only to show that the craftsman could portray the human form in steel as easily as he could the more conventional ornament.

As the armourer, weary of constructional skill, turned to ornament as a means of showing to what further extent his powers could expand, so, with this change in his point of view, his constructional skill itself declined. The headpiece, which in the golden age of the armourer was forged in as few pieces as possible, is in the late seventeenth century made of many pieces, as the art of skilful forging declines. The ingenious articulations of the soleret are changed, and the foot is cased in plates which, overlapping only in one direction, preclude the easy movement of the wearer. The fine lines of leg and arm defences, which in the fifteenth and sixteenth century follow the shape of the limbs, give place to straight tubular plates which can only be likened to the modern stove-pipe. The grace and symmetry of the Gothic suit shown on Plate VIII, especially the leg armour, exemplify this merit of the best period of armour, while the suit made for Louis XIV, and the gilt suit of Charles I in the Tower, offend in the opposite direction. Another sure indication of the decadence of the craftsman is to be found in the imitation of constructional detail with no practical purpose. Examples of this may be seen in late seventeenth-century armour, where a single plate is embossed to represent several overlapping plates or lames, and also in the plentiful use of '_clous perdus_' or false rivets which are scattered broadcast on some suits in places where no rivets are needed.

To turn from the degradation of the simplicity and constructional perfection of armour to the reasons which led to its gradual disuse, we find that, after the Gothic period, armour became heavier, partly because of the shock tactics in vogue on active service and partly because, in the case of jousting armour, strength and great weight were needed to protect the wearer from vital injury, and partly because the improvement of firearms necessitated extra defence. The temper of the metal used was such that it would resist a pistol shot, as we have noticed in Chapter III; and on examining the surface of the metal we find, as in the Pembridge helm, that it is of so fine a texture that a modern knife will not leave a scratch when testing it. Therefore we must regard the weight of armour as one of the chief reasons for its disuse. Again, military tactics necessitated forced marches and longer expeditions than before; or at any rate it was discovered that when engaging in long expeditions the troops were chafed and hindered by their armour. It is somewhat curious to note that as the leg was the first part of the body to be armed with plate, so the leg armour was the first to be discarded. The jambs were the first pieces to go, and were replaced, in the case of the mounted man, by thick buff leather boots. The ta.s.sets were prolonged to the knee or--to describe this portion of the armour in a different way--the cuisses themselves were formed of riveted lames and the ta.s.sets discarded.