The Knight and the Blast Furnace: A History of the Metallurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages & the Early Modern Period (History of Warfare, 12)

THE KNIGHT AND THE BLAST FURNACE A History of the Metallurgy ofArmour in the Middle Ages & the Early Modern Period

BY

ALAN WILLIAMS

I0

K^G •i>* 1-3

<. f *?

■s

A

^>

fffH

WMA

*°

f&lfc-M

*r**

/T§OF

nM^wi/ ff/^M'L

' 6 8 V

"

^"" -^

s

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2003

Brill Academic Publishers has done its best to establish rights for the use of the materials printed herein. Should any other party feel that ils rights have been infringed we would be glad to hear from them.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Williams, Alan (Alan R.) T h e knight and the blast furnace : a history of the metallurgy of armour in the Middle Ages & the early modern period / by Alan Williams. p. cm. - - (History of warfare , ISSN 1385-7827 ; v. 12) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 9004124985 (acid-free paper) l.Iron- Metallurgy-—History -Europe. 2. Armor, Medieval. 3. Armor, Renaissance. I. Title. II. Series. TN703 .W55

2002

623.4'41--dc2I

2002025419

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Williams, Alan: T h e knight and the blast furnace : a history of the metallurgy of armour in the Middle Ages & the early modern period / by Alan Williams. - Leiden ; Boston ; Koln : Brill, 2002 (History of warfare ; Vol. 12) ISBN 90-04-12498-5

ISSN ISBN

1385-7827 90 04 12498 5

© Copyright. 2003 by Konmklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. .No par/ of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieved system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy itemsfor internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright. Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS

Foreword Acknowledgements SECTION 1 1.1

1.2

1.3

2.1

2.2

3.2

4.1 4.2

29 29 31 34 35

KNIGHTS

The birth of the knight Knightly mail armour Infantry and crossbows The Crossbow

SECTION 4

3 6 9 11 13 14 15 17 19 24

MAIL

Mail Mailmaking Migration period & early Middle Ages Armour of the later Roman Empire and the early Middle Ages Helmets of the early Middle Ages

SECTION 3 3.1

IRON

The earliest ironmaking Conversion of iron to steel The Classical World Swords Appendix 1: Metallography of swords Appendix 2: Damascus steel Appendix 3: Case Carburisation Hardening of steel Metallography Sampling

SECTION 2

ix xi

39 42 46 48

ITALY

The triumph of an industry The flourishing of an industry—The Metallurgy of Italian armour

53 60

VI

4.3 4.4 4.5

CONTENTS

The metallurgy of Italian armour before 1510 The eclipse of an industry—Italian armour after 1510 The metallurgy of Italian armour after 1510

SECTION 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11

6.1 6.2. 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9

7.2

up to 1450 "German" armour up to 4450 Augsburg armour from the later 15th century onwards.... Innsbruck armour Landshut armour Niirnberg armour Niirnberg tournament armours of the late 15th century...

331 334 361 371 451 463 551 558 589 604 677

THE REST OF EUROPE

Miscellaneous "German" armour Flanders The metallurgy of Flemish armour England The metallurgy of armour (presumed to have been) made in England Spain France Sweden North Germany and The Netherlands Dutch armour exports

SECTION 7 7.1

GERMANY

"German" armour The metallurgy of Augsburg armour The metallurgy of Innsbruck armour The metallurgy of Landshut armour The metallurgy of Niirnberg armour The metallurgy of The metallurgy of

SECTION 6

68 203 215

684 714 717 731 740 815 822 827 829 830

GUNS

The invention of guns Greek Fire " Gunpowder China Gunpowder in the Muslim world Gunpowder in the West The earliest guns in Europe Improvements in guns Appendix: dimensions of some handguns

842 842 843 844 846 847 850 851 854

CONTENTS

7.3

7.4

Guns in 15th century warfare The Hussites The 15th century wars of the English Appendix: price of gunpowder Handguns in the 16th century Continental Europe to 1525 Pavia—the decisive battle The 16th century in England After Pavia up to the 17th century The Ottoman Turks in Europe Appendix: English arguments about the longbow

SECTION 8 8.1

8.2

8.3

9.1 9.2 9.3

857 857 859 864 866 866 868 870 872 873 874

PRODUCTION

Furnaces and blooms Ironmaking in bloomeries The cast-iron-producing "blast" furnace The finery Filarete's description Possible methods of mass-production of armour Appendix 1: size of blooms produced Appendix 2: slag inclusion analyses Hardening armour The theory of metals in the Middle Ages Hardening of armour in Italy Hardening of armour in Germany Slack-quenching 16th century books on steel Tuscany Appendix 1: Experiments on the slack-quenching of medieval steels Appendix 2: Experiments on the tempering of medieval steels Appendix 3: Mechanical testing of samples from armour The mass-production of armour Soldiers' wages in England The cost of armour The Westphalian iron industry

SECTION 9

VII

877 877 879 882 883 886 890 891 893 893 894 895 895 895 897 898 900 901 903 903 904 908

PROTECTION

Thickness of armour Attack on armour Appendix: Krenn's firing tests using guns from the Graz Arsenal Effectiveness of armour according to contemporary evidence

913 918 923 924

VIII

9.4

9.5 Index

CONTENTS

Estimating the effectiveness of armour Defeating armour Resistance of armour Appendices: Experimental results Conclusion - Did it work?

927 933 934 935 945 951

FOREWORD

Scientific examination and analysis have for many years been accepted as basic tools for research in almost all branches of archaeology and art-history, but, until comparatively recently, an exception has been the small, and highly-specialised branch that concerns itself with the study of medieval and renaissance armour. This is probably because it is one that has never at any time attracted more than a handful of devotees, and none of these has hitherto had the necessary scientific knowledge, to say nothing of dedication to the sub­ ject, to enable them to initiate the necessary programme of research. Dr. Alan Williams, a metallurgist by training, is the first to person to appear on the scene with all the qual­ ifications required, including quite remarkable dedication to performing the essential pre­ liminary task of taking metal samples from a wide range of armours and analysing them During the last thirty years he has devoted his spare time to doing this in the armouries and armour-collections of Europe and North America, and it is the results of this work that arc now published in the present volume. The details of hundreds of such samples now made generally available for the first time form a data-base for all future research, which it is to be hoped that it will encourage. It gives me great pleasure to recommend it as a major, and entirely original, contribution to the study of ancient armour. Claude Blair

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A great number of curators, conservators, and physical scientists have helped me over the last thirty years, and as it would be invidious to single out any one, I will list them in chronological order of acquaintance. The late Russell Robinson, who first encouraged me to find out what armour was made of, and his conservators Ted Smith & Arthur Davis, the late Dr.Wilfrid Farrar, Dr.Richard Lorch, the late Leo Biek, the late Lionello Boccia, Domenico Collura, Prof. Volker Himmelein, Theo Gerresheim, Stuart Pyhrr, Prof. Peter Krenn, Prof. Hugo Schneider, the late Eugen Heer, Prof. William Johnson, Dr. William Ryder, Dr. Henry Rolls, Claude Blair, the late Nick Norman, David Edge, Dr.Heinrich Miiller, Dr.Gerhard Quaas, Dr. Heinz Werner Lewerken, the late Dr.Frederick van der Sloot, Tony North, Simon Metcalf, James Jackson, Ian Ashdown, Janet Lang, Dr.Paul Craddock, Dr.Rudolph Wackernagel, Dr.Mario Scalini, Tony de Reuck, Ian Eaves, Thom Richardson, Dr.Claudio Bertolotto, Dr.Carlo De Vita, Gian Rodolfo Rotasso, Prof. Radomir Pleiner, Dr.Gerhard Sperl, Dr. Christian Beaufort, Dr.Matthias Pfaffenbichlcr, Prof. James Charles, Robin Crighton, Prof. Donald Wagner, Dr.Matthew Strickland, Dr.Alfred Auer, Dr. Johannes Willers, Dr.Nils Drejholt, Dr.Giinther Diiriegl, Dr.Sylvia Mattl-Wurm, Dr. Mario Leutenegger, Dr.Frantisek Fryda, Miroslav Pertl, Lassc Mattila, Walter Karcheski, Dr.Hans Ludwig Knau, and Dr.Lorenz Seelig. Financial help from, amongst others, the Leverhulme Trust, the British Academy, the British Council, the Armourers' & Brasiers' Company of London, the Austrian Ministry of Culture and the Society of Antiquaries, has helped me to carry out this research during this time. I am indebted to the Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, for a Fellow-Commonership which allowed me the leisure to think about some of these problems. The publication of this book has only been made possible because many museums have very generously waived all reproduction fees. These are the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, the Imperial Armoury (now the Hofjagd- und Rustkammcr), Vienna, the Stibbert Museum, Florence, the Wallace Collection, London, the Bavarian National Museum, Munich, the Museum of the City of Vienna, the Royal Armoury, Turin, the Dresden Armoury, the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, the Old Arsenal Museum, Solothurn, the State Arsenal, Graz, the German National Museum, Niirnberg, the Royal Collections, Windsor Castle, the Munich City Museum, the National Museum of Castel Sant'Angelo, Rome, the Swiss National Museum, Zurich, the Collections of Veste Coburg, the City Museum, Koln, the Poldi-Pezzuoli Museum, Milan, the Museum for German History, Berlin, the Wiirttemberg State Museum, Stuttgart, the Estonian National Museum, Tallinn, the Museum of St.John, Clerkenwell, the Victoria & Albert Museum, London, the National Museum of Scotland, the Museum of London, the Town Museum of Le Landeron, the Valere Museum of Sion, and the Parish Churches of Cobham with Luddesdowne and Dode.

XII

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition, the Rhincland Museum, Bonn generously supplied a transparency of the painting "Landscape with Furnaces", Marquita Volken, of the Centre for Galccology, Lausanne, supplied some of her cuir-bouilli, and Erik Schmidt supplied some modern mail for destructive testing. The Royal Armouries, Leeds, allowed me to photograph objects on display as well as in their stores. I am very grateful to Count Trapp, who allowed me to examine so much of his family's armour in Churburg, and to Ing.Arch.Mrazck (Pamatkovy Ustav Strednich Ccch) and Dr. Elianna von Troppenburg who were similarly obliging with the collections of Konopiste Castle and Veste Coburg respectively. And also to Sir Geoffrey de Bellaigue, Keeper of the Royal Collections, Windsor Castle. Many chapters were read in draft by Claude Blair, and by Professor Tony Atkins, and I am greatly indebted to them, but the responsibility for all errors remaining must, of course, lie entirely with the author.

All publications are in London, unless stated otherwise.

SECTION ONE

IRON

C H A P T E R 1.1

T H E EARLIEST IRON-MAKING

The first metal to be used for tools and weapons was copper, and its early metallurgy has been discussed by many historians of metallurgy'. It concerns us only insofar as sophisti­ cated techniques had been developed for working copper and its alloys by the second millcnium B.C. and could be transferred to iron-working. Copper ores are generally brightly coloured minerals which would be attractive as applied decoration, first for human bodies, and then later for ceramics. The earliest copper-smelt­ ing furnaces were probably modified from pottery kilns in which copper ores were heated with charcoal, with the following results. Charcoal burns to form first carbon dioxide:

co

c + o, = 2 (carbon + oxygen = carbon dioxide) then at higher temperatures (perhaps 1000°C), the carbon dioxide reacts with more car­ bon to form carbon monoxide: C 0 2 + C = 2 CO (carbon dioxide + carbon = carbon monoxide) The carbon monoxide gas reduces the copper ore to copper: this reaction is simplified by treating the copper ore as copper oxide only. CuO + C O = Cu + C O , (copper oxide + carbon monoxide = copper + carbon dioxide) A mixture of metal and slag (from the non-metallic impurities) was formed in the furnace, and this was subsequently broken up and the copper melted in crucibles to purify it. The exploitation of other metal ores, such as those of tin, could lead to the formation of alloys (mixtures of two or more metals), such as bronze. Unlike those of copper, iron ores are very widespread, but the extraction of iron is not so simple, because its melting-point is much higher (iron 1550°C; copper 1080°C). An attempt Tylccote (1987), for example.

4

SECTION ONE

to reduce (or "smelt") iron ores in a simple copper-smelting furnace will give an unusable mixture of iron and slag. Even if the iron ore is of exceptional purity, and contains no earthy matter itself, there is generally sufficient silica (silicon dioxide, Si02) present in the stones and clay which make up the wall of the hearth to react with part of the iron ore and form a slag. The iron ore is treated as iron oxide only. F e 0 2 + S i 0 4 = Fe 2 Si0 4 (iron oxide + Silicon oxide = iron silicate) Slags are complex glass-like mixtures of oxides and silicates; the component of lowest freerunning temperature that would generally be found in an ironmaking slag would be fayalite (2FeO.SiO, ; ) with a free-running temperature of 1205°C. In consequence, even though the iron ore might have been reduced at 700-800°C, unless the furnace temperature reached at least 1200°C the slag would not have been liquefied and therefore could not have been separated from the iron. Meteoritic iron might have been forged into very good tools or weapons by a compe­ tent bronzesmith because its high nickel content would make them harder, but these would have remained isolated and expensive curiosities 2 . The "Iron Age" could not develop in Europe until techniques for the successful reduction of iron ores had been devised and dis­ seminated. Excavations in Sinai have shown that the Egyptians mined copper ores there, and used a sophisticated smelting technology. By about 1200 BC they were reducing the ores in bowlshaped hearths with charcoal, assisted by the blast of bellows. Iron oxide, manganese oxide, or limestone (from shells) were added as fluxes, and the liquid slag formed was "tapped off' to separate it from the copper. These furnaces resembled those subsequently to be used for smelting iron; indeed both types produced mostly iron silicate slags with free-running temperatures of around 1200°G3. Iron ores reduced under such conditions can produce iron free from most of the slag, which when it liquefies, runs down away from the still solid iron, the particles of which would be left adhering together as a lump (or "bloom"), porous in form and containing very little dissolved carbon but much entrapped slag. Such furnaces are therefore known as "bloomery hearths" and their products as "bloomery iron" or "wrought iron". Repeat­ ed heating and forging would be necessary to expel much of the slag and consolidate the bloom. If it was skilfully forged, the slag can be distributed in long "stringers" shaped like fibres, rather than globules, and the retention of some slag was considered an advantage in certain applications, because the inclusions could act as crack-stoppers under stress, so giving more warning of impending failure. Indeed slag was deliberately mingled with the

2

Wainwright (1937). He suggested that tools made of meteoritic iron were used in Egypt for magical ceremonies such as the "opening of the mouth" of the mummified dead, because the metal itself had fallen from the sky. Panseri (1965) described an Etruscan lance-head made of layers of bloomery iron (hardness 133 VPH) forge-welded with layers of meteoritic iron, of approximately double the hardness (250 VPH). 3 Tylecote & Rothenburg (1967).

T H E EARLIEST I R O N - M A K I N G

5

iron in the "mechanical puddling" process practised by the Aston-Byers Company until the mid-20th century'. These qualities, however, were not of immediate advantage to the Ancient World. Iron smelting seems to have been first developed somewhere between the Caucasus and the Fertile Crescent early in the second millcnium B C \ From about 1900 to 1400 BC the use of iron ornaments and ceremonial weapons slowly spread; for example, the boy-king of Egypt, Tutankhamun, held an iron dagger within his third, innermost, mummiform coffin of solid gold 6 . The destruction of the Hittite Empire spread knowledge of ironmaking fairly quickly around the Near East and it was exploited on a considerable scale by the Assyrians. Theirs was the first empire in the world (outside China) to make use of iron on a large scale'; after about 900 BC iron was commonplace, being used for swords and daggers, scales of armour, and fetters for captives, amongst other things. A hoard of some 150 tons has been excavated from the palace of Sargon (710 BC) at Khorsabad (near modern Mosul, Iraq). Some of this was found to be steel but there is no direct evidence that quenching was regularly practised 8 . The Greeks used iron extensively, although they continued to employ bronze armour in the form of breast- and backplates and one-piece helmets as late as the Persian wars of the 5th century BC 9 . Somewhat later, the westward movement of Celtic-speaking peoples spread the knowledge of iron weapons and tools over most of Europe north of the Alps 10 . The very low-carbon iron produced in the bloomery hearth is inferior to copper alloys in hardness as well as corrosion resistance. It is greatly increased in hardness by carburisation to steel, although even this is not necessarily harder than work-hardened bronze. The hardness of a metal or alloy can be determined by measuring the size of an inden­ tation made by a diamond point under a known load. The smaller the indentation, the harder the metal. The results may be quoted on the Vickers Pyramid Hardness (VPH) scale, whose units are kg/mm - . Microhardness is determined in the same way, during microscopic examination, and with a much smaller load (100 g). Pure (annealed) copper has a hardness of about 40 VPH. Cold-working (such as ham­ mering, or wire-drawing) can increase this to about 100 VPH after a 70% reduction in thickness, with a corresponding increase in brittleness. Alloying copper with tin (graph 1) progressively raises its hardness to about 110 VPH if 4

Ward (1972). Wrought iron remained a favoured material of civil engineers until late in the 19th century on account of its "toughness" (defined in this case as resistance to sudden shocks) and resistance to corrosion. Until 1971 the Aston-Byers Company of the USA marketed a "puddled wrought iron" made by mixing molten pure (Bessemer) iron with molten slag. This may seem to have been a retrograde step, but in some applica­ tions (e.g railway couplings) the earlier warning of impending failure that wrought iron gave was appreciated. ■' Wertime el al. (1980), passim; and also the earlier work of Coghlan (1956) contains some interesting analyses. (i Forbes (1964) vol. IX, l-174.and 234-268. 7 Wagner (1993). T h e complex topic of Oriental iron-smelting is dealt with most thoroughly here. (i Pleiner (1974) and also Maddin et al.(1979). Smith (1968) concluded that quenching was generally avoided by the neighbouring Luristan smiths (c800 BC) as too difficult a process to control. 9 Snodgrass (1967) 84. T h e same author also discusses bronze armour from Central Europe as well as Greece in idem.(1971). 10 Tylecote (1987) and Cleere & Scott (1987) passim.

6

SECTION ONE

Fe

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0 %

Carbon

Hardness curves illustrating the principal ways of hardening metals.

the alloy (called "bronze") is annealed. This hardness can be further increased by cold working (graph 2) up to about 270 VPH. Pure (annealed) iron has a hardness of about 60 VPH. Iron is made harder by the absorption of carbon, to form the alloy called "steel". If the steel is allowed to cool in air after being worked hot, then its hardness (graph 3) which varies with carbon content, is comparable to cold-worked bronze. (Of course, steel is far cheaper than bronze! ) On the other hand, if steels arc quenched (plunged into cold water while still red-hot) their hardness increases enormously (graph 4) again varying with carbon content. Hard­ ness values between 300 VPH and 700 VPH are easily obtained, even with medieval al­ loys. CONVERSION OF IRON TO STEEL

The product of the bloomery might well be a heterogeneous lump, parts of which would be of higher carbon content than others. Early smiths would have found that some sam-

T H E EARLIEST

IRON-MAKING

7

pies of "iron" were harder than others, but whether they could be deliberately produced was another matter. The simplest way of obtaining steel is simply to make a large bloom, break it up, and then pick out the hardest fragments. These fragments would then have to be forged back together, with a consequent loss of material during the forging process, to make anything but the smallest artefact, so this method was an extremely inefficient one. A similar technique was used to select their steel for centuries by Japanese swordsmiths, for whom the cost of labour was not a major consideration". But frequently medieval artefacts (including many examples of armour) show a banded microstructure, suggesting that they have been forged from a heterogeneous bloom'-. A more efficient way of proceeding could be to make an artefact of iron, and then convert part of it to steel. This might be done by forge-welding a steel edge, or other crucial part, to an iron back, or by "case-carburising" the edge (heating the iron in contact with carbon for many hours). It is frequently possible to distinguish microscopically between these two processes' 3 . The former may leave a row of slag inclusions trapped along the line of the weld, and the latter may give a gradual, rather than an abrupt, change in carbon content. But a skilled crafts­ man might forge-weld without a flux (silver sand is used by many modern blacksmiths, which forms iron silicate) and thus leave no line of slag, and carbon will diffuse slowly in hot iron anyway, so the microscopic evidence can sometimes be ambiguous. Adding a steel part to an iron part, however, still does not require the smith to know how to make steel. Its production may be a matter entirely of chance, as long as its pres­ ence can be identified. The iron bars used to hold the Parthenon together were made of a banded steel, in which the layers of higher carbon content are quite randomly distribut­ ed 14 . Deliberate case-carburising depends upon the realisation that iron can be changed to steel; a much more sophisticated notion of the nature of metals. The deliberate steeling of an edge (as opposed to forge-welding a steel edge onto an iron body) argues for such an understanding. It is uncertain when this understanding developed. It may have been de­ veloped as early as the 10th century BC; it was certainly developed by the 4th century B C ' J . It was practised regularly throughout the Middle Ages, and was described around 1100 AD by Theophilus, as an appropriate techniques for small tools, such as files16. It was also suitable for the cutting edges of swords and knives, but less suitable for armour, and is seldom found therein. " Kapp (1987) 65. '- Many such examples of banded steels from Central Europe are illustrated by Plciner (1967, 1975), from Scandinavia by Tomtlund (1973), from Eastern Europe by Gurin (1987) and the British Isles by Tylccote & Gilmour (1984). '■' All of the authors quoted in note 1 - show examples of welded-on steel edges as well as banded microstructures. ''' Varoufakis (1992). Varoufakis suggests that strips of iron and steel were welded back together to make the clamps which bound together the stone blocks of the Parthenon. These clamps do indeed show banded microstructures, but a heterogeneous starting bloom seems an equally plausible reason for them. 1:1 Maddin (1977). Maddin is certain that blacksmiths were intentionally steeling iron by 900 BC; iron objects become very much commoner after then, although the evidence for deliberate quenching" is doubtful. 1(1 Smith (1963). Theophilus wrote in the 12th century a handbook on ecclesiastical metalwork, glassmaking and painting.

8

SECTION ONE

The absorption of carbon in the solid state was very slow, and hence a concentration gradient would be established, and in all but the smallest articles, heating for sufficient time to carburise the centre moderately would carburise the edges excessively (see chapter 1.2 - appendix 3). Alternatively, small pieces of iron could be carburised and then forge-weld­ ed back together ("piling"). Certainly, it would be a very long time before the production of steel could be anything other than adventitious. The abundance of iron ores, however, meant that iron tools and weapons could be made much more cheaply than those of bronze, and would therefore be available to many more people, once the techniques of smelting and forging were gener­ ally known. So for many users, stone tools and weapons were succeeded not by bronze but by iron ones, even though those iron tools and weapons were little better, if at all, than those of bronze 17 . Indeed bronze, although much costlier, remained in use alongside iron weapons and armour for many centuries. An analysis of some fragments of Greek bronze armour of the 6th century BC has been published by Smith 18 . The plates consisted of bronzes containing 9% to 11% tin, & very little lead; they had undergone moderate working and then anneal­ ing, and the average hardness of the flat parts was 155 VPH, comparable to that of a lowcarbon steel, such as that found in most German munition armours of the 16 lh century AD. The Greek hoplites employed both bronze and iron armour but the latter seems to have gradually become more common by the 3rd century. King Philip of Macedon was buried (336 BC) in an iron (or steel) armour, which when excavated was found to be completely mineralised, rendering analysis impossible 19 . Similarly, the Romans continued to use some bronze armour alongside iron armour until at least the 3rd century AD (see chapter 2.2). Iron weapons and armour did not become superior to bronze until the discovery was made that quenching (plunging the red-hot metal into cold water) after carburisation re­ sulted in a dramatic increase in hardness. The process is a difficult one to manipulate, however, as the hardness is due to the formation of martensite, an excess of which leads to embrittlement. Quenching is mentioned by Homer in perhaps the 10th or 9th century BC 20 and quenched edges have been detected on excavated specimens from the 10th century BC onwards 21 but the difficulty of controlling the carbon content of steel meant that quenching was to remain a hit-and-miss process, and therefore avoided by many smiths, for a long time to come.

17

to to or of

Smith (1972). '" Andronicos (1987) 72, contains an illustration of the iron cuirass now in Museum of Thessalonika. Hl see chapter 2.2. 20 Odyssey, IX, 459. 21 Carpenter & Robinson (1930). They examined a selection of iron objects, dating from around 1200 BC 200 AD. All the specimens consisted of wrought iron carburised to varying extents. The earliest specimen show quenching dated from about 900 BC. Also Williams & Maxwell-Hyslop (1976). Four out of a group of seven tools that might have been Assyrian Roman (but unfortunately can only be dated between 7th and 3rd century BC) showed definite evidence carburising and quenching.

T H E EARLIEST

IRON-MAKING

9

T H E CLASSICAL WORLD

The Roman army initially organised itself on Greek or Macedonian models, but contact with the Celts and the experience of the Punic Wars led them to replace the hoplite's panoply with the Celtic mail shirt, and the long spear suitable for use in a Greek phalanx with two javelins and a short sword (see chapter 2.2). In 225 BC a Roman army fought at the battle of Telamon an army of Celtic Gauls who slashed at the Romans with their long iron swords, which periodically bent and allegedly had to be placed on the ground and straightened by the foot22. These Celtic smiths attempted to overcome the difficulty of carburising iron uniformly by treating only very small pieces, of which several could then be "piled" together, and forged into a sword-blade of fairly heterogeneous composition 2 '. The laminated structure is still visible on the surface, especially after corrosion. Several such weapons have been found, dating back to the 6th century BC, and techniques like piling remained in use for many centuries 24 . A bundle of thin iron rods from a 4th century BC site in Greece is illus­ trated in Pleiner -3 and two Roman swords in the Warsaw Archaeological Museum showed piled structures but were not quenched2'5. By achieving a more uniform distribution of carbon a steel of moderate hardness was attainable without heat-treatment, which was not gener­ ally mastered for a long time. Indeed piling was beyond the capabilities of many Celtic smiths who simply made swords out of wrought iron 27 , but it was a feature of blacksmiths' work throughout the Migration Period and Early Middle Ages in Europe. The later technique known as "pattern-welding" or "false Damascus" grew out of piling (see chapter 1.2 on swords). The distinctive contribution of Celtic smiths to armour was the development of mail (see chapter 2.1). References Andronicos, M. "Vergina; the Royal tombs" (Thessalonica, 1987) Biborski, M. Kaczanowski,P. Kedzierski,Z. StepinskiJ. "Metallographic analysis of two Roman swords from the State Archaeological Museum, Warsaw" Wiadomosci Archeologicznc (1982) 47, 15. Carpenter, H. Robinson.J.M. "The metallography of some Ancient Egyptian implements" Journal of the Iron & Steel Institute (1930) 417. Cleere, H. & Scott, B.(eds) T h e Crafts of the Blacksmith, (Belfast, 1987) Coghlan, H.H. "Notes on Prehistoric and Early Iron in the Old World" (Oxford, 1956) Forbes, R.J. "Studies in ancient technology" (Leiden, 1964). Gurin, M. "Kuznechnoi Remeslo Polotskoy Zemly 9-13c." (Blacksmiths' crafts in the Polotsk lands) (Minsk, 1987) includes 32 pp of plates. Kapp, L. Kapp. H. & Yoshihara, Y. "The craft of the Japanese sword" (Tokyo, 1987).

'-- Polybius, "Histories" (Loeb trans.1,321); his evidence and whether he exaggerated it is discussed at length in Pleiner "The Celtic sword" (1993) 157-164. -'' Rcggieri & Garino (1955) discuss some piled Gallic swords from Lombardy. 24 Coghlan (1956) plate III, shows a spearhead from Syria 600 BC, with a piled microstructure. And Panseri (1965); see - above, and chapter 1.2 for reference. 25 Pleiner (1969) Fig.6. 26 Biborski et al.(1982). -' Pleiner (1993) passim; and chapter 1.2.

10

SECTION ONE

Macldin.R. M u h l y J . D . Wheeler,'!'.S. "How the Iron Age began" Scientific American, 237 (1977) 122-131. Maclclin, R. with Curtis, J . E . Wheeler, T.S. & Muhly, J . D . "Nco-Assyrian ironworking technology" Pro­ ceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 123 (Philadelphia, 1979) 369-390. Panseri, C, "Dam­ ascus steel in legend and in reality" Gladius, 4 (Caceres, 1965) 5-66. Pleincr, R. "Die Technologic des Schmiedcs in der Grossmahrischen Kultur" Slovenska Archeologia, 15 (Bratislava, 1967) 77- 'l88. Pleincr, R."Iron Working in Ancient Greece" (Prague, National Technical Museum, 1969). Pleincr, R. BjorkmanJ.K. "The Assyrian Iron Age" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 118 (Philadelphia, 1974) 283-313. Pleiner, R. "Eisenschmiede in fruhmiltclalterlichen Zentraleuropa" Fruhmittclallerlichen Studien, 9 (Berlin, 1975) 79-92. Pleiner, R. T h e Celtic Sword (Oxford, 1993). Reggieri, A. Garino, C. "Esame tecnologico di un gruppo di spade galliche della lombardia nord-occidentalc", Sibrium, 2 (Varese, 1955) 44-55. Smith, C.S. Hawthorne, J.G, transl. & ed. Theophilus Presbyter "On divers arts" (New York, 1963). Smith, C.S. "The techniques of the Luristan smith" in R.H.Brill, ed. Science and Archaeology (Atlantic City, 1 968). Smith, C.S. "Mctallographic examination of some fragments of Cretan bronze armor from Afrali" Appendix III in "Early Cretan Armorers" ed. H.Hoffmann, Fogg Art Museum (Cambridge, Mass. 1972) 54. Snodgrass, A.M. "Arms and armour of the Greeks" (1967) 84. Snoclgrass, A.M."The first European body-armour" in The European Community in Later Prehistory, Boardman, j . Brown, M.A. & Powell, T.G.E. eds. (1971) 33-50 and pi. 1-5. Tomtlund, J.E. "Mctallographic examination of 13 knives from Helg"" Early Medieval Studies, 5 (Lund, 1973) 42 - 63. Tylecote, R.F. Lupu, A. Rothenbcrg, B. "Early copper-smelting sites in Israel" Journal of the Institute of Metals (1967) 95, 235. Tylecote, R.F & Gilmour, B J . "The metallography of early ferrous edged tools and weapons" (Oxford, 1986) British Archaeological Reports, 155. Tylecote, R.F. "The early history of metallurgy in Europe" (Lon­ don, 1987) Wainwright, G.A. "The coming of iron" Antiquity, 10, (1937) 5. Ward, H.D. "Best Yorkshire" Journal of the Iron & Steel Institute (1972) 396. Wertime, T. & Muhly, J. (eds) "The coming of the age of iron" (New Haven, 1980). Williams, A.R. Maxwell-Hyslop,K.R. "Ancient steel from Egypt" Journal of Archaeological Science, 3 (1976) 283. Wagner, D. "Iron and steel in Ancient China" (Leiden, 1993). Varoufakis, G. "The iron clamps and dowels from the Parthenon and Erechthion" Historical Metallurgy, 26 (1992) 1-18.

CHAPTER 1.2 SWORDS

This book is primarily about the making of armour, but since the technology of swordmaking is closely related, it may be appropriate to summarise that technology briefly. Pleiner has written the most detailed book yet about Celtic swords'. These, the first iron swords in Europe, were often made out of several pieces of iron and steel forged together, although seldom quenched. He summarises the analyses of 119 Celtic swords from sites all over Western and Cen­ tral Europe, of which 59 were examined in section. Of these 21 were made merely of iron or low-carbon (< 0.3%C) steels. All but 3 of these were made of several pieces of metal forged together. Another 38 contained some layers of steel of higher carbon content (< 0.8%C) out of which: 12 had one hard edge—6 of these were carburised single-piece swords; 26 had two hard edges—4 were made of single pieces. Out of these 38 that were hardenable, only one is described as having a martensitic ("fullyquenched") microstructure; at least 4 others had undergone some sort of accelerated cool­ ing, short of a full quench ("slack-quenched"), to increase their hardness to around 300400 VPH. Another 23 were examined in only one cutting edge and 18 of those were made merely of iron or low-carbon (<0.3%C) steels (It cannot, of course, be determined whether they were made up of one or several pieces of metal). Another three were apparently quenched to give martensite, giving an overall total of 4 fully-quenched and 4 slack-quenched, i.e. less than 7% of all the 119 swords. Pleiner also carried out some practical tests with simulated Celtic blades made of lowcarbon (0.2%C) steel, and found that these blades could be notched and bent by vigorous strokes, but that the bending was of the order of 10 mm rather than the extensive folding which Polybius alleged for the Gauls' swords. Even some Roman swords were made of unquenched steel, although by then quench­ ing techniques were well known. Many smiths evidently (and understandably) preferred a blade of moderate hardness but reliable behaviour to one of greater hardness but possible brittleness. A sword made of a very hard steel would take a very sharp edge, and would not bend in combat, but on the other hand it might snap, which would be considerably more embarrassing for its owner. Lang's paper 2 recounts the analysis of six Roman swords from the British Museum. Three 1 2

Pleiner (1993). Lang (1988).

12

SECTION ONE

consisted of piled structures, which were not quenched. The other three were quenched so that the edges were harder than the cores. From about the 3rd to the 10th century AD "pattern-welded" swords predominated in Europe, and they arc the subject of a considerable literature 5 , to which this book is not intended to acid. Pattern-welding (sometimes called "false Damascus" or "welded Damascus") was devel­ oped from piling as a means of making long blades from many small pieces of metal with varied compositions. Pieces of iron and steel were twisted as they were welded together, and then the surface ground and etched with fruit acids to reveal a pattern, sometimes said to resemble snakes. The presence of slag inclusions led to a visible pattern, even when there was little difference in carbon content between adjacent bands. The pattern visible on the surface may have contributed to their popularity, perhaps being reminiscent in appearance to blades made of "true Damascus" steel (wootz; sec Appendix 2). This technique might have been thought to reduce the potential to fracture, but pattern-welded blades were always likely to be less strong than one-piece blades, as the experiments of Sim 4 have shown. After about 1000 AD, the occurrence of pattern-welded blades diminishes, presumably because larger pieces of steel became available in Europe, although pattern-welding is still to be found employed in the Baltic states as late as the 12th century 5 . The medieval sword blade might have been made from (in decreasing order of quality): (i) one homogeneous piece of steel (ii) one heterogeneous piece of steel folded and forged (iii) two or more heterogeneous pieces of steel forge-welded into a blade (iv) a core of iron with welded-on steel edges (v) a core of iron with carburised edges To enable a sharp edge to be given, the steel might have been be hardened by: QT—full-quenching followed by tempering SQ—slack-quenching of some form AC—if the carbon content is high enough, quenching may not be essential, and the steel can simply be air-cooled. Indeed some smiths preferred to avoid quenching altogether. Edges were usually of higher carbon content than the core, and slack-quenching was frequently used in the Early Middle Ages to harden a blade. Later, as higher-carbon steels became more widely available for blades, full-quenching would have became even more difficult. The combination of full-quenching followed by tempering was evidently not widely mastered, and was not commonly employed until the 15th or 16th century.

:1 4 5

Anstcc (1961), Smith (1962), Mihok (1993) and LaSalvia (1998) among others; and see note 5. Sim (pers.comm.). Research in progress. Antcins (1968).

13

SWORDS

Appendix 1: Metallography of Swords Table summarising results of metallographic examinations of medieval and later swords by this, and other, authors 6 . period

metal + heat--treatment

hardness (VPH)

re

306 - 630 9th/10th (iii) + S Q Frankish ? 10/11th (i) + AC Rhineland ? (Ulfberht) perhaps ;a crucible steel ? 12th ? (iv) + SQ, Netherlands ? 13th (v) + SQ, South Germany ? <1308 (v) + S Q South Germany 14th (v) + S Q France /Germany ? 14th (v) + SQ, North Germany 14th (v) + SQ, Germany 15th (iv) + S Q France/Germany ?

a

edge 620 core 215

a

15th/16th Solingen

(v) + S Q

16th (iii) + Q T Netherlands ? 16th (i) + Q T Germany ? 16th (iv) + Q T Munich (Wisperch)

up to 455

c 1545 England 16th Styria

(v) + Q

edge 590

(i) + Q J

average 325

16/17th Spain ?

(ii) + Q J

high C% band 437 low C% band 253

17th Germany ?

(iii) + Q T

average 441

18th Solingen

(iii) + Q T

average 472

'' Williams [a - d]

edge 481 core 147

b b b b b b b b

14

SECTION ONE

Damascus steel blades, for comparison 16th/18th (i) + AC The references are given below (a-d).

350-366

Piaskowski

Appendix 2: Damascus Sleel Many swords (and occasionally other artefacts) from the Near and Middle East, show the use of a completely different material, namely "wootz" or cast steel. This was a high-car­ bon (about 1.2%C, but sometimes as high as 1.6%C) crucible steel7. These blades were generally known as "Damascus steel" (from their alleged origin in Syria) but it still remains a matter of debate as to where and how the steel for these swords was actually made 8 . Wootz was made by heating small pieces of iron in sealed crucibles packed with char­ coal and heated until it wholly or partially melted into a cake of steel, and then allowed to cool extremely slowly. These cakes were exported to centres of arms manufacture (such as Damascus) where they were carefully forged, with some difficulty, into sword blades. Since the melting-point of steel falls with increasing carbon content, a much lower temperature than usual has to be employed to forge a blade of higher carbon content than usual, not­ withstanding its hardness. This forging broke up the cementite (iron carbide) network left over from the casting, reducing brittleness, and producing the characteristic pattern ("wa­ tered silk") on the surface of the blade. The blade so formed needed no further heat treat­ ment to harden it, nor did any amount of sharpening ever remove the edge. A flourishing trade in crucible steel ingots from India during the early Modern Period, and a number of archaeological reports from India and Sri Lanka have led to a perception of crucible steel making as a predominantly Indian tradition 9 . However, more recent archaeological studies have shown that there was an extensive industry in Central Asia in making crucible steel 10 . It may be that much of this crucible steel did not undergo the extremely slow cooling which was to lead to a "watered-silk" pattern visible on the surface of the most highly prized "Damascus" blades, and therefore has not been recognised as such; so the quantity of crucible steel employed may well have been considerably underestimated in the past. Indeed such a crucible steel (without the conspicuous surface pattern of wootz) may well have been the starting material for a 10th/11th century sword, examined by the author with an inscription ULFBERHT, which was made of a steel of around 1% carbon". Occasionally, other artefacts were forged from wootz. Small plates (perhaps 25cm square) and slightly curved tubes, are found as forearm-guards and reinforcements for mail shirts of Persian and Indian origin. There is a Turkish helmet possibly from the siege of Rhodes of 1522, now in the Mu­ seum of the Order of St.John, Clerkenwell (Inv.No.2671) which was apparently made from 7

Panseri (1965) and Piaskowski (1978). Verhoeven el al.(1992, 1993). 9 Bronson, (1986). 10 Craddock, (1995) 11 T h e sword is the one described in the Table above (appendix 1); Williams (1977). 12 Williams (1997) 363-397. B

15

SWORDS

"wootz" (Average hardness 342 VPH). There are some small bowls in the Victoria & Albert Museum, London (506-1874, 507-1874), apparently made by raising, surprising as this may seem. Appendix 3: Case Carburisation of Iron The diffusion of carbon into iron depends upon the temperature and the crystalline state of the iron. An equation (Fick's equation) 13 can be derived from first principles, but for the purposes of this book, the empirical relationship which was put forward by Harris 1 4 is more useful. - 8287/T case depth = 660. e . VT where Vt is the square root of the time, t, in hours, e is the exponential number, case depth is in mm, and T is the temperature in degrees K (Centigrade + 273). Hence he calculated this table for values of case depth (mm); t (hrs)

2 4 8 12 16 20 24 30 36

at

870

900

925

0.64 0.89 1.27 1.55 1.80 2.01 2.18 2.46 2.74

0.76 1.07 1.52 1.85 2.13 2.39 2.62 2.95 3.20

0.89 1.27 1.80 2.21 2.54 2.84 3.10 3.48 3.81

°C

Case-carburising of iron (Harris's tables) +

1,1

Qt 870

a

lit 900

°

ol 925

Honeycombe (1981) Fick's equation, p.6. American Society of Metals Handbook, (Metals Park, Ohio, 1981) vol.4, p.142, quotes the tables of Harris. 14

16

SECTION ONE

Curvature will play a big part in determining case depth; it will be greater for a convex surface, and less for a concave surface, that for a flat surface at the same temperature and time. It should also be noted that the same expressions can be used to estimate decarburisation (which might perhaps be the result of forging in an oxidising atmosphere). So that, for example, heating a 0.4%C steel at 600°C in air for 2 hours would lead to a depth of decarburisation of 0.07mm. This is in fact the order of magnitude of the fcrritic bands noticeable in the cross-sections of the shaffron (Wallace Collection A.353) or dragon-visor (Wallace Collection, A.205) so it is possible that these bands show the results of two or three hours forging (see chapter 4.5). The heterogeneous nature of the steel used, however, makes it difficult to be dogmat­ ic about this. References Anstcc, J.W. & Biek, L. "A study in pattern-welding" Medieval Archaeology, 5 (1961) 71-93 and pl.IV-XVI. Anteins, A.K. "Structure and manufacturing techniques of pattern-welded objects found in the Baltic States" Journal of the Iron & Steel Institute, (June 1968) 563-571. Bronson, B. "The making and selling of wootz. A crucible steel of India." Archeomaterials 1, (Philadelphia, 1986) 13-51. Craddock, P. "Early Metal Mining and Production." (Edinburgh, 1995) chapter 7, passim, and on crucible steel 275-283. Honeycombe, R.W.K. "Steels—microstructure and properties" (1981). Lang, J. "Studv of the metallography of some Roman swords" Britannia, 19 (1988) 199-216, pi.5-10. LaSalvia, V. "Archaeometallurgy of Lombard swords" (Florence, 1998) the swords analysed are pattern-welded. Mihok, L. "Metallographic examination of pattern-welded swords from the Early Roman period in Eastern Slovakia" Archaeomalerials, 7 (Philadelphia, 1993) 41-51. Panseri, C. "Damascus steel in legend and reality" Gladius (Cacercs, 1965) 4, 5. Piaskowski, J. "Metallographic examination of two Damascene steel blades" Journal for the History of Arabic. Science, 2 (Aleppo, 1978) 3-30. Piaskowski, J. "Metallographic examination of a Japanese sword" Historical Metallurgy, 27 (1993) 110-117. Much has been published on the metallurgy of Japanese swords by Tawara and Tanimura, but unfortunately, in Japanese. Smith, C.S. "A history of metallography" (Chicago, 1960) chapters 1 & 5 are about pattern-welding. Chapter 6 is a shortened version of another of his papers "A metallographic examination of some Japanese sword blades". Verhoeven, J . D . Pendrav, A.H. & Peterson, D. "Studies of Damascus Steel Blades" Materials Characterisation (New York, 1992) 29, 335-341 and ibid.(1993) 30, 175 and 187. Williams, A.R. [a] " T h e hardening of iron swords" (with J.Lang) Journal of Archaeological Science 2 (1975) 199-207. [b] "Methods of manufacture of swords in Medieval Europe" Gladius 13 (Caceres, 1977) 75-101. [c] "Seven swords of the Renaissance from an analytical point of view" Gladius 14 (Caceres, 1978) 97127. [d| Sword 87.5657 from the warship Mary Rose (sunk 1545); analysis (in press). "Ottoman military technology, the metallurgy of Turkish a r m o u r " — W a r and Society in the Eastern Medi­ terranean, 7th-15th Centuries, ed.Y.Lev (Leiden, 1997).

C H A P T E R 1.3 T H E HARDENING OF STEEL

Although steel is harder and stronger than iron, the principal advantage to be gained from employing steel is the dramatic increase in hardness obtained when the steel is quenched, i.e. plunged red-hot into cold water. If a steel is allowed to cool in air, after forging, then equilibrium conditions will prevail. The carbon which was dissolved in the iron above 900°C comes out of solution as a lamel­ lar arrangement of iron carbide and ferrite called "pearlite" which has a distinctive (lay­ ered) microscopical appearance. The scale of hardness commonly employed is the Vickers Pyramid Hardness scale (VPH) and its units are k g / m m - . Pure ferrite (crystals of iron) has a hardness of about 80 VPH, but of course, since me­ dieval iron will contain slag (a brittle, glass-hard material) as well as ferrite crystals, and traces of other elements may be dissolved in the ferrite, then its measured hardness may well be anywhere between 100 and 180 VPH. The presence of iron carbide makes pearlite much harder, so a steel may have a hard­ ness of anywhere between 180 VPH for 0.2%C and 260 VPH for 0.6%C. Grain size will also affect hardness, a finer grain size being harder, as smaller crystals are more difficult to deform (since there are more grain boundaries to prevent slip). If however the steel is cooled more rapidly than it cools in air, and equilibrium is not attained, then other crystalline products may form, viz. (1) pearlite in a nodular form, almost irresolvable, called in the older literature "troostite" (2) a material of acicular appearance harder than pearlite, called "bainite". (3) very rapid cooling may form "martensite", a material of lath-like appearance and great hardness. Much depends on the carbon content and the dimensions of the object being treated, but quenching in water generally results in such rapid cooling that an all-martensite struc­ ture is obtained. This is called "full-quenching". Quenching in oil, molten lead, or some other less drastic coolant than water, may allow other microconstituents, like pearlite and bainite, to form as well as martensite - as may an interrupted or delayed quench. Such procedures are collectively called "slack-quenching" and nowadays avoided but seem to have been regularly practised in the Middle Ages. Slack-quenching will increase the hardness to perhaps 300 or 400 VPH, depending on the proportions of martensite, pearlite and other microconstituents. Full-quenching increases the hardness enormously, depending on carbon content; up to 800 VPH or more for 0.6%C. It is also worth noting that a higher carbon content will lower the temperature at which martensite starts to form 1 . So steels with much more than Honcycombe (1981) 95.

18

SECTION ONE

0.6%C may not show a proportionate increase in hardness because the transformation to martensite will not have been completed before room temperature has been reached. The appearance of martensite as a microconstituent does not, of course, prove any de­ liberate steel production on the part of the smith. He may well have quenched everything he made on the grounds that it might improve the tool or weapon, and was unlikely to do much harm, at the low carbon contents then prevailing. The customary modern procedure for hardening a plain carbon steel is to fully quench it, and then to reheat it carefully to "temper" it. Tempering reduces the hardness of mar­ tensite somewhat, but by removing most of the internal stresses, it reduces its brittleness and hence increases its impact strength. Tempering may reduce the hardness to 400 or 500 VPH and improve toughness by re­ moving stresses which lead to microcracks. But its success is dependent upon having a steel of consistent composition and the accurate control of both time and temperature, neither of which could be measured with any precision during the period under discussion. Overtempcring simply softens the steel and undoes all the hardening. So it is not altogether surprising that many 15th century Italian armourers would prefer slack-quenching, with some small margin for error, to the combination of full-quenching, with the possibility of cracking or warping, and tempering which was very difficult to control, although the slack-quenched product would have been of inferior strength to a fully-quenched and tempered steel. But many of the late 15th/early 16th century Augsburg and Innsbruck armourers seem to have employed a two-stage process for heat-treatment as the microstructures of their hardened products usually show only martensite, or tempered martensite, sometimes with ferrite but without any pearlite or bainite. But, if the carbon content varies significantly in some parts of the specimen, then the rate of cooling needed to form martensite may also vary. So it may happen that mixtures of microconstituents are formed, which differ according to their position in the specimen.

An example of this is to be found in this Innsbruck armour (Chicago 2633) which contains both martensite and ferrite (in the lighter areas) as well as pearlite and an irresolvable material (in the darker areas) X 90

T H E H A R D E N I N G OF STEEL

19

METALLOGRAPHY

Most of these analyses have been undertaken by metallography; that is, the microscopic examination of a prepared sample of a metal by a metallurgical (i.e. a rcflected-light) microscope. In some case, a sample has been detached from a hidden surface inside the armour. The heterogeneous nature of medieval steels makes the examination of a crosssection, wherever possible, more desirable. Where feasible, the edge of a plate, already cut in manufacture, has been examined. Where several components from a single homogeneous armour have been examined, for example from the "AVANT" armour in Glasgow, it will be observed that, within the variations to be found in medieval steel, they have been made of similar metal treated in a similar way. It was therefore thought justifiable to quote re­ sults derived from the analysis of a single specimen, with due reservations, where multiple sampling was not possible. Different elements from a garniture, or set of interchangeable parts for the battlefield and tournaments, were likewise found to be broadly similar. More details of such multiple sampling may be found below. What is actually seen in metallography is the varied arrangements of iron and iron car­ bide, together with the slag (non-metallic inclusions) always present in pre-modern steels.

i. ferrite On cooling from forging temperatures (red heat, 800—1000°C), iron forms an array of interlocking crystals, or grains, of FERRITE. Since the crystals are randomly arranged, the boundaries between them are irregular.

I An example of an iron is this specimen from a jousting armour el 500 (Wavvel 4769), which contains f e r r i t e and slag.

In this photomicrograph (X 90 magnification) the ferrite grains are the irregular white, or light grey, oval areas, bounded by black lines (the grain boundaries). Since this is a "me­ dieval" iron (often called a "wrought iron"), there are also lumps of non-metallic inclusions (slag) which have never been separated. These are the dark grey, irregular lumps. Slag is a brittle, glass-like material when cold, which softens on heating and can therefore be elon-

20

SECTION ONE

gated on forging. During sample preparation, fragments of slag have become detached, and left scratches on the much softer ferrite grains. ii. pearlite On cooling in air, steel which contains approximately 0.8% carbon in solid solution will form a mixture (or "entectoid") of alternate layers of iron and iron carbide (cementite). Its lamellar appearance resembling mother-of-pearl (visible at 960 X magnification) has given it the name of PEARLITE. This tends to form between around 720° and 550°C. A fast rate of cooling may lead to finer spacing of the lamellae, and harder pearlite. Non-equilibrium cooling may sometimes lead to the formation of nodular pearlite (called in the older liter­ ature "troostite") which, like bainite, is not always easy to resolve by optical microscopy.

An example of p e a r l i t e is from this late 15 th century Italian backplate (RA III. 1093) X 960 magnification. T h e lamellae are alternate layers of iron (ferrite) and iron carbide (cementite)

On very slow cooling (annealing) the lamellae of iron carbide may break up into glob­ ules. This may be called "spheroidised" or even completely "divorced" pearlite. Steels of carbon content lower than 0.8% will form a mixture of ferrite grains and pearlite on cool­ ing. The lower the carbon content, the greater the proportion of ferrite. Steels of carbon content greater than 0.8% (unusual in medieval Europe) will form a mixture of iron car­ bide (cementite) crystals and pearlite. These are known as "hypereutectoid" steels. iii. bainite Cooling a steel at a rate too fast to allow pearlite to form, or holding it at an intermediate temperature in the range 250° - 500°C, may lead to the formation of a ferrite-cementite aggregate called bainite, which can often have an acicular (needle-like) appearance. Bain­ ite is intermediate in hardness between pearlite and martensite.

T H E H A R D E N I N G OF STEEL

21

An example of b a i n i t e may be this acicular material in a specimen from a 16 lh century armour (RA 11.84) X 960.

iv. martensite On very fast cooling (quenching), steels may not form pearlite at all, but may transform below 250°C to a completely different crystalline structure called MARTENSITE, which is an extremely hard solid solution of carbon in iron. Its microscopic appearance is lathor plate-like.

M a r t e n s i t e (perhaps slightly tempered) is present in the dark areas in the centre of the section. Ferrite grains and slag inclusions are also present (RA 11.86 pasguard) X 480.

Steels with higher carbon contents than 0.6% - 0.8% may form martensite with a less plate-like and more lenticular appearance, but this is seldom likely to be found in medi­ eval steels. Steel objects which have been cooled fairly quickly but not quickly enough for full-quench­ ing (which apples to many medieval artefacts) will have a microstructure consisting of a mixture of martensite, pearlite, bainite and ferrite, depending on the carbon content and

22

SECTION ONE

the method of cooling. The ferritc formed before the martensite transformation ("procutcctoid") may be in a spiny form or in an irregular form, and not equiaxed grains.

An example of such a mixed microstiuctuie is shown b> this specimen from an early 15 ,h century Italian armet (RA IV.430) which contains nodular pearlite (dark) and proeutectoid ferrite (white) as well as martensite (grey). X 320

v. tempered martensite

Fully quenched steels arc very hard, and tools and weapons will therefore take a very sharp edge, but are frequently too brittle to be very useful. Careful reheating relieves stresses and allows some of the carbon to come out of solution and form iron carbide. Tempered martensite shows the start of the breakup of the martensite laths into globules of iron carbide. There is some reduction in hardness, but an increase in toughness.

An example of t e m p e r e d m a r t e n s i t e is this specimen from a Greenwich armour (RA 11.40) X 960 mag­ nification, with a long slag inclusion.

THE HARDENING OF STEEL

23

vi. overtempered martensite

Continued heating of a quenched and tempered steel will result in all the carbon present forming iron carbide. The hardness will fall to less than that of an unquenched steel with the same carbon content. Microscopic examination will show a mass of iron carbide glob­ ules in a ferrite matrix. This photomicrograph shows a quenched and ovcrtempered steel of the 16th century, with some slag inclusions also present.

An example of o v e r t e m p e r e d m a r t e n s i t e is this specimen from a Greenwich armour (MMA 32-130-5) which shows carbide particles in a matrix of ferrite grains. Gompare their size with the size in the preceding example. X 320

Hardness curves to illustrate the principal ways of hardening metals were given in Chapter 1.1 and show how the hardness of both martensitic and pearlitic steels varies with carbon content. A few elemental compositions were determined, but were found to be of limited utility; the iron is generally very pure. Charcoal-smelted iron is low in sulphur, unlike coke-smelt­ ed iron, and usually low in all other dissolved elements. If a high-phosphorus ore were to have been used, then a harder iron might have been obtained, but at the expense of be­ coming brittle - . Phosphoric irons, low in carbon, are to be found in archaeological con­ texts, but seldom, if ever, in armour. Elements like manganese and silicon would not gen­ erally have been reduced at the temperatures likely to be found in the bloomery, and would have remained, unreduced, in the slag. Experiments carried out on samples of armour (necessarily very few in number) to de­ termine their properties are related in Chapter 8.2.

2

Stewart ct al. (2000).

24

SECTION ONE

Sampling Wherever possible, more than one sample was taken from an armour, because the heter­ ogeneous nature of medieval steel makes generalisation on the basis of the analysis of only one specimen a somewhat rash undertaking. Delaminations in medieval plates are com­ mon and tend to be associated with decarburisation, making the choice of such a site for sampling automatically unrepresentative. The ideal solution would be to have examined the cross-section of every plate, but it was not always possible to take a microscope to the armour. In some cases, several components from the same armour, or garniture of armours, were examined, and some estimate of variation could be formed.

Armour Component

Metal iron

Heat-treatment

lowC% MedC% steel steel

Aircooled

Attempted hardening

Hardness (VPH) Hardened

"Avant" (Glasgow 39-65e) cl445 leftcuisse left pauldron right pauldron breastplate left elbow reinforce left pauldron reinforce left vambrace right vambrace left greave

H H

M L M M M M M M M

A H H H H H H

"Rosenblattgarnitur" (mostly in Vienna, HJR) 1571 A474b foot-tournament armour: Right Pauldron L Left Pauldron Tonlet Close helmet A474d tilt armour: Right Tasset Field armour: Buffe Left Long Tasset A.474(Tournament): Right upper vambrace Right lower vambrace Left Foot Left Cuisse A.474 (Horse): Peytral

H H

M M M

A

M

A

H

204

M M M M M M M

250 439 243 364

H H

318 382

H

304 303 362 286

T H T H

337

25

T H E H A R D E N I N G OF STEEL

M M

RA III 874 targe W C A.359 chanfron

H H

-340 321

H

<313

H H H H H

440 291 210 <201 <211 <185

Greenwich (Windsor 808) c!585 bevor extra breastplate Right Grcavc Left Gauntlet Helmet cheekpiecc Left Tasset Right Tasset Shaffron

M I

A M M L L L M

T

Greenwich (RA 11.86 and associated tilt pieces) c 1610 breastplate backplate Lower Vambrace Left Pauldron Visor of Close Helmet gorget manifer pasguard III.873 tilt visor IV.565 Grandguard III.867

T

M M M M M M M M M

H H H H H H H H A

< 325 348 322 329

160

It is evident that c o m p o n e n t s of a r m o u r p r o d u c e d by one m a s t e r w e r e all treated in the same way. E v e n w h e n different c o m p o n e n t s w e r e m a d e in separate workshops, the m a s t e r w h o assembled t h e m gave t h e m all the same final h e a t - t r e a t m e n t . T h e variations in mic r o s t r u c t u r e , a n d h e n c e hardness, can be explained by the variations in c a r b o n content of the initial r a w material. It should b e r e m e m b e r e d that the rate at which steel needs to be cooled to b e c o m e fully h a r d e n e d is also d e p e n d e n t on the c a r b o n content. T h e gauntlet C h i c a g o 2 6 3 3 , for example, shows the mixtures of microstructures consistent with the slackq u e n c h i n g of a steel of variable c a r b o n content. References Honeycombe, R.W.K. "Steels: microstructure and properties" (1981). Stewart, J.W. Charles, J.A. & Wallach, E.R. "Iron-phosphorus-carbon system" Materials Science and Tech­ nology, 16 (2000) 275-303.

SECTION TWO

MAIL

CHAPTER 2.1 MAIL

The precursor of plate armour was mail. It seems to have been a development of the late Iron Age, apparently by the Celts. The oldest piece of interlinked mail yet found was excavated from a 3rd century BC Celtic grave in Romania 1 . This possibly developed from protective garments made up of rings threaded onto cords, like netting; a fragment of such a garment was found in a much earlier Celtic grave in Bohemia, perhaps of the 8th cen­ tury BC 2 . Mail is described as a Gallic invention by Roman writers such as Varro 3 in the first century BC, in the course of an explanation of the meanings of words: Lorica quod e loris de corio crudo pectoralia faciebat; postea subcidit gallica e ferro sub id vocabulum, ex anulis ferrea tunica. The "lorica" [is so called because] they used to make chest armour from thongs of raw­ hide, and later the Gallic one of iron, an iron tunic of little rings, was included under this name. and Roman soldiers of that period are depicted on, for example, the altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, which dates from before 30 BC, as wearing mail 4 . MAILMAKING

Several pioneering articles on the manufacture of mail from a metalworker's standpoint have been written by Burgess 3 . The starting point for mail is some sort of wire. There has been some controversy over the earliest appearance of drawn wire 6 but drawing is not the only way of making wire, merely the most convenient. Small fragments of iron (perhaps from an imperfectly consol­ idated bloom) can be hammered into swages, or strips can be cut from flattened pieces and then twisted. Non-drawn wire will have an irregular cross-section, and indeed that is the

' Rusu (1969) shows what appear lo be both riveted and welded links of circular cross-section. Most of the links were of wire between 0.8 and 1.8mm thick and were between 8.5 and 9.2mm in dia­ meter. There also were rows of butted links, which may have been a repair. There was also excavated an iron helmet surmounted by a bronze bird, whose wings would have flapped as the owner charged into battle. 2 Hruby (1959). 3 Varro, De lingua latina, V, 116. (Loeb ed.R.G.Kent, 1938). 4 Robinson (1980) 5 Burgess (1953a/b, 1957, 1958, 1960) and Smith (1959). 6 Oddy (1977).

30

SECTION T W O

appearance of many medieval mail links. The fastest way of making wire is by drawing, i.e. pulling a rod, filed to a taper at one end, through a succession of holes in a draw-plate, each slightly smaller than the one before. This produces wire of uniform cross-section (not necessarily circular, of course). The draw-plate is first mentioned by Thcophilus, the 11th century writer on mctalwork for churches, but may well be much earlier 7 . Excavated mail is usually too severely corroded for its method of manufacture to be deduced, but the Coppcrgate mail (8th century) was found in unusually good condition, and its consistent diameter suggests drawn wire 8 . The wire, however made, may then be wrapped around a mandrel to form a coil, and then cut to make a series of rings 9 . The rings may be assembled, one linked to four others, and then closed by riveting. The ends of each link would have to be overlapped, holes punched through both ends, and then a rivet pushed through both holes and hammered closed. An alternative method would be to close some of the rings by forge-welding before assembly. This alternation of rows of riveted and welded links was presumably to save time. The specimens of Roman period mail from Brokaer and Hedegard in Denmark as well as the Anglian mail from Sutton Hoo (probably) and that from York (definitely) were all made of such alternate mail 10 . Modern attempts at reconstructing mail suggest that an all-riveted mail shirt might contain between 28 000 and 50 000 links, depending on their size and the length of the shirt; this might take 1000 hours or more to make. If half the links were welded, the time might be reduced to 750 hours 11 . An alternative, which has been plausibly suggested for the Roman period is that the nonriveted links were in fact punched from sheet 1- . This would have reduced the cost of manufacture considerably, but required fairly large pieces of sheet metal and (at the time of writing) the evidence for its employment remains inconclusive. Most medieval European mail shirts consist of all-riveted links; this arrangement is less common but still found in Oriental mail. Burgess suggested that all-riveted mail became commoner in the 14th century because it could be made denser and so offered better protection. He pointed out that alternately welded and riveted mail requires that each link to be riveted is passed through four welded links before closing and this limits the size of these links. In all-riveted mail, each link has only to be passed through two others before closure, allowing the link to be made of wire that is thicker relative to its overall diame­ ter 13 . 7 Smith & Hawthorne (1963) 87. " O ' C o n n o r , in Twedclle (1992). " Burgess (1953a) plate 15. 1(1 Rasmusscn (1995), Maclsen (1996), Lang ct al.in Twedclle (1992) and Brucc-Miliord (1978). T h e (cremation) grave of the early Roman Iron Age (perhaps 1st century AD) at Hedegard contained a mail shirt, possibly made in Jutland. It consisted of alternate rows of riveted and welded links (joined 1 to 4), about 5mm in diameter, of iron wire 0.9 - 1.0mm thick. T h e mail from Brokaer was mail up of alternate rows of riveted and welded links (joined 1 to 4). The wire appears to be approximately semi-circular in cross-section. T h e wire was around 1.1 mm thick and the links around 7.2mm in diameter. " Metcalf, S.(personal communication 1.2.01) research in progress. 12 Sim, (1997) 1:1 Burgess (1958) 203.

MAIL

31

The metallurgy of most mail links from Medieval European armours is generally simply iron or low-carbon steel but by the 16th century, they exhibit a variety of composition in terms of carbon content, homogeneity, and heat-treatment, just as plate armour does (see below - metallography of mail). Although one might have expected that it would have been easier to homogenise small links rather than the large plates used for body armour, this does not seem to have been the case in practice, and many links show very heterogeneous banded microstructurcs. Indeed part of the attraction of mail may have been that it could usefully employ small pieces of sheet or wire of variable composition. Those that failed in drawing, perhaps because of too high a slag content, could be discarded without undue cost. There would have been enormous quantites of arms and armour made for the Roman army, both legionaries and Germanic auxiliaries, and which has been estimated as reach­ ing perhaps 435,000 in extent by the 4th century''. So this would imply 435 000 helmets, and 435 000 body defences of some sort, of which (hypothctically) 100 000 were mail shirts in Europe and the Mediterranean area. It is very unlikely that these would all have been discarded, especially during a period of relative economic decline, and the largest part must have been adapted and re-used by subsequent generations. Much early medieval mail might have had a Roman origin, although this material cannot now be positively identified. Mail, by its nature, lends itself to recycling. It may be observed in many museums that mail shirts of European as well as those of Turkish or Indian origin frequently consist of many patch­ es of different appearance. The method of repair or alteration is the same as the method of manufacture. New pieces of mail are simply attached by joining a row of links at each edge. As a recent review by Callori' 3 points out, mail was popular because of its adaptability to diferent sizes of wearer, and comparative ease of manufacture. Shape could be given to the limbs of a mail garment by varying the numbers of links in a row. MIGRATION PERIOD & EARLY MIDDLE AGES

Throughout the Migration Period and into the early Middle Ages, the mail-shirt (byrnie, hauberk) was the principal body defence for those Germanic warriors fortunate enough to be able to afford it. Its adaptability, however, meant that it was frequently repaired and reused, so that very little has survived intact from this period, if indeed, much was made ab initio in this period. The mail shirt from the burial of the Anglian King Raedwald (c 625 AD) from Sutton Hoo may have had alternate rows welded and riveted with copper; no uncorroded metal, but traces of copper rivets, were found 16 . An Anglian helmet of the 8th century was excavated in unusually good condition from the Coppergate, York, and has been studied recently. It was made of several plates of lowcarbon iron riveted together to form a skull, with a nasal bar. A curtain of mail was hung

14 13 16

Anderson (1974) 85. Callori, (1989). Bruce-Mitford (1978)

32

SECTION T W O

from the lower rim of the helmet to protect the wearer's neck and was also made up of alternate rows of riveted and welded links; one each of which were analysed, together with samples from two of the plates' 7 . All consisted of iron or low-carbon steels (generally 0.2%G or less), generally showing banding. The riveted link was almost circular in cross-section; the welded link was more ovoid. No attempt had been made to harden cither the plates or the mail by heat-treatment. The earliest mail shirt which is relatively intact is that said to have belonged to Svaty Vaclav (St.Wenceslas), who was martyred in 935, although this shirt cannot be positively dated to the 10th century. It is kept in the Treasury of Prague Cathedral. Pleiner has stud­ ied samples from this mail shirt and found it to consist of wrought iron 18 . The Vikings continued to employ mail, both alone and with modification. A series of boat-burials at Vendel in Sweden, Valsgarde, and elsewhere from the 7th to the 9th cen­ tury have yielded samples of mail with rectangular reinforcing pieces of plate 19 . This inno­ vation might be ascribed to an Eastern influence. Certainly, Vikings employed the rivers of Russia to trade to the Black and Caspian Seas as well as setting up the Kingdom of Kiev (by tradition founded in 864 AD), from which nucleus Medieval Russia grew. Russian armour of the Middle Ages was a mixture of mail, scale, and lamellar not dissimilar to that depict­ ed in Byzantine images of soldiers 20 . Likewise, sometimes reinforced with pieces of plate, mail remained the principal form of body armour in the Islamic world and India, as well as Russia, until armour itself went out of use. Ottoman Turkish mail armour seems to have been generally iron 21 . In the West the Vikings settled in Northern France and adopted a Latin language and the Roman church. They also adopted the Frankish style of fighting on horseback, although that had not enabled the Frankish kings to keep them out, and when their Duke invaded England in 1066, employed such an army to defeat the Anglo-Saxon foot soldiers.

References Anderson, P. "Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism" (1974) Arwidsson, G. "Valsgarde 8: Die grabefunde von Valsgarde" (Uppsala, 1954) Bergman, C.A. McEwen, E. & Miller, R. "Experimental archery: projectile velocity and comparison of bow performances" Antiquity 62 (1988) 658-70. Blair, C "European armour"(1958) chapter I. Blyth, H. Ph.D thesis, unpublished, Reading 1977. Bruce-Mitford, R. "The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial. Vol.2. Arms, armour and regalia", (1978). Burgess, E.M. (a) "The mail-makers' technique" Antiquaries Journal, 33 (1953) 48-55; and also (b) "Further research into the construction of mail garments" ibid, 33 (1953) 193-201. "The mail shirt from Sinigaglia" ibid.37 (1957) 199-205. "A mail shirt from the Hearst Collection" ibid.38 (1958) 197-204. with W.Reid, "A habergeon of Westwale" ibid.(1960) 46-57. 17

Tweddle (1992). '" Pleiner, R. (personal communication 24.11.97). Archaeological Institute, Prague: analyses 491-493, and unpublished reports 1609/74/1-3. All 3 links were made of ferrilic iron with lots of slag and only traces of pearlite. Microhardnesses 145 - 180 VPH (30g). 19 Arwidsson (1954) 2,1 Kirpicnikov (1986) -' Williams (1997).

MAIL

33

Callori, F. II sabato di San Barnaba-Ea battaglia di Campaldino (1289) Exhibition Catalogue: (Bibbiena, 1989) 93-99. Protezioni in maglia mclallica altomcdievali. Hruby, V. "Ein ringpanzer der Hallstaltzcit" Sbornik Praci Filosoficke Fakulty Brnenske Univcrsite VIII (1959) 33. Kirpicnikov, A.N. "Russische Waffen des 9-15 Jahrhunderts" Waffen- und Kostumkunde (1986) parts 1 & 2, p i and 85. Madsen, O. "Hedegard-—a rich village and cemetery complex of the Early Iron Age" Journal of Danish Ar­ chaeology, 13'(1996-7) 57-93. Oddy, A. " T h e production of gold wire in antiquity" Gold Bulletin, 10 (1977) 79-87. Rasmussen, B.M. "Brokaer" Aeta Archaeologies., 66 (1995) 39-109, includes an appendix: Jouttijrvi, A. "Technischc Untcrsuchung der kaiserzeillichen Ringbrunne von Brokaer" 102-105. Robinson, H.R. "The Armour of Imperial Rome" (London, 1980). Rusu, M. "Das keltische furstcngrab von Ciumesti in Rumanien" Germania, 50 (1969) 267-278 and plates 140-149. Ruttkay, M. "Archeologia a ropa" (Archeology and oil) (Nitra, 1995) Sim, D.N."Roman chain-mail: experiments to reproduce the techniques of manufacture" Britannia, 28 (1997) 359-371. Smith, C.S."Methods of manufacturing chain mail" Technology and Culture, 1, (1959) 60-7 Smith, C.S. Hawthorne, J . G transl. & ed. Theophilus Presbyter "On divers arts" (New York, 1963). Tweddle, D. "The Anglian helmet from C o p p e r g a t e " — T h e Archaeology of York, 17 (York, 1992) contains: "Analytical results" J.Lang, P.Craddock & D.Hook, 1017-1026. "Technology and dating of the mail" S.A.O'Connor, 1057-1082. Webster, G. "The Imperial Roman Army" (1969)

CHAPTER 2.2 ARMOUR OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES

The Roman legions were composed of infantry generally armoured with a shirt of iron mail, an iron helmet, and a large shield, and armed with a pair of javelins and a short sword made of steel (but not necessarily quenched). Their officers frequently wore armour of a traditional Greek pattern (breast- and backplates), and a number of bronze helmets have survived. These would probably have been as effective as the available iron ones (none have ever been analysed), but many times more expensive. Despite their cost, copper alloys continued in use as a material for armour. The legions were organised into a more flexible disposition than the Greek phalanx, and accompanied by auxiliary cavalry who played a subordinate role, they found no enemy to defeat them in the Mediterranean world. The political abilities of the Romans enabled them to consolidate their conquests into an empire that survived for four centuries in Western Europe, and longer still in the eastern (Byzantine) part. The most famous series of pictures of Roman legionaries are those carved on Trajan's Column (about 113 AD) which shows them protected by the "lorica segmentata", or seg­ mented plate armour, which had gradually replaced mail during the 1st century AD, and seems to have remained in use until the 3rd century 1 . Other forms of armour remained in use however; for example, the column of Marcus Aurelius (after 180 AD) shows legionaries in both mail and segmented-plate, and scale and lamellar armour is also depicted. Lamellar armour can be traced back to the Assyrian period and consists of small plates laced to one another (but not to the underlying cloth garment) for the greatest flexibility. This type of armour was used for many centuries by Mongol, Chinese and Japanese warriors. A Roman lamellar cuirass of copper-alloy was excavated in 1993 from a late 2nd century context near the village of Cifer north of the Danube in modern Slovakia'-. Scale armour is different in that the pieces of metal (which arc not necessarily of uni­ form size) are fastened to the cloth undergarment. Some fragments of a scale armour (lor­ ica squamata) excavated from the Roman fort at Corbridgc were found to be a copperzinc-tin alloy3. Excavations at Dura Europos in Syria (captured by the Persians in 256 AD) uncovered scale horse armours of both bronze and iron 4 . 1

Robinson (1980), passim. He mentions 44 specialised armour workshops in the Empire. Rutlkay (1995) ' Anstee (1953) Some 110 scales were recovered, oul of an estimated total of 14 000, weighing perhaps 3.5 kg, and one was analysed. T h e copper alloy contained 13% zinc and 2% tin; it had been cold-worked, without annealing. 1 Grancsay (1961) T h e Roman horse armour is illustrated on p.24. T h e average size of the iron scales 2

ARMOUR OF T H E LATER ROMAN EMPIRIC

35

The "Notitia Dignitatum" is a MS which records the insignia of persons such as the "magister officiorum" in the early 5th century Roman army, and shows mail shirts togeth­ er with helmets, swords, battleaxcs, arm-clcfcnces, and what may be shaffrons for horses 3 . Byzantine emperors are shown in cuirasses of lamellar, or sometimes scale, type, but nev­ er in the lorica segmentata, so the period of its use seems not to have been very prolonged. HELMETS OF THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES

Helms made of several pieces riveted together made their appearance during the later Roman Empire, and remained the principal types of helmet found in Europe until the 11th cen­ tury. The "spangenhelm" type (introduced to the Empire in the 3rd century) was made up of four (sometimes six or eight) plates of roughly triangular shape riveted to T-shaped mounts which form a framework. The Byzantine Empire continued to manufacture them, and examples are known from all over Europe. The "lamellenhclme" type consisted of overlapping lamellae (perhaps from dismantled lamellar armours ?) and the "crested helm" type consisted of a number of segments with a fore-and-aft plate. Numerous examples of the latter are known from England and Scan­ dinavia, although corrosion frequently obscures the constructional details. An unusually well preserved example was the 8th century Anglian helmet from York already mentioned15. The skull of this helmet consisted of a brow-band (572 X 87mm), a nosc-to-nape band (493 X 87mm), two lateral bands (125 X 82mm, and probably 82 X 82mm), and four infill plates, rivcttcd together. The dimensions of these bands suggest that they had an earlier history as lorica plates. There seems to be no other reason why two of the four bands should have the same width, and the other two also have the same width as one another. It is noteworthy that two 5th century spangenhelms in the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna (A. 1998) also appear to have been made of rectangular plates, which might con­ ceivably also be examples of recycled loricae. This must remain speculation however, until more analyses have been undertaken. Few original lorica plates have survived. Two analyses have been published to date; one was iron and the other a medium-carbon steel7. Little identifiable Roman mail has sur-

vvas 60 X 45 X 4mm. Another (bronze) scale horse armour from this excavation is said to be in the National Museum at Damascus. : ' Gooclbuni (1976) lor the illustrations ol" armour; and Jones (1964) Cor estimates of the size of the Roman army. Diocletian reintroduccd conscription and, according to Jones' estimates, probably doubled the size of the Roman army. Western Empire Eastern Empire comitatenses 100 000 105 000 (mobile field army) limilanci ' 135 000 250 000 (frontier troops) See also chapter 2.1, note 14. (1 7

Tweddle (1992) especially pp 1076 - 1132. Williams (1977, 1978).

36

SECTION T W O

vivcd, but some fragments of a mail shirt from a 3rd century Roman fortified camp at Stupava, near Bratislava (Slovakia), have been analysed and proved to consist of a lowcarbon steel8. In fact, a systematic analytical study of Roman armour is long overdue. References Anderson, P. "Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism" (1974) 85. Anslee, J . W . "Fragments of Roman "bronze" scale armour from Corbriclge" Museums Journal 5.3, (1953) 200-2. Goodburn, R. & Bartholemcw, P. (eds) "Aspects of the Notitia Dignilatum" British Archaeological Reports; Supplementary series 15 (Oxford, 1976). Grancsay. S.V. "The J o h n Woodman Higgins Armory; catalogue of armor" (Worcester, Massachusetts, 1961) Jones, A.H.M. " T h e Later Roman Empire" (1964) II, 679. Pupala, M. Magula, V. Kukla,Z. & Hosek, J. Rozbor krouzku uzivanych pri vyrobe krouzkovych zbroji (Bratislava, 1996) as yet unpublished results reported to the conference "Archaeometallurgy in Central Europe" (Kosicc, 1997). Robinson, H.R. "The armour of Imperial Rome"(London, 1980), Ruttkay, M. "Archeologia a ropa" (Archeology and oil) (Nitra, 1995) Tweddle, D. "The Anglian helmet from Coppergate" - T h e Archaeology of York, 17 (York, 1992). Williams, A. R. "Roman arms and armour: a technical note" Journal of Archaeological Science 4 (1977) 77. Williams, A. R."Medieval mctalworking - armour plate and the advance of metallurgy" Chartered Mechani­ cal Engineer, 25 (1978) 109. A lorica plate from the Museum of London ( l s t / 2 n d century) consisted of iron only. A lorica plate from Stuttgart (2nd century) consisted of a steel of 0.6%C, not quenched.

8 Pupala et al. (1996). The mail links had a cross-sectional shape of an oblate rectangle, and a microstructure largely consisting of ferrite with some globularised carbides (presumably the consequence of annealing): reported microhardness = 178 V P H , tensile strength 643 MPa.

SECTION THREE

KNIGHTS

CHAPTER 3.1

T H E BIRTH OF THE KNIGHT

The backbone of the Roman army had been the legionary (armoured infantryman). Con­ flicts with Parthia (in which infantry came off worse against mounted archers) caused Rome to pay more attention to cavalry. Gauls and Germans were recruited for this as mounted lancers (contarii). In the 1st century AD segmented plate armour started to come into use, and greater use was made of catapults in the field, as shown on Trajan's column. But the lands east of the Rhine were never under the control of the Romans, although the Ger­ mans were definitely under their influence. These Germanic people were groups of tribes who had merged themselves into allianc­ es such as the Franks (="frec men") and Alemanni (="all men") and tried to copy Roman methods and discipline. They seem to have wished to take a share in the Roman Empire rather than to destroy it, settling within its borders and fighting for the Empire if given land. They fought principally as infantry, although they were to make increasing use of cavalry 1 . During the 1st century the Sarmatians, a group of horse-riding Iranian tribes which in­ cluded the Alans, had migrated westward to occupy the plains north of the Black Sea. Their attempts to penetrate south of the Danube were repulsed by the Romans who occupied Dacia (Romania) and Pontus (the Crimea) as buffers. In the 3rd century the Goths who had migrated from the Baltic to the Black Sea (apparently following the river routes to pasture their herds) joined with the Sarmatians and overran the Danube frontier 2 . Their conquest of the Crimea in 248 gave them access to a fleet, which they used to ravage as far south as Athens. During the next twenty years the Franks poured over the Rhine and overran Gaul and Spain, while the Alemanni invaded Italy, making necessary the refortification of Rome in 271. The empire had reached such a state of collapse that one body of Franks sailed from the Black Sea the length of the Mediterranean and then back to the Rhine 3 . In the Near East, the Persian empire, revived by the Sassanids, defeated the Romans in 260, capturing the emperor Valerian, who is supposed to have ended his days as a trophy stuffed with straw. Rock-carvings (Naqsh-i-Rustem, 3rd-5th century) show the Persian kings on horseback charging their enemies with lances, but without shields or stirrups. A graffito (3rd century) from the Syrian frontier fortress of Dura Europos shows a similar mailed cav-

1 Thompson (1958). - Rostovtzev (1922) passim. :i Hay wood (1991) 31.

40

SECTION T H R E E

alryman on a mailed horse (a clibanarius) also charging with a lance, and without stirrups or shield 4 . Some writers have suggested that the adoption of the stirrup was of profound impor­ tance in enabling cavalry to fight as shocktroops, rather than mounted archers or scouts, by seating the warrior firmly0. Certainly it improved the efficiency of cavalry considerably, but so did the invention of horseshoes (also perhaps from this period) which enormously extended the useful life of the horse, and the gradual breeding of larger horses which made armoured cavalry more practical. Roman saddles show four "horns" which might well be grasped to steady the rider, as an alternative to stirrups, but of couz^se, the left arm could not then manipulate a shield as well as reins 0 . So it is just possible that mailed lancers might have become more practical for the Persians and Romans because saddles were being gripped for leverage. The Roman Empire was revived by a series of military emperors in the late 3rd/early 4th century but in a very different form. A centralised government, of a decidedly theo­ cratic nature, was established, and Christianity adopted as the official state religion in 313. The capital itself was no longer Rome, but divided between Milan or Trier in the west and New Rome (Constantinople) in the east. A very different (and much larger) Roman army appears in the 4th century. The elite of the army was now a mobile force of cavalry—the Romans had used mailed cavalry against the Sassanids—and Vegctius, writing in the late 4th century, after the battle of Adrianople, extols the traditional virtues of the Roman legions but says about the cavalry that "this branch of the military has progressed in its training practices, type of armour and breed of horses" 7 . The legions were now recruited and deployed locally, so they became less and less "Ro­ man". With economic decline, they were no longer regularly paid by Rome, and became a local militia. The army of 200 000 in the 2rd century had reached a size of 435 000 (on paper at least) by the 5th century, consuming an enormous, and increasing, proportion of the empire's decreasing economy. The Roman economy had been based on political ex­ pansion by means of victorious wars, the prisoners from which supplied slave labour. Without expansion, such slaves were not available, and economic decline set in 8 . In the late 4th century, the Goths and Alans, threatened by the Huns, had crossed the Danube and invaded the eastern Roman Empire. In 378 the Emperor Valens was defeat­ ed and killed at the battle of Adrianople, a battle apparently decided by the actions of the Germanic cavalry and the greatest defeat suffered by any Roman army in 500 years 9 . For the next century the Romans desperately tried to use one Germanic army to try and control the others, but by the end of the 5th century it was the Germans (now nominally Christian) who controlled the Empire, and the last Western Emperor was deposed in 476. The West Goths eventually set up a kingdom of their own in Spain, the East Goths one in 1

Eadic (1968). ' White (1962) Stirrups were known to the Chinese in 477 AD, to the Byzantines and Persians in the 7th century, and to Western Europe by the 8th century at least, pp 11, 45. 15 Hyland (1994) on saddlery 4-7. ' Vegctius, translated & edited by Milner, 111. 8 Anderson (1974) especially chapter 4. 9 O m a n (1953) 4-10. :

41

THE BIRTH OF THE KNIGHT

Italy, the Vandals a short-lived one in Africa, the Angles and Saxons several in Britain, and most importantly for the future of Europe, the Franks and Alans set up one in Gaul. Much of these Germanic armies still apparently consisted of foot-soldiers, but mailed cavalry continued to become steadily more important. The Franks in Gaul under Charles Martel seem to have been the first to use large numbers of mailed cavalry as their princi­ pal weapon. They certainly used stirrups by this time, but it may have been their organ­ isation which made the crucial difference. In 716 Charles started a century of aggressive wars, attacking his enemies every year—which suggests a mobile army and reserves of cash or food 10 . In 755 Pepin III changed the date of the muster from March to May, so that there would be enough grass for the horses to eat. All free men owed military service to the king. If they did not go in person, or could not, they had to pay a fine instead. This suited the king better; full-time soldiers, mounted and armoured, who were each paid by those 5 or 6 others who stayed at home, formed an army which enabled Frankish rule to be set up over Gaul, much of Germany, Italy and parts of Spain. Charlemagne was crowned "Roman" Emper­ or of all this in 800, although in the subsequent century, the Frankish realm was to split up into smaller political units. The bulk of the Frankish army was mounted, costly though this was. The prices of their equipment are quoted by Verbruggen" and they were: helmet brunia (byrnic, hauberk) sword leggings lance and shield horse (spares would also be needed for comparison mare ox cow

6 12 3 6 2 12

solidi

3 2 from 1 to 3

The body armour of an armoured cavalryman might thus cost 12 oxen, and his complete equipment as much as 23 oxen, but this enormous sum was justified by their complete supremacy on the battlefield. In Western Europe the man who fought on horseback was known from the 10th centu­ ry onwards, as a knight, whatever his precise social status. He had to be a full-time soldier, as the cost of his equipment, and the training required to use it effectively left little time for any economic activity. If he could not be paid in cash, he would have to be paid in land. Many knights were not landowners of course, but they formed a social class which lived on the work of others who cultivated the land for them. In time knighthood became a hereditary class, with many privileges. Their children were trained to fight in armour '" Verbruggen (1997) especially chapter 2. 11 Verbruggen (1997) 23.

42

SECTION T H R E E

and fight on horseback. Men who were not knights but were so trained might be "squires"; all of these could be called "men-at-arms" but for the purposes of this book, these names will be treated as synonymous, and they will all be called "knights". KNIGHTLY M A I L ARMOUR

Carolingian MSS illustrations of the 9th & 10th centuries show mounted warriors wearing mail shirts extending from the elbow to the knee, and conical helmets. The armour for knights and also protection for their horses was improved steadily. By the 11 th century mail shirts are shown reaching down to the wrist, and separate leggings of mail to complete the protection of the limbs appear by the 12th century, as do hoods of mail like balaclavas over the head and neck, so that the knight was completely protected by mail 12 . Consequently, knights on the winning side could feel very safe, unless they were unhorsed. For example, at the battle of Lincoln (1217) 3 were killed, at Falkirk (1297) only 1, although many lost their horses. The Normans invaded Ireland in 1166 with only 100 knights and subdued the country. At Durazzo in 1108 the Byzantines had shot at the Normans' horses, since their arrows could not pierce their mail. The arrows of the Turks were likewise ineffective against the mailed Crusaders, so they too, aimed at the horses 13 . The Crusader foot-soldiers at the battle of Arsuf were according to Saladin's biographer, protected by "very heavy felt, and so stout a coat of mail that our arrows did no harm. But they shot at us with their great crossbows, and wounded both horses and riders. I saw foot-soldiers with as many as ten arrows in their backs, who marched on just as ususal without breaking rank" 14 . Horses acquired some mail also, although cloth wrappers hide its extent in illustrations. In the 13th century, during the wars of Edward I, squires with armoured horses were paid Is a day, while those with unprotected horses, only 8d a day 15 . The best-protected horses and horsemen were used in the front rank; their cost and effectiveness increased as did their self-confidence as the likelihood of their being wounded diminished. The Western knights in the First Crusade (1095-99) swept aside Turkish and Arab horse without difficulty; the Byzantine Anna Comnena observed that they were "indomitable on horseback, irresistible in the first shock, but powerless when they have to fight on foot" 16 . An exaggeration, since they did fight effectively on foot during the Crusades, but not the overwhelming force they were when mounted. At the "Battle of the Standard" near Northallerton in 1138, dismounted knights mixed with archers had defeated an invading army of Scots, and Richard I had used dismounted knights and crossbowmen to defeat Saladin at Arsuf in 1191. While the body defence made entirely of mail had reached a peak of completeness by the 13th century, some of its limitations were becoming apparent. Nielsen's experiments (and the above observations) suggest that it did offer protection against arrows 17 . But cross12

Blair (1958) especially chapter 1. Runciman (1952) I, 184 and III, 56. 11 Saladin's biographer, Beha ed-Din, quoted by Verbruggen (1997) 235. I: ' Morris (1901) quoted by Verbruggen, op.cit. 25. "' Anna Comnena, 316. 17 Nielsen (1991) and see chapter 9.2 lor results of tests on mail. 13

T H E B I R T H OF T H E K N I G H T

43

bows were growing in power, and while mail has generally been perceived as a good de­ fence against slashing weapons, it was perhaps rather less effective against pointed ones, if they were able to deliver sufficient energy (see chapter 9.2). Saxton Pope described how he shot an arrow from a longbow right through a mail shirt 18 , recalling Gerald of Wales's description of his journey through Wales in the reign of Henry II. The men of Gwent and Morganwg excelled as archers, and used bows of unpolished elm. During the siege of Abergavenny in 1182, Welsh arrows pierced an oak door four inches (10cm) thick. The arrows were left sticking in the door, and Gerald saw them six years' later when he passed the castle, the tips of the arrows being just visible on the inner side of the door' 9 . In another incident, Gerald says, one knight was nailed fast to his horse by an arrow which went through his mail shirt, pierced his mail breeches, his thigh, and the wooden saddle, and went on into the flank of his horse. Gerald asked whether an arrow from a crossbow could do more than that. Whether the average longbowman could achieve results like that is, of course, much more problematical. But the threat from crossbows (and perhaps longbows) meant that mail was regularly reinforced by some sort of rigid defence from at least the 13th century onwards 20 . In addition, it is probable that mail was not very effective against weapons such as maces, which would be more likely to break the limbs beneath the mail because the flexibility of mail presented less resistance than plate to the blow, whereas arrows were at least imped­ ed by mail. Impact tests carried by the author and described in chapter 9.4 support these conclusions. It must however be remembered that mail was never worn alone, but in con­ junction with a quilted undergarment (gambeson) to absorb the shock of impact. A third drawback was the immense amount of labour required to make a complete de­ fence of mail. It has recently been estimated that a knee-length mail shirt might contain between 28 000 and 50 000 links depending on the length of the sleeves and the size of the links. The smaller might take a modern craftsman 100 man-days to make, although experience would doubtless shorten this time considerably. The use of half riveted and half solid links might reduce this figure to 75 man-days (see chapter 2.1). When labour costs rose after the Black Death, then the price of mail rose accordingly. In an era of rising prices, it ceased to be an economically attractive way of making armour. Indeed, by the 15th century the cost of a mail shirt (4.59 gulden) at Iserlohn was notably greater than the cost of plate armour (4.33 gulden)—see chapter 8.3. It may be noted that in contrast to the 8th century Frankish mail shirt, leggings and helmet which cost 12 oxen (quoted above), by 1600 a horseman's armour in Graz would only cost just over 2 oxen (see chapter 8.3) but by then the production of armour had increased in efficiency.

IB

Pope (1923) He describes numerous experiments carried out with different bows, including one where a mail shirt, weighing 251b ("made of 22 gauge links, 1/2 in. in diameter") and backed by a pine box, was the target. T h e draw weight of the bow was 75 lb, and the range was 7 yd. T h e arrow penetrated the mail shirt and both sides of the box. Also see chapter 9.2. 19 Dimock (1867). For similar reasons, at the battle of Bouvines in 1214, it was noted that their enemies tried to stab the French knights through their mail with three-sided daggers 20 . -" Blair (1958) chapter 2, passim.

44

SECTION T H R E E

Mail is a simple form of armour to make, but very labour-intensive; plate armour on the other hand requires considerable capital to set up the large furnaces necessary for its manufacture, but is then faster to make. As to the metal of which mail was made at any period, it is difficult to be precise because of the extreme difficulty of dating fragments of mail. A variety of compositions has been found in analysed links, but all that can be safely deduced is that better metal was employed in later centuries. Because of its ease of repair and reuse, it is virtually impossible to date mail unless a specimen from a homogeneous shirt of known origin can studied—which is possible all too seldom. Some of the results published by the author may be summarised here: seven medieval steel specimens were examined by metallography and combustion analysis. Six were un­ dated fragments from the Middle Ages- 1 : (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

a banded low-carbon steel quenched to 314 VPH in places. a banded low-carbon steel quenched (slack-quenched ?) to 235 VPH in places. a low-carbon steel, air-cooled to 160 VPH. an iron with some slag, air-cooled to 123 VPH. a medium-carbon steel with a decarburised area near joint; quenched and tempered to 527 VPH. Carbon content 0.32%. (vi) a uniform medium-carbon steel; quenched and tempered to 587 VPH. Carbon content 0.42%. One datable example was a specimen from the Graz Armoury. This was mail from a hussar's armour, dated 1580-90 (The armour is shown in the 1971 catalogue, no. 13.). This shows a similar sort of metal was used as would have been used for good quality plate armour from South Germany. A riveted link was made of a medium-carbon steel (0.38% C) which was slack-quenched to give a microstructure of martensite, bainite and a little proeutectoid ferrite with few slag inclusions. The rivet showed some decarburisation. The microhardness (average) = 379 VPH. Two more examples from very homogeneous mail shirts approximately datable to early 15 th century Germany have recently been published by Edge 22 . One specimen was made of a banded low-carbon (0.1 %C) steel and the other was of a medium-carbon (0.5%C) steel; neither had been quenched to harden them. References Anderson, P. "Passages from Antiquily to Feudalism" (1974) Anna Comncna, "The Alexiad" (Penguin translation) 316. Blackburn, T.P.D, Edge, D.A, Williams, A.R. and Adams, C.B.T. "Head protection in England before the First World War" Neurosurgery, 47 (Los Angeles, 2000) 1261-1286. Blair, C, "European Armour" (1958). 21 Williams (1980) and (1997). Armour examined included six Turkish mail shirts from the Ottoman pe­ riod; all were made of iron or low-carbon steels. - 2 Edge (2001) Wallace Collection mailshirts A.l and A.2.

THE BIRTH OF THE KNIGHT

45

Eadie, J.W. "The development of Roman mailed cavalry" Journal of Roman Studies, 57 (1968) 161. Edge, D. "The construction and metallurgy of mail armour" Acta Metallurgica Slovaca, 7 (Kosice, 2001) 227234. Giraldus Cambrensis (Gerald of Wales) Itinerarium Kambriae, Rolls Series, ed. J.F.Dimock, (1867) 55-127. Haywood, J. "Dark Age Naval Power" (1991) 31. Hyland, A. "The Medieval War horse" (1994) Milner, N.P (trans.) "Vegetius' Epitome of military science" (Liverpool, 1993) 111. Morris, J.E. T h e Welsh wars of Edward I (Oxford, 1901) Nielsen, O. "Skydeforsog med jernaldcrensbucr" Ekspcrimcntcl Arkaeologi, (1991) 134-46. O m a n , C.W.C, "The Art of War in the Middle Ages, AD 378 - 1515" (1885, revised edition 1953). Pope, S. "Bows and Arrows" (1923, reprinted 1962). Rostovtzcv, M.I. "Iranians and Greeks in South Russia" (1922) 161-3. Runciman, S. "A history of the Crusades" (1952). Thompson, E.A "Early Germanic warfare" Past and present, 14 (1958) 2. Verbruggen, J.F. " T h e art of warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages" (English transl. 1997) White, Lynn "Medieval technology and Social Change" (Oxford, 1962). Williams, A.R. "The manufacture of mail in medieval Europe; a technical note" Gladius (1980) 15, 105. Williams, A.R. "Ottoman military technology; the metallurgy of Turkish armour" in 'War and Society in the Eastern Mediterranean, 7th-15th Centuries' ed.Y.Lev (Leiden, 1997) 363-397.

CHAPTER 3.2

INFANTRY & CROSSBOWS

Medieval Infantry Despite the great effectiveness of knights, infantry that could withstand a charge of knights was not unknown. At Hastings (1066) the English who rode to battle but fought on foot were only defeated by the Norman knights, and then with the utmost difficulty, after they had lost their close formation. In this case, the infantry were professional soldiers, fighting in armour which the Bayeux Tapestry depicts as being as extensive as that worn by the Normans, but on foot. Infantry remained in use as paid soldiers throughout the 12th and 13th centuries, but were generally regarded as being much less effective, and therefore much less important, than knights. However, by the early 14th century, given favourable local circumstances, knights were being defeated by foot-soldiers in Flanders, Switzerland and Scotland. The growth of urban life in Flanders had generated a class of citizens who could afford to buy armour and were prepared to spend time training to fight. So, given suitable weapons and tactics, they might face knights on the battlefield with some chance of success. The Flemish infantry won a surprising victory at Courtrai (Koortrijk) in 1302, and another, less decisive, at Mons-en-Pevele in 1304 over French knightly armies 1 . The citizens of Ghent, Bruges and Ypres are shown in contemporary MSS as being ar­ moured from head to knee and carrying spiked maces called goedendags ("good-morning!") as well as pikes and crossbows. The pikes were set against the ground and used to stop a charge of knights. Then for hand-to-hand combat, heavy two-handed weapons which would reach up to a man in the saddle were needed. The goedendags of the Flemings, the hal­ berds of the Swiss and the battleaxes of the Scots all belonged in this category. The cost of such equipment was considerable; Verbruggen1- quotes the Ghent Archives for 1304 as making payments for: a short mail tunic £ 10 to £ 15 Flemish, another mail tunic (perhaps with a coif ?) £ 20 a goedendag 10 shillings a shield £ 1. ' Verbruggen (1997) chapter 3, passim. Verbruggen (1997) 171.

2

INFANTRY &

CROSSBOWS

47

at a time when when an artisan might earn 3 s a day. So a mail shirt would cost between 60 and 120 days' wages. In 1291 the farmers and herdsmen of Switzerland formed a league asserting their inde­ pendence from Rudolph of Hapsburg. The terrain did not favour knights at the best of times, and the Swiss infantry won the battles of Morgartcn (1315) and Sempach (1386)against Austrian forces, which marked the start of the evolution of their tactics and the growth of their effectiveness. They organised themselves into squares of pikemen which were even­ tually able to take the offensive against armies in the field and won famous victories over Charles the Bold at Grandson, Morat (1476) and Nancy (1477). Welsh bowmen were recruited by the Anglo-Norman kings of England as mercenaries in the 12th century and more extensively after the conquest of Wales. Edward I recruited large numbers of Welsh archers, and used them on the battlefield in thousands rather than in hundreds. They were effective and economical, being paid only 2d a day 3 . There were 5300 Welsh archers out of 7800 foot soldiers in the royal army that was sent to Flanders in 1297. In the previous year (1296) Edward had invaded and annexed the semi-independent kingdom of Scotland. But in 1297 the Scots, under Wallace, rebelled and fought using their infantry in circular formations of pikemen ("schiltrons") which were successfully used to resist a charge of knights and then to defeat them at Stirling Bridge. In 1298, King Edward returned to Scotland and defeated Wallace at Falkirk. He first ordered a charge of knights, and then when this had been stopped by the pikes, brought up bodies of archers and shot at the schiltrons for some time, before making a second, successful, charge, resulting in victory. Scots resistance continued, however, and eventually the army of Edward II met that of Robert Bruce at Bannockburn, but proper co-ordination of knights and archers was not achieved, knightly charges failed and Edward was decisively defeated (1314). On the other hand, Edward III maintained his grandfather's faith in archers, recruiting even more of them, and making his knights dismount and fight on foot beside them at Halidon Hill (1333) when the Scots were defeated. He did not however, attempt to reconquer Scotland, but revived the Plantagenet claim to the throne of France. The archers might well be mount­ ed for movement but fought on foot. The knights (or men-at-arms, whatever their social status) were trained to fight on horseback, but were quite prepared to fight on foot when circumstances required it. Such was the army that Edward III took to France and used to win the battle of Crecy (1346). At Crecy the English army consisted of some 8500 men (2300 knights, 5200 archers, 1000 spearmen) all paid by the King. The French army consisted of some 8000 knights, supported by 4000 foot. Their organisation (or lack of it) can best be described by quoting Froissart: "(when ordered to halt by the King of France) those that were in front halted; but those behind said they would not halt, until they were as forward as the front. When the front perceived the rear pressing on, they pushed forward; and neither the king nor the marshals could stop them, but they marched on without any order until they came in

3

Verbruggen (1997) 136

48

SECTION T H R E E

sight of their enemies. As soon as the foremost rank saw them, they fell back at once in great disorder, which alarmed those in the rear..." 4 Eventually the Genoese crossbowmen came forward, but were greatly outnumbered as well as outshot by the English archers, and retreated. The French knights charged forward over their own archers and were also met with showers of arrows "every arrow told on horse or man, piercing head or arm or leg among the riders, and sending the horses mad...most began backing in spite of their masters, and some were rearing and tossing their heads at the arrows, and others when they felt the bit, threw themselves down." As each charge failed, another body of knights would charge again, fifteen times in all, but could not shift the dismounted English knights. Eventually the French retired leaving some 1500 dead knights behind. An enormous total, when one considers that only about 300 French knights had been killed at Mons-en-Pevele in 1304 and 1000 at Courtrai (1302).

T H E CROSSBOW

The origins of the crossbow are obscure. It was probably in use by the 10th century. It is possible that it was used by the Normans at Hastings, but it was certainly in use during the First Crusade, because Anna Comnena describes it as a novelty 3 . The earliest crossbows were simply heavy bows fixed to a stock, with a trigger release, which enabled it to be spanned with both hands, both feet being placed on the bow. Simply making a bow thicker does not make it more powerful. It may be more difficult to bend into a curve, but it still has to st2'aighten again quickly and without cracking. So overall stiffness must be increased, rather than thickness. One way of doing this is to make a "compound" bow. Horn or whalebone (which resist compression) are placed on the inside, and animal sinew (which resists extension) on the outside, of a wooden bow, and the whole assembly glued together with fish glue and rendered waterproof with a skin covering. Perhaps the compound bows used by the Turks were copied by the Crusaders (Kingjohn's maker of crossbows in 1205 was called "Peter the Saracen"); at any event, different mate­ rials were used to make bows of lighter weight but heavier draw. At some time in the 15th century, the steel bow came into use. The most powerful springs could, of course, be made out of tempered steel, but whether such a material was gener­ ally available for crossbows must be open to doubt. As early as 1139 the crossbow had become such a dangerous weapon to knights that its use was banned by the Second Lateran Council in that year. The most famous soldier of his generation, King Richard Lionheart, was killed at the siege of the castle of Chalus in 1199 by a crossbow bolt which struck him in the shoulder, and left a wound which be­ came infected. To span these stonger bows, a stirrup was added to the stock in the 12th century, and a belt with a hook could be worn by the operator to enable his upper body as well as his arms to take part in drawing the bow. By the 14th century, a belt such as this, improved by incorporating a pulley ("Samson's belt") or a "goats' foot" lever might be used. By the 4 s

Froissart (1968) Aim (1994) passim.

INFANTRY & CROSSBOWS

49

15th century a windlass with a system of pulleys, or a crancquin (a rack and pinion gear) were needed to span the very powerful steel crossbows then in use. These spanning mechanisms added to the cost and weight of crossbows (a steel cross­ bow might weigh 7 kg) and tended to restrict their use to sieges. In addition, a steel cross­ bow cost 6s 8d in 1482, which was more than twice a handgun 6 . More importantly, the cost of gunpowder was falling rather than rising, so given the greater power of the gun, it should not be a cause for surprise that the crossbow steadily lost ground to the handgun and had disappeared from the battlefield by the early 16th century. References Aim, J. -The- Crossbow" (1947, transl. 1994). Froissarl "Chronicles" trans. Brcrcton, G. (1968). Rogers, Thorold J.E. "History ol" Agriculture and Prices in England 1259-1793" (7 vols, 1866-1902). Verbruggen, J.F. " T h e art of warfare in Western Europe durng the Middle Ages" (transl. 1997)

li

Rogers (1902) III, 558.

SECTION FOUR

ITALY

CHAPTER 4.1

T H E TRIUMPH OF AN INDUSTRY

The Invention of the Full Suit of Plate Armour in 14th Century Italy The homogeneous suit of full plate armour which being inflexible in shape, needed to be made to fit its wearer, the knight or mounted man-at-arms, and which covered him entire­ ly (except for armpits and bottom) with plates of metal started to emerge in its final form in 14th century Lombardy and was fully developed by about 1400, when it remained in use for over 200 years. During this period the essential features of its design remained constant, although there were changes in the details of its form and decoration, and con­ siderable changes in the material from which it was made. Composite Armour and the Transition to Plate The use of plates to improve the performance of mail had started to come into general use during the 13th century. The knees and shins, the parts of a horseman most vulnerable to sword and axe-cuts from infantrymen, were protected by reinforcing plates of metal (or perhaps cuir-bouilli) from the middle of the 13th century, and arm defences were added later in the century. At the battles of Benevento (1266) and Tagliacozzo, the German (mercenary) knights fighting the French armies of Charles of Anjou (claiming the throne of Sicily) wore "dou­ ble armour". Oman, quoting the chroniclers, describes how this rendered them invulnerable to the swords of the French until the Germans raised their arms to strike, when they exposed an opening. The cry ran down the ranks of the French knights, who were numerically supe­ rior but being pushed back, "give point" and the French started to stab them under the arm; their order broken, the Germans were eventually overwhelmed by the superior num­ bers (perhaps 3000 to 1200) of the French knights 1 . At Tagliacozzo, two years later, French and German knights again opposed one anoth­ er on an Italian battlefield. After having assumed the battle had been won and unwisely dispersing to plunder, the Germans were attacked by Charles. They were said to have been "so exhausted under the weight of their double armour that they could scarcely raise their sword arms". Some were even supposed to have been seized by Charles' knights and wrestled ' O m a n , (1924) vol.1, p.496-505; he quotes Clericus Parisiensis—"Clamatum est a parte nostra quod in hoste de ensibus percutercnt destoc." (= d'estoc = point)

54

SECTION F O U R

to the ground- although the fatigue of their horses was probably an equally important factor in their defeat. Exactly what this "double armour" was is not specified, but they were evidently wearing something additional to the customary mail. A mid-13th century effigy of St.Maurice from Magdeburg Cathedral 3 shows what may have been such an extra protective breastplate, apparently made of several plates rivetted together (called the "coat-of-plates"), and worn on top of the customary hauberk of mail. The practice of wearing surcoats to display armorial bearings after the 13 lh century of­ ten makes it difficult to decide from an effigy exactly what armour a knight may have been wearing underneath. The appearance of rivet heads on top of the cloth may suggest the elements of a coat-ofplates, but sometimes they may simply have been decorative. The one-piece breastplate from the late 14th century in the Bavarian National Museum (W. 195) has two such rows of rivets which give it the appearance of a multiple-plate defence, when it is nothing of the kind. There are written references to trade in armour plates before 1300 in the chronicle of Bonvesin de Riva 4 . A merchant called Frederic the Lombard collected together in Bruges in 1295 for the fleet of King Philip of France the staggering total of: 2853 helmets 6309 round shields 4511 mail shirts 751 pairs of gauntlets 1374 gorgets 5067 coats of plates. So there was already a substantial demand for "plates" to reinforce mail armour by the late 13th century. Such plates would be perhaps 15cm X 10cm in size, at most. Instead of iron, they might have been made of cuir-bouilli (literally "boiled" but perhaps better "hard­ ened" leather) then attached to a fabric jerkin (forming the "coat") and worn over the mail shirt. Cuir-bouilli seems to have enjoyed a short period of popularity around the early 14th century. Although light in weight, its protective properties were not very good (see section 9) so it soon fell out of fashion, and few examples have survived 5 . Fragments from some 24 "coats of plates" were excavated from the mass grave at Wisby after the battle of 1361, as well as large quantities of mail 6 . These belonged to the de­ fenders of the city of Wisby and, unusually, they were discarded rather than salvaged. Mod­ ified forms of the coat of plates, with more, but smaller, plates, the "brigandine" and "jack of plates" remained popular forms of defence until the late 16th century'. The brigandine 1 O m a n , op.eit. 505, and his source, the chronicle; of Guillaume dc Nangis, which refers to the Germans a.s being "lous armcz dc doubles armcurcs"— quoted in Schultz, A. "Hofische Leben" (II, 12,n). I am greatly indebted to Claude Blair for tracking down the source of this reference. What these "double armours" consisted of is unfortunately left unclear. They were probably mail shirts with some sort of reinforcement.i.e. forming a double thickness. ;i Brunner, (1981) p.70. 4 quoted by Pfaffenbichler (1992) p.33, :> Norman, (1975) and a tomb effigy of 1358 which depicts what may be a cuirass of leather is illustrated in Scalini (1996) 49. 6 T h o r d c m a n , (1939) 167. 7 Eaves, (1989)

THE TRIUMPH OF AN INDUSTRY

55

was made up of small, overlapping, plates rivetted to a canvas doublet; the jack, originally simply a quilted doublet, consisted of plates sewn between two layers of fabric, and both were a means of recycling old armour into a cheaper defence for the infantry. But for those who could afford the best, the coat of plates was to evolve into the more complete defence of the harness. So the complete armour for a man might weigh about 27 kg (60 lb), but it would be made up of innumerable small elements. A helm typical of the 13th and early 14th century is the one found at Bolzano and now in Castcl Sant'Angelo (no.869) which is made up of five plates each of about 0.5kg riveted together 8 . During the course of the 14th century the plates of the coat-of-plates became larger in size but fewer in number, until they could be regarded as a rudimentary breastplate with some smaller plates attached. Such coats of large plates were still worn over a mail shirt in the closing years of the 14th century—one which Boccia dates to 1370 9 survives in the castle of Churburg in the Tyrol and is made up of 7 pieces rivetted together,—but the logical next step was the complete replacement of mail as far as possible with plate, which offered better protection for no extra weight, indeed perhaps for less weight than the combination of mail and extra plates (a typical mail shirt might weigh 9 kg (20 lb)). This change began in the 14th and was completed by the early years of the 15th century. An altarpiece from Pistoia cathedral dated to 1365-70 shows one-piece breastplates 10 although the earliest such surviving may date from a little later. At Churburg, there is a one-piece breastplate from the late 14th century and weighing 2.6kg". In Munich (Bavar­ ian National Museum,inv.no.W. 195) there is a one-piece breastplate dated to around 1400; it weighs 4.5 kg. and is covered in red velvet1". One-piece helmets from the 14th century (such as Poldi-Pezzuoli 3599) weigh around 1.8 kg. Horse armour was made of several plates, each of a size comparable to a breast­ plate, rivetted together. The earliest surviving complete horse armour which dates from around 1450 (and is now in the Museum of the City of Vienna) weighs approximately 60 kg 13 and is made up of 11 large and some 30 smaller plates. Although this horse armour has not been dismantled in recent years, the presumption must be that the larger plates weigh around 4 kg. each. Once plates of this size (2.5—4.5 kg.) can be made, then the whole body can be covered with a complete armour of plates, except for the joints of the limbs; the armpits and groin had still to be protected by gussets of mail. Once the difficulty of making such suits has been overcome (and the cost is not too great a discouragement) then all sorts of other advantages may be perceived. As well as a glancing surface to deflect missiles better, a rigid breastplate enabled the use of a lance-rest—perhaps better called a "lance-stop" which enables far more of the kinetic energy of the horse to be transmitted to the lance without breaking the rider's wrist in the process 11 . " Forgiero, (1954) 9 Boccia (1967) pi. 1-6. 111 Scalini, (1980) 11 Boccia (1967) pi.28-30. '- Seelig, L. (Bavarian National Museum), personal communication, 16.3.98. [i Mattl-Wurm, S. (Museum of the City of Vienna) personal communication, 27.5.97. 14 Bultin, F.(1965)

56

SECTION F O U R

But perceiving the advantages of plate armours does not automatically make their man­ ufacture easy. A plate of armour which weighs between 2.5 and 4.5 kg will pose new prob­ lems to the producers. Billets of metal of 10kg or more may be needed to make such a plate, and their production from a bloomery is difficult. Forge-welding many small plates together entails the loss of considerable amounts of metal and, if unskilfully done, incurs the risk of increasing the slag content. The metal itself must be reasonably low in slag (if not as uniform as modern steels) if its mechanical properties are to be suitable for armour. However, during the 14th century in Italy, these large plates did appear, and they are generally plates of steel (chapter 4.3). As a result, European armour starts to differ fundamentally in design from the "loricae segmentatae" used by the Romans and those forms of armour used in other parts of the world, namely Islam, India, China and Japan. All of those cultures continued to use ar­ mour made up of a large number of small plates or rings joined together to form a flexible garment, rather than a rigid exoskelcton. The best Italian armour made for knightly customers in the 14th and 15th centuries was generally made of steel, and frequently hardened by heat-treatment 10 . Being made of steel, they would offer a much better defence against all weapons (see section 9). Lombardy All through the Middle Ages, Lombardy was one of the major centres of economic activity in general and metal production in particular in Europe. This was especially concentrated in the free cities of Milan and Brescia, whose economic life flourished after the end of the Hohenstaufen dominion around 1260. Constantly increasing overseas demand helped to give Lombard armourers considerable markets. The arms trade to the Muslim world was discouraged by the Papal Interdict promulgated at the 3rd Lateran Council (1179), and renewed many times; but the needs of the crusaders and the Latin states of the East offered an alternative. Whoever were their customers in the Levant, whether Venetian or Genoese, Lombard armourers would meet their demands. In addition, the paid princely armies which replaced feudal hosts—those of France & England, but also in Italy, the dukes of Milan and Venice, the count of Savoy, the P o p e — provided yet more customers. Starting in the 14th century, there appear in the archives of the Milanese and Brescian armourers massive orders for hundreds or even thousands of pieces of equipment 16 . The increase in individual sales followed the same upward path; the passports granted by the dukes of Milan reveal the foreign noblemen who came to IS

Williams (1986) "' Menanl p.152 and for the nourishing armour export trade in the 1360s, see Origo, I (1963) especially pp.34-37. Francesco Datini, a merchant from Prato, who dealt in armour, established himself at Avignon, where an inventory of 1367 lists 45 bascinets, 3 iron hats, 10 cervellers, 60 breastplates, 20 cuirasses, and 12 mail hauberks. The Datini archives of Prato, are a mirror of commerce during the period 1363-1416. They show the incessant passing along the routes of Milanese commerce of parcels of arms and armours, notably towards Avignon, a great centre oi' resale & distribution towards Catalonia and the south of France, and towards Pisa & Naples.

T H E T R I U M P H OF AN INDUSTRY

57

Lombardy to make their purchases and left with their high-priced armours. At home, the Lombard citizen-soldiers themselves were an steady domestic clientele; an average customer such as the merchant of Cremona, who in 1278 had an "armour" with sleeves and gloves of iron, 3 iron hats, 2 swords and a shield 17 . The chronicle of Milan ("De magnalibus Mcdiolani") by Bonvesin dc Riva (1288) records: "There are in this place an amazing number of weapon forges, that produce daily every kind of arms, like mail shirts, coats of plates, breastplates and splints , great helmets, ba­ sinets, caps, collars, gloves, greaves, cuisses and polcyns, spears, and swords, etc. They are all [made] from hardened and polished steel, gleaming like mirrors....There are shield-makers, who manufacture shields and other weapons in incredible numbers. From here from this city supplies other cities of Italy with all kinds of weapons, by whom they may be exported even to the Tatars and Saracens" 18 . By the 14th century, the city of Milan had attained such a technical level in the produc­ tion of armour as to make its mail and plate the most sought after in Europe. As well as the personal armour for princes, the city maintained sufficient stores of ready-made armour to be able to equip a large army at short notice; for example, Milan was able to supply four thousand armours for cavalry and two thousand for infantry within a few days of the battle of Maclodio in 1427. Brescia There is decidedly less information when it comes to Brescian production; especially as this city was largely separated from Milan politically (but falling under Venetian rule after 1426). The Brescians seem to have made more mass-production armours, and fewer armours of high quality were exported. It supplied in particular the cities of North-East Italy; Mantova, Ferrara, Urbino, and Venice. The archives of the city of Brescia show for the period 1388-1486 more than 160 names of makers of arms, of which half made armours. In numbers, the Brescian workforce in armaments was at least comparable to that of Milan; but it was remarkable that three-quarters of the makers of armour working at Brescia were Milanese in origin 19 . The Missaglia The Missaglia were the greatest armour-makers of the 15th century, and according to some enthusiastic collectors, ever. Without guild restrictions on the number of craftsmen employed, Milanese entrepreneurs like the Missaglia could employ large numbers of sub-contractors (each specialising in making only one part of a harness) and also significantly, they took an interest in the supply of raw materials. As for the modern concept of "vertical integration", it was the Missaglia who were the first to practise this when they acquired the right to exploit the mines and construct the

17 18 19

Menant ref.32 quoted by Menant, 133. Madodio - in Thomas and Gamber (1958) 714. Menant, 135.

58

SECTION FOUR

furnaces for the smelting; the smelting of ores and their reduction into billets of metal took place near the mines, in the valleys of the Brescian and Bcrgamasque hills20. If the master armourers took charge of all aspects of a complex production, their work­ men, in their turn, had to specialise; this is particularly clear for the makers of armour, for whom many contracts for hiring workmen have survived. These almost always specify that the workman will be making cuirasses or helmets or arms and legs. The assembly was completed by the "traversator" who also worked the mill. The division of work and the supervision of the master can be shown in the armourers' marks; each piece was signed once by the workman who made it and also by the master who directed the final assembly of the whole armour - 1 . Throughout the 15th century Milanese armour making was dominated by the Missaglia family, who served the Visconti and Sforza dukes of Milan, the Gonzaga of Mantua, the Este of Ferrara, and the Medici of Florence; and they ran shops in Rome, Naples, Barce­ lona and Tours. The family is often referred to in documents as "Negroni da Ello, detto Missaglia" indicating that the family, surnamed Negroni, originated at the little town of Ello, near Como, and were nicknamed by Missaglia, another place name. The commercial success of the Missaglia raised their social status, especially as the Sfor­ za were often in debt to them. In 1458 the duke interceded on behalf of Antonio Missaglia (head of the business from 1452 until his death in 1496) to save his brother Cristoforo from the gallows. In 1469 the duke gave Antonio an armourer's mill outside the city walls for an annual rent of one helmet. In 1472, the brothers Antonio and Damiano were allowed to purchase the fief of Gorte di Gasale, and some years later the title of count. By the end of the century, the Missaglia possessed half a dozen workshops, exploited two mining ar­ eas well endowed with smelting installations, and had branch establishments in the king­ dom of Naples and in Spain. Their business was reckoned in hundreds of thousands of scudi, and their properties were classed among the most wealthy in Milan. During the first quarter of the 16th century they gradually sold off their mills, their workshops, and even their house to a new and more ambitious family the Barini detto (called) Negroli whose works for kings and emperors were to be the summit of 16th century Mi­ lanese armour-making 2 -. References Buttin, F. "La lance et l'arret de cuirasse" Archaeologia, 99 (1965) 77-178. Brunner, K. & Daim, F, "Ritter, Knappen, Edelfrauen" (Vienna, 1981). O m a n , C.W.G. "The art of War in the Middle Ages" (1924) 2 vols. Pfaffenbiehler, M. "Armourers" (London, 1992) 33.

2

" Menant, 83. T h o m a s & Gamber (1958) 708-27. " Leydi, (1998). Giovanni de Barini, called Negroli, who was active before the middle of the 15th cen­ tury, had four sons, the youngest of which, Domenico (active late 15th century, d. 1526) founded a company in 1504, together with his own son Nicolo and Sebasliano Negroni da Ello, called Missaglia, and also his brother, Giovan Angelo. Over the next few years, the assets of the Missaglia were gradually transferred to their partners. Filippo (1510-1579) was the great-grandson of Giovanni; his first signed work is dated 1532, and he left the family business early, perhaps due to illness, in 1557. Giovan Paolo (active from 1540) was another great-grandson of Giovanni. The family relations and business affairs have been documented by Leydi. 21

T H E T R I U M P H O F AN INDUSTRY

59

Norman, A.V.B. "Notes on a newly-discovered piece of 14th century armour" Journal of the Arms & Armour Society, 8 (1975) 229. Thordeman, B. "Armour from the battle of Wisby" (Stockholm, 1939) 2 vols. Forgiero, C.A.A."The Castel San Angelo Helm" Journal of the Arms & Armour Society, 1 (1954) 101. Eaves, I. " O n the remains of a jack of plate excavated from Beeston Castle in Cheshire" Journal of the Arms & Armour Society (1989)13, pp.81-154. Menant, F. "La melallurgic Lombarde au Moycn Age" pp.(127-161) in Benoil,P.ccl. "Homines et Travail du metal dans les villes medievales" (Paris, 1988) Origo, I "The Merchant of Prato" (1963). Scalini, M. "Note sulla formazione dell'armatura di Piaslra Italiana 1380-1420" VVaffen- und Kostumkunde (Munich, 1980) 15-26. Scalini, M. "The armoury of the Castle of Ghurburg" (Udine, 1996) Vol.2, 253-5 Williams, A.R. "Fifteenth century armour from Churburg; a metallurgical study" Armi Antiche 32 (Turin, 1986) 3-82. The most comprehensive recent account of the armourers of Milan, their clients and their finances is given by Thomas and C a m b e r in the encyclopedic "Storia di Milano" vol.XI, pp.697-841 (Milan, 1958). T h e most comprehensive account of their products is given by Boccia (1967): Boccia, L.G. & Coelho, E.T. "L'arte dell'armatura in Italia" Milan, 1967. Boccia also discusses the question of marks in detail in Boccia, L . C ' L e armature di S.Maria delle Grazie di Curtatone di Manlova e l'armatura lombarda del'400" (Busto Arsizio, 1982) Catalogues of collections of Italian armour have been produced by: Brescia—Rossi, F & Carpegna, N. "Armi antiche dal Museo Civico L.Marzoli" (Milan, 1969) Churburg—Scalini, M. "The armoury of the Castle of Churburg" (Udine, 1996) Turin—Bertolotto, C. et al. "L'armeria Reale di Torino" (Busto Arsizio, 1982) R o m e — C a r p e g n a , N. "Le armi Odescalchi" (Rome, 1976) and the catalogue of a seminal exhibition of Italian armour in New York: Pyhrr, S. W. & G o d o y , J . A. "Heroic armor of the Italian Renaissance" (New York, 1998) which includes the valuable Leydi, S. "A history of the Negroli family" and "A selection of Negroli documents" pp. 37-77.

CHAPTER 4.2

T H E FLOURISHING OF AN INDUSTRY—THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

It is first necessary to establish what armour is definitely Italian. Much armour is described as "Italian" or "Milanese" as if these terms were interchange­ able, and to some extent this is not unreasonable as Milan was the centre of the Lombard economy and the iron trade. But unidentified Italian armour might have been made in Brescia which was (and still is) a centre of the arms trade, and there were court armouries in Florence, Mantua and Turin in the 16th centuries. Most (but not all) makers' marks which can be identified belong to Milanese or Brescian craftsmen, so that this chapter will dis­ cuss the metallurgy of North Italian armour, without always distinguishing its city of ori­ gin. The starting point for identification has to be the armourers' marks stamped onto the pieces of armour. Many of these can now be identified, and the attributions of Boccia (1967, 1982) have generally been followed. Some Italian craftsmen were in later years induced to work at the courts of Burgundy, Spain, and England. They have been included here, as they represent Italian technology, whenever transferred. According to Boccia, makers' marks fall into three types: (i) a group of three, arranged like this A A

/ B

/ \

\

/

^B

A is the monogram of the armourer,i.e. the shop owner who undertook the contract for the work and who guaranteed the product. B is the monogram of the specialist cuirassmaker, or other craftsman, who was responsible for its quality to the armourer. (ii) a group of two

C

C

C is the monogram of the craftsman and Boccia believed that this indicated that the piece had been put to the "test of the big crossbow". (iii) a single mark

D

T H E FLOURISHING O F AN INDUSTRY

61

D is also the monogram of the craftsman but, according to Boccia, indicated that it had only been tested by a bow or "little" crossbow. The suggestion that the number of marks is an indication of its degree of protection is due to Buttin. According to the statutes of the Armourers of Paris (1451) armour that had been (allegedly) proved by a missile from a steel crossbow was described as "a toute epreuve" while that tested only by a missile from a lever-crossbow was "a demi-epreuve". Buttin, C. "Notes sur les armures a l'cprcuve" Revue Savoisiennc, 2 / 3 (Annecy, 1901) 6485.) Whether all the pieces marked were ever tested or not is in itself irrelevant. It is an in­ dication of the expected quality of their metallurgy. Although there is a correlation between the presence of a mark or marks and the metallurgy of the piece of armour, there seems to be little or no correlation between the n u m b e r of marks and the metallurgy. Italian armour will be discussed in two parts as follows: Section A: before the advent of fire-gilding on steel within the period 1490-1510, and when other changes take place. Section B: after the introduction of fire-gilding. Each section can be divided into two groups: Group (i). Pieces of armour bearing makers' marks, whether the masters can be identified or not. Group (ii). Pieces of armour which are Italian in style, but without makers' marks. Where they are in collections outside Italy, it is probable (but by no means certain) that they arc Italian pieces made for export to the rest of Europe; such cannot now be distin­ guished from copies which might have been made locally in an Italian style. Another group (hi) of section B—plain field armours without decoration—is discussed below. S E C T I O N A before gilding A Group (i) with marks A Group (ii) without marks

S E C T I O N B after gilding B Group (i) with marks B Group(ii) without marks B Group (iii) plain field armours

The Tables below (1 & 2) summarise these results, which are given in full detail in chap­ ters 4.3 and 4.5 . The material used may have been: I R O N — w r o u g h t iron with negligible carbon. LOW-CARBON STEEL which contains around 0.1% to 0.3% carbon. M E D I U M — C A R B O N STEEL which contains more than 0.4% carbon. Its heat-treatment may have been: H A R D E N E D — a steel which has been fully quenched, and so transformed to an all-martensite structure.

62

SECTION F O U R

ATTEMPTED-HARDENING—a steel which has been heat-treated in some way to harden it, but not fully quenched. The structure may contain any or all of these microconstituents: very fine pearlite, pearlite in a nodular form (formerly called "troostite") and perhaps bainite as well as martensitc. Otherwise, it may be assumed that the armour was simply AIR-COOLED after forg­ ing. Table 1

Section A Group (i) Results of metallography of Italian armour (with an armourer's mark) before fire-gilding; I = IRON L = LOW-CARBON STEEL M = MEDIUM-CARBON STEEL A = air-cooled; T = a generally unsuccessful attempt at hardening H = successful Hardening by heat-treatment Marks Date "duplicated I mark

Specimen

P IO star R A " hand B* A* " GI " BE BE ZA " ds " BE ds " ds " GI " R AN " GP " Inosens, y

1360-70 1385 1385 1395 1400 1435 1440 1440 1445 1445 1445 1445 1445 1445 1445 1445 1445 1445 1445 1450

C H 13 II168gr C H 16 W195 A12 IV430 III1123 2643 39-65e lc 39-65e lp 39-65e rp 39-65e br 39-65e ler 39-65e lpr 39-65e lv 39-65e rv 39-65e lg IV5 CH19 SA11

L

1450 1450 1450 1450

127153 127151 127152 CH67

L L L L

1451

A2

L

" u

Inos y, A N "

Metal iron

lowC% steel

H«;at-treatment MedC% steel

Aircooled

Attempted Fully hardening hard­ ened T T T?

M L M L

180

H A

M M

H H H H

M L M M M M M M M

<204

A H H H H H H H

L M

202 374 154 395

A

L

L

Hardness (VPH)

T T

215

T T T H

252 236 234 279

H

226

T H E FLOURISHING O F AN INDUSTRY

Table 1. Cont. STA" my,M m I " M* ## ## M*" my*, m " P

A

1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1455? 1450

RA E132 3965e CH2I IV498 II168g 11168b 2607 CH23

L

1455 1455

c2449 GH 56

L

1460 1460 1460 1460 1460 1460 1460 1460 1460

RA E9 RA E8 11168s 2607 E7 W.1272 Fitz 15 IV17 Amb33

1465 1470 1470 1470 1470 1470 1470 1470 1475 1475 1480 1485 1485 1490 1490

HV837 b HV842 v III 1093 II168br 1111282a i CH37 i CH38 i CH34 i CH331 I 04.3.230 s3880 A3c RA C65 IV424 RA c2 I

L L

1495 1495 1495 1495 1495 1495 1500

s3599 2606 III1121 sol 1 III 1115 B33 B71

L

M M

A A H H H

L M M L M

T A A H H

M

UA*, AM " IO " GV " GV BA " % * IdB" BE BG ", S C " I* ZO " Z ", FARE Z ", FARE Z ", FARE IA IA " AAP", BE GS ", S BE " PZA" ##* P? *IO OA" Gx " AN" Castle ROM" mer*, dmy arbois, *

I

A A

L L L

T

I L L L M

A A A A A A T T

M M M M L L

H H A A T A T T

M L M M L

H T

M

A A A

M M M M M M

A A A A

H

T

64

SECTION F O U R

Table 1. Cont. m r* B*A x ME*, MO*" NERA, * xx

1500 1500 1500 1510 1510 1520

s3550 III1124 WA.184 RAbl9 Alia IV576

L L L

T

< 268

T

197

A

I

A L M

H H

< 399

x = illegible mark * = crown # # = crossed-keys mark M* = crowned M mark of the 72 components in this section: 4 were made of iron 33 were made of low-carbon steel 35 were made of medium-carbon steel 27 20 25 (or

were were were 63%

apparently air-cooled—unhai'dened partially hardened by an attempt at heat-treatment hardened by a successful heat-treatment (35%) heat-treated, and 35% hardened)

Out of the 35 examples with double-marks, 14 were hardened successfully and another 13 less successfully (or 77% heat-treated and 40% hardened). This does not appear to be sig­ nificantly different to the overall proportions.

>-^000«303'~lMNlvl-4slM^^O)010)OiOiUiOiUiUiUiOiOi^O)UOOOOO(OlOCO!»-JMMffi^ OOOiOOOOC-nCjnaiOOOOOOOiCnOOOOOOOOOOOOnOOOOOOOOOUiOOOOO

£ K>^ ^ — ^ NO _ Oi

jo ^_ CJ1 NO -J OT On M^ CO ȣ* NO

CD

co

K ** CD ^ *•

*■ O ^ >— ^ NO ^ NO O0 4 ^ N 0 C n C _ n t ^ C D C O < _ n CD WUiMlnMMIOooOiOOiOioOfO OroU't-n"OOCOCD 4iOiooiwootoCOK:cDCojo-gai CD K — CO CO ■— NO NO NO CO CO m -J O M M ffi f Oihf^co CD ^ O NO O NO © OO „ . CO ^ ~J O

t-11-11-1

r r

r r

S §

g

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

SS £

>>>>

r1

r r

H

H

t-1 r

O0 OJ ■— NO ■— O - J CO ►(*■ ^ 1 - ^ Cn O O H -

CD CD

^ NO

r r

gggg;

>>>>

H

>>>

>>>>

H

33

ffiffi

i — NO i — CD C_n CO NO CO ^ 1

O C NO t o ^ Cii coi 4 ^ CD i — CO CD

o

CD

r r1

rS Er ^

n

M O l M K J C D C O v l t o O O ' - o a i

NO NO .co —. — I ^J CO CD

o

co OJ CD CD CO CD

66

SECTION F O U R

The museums and collections where these armours are to be found are listed in chapters 4.3 and 4.5. where the metallography is described in detail. The dating is generally ap­ proximate. Out of the 45 specimens in this section 5 were made of iron 21 were made of low-carbon steel 19 were made of medium-carbon steel 33 were apparently unhardened 5 were partially hardened by an attempt at heat-treatment 7 were hardened by a successful heat-treatment (27% heat-treated and 16% hardened) The metallography of a large number of specimens of Italian armour shows that gener­ al conclusions can be drawn about the material that was used and the extent to which ar­ mourers heat-treated their products to harden them. A r m o u r (with or w i t h o u t m a r k s ) i s a l m o s t a l w a y s m a d e of s t e e l i n 15th c e n t u r y Italy, and in just over half of the marked examples studied here, it is a mediumcarbon steel. In around two-thirds of the marked examples, some attempt has been made to harden them by heat-treatment, which has been successful in around one-third of all cases. Armour bearing an armourer's mark (Group A (i) here) is of a decidedly better quality than armour without such a mark. 45 out of 72 m a r k e d a r m o u r s w e r e h a r d e n e d , c o m p a r e d w i t h only 12 out of 45 u n m a r k e d . It was suggested some years ago by Buttin that the use of multiple marks was an indi­ cation of the protection offered. There is no correlation between the number of marks and the quality of the metal, as perusal of the tabulated results will show. There is however a distinct correlation between its quality and the presence of a mark or marks. Evidently a mark indicated that an armour was worth paying a higher price for, as it would offer the customer better protection. The number of marks seems only to reflect workshop practice. Study of the 9 components of the "AVANT" armour from the Corio workshop suggests that heat-treatment was carried out as almost the last operation, as all the components made by different sub-contractors show the same heat-treatment. Variations in the outcome arc due to variations in the carbon content of the steel. The method of heat-treatment is gen­ erally slack-quenching; this is discussed in more detail in section 8. Armour without marks, but of Italian provenance (Group A section (ii)) is made of steel, but usually of lower carbon content. Indeed that proportion which was made of mediumcarbon steel is somewhat less than half. It is, however, seldom hardened by any form of heat-treatment (and those which were hardened may have had marks which are now obscured). A group of infantry armours, some of which carry marks, is included in this category.

THE FLOURISHING OF AN INDUSTRY

67

It is clear then that the mark was the sign of a higher-quality armour, which the cus­ tomer would have expected to have been made of a harder steel. The different metal used for that category of armour (without marks, but of Italian form) might be thought to cast doubt upon its Italian origin. But not all Italian armour was necessarily made of the best metal available. If the form, and provenance, suggest an Ital­ ian origin, it is quite plausible that armour made of poorer metal had been identified as such by its maker, and sold unmarked, at a lower price.

CHAPTER 4.3

T H E METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR BEFORE

1510

The armour is divided into two sections as follows: A Metallography of Italian armour before the introduction of etching and gilding. All of these specimens are described here, in chapter 4.3. B Metallography of Italian armour after the introduction of etching; all specimens of armour with etching & gilding (even in small amounts) are described in chapter 4.5. Section A is then subdivided as follows: Group A (i) armour with a maker's mark. Group A (ii) armour without a maker's mark, but thought to be of Italian origin. A (ii) may be further subdivided into A (ha) armour in Italian collections, which may be reasonably presumed to be of Italian origin, and A (iib) armour in other museums, which is attributable to Italy only on the grounds of form. Section B is subdivided as follows: Group B (i) armour with a maker's mark, decorated by gilding. Group B (ii) armour without a maker's mark, decorated by gilding. Group B (hi) plain armours without gilded decoration (generally for field use) which might be considered as an extension of group A (ii) Since very little gilded armour carries a maker's mark, although some examples are signed, there is only a very small group B (i). The patterns of etching employed can frequently enable the identification of unsigned Italian armours. Group B Group B spread. Group B Group B

(ii) may be subdivided into; (iia) after etching was introduced, but before embossed decoration became wide­ (iib) embossed armour made by the Negrolis and their rivals. (iic) armour decorated by etching and gilding, but with little or no embossing.

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

69

Group A (i) North Italian

marked armour

The visor of a hounskull bascinet, belonging to a Vogt of Matsch. Churburg 13.

Ferrite and carbides X 50

The microstructure consists of ferrite grains with a very small quantity of carbides in a form difficult to resolve. The microhardness varies from 110 to 236; average = 180 VPH. The carbon content is less than 0.1% but the relatively high hardness suggests that an attempt might have been made to harden it by quenching, and there­ fore some age-hardening has perhaps taken place. (Honeycombe, 1981, p.7) letter P (?) 1360-70

70

SECTION F O U R

This was dated to 1370 by Boccia, but earlier by Scalini, who has suggested that it was a composite of two armours, belonging to Ulrich IV Matsch, and dating from 1361 and 1366. The greaves of the earlier armour bear the mark of master I O and are now in England (RA 11.168). The breastplate bears the mark of master P. There is an indistinct mark on the bascinet itself. A sample was taken from the inside of the visor (which Scalini has sug­ gested may not belong to the skull). This type of helmet was formerly often described by collectors as a "pig-faced bascinet". Photograph reproduced by permission of Count Trapp

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

71

letters IO c.1385 Greaves bearing the mark (single) of master IO. Royal Armouries, Leeds. 11.168 (part)

Section X 30

Carbide particles in a ferrite matrix, with a small slag inclusion X 320

One of several parts originally from Churburg, and formerly displayed as a composite armour in the Tower of London. See p. 122. A greave was examined in cross-section, and the microstructure resembles an overtempered martensite. The microstructure consists of carbide globules and ferrite with few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heattreatment. It is possible that it was quenched and then overtempered.

72

SECTION F O U R

A star (single mark). Late 14,h century (Scalini dates this to 1385). A hounskull bascinet.

Churburg 16

Ferrite grains outlined by areas of irresolvable carbides X 50

A sample was detached from the inside of the skull. The microstructure consists of ferrite and carbides with few slag inclusions. The carbon content appears to be around 0.1%, which coupled with its hardness, suggests that this is not a simple air-cooled ferrite-pearlite lowcarbon steel, but one which may have undergone some form of heat-treatment to harden it. The microhardness (average) = 202 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of Count Trapp

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

73

letter R 1390-1400 A breastplate (from Hohenaschau) made in one piece, and covered in red velvet, with the (single) mark of a crowned R, from the late 14th century. Boccia dates this to 1400 and tentatively suggests a connection with the ducal armourer Jacomino Ravizza, active in 1425. Bavarian National Museum, Munich.inv.no.W. 195.

Very fine pearlite and marlensite X 70

The microstructure consists of very fine (almost irresolvable) pearlite and an acicular material (bainite or perhaps low-carbon martensitc) with very little ferrite and a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 330 to 452; average = 374 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.5%C)which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment, apparently a slack-quench. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Bavarian National Museum, Munich

74

letter A c.1400

SECTION FOUR

(on skull and visor, each twice)

A hounskull bascinet, dating from around 1400, and now in the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna. A. 12.

Ferrite and carbides X 60

A sample was taken from inside the bascinet skull. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions, corresponding to an air-cooled steel of around 0.1% carbon. The microhardness (average) = 154 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

A hand blessing (once) c.1435 An armet, originally from Rhodes, and now in the Royal Armouries. Leeds. IV.430 (Karcheski & Richardson, 1) This mark has been attributed to Benedetto da Molteno.

Martensite, pearlite and ferrite X 80

Martensite with much less nodular pearlite and ferrite (a higher-carbon area) X 320

75

76

SECTION F O U R

The microstructure consists of martcnsite, with nodular pcarlitc and ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies, with carbon content, from 306 to 519; average = 395 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C overall) which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment, probably a slack-quench. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

T H E METALLURGY OF ITALIAN A R M O U R

77

letters B* c.1440 A pauldron, originally from Rhodes, and now in the Royal Armouries, Leeds. III. 1123. (Karcheski & Richardson, 94) The letter B with another illegible letter is stamped once near the stop-rib (similar to the mark BE ascribed to Bellino Corio).

Peaihte and ferrite X 50 Notice the conosion ciacks which have opened up down the centre of the plate.

The edge of the pauldron rim was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite with few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

78

SECTION F O U R

letters A* / orb (twice) 1440-60 The mainplate of a wrapper, originally from Rhodes and now in the Museum of St.John, Clerkenwell. 2643. (Karcheski & Richardson, 3)

There are two marks together, each of which might be an A within an orb or indeed two conjoined letters within an orb. A sample was detached from the inside; the microstructure consists of martensite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies up to 204 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel which has been heat-treated to harden it; apparently by a fullquenching.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

79

letters I , ZA, A, BE, B, dAs, G A I c.1440

An armour, formerly at Churburg (known as C H 20) and now at Glasgow City Museum & Art Gallery, 39-65e. Dated to 1440 by Boccia. Because of an engraved motto, this is sometimes known as the "AVANT" armour. It bears seven types of mark (51 marks in all) in different locations. These have been identified by Boccia as follows:

80 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

SECTION F O U R

ascribed to Giovanni (=Iohan) Corio crowned I ascribed to Giovanni (=Zoan) Corio ZA crowned A. ascribed to Ambrogio Corio crowned BE ascribed to Bellino Corio B ascribed to Bellino Corio d s below split cross ascribed to Dionisio Corio GI below cross ascribed to Giovanni da Garavalle

The group 1-2-1 is found on the breast & backplates; 3 is found twice on the fauld plates (not examined); the group 4-5 on the pauldrons and 4-5-5 on the buffe; 6 twice on the vambraces and their reinforces; 7 twice on the greaves and cuisses. An associated gauntlet was also examined (see below) Photograph © Glasgow Museums: Art Gallery & Museum, Kelvingrove

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

81

ZA (Giovanni Corio) breastplate

Section X 40

Martensite and ferrite Martensite and more ferrite (in a lower(in a higher-carbon carbon area) X 160 area) X 160

This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of martensite and ferrite with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.4%C overall)which has been hardened by some form of quenching. There is a central band of lower carbon con­ tent. BE, B (Bellino Corio) right pauldron

Cross-section X 30

82

SECTION FOUR

This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of pearlite and some car­ bide globules with few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel rather high in car­ bon (perhaps 0.7%C) which has perhaps been found too hard, and therefore annealed to some time to soften it; or it has been very slowly cooled after fabrication.

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

83

BE, B left pauldron

Ferrite and carbides X 160

This was examined in cross-section on the rim of the inner edge. The microstructure con­ sists mostly of ferrite and small areas of carbides with some elongated slag inclusions. This appears to be a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) which may have undergone some form of quenching in an attempt to harden it. BE reinforce for the left pauldron

Section X 40

Martcnsite with nodular pearlite and ferrite X 320

This was examined in cross-section on the lower edge at the front. The microstructure consists of martensite and ferrite especially in a central band, with some elongated slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment.

84

SECTION F O U R

dAs (Dionisio Corio) reinforce for the left elbow

Section X 40

Martensite, nodular Pear­ lite and ferrite in a lowercarbon area X 160

Martensite and a little fer­ rite in a higher-carbon area X 160

This was examined in cross-section on the lower rim. The microstructure consists of mar­ tensite, nodular pearlite and ferrite with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment. dAs (Corio) left vambrace

Section X 60 martensite and feinte

This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of martensite and ferrite with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.5%C) which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

85

dAs (Corio) right vambrace

Section X 80 martensite and ferrite

This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of martensite and a little ferrite with some elongated slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.5%G) which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment.

86

SECTION F O U R

G I left cuissc

(back plate)

Section X 25

Ferritc and martensite X 160

This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of bands of martensite and ferritc with a few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon (perhaps 0.4%) steel which has been hardened by some form of quenching.

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

G A I (Garavalle) left greave

Section X 30

Martensite X 160

This was examined in cross-section on the side edge. The microstructure consists of mar­ tensite with very few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened by some form of quenching.

88

SECTION FOUR

letter R 1440-50 A sallet from Rhodes, and now in the Royal Armouries, Leeds.IV.5. The mark is ascribed by Boccia to Jacomino Ravizza (1982, p.289). (Karcheski & Rich­ ardson, 10)

This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and areas of a material difficult to resolve but appar­ ently consisting of granular carbides, with few slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon (around 0.3%C) steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment.

Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN ARMOUR

89

letters AN below a bugle (twice) This mark [ascribed to Antonio Missaglia] is marked twice, on either side of the middle of the tasset. c.1450 Churburg 19.

90

SECTION F O U R

Pearlite and ferrite X 160

Section X 40

Pearlite and ferrite X 640

Tasset from an armour of Ulrich IX von Matsch, now at Churburg, dated to 1450 by Scalini. The rim was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite (rather granular in places) with a few slag inclusions. Photograph reproduced by permission of Count Trapp

T H E METALLURGY OF ITALIAN A R M O U R

91

letters GP in a group of three marks c.1450 An armet now in the National Museum of Castel Sant'Angelo, Rome, inv.no.ll.

Martensite, bainite, ferrite and slag X 50

An acicular material (perhaps bainite) and martensite X 200.

A specimen from the right lower chin plate was examined. The microstructure consists of martensite and an acicular material (bainite ?) with some ferrite and rows of slag inclu­ sions. The microhardness (average) = 215 VPH. This is a low-carbon (perhaps 0.2% or 0.3%C) steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment. Photograph reproduced by permission of the National Museum of Castel Sant'Angelo, Rome.

92

SECTION F O U R

letters INOSENS , & crowned y (Single marks) The marks have been identified as those of Pier Innocenzo da Facrno. c.1450 A horse armour made about 1450 (the earliest still in existence) and now in the Museum of the City of Vienna, no.127.151-3

shaffron - (top plate) ferrite and pearlite X

T H E METALLURGY OF ITALIAN A R M O U R

peytral (left of middle plate) ferrite and pearlite X 80

93

peytral (right side plate) ferrite and carbides X 320

Shaffron 127.151 A plate from the top of the head was examined in cross-section (shown here). The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. Another plate from the left side was also examined, and found to have a very similar microstructure. The microhardness ranges from 199- 236 VPH. Peytral 127.153 A plate from the middle on the left side was examined in cross-section (shown here). The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. Another sample from the right side has a similar microstructure. The microhardness ranges from 199-252 VPH. A plate from the right side of the peytral was examined on its hidden edge (shown here). The microstructure consists of ferrite and carbides (perhaps bainite ?) with a few slag in­ clusions. The microhardness ranges from 214 to 286 VPH. This horse armour is made of a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which in parts has un­ dergone some form of heat-treatment to harden it. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Museum of the City of Vienna

94

SECTION F O U R

letters INOSENS A shaffron belonging to Ulrich IX Matsch, dated by Scalini to 1450. Boccia, 1982, p.281-2, summarises our knowledge about these marks, and identifies Inosens with Pier Innocenzo da Faerno. c.1450 Churburg 67

Ferrite & martensite X 80

Ferrite, martensite, and some pearlilc (lighter areas) X 320

A sample was taken from the inside. The microstructure consists of ferrite and martensite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 279 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has undergone some form of quenching to harden it. Photograph reproduced by permission of Count Trapp

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

letters y and AN (twice) 1451

Bainite or martensite and ferrite X 500. (left cuisse)

95

96

SECTION F O U R

The armour of Pfalzgraf Friedrich, now in the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna (A. 2) and thought to date from 1451, which is the date at which Friedrich became Pfalzgraf or Palatine Count. This bears various marks : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

crowned m y (Tommaso Missaglia) m below a split cross (Tommaso Missaglia) crowned (coronet ?) y (Pier Innocenzo) crowned (coronet ?) AN (Antonio Missaglia) crowned SE (Antonio Seroni) AN below a split cross (Antonio Missaglia)

1 and 2 twice are to be found on the great bascinet. 1 and 2 are also to be found on the visor, bevor and gorget. The group 3 and 4 twice are to be found on the breast-, backplates and cuisses. 4 twice is to be found on the tassets, greaves, upper vambraces and elbows. 5 and 6 are to be found on the gauntlet cuffs. Thomas & Gamber (1976, p.58) suggested that this showed that the work was divided up within the workshop as follows: Tommaso (the boss) made the great helm and elongated shoes. His son, Antonio, made the arms and greaves. The cuirass and cuisses by Antonio Missaglia and Innocenzo. The gauntlets probably by Antonio Seroni, who possessed his own workshop. A sample was taken from inside the left cuisse; the microstructure consists mostly of an acicular material (which might be bainite or even low-carbon martensite) together with, in places, ferrite and globular carbides with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 226 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which has been hardened by some form of quenching. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

97

STA (twice, at least) c.1450 A bevor now in the Royal Armoury, Turin; catalogue 60 (inv.no.E132) and dated to 1450 by Boccia.

Ferrite and carbides X 320

There are 3 marks; an illegible crowned monogram above and STA below a split cross (twice). This has been suggested as perhaps the mark of Sebastiano Missaglia. A sample was taken from the inside. The microstructure consists of ferrite and rather di­ vorced pearlite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 145 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Royal Armoury, Turin

98

SECTION F O U R

letters m y and m below a split cross c.1450 A right gauntlet associated with AVANT armour in Glasgow. no.39-65e.

Section; pearlite and ferrite X 80

According to Boccia, (1982) 290, this was the mark of Tommaso Missaglia before 1450. This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon (around 0.5%C) steel which has been aircooled after fabrication.

T H E METALLURGY OF ITALIAN A R M O U R

m below a split cross (Tommaso Missaglia) c.1450 A barbuta associated with the armour (Churburg 21) belonging to Galeazzo d'Arco.

99

SECTION F O U R

Martensite and spiny ferrite X 400

Martensite, nodular pearlite and ferrite X 800

Martensite, nodular pearlite and ferrite (perhaps an area lower in carbon) X 200

The microstructure consists of martensite, nodular pearlite and ferrite with a few slag in­ clusions. The microhardness ranges from 202 (ferrite) to 565 (martensite); average = 344 VPH. This is a medium-carbon (around 0.5%C overall) steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment, probably a slack-quench. Photograph reproduced by permission of Count Trapp

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

crowned I (twice) 1445-50 An armet, formerly in Churburg, but now m the Royal Armouries, Leeds IV 498 This was dated to 1445-50 by Scalini (1996, p. 76).

Visor section X 40

Ferrite, martensile and carbides X 240.

101

102

SECTION FOUR

The visor was examined in cross-section; the microstructurc consists of ferrite, martensite and nodular pcarlitc with few slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon (perhaps 0.3%C) steel which has been hardened by some form of quenching. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

103

crowned M c.1450 A gorget originally from Churburg (formerly part of Churburg 23), and with other parts assembled as a composite armour in the Tower of London, now Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.168 (part). The mark is ascribed by Boccia to the Da Meratc workshop (1982, p.285).

Gorget Section X 30

Martensite and ferrite. Note the elongated slag inclusions. X 240

The microstructure consists of tempered martensite and fcrrite with a few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened, apparently by quenching and tempering. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

104

SECTION FOUR

crossed keys c.1450 This mark is ascribed to Giovanni dei Barini, detto Negroli, by Boccia (1982, p.282-291) An upper bevor (shown mounted with the gorget discussed above) was among the parts originally from Churburg, and formerly assembled as a composite armour in the Tower of London, now Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.168 (part). See p. 122 also.

Section X 30

Granular carbides, (including tempered martensite ?), and some ferrite X 160

The microstructure consists of tempered martensite, proeutectoid ferrite and a granular material which might be reheated bainite or pearlite with very few slag inclusions. This is a heterogeneous steel which seems to have been hardened by slack-quenching followed by tempering.

T H E METALLURGY OF ITALIAN A R M O U R

105

crossed-keys 1450-60 A breastplate which is part of a composite armour in the Higgins Armory Museum, inv.no.2607. dated generally 1450-60

Ferrite, a little pearlite, and slag X 50

This was examined inside the turned edge of the left arm opening. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with some slag inclusions. This specimen is a lowcarbon (0.1 %C) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The surface hardness varies from 230 to 320 VPH, suggesting that this was a very heterogeneous steel.

Photograph reproduced by permission of the Higgins Armory Museum, Worcester, Mass.

106

SECTION F O U R

crowned M (twice) & M below a cross (twice) c.1450 A visored or "Burgundian" sallet; Churburg 23. (Scalini numbers this C H 19, 1996, p.79)

Fei'rile and Pearlite X 80

The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 251 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.6%C) which has been aircooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of Count Trapp

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

107

m y crowned; m below a split cross (twice) 1450-60 A barbuta now in the Chicago Institute of Art, no.2449.

Martensite and carbides X 80

The microstructure consists of martensite, bainite (?) and ferrite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 292 to 363; average = 331 VPH. The surface hardness overall varies between 208 and 350 VPH. This is a rnedium-carbon (the carbon content evidently varies between around 0.3% and 0.5%) steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment, probably a slackquench. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Chicago Institute of Art

108

SECTION F O U R

letter P beneath a split double-cross master Pictro Vimcrcati of Brescia. 1450-60

The mark is ascribed by Scalini (1996, p.269) to the

A gorget plate, perhaps for a tournament bascinct. Churburg 56.

The microstructurc consists of martensite only with very few slag inclusions. Some cracks (quenching cracks ?) are visible on the surface. The microhardness is unusually high, averaging 690 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6% - 0.7%C) which has been fully hardened (indeed, over-hardened) by quenching. Photograph reproduced by permission of Count Trapp

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

109

crowned UA above, AM beneath a split cross (twice) These marks are tentatively ascribed to Antomo Missagha and Ambrogio Varcdo in the Catalogue (no 63) 1450-70 6 v • ;• A barbuta now in the Royal Armoury, Turin (inv.E9) dating from around 1450-70 and resembling m both form and metallurgy another in the Wallace Collection (A78) London.

Ferrite and slaer X 40

The microstructure consists of ferrite only with some slag inclusions. This is, unusually, Photograph reproduced by permission of the Royal Armoury, Turin

iron.

110

SECTION F O U R

1450-70 The master-mark I O is very doubtfully ascribed (cat.61) to o n e j o r i of Brescia. letters I O beneath a split cross (twice) A barbuta now in the Royal Armoury, Turin, inv.E.8.

Ferrite and pearlitic areas X 200

The microstructure consists of ferrite and isolated areas of pearlite with a few slag inclu­ sions. The microhardness varies from 161 to 242 VPH . This is a low-carbon (perhaps 0.2%C overall) steel. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Royal Armoury, Turin

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

111

letters GV below a split cross (twice) and crowned GV (once) c.1460 This sallet was formerly at Churburg (Churburg 61) and was later displayed in the Tower of London as part of a composite armour, but is now in the Royal Armouries, Leeds, II. 168 (part). The mark was ascribed by Boccia (1982, p.284) to Giano Vimercati, Brescia.

Fen ite and mailensite/bamitc X 200

Section X 40

The n m of the sallet behind the visor was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and an acicular material which might be bainite or low-carbon martensite with few slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of quenching. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

112

SECTION F O U R

letters GV (?) 1450-60 A backplate now part of a composite armour (shown above on p. 101) in the Higgins Ar­ mory Museum, inv.no.2607

Ferrite, pearlite and slag X 100

This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite (around 0.1 %C) with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 157 VPH.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

1 13

letters BA below the sign for a contraction, (twice) 1450-70 A barbuta now in the Royal Armoury, Turin. inv.no.E7.

The mark is doubtfully attributed to one of the Bandini of Carenno (polishers at Brescia) in the catalogue (cat.62) and the helmet is also said to resemble in shape Wallace A.74, which it does metallurgically. The microstructure consists of ferrite only with some slag inclusions. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Royal Armoury, Turin

114

SECTION F O U R

cinquefoil 1450-60 It has been suggested that the cinquefoil was perhaps a Florentine mark; see Scalini - Diani Armi,(luglio,1983) p.28. A barbuta now in the German National Museum, Nurnberg. inv.no.W. 1272.

I c m U and d u o u i d ptaihtc X 80

Largely divorced pearlite X 320

The microstrueture consists of ferrite and carbide globules with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 172 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel which has been very slow­ ly cooled (annealed)after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the German National Museum, Nurnberg

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

115

cinquefoil c.1470 A barbuta Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, inv.no.Ml/5 - 1936

Ferrite and pearlite X 60

A specimen was taken from inside the skull. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with a few slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been aircooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 170 V P H . Photograph reproduced by permission of the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cam­ bridge

116

SECTION F O U R

letters IdB beneath a split cross (twice) & a cow's head c.1460 A barbuta now in the Royal Armouries, Leeds. IV. 17 These marks have been ascribed to a member of the de Bovis family of Brescia, or alter­ natively to the Milanese Jacopo da Cannobio detto Bichignola active in 1472 (Rossi & Carpegna, 1969, p.43).

Ferrite and pearlite X 60.

The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 160 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

117

letters BE & other marks A barbuta (not illustrated) made in the middle of the 15th century, from Ferdinandeum Museum, Innsbruck, and now in store at Ambras, inv.no. 1999-33.

Ferrite and pearlite X 60

The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a mediumcarbon steel (around 0.4%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 250 VPH.

118

SECTION F O U R

BG below a split cross (twice) below S Boccia tentatively ascribed these marks to master Biagio (for) Giovanni Spanzotti, although it has also been suggested that they belonged to Stefano & Biagio Vimercati (Boccia(1982) p.284, and also seeVigs.97-108). 1460-65 The backplatc from an incomplete armour, now in the Civic Museum of Le Landeron, Switzerland, inv.no. HV 837-840

(right pauldron) carbides and spiny fcrrite X 120

The microstructure consists of carbides (containing pearlite as well as other, irresolvable carbides) and ferritc with some slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 232 to 279; average = 251 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3% to 0.4%C) which has undergone some sort of hcattreatment after fabrication. A specimen from the top plate of the back showed a similar microstructure with a lower carbon content.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

1 19

The third plate from the top of the right pauldron was also examined. The microstructure consists of areas of irresolvable carbides and fcrrite, some in a spiny form, with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 193 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which has undergone some sort of heat-treatment after fabrication. Photographs reproduced by permission of the Fondation clc I'Hotel clc Ville du Landeron

120

SECTION F O U R

G below a split cross (twice) below a crown Ascribed to Cattanco Gattanci by Boccia (1982, p.291 and plates 120-1) c.1470 The left vambracc of a pair, now in the Civic Museum of Lc Landeron, Switzerland, inv.no. HV 842-3.

The microstructure consists of ferrite, some in a spiny form, very fine pearlite and some martensite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 210 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which has undergone some form of heat-treat­ ment after fabrication.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

121

Single crowned I c.1470 The mark is not necessarily the same I mark as that found on the much earlier "Avant" armour; it has been tentatively ascribed to Giovanni Antonio delle Fibbic (Boccia 1982, p.286). A backplate from Rhodes, and now in the Royal Armouries, Leeds. III. 1093 (Karcheski & Richardson, 57)

Pearlite, martensite and ferritc X 240

The microstructure consists of pearlite, martensite and a little ferrite with very few slag inclusions, (and see p. 20) The microhardness ranges from 248 to 447; average = 341 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment, probably a slack-quench. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

122

SECTION F O U R

letters Z O below a split cross (twice) & Z O crowned (single) The marks Z O have been tentatively ascribed to master Giovan Antonio da Lurano of Brescia (Scalini, 1996 p.79). c.1470 A breastplate formerly in Churburg (39), and later assembled as part of a composite ar­ mour in the Tower of London, now in Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.168 (part).

Breastplate section; martensite and nodular pearlite X 40

Granular carbides X 800

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

123

This was examined on the left side edge of the upper part. The microstructurc consists of martensite, nodular pearlitc and very fine pcarlite with very few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment, apparently a slack-quench. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

124

SECTION F O U R

letter Z below a split cross (twice) & FARE crowned These marks are ascribed to Zanetto Ferrari, a Milanese armourer later active in Brescia (see Boccia, 1982, p.291). c.1470 An infantry breastplate formerly at Churburg, and now in the Royal Armouries, Leeds. III. 1282a

Pearlite and ferrite (section) X 45

This was examined on the rim of the right side edge in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite, very granular in places, with a few slag inclusions. This is on average a medium-carbon (there is a band of around 0.2%C and another of around 0.6%C) steel which has been apparently been air-cooled after fabrica­ tion. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

125

letter Z below a split cross (twice) & FARE crowned c.1470. An infantry breastplate made in 2 parts (with an embossed face on lower half), Churburg, no.37.

Ferrite and pearlite X 100.

The microstructure consists of ferrite and areas of what appears to be pearlite, but is irre­ solvable in places, with some slag inclusions. This is a steel of variable carbon content which has b een probably been given a fast air-cool after fabrication. The microhardness varies (with carbon content) from 189 to 277; average = 242 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of Count Trapp

126

SECTION F O U R

letter Z below a split cross (twice) & FARE crowned c.1470 An infantry breastplate made in 2 parts, Churburg 38. see Scalini (1996) p.267

Section X 40 note the corrosion crack

Ferrite and a band of pearlite (granular in places) X 320

Granular carbides and ferrite X 960

This was examined (in section) on the right side edge of the upper breastplate. The microstructure consists of ferrite containing a band of higher carbon content. At higher magnification, this band appears to contain a granular material as well as pearlite. There

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

127

is also a line of slag inclusions, which has opened up into a corrosion crack. This appears to be a low-carbon steel that may have undergone some form of heat-treatment after fab­ rication. The microhardness ranges from 208 to 241; average = 218 VPH Photograph reproduced by permission of Count Trapp

128

SECTION F O U R

letters IA below a split cross (single) The mark has been tentatively ascribed to lacopino Ferrari of Brescia (see Scalini (1996) 266). (a possible second mark is obscured) An infantry breastplate made in 2 parts, Churburg 34.

Ferrite, grain-boundary pearlite, and slag X 80

A sample was detached from inside. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with numerous slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 1 1 3 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of Count Trapp

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

129

IA below a split cross (twice) c.1470 Churburg 33.

(lower part) Martensite and ferrite X 160.

A 2-part breastplate. The lower part seems to have been adapted from an infantry breast­ plate of around 1470. The microstructure consists of ferrite and bainite or low-carbon martensite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 250 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel which has been hardened by quenching. Whatever heat-treat­ ment this has received has also concealed the previous history of the upper part. Upper part: The microstructure consists of martensite within a ferrite network. The mi­ crohardness varies between 294 and 319; average = 302 VPH. Scalini (p.69, 265) suggested that this two-part breastplate (Churburg 33) was made up of two quite disparate halves. The upper half (which he dates to c.1385) had had a formerly attached stop-rib removed, and two (separated) earlier marks of an orb overstruck by an­ other, later, master IA. The lower half of the breastplate was sylistically similar to infantry breastplates made by Brescian masters c.1470, and the later marks attributed to Iacopino Ferrari. Both parts were made of steel, and both were hardened but of course this may simply reflect the procedures of the later armourer, since traces of any first heat-treatment would have been obscured by a second. Therefore this breastplate has been discussed only as a work ofcl470. Photograph reproduced by permission of Count Trapp

130

SECTION FOUR

letters BE (?) crowned (single) above & letters A above AP below a split cross (twice) 1470-80 Sallet. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Rogers Fund, 1904 (04.3.230).

Acicular carbides and ferrite X 1 00

A specimen from inside the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of a ferrite network outlining large areas of an acicular material, which is difficult to characterise, and with few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 230 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel upon which some form of heat-treatment has been attempted. Pyhrr (2000) 8. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York,

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

131

letters GS below a split cross (twice) & crowned S Boccia (1982) 287 ascribed these marks to Giovanni Salimbcnc (d. 1487). c.1480 An armct now in the Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv.no.3880. (not illustrated)

A specimen was taken from inside the skull, near a rivet hole. The microstructure consists of tempered martensite and carbides with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 473 to 566 (average) = 519 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment, apparently a full-quenching.

132

SECTION F O U R

letters BE below a split cross (twice) & BE crowned c.1485 Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A.3.

The armour of Roberto da Sanseverino (d. 1487) which bears these marks, BE crowned and BE below a split cross (twice) on the right cuisse as well as numerous other marks (GA on breast and culet, S & GS on back, FARE and Z on tassets, my and m on left, pd? on right greave). BE is ascribed to Bernadino da Carnago by Boccia (1982, p.286-87), and GA to his broth­ er Giovan Pietro; they worked with Giovanni Salimbeni whose marks are thought to have been S and GS.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

133

The top plate of the right cuissc was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and an acicular material which might be low-carbon martensite, or perhaps bainite, with some slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 232 to 355 ; average = 294 VPH. The inner plate of the left lower vambrace (within the cowter) was also examined in sec­ tion. The microstructure consists of ferrite and areas of carbides, which might be pearlitc, but are irresolvable, with some slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 162 to 275 VPH. This was made from a heterogeneous steel which the makers have attempted to harden by some form of accelerated cooling, probably slack-quenching. Photograph reproduced by permission of Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna

134

SECTION F O U R

letters PZA crowned, P beneath a split cross (twice) 1480-90 An infantry breastplate made in two parts in North Italy "alia tede sea Royal Armoury, Turin; cat. no. 3.

/

V

" " l

* v.

-J

l'0

r

■

»

>

>

:

-^i'

■«' -ryA <Jg '. -■ Fcrrilc, globular cementite and slag X 50

A specimen was examined from within the breastplate. The microstructure consists of ferrite and entirely divorced pearlitc with some irregular slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which has been very slowly cooled after fabrication (perhaps annealed after a repair). Photograph reproduced by permission of the Royal Armoury, Turin

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

crossed-keys below a crown p. 291). 1490-1500

135

This mark is attributed to Domenico Negroli (Boccia, 1982,

A sallet originally from Rhodes, now in Royal Armouries, Leeds.IV.424

Ferrite and pearlite X 40

The edge has a brass border riveted to it. It proved possible to examine the armour in section without removing the border. The microstructure consists of coarse pearlite and a little ferrite with a few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (0.4%G)which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

136

SECTION F O U R

An illegible letter below a split cross cl49o'

Ferrite and pearlite X 100

A left elbow defence (undecorated). Royal Armoury, Turin, inv.no.C 2, cat.no.4. The mark resembles one found elsewhere associated with a second mark of a twin-tow­ ered castle, and therefore was identified by Boccia (1982, p.287-88) as the mark of Pietro Giacomo da Castello, active 1485-1525. The plate above the cowter was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little grain-boundary pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is an almost carbon-free steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Royal Armoury, Turin

137

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

letters *IO crowned above OA(?) twice 1490-1505 Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv.no.3599. cat.no.36

Martensite, ferrite and carbides X 200

Martensile and carbides X 600

A sallet transformed into a light cavalry helmet. A specimen was taken from the skull at a rivet hole. The microstrueture consists of mar­ tensite mixed with globular carbides and some slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 209 to 294; average = 261 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel which has been quenched in an attempt to harden it. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Stibbert Museum, Florence

138

SECTION F O U R

An illegible letter below a crown, & two indistinct letters (G ... ) below split crosses (twice) The mark may be G* which Boccia suggests is that of Giovanni da Faerno (Boccia, 1982, p.291). 1490-1500 A breastplate, from Rhodes, made in 3 parts. Museum of Stjohn, Clerkenwell.inv.no.2606

Martensite X 200

The microstructure consists of slightly tempered martensite and ferrite with few slag inclu­ sions. The microhardness varies from 218 to 308 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Museum of Stjohn

T H E METALLURGY OF ITALIAN A R M O U R

crowned hunting horn & AN with horn (twice) Missaglia, after 1452 (Boccia, 1982, p.282).

139

This mark has been ascribed to Antonio

1490-1500 A pauldron of 5 lames, from Rhodes, now in Royal Armouries, Leeds.III. 1121

Ferrite and pearlite X 40 (note the elongated slag inclusion)

This was examined in section on the edge of a plate. The microstructure consists of ferrite and rather coarse pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.4%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrica­ tion. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

140

SECTION F O U R

Castle Boccia (1982, 291) attributes the mark to the workshop of the da Castello in Brescia 1490-1500. An infantry breastplate made in two pieces "in the German style". Solothurn Zeughaus. inv.no. 1.

Pearlite and ferrite X 80

Specimens were taken from the breastplate and the lower back defence. The microstructure (in both cases) consists of pearlite and ferrite with some slag inclusions. This is a mediumcarbon (around 0.4%C) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Old Arsenal Museum, Solothurn (Switzer­ land)

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

141

letters R O M (twice) below an orb The mark has been attributed to Romain des Ursins (Karcheski & Richardson, 2000, p. 119). c.1495 A couter for the right arm, made in one piece, from Rhodes and now in Royal Armouries, LecdsIII.1115.

Ferrite, pearlite and slag X 40

This was examined in cross-section, and the microstructure consists of ferrite and rather coarse pearlite with a row of slag inclusions in irregular lumps. This is a low-carbon steel (0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

142

SECTION FOUR

letters m e r beneath a crown, & d m y beneath a split cross c.1495 Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna B.33

Ferrite and pearlite X 80

An armour made for the foot-combat, and formerly belonging to Claude de Vaudrey, Chamberlain of Burgundy (d. 1515). It was perhaps won in combat by Maximilian I at a tournament of 1495, since it is mentioned in the Imperial inventory of 1555. The mark m e r is on both upper arms and has been ascribed to Giov.Marco Meraviglia, by Thomas & Gamber (1976, 184), although a similar mark is ascribed to the Merate brothers by Lensi (1918, II, 587). The mark d m y is on the helm and right gauntlet and is ascribed to Damiano Missaglia, nephew of Antonio. A plate from the right gauntlet was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and rather coarse pearlite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 254 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.4%C) which has been slowly cooled in air after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

143

144

SECTION FOUR

letters ARBOIS & a king's crown before 1508 Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna B71. An armour for the foot-combat. Not fire-gilded, but apparently gold-painted overall in the mid-16th century.

Hi

»

r

TOW*

'•

Backplate section; martensite (probably) X 40

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

Martensite and slag X 320

145

Tonlet; pearlite and ferrite X 320.

The marks on the breastplate, ARBOIS and a king's crown, have been attributed to the Burgundian court armoury at Arbois in the Jura, established by Maximilian, as Duke of Burgundy, in 1495, before he became Emperor in 1508. The brothers Francesco and Gabriclc da Merate from Milan were engaged as armourers (Thomas & Gamber, 1976, p. 195) and accordingly this armour is discussed in this chapter although it was made in Burgundy. The backplate was examined on the lowest plate of the lower-back defence. The microstructure is fairly uniform and consists of an acicular martensite, which is probably lowcarbon martensite, but may contain bainite, with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 333 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment. The next-lowest plate of the tonlet was examined at the rear on the left side. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a mediumcarbon steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. It is surprising that it has not been hardened, but suggests that the foot-combat armour was not all made at one time; the tonlet may have been a later modification. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna

146

SECTION F O U R

Indistinct letters below a crown Lensi (II, 587) ascribes this mark to the Merate brothers who were in Milan in 1492 but by 1495 had left to set up a workshop at Arbois. Lensi suggests that they kept their Milan workshop active as well. cl500 An armet skull (not illustrated) in the Stibbert Collection, Florence, inv.no.3550.

Martensite X 320

A sample from within the skull was examined. The microstructure consists of areas of martensite adjacent to areas (presumably of lower carbon content) of ferrite grains mixed with acicular carbides. The microhardness varies from 203 to 268 VPH. This is a steel of variable, if low, carbon content which has been quenched after fabrication.

T H E METALLURGY OF ITALIAN A R M O U R

147

letters B and A on either side of a crowned knot c.1500 A. pauldron of 13 lames probably made in North Italy around 1500 for export. Found in Rhodes and now in Royal Armouries, Leeds. 111.1124/ 5. see: Kareheski & Richardson (2000) 100

Ferrite and slag X 25

This was examined in section on the edge of a plate. The microstructure consists of ferrite and some cementite arranged in bands with numer­ ous slag inclusions. This is an almost carbon-free iron (around 0.1 %C or less) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

148

SECTION F O U R

indistinct letter below a split cross cl500 Waffensammlung Schloss Ambras A. 184. An armour of Giovanni Francesco II Gonzaga, in cabinet I of the "Heroes' Chamber".

Ferrite and pearlite X 30

A specimen was examined in section from the rim of the left poleyn. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with few slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 197 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

letters ME crowned & M O crowned (twice) to Michele da Figino.

149

Boccia (1982, p.288) ascribes the mark ME

cl510 Royal Armoury, Turin, inv.no. B19, cat.no. 1. An armour, without decoration, made for a horseman.

>' V */;--V-.->M:

'"*^--

4*

'-■■

"■• '■.

*■ i" f"

•fet py*

v

*

' I'

:'# >

■

Ferrite, slag, and cementite X 100

A specimen from inside the armet visor was examined. The microstructure consists of fer­ rite, some grain-boundary cementite, and slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel, slowly cooled after fabrication (or repair?). Photograph reproduced by permission of the Royal Armoury, Turin

150

SECTION F O U R

letters NERA within a rectangle & a crowned orb c.1510 Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A. 11 An armour, without decoration, made for Giano II Fregoso, Doge of Genoa.

Pauldron section: lerritic and martensitic bands, with a corrosion crack X 50

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

Pauldron: Nodular pearlite (dark), lamellar pearlite and martensite (light) X 400

151

Skull section: ferrite and carbides X 80

A specimen was examined in section from the top plate of the left pauldron (which bears these marks). The microstructure consists of bands of martensite mixed with nodular pearlite as well as lamellar pearlite, and bands containing more ferrite, with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 287 to 493, depending on the carbon content; average — 399 VPH. This is a steel of carbon content of up to around 0.5% which has been hardened by some form of quenching. A specimen was examined in section from the skull of the armet. The microstructure consists of an acicular material which might be bainite, or perhaps low-carbon martensite. The microhardness varies from 148 to 209 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.1 %C) which has a l s o been hardened by some form of heat-treatment. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna

152

SECTION F O U R

unidentified marks c.1520 Royal Armouries, Leeds, IV.576.

Section of visor X 40

Bainite (?) martensite and ferrite in a spiny form X 320

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

153

An armet visor for the tilt which was made probably in Italy around 1520. It bears uni­ dentified marks, but no etching or gilding. The visor was examined on its lower edge in cross-section. The microstructure consists of martensite and an acicular material which might be bainitc with few slag inclusions. No pearlite is visible. This is a low- or medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

154

SECTION F O U R

G R O U P A (ii) Unmarked armour without etched or gilded decoration, and presumed to be Italian.

Martensite, nodular pearlite and ferrite X 960

^itfaHMffj/•.^^Sv^

m&

j

"l^JuR

■-■'

JC;.

'

JfHfejfo / ^ J J V3E*&{

• ! ""

fSJfev

L

r^5 ;

^ :

'• " fc

% ',i

Ii,

_»s

*V-T . .

■

-_■■>-

'-1&- : .1 -

i was*, j'/

«

"

.

i*0

Section (note the small slag inclusion) X 80

.

'.

"k ! t *

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

155

C1340 The skull of a bascinet in the Poldi-Pezzuoli Museum, Milan, inv.no. 2599. Corrosion has removed a good deal of metal from the lower edge of the skull, so it is cjuite possible that a mark was present near the lower edge, but has been lost. This was exam­ ined in section on the lower edge of the skull. The microstructure consists mostly of areas of martensite with some dark-etching materi­ al which might be nodular peariite and a network of proeutectoid ferrite with a few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon (perhaps 0.5%C) steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment, apparently a slack-quench. Photograph by permission of the Poldi-Pezzuoli Museum, Milan

156

SECTION FOUR

1350-60 Churburg 48

Martensite X 240.

The (isolated) lower cannon of a 3-piece right vambrace. A specimen from within the low­ er cannon was examined. The micro structure consists of uniform slightly tempered mar­ tensite and a little ferrite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 868 VPH (sic !) This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has been fully quenched, not tem­ pered, and almost certainly found to be too brittle for use. See Scalini (1996) 254. Photograph by permission of Count Trapp

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

157

1360-80 Churburg 47

Ferrite and slag X 80

An articulated right vambrace, that was exhibited with Churburg 48, although they were not, in fact, a pair. A specimen from within the lower cannon was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. The microhardness (average) = 224 VPH. Photograph by permission of Count Trapp

158

SECTION F O U R

1360-80

Section of A 251: pearlite and ferrite X 40

A 252: ferrite, pearlite and slag X 80

One of a pair of hourglass gauntlets in the Wallace Collection, London A.251/2. A pair of very similar gauntlets is in Churburg (on C H 13) and another similar pair are in the Bargello, Florence. This was examined in cross-section upon the rim. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite with some rows of slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.5%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 250 VPH. Its companion A252 was also examined and found to be very similar in microstructure. Photograph by permission of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

159

before 1370

Section X 40

A bascinet (not illustrated). Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, inv.no. 1905.493, now in the Museum of Scotland. Norman points out (cat.no.4) that there are bascinets of similar form on the silver altarpiece in Pistoia Cathedral, completed in 1376. The altarpiece is illustrated in Scalini (1980) 18-19. This helmet has had later alterations. The rim of the helmet was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some very elongated slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

160

SECTION FOUR

Late 14lh century The skull of a bascinet. Castcl Sant'Angclo, Rome.inv.no.3280.

Ferrite and slag X 100

A specimen from within the skull was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. The microhardness (average) = 1 6 4 VPH. Photograph by permission of the National Museum of Gastel Sant'Angelo, Rome

T H E METALLURGY OF ITALIAN A R M O U R

161

C1370

Martensite X 80 German National Museum, Nurnberg. W. 1466. A bascinet skull (severely corroded) whose form closely resembles Italian bascinets of c 1370 (Blair, 1958, p. 194). A specimen from the edge of the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of martensite and bainite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 342 to 405; average = 366 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.5%C) which has been hardened by some form of quenching. Photograph by permission of the German National Museum, Nurnberg

162

SECTION F O U R

late 14th c. Wallace Collection, London A.74 A barbuta without a maker's mark, (see also p. 110 and p. 113)

■n

Section: ferrite, pearlite and slag X 40

This was examined in cross-section upon the lower rim. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite arranged in bands with a few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.4%C) has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph by permission of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

163

1390-1400 A bascinet (hounskull), formerly at Churburg, and now in Royal Armouries, Leeds.IV.470

Section: pearlite and ferrite X 40 (note the very small slag inclusions)

This was examined in cross-section on the lower rim of the skull. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite with very few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon (varying from 0.3% to 0.6%C) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

164

SECTION F O U R

C.1390

Detached visor from a bascinet (hounskull) without marks. Royal Armoury Turin inv.no.E6 cat.no.59.

Ferrite and carbides X 80

The microstructure consists of ferrite and areas of carbides with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.5%C) which has been (possibly) cooled in air after fabrication. One might speculate that this was the result of an unsuccessful attempt at quenching. The microhardness varies from 233 to 270; average = 250 VPH. Photograph by permission of the Royal Armoury, Turin

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

165

early 15th c. Detached plate from a "coat-of-plates" from Chalcis. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 29.15.100. Bashford Dean Memorial Collection. Bequest of Bashford Dean, 1928.

ferrite and pearlite X 100

A sample was examined from the edge of the rim at the arm-hole. The microstructure consists of fine-grained ferrite and pearlite with very few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.5%C) which has apparently been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 276 VPH. Photograph by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

166

SECTION FOUR

el 400 Hofjagd- und Riistkammcr, Vienna A.24 A bascinct (hounskull) without maker's marks, formerly belonging to Duke Ernst of Aus­ tria (1377-1424). This may not necessarily be Italian (Scalini, 1996, p-47).

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

167

ferrite and carbides X 160

A specimen from inside the lower right side of the bascinet visor was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and irresolvable carbides with a few slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (0.1 %C) which has undergone some sort of quenching after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 193 VPH. Photograph by permission of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna

168

SECTION F O U R

C1400 Wallace Collection, London A.69 A bascinet (hounskull) without a maker's mark.

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

Skull (seclion) ferritc pearlite and slag X 25

Vizor (section) ferrite pearlite and slag X 30; note the forging crack

The skull and the visor were both examined in cross-section on their lower rims. In both cases, the microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with numerous slag inclu­ sions. The skull shows a distinct forging line down the length of the plate, in the centre of the section. The visor shows a crack having opened up in the same position, presumably the result of corrosion having taken place at a similar welding line. They are both made of low-carbon steels (around 0.1 %C in the case of the visor, perhaps 0.2%C for the skull) which have been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph by permission of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection

170

SECTION FOUR

C1400

Royal Armouries, Leeds.IV.497 A bascinet skull without a maker's mark.

•SSWW Section: pearlite, ferrite and slag X 40

The lower rim of the skull was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of divorced pearlite in a ground mass of ferrite with some large (as well as smaller and elon­ gated) slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon (around 0.6%C) steel which has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

T H E METALLURGY OF ITALIAN A R M O U R

171

1420-40 Parts of a great bascinet (originally from Chalcis). Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.no.29.158.47. Bashlbrd Dean Memorial Collection, 1929. Funds from various donors.

(front) Ferrite and grain-boundary cementite X 50

Specimens were taken from within this helmet at the front and the back. The microstruc­ ture (at the front) consists of ferrite and a little cementite with a few slag inclusions. The microstructure (at the rear) consists of ferrite and rather spheroidised pearlite with a few slag inclusions. These parts are made of low-carbon steels (from 0.1 %C in front to 0.3%C in rear) which have been slowly cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 174 VPH. Photograph by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

172

SECTION F O U R

cl435 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.no. 29.158.5 Collection, 1929. Funds from various donors. An armet dated by Boccia (1982, 44) to cl435.

Ferrite and carbides X 50

Bashford Dean Memorial

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

173

A specimen was taken from the vizor of this helmet. The mierostructure consists of ferritc, spiny in places, and rather spheroidiscd pearlitc with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 184 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.3%C) which has apparently been air-cooled after fab­ rication. Photograph by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

174

SECTION F O U R

C1440 Armet. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.no. 42.50.2 1942.

Gift of Stephen V. Grancsay

Martensite, ferrite and nodular pearlite X 320

Specimens were taken from within the lower visor and left cheek-piece of this helmet. The microstructures consists of ferrite and martensite with nodular pearlite and very few slag inclusions with rather more ferrite in the specimen from the visor. This is a medium-car­ bon steel (around 0.5%G) which has been hardened, apparently by some form of slackquenching. The microhardness varies from 260 (ferrite/pearlite) to 536 (martensite); average = 338 VPH. Photograph by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

175

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

15th C A sallet with a short nasal. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.no. 29.158.41 Collection, 1929, Funds from various donors.

Bashford Dean Memorial

Ferrite, pearlite and (other) carbides X 160

A specimen was taken from within this helmet. The microstructure consists of ferrite, lamellar pearlite and an irresolvable component (possibly nodular pearlite) with some slag inclu­ sions. The microhardness varies from 222 to 336; (average) = 279 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment. Photograph by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

176

SECTION F O U R

C.1450 An armet without a visor in the National Museum of Castel Sant'Angelo, Rome, inv.no.3289.

Ferrite and martensite X 320

A specimen was examined from inside the skull. The microstructure consists of ferrite and martensite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 233 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which has been hardened by some form of quenching. Another specimen from the rear of the right cheekpiece was examined, and also found to be martensitic. Photograph by permission of the National Museum of Castel Sant'Angelo, Rome

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

177

mid 15th century A plate from a helmet; perhaps a wrapper for an armet (not illustrated). Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.no. 49.120.7.

Pearlite with a ferrite network and very little slag X 50

A specimen was taken from within this helmet. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 262 VPH. This is a medium-carbon (perhaps 0.7%C) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrica­ tion.

178

SECTION F O U R

mid 15th c. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.no. 49.120.8

Ferrite and slag X 40

A plate from a helmet; perhaps a wrapper for an armet (not illustrated). A specimen was taken from within this helmet. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. This is an iron.

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

179

cl450 A sallet; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.no. 04.3.230

Rogers Fund, 1904.

Ferrite and acicular carbides X 160

A specimen was taken from within this helmet. The microstructure consists of ferrite and an acicular material which might be bainite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 223 VPH. This appears to be a low-carbon steel which may have been slack-quenched. Photograph by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

180

SECTION F O U R

1450-1500 A sallet Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.no.14.25.573

Gift of William H. Riggs, 1913.

Ferrite with a little pearlite and some slag inclusions X 50

A specimen was taken from within this helmet. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

15th cent. A sallet (not illustrated) thought to be Italian. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.no. 49.120.5

Ferrilc and slag only X 80

This is only an iron.

181

182

SECTION FOUR

cl450 A sabaton, originally a pair from the armoury of Hohenaschau, and now in the Royal Ar­ mouries, Leeds.III.1348

Section: ferrite with a little pearlite and some slag inclusions X 40

This was examined in cross-section upon the lower rim of the foot. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pcariite with very few slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

183

C1460 Sallet Munich City Museum, inv.no.Z.6 'j« - « . .

¥

-tiM|h Ferrite and pearlite X 50

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of areas of ferrite and pearlite with a row of slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon (perhaps 0.2%C) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Microhardness (average) = 1 7 1 VPH. Photograph by permission of the Munich City Museum

184

SECTION F O U R

1460-75 armet Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.no.29.158.22 Collection, 1929. Funds from various donors.

Bashford Dean Memorial

Ferrite and pearlite X 80

Specimens from the skull, brow reinforce, and right cheekpiece were taken from within this helmet. The microstructures consists of ferrite and pearlite in varying proportions with a few slag inclusions. This is a steel of variable carbon content(up to 0.6%C in the cheekpiece) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

C1465 barbuta Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.no. 25.188.20

185

Gift of George D. Pratt, 1925.

Ferrite, pearlite, and slag X 80

A specimen was taken from within this helmet. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with a few slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon (around 0.3%C) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

186

SECTION F O U R

1460-80 A barbuta (not illustrated) thought to be Italian Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.no.49.163.2

Martensite, with nodular pearlite (dark areas) and ferrite X 200

A specimen was taken from within this helmet. The microstructure consists of ferrite, nodular pearlite and martensite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness of the martensitic areas = 375 VPH. This is a medium-carbon (perhaps 0.5%C) steel which has been hardened by some form of slack-quenching.

T H E METALLURGY OF ITALIAN A R M O U R

187

1460-1480 A sallet found at Magreith near Bozen; Italian in form, but without marks. German Na­ tional Museum, Niirnbcrg, inv.no.W. 1275.

Martensite X 60

The microstructure consists of very uniform martensite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 283 to 304 VPH. This appears to be a low-carbon steel which has been hardened by quenching. The sur­ face shows numerous cracks, perhaps the result of the earlier quenching having embrittled the steel. Photograph by permission of the German National Museum, Niirnberg

188

SECTION F O U R

1460-80 A barbuta Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.no. 14.25.580

Gift of William H. Riggs, 1913.

Ferrite and pearlite areas X 60

A specimen was taken from within this helmet. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite in varying proportions with a few rounded slag inclusions. This is overall a mediumcarbon steel (perhaps 0.4%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

189

1460-80 A barbuta Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.no.14.25.581. Gift of William H. Riggs, 1913.

Ferrite, pearlitc and slag X 60

A specimen was taken from within this helmet. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with a few rounded slag inclusions. This is a steel, low in carbon content (perhaps 0.3%C), which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

190

SECTION F O U R

C1470

An infantry breastplate made in two pieces from Churburg, now in the Royal Armouries, Leeds. III. 1281 (not illustrated)

Pearlite and ferrite (section) X 60

This was examined on the top edge, in cross-section. The microstructurc consists of fairly uniform pearlite and very little ferrite with very few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon (perhaps 0.6% or 0.7%C) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. It is closely comparable to Churburg 37, 38, and 40.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

191

C1470

A one-piece infantry breastplate; Churburg 40.

Ferrite, pearlite and corrosion cracks X 50

A specimen from within the breast was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and (somewhat divorced) pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) which has been slowly air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) — 181 VPH. Photograph by permission of Count Trapp

192

SECTION F O U R

late 15th c. A composite armour which includes the breastplate discussed here, as well as Landshut arm defences (inv.no.3570), and an Innsbruck (?) backplatc (inv.no.3902) which are discussed separately. Stibbcrt Museum, Florence, 3910.

Ferrite and pearlitc X 200

A specimen was examined from inside the breastplate. The microstructure consists of fer­ rite and a little pearlitc with some detached carbides, and slag inclusions. This is a lowcarbon (around 0.1 %C) steel which has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph by permission of the Stibbcrt Museum, Florence

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

193

1450-1500 kettle-hat Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.no. 14.25.582

Gift of William H. Riggs

Ferrite and carbides X 40

Ferrite and carbides X 160

A specimen was taken from within this helmet. The microstructure consists of ferrite and coarse pearlite which has divorced to spheroidised carbides, with a few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.4%C) which been very slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

194

SECTION FOUR

1450-1500

A bevor, without visible marks, now in Castel Sant'Angelo, Rome.inv.no. 1744. A specimen from within the bevor was examined. The microstructure (not illustrated) consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. This is simply a wrought iron. Average microhardness = 175 VPH. Photograph by permission of the National Museum of Castel Sant'Angelo, Rome

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

195

1450-1500 The cuff of a gauntlet, now in the Royal Armouries, Leeds. III. 1225

Section: ferrite, pearlite and central line of slag inclusions X 40

This was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and rather divorced pearlite with some elongated slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.4%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

196

SECTION F O U R

C.1490 Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A . I l l Part of an armour belonging to a Gonzaga. At Ambras it was catalogued as an armour of Fcderico Gonzaga, but its corpulence suggests his younger brother, Gian Francesco (Thomas & Gamber, 1976, 183). Around 1550 in Mantua, bands of etching with a black­ ened pattern along the edges were added.

Ferrite and pearlite X 160

A specimen from the second plate of the left pauldron was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and granular carbides (divorced pearlite ?) with a few slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been slowly-cooled or reheated after fab­ rication. The microhardness varies from 172 to 206 VPH. Photograph by permission of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

197

1500-1510

Visor Section: pearlite, ferrite and slag inclusions X 20. Note the sharp division between the band of pearlite and the band of ferrite mixed with pearlite.

A visor from an armet, from Rhodes, and now in Royal Armouries, Leeds. IV.437 This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of pearlite and a little ferrite with few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon (around 0.5%C) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

198

SECTION F O U R

1500-10 A breastplate without central keel, decoration, or maker's mark. National Museum of Caste! Sant'Angelo, Rome, inv.no.839.

Martensite (mostly) X 80

The microstructure consists of martensite and what may be bainite (or low-carbon mar­ tensite) with some slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 228 to 281 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel which has been quenched to harden it. It is exhibited with fragments of parade armours, one of scaled form (1574) and another (1586). They are discussed else­ where. Photograph by permission of the National Museum of Castel Sant'Angelo, Rome

T H E METALLURGY O F ITALIAN A R M O U R

199

1500-10 A sallet with a decorative brass border, but without marks. Churburg 69 (Compare with Royal Armouries, Leeds, IV.424) p. 135

Ferrite and pearlite X 80

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructurc consists of pearlite and ferrite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness reaches 192 V P H . This is a medium-carbon (around 0.4%C overall) steel which has been slowly-cooled after fabrica­ tion. Photograph by permission of Count Trapp

200

SECTION F O U R

C15I0 A globose breastplate, without lance-rest, and (unlike 11.392) apparently never decorated with etching, from Rhodes, and now in the Royal Armouries, Leeds. III. 1085 (not illustrated)

Section: ferrite and pearlite X 20

This was examined on a cross-section of the plate. The microstructure consists of rather coarse pearlite and ferrite with a row of slag inclu­ sions. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.6%C overall) which has been slowly cooled after fabrication.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR

201

C1510 A half-armour without decoration. Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.392.

(culet) ferrite and pearlite X 60

Specimens from the arm, culet, and tasset were examined. The microstructures all consist of ferrite and varying amounts of pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon (up to about 0.3%C) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

202

SECTION F O U R

Surface h a r d n e s s t e s t i n g of a r m o u r originally from the Sanctuary of S.Maria della Grazie, which was exhibited in the Palazzo Ducale, Mantova, and is now in the Archiepiscopal Museum, Mantova. These tests were carried out in 1975 with a Branson electronic hardness tester, and the results were the first indication to the author that an appreciable proportion of 15 th cen­ tury Milanese armour might have been made of hardened steel. Assembly date (Boccia)

Bl B2 B3 B4 B5 B6

(master) 1455-60 Biagio per Giovanni Spanzotti(:') 1470-75 Bernadino Cantoni (?) cl480 (Milan ?) 1485-90 (Milan ?) cl500 (Milan ?) cl510 (Milan ?)

range of hardness (of breastplate)

average hardness (Rockwell G) (VPH)

20-45 20-45 20-45 20 20-45 20-45

31 35 31 20 24 30

310 350 310 230 250 300

The results for Milanese knightly armours are quoted above. 4 of the 6 seem to have been made of hardened steels, if not always uniformly hardened. References (see also the references to Chapter 4.2). T h e dates and attributions are generally taken from Boccia (1982) and T h o m a s & Gamber (1976). T h e more recent study by Scalini (1996) does not always follow Boccia's dating. T h e most recent catalogue of European armour in the Stibbert Collection Boccia, L.G. "II museo Stibbert a Firenze" (2 vols, 1975) does not list all pieces, unlike the comprehensive catalogue of Lensi. T h e armour deposit from Rhodes has recently been published by Karcheski & Richardson (2000). Honcycombc, R.W.K. "Steels - microstructure and properties" (1981) Karcheski, W J . & Richardson, T. "The medieval armour from Rhodes" (Leeds & Worcester, 2000). Lensi, A. "II museo Stibbert; Catalogo delle sale delle Armi Europee" (1918). Norman, A.V.B. "Arms & armour in the Royal Scottish Museum" (Edinburgh, 1972). Pyhrr, S. "European Helmets, 1450-1650 - Treasures from the Reserve Collection" (New York, 2000) Scalini, M. " T h e armoury of the Castle of Churburg" (Udine, 1996) Idem, "Note sulla formazione dell'Armatura di Piastra Ilaliana 1380-1420" Waffen- und Kostumkunde, 22(1980) 15-26. Thomas, B. & G a m b e r , 0 . "Katalog der Leibrustkammer"(Vienna, 1976)

CHAPTER 4.4

T H E ECLIPSE OF AN INDUSTRY—ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER

1510

There are t h r e e major changes in the nature of Italian armour which take place within a few years of one another around the turn of the 16th century. In the first place, and most importantly, it is almost never made of hardened steel after about 1510. This is an abrupt change, and not easy to explain convincingly (tabulated results show only two such specimens—of uncertain date but perhaps 1520-1540—out of a hun­ dred examined from between 1510 and 1630). This change coincides with the adoption of fire-gilding. The latter process seems to have been employed for the decoration of armour from about 1490 onwards. The breastplate ascribed (fancifully) to Bartolomeo Colleoni (Vienna A. 183) is one of the earliest examples of such decoration. It rapidly becomes very common, and increases in extent until half or more of the surface is covered by fire-gilded decoration. Examples of gold decoration upon armour are known before 1490, but it may not have been fire-gilding. Gold paint, for example, would require no heating, although it would have been far less permanent. "Fire-gilding" by applying gold amalgam (a solution of gold in mercury) and then heating to boil away the mercury was capable of fixing a permanent thin layer of gold upon other, cheaper, metals but the heating would rapidly reduce the hardness of a quenched steel (see chapter 8.2). Evidently the one operation (gilding) was found to interfere, or thought to be likely to interfere, with the other (hardening). The two operations are very seldom both carried out on an Italian armour. Other centres of armour production adopted fire-gilding during the late 15th century, but without the same consequences. As another section will relate, South German armour was being made of hardened steel by the end of the 15th century, almost as their Italian rivals were abandoning this technology, and they continued to harden it for another 100 years. Very few Italian armours are both gilded and hardened (4, in fact, from the late 15 th century). This might perhaps be explained by the Italians' less certain mastery of the techniques for hardening steel; a preference for slack-quenching being conspicuous in the 15th century, while their South German rivals preferred quenching and tempering, which is easier to combine with fire-gilding. What is very surprising, however, is that plain (ungilded) armours, presumably for field use, are not hardened either. Indeed they are fre­ quently made of quite poor metal. Presumably those customers of armourers were now giving a lower priority to battlefield armour. Why there should have been such a shift in their priorities is less easy to understand. The s e c o n d change is that the use of marks becomes relatively uncommon, and effec-

204

SECTION F O U R

tively disappears after 1510, although some gilded armours are signed (rather than marked) later in the century. If the use of a mark was intended to be a sign of the quality of the metal employed to make the armour, then when most customers were no longer interested in that c[uality, its disappearance would logically follow. The third change is a less frequent use of steel in the early years of the 16th century, although perhaps economic factors might be partly responsible for this. The French inva­ sion of 1494 introduced modern, mobile, artillery to Italy, and the subsequent 30 years of intermittent war dislocated the economic life of Italy in general and Milan in particular. The Negroli family employed steel for their fantastic embossed armours, and in general, there was a revival in the use of steel in the 1530s, which lasted until the end of the cen­ tury. Even the cheapest armour was generally made of a low-carbon steel, which is more than can be said for the cheapest German armour. Throughout the 16th century, armour made for the more affluent customer was now decorated with patterns of etching and gilding. The techniques of heat-treatment (in Italy usually slack-quenching) employed to harden the steel were evidently found to be incom­ patible with the heating needed for fire-gilding. Their South German rivals seem to have been more successful at combining the two operations, as Section 5 relates, because they followed a different order of procedure, gilding their steels after quenching, but before tempering. It is possible that some Italian armourers may have tried to combine slack-quenching with a separate heating for fire-gilding, and then been disappointed by the loss in hard­ ness. In fairness to them, it should be pointed out that the thin sheets of low-alloy steels they used would have lost their hardness much faster upon reheating than modern steels would have done 1 . There was of course an alternative procedure for improving the defen­ sive qualities of the armour which was less demanding on the armourer, and that was to make it thicker. Increasing the thickness of a 2 mm plate to 3 mm more than doubled its effectiveness (see Section 9). So the problems of heat-treatment could be avoided, provid­ ed that their customers were prepared to wear heavier armour. A hundred examples of armours from the 16th century have been examined by the au­ thor and only two of those specimens were found to be made of hardened steels (see tab­ ulated results). This indicates a complete shift in armourers' priorities. Protection was not to be abandoned, but it was no longer their sole priority. It had to be combined with decoration, and in the long run, that would be at the expense of wearability. Tables showing the results of metallography of Italian armour after the introduction of gilded decoration (after 1510-20 to about 1635); divided in three groups. B (i) gilded and marked B (ii) gilded but unmarked B (iii) plain field armours It is convenient to divide the largest category, B (ii) into three sub-groups of armours on the basis of their decoration, because that may have had an effect upon their manufacture: 1

Williams, (1998)

THE ECLIPSE OF AN INDUSTRY

205

ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

B (iia) after etching but before embossing b e c a m e w i d e s p r e a d B (iib) the h e y d a y of e m b o s s e d a r m o u r B (hie) gilded b u t not (greatly) embossed

G r o u p B (i) gilded a n d m a r k e d Mark

Date

Metal

Specimen iron

my* A, S+

ip m*

Heat-treatment

low C% medium steel C % steel

air attempted hardened cooled hardening

1490 HJR B2

M

310

1490 1495 1495 1512

M M

464 597 < 273

HJR B2/147 HJR A.5h HJR A.5p RA II 7

L L

A

Out of these 5 0 2 3

Hardness (VPH)

were made of iron were made of low-carbon steel were made of medium-carbon steel were apparently unhardened were partially hardened by an attempt at heat-treatment were fully hardened by a successful heat-treatment

SECTION FOUR

20b

G r o u p B (ii)a a r m o u r u n m a r k e d b u t etched & gilded Date

Specimen

Metal iron

1490 1505 1515 1510 1510 1510 1510 1510 1515 1520

HJR A. 183 C H 70 RA III 1086 RAIII51 ZS 3 Stib 2827 Stib 3122 Stib 3146 H A M 2640 RA III.834

low C% steel

Heat-treatment medium C % steel

air attempted hardened cooled hardening

M

A A A A A A A A A A

L I L M L L M M M

Out of these 10 specimens 1 4 5

was made of iron were made of low-carbon steel were made of medium-carbon steel

10 0 0

were apparently unhardened were partially hardened by an attempt at heat-treatment were fully hardened by a successful heat-treatment

Hardness (VPH)

260 240

203

250

THE ECLIPSE OF AN INDUSTRY

ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

207

G r o u p B (ii) b embossed & gilded Date

Specimen

Metal iron

1530 1530 1532 1535 1535 1535 1538 1535 1540 1540 1540 1540 1540 1540 1540 1540 1540 1540 1543 1545 1545 1545 1550 1547 1550 1550 1550 1555 1555 1555 1555 1550

HJR A498c I WC A205 HJR A498h WC A241 043 202 1425 7141 WC A207 SAngl586 MMA 1425597 MMA 1425602 WC A106 WC A108 Kon10542 WC A353 HJR A632 Kon E63 RA ell I HAM 416 17190 1720 MMA14251855 MMA2653 SAngl574 MMA491633 HJR A783 stib 11586 RA c48 MMA1425563 HJR A693 Fitz Ml9 MMA 043223 HJR A693s Fitz5/1942

Heat-treatment

low C% medium C % steel steel

M L L L M M M L M L L M M M M M M L L M L M M M M M L M M L

air attempted hardened cooled hardening A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

< = up to Out of these 32 specimens 2 were made of iron 11 were made of low-carbon steel 19 were made of medium-carbon steel 32 0 0

Hardness (VPH)

were apparently unhardencd were partially hardened by an attempt at heat-treatment were fully hardened by a successful heat-treatment

198 237 233

210 282 223

243 237 268 < 240 254 106 218 232 299 213 261

259 182

208

SECTION F O U R

G r o u p B (ii) c gilded b u t not embossed Date

Specimen

Metal iron

1540 1555 1560 1570 1570 1575 1575 1575 1580 1580 1580 1580 1580 1580 1580 1580 1580 1585 1590 1590 1590 1590 1590 1590 1595 1595 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1602

WC A.355 RAB4 RAB7 III 1209 MstM 628 Konopl037 RAT B8 RAT B10 NAM3133 ch2648 Lat29162 WC A52 Lat2555 RA II146 stib3958 Soll23 Fitz 12 stib3476 Sol281 HAM 425 RAT c70 BNM1001 BNM 1465 WC A60 stib3461 RAT c21 RAT B3 RAT B35 stib3964 WC A235 stib 921 RAT C98

Heat-treatment

low C% medium C % steel steel M M L M L L

I M M L M I M L I L M M L L L L M M I L L I L L L L

air attempted hardened cooled hardening A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

Out of these 32 specimens 5 were made of iron 16 were made of low-carbon steel 11 were made of medium-carbon steel 32 0 0

Hardness (VPH)

were apparently unhardened were partially hardened by an attempt at heat-treatment were fully hardened by a successful heat-treatment

228

224 259 209 249 252

279

226 120 238

192

THE ECLIPSE OF AN INDUSTRY

ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

209

G r o u p B (iii) plain field a r m o u r s Date

Specimen

Metal iron

1520 1530 1540 1555 1555 1555 1555 1555 1555 1555 1555 1560 1560 1560 1570 1580 1590 1600 1600 1630

Lat2514 RA 11.358 LatE8 HJR A406 stib2187 stib2186 HJR Al 181 HJR A l l 16 HJR A 1188 HJR A 404 HJR A1381 stib4 stib2797 MstM 633 Lat E10 Fitzl4H Lat2513 Lat2511 Lat 149 / E 2 WC A180

low C% steel

Heat-treatment medium C % steel

air attempted hardened cool ed hardening

M L L I L L I L L L M M L I L L L L L L

T T A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

Out of these 20 specimens 3 were made of iron 14 were made of low-carbon steel 3 were made of medium-carbon steel 18 2 0

Hardness (VPH)

were apparently unhardened were partially hardened by an attempt at heat-treatment were fully hardened by a successful heat-treatment

So overall out of 99 armours examined in this group 11 47 41

were made of iron were made of low-carbon steel were made of medium-carbon steel

93 3 3

were apparently unhardened were partially hardened by an attempt at heat-treatment were fully hardened by a successful heat-treatment

332 203 160 179

210 144 184 165 206

191 207 167

SECTION F O U R

210 Group B (i) (iia) 0 1 2 4 3 5 Group B (i) (iia) 1 10 1 0 3

0

(iib) 11 19

(iic) 5 16 11

(iii) 3 14 3

(iib) 32 0

(iic) 32 0

("i) 18 2

0

0

0

2

were made of iron were made of low-carbon steel were made of medium-carbon steel

were apparently unhardened were partially hardened by an attempt at heat-treatment were fully hardened by a successful heat-treatment

(one representative result is quoted for each multiple sampling)

T H E NEGROLI FAMILY

The final flourish of the Milanese armour industry was the production of some extraordi­ nary armours by the Negroli family, and their competitors, in the second quarter of the 16th century. They produced armours which allowed noblemen to pose as Hercules, Al­ exander, or a Roman emperor, and to dress up as sea-serpents, lions or dragons. Armour was forged into shapes which almost defy description, and appear to be wholly impracti­ cal, yet its metallurgy remained that of a functional defence. Filippo Negroli was regarded as the finest armourer of his day, and made Milan, at least for a little while, the centre of the industry once again. Although he was world renowned, he did not die a wealthy man, and his successors gave perhaps a little more attention to their business than their art 2 . More than forty specimens from more than twenty "embossed" (in fact they were forged hot rather than worked cold) armours made by the Negroli family and their contemporar­ ies were examined by the author. More than half were found to be made of steel, rather than the softer iron which might have been expected, and the hardest steel predominates in the best armours. At first sight, it may seem surprising that a material more than twice as hard as iron should be used for "parade" armours. But there are several possible reasons for this. One factor which should be considered is that the hardness of the metal enabled the armourer to demonstrate his virtuosity, just as sculptors in the hardest stones demonstrated the high­ est levels of mastery. An additional, and more practical, consideration is that steel would contain far fewer brittle slag inclusions than iron, so that certain techniques employed after forging, such as chasing, might well be easier. Certainly armour plate containing more slag is more prone to lamination, as examination of the internal surfaces of munition armours will show. The microstructure of the armour made from a banded steel by Modrone (Vi­ enna A.632) shows such a lamination starting at a row of slag inclusions. Such a row might 2

Pyrhh & Godoy, 1998, p.48

THE ECLIPSE OF AN INDUSTRY

ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

211

have been the consequence of imperfect forging together of billets to try to make a homo­ geneous sheet. But the most important reason for using steel is surely the motive for making these ar­ mours. If they had been intended to be worn purely as decoration, then it would have been logical to use the softest metal available (copper, or even silver) as that would have been the easiest to work. The Negrolis were regarded as the best armourers of Italy, and they used the best steel available for their "parade" armours, as did their leading rivals. Decorative though these "parade" armours were, they were still armour. In design, they were intended to show their wearers as classical heroes, and their ornate form might lead the modern observer to think (mistakenly) that because they were primarily for parade, they must be fit only for parade. In fact they were, in terms of their metallurgy, every bit as functional as any contemporary field armour. Surprising as it might be, it is found that parade armours in general were made of better metal than the plain field armours of the 16th century. It is particularly surprising because even if Italian armourers seem to have only able to offer a choice between hardened or decorated armours, while many 16 th century German armours could offer both together, one might still have expected plain Italian armours for battle to have been hardened—but they seldom were, and not after 1530. The difficult processes of hardening and tempering were evidently thought to be unprofitable, especially as there was a simpler method of improving the defensive qualities of armour, namely by making it somewhat thicker (see chapter 9.4). It seems clear that while princes and nobles ordered expensive armours to wear on pa­ rade, these armours were expected to be fit for war, even if in practice they might seldom be worn in serious combat. One Negroli helmet made for a delle Rovere was described as being made "pistol-proof so its owner expected to be shot at some day 3 . For the sordid business of sieges and campaigns, where there was no opportunity to impress, then the plainest and cheapest armour would suffice. Armours such as HJR Al 181 (belonging to Sforza Pallavicini, a professional soldier) and A406 (attributed to Cosimo dei' Medici) are poorly finished and clumsily decorated, in the former case with a few punched stars. There were still princely patrons of armourers in Mantua and Florence, but ceasing the practice of marking armour makes the products of these workshops difficult to identify. Milan and Brescia continued to make mass-produced armour of modest price until well into the 17 lh century. MANTUA AND MODRONE

Caremolo Modrone (cl489-1563) spent most of his life as court armourer to Federico II Gonzaga, duke of Mantua, making armours for him and for other aristocratic clients, in­ cluding Charles V, as well as for the Gonzaga troops. Attributions remain uncertain, as he did not mark (or sign) any of his works. His embossed armours are made out of steel, like those of the Negroli, but its metallography shows a more banded steel—perhaps one obPyrhh & Godoy, 1998, p. 158 and see p.241 below

212

SECTION FOUR

tained from Brescia4. The close helmet in the Higgins Museum, and the burgonet in Ravenna analysed by Garagnani 3 are somewhat different, both being made from low-carbon steels. COSIMO'S COURT ARMOURY

In Florence Cosimo dei Medici (1519-1574) tried to establish an armoury like that of the Gonzagas. In 1544, the Duke began commissioning armour for himself from a wide variety of sources, and in that year attempted to get some Milanese armourers to migrate to Florence, but the Imperial Governor in Milan refused to allow them to leave permanently, although he offered to allow Battista da Merata to work for Cosimo for a limited period 6 . At the same time he tried to establish a modern ironmaking industry in Tuscany (see chapter 8.1). It is not known for certain when Cosimo managed to establish a court armoury, as a list of businesses of 1561 records only two armourers' shops in Florence, run byjacopo di Matteo da Modena with Andrea di Lorenzo, and Batista di Simone detto Scamorina. Not until 1568 did the Duke manage to entice one of the Milanese family of Piatti to set up shop in Florence. The Prince promised a good salary and offered to supply "hydraulic polishing machines". The workshop of Matteo and his brother had executed a large order for Cosimo just before Matteo's transfer. It is possible that the suits of armour for the knights of San Stefano were his first Florentine works. Boccia suggests that the armour of Francesco de' Medici, also in the Bargello, was made in Florence about 1570. The author has not been able to examine any armour now in the Bargello, but there is another armour made probably for a Grand Duke of Tuscany (Cosimo II) by Italian crafts­ men about 1605 the components of which are now distributed between several museums 7 . Most of the armour is now in Detroit, but there is a shield in the Bargello, Florence, and gauntlets in the Royal Armouries, Leeds (11.146) which belong to it. There is also a gaunt­ let of similar decoration, but uncertain attribution in the Stibbert Collection in Florence. The author was able to examine some of these specimens; none of them showed any signs of having been hardened, indeed none were hardenable. The gauntlet then in the Tower of London was found to be a carbon free iron of low metallurgical quality. The left gaunt­ let in the Stibbert was a low-carbon steel of scarcely better quality. It is interesting that the quality of the metal is so low, indeed much lower than the steel then regularly used in Milan by Pompeo, and no better than the cheapest munition armour made in Italy. Despite the trouble taken over chasing bands of chevrons and gilding them, little money was evidently spent on the raw material for the armour. A mural painting in Florence shows Cosimo I wearing an Innsbruck armour, surviving fragments of which in the Bargello stores have recently been identified by Norman and published by Scalini 8 . It seems that while Cosimo wanted to establish a domestic armour industry, he did not care to entrust his own life to its protection. 4 :> 6 7 8

Pyrhh & Godoy, 1998, p.249 Garagnani (1996) specimen 10.10787. Butters (1996) Boccia, (1983) Scalini (1990)

THE ECLIPSE OF AN INDUSTRY

ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

213

MILAN AND POMPEO

Italian armour in the 16th century was still a popular, item of military equipment. In the third quarter of the 16th century, the workshop of Pompeo della Chiesa in Milan 9 pro­ duced a large number of armours for noble and princely patrons such as Renato Borromeo whose armour may be that preserved in the Stibbert Museum, Florence. Pompeo continued to use steel rather than iron, as metallography shows, and this metal might have been made by a different process (see chapter 8.1), but he remained unable or unwilling to harden the steel. While his armours are highly decorative, they were evidently still expected to offer rea­ sonable protection, for otherwise they could just as well have been made of iron, as many plain field armours were, and not steel, as his were. Towards the end of the century, how­ ever, the steel used by armourers like the Master of the Castle becomes distinctly poorer, being generally much lower in carbon content. One must suppose that by then the prior­ ity given to defence was declining yet further. T H E MASTER OF THE CASTLE

The garniture of Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau, Archbishop of Salzburg, now mostly in the Bavarian National Museum, W. 1001-2, and parts in the Wallace Collection, London, A.60, bear the mark of a castle with two towers. The subject of a recent article by LaRocca (2000) its maker "signed" his work with a picture of a castle. Most of this was made of a rather low-carbon steel. Armour of moderate metallurgical quality continued to be produced in Milan and Brescia until 1610 -1620, after which a trickle still flowed, exemplified by the 1668 armour made in Brescia as a diplomatic present for Louis XIV. The last armourer that Boccia 10 mentions is one Lorenzo Saiano, active until 1680 -1690. References Boccia, L.G. "Arms & armour from the Medici court", Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts, (1983) 61. Butters, S.B. "The triumph of Vulcan; sculptors' tools, porphyry and the prince in Ducal Florence" (Florence, 1996) 2 vols. Gamber, O. "Der Italeinische Harnische in 16 Jahrhundert", Jahrbuch cler Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien (1958); 54, 73. Garagnani, G.L. et al. "Metallurgical investigations on 16th-17th century iron armours from the Museo Nazionale of Ravenna" Science & Technology for Cultural Heritage (Pisa & Rome, 1996) 5, part 2, pp.83-94. LaRocca, D. "A notable group of late 16th century etched Italian armour" Journal of the Arms & Armour Society (2000) 16, 181-197. Scalini, M."Armature da Cosimo I a Cosimo II de' Medici" (Florence, 1990) figs.8&9 show a backplate and a right knee defence(now in the Bargello). Williams, A.R. "Experiments with 'medieval steel' plates" Historical Metallurgy 32 (1998) 82-86. Williams, A.R. "Italian armour of the 16th century in the Royal Armoury of Turin" Armi Antiche (1987) 27.

9 10

Gamber (1958) Boccia (1967)

214

SECTION F O U R

POSTSCRIPT

A recent metallurgical study by Garagnani (1996) on some of the armour in Ravenna should be outlined here; broadly, his conclusions were the same as those of this author. Most significant, only 1 out of the 12 examples he studied had been hardened. That was a brigandine dating from around 1500 (cat.no.2.inv.no.l767). This may have been made of plates of much older armours cut up into smaller pieces. The sample taken consisted of tempered martensite, whose hardness ranged from 360—630 VPH. The results for the other 11 may be summarised as follows; (a) one example was made of iron, or very low-carbon steel: An etched breastplate (Brescia ?) c.1560 29.10797 (b) four examples A close helmet A war-hat A burgonet

were made of low-carbon steels: c.1510 3.1730 c.1600 9.10786 c.1575 14.10788

And a burgonet (perhaps made in Mantua ?) c.1540

10.10787

(c) six examples were made from medium-carbon steels: 3 parts of a light cavalry armour breastplate, vambracc and tasset which were all similar. c.1555 (Brescia ?) 23.1724, 23.1738 and 23.1742. A A A A A

horseman's breastplate (Brescia ?) breastplate (Brescia ?) burgonet visored close helmet Savoyard close helmet

c.1555 c.1580 c.1560 c. 1610 c.1620

27.10795 31.1723 13.1735 7.1728 8.10785

Surface decarburisation was noticed in several examples, and ascribed to forging.

CHAPTER 4.5

T H E METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER

1510

This chapter deals with the Metallography of Italian armour after the introduction of fire-gilding; all Italian armour decorated with gilding (even in modest amounts) is in this chapter.

The armour is divided up as follows: Section B: Group (i) contains the (very small) number of armours which are decorated with etching and gilding, and also bear an armourer's mark. Section B: Group (ii) contains armours made after etching & gilding was introduced, but without an armourer's mark. Some of these are signed, however. This group is subdivided into: Group (iia) made after etching & gilding was introduced, but without embossed deco­ ration. Group (iib) embossed armours made by the Negrolis and their rivals. These were also etched and gilded. Group (iic) armour decorated by etching and gilding, but not with a significant amount of embossing. Group (iii) contains plain armours generally for field use; which might be considered as an extension of Section A (armour before gilding), group (ii).

216

SECTION F O U R

SECTION B: Group (i) (i) Armour with etching & gilding (even in small amounts) and bearing a maker's mark. crowned m y cl490

Martensite and ferrite X 80

A jousting armour made for Gasparo Fracasso (before 1502) and decorated with areas of etching and gilding. Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna B.2 The crowned m y within a circle is on the helm (twice) etched & gilded. It is also struck once on the right arm; this mark has been ascribed to Giovanni Angclo Missaglia (Tho­ mas & Gamber, 1976, p. 184). A specimen was taken from the right elbow defence. The microstructurc consists of martensite and ferrite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 239 to 345; average = 310 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

217

letter A & reversed S cl490 Vamplate (not illustrated here) Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna WA. 147 The armour discussed above (B2) is exhibited with a contemporary vamplate, struck with another mark (perhaps a dolphin around a cross ?) ascribed to Francesco della Croce. The rim of the vamplate was examined in section. The microstructure consists of martensite, proeutectoid ferrite and pearlite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 381 to 557; average = 464 VPH.

Vamplate section: martensite, pearlite, and a little ferrite X 50

218

SECTION F O U R

mark i p with an orb, within a shield 1490-1500

(skull) martensite X 100

An armour made for King Frederic V of Aragon, perhaps by an Italian master working in Spain. Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A. 5. The armet has some gilding (an applied border and patches on the visor) but the armour is not otherwise decorated. A specimen from inside the skull was examined. The microstructure consists of martensite only with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 233 to 733 VPH. This is a heterogeneous steel (the carbon content varies between about 0.1% and 0.6%) which has been fully quenched to harden it, and not tempered. How useful this procedure was is open to some doubt. A specimen from the top plate of the left pauldron was also examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite, carbides and slag inclusions only. The microhardness varies from 174 to 273; average = 249 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

219

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

m below a split cross, crowned MB 1510-15

■?

,' ' *«P

r

f

':N

'*-.-C:.r;i«v: ST-: Ferrite and carbides X 160

220

SECTION F O U R

Closeup of bevor rim

Great Bascinet from the tonlet armour of King Henry VIII. Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.7. The lower rim of the helmet bevor at the front was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists largely of ferrite and some spheroidised carbides with numerous slag inclusions, some of which open out into a large corrosion crack along the central plane of the plate. This is a low-carbon steel has has been slowly cooled, or perhaps reheated, after fabrica­ tion. It has been suggested by Blair (1995) that this Italian helmet and other components were adapted by Italian craftsmen who had been working in England since 1511, for the foottournament at the Field of Cloth of Gold in 1520. Such alterations might explain the re­ heating. Photographs © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

221

SECTION B: Group (ii) gilded armour without a maker's mark Group (iia) without embossing c.1490 Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A. 183

Ferrite and pearlite X 50 (section)

A breastplate, traditionally supposed to belong to Bartolomeo Colleoni (d. 1475), although this has been doubted (1976 cat.p.85). It is decorated with bands of etching and (formerly) gilding. A specimen was examined in section from the turned rim at the neck. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with very few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.4%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 260 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

222

SECTION F O U R

1505-10 A breastplate of globose form, decorated with the etched motto "os non chominuetis ex eo" (John, xrx,36) but without remaining gilding, and no maker's mark. Churburg 70.

Ferrite, coarse pearlite, and slag inclusions X 80

A specimen from within the top plate below the breast was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon (around 0.3%C) steel which has apparently only been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 240 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of Count Trapp.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

223

1500-1510 From Rhodes, and now in the Royal Armouries, Leeds. III. 1086. Karcheski & Richardson (2000) 77.

Ferrite with a little pearlite and a large corrosion crack in the centre of the plate X 40

A globose breastplate for a horseman with fluted decoration and panels of etching (not illustrated). The micro structure (of a section) consists of ferrite and very little pearlite. This is an almost carbon-free iron.

224

SECTION F O U R

C.1510 Royal Armouries, Leeds,III.51.

Ferrite and pearlite (section) X 50

A breastplate and gorget, decorated with etching, but not gilding. The gorget plate was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some elongated slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2% overall) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

225

C1510 Solothurn Zeughaus 3

(breastplate) ferrite and pearlite X 75

An infantry armour, the breastplate of which is decorated with a panel of etching. A specimen from the breastplate at the side edge of the right arm hole was examined. The fauld bears a different pattern of fluting to the breastplate, and may therefore not belong with it. A specimen from inside the lower rim of the fauld was also examined. The microstructure (of both) consists of ferrite and pearlite with a few slag inclusions. The carbon content varies from around 0.2% to 0.5%. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Old Arsenal Museum, Solothurn (Switzer­ land).

226

SECTION F O U R

C1510 Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv.no.3122 (cat.no. 120). Boccia describes this as a work of Niccolo Silva, on the basis of a comparison with his signed works.

Ferrite and pearlite X 80

A left pauldron with a tall haute-piece, covered with etched and gilded decoration. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite in varying proportions with some slag inclusions. The sample from the left pauldron shows a carbon content of about 0.3% overall. It has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Stibbert Museum, Florence.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

227

cl510 Parts of an armour for a light horseman, ascribed by Boccia to Master Nicodemo and decorated with etching. ' Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv.no.3146 (a cowtcr with attached plates) and 1031 (a collar).

228

SECTION FOUR

femte and peaihte \

1-0

Samples were examined from several places: The main plate of the cowter has a microstructure of ferrite and slag only. The plate above the elbow (see micro) and the second plate below have microstructures consisting of ferrite and pearlite in varying proportions (0.1% to 0.5%C) with some slag inclusions. The sample from the back of the collar, on the other hand, shows uniform fine pearlite. This is a steel of rather variable carbon content which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photographs reproduced by permission of Stibbert Museum, Florence.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

229

1510-20 A pair of pauldrons probably made in North Italy for Galiot de Genouilhac, with borders of etched decoration. The illustration shows a composite armour with these pauldrons included. Higgins Armory Museum 2640.

230

SECTION FOUR

(left pauldron) pearlite and ferrite X 40

The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite in varying proportions with some slag inclusions. The sample from the left pauldron shows a carbon content of up to 0.6%; that from the right, about 0.2%. This is a steel of variable carbon content which has been aircooled after fabrication. The average surface hardness (right) = 225 VPH; (left) = 250 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Higgins Armory Museum, Worcester, Mass.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

231

C1520 The lower plate from a right knee defence. Royal Armouries, Leeds, III.834.

Section; ferrite and pearlite X 40

This was decorated with fluting, etching, and gilding. The plate was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a mediumcarbon steel (up to around 0.5%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

232

SECTION FOUR

cl520 A close helmet with a fluted rear skull, but no traces of gilding. Lateran Museum, Rome. inv.no.2514.

^

Very fine pearlite, ferrite, and corrosion cavities X 80

There is a very similar helmet, but with etched decoration, in the Marzoli Collection (Rossi & Carpegna, pl.94 and also Scalini II p. 125) which bears the mark FA. The microstructure consists of very fine pearlite with little visible ferrite and very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 289 to 376; average = 332 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (maybe 0.5%C) which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment. The steel has undergone some form of accelerated cooling, short of a water (full-) quench. An isothermal transformation is a possibility.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER

1510

233

Group (iib) the heyday of embossed armour cl530 Hofjagd- und Riistkammcr, Vienna A.498. A brigandinc of Francesco Maria della Rovcre; attributed to Filippo Negroli, (but not signed) c. 1530-35. — the helmet shown here (A 498 helmet) is discussed below. (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, Cat. 19)

.^..—"^

(brigandine) ferrite and carbides X 160

234

SECTION F O U R

The cross-section shows a microstructure of ferrite with some slag inclusions. Some of the ferrite grains have been distorted where sampling took place, but the majority arc equiaxed. Average microhardness = 198 VPH Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

Mail section X50

Another piece which matches this brigandine was also tested. An armlet of mail and lamellae (illustrated in Boccia (1967) plate 250) and formerly in the Museo Nazionale di Sant'Angelo, Rome (SA 945) but since transferred to the Bargello, Florence, M.1502. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite, corresponding to a low-carbon steel of 0.2%C. Average microhardness = 234 VPH. A link of the mail was also examined. It consists of ferrite and slag only. Average microhardness = 211 VPH.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

235

;1530

Visor section; mostly pearlite X 60

Visor which may have belonged to an armour of Guidobaldo della Rovere, of which parts are in the Bargello, Florence. Possibly by the Negroli workshop. Scalini (1987, p9).

236

SECTION F O U R

Wallace Collection A.205. The sample shows the lower right rim in section. Its microstructure consists mainly of pearlite (rather sphcroidised) with a little ferrite and a few slag inclusions. This is a medium-car­ bon steel that has undergone a good deal of hot-working. Average microhardncss = 237 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

237

1532 Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A498h Burgonet (shown on p.233) signed Filippo Negroli and dated 1532. (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, no. 18)

Helmet section: ferritc and pearlite with elongated slaginclusions X 45

The cross-section shows a microstructure of ferrite and pearlite, corresponding to a car­ bon content of about 0.3%. There are rows of very elongated slag inclusions, especially near one surface. The most prominent such form a line at about one eighth of the section. Average microhardness = 233 VPH Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

There is a very similar helmet (inv.no. Dl) in the Royal Armoury of Madrid, made for Charles V. Hardness testing carried out in 2002 showed a surface hardness of 220 V P H , and so in all probability, a similar metal.

238

SECTION FOUR

1530-40 Pauldron in the form of a lion mask, bearing traces of silver, and fire damage. Probably made in Milan. Wallace Collection A.241.

The sample shows a microstructure consisting mostly of grains of ferrite with some pearlite partly divorced to carbide particles, corresponding to a low-carbon steel (about 0.2%C) which has undergone considerable hot-working. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

239

cl535 Burgonet attributed to Filippo Negroli, (but not signed). Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Rogers Fund, 1904. inv.no. 04.3.202. (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, Cat. 21.)

Made about 1535, but with some 19th century alterations. Three specimens were exam­ ined. 04.3.202 left cheekpiece. (and right cheekpiece). Both these samples show a microstructure consisting entirely of grains of ferrite with a little slag. 04.3.202 bowl The sample shows a microstructure consisting mostly of grains of ferrite with a little pearlite divorced to ccmentite (iron carbide), and some slag inclusions. The carbon content is perhaps 0.1%. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

240

SECTION F O U R

1530-35 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 14.25.7141 Gift of Williman H. Riggs. Pauldron for the right shoulder, belonging to an armour of Guidobaldo II della Rovere, attributed to Filippo Negroli (but not signed) ca. 1530-35. (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, Cat.23)

P^;"

Ferrilc, slag and pearlite X 4-0

The sample shows a microstructure consisting mostly of grains of ferrite with a little pearl­ ite, corresponding to a carbon content of around 0.2%. Another piece which matches this armour was examined; a small plate from the lower part of a pauldron. This was formerly exhibited at Castel Sant'Angelo (SA 2126) and is shown in the forefront of the picture of SA 945 above (p.234); but has since been transferred to the Bargello, Florence, inv.no.M. 1503bis. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite, corresponding to a medium-carbon steel of around 0.5%C. Microhardness = 210 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

241

1538 Wallace Collection, London A.207 The left cheekpiece belonging with other parts of a burgonet, the mask of which is in the Royal Armouries, Leeds; signed by Filippo Negroli and dated 1538. Probably made for a member of the delle Rovere family. (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, Cat.29b)

Pearlite and very little ferrite (cross-section) X50

The cheekpiece was examined on the lower rim, between turns of the roped decoration. The sample shows a microstructure consisting almost entirely of very fine pearlite with a little slag and a few ferrite grains along one surface. This is a medium-carbon steel (of perhaps 0.7% C) which has been worked hot, and afterwards cooled in air. Average microhardness = 282 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

242

SECTION F O U R

1530-40 The shoulder plate from a cuirass "alia romana", probably from Milan. Castel Sant'Angelo, Rome, inv.no. 1586.

Ferrite and pearlite X 50

The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a mediumcarbon (around 0.4%C) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 223 VPH. Photograph by courtesy of the National Museum of Castel Sant'Angelo, Rome.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

243

1535-45 An open burgonct with the skull in the form of a dolphin. Probably made in Milan. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 14.25.597 Gift of William H. Riggs, 1913.

The sample shows a microstructure consisting mostly of grains of ferrite with a little pearlite, corresponding in places to a carbon content of less than 0.1%. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

244

SECTION F O U R

1530-50 An open burgonct with embossed decoration of tendrils, probably made in Milan. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 14.25.602 Gift of William H. Riggs, 1913.

Ferrite, pearlite (rather more than in 14.25.597) and slag X 80

The sample shows a microstructure of small grains of ferrite and pearlite, corresponding to a steel of about 0.4%C. There is a line of slag inclusions down the centre of the sample. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

245

C1540 Upper part of a burgonct with grotesque face-mask. Probably made in Milan. Wallace Collection, London. A. 106

Coarse pearlite, ferrite and slag inclusions X 40

A sample was detached from the edge of a hole in the nape of the neck. The sample shows a microstructure consisting mostly of grains of ferrite with a little pearlite, corresponding to a steel of perhaps 0.2%C. Another sample was detached from the left side of the brow plate, adjacent to a hole. This sample (illustrated) shows a microstructure consisting of a mixture of grains of ferrite with varying amounts of coarse pearlite, partly divorced, corresponding to a steel of perhaps 0.4%C in the central part of the plate, and 0.2%C near the surfaces. There is a row of slag inclusions along the central line, which leads to a corrosion crack. This is presumably the result of a billet having been imperfectly forged when the original plate was made, and having opened up during subsequent working. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

246

SECTION F O U R

C1540 A burgonet, probably made in Milan. Wallace Collection, London A. 108.

The sample shows a microstructure consisting mostly of grains of ferrite with a little grainboundary cementite (from completely divorced pearlite). This is a low-carbon steel (0.1 %C or less) that has undergone a good deal of hot-working. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

247

C.1540 A complete armour for man & horse, decorated & embossed in the style of Modronc. Konopiste Castle, inv.no. 10542. Possibly belonging to the Venetian soldier Enea Pio Obizzi.

(gauntlet section) Ferrite and pearlite in bands X 30

Left gauntlet; the lower rim is shown in section and it is instructive to compare this with the metal from Vienna A.632. The microstructure consists of two bands of pearlite enclos­ ing a band of ferrite, and the carbon content varies from around 0.2% to 0.6%. Average Microhardness = 243 VPH A plate from the crupper of the horse armour was also examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite also with a lower carbon content. The microhardness (average) = 213 VPH. Also see the exhibition catalogue "Le Armi degli Estensi"(Fcrrara, 1986) plate 10, where its origin is ascribed to Venice, ca. 1570.

248

SECTION FOUR

C1540 Shaffron with embossed decoration, possibly made in Mantua. This was ascribed to Modrone by Mann (1962). Wallace Collection, London A.353

This was examined near the edge, in section. The sample shows a microstructure consist­ ing mostly of pearlite with a little fcrritc, separated by a line of slag inclusions from a border zone, consisting of less than a quarter of the thickness of the section, consisting of ferrite with a little pearlite. So the carbon content is around 0.6%, except for this band of about 0.2%. This banded steel should be compared to those found in Vienna A.632 and Konopiste 10542, which are also ascribed to Modrone. The pearlite is largely divorced, showing that this steel has undergone a good deal of hot-working, unsurprising in view of the shap­ ing entailed. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

249

C1540 An armour made for Carlo Gonzaga, possibly by Carcmolo Modronc in Mantua. (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, Cat.50) Hofjagd- und Riistkammcr, Vienna A.632

The cross-section of an anime plate shows a niicrostructure of two bands consisting mostly of pearlite, sandwiching a band predominantly of ferrite, with a number of slag inclusions. A corrosion crack has opened up along the junction between a pcarlitic and a ferritic band. The inference must be that pieces of different material were forged together into a plate, and the forge welding was imperfect. There is some distortion of the pcarlite along one surface. Microhardness (average) = 237 VPH Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammcr, Vienna.

250

SECTION FOUR

C1540 Fragments of an embossed horse armour. Konopiste Castle E.63. These elements were ascribed by Boccia (1980, p.134) to Modrone, of Mantua. Possibly formerly belonging to Tomaso Obizzi.

Ferrite and pearlite X 40 (section)

Front saddle steel; shown in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite coresponding to a steel of 0.4%C. Average microhardness = 268 VPH Back of saddle steel; the microstructure consists of ferrite and slag only. Average microhardness = 150 VPH.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

251

cl540 The breastplate from an armour "all'antica" probably made in Brescia for a member of the Martinengo family. (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, Cat.64.) Royal Armoury, Turin, cat.no.8 (inv.no.Cl 1).

::>:;■:-&^

},

&:£

Ferrite and slag X 90

The microstructure consisted of ferrite with a very little pearlite, corresponding to an iron with a carbon content of less than 0.1%. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Royal Armoury, Turin

252

SECTION F O U R

C1540 A close helmet with embossed "palm-frond" decoration, possibly made around 1540 in Mantua by Caremolo Modronc. Higgins Armory Museum, inv.no.416

Ferrite and pearlite X 30 (an irregular section because of corrosion)

The lowest neck plate was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of fer­ rite and pearlite in varying proportions with some slag inclusions. The surface hardness varies from 140 to 240 VPH. This is a variable-carbon (up to around 0.5% G in places) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Higgins Armory Museum, Worcester, Mass.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

253

1543 A burgonet, signed by Filippo Negroli and dated 1543. (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, Gat.33) Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 17.190.1720. Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917.

Pearlite and ferrite with some rounded slag inclusions X 90

The specimen from inside the skull shows a microstructure consisting mostly of grains of ferrite with some large areas of pearlite. The carbon content varies between 0.2% and 0.8%. Average microhardness — 254 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

254

SECTION FOUR

1540-45 A breastplate with embossed decoration, signed Giovan Paolo Negroli. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 14.25.1855 Gift of William H. Riggs, 1913. (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, Cat.43)

Three specimens were examined. (i) (illustrated) A specimen from within the right gusset shows a microstructure consisting of small grains of ferrite and pearlite, corresponding to a carbon content of around 0.2%. Average microhardness = 212 VPH The other two were generally similar (ii) A specimen from within the breastplate shows a microstructure consisting mostly of grains of ferrite with a little slag. Average microhardness = 106 VPH (iii) A specimen from within the left gusset shows a microstructure consisting of a mixture of ferrite and pearlite, corresponding to a carbon content of around 0.5%. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

255

1540-45 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 26.53 Purchase, Rogers Fund and Gift of George D. Pratt, 1926. Close helmet attributed to Giovan Paolo Ncgroli. (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, Cat.46.)

(upper visor) Ferrite and pearlite X 90

Four specimens from this helmet were examined. (i) A specimen from within the upper visor (illustrated) shows a microstructure consisting mostly of grains of ferrite with a little spheroidised pearlite, in small areas, corresponding to a carbon content of around 0.2%, and not very much slag. Average microhardness =215 VPH The other three were generally similar (ii) A specimen from within the lower visor shows a microstructure consisting mostly of pearlite, with some grains of ferrite, corresponding to a steel of about 0.6%C. (iii) A specimen from within the bowl. The very small sample shows a microstructure con­ sisting mostly of grains of ferrite with a little pearlite, corresponding to a carbon content of around 0.3%, and only a few slag inclusions. (iv) A specimen from within the bevor shows a microstructure consisting mostly of grains of ferrite with a little slag, and pearlite corresponding to a carbon content of less than 0.1%. Average microhardness = 218 VPH Photograph reproduced by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

256

SECTION F O U R

1545-50

Ferrite and pearlite X 100

A lower back defence embossed with scales; part of an armour "alia romana", of which the cuirass is now in St.Petersburg (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, 297-8.) When examined this was in Gastel Sant'Angelo, Rome.inv.no. 1574. Now in the Bargello, Florence, inv.no.M1551. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a mediumcarbon (around 0.4%G) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 232 VPH. Photograph by courtesy of the National Museum of Castel Sant'Angelo, Rome.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

257

1545-55 An open burgonet with embossed decoration. Perhaps made in the Negroli workshops, after 1545. (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, Gat.37.) Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 49.163.3 Gift of Alan Rutherford Stuyvesant; 1949.

The specimen taken from inside the skull shows a microstructure consisting mostly of grains of ferrite with a little spheroidised pearlite, corresponding to a low-carbon steel of around 0.2%C which has undergone a good deal of hot working. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

258

SECTION F O U R

C1547 Hofjagd- und Riistkammcr, Vienna A. 783 Helmet belonging to the "Roman armour" of the Archduke Ferdinand II. Probably made by the Ncgroli around 1547-50. (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, Cat.53)

(Section) Pcarlile and ferrite X 30

The cross-section shows a microstructurc of coarse pearlite mixed with some ferrite, and a band containing more fcrrite lying along one surface. These ferrite grains show some distortion, perhaps due a final cold working. Overall this is a steel of carbon content between 0.5% and 0.7%. Average microhardness = 299 VPH Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammcr, Vienna.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

259

cl540-50 Stibbert Museum, Florcncc.inv.no. 11586. Pauldron for the left shoulder in the form of a lion's mask, probably made in Milan (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, Cat.56)

Pearlite and a little ferrite X 40

A specimen was taken from inside the pauldron. The microstructure consists of pearlite and a very little ferrite, corresponding to a steel of around 0.6%C. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Stibbert Museum, Florence

260

SECTION FOUR

1540-50 A burgonet from the fragments of an armour "all'antica". Probably made in Milan. Royal Armoury, Turin C.48.

Ferrite and pearlite X 40

The microstructure consists of ferrite and slightly spheroidised pearlite, corresponding to an annealed steel of perhaps 0.5%C. Average microhardness = 213 VPH. This is illustrated in the catalogue ofBertolotto (cat.no. 7) wherein it is ascribed to the Negroli brothers. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Royal Armoury, Turin

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

261

A close helmet with a animal mask in the form of a lion. Possibly Italian from the middle of the 16th century. cl550 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 14.25.563

Gift of William H. Riggs, 1913.

Four specimens were examined. (i) illustrated—The upper visor shows a microstructure consisting mostly of grains of fer­ rite with a little pearlite, with some slag inclusions. The pearlite shows some spheroidisation, and the carbon content is around 0.2%. (ii) The lower visor shows a microstructure consisting mostly of fine pearlite with a very little ferrite, especially associated with slag inclusions and cavities where slag has been. The carbon content is around 0.6%—0.7%, except where presumably, iron oxide on the slag has reacted with the carbon. (iii) The bevor shows a microstructure consisting mostly of grains of ferrite with a little distortion near to one surface, presumably clue to sampling, no pearlite, and some slag. (iv) The bowl shows a microstructure consisting mostly of areas of fine pearlite, surround­ ed by a network of ferrite grains, corresponding to a carbon content of around 0.7% Photograph reproduced by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

262

SECTION F O U R

1550-55 Burgonet, possibly made in the Negroli workshops. Filippo worked with his brothers until 1557, but signed no works after 1545. (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, Cat. 39) Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A.693

Cross-section: Pearlitc and ferrite X 25

The cross-section shows a microstructure of pearlitc and ferrite, corresponding to a car­ bon content of about 0.6% overall. The ferrite grains are largely to be found in 2 or 3 narrow bands. Average microhardness = 261 VPH Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

263

1550-55 Burgonet. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge M. 19-1938 This was possibly made in the Negroli workshops. (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, Cat.40.)

-<-W~

(skull) ferrite and pearlite X 50

Three samples were examined, from the skull, the visor, and a neck plate. All three had similar microstructurcs consisting of ferrite and spheroidised pearlite, corresponding to low-carbon steels of around 0.1% carbon. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cam­ bridge.

264

SECTION F O U R

1550-55 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 04.3.223 Rogers Fund, 1904. Burgonet. This was possibly made in the Negroli workshop. (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, Cat.41)

(cheekpiece) divorced pearlite and some ferrite X 90

Six specimens were examined from this helmet. (i) illustrated—A specimen from within the upper plate of the right cheekpiece shows a microstructure consisting almost entirely of divorced pearlite. This suggests that this steel has undergone a good deal of reheating. (ii) A specimen from within the lower plate of left cheekpiece shows a microstructure con­ sisting mostly of grains of ferrite with some slag, bounded by areas of pearlite, mixed with a little ferrite and noticeably less slag. The pearlite shows some spheroidisation, presum­ ably the result of hot working. The ferrite grains show little evidence of distortion. (iii) A specimen from within the upper plate of left cheekpiece shows a microstructure consisting of a mixture of divorced pearlite and ferrite, (the grains of which have been distorted in sampling) corresponding to a carbon content of around 0.4%- 0.5%. (iv) A specimen from within the lower plate of right cheekpiece shows a microstructure consisting mostly of grains of ferrite with a little spheroidised pearlite, corresponding to about 0.1% carbon.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

265

Two specimens from within the helmet bowl were taken. (v) One has a microstructure consisting mostly of grains of ferrite with a little slag. (vi) The other has a microstructure consisting mostly of divorced pcarlitc, with some fer­ rite. The carbon content is around 0.6%. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

266

SECTION F O U R

1550-55 Shield associated with the burgonet A.693, said to have belonged to Charles V. This was possibly made in the Negroli workshops. (Pyhrr & Godoy, 1998, Cat.42) Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A.693a.

Section, band.1) o( pcaihlc and lcmtc. X 25

The cross-section of the shield rim shows a microstructure divided into three bands. The central band consists of pearlite and ferrite, corresponding to a carbon content of around 0.5%. The two outer bands consist largely of ferrite with a very little pearlite in one. The ferrite shows traces of distortion. There is a row of numerous slag inclusions within the ferritic band, near to one surface, but this does not seem to be associated with any change in carbon content. Average microhardness = 259 VPH Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

;1560 Parts of an armour with embossed and gilded decoration. Probably by Giovan Battista da Serravallc. (Private Collection) See Boccia, Rossi, Morin,( 1980) 138.

268

SECTION F O U R

Pearlite and ferrite X 60

A specimen within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite in varying amounts with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (up to 0.5%C in places) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 202 VPH. Photograph by courtesy of Ian Ashdown (Centre de Conservation, Onnens) ref.no.92-134.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

269

16th c. The skull of a parade helmet, perhaps made in Italy in the mid- 16th century. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, inv.no.M.5/1942.

Ferrite, pearlite and slag inclusions X 50

A sample from the skull shows microstructure consisting of ferrite and spheroidised pearl­ ite, of perhaps 0.3%C. The microhardness (average) = 182 VPH Photograph reproduced by permission of the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cam­ bridge.

270

SECTION F O U R

Group (iic) after the heyday of embossed armour, but decorated with etching and gilding. A few specimens have some embossing, but it is very flat compared with that of the midcentury, and would have had little influence on the fabrication of the armour. cl540

Wallace Collection, London. A.355. A shaffron with borders of etched decoration probably made around 1540 in Italy.

Ferrite, pearlite and slag inclusions X 75

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

271

The poll-plate was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of fcrritc and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon (around 0.4%C) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection

272

SECTION F O U R

1550-60 An armour garniture probably made in Milan about 1550-60 for Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy. Decorated with bands of etched and gilded strapwork. Royal Armoury, Turin, cat.no. 17. (inv.no.B4.).

Ferrite and pearlitc X 50

Specimens from inside the left sabaton, the skull of the close helmet and the grandguard were examined, and the microstructures of all were similar. The microstructure consists of ferrite and rather divorced pearlite in varying amounts with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (up to 0.5%C in places) which has been air-cooled after fabrica­ tion. The microhardness (average) = 228 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Royal Armoury, Turin

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

273

1560-65 Royal Armoury, Turin, cat.no. 18. (inv.no.B7.) An armour garniture made in North Italy about 1560-65 for Valerio Corvino Zacchei. Decorated with bands of etched and gilded strapwork.

Ferrite and cementite X 50

A specimen from inside the chinpiece of the close helmet was examined. The microstructurc consists of ferrite and divorced pcarlite in small amounts with some slag inclusions. I h i s is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of Royal Armoury, Turin

274

SECTION F O U R

C1570 A gauntlet cuff, probably made in North Italy around 1570 and decorated with etching and gilding. Royal Armouries, Leeds. III. 1209.

Section: pearlite and ferrite X 50

The plate was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearl­ ite in varying proportions with some rows of slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (varying between 0.3 and 0.7%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

275

c.1570

A close helmet, probably made in Milan c.1570. Decorated with bands of etching and gilding. In the catalogue "Das Munchner Zeughaus", 162, it is sug­ gested that it might have been made for the tour­ naments to celebrate the marriage in 1571 of Arch­ duke Karl II to Duchess Maria of Bavaria. Munich City Museum, inv.no.Z.628 The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with many slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been aircooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Munich City Museum

Ferrite and pearlite, with slag inclusions X 130

276

SECTION F O U R

C1575 An armour made in North Italy around 1575-80 and decorated with broad bands of etch­ ing and gilding. Konopiste Castle, inv.no. 1037.

| ->

S %"*

: ^ % A •if.,' Ferrite, coarse pearlite and slag inclusions X 60

A sample was taken from the cuff of the right gauntlet. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some rather elongated slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon (around 0.3%G) steel that has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 224 VPH.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

277

1570-80 An armour garniture made in North Italy about 1570-80 for Giovan Battista Rota da Bergamo. Decorated with bands of etched and gilded strapwork. Royal Armoury, Turin, cat.no. 19 (inv.no.B8).

Ferrite and slag X 60

A specimen from the 4th plate of the right tasset was examined. The microstructure con­ sists of ferrite and some slag inclusions. This is a carbon-free iron and not a steel. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Royal Armoury, Turin

278

SECTION F O U R

cl570-80 An armour garniture made in North Italy about 1570-80 perhaps for Juan de la Cerda, duke of Medinaceli. Decorated with bands of etched and gilded strapwork. Royal Armoury, Turin cat.no.20 (inv.no.BIO).

Pearlite and ferrite X 60

A specimen from the rear of the right tasset was examined. The microstructure consists of rather divorced pearlite, ferrite and some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (up to 0.7%C in places) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 259 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of Royal Armoury, Turin

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

279

1580 Netherlands Army Museum, Leiden (now in Delft). inv.no.3133/A6-2.

(section) Pearlite with bands of ferrite and elongated slag inclusions X 25

A half-armour decorated with etching in the so-called "Pisan" style with medallions, signed POMPE and dated 1580 (not illustrated). A specimen was taken from a pauldron. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlitc with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (up to around 0.4%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 209 VPH.

280

SECTION FOUR

C1580 An embossed half-armour made in Italy around 1580. Apparently not decorated with gilding. Chicago Institute of Art, inv.no. 1982.2648

Ferrite, a little pearlite, and slag X 40.

A sample was taken from a gauntlet. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with a few slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Chicago Institute of Art

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

281

C1580 Lateran Museum, inv.no.29162

Pearlite and corrosion cavities X 90

A cabasset from the third quarter of the 16th century, Italy, engraved with IP. A flake was taken from the rim. The microstructure consists of fine pearlitc and a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies up to 249 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.5%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrica­ tion.

282

SECTION FOUR

cl580 An embossed half-armour made in Italy around 1580. Apparently never decorated with gilding. Wallace Collection. A 52.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

283

Fcrrilc and slae X 50

A sample was taken from a gauntlet. The microstructure consists of ferritc and slag inclu­ sions only. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

284

SECTION FOUR

c1580s An infantry cuirass ascribed (fancifully) to Pope Julius II, probably made in North Italy around 1570-1600. Latcran Museum, Rome,inv.no.2555.

Backplate: pearlitc and ferrite X 80; the mierostructure of the breastplate is very similar.

It is decorated with bands of etching and gilding with medallions. Samples were taken from the breast- and backplates. The mierostructure consists of ferrite and pearlitc with some slag inclusions. Both are medium-carbon steels (around 0.5%C) which have been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) breast = 232 VPH; back = 255 VPH.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

285

:1580 An armour, probably made in North Italy around 1580 and decorated with bands of etch­ ing and gilding. By tradition from the Ducal armoury at Lucca, and now in the Royal Ar­ mouries, Leeds. 11.146.

vambrace section: ferrite and pearlite X 25

"*■■ "

gauntlet sample: ferrite and slag X 50

A vambrace was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and rather divorced pearlite with some rows of slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%G) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

286

SECTION F O U R

The associated gauntlets have bands of etched and gilded decoration in the form of chev­ rons. It has been suggested (Boccia, 1983) that these were part of an armour made in Florence around 1600 for Cosimo II dei Medici, and now in Detroit. The microstructure of a spec­ imen from the left gauntlet consisted of ferrite and slag only. (See also Stibbert 2561). p.306 Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

287

C1580 An embossed half-armour made in Italy around 1580. Stibbert Museum, Florence.inv.no.3958

Pearlite and slag (helmet) X 60

Apparently not decorated with gilding. Samples were taken from the breast- and backplates and associated burgonet. The microstructure of the breastplate consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only, while that of the burgonet contains mostly pearlite. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Stibbert Museum, Florence.

288

SECTION F O U R

C1580 A half-armour decorated with etching and gilding, with medallions, and probably made in North Italy around 1580. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, inv.no.M12.1933.

Pearlite and fcrrite X 60

A specimen was taken from inside the breastplate. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (up to 0.6%G in plac­ es) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) — 279 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cam­ bridge.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

289

1580-85 A garniture made for a member of the Borromeo family, and signed P O M P E O . Made by Pompeo della Chiesa in Milan c. 1580-85. Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv. no.3476.

290

SECTION F O U R

The microstructures of these arc shown as being representative:

Breastplate: pearlite and ferrite X 90

ShafFron: pearlite X 50

The Borromco family included numerous generals, governors and archbishops of Milan, and even a saint (San Carlo Borromeo). Pompeo della Ccsa (or della Chiesa) was the son of Vincenzo, armourer to Alessandro Farnese, and others. He lived at Castello, where he had his workshop (Boccia, 1975). Specimens were taken from both pauldrons, greaves, tassets, kneecops, lower vambraces, the breast- and backplates, and the shaffron. The microstructures consist of pearlite and ferrite in varying proportions with some slag inclusions. This is generally made of steel whose carbon content varies from 0 to 0.7% (typically 0.3%C) and which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Stibbert Museum, Florence.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

291

1580-1600 A backplate, probably made in North Italy around 1570-1600, with etched decoration and medallions. Solothurn Zeughaus, inv.no. 123

(backplate) Ferrite and pearlite X 60

The cuirass is illustrated with helmet Z.281 (see below). The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a lowcarbon steel (around 0.2%C) that has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Old Arsenal Museum, Solothurn (Switzer­ land).

292

SECTION FOUR

c.1590 A morion. Solothurn Z.281

(morion) Ferrite and pearlite X 60

Like the associated backplate (see above) it is also decorated with bands of etching and medallions. Both probably made in Milan around 1580-1600. The microstructure also consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. The mo­ rion is a higher carbon steel (between 0.2%C and 0.5%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

293

cl590 A half-armour decorated with etching, and probably made in North Italy around 15801600. Higgins Armory Museum inv.no.425

U

v*?

•r - % * v» i *

**

■*

.»i ■

Ferrite and pearlite X 50

294

SECTION FOUR

A specimen was taken from the rear of the right couter. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlitc with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Higgins Armory Museum, Worcester, Mass.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

295

1580-90 Royal Armoury, Turin, cat.no.36 (inv.no.C70).

Ferrite and divorced pearlite X 160.

An armour decorated with bands of etching and gilding, and signed P O M P E O . Made in Milan around 1580-90. Specimens were taken from the left tasset and the skull of the close helmet. The microstructure (of both) consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. These are lowcarbon steels (around 0.3%C) which have been slowly cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 226 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Royal Armoury, Turin

296

SECTION FOUR

C1590 Parts of a garniture made for Wolf Dietrich von Raitcnau, Archbishop of Salzburg since 1587, in Milan by a master who employed the device of a two-towered castle. Bavarian National Museum, Munich. inv.no.W.1001/2.

Close-helmet and breastplate for the foot-tournament.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

297

Ferrite and pearlite X 320

It is decorated with close-set bands of etched and gilded patterns. There is a pair of legdefences, which (W. 1465) is associated, but not part of the same garniture. They arc dec­ orated with bands of etching & gilding on a blackened ground in a similar, but not iden­ tical, pattern. Specimens were taken from the left leg and the rear saddle-steel. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardncss (average) = 120 VPH. Specimens were also taken from W. 1465. The microstructure consists of pearlite and fer­ rite with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon (around 0.5%C) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardncss (average) = 238 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Bavarian National Museum, Munich.

Wackernagcl (19/7) 3 2 , reports: The tournament-breastplate is around 4.5 mm thick, whereas the rest of the garniture is made of 1-1.5 mm thick plates, with reinforces of 1-2.5 mm thickness.

298

SECTION FOUR

A half-armour from this same garniture is in the Wallace Collection. Wallace Collection, A.60.

Specimens were detached from inside the skull of the close helmet, the upper and lower parts of the right vambrace, both gauntlets, both elbows, and the backplate on both sides. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite in varying proportions with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (from 0.1% to 0.6%C in places) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

299

1580-1600 A horseman's armour covered all over with patterns of etching and gilding. Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv.no.3461. Probably made in Italy around 1580-1600, perhaps for a member of the Visconti family.

(Breastplate) Ferrite and slag, with a few isolated areas of pearlitc X 120

Specimens were taken from the breast- and backplates, the comb of the close helmet skull, both cuisses, the right vambrace and the left pauldron. The microstructure in each specimen consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Stibbert Museum, Florence

300

SECTION F O U R

1590-95 An infantry armour decorated with bands of etching. It is signed P O M P E O . Made in Milan around 1590-95. Bears a (lance ?) hole in the right breast, which is approximately square in outline. Royal Armoury, Turin, cat.no.37 (inv.no.C21).

Ferrite and pearlite X 50

Specimens were taken from the left pauldron and the edge of the hole. The microstructure (in both cases) consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-car­ bon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Royal Armoury, Turin.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

301

1590-1600 An armour decorated with an overall pattern of etching and gilding, and signed POMPE. Made in Milan by Pomeo della Chiesa around 1590-1600. Royal Armoury, Turin, cat.no.38 (inv.no.B3).

Ferrite and pearlite X 60

Specimens were taken from the right cuisse and the lower part of the visor. The microstructure (in both cases) consists of ferrite and pearlite in varying proportions with few slag inclusions. This is a steel of carbon content up to 0.5% in places, which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 192 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of Royal Armoury, Turin.

302

SECTION F O U R

C1600 An armour decorated all over with an (etched ?) pattern of stars and lilies, without gilding. Signed P O M P E and made by Pompeo della Chiesa around 1600 in Milan. Royal Armoury, Turin, cat.no.41 (inv.no.B35).

'?--"\

~^9a^ms^

t *

<;*& Ferrite and grain-boundary cementite X 100

A specimen was taken from the visor. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclu­ sions with a little grain-boundary cementite. This is merely an iron. Photograph reproduced by permission of Royal Armoury, Turin.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER

1510

303

C1600 A close helmet with painted and gilded decoration, probably made in Italy for a memb er of the Papal Guard around 1600. Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv.no.3964

2S

304

SECTION FOUR

Ferrile and pearlite X 100

Specimens were taken from the lower and upper parts of the visor and the skull. The microstructures (of all parts) consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Stibbert Museum, Florence

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

305

C1600 A gorget decorated with bands of etching, probably made in North Italy around 1600. Wallace Collection, London. A.235

The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

306

SECTION F O U R

C1600 A gauntlet decorated with a pattern of engraved and gilded chevrons. Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv.no.2561.

Ferrile and pearlite X 60

A pair of gauntlets in the Royal Armouries, Leeds (on armour 11.146, see above p.285) are very similar in their decoration. It has been suggested by Boccia (1983) that this was part of an armour made in Florence for Cosimo II Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany. The in­ ference may be that this gauntlet was also made in Florence in the early 17th century, perhaps for a member of the Medici family. A specimen was taken from inside the gauntlet. The microstructure consists of fcrrite and pearlite with a few slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

307

C1600 A breastplate decorated all over with a pattern of etched and gilded stars. Stibbert Muse­ um, Florence, inv.no.921 (cat.no.25).

Probably made by Orazio da Calino in Turin around 1600 for Emmanuel Philibert to use in the tournament. A specimen was taken from inside the breastplate. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with a few slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Stibbert Museum, Florence

308

SECTION F O U R

C1602 Part of a garniture made for Carlo Emanuele I, duke of Savoy. An armour decorated with bands of etching and gilding. Made presumably by Pompeo della Chiesa around 1602 in Milan. Royal Armoury, Turin, cat.no.39 (inv.no.C98).

Ferrite and slag X 80.

A specimen was taken from the backplate. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only, except for a single large, but isolated, area of cementite (perhaps from carbon in the fuel). Overall, this is merely an iron. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Royal Armoury, Turin.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

309

Group B (iii) Plain field armours (and components) without embossing or gilded decora­ tion, but made after the advent of fire-gilding. early 16th c. An armour with splinted arm defences, of uncertain origin, said to have belonged to Lord Pembroke. Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.358.

A V

310

SECTION F O U R

BickplaU 'section) p e n hit \

-10

martensite and carbides X 320

Specimens were examined from the breast- and backplates, the gorget, and the right spaulder (uppermost plate) in cross-section. The microstructure of the spaulder plate consists of martensite and an acicular material which might be bainite (or low-carbon martensite) arranged in bands. The microhardness (maximum) = 203 VPH. This is a low-carbon (perhaps only about 0.1 %C) steel which has been quenched to hard­ en it. The distinctive banded appearance may be due to an earlier folding operation which took place when a bloom was being turned into a sheet. Trace elements trapped in one layer have evidently resulted in the carbides present developing a different colour on etch­ ing. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

311

The microstructure of the backplate consists of uniform very fine pearlite with few slag inclusions. The microstructures of the breast and gorget consist of ferrite and slag inclusions only. The microhardness (average) = 174 VPH.

Gorget: ferrite and slag X 40

The very diverse nature of the metal in these components is surprising.

312

SECTION F O U R

C1540 A close helmet, with low comb, and without decoration. Lateran Museum, inv.no.E8.

(skull) Ferrite and pearlite X 50

A specimen from within the skull was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a lowcarbon steel (around 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

313

C1550 The plain field armour said to have belonged to Cosimo de'Medici, (1519-74) first Grand Duke of Tuscany, and probably made around 1550-55 in Italy. Hofjagd- und Rustkammcr, Vienna A.406

I'Vrrite and slag (cross-section) X 40

A plate at the back of the neck was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and numerous elongated slag inclusions only. The microhardness (average) = 179 VPH. This is surprisingly poor metal for the armour of such a customer. The hardness is partly due to the high slag content, which would in fact make the armour very brittle (see section 9). Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna

314

SECTION F O U R

1550-60 An infantry breastplate, made around 1550-60, probably in Brescia, perhaps for Venetian soldiers. Bears some engraved decoration; the lion of St.Mark and the letters CR. Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv.no. 2187 (cat.no. 108).

Ferrite and pearlite X 60

A sample was taken from the inside for examination. The microstructure consists of ferrite and rather spheroidised pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon (perhaps 0.3%C) steel that has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Stibbert Museum, Florence.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

315

1550-60 An infantry breastplate, made around 1550-60, probably in Brescia, perhaps for Venetian soldiers. Bears some engraved decoration; the lion of St.Mark and the words TER.VERON. Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv.no.2186.

ferrite and peariite X 120

A sample was taken from the inside for examination. The microstructure consists of ferrite and rather divorced peariite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.3%C or 0.4%C) that has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Stibbert Museum, Florence.

316

SECTION F O U R

C1555 The plain field armour of Sforza Pallavicini (Marchese of Cortemaggiore) probably made in Italy around 1555-60. Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A. 1181

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

317

(cross-section) ferrite and elongated slag inclusions X 40

Decorated only with rows of punched stars, and not etched or gilded. The rear of the helmet skull was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and numerous slag inclusions only. The microhardness (average) = 210 VPH. The slag inclusions which are responsible for this relatively high level of hardness from an iron (see chapter 8.1 — appendix 2) turned out to be mixed silicates, and not simply iron silicate. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna.

318

SECTION FOUR

C1555

The plain field armour of Ottavio Farnese, Duke of Parma (1524-1586). Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A. 1116

(cross-section) ferrite, some granular pearlite and slag inclusions X 50

The wrist plate of the left gauntlet was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and rather granular pearlite. The microhardness (average) = 1 4 4 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

319

C1555 The infantry armour, with cuirass of anime form, of Agostino Barbarigo (d. 1571). Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A. 1188

(cross-section) ferrite and pearlite with a corrosion crack X 30

The left earpiece of the burgonet was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and coarse pearlite. The microhardness (average) = 184 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna.

320

SECTION FOUR

cl555 The infantry armour, with cuirass of anime form, of Gian Giacomo de'Medici Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A.404

(cross-section) ferrite and granular pearlite X 30

The left earpiece of the burgonet was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and coarse, rather granulated, pearlite. The microhardness (average) = 165 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

321

1550-60 The plain field armour of Giacomo Malatesta, Count of Ronconfredo (1530-1600). Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A. 1381

(cross-section) pearlite and ferrite X 50

The lower plate of the fauld on the right side was examined in section. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite. The microhardness (average) = 206 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.5%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrica­ tion. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

322

SECTION F O U R

1550-60 A morion, made around 1550-60, probably in Brescia. Bears the arms of the city of Bolo­ gna. Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv.no. 4 (cat.no. 13).

Pearlite and ferrite X 60

A sample was taken from the inside of the morion for examination. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite in varying proportions. This is a medium-carbon steel (up to 0.6%C in places) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Stibbert Museum, Florence

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

323

1550-60 A burgonet, made around 1550-60, probably in Brescia. Bears the mark of Bologna. Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv.no. 2797 (cat.no.65).

Ferrite and pearlite X 80

A sample was taken from the inside for examination. The microstructure consists of ferrite and rather divorced pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) that has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of Stibbert Museum, Florence.

324

SECTION FOUR

C1560 A morion embossed to form a black & white pattern. Possibly made in Italy around 1560. Munich City Museum, inv.no.Z.633.

Ferrite and slag X 160

The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Munich City Museum

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

325

C1570 A close helmet probably made in Italy around 1570. Lateran Museum, inv.no.E10.

Ferrite and pearlite X 60

Apparently without etched decoration. A specimen was detached from inside the skull of the close helmet. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fab­ rication.

326

SECTION F O U R

C1580 A plain field armour probably made in Italy around 1580. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, inv.no.M14-1933.

m i?**"

r

. <,

Ferrite and pearlite X 60

A specimen was taken from inside the skull of the heavy close helmet. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (up to 0.3%C in places) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (av­ erage) = 191 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cam­ bridge.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

327

C1600 A close helmet probably made in Italy around 1600. Apparently without etched decoration. Lateran Museum, Rome, inv.no.2511

(skull) Ferrite and pearlite X 80

A specimen was detached from inside the skull of the close helmet. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

328

SECTION FOUR

cl630 Wallace Collection, London. A. 180

Fcrritc and pearlilc X 60

A close helmet in the so-called "Savoyard" style, probably made in North Italy in the early 17th century. The microstructure consists of fcrrite and a little rather spheroidised pearlitc with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

THE METALLURGY OF ITALIAN ARMOUR AFTER 1 5 1 0

329

References Bertolotto, C. el al. "L'armcria Reale di Torino" (Busto Arsizio, 1982). A catalogue of the Royal Armoury in Turin. Armours are referred to by their numbers in this catalogue. Blair,C. "King Henry VIII's tonlct armour" Journal of the Arms & Armour Society 15 (1995) 85-105. Boccia, L.G. Rossi, l'\ Morin, lYI. "Armi e Armature Lombarde"(Milan, 1980) Boccia. L.G. "Arms & armour from the Medici court" Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts, (Detroit 1983), p.6 1. Mann, J.G. "Wallace Collection Catalogues: European arms and armour" (2 vols, 1902). Various contributors, "Le Armi degli Estensi" (Eerrara, 1980). An exhibition calaloguc of the Konopislc Castle Collection, and other items with a connection to the Este Armoury. Pyhrr, S.VV. & Godoy, J.A. 1998, Catalogue-- refers to the exhaustive catalogue of an exhibition held in the Metropolitan Museum of Art "Heroic armor of the Italian Renaissance" (New York, 1998). Scalini, M. "Armature deU'eroica clei Negroli" (Elorence, 1987) Wackernagel, R.H. (ed.) "Das Munchncr Zeughaus" (Munich, 1983) . "Burgen in Salzburg" (Salzburg, 1977)

SECTION FIVE

GERMANY

CHAPTER 5.1

"GERMAN" ARMOUR UP TO

1450

Since German armour bore marks neither of an individual armourer, nor of a city before the end of the 15th century, German armour is very difficult to identify as such. So this section will include a number of items, which cannot be positively identified as originating in Germany at all, but are now in German museums, or have been classified as German by their resemblance to pictures and effigies of German knights. Even if their origin was not German, and might better be described as North European, their metallurgy is, gen­ erally, the same as German armour. Since most of them were made of iron or low-carbon steel anyway, German armour can be little differentiated from the rest of Europe north of the Alps. Italian pre-eminence in making and exporting armour in the 14th century was founded upon their superior metallurgy. That of their colleagues north of the Alps evidently lagged far behind Italy; steel plate is seldom to be found, and when it is, it is almost never hard­ ened until late in the 15th century. Table 'German" (or perhaps North European) plate armour before 1400. Object (museum)

Metal Iron

Low C% steel

Heat-treatment Med C % steel

Aircool ed

Attempted hardening

Hardness (VPH) Hard­ ened

Great Helms (and items made of several plates) of 14th century Coat-of-plates *SLM 13367 Great helms SAng 869 G N M W.2801

M L

H A A

I

233 175

Bascinets (and other one-piece items) of 14th century. MV 30-83 G N M 1271 G N M 1567 *GNM 1466 G N M 1614 RA IV.467 RA IV.6 SWI 1628 Plzen 3841 M M A 04.3.238

I

A A A

L I

220

M I

H

L L

A A A

L

A A

T

I I

366 130

332 MV 22-83 MV24-83 VC 50 GNM 1562 GNM 1564 III773 GNM 1018 Koln VV2 SLM 1487

SECTION FIVE

I L I I I I L M I

A A A A A A A A A

155 149

The 4 helms from England are discussed in chapter 6.5 . Of the 22 examples above, 12 arc made of iron, 7 of low-carbon steels, and only 3 of mediumcarbon steels. Only 2 were successfully hardened (marked *), but some attempt was made to harden a third. An Italian origin for these two is by no means impossible, but there is no definite evidence as to their origins. The metallurgy is described in detail in chapter 5.2, but what is very conspicuous is the preponderance of iron & low-carbon steels, a very unambitious metallurgy, which would have made them vastly inferior in performance to Italian armour (see section 9). The earliest surviving almost complete German "suit" is an unmarked cuirass and legs in the City of Vienna Museum. Diiriegl has suggested that this may be a composite of two armours of around 1450'. Within a few years, however, the employment of city and ar­ mourers' marks becomes fairly widespread and this makes the identification of German armour much easier. MStW 127.000 breast fauld arm leg

I I

A A L

H M

A

179 146 <277 233

Much of the cuirass consists of iron, with some areas of steel in the limbs. Only one part shows any sign of heat-treatment to harden it, and that was of such low carbon content that only a small gain in hardness was possible. However, within a generation, the prod­ ucts of South Germany were to become very different. They were to be made of a differ­ ent material, a steel, generally of a banded microstructure, and to be hardened by full-quench­ ing and tempering. These two innovations are complementary; until a raw material of fairly consistent carbon content is available, there is little point in trying to perfect techniques of heat-treatment. But once steel plates are generally available, then craftsmen who can harden them successfully will produce better armour. At the same time (and it is surely no coincidence) both armourers' and city marks come into use, which enables the manufacture of armour to be identified by maker and place. These marks were intended to indicate that some sort of quality control had been applied, ' Diiriegl, G. "Wehrhaftc Slack - Das Wiener Biirgerliche Zeughaus im 15 und 16 Jahrhundcrt" (Vienna, 1986) 14.

"GERMAN" ARMOUR UP TO

1450

333

and unsurprisingly the material of which German armour is made is now much better; in the last quarter of the 15th century steel appears more commonly and its heat-treatment is now successfully practised by the more accomplished masters. They evidently felt enti­ tled to advertise their products as ones that could compete with those of the Italians. When local needs arc met by local production, there is no necessity to identify its origin. But when an export trade develops, of articles significantly better than cheaper local products, then those imported articles have to be identifiable as such. We have seen that the Italian armourer's marks indicated a superior product (which is why their export trade was successful) and the improvements in the metallurgy in German armour generally coincide with an employment of city- and master- marks. The autonomous cities followed their own individual (and sometimes very different) tech­ niques, so it is convenient to discuss the products of the different cities separately, but some general conclusions may be drawn. Steel starts to become more common as a material for armour from the later 15th cen­ tury. For example, the Arsenal at Solothurn contains largely 16th century armour of mid­ dling quality, but the overwhelming proportion of this was steel. Hardened steel armour is still relatively uncommon, the difficulties of achieving a satisfactory result (not to mention combining this with fire-gilding) tending to restrict it to the more expensive examples. Full-quenching and tempering are regularly found after about 1480 in Augsburg, a little later in Innsbruck and in Landshut, and after 1500 in Niirnberg. However, these techniques do not appear in Greenwich until about 1560, and apparently never in North Germany or the Netherlands. So the products of the latter three locations will be discussed separately in section 6, since they evidently belong to a different metallurgical tradition. By contrast, there is an increase in the use of iron for the munition armour of Niirnberg in the third quarter of the 16th century. This may have been as much due to economic factors as to military ones (see chapter 8.3).

CHAPTER 5.2

T H E METALLURGY OF "GERMAN" ARMOUR UP TO

1450

Wisby armour, In 1361 the defenders of Wisby on the Swedish island of Gotland were slaughtered by an invading Danish army, and thousands of their bodies were tossed into mass graves, to be excavated in the 20th century 1 . The equipment of the defenders of Wisby may have been considered obsolescent, or perhaps there was a fear of disease; at any event, the victorious Danish army seem to have make surprisingly little effort to strip the dead. The remains of some 25 more or less com­ plete coats of plate and 200 mail coifs were found, as well as large numbers of fragments of lamellar armour (or "brigandine plates").

«s* ■

-<

4.

^MtfM. 17530: Ferrite and corrosion products X 50

19325Q: Pearlite and ferrite X 80. average microhardness = 266 VPH

19525: Ferrite and slas; X 50

1

T h o r d e m a n (1939) passim.

METALLURGY OF "GERMAN" ARMOUR BEFORE 1450

335

Three such lamellae excavated from the battlefield of Wisby and now in the Swedish Historical Museum, Stockholm, were sectioned and analysed. All three were heavily cor­ roded, but sufficient metal was eventually found within these plates for successful metallographic examination. Two were iron, but one was a pearlitic steel2. A good deal of caution is required before any general conclusions can be drawn about armour of such unspecific date and place of manufacture. Wisby 17530 was a lamella 9 x 2 cm. Wisby 19325Q,was a lamella 10 x 2 cm. Wisby 19525 was a lamella 7 x 4 cm.

- Williams et al. (2000) for a discussion of these analyses.

336

SECTION FIVE

Body armour made of several plates 1300-1350 Schweizcrischcs Landesmuseum,Zurich LM 13367.

A very corroded section: X 30

Martensite, slag and some ferrite X 120

A plate from a coat-of-plates excavated from the castle of Kussnach, destroyed in 13523. Its place of manufacture is unknown. A vertical edge was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of bands con­ sisting of areas of martensite and an irresolvable material which might be bainite (or per­ haps low-carbon martensite) alternating with lines of ferritc grains with a few large slag inclusions along the centre. This is a banded (but overall perhaps 0.5%C) steel which has been hardened by some form of quenching. The hardness reaches around 390 VPH in places. Photograph courtesy of the Swiss Landesmuseum.

Schneider dales these plates to 1300-1325. Schneider (1953) p.6. And also see Gesslcr, s p e d , p.211.

METALLURGY OF "GERMAN" ARMOUR BEFORE 1450

337

Great h e l m s of the 13 t h or 14 t h century A Great helm found at Bolzano and now in the National Museum of Castel Sant'Angelo, Rome, inv.no.869; perhaps late 13th century 4 .

(left side plate) ferrite and (front plate) ferrite, pearlite pearlite X 60 and cavities X 80

This was made from 4 plates and a crown plate, rivetted together. A sample was examined from the front plate of the helm made on the left side. It shows grains of ferrite mixed with areas of pearlite of varying size (average hardness = 233 VPH). There are also several cavities due to corrosion. The carbon content varies from nothing to about 0.8% within 0.5mm, but on average is around 0.3%C. Another sample was examined from the upper part of the left side plate. The microstructure is essentially similar, except that less pearlite is present (around 0.1 %C). The microharclness (average) = 183 VPH. This is typical of the very heterogeneous product of a bloomery hearth; no attempt has been made to homogenise it, nor to harden it after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the National Museum of Castel Sant'Angelo, Rome.

This helm is illustrated in Blair, p. 196, fig.81 and also see Forgiero, (1954).

338

SECTION FIVE

A great helm, mid-14th century, made for a Ritter von Kornburg. Germanisches National Museum, Nurnberg,W.2801.

Ferrite, slag inclusions and intergranular corrosion cracks X 60

The lower plate at the back was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. The microhardness (average) = 175 VPH. Photograph courtesy of the Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg.

METALLURGY OF "GERMAN" ARMOUR BEFORE 1450

339

Helmets with the skull made in one piece Museum de Valere at Sion (MV30-83). Visored (hinged at the top) Bascinet, probably made in Germany, cl370.

Ferrite and slag X 60

It bears a mark of a semi-circle with a cross 3 . A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite grains (distorted by sampling), with numerous slag inclusions elongated by forging and corrosion cavities. This is a wrought iron. Photograph courtesy of the Muscc Cantonal d'Histoire, Sion.

: ' This bascinet is illustrated in Blair (1958) 195, who dates this bascinet to c.1370, although Norman,(1964) 26, dates it earlier, to ci340..

340

SECTION FIVE

The skull of a bascinet, apparently without a fastening for a visor. Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg, W. 1271. 14lh century.

Ferrite and pearlite in bands X 60

This bascinet resembles the previous one from Sion. A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and (divorced) pearlite arranged in bands with some slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 197 to 235; average = 220 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (on average around 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg.

METALLURGY OF "GERMAN" ARMOUR BEFORE 1 4 5 0

341

Germanisches National Museum, Nurnberg, W.1567. The visor from a bascinet; perhaps from the second half of the 14th century. The visor of this bascinet is similar to that from the bascinet from Sion.

A specimen from within the visor was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. Photograph courtesy of the Germanisches National Museum, Nurnberg.

342

SECTION FIVE

Germanischcs National Museum, Niirnbcrg, W.1466. The severely corroded skull of a bascinct; perhaps from the second half of the 14th cen­ tury. The skull resembles that from the bascinet from Sion.

Fairly uniform martensite and slag X 100

The loss of the lower rim means that any armourer's mark which it may have once born has been lost, so that if it was Italian, we have no means of knowing. A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of martensite and bainite (or low-carbon martensite) with a few slag inclusions. This is a low- to medium-carbon steel which has apparently been hardened by some form of quenching. The microhardness varies from 342 to 405; average = 366 VPH. Photograph courtesy of the Germanischcs National Museum, Niirnbcrg.

METALLURGY OF "GERMAN" ARMOUR BEFORE 1 4 5 0

343

Germanisches National Museum, Nurnbcrg, W. 1614. The severely corroded skull of a bascinct with side fastenings for a visor; made perhaps around 1380-1400.

Ferrite, a little pearlite and slag inclusions X 60

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite, a very few areas of pearlite and slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (less than 0.1 %C), better described as an iron which has been aircooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 130 VPH. Photograph courtesy of the Germanisches National Museum, Nurnberg.

344

SECTION FIVE

Royal Armouries, Leeds. IV.467. Bascinet with visor; perhaps made in Germany, c. 1370.

(cross-section of skull) Ferrite, pearlite, slag and corrosion products X 40

(cross-section of visor) Ferrite, pearlite, slag and corrosion products X 40

The skull and the visor were both examined in cross-section. The microstructures of both consist of ferrite and pearlite arranged in bands with numerous elongated slag inclusions. Both are low-carbon steels (0.2 %C or less), which have been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

METALLURGY OF "GERMAN" ARMOUR BEFORE 1 4 5 0

345

Royal Armouries, Leeds. IV.6. Bascinet with visor (which may not belong with it) perhaps made in Germany, 1370-80.

(skull) slag inclusions at the junction of two bands X 160

The skull and the visor were both examined in cross-section. The microstructures of both consist of ferrite and pearlite arranged in bands with numerous elongated slag inclusions. That of the skull contains more pearlite, corresponding to a steel of around 0.3%C; that of the visor contains less pearlite (around 0.1 %C). Both have been air-cooled after fabri­ cation. Even if they did not originally belong, they are both made of very similar metal. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

346

SECTION FIVE

Swiss Arms & Armour Institute, Grandson, inv.no. 1628.

Ferrite and slag with a little martensite at edge X 50

Martensite X 200

A bascinet of unknown origin, with a (restored) front visor fastening; perhaps made around 1380, and now in a private collection 6 . A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists almost entirely of ferrite and globular slag inclusions with an isolated area of martensite. This is essentially an iron helmet, with at least one small area of steel. It has been quenched after fabrication (perhaps more in hope than in expectation), and so the steel area has been locally hardened. b

This was discussed in "Swiss Arms & Armour Institute: Rapport 3 + 4" (1979) p.71.

METALLURGY OF "GERMAN" ARMOUR BEFORE 1 4 5 0

347

West Bohemia Museum, Plzen; inv.no.3841. The skull of a bascinct excavated from Lopata castle; perhaps made c.1380.

Ferrite X 50

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. Photograph courtesy of the West Bohemia Museum, Plzen.

348

SECTION FIVE

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; 04.3.238. A hounskull bascinct (not illustrated) thought to have been made in Germany, late 14th century.

\

Ferrite and pearlite X 40

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists mostly of ferritc and a little divorced pearlite, arranged in bands, with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (maximum) = 175 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

METALLURGY OF "GERMAN" ARMOUR BEFORE

1450

349

Museum de Valere at Sion (MV22-83). A hounskull bascinet; perhaps made 1370-1420.

*%

(skull) Ferrite and slag X 80

Specimens from within the skull and visor of the helmet were examined. The microstructures of both consist of ferrite and slag inclusions only. Photograph courtesy of the Musee Cantonal d'Histoire, Sion.

1

350

SECTION FIVE

Museum de Valerc of the Valais at Sion (MV24-83). The skull of a bascinet; perhaps made 1380. (The peak may not belong)

Ferrite, somewhat distorted, and slag X 80

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite (distorted by the sampling procedure) and a little pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Musee Cantonal d'Histoire, Sion.

METALLURGY OF "GERMAN" ARMOUR BEFORE 1 4 5 0

351

Veste Coburg, inv.no. IA1 (cat.no.50). A bascinet with a visor, fastened at the top. Probably made in Germany about 1380.

Ferrite and slag X 80

A specimen from within the helmet skull was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. The microhardness ranged from 155 to 166 VPH. This seems rather high for a wrought iron, but unusual amounts of phosphorus were not detected. (0.4%P on average) Photograph courtesy of the Kunstsammlungen Veste Coburg. I am indebted to Janet Lang (Dept. of Scientific Research, British Museum) for this infor­ mation.

352

SECTION FIVE

Germanisches National Museum, Nurnberg, W. 1562. A hounskull bascinet, probably of the late 14lh century 7 .

Ferrite and slag X 80

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. The microhardness (average) = 149 VPH. Photograph courtesy of the Germanisches National Museum, Nurnberg.

7

This is discussed in Scalini (p.47, 55); who suggests it was made around 1385.

METALLURGY OF "GERMAN" ARMOUR BEFORE 1 4 5 0

Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg, W. 1564. The skull of a bascinet with side fastenings for a visor; made perhaps around

Ferrite and slag X 80

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. Photograph courtesy of the Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg.

354

SECTION FIVE

Schwcizcrischcs Landesmuseum, Zurich: LM1487. A visor, hinged at the top, from a bascinet, perhaps made in the late 14th century.

» •> \

*t , *S& Jbif''i/Ei

VJ

I r ;

*

9

*,

(section) ferrite X 40

The rim of this visor was examined in cross-section. The microstructurc consists of ferritc and slag inclusions only.

METALLURGY OF "GERMAN" ARMOUR BEFORE 1 4 5 0

355

Koln, City Museum, W.2. A visored bascinct, hinged at the top; perhaps made about 1400 8 .

Section: ferrite, pearlite and slag X 40.

The lower rim of the skull was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite in a central band and pearlite arranged in two outer bands with some elongated slag inclusions. This is a steel of variable carbon content (reaching perhaps 0.5% in places) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Rheinisches Bildarchiv.

An effigy in Mainz Cathedral shows a bascinel of very similar form. Martin (1967) 109.

356

SECTION FIVE

Gauntlets Royal Armouries, Leeds.III.773.

Ferrite, pearlite and slag X 60

A gauntlet of "hourglass" form, excavated from Brick Hill Lane, London. Perhaps made in England towards the end of the 14th century, (not illustrated) A specimen from within the gauntlet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little divorced pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is an iron or low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

METALLURGY OF "GERMAN" ARMOUR BEFORE 1 4 5 0

357

Germanisches National Museum, Niirnbcrg, W.1018. A gauntlet of "hourglass" form. Perhaps made in Germany towards the end of the 14th century.

Ferrite, divorced pearlite and slag inclusions X 120

A specimen from within the gauntlet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and divorced pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg.

358

SECTION FIVE

15th century G e r m a n a r m o u r Museum of the City of Vienna, inv.no. 127 000-009.

METALLURGY OF "GERMAN" ARMOUR BEFORE 1 4 5 0

Breastplate (left side): Ferrite, pearlite and slag X 4-0

359

Plate below the breastplate: ferrite and slag only X 80 (the right side of the breastplate is similar)

Parts of a horseman's armour made around 1450, presumably in South Germany. The surviving components are breast- and backplates, with attached plates; lower arm-de­ fences and upper- and lower-leg defences. It has been suggested that these belong to (at least) two contemporary armours. The breast­ plate and those plates suspended from it, the lower legs and lower arms are from one, plain, armour. The backplate with its attached plates, and upper legs are from another, decorat­ ed with ridges near the borders 9 . The variations in carbon content do not suggest any simple division. Specimens from within all the components were examined. Breastplate (127.000): The microstructure of a sample taken near the lance rest consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. The microhardness varied from 99 to 217 VPH; average = 179 VPH. The microstructure of a sample taken from the opposite side to the lance rest consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness varied from 179 to 231 VPH; average = 206 VPH. Plate immediately below the breastplate: The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. Right lower arm (127.003): The microstructure consists of ferrite, nodular pearlite and martensite with a few irregular slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 177 to 277 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.3%C) which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment.

Duriegl (1986) p. 14.

360

SECTION FIVE

Right knee (wing of kncecop examined in section): The microstructure consists of pcarlite and some ferrite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardncss (average) = 233 VPH. This part is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been air-cooled after fab­ rication. Backplate (127.001): The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. The microhardncss varied from 83 to 207 VPH. Plate immediately below the backplate: The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. The microhardncss varied from 83 to 207 VPH (average) = 146 VPH. Most of the armour(s) consists of iron, with isolated areas of steel. Only one part shows any sign of heat-treatment to harden it, and that was of such low carbon content that only a small gain in hardness was possible. Photographs reproduced by courtesy of the Museum of the City of Vienna.

Right (lower) arm: martensite and ferrite X 1 20

Backplate: Ferrite and slag X 60

Right knee: Pearlite and ferrite X 60

References Blair, C. "European Armour" (1958) Duricgl, G. "Wehrhafte Stadt: das Wiener Biirgerliehe Zeughaus im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert" (1986). Forgiero, C.A.A."The Castel San Angelo Helm" Journal of the Arms & Armour Society, 1 (1954) 101. Gessler, E.A. "Die spangenharnisch von Kussnach" Zeitschrift fur Historische Waffcn- und Kostumkunde, 1925 (n.s.vol.l, part 8) Martin, P. "Waffen und Rustungen" (Fribourg, 1967): effigies figs. 65 to 92. Norman, A.V.B. "Arms and armour" (1964) Scalini, M. "The armoury of the Castle of Churburg" (Udine, 1996) Schneider, H. "Schutzwaffen aus sieben Jahrhundcrten" (Bern, 1953). Thordeman, B. "Armour from the battle of Wisby" (Uppsala, 2vols. 1939) Williams, A.R. (with T.P.D.Blackburn, D.A.Edge and C.B.T.Adams) "Head protection in England before the First World War", Neurosurgery, 47 (Los Angeles, 2000) 1261-1285.

CHAPTER 5.3

AUGSBURG ARMOUR

The most advanced German metallurgy appears first in Augsburg and when German ar­ mour becomes more readily identifiable through the use of marks. The Guild of the Augsburg armourers and its regulations has been the subject of a de­ tailed study by Rcitzenstcin'. The town Council had encouraged the use of a pincconc de­ vice of the city ("Stadtpyr") as a mark by Augsburg craftsmen as early as 1461, but with­ out any compulsion. So it is difficult to identify any surviving armour as an Augsburg product before the last quarter of the 15th century, and Lorenz Hclmschmicd is the first Augsburg armourer whose work is identifiable. He was the most famous armourer of his day and counted Friedrich III (1415-1493, Emperor from 1440) and his son Maximilian I (14591519, Emperor from 1493) among his clients. The book of drawings known as the "Thun sketchbook" (which has been lost since 1945, but much of it had earlier been photographed) was apparently the workshop pattern book of Lorenz and of his son, Kolman. The con­ tents of this book have been discussed at length by Gamber 2 and the drawings of those armours that were realised, and not just designed, have been identified with surviving pieces in the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna, and other collections. On metallographic examination, 11 works of Lorenz Hclmschmied all proved to consist of banded steels, hardened by quenching and tempering, with the exception of 2 speci­ mens. These, the very earliest, were not fully hardened to a martensitic structure, but had been heat-treated and were only slightly less hard than the later works. Table 1; summarising the metallurgy of Augsburg armour up to 1500 Object museum

Metal iron

Heat-treatment

lowC% medium C% air steel steel cooled

Hardness

attempted hardened VPH hardening

1477 HJR A.69 L.Helmschmied (horse armour)

Peytral crupper

M M

1480 HJR A.60 L. Hclmschmied

left gauntlet

M

H

275

M

H

312

1485 HJR A.62b L. Helmschmied right gauntlet

1 2

Reitzenstein (1960) Gamber (1957) and (1975).

T T

305 302

362

SECTION FIVE

1485 MStW L.Hclmschmicd (?)

127.010 visor

M

H

442

1485 MStM L.Hclmschmicd(?)

Z.1353J cuissc

M

H

345

1485 MStM anon, breastplate

Z. 1353

M

H

405

1486 HJR A79 L.Helmschmied shoulder

M

H

379

c!485 Churburg 42 Augsburg anon, breastplate

M

cl490 RA III. 1325 Augsburg backplate

T

351

A

cl490 RA III 1228 anon.breastplate

M

H

1492 HJR A. 7 9 L. Helmschmied knee

M

H

352

M

H

325

1495 (Mann colln.) L.Helmschmied (?) cowter

M

H

1495 HJR A.7 L. Helmschmied vambracc

M

H

310

1495 MStW 126.703 Augsburg breastplate

M

H

302

1494 V C 52 L.Helmschmied (?)

sallet

(the attributions of Gamber are followed) So, out of t h e s e 16 s p e c i m e n s examined from the later 15th century, 15 c o n s i s t e d o f m e d i u m - c a r b o n s t e e l s , and only 1 of a low-carbon steel, and that one was not a work of Helmschmied. 12 w e r e fully h a r d e n e d , hardening had been attempted with 3, and only 1 was aircooled. What may also be significant is that when Lorenz Helmschmicd's armours were given gilded decoration, it was carried out upon the brass borders riveted to the armour. Evi­ dently the fire-gilding was kept separate from the tempering. Towards the end of the 15th century, the decoration of armour with areas of etching and gilding had started to become fashionable. Some early armour was gilded overall, but perhaps by leaf- rather than firegilding (e.g.Maximilian's Burgundian armour in Vienna B.71). The first examples of Italian armour with gilded borders date from around 1490, and this decoration becomes widespread

AUGSBURG

ARMOUR

363

after 1510, after which date Italian armourers avoid hardening their steels by heat-treat­ ment. In Germany, etching and fire-gilding docs not come into use until around 1510. While this was a little later than their Italian rivals, it does not seem to have been adopted at the expense of successful hardening. This method of decoration was taken a stage further by Lorcnz's son, Kolman, who was able to carry out gilding directly onto the steel, probably by applying the gold amalgam between the quenching and the tempering processes. Thus the fire-gilding of armour (while simultaneously hardening it) was being employed by Kolman by 1510 (on Vienna A.310). He and his successors were evidently willing and able to modify their procedures to enable this to be done (see chapter 8.2), but 15th cen­ tury Germany was an area where many experiments with metals were carried on. For example, in a different field, ternary alloys for printing type were being developed by the mid-15th century 3 . During the 16th century, the manipulative skills of Augsburg armourers in general, and the Helmschmied family in particular, increased even further and the most elaborate shapes were produced for their most ostentatious customers. The fine armour making industry was well established at Augsburg, and other masters besides the Helmschmied family practised the successful hardening of steel. But Kolman remained the favoured armourer of many of the Hapsburgs, particularly the Emperor Charles V, and he and the Seusenhofers of Inns­ bruck rivalled each other in their costly metallurgical creations. The work of these armourers is particularly notable: Lorenz Helmschmied (c. 1445-1516) Kolman Helmschmied (1470-1532) his son, Desiderius Helmschmied (1513-1579) his son, Matthaus Frauenpreiss the Elder (d.1549) Matthaus Frauenpreiss the Younger (c. 1530-1604) Anton Peffenhauser (1525-1603) Many of these were related by marriage to other armourers and craftsmen in related fields. Lorenz had five children, including Kolman (or Koloman) who was the eldest, Briccius, whose widow was to marry the armourer Matthaus Frauenpreiss, and Anna who married the etcher Hans Burgkmair. Incidentally, the latter used a pearlitic steel (rather than iron) for his etching plates 4 . Kolman married three times and had four children, including the armourer, Desideri­ us. His third wife survived him and married the armourer Hans Lutzenburger, who thus became the stepfather of Desiderius. His first wife bore him Katharina, who married the artist Jorg Sorg the Elder. The latter's son (1522-1603) was also an artist and a famous etcher of armour, who worked closely with his uncle Desiderius. His wife, in turn, was the sister of the wife of the armourer Conrad Richter. * Ustohal (2001); the lypemetal used by the Moravian Brethren in the 1 6 lh century was a ternary alloy of lead, tin, and antimony. It is reasonable to assume that this was similar to the typemetal first used in 15 th century Germany. 'Williams (1974).

364

SECTION FIVE

After the death of his father, Desiderius continued to work with Hans Lutzenberger until 1536. Following a trip to Valladolid, he returned to his own workshop at Augsburg, where he worked with, amongst others, the etcher Jbrg Sorg, whose album (the "Stuttgart Musterbuch") allows us to identify many of their works'5. In view of the great difficulty that Italian armourers seem to have had in producing armour that was both hardened and gilded, it is surely very significant that Augsburg armourers, who managed to do both, worked so closely with the gilders of their armour. But it was as late as 1562 before any detailed Guild Regulations were set up, when the demand for armour was past its peak, and a number of armourers felt that their employ­ ment was threatened. The gist of their complaints to the Town Council was that "unreg­ ulated work", that was partly local, and partly bought from foreigners (that is, non-Augsburgers) and then brought in and sold as genuine Augsburg work, was threatening their present employment and future reputation. These harnesses were made of iron and then offered for sale at reduced prices "to cheat the people". "If buyers now examine these poor goods, then they will warn others, to buy no more here in Augsburg and say that the Augsburg harnesses also are not so good as [those] from elsewhere." To prevent this, various regulations were proposed "like that of Nuremberg and at oth­ er places" that all cuirasses and harnesses made in Augsburg were to be viewed and exam­ ined by four examiners (Geschau-meister). Those recognized as good and satisfactorily proved (geschaut), should be marked with the coat of arms of the city, through which sign both the cheaper as well as the best would be likely to be a good harness. Those with a defect not actually detrimental, would be struck "with a special sign on the interior". Unfortunately we do not know what was meant by this. The round mark of the beaded A, that was sometimes struck on the inside is found occurring on works of high quality. What is most interesting is the specification that "All w o r k s h o u l d m a d e of s t e e l and h a r d e n e d , a n d t e s t e d b e f o r e it c o m e s to the p o l i s h i n g - m i l l . " (Alle Arbeit soil von stahlernem Zeug gemacht und gehartet und, ehe sie auf die Poliermuhlc kommt, geschaut werden). If anyone found work on the mill or elsewhere, that was to have be been sold unexamined, then the master should be fined 2 Florins for each piece. In addition, Augsburg masters were forbidden to buy foreign harnesses for resale, at a fine of 2 florins for each piece 6 . Reitzenstein doubted whether this requirement for steel work (von ganz stahlern) was to be taken literally, since the Regulations of Niirnberg were satisfied with the requirement for "half-steel" (halbstahlerner) work. However, upon metallographic examination, it ap­ pears that he was underestimating the achievements of the Augsburg armourers, and the majority of their work was indeed the steel stipulated by the Regulations. It is very striking that medium-carbon steel is a common material (68% of those dating from the 16th century examined), it is frequently fully hardened (40% of the armours dating from the 16th century examined) and also that this is seldom at the expense of gilding. It becomes clear why the products of Augsburg deserved their reputation, and suggests a compelling reason why Augsburg craftsmen had been induced to travel to Innsbruck. 5 (i

Becher el al. (1980). Reitzenstein (1960) 97.

AUGSBURG ARMOUR

365

Anton Peffenhauser (1525—1603) who was called by Reitzenstein "the last great armourer" maintained the traditions of making hardened steel armour of elegance until almost the end of the 16th century. The new Regulations were not rigorously adhered to on his part, particularly where the number of journeymen was concerned. Younger armourers had tried to limit this number, so as to share out a declining volume of work more evenly 7 . After him, although some armour is still being made in the 17th century, for example by Hans Ringier who employed steel, it is never hardened.

7

Reitzenstein (1973)

366

SECTION FIVE

Table 2 — t h e metallurgy of Augsburg armour from 1500 to 1630 Date

Metal

Museum inv.no. iron low C%

mcd C% sleel

Heat-lreatmeiit air

att

Hardness Master VPH

hard

1500

BNM, W.1082

1

A

j

1500

BNM, W.1081

I

A

j

1508

MSlVV 135.582

M

H

265

1510

HJR A.310

M

H

331

KH

M

H

325

KH ?

H

470

KH

281

KH

1510 VVC A22 (9 components) 1520

DHMW.631

A

1520 M S t W 127.034 (3components)

M

1524

H J R A.374a W C A245

M M

1525

D H M W.2323

M

T

H

1525 W C A28 (18 components)

M

T

1525

RA Turin 5

M

T

1525

RAIII.851

M

T

1526

H J R A.349

M

T

1540

RAIV.533

1540

RA Turin 69

M

1540

Solothurn 82

M

1540

RA III.771

M

1543

HJR A.546

1544

HJR A.547

M

1546

H J R A.420

1549

HJR A.610

KH

KH ? 316

KH KH ?

262

KH

A A

<142 H

408

T

KH ?

A

240

DH ?

H

441

DH

M

H

407

DH

M M

H

305 377

MF MF MF ?

+ From same Stib 2427 M

A

233

M

A

252

c l 5 5 0 MStW 127.076 c l 5 5 0 BNM W.4752

AUGSBURG

A

266

L

A

186

RATurin 15

L

A

1551

RATurin 14

L

1555

HJR A.639

1555

Stita 2822

L

1558

Ambras B.144

L

1559

R.A.Turin 26

L

1560

Fiiz 4 H / 1 9 3 6

M

1560

RATL

M

cl565

RATurin 29

cl550

HAM 423

cl550

Fiiz 5 H / 1 9 3 3

1551

M

ARMOUR

DH

M

11.144

1576

Berlin 3979

188

AP

H

421

DH

H

<304

HL

179

SR

A T

185

A

200

m

H 404

L M

VC 137

H

M

cl570 Zurich KZ 4517 c.1570

DH

H A

L

1579 BNM 14/L (2 components)

435

M

IM T

<329

A

AP

1580

MSM Z.30

1580

RATL

IV.38

M

1582

Dresden M.98

M

H

AP

1585

RATL

11.359

M

H

AP

1588

Dresden M.28

M

H

AP

1588

Dresden M. 124

M

H

AP

1588

Dresden M.29

1591

RATL

11.186

M

T

1600

RATL

III.781

M

T

1610

Koln

1620

MRA Brussels 208

1630

Ambras WA. 1569

W.953

I

AP

L

A

A

L

AP <360

A M

L

m

HR A

256 T

244

HR

368

SECTION FIVE

K H = Kolman Helmschmied D H = Desiderius Helmschmied M F = Matthaus Frauenpreiss the Younger AP = Anton Peffenhauser H R = Hicronymus Ringlcr HL = Hans Lutzenberger Master IM is not identified m = munition armour j = jousting helm

air = air-cooled (unhardencd) att = attempted hardening hard = hardened

Out of these 51 armours, from the 16th and early 17th century (some examined in more than one component but a representative result has been quoted): 3 were made of iron (of which 2 were jousting helms and the other a munition armour) 13 were made of low-carbon steels, and no less than 35 were made of medium-carbon steels. 20 were air-cooled, 13 had been partially hardened, and 18 were fully hardened, the latest by 1588.

AUGSBURG

369

ARMOUR

Appendix: family trees -

Jorg Helmschmicl the Elder (HP) cl410-1478

Lorenz (HP) c.1445-1516

J o r g the Younger (HP) d.1502 in Vienna

1

1

Ursula married Ulrich Gemlich

Koloman (P) 1471-1532

1

1

Timotheus (P) d. 1527

1

Briecius 1490-1529 married Anna Herzler

Anna married Hans Burgkmai the Elde

a 2nd marriage to Matthaus Frauenpreiss the Elder (P)

(married 3 tim es) his widow, Ursula, made a second marriage to Hans Lutzenberger (P) 1505-1563

Alexander

Katharina married J o r g Sorg the Elder (etcher)

Desiderius (P) 1513-1579

Ursula

(HP) = Hofplattner (P) = Planner

Simon Seusenhofer the Elder (Augsburg)

I Stephan (Augsburg) n.1493

Konrad (Innsbruck) cl450-1517 (HP) 1504

Wilhelm the Elder (Augsburg) d.1547

Hans (Innsbruck) (HP) cl470-1555

Jorg (Innsbruck) (HP) c 1500-158 Wilhelm the Younger (Augsburg)

Tables taken from Becher (1980)

Simon the Younger (Augsburg)

370

SECTION FIVE

References Bechcr, C. Gamber, O . & Irtenkauf, W. "Das Stultgarler Harnisch-Musterbuch 1548-1563", Jahrbuch der Kunsthislorisehes Sammlungen in Wien, 7G (1980) 9-96. Gamber, O. "Der Turnierharnisch zur zeit Konig Maximilians I und das Thunsche Skizzcnbuch", Jahrbuch der Kunsthislorisehes Sammlungen in Wien, 53 (1957) 33-70. Gamber, O. "Kolman Hclmschmid, Ferdinand I und dasThun'sche Skizzcnbuch",Jahrbuch der Kunsthislorisehes Sammlungen in Wien, 71 (1975) 9-38. Rcitzcnstein, A.von, "Die O r d n u n g der Augsburger Planner" Wal'/en- und Kostumkuncle, n.s.2 (1960) 96100. Reilzenslein, A.von, "Anton Peli'cnhauser, last of the great Armorers" Arms and Armor Annual, Volume 1 [not repealed] (Northfield, Illinois, 1973) 7 2 - 7 7 / Ustohal, V. "Printers' type lor lire printers of the Tower of Kralicc" A d a Metallurgical Slovaca, 7 (Kosice, 2001)241-252. Williams, A.R. "Metallographic examination of a Burgkmair etching plate in the British Museum" Bulletin of the Historical Metallurgy Group 8 (1974) 92.

C H A P T E R 5.4

T H E METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR FROM THE LATER 15TH CENTURY ONWARDS.

This is defined as Armour either with an Augsburg mark, or strong circumstantial evidence for its manufacture in Augsburg. South German armour of less certain attribution is dis­ cussed in Chapter 5.11 Miscellaneous. 1477

Parts of a horse-armour made by Lorenz Helmschmied of Augsburg in 1477 for Friederich III. The man's armour does not belong. Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A.69.

Section of peytral X 40

(peytral) pearlite and a very small slag inclusion X 160

Section of crupper X 40

SECTION FIVE

(crupper) pearlite and ferrile X 120

A sample was detached from the lowest edge of the peytral, at the centre. The cross-section shows a banded microstructure, consisting of a central band of very fine pearlite, with a carbon content of perhaps 0.6%C, with a band (nearer to the surfaces) containing a mixture of pearlite and ferrite grains with a carbon content of perhaps 0.3 %C, and a few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranged from 285 to 333; average = 305 VPH. A sample was detached from the crupper, from the lower edge of the rearmost plate on the left side. The cross-section shows a banded microstructure, consisting of a central band of fine pearlite, with a carbon content of perhaps 0.5%C, between two outer (nearer to the surfaces) bands containing a mixture of pearlite and ferrite grains with a carbon content of perhaps 0.2 %C, and a few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranged from 260 to 327; average = 302 VPH. This turned out to be very similar to the peytral. Both are banded steels, which have not been hardened by quenching, but seem to have undergone an accelerated cooling. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rusfkammer, Vienna. This photograph shows the peytral from the side, and the left crupper. A front view of the peytral is shown below (with A.62). The peytral is worked into the form of an angel. The crupper plates are in the form of double-eagles.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG A R M O U R

373

cl480 An armour made for Archduke Maximilian by Lorcnz Helmschmied (and marked by him) about 1480. Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A.60.

Section X 40

A Carbides and ferrite X 320

374

SECTION FIVE

The inside plate of the left gauntlet was examined in section. The microstructure shows two bands, one consisting of ferrite, with some carbides and slag inclusions; the other consists largely of granular carbides, martensite, and ferrite. The microhardness ranged from (lower-carbon band) 225 to 294; (higher-carbon band) 277 to 330; average = 275 VPH. This is a banded steel of variable carbon content which has been hardened, apparently by quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG A R M O U R

375

cl485 Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A.62b

A right gauntlet from a garniture made by Lorenz Helmschmicd about 1490, and identi­ fied from its depiction in the Thun Sketchbook (1976, p. 103). The cuffplate was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of martensite and ferrite arranged in numerous alternating bands with few slag inclusions. Another part of the specimen was examined at right-angles, i.e. in the plane of the plate. This also shows a banded microstructure but the bands are now very irregular rather than parallel, sug­ gesting that the steel plate out of which this armour was made has undergone a good deal of forging and folding. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by quenching (full-quenching; pearlite is absent) and tempering. The microhardness varies, with the carbon content, from 304 to 475; average = 312 VPH. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna.

376

SECTION FIVE

The gauntlet A62b is shown (sec below p.381) in the front of the case (on the right which also contains an armour for the "Kolbcn-turnicr", A.79.

Flake (in plane of plate) X 60

Bands of tempered martensite and ferrite (in plane of plate) X 240

T H E METALLURGY O F AUGSBURG A R M O U R

377

C1485 A horseman's armour, possibly made by Lorcnz Hclmschmicd in Augsburg around 148090. Museum of the City of Vienna.inv.no. 127.010

£-■■-'

(section of visor) tempered martensite and slag X 40; note the layer of corrosion products.

The visor of the sallct was examined in section. The microstructure consists of tempered martensite only with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 368 to 500; average = 442 VPH. A specimen from inside the breastplate, near to the lance-rest was also examined. The microstructure consists of fcrritc only; average microhardness = 208 VPH. This is a steel of variable carbon content carbon (around 0.5%C in the sallct but 0% near the lance rest) which has been hardened by full-quenching and tempering. This is perhaps not entirely the work of Lorcnz Helmschmied. Photograph courtesy of the Museum of the City of Vienna.

378

SECTION FIVE

C1485

Munich City Muscum.inv.no. Z.1354

Tempered martensite and small slag inclusions X 40

Martensite X 600

A pair of upper-leg defences made in Augsburg (mark) in the style of Lorenz Helmschmied, about 1480-1490. A specimen from the right leg was examined. The microstructure consists of tempered martensite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 277 to 403; average = 345 VPH. Photograph courtesy of the Museum of the City of Munich.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

379

cl485 Munich City Museum.inv.no.Z. 1353c

Martensite, pearlite and ferrite in a spiny form X 320.

A breastplate (without lance-rest, and so probably intended for the foot-tournament) with an obscure mark now thought to be that of Jorg Wagner (later of Innsbruck). Probably made in Augsburg about 1480-1490. A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructtire consists of tempered martensite, spiny ferrite and fine pearlite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 340 to 452; (average) = 405 VPH. This has been quenched, but not quite fast enough to form an all-martensite structure. Transformation products other than martensite are almost never found in the work of Lorenz Helmschmied. Photograph courtesy of the Museum of the City of Munich.

R.H. Wackernagel (pers.comm. 27.12.83)

380 c.1485 Churburg 42

Irresolvable carbides and ferrite X 80

A horseman's breastplate with the Augsburg city mark and a master's mark, perhaps that of a leaf. A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of very few ferrite grains within an irresolvable material (which might be bainite and/or very fine pearlitc) and with few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hard­ ened by some form of heat-treatment. The microhardness varies from 294 to 408; average = 351 VPH.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG A R M O U R

381

1486 Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A.79.

(Arm section) tempered martensite and small slag inclusions X 120

Fragments of an armour made for the "Kolbenturnier" (combat with clubs). Identified from its depiction in the Thun Sketchbook (1976, p. 102). A specimen from the sixth plate down from the right shoulder was examined in crosssection. The microstructure consists of martensite in two bands and ferrite in one band with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 213 to 475; average = 379 VPH. This is another banded steel which has been hardened by quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna (also shows A.62b).

382

SECTION FIVE

1480-90 Royal Armouries, Lccds.III.1325.

Backplate section: ferrite and pearlite X 40

The lower plate from a backplate with marks of Augsburg and an unknown maker (a sallet). Possibly made in Augsburg around 1480-1490. A specimen from this was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists offerrite and pearlite with numerous slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

383

C1490 Royal Armouries, Leeds.III. 1228

Section : tempered martensite X 30 Corrosion products at both surfaces.

A breastplate without a maker's mark, but in the style of Lorenz Helmschmied. This was examined on the side rim in cross-section. The microstructure consists of uni­ form tempered martensite with very little ferrite and with very few slag inclusions. This is a steel of medium carbon content which has been hardened by full-quenching and tem­ pering. So, it is quite possible (but not proven) that it is the work of Lorenz Helmschmied. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

1 1

384

SECTION FIVE

cl490

Section: tempered martensite and some ferrite in a central band X 40.

A couter from the Mann collection was examined while on loan at the Tower of London. It appears to belong to an armour made by Lorenz Helmschmied around 1480-1490. A specimen from this was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of tem­ pered martensite and some ferrite in the centre with very few slag inclusions. The cowter was illustrated in Williams (1979).

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

385

1492 The legs now displayed with an armour assembled from a garniture made by Lorenz Helmschmied for Maximilian I about 1492.(1976, p . I l l ) Identified from its depiction in the Thun Sketchbook. Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A.79.

Section: tempered martensite and ferrite, arranged in bands X 40

The plate, second below the left knee, was examined in section. The microstructure shows two bands, one consisting of ferrite, with some martensitic areas arranged in rows and very few slag inclusions; the other consists entirely of tempered martensite. The microhardness varies from (lower-carbon band) 209 to (higher-carbon band) 495; average = 352 VPH. This is a banded steel which has been hardened by full-quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna.

386

SECTION FIVE

1494 A rcnnhut made in Augsburg, probably for Maximilian I on the occasion of his second marriage to Bianca Maria Sforza. (1996, p. 18) Vcstc Coburg, inv.no. IA 2.

■:-iJ

mFerrite and tempered martensite X 80

•fV. : v ,

Ferrite and tempered martensite X 160

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and tempered martensite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 148 to 425; average = 325 VPH. Photograph by courtesy of the Kunstsammlungcn, Veste Coburg

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG1 ARMOUR

387

1495 An armour made for Philip the Fair, probably by Lorenz Hclmschmicd, 1495-1500 Iden­ tified from its depiction in the Thun Sketchbook. Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A. 7

Arm section: Fcrrite and tempered martensite X 40

388

SECTION FIVE

[Pauldron] Ferrite and tempered martensite X 80

The second plate from the top of the right vanbrace was examined in section. The microstructure consists two bands of ferrite with a little martensite and three bands of (largely) martensite with a line of elongated slag inclusions running down the centre of the plate. The microhardness varies from 201 to 299 VPH. Another specimen was examined from the left pauldron; its microstructure was also a banded steel. This is a banded steel of medium carbon content which has been hardened by fullquenching and tempering. The microhardness varies from 269 to 350; average = 310 VPH. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

389

1495 Museum of the City of Vienna, inv.no. 126.703

Ferrite and martcnsite X 120

An infantry breastplate, with an Augsburg mark, made around 1490-1500. A specimen from within the upper part of the breast The microstructure consists mostly of ferrite with some areas of martensite, and slag inclusions. The microhardness varied from 265 to 360; average = 302 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel that has been hardened by quenching.

390

SECTION FIVE

A u g s b u r g a r m o u r in the 16th century. A jousting helm, made about 1500. Bavarian National Museum, Munich W. 1082.

Ferrite and slao- X 60

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. Photograph courtesy of the Bavarian National Museum, Munich.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

391

1500 A jousting helm, made about 1500. Bavarian National Museum, Munich W.1081.

^•«(lip'*'--**s'^«***'

Ferrite and slag, with a little pearlite X 40

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (less than 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Bavarian National Museum, Munich.

392

SECTION FIVE

1508 Museum of the City of Vienna.inv.no. 135.582.

Ferrite, some in a spiny form, and marlensile X 120.

A one-piece infantry breastplate. This was selected as a representative example of the 23 breastplates and 12 backplates which survive in the stores of the Museum of the City of Vienna; the remains of a very large order (4000 items) which Maximilian ordered in 1508 from the armourers of Augsburg and Niirnberg. (Duriegl, 1986, cat. l/18,p.20) Other infantry breastplates of very similar form, which were apparently part of the same order, and were also examined, include 135.796 (with a Niirnberg mark) (p.608) and 135.581 (with the mark P, of an unknown master). For an illustration of the form of this breast­ plate, see the entry for 135.581 in Chapter 6.1. (p.698) A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructurc consists of martensite and ferrite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies with carbon content from 156 to 357; average = 265 VPH. This is a steel of variable carbon content which has been hardened by some form of quenching.

THE METALLURGY OK AUGSBURG A R M O U R

393

1510 An armour made by Kolman Hclmschmicd (marked by him) for Andreas Graf Sonncnburg about 1510. Its borders are decorated in the style called "goldschmclz" on a blued ground (1976, p.220). Hofjagd- und Rustkammcr, Vienna A.310.

Section: tempered martensile and ferrite, arranged in two bands X 40

394

SECTION FIVE

The left gauntlet was examined in section inside the wrist plate. The microstructure shows two bands, one consisting of ferritc and martensitc; the other consists entirely of tempered martensite. The microhardness of the lower-carbon band averages 289 VPH; of the higher-carbon band averages 435 VPH; overall average = 331 VPH. This is a banded steel which has been hardened by full-quenching (pearlite is absent) and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG A R M O U R

395

C1510 This armour, probably made for Wladislas of Bohemia, but without an Augsburg mark, is included here. The breastplate bears etched decoration. Wallace Collection, London. A22.

Right pauldron; (section) ferrite and martensite X 40 (note corrosion products on surfaces)

Right cuisse; (section) ferrite and martensite X 40

396

SECTION FIVE

Armct: fcrritc and marlcnsile X 40

9 components were examined. Their microstructurcs consists of tempered martcnsite and ferrite in varying proportions with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (armct skull) = 325 VPH. Mann suggested that this armour was a product of Kolman Helmschmied on the grounds of its form. Its metallurgy tends to support his contention. Photographs by courtesy of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

397

cl520 A fluted armour probably made for the Archduke Ferdinand I by Kolman Hclmschmied about 1520. It docs not bear a mark, but has been assigned to this master on the basis of its appearance in the Thun Sketchbook (Duricgl, 1986, p.54). Museum of the City of Vicnna.inv.no. 127.034.

Breastplate: martensite and ferrite X 40

v*^V

Backplatc: carbides and ferrilc X 160

Helmet skull: martensite and ferrite X 200.

398

SECTION FIVE

Specimens from within the helmet, the breastplate, and the backplate were examined. Breastplate: The microstructure consists of martensite and ferrite with very few slag inclu­ sions. The microhardness varies from 426 to 500; average = 470 VPH. Backplate: The microstructure consists of ferrite and granular carbides with few slag inclu­ sions. The microhardness varies from 243 to 321; average = 290 VPH. Skull of the close helmet: The microstructure consists of ferrite and martensite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 178 to 287; average = 217 VPH. All three components are made of steels but the carbon content varies. The skull is lower in carbon content than the others (perhaps 0.2% as against 0.5%). All three have been hardened by some form of quenching. The back seems to have then been overtempered somewhat. Photograph by courtesy of the Museum of the City of Vienna

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG A R M O U R

399

1524 An armour made in the form of a "puffed & slashed" costume for Wilhclm von Roggendorf by Kolman Helmschmicd about 1524. It is decorated with bands of etching (1976, p.227). Identified from its depiction in the Thun Sketchbook. Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A.374 a

costume suit

(arms) pearlite and ferritc X 40

(exchange arms)

Wallace Collection cowter: fine pearlite and ferrite X 60

There are exchange arms which enable the armour to be worn in combat. A specimen from within the right (exchange) vambrace was examined. The microstructure consists of fine pearlite and a little ferrite with few slag inclusions.

400

SECTION FIVE

The microhardncss varies from 251 to 325; average = 281 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.6%C) which has undergone some form of heattreatment to harden it, but not a full cjuench. A left cowter which is believed to belong to this armour is in the Wallace Collection (A245). A specimen from within the left couter was examined. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferritc with few slag inclusions. The microhardncss (average) = 218 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.6%C) also, which has apparently not been heat-treated. Photographs by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammcr, Vienna.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG A R M O U R

401

cl525 An armour of "puffed-and-slashed" form, but without an Augsburg mark. Its resemblance to the Roggendorf armour (q.v) has led to its Augsburg attribution. This was also decorat­ ed by blueing and gilding, of which traces remain. Wallace Collection, London.A28

402

SECTION FIVE

Breastplate: very fine pearlite and ferrite X 160

18 components were examined. Their microstructures consists of very fine pearlite and ferrite in varying proportions with some slag inclusions. Those of the right tasset and backplate contain martensite also. The breastplate is shown as typical. The microhardness (average) = 305 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment; in parts a full-quench, and in other parts, an accelerated cooling, followed by a tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

403

cl525 A breastplate for a horseman with fluting and etched decoration, made by Kolman Helmschmied (marked) about 1525. Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin.W.2323.

Breastplate Section: X 40

Martensite and ferrite X 160

This was examined in section on the lower rim. The microstructure consists of a broader, largely ferritic band and a narrower band, largely martensitic with some irresolvable car­ bides; there are a few slag inclusions. This is another banded steel which has been hardened by quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin.

404

SECTION FIVE

C 1.5 2 5 Armour for man and horse. Decorated with bands and patterns of etching (and formerly gilt ?). Identified by Thomas (1978) as the work of Kolman Hclmschmicd. Royal Armoury, Turin (cat.no.5/6).

Helmet: carbides in a ferrite matrix X 40

Cuisse: pearlite, other carbides and ferrite X 160

A specimen from within the comb of the close helmet was examined. The microstructurc consists of granular carbides in a matrix of ferrite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness could not be measured. Another specimen from within the second plate down of the right cuisse was examined. The microstructurc consists of very fine pearlite and ferrite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 279 to 357; average = 316 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment. Photograph by courtesy of the Royal Armoury, Turin.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

405

C1525 The front of a sabaton, probably made by Kolman Hclmschmied about 1525. This is decorated with etched (and gilt ?) bands. Royal Armouries, Leeds.III.851

pearlite, other carbides and ferrite X 160

This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of a band of very fine pearlite and another band of ferrite mixed with a little pearlite. Where the bands meet, there is a row of elongated slag inclusions running down the centre of the section. This is a banded medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heattreatment. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

406

SECTION FIVE

1526 A horse-armour made by Kolman Helmschmied of Augsburg in 1526 for King Ferdi­ nand I (1503-1564). The man's armour has its borders decorated with "goldschmelz" on a blued ground (1976, p.222). Hofjagd- und Rtistkammcr, Vienna A.349.

Section: very fine pearlite and some ferrite X 40.

A sample was detached from the left side of the peytral, on the edge of the rearmost plate at the side. The cross-section shows a fairly uniform microstructure of very fine pearlite, with a car­ bon content of perhaps 0.6 %C, except where there are some ferrite grains in narrow bands near to the surface, and a few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranged from 245 to 299; average = 262 VPH. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

407

C1540 Royal Armouries, Leeds.IV.533

A pate plate, probably made in Augsburg, and perhaps part of a garniture of Charles V. Decorated with bands of etching. This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon (around 0.2%C) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

408

SECTION FIVE

C1540 Royal Armoury, Turin, cat.no.69.

Ferite and pearlite X 40

A helm made for the foot-tournament, perhaps by Desiderius Helmschmied around 1540. A specimen from the front of gorget of the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and somewhat divorced pearlite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 97 to 142 VPH. This is a medium-carbon (perhaps 0.4%C overall) steel which has been very slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph by courtesy of the Royal Armoury, Turin.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG A R M O U R

C1540 Arsenal, Solothurn. inv.no.82

Uniform tempered martensite X 40 (note the absence here of ferrite and slag)

tempered martensite X 320

A plain infantry armour (with an Augsburg mark) made around 1540-1550. A specimen from within the left upper vambrace was examined. The microstructure consists of fairly uniform tempered martensite with no visible ferrite and few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 330 to 455; average = 408 VPH This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened by full quench­ ing and tempering. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Old Arsenal Museum, Solothurn (Switzer­ land).

410

SECTION FIVE

C1540 One of a pair of anklets which are illustrated in the "Inventario lUuminado". Made for Charles V by Kolman Helmschmied between 1538-1543. Decorated with etched (and gilt?) borders. Royal Armouries, Leeds.III.771

Very fine pearlite and some elongated slag inclusions (section) X 40

This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of uniform very fine pearlite with no visible ferrite and very few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel which has undergone some sort of accelerated cooling after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG A R M O U R

411

1543 A half-armour from the garniture "of Clcves" made by Dcsidcrius Hclmschmicd (15131579) for Charles V (1500-1558), in 1543 (Gamber & Beaufort, 1990, p.52). Decorated with bands of etching and gilding. Hofjagd- und Rustkammcr, Vienna A.546

Ferrite with a band of pearlite (section) X 50

A specimen from the left pauldron was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a band of pearlitic areas with few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 240 VPH. The surface hardness measured was Re 44 (—440 VPH) on average, so this may not have been a representative specimen, and it is possible that other components of the garniture were hardened. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna.

412

SECTION FIVE

1544 A field armour from a garniture made for Philip II (1527-1598) by Desiderius Helmschmied in 1544. (Gamber & Beaufort, 1990, p.53). Decorated with bands of etching and gilding. Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A.547

T H E METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG

ARMOUR

413

A specimen from within the main plate of the right gauntlet was examined in section. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite and a little ferrite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 418 to 457; average — 441 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened by full quench­ ing and tempering. Some ferrite may be noted near a corrosion crack. This may have been caused by an imperfectly welded fold in the original billet, which has trapped iron oxide within the plate, causing local decarburisation, and hence local weak­ ening. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

Uniform tempered martensite (Note corrosion crack) (section) X 60

414

SECTION FIVE

1546 A half- armour from a small garniture made by D.Helmschmied for Fernando, Duke of Alba around 1546. (Gamber & Beaufort, 1990, p.51) Breastplate of anime form; decorated with etched and gilded borders. Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A.420

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

415

Tempered martensite and some slag inclusions X 80

A specimen from the left elbow-cop was examined in section. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 370 to 446; average = 407 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened by full quench­ ing and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

416

SECTION FIVE

1549 A great garniture of Maximilian II (1527-1576) made by Matthaeus Frauenpreiss in 1548/ 9; decorated with bands of etching and gilding (Gamber & Beaufort, 1990,98). Hofjagd- und Riistkammcr, Vienna A.610

Very fine pearlite and a ferrite network (section) X 40

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG A R M O U R

417

Tempered martensite (the light coloured band is diflerentlyetching martensite) X 40

From the pieces of exchange, a specimen from a right gauntlet was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of very fine pearlite and a little ferrite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 285 to 331; average = 305 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C overall) which has undergone some form of accelerated cooling. Stibbert Museum, Florence.inv.no.2427 (cat.no. 135) is a right arm defence from this garniture. A specimen from within the lower vambrace was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 351 to 397; average — 377 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened by full quench­ ing and tempering. This was probably the heat-treatment intended for the other compo­ nent, but for some reason it was not achieved. Photograph (of the armour for the foot-tournament) by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna. Photograph (of the right arm-defence) by courtesy of the Stibbert Museum, Florence.

418

SECTION FIVE

C1550 An armour for the tilt (plankengestech); part of a garniture made for Maximilian II, per­ haps by Matthaeus Frauenpreiss the Younger, or Conrad Richter, in Augsburg about 1550, and decorated by (Jorg Sorg) with etching and gilding. (1986, p.66) Museum of the City of Vienna, inv.no. 127.076.

?->, x

ji

-

'

* I -v' >• * *,

*> Bitastplatc. pcaihtc, fcrnte and slag X 60

^

1

% > vv ?

~^

] *

TV f I I divoiced pcailitc X 60

i d

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

419

4 specimens from the lower rim of the helmet, the breast- and backplates, and left pauldron, were examined. The microstructures of all 4 consist of ferrite and pearlite in varying proportions with some slag inclusions. These are low-to-medium-carbon steels (from 0.2% to 0.6%C) which have been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) of the breastplate = 233 VPH. Photograph by courtesy of the Museum of the City of Vienna

1

420

SECTION FIVE

cl550 A pair of gauntlets possibly made in Augsburg by D.Hclmschied around 1550, and exhib­ ited with a composite armour 2582. Higgins Armory Museum, Worcester, inv.no.423

Gauntlet: pearlite and ferrite X 50.

A specimen from the left gauntlet was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of quite uniform pearlite and a little ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 266 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrica­ tion. Photograph by courtesy of the Higgins Armory Museum, Worcester, Mass.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

421

C1550 A burgonet with an Augsburg mark from the mid-16th century. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.inv.no.M5-1933.

Ferrite and pearlite X 60

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 186 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.

422

SECTION FIVE

1551 A horseman's armour decorated with embossing, as well as etching (by Sorg) and gilding. Made in Augsburg in 1551 by Desiderius Helmschmied for Don Alfonso de Bustos. Royal Armoury, Turin, cat.no. 15. inv.C.12.

Ferrite with grain-boundary cementite X 50

A specimen from within the tasset was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and cementite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1%C) which has been very slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph by courtesy of the Royal Armoury, Turin.

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y O F AUGSBURG

ARMOUR

423

1551 Part of a garniture belonging to Stefano Doria, made in Augsburg by Anton Peffenhauser in 1551. Decorated by Sorg (and identified in his album) with etching and gilding. Royal Armoury, Turin, cat.no. 14. inv. G. 117.

Ferrite and divorced pearlite X 50

A specimen from within the right pauldron was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite (somewhat divorced into globules) with some slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 147 to 236 VPH. This is a low-carbon (perhaps 0.3%C) steel which has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph by courtesy of the Royal Armoury, Turin.

424

SECTION FIVE

C1555 A demi-chanfron; part of a horse-armour perhaps made by Desiderius Helmschmied of Augsburg c.1555. Decorated with embossing, etching and gilding. Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A.639.

Section X 50

Tempered martcnsite and ferrite X 400

A sample was detached from the turned (and roped) rim below the right eye-hole. The microstructure of the cross-section shows a very uniform microstructure of tempered martensite, with some proeutectoid ferrite grains in the centre, and very few slag inclu­ sions. The overall carbon content is perhaps 0.5 %C, although this steel retains traces of its original banding, due to folding and forging. It has been hardened by quenching and tempering. The microhardness ranged from 260-503; average = 421 VPH Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

425

C1555 Stibbert Museum, Florence.inv.no.2822 cat.no.92.

(skull plate) Martensite and ferrite in a spiny form X 200

Reinforcing parts for the tilt, from an armour made for Don Andreas de Ribera in Augs­ burg by Hans Lutzenberger, & etched by Jorg Sorg, around 1555. The reinforcing buffe, and a skull plate (inv.no. 16731) were examined. A specimen from within the buffe was examined. The microstructure (not illustrated) consists of ferrite and pearlite (around 0.2%C) with a few slag inclusions. A specimen from within the skull plate was also examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and martensite in isolated areas with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 163 to 304; average = 230 VPH. This component is made of a steel of low carbon content which has been fully hardened. Photograph by courtesy of the Stibbert Museum, Florence.

426

SECTION FIVE

C1558

Waffensammlung Schloss Ambras B.144

Ferrite and pearlite X 100

A rennhut made for Archduke Ferdinand II in Augsburg, around 1558, probably by Sigmund Rockenberger. A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 179 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph by courtesy of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

427

C1559 Part of a garniture made for Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy, around 1559, in Augsburg. Royal Armoury, Turin. Cat.no.26, inv.B34.

Ferrite and martensitic areas X 160

A specimen from within the left tasset was examined. The microstructure consists of fer­ rite and martensite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 130 to 290 VPH. This is a low-carbon (around 0.3%C) steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment (perhaps quenching and overtempering ?). Photograph by courtesy of the Royal Armoury, Turin.

428

SECTION FIVE

C1560 A burgonet with a triple ("rooster's") comb, with an Augsburg mark, of about 1560. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.inv.no.M4-1936.

Ferrite and pearlile X 40

A specimen from the helmet was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of quite uniform pearlite and a little ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 200 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.4%C overall) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

429

cl560 The right tasset for tournament use from an armour made in Augsburg and decorated with bands of etching and gilding. Royal Armouries, Leeds.II. 144

(section) Tempered martensite and ferrite (especially in a central band) X 40

The lower rim was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of tempered martensite and a little ferrite arranged in bands with very few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.5%C) which has been hardened by quenching and tempering. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

430

SECTION FIVE

1560-70 An armour garniture of uncertain origin, made about 1560-70. Decorated with bands of An armo etching and gilding. Royal Armoury, Turin, cat.no.29. inv.no.C15.

-"H

4 ,ff

Very fine pearlite X 160

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

431

A specimen from the lowest plate of the right tasset was examined. The microstructure consists of very fine pcarlite (almost irresolvable in places), a little proeutectoid ferrite and very few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.7%C) which has under­ gone an accelerated cooling after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 404 VPH. The catalogue lists it as Italian, but then (p.331) points out the resemblance of the etched decoration to the work of Jorg Sorg of Augsburg. The metallurgy does not resemble any Italian armour of the period at all. This has not simply been air-cooled after fabrication, but a fairly successful attempt has been made to harden it. Coupled with the style of etching, it would therefore seem very unlikely that this is indeed, of Italian manufacture. If it was, as suggested, etched in Augs­ burg, then it was probably made in Augsburg. Photograph by courtesy of the Royal Armoury, Turin

432

SECTION FIVE

1550-1600 Swiss Landes Museum, Zurich. inv.no.KZ 4517

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

433

Section X 50

The backplate from a plain (white) infantry armour with an Augsburg mark was examined in section. ("Landsknechtsharnisch") The microstructure consists of ferrite with a band of pearlitic areas and some very elongat­ ed slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.4%C in places) which has been aircooled after fabrication. see Schneider (1953) cat.no. 19. Photograph courtesy of the Swiss Landesmuseum

434

SECTION FIVE

C1570 Kunstsammlungen, Veste Coburg. inv.no.I 37.

Martensite with a few slag inclusions and a (quenching ?) crack X 60

Part of a garniture made by Peffenhauser probably for Duke Johann Wilhelm von We­ imar (1996, p.25). The reinforcing bevor was examined. The microstructure consists of martensite and an acicular material (bainite ?) without visible pearlite or ferrite. The microhardness varies from 390 to 503; average = 435 VPH. This is made of a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by quenching and tem­ pering. Photograph by courtesy of the Kunstsammlungen, Veste Coburg.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

435

1576 Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin. W.3979

Ferrite and grain-boundary cementite X 60

A morion, etched with the date, 1576, and with both Augsburg city and master (IM) marks. A specimen from the helmet rim was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite with a little pearlite, completely divorced into globules of cementite, and a few slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) which has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph by courtesy of the Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin.

436

SECTION FIVE

1579 Bavarian National Museum, Munich, (temporary) inv.no.

(tasset) An acicular material, ferrite and martensite X 60

14/L.

An area of acicular material X 240

An armour from the Wittelsbach collection; made by Anton Peffenhauser for Duke Albrecht V (d. 1579) and delivered to Duke Wilhelm V in 1580. Decorated with an etched cross of St.George on the breastplate. A specimen from the left tasset was examined. The microstructure consists of areas of an acicular material (bainite ?), martensite, and ferrite. A specimen from within the close helmet was also examined. The microstructure con­ sists of a similar complex mixture of microconstituents. The microhardness ranges from 228 to 329 VPH. This was made of a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heattreatment after fabrication.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG A R M O U R

437

cl580 A burgonet made in Augsburg around 1580. Munich City Museum, inv.no. Z.30

mtuL':-^.:.

Ferrite and slaa, X 60. A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. This is merely a wrought iron. Photograph by courtesy of the Munich City Museum.

438

SECTION FIVE

cT580 A close helmet for tournament use, made in Augsburg around 1580. Royal Armouries, Leeds.IV.38

Section X 40

I'fi'i'itc and a network of ccmenlile panicles X 240

A specimen from the helmet visor was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of fcrrite and a network of globular cementitc particles with a number of elongated slag inclusions arranged in rows. This was a medium-carbon steel whose history cannot now be deduced. It might be a completely annealed pcarlite or possibly a considerably overtempcred quenched structure. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

T H E METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG A R M O U R

439

1582 An armour made in Augsburg by Anton Peffcnhauscr in 1582. Dresden, Historischcs Museum. M.98.

(Section) tempered martensite X 20

The vambracc was examined in cross-section. The microstructurc consists of uniform tem­ pered martensite with very few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened by quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Staatliche Kunstsammlungcn, Dresden.

440

SECTION FIVE

C1585 Part of an armour garniture made for the Duke of Saxe-Altenburg, in Augsburg A.Peffenhauscr (parts of this are at Vcste Coburg) and decorated with etching and an tcrnating pattern of gilding and blackening. Royal Armouries, Leeds. 11.359

Visor section X 40

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

441

Marlcnsile and slag X I GO

The upper visor was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of large areas of tempered martensitc and ferritc grains arranged in three bands with an elongated cor­ rosion crack running down the central ferritic band. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by quenching and tempering. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

442

SECTION FIVE

1588 A tournament armour decorated with bands of etching and gilding made in Augsburg by Anton Peffcnhauser in 1588. Dresden, Historisches Museum. M.28

Section X 40

Martensite, ferrite and slag inclusions X 160

The cowter was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of tempered mar­ tensite with some isolated procutectoid grains of ferrite and small areas of pearlite with very few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hard­ ened by quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Staatlichc Kunstsammlungcn, Dresden.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

443

1588 A plain armour made in Augsburg by Anton Peffcnhauser in 1588. Dresden, Historisches Muscum.M.124

The gauntlet was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists mostly of tem­ pered martensite with some proeutectoid grains of ferrite and a few slag inclusions, but with a corrosion crack running down the centre of the plate. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened by quenching and tempering. Note that the corrosion crack has opened up where decarburisation has taken place. Photograph by courtesy of the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden.

444

SECTION FIVE

1588 A tournament armour made in Augsburg by Anton Pcffcnhauscr in 1588. Dresden, Historischcs Museum. M.29

I c n U c (.aibtdcs, and slag X 160

The left cowter was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists largely of fcrrite and pcarlitc (mostly divorced) arranged in bands with some elongated slag inclusions and corrosion cracks. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph by courtesy of the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

445

1591 One of a scries of twelve blued and gilded tournament armours made for the Elector Chris­ tian of Saxony as a Christmas present from his wife, by Anton Peffenhauscr. Royal Armouries, Leeds. 11.186

446

SECTION FIVE

martensite, pearlite and ferrite X 40

martensite, very fine pearlite and ferrite in a distinctive form X 160

A specimen from within the close helmet skull was examined. The microstructurc consists of martensite, pearlite and ferrite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 221 to 360 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.5%C) which has been hardened by some form of quenching. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG ARMOUR

447

1580-1600 A gauntlet probably made in Augsburg and decorated with etching and gilding. Royal Armouries, Leeds. III.781

L/SE££

Section X 30

Pearlite, carbides and ferritc X 120

A lame from the gauntlet was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of areas of fine pearlite mixed with an irresolvable material, and ferrite arranged in two bands with some elongated slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hard­ ened by some form of heat-treatment. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

448

SECTION FIVE

C1610 A close helmet from an armour made for J a n van Werth in the early 17th century, with the marks of Augsburg and master H R (perhaps Hieronymus Ringler ?) on the gorget. Koln, City Museum, inv.no.W.953

Ferrite, some pearlite, slag and corrosion cracks (crossscclion of gorget plate) X 25

The gorget was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite, rather spheroidised pearlitc and slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.1 %C over­ all) which has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph by courtesy of the City Museum, Koln.

THE METALLURGY OF AUGSBURG A R M O U R

449

cl620 Royal Army Museum, Brussels, inv.no.208

Pearlite and ferrite X 50

A demi-shaffron (not illustrated) with the marks of Augsburg and H R (Hieronymus Ringler ?), made around 1610-1620. A specimen from the turned lower rim was examined. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 256 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C overall) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

450

SECTION FIVE

cl630 Waffcnsammlung Schloss Ambras WA. 1569

Ferrite and carbides X 50

A "three-quarters" armour probably made in Augsburg about 1630. A sample, showing a section of the plate, was detached from inside the turned rim of the breastplate. The microstructurc shows ferrite with some areas of pearlite, or other carbides, and a few elongated slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 201 to 289; average = 244 VPH. This is a low-carbon (perhaps 0.2%) steel, which has been worked into shape hot, and perhaps given some sort of heat-treatment to increase its hardness afterwards. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna. References Thomas, B. & Camber, O. Kalalog der Lcibrustkammcr, I, (Vienna, 1976) Gamber, O. & Beaufort. C. Katalog der Leibrustkammer, II, (Busto Arsizio, 1990) Schneider, H. "Schulzwaffen aus sieben Jahrhunderten" (Bern, 1953). Thomas, B. "L'armatura da guerra e lorneo B2 dcll'armcria Rcale di Torino" Armi Anlichc (1978) 3-30. Williams, A.R. "A technical note on some of the armour of King Henry VIII and his contemporaries" Arehaeologia 106 (1979) 157-166.

C H A P T E R 5.5.

INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

The situation of Innsbruck, at the crossroads of two trade routes, and with plenty of water power, made it a likely site for an armour manufacture. The early history of the Innsbruck armoury has been extensively studied by Thomas & Gamber 1 upon whose account this chapter will draw heavily. The first Tirolean armourer mentioned is one "master Ulrich" who looked after the armour of Duke Fricclrich IV in the early 15th century. He was fol­ lowed by a "master Hans" and then in 1451 a master Wilhclm Kochler, who worked for the Archduke Siegmund of Austria (1427-1496). He attempted to encourage the craft by an edict in 1446, and there was a colony of armourers at this time in Muhlau, near to his court, and also, near to the fast flowing mountain streams needed for their watermills. This first generation of Muhlau armourers included Konrad Treytz the Elder, Konrad Vetterlein, and Eberhard Schreiner. They marked their works with masters' marks, usual­ ly based on their family seals or a group of letters within a label. The second generation, active from the third quarter of the 15th century, included Hans Vetterlein (son of Kon­ rad) Christian Schreiner (son of Heinrich) Jorg Treytz (son of Konrad) Christian Spor, and Caspar Rieder. This generation established the fame of the Muhlau workshops, and during the 1460s Archduke Siegmund made diplomatic presents of their works to various nobles including his father-in-law, King James of Scotland, the Archbishop of Mainz, his 6-year old sec­ ond-cousin, Maximilian (1459-1519, emperor from 1493), and King Matthias of Hungary. These armours were noted for their hardness and at least one of them was gilded "by the goldsmith Bernhart". Nevertheless, Archduke Siegmund's finest armour was made not in Innsbruck, but in Augsburg by Lorenz Helmschmied, who was Hofplattner (court armourer) to the Arch­ duke's cousin, the Emperor Friedrich III (1415-1493, emperor from 1440) perhaps on the occasion of the Archduke's second marriage to Maria of Saxony in 1484. This armour survives in the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna (A.62) and its metallurgy is discussed in chapter 5.4. Many of the next generation of armourers, who were active in the last quarter of the 15th century, settled in the suburbs of Wilten and Anpruggcn, rather than Muhlau. They included Adrian Treytz, Christian Treytz, Hans Schral, Christian Rcutcr, and others. Sig­ nificantly, craftsmen from other parts of Germany were encouraged to come and settle in Innsbruck. Hans Laubcrmann, called "Kolner" (i.e.the man from Koln), Hans Rabeiler, called "Pair" (i.e. the man from Bayern = Bavaria), and, most importantly, from Augsburg there came Hans Prunner (1482), Jbrg and Klaus Wagner, and above all, Konrad Seusenhofer. Simon Seusenhofer was an Augsburg craftsman who had had four sons; Stephan

1

Thomas & Gamber (1954) especially 15-28; and Thomas (1974).

452

SECTION FIVE

(fl. 1493-5) and Wilhelm (d.1547) remained in Augsburg, while Konrad (1460?—1517) and Hans (1470—1555) were to move to Innsbruck. At least three generations of the Treytz family had worked as armourers in Innsbruck. Konrad Treytz the Elder worked at Miihlau, in 1452, with his son-in-law, Christian Schreiner the Elder, Hans Vetterlcin, Caspar Rieder and Hans Vetter on 4 armours for Duke Siegmund. Konrad (the Elder)'s mark was a 3-lobed clover leaf; he died in 1469, by which time his son Jorg (active to 1499) was already a master. He may, as Scalini suggests2 have sim­ ply inherited his father's mark 3 . Thomas & Gamber 4 assign the mark of a horseshoe & nail to him. Jorg had two brothers, Adrian the Elder, (active to 1492) and Christian (active to 1487). One of these two employed a mark similar, but not identical, to that of their father (a 3-lobcd clover leaf with the stem pointing right instead of left). Scalini ascribes this mark to Adrian, who became master in 1473, while Thomas & Gamber ascribe it to Christian. On the other hand, Eaves & Richardson 0 tentatively ascribe it to Jorg. In view of these conflicting opinions, these marks will all be described in this book as "a mark belonging to a member of the Treytz family". The third generation of Treytz armourers included Adrian the Younger (d. 1529) whose mark was a 3-lobed vineleaf within a shield and Konrad the Younger (d. 1536) whose mark was a 3-lobed cloverleaf within a shield. Between 1511 and 1513 Konrad Treytz the Younger produced breastplates at Miihlau for the Innsbruck Arsenal with his brother Adrian (the Younger) and Oswald Schreiner. In 1483 Siegmund had paid large sums of money for jousting armours by Christian Spor, Kaspar Rieder, Jorg and Klaus Wagner, and Hans Prunncr. In 1489 he had had an ar­ mour made by Hans Prunner for King Philip the Fair. In 1490 he died, and was succeed­ ed by Maximilian, an even more enthusiastic patron of armourers and tournaments. Jorg Treytz had died in 1490, Hans Prunner in 1500, and with the new century, the next gen­ eration of armourers was to have a different focus. Table 1 Table summarising the metallurgy of Innsbruck armour (1450-1500) before the esstablishment of the Court Armoury: Date

Museum

Metal Iron

Heat-treatment

Low C% Medium C % steel steel

air attempted hardened eooled hardening

1450-60 CH24c

M

T

1460

C H 27

M

T

1460

C H 22

2

L

Hardness Master (VPH)

T

339

K.Treytz K.Treytz

209

Vetterlcin

Scalini (1996) 97 ■' Mann & T r a p p (1929); 42. I have followed their numbering, rather than Scalini's. They also quote the relevant passage on hardening armour from the "Wcisskunig" (p.311). 4 Thomas & Gamber (1954) 55. Mann & T r a p p (1929) call the Treytz mark with the stem pointing to the right no.41, while that with stem pointing to the left is no.42, ascribed to Adrian Treytz. 5 Eaves & Richardson, (1990) 14.

453

INNSBRUCK ARMOUR 1475

RAII.3

203

Treytz

1480

MSM 838

185

master A

1480

C H 25

M

226

Treytz

1480

RAIII.1284

M

1480

RAIL 1

1480

RAI1I.1321

M

1485

RAVI.375

M

1485

C H 62

1485

C H 49

M

1485

M S M 1353c

M

1486

Chic 2445

M

1489

H J R A.9

M

H

451

H.Prunner

1490

C H 51

M

H

439

H.Schral

1490

C H 41

T

245

H.Schral

1490

M S M 837

M

T

311

Vetterlein

1490

RA III. 1293

M

T

1490

C H 24 another part

M M

1495

C H 31

M

1500

RA III.2562

M

Treytz K.Warner T? H

T

224

J.Wagner

T

346

C.Rieder

4-05

J.Wagner

H

C.Spor

A

C. Rieder H H

T H

520 410

Treytz Treytz*

308

Prunner Prunner

* a different member of the family RA — Royal Armouries, Leeds. CH - Churburg. MSM = Munich City Museum. Chic = Chicago Institute of Art, HJR = Hofjagd- und Riistkammcr, Vienna. So from 1450 up to 1500, out of the 23 specimens examined by the author and described in chapter 5.6 (the metallurgy of Innsbruck armour); 1 was made of iron, 5 were made of low-carbon steels, and 17 were made of medium-carbon steels. As far as their heat-trcatment goes, 4 were air-cooled, 12 were partially hardened, and 7 had been fully hardened, but not before cl485. RA III. 1321 and III. 1284 arc counted as having undergone some form of accelerated cooling. Two other specimens (CH 66 and RA IV.502) arc described, but not included in this Table, as their Innsbruck origin is disputed.

454

SECTION FIVE

Innsbruck armour

Innsbruck Armour

Hardness up to 1550

Hardness after 1550 +

Innsbruck

A

Prague (?)

+ + 480

360

240

+ +

+

%

+ +

+ +

+

++

++

+

+ ++

++

+ +

+

+ +

+

+

+

+

120

1-170

1490

1510

Year of manufacture

1530

1590

1610

Year o( manulacture

The marked increase in hardness is due to the adoption of techniques of hardening steels by fully quenching, then tempering. The steels used by older members of the Trcytz fam­ ily were eminently hardenable, and they attempted to harden them, but they were never fully hardened. Such techniques were by no means easy to control, and many armourers never mastered them. Their adoption (by the younger members of the Treytz family, inter alia) coincides with the arrival of craftsmen from other South German centres, especially Augsburg, where such techniques had been successfully employed for a number of years, most notably by Lorenz Helmschmied (the favourite armourer of Archduke, later Emper­ or, Maximilian). Like him, Jorg Wagner and Hans Prunner, both from Augsburg, also fully quenched and tempered their armours. After 1500 the vast majority of the fine armour made in Innsbruck is fully hardened. One is drawn to the inescapable conclusion that the arrival of Augsburg armourers ei­ ther transferred the necessary methods or stimulated the Innsbruck armourers to discover them for themselves. This is not quite the account that Maximilian himself gives of these changes—he takes all the credit, but his account does at least involve Seusenhofer. Maximilian, with the aid of his secretary Max Treytz-Sauerwein, produced an autobi­ ography, with himself thinly disguised as the "White King" (Weisskiinig). The relevant pas­ sage includes: "..the young White King had established a great armoury in his city of Innsbruck, where he had made armours of previously unknown form. Now there were certain members of the family Treytzsauerwein that could make harness of such a hard kind that no-one was able to pierce it with a crossbow ...which knowledge was lost with their death. But there was a master of Miihlau, by the name of Caspar Riedcr, who had known these people as a boy, and made this (knowledge) known to the young White King. After which, the King studied this art and improved it, and the Hofplattner (Court Armourer) in the aforemen­ tioned armoury, named Conrad Seusenhofer, employed it." Earlier, in the late 15th century, Maximilian had recruited Italian workers for the ar­ moury at Arbois in his Burgundian domains, but Maximilian's great project of an Impe­ rial Court Armoury (Hofplattnerei) was to be headed by Konrad Seusenhofer from Augs­ burg. Maximilian wanted a production centre of his own, capable of making presentation

INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

455

armours as well as munition armours. In 1504 Konrad, who had worked for him since 1500, was engaged for six years as Court Armourer (Hofplattner) to work solely for him. New premises for the Court Armoury were opened in 1507, with a polishing-mill on the River Sill, to save the journey to Miihlau. In 1508 he visited the Emperor in Antwerp and brought back with him four journeymen (Hans Mayrstetter, Peter of Brussels, Claus of Au and Martin Verurban) to work in the Innsbruck Court Armoury. Mayrstetter worked there and also in the Innsbruck Arsenal (Zeughaus) from 1511 to 1533. In that same year (1508) there was a large order for infantry armour, to which he contributed over 1000 pieces. A breastplate in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (and a similar one in Royal Armouries, Leeds.III.1700) may be survivors from one of the Emperor Maximilian's large orders of the early 16th century. In 1509, Konrad was offered a new appointment for life as Court Armourer, on the fol­ lowing terms: the Court Armoury was to receive 1000 guilders each year as well as the necessary steel plate (harnischblech) from Leoben. This consisted of 8 Sam (mule-loads of about 20 sheets) each month as well as 3 Sam of steel and 2 Sam of "zwischach" (lit. "double" steel) each year. The Chief Armourer was to receive 200 guilders a year and to work only for the Em­ peror. Under him there would be 6 journeymen and 4 polishers employed at 1 guilder a week each, and 2 apprentices at 1/2 a guilder a week. From 1515 to his death in 1517 Konrad was also in charge of the Imperial armoury (Harnischkammer), which expansion brought him into financial difficulties. Working with him, and eventually succeeding him, was his younger brother, Hans Seusenhofcr (b.1470). In 1514 he took his brother Konrad's armour to London for King Henry VIII. From 1515 he worked under his brother as a craftsman in the Hofplattnerei and was "Wappenmeister" (overseer of the body- armour) to Maximilian since 1516, and to his successor Ferdi­ nand after 1519. He seems to have taken over direction of the Hofplattnerei from his brother (d. 1517) although there were few orders for armours after the death of Maximilian in 1519 until the Turkish invasion of Hungary in 1526 (and the first siege of Vienna in 1529) stim­ ulated military preparations. From then onwards he was kept fully employed by King Ferdinand I (1503-1564, Emperor 1558). So, in the early 16th century there were working at Innsbruck Konrad and Hans Seusenhofer, Hans Rabeiler, Hans Mayrstetter, Wofgang Prenner, and Michel Witz the Elder. At Miihlau, Konrad the Younger and Adrian Treytz, Christian Schreiner and others still worked. When the Court Armoury in 1509 could not cope with a huge order for 2000 munition armours (or "Krebse"), they were commissioned to help. But these joint enter­ prises led to conflict. In 1511 the Miihlauers were accused of supplying wares of lesser value, "and these were to be offered as Italian, so that the reputation of the Innsbruck armoury should not be injured". Further conflicts with the armourers of Miihlau are recorded. In 1528, Hans, his son Jorg, and Michel Witz the Elder, were threatened and even assaulted, and imperial authority had to be invoked to settle the dispute. At Annaberg, one Hans Zanger made patterns (Matrizen) for the stamping-out of mu­ nition ware. It is tempting to speculate that mass-production methods had arrived at Inns­ bruck—but not at the Court Armoury. A whole scries of splendid armours was ordered by the Emperor, until his death in 1519, for princes and nobles over all Europe, such as a

456

SECTION FIVE

splendid armour for King Henry VIII of England (of which a fragment survives in the "horned helmet") and the boy's armour of Charles V. Konrad Seusenhofer and his con­ temporary Kolman Helmschmied of Augsburg, attempted to outdo each other with "cos­ tume armours" which reproduced the shapes of courtly and fanciful costumes in steel. Kolman Helmschmied, and his son Dcsidcrius, remained the favourite armourers of the Emperor Charles V. The price in 1527 for an etched "double armour" (for the field & joust) was fixed at 70 florins, a field armour with a breastplate-reinforce was 50 florins, and an etched light harness at 25 florins. In 1537, in his 67th year, Hans was ennobled, and lived in retirement until 1555 (on a pension of 104 florins a year). His son Jorg took over the mastership of the Hofplattnerei and was promised his father's wages of 104 florins a year. He produced a scries of splendid armours for King Ferdinand and other nobles, and in 1539 travelled to Paris during a truce in the Hapsburg-Valois wars, returning with commissions from King Francis I and much of the French court, many of which were never delivered because of a resumption of hostilities. By the middle of the 16th century, inflation had caught up with the Court Armoury; Jorg Seusenhofer had to negotiate a new price agreement in 1549. Nevertheless, a record price (1258 florins) was paid for a garniture ordered by Ferdinand for his son Archduke Ferdinand II in anticipation of war between the Catholic imperialist party and the union of Protestant German princes, which ended in victory for the Hapsburgs at the battle of Miihlberg in 1547, and delivered to Prague in 1547. This was the "Adlergarnitur" (Eagle Garniture), still preserved at Vienna (see chapter 5.6). In 1552 the troops of Maurice of Saxony threatened Innsbruck, and Jorg had to join in the production of infantry armours for the provincial Armoury (Zeughaus). In 1567 Fer­ dinand II closed the Court Armoury in Innsbruck and retired Jorg with an annuity of 160 florins by way of compensation. After which he did only a little more work until his death in 1580.

Table 2-—the metallurgy of Innsbruck armour between 1500 and 1550; after the establishment of the Court Armoury. Metal Object

iron

Heat-treatment

low C% mediumC Steel steel

%

air cooled

VPH

attempted h a i •dened hardening"

1500

III. 1700

M

H

1500

Fitz 109H

M

H

1505

C H 44

1505

IV 468

M

H

1505

C H 71

M

H

1510

C H 80

M

L

A

T

master

HS 352

HS

221

Laubermann Rabeiler

333

HS

293

Premier

457

INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

1510

C H 72

M

H

1510

W C 154

M

H

1511

HJR 186

1511

HJR 244

M

H

1511

IV.22

M

H

(another)

M

1514

HJR 69x

M

1514

HJR 179

M

1514

HJR 109

1515

M S M 1355

M

1520

Stib 3465

M

1525

M S W 135761

L

Srhreinor

180

Rabeiler

468

KS KS

299

KS

401

KS

276

KS

255

Mayrstetter

H

310

K.Trcytz the Younger

H H

293 203

Witz

H

(another)

485

I,

L

1530

C H 97

M

H

<392

Witz

1535

MSW 127C175 (another)

M M

H H

514 298

Witz

1535

M S W 127 044 (another 3)

M M M M

H H H H

311 373 395 468

Witz

1537

BNM 648 (another 2 parts) VC 8 VC 9

M

H

<520 JS

L

1540

RA 1123

L

1 540

Chic2633

M

1540

RAII 172

M

1547

HJR 638 (another)

M M

1547

HJR 532 (another)

M M

1549

HJR 530a

M

M

325 150

T T

H

<266

Witz

H

<366

JS? JS?

T

H

H

386

JS

306 240

JS

518

JS

458 1549

SECTION FIVE II 109 ( a n o t h e r ) (W(>47)

1550 M S W 1 3 6 0 0 7 (another)

-l\I

H

< 295 JS ? < 570

M

H H

517 Witz < 308

HS = Hans Seu.senhofer KS = Konrad Seu.senhofer J S = Jorg- Scusenhol'er st) between 150t) 0 were made of 8 were made of [Vi were made of A.s 5 9 27

and 1550: out of the 41 speeimens examined; iron, low-earbon sieels, and medium-earbon steels.

far- as their heat-treatment goes, were air-eooled, were partially hardened, and had been fully hardened.

T H E WORKSHOP AT PRAGUE

Gamber has published (1972) a detailed account of the Prague Court Armoury, which is mentioned for the first time in 1550. King Ferdinand I (Emperor from 1558) had loaned an armourer to his son, the Archduke Maximilian II (1527-1576, Emperor from 1564). The Archduke had brought Wolfgang Kaiser (d. 1566) and Melchior Pfeifer (d. 1571) from Inns­ bruck to Prague as his court armourers. In 1551 the Archduke wrote to his father requesting that, since he was engaged in Pra­ gue "in all kinds of sports, such as Rennen, jousts and tourneys, for which his armours were defective, or were in need of renewal; and since the Prague armourers would not lend his own armourers any tools", that the armourers that he had brought be allowed to set up their own workshop in the area of the castle. He attached an estimate of the cost. Simul­ taneously the archduke ordered several bushels of plate in Leoben for making helmets, armours and reinforcing-pieces for the joust. Ferdinand agreed for his son to have such an armoury, probably because the Prague Royal Household required more to be expended on display than the Viennese court. In a letter of 1561 Andreas Teufel of Guntersdorf, the stable master of the Archduke, reported that in Prague, he had delivered up "the armour" to King Maximilian II. The king had the accompanying armourers kept there, so they could take the armour along with them after a fitting and "finish getting it ready". This armour was apparently a simple field-armour, and Maximilian II had himself tested its strength with two pistol and arquebus shots 6 . This strongly suggests that the armour was made of hardened steel. This particular armour has not survived, but it may be inferred that its metallurgy matched those of earlier Innsbruck armours. Maximilian II, after the death of the Emperor Ferdinand I in 1564, took over the government of the hereditary lands and in 1566 finally became Emperor. The Emperor Ferdinand's second son was the Archduke Ferdinand II who from 1565 became Regent of the Tirol, and moved his court to Ambras, near Innsbruck. Gamber, (1972) 149.

459

INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

1565 the Innsbruck local government wrote to the Archduke Ferdinand that his armours to the weight of 347 cwt 27 pounds, (either hundreds of armours, or else all the tools (an­ vils, stakes, etc) for making armour) were being shipped. The associated servants including the archducal Court Armourer Wolfgang Kaiser had been sent from Linz by water to Inns­ bruck. Wolfgang Kaiser was employed by the Archduke in Innsbruck up to his death in 1566. The younger Melchior Pfeifer succeeded him as Court Armourer, and travelled with the Archduke Ferdinand back from Prague to Innsbruck. In 1570 the local government received a request for permission from the Court Armourer Melchior Pfeifer, to bring in plate for armour (harnischblech). This was usually supplied from Leoben 7 but in this case it may have come from Prague. This may explain a puzzling inconsistency in some of the "Innsbruck" armours of this period. If the metallography of some armours from the Imperial workshops in Innsbruck and Prague is compared, then very different results are found. Armour from Innsbruck Specimen

Metal M

1558 WA 331 1560 BNM 1478

Heat-treatment H T

L

VPH

Master

498

Meitinger

150

Rormoser

1560 BNM 1479

M

H

395

Rormoser

1563 EsionNM

M

H

355

Katzmair

Armour from Prague Specimen

Metal

Heat-treatment

VPH

Master

1555 Amb767

L

A

134

Kaiser

1560 HJR609

L

H

269

Kaiser

1565 HJR982

~L

H

296

Pfeifer

1568 HJR 1496

~L

H

259

Pfeifer

(results extracted from the Table 3 below) The Innsbruck craftsmen who remained in Innsbruck seemed to have continued to harden their armours in their accustomed way, with the accustomed results, but the court armourers working in Prague achieved much lower standards of hardness. Evidently Kaiser and Pfeifer were in the habit, customary at Innsbruck, of attempting to harden their armours. The lower hardnesses attained would be explained by the use of a steel of lower carbon content than customary among the Innsbruck armourers. So the very low hardness of A.767 (finished around 1555) might be explained by the use of an 7

Thomas & Gambcr, (1954), 20.

460

SECTION FIVE

almost carbon-free raw material. Of course, plate had been ordered from Leoben back in 1551, but there is no guarantee that it reached the craftsmen in Prague in time. If local supplies of plate had been used, they may well have been a steel of much lower carbon content. In view of this possibility, this might explain why Maximilian still felt (in 1561) the need to reassure himself about the steel his armour had been made of. Between 1554 and 1558 a large order for infantry armours for the Innsbruck Provincial Armoury was carried out by a group of young armourers; Leonhard Renter, Sebastian Schmid, Michael Wagner, Paul Meitinger, Hans & Anton Hbrburger, Sebastian Katzmair, working with the 5 old masters; Jorg Seusenhofer, Michael Witz the Younger, Stefan Rormoser, Wolfgang Prcnner the Younger and Jakob Schnatz. After 1560 commissions for princely armour became fewer and fewer, although consid­ erable numbers of infantry armours were still required to equip Hapsburg armies against the Turkish threat. Some armourers evidently found this very profitable, but others were less adaptable. In 1563 the Emperor Ferdinand I had to order that employment should be found in the armoury for four "poor men"—Stefan Rormoser, Paul Meitinger, Hans & Anton Hbrburger, and Sebastian Katzmair. On the other hand, those armourers who could adapt to the changing demands, such as the younger Michael Witz, were commercially very successful. The elder Michel Witz is first mentioned in 1501, and he was active until 1549, although during the later years he was probably working in partnership with his son of the same name. The younger Michel was admitted as a citizen in 1539, and was a magistrate in 1554 and 1562. He completed in 1554-58, with the other armourers mentioned above, the large order for at least 278 infantry armours, and was active until at least 1565, when he com­ pleted an order for 383 burgonets for the Provincial Armoury, apparently retiring but concentrating on lucrative private commissions after that. In 1561 he bought the manor of Narrnholz for the considerable sum of 2500 florins and was a taxpayer up to 1588. The Archduke Ferdinand II (1529-95) had married in secret the Augsburg merchant's daughter, Philippine Welser and bought Schloss Ambras, near Innsbruck, (for 15,300 flor­ ins) in 1564. Many European princes assembled collections of curiosities and works of art, as did Ferdinand, but in addition he decided on a "Hcldenrustkammer" (Heroes' Armoury) which during the 1570s, he filled with the likenesses and armours of his famous contem­ poraries, modestly including one of himself. This collection has survived to the present day, and forms an important part of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, in Vienna, which is still the world's finest museum of armour, and from which so much of our information about armour comes. His collection was catalogued by his secretary, Jakob Schrenk von Notzing, in 1601; in effect the world's first printed museum catalogue. In 1580 Philippine Welser died. His second marriage, to the 16 year old Anna Katharina Gonzaga of Mantua was celebrated with great pomp, and the commissioning of many armours. 12 armours for the tilt and field armours for the freirennen together with 24 footcombat, of which some 34 survive at Ambras more or less complete and 14 in fragments Jakob Topf (who had succeeded Mclchior Pfeifer after 1571) made this series of tourna­ ment armours for the Archduke Ferdinand which are the last stylish armours of Innsbruck. In 1597 Jakob Topf died, 2 years after his patron the Archduke Ferdinand. His widow, Anna, continued in charge of the workshop, with a subsidy, so that armour for the Provin-

461

INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

cial Armoury was paid for. There were a series of orders for infantry armours from 1598 to 1615. The outbreak of the 30 Years' War increased the demand, and quantity produc­ tion by the Innsbruck armourers is recorded every year between 1622 and 1630. But in that year 1630, Ghristoph Horburger took away some obsolete armour from the provin­ cial armoury "as it is less used in the manner of war now". Hans Jakob Topf was paid as Hofplattner in 1618 to the Archdukes Maximilian III, and later, Leopold V. One armour he made for the latter survives. After his death in 1628 his widow Ursula took over the workshop, and Leopold bought a tournament armour from her. The last Hofplattner was Christoph Kramer (TopPs son-in-law) until 1662, although his last recorded work was in 1641.

Table 3—metallurgy of Innsbruck armour from 1550-1(541; including some probably made at the Court Armoury in Prague. Metal Dale

museum

iron

Heat-treatment

low C% medium C% Steel steel

air cooled

attempted hardening

VPH hardened

1555 WLM196530

M

H

1554 HAM 2630

M

H

1555 WC A. 37 (doubtful) 1555 Stib2891

L

393

A L

1558 WA 331

L

1560 BNM 1479

M

1560 BNM 1478

L

1563 Estonia (another 2 parts)

L

Rormoser

master S

A M

*1560 HJR609

J.S?

A

I

*1555 Amb767

master

134

Pfeifer

H

498

Mcitinger

H

269

H

395

Rormoser

150

Rormoser Katzmair

M

H

M

H

355 193 357

*1565 HJR982

~L

H

296

Pfeifer ?

1568 HJR 1496

~L

H

259

Pfeifer ?

H

415

J.Topf

A

149

J.Topf ?

A

191

J.Topf ?

1582 HJR 1113 1582 HJR 1568 1582 Amb B98

M 1 M

462

SECTION FIVE

1590 BNM 1510

M

1619 HJR 1534

M

1620 H J R 1530 1641 HJR 1702

I

H T A

M

T

505

J.Topf

263

HJ.Topf

151

H.J.Topf

298

Kramer

after 1550; out of the 21 specimens examined; 3 were made of iron, 7 were made of low-carbon steels, and I 1 were made of medium-carbon steels. For their hcat-trcalmcnt, 6 were air-cooled, 4 were partially hardened, and II had been fully hardened, the latest around 1590. ( * perhaps made at Prague by Innsbruck craftsmen )

And overall, between 1500 and 1641, out of the 62 specimens examined; 3 were made of iron, 15 were made of low-carbon steels, and 44 were made of medium-carbon steels. For their heat-treatment, 11 were air-cooled, 13 were partially hardened, and 38 had been fully hardened. References Eaves, I & Richardson, T. "The Treytz armour of Gauclenz von Matsch" Journal of the Arms & Armour Society, 13 (1990) Supplement, 1-22. Gamber, O. "Die Kriegsrustungen Erzherzog Ferdinands II aus der Prager Hofplattnerei" Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorisches Sammlungen in Wien, 68 (1972) 109-150. Scalini, M. "The armoury of the Castle of Churburg" (Udine, 1996) Thomas, B. & Gamber, O. "Die Innsbrucker Plattnerkunst" (1954). Thomas, B. "Die Innsbrucker Plattnerkunst; ein Nachtrag" Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorisches Sammlungen in Wien, 70 (1974) 179-220. Trapp, O. & Mann, J . G , "The armoury of the Castle of Churburg" (1929).

CHAPTER 5.6

T H E METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

1450-1460 The right gauntlet (of a pair) with the mark of Konrad Treytz the Elder. Churburg 24c

Martensite, fine pearlite, and ferrite X 120

A specimen from within the gauntlet was examined. The microstructure shows a band of ferrite between two bands consisting of areas of pearlite mixed with martensite, with few slag inclusions. The microhardness of the lower-carbon areas varies from 247 to 283; and that of the higher-carbon areas from 303 to 374; average = 339 VPH. This is a steel of variable carbon content (perhaps 0.5%C overall) which has been hard­ ened by some form of quenching. (Thomas & Gamber.no.3) Photograph by courtesy of Count Trapp

464

SECTION FIVE

before 1460 A bevor with the mark of Konrad Treytz the Elder (d. 1469) which is shown exhibited with the kettle-hat (Churburg no.22) discussed below. Churburg 27.

Carbides (divorced pearlitc ?) and fcrrite X 240

The edge of the bevor at the rear on the right side was examined in cross-section. The microstructure shows a broad band of pearlitc, largely divorced into carbide globules, and a narrower band consisting mostly of ferrite, with few slag inclusions. This is a mediumcarbon (perhaps 0.5%C overall) steel which may have undergone an unsuccessful attempt at heat-treatment, but most recently has been slowly cooled. (Thomas & Gamber.no.2) Photograph by courtesy of Count Trapp

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

465

C1460 Churburg 22.

Martensite and ferrite X 160

A kettle-hat with the mark of Hans Vetterlein. A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite grains in a network around areas of martensite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 124 to 289; average = 209 VPH. This is a steel of rather low carbon content which has been hardened by some form of quenching. (Thomas & Gamber no.22)

466

SECTION FIVE

1470-80

At the top of this photomicrograph, there is a largely martensitic area; at the bottom it is more feritic. There are a num­ ber of slag inclusions, and extensive corrosion products. X 40

Martensite and slag inclusions X 480 Ferrite, slag and martensite X 160

A sallet with the mark (horseshoe) belonging to a member of the Treytz family; now in the Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.3. A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and varying proportions of an acicular material (which may be bainite or low-carbon martensite) and some large slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 205 VPH. This is a rather heterogenous low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C in places) which has un­ dergone some form of quenching to harden it. A photograph of the sallet is in chapter 6.1 where the horse armour (VI.379) is discussed.

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y O F INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

467

cl480 Munich City Museum, inv.no.Z.838

Ferrite, slag and corrosion products X 40

A breastplate with the mark of a master A. A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. The microhardness (average) = 185 VPH. This is a wrought iron (perhaps 0.1 %C). Photograph by courtesy of the Munich City Museum

468

SECTION FIVE

C1480 A breastplate with the mark (42) belonging to a member of the Treytz family. Churburg 25

Very fine pearlite and ferrite X 100

The vertical edge of the upper half was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists mostly of very fine pearlite and some ferrite, a little more near the surfaces, with very few slag inclusions. This increase in ferrite concentration might be the result of some decarburisation during forging. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been given air-cooled after fabrication. (Thomas & Gamber.no.24) Microhardness ranges from 212 to 237; average = 226 VPH. Photograph by courtesy of Count Trapp

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y OF INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

469

cl480 A backplate, originally from the Churburg armoury, and now in the Royal Armouries, Leeds. III. 1284.

Section X 40

Very fine pearlite and ferrite X 160

It has the mark (41) belonging to a member of the Trcytz family. It is probably the back­ plate belonging to the breastplate still in Churburg (no.24) (Eaves, 1990). The backplate was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of very fine pearlite and bands of ferrite with few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has undergone some form of accel­ erated cooling. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

470

SECTION FIVE

C1480 A gorget, formerly in the Churburg armoury, and now in the Royal Armouries, Lccds.ill.1321.

Very line pearlitc and a corrosion crack X 160

It does not bear a mark, but was associated with other Innsbruck pieces at Churburg. (Mann & Trapp no.22). This was examined on the lower edge in cross-section. The microstructure consists of uniform fine pcarlite and a little ferrite with very few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been fairly quickly cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

471

C1480 A pair of leg-dcfenccs with the mark of Klaus Wagner, now in the Royal Armouries, Leeds.II. 1

Ferrite and areas of (irresolvable) carbides X 200

The side plate of the right cuisse was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of a broad band of ferrite with some granular carbides and a narrow band consisting of a much greater proportion of granular carbides, with a few slag inclusions. This is made from a rather heterogeneous steel, whose final heat-treatment seems to have been a reheating, for whatever reason. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

472

SECTION FIVE

cl485 The left one of a pair of gauntlets, decorated with brass edges, with the mark of Caspar Rieder. Churburg 49

Very fine pearlite and ferrite X 200

A specimen from within the gauntlet was examined. The microstructure consists of very fine pearlite mixed with areas of an irresolvable material (perhaps bainite ?) and a little ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 286 to 482; (average) = 346 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has been hardened by some form of accelerated cooling. (Thomas & Gamber.no.il). Photograph by courtesy of Count Trapp.

T H E METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

473

cl485 A visored sallet, of Gaudcnz von Matsch, with the mark of Jorg Wagner. Churburg 62

Ferrile and carbides X 80

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists mostly of ferrite and some small areas of (irresolvable) carbides with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 213 to 236; (average) = 224 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.1 %C) which has undergone a quenching to harden it (ineffectual because of its low carbon content). Thomas & Gamber cat.no.20. Photograph by courtesy of Count Trapp

474

SECTION FIVE

cl485 A 2-part infantry breastplate with the mark of Hans Vctterlein. Munich City Museum, inv.no.Z.837

Fine pearlite and ferrite X 50

A specimen from within the upper half was examined. The microstructure consists of areas of very fine pearlite and a network of ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 289 to 318 (average) = 311 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been subject to some form of accelerated cool­ ing. Photograph by courtesy of the Munich City Museum

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

475

C1485 Chicago Institute of Art, inv.no. 1982.2445

Ferite and granular pearlite X 80

A helm for the joust (gestech) bearing the mark of Christian Spor (d.1485). A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. The surface hardness varies from 194 to 256 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.4%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph by courtesy of the Chicago Institute of Art.

476

SECTION FIVE

1480-90 A shaffron, originally from Churburg (un-numbcrcd), but now in the Royal Armouries, Lceds.VI.375

Section banded martensite and iernte X 40

The side rim of the shaffron was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of a band consisting largely of martensite and another band of fcrritic areas in lines mixed with martensite, with some slag inclusions. This was made of a banded steel which was hardened by quenching. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

T H E METALLURGY O F INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

1489 Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A.9

Section: tempered martensite X 40

A boy's armour made for Philip the Fair (King of Castile, 1478-1506) by Hans Prunner. A specimen from the plate immediately below the main plate of the left pauldron was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists mostly of tempered martensite and an acicular material (per­ haps low-carbon martensite) with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 365 to 493; average = 451 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened by quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

478

SECTION FIVE

C1490 The remains of an armour of Gaudenz von Matsch. Churburg 24

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y O F INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

(Sallet) tempered martensite and ferrite X 160

479

(Shoulder) tempered martensite and slag inclusions X 160

(Shouldei) lempcied mai tensile and irresolvable carbides X 160 (a lower C% area)

The sallet has the mark (41) belonging to a member of the Treytz family. A specimen from within this helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of tempered martensite and a little ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 469 to 555; average = 520 VPH. Photograph by courtesy of Count Trapp

A shoulder-reinforcing plate from the same armour (which bears a somewhat different mark (42) but one also belonging to a member of the Treytz family), was also examined. (Tho­ mas & Gamber.no.26.) The microstructure also consists of tempered martensite with some areas of irresolvable carbides (bainite ?) and a little ferrite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 394 to 429; average = 410 VPH. Both components are made of medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has been hardened by a successful heat-treatment, quenching and tempering.

480

SECTION FIVE

C1490 A left gauntlet from parts of an armour bearing a mark, which has been tentatively as­ cribed to Hans Schral. Another part of this armour is a breastplate of globose form, cat­ alogued as Churburg 41. (Thomas & Gamber.no.33).

Uniform tempered martensite and a few slag inclusions X 40

Ferrite and martensite X 160

A specimen from within the gauntlet was examined. The microstructure consists of tem­ pered martensite, some areas of an acicular material (bainite or low-carbon martensite) and a little ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 388 to 496; average = 439 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C)which has been successfully hardened by quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of Count Trapp

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

481

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructurc consists of a network of ferrite grains around areas of an acicular material (which might be low-carbon martensitc) and some irresolvable carbides with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 225 to 268; average = 245 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which has apparently been fully-quenched to harden it. Photograph by courtesy of Count Trapp

482

SECTION FIVE

C1490 Royal Armouries, Leeds. III. 1293. A backplatc with the mark of Caspar Rieder.

Section X 20

Ferrite and martensite X 160.

This was examined in cross-section. The niicrostructure consists of ferrite and areas of martensite with pearlite, some irresolvable material and a few slag inclusions. This is a steel of variable carbon content (perhaps 0.3%C overall) which has undergone some form of heat-treatment, but not a successful full-quenching. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y O F INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

C1495 Churburg 31

Marlensitc (dark areas) fine pcarlite and ferrite X 200.

484

SECTION FIVE

A visorcd sallet from an armour of Gaudcnz von Matsch, with the mark of Hans Prunner. A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of temper­ ed martensite and pearlite with some ferrite and very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 248 to 362; (average) = 308 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C overall) which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment, perhaps a slack-quenching. (Thomas & Gamber.no.38) A master from Augsburg, Hans Prunner was settled in Inns­ bruck by 1482, when he was working for the archduke Sicgmund. Photograph by courtesy of Count Trapp

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

485

Two interpolated specimens These are tournament helmets of similar form to one another, which have previously been described as being of Innsbruck origin (Thomas & Gamber, 1954, no.44) but helmets of such similar design also appear in the Thun pattern-book, so that an Augsburg origin has also been suggested (Gamber, 1957, 54). Their form suggests that they were made by Lorenz Helmschmied cl495 for the Emperor Maximilian, but their metallurgy strongly resembles that of Innsbruck armour of this period (which is why they are included here). It was at this period that Maximilian was trying to set up a Court Workshop at Innsbruck, and using Augsburg craftsmen to do so. It is tempting to speculate that Lorenz Helmschmied made them out of the same steel that was used at Innsbruck to demonstrate what might be done with this material, but until further analytical evidence is available, their precise origin must remain uncertain.

486

SECTION FIVE

cl495 An armet, with a reinforcing wrapper and crown plate for the tilt. Churburg 66

Tempered martensite and ferritc X 240

A specimen from inside the top of the crown plate was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite and some proeutectoid ferrite grains with very few slag inclusions. The microhardncss varies from 455 to 616; average = 525 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by fully quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of Count Trapp

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

487

C1495 An armet (from Vienna, formerly B42) with fixed gorget plates, for the tilt. Royal Armouries, Leeds.IV.502

Tempered martensite X 160

The vizor was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of tempered mar­ tensite and some pearlitc with very few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by quenching and tempering. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

488

SECTION FIVE

cl500 Parts (main- and side-plates) of a left cuisse bearing the mark of Hans Prunncr. Royal Armouries, Leeds.III.2562.

The top plate of the cuisse was examined in cross-section near the turned rim. The microstructure consists of a band consisting mostly of tempered martensite and a wider band consisting mostly of ferrite with a few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C overall) which has been hardened by quench­ ing and tempering, c.f.the microstructure of RA VI.375. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

T H E METALLURGY O F INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

489

C1500 A plain infantry backplatc with the mark of Hans Scusenhofer. Royal Armouries, Leeds.III. 1700

Tempered martensite (note the very small slaginclusions) X 160

This was examined in cross-section on the left side edge. The microstructurc consists of tempered martensite uniform across the section and very few slag inclusions. This is a me­ dium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened by quenching and temper­ ing. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

490

SECTION FIVE

C1500

Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. M 109-1933.

Section: uniform tempered martensite X 40.

A plain infantry breastplate with the marks of the Vienna Arsenal and the master Hans Seusenhofer. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite and very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 327 to 365 (average) = 352 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened by quenching and tempering. This (and III. 1700) may be survivors from one of the Emperor Maximilian's large orders of the early 16th century. Certainly, their metallurgy seems to be identical. Photograph by courtesy of the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y OF INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

491

1500-1505 A backplate in three pieces with a mark attributed to Hans Laubermann. Churburg 44

A specimen from within the backplate was examined. The microstructure consists offerrite and grain boundary cementite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 221 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) that has been very slowly cooled after fabrica­ tion, or perhaps annealed after a repair. Laubermann (known as "Kolner" or the man from Cologne) was active from 1479 to 1521. Thomas & Camber (1954) p.61. Scalini (1996) p.299. Photograph by courtesy of Count Trapp

492

SECTION FIVE

cl505 An armet now in the Royal Armouries, Leeds. It bears the mark of Hans Rabeiler. IV.468.

An area of martensite (higher C% ?) surrounded by pearlite and ferrite X 240

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of very fine pearlite and martensite with proeutectoid ferrite and very few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment. Thomas & Gamber (1954) p.63 Scalini (1996) p. 131. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

T H E METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

493

1505-1510 Parts of a horseman's armour with abbreviated fluting on the breast, and bearing the mark of Hans Seusenhofer. Churburg 71

Tasset: martensite (dark areas) pearlite and ferrite X 50

Tasset: martensite, pearlite and spiny ferrite X 600

Cowter: martensite and pearlite (note the ferritic band at the top) X 40

Cowter: ferrite and martensite X 160

Specimens from within the left tasset and left cowter were examined.

494

SECTION FIVE

The microstructure of the left tassct shows areas of martensite and areas of pearlite and ferritc with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 159 (ferritic) to 328 (martensitic) VPH. The microstructure of the cowter consists of bands of ferritc within a predominant mix­ ture of fine pearlite, martensite and procutectoid ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 251 to 483; average = 333 VPH. This is a steel of variable carbon-content which has been hardened by quenching, with results which differ according to the local carbon content. Thomas & Gambcr (1954) p.64, Scalini (1996) p.287. Photograph by courtesy of Count Trapp

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y OF INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

495

1505-10 The breastplate from an infantry armour with some fluting, and bearing the mark of Wolfgang Prenner the Elder, an armourer of Innsbruck. Churburg 80

Ferrite with carbide network X 100

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of uniformly distributed carbide globules within a ferrite matrix and very few slag inclusions. In places, the globules appear to reflect a prior lamellar arrangement. The microhardness varies from 228 to 323; average = 293 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has probably undergone some form of accelerated cooling to yield fine pcarlite, or other carbides, and has then been reheated in an effort to temper it. Thomas & Gamber (1954) p.63, Scalini (1996) p.299 Photograph by courtesy of Count Trapp

496

SECTION FIVE

1505-10 Parts of a horseman's armour with abbreviated fluting on the breast, and bearing the mark of Christian Schreiner the Younger (active at Muhlau 1499-1528). Churburg 72

Tempered martensite and ferrite X 240

A specimen from within the breastplate near the arm-hole was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite and proeutectoid ferrite with very few slag inclu­ sions. The microhardness varies from 423 to 548; (average) = 485 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by fully quenching and tempering. Its microstructure is also very similar to those of Churburg 66 and RA^IV.502 Thomas & Gamber (1954) p.62 Scalini (1996) p.288 Photograph by courtesy of Count Trapp

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y OF INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

497

C15I0

An armet, decorated with etching and gilding, in the style of Konrad Seusenhofer. Wallace Collection A. 154

Section X 20

Tempered martensite and ferrite X 80.

The left cheekpiece of the armet was examined in cross-section. The microstructure con­ sists of tempered martensite and a network of proeutectoid ferrite with very few slag inclu­ sions. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened after fab­ rication by fully quenching and tempering. Surface hardness readings suggest a hardness of around 500 VPH. Photograph courtesy of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection

498

SECTION FIVE

1511 An unfinished boy's armour, with the mark of Hans Rabeiler, made for Charles V (15001558) but presumably outgrown before finished. Shaped into "puffed and slashed" deco­ ration but never polished after fabrication. Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A. 186

Ferrite and carbides X 20

A specimen from the second plate below the top of the left pauldron was examined in crosssection. The microstructure consists of ferrite and globular carbides with few slag inclu­ sions. The microhardncss (average) = 180 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which has undergone some sort of heat-treat­ ment which cannot now be identified. Thomas & Gamber (1954) p.62. Hans Rabeiler was known as "Pair" (= Bayer, that is, the Bavarian) active from 1501, worked in the royal workshop from 1506, d. 1519. Photograph courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna.

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

499

1511 An armour with etched and gilded decoration (and fluting), made for Matthaus Lang, Archbishop of Salzburg, in the style of Konrad Seusenhofer. Thomas & Gamber (1954) p. 68. Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A.244

Section: tempered martensite X 40 (the line of squares is a row of microhardness indentations)

A specimen from the second plate below the left knee was examined in cross section. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 394 to 508; average = 468 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by fully quenching and tempering. Photograph courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

500

SECTION FIVE

1511 A helmet (now decorated with rams' horns) made for King Henry VIII of England by Konrad Seusenhofer in the Imperial Armour Workshop at Innsbruck and delivered in 1514. Royal Armouries, Leeds.IV.22.

(skull) cross-section

X 20

(skull) tempered martensite (face-mask) cross-section: pearlite and and pearlite X 600 ferrite X 20

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y OF INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

(face-mask) pearlite and ferrite X 160; the microstructure of the cheekpiece is very similar indeed

501

(horn) cross-section: ferrite and pearlite X 25

Specimens from the skull, cheekpiece, visor (in the form of a grotesque mask), and horn were examined in cross-section. The microstructure of the skull consists of tempered martensite with some ferrite, lamel­ lar pearlite and an irresolvable material, with very few slag inclusions. This is a mediumcarbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has been hardened after fabrication by quenching (perhaps not quite fully) and tempering. The microstructure of the cheekpiece consists of pearlite with a little ferrite and very few slag inclusions. This is also a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.7%G) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microstructure of the visor consists of very fine pearlite with very few slag inclu­ sions. This is again a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has been quickly aircooled after fabrication. The microstructure of the "ramshorn" consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

502

SECTION FIVE

1514 Hofjagd- und Rustkammcr, Vienna A.69 (part)

Section: pearlite and ferrite

X 40

A shaffron made for Maximilian I by Konrad Seusenhofer in the Imperial Armour Work­ shop at Innsbruck in 1514. (Thomas & G amber, cat.p.67). A specimen from the shaffron was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of very fine pearlite (irresolvable in places) and proeutectoid ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 279 to 327; average = 299 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has been undergone some form of accelerated cooling. Photograph courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

503

'1'IIE METALLURGY O F INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

C1514 Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A. 179.

T e m p e r e d martensite

X 160

A right pauldron from an armour supposedly made for King Louis of Hungary (1506-1526) by Konrad Seusenhofer in the Imperial Armour Workshop at Innsbruck in 1514. (Thomas & Gamber, cat.p.71). A specimen from the edge of a punched hole in the topmost plate was examined in crosssection. T h e microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 357 to 439; average = 401 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by fully quenching and tempering. Photograph courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna.

504

SECTION FIVE

1512-1514 Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A. 109. A boy's armour made for Charles V (Archduke, later Emperor, 1500-1558) by Konrad Seusenhofer in the Imperial Armour Workshop at Innsbruck and delivered in 1514. It was decorated with etching, gilding, and layers of silver. (Thomas & Gamber, cat, p.66) A specimen from the broken edge at the rear of the base was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and granular carbides with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 244 to 366; average = 276 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.3%C) which has been hardened after fabrication by some form of heat-treatment, possibly quenching and over-tempering. Photograph courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

Ferrite and carbides X 160.

505

T H E METALLURGY O F INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

C1515 An armour with fluted decoration, and bearing the mark of Hans Mayrstetter. Thomas & Gamber (1954) p.72. Munich City Museum, inv.no.Z.1355

Breastplate: ferrite and pearlite

X 40

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite, pearlite and other carbides with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 236 to 283; average = 255 VPH. This is a steel of variable carbon content(around 0.5%C in places) which seems to have been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Munich City Museum.

506

SECTION FIVE

C1520 An armour made by Konrad Treytz the Younger in Innsbruck around 1520. (Thomas & Gambcr, cat.p.73). It is quite possible that this armour has undergone a certain amount of restoration. Several specimens from this armour were examined. Stibbcrt Museum, Florence, inv.no.3465

T H E METALLURGY O F INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

Gorget: pearlite and ferrite X 40

Left greave: martensite X 160

Left cuisse: ferrite and martensite

X bO

A specimen from the rim of the fifth plate (from the top) of the upper left vambrace was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of a band of tempered martensite and a band of ferrite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 287 to 373; average = 310 VPH. This is a steel of variable carbon content (perhaps 0.5%C in places) which has been hard­ ened after fabrication by fully quenching and tempering. Specimens which do not show a section may therefore be misleading. The armet skull shows ferrite; the upper visor shows ferrite and carbides. Specimens from the breast- and backplates show ferrite and tempered martensite in var­ ying proportions. Specimens from the gorget, right arm- and right leg-defences show fer­ rite and pearlite in varying proportions, except for the right pauldron which resembles the left pauldron. Specimens from the left leg- and left arm-defences show ferrite and tempered martensite in varying proportions. Photograph courtesy of the Stibbert Museum, Florence

508

SECTION FIVE

1525-30 An infantry armour with fluted decoration and a mark M, apparently the inverted mark of Michel Witz. (Duriegl, p.20. and Thomas & Gamber cat.p.72 & 76) Museum of the City of Vienna, inv.no.135.761

Breastplate: ferrite and slag X 50

Backplate; martensite (in upper parts), very fine peaiiite and ferrite X 50

A specimen from the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 194 to 219; average = 203 VPH. Another specimen from within the backplate (135.761) was examined. The microstructure consists of martensite with pearlite and ferrite and some slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 186 to 475; average = 293 VPH. This is a steel of variable carbon content which has been hardened after fabrication by some form of quenching. Little trouble has been taken to homogenise the steel, so that some areas (of negligible carbon content) have not been transformed, while other areas (of up to perhaps 0.5%C) have been considerably hardened. Photograph by courtesy of the Museum of the City of Vienna.

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y O F INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

509

C1530 An extra breastplate (for the tournament) with the mark of Michael Witz. (Thomas & Gamber, cat.p.81). Churburg 97

Ferrite and martensite X 160

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and martensite in three bands with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 131 to 392 VPH. This is a banded steel of variable carbon content which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of Count Trapp

510

SECTION FIVE

C1535 Museum of the City of Vienna, inv.no. 127.064-075.

Fauld plate (section) pearlite and ferrite X 25

Breastplate unifoim \eiy fine peaihtc X 80 Close helmet tempeied maiUnsite X 40

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

51 1

A horseman's armour made for Hans Sierg von Siergcnstcin by Konrad Treytz the Younger (active 1498-1536). (Thomas & Gamber, p.73). A specimen from inside the close helmet near the crown of the skull was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 403 to 592; (average) = 514 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by fully quenching and tempering. A specimen from the turned rim at the top of the breastplate was examined in cross-sec­ tion. The microstructure consists of uniform very fine pearlite, with few slag inclusions. Microhardness varies from 259 to 358; average = 298 VPH. Another specimen from the 3 r d fauld plate below the breastplate. The microstructure con­ sists of bands of pearlite and ferrite. Microhardness varies from 193 to 236; average = 212 VPH. These are also medium-carbon steels, one of which has also been hardened by some form of heat-treatment. Photograph by courtesy of the Museum of the City of Vienna.

512

SECTION FIVE

C1535 A horseman's cuirass made for King Ferdinand I by Michel Witz in the Imperial Armoury at Innsbruck. (Thomas & Gamber, p.80) and Diiriegl (1986)p.63. Museum of the City of Vienna, inv.no. 127.044-047.

(breastplate) fine peaihtc and ferrite X 50

•■J3F85 (left tassel) lempeied maitcnsitc tempered mat tensitt X 50 (that of the right tasset is very similar)

(backplatc) l e m t e and tempeicd martensite X 50

Specimens from the breast- and backplates, left and right tassets were examined.

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

513

The microstructure of the specimen from the breastplate consists of pearlitc with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 299 to 330; average = 311 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by some form of accelerated cooling. The microstructure of the specimen from the backplate consists of martensite and ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 304 to 452; average = 373 VPH. The microstructure of the specimen from the right tasset consists of martensite and ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 358 to 473; average = 395 VPH. The microstructure of the specimen from the left tasset consists of martensite and ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 366 to 500; average = 468 VPH. The backplate, and both tassets were made from a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened after fabrication by fully quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Museum of the City of Vienna.

514

SECTION FIVE

1537 An extensive garniture was ordered by King Ferdinand I (1503-1564, Emperor 1558) from Jorg Scusenhofer (etcher Leonhard Meurl) at the Imperial Armoury at Innsbruck in 1537, for an expedition against the Turks. Much of this survives in Vienna, Hofjagd- und Rustkammcr, A.472 (Thomas & Gamber, p.74; Gamber & Beaufort, p.23) while other parts arc in Coburg and Munich.

Field-armour in Vienna.

Gauntlet in Munich.

515

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y OF INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

(Gauntlet) Tempered martensite

X 50

" '& •

i

1

I l

-•»-.'

Close helmet in Coburg

(Close helmet) A mixture of martensite (dark areas in top right) and very fine pearlite, as well as almost no ferrite or slaa; X 160.

it. iJrljPr^'Kt?

SfiJ**J?i&'

(Burgonet) Ferrite and pearlite X 160.

Burgonet in Coburg

516

SECTION FIVE

The surface hardness of parts of the field armour and the tilting armour were measured. The results suggest that most of these armours were made of hardened steels. Field armour; breastplate 300-550 ; average = 420 VPH arm- & leg- defences, 480-600. Tilt armour; breastplate 300-450; average = 380 VPH. helmet & gorget, 300-500 ; average = 420 VPH. Bavarian National Museum, Munich. inv.no.W.648 A specimen from inside the left gauntlet was examined. The microstructure consists of tempered martensite and ferrite with a little fine pearlite and very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 395 to 520 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by quenching and tempering. Kunstsammlungen Veste Goburg; close helmet IA 8 A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of very fine pearlite and a little ferrite and martensite with very few slag inclusions. The microhard­ ness varies from 302 to 363; average = 325 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.4%C) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by quenching and tempering. Kunstsammlungen Veste Coburg; visored burgonet IA 9 A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a few areas of pearlite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 83 to 210; average = 1 5 0 VPH. This is a low -carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which unlike almost all the other parts of the garniture, has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photographs by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna (field armour), the Ba­ varian National Museum, Munich (gauntlet), the Kunstsammlungen Veste Coburg (close helmet), and (burgonet).

517

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y OF INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

cl540 A breastplate with the mark of Witz; presumably the younger Michael. Royal Armouries, Leeds. 11.23

iW\»~ « «\ »

„,-'TJ

' ** i -

+

*,<■

Martensite X

»

160

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite and very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 202 to 266 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%) which has been quenched to harden it. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

518

SECTION FIVE

cl540

(gauntlet) a banded microslructurc X GO

(gauntlet) at higher magnification, several different microconstituents can be resolved; martensite, ferrite, and pearlite, both lamellar and also globular in places, X 400

(buffc) ferrite and martensitewith some slag (top left) X 160.

A garniture for man & horse which was made for Jakob VI Trapp (1499-1558) probably by Jorg Seusenhofer of Innsbruck. (Thomas & Gamber, p.78). A gauntlet is in the Chicago Institute of Art, 1982.2633 (the rest of the armour remains at Churburg—Mann & Trapp cat.no. 100).

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

519

A specimen from the gauntlet near the rim of the 4th plate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite, fine pearlite and martensite, arranged in bands with very few slag inclu­ sions. The microhardness of the higher-carbon areas varies from 264 to 366 VPH; that of the ferritic areas from 138 to 157 VPH. This is a banded steel of variable carbon content which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by slack-quenching and tempering. Different areas with different carbon contents have reacted to the quenching by forming different transformation products. This photomicro­ graph is discussed in Chapter 1.3) The buffe lame from a burgonet which was part of this garniture (Mann & Trapp cat.no. 169, Scalini, cat.no. 100) were also examined on the lower rim. The microstructure consists of ferrite and isolated areas of martensite. The microhardness could not be measured, but this had evidently undergone a full-quench after fabrication.

520

SECTION FIVE

cl540 Parts of an armour which may have been made in Innsbruck by Scusenhofcr. Royal Armouries, Leeds.

11.172

Section: mostly very fine pearlite X 40

The close helmet visor was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of uni­ form very fine pearlite and a little ferrite with few slag inclusions. This is a medium-car­ bon steel which has undergone some form of accelerated cooling after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

T H E METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

1547 Hofjagd- und Riistkammcr, Vienna A.638 3»&

Burgonet from field armour: very fine pearlite and a ferrite network X 40

521

522

SECTION FIVE

Shaflron: (section) tempered martensite X 40

The Adlergarnitur ("Eagle garniture") was made for the Archduke Ferdinand II (1529-1595) by Jorg Seusenhofer at the Imperial Armoury at Innsbruck in 1547, at the enormous cost of 1258 florins (see chapter 8.3 on costs). (Thomas & Gamber p.77) and Gamber & Beaufort (1990) p.90 A specimen from the demi-shaffron was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 373 to 425; (average) = 386 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C)which has been hardened after fabrication by quenching and tempering. A specimen from inside the right cheekpiece of the burgonet from the field armour was examined and the microstructure consists of uniform pearlite with very few slag inclusions. The surface hardnesses of several breastplates in the garniture were also measured: Field armour (average) 420 VPH Tournament armours - foot-combat 320 VPH free-tourney 400 VPH tilt 330 VPH. It would seem likely that many components of the garniture (but not the field burgonet) had been hardened by heat-treatment. Photographs courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

T H E METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

523

1547 A horse armour made for King Ferdinand I b y j o r g Seusenhofer in the Imperial Armoury at Innsbruck & delivered in 1547. (Thomas & Gambcr, p.76). Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A.532.

(peytral) ferrite and pearlite X 50

Specimens from the peytral and crupper were examined in cross-section. The microstructure of the crupper consists of ferrite and globular carbides with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 272 to 325; average = 306 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by perhaps some form of quenching and then over-tempering. The microstructure of the peytral consists of ferrite and pearlite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 240 VPH. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

524

SECTION FIVE

1549 A garniture made for the Archduke Ferdinand II (1529-1595) b y j o r g Seusenhofer in the Imperial Armoury at Innsbruck in 1549. (Thomas & Gamber,p.78). Hofjagd- und Rustkammcr, Vienna A.530a

Section X 50: note central (quenching ?) crack

Tempered martensite and a little procutectoid ferrite X 320

A specimen from the demi-shaffron was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 473 to 566; (average) = 518 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by fully quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

525

1549 An armour made for Wilhelm II Schurff (d.1555) possibly by Jorg Seusenhofer at Inns­ bruck and dated (on the helmet) 1549. (Thomas & Gamber, p.79). Royal Armouries, Leeds. 11.169

Pcarlite, irresolvable carbides and ferrite X 200.

SECTION FIVE

Ferrite and martensite X 160 (vamplate)

A specimen from the close-helmet was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of areas of very fine pearlite mixed with granular carbides and a little ferrite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 191 to 295 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has undergone some form of accel­ erated cooling after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

527

The family of Schurff zu Schenwer were the hereditary Chief Huntsmen of Tirol. Other parts of this armour are scattered among several other museums. A saddle from this ar­ mour is in the Wallace Collection—A.409. A vamplate belonging to the owner of this armour is in the Bavarian National Museum, Munich. BNM inv.no.W.647. A specimen from the leading edge of the vamplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and martensite mixed with pearlite in varying proportions. The microhardness varies from 264 to 570 VPH, with varying carbon content. This is a steel of rather variable carbon-content which has been been quenched and tempered after fabrication, and whose hardness therefore varies considerably. Photograph by courtesy of the Bavarian National Museum.

528

SECTION FIVE

cl550 A cuirass with the mark of Witz. Museum of the City of Vienna, inv.no. 136.007

Breastplate: tempered martensite X 80

Backplate: ferrite and martensite X 50 (note that the carbon-free areas have not transformed at all).

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite and very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 471 to 548; average = 517 VPH. A specimen from within the backplate was examined. The microstructure consists of fer­ rite and areas of martensite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 173 to 308; average = 252 VPH. This is a steel of variable carbon content (perhaps 0.6%C in places) which has been hard­ ened after fabrication by fully quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Museum of the City of Vienna.

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y O F INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

529

1550-55 Parts of an armour for the tilt made by Jorg Seuscnhofer, with his mark. 1965/30

Right vambrace (section) ferrite and pearlite X 20

The two arm defences which are associated are not a pair, having come from different, but contemporary, armours. The left arm has a threaded hole for the attachment of a re­ inforce, and Thomas declared its style resembles that of other Innsbruck armours of this period (Thomas, 1974, p. 199) The grandguard was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with very few slag inclusions. The right lower vambrace was also examined in cross-section. The microstructure con­ sists of pearlite and ferrite in varying proportions with few slag inclusions. The left lower vambrace was also examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with very few slag inclusions. Photograph by courtesy of the Wurttemberg Landesmuseum, Stuttgart.

530

SECTION FIVE

1554 The armour of Franz von Teuffenbach, by Stefan Rormoser (marked) and dated 1554. John Woodman Higgins Armory Museum, Worcester.inv.no.2630

(gorget plate) uniform tempered martensite X 40

A specimen from the turned edge of the lowest gorget plate attached to the close helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of tempered martensite and a little ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 354 to 425; (average) = 393 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened by quenching and tempering after fabrication. Photograph by courtesy of the John Woodman Higgins Armory Museum, Worcester, Mass.

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

531

C1555 An infantry armour decorated in a style associated with Witz, but not marked. Wallace Collection, London A.37

Ferrite and pearlite X 50

A specimen from within the burgonet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with a few slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Its Innsbruck origin is by no means certain, although since Witz made munition armour as well as armour of high quality, this cannot be ruled out. (Norman, 1986, 14). Photograph by courtesy of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection

532

SECTION FIVE

1555 A breastplate, etched, and dated 1555 with the mark [S] of an unknown master (Thomas & Gamber p.202). Stibbert Museum, Florence.inv.no.2891. (cat.no. 104).

Ferrite and corrosion cavities X 40.

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. Once again, its Innsbruck origin is by no means certain. Photograph by courtesy of the Stibbert Museum, Florence.

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

C1555 Waffensammlung Schloss Ambras

533

A.767

Ferrite and slag

X 40

An armour made for Archduke Ferdinand II by Melchior Pfeifer in the Imperial Armoury probably at Prague around 1555. A specimen from the side rim of the burgonet was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and very little pearlite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 100 to 162; average = 134 VPH. Photograph by courtesy of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.

534 1555-58 Waffcnsammlung Schloss Ambras

SECTION FIVE

WA.331.

Tempered martensite X 80

A cuirass made by Paul Meitinger at Innsbruck as part of a large order of infantry armours completed between 1554 and 1558 by a group of armourers including Michel Witz the Younger, Jakob Schnatz, Sebastian Katzmair, Sebastian Schmid, Michael Wagner and Hans Horburger the Elder. (Thomas & Gamber, p.87). A specimen from inside the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 407 to 539; average = 498 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by fully quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y OF INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

535

cl560 A half- armour with extensive gilded and blued decoration belonging to Stefan Bathory (King of Poland, 1522-1586) and possibly made in the Imperial Workshop at Prague around 1560. Gamber & Beaufort (1990) p.213. Hofjagd- und Rustkammcr, Vienna A.609.

Tempered martensite X 120 (note that the appearance of this con­ stituent docs not change with carbon content, although its hardness does).

A specimen from the top plate of the right tasset was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 254 to 285; average — 269 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.3%C) which has been hardened after fabrication by fully quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

536

SECTION FIVE

C1560 Parts of an armour made for Duke Albrecht V (1528-79) by Stefan Rormoscr. (Thomas & Gamber, p.85). Bavarian National Museum, Munich, inv.no. 1478/9.

lltiPK i r

,!

l i t

-,

■>• ^-r

t

J ^ * ^ T \ ; ^ & I

Breastplate: very fine pearlite, ferrite (some spiny) and very few slag inclusions X 50.

T H E METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

537

Gorget: tempered martensite only X 160

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and very fine pearlite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 150 VPH. A specimen from the gorget was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of tempered martensite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 395 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by fully quenching and tempering. The breastplate (while made of a lower-carbon steel) has also undergone some form of accelerated cooling. Photograph by courtesy of the Bavarian National Museum, Munich.

538

SECTION FIVE

1563 Parts of an armour by Sebastian Katzmair (marked and dated 1563) and now in the Es­ tonian National Museum, Tallinn.Inv.no.AM 5492/R 663. (Thomas, 1974, p.203)

Breastplate, uniform tempered martensite X 400

Tassel: martensite and ferrite X 80

A specimen from within the breastplate (lower rim) was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite and a little ferrite with few slag inclusions. The microhardncss (average) = 355 VPH. Another specimen from within the breastplate (near the top) was also examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little granular carbides with few slag inclusions. The microhardncss (average) = 193 VPH. This is evidently a heterogeneous steel that has been hardened after fabrication by quenching and tempering. Left tasset; another specimen was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform tem­ pered martensite and a little ferrite with few slag inclusions. The microhardncss (average) = 357 VPH. The burgonet illustrated, although contemporary, does not belong to the cuirass. Photograph by Lasse Mattila, courtesy of the Estonian National Museum.

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

539

C1565 A light-horseman's armour (with no lance-rest) belonging to Archduke Ferdinand II and probably made by Melchior Pfeifer in the Imperial Workshop at Prague around 1565. Gamber & Beaufort (1990) p. 160. Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A.982.

A banded steel X 40

Maitensite and bainite (?) X 160

A specimen from the left gauntlet was examined in cross-section. The microstructure con­ sists of tempered martensite and an acicular material which might be bainite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 264 to 339; average = 296 VPH. This is a steel of variable carbon content (perhaps up to 0.4%C in places) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna.

540

SECTION FIVE

C1568 An undccoratcd boy's armour probably made for a son of the Archduke Ferdinand (Karl von Burgau, b.1560) by Melchior Pfeifer at Innsbruck around 1568-70. (Thomas & Gambcr, p.210) Hofjagd- und Riistkammcr, Vienna A. 1496

Ferrite and martensite (section) X 30

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

541

A specimen from 4th plate down of the left cuisse was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of fcrrite and martensite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 227 to 368; average = 259 VPH. This is a steel of variable carbon content (perhaps up to 0.4%C) which has been hardened after fabrication by quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammcr, Vienna.

542

SECTION FIVE

1582 An armour (for the foot-combat) made for the tournaments held by the Archduke Ferdi­ nand II in 1582 to celebrate his marriage to Caterina Gonzaga, by Jakob Topf in the Imperial Armoury at Innsbruck. (Thomas & Gamber, p.93) Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A. 1113.

A specimen from the left pauldron was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of tempered martensite with some ferrite arranged in bands and very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 194 to 588; average = 415 VPH. This is a banded steel (perhaps 0.6%G in places) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by fully quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y OF INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

543

1582 Another armour made for the same tournaments as A. 1113 probably made by Jakob Topf in the Imperial Armoury at Innsbruck. See (Thomas & Gamber, p.93), where it is cata­ logued as a field armour adapted for the "freirennen". Waffensammlungen, Schloss Ambras WA. 1568.

Ferrite and slag X 40

A specimen from the rim of the close helmet at the collar was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite with some slag inclusions only. The microhardness varies from 120 to 178; average = 149 V P H . Photograph by courtesy of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.

544

SECTION FIVE

1582 Another armour (for the tilt) for the same tournaments (as A. 1113) probably made by Jakob Topf in the Imperial Armoury at Innsbruck. (Thomas & Gamber p.92) The attached grandguard is inscribed "Carl Schurff'. Waffensammlungen, Schloss Ambras B.98.(WA.3010)

Section: Peai'lite and ferrite X 80

THE METALLURGY OF INNSBRUCK ARMOUR

545

A specimen from the rim of the close helmet (at the collar) was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite in a "basket-weave" form with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 169 to 205; average = 191 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (up to 0.5%C in places) which has been extensively forged and then slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph by courtesy of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.

546

SECTION FIVE

1580-90 A close-helmet from an armour probably made by Jakob Topf in the Imperial Armoury at Innsbruck. Bavarian National Museum, Munich, inv.no.WR. 1510

A specimen from the upper visor was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 496 to 525; average — 505 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by fully quenching and tempering. Photograph by courtesy of the Bavarian National Museum, Munich.

547

T H E METALLURGY O F INNSBRUCK A R M O U R

1619 A "cuirassier's" armour made by Hans Jakob Topf for the Archduke Leopold V. (Thomas & Gamber, p.94). Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A. 1534

Ferrite and carbides

X 30

A specimen from the burgonet peak was examined in cross-section. T h e microstructure consists of ferrite and granular carbides with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 249 to 268; average = 263 VPH. This is made of a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which has undergone some sort of accelerated cooling to harden it. Photograph courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna.

548

SECTION FIVE

cl620 Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A. 1530

V^ -

*<

k.

£r

Ferrite and some carbides X 80

A half- armour made by Hans Jakob Topf for Leopold V. (Thomas & Gamber , p.215) A specimen from the gorget was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists mostly of ferrite a little pearlite, and slag inclusions only. The microhardness (average) — 151 VPH. Photograph courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna.

LANDSHUT A R M O U R

549

1641 A blued boy's armour made for Archduke Siegmund Franz by Christoph Kramer in the Imperial Armoury at Innsbruck in 1641. (Thomas & Gamber, p.219) Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A. 1704

550

SECTION FIVE

Section X 40

Pearlite, carbides and ferrite

X 160

A specimen from the lower right vambracc was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists mostly of pearlite, some irresolvable carbides and ferrite, with very few slag inclu­ sions. The microhardness varies from 266 to 327; average = 298 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has perhaps undergone some (inde­ terminate) heat-treatment after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

References: (also see Chapter 5.5) Thomas, B. & Gamber, O. "Der Innsbrucker Plattnerkunst" (Innsbruck, 1954); and Thomas (1974). T h e definitive catalogue of Innsbruck armour, referred to here simply as (Thomas & Gamber). T h e other catalogues of collections containing Innsbruck armour referred to here are; Diiricgi, G. et al. "Das Wiener Biirgerliche Zcughaus" (Vienna, 1977); an illustrated guide to the city arsenal at Vienna. Gamber, O & Beaufort, G, "Katalog der Leibrustkammer—II" (Busto Arsizio, 1990); illustrated catalogue of to the former imperial arsenal at Vienna, now the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer. Gcibig, A. "Gelahrlich und schon" (Coburg, 1996); an illustrated guide to the armoury at Veste Coburg. Mann, J.G. "Wallace Collection catalogues: European Arms and Armour" (2voIs, 1962) and a supplementary 3 r d volume; Norman, A.V.B. (1986) Scalini, M. "The armoury of the Castle of Churburg" (Udine, 1996) Thomas, B.& Gamber, O. "Katalog der Leibrustkammer—I" (Vienna, 1976); illustrated catalogue of to the former imperial arsenal at Vienna, now the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer. Wackernagel, R.H. "Das Munchner Zeughaus" (Munich, 1983). Trapp, O. & Mann, J.G, "The armoury of the Castle of Churburg" (1929). see also Borg, A. "The ram's horn helmet" Journal of the Arms & Armour Society, 8 (1974) 127-137. Blair, C. "Comments on Dr.Borg's 'horned helmet' " ibid. 138-185.

C H A P T E R 5.7

LANDSHUT ARMOUR T H E COURT AT LANDSHUT

The history of the armourers who worked at Landshut has been extensively studied by von Reitzenstein, upon whose work this introduction is heavily dependent'. The develop­ ment of Landshut as a centre of armour production coincides with its situation as one of the three capitals of the Duchy of Bavaria (Ingolstadt, Landshut and Munich), which had been divided between different branches of the Wittelsbach family in 1392. The oldest armourers' names date from the early 15th century, but we know little about these craftsmen. Under Duke Ludwig the Rich (1450-79), the names of more armourers and their commissions survive, especially Ulrich Rambs and Konrad Weiss (d. 1493). When his son Georg married Jadwiga, the heiress of Poland in 1475, this was an international event, attended by the Emperor (Frederick III, father of Maximilian) and attracted com­ missions from outside Bavaria for armourers like Matthias Deutsch. When Duke Georg "the Rich", died without sons in 1503, a war broke out for the posession of his Duchy, which was eventually won by Albert, Duke of Bavaria-Munich, but his son, Wilhelm IV, had to allow his younger brother, Ludwig, his own court at Landshut, where he resided from 1516-1545. Under Ludwig X, what developed in Landshut was the production of armour of high quality. The armourer Erhard, who made a series of fluted armours for the Duke, might be the user of the mark EB. Reitzenstein proposed Erhart Wolf (B = W), whereas Spitzelberger suggested Erhart Plattner (B = P)2. The workshop of the Groszschedels soon took over the leadership of the industry and attracted such well-known craftsmen as the etcher Ambrosius Gemlich to Landshut. To the patronage of its own Wittelsbach dukes was soon added that of the Duke of Wurttemberg and the Elector of Saxony, the imperialist general Conrad von Bemelberg and the Lords of Freyberg at Hohenaschau (from where Wallace Collection A21 originally came). WOLFGANG AND GREENWICH

The young Wolfgang Groszschedel was welcomed into the newly founded workshop of Henry VIII in Greenwich in the year 1518. When he returned to Landshut again in 1521 he acquired his citizenship and set up in business for himself, later with his partner and successor, his son Franz. The Bemelberg armour shows that he was fully quenching and tempering his steel by 1535 at latest. If he knew the techniques of doing this successfully when he went to En1 2

Reitzenstein (1969) and (1963) Spitzelberger (1975) 15, and see Wackemagel (1983) 142.

552

SECTION FIVE

gland, he chose not to pass on this information; Greenwich armour was not successfully treated this way until the 1560s, although attempts were made to harden it in the 1540s. Another Landshut armourer, Jacob Haider, was employed at Greenwich from 1557, and became Master in 1576 3 but whether his presence influenced their approach to the heattreatment of steel must remain conjectural. The death of Duke Ludwig came in 1545, and with him the end of the Landshut court, although another younger brother, Prince Wilhelm, after 1579 Duke Wilhclm V, resided here for ten years from 1569. But the reputation that Landshut armourers had acquired extended far enough, to secure them the best clientele, and it was no longer of great im­ portance that there was no longer a separate court in Landshut. Nor was it important that the favourite armourer of the new Duke, Wilhelm V (who as Prince, had previously resided in Landshut) was not from Landshut at all, but an Augsburgcr, Anton Pcffcnhauser. Both Franz Groszschedel and Anton Peffenhauser hardened and gilded their armours, but the latter decorated his far more elaborately with etched and gilded scrolls that cover every surface. The armours of Franz Groszschedel appear austere by comparison. In the middle years of the century orders came for the Groszschedels from customers such as the King of Spain, Philip II (the identification of the mark of Wolfgang Groszsche­ del, a Latin W, is due to a mention in the "Inventario iluminado" of Charles V, that shows an armour of Philip II, which has survived as the work of "mase bolfe (bolfe = wolf = Wolf­ gang) armero de Lancucte") and his cousin Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor, who entrusted them with lavish commissions that were so splendidly executed that in 1566 Franz Groszschedel was ennobled by the Emperor. Five years later he completed the famous Roseleaf Garniture for the Emperor, which consists of the components for four armours with various additional parts to convert them for different uses (for the battlefield as well as tournaments). Franz von Groszschedel died in 1580. With him the production of personal armour of high artistic as well as high metallurgical quality for the nobility ceased in Landshut, and only armours necessary for use in battle were manufactured. Paul Vischer was court ar­ mourer in 1583 & active to 1607, but however he generally made munition armours for the militia (Landvolk). These armours do not seem to have been marked, and so none that may have survived can be identified. T H E REGULATIONS OF

1479

The City archives of Landshut contain the original texts of the "Armourers' Regulations" (Plattnerordnung), that were promulgated in the year 1479 by the City Council. The reg­ ulations stipulated what had to be fulfilled, for an apprentice to become a master. The applicant had to produce documents that he was born in wedlock, his studies were complete and he was himself pious and had honestly applied himself to his craft. He had to make a helmet, breast- & backplates, arm- & leg-defences, and gauntlets, in the work­ shop of his master as he had learned, and when he could then hammer out a complete man's armour which satisfied the Inspection ("Beschau"), then he could afterwards make all sorts of armour. Eaves, (1999) 151.

LANDSHUT A R M O U R

553

There follows the very significant stipulation, that the work was to be made properly, and wholly of steel ("die Arbeit werkgerccht und von ganzem Stahl gemacht sci"). The regulations stated that Landshut armourers' works must bear both stamped marks; the general one from the inspection, the "Landshiitl" or war-hat, and the particular one of the master, his personal mark. Other statutes deal with transgressors, who did not make their work well and wholly of steel ("von gutem Zeug und ganzem Stahl"), or sold it unsigned. It was also prohibited to buy foreign work outside the city and then bring it in, except for works wholly of steel, which also required marking with Inspection- and Master-marks. Only a handful of master marks seem to have been known from Landshut before 1500 and just 3 of these have been identified with named armourers: (in the Tables below) Ulrich Rambs is signified by a Gothic r Matthias Deutsch is signified by M D Conrad (Coontz) Judenspiess is signified by CJ WG = Wolfgang Groszschedel W / F G = Wolfgang and Franz Groszschedel In the (admittedly very composite) Landshut armour which originated from Schloss Hohenaschau, and is now in the Wallace Collection, London (A.21) we can sec several masters' work here including: 1. the master of the crossed flails who made both leg-defences from hardened & tempered steels, (indicated in the table below as cfl) 2. master r (tentatively identified as Ulrich Rambs) who made all the horse armour in steel, Fully hardened steel is used at this time only by a handful of German masters such as Lorenz Helmschmied, Hans Prunner, Conrad Seusenhofcr, an anonymous master of Nurnberg, and in Landshut, Matthias Deutsch. Apart from this early master Matthias (or Matthcs) Deutsch, the only other Landshut armourer to have have mastered the heat-treatment of steel at such an early date seems to have been the "master of the crossed flails"—one might speculate that he could be a re­ lation of Matthias Deutsch, but evidence is lacking. The master of the crossed sceptres (who is Landshut by association only) is signified by CSC.

554

SECTION FIVE

Table 1 Summary of metallurgy of Landshut armour to 1500 Date

Museum

Metal lowC% steel

1470 D H M 1052 (several parts)

med C% steel

L

1480 WC 21 (horse) (arms)

1480

Heat-Treatment aircooled

attempted hardening

Hardness (VPH) hardened

A

M M

master

189

248

A H

#

(left leg) (right leg)

M M

H

409 266

cfl cfl

Stib 3570

M

H

366

r

M

H

-360

MD

1480 WC 193 1490 III 782

cj

A

L

1495 B 129

M

H

546

MD

1495 Drcs 12

M

H

-600

MD

1495 BNM 230

L

A

#

1500 BNM 4893

L

A

#

Of the 10 examples of 15th century armour thought to have been made in Landshut (omitting those unmarked and signified #) 2 are made of low-carbon steels, and 8 of medium-carbon steels. 3 are air-cooled, 1 has been partially hardened (quenched and overtempered), and the other 6 are all quenched and tempered. T h e regulations of 1479 specified that the armourer's work must be manufactured from pure steel ("von ganzem Stahl"). This injunction seems to have been largely obeyed. In fact the majority o[ 15th century armour (8 out of 10) is made of steel, and in the 16th century, it remains a substantial majority (9 out of 12).

LANDSHUT ARMOUR

ODD

Table 2 Summary of metallurgy of Landshut armour after 1500 Date

Metal

Museum

lovvC% steel

Hardness (VPH)

Heat-Treatment med C% steel

aircooled

attempted hardening

hardened

1520 MSM Z.1357d

M

H

327

1525 GNM W.1340

M

H

401

1530 DHM 2734

I,

1530 Stib 2815

L

KB

KB <221

1535 V&A M62

M

1535 HJR A.376 i

M M M

549 RAT 85

M

560 BNM 4895

M

560 HJR 1044

M

H H T H

H

560 HJR 1179

H

WO 415 200 517

WO WG WO

<300

W/FG

397

W/FG

275

W/FG

225

W/FG

Franz Groszschedel (all those below) Date

Museum

Heat-Treatment

Metal iron

lowC% steel

med 0 % steel

1571 HJR A474b RP L LP T C A474d RT B LT A.474(T) RUV LF LC RLV A.474 (H)P

M M M M M M M M M M M

RA III 874 WC A.359

M M

aircooled

attempted hardening

Hardness master (VPH) (FG) hardened

H H

H

250 439 243 364 204 318 382 304 362 286 303 337

H H

-34 321

A H A H H H H T T

556

SECTION FIVE

Prior to 1571 of the 12 examples; 0 arc made of iron, 3 of low-carbon steel, and 9 of medium-carbon steel; 1 is air-cooled, 4 arc partially hardened, and 7 are fully hardened. All of the 16th century armour (with a maker's mark) is made of steel, and almost all of it is hardened, usually by fully quenching and tempering. In this respect the Groszschedels continue to use the methods of Matthias Dcutsch, except that they have added gilding to their tcchnicjucs, and the final hardness was reduced slightly (to around 300—400 VPH rather than 400—500 VPH). An elaborately decorated tilting target (Turin, C85) apparently from a garniture made by Wolfgang and Franz Groszschedel, and dated 1549, was analysed and found to be a quenched and ovcrtempcrcd martcnsite. Considering the amount of shaping and gilding the target must have undergone, it is not entirely surprising that the martcnsite has overtempered. The surprising observation is that any attempt was made to harden it in the first place. The "Rosenblattgarnitur" (Rose-leaf garniture) was made in Landshut for the Emperor Maximilian II by Franz Groszschedel in 1571. A number of components from it were examined in order to try and answer these questions: 1. Did the parts of a garniture vary significantly between armour for tournament use and field use? 2. Was armour for the horse significantly different, as it had to be made from larger plates? 3. Did the hardness of the plates vary significantly between different parts of the body? From the Rosenblatt garniture of 1571, out of the 14 components analysed; 0 was made of iron, 1 was made of low-carbon steel, and 13 were made of medium-car­ bon steel; 2 were air-cooled, 2 were partially hardened, and 10 were fully hardened. So, in answer to the questions posed, it may be said that, 1. Armour for field and tournament use was heat-treated in the same way. This is to be expected as many parts were intended to be used intcrchangably. 2. Armour for the horse was heat-treated similarly to armour for the rider. This is also to be expected, since it would make no sense not to protect the horse as well as was feasible. 3. Armour for different parts of the body seems to have been heat-treated similarly. Differ­ ences in hardness attained may be ascribed to variations in the carbon content of the steel that was being hardened 4 .

References: Eaves, I "The Greenwich armour of Sir Henry Lee.." Journal of ihc Arms & Armour Society, 16 (1999) 133164. Mann, J.G. Wallace Collection Catalogues: European Arms & Armour- Vol.1 (1962) And see Norman, A.V.B. Wallace Collection Catalogues: European Arms & Armour -Supplement (1986). -' Williams (1997) 265.

LANDSHUT A R M O U R

557

Reil/.enstcin, A.von, "Die Landshuter Plattner, ihre Ordnung und ihre Meister" WafTcn- und Kostiimkunde, 11 (Munich, 1969) 20-32 idem, "Der Landshuter Plattner Matthes Deutsch" ibid. 5,(1963) 89-95 Spitzelberger, G. (ed.) "Landshuter Plattnerkunst" T h e catalogue of the exhibition (Landshut, 1975). Wackernagel, R. "Das Munohner Zeughaus" (Munich, 1983) 142. Williams, A.R. "The Grosschcdcl family of armourers ofLanclshut and their metallurgy " J o u r n a l of the Arms & Armour Society 15 (1997) 253-277. Williams, A.R. "A technical study of some of the armour of King Henry VIII and his contemporaries" Archacologia 109(1979) 162.

CHAPTER 5.8

T H E METALLURGY OF LANDSHUT ARMOUR

c!470 A horseman's armour of "Gothic" form, bearing a mark described as "crossed sceptres within a shield" on the breastplate. Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin.W.1052

r

^ ^

M E T A L L U R G Y O F LANDSHUT A R M O U R

559

'''■. utilise %<.%*(breastplate) ferrite and carbides X 40

(left cuisse) ferrite and pearlite X 60

Specimens from within the breastplate, left gauntlet, left kneecop (in section) left pauldron (in section) and left cuisse outside plate were examined. The microstructures of all five were similar and consist of ferrite, a little pearlite (somewhat divorced) and some slag inclusions. All five are low-carbon steels (0.2%C or less) which have been slowly cooled after fabrica­ tion. The microhardness of the breastplate (average) = 189 VPH.

560

SECTION FIVE

A similar mark was said to be found on the legs of the composite armour A. 21 in the Wallace Collection, the catalogue of which describes it as "crossed flails"; together with a Landshut city mark. Norman pointed out however (1986,1) that the Berlin breastplate does not bear the mark of crossed flails, so that this Berlin armour seems to be Landshut by association only. Photographs courtesy of Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin.

METALLURGY OF LANDSHUT ARMOUR

561

1470-80 A composite armour made up of parts of several armours, mostly from the former Freyberg armoury at Hohenaschau. Wallace Collection, London.A.21.

Lower left vambrace. Down the centre of the plate there is a row of slag inclusions; one on side is uniform martensite, on the other side (presumably of lower C%) is a mixture of ferrite and martensite. T h e plate seems to have been formed by folding a heterogeneous billet over. X 80

562

SECTION FIVE

Two parts carry armourers' marks. The legs and the horse-armour. The leg armour bears the city mark of Landshut as well as the crossed-fiails mark. A specimen from within the plate below the right poleyn was examined. The microstruc­ ture consists of ferrite and carbides (perhaps an overtempcred martensite) with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varied from 243 to 299; average = 266 VPH. This is a mediumcarbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment, probably quench­ ing and overtempering. A specimen from within the inside plate of the left cuisse was also examined. The microstructure consists of martensite and ferrite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 380 to 450; average — 409 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by quenching and tempering. The horse armour bears the city mark of Landshut as well as an armourer's mark of a Gothic r which has been ascribed (by von Reitzenstein) to Ulrich Rambs. This was examined in several places. Specimens from within the left crupper, right crup­ per, shaffron (including the poll plate) and peytral were examined. The microstructure of all consists of ferrite and pearlite in varying proportions with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (between 0.2% and 0.6%C) which has been air-cooled after fabri­ cation. The microhardness of the peytral; average = 248 VPH. The arm defences are Landshut by association only. A specimen from within the lower right vambrace was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered marten­ site with a few slag inclusions. The left lower vambrace was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of banded ferrite and martensite with few slag inclusions. Photograph courtesy of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

M E T A L L U R G Y OF LANDSHUT A R M O U R

563

1470-80 A composite armour, made up of various late 15 lh century parts, including a (possibly Innsbruck) backplate which is numbered 3910 (see chapter 6.1 for illustration), and (prob­ ably Landshut) arm-defences which are discussed here, numbered 3570. Stibbert Museum, Florence.

(right vambrace 3570) pearlite and ferrite X 80

(left vambrace 3570) tempered martensite X 80.

The arm defences bear a mark, apparently a gothic r, which has been ascribed to the Landshut master, Ulrich Rambs. See Chapter 4.3 for illustration, (p. 192) A specimen from within the lower left vambrace was examined. The microstructure con­ sists of ferrite and martensite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 366 VPH. A specimen from within the right lower vambrace was examined. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 258 VPH.

564

SECTION F I V E

C1480 Wallace Collection, London.A. 193.

tempered martensite (section)

X 50

Bevor, bearing the city mark of Landshut, and the armourer's mark of Matthias Deutsch. This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with few slag inclusions. The surface hardness (average) = 360 VPH. Photograph courtesy of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

565

METALLURGY OF LANDSHUT A R M O U R

cl490 A right gauntlet, with the Landshut city mark and a master's mark, ascribed to Contz Judenspeiss. Royal Armouries, Leeds.

III.782

ferrite and carbides

(section)

X 20

The cuff plate was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and carbides arranged in bands with rows of slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.3%C near the surfaces) which has been reheated and slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

566 1490-1500 Waffcnsammlung Schloss Ambras

SECTION FIVE

B.129

Tempered martensite and a line of ferritc grains X 50

T c m p c i e d martensite X 200

A "rennhut" with the city mark of Landshut and the master's mark of Matthias Deutsch. A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite and very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 525 to 566; average = 546 VPH. A very similar armour was made perhaps for John of Saxony, in 1497, for use in the tournament with sharp lances ("rennen") at the court of Maximilian. This is probably Dresden M.12 (which is discussed below). Both are made of fairly homogeneous mediumcarbon steels (perhaps 0.6%C) which have been quenched and tempered after fabrication, to reach similar hardnesses. Photograph courtesy of Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.

567

METALLURGY OF LANDSHUT ARMOUR

1490-1500 Dresden Historischcs Museum.

M. 12

T e m p e r e d martensite

X 160

A rennzeng with the city mark of Landshut and the master's mark of Matthias Deutsch. The bevor was examined in cross-section. T h e microstructurc consists of uniform tempered martensite and very few slag inclusions. The surface hardness is around 300-600 VPH. Sec Ambras B.I29 (above). Photograph courtesy of Staatlichc Kunstsammlungcn, Dresden.

568

SECTION FIVE

1490-1500 Bavarian National Museum, Munich. inv.no.W.230.

Ferrite and carbides (section)

X 40

Landshut by association only; a visored sallet with painted decoration from the former Freyberg armoury at Hohenaschau. The helmet skull was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pcarlitc with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Bavarian National Museum, Munich.

569

METALLURGY OF LANDSHUT A R M O U R

C1500 Bavarian National Museum, Munich. inv.no.W.4893.

Ferrite and carbides (part section) X 50

Landshut by association only; a visored sallet from the former Freyberg armoury at Hohenaschau. The helmet skull was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite, spiny in places, and carbides with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which has probably undergone a failed heat-treatment after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Bavarian National Museum, Munich.

570

SECTION FIVE

C1515 Munich City Museum, inv.no.Z. 1 357d

A mixed microsructure

X 50

Martensite, pearlitc and ferrite

X 200

A composite armour with the marks of Landshut, and a master mark EB (or EP) on the left shoulder. It has been suggested that this might be the mark of Erhart Plattner (Wackernagcl, 1983, cat.no.33). A specimen from within the shoulder was examined. The microstructure consists of martensite mixed with pearlitc and a little ferrite with few slag inclusions. The microhardncss ranges from 248 (pcarlite) to 525 (martensite); average = 327 VPH. This is a steel of varying carbon content (up to perhaps 0.6%C) which has been hardened by some form of quenching. Photograph courtesy of the Bavarian National Museum, Munich. This is, in fact, a photograph of the very similar armour BNM 598, by master EB also.

M E T A L L U R G Y OF I.ANDSHUT ARMOUR

1520-30 Germanischcs National Museum, Niirnbcrg, inv.no.VV. 1340

,##%%.

A banded steel: tempered martcnsile and fcrrite X 40

571

572

SECTION FIVE

The close helmet with a grotesque visor which is associated with a Landshut armour (of the so-called "Fico" group) which bears the mark of Wolfgang Groszschedel. The helmet however is only Landshut by association. A specimen from within the helmet skull was examined. The microstructure consists of tempered martensite and a little ferrite arranged in bands with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 268 to 442; average = 401 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C overall) that has been quenched and tem­ pered after fabrication. This helmet could be the high-quality product of a Landshut master, or indeed of an Augsburg, Innsbruck, or Niirnberg master of this period. Photograph courtesy of the Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg

METALLURGY OF LANDSHUT ARMOUR

573

C1530 A horseman's armour. The breastplate bears the Landshut city mark and a master mark EP. Whether this is the mark of the same master as EB is open to question. Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin. 1989/2734

Ferrite and pearlite (section) X 30

A specimen from the close helmet rim was examined. The microstructure consists of fer­ rite and pearlite (around 0.2%C) with some slag inclusions. Photograph courtesy of the Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin.

574

SECTION FIVE

C1530 Part of a falling buffc, which has been ascribed to Landshut on stylistic grounds, but can­ not be poitively identified. Stibbert Museum, Florence.inv.no.2815.(cat.no.90)

Ferrite and martensite

X 200

A specimen from within the buffe plate was examined. The microstructure consists of fer­ rite and a little martensite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 167 to 221 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment. Photograph courtesy of the Stibbert Museum, Florence.

M E T A L L U R G Y OF LANDSHUT A R M O U R

575

1530-40 A horseman's breastplate of fluted form, with the Landshut city mark and the VV mark of Wolfgang Groszschedel. Victoria & Albert Museum, London.inv.no.M62

carbides

X

160

The breastplate was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of uniform very fine pearlite and granular carbides with few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 340 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has undergone some form of heat treatment to harden it. Photograph courtesy of the Victoria & Albert Museum, London.

576

SECTION FIVE

C1535 A decorated infantry armour made for Konrad von Bcmelbcrg around 1535 by Wolfgang Groszschedel. Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna. A.376

METALLURGY OF LANDSHUT A R M O U R

(helmet) tempered martensite and ferrite X 160

577

(left vambrace) tempered martensite X 40

This was examined in three components; Helmet—on the turned edge of the rim behind the right ear. The microstructure consisted of fairly homogeneous tempered martensite with a little fer­ rite. The microhardness ranges from 394 to 446; average = 415 VPH Tasset—on the turned inside edge of the second lame from the top of the left long tasset. The microstructure consisted of a mixture of ferrite and spheroidised carbides, corresponding perhaps to an overtempcred martensite with a little ferrite. The microhardness ranges from 183 to 210; average = 200 VPH Left Vambrace—on the edge next to the hinge of the left lower vambrace. The microstructure consisted of homogeneous tempered martensite. The microhardness ranges from 493 to 560; average = 517 VPH This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been quenched and tempered to harden it. In the case of the helmet and vambrace, with success; in the case of the tas­ set, the tempering has been too prolonged. Photograph courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

578

SECTION FIVE

1549 Royal Armoury, Turin, Inventory Number C85 (Catalogue Number 12)

Ferrite and globular carbides X 160

An elaborately decorated tilting targe apparently from a garniture made by Wolfgang and Franz Groszschedel, and dated 1549. A specimen was taken from the inside and the microstructure consisted of a mass of completely spheroidised carbides in a ferrite matrix. The microhardness varied from 210 to 300 VPH. This is evidently a quenched and overtempered martensite, and considering the amount of shaping and gilding the targe must have undergone, it is not entirely surprising that the martensite has overtempered. The surprising observation is that any attempt was made to harden it in the first place. Photograph courtesy of the Royal Armoury, Turin.

M E T A L L U R G Y OF LANDSHUT A R M O U R

579

cl560 A collar not marked, but tentatively identified by the etched bands of decoration as pos­ sibly part of a garniture made for King Ferdinand. Bavarian National Museum, Munich, Inventory Number w.4895.

A mixture of microconstituents X 80

Martensite and irresolvable carbides X 960

A specimen was taken from the second lame down from the neck. The microstructure consisted of a mixture of martensite, with some ferrite and very fine pearlite as well as areas of irresolvable carbides. The microhardness ranges from 318-429; average = 397 VPH This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has undergone some form of heat treatment to harden it, probably quenching and tempering. Photograph courtesy of the Munich City Museum, (loan no. 1523)

580

SECTION FIVE

C1560

A garniture made in Landshut for Maximilian II by Franz & Wolfgang Groszschedel around 1560. Hofjagd- und Rustkammcr, Vienna. A. 1044.

Fine pearlite and ferrite

X 160.

A lamination was detached from the turning rim of the close helmet. The microstructure consisted mostly of areas of fine pearlite surrounded by a network of ferrite, of a spiny appearance in places, and a row of slag inclusions. The microhardness varied from 256 to 297; average = 275 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has undergone some form of heat treatment to harden it. Photograph courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

METALLURGY OF LANDSHUT ARMOUR

581

C1560 A garniture made in Landshut for Maximilian II by Franz & Wolfgang Groszschedel around 1560. Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna. A. 1179.

Ferrite and martensite X 160

A sample was detached from the wing of the right poleyn at the edge. The microstructure consisted of mostly of ferrite with some areas of tempered martensite, of variable size. An attempt was made to harden this steel, but the low carbon content precluded a large increase in hardness. The microhardness varied from 206 to only 249; average = 225 VPH Photograph courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

582

SECTION FIVE

1571 A garniture made in Landshut for Maximilian II by Franz & Wolfgang Groszschedel in 1571. This is displayed in four equipments; for the foot-tournament, the battlefield, the tilt, and the free- tournament. It is called the "Rosenblatt" (Roselcaf) garniture, from its etched decoration. Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A.474.

Armour for the foot-tournament

583

M E T A L L U R G Y O F LANDSHUT A R M O U R

Right Pauldion (section)

X 40

Tempcicd maitcnsitc (Right Pauldion)

X 200

(close helmet) tcmpeied martensite and a fenitt network X 160

A.474b The Armour for the foot-combat (kempfkuriss) which was examined in 4 places: Right Pauldron. The edge of the large plate of the right pauldron was examined at the back of the paul­ dron in section. The microstructure consisted of homogeneous tempered martensite, with a few slag inclusions and an area of ferrite. The microhardness varied from 228 to 279; average = 250 VPH. The low hardness is due to the low carbon content. Left pauldron. A lamination was detached from the lowest plate of the left pauldron at the front. The microstructure consisted of homogeneous tempered martensite, with a few slag in­ clusions and no visible ferrite, (not shown). The microhardness varied from 401 to 450; average = 439 VPH. Tonlet. A lamination was detached from the lowest plate of the tonlet at the back. The microstructure consisted of a mixture of ferrite and pearlite, corresponding to an (effectively) unhardened steel of around 0.3%G, (not shown). The microhardness varied from 206 to 292; average = 243 VPH. Close helmet (with bellows visor). A lamination was detached from the skull of the close helmet at the right side of the head, near to the locking pin. The microstructure consisted of tempered martensite, in areas outlined by grains of ferrite, with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varied from 297 to 429; average = 364 VPH.

584

SECTION FIVE

A.474 The Field Armour (feldkuriss) which was examined in 2 places:

(burgonet) ferrite and tempered martensite X 40

Buffe. A lamination was detached from inside the chin plate of the falling buffe of the burgo­ net. The microstructure consisted of a mixture of ferrite and tempered martensite in vary­ ing proportions. The microhardness varied from 294 to 348; average = 318 VPH. Left Tasset. The edge of the 4th plate from the top of the left long tasset was examined, on the inside of the turned rim, in section. The microstructure consisted of homogeneous tempered martensite, with a few slag in­ clusions in a line and a small band of ferrite, (not shown). The microhardness varied from 351 to 488; average = 382 VPH.

M E T A L L U R G Y O F LANDSHUT A R M O U R

585

A.474d The Armour for the tilt (plankengestech) which was examined in 1 place:

Eight Tasset. A lamination was detached from the uppermost plate of the right tasset. The microstructure consisted of a mixture of ferrite and carbides, apparently pearlite, corresponding to an (effectively) unhardened steel of around 0.2%C, (not shown). The microhardness varied from 187 to 228; average = 204 VPH.

586

SECTION FIVE

A.474 A "jousting" armour (Rustung zum Gestech) displayed with an open burgonct for field use. This was examined in 4 places.

(Left cuisse) ferrite and pearlite X 160

Right arm. The right upper vambrace was examined in section (at the edge of a hole at the top of the vambrace). The microstructure consisted of a mixture of ferrite and tempered martensite in varying proportions with some large areas of martensite, (not shown). The microhardness varied from 276 to 322; average = 304 VPH

M E T A L L U R G Y OF LANDSI-IUT A R M O U R

587

The right lower vambracc was also examined in section, on the rim of the bottom plate. The microstructure consisted of a mixture of ferrite and a granular material which seems to be a mixture of martensite in varying proportions with pearlitc, (not shown). The microhardness varied from 228 to 409; average — 303 VPH Left Foot. The left sabaton was examined in section on the inner side of the right ankle, near to the rear edge of the foot. The microstructure consisted of homogeneous tempered marten­ site, with a few slag inclusions in a line and no visible ferrite, (not shown) The microhardness varied from 351 to 373; average = 362 VPH. Left cuisse. A lamination was detached from the second plate below the knee of the left cuisse. The microstructure consisted of a mixture of ferrite and pcarlite corresponding to an unhardened steel of around 0.2%C. The microhardness varied from 283 to 294; average = 286 VPH.

A.474. The Horse armour from the garniture. Peytral. A sample was detached from the front of the horse's peytral which allowed it to be ex­ amined in section. The microstructure consisted of homogeneous tempered martensite, with very little ferrite and some corrosion cavities, (not shown) The microhardness varied from 299 to 360; average = 337 VPH.

Other parts of this garniture are present in British collections. Royal Armouries, Leeds.III.874.(not illustrated) A targe (shoulder shield) from this garniture was examined, in cross-section. The microstructure was found to consist of uniform tempered martensite containing two bands of ferrite. The average surface hardness was 340 VPH, which was comparable to other elements of this garniture (A.474) in Vienna.

588

SECTION FIVE

Demi-shaffron. The Wallace Collection, London. A 359.

Tempered martensite and ferrite X 50.

A specimen from the lower right rim was examined. The microstructure consists of tem­ pered martensite and a little ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 283 to 345; average = 321 VPH. Photograph courtesy of the trustees of the Wallace Collection

C H A P T E R 5.9

NtJRNBERG ARMOUR

A very different picture to the rest of South Germany is presented by Niirnberg armour. Its metallurgy differs considerably not only from that of Augsburg but also from the small­ er production centres of Innsbruck and Landshut. Part of the reason may lie in the much greater scale of production at Niirnberg. In 1348, after an attempt at rebellion, the nobility forbade the formation of guilds. The "crafts" were subjected to regulations laid down by the City Council as to their products and procedures. Each craft was represented by two masters who transmitted the Council's orders to the craftsmen and submitted petitions from the Craft to the Council. They also had to undertake quality testing which each product, such as armour, was supposed to undergo before being sold. If the Inspection ("Beschau") was satisfactorily completed, the armour was stamped with an inspection sign, the city arms of Niirnberg. Additionally, a master's mark might be struck on the armour as well. The Arsenal of Niirnberg was a continual and an important source of orders for the city's armourers, but there soon de­ veloped a substantial export trade as well. As early as 1362, Niirnberg (together with the smaller town of Sulzbach) delivered more than 1000 pieces of armour to Prague and Plzen (Pilsen) for the Emperor Charles IV 1 . The export trade flourished through the 16th century, and well into the 17th. Many examples still survive in the museums and arsenals of Central Europe, especially Switzerland, Austria and Bohemia, e.g. Vienna, Graz, Forchtenstein, Hochosterwitz, Pilsen, Solothurn, Zurich, Munich, all of which possess substantial numbers of infantry armours from Niirn­ berg 2 . T H E REGULATIONS OF THE NURNBERG ARMOURERS' CRAFT

Those dating from 1478 (with later additions to 1624) have been published by Alexander von Reitzenstein 3 to whose work this chapter is heavily indebted. They included the fol­ lowing provisions: Each master could take 1, but later 2, apprentices who had to serve for 4 years, then work another 2 years as a journeyman, or paid servant. In the 14th century, only 1 ap­ prentice and 1 journeyman were allowed. This number was increased to 2 and by 1507, to 4 journeymen. But in 1574, because of a decline in the quantity of work available, the number permitted was reduced again to 3. The journeyman could, if a citizen and of le1 1 3

Reitzenstein (1967) 700. T h e catalogues of these museums, listed below, are full of such examples. Reitzenstein (1959) 55.

590

SECTION FIVE

gitimate birth, apply to become a master in all or part of armour-making by submitting either a whole armour or components of an armour (head armour, body harness, leg ar­ mour, arm armour or gauntlets) as "masterpieces" worked by his own hand within the workshop of a master, and completed within 3 months. If one man, like Valentin Siebenbiirger, in 1531 became master on 5 components at once, then that was the exception and not the rule. The limit to the number of journeymen was imposed in the interests of the weaker mas­ ters, that might need protection against the competition of the stronger. The strongest, without these restrictions, would soon have grown into capitalist entrepreneurs like the Missaglia, and depressed the status of the weaker ones to pieceworkers. The Council ad­ mitted exceptions for a predetermined time limit to this rule if a tournament was immi­ nent (and all knights were purchasing) or a war threatened (and the city was arming). Very busy masters naturally presented requests frequently, to allow them additional workers. Requests from someone like Valentin Siebenbiirger or Kunz Lochner who worked for princes and Emperors, for an increase in the number of journeymen, could not readily be turned down. But the extensive workshops of Milan were never found here. One is then left to wonder how the large orders of the late 16th and early 17th centuries were fulfilled4. The raw material came predominantly from the iron districts of the adjacent Palatinate (Oberpfalz). Later, some steel was imported from Styria. This metal went first of all to the hammer masters, that operated the trip-hammers powered by water- mills which turned blooms or billets into plates ("Blech", or "Zeug") for the armourers. The hammer masters were a craft with their own regulations, that specified that the masters from the hammers at Dutzendteich, Lauffenholz or other places, were to promise to make the metal for the harnesses of "at least half-steel or better" (zum wenigsten halbstahlern oder besser) and nothing less, and to sign it with the city mark or their own mark 3 . Several armours have a letter (a Gothic n) within a circle stamped on the insides of their plates. It has been suggested that such marks were those from the hammer-masters, but this remains to be proven, (see p.622 for an example) The armourers in the 15th century did not own their own hammer-works, but decided to acquire one in 1498 for a yearly rental of 50 guilders. This hammer was to have a weight of 3 cwt (150 kg) One was soon found to be insufficient, and in 1499 a second was set up; it was to be, like the first, subject to the Regulations about Inspection and the usage of marks. By 1522 there was a third hammer, in Reichelswang, whose masters had "prom­ ised to work for the armourers". The Regulations provided that the armourers should make their harnesses in all their pieces "from not less than half-steel stuff'; and they added "then as for the hammer-mas­ ters from Dutzendteich and Laufenholz or other hammers...such metal as they have promised to make, is to be marked with an eagle". The hammer masters were therefore the official, licensed suppliers of the Craft, and it was authorized to buy only from them, "and not from anywhere else". However as well as material supplied by the hammer-masters, the armourers might also make use of a material described as "gewellten zeug", that was also to be at least half steel. + 5

Reitzenstein (1959) 59. Reitzenstein (1959) 60.

NURNBERG

ARMOUR

591

The Regulations stated: Doch so mogen die Plattner auch gewellten Zeug machen, der auch auf das mindeste halb stahlern sein soil. Der Plattner ist also befugt, das Mischungsverhaltnis seines Mate­ rials durch das "Wellen" von Stahl und Eisen, die er folglich auch getrennt beziehen kann, in eigener Werkstatt herzustellen. 6 However, the armourer may also make "welded material" that should be of at least half steel. The armourer is authorized to manufacture in his own workshop, a mixture of his own material by the "Welding" of iron and steel, which he can obtain separately. (I am indebted to Thomas Hardt for this translation) It is not immediately clear what this material was, but the armourer was authorized to manufacture it in his own workshop. It was a mixture of his own material made by the putting together of steel and iron, which suggests forge-welding. (Reitzenstein's rendering of "Wellen" is "Verschweissen") So it will be referred to here as "welded material". If it could be made up in the workshop, and did not need a water-hammer, then it must have already been in sheet form, so it may have been pieces of obsolete or damaged ar­ mour, or perhaps offcuts from other sheets, that were being recycled. Several specimens show microstructures which might have been formed this way. Laking quotes a 16th century account by one Juan Quijada de Reayo that the material of which armour is to be made should consist of 2 parts iron to 1 part steel7. But whether this was intended to refer to welding sheets together must remain entirely conjectural. It could equally well refer to different pieces of bloom being forged together before the plate was made. Masters representing the Craft were supposed to buy from the hammer-masters 10-20 cwt (500 kg—1 tonne) at a time to supply the smaller armourers, so "they should be able to buy the half-steel stuff freely in their necessity". The metal came, in strip- or plate-form, into the workshop of the armourers. The regulations prescribed that either form of the metal could be "welded" but all "plates" should be truly one half part steel and one half part iron. Whether "half steel" should be taken to mean a mixture of iron and steel is debatable; a low-carbon steel rather than an iron/steel mixture may have been intended, and the metallographic examination of Nurnberg armour does indeed show a low-carbon steel was frequently used (see chapter 5.10). The statutes forbade the masters to sell metal marked for the Armourers' Craft to for­ eigners (those outside the city); neither the "half-steel" delivered by the hammer masters, nor the "welded" material that was produced by the armourers themselves from steel and iron. The concern was that the material would become an object of trade, and then per­ haps foreign armourers' work could be given out as Nurnberg. Various princes, from Bamberg (in 1507), and later Saxony and Brunswick, desired to have the prohibition waived, in the interests of their subjects who were armourers but the Council remained adamant that no plate for armour might be sold outside their city8. 6

8

Reitzenstein (1959) 63. Laking (1920) I, xlii, quoting "Doctrina de la Arte de la Cavalleria" (Medina del Campo, 1548). Reitzenstein (1959) 62.

592

SECTION FIVE

T H E INSPECTION

In 1498, rather later than other cities, it was enjoined that all masters should use a Mark, excepting the gauntlet-makers. It was at first stipulated that the harness should be "all steel". However a later edict amended this into "nothing less than half steel". The statutes make clear that each master was originally intended in the first place to stamp every piece of harness unpolished; and secondly to have each piece inspected once more after the polishing. But the single Inspection, after polishing, seems to have become usual. Unfortunately, there is no description of any tests that were applied by the inspec­ tors. The Inspection was intended to guarantee the materials worked, not on the work carried out. So in 1544 the Council allowed the famous armourer, Konrad Lochner, to send an unmarked armour he had made to the Archduke of Austria 9 . The Inspection was by no means water-tight. The armourer Fritz Paursmid (1502) made use of a master mark that the Council said was "too close to the mark of the city" [three chevrons and half an eagle]. This earned him 4 weeks in the gaol. In 1526 it is said that the marks that the armourers used at Fiirth "appeared almost the same as a Niirnberger mark". The Council suggested that now someone should "go to Fiirth to buy a harness and to see whether one might find a fake such as (those that had been offered for sale in Leipzig)". In 1541 the jurors were urged to take every piece of work that was brought for Inspec­ tion and found not to be of the proper stuff, & cut it up. "Only good work—made from the right half steel—should be marked with the eagle ... and that in future each and every full harness made from good welded or from whole steel plate, if found to be fit, should be marked with the eagle, but if unsuitable like other bad work, should be smashed." Only armours made of half steel were obliged to be inspected; those made of iron were not, as long as they did not claim to be better than they were. So while the cheapest (iron) armour did not have to be inspected, it may usually have been, because of course a city mark would make any armour more attractive to customers 10 . These detailed Regulations were intended to control the quality of Niirnberg armour. When the products of Niirnberg armourers are examined by metallography, however, there is considerable deviation from these specifications to be found. Out of these 63 specimens examined by the author for this book: (see Table 1: summaris­ ing the metallurgy of Niirnberg armour); 16 were made of iron, 26 were made of low-carbon steels, and 21 were made of medium-carbon steels. and as far as heat-treatment is concerned, 49 were air-cooled, 5 were partially hardened, and 9 had been fully hardened, the latest before 1580. 9

Reitzenstein (1959) 64. Reitzenstein (1959) 65.

1(1

NURNBERG

ARMOUR

593

After the specifications set out in the Regulations, it may come as a surprise to find that so much Niirnberg armour, and especially the cheap munition armour, is simply iron. Virtually all the munition armours (17 out of 19) are made of iron or low-carbon steels, but even among armours of quality, less than half are made of medium-carbon steels, and hardened steels are much scarcer than is the case with Augsburg or Innsbruck. As the 16th century progresses, the metallurgical quality declines. Before about 1560, 14 out of 36 specimens are made of medium-carbon steels, and 8 are hardened. After 1560, only 7 out of 28 are made of medium-carbon steels, and only 1 is hardened. It is also noteworthy that (unlike the products of Augsburg) the armour which was hard­ ened was almost never gilded; the only exceptions found so far being from the armour garniture of Pfalzgraf Otto Heinrich (BNM.646 and WC A.29) which was probably regilded overall 11 . T H E NURNBERG ARMOURERS AND THEIR PRODUCTS

The first armourer whose name can be associated with his works is Hermann Griinwald. The researches of von Reitzenstein have cast light upon the armourers and their products, and what follows is heavily dependent upon his work 10 . In 1464 he and his son Hans were both instructed by the Council to remove their polishing-mill erected without its knowl­ edge in Furth. However it appears that it was not removed, for in the next year (1465) the Council was to decide that "only work for their own workshop is allowed to be polished at the mill, & none foreign". Hans Griinwald, his son, was already a Master by 1462. He resided in a house on the Plattnermarkt, which was passed on later to his son-in-law Wilhelm von Worms, but he acquired another house in the Oberen Schmiedgasse, which still exists (called " zum geharnischten Mann (at the sign of the armoured man)"). The Council allowed him to pur­ sue his craft with a forge in both houses in 1484, and before his death in 1503 he owned six houses altogether. Anton and Christoph were his sons. The first was loaned 450 florins by his father in 1490 to support him at university and in his travels abroad, until he entered the service of the Elector Johann von Brandenburg. The second son, Christoph, remained working at his father's Craft, but settled in Wiirzburg. The heir of Hans Griinwald's workshop and its reputation was his son-in-law, Wilhelm von Worms, who became Master in 1499 (d. 1538). The father-in-law made over to him in the wedding contract a house worth 200 florins and 100 florins for the acquisition of tools (Werkzeugbeschaffung), an interesting indica­ tion of the scale of the equipment required by the craftsman. One of this family (but there is no proof) might have made the plain, undecorated, ar­ mour, supposedly belonging to Kunz Schott, around the year 1500. This was made of a steel quenched and tempered to a hardness (431 VPH) comparable to the best armours of Augsburg and Landshut. In 1514 Wilhelm von Worms made an armour for the Markgraf Friedrich of Ansbach, Norman (1986) 9.

594

SECTION F I V E

and a payment of 32 florins is recorded for it. The armour made by him for the Pfalzgraf Philip, dating from a few years later, like that attributed to Kunz Schott, was also made from a medium-carbon steel and quenched and tempered to a similar hardness (488 VPH). (see chapter 5.10) He had 3 sons and 2 daughters: Wilhelm, Hans, Sebald, Barbara and Anna. Wilhelm and Sebald were armourers like their father, but, perhaps significantly, Hans became a gunmaker. Both daughters married Niirnberg armourers; Barbara married Endres Kolb, Anna married Valentin Siebenbiirger, who became a Master in 1531; and Wilhelm merged his workshop in that of his son-in-law around this time. It was noted that "he loves his (sonin-law) greatly, (who) lives with him and his daughter in the house; he grants him all his art and knowledge, for which reason he is now famous to many people with his art and work." 12 Curiously, for all this family knowledge passed on, Siebenbiirger does not seem to have hardened his steel armours. The garniture for the battlefield and several kinds of tournament which was made by Hans Ringler for the Pfalzgraf (Count of the Palatinate) Ottoheinrich and dated 1532-36 is now largely in the Wallace Collection, London (A.29). Other elements of this garniture (and related armours) are in the Bavarian National Museum, Munich and Royal Armou­ ries, Leeds (BNM 646, WC A 29 and RA III. 1199). The black surfaces of the steel plates contrast with the decoration of etching and gilding. These components are made of hard­ ened steels, and show banded microstructures which definitely call to mind the "welded metal" of the Regulations, surprising as it might seem for a princely garniture to be using recycled material. KUNZ LOCHNER

Kunz (Conrad) Lochner was born around 1510 as the son of a Niirnberg armourer, Konrad Lochner. By 1543 he was working for the Hapsburgs, first for Ferdinand I (15031564, King of Bohemia 1526, Emperor 1556) and in 1544 he was Hofplattner (Court Armourer) to his elder son, the Archduke Maximilian II (1527-1576, King of Bohemia 1562, Emperor 1564). He remained in the Hapsburg service until around 1550, when their pref­ erences changed. After Charles V had concluded treaties of mutual assistance with the Pope, Bavaria and Maurice of Saxony, he imposed the Imperial ban upon Hesse and the Electorate of Sax­ ony. The already strained relationship between Catholics and Protestants developed into war, and in 1547 came to a decisive battle at Miihlberg in Saxony. Under the overall command of the Emperor, the Duke of Alba and Duke Maurice of Saxony commanded the main force of the imperial army. King Ferdinand I, accompanied by his sons Maximil­ ian and Ferdinand II, as well as Duke Philibert Emanuel of Savoy, led the reserve. The Protestants suffered a heavy defeat, Elector Johann Friedrich of Saxony and Count Philipp of Hesse were taken into captivity. In April 1548 the Habsburgs met as victors at the "armoured" Reichstag of Augsburg. Ferdinand I was nominated to the succession as Emperor. Maximilian II was nominated 12

Reitzenstein (1967) 715.

NURNBERG

ARMOUR

595

as the new Bohemian King. A marriage was arranged between Archduke Maximilian and Maria, the daughter of Charles V. Ferdinand I, Maximilian II and the governor of Bohe­ mia Archduke Ferdinand had great festivities planned for the transfer of the throne. According to Gamber, Maximilian no longer wanted the "rather stiff, Franco-German style of Lochner any more. Probably he had looked around at the Augsburg Reichstag (1548) and found the fashionable, international style of the Augsburg armourers more pleasing." 13 So he ordered tournament armours from Matthaus Frauenpreiss the Elder of Augsburg. The page with this armour and with the date 1549 survives in the etching pattern-book of Jorg Sorg 14 . However, there is another possible explanation for Maximilian's change of patronage. It should be observed that Maximilian was in the habit of testing his armours with gunfire (recorded in 1561- see chapter 5.5), and his decision to abandon Lochner might equally well have been made on metallurgical grounds, as Lochner employed low-carbon steels and seldom hardened them, while the Augsburg masters employed medium-carbon steels and quenched and tempered them, as did the leading armourers of Innsbruck and Landshut. At the same time, Archduke Ferdinand II received in 1549 a new large armour garni­ ture from Jorg Seusenhofer of Innsbruck, the "Eagle garniture" which was also mostly made of hardened steel(see chapter 5.5). Meanwhile the resistance of the German princes to the plans of Charles V for the estab­ lishment of an absolute monarchy had strengthened. Maurice of Saxony changed sides, and attacked Innsbruck with a Protestant army in 1552, forcing the emperor to flee into Carinthia. Under the pressure of the princes Charles V had to restore the deposed duke Johann Friedrich to Saxony, and this setback, with others, led finally to the abdication of the emperor in 1556. Charles V had ceased to order armours after 44 years; his brother Ferdinand I followed him in this respect, while his elder son Maximilian II had turned to the Augsburg armourers, so Kunz Lochner had to look around for other clients after 1550. He appears to have been famous for his horse armours, of which several have survived. Around 1550-1555, he delivered three such to the Ernestine-Saxon court in Thuringia, of which one (and a possible second) survives as fragments in the Veste Coburg. Both were damaged by fire in 1945, but even allowing for that event, it is clear that these horse-ar­ mours were made of low-carbon steels. Lochner was to find a new clientele in Poland. For a long time, close trade relationships had existed between the cities of Nurnberg and Krakow, the capital of the Polish King, Sigismund II August, who was related by marriage to the Habsburgs. The king, who was very fond of display, ordered Lochner to make a knightly armour and a horse armour that were acquired later by the king of Sweden, and which survive today in Stockholm. Both are spectacularly decorated with multicoloured bands of "cold enamel" (presumably a type of paint or lacquer, but it has never been analysed) as well as the usual broad bands of etching and gilding arranged in a densely patterned network (Stockholm, 2603, 2892).*

13 14

Gamber (1984) passim, for this section Becher (1980) 51.

The "cold enamel" decoration on an armour of Duke Ulrich of Brunswick proved to be a wax-based composition. C. Blair. pers.comm. 14.10.01

596

SECTION FIVE

Excited by this armour of his King, Duke Nikolaus IV Radziwill also ordered a garni­ ture from Lochner, parts of which survive in Vienna. The garniture was similarly decorat­ ed on all surfaces with a dense, multicoloured network, but without the gold bands of the king's garniture. Both of these were made of low-carbon steels, as was an armour made for the Archduke Maximilian II in 1546 and decorated with etched and gilded scrolls. It may seem rather surprising given that on at least one occasion, Lochner was able to make a hardened armour (Stibbert cat.no.8) but none of these princely armours were so treated. Indeed the hardening of steel becomes relatively uncommon at Niirnberg after around 1540. The armourers' metallurgical capabilities were not being exploited in princely ar­ mour but were soon to be employed in the closely related trades of gunmaking and clockmaking 15 , perhaps because the focus of Niirnberg trade was increasingly upon munition armour.

MUNITION ARMOURS

In 1495 the Emperor Maximilian I ordered 1000 infantry armours ("Krebse") in Niirn­ berg; they were sent to him in July in 13 barrels together with 900 handguns. In 1508, the Emperor Maximilian ordered another 4000 armours from Niirnberg, employing Augsburg and Innsbruck armourers also. In that year five barrels of armour were dispatched by Jeronimus Imhoff in Augsburg to the Emperor 16 . From this giant order 42 breastplates and 12 backplates for the infantry (from Niirnberg and Augsburg) survive in the Vienna City Arsenal (1986 cat. 1/18) and there is even a breastplate which bears both an Augs­ burg and a Niirnberg mark (1986 cat. 1/16). The same arsenal contains 58 Niirnberg in­ fantry breastplates which survive from another large order later in the 16th century (1986 cat.3/19). The Emperor Charles V was also a purchaser in bulk: in 1532 the Niirnberg Council acknowledged receipt of 900 guilders for cuirasses with gorgets delivered to the Emperor. In 1577, the Estates of Styria ordered large quantities of arms & armour from Niirn­ berg, including 389 infantry armours of which 87 survive in the Arsenal at Graz 17 . From the same period of the wars against the Turks, some 50 infantry armours made for the Khevenhiiller family's retainers survive in their fortress of Hochosterwitz. In 1607 the Council of Solothurn bought 200 infantry armours from Niirnberg, of which a substantial number survive among the 400 suits in the Arsenal. No less than 120 cuirasses (breast- & back15 Wayman (2000), T e n mainsprings from 16 lh century clocks in the British Museum were analysed, with these results:

Innsbruck tempered martensite France tempered martensite Italy tempered martensite Denmark pearlite Denmark martensite 16 17

Reitzenstein (1967) 721. Krenn (1987) 30.

Denmark Augsburg Augsburg England England

pearlite pearlite tempered martensite pearlite pearlite

NURNBERG

ARMOUR

597

plates) and helmets from the middle of the 17th century survive in the Esterhazy castle of Forchtenstein 18 . And there is a large quantity of 16th and 17th century armour in the West Bohemian Museum at Plzen (Pilsen) which is of Niirnberg origin 19 . These munition armours were generally made of iron (eleven) or low-carbon steels (ten) totalling 21 out of 23 marked examples of munition armour discussed in this chapter. Whatever their reasons, the armourers of Niirnberg were not making what their Regu­ lations said they should be making, while a great deal of iron armour with Niirnberg marks was finding its way across Europe, yet simultaneously they were complaining vociferously about cheap foreign imports. Foreign harnesses from Koln (or the Netherlands) are mentioned repeatedly in the Council archives. In 1547, after armourers' complaints, Hans Fiirst and Nicholas von Wiirzburg were forbidden to sell these harnesses until further notice. In 1548 the armourers again complained against Jakob Seser and Hans Fiirst "that they put the local Craft to a disad­ vantage, with their harnesses from Koln", and then in 1549 both defendants were again charged by the armourers; their operations were putting the whole local Craft at a ruinous disadvantage, and the Council forbade them to offer for sale, in the city or its environs foreign (Koln) harnesses and any such should be taken away within a month. Again in 1567, the Council decreed against Jorg Heufelder, "who buys all kinds of evil (netherlandish) harnesses and resells them here, that it is forbidden in future to him or any other citizen, to bring such Kolnish or similar evil & fraudulent (bose betriigliche) work here to sell, at a penalty of 50 guilders". Very substantial orders had been placed by King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth of England from North Germany and the Netherlands (see chapter 8.3). The same suppliers were probably those complained about in the archives of Niirnberg and Augsburg. What the Niirnberg Armourers' response was to this very cheap armour, apart from trying to have it banned, is ambiguous. The trade with foreign harness was evidently not stopped, since there was yet another very significant edict in 1576; that in future neither masters nor journeymen should be allowed to "prepare or improve foreign work" for dealers in their houses or elsewhere. But much of Niirnberg-marked output from the third quarter of the 16th century was indeed simply wrought iron. So the conclusion is inevitable that at least some members of the Craft were buying cheap armour from elsewhere for re-export, with a Niirnberg mark. The Niirnberg Craft worked more for bulk sales of munition armour, for the ordinary soldier, than that of Augsburg, but something similar was happening there. Their armour­ ers complained about the competition from foreigners (particularly from Koln), who flooded the market with inferior, cheap so-called "Augsburg" products. They would certainly not succeed on quality, but there was always a market for cheap products, and therefore Ar­ ticle 10 of the Augsburg Regulations forbade their masters to buy foreign work outside the city, to bring it in and then resell it 20 . Several petitions from the Augsburg Armourers' Craft to the Augsburg Council, ask for 18 Willers (1986) 104. At the time of writing, no catalogue or guidebook to the armour collection in Forchtenstein seems to have been published. 19 Peril (1990). 20 Reitzenstein (1959) 73.

598

SECTION FIVE

armours from Niirnberg to be excluded. But competition from Niirnberg was not stopped. We know that the most renowned Augsburg armourer of the second half of the century, Anton PefTenhauser, kept Nuremberg workmen in employment, at one time to help with a commission for 600 armours in 1571. It is difficult to see why a Craft based on small workshops like that of Niirnberg should have been able to undercut significantly the essen­ tially similar Craft of Augsburg. However, if the armours bearing the marks of Niirnberg were in fact the products of a larger and more cost-effective industry elsewhere in Germa­ ny, then the basis of their competition becomes clearer. Table 1; summarising" the metallurgy of Niirnberg armour. Heat-treatment

Metal Dale museum object

iron

low C% steel

medium C% steel

1500 priv.coll.

M

1500 BNM 4892

M

air cooled

1508 MSW 135796

A

1510 Chic2240

A

1520 M S M 1356

A H T

520

209 H

M

488 KL

A T

M

1530 G N M 1342

m

< 272

A

1530 RAIII.737 1530 RAVI.319

192

M

1520 RAII.2

1525 Amb 238

431

A A

1525 Fitz M l / 1 9 3 6

master

hardened

H

1500 M S M 792

1520 M S M 1181

attempted hardening

VPH

339

KL

A

1532 BNM 646

M

H

< 400 HR

1532 W C A29

M

H

HR

1535RAII.4

M

H

1535RAII.262

M

1535 HJR 376

M

1540 RAIII.1199

M

< 417

264

A

H

VS HR

NURNBERG

599

ARMOUR

1540RAII.33

L

A

205

1540WCA26

L

A

244

1540 SLM 1896

L

A

1540 BNM 644

L

A M

1545 DHM 817a 1546 GNM 1120

213

A

VS VS

A

I

A

1546 HJR 529

L

1550 Stib 2578

L

1550 Sol 47

L

1550 VC 55

L

A

KL

1550 Stib 1027

L

A

KL

1555 Chic 2488

T A

M

1559Livr22152

M

240 KL

1560 BNM1473

L

A

1570 Sol 104

L

A

1570 Sol 31

L

m < 292

A

1570 Sol 83

L

1570 Sol 52/3

L

1570 MSM 1359

m T

269

A

m

M I

1580 Sol 64

M

KL

m

T

I

A

220

m

A

134

m

266

m

A

1580 SLM 4533

L

1580 MSM 631

L

A

1580 MSM 630

L

A

1580 VC 115

L

A

I

244

A A

1580 DHM 753

KL

216

L

1575 Graz

196

A

1560 Plz a

1570 Sol 54

KL

A

L

1560 HJR 1412

206

A

m

A

229

m

m

600

1580 Sol 116

SECTION FIVE

1 M

1580 Sol 114

H

1580 DHM 645

I

A

1590 RSM 254

I

A

427

1590 Plz

M

A

216

1590 Plz

M

A

239

1590 MSM 1366

M

A

244

A

L

1590 DHM 2331

M

1607 GNM 1358

A

1609 GNM 1359

L

A

1620 Sol 153

L

A

1620 Sol 195

I

A

1630 DHM 2564

I

A

1630 Plz

I

A

1630 PLz

I

A

m — munition armour KL — Kunz Lochner H R = Hans Ringler VS = Valentin Siebenbtireer

NURNBERG

601

ARMOUR

Out of these 63 specimens examined by the author: 16 were made of iron, 26 of low-carbon steels, and 21 of medium-carbon steels. 49 were air-cooled, 5 were partially hardened, and 9 had been fully hardened, the latest before 1580. APPENDIX : TOURNAMENT ARMOURS

Tournament armours were made to meet different requirements, and so it should not be too surprising that they are different metallurgically. They are much thicker of course (being intended to be worn for only short periods of time) and are seldom hardened. This should be contrasted with the princely armour garnitures (sets of interchangeable parts for battlefield and tournament use) made in Innsbruck and Landshut, all parts of which were hardened. It is also noteworthy that the two Augsburg jousting helms examined (see chap­ ter 5.3) were also different metallurgically to the other Augsburg armours studied. The tournament armours of Niirnberg orginally came from the Niirnberg Arsenal and were lent out to young gentlemen for the annual "gesellenstechen" (meaning approximately 'cadet jousts'). Willers 21 has suggested that they were made by Hans Griinwald, but were refurbished in the middle of the 16th century by other masters, such as Valentin Siebenburger, who put their own master's mark upon them. The armours for the Rennen may have been made by Wilhelm of Worms the Elder, son-in-law of Hans Griinwald. Table 2; metallurgy of Niirnberg jousting armours

1495 GNM

1308 r

L

A

1495 GNM

1309 r

L

A

1495 WLM

953/14 g

1498 GNM

1307 r

1498 GNM

1310 r

1500 GNM

g

L

A

1500 GNM

1312 g

L

A

1500 GNM

1316 g 1316 pauldron

L

r — for the rennen g = for the gestech

1

Willers (1986) 456.

A M

A

297

A

M

A A

224

276

602

SECTION FIVE

Family tree Hermann Grunwald citizen 1434 d.1474

Hans Griinwald master 1462 d.1503

Hans von Worms (armourer) Elsbeth

Ghristoph

Anthoni (armourer)

Wilhelm Hans the Younger / d.1573 / (Gunmaker) (armourer) and harness-master to Charles V

Sebald / / (armourer)

Wilhelm von Worms (armourer) d.1538

Anna = Valentin Siebenbiirger (armourer)

master 1531 d.1564

COMPARATIVE TABLE South German armour from 1500 iron

Low C% steel

Med ium C% steel

(% of total) airsteel cooled

(% of total)

Total

Niirnberg

16

26

21

33%

49

5

9

14%

63

Augsburg

3

13

35

69%

20

13

18

35%

51

Innsbruck

3

15

44

71%

11

13

38

61%

62

Landshut

0

3

0

75%

1

4

7

58%

12

attempted hardening

hardened

NURNBERG

ARMOUR

603

References: Becher, G. Gamber, O. & Irtenkauf, W. "Das Stuttgarter Harnisch-Muslerbuch 1548-1563" J a h r b u c h der Kunsthistorisches Sammlungen in Wien, 76 (1980) 9-96. "Das Hausbuch der Mendelschen Zwolfbriiderstiftung zu Niirnberg", ed.Treue, et al. Miinchen, 1965. Thomas, B. "Numberger Plattnerkunst in Wien", Anzeiger d. Germ. Nationalmus. 1963, 98 Gamber, O. "Der Plattner Kunz Lochner" Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorisches Sammlungen in Wien (1984), 80, 35-60. Laking, G.F. "A record of European Armour and Arms through seven centuries" (5 vols, 1920-22). Norman, A.V.B. "Wallace Collection Catalogues: European Arms and Armour Supplement" (1986). Pertl, M. "Nejstarsi platnerske pamatky z fondu puvodni mestske historicke zbrojnice v Plzni" Archaeologia Historica, 15 (Plzen, 1990) 425-435. Alexander von Reitzenstein, "Die Ordnung der Nurnberger Plattner" Waffen- und Kostiimkunde, (Miinchen, 1959) New Series, I, 54-85. idem."Die O r d n u n g der Augsburger Plattner" ibid.(Miinchen, 1960) New Series, II, 96-105. idem "Der Niirnberg Plattner" Beitrage zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte Niirnbergs, (Nurnberg, 1967) Band 2, 700725. Thomas, B. "The Viennese and the Stockholm Lochner armours" National Musei Arsbok, Stockholm 1947 / 48, 61-92. Wayman, M.L.(ed.) "The ferrous metallurgy of early clocks and watches" (British Museum Occasional Paper 136), 2000. Willers, J. "Armor of Nuremberg" in "Gothic and Renaissance Art in Nuremberg 1300-1550" (New York, 1986) 101-104 and 455-469. Williams, A.R. "The metallurgy of some armour from Bohemia" in Vychodoslovensky Pravek (Kosice,1999) 27-40. "The mass-production of armour plate and the blast furnace" in History of Technology Annual, 1994 lfa 98138. "Augsburg craftsmen and the metallurgy of Innsbruck armour" Journal of the Arms & Armour Society 14 (1993) 121-146. "The manufacture of armour in Germany; the metallurgical evidence from specimens in German museums" Waffen- und Kostiiumkunde 46 (Munich, 1987) 90.

Guidebooks: Castle Hochosterwitz, G.Khevenhuller-Metsch (Klagenfurt, 1993) Krenn, P. "Harnisch und Helm; Landeszeughaus Graz", (Graz, 1987). Diiriegl, G. "Wehrhafte Stadt; Das Wiener Burgerliche Zeughaus im 15 und 16 jahrhundert" (Wien, 1986) Vital, N. "Das Alte Zeughaus Solothurn" (Solothurn, 1985).

CHAPTER 5.10

T H E METALLURGY OF NORNBERG ARMOUR

cl500 A field armour made in Niirnberg around 1500 and attributed to Kunz Schott von Hcllingcn (formerly in the Gwynn collection).

Tempered martensite and some slag inclusions X 100

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

605

A specimen from within the top plate of the left cuisse was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with numerous slag inclusions. The microhardness varied from 401 to 464; average = 431 VPH. This was made of a medium-carbon steel fully quenched and then tempered. This was transferred towards the end of the 18th century from the Niirnberg arsenal into the property of the count of Erbach. On it, at some stage, the coat of arms of a "robberknight", Kunz Schott, was engraved upon it1. Photograph courtesy of Christopher Dobson

Hayward, J . F . "XVth and XVIth century armour and swords" T h e Connoisseur Year Book 1954, 3444.

606

SECTION FIVE

1490-1500

Ferrile and pearlite (section) X 40

Bavarian National Museum, Munich. inv.no.W.4892. A visored sallet with a Niirnberg mark, made around 1490-1500. The rim of the skull was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions in rows. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.4%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Bavarian National Museum, Munich.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

607

C1500 Munich City Museum, inv.no.Z.792

Ferrite and slag X 40

An infantry breastplate with a Niirnberg mark. A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. Photograph (of Z.2152 in the same series) courtesy of the Munich City Museum.

608

SECTION FIVE

1508 A one-piece infantry breastplate with a Niirnberg mark. Museum of the City of Vienna.inv.no. 135.796.

Section X 50

This was selected as a representative example from the 23 breastplates and 12 backplates which survive in the stores of the Museum of the City of Vienna; the remains of a very large order (4000 items) which Maximilian ordered in 1508 from the armourers of Augs­ burg and Niirnberg 2 . A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies with carbon content from 104 to 204; average = 192 VPH. This is a steel of variable carbon content which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

Diiriegl, 1986, cat. 1/18, 20.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

609

C1510 The backplate from a composite armour, marked with a Nlirnberg mark and a master's mark of 9 dots. Chicago Institute of Art, inv.no.1982.2240/2104.

F e m t e slag and conosion products X 40

A specimen from the turned rim of the backplate on the left side was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. (The associated armet is discussed in chapter 6.1). Photograph courtesy of the Chicago Institute of Art

610

SECTION FIVE

cl520 A breastplate of globose form with a Niirnberg mark. Munich City Museum, inv.no.Z.1356

(breastplate 1356) ferrite and slag inclusions X 30

A specimen from the top of the inside of the plate attached below the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. This is an iron. Photograph courtesy of the Munich City Museum; this breastplate is no.4 in the didactic display. Breastplate Z. 1181 (see below) is no. 15.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

611

1515-1535 A breastplate of fluted form with a Niirnberg mark and another, a monk's head (a Munich arsenal mark ?). Munich City Museum, inv.no.Z.l 181

Martensite (slightly tempered) and ferrite X 200

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite and a little ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 490 to 555; average = 520 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by full-quenching and tempering. For Photograph see above (1356).

612

SECTION FIVE

cl520 The close helmet with a Nurnberg mark from a composite horseman's armour. Royal Armouries, Leeds. II.2.

ft '

k? ^

4 v.*VV

V

j&

1

•vt.

.->* Ferrite and carbides X 90

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and an irresolvable material (which might be fine pearlite) with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 220 to 272; average = 250 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel which has probably undergone some form of accelerated cool­ ing. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y O F NURNBERG

ARMOUR

1515-1535 The backplate from a composite horseman's armour, bearing a Nurnberg mark. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. M l . 1-1936.

Ferrite, pearlite and slag X 80

The microstructure consists of ferrite, very little pearlite and slag inclusions only. Microhardness (average) = 209 VPH. Photograph courtesy of the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.

613

614

SECTION FIVE

cl525 An armour of fluted form made for the Pfalzgraf Philip, probably by Wilhelm von Worms. Waffensammlung Schloss Ambras

A.238

Tempered martensitc (section)

X 30

A specimen from the lower rim of the skull of the close helmet was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of tempered martensitc and an acicular material (which is probably low-carbon martensitc) with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 317 to 542; average = 488 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by quenching and tempering. Photograph courtesy of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

615

C1530 A pauldron, with the mark of Kunz Lochner, which was examined in cross-section. Royal Armouries, Leeds.III.737

Ferrite and pearlite, with a forgewelding line (section) X 20

The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a lowcarbon steel (perhaps 0.3%C overall) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. There is a conspicuous forge-weld down the centre where the plate has been folded (not very com­ petently) in manufacture. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

616

SECTION FIVE

cl530 A tailpiece in the form of a dragon from a lost horse armour, probably by Kunz Lochner of Niirnberg. Royal Armouries, Lceds.VI.319

Fine pearlite and ferrite

X 80

A specimen from within the rear aperture was examined. The microstructure consists of fine pearlite and ferrite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 308 to 360; average = 339 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.7%C) which has been subjected to some form of accelerated cooling after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

617

1520-1540 Germanisches National Museum, Ntirnberg, inv.no.W. 1342.

(backplate) ferrite and cementite

X 50

A fluted infantry armour (not illustrated) with a mark ascribed to Lorenz Paumgartner. A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. This is a wrought iron. Another specimen from within the breastplate was also examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and grain-boundary cementite with some slag inclusions (the carbon content is 0.1% or less). Photograph courtesy of the Germanisches National Museum, Nurnberg

618

SECTION FIVE

1531-1536 Bavarian National Museum, Munich, inv.no.W.646

(Breastplate) note one martensitic and two ferritic bands X 30

Martensite (dark grey) pearlite (light grey) ferrite (white areas) and long slag inclusions X 480.

Central band of martensite (and some areas of pearlite) between ferrite-pearlite bands; note the elongated slag inclusions near to the junc­ tion between the bands X 120.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

619

Parts of an armour garniture made by Hans Ringler of Niirnberg, probably for the Pfalzgraf Otto Heinrich in 1531, and decorated with bands of etching and gilding. A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure shows a band of martensite, together with some pearlite and very elon­ gated slag inclusions. The outer bands are mostly fcrrite. The microhardness varies from 155 VPH (ferritic bands) to 400 VPH (martensitic band). This is a banded steel which has been hardened by quenching and tempering. Photograph courtesy of the Bavarian National Museum, Munich. A closely related armour is in the Wallace Collection. This is a composite of several ar­ mours made for the same prince within a few years. Parts bear the dates 1532 and 1536. Wallace Collection, London.A.29.

Tempered martensite and ferrite X 100

The skull of the visored burgonet was examined in cross-section. The microstructure shows two bands of martensite with a central band of ferrite. There are some slag inclusions along the interface. These may well be the result of some process of folding and forging a billet of heterogeneous metal to make the armour plate. The order of the bands differs completely from BNM 646, although the same materials have been used, and is almost certainly adventitious. This is also a steel which has been hardened by quenching and tempering.

620

SECTION FIVE

Norman (1986, 9) points out that the gilding has been entirely renewed. This might ex­ plain why the martensite appears to have been tempered much more and has a distinctly granular appearance. Photograph courtesy of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y O F NURNBERG

ARMOUR

621

1530-1540 Royal Armouries, Leeds.III. 1199. A gauntlet (from a field armour) with the mark of Hans Ringler.

Section: X 30

Ferrite and tempered martensite X 120.

A lame from the wrist was examined in cross-section. The microstructure shows two bands of mixed ferrite and tempered martensite, with a central band of uniform tempered mar­ tensite. There are also numerous elongated slag inclusions, one of which has opened up into a corrosion crack. This plate has been made from a banded steel; one layer is of perhaps 0.6%C, the other two layers are of perhaps 0.3%C. The forge welding of these layers, whether they were offcuts of plates, or pieces of bloom, has not been very efficient, and much slag has been included. After fabrication it has been hardened by quenching and tempering.

Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

622

SECTION FIVE

1530-1540 A plain armour with a Niirnberg mark. Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.4

Martensite and ferrite X 160

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y O F NURNBERG

Boy's armour. II. 262.

ARMOUR

623

Ferrite, martensite and slag X 160

The left cuisse was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of tempered martensite with ferrite and some slag inclusions. The microhardness varies (with carbon content) from 150 VPH to 417 VPH. The left upper vambrace was also examined in cross-section. The microstructure con­ sists of two bands of pearlite and three bands of ferrite with elongated slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 132 VPH to 178 VPH. The left lower vambrace was also examined in cross-section. The microstructure con­ sists of ferrite and a band of a granular material (which might be tempered low-carbon martensite) with a few slag inclusions. This has evidently been made from a banded steel

624

SECTION FIVE

of variable carbon content. After fabrication, it has been heat-treated (by quenching and tempering) with varying degrees of success. An associated boy's armour of very similar style is 11.262. Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.262. Its left cuisse was also examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and an acicular material, which may be low-carbon martensite, with few slag inclusions. Photographs © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

625

C1535 A burgonet made for Konrad von Bemelberg by Valentin Siebenbiirger Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna A.376.

(Cross-section) bands of fine pearlite and ferrite X 40

A specimen from the lower rim of the right cheekpiece of the helmet (below the falling buffe) was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of fine pearlite and ferrite arranged in bands across the sec­ tion with some slag inclusions. The carbon content varies between around 0.4% and 0.7%C. The microhardness varies according to the carbon content of the band: for each band 272-210-248-311; average = 264 VPH. Photograph courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

Note that there is another (associated) armour of the same owner with this serial number (see chapter 5.8).

I

1!

626

SECTION FIVE

cl540 Royal Armouries, Leeds. 11.33.

Ferrite and partly divorced pearlite (section) X 80

An armour with the marks of Niirnberg and a master's mark, apparently H M (Hans Michel ?)• A pauldron was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite (in very small areas) with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 205 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.3%C) which has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

627

c!540 or possibly later A composite armour of fluted form, bearing a Niirnberg mark and an unidentified master's mark (a Jerusalem cross ?) on the gorget. There is also a mark (a gothic n) inside th e gorget. Wallace Collection, London. A.26

Ferrite and pearlite

X 50

628

SECTION FIVE

The cuirass is very similar to WC A.27 and KZ.1896 (sec below). Norman (1986, 7) quotes a suggestion of Thomas that these armours were made in a deliberately old-fashioned style in Niirnberg for a visit of Emperor Matthias in 1612. A specimen from within the lower vambrace was examined. The microstructure consists • of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 244 VPH. Photograph courtesy of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG A R M O U R

16

629

century.

A horseman's armour, made in Niirnberg in the fluted style of the early 16th century, but possibly dating from much later. Swiss Landesmuseum, Zurich. inv.KZ1896

ferrite and pearlite X 240

The backplate was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with some elongated slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Swiss Landesmuseum.

630

SECTION FIVE

C1540 The crinet from a horse- armour with the mark of Valentin Sicbenbiirger of Niirnberg Bavarian National Museum, Munich. inv.no.W.644.

..USE*

^- "' '--"^■■•.V^rvre ■ v «

V. .1.,, ^

"'

' ^

■ ■,<■> A - * ^ *

.

- .1 . > \ ^ > ? .>,-

-

- - t ^ J -v. '.'><. ^

Ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions X 160

A specimen from the edge of the topmost plate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 213 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Bavarian National Museum, Munich.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

631

C1545 A tournament gauntlet with the mark of Kunz Lochner (1510-1567) of Niirnberg. Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin. inv.no.W.817a

Fine pearlite and a ferrite network (section) X 40

This was examined in cross-section on the side rim. The microstructure consists of very fine pearlite and a little ferrite with few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.7%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. (1992 cat.p.61) Photograph courtesy of the Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin.

632

SECTION FIVE

1546 An infantry armour ("Landsknechtsharnisch") dated 1546. Germanisches National Museum, Ntirnberg, inv.no.W. 1120.

'

'

B

■ - ■ . ! ■ • '

;■ '"- St Ferrite and slag

X 60.

An infantry armour of common form (breast-, back-, and tassets), but (unusually) it bears a date, which is 1546. A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. Photograph courtesy of the Germanisches National Museum, Ntirnberg,

T H E METALLURGY OF NURNBERG

ARMOUR

633

1546 An armour from a garniture of Archduke Maximilian II by Kunz Lochner, decorated with etching and gilding. Hofjagd- und Riistkammcr, Vienna A.529b.

Ferrite and carbides (section) X 40

634

SECTION FIVE

A specimen from the lower rim of the skull of the burgonet was examined in cross-sec­ tion. The microstructure consists of ferritc and a little grain-boundary cementite with a layer of copper (* see SEM analysis in appendix below) in a band near the surface, and a few slag inclusions. The carbon content is only around 0.2%. The cementite has presumably been formed by prolonged heating of previously existing pearlite. This (like the band of copper) may be a result of fire-gilding processes. The microhardness (average) = 206 VPH.

Photograph courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna.

Appendix: The opportunity was taken to examine the specimen from Vienna (A.529) by SEM (Scan­ ning Electron Microanalysis) in the Institute of Sedimentology at Reading University. A band of iron and copper was detected below the gilding. The matrix consisted of iron, with no significant quantities of any other elements. Six inclusions were also examined. Four consisted of iron silicates with traces of Al, K and Mn, as commonly found in bloomery iron; one was iron oxide, and one was of unusual composition. It contained Cu and S, with traces of Zn and Pb. It is presumably a residue from the processes of decorating, perhaps the decomposition of copper sulphate.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

635

C1550 A horseman's cuirass, perhaps by Kunz Lochncr of Nurnberg. Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv.no.2578 (cat.no.8).

X 60

A specimen from within the left tasset was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and granular carbides with some acicular material (which might be a low-carbon martensite) and a few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 185 to 212; average = 196 VPH. Additional specimens from within the breast- and backplates were examined. The mi­ crostructure of the specimen from the breastplate consists of ferrite with a very little pearl­ ite. That from the backplate consists of pearlite and martensite. These specimens were too small to permit accurate microhardness determination. This is a steel of variable, but generally low, carbon content, upon which some attempt has been made at hardening. Photograph courtesy of the Stibbert Museum, Florence.

636

SECTION FIVE

C1550 An infantry (officer's ?) armour with a Niirnberg mark. Solothurn Arsenal inv.no.47

Ferrite and divorced pearlite (section) X 40

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 244 VPH. This is a low-to-medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.3%C) which has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Old Arsenal Museum, Solothurn (Switzer­ land).

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

637

c!555 Horse armours made by Kunz Lochner Kunstsammlungen, Veste Coburg. Inv.no.IF 1 (Cat.no.3).

(peytral) Ferrite and pearlite

X 40

(crupper) Ferrite and pearlite X 40

(shaffron) Ferrite and pearlite X 60

This horse armour bears the marks of Niirnberg and of Lochner and is decorated with borders of chevrons. Specimens from within the crupper, peytral, and shaffron were ex­ amined. (The man's armour does not belong)

638

SECTION FIVE

The microstructure of the crupper consists of ferrite and pearlite in a band with rows of slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 129 VPH. That of the peytral consists of ferrite and rather less pearlite (perhaps 0.2%C) in a glob­ ular form. That of the shaffron consists of ferrite and rather more pearlite (perhaps 0.4%C). These parts are all made of low-carbon steels (between 0.2% and 0.4%C) which have been slowly cooled after fabrication.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

639

Kunstsammlungcn, Veste Coburg. Inv.no.IF 3 (Cat.no.6).

(shaffron)

A shaffron and crupper, decorated with an embossed Phoenix, as well as two helmets, survive from a garniture probably by Lochner. The tail-guard of the crupper is in the form of a dragon, very similar in form to the one in the Royal Armouries, Leeds.VI.319. The cur­ rent catalogue (1996, p.28) suggests a Landshut origin, but Gamber ascribes these compo­ nents for horse and man to Lochner 3 . Specimens from the shaffron (IF 2) and crupper (IF 3) were examined. The microstructure of the shaffron (shown) consists of ferrite and globular carbides (per­ haps 0.2%C) with some slag inclusions. That of the crupper consists of ferrite and a little pearlite (perhaps 0.1 %C). Photographs courtesy of the Kunstsammlungen, Veste Coburg.

Gamber, O . "Der Plattner Kunz Lochner" Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien (1984) 80, 35-60.

640

SECTION FIVE

Kunstsammlungen, Veste Coburg, inv.no.IA 3

-

*\

■*•*,"

r

*

-

*

'

^.

(tilt helmet) Ferrite and pearlite X 90

A tournament helmet (from the same garniture as the horse-armour IF3) with a rigid bevor decorated with etched and blackened patterns, including a chain around the neck, similar in details to those on the crupper. A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of fer­ rite and a little pearlite with a few slag inclusions. This is another low-carbon steel (about 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

641

C1550 A splinted vambrace with etched decoration of sea-monsters, etc. Probably the work of Lochner. Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv.no. 1027 (cat.no. 123).

Ferrite and pearlite X 60

A specimen from within the vambrace was examined. The microstructure consists of fer­ rite and divorced pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Stibbert Museum, Florence.

642

SECTION FIVE

1550-1560 Chicago Institute of Art, inv.1982.2488

Ferrite and pearlite

X 80

A close helmet with a Niirnberg mark on the visor peak. A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.4%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Chicago Institute of Art.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG A R M O U R

643

C1559 Livrustkammaren, Stockholm, inv.no.22152.

Ferrite, slag and a little pearlite X 40

A plate from a vambrace in store, belonging to the armour for man & horse of King Sigismund II Augustus of Poland, with polychrome enamel decoration. Made by Kunz Lochner, and ordered before 1559. The microstructure consists of ferrite and irregular areas of divorced pearlite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 216 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (per­ haps 0.2%C on average) which has been slowly cooled after fabrication.

644

SECTION FIVE

C1560

An armour by Kunz Lochner of Niirnberg for Nikolaus IV Radziwill, Count of Olyka, decorated with polychrome enamel. This was very likely ordered by Radziwill in emula­ tion of his king's armour from Lochner 3 . Hofjagd- und Rusfkammer, Vienna A. 1412.

■i Gamber, O. "Der Plattner Kunz Lochner" Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien (1984) 80, 35-60.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

645

Ferrite and pearlite X 60

A specimen from within the right gauntlet cuff was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 240 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.4%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrica­ tion. Photograph courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

646

SECTION FIVE

1550-1560 West Bohemia Museum, Plzen.

Ferrite and pearlite X 50

A plain close helmet with an obscured, but probably Niirnberg, mark; from store, without inv.no. A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with a few slag inclusions. This was evidently made from a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which was air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the West Bohemia Museum.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

647

1550-1570 An infantry armour, with a Niirnberg mark, and etched decorations relating to Hercules. Bavarian National Museum, Munich.inv.no.W. 1473

Ferrite and slag X 50

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. This is a low-carbon steel (less than 0.1 %C) which has been aircooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Bavarian National Museum, Munich.

648

SECTION FIVE

1550-1580 An infantry (landsknecht's) armour with a Nurnberg mark. Solothurn Arsenal, inv.no. 104

Ferrite and pearlite X 25 (section)

A specimen from the side rim of the backplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a band of pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (per­ haps 0.1 %C overall) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Old Arsenal Museum, Solothurn (Switzer­ land).

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

649

1560-1580 A burgonet with a Niirnberg mark on the peak. Solothurn Arsenal, inv.no.31

Helmet; martensite (lowcarbon) X 200

Backplate section: ferrite and granular carbides X 25

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform martensite and an acicular material, which might be low-carbon martensite, with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 219 to 262 VPH. This was evidently made from a lowcarbon steel which the maker has attempted to harden by quenching. The backplate of the associated infantry armour, which does not bear a Niirnberg mark itself, has a microstructure of ferrite and granular carbides. The microhardness varies from 225 to 292; average = 253 VPH. This was made from a medium-carbon steel which the maker has perhaps attempted to harden by quenching and then overtempered. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Old Arsenal Museum, Solothurn (Switzer­ land).

650

SECTION FIVE

1550-1580 An infantry armour with a Niirnberg mark on the breast. Solothurn Arsenal, inv.no.54

ferrite and slag X 50

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. This is simply a wrought iron. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Old Arsenal Museum, Solothurn (Switzer­ land).

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

651

1550-1580 An infantry armour with a Nurnberg mark on the breast. Solothurn Arsenal, inv.no.83

Martensite (low-carbon) X 160

A specimen from within the backplate was examined. The microstructure consists of mar­ tensite and an acicular material which might be bainite, or low-carbon martensite, with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 260 to 283; average = 269 VPH. This was evidently made from a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which the maker has attempted to harden by quenching. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Old Arsenal Museum, Solothurn (Switzer­ land).

652

SECTION FIVE

1560-1580 A half- armour with a Nurnberg mark on the peak. Solothurn Arsenal, inv.no.52/3

Ferrite and pearlite X 40

A specimen from within the lower right vambrace was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with a few slag inclusions. This was evidently made from a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.3% overall) which was aircooled after fabrication. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Old Arsenal Museum, Solothurn (Switzer­ land).

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

653

1550-1570 One of several infantry armours made in Niirnberg and now in the Munich Arsenal (1982 catalogue, p.151). Munich City Museum, inv.no.Z.1359

Pearlite and ferrite

X 160

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite grains with few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 220 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.4%C overall) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Munich City Museum

654

SECTION FIVE

1550-1575 Graz Arsenal; one of a series of 20 identical munition armours still in the Arsenal, and probably part of a large order of 389 infantry armours from Niirnberg delivered in 1578/ 94.

/.- 4 Ferritc and slag (section) X 60

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions (some elongated) only. The microhardness (average) = 134 VPH. This is merely an iron, notable only for the absence of carbon, or indeed any other ele­ ment. This specimen was, unusually, large enough for Quantovac emission spectroscopy to be undertaken, at Renolds Power Transmission Systems, with these results. 4

Krenn, P. "Harnisch und Helm; Landeszeughaus Graz", (Graz, 1987) 30-31

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y O F NURNBERG

655

ARMOUR

C Mn

0.03% < 0.07%

S Si

0.009% 0.05%

P Al

0.07% 0.01%

Ni V Ti

0.03% < 0.02% < 0.01%

Cr Cu

< 0.05% 0.03%

Mo Sn

0.02% < 0.01%

Photograph courtesy of the Landeszeughaus, Graz.

656

SECTION FIVE

1560-1580 An infantry armour bearing the marks of Nurnberg and a master's mark of a man (appar­ ently) riding a horse. Solothurn Arsenal, inv.no.64

Vambrace: Ferrite and pearlite X 25

A specimen from within the left upper-arm defence was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and isolated areas of pearlite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 266 VPH. This is a steel of variable carbon content which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The associated burgonet has a similar microstructure; fine pearlite and ferrite. The microhardness (average) = 265 VPH. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Old Arsenal Museum, Solothurn (Switzer­ land).

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

657

1550-1580 Swiss Landesmuseum, Zurich. inv.KZ4533

Section: Ferrite and pearlite

X 25

A plain infantry armour, made in Niirnberg in the second half of the 16th century (not illustrated). The backplate was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with slag inclusions extending into an elongated corrosion crack. The metal has apparently separated out into two layers along an earlier forging line. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

658

SECTION FIVE

1570-1580 A morion with the marks of Nurnberg and the master H M (Hans Michel). Munich City Museum. inv.no.Z.631

Ferrite and pearlite X 40

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and irregularly distributed areas of pearlite, together with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 229 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C overall) which has been air-cooled after fabrica­ tion. Photograph courtesy of the Munich City Museum.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

659

1570-1580 A morion with some etched decoration, bearing the marks of Niirnberg and the master H M (Hans Michel). Munich City Museum. inv.no.Z.630

Ferrite and pearlite X 60

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite, with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Munich City Museum.

660

SECTION FIVE

1580-1600 A plain burgonet with a Niirnberg mark and a master's mark of HB within a shield. Kunstsammlungen Veste Coburg (store) inv.no. IA 115-176

Ferrite and pearlite X 60

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Kunstsammlungen Veste Coburg.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

661

C1580 An infantry armour with a Niirnberg mark and a master's mark of H M (Hans Michel). Solothurn Arsenal, inv.no. 116

ferrite and slag X 25

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. This is a wrought iron. Photograph reproduced by permission of the Old Arsenal Museum, Solothurn (Switzer­ land).

662

SECTION FIVE

C1580 Solothurn Arsenal, inv.no. 114 An infantry armour (not illustrated) with a Niirnberg mark.

-i'

Tempered martensite

X 40

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 401 to 450; average = 427 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by quenching and tempering.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

663

1550-1580 An etched and gilded burgonet with a Niirnberg mark and a master's mark of shears (Martin Schneider ?). Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin.W.645.

Ferrite and slag X 50

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of fernite and slag inclusions only. This is a wrought iron. Photograph courtesy of the Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin

664

SECTION FIVE

C1590 A morion decorated with etching and gilding, and bearing the master's mark H M (Hans Michel, 1539-1599). One of a number intended for the Elector of Saxony's bodyguard. Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, inv.no. 1966.254

Ferrite and slag X 25

The earflap was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. This is a wrought iron. Photograph by permission of the Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

665

1580-1600 A burgonet with a Niirnberg mark and a master's mark M * I (probably that of Martin Schneider); from store, without inv.no. West Bohemia Museum, Plzen.

Ferrite and pearlite X 40

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite with few slag inclusions. This was evidently made from a medium-carbon steel (around 0.5%C overall) which was air-cooled after fabrication. Microhardness (average) = 239 VPH. Photograph courtesy of the West Bohemia Museum

666

SECTION FIVE

1580-1600 A plain comb morion with a Niirnberg mark and a master's mark which may be R R or HR; from store, without inv.no. West Bohemia Museum, Plzen.

Ferrite and pearlite X 50

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and partly divorced pearlite with a few slag inclusions. This was evidently made from a medium-carbon steel (around 0.4%C) which was slowly cooled after fabrication. Microhardness (average) = 216 VPH. Photograph courtesy of the West Bohemia Museum

667

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG A R M O U R

cl590 A heavy infantry cuirass with an anime breastplate, bearing a Nurnberg mark. Munich City Museum.inv.no.Z.1366

Ferrite and carbides

Ferrite and carbides

X 50

X 200

A specimen from within the top plate of the breastplate was examined. The microstruc­ ture consists of ferrite and granular carbides with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 244 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which may have undergone an accelerated cooling after fabrication. A specimen from within the backplate was also examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. Photograph courtesy of the Munich City Museum

668

SECTION F I V E

C1590 A "black & white" morion, made in two parts, taken from an infantry armour with a Niirnberg mark and an unknown master's mark on the breast. Similar infantry armours (landsknechtharnisch) were produced in large quantities with few decorative features to distinguish them, for most of the second half of the 16th century. Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin.W.2331

Ferrite and pearlite X 60

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of fer­ rite and a little pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

669

1607 Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg, W. 1358.

Ferrite and pearlite X 40

Infantry armour (not illustrated) with a master's mark of 3 rings. A specimen from within the backplate was examined. The microstructure consists of fer­ rite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

670

SECTION F I V E

1609 Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg, W. 1359.

Ferrite and pearlite X 40

An infantry armour with masters' marks, AK and FD, decorated with etched panels rep­ resenting the Four Kingdoms (Rome, Assyria, Persia, Macedonia). A specimen from with­ in the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite, a little pearlite and grain-boundary cementite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C) which has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

671

1600-1630 A plain infantry armour with a Niirnberg mark. Solothurn Arsenal, inv.no. 153.

ferrite and a little pearlite X 50

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.1 %G) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Solothurn Arsenal

672

SECTION FIVE

1600-1630 A plain infantry armour with a Nurnberg mark. Solothurn Arsenal, inv.no. 195/15.

ferrite and slag X 50

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and regularly spaced slag inclusions only. This is a wrought iron. Photograph courtesy of the Solothurn Arsenal

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

673

C1630 A cuirassier's armour bearing a Niirnberg mark, and a bullet " p r o o f mark on the breast. Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin.

1989/2564/3

17 V ^ l L

Fernte and slag

K

X 50

674

SECTION FIVE

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. This is a wrought iron. Note the sharp outline of the " p r o o f mark. Photograph courtesy of the Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin.

THE METALLURGY OF NURNBERG ARMOUR

675

1600-1630 A plain lobster-tailed cavalry helmet with a Niirnberg mark and an obscured master mark, but probably that of Martin Schneider; from store, without inv.no. (One of a large number of similar examples in the Plzen Arsenal). West Bohemia Museum, Plzen.

Ferrite and slag (section)

X 20

A specimen from within the helmet peak was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and regularly spaced slag inclusions only. This is a wrought iron. Photograph courtesy of the West Bohemia Museum

676

SECTION FIVE

1620-1640 A plain cuirassier's armour without a mark, but probably from Niirnberg, mark; from store, without inv.no. (One of a large number of similar examples in the Plzen Arsenal). Compare Berlin 1989/2564/3. West Bohemia Museum, Plzen.

Ferrite and slag X 20

A specimen from within the knee cop was examined. ferrite and slag inclusions only. This is a wrought iron. Photograph courtesy of the West Bohemia Museum

(detail) bullet mark left on breastplate - note the rim of the dent

The microstructure consists of

C H A P T E R 5.11

T H E METALLURGY OF NURNBERG TOURNAMENT ARMOURS OF THE LATE 15TH CENTURY

Tournament armour presents very different (and in some ways simpler) problems of manufacture to battlefield armour. Since it was only going to be worn for a very short period of time, increased weight was acceptable, and so it could be made very much thicker, to offer greater protection. The majority of purpose-made tournament armour is simply made of iron or low-carbon steel. Garnitures, however, do not come into the same category, and display a more sophisticated metallurgy. Since they were based on interchangeable com­ ponents for battlefield and tournament use, they generally have all their components made of similar (and better) metal (see chapter 5.6). There is a group of 11 "gestechzeug" (armours for the joust) and "rennzeug" (armours for the course with sharp lances) dating from the late 15th century, but repaired (and re­ marked by mid-16th century masters) some 50 years later, displayed in the Germanisches National Museum, Nurnberg. Seven of these were examined, and the results described below, and another from Krakow. But only one representative example from each class is illus­ trated here. Jousting armour (stechzeug) GNM.1315

ferrite and pearlite (specimen from pauldron of G N M . 1312) X 40

678

SECTION FIVE

Ferrite and slag (specimen from GNM.1308) X 40

Armour for the course with sharp lances (rennzeug) G N M 1308

1490-1500 Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg, inv.no.W. 1308. A rennhut with the city mark of Niirnberg, and a master's mark, attributed to Wilhelm von Worms (master 1498, d.1538). A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite with some grain-boundary cementite and some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

1490-1500 Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg, inv.no.W. 1309. A rennhut with the city mark of Niirnberg, and a master's mark, attributed to Wilhelm von Worms. A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite with pearlite and some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

NURNBERG TOURNAMENT ARMOURS OF THE LATE 15TH CENTURY

679

1498 Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg, inv.no.W. 1307. A rennhut with the city mark of Niirnberg, and an etched inscription dated 1498. A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of fine pearlite and a little ferrite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 297 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.7%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

1498 Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg, inv.no.W. 1310. A rennhut with the city mark of Niirnberg, and an etched inscription dated 1498. A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only.

cl500 Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg, no inv.no.: A jousting armour with the mark of Valentin Siebenbiirger (born 1510, master 1531, died 1564). A specimen from within the helm was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 224 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. A specimen from within the main plate of the left pauldron was also examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and carbide globules with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

cl500 Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg, inv.no.W. 1312. A jousting armour with the mark of Valentin Siebenbiirger. A specimen from within the helm was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. A specimen from within the top plate of the right pauldron was also examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-car­ bon steel (around 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication.

680

SECTION FIVE

C1500 Germanisches National Museum, Niirnberg, inv.no.W.1316. A jousting armour with the mark of Valentin Siebenbiirger. A specimen from within the helm was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlitc with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. A specimen from within the left pauldron was also examined. The microstructure con­ sists of pearlite and ferrite with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (per­ haps 0.6%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. The microhardness (average) = 276 VPH.

cl500 Wawel Museum, Krakow, inv.no.4769. A gestechzeug with a mark attributed to Konrad Poler. A specimen from the rear of the plate attached below the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only.

SECTION SIX

THE REST OF EUROPE

SECTION 6

OTHER EUROPEAN ARMOUR

Knightly armour of high quality (and corresponding price) was successfully made in Northern Italy, and exported in large quantities to the rest of Europe, because the metallurgical problems posed in making steel plates and in hardening them were solved. Augsburg and other cities in South Germany were part of a different metallurgical tra­ dition, and solved these problems in a somewhat different way, so they also became cen­ tres of high quality armour-making. Other cities in Germany, not to mention France and Spain, were part of neither the North Italian nor the South German traditions, and there­ fore never developed industries making armour of quality. It is therefore convenient to discuss armour from the rest of Europe outside North Italy and South Germany together in this section. Much armour may have been made for local use, all over Europe. Since it was seldom marked, it is difficult to identify. Some can be identified by indirect means, and most (with the notable exception of Greenwich) is undis­ tinguished metallurgically, so it is difficult to particularise. It is only further archival work by historians that may cast any light at all on its manufacture. What Spain and France both have in common, despite centuries of martial traditions, is the lack of identifiable products of their armour making industry. England differs from them in that a royal workshop was set up by King Henry VIII, which used imported crafts­ men to make armour of a hardness comparable to the best from South Germany, and left behind identifiable products.

C H A P T E R 6.1

MISCELLANEOUS "GERMAN" ARMOUR

Armour with no mark, or an unidentifiable mark, which is thought to be of South German style is discussed here. North German armour seems to have been the product of a differ­ ent metallurgical tradition. Some armour with city marks, but reworked during the Thirty Years' War, is included. Most of these examples (17 out of 27) are made simply of iron or low-carbon steel, and indeed their origins could be anywhere. A few are interesting. The shaffron (A.350) from the Wallace Collection, the breastplate from the City of Vienna Museum, and the fragments of "puffed and slashed" armour from the Fitzwilliam Muse­ um could all have come from South German workshops of the highest quality since they hardened and tempered their armours. The two examples of the work of Hofmann of Frauenfeld (Switzerland) which probably falls within the cultural ambit of South Germa­ ny, show similar metallurgy.

Summary of metallurgy Metal

Heat-treatment

low G% medium C% steel steel

attempted hardened air cooled hardening

1450 M M A 29 15012

L

A

1480 RA IV435

L

A

1480 RA III 1092

L

A

iron

museum

1480 RA III 1283

M

A A

1480 RA III1287

L

1480 RA IV499

L

T

1480 RA VI379

L

T

1480 Stib 3537

Hardness (VPH)

175

A

I

1480 Stib 3612

M

A

1480 Stib 3902

M

A

1485 MSW126710

M

H

<465

master

685

T H E REST O F E U R O P E

1490 Stib3881

L

1495 MSW135581

L

H

M

1510 WC A350 1510 MSM 653

L

1510 Chic2240

L

1520 D H M 631

T

master P

388

Landshut ?

591

Innsbruck ?

H A A

I

1525 Fitz puffed 4

M

1550 BNM 4752

M

1560 MRA 184

M

1570 KZ 4683

M

H

1584 Lei 143

M

H

1630 Wawel 989

<301

H A

252 279

I

A

I

A

Frauenfeld <370

Frauenfeld

232

master R*

(This group recycled 1620-40) 1620 M S M 1002 1620 MSM 980

L

A

1620 MSM 953

I

A

1620 MSM 958

I

A

Out of these 27 specimens: 6 were made of iron, 11 of low-carbon steels, and 10 of medium-carbon steels; 17 were air-cooled, 4 were partially hardened, and 6 had been fully hardened.

SECTION SIX METALLURGY OF MISCELLANEOUS GERMAN ARMOUR

1450-60 A sallet, possibly German. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv.no.29.150.12

\ 'H'-

Ferrite and slag X 50 A specimen was taken from within this helmet. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little grain-boundary cementite with some slag inclusions. This is a very low-carbon steel (less than 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. (Pyhrr, 2000). Photograph by courtesy of Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

THE REST OF EUROPE

687

1470-80 Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv.no.3902

(backplate 3902) ferrite and pearlite X 60

A composite armour, made up of various late 15 th century parts, includes this (possibly Innsbruck) backplate, as well as (probably Landshut) arm-defences which are numbered 3570 (see chapter 5.8). This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.4%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrica­ tion. Photograph courtesy of the Stibbert Museum, Florence.

688

SECTION SIX

cl480 Parts of a horse armour, without a mark, but tentatively ascribed to Landshut, because of some resemblance to the horse armour in the Wallace Collection, London (A.21). Includes a shaffron 3537 and a peytral 3612. (Catalogue no.244) Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv.no.3612/3537

(shaffron 3537) ferrite, Peytral 3612 cementite and slag X 50

(peytral 3612) pearlite X 90

The peytral bears a decorative embossed face. A specimen from within the main plate was examined. The microstructure consists of pearlite and little ferrite with few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.6%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrica­ tion.

THE REST OF EUROPE

689

A specimen from within the crupper was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag only. A specimen from within the shaffron was also examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite with a small amount of grain-boundary cementite and slag only. This is a low-car­ bon (less than 0.1 %C) steel, or rather, iron, which has been slowly cooled after fabrica­ tion. Photographs courtesy of Stibbert Museum, Florence.

690

SECTION SIX

1480 Backplate, originally from the deposit at Rhodes. Probably South German, cl480. Royal Armouries, Leeds. III. 1092

Ferrite and pearlite X 40

This was examined (in cross-section) on the right side edge of the main plate. The microstructure consists of ferrite with some pearlite, mostly along one side. This is a low-carbon (perhaps 0.2%C) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

THE REST OF EUROPE

691

C 1480

Breastplate for a horseman, made in two parts. E-oyal Armouries, Leeds. III. 1283

(section)

X 20

very fine pearlite and ferrite

X 160

This was examined (in cross-section) on the right side edge of the upper plate. The microstructure consists mostly of very fine pearlite with some ferrite along one side. This is a medium-carbon (perhaps 0.5%C) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

692

SECTION SIX

cl480 Backplate. Royal Armouries, Leeds. III. 1287

Section: ferrite and pearlite X 40

This was examined (in cross-section) on the edge of the lowest plate. The microstructure consists partly of a band of ferrite with a band of pearlite and a row of slag inclusions. This is a steel of variable carbon content (perhaps 0.3%C overall) steel which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

T H E REST OF E U R O P E

1480 Royal Armouries, Leeds. VI.379

Section: carbides and ferrite X 40

A horse-armour probably made for Waldemar of Anhalt-Zerbst. A specimen from the crinet was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of a mass of carbide globules in a ferrite matrix. Average microhardness = 175 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel which may have been quenched and then overtempered. The sallet II. 3 also shown here, being worn by the horseman, was discussed in Chapter 5.6.

1

694

SECTION SIX

1480-90 Royal Armouries, Leeds. IV.499 A visored sallct, with an unidentified maker's mark.

Ferrite and martensilc X 100 (note the large corrosion crack down the middle of the plate).

This was examined (in cross-section) on the front lower edge of the skull. The microstructure consists of ferrite with a band of martensitic areas along one side. This is a steel of variable carbon content which has been quenched to harden it after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

THE REST OF EUROPE

695

1480-90 The visor from a sallet, originally from the deposit at Rhodes. Probably South German, 1480-90. (Karcheski & Richardson, p.26) Royal Armouries, Leeds.IV.435

Section: corrosion has split the plate into two layers X 40 (note the forging lines marked by rows of carbides and slag)

Ferrite and pearlite X 160

The side of the visor rim was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite in varying proportions with a band of higher carbon content along one sur­ face (overall perhaps 0.3%C). Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

696

SECTION SIX

1480-85 Museum of the City of Vienna. 126.710. Breastplate for a horseman.

Section

X 50

Martensite and ferrite

X 200

A specimen was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of two bands of martensite alternating with two bands of ferrite and with some elongated slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 214 VPH (lower-carbon bands) to 465 VPH (higher-car­ bon bands). This is a banded steel which has been hardened by quenching and tempering. Photograph courtesy of the Museum of the City of Vienna.

697

T H E REST O F E U R O P E

cl490 A horseman's cuirass, the upper breast of which is decorated with four flutes, and bears an indistinct mark (MR ?). Stibbert Museum, Florence, inv.no.3881.

Ferrite and pearlite

X 50

A specimen from within the backplate was examined. The microstructure of the backplate consists of ferrite and coarse pearlite with some slag inclusions. The carbon content is around 0.3%C. Photograph courtesy of the Stibbert Museum, Florence

698

SECTION SIX

cl495 A one-piece infantry breastplate, with a maker's mark, P. Museum of the City of Vienna, inv.no. 135.581.

Ferrite and martensite

X 160

A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and martensite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 144 to 301; average = 256 VPH. It has been made from a steel of variable carbon content, which has been quenched to harden it after fabrication. In the 1977 catalogue (no. 51), it is described as South German and dating from cl495, but not part of the large group in the Arsenal store that survives from the 500 ordered by Emperor Maximilian in 1508. However, in a later catalogue, it is so described (1986,no.l/ 18). Photograph courtesy of the Museum of the City of Vienna

THE REST OF EUROPE

C1510 A shaffron made in South Germany, possibly in Landshut. Wallace Collection, London. A.350.

699

700

SECTION SIX

Tempered martensite and corrosion products X 50

A specimen from within the shaffron was examined. The microstructure consists of tem­ pered martensite with very few slag inclusions. Ferrite and pearlite are absent. The microhardness varies from 374 to 426; average = 388 VPH. This is a medium carbon steel, which has been hardened by fully quenching and temper­ ing.

Photograph courtesy of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection

701

T H E REST O F E U R O P E

cl510 A breastplate of globose form, with painted decoration showing the Virgin and Child on the front. Made probably in South Germany, but without marks. Munich City Museum.inv.no.653.

Ferrite and martensite

X 160

A specimen was examined from the right gusset plate. The microstructure consists of fer­ rite and tempered martensite. It was not practicable to take microhardness readings. This is a low-carbon steel which has been fully quenched and tempered. Photograph courtesy of the Munich City Museum.

702

SECTION SIX

C1510 A close helmet with a bellows visor, from a composite armour. Photograph of composite armour - see chapter 5.10 Chicago Institute of Art, inv.no. 1982.2104.

Ferrite and pearlite X 50

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and rather divorced pearlite with some slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been slowly cooled after fabrication.

T H E REST O F E U R O P E

703

cl520 A close helmet, made in South Germany, which has been ascribed to Kolman Helmschmied (Muller, "Europaische Helme", p.260). Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin. W.631

Ferrite and slag X 50

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only, which makes it extremely unlikely that this is a work of Helm­ schmied. Thomas, in discussing Turin B2 (see chapter 5.4) said that the associated helmet was sold from the Berlin Zeughaus to Hearst in 1933. It is conceivable that this is a copy. Photograph courtesy of the Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin.

704

SECTION SIX

cl525 Fitzwilham Museum, Cambridge; four components from armours with "puffed and slashed" decoration.

M1/7B

M1/6B

"■**?.' X ; . "

Ml/6

M.1/6 X 80

>

__'

:*>'

M1/7A

M.1/6B X 80

M.1/6 (section) X 40

T H E REST O F E U R O P E

705

The top plate of a pauldron (inv.no.M1/7A.1936) The lowest plate of a pauldron (inv.no.M1/6B.1936) A large (left) cowter (inv.no.M. 1/6.1936) A small cowter (inv.no.M.l/7B.1936) Specimens from within all four components were examined and all four were found to consist of hardened medium-carbon steels. Photographs courtesy of the Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. (M.1/7B.1936) The microstructure consists of uniform very fine pearlite. The microhardness ranges from 252 to 326: average = 268 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel which has undergone some form of accelerated cooling to harden it. (M.1/6B.1936) The microstructure consists of fine pearlite and a very little ferrite. The microhardness ranges from 254 to 327: average = 300 VPH. This is a medium-carbon (perhaps 0.6%C) steel which has undergone some form of accelerated cooling to harden it. (M.l/6.1936) The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite. The microhardness ranges from 473 to 630: average = 591 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been fully quenched and then tempered somewhat. (M.1/7A.1936) The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite. The microhardness ranges from 443 to 539: average = 511 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been fully quenched and then tempered somewhat. The Roggendorf armour in Vienna should be compared for its extraordinary shape, and for its metallurgy, but the high hardness values recorded for two of these parts might sug­ gest a possible Innsbruck origin.

706

SECTION SIX

cl550 A horseman's armour decorated with etching and gilding; belonging to a member of the Pienzenau family. Currently listed as Niirnberg but unmarked (Seelig, 1987). Bavarian National Museum, Munich. inv.no.W.4752

T H E REST OF E U R O P E

(Close helmet) ferrite and pearlite X 120

707

(greave) ferrite and pearlite X 60

A specimen from within the close helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and divorced pearlite, arranged in bands, with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 252 VPH. Another specimen from within the right greave was also examined. The microstructure was essentially similar but the pearlite was not divorced. The microhardness (average) = 237 VPH. These are medium-carbon steels (around 0.4%C) which have been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Bavarian National Museum, Munich.

708

SECTION SIX

1550-60 A cabasset, decorated with embossing, etching and gilding, but without a mark. Musee Royale d'Armee (Royal Army Museum), Brussels. Inv.no. 184.

X 240

The microstructure consists of areas of martensite and fine pearlite, outlined by a network of spiny ferrite. The microhardness ranges from 245 to 302: average = 279 VPH. This is a medium-car­ bon steel which has been quenched in some way to harden it.

T H E REST O F E U R O P E

709

1550-75 The gorget from a black & white armour with the mark of Lorenz Hofmann of Frauenfeld. Schweizerisches Landes Museum, Zurich.inv.no.KZ.4683.

«K««^

710

SECTION SIX

Section X 20

Martensite X 320

The gorget was examined upon an opened edge in cross-section. The microstructure con­ sists of martensite and bainite with no visible ferrite and few slag inclusions. This is a steel which has been hardened by quenching and tempering.

T H E REST O F E U R O P E

711

1584 Netherlands Army Museum, Leiden (now Delft) inv.no.K. 143. An infantry armour (not illustrated, but quoted for comparison) with the mark of Lorenz Hofmann of Frauenfeld, Switzerland. A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of martensite with pearlite and ferrite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 205 to 370 VPH. This, like the other Hofmann armour (see above) was made of a medium-carbon steel hardened by quenching (perhaps not quite fully) and tempering, just as the best armours from other South German centres. An aspect of recycling.

Ferrite ("basket-weave" Pearlite and cementite needles pattern) and pearlite as in an isolated area X 160 in most of the breastplate X 80

Four "Gothic" breastplates, which are now in the Munich City Museum, and which had all been reshaped & blackened for use in the early years of the 30 Years' War (not illus­ trated) were examined. Two had Augsburg marks (inv.nos Z.1002 and Z.980) and two had Niirnberg marks (inv.nos Z.953 and Z.958). The latter also had a master's mark R*. All four had microstructures consisting of ferrite and slag inclusions only. They were sim­ ply wrought irons. The only feature of metallurgical interest was that in Z.980, there was an isolated area of pearlite mixed with cementite needles. This would have been formed by the slow cooling (from above 800 - 900 degC) of a very high carbon (1.0%C or more) steel. This is never found in plate armour of this period, so one can only speculate that when the armour was reshaped it was heated for some time in an environment that con­ tained isolated pieces of charcoal.

712

SECTION SIX

POLISH HUSSAR'S ARMOURS

cl630 A hussar's armour, possibly made in Poland. Wawel Armoury inv.no.989

ferrite and slag

The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag only.

X 50

T H E REST O F E U R O P E

713

Eleven other such 17th century "hussar's" armours in the Armoury had the surface hard­ ness values of their breastplates measured (with a Krautkramer-Branson Sonodur electronic hardness tester) with results suggesting that their metallurgy is likely to be similar. inv.no.989; average surface hardness = 186 VPH. And also the other eleven on display: inv.no.8314/7; average surface hardness = 235 VPH. inv.no.488/1; average surface hardness = 209 VPH. inv.no. 1304/1; average surface hardness = 157 VPH. inv.no. 1404; average surface hardness = 164 VPH. inv.no.2191; average surface hardness — 205 VPH. inv.no.helmet 9 6 3 / 1 ; average surface hardness = 224 VPH. inv.no.helmet 1368/1; average surface hardness = 195 VPH. inv.no.helmet 5995;hardness range = 186-310 VPH, average hardness = 1 9 0 VPH. inv.no.helmet 1507/3;hardness range = 162-218 VPH, average hardness = 165 VPH. inv.no.4709/2; hardness range = 109-310 VPH, average hardness = 187 VPH. inv.no.3050; hardness range = 98-280 VPH, average hardness = 141 VPH. References Karcheski & Richardson, op.cit. p.26. Muller, H. Kunter, F. "Europaische Helme"(Berlin, 1984) see plate 4 1 . Pyhrr, S. "European helmets, 1450-1650; treasures from the Reserve Collection" (New York, 2000)p. 11 Schneider, H. Catalogue "Schutzwaffen aus sieben Jahrhunderten" (Bern, 1953) plate 21. Seelig, 1987, (Bavarian National Museum) gallery checklist. There are two recent catalogues of the extensive holdings in the City of Vienna Museum, which incorporates the former City Arsenal. "Wehrhafte Stadt", 1986, Diiriegl, G. and "Das Wiener Biirgerliche Zeughaus", 1977, Diiriegl,G. Waissenberger,R. G a m b e r , 0 . et al.

C H A P T E R 6.2

FLANDERS

During the 15th century the rulers of the Netherlands were the dukes of Burgundy. Philip the Good (1396-1467) was succeeded by Charles the Bold, or the Rash (1433-1477). His attempts to conquer the Swiss Confederation led to defeats at the battles of Grandson, Morat (1476) and fatally, Nancy (1477). Armour captured from the Burgundians was divided up among the troops of the cantons, and as with other booty from these battles, some (of Ital­ ian origin) survives in Swiss museums to this day 1 . Charles' heir was Maria of Burgundy (1457-1482) who married Maximilian, Archduke of Austria (1459-1519). Their son, Philip the Fair (1478-1506) married Joanna of Aragon (child of Ferdinand, King of Aragon, and Isabella, Queen of Castile) and consequently their eldest son, Charles (1500-1558) became King Charles V of Spain as well as Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, and in time, Holy Roman Emperor. Maximilian, as Duke of Burgundy, had established a Burgundian court armoury at Arbois in the Jura in 1495 (he became Emperor in 1508) which was set up with imported Italian craftsmen. The Milanese brothers Francesco and Gabriele da Merate were engaged as armourers 2 . The marks ARBOIS and a king's crown, have been attributed to this work­ shop. The metallurgy of armour made by the Italians from the Burgundian workshop at Arbois is discussed with other Italian armour in Chapter 4.3. The workshop at Arbois does not seem to have been operated for very long, Maximil­ ian evidently preferring to concentrate on his Innsbruck Court Workshop (see chapter 5.5). Although we know that four Flemish journeymen (Hans Mayrstetter, Peter of Brussels, Claus of Au and Martin Verurban) were recruited for this workshop, the leadership came from Augsburg; Hans Prunner (1482), Jorg and Klaus Wagner, and in particular, Konrad Seusenhofer. The latter had worked for Maximilian since 1500, and was engaged in 1504 for six years to work solely for him as Court Armourer ("Hofplattner"). A contributing factor in deciding Maximilian's preferences may well have been the hard-

1 2

Deuchler, (1963) 52 Thomas & Gamber, (1976) 195

FLANDERS

715

er armour that Innsbruck could regularly produce. The Flemish masters made their ar­ mours out of steel but very few of their steel products were ever hardened. An armourer who employed the mark of a crowned orb made a helmet (A.20) in the Wallace Collection, London. Mann (1962, 8) observed that this mark is found on, inter alia, the armour of Philip the Fair (A. 11) in Madrid, which is known to have come from Brussels. He suggested that, as a mark of similar form is found on late 15th century Italian armours, it may have been the mark of an Italian master who migrated to the Netherlands. Norman tentatively suggested that this was the mark of Martin Rondell (or Rondelle), born in Milan, who became a citizen of Bruges in 1464, and worked there for Maximilian, and later for Philip 3 . A boy's armour was made for Philip the Fair around 1490 by a master using a crowned letter h. He has been recently identified by Blair with the Brussels armourer Jehan ("Hans") Watt, who was the chief supplier of armour to Maximilian and Philip between 1495 and 1508 4 . The same master also made a jousting armour probably for Philip around 1500, the metallurgy of which is very different. One possible explanation might be that master "h" did not feel able to combine the fire-gilding employed to decorate the boy's armour with the heat-treatment employed to harden the jousting armour. King Henry VIII of England also recruited Flemings for his new Court Armoury. Two years after his accession, in 1511 Peter Fevers and Jacob de Watte (from Brussels) were retained by Henry at £ 10 a year each. From Lombardy he also recruited Filippo Grampi and Giovanni Angelo Litta at the same time. Eventually, both of these groups were to be supplanted in the King's favour by the "Almains", a group of craftsmen apparently largely recruited from Germany, although their first Master Armourer, Martin van Royne, may have been a Fleming, and established at Greenwich around 1515. Their products are dis­ cussed in chapter 6.4. It has long been debated whether Italians or Flemings made the "silvered and engraved" tournament armour of Henry VIII (II.5). The matching horse armour (VI. 1) bears a mak­ er's mark of M and a crescent. This has been plausibly identified as the mark of the Flem­ ish armourer Martin van Royne. Another contemporary horse armour of Henry VIII (VI.6) has the same maker's mark. Both of these horse armours and the silvered man's armour are all made of similar medium-carbon steels. Despite the fact that it could reasonably be classified as "English", the silvered & engraved armour (II.5) is discussed in this chapter, as apparently being part of the Flemish metallur­ gical tradition. A number of armours have been described as Flemish, on stylistic grounds, but the ab­ sence of makers' marks makes their positive identification difficult. In some cases, it seems to be the absence of well-defined Italian or German features that leads to this diagnosis. The heavily embossed armour made for King Erik XIV of Sweden was the product of an Antwerp goldsmith, and made of iron. By contrast the embossed armours made by Mi­ lanese and Mantuan armourers a generation earlier had been made of steel. Armour made in the United Provinces of the Netherlands is discussed in chapter 6.7.

3 4

Norman (1986) 1 Blair (1998) 294.

716

SECTION SIX

Table - summarising the metallurgy of Flemish armour Date

Museum/ inv.no.

Heat-treatment

Metal iron

low C% steel

medium C% steel

air cooled

Hardness (VPH)

attempted hardened hardening

master

1480

WC A.20

L

A

1490

HJR A. 109a

L

A

1500

HJR B.141 back elbow

L L

1510

RA IV. 1601

L

1514

RA II.5

M

A

236

1515

RA VI.6

M

A

217

master M

M

A

246

master M

1515 RA VI. 1 1520 RAVI.68

master h master h

A M

L I

261 308

A

L

HAM245

master h

A

1520 RAIV.579

1562 Livr2605

H

I

1520 RAIV.580

1550

T

190

A A A

out of 13 specimens, not all positively identified as Flemish; 2 were made of iron, 7 were made of low-carbon steels, and 4 were made of medium-carbon steels. For their heat-treatment, 11 were air-cooled, 1 was partially hardened, and 1 was fully hardened.

References Blair, C. "The Lullingstone helm" Antiquaries'Journal, 78 (1998) 289-305. Thomas, B. & Gamber, O. "Katalog der Leibrustkammer, I "(Vienna, 1976). Deuchler, "Die Burgunderbeute" (1963) Bern. Norman, A.V.B. "Supplement to the Wallace Collection catalogues; European arms & armour " (vol.3, 1986)

CHAPTER 6.3

T H E METALLURGY OF FLEMISH ARMOUR

1490-1500 master of the crowned orb Wallace Collection, London. A.20 The sallet from a composite armour of the late 15th century.

Bands of ferrite and pearlite (section) X 30

The sallet was examined in section on its lower rim. The microstructure consists of several distinct bands of ferrite alternating with bands of pearlite and with elongated slag inclu­ sions. This plate has evidently been made from a billet formed from a very heterogeneous pile of pieces. It has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph by courtesy of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection

718

SECTION SIX

cl490 master of the crowned " h " A boy's armour made for Philip the Fair (1478-1506) around 1490. It was decorated with etching and gilding, including a simulated collar of the Golden Fleece. Hofjagd- und Rustkammcr, Vienna A. 109a

Ferrite and slag (section)

X 30

A sample from the backplate was examined in section. The microstructure consists of fer­ rite and a small amount of globular carbides with some elongated slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 1 9 0 VPH. I'his is a low-carbon steel (around 0.1 %C or less) which has been slowly cooled, or even reheated after fabrication; not surprising, if it has been fire-gilded. Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna.

M E T A L L U R G Y O F FLEMISH A R M O U R

719

master of the crowned " h " ;1500 Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna S.II / B.141 A jousting armour made in the Netherlands for Philip the Fair, or perhaps his father Maximilian, around 1500. Marked on the helm and the left elbow, with a crowned "h".

Backplate; ferrite and granular carbides X 25

720

SECTION SIX

Elbow; martensite and ferrite X 160

Elbow; Acicular carbides (probably bainite), irresolvable material (dark areas around ferrite grains) and ferrite X 640.

A specimen from the elbow was examined. The microstructure consists of areas of bainite and martensite, outlined by ferrite with no visible pearlite and few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 279 to 357; average = 308 VPH. A specimen from the backplate was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and granular carbides with some slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 222 to 302; average = 261 VPH. This is one of five, now somewhat composite, jousting armours from the Netherlands, presumably from the Hapsburg armoury chamber in Brussels. (Thomas & Gamber, 1976, p. 149) Photograph by courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna.

METALLURGY OF FLEMISH ARMOUR

721

C1510 A Flemish armet, originally from Witham Church in Essex. Royal Armouries, Leeds IV. 1601.

Ferrite and pearlite X 40

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%C at most) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

722

SECTION SIX

c.1514 Royal Armouries, Leeds II.5. Flemish (or Italian) armourers working in England. An armour made for King Henry VIII, and decorated with engraving, silvering, and gild­ ing. See also the discussion of the horse armour VI. 1.

Ferrite and spheroidised pearlite X 400

The brow-reinforce of the armet was examined in cross-section upon the rim. The microstructure consists of pearlite (somewhat spheroidised in places) and ferrite in varying pro­ portions with few slag inclusions. There are two "ghost" lines down the length of the sec­ tion which may be due to a dissolved impurity, trapped in forging. This is otherwise a medium-carbon steel (around 0.5%C) which has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Average hardness = 236 VPH. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

METALLURGY OF FLEMISH ARMOUR

723

master of the M and crescent cl515 A horse armour, decorated with Burgundian emblems. Royal Armouries, Leeds.VI.6

pearlite and ferrite

X 60

A specimen from within the crupper was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 217 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C) which has been air cooled after fabrica­ tion. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

SECTION SIX

724

master of the M and crescent cl515 A horse armour, which is decorated with etching and silvering, apparently to match the silvered and engraved armour II.5. Royal Armouries, Leeds.VI. 1

a -P. rtt**X

METALLURGY OF FLEMISH ARMOUR

725

Carbides and ferrite X 160

A specimen from within the crupper was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and globular carbides with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 246 VPH. This is a medium-carbon (perhaps 0.6%C) steel which has been slowly cooled after fabri­ cation, or indeed perhaps reheated for silvering. Illustrated with the man's armour, II.5. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

726

SECTION SIX

cl520 A shaffron of munition quality which may have been imported from Flanders. Royal Armouries, Leeds.VI.68

c vv>v\ "x;-.'^vi^ ■■ :■ ' .

%

-X

.

-^v

Ferrite and slag X 40 (section)

The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

' "

METALLURGY OF FLEMISH ARMOUR

727

C1520 The brow reinforce from an armet, perhaps made in Flanders. Royal Armouries, Leeds. IV.580

Section: Ferrite and pearlite (note corrosion cavities) X 25

This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and coarse pearlite with numerous large corrosion cavities. The carbon content is around 0.3%. This has been slowly cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

728

SECTION SIX

cl520 An armet visor perhaps made in Flanders. Royal Armouries, Leeds.IV.579

Pearlite and ferrite (section) X 40

This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of pearlite and granular carbides with ferrite arranged in bands and several very elongated slag inclusions. The carbon content varies from band to band between around 0.3% and 0.6%. This is a steel, air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

METALLURGY OF FLEMISH ARMOUR

729

C1550 Higgins Armory Museum, Worcester.no.245 A helmet, perhaps made in Flanders, from the Wilton House Armoury.

Ferrite and pearlite (section) X 40

A specimen from the rim of the skull was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite (around 0.3%C overall) with a few slag inclusions. This is a steel, air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph by courtesy of the Higgins Armory Museum, Worcester, Mass.

730

SECTION SIX

1562 Livrustkammaren, Stockholm.inv.no.2605.

Ferrite and slag

X 40

An armour decorated with the labours of Hercules in extensive embossing by Elisius Libaerts of Antwerp for Erik XIV Vasa, King of Sweden, and possibly made in Flanders. (not illustrated) A specimen from the lowest rim of the gorget plates was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. This is merely wronght iron.

C H A P T E R 6.4

ENGLAND

Much armour may have been made in England (an Armourers' Guild had existed in London since the early 14th century) but no identifiable marks are known before the 17 th century. Some armour of 14th century English provenance, which might have meant an English manufacture, has been examined, but the results are not especially distinguished. Table 1: summarising the metallurgy of "English" armour Museum/inv.no.

(all mid- or late- 14th century) Heat -treatment

Metal Iron

low C% steel

med C% steel

aircooled

attempted hardening

Hardness (VPH) Hardened

R S M 489

L

T

430 (hard outer layer)

RA IV600

L

T

< 290

RA AL 30-1

M L

RA AL 30-2 RA VI.446 RA III.773

M

A

195

A

108

A

238

A

I

and possibly from the 15th century, WC A. 184

M

A

out of this somewhat random selection of 7 specimens: 1 was made of iron, 3 of low-carbon steel, 3 of medium carbon steel; some sort of heat-treatment had been attempted with 2 helms of low carbon content.

The Pembridge helm appears to have been case-carburised and quenched, to give a hard, but very thin outer layer. Although employed for tools in the Middle Ages 1 such a method ior hardening steel ("case-hardening") is very seldom met with in armour. A reason may be that while small pieces could be treated this way, it was less easy to case-harden large, thin, sheets reliably. In addition, it may not have been quite essential as the production of 1

Theophilus (1963) 93-95.

732

SECTION SIX

steel sheets in centres like 14th century Lombardy was fairly well established, if not entire­ ly understood. When a duel was planned in 1398 between the Duke of Hereford and the Duke of Nor­ folk, the former sent to Milan for his armour, and the latter to Germany. Local products were evidently thought to be inadequate for noblemen. The outcome of the duel is related in Shakespeare's "King Richard 11". By the start of the 15th century, the armourers of Milan were making their export armour out of medium-carbon steels, and frequently hardening it (see chapter 4.2) so the Duke of Hereford's preference is not to be wondered at. A choice of German armour seems slightly more surprising, as much of the German armour exam­ ined seems to be iron or low-carbon steel (see chapter 5.1). Of course, it is possible that some who reached a higher standard (such as the maker of the Kussnach coat-of-plates) were already exporting, or that he considered that other factors, such as fashion or fit, were equally as important. The 15th century was a period of incessant wars, in France and at home, for the mil­ itary class, and there must have been a considerable demand for armour. To some extent this demand was met by imports (such as the Milanese suit shown in the effigy of Sir Richard Beauchamp, in St.Mary's Church, Warwick) There was certainly no English armoury pro­ ducing armour of such quality. In 1509 King Henry VIII came to the throne, and lost no time in setting up a Royal Workshop. In 1511 the Flemings Peter Fevers and Jacob de Watte were retained by Hen­ ry at £ 10 a year each. From Lombardy he also recruited Filippo Grampi and Giovanni Angelo Litta in that same year. They were to work for two years and (with three assistants) to be paid £ 80 a year. They were all established at Greenwich, then moved to Southwark in 1515, and later back to Greenwich again 2 . They made some of Henry VIII's surviving armours, although it is not now certain which ones. A tonlet suit (Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.7) was assembled in 1520 for the Field of Cloth of Gold, presumably by the Ital­ ians, as it includes a helmet with Missaglia marks 3 . The metallurgy of this helmet was decidedly mediocre; a low-carbon steel, apparently softened by a bungled attempt at firegilding. It has long been debated whether the Lombards or the Flemings were responsible for making the elaborate tournament armour (Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.5) for King Henry, but it is known that a Flemish artist, Paul van Vrelant, decorated it with engraving, as well as layers of silver and gilding 4 . This armour has been classified as Italian in style, but the armet bears a mark (a helmet) whose owner has not yet been identified. Blair has argued that this armour was made by the above-mentioned Milanese armourers, and indeed a similar mark is to be found on an Italian armet of c 1500 in the Marzoli Museum, Brescia, but then, on the other hand, Peter Fevers used a similar mark to sign a receipt, so that question must remain undecided 5 . The matching horse armour (Royal Armouries, Leeds.VI. 1-5) was also decorated by Paul van Vrelant, but bears a maker's mark of M and a crescent. It has been plausibly suggest2

Mann (1951) passim, and also see Robinson (1977). Watts (1992) 4 Blair (1965) passim, also see Rossi & Carpegna (1969); the helmet in question is no.92 in their catalogue of the Marzoli Collection. 5 Eaves (1993) 12. 3

733

ENGLAND

ed that this was the master's mark of Martin van Roync, derived from the coat of arms of the van Royne family of Flanders 5 . Another contemporary horse armour (Royal Armou­ ries, Leeds.VI.6-12) known as the "Burgundian bard" on acount of the heraldic badges with which it is embossed, bears the same maker's mark. The metallurgy of the silvered & engraved armour, and that of both Flemish horse ar­ mours is similar to one another, and is discussed elsewhere (chapter 6.3). All three are made of unhardened medium-carbon steels, which does not in itself prove a Flemish origin for II.5, as the earliest products of the Almain armoury at Greenwich are also unhardened medium-carbon steels, but does place it within the same metallurgical tradition. Although Peter Fevers died in 1518, Jacob de Watte remained in King Henry's service until after 1533; Paul van Vrelant worked in the Royal service until his death in 1551, and Martin van Royne (whether or not he was indeed the master of the M and crescent) be­ came Master of the Almain workshop in 1515. Notwithstanding their contributions, as far as King Henry's armour is concerned, no further products of Flemish craftsmen can be identified as such. Table 2: summarising the metallurgy of Henry VIII's early armours Museum/inv.no.

Metal Iron

low C% steel

Heat-treatment med C% steel

aircooled

attempted hardening

Hardness (VPH) Hardened

Italians (see chapter 4.4) c 1511 RA II.7

L

A

Flemings (see chapter 6.2) cl514 RA II.5 cl515 RA VI.l cl515 RA VI.6

M M M

A A A

cl520 RA II.6

M

A

1527

M M

A A

cl530 RA II.8T

M

A

cl535

M

A

236 246 217

Almains (see chapter 6.5)

M M A 19.131.1 M M A 19.131.2

Southacre Church

291 249

256

A diplomatic present of armour from the Emperor Maximilian in 1514 evidently seized Henry's attention. The only surviving part of this armour seems to be the helmet (IV.22) Pyhrr (1982)

734

SECTION SIX

fitted with rams' horns. The skull of this helmet is made of hardened steel (exactly as one would expect from a product of Seusenhofer) although the other parts are not. The whole armour must have been conspicuous by its much greater hardness than any other armour that Henry possessed. Perhaps intending to set up an armoury which would rival the Imperial one of Inns­ bruck, Henry seems to have lost interest in his Italians and Flemings, although de Watte and van Vrelant remained in his service. In 1515 Henry set up a new workshop, with a larger group of craftsmen, the "Almains", mostly recruited from Germany, although their first Master Armourer, Martin van Royne, may well have been the Flemish maker of the horse armours, and this armoury was established first at Southwark and then at Green­ wich around 1520. Ironically, the Almain armourers did not excel Innsbruck, if that had been Henry's in­ tention, but continued to make their armours out of medium-carbon steel, and not hard­ ened by quenching. The steel was bought through the Steelyard of the Hanseatic merchants, from various sources in Germany. Enough accounts of the Greenwich workshop have survived to allow a fairly detailed picture of its activities to be reconstructed. The staff (in 1558) consisted normally of 22; the Master Workman at 40s a month his Clerk, and a Yeoman 9 hammermen at 32s a month 3 millmen at 30s a month 3 locksmiths at 24s a month 2 labourers at 16s 8d a month an apprentice, and a gilder at 3s 4d a month. (Food, lodging and livery were all supplied.) King Henry VIII did not pay for his own armours, and it is difficult to put a realistic price on them but the total cost of running the workshop, including materials and over­ heads must have been well over -£ 500 a year. At some time in the 1530s Erasmus Kirkener (probably a German) became Master Work­ man, although Martin remained on the payroll, perhaps as a pensioner, until 1540. Before about 1530, Greenwich armour does not seem to have been hardened at all, al­ though the very fine pearlite shown in the microstructures of the samples from the Genouilhac armour does suggest a very rapid air-cooling. It is quite possible that attempts were being made to harden but they were unsuccessful, and therefore have left no traces. During the 1540s a period began when the microstructures of the armours show that the Greenwich workshop was evidently experimenting with different methods to produce harder armour. The garniture of 1540 (II.8) and some components of another armour of perhaps 1544 (II.9 and VI.96), show that they were not successfully hardened. However a later alteration to the gorget of II.8 was hardened, and attempts had been made to harden some (3 out of 7 tested) components from Henry's last suit now in Windsor Castle. So these efforts were starting to achieve success when Henry died in 1547, and was succeeded by his young son, Edward, during whose short reign they continued.

ENGLAND

Table 3: summarising the metallurgy (see chapter 6.5) of Henry's later armours and those of Edward VI Metal

Museum/inv.no. Iron

med C% steel

aircooled

RA II.8

M

A

1540-5 RA II.9

M

A

1540

low C% steel

Heat-treatment

gorget plate

M

T

M

cl544 RA VI.69 cl545 Windsor 834 grandguard pasguard LP RP CH LV LG

Hardened

A

1540-5 RA VI.96 cl545 RA II.8

attempted hardening

Hardness (VPH)

M M M M

A A A

M

A

T T T

L L

295

266 293 249 277

Reign of Edward VI T

cl550 V & A M 5 0 4 cl550 RA 11.178

M

T

cl550 RA III.2255

M

T

cl555 RA IV.604

M

318

There are two separate problems to be overcome in hardening armour. One is the warping or cracking which a full quench risked by very rapid cooling; the other is the softening effect of fire-gilding upon a hardened steel. It may well be that the anticipated problems of quenching steels without cracking or warping them caused the armourer to delay too long in plunging the red-hot plates into the cooling bath. (The austenite in the steel would have been transformed to pearlite be­ fore martensite could form.) It is possible that a delayed quench had always been employed to lessen the likelihood of warping the steel plates on quenching, but in the 1520s the delay had been so long that only pearlitic microstructures were formed. With a shorter delay, other microconstituents might form, although tempered martensite without pearlite does not appear until the 1560s7. Williams & de Reuck (1995) passim.

736

SECTION SIX

For whatever reason, the armourers started to change their procedures in the 1540s; perhaps shortening the delay before cooling. Quite small changes in the time interval between removing the steel from the furnace and quenching it could have a considerable effect on the hardness of the steel (see chapter 8.2). A delay of less than 5 seconds, which is not a long time when manipulating a red-hot piece of armour into a quenching trough, could make the difference between a successful quench and an unsuccessful one; with a piece of modern steel (with alloying elements) of comparable dimensions, such an interval might be 15 seconds. This might explain the rather puzzling fact that different components of Windsor Cas­ tle 72.834, an armour of Henry's from 1540-45, show very different microstructures. The grandguard, pasguard, left greave, and left pauldron are made of a (medium-carbon) steel which has not been quenched to harden it, at least not successfully. The right pauldron displays irresolvable carbides (and an increase in hardness) which suggest that an attempt at quenching has been made. The left vambrace and the skull of the close helmet display martensite which is definitely the result of a quenching (if not necessarily a full quench). O n the basis of the above hypothesis, the quenching of the left pauldron was delayed so long that it was in effect air-cooled. The quenchings of the right pauldron, the left vam­ brace and the close helmet were delayed somewhat less, so that they were partly hardened. In 1544 the King decided to lead an army personally against the French at Boulogne and an armour, embossed with bands of scales, and of which a crinet (VI.69) survives, was probably made for that occasion. It is hardened by quenching, as well as being decorated with etching and gilding. The altered gorget plate of II.8 from around 1545 is also hard­ ened and gilded. The quenching practised was still not full-quenching, as a mixture of martensite and other microconstituents was obtained. Similar mixtures are to be found in the microstructures of other Greenwich armours of the 1550s (11.178, III.2255, and 11.137). Evidently the threat of firearms was considered sufficient to encourage the Greenwich armourers to persevere in their attempts and further changes in the techniques of heattreatment were to take place. The problems of warping may have been overcome by bracing with struts 8 . Successful combination with fire-gilding depends upon the accurate control of time and temperature when tempering martensite 9 ; close co-operation with the gilders was necessary. In the cit­ ies of South Germany, where armourers and gilders co-operated, they were frequently re­ lated by marriage. Successful full-quenching of components of Greenwich armour was not finally established until the 1560s, by which time John Kelte (an Englishman) had become Master, when they were fully quenched before being gilded. The incompletely finished bevor (III.865) had been quenched and tempered, but not gilded. This suggests that the tempering process must have been interrupted to apply the gold amalgam. A little further tempering would then boil off the mercury, fix the gold, finish tempering the martensite, and blue the polished surface of the steel, all in one operation. These changes in heat-treatment procedures were evidently the result of a long process of experimentation, and perhaps even involved the purchase of trade secrets. There is ev8 9

de Reuck, 1998 Williams, 1998

737

ENGLAND

idence of recipes in other areas of military technology being bought from foreigners at this time. In 1561 Philip Cockeram and John Barnes were given a Royal License for ten years to make saltpetre by a new method (the artificial nitre-bed) that they were to purchase from the German Gerard Honrick for £ 300 (see chapter 7.3). Her father had not hesitated to import German technology to start his armoury, and it is quite plausible, although we have no direct evidence, that Elizabeth continued this tradition in order to improve it. When after some twenty years of variable products, the most suitable combination of quenching and tempering was settled upon by the Almains, whatever it was, their work­ shop went on to produce armour which was very consistent in its hardness as well as elab­ orate in its gilded decoration for the next fifty years. John Kelte died in 1576, and Jacob Haider (see chaapter 5.8) became Master Workman for thirty years. There seems to have been no change in the metallurgy of Greenwich armour. The raw material was still im­ ported steel as Sir Henry Lee's letter makes clear 10 . A pattern-book of this period has survived showing designs for the decoration of 29 Green­ wich armours and allowing many to be identified 11 . After 1560-70 the workshop produced hundreds of armours of high quality for those courtiers who obtained a Royal warrant and paid the price (j£ 200 in 1608), made out of medium-carbon steel, and hardened by fully quenching and tempering to give a hardness of 300 - 360 VPH, as well as being decorated with elaborate patterns of etching and gilding. The armours of Cumberland and Buckhurst give some idea of the splendour of the originals with their surface blue colours only very slightly changed by corrosion. These high standards were maintained until the next reign. William Pickering (from the Armourers' Company of London) became Master in 1608, but after the death of Prince Henry in 1612, there seem to have been few patrons willing to pay the prices asked for Greenwich armours. William Pickering's last great work was a garniture made as a present from Prince Henry to Prince Friedrich Ulrich of Brunswick in 1612 for the then amazing cost of -£ 340. Table 4: summarising the metallurgy of armour produced during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I Museu m/inv.no.

Metal Iron

low C% steelI

Heat-treatment med C% steel

cl560 RA 11.137 cl560 RA 11.82

M M

cl565 HAC

M M M M M

GH B V LC LP

aircooled

attempted hardening

Hardness (VPH) Hardened

T H A A A H T

<301

c l 5 7 0 RA 11.83

M

H

cl575 RA 11.81

M

H

10 11

Dillon, 1888 Dillon, 1905

292

738

SECTION SIX

c.1580 RA IV.157

M

c l 5 8 5 M M A 32.130.5b RP c.1585 RAIV.43

M M M

Livr 2896 Livr 5729

shaffron burgonet

M M

Windsor808 bev breast

1585

RG LG CH LT RT SH

H 283 301

M

H

< 313

M M

H H H H H

440 291 210 < 201 < 211 < 185

T

L L L M M M M

c l 5 8 5 M M A 11.128.2 LC Buff

M

c l 5 9 0 RA 11.40 c l 5 9 0 W C A.62 LV breast c l 5 9 0 M M A 11.128.1 c l 5 9 0 RA III.859 c l 5 9 0 M M A 32.120.6 c l 5 9 0 CIA 2241 RP breast c l 5 9 0 RA IV. 166

M M M M M M M

1608

M

T H H H

T H H H H H H H H H H

M

Windsor 678

c l 6 1 0 RA 11.86 breast back LV LP CH gorget manif RA III.873 RA IV.565 RA III.867 c l 6 1 0 RA IV.774 c l 6 1 0 RA III.776 c l 6 1 0 RA III.869 cl612 R A III.865

L

T H H H H H H H H A

M

< 281 325 351 370 < 302 202 338

< 325 348 322 329

160 T T T

L M M I

321 < 269

A

M M M M M M M M M

L

360 276

H

c l 5 8 5 RA 11.84 Rg LT Buff

cl625 R A III.1843a cl625 CIA 2177

H

H A A

95

ENGLAND

739

Out of 54 specimens here 2 were made of iron 8 were made of a low-carbon steel 44 were made of a medium-carbon steel 8 were air-cooled, 11 were partly hardened by an attempt at quenching 35 were hardened by fully quenching and tempering

APPENDIX — LEE'S TRIAL OF ARMOUR

In 1590, a Mr Stanley from Shropshire appears to have proposed to set up a forge for massproducing armour plate. On 12th October 1590 Sir Henry Lee (Master of the Armoury) wrote to Lord Burghley that this gentleman of Shropshire had proposed that a compari­ son be made of armour of English metal and Greenwich armours of 'metell of Hungere' (Styrian steel from Austria). Lee reported that he had been supplied with a new English breastplate of great lightness and strength as he was made to believe, and entrusted by the Secretary of State: "to cause another of the very same weight to be made in her Majesty's office of Greenwehyche which I presently performed, then he intreted me to make a trial of them both with all indyfference which I dyde in the presence of a chefe servant of his, and other gentlemen. I chose a good and stronge pystolle, I took a very good powder and weighed it, so I dyde the bulletes and with equall charge I tryed fyrste the one and then the other; that made in the Offyce and of the mettell of Hungere helde out and more than a litell dent of the pellet nothinge perced, the other clene shotte thereowe and much tore the overpart of a beme [beam] the breast studde [stood] upon as longe as my fingeers. Thus much for this Yenglyshe metell." 10 The English metal offered as plate for making armour was evidently simply iron, and therefore not hardenable by heat-treatment. References Boccia, L.G. "L'arte dell' armatura in Italia" (Milan, 1967). Blair, C. "The Emperor Maximilian's gift of armour to King Henry VIII" Archaeologia 99, 1965, 1-52. de Reuck, A. "Greenwich revisited" Journal of the Arms & Armour Society, 15 (1998) 435. Dillon, H. A, "A Letter of Sir Henry Lee", Archaeologia, 1888, 5 1 , 167-172. Dillon, ed. "An Almain armourer's Album", London, 1905. Eaves, I, "The tournament armours of King Henry VIII" Livrustkammaren (1993), 3-45. ffoulkes, C. "The Armourers' Company of London and the Greenwich School of Armourers." Archaeologia, 76 (1926) 41-58. Mann, J.G. "Catalogue of an Exhibition of armour made at Greenwich"(1951) Pyhrr, S.W. Nickel, H. & Tarassuk, L. "The art of chivalry" (New York, 1982) Rangstrom, L. (ed) "Tournaments and the Dream of Chivalry", (Livrustkammaren, Stockholm, 1992) includes; Drejholt, N. "Sir Henry Lee's Greenwich armour" 137-9 and 375-6. Robinson, H.R. "Armours of Henry VIII" (1977) Rossi, F. & Carpegna, N. "Armi antiche dal Museo civico L.Marzoli" (Brescia, 1969). Theophilus " O n divers arts" transl. Smith, C.S. & Hawthorne, J.G. (1963) Watts, K. "The field of Cloth of Gold" 92-95 and 346-8. Williams, A.R. "Experiments with medieval steel plates" Historical Metallurgy 32 (1998) 82-86 Williams, A.R. & de Reuck, A. "The Royal Armoury at Greenwich" (1995).

CHAPTER 6.5

T H E M E T A L L U R G Y O F ARMOUR (PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN) MADE IN E N G L A N D

(perhaps mid-14th c.)

Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, no. 1905-489. A great helm from the tomb of Sir Richard Pembridge (d. 1375).

METALLURGY OF A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

Ferrite and martensite

X 40

741

Ferrite and martensite X 160; note the absence of pearlite.

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of a thin outer layer of martensite and an inner core of ferrite with numerous slag inclusions arranged in rows. The microhardness (outer layer) = 430 VPH. (core) = 1 1 0 VPH. The hardened outer layer is about 0.3mm deep. If this helmet was case-carburised after fabrication (which is by no means certain) then the process would have taken around 1 to 2 hours at 900°C. Certainly, it has been deliberately quenched after fabrication. Photograph by permission of the trustees of the National Museums of Scotland

742

SECTION SIX

(perhaps second half of 14th c.) Royal Armouries, Leeds. IV.600.

Great helm.

Ferrite and martensite

X 160

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and areas of an acicular material (bainite, or perhaps low-carbon martensite) arranged in bands with some irregular slag inclusions. The microhardness (bainitic areas) = 290 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel which has been hardened after fabrication by a quenching. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

METALLURGY OF A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

743

Royal Armouries, Leeds, A.L.30-1. Great Helm said to have come from the tomb of Sir Nicholas Hawberk (d. 1407). (perhaps late 14th c.) On loan from Cobham Parish Church.

This was examined on the lower rim in cross-section. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite, arranged in bands, in varying proportions, with a few small slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 195 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (varying, but around 0.5%C overall) which has been aircooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

744

SECTION SIX

Royal Armouries, Leeds, A.L. 30-2. Great Helm said to have come from the tomb of Sir Richard Braybrook (d. 1405). (perhaps late 14th c.) Loan from Cobham Parish Church.

Ferrite and pearlite

X 40

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with some elongated slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 1 0 8 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (about 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

METALLURGY OF ARMOUR MADE IN ENGLAND

745

1350-1400 A shaffron made, perhaps in England, in the late 14th century. Formerly preserved at Warwick Castle. 1 Royal Armouries, Leeds.VI.446.

Ferrite and carbides X 160

A specimen from within the shaffron was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and divorced pearlite with the carbides globules arranged around the ferrite grains, and a few slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 238 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been slowly cooled after fabrication, or perhaps reheated (for a repair ?). Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

Eaves & Richardson (1987).

746

SECTION SIX

late 14th century Royal Armouries, Leeds.III.773.

Ferrite and pearlite X 50

Remains of a gauntlet of "hourglass" form, found in Brick Hill Lane (not illustrated). A specimen from within the gauntlet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and some globular carbides with a few slag inclusions. The carbon content is less than 0.1 %.

METALLURGY OF ARMOUR MADE IN ENGLAND

747

early 15th century Jousting helm of "frog-mouthed" form. Wallace Collection, London. A. 184

Banded pearlitc and ferrite (section) X 25

This was examined on its lower rim in cross-section. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite arranged in bands with a few elongated slag inclusions. This is a mediumcarbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C overall) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection

748

SECTION SIX

T H E METALLURGY OF ENGLISH ARMOUR AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ALMAIN WORKSHOP AT GREENWICH

cl520 Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.6.

An armour that completely encloses the body, made for the young King Henry VIII to use in foot-combat probably with King Francis I of France at the Field of Cloth of Gold in 1520. A late change in the rules led to the hurried substitution of another armour (II.5), and the abandonment of this one, which was left unfinished and 'rough from the hammer' 2 . The surface was polished in relatively modern times.

Eaves (1993)

METALLURGY OF ARMOUR MADE IN ENGLAND

749

The section of a lame from the left sabaton (foot defence) shows pearlite and ferrite in varying proportions with a few elongated slag inclusions. The metal is a medium-carbon steel (the carbon content varies between 0.2 and 0.8 percent) air-cooled after fabrication. Surface hardness overall (measured with a Branson Sonodur electronic hardness tester) around 200 VPH. Photograph © The Board of trustees of the Armouries

750

SECTION SIX

1527 By tradition made for the French Maitre d 'Artillerie, Galiot de Genouilhac, but quite possibly made for Henry VIII himself. It is etched and gilded all over and is inscribed with the date of 1527. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 19.131.1. Purchase, William H. Riggs and Rogers Fund, 1919.

Pearlite and ferrite X 40

M E T A L L U R G Y O F A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

Pearlite and ferrite X 160

751

(shaffron)

The specimen from the locking gauntlet shows a mixture of fine pearlite and ferrite. The microhardness ranges from 279 to 305; average = 291 VPH. Photograph courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Purchase, William H. Riggs and Rogers Fund, 1919.

Another sample from the gilded shaffron (MMNY 19.131.2) accompanying this armour was examined. The microstructure also consists of fine pearlite and ferrite with few slag inclu­ sions. The microhardness ranges from 236 to 269; average = 249 VPH.

752

SECTION SIX

cl530 Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.8T.

(section) pearlite and ferrite X 20

From a sabaton (not illustrated), probably the remains of an armour made for Henry VIII. The cross-section shows a mixture of pearlite and ferrite corresponding to a mediumcarbon steel (about 0.6 per cent) that has been allowed to cool in air after fabrication. There are also a few elongated slag inclusions.

M E T A L L U R G Y O F A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

C1535

Pearlite and ferrite X 120

A close helmet (not illustrated) made about 1535 and formerly in Southacre Church, Norfolk, but now on loan to the Royal Armouries, Leeds. A section of the front edge on the left side of the lower plate of the skull, shows a uniform mixture of fine pearlite and ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 214 to 292; average = 256 VPH.

754

SECTION SIX

1540 Part of a garniture made for Henry VIII and dated 1540; but apparently altered to ac­ commodate his growing girth some time before his death in 1547. It was decorated with etched and gilt borders to designs by Hans Holbein the Younger: the front of the gorget bears the date 1540. Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.8.

M E T A L L U R G Y O F A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

Section X 20; note the corrosion crack which has opened up in the centre of the plate, and the decarburisation associated with it.

755

Ferrite, irresolvable carbides and slag X 80

The left cuisse was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of fine pearlite, irresolvable in places, and ferrite with some elongated slag inclusions, opening up into a corrosion crack down the middle of the plate. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

756

S E C T I O N SIX

1540-45 From the toecap of a sabaton, probably made for Henry VIII about 1544, which with the saddle steels (VI.96) are the remains of a now lost armour of Henry VIII (not illustrated). Royal Armouries, Leeds. II.9

Section X 20

Fine pearlite and ferrite X 80

This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of fine pearlite and ferrite arranged in a central band with few slag inclusions.

METALLURGY OF ARMOUR MADE IN ENGLAND

757

1540-50 Plates from a saddle steel (VI.96), also decorated with etching and gilding. This was exam­ ined in cross-section.

Section X 40; pearlite and ferrite

The microstructure is a mixture of pearlite and ferrite. There is a wide band of ferrite alone, as well as a band of pearlite and ferrite mixed, and numerous slag inclusions. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

758

SECTION SIX

cl545 II.8 gorget plate

Section X 20

Ferrite, martensite and slag X 120

The gorget plates attached to a helmet of this armour (II.8), were a somewhat later al­ teration, perhaps about 1544, as became apparent when the armour was dismantled for restoration in 1964. A gorget plate was examined in cross-section on its side rim. The microstructure showed martensite, very fine pearlite, and ferrite, with elongated slag inclusions arranged in dis­ tinct lines. Helmet photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

METALLURGY OF A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

759

cl544 A crinet embossed with bands of scales formerly etched and gilded, which is part of the remains of another armour built for Henry VIII at the time of the Boulogne expedition in 1544. Royal Armouries, Leeds.VI.69.

Section X 15

Martensite, pearlite and ferrite X 120.

760

SECTION SIX

A crinet plate was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of martensite, a little pearlite and a ferritc network with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 215 to 457; average = 295 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been heat-treated in some way to harden it. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

M E T A L L U R G Y OF A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

1540-45 Windsor Castle 72.834

skull; ferrite and an area of martensite X

761

762

SECTION SIX

left pauldron; pearlite and ferrite X 80

right pauldron; ferrite and irresolvable areas X 400

left vambrace; a banded steel X 80

left vambrace; martensite, carbides, and ferrite X 400

This armour was perhaps the last armour of Henry VIII made by Erasmus Kyrkenar and appears to have undergone some restoration since then. Russell Robinson pointed out that "the laminations at the waist and upper thighs are so skilfully leathered and slotted that they could adapt exactly to the movement of a fat man." It is decorated with etching and some fittings were gilded, but much applied decoration has been found to be fairly recently applied gold paint. 3 The pasguard (extra reinforcing piece for the left arm for use in the tilt) was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and rather granular pearlite with a few slag inclu­ sions and a large corrosion crack down the middle of the plate. The grandguard (reinforcing piece for the left shoulder for use in the tilt) was also ex­ amined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of pearlite and ferrite in varying pro­ portions with some elongated, and one large irregular, slag inclusions. 4 3 4

Jackson, (2000) Williams and de Renck, (1995)

METALLURGY OF ARMOUR MADE IN ENGLAND

763

Specimens from five further components were also examined. 1. The microstructure of the left pauldron shows mostly pcarlite, with a little ferrite. The microhardness ranges from 223 to 292; average = 266 VPH. 2. The photomicrograph of the right pauldron shows a banded steel. There is a central band of low carbon content, consisting of grains of ferrite and a row of slag inclusions, ap­ parently trapped when the original bloom was folded and forged into a plate. The rest of the section consists of areas of irresolvable carbides, perhaps the product of a delayed quench­ ing operation. The microhardness ranges from 279 to 308; average = 293 VPH. 3. The microstructure of a flake from inside the skull of the close helmet shows a largely ferritic microstructure, with small areas of carbides, and a few, isolated areas of bainite or low-carbon martensite. This is a (low-carbon) steel which an attempt has been made to harden by quenching, but not wholly successfully, apparently because the rate of cooling has not been sufficiently rapid. 4. The microstructure of the left vambrace shows a mixture of martensite and ferrite, with very few carbide areas. The microhardness ranges from 172 to 277; average = 249 VPH. 5. The microstructure of the left greave (not illustrated) shows mostly pearlite, with a little ferrite. The microhardness ranges from 250 to 301; average = 277 VPH. Photograph - The Royal Collection © 2001, H.M.Queen Elizabeth II. The grandguard, pasguard, left greave, and left pauldron are made of a medium-car­ bon steel which has not been quenched to harden it, at least not successfully. The right pauldron displays irresolvable carbides (and an increase in hardness) which sug­ gest that an attempt at quenching has been made. The left vambrace and the skull of the close helmet display martensite which is definitely the result of a quenching (if not necessarily a full quench).

764

SECTION SIX

1540-50 A close helmet made about 1540-50. Victoria and Albert Museum (M504.1927).

Martensite X 320

A flake was detached near a hole punched in the comb, presumably when it was once hung up in a church. The microstructure consists of martensite and an acicular (needle-like) material (which may be bainite, but is perhaps rather low-carbon martensite) with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 172 to 201 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel, hardened by quenching, apparently a full quench. Photograph © Victoria and Albert Museum

METALLURGY OF ARMOUR MADE IN ENGLAND

765

C1550 An 'anime' armour (of horizontally laminated plates) made for a boy (formerly ascribed to Edward VI) about 1550, and decorated with gilded borders. Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.178.

Section X 30

The lower right vambrace was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of pearlite, granular carbides and a little ferrite with a few slag inclusions. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

766

SECTION SIX

cl550 Royal Armouries, Leeds.III.2255.

A banded steel X 40

Martensite, pearlite and ferrite X 160

This is a sample from the knee defence (not illustrated) of part of another boy's armour, the rest of which is now lost, made about 1550. This was possibly made for Edward VI. The microstructure consists of a band of martensite and another band, separated by a row of slag inclusions, of ferrite mixed with pearlite and martensite. The microhardness ranges from 292 to 340; average = 318 VPH. This was made from a medium-carbon steel hardened by some form of heat-treatment.

METALLURGY O F A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

767

1550-60 A visored burgonet (not illustrated) acquired at auction. Royal Armouries, Leeds.IV.604.

Section X 20

The cross-section of a neck-plate shows a uniform mixture of pearlite, some partly spheroidised, and ferrite. There are some elongated slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (around 0.5%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrica­ tion.

768

SECTION SIX

1550-60 A three-quarter armour for the field made for the Earl of Pembroke about 1555. This armour was originally decorated with gilt bands. Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.137.

METALLURGY OF ARMOUR MADE IN ENGLAND

Section X 40

769

Martensite, and an acicular material X 160

The barred visor of the close- helmet was examined on its lower rim, in cross-section. The microstructure consists of a mixture of martensite, very fine pearlite, and an acicular material which may be bainite, but no free ferrite grains. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment, but not fully quenched. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

770

SECTION SIX

cl560 A field armour made about 1560, and originally decorated with bands of gilding. Royal Armouries, Leeds. 11.82.

The topmost plate of the left cuisse was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with a few small slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 241 to 350; average — 292 VPH. This steel has evidently been fully quenched and then tempered, as no free ferrite has separated. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

M E T A L L U R G Y O F A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

cl565 Honourable Artillery Company's Armour

771

772

SECTION SIX

close helmet; ferrite and pearlite X 160

bevor; ferrite and pearlite

left cuisse; section

X 40

X 160

bevor; section

X 40

tilting \isor section X 25

left cuisse; martensite and ferrite X 200

left pauldron; martensite and spiny ferrite X 200

METALLURGY OF ARMOUR MADE IN ENGLAND

773

An armour for the field and tilt made about 1565, now belonging to the Honourable Artillery Company (HAC) and at present on loan to the Royal Armouries. Probably made for Sir Geoffrey Howard, brother of Queen Catherine Howard, and Master of the Armories 156178. This armour was originally decorated with gilding. Five specimens were examined. (i) A specimen from within the close helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and some very large areas of pearlite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 153 to 193 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.4%) which has been slowly cooled (perhaps after a repair ?) after fabrication. (ii) A specimen from the bevor was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and areas of pearlite with a few slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (per­ haps 0.4%) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. (iii) A specimen from the tilting visor was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite, with a central band consisting largely of pearlite with some elongat­ ed slag inclusions and corrosion cracks. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. (iv) A specimen from the left cuisse was examined on its outer edge in section. The microstructure consists of tempered martensite and ferrite, partly arranged in bands with some slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been quenched and tempered after fabrication. (v) A specimen from within the left pauldron was examined. The microstructure consists of martensite, fine pearlite and spiny ferrite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 200 to 301 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment after fabrication. This armour was made from a medium-carbon steel, but only 2 of 5 components have been hardened. Even if one of the others has been repaired after an earlier heat-treatment, it does suggest that techniques of hardening were by no means fully established in the Almain armoury. Photograph courtesy of the Honourable Artillery Company.

774

SECTION SIX

cl570 An armour made about 1570 for William Somerset, third Earl of Worcester. Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.83

Section X 20; note banding of martensitic (highcarbon) and ferritic (low-carbon)layers.

This armour was originally decorated with bands of gilding. A plate from a light buffe from a burgonet (the face-defence for an open helmet) was ex­ amined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of fairly uniform tempered martensite with ferrite grains, in two bands near the surfaces (and no pearlitc) and a few elongated slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5 %C overall) which has been hardened after fabrica­ tion by fully quenching and tempering. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

M E T A L L U R G Y O F A R M O U R MADE IN E N G L A N D

775

cl575 An armour for field and tilt made about 1575 for Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester. Royal Armouries, Leeds. 11.81.

Section X 20; note banding.

Tempered martensite and fcrrite X 160

This armour was originally decorated with gilding but over-zealous cleaning has removed almost all the gilding.

776

SECTION SIX

The right cuisse was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of fairly uni­ form tempered martensite with ferrite grains, in a broad band near one surface and a second, narrower, band (and with no pearlite) and a few elongated slag inclusions. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5%C overall) which has been hardened after fabrication by fully quenching and tempering. Its average surface hardness is 360 VPH. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

METALLURGY OF ARMOUR MADE IN ENGLAND

777

C1580 Royal Armouries, Leeds.IV. 157.

Section X 20; note banding.

Granular carbides and ferrite X 160

A plate in a falling buffe (not illustrated) from a close helmet made about 1580. This was examined in section. The microstructure shows a mixture of ferrite and areas of granular carbides which might be over-tempered martensite, together with irregular slag inclusions.

778

SECTION SIX

cl585 An etched and gilded armour made for Henry Herbert, second Earl of Pembroke, and formerly at Wilton House. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 32.130.5. Rogers Fund, 1932.

METALLURGY OF ARMOUR MADE IN ENGLAND

(p ulchon) ca bide globules n a fen I

779

n a t n x X 160

(buffe) tempered martensite and ferrite X 640

A specimen from within the buffe of a burgonet was examined. The microstructure con­ sists of tempered martensite and ferrite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 340 to 397; average = 360 VPH. Another specimen from the right pauldron of the same armour was also examined. The microstructure consists of numerous carbide globules in a ferrite matrix (apparently an overtempered martensite) and a few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 269 to 292; average = 276 VPH. Both components were made from medium-carbon steels. The buffe has been quenched and tempered. The pauldron has been quenched and overtempered. Photograph courtesy of Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

780

SECTION SIX

cl585 Royal Armouries, Leeds.IV.43 and Livrustkammaren, Stockholm. 5729 & 2896.

Section X 20; note banding.

Tempered martensite X 160

Armour of Sir Henry Lee, who was Master of the Armouries (1578-1611) and the Queen's Champion (1559-90). It is decorated with an elaborate pattern of etching and gilding. Different components have been dispersed to different museums. The close helmet (IV.43). The right cheek-piece was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered martensite with very few slag inclusions. © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

M E T A L L U R G Y O F A R M O U R MADE IN E N G L A N D

781

The shaffron (2896) (not illustrated). A specimen from within the shaffron was examined. The microstructure consists of tempered martensite and proeutectoid ferrite. The microhardness ranges from 221 to 345;average = 283 VPH.

(shaffron) martensite and ferrite X 80

(shaffron) martensite and ferrite X 320

(burgonet) very fine pearlite and spiny ferrite X 320.

The burgonet (5729.1) (not illustrated). A specimen from within the neck guard was exam­ ined. The microstructure consists of very fine pearlite, granular carbides and spiny ferrite. The microhardness ranges from 266 to 325; average = 301 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel which has been hardened by some form of heat-treatment, but perhaps not full-quenching. The other two components of this garniture showed me­ dium-carbon steels which had been hardened after fabrication by fully quenching and tem­ pering.

782

SECTION SIX

1585 Windsor Castle 808. An armour for Sir Christopher Hatton, for field and tilt, dated 1585 and now displayed at Windsor Castle.

right greave; tempered martensite X 50

left gauntlet; tempered martensite and a ferrite network X 50

close helmet; ferrite and tempered martensite X 200

left tasset; ferrite and tempered right tasset; ferrite and a little martensite X 25 tempered martensite X 25

783

METALLURGY OF A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

Bevor: section

X 25

Tempeied maitcnsite

\

100

784

SECTION SIX

Breastplate (section) ferrite and slag X 25

shaffron; ferrite and areas of carbides X 40

shaffron; ferrite and over tempered martensite X 320.

(i) The reinforcing bevor was examined in section. The microstructure consists mostly of tempered martensite and a little ferrite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness varies from 162 to 313 VPH. (ii) The reinforcing breastplate was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and numerous slag inclusions, with only a little pearlite. It was very surprising that a com­ ponent of such an important armour should be made of no more than wrought iron. The subsequent examination of further samples suggests that this exception to the general practice at Greenwich was an aberration. During subsequent restoration of this armour in 1997, the opportunity arose to examine more specimens from within a further six components. The steel employed was consistently l o w e r in carbon content than customary, but most parts were heat-treated in a similar way. (hi) The front plate of the right greave. The microstructure consists of tempered marten­ site and ferrite, arranged in a band, with few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 370 to 495; average = 440 VPH. (iv) The inside of the left gauntlet. The microstructure consists of ferrite and tempered martensite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 268 to 319; average = 291 VPH. (v) The left cheekpiece of the close helmet. The microstructure consists of ferrite and some tempered martensite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 192 to 225; average = 210 VPH. (vi) The left tasset. The microstructure consists of ferrite and some tempered martensite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 151 to 201; average = 170 VPH.

METALLURGY O F A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

785

(vii) The right tasset. The microstructure consists of ferrite and some tempered martensite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 177 to 262; average = 211 VPH. (viii) The shaffron. The microstructure consists of ferrite and granular carbides (conceiv­ ably an overtempered martensite) with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 146 to 185; average = 165 VPH. This armour is the seventeenth depicted in the Almain Album, where it is attributed to Sir Christopher Hatton, but it is also shown being worn by Robert Dudley in a portrait at Sion House. It seems that it was comissioned by Hatton and given to his friend, Robert Dudley. Photograph of the mounted armour: The Royal Collection © H M Queen Elizabeth II. (photographer - Mark Fiennes)

786

SECTION SIX

cl585 Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.84.

Gauntlet; section X 40 (note the traces of banding in all these plates)

Gauntlet; tempered martensite X 640

Tasset: section X 40

METALLURGY O F A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

787

r Tj

'<"V.iJ:. ■.

^m Bufle: section

I X 40

This armour may have been partly made in Augsburg, for the style of its etched deco­ ration suggests a German origin, and the accompanying target is stamped on the inside with a pearled < a >. However, it is illustrated in the Almain Album as being the posses­ sion of Sir J o h n Smythe and its Greenwich origin assumed on that basis 4 .

4

M a n n , (1951) 26

788

SECTION SIX

Exactly what its history was remains obscure, for its metallurgy is indistinguishable from other Greenwich armours of this period. Unfortunately, that means it is also indistinguish­ able from the best contemporary Augsburg armours as well. (i) A cross-section of the thumb-plate from the right gauntlet shows uniform tempered martensite. (ii) A cross-section of the bottom plate from the left tasset (thigh-defence) also shows uni­ form tempered martensite. (iii) A cross-section of a plate from the falling buffe of a burgonet shows tempered marten­ site with some ferrite and a very elongated slag inclusion, which has extended into a cor­ rosion crack. © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

METALLURGY O F A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

1585-90 A three-quarter armour for Sir James Scudamore. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 11.128.2.

789

790

SECTION SIX

Cowter: a lower-carbon area, with more ferrite and pearlite than martensite X 100

Cowter: tempered martensite

X 600

Buffe; ferrite and martensite

X 120.

A specimen from the left cowter was examined. The microstructure consists of martensite, pearlite and ferrite with few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 192 to 417 with varying C%; average = 321 VPH. This is a medium-carbon steel (perhaps 0.5% overall) which has been quenched to harden it. Another specimen from the top plate of a buffe from a burgonet belonging to the same armour was also examined. This shows mostly ferrite with some areas of carbides. The microhardness ranges from 191 to 269 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.2%) which has been quenched to harden it. Photograph courtesy of Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

METALLURGY O F A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

791

C1590 A plain armour for the tilt. Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.40.

Tempered martensite and slag inclusions X 120

A tasset plate was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of uniform tem­ pered martensite and some very elongated slag inclusions with no visible ferrite or pearlite. © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

792 cl590 A field armour with an ex­ tra breastplate probably made for Lord Buckhurst, later Earl of Dorset, about 1590, and decorated with bands of etched and gilt decoration, on a blued ground (now somewhat brown in colour). Wallace Collection, London A.62.

SECTION SIX

793

METALLURGY OF A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

V_,vj.$

left vambrace; section X 25

k

„

+

left vambrace; tempered reinforcing breastplate; carbides martensite in higher-carbon and ferrite X 120 bands, mixed with ferrite in the lower-carbon band. Elongated slag inclusions are probably from a weld, since they seem to be associated with decarburisation. Irregular larger inclusions are probably extraction slag. X 120

The inner edge of the left lower vambrace was examined in section, and found to show a microstructure of tempered martensite and ferrite, with a few slag inclusions. The ferrite is especially concentrated in a central band within the plane of the section. The microhardness ranges from 187 to 281 VPH. A specimen from within the reinforcing breastplate of the Buckhurst armour was also examined. The microstructure consists of tempered martensite and a little ferrite with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 309 to 370; average = 325 VPH. Photograph copyright of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection

794

SECTION SIX

cl590 Another armour for the field made about 1590 for Sir James Scudamore, and also now in New York. This armour was decorated by etching and gilding. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 11.128.1.

uniform tempered martensite

X 120.

METALLURGY OF ARMOUR MADE IN ENGLAND

795

A specimen from within the left cowter (elbow-defence) was examined, and shows uni­ form tempered martcnsitc with a few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 311 to 369; average = 351 VPH. Photograph copyright of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

796

SECTION SIX

cl590 Royal Armouries, Leeds.III.859

Section

X 20

tempered martensite and ferrite

X 120

The right sabaton (from an arnour the rest of which is now lost) was examined in section. The microstructure consists of tempered martensite mixed with a number of isolated fer­ rite grains and with very few slag inclusions. This is a heterogeneous steel which has been hardened after fabrication by quenching and tempering. The lower-carbon areas have been able to deposit some grains (perhaps after a slight delay ?) before transformation to martensite has begun. © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

METALLURGY OF A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

797

cl590 An armour for field and tilt made for George Clifford, 3rd Earl of Cumberland. (15881605) Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 32.130.6. Munsey Fund, 1932.

798

tempered martensite and slag inclusions X 80

SECTION SIX

tempered martensite

X 640

It is decorated with bands of etching and gilding in the form of roses and fleur-de-lys against a purple (originally blued) surface which probably remains fairly close to its original ap­ pearance; it is one of the best preserved of all Greenwich armours. A specimen from with­ in the right gauntlet was examined. The microstructure consists of uniform tempered mar­ tensite. The microhardness ranges from 277 to 429; average = 370 VPH. Photograph © Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

METALLURGY OF ARMOUR MADE IN ENGLAND

799

A half-armour, formerly in the Radziwill Collection. cl590 Chicago Institute of Art, inv.no.1982.2241.

right pauldron; bands of ferrite and tempered martensite X 40

breastplate; martensite and acicular carbides X 80

A specimen from within the right pauldron was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and tempered martensite, arranged in bands. The microhardness ranges from 268 to 302 with varying C%; average = 288 VPH. A specimen from within the breastplate was also examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and an acicular material, probably low-carbon martensite. The microhardness (average) — 202 VPH. Photograph © Chicago Institute of Art

800

SECTION SIX

A close burgonet, that has been attributed to the late 16th century. 1590-1600 Royal Armouries, Leeds.IV.166.

tempered martensite X 480

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of tempered martensite and a little proeutectoid ferrite with very few slag inclusions. The microhardness ranges from 299 to 357; average = 338 VPH. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

METALLURGY OF A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

1608 Windsor Castle, inv.no.72831. Armour of Henry, Prince of Wales, for field and tilt.

801

802

SECTION SIX

It is decorated with etching and gilding in the form of roses and fleur-de-lys and thistles and the cypher of Henry, Prince of Wales, eldest son of James I of England and VI of Scotland. The pasguard was examined in section. The microstructure consists of pearlite (partly divorced into carbide granules) and ferrite with a few irregular slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) — 224 VPH. This armour has apparently been reblued in recent years. It was a gift from Sir Henry Lee, Master of the Armouries, to Henry in 1608 when the Prince was 14 years old. Lee said it cost him £ 200. Another armour was probably com­ missioned later for Prince Henry, and abandoned upon his death in 1612 (see also below 111.865). This was made from a medium-carbon steel; apparently not hardened by quenching, but the subsequent heating for blueing makes its previous thermal history difficult to deduce unambiguously. Photograph - The Royal Collection © 2001, H.M.Queen Elizabeth II.

METALLURGY OF A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

C1610 Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.86.

W^^%£M

Breastplate; ferrite, martensite, and acicular carbides X 240

left pauldron; tempered martensite X 40

Backplate; tempered martensite X 240

visor of the close helmet; section X 30; tempered martensite

803

SECTION SIX

left pauldron; tempered martensite and acicular carbides X 160

gorget; section X 20; tempered martensite

mainifer ; section X 20; ferrite and tempered martensite in bands.

pasguard III.873; section X 20; ferrite and tempered martensite in bands.

^W?

.■■tvV: BftP" ■psv ■

H.

.

lidgft'. unfe?'

■ ■ ^ . - ■ " %

■ ■'-^Ufi&V^E

^■■^loBi t /»#C"-"5c*jH fc

"'■^JS^SJM

W&ifc-j'-'a

k Wfc •'•■-'

fcKEsm^l

*!S

upper visor IV.565; section X 20; ferrite and tempered martensite in bands.

METALLURGY OF ARMOUR MADE IN ENGLAND

805

An armour for the tilt (one of several such plain tilting armours which might have been worn for the Accession Day tilts at Whitehall). Several components from this armour were examined, as well as associated tilting reinforces. (i) This sample was taken from inside the breastplate. It shows a mixture of ferrite, mar­ tensite, and an acicular (needle-like) material which may be bainite. The microhardness ranges from 261 to 325; average = 280 VPH. (ii) A sample from inside the backplate was examined. The microstructure shows uniform tempered martensite. The microhardness ranges from 325 to 374; average = 348 VPH. (iii) A sample from inside the plate above the lower vambrace was examined. The microstructure (not illustrated) shows uniform tempered martensite. The microhardness ranges from 311 to 333; average = 322 VPH. (iv) A sample from inside the left pauldron was examined. The microstructure shows tem­ pered martensite and a little ferrite. The microhardness ranges from 322 to 352; average = 329 VPH. (v) The upper visor of the close helmet was examined in cross-section. The microstructure shows uniform tempered martensite with very few slag inclusions. (vi) The top plate of the gorget was examined in cross-section. The microstructure shows tempered martensite and some ferrite, associated with a corrosion crack. (vii) The manifer (reinforcing bridle gauntlet for the tilt) was examined in cross-section. The microstructure shows tempered martensite and bands of ferrite, associated with corrosion cracks. (viii) An associated pasguard (III.873) was examined in cross-section. The microstructure shows tempered martensite and a band of ferrite, with a corrosion crack. (ix) An associated upper visor from a close helmet (IV.565) was examined in cross-section. The microstructure shows tempered martensite and a band of ferrite and martensite, run­ ning down the middle of the plate. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

806

SECTION SIX

C1610 Royal Armouries, Leeds.III.867.

#&&

S&S Tilt armour (11.86) with extra reinforcing pieces, grandguard, pasguard, and manifer, in place.

ferrite with a little pearlite X 80

A cross-section of a grandguard (reinforcing piece for the left shoulder for use in the tilt) made about 1610. The microstructure consists mostly of ferrite with a little pearlite, and with few slag inclu­ sions. The microhardness (average) = 160 VPH. © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

METALLURGY O F A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

807

C1610 Royal Armouries, Leeds.IV.774.

Section X 20

Ferrite and carbides X 160

A manifer, the thumb plate of which was examined in cross-section. The microstructure shows mostly ferrite, mixed with some granular carbides, with a narrow band of tempered martensite running along one surface, and numerous elongated slag inclusions.

SECTION SIX

cl610 Royal Armouries, Leeds.III.776.

sis;'.-('■:v*^-

Section X 40

A manifer or bridle gauntlet, made around 1610, and decorated with doubled engraved lines. The cross-section of a plate from the gauntlet shows mostly ferrite with some gran­ ular carbides (perhaps the result of heat-treating a low-carbon steel). © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

METALLURGY OF A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

809

C1610 Royal Armouries, Leeds.III.869.

Section X 20

A grandguard made around 1610, and decorated with ancient gilt paint. This was exam­ ined in cross-section. The microstructure shows mostly areas of granular carbides mixed with pearlite, and outlined by a ferrite network. One may speculate that an attempt was made to harden this large steel object, but its size prevented its being cooled quickly enough to quench it fully. © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

810

SECTION SIX

cl612 A reinforcing bevor for the tilt, made about 1612, with an unfinished decoration of em­ bossed roses and thistles. It was not given its final etching, nor was it gilded. It was perhaps made for Henry, Prince of Wales and abandoned at his death in 1612. Royal Armouries, Leeds.III.865.

Section X 25

tempered martensite and ferrite X 150

This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure shows tempered martensite mixed with grains of ferrite, with greater concentrations of ferrite in two bands. There are also several very elongated slag inclusions, as well as a number of smaller inclu­ sions. This has been fabricated, and then quenched and tempered (but perhaps only partially) before the final stages of decoration. © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

METALLURGY OF A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

811

C1625 A pikeman's armour made about 1625-30, and decorated with engraving (but not gilded). Royal Armouries, Leeds.III. 1843a.

Section: ferrite and pearlite X 20

The left tasset plate was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and varying amounts of pearlite with some irregular slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (perhaps 0.3% overall) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries

812

SECTION SIX

cl625 A pikeman's armour, consisting of cuirass and pot helmet. Chicago Institute of Art, inv.no. 1982.2177.

Ferrite and corrosion products X 60

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. The microhardness (average) = 95 VPH. Photograph © Chicago Institute of Art.

813

METALLURGY O F A R M O U R MADE IN ENGLAND

17th century A cuirassier armour supposed to have been made at Greenwich about 1625-30 and by tradition presented to Sir Charles Dymoke as King's Champion in 1685. It bears the (un­ identified) mark of a crowned MR. Museum of London (34.121).

IB''

W
right greave

X 60

. -«■%

- f t . . * . - - : :'

right greave: divorced pearlite

X 240.

814

SECTION SIX

Three specimens were examined. (i) the right greave of this armour. It shows uniformly very fine pearlite which has been somewhat divorced into carbide granules, perhaps by slow cooling. (ii) from inside the third plate of the left tasset. The microstructure also shows very fine pearlite. (iii) from inside the close helmet. The microstructure shows very fine pearlite, of average hardness 290 VPH. This armour was made of a medium-carbon steel, but its heat-treatment does not in any way resemble other Greenwich specimens. Photograph courtesy of the Museum of London

References Eaves, I. & Richardson, T. "The Warwick shaffron" Journal of the Arms and Armour Society, 12 (1987) 217222. Eaves, I, " T h e tournament armours of King Henry VIII" Livrustkammaren (1993), 3-45. Gamber, O. "Der konigliche englische Hofplattnerei" Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, 19 (1963) 7-38. Jackson, J.L. "Greenwich armour of King Henry VIII for field and tilt at Windsor Castle - some recent dis­ coveries" Journal of the Arms & Armour Society, 16 (2000) 249-256. Mann, J.G. "Exhibition of armour made in the Royal Workshops at Greenwich" (1951) Catalogue of an exhibition held at the Tower of London.

CHAPTER 6.6

SPAIN

A detailed account of arms and armour in Spain up to the 15th century has been given by Hoffmeyer 1 , following in the pioneering footsteps of Mann 2 . The makers of "cuirasses" had a guild of their own in Barcelona in 1257. These were apparently like coats-of-plates or brigandines. A maker of them in Valencia, one Ramon de Tor, received an order in 1308 to make cuirasses for King James II and his sons; the king sent pieces of samite of different colours for their covering 3 . By the 14th century plate armour for arms and legs is shown regularly on depictions of knights 4 . Visored bascinets were supposed to have been introduced from France in the late 14th century and there is the skull of one such (of unknown origin) in the Provincial Museum, Burgos, and a complete example with a fixed bevor surviving from the early 15th century. It is in the Museo de Navarra at Pamplona, and is supposed to have been made for Prince Carlos de Viana about 1425 by Pedro del Campo 5 . In the 15th century those Spanish nobles who could afford it imported their armour from Lombardy 5 even though armour was made at Burgos, Seville, Calatayud (near Zaragoza) and Castejon de las Armas, of which little can be identified 7 . There are a few pieces of late 15th century armour which carry a mark ("crow's foot") that has been attributed to either Calatayud or Castejon. These are medi­ ocre in metallurgical terms, so the preference for imported Italian armour is easy to un­ derstand. The 15th century saw the widespread adoption of the complete "suit" of plate armour in Spain, but a considerable proportion of those were imported from Lombardy, and sig­ nificantly, the surviving armours of the Kings of Spain were all made outside Spain. Until the early 17th century, there seems to have been no equivalent to the Royal Workshops of Innsbruck, Greenwich, or even Aarboga. At the end of the 15th century King Ferdinand had an armour now in Vienna (HJR A. 5) made of very hard steel, apparently by Italians, but there is no evidence that they settled permanently in Spain or founded a workshop there. His son, King Philip I, "the Fair", had armours made in Flanders and Innsbruck. In turn, his heir, King Charles V, looked to Augsburg (especially Kolman Helmschmid), Milan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hoffmeyer (1982) Mann (1932) Hoffmeyer 134 Hoffmeyer, chapter 10 Hoffmeyer, 272 Mann, 293-5 Mann, 296.

816

SECTION SIX

(the Negroli brothers) and Mantua (Modrone) for his armour. "The Inventario Illuminado", a MS of 88 leaves, compiled in 1544, and now in the Real Armeria, Madrid, allows much of Charles' armour to be identified, and none of it was made in Spain. Mann relates how he took some of his favourite armours with him when he retired to the monastery of Yuste 8 . Desiderius Helmschmid, son of Kolman, was a favourite armourer of Charles' son, King Philip II, along with Wolfgang Groszchedel of Landshut (and his horse armour came from Niirnberg). The metallurgy of all of those imported armours is discussed in detail in chap­ ters 5.4, 5.8 and 5.10; a table listing them is given below. In 1595 King Philip II (1527-1598) contracted for a whole workshop of twelve Milanese armourers, including two of the Piatti family, to emigrate to Spain 9 . They were established at Eugui (near Pamplona) where they made armours for Philip III (1598-1621) and his children in an elaborately decorated style which owes something to Milan, and a great deal to local tastes. METALLURGY OF SOME SPANISH ARMOUR

late 15th century A sallet with the "crow's foot" mark. Royal Armouries, Leeds.IV.9

Ferrite, slag and a little pearlite X 50

The rim was examined in cross section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and some pearlite (largely divorced to globular carbides) with a few slag inclusions. The carbon con­ tent is less than 0.1%. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

8 9

M a n n , 305. Pyhrr & Godoy (1998) 23; and also Godoy,(1987).

SPAIN

cl500 A breastplate with the "crow's foot" mark, (from Rhodes) Royal Armouries, Leeds.III.1088

Section

X 20

Ferrite, a little pearlite, and slag inclusions X 160.

The rim was examined in cross section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and some pearlite with a number of very elongated slag inclusions. The carbon content varies be­ tween 0.2% and 0.4%. The plate has evidently been made from a billet(s) that has been folded and forged unskil­ fully during manufacture, and corrosion cracks have opened up.

818

SECTION SIX

cl500 An armet for which a Spanish origin has been ascribed on stylistic grounds. Chicago Institute of Art 1982.2604

Ferrite and pearlite X 60

This armet is very similar in form to Wallace Collection A. 153 (and also very similar in its metallurgy). A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) = 172 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.3%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Chicago Institute of Art

SPAIN

cl500 Wallace Collection, London. A. 153. An armet with an indistinct mark, perhaps MFR below a crown.

Feinte pearhte and slag inclusions X 60

A specimen from within the left cheekpiece was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) — 158 VPH. This is a low-carbon steel (around 0.2%C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection

820

SECTION SIX

Table summarising metallurgy of armour made outside Spain for Spanish Kings & others. Date

Museum/inv.no.

Heat-treatment

Metal iron

low C% medium C% steel steel

VPH

air attempted hardened cooled hardening

armour made for Ferdinand (1452-1516) King of Aragon (and by marriage, King of Castile) cl495

HJR A.5

M

H

597

"IP"

H

451

Prunner

armour made for Philip the Fair (1478-1506) King of Castile

1489

H J R A.9

M

cl490 HJR A. 109a

L

1495

L

1500

HJR A. 7 (RV) (LP) HJR B.141 back elbow

190 "h"

A

M

H H

300 LH 310 LH

H

261 h 308 h

T

L L

armour made for Charles V (1500-1558) King of Spain

cl511

HJRA.186

L

T

180

Rabeiler

cl514

HJRA.109

L

T

276

CS

cl540

RAIII.771

1543

H J R A.546

cl540

H J R A.693

T

M L M

KH

A

240

DH.

A

261

Negroli

armour made for Philip II (1527-1598) King of Spain 1544

H J R A.547

M

H

441

DH.

M

H

407

DH.

(made for Duke of Alba) 1546

H J R A.520

(made for Don Alfonso de Bustos) 1551 CS LH KH DH

Turin C15

= Conrad Seusenhofer = Lorenz Helmschmied = Kolman Helmschmied — Desiderius Helmschmied

L

A

D H (?)

SPAIN

821

References J.A.Godoy "Dos armaduras de Eugui para el Rey Felipe III" Reales Sitios, no.34, 1987, 37-44. Hoffmeyer, A.B.de "Arms & Armour in Spain II" (Cacercs, 1982). Vol.1 (1972) surveyed their history up to the end of the 12th century; Vol.Ill was never written. Mann, J.G. (1932) "Notes on the armour worn in Spain from the 10th to the 15th centuries" Archaeologia, 83, 285-305. Pyhrr, S.W. & Godoy, J.A. "Heroic armor of the Italian Renaissance" (New York, 1998).

CHAPTER 6.7

FRANCE

Armour was made at several towns (including Paris, Bordeaux, Tours and Lyons) in 15th century France, and the archives of the period record the names of hundreds of armour­ ers, but even if their work has survived, it cannot now be identified. Both Italy and Ger­ many exported large quantities of armour into France, and in addition, there were Italian and German armourers who worked in France. Examples of the former include Gabriele & Francesco Merate of Milan who were recruited in 1494 to work at Arbois in Burgundy for three years 1 . In the second half of the 16th century, a new style appeared, distinctive to France, al­ beit with Italian influences (armets with undivided eye-slits, long breastplates, anime cui­ rasses, distinctive use of gold and sometimes enamel decoration) but their creators remain unidentifiable. They do not bear any marks of towns or craftsmen, and attributions are largely made on the basis of styles of decoration. Especially important was the artist Etienne Delaune who designed the decoration for armours of the Kings of France Henri II and Charles IX 2 , and the King of Sweden, Erik XIV, decorated by Libaerts (see chapter 6.3). Reverseau has suggested (on the basis of their decoration) that there were workshops maintained by the Montmorency and Guise families, and a Royal workshop which pro­ duced the armours of the Valois princes which survive in the Musee de l'Armee, Paris 3 . We know of no parallel to the English Royal workshop at Greenwich with its well-docu­ mented activities and substantial number of surviving armours. A fragment (preserved in Edinburgh) from one of these armours was examined, and proved to be made merely of iron - as were two other examples of French armour of less certain attribution. Surface hardness measurements carried out by the author in the Musee de l'Armee, Paris, found that these armours had a surface hardness of below Rockwell c 20 (200 VPH), which suggests that none of them were hardened.

1 2 :i

Blair (1958) 108 -113. Thomas (1973) Reverseau (1979) and (1982).

FRANCE

823

M E T A L L U R G Y O F SOME F R E N C H (AND POSSIBLY F R E N C H ) ARMOUR

cl556 Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh 1963.143

Ferrite and slag X 25 (section)

Wing of a poleyn, suggested by Norman 4 to be a fragment from an armour made for King Henri II, between 1556 and 1559. The designs for this armour (of which only detached fragments now remain), were made by Delaune, and still survive. This was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclu­ sions only, with conspicuous forging lines. Photograph by permission of the Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland.

4

Norman (1972) no.8.

824

SECTION SIX

cl610 This plain half- armour was possibly made in France, but bears no marks. Wallace Collection, London.A.68

ferrite and pearlite X 30

A specimen from within the left pauldron was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with a number of slag inclusions. This is a low-carbon steel (maybe 0.1 %C) which has been air-cooled after fabrication. Photograph courtesy of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

FRANCE

cl640 A "cuirassiers" armour. Wallace Collection, London.A.66

825

826

SECTION SIX

ferrite and slag X 60

Mann (1962) attributed a French origin to this on the grounds of the helmet shape. Nor­ man (1986) however maintained that the helmet did not belong to the armour. A specimen from within the helmet was examined, as was one from the breastplate. The microstructures of b o t h consist of ferrite and slag inclusions only. Photograph courtesy of the Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

References Blair, C."European armour" (1958) Norman, A.V.B. "Arms and armour in the Royal Scottish Museum" (Edinburgh, 1972) Reverseau, J.P. "Musee de l'Armee, Paris; les armes et la vie" (Paris, 1982)138-149. and a fuller account by the same author "The classification of French armour by workshop styles" in 'Art, Arms and Armour - an international anthology', ed.R.Held, (Chiasso, 1979) 202-220. Thomas, B. "French Royal Armour as reflected in the designs of Etienne Delaune" Arms and Armor Annual, Volume 1 [not repeated] (Northfield, Illinois, 1973) 104-113

C H A P T E R 6.8

SWEDEN

A Royal workshop was founded at Arboga in 1551 by King Gustav Vasa, and employed German workmen. It made some armours for the King and his family as well as munition armours. The metallurgy of the royal armours examined is iron or unhardened steel. The armour of Erik XIV mentioned above (Livrustkammaren, Stockholm, inv.no.2605) is discussed in the section on Flemish armour. That was also made of iron.

cl560 Livrustkammaren, Stockholm, inv.no.2616A.

Ferrite and pearlite X 60

An armour made for Magnus, brother of Erik XIV, in Arboga, and decorated with gold inlay, in Stockholm. A specimen from the helmet rim was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and pearlite (perhaps 0.4%C) with some slag inclusions. The microhardness (average) — 255 VPH. This was made from a medium-carbon steel, air-cooled after fabrication.

828

SECTION SIX

1560-80 Livrustkammaren, Stockholm, inv.no.2606.

fcv'v Ferrite and slag X 60

Parts of an armour probably made for John III, in Arboga. A specimen from the rim of the collar was examined. The microstructure consists of fer­ rite and slag inclusions only. This is merely an iron. References Steneberg, K.E. "Harnesksmide I Gustav II Adolfs rustkammare" Livrustkammaren, 9, (1963), 157-203. Meyerson, A. "Vapenindustrierna i Aarboga", Stockholm (1939) Acts and Investigations of the Livrustkammaren, No.3.

C H A P T E R 6.9

NORTH GERMANY AND T H E NETHERLANDS

North German armour does not generally carry a mark, and so, unless etched, it is not always easy to identify. A number (20+) of armours were made for the ducal court at Brunswick. Their etched decoration (frequently involving scenes of Daniel in the lions' den as well as the mono­ gram of Julius) has allowed this identification to be made. Julius (1528-1589) was the third son of the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel, and destined for the church; he became the heir only when his elder brothers died. But he had adopted the protestant religion and was estranged from his father. In 1558 he fled to the court of his sister and brother-in-law, the Markgraf Johann of Brandenburg. In 1560 he married their niece, Hedwig, the daughter of the Elector Joachim II of Brandenburg. He was reconciled with his father within a couple of years and succeeded to the duchy in 1568. Some of these armours celebrate his wed­ ding, and some his reconciliation 1 . Its metallurgy however is not part of the same tradition as that of South Germany. These 8 specimens examined are all made out of iron or low-carbon steel, and no attempt at hardening is ever made. So, it is scarcely surprising that the dukes of Brandenburg and Saxony looked to Niirnberg for their personal armours (see chapter 5.9). North German products have little but cheapness to commend them, at least to princes buying armour for their soldiers, rather than for themselves. Table summarising the metallurgy of North German and Dutch armour Metal Date

museum inv.no.

iron

1490 1500 1530 1540

DHM DHM DHM DHM

I

984b 2302 2333 2325

1560 H A M 935 1560 RA IV476 1610-20 11.90 1610 HJR 1654

Rohr (1988)

lowC% m c d i u m C % steel steel

air attempted cook :d hardening

L L

A A A A

I L I I I

Heat-treatment

A A A A

VPH

master

hardened

—

179

anon.master (Brunswick) P.Speyer (Annaberg) (Brunswick) (Brunswick ?) (Holland) (Holland)

830

SECTION SIX

Out of these 8 examples, 5 were made of iron, and 3 of low-carbon steels; none were made of medium-carbon steel; all were air-cooled. As related in an earlier chapter (6.2), the cities of the Netherlands had been home to numerous armourers who had worked for the Burgundian, and later Spanish, courts. The 80 Years' War of Independence provided an alternative market for more, but cheaper, ar­ mour. During the 16th century, the archives of Niirnberg and Augsburg are full of complaints about "unfair" (i.e. cheaper) competition from the products of the Netherlands and Koln. Such products were also those imported into England from the same areas in large quan­ tities by King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth. Westphalia (particularly Siegerland) was a centre of iron-smelting on a considerable scale, and may well have been the source of the raw material for the cheap armour "from the Netherlands" as well as that exported to England. The extraordinary cheapness of this massproduced armour (see chapter 8.3) and the relative scarcity of wood for charcoal in the Netherlands strongly suggests the possibility that the plates may have been produced in the Siegerland area of Westphalia, and the assembled suits then marketed by Dutch mid­ dlemen. This would certainly explain how the Dutch were able to export so much armour from their country in the 17 th century. DUTCH ARMOUR EXPORTS

Religious as well as political turmoil had led to a revolt in the provinces of the Nether­ lands which started in 1566 and was to last for eighty years. The southern provinces were reconquered (1579-85) by the Spanish, most notably under the generalship of Alessandro Farnese, Duke of Parma (a grandson of Charles V). The northern, and largely Protestant, seven "United Provinces" led by Holland had asserted their independence in 1581, and despite the assassination of William of Orange three years later, fought on under the lead­ ership of William's son, Maurice of Nassau (d. 1625). On land, Maurice built up a paid, professional army, organised around lines of muske­ teers and pikemen, together with fully armoured horsemen with pistols, and which was based on numerous fortified towns defended with bastioned traces. His was a long-term fabian strategy of sieges and counter-sieges, with few pitched battles other than Turnhout (1597) and Nieuport (1600) and lasted until a truce was signed in 1609 for twelve years. Then the war continued, and independence was not finally recognised until 1648. By sea, the Unit­ ed Provinces closed the ports of the Spanish Netherlands, and monopolised their overseas trade. They took the maritime war to the enemy, destroying a Spanish fleet at Gibraltar in 1607, and attacking Spanish and Portuguese colonies in the West and East Indies. In 1602 they set up the Dutch East India Company (VOC), which was to become the largest trading enterprise in the world, and was to monopolise trade from Cape Town to Japan. After 1638 the Dutch were the only foreigners permitted to visit Japan to trade. The Dutch exported vast quantities of arms and armour throughout the early 17th century. It has been estimated that between 1600 and 1650 the Dutch exported at least 200 000 firearms and about 100 000 suits of armour 2 . 2

Puype, (1996) especially 14-20.

NORTH GERMANY AND THE NETHERLANDS

831

The trading companies to the East and West Indies purchased large quantities of arms themselves as well as exporting them all over the world. At home, as well as purchases by the army and navy of the United Provinces, the allies (broadly defined) of the Dutch were also supplied, e.g. in 1592 Sweden had bought 350 suits of armour, 1000 helmets, 1000 firearms, and other weapons. Between 1613 and 1621 7000 suits of armour, 20 000 mus­ kets, and other arms were exported to France. In 1611 the armour maker Matthijs van Zittert had got into trouble for attempting to export 2200 suits of armour without permis­ sion to Brandenburg. The problem was evasion of customs duties; the Dutch were as happy to sell arms to the Emperor (the ally of Spain) as well as to France (the ally of Sweden and the Dutch). The merchant Louis de Geer exported 10 000 suits of armour, 10 000 muskets and other arms to England and France in 1641. At the same time, arms were imported from England; Dutch merchants bought large numbers of English cast-iron cannon (from the Weald) until the outbreak of the English Civil War. With the onset of the Thirty Years' War, in 1621-2 the states of the Protestant Union in Germany, Denmark and Sweden bought another 2000 suits of armour and large quan­ tities of arms. From 1625 to 1629 the Dutch supplied Denmark with 20 000 suits of ar­ mour and 33 000 muskets. After 1630 Swedish intervention in the war started, and they bought large quantities also. Other customers included Venice, Portugal (after 1640) and Russia; to where 1500 suits of armour were supplied in 1643. A number of Stuart royal armours (including the example discussed below) have recent­ ly been identified as being of Dutch origin 3 . The preference for an imported armour over a Greenwich product might have been a consequence of the very high prices being charged for Greenwich armours. The greatly superior metallurgy of the latter was evidently no longer considered to be the main factor in choosing an armour.

3

Richardson, 1991

832

SECTION SIX METALLURGY OF SOME NORTH GERMAN AND DUTCH ARMOUR

1490-1500 A backplate from the Armoury at Bernau, without a mark. The catalogue 4 suggests, with­ out giving evidence, a Landshut origin. Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin.W.984b

Section (ferrite and pearlite) X 25

The side rim was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and some pearlite areas in a row with some slag inclusions which have opened up into a corrosion crack. The carbon content is less than 0.1%. Photograph courtesy of the Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin.

NORTH GERMANY AND THE NETHERLANDS

833

C1500 A breastplate from the Armoury at Bernau. There is an indistinct mark; the remains of a Gothic letter within a circle 5 . Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin. W.2302

(Section) X 40

ferrite and pearlite X 120

The side rim was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and some pearlite areas in a band near one surface with some slag inclusions which have opened up into a corrosion crack. The carbon content is up to 0.4% in places. Photograph courtesy of the Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin

Quaas, 1992, 45

834

SECTION SIX

cl530 A horseman's armour, without a mark. Decorated with fluting, mixed with single rows of scales. Probably made in Brunswick around 1530. Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin. W.2333.

Ferrite and coarse pearlite

X50

A specimen from within the left cowter was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and coarse pearlite with a few slag inclusions. The carbon content reaches around 0.4%. The gauntlet was also examined in section. The microstructure (not illustrated) consists of ferrite and slag inclusions with distinct forging lines visible. Photograph courtesy of the Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin

NORTH GERMANY AND THE NETHERLANDS

835

C1540

Annaberg, probably the work of Peter of Speyer the Elder. An armour made for the Elector Johann Georg of Brandenburg, and decorated with etched and blackened patterns. 6 Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin.W.2325

(Section) ferrite and very little pearlite X 25

The inner edge of the lower vambrace was examined in cross-section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and a little pearlite with some slag inclusions. The carbon content is around 0.1%. Photograph courtesy of the Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin 5

Quaas, 1992, 46

836

SECTION SIX

cl560 Higgins Armory Museum, Worcester.inv.no.935

N O R T H GERMANY AND T H E N E T H E R L A N D S

837

j-r'- . M

Bevor; ferrite and pearlite X 60

One of a group of armours made in North Germany probably for the wedding celebra­ tions of Julius, Duke of Brunswick in 1560 7 . A specimen from within the breastplate was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. Another specimen from the rim of the bevor was also examined. The microstructure con­ sists of ferrite and a little pearlite with some slag inclusions. The carbon content is 0.2% at most.

Quaas, 1992,83

838

SECTION SIX

cl560 Royal Armouries, Leeds, IV.476.

Section X 25

Visor from a close helmet, of a style associated with Brunswick. The microstructure con­ sists of ferrite and a few slag inclusions only Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.

NORTH GERMANY AND THE NETHERLANDS

839

C1610 A cuirassier's armour for Maurice of Nassau (1567-1625) made in the Netherlands about 1610. Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna A. 1654.

ferrite and slag X40

A specimen from the neck plate of the helmet was examined in section. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. The microhardness (average) = 179 VPH. Photograph © courtesy of the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna.

840

SECTION SIX

1630-40 A "cuira: Royal Armouries, Leeds.II.90.

ferrite and slag X 40

This was made for Prince Charles (later Charles II, 1630-85). It was formerly described as French, although the decoration does not resemble contemporary French armours. It is decorated with bands of etching and gilding.

N O R T H GERMANY AND T H E N E T H E R L A N D S

841

A specimen from within the helmet was examined. The microstructure consists of ferrite and slag inclusions only. Photograph © The Board of Trustees of the Armouries. References Grancsay, S.V. "Catalogue of the J o h n Woodman Higgins Armory" (1961), Miiller, H. "Europaische Helme" (Berlin 1984) - nolwilhstanding the title, this was a catalogue to the remains of the Berlin Zeughaus, then in the Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte. The contents of the latter were subsequently transferred to the Deutsches Historisches Museum, and are in Berlin at the time of writing, but scheduled to move to Spandau. P u y p e , J . P . & van der Hoeven, M. (eds) "Arsenal of the World; the Dutch arms trade in the 17th century" (Amsterdam, 1996), passim. Quaas, G. "Eisenkleider" (Berlin, 1992) - a catalogue of armour at present in the Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin, which should be read in conjunction with Miiller (1984). Rohr, A.von, "Die Braunschweigischen Prunkharnische des Herzog Julius" Waffen- und Kostiimkunde, 30 (1988) 103-128. Richardson, T. "H.R.Robinson's Dutch armour of the 17th century" Journal of the Arms & Armour Society, 13 (1991) 256-278.

C H A P T E R 7.1

T H E INVENTION OF GUNS

"Guns" are not a single invention but the result of a sequence of discoveries that: 1. Incendiaries could be improved by the addition of saltpetre. These would be the pre­ cursors of fireworks such as rockets. 2. Such mixtures might explode if ignited in a confined space. These, in suitable contain­ ers, would become grenades. 3. An explosion might be used to propel a single projectile rather than scatter fragments. So the earliest arrow- or stone-throwing guns would have been devised. 4. A long cylindrical tube would then enable the projectile to be accelerated. This led to the first effective guns which could be carried onto the battlefield. GREEK FIRE

The use of incendiaries in warfare has a long history and the most famous example of their use was the liquid called "Greek Fire" used by the Byzantine Empire. The tide of Arab conquest was stemmed at Constantinople in "the siege of seven years" (674-680), when their fleets were destroyed by a "liquid fire" sprayed from the Byzantine ships. Further attacks by the Arabs in 716-7 and the Varangians (= Vikings from Kiev) in 941 were defeated by similar means. The history of this famous weapon has been related by several historians, and especially Partington 1 . It seems to have been based on naphtha or petrol probably obtained by distilling crude petroleum from surface pools in Mesopotamia. Petroleum itself is difficult to ignite, and lighter fractions need to be separated somehow. This inflammable liquid, possibly mixed with resins or other materials, was sprayed at the enemy by means of a brass force-pump (or "siphon" in Greek). It floated on the surface of the water, and was ignited in the air or on the surface, probably by fire-arrows or even perhaps (if very unlikely) as suggested by Hime, by lumps of calcium phosphide, which produces a spontaneously flammable gas on contact with water. It would have been ideally suited to use in the confined spaces of the Dardanelles and Bosphorus, but less useful in the open sea. One early (9th century) account of "Greek Fire" mentions that a mixture of naphtha (an oil from rocks) tow and tar was boiled on board ship in a bronze vessel, and then sprayed from a bronze tube at the enemy. It would seem easier to have distilled it before use, rather than during combat, but this account may have been a garbled conflation of the two pro­ cesses2. ' Partington (1960) passim; and also the much older book of Hime (1915). Hulme (1930), Appendix 1.

2

843

T H E INVENTION O F GUNS

However, the possession of Greek Fire was unable to save Constantinople from sack by the greedy zealots of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 - indeed, the weapon is not mentioned at all. One reason may have been that the Byzantine navy was immobilised; the Admiral Michael Struphnos having sold the sails and anchors. Another reason may have been that Seljuk conquests meant that the Byzantines no longer had access to the oilfields of Meso­ potamia. The name "Greek Fire" however, was transferred to any incendiary weapon. After hav­ ing been on the receiving end of advanced Byzantine technology the Arabs began to use incendiary weapons themselves, particularly during siege warfare. For instance, Joinville describes how the Mamluks hurled what he calls "Greek Fire" at the French Crusaders who invaded Egypt in 1249-50 3 . The fire was catapulted in barrels which burst on impact to spread a burning liquid. Pots full of this liquid were also thrown by the Egyptian infan­ try. He goes on to relate how one French knight, Guy Malvoisin, "had been so covered with Greek Fire, that his people could hardly extinguish it". His being clad in mail prob­ ably made this somewhat less dangerous for him. GUNPOWDER

Gunpowder is a deflagrant (i.e. rapidly-burning) mixture of a solid fuel such as charcoal with a solid oxidising agent - the only one available up to the late 18th century was salt­ petre (nitre, potassium nitrate, KNO„). The presence of sulphur (which has a melting point of only 114°C) makes the mixture very much easier to ignite. The mixture can be used simply as an incendiary, or since large volumes of hot gas arc produced by the combustion of the charcoal, as a propellant. The crucial discovery is in fact, that of saltpetre. Once saltpetre in reasonable purity has been obtained, this solid has only to be cast onto a fire for its ability to speed up any com­ bustion to be fiercely demonstrated, and then its use in incendiary weapons is virtually assured. The speed at which gunpowder burns depends on its grain size and its composition. If it is assumed that the ingredients are mixed wet, then the saltpetre, being water-soluble will pass into the pores of the charcoal on mixing. On drying, the water will be evaporated and the saltpetre deposited inside each grain of charcoal. These two solids however are unlikely to start reacting until (hot) liquid sulphur comes into contact with them. The smaller the grain size, the greater the ratio of surface area to volume, and so the more rapidly combustion of that grain will take place. The principal reaction which releases energy may be represented as

C

+

carbon from charcoal

3

Joinville (1908) 186, 195

o2

co 2

oxygen from saltpetre

carbon dioxide gas

844

SECTION SEVEN

The larger the grain size, the more slowly this reaction will take place, and the more slow­ ly the CO, ; will be released. This may be an advantage in some artillery weapons where a long, steady, acceleration is required. If the grain size varies a great deal, then the pow­ der will in effect be a mixture of fast-burning and slow-burning grains, and a less efficient propellant. This is what was called later "serpentine" powder. If the wet mixture is pressed through a sieve before drying, then a uniform size of grain may be obtained. Whether the grains are large (slow-burning) or small (fast-burning) is immaterial; the uniform size of the grains means that they all burn at the same speed, and a much more efficient release of energy is the result. This is what was called later "corned" powder. However, it will not explode unless ignited in a confined space. When this happens, then the C 0 9 evolved, being trapped, increases the pressure, and hence the rate of combustion of the remaining powder. This will increase the rate of gas production yet further, and an exponential increase in the rate of reaction will follow, i.e. there may be an explosion. Whether this happens or not depends upon the container and its strength. Strictly speaking, there is not "detonation" unless the rate of propagation of the reaction exceeds the speed of sound in that material. A detonating explosive would not be suitable as a propellant, but as a "high" explosive. Discovery of this property might well lead to its use as an explosive in grenades and kin­ dred weapons, but there remains a considerable gulf between the discovery that the salt­ petre-enhanced incendiary ("gun" powder) has explosive properties, and the employment of such an explosion to propel a projectile in a desired direction from a "gun". Metal tubes would have been essential for this. Bamboo tubes are quite adequate for rockets (they will withstand an internal pressure of about 5 atmospheres) but not for guns, since the gas pressure inside a shotgun is around 300 to 700 atmospheres, and that inside a rifle is around 1400 to 3500 atmospheres 4 . The step from a metal container which is shattered into many fragments travelling in all directions by a powder exploding within it, to a metal container with one small loosely fitting component which is blown in a desired direction while the container is not shattered, is the step from the "grenade" to the "gun". Technologically it is not a great step, but it requires a considerable leap of the imagination. Whoever made this leap might truly be called the inventor of the gun. Unfortunately we do not know exactly when this leap happened. CHINA

The Chinese knowledge of gunpowder has been recounted in a series of papers by Goodrich, Feng Chia-sheng and Wang Ling and in a book by Needham and Wang Ling 5 . According to Wang Ling (1947) saltpetre was known in China from at least 605 AD, and was used medicinally. 4

Marshall (1932) II, 445. Goodrich (1944), Goodrich and Feng Chia-sheng (1946), Wang Ling (1947), and Needham and Wang Ling (1986). A query by the editor of "Isis" (George Sarton) was answered with photographs by Carrington Goodrich. He and Feng Chia-sheng later published an extensive paper on this subject, which appeared almost simulta­ neously with that of Wang Ling in the same journal. 5

T H E INVENTION OF GUNS

845

The first recipe for "fire powder", an incendiary mixture containing about 50% saltpe­ tre appears in China (before it was applied to guns), in a recipe book probably dating from 1044 AD. This powder was the basis for fireworks as well as incendiaries used in war, not only as fire arrows, but also as containers full of powder flung by a trebuchet which might have been a form of grenade and a third weapon first used in 1132, which consisted of a long bamboo tube filled with powder and carried by two soldiers. Whatever role this weapon was originally intended to play, it evidently evolved into the rocket before very long - perhaps when the soldiers carrying it let go. These weapons were widely used in the wars of the 12th and 13th centuries. From about 1126 onwards, for nearly a century, the Jurchen rulers of Northern China were at war with the Sung Dynasty Chinese of the South. In the first quarter of the 13th century the Mon­ gols, under Genghiz Khan (1155-1227) and his successors began to conquer, first the Ju­ rchen, and then the rest of China. Overrunning the countryside easily, the Mongols found themselves thwarted by forti­ fied towns. During this period the first mention of explosives appear; for example in 1231 the Jurchen used a new type of artillery against the Mongols which consisted of an iron vessel filled with gunpowder, which was kindled, and the vessel catapulted - apparently a grenade of sorts 6 . Kublai (a grandson of Genghiz Khan) began the conquest of Sung dynasty China in 1268 and went on to found a Mongol dynasty of Chinese emperors in 1280, which lasted until 1356. Marco Polo, with his father and uncle, were just some of the numerous visitors from the west to the court of Kublai Khan. The Venetians initially wanted merely to trade with China, but Marco became a trusted agent of the Khan, and spent some seventeen years in China. His journal (written about 1298) does not mention cannon or explosives, but in­ cludes description of stone-throwing trebuchets used by the Mongols at the siege of Hsiangyang (the Southern Sung capital)in 1272 7 . Impressive though the gunpowder weapons may have seemed, at that time solid shot might well have been more useful as a missile against stone walls. The earliest Chinese cannon surviving can be dated (by inscriptions) to the Ming dynas­ ty (commenced 1356). Goodrich illustrated two bronze cannon, supposedly of 1356/7, and two cast iron bombards of 1377. Needham suggested that the earliest surviving gun was a bronze cannon excavated from a context of c 1290, but the earliest dated bronze guns are from 1332 and 1351, and are now in the National History Museum, Peking. The earliest iron guns are dated 1377 (and appear to be the same as those illustrated by Goodrich) and which are now in Thaiyuan Provincial Museum 8 . By contrast, matchlock muskets did not appear in China until the 16th century, either directly from Central Asia around 1520, or via the Portuguese around 1540 9 . Japanese accounts of the Mongol invasions of 1274 and 1281 suggest that the Mongols brought with them some kind of artillery which threw explosive shells; in spite of which the Japanese, 6

Wang, (1947) p.170. Polo (1908) 281-2. Marco Polo claims that his father and uncle suggested the building of "mangonels" to Kublai Khan. They were constructed by Nestorian Christians, and able to throw stones of 300 lb weight. " N e e d h a m et al.(1986) 9 Needham, p. 10 7

846

SECTION SEVEN

with the assistance of the weather, prevailed and defeated the invaders. The Japanese, who had obtained so much of their culture from China, nevertheless copied their first muskets from the Portuguese in 1542, and by the end of the 16th century, Japanese armies con­ tained substantial numbers of infantrymen armed with matchlock muskets 10 . The period between around 1240 and 1356 was a period when the unified (Mongol) control of the lands between allowed relatively easy overland travel between Europe and China, and was the period when knowledge of gunpowder and its explosive properties first appeared in the West. Such an invention could have been transmitted across Asia with un­ usual readiness, in either direction. However, the Mongols, who as a nation, lived for warfare, do not seem to have made any use of guns on either of their two forays westward, so guns were almost certainly not known in 1240. They first appear in China perhaps before 1290, and certainly by 1331, and in the West, as a developed weapon, in 1326. It is difficult to decide priority with so close an interval, and it seems to this author equally plausible to postulate parallel inventions of the gun in both China and Europe, after the transmission of the knowledge of explosive powders from China to Europe in the mid-13th century.

GUNPOWDER IN THE MUSLIM WORLD

The general name for such incendiaries was "nufut" since they were made from "naft", i.e. naphtha, made by the distillation of petroleum. A description of this process is given in the 13th century by Albertus Magnus, amongst others (see below). The troops who threw "naft" were called "naffatun" and a regiment of these had been recruited in China by the Mongols. According to Ayalon, the word "naft" later came to mean also gunpowder, prob­ ably because the first use of gunpowder was as an incendiary. The word "naft" was later supplanted by "barud" which originally meant saltpetre, as the function of gunpowder changed 11 . "Barud" is first described unambiguously in the 13th century, by al-Hassan al-Rammah (d. 1294) who also described its purification with wood-ash 12 . This is essential for its employment in gunpowder. Naturally occurring saltpetre always contains some calcium nitrate, indeed the product of artificial nitre-beds is largely calcium nitrate. This is very deliquescent, that is, it absorbs water from the air until calcium nitrate solution forms. If wood-ash (which contains potassium carbonate) is added to a solution of impure saltpetre, then calcium is removed as a precipitate of calcium carbonate: potassium carbonate (soluble)

10 11 12

+

calcium nitrate (soluble)

Robinson, (1963) 22. Ayalon (1956) 6. Partington (1960) chapter 5.

=

potassium nitrate (soluble)

+

calcium carbonate (insoluble)

T H E INVENTION OF GUNS

847

After removing the calcium carbonate by filtration, or simply allowing the mixture to stand for some time, and decanting off the supernatent liquid, the remaining solution of potassium nitrate may be boiled to evaporate the water and form potassium nitrate crys­ tals. Wood-ash was in common use as a cleaning agent, and it may be hypothesised that a maker of saltpetre believed that "cleaning" impure saltpetre would somehow improve its performance - which indeed it did. The earliest written references to the Muslim use of guns which Ayalon found were a century later than this MS, in 1342 by Sultan Shihab ad-Din Ahmed and 1352 by Ibn Iyas, the governor of Damascus 13 . GUNPOWDER IN THE W E S T

Several authors describe saltpetre-containing mixtures in the 13th century, including Rog­ er Bacon, an anonymous author calling himself "Mark the Greek" and Albert of Cologne (St.Albertus Magnus). Roger Bacon (cl214-1292): this remarkable Franciscan has been credited with the in­ vention of gunpowder, microscopes, and even flying machines, sometimes on rather ten­ uous evidence. In a treatise "Epistola de secretis operibus artis et naturae" (Book of the secret works of art & nature) probably dating from 1257, he attempted to prove that the effects commonly attributed to the work of evil magic are natural and can be imitated by experiments. Among various recipes is one published by Partington 14 , and rendered as: "and so, saltpetre

and sulphur and thus you make make thunder"

Partington suggested that this was a garbled copy, rather than a ciphered recipe for gun­ powder. But any mixture which contains both saltpetre and sulphur will produce a violent deflagration when ignited. So even if this particular recipe was for no more than a violent incendiary, it is still but a short step from gunpowder. Another work of his, the "Opus Tertium" which was somewhat later (from around 1266) gives an unambiguous recipe for gunpowder, albeit only used in a firecracker. This was published by Little 15 , and I have generally followed his version. "For example there is a child's toy of sound and fire made in various parts of the world with a powder of saltpetre, sulphur and willow charcoal. For with an instrument of parch­ ment the size of a finger which is filled with this powder, one can make such a noise that it seriously distresses peoples' ears, especially of those taken unawares, and likewise the terrible flash is also very alarming... If one were to make such an instrument with a solid body, then the violence of the explosion would be much greater." The last sentence is particularly interesting because it shows that the importance of the

13

Ayalon (1956) 23-31. Partington (1960) 74. ' 3 Little (1928). Most of Bacon's works, including his "Opus Maius" never seem to have been published in English. 14

848

SECTION SEVEN

container in influencing the properties of the combustion reaction was already appreciat­ ed, and so the firecracker was well on the way to becoming the gun. Roger Bacon's works are not the only source of gunpowder recipes in 13th century Eu­ rope. They are also to be found in an anonymous 13th century treatise called "Liber Ignium" (The Book of Fires) of Mark the Greek, which is a collection of some three dozen recipes, some for incendiaries, including military applications, and some for entertainment. A precis has been published by Partington 16 . A number of the same recipes turn up in a much larger compilation called "De Mirabilibus Mundi" (On the Marvels of the World) attributed to Albertus Magnus (cl 193-1280), who was subsequently made the patron saint of science. Recipes for distilling wine to make "burning water" (i.e. alcohol) and distilling oil to make "Greek fire" are included. His recipe for gunpowder is quoted here 17 . It was evidently applied to both rockets and fireworks. "Flying fire: take one pound of sulphur, two pounds of willow charcoal six pounds of saltpetre; these three should be ground together very finely on a marble slab; afterwards as much as needed may be placed in a paper packet for making flying fire or thunder. For flying, the packet should be long, slender, and full of the best powder; for making thunder, it should be short, wide, and half full." The proportions of the ingredients in St.Albertus Magnus, and "Mark the Greek" are similar: 1/2/6 or 67% K N O s . Modern (i.e. 18th century) black powder was usually about 75% KNOg. The exact proportions of the ingredients are far less important than the thor­ oughness of the mixing (see above). It might also be observed that with the availability of saltpetre, the discovery of nitric acid would soon follow; saltpetre has only to be distilled with green vitriol (ferrous sulphate) for nitric acid to be produced, with considerable consequences for the development of alche­ my as well as the etching of armour 18 .

References Ayalon, D. "Gunpowder and firearms in the Mamluk kingdom" (1956). Chambers, J. " T h e devil's horsemen" (1979) Dawson, C. "The Mongol Missions"(1955) passim. Goodrich, L.C. & Feng Chia-sheng, "The early development of firearms in China" Isis, 35 (1944) 211 and 177; and ibid. 36, (1946) 114-23. Hime, H.W.L. " T h e Origins of Artillery" (1915) Hulme, E.Wyndham, "German wildfire trials at Oxford in 1438" Transactions of the Newcomen Society (192930) 89-99. Joinville, J e a n de, "Memoirs of the Crusades" (trans. F.Marzials, 1908). Little, A.G. "Part of the Opus Tertium", Proceedings of the British Academy (1928) xiv, 290. Marshall, A. "Explosives" (1932). Needham, J, Ho Ping Yu, Lu Gwei Djen and Wang Ling "Science and Civilisation in China" vol.5, part vii (Cambridge 1986) which volume deals with gunpowder and guns.

16 17 18

Partington (1960) 42-61. This is taken from the printed edition of 1483 (p.240). Partington (1937) 40.

T H E INVENTION O F GUNS

Partington, J, R. "A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder" (Cambridge 1960). idem, "A Short History of Chemistry" (1937) 40. Polo, "The travels of Marco Polo" ed.Wright,T.(1908). Robinson, H.R. " T h e manufacture of armour and helmets in 16th century J a p a n " (1963). W a n g Ling, " O n the invention & use of gunpowder and firearms in China" (1947) Isis, 37, 160-78.

i

849

CHAPTER 7.2

T H E EARLIEST GUNS IN EUROPE

Both the first picture of a gun and the earliest written mention come (coincidentally) from the same year - 1326 - nearly a century after the first description in Europe of gunpowder. The earliest known illustration of a gun comes from the Milamete Manuscript [Christ Church Oxford MS 92.fol.70v], which can be dated to 1326 or 1327 since it was written by Walter de Milamete, Chaplain to the King, for the edification of Prince Edward (who came to the throne as King Edward III in 1327). From its colour, the artist seems to have been intended to depict a copper-alloy gun. Its shape is bulbous, and size uncertain; it is drawn almost as long as the man firing it is tall, but unexpectedly, it is shown shooting a quarrel or vaned bolt 1 . The first reasonably certain written reference to guns in Europe dates from the same year as the Milamete MS. In the civic records of Florence for the year 1326 there is a decree concerning the provision of "bolts, iron balls, and metal cannon" for the defence of the Republic, (..pilas seu palloctas ferreas et canones de metallo pro ipsis canonibus) The "pilas" were perhaps bolts like that shown in the Milamete MS. Guns are first mentioned in many other European countries within a few years of 1326. In 1338 a fleet of Genoese and French warships attacked Southampton. They had with them a novel engine of war called a "pot de fer" with gunpowder and 48 iron bolts. After looting the town, they were driven off by the local levies. In 1339 guns were being made to defend Cambrai against King Edward III. In that same year, in the Guildhall of Lon­ don there were kept.." 6 instruments of latten (= copper alloy, usually brass) called guns, pellets of lead for the same instruments, which weigh 450 lb, and 32 lb of powder for the same instruments" 2 . Elsewhere in Europe, there are references to the Germans having guns at Frankfurt in 1348 and the Spaniards in 1359. Their use rapidly becomes commonplace on both sides during the Hundred Years' war between England and France and their size increases steadily. Tout collected and published many of the numerous references to guns and gunpowder in the English Chamber and other official accounts 3 . Guns and gunpowder were kept in the King's Privy Wardrobe in the Tower of London, along with arms and armour, and other military stores. Their first mention is in 1333/4: 1 quarter saltpetre 6d 31b live sulphur 2s 6d 41b simple sulphur 2s 1 2 3

Partington (1960) 97. Partington, (1960) 100 Tout (1911) passim.

T H E EARLIEST GUNS IN E U R O P E

851

This seems to have been a very small quantity, but it may well have been only for a trial of the new weapon. After 1344, they are frequently mentioned, and in much larger quan­ tities. The supplies shipped to France for the Crecy (1346) campaign included 912 lb salt­ petre for the numerous guns taken. Another 700 lb was purchased later in the same year, and then 2021 lb in 1347, at 18d the lb. In 1382 Randolph Hatton became Keeper of the Privy Wardrobe. He spent some £ 1800 on artillery, buying 87 cannon, partly to supply royal castles, and in 1396, he was able to leave his successor 50 cannon and no less than 4000 lb of gunpowder. Tout pub­ lished a selection of his accounts and showed that these cannon were mostly large pieces, for attacking (or defending) castles, and of typical weights 300 lb - 400 lb, made of both "copper" (presumably copper-alloy) and "iron" (presumably wrought iron). Also provided were thousands of "round stones", pellets of lead, tampions of wood, and artillerymen's sundries like hammers, linstocks and mandrels. Their size increased further in the years following. For example, Henry IV had two new cannon made in 1408/9 at a cost of £ 13 6s 8d (13.33) and £ 25 6s 8d (25.33). If one allows 4d a lb for copper (iron was around 1/2 d per lb), these would have weighed 800 lb (360 kg) and 1520 lb (690 kg). By contrast "Mons Meg", the great iron bombard made in 1449 and presented to James II of Scotland by Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, weighed 15,000 lb (6800 kg) or ten times as much 4 . The colossal bronze guns cast for the Ottoman Sultan at the siege of Constantinople weighed even more 5 . One such gun surviving (dated 1464) was made up of a breech weighing 20,000 lb (9000 kg) and a barrel of 18,000 lb (8000 kg). IMPROVEMENTS IN GUNS

A bronze gun closly resembling in shape the one shown in the Milamete MS was excavat­ ed at Loshult in Sweden. It is only 302 mm long overall and with a conical bore tapering from 31 to 36mm 6 . The overall dimensions suggest strongly that this was intended to be used as an anti-personnel weapon; if it had fired bolts, then they would have been little larger than those shot by large siege crossbows. Some vaned bolts (64 cm in length) which might have been fired from a similar gun have been unearthed in the castle of Eltz 7 . The ability of larger versions of such weapons to throw stones, like trebuchets, at castle walls, was appreciated very quickly, and by the end of the 14th century very large "bom­ bards" of wrought iron were being built for this purpose. Their barrels were also tapered; this apparently making it easier to wedge the stone ball in tightly and thus ensure an ex­ plosion of the powder 8 . Their relatively low velocity and inaccuracy were not seen as major shortcomings. Great accuracy and rapid rates of fire were not called for against large, static, targets. The cost +

Smith & Brown (1989) Williams & Paterson (1986) fa Jakobsson (1943) and see a report on recent experiments with a replica in Hansen & Svender(2001). 7 Tittmann (2000) fig.8. 8 Tittman describes a late 14th century stone-throwing gun (at Luxemburg) of barrel length 580 m m and bore 70-100 mm. 5

852

SECTION SEVEN

of gunpowder was to remain high until the development of the artificial nitre-bed (see chapter 7.3), but the perceived effectiveness of stone-throwing guns ("steinbuchse") against stone walls was evidently thought to outweigh this. T o be used against individual targets, such as a knight on horseback, guns would have to be pointed at them, and the low-calibre stone-throwers were far less suitable for this ("cal­ ibre" is used to mean the ratio of barrel length to bore). In the early 15th century hand­ guns appear more frequently in use, and perhaps in an attempt to improve accuracy, or perhaps because the principle of acceleration had become better understood, they were higher-calibre bullet-throwers. It was realised by the early 15th century (and stated in a MS of 1432) that a longer barrels would shoot further 9 because the low projectile velocity could be increased by lengthening the barrel. This meant, of course, that barrels had to be of constant (cylindrical) bore, which those of stone-throwing guns were not. Simply loading more gunpowder will not help to increase the muzzle velocity, because the bullet may leave the muzzle before all the powder has burned. Increasing the barrel length allows the bullet to be accelerated for a longer time by the expanding gases. The same amount of energy can then be delivered to the target by a smaller bullet (and hence from a smaller gun) travelling at a higher velocity. It should also be observed that increasing the barrel length excessively will not increase the muzzle velocity either. A fast burning powder may finish gas evolution before the ball has left the gun, and then friction with the barrel will slow the bullet down again. Sixl and others 10 collected the dimensions of many early handguns, (see Appendix 1) and it is clear that both the length and the calibre increased rapidly during the 15th cen­ tury, until two hands were needed to hold the gun. Ignition then became a problem. By the end of the 15th century, the "serpentine" had been invented which allowed the fingers of one hand to pull a trigger which depressed a smouldering match to ignited the charge of gunpowder, while both hands were left free to hold the gun. This, strictly speaking, is the "arquebus". If the barrel is so long that a forked rest is needed as well as both hands, then the handgun is properly called a "musket". This method of ignition was known as a "matchlock". It was cheap and simple, but the match had to be kept dry and glowing all the time the gun was in use. In the early 16th century, the "wheellock" was developed, in which sparks were struck by a spring-driven wheel. This was a more complex and expensive method, but one independent of the weather 11 . Accuracy is not improved by a higher muzzle velocity alone, since in smooth-bore guns the bullets wobble on travelling down the barrel, no matter how perfectly they may seem to fit. The position of the last wobble, and therefore the direction at which the bullet leaves the muzzle, is unpredictable. Causing the bullet to rotate about its axis of travel stabilises its path by supplying a centrifugal force. Rifling was known and used in the 16th century to rotate bullets (perhaps by analogy with the fletching on arrows) but a rifled bullet had to be an exact fit, which leads to a very slow rate of reloading and considerable embarrass9

Kramer (2001): fol 87r of this MS, dated 1432, mentions that longer barrels shoot further. Sixl (1900-02) 11 Blair (1997)

10

T H E EARLIEST GUNS IN E U R O P E

853

ment if the powder fails to ignite, because the bullet cannot then be easily removed. The widespread use of rifled handguns had to await other solutions devised in the middle of the 19th century. The rate of fire might be improved by designing multiple-barrel weapons. "Ribalds" or "ribauldquins" were guns with many barrels. Three such (each of 144 barrels mounted in 3 tiers on a cart drawn by 4 horses) were constructed for Antonio della Scala, Lord of Verona, in 1387 12 . Otherwise, the slow rate of fire was a problem which could be coped with, rather than solved, by mixing the handgunners with pikemen or other defensive troops, or in the case of the Hussites, placing them on carts which acted as mobile ramparts. Gunpowder may be improved by mixing the ingredients wet and then drying out the cake produced. Indeed, the author has found by experiment that "dry-mixed" gunpowder was so unreliable that it must be very doubtful whether it was ever more than a stage on the road of propellant development. The risks of grinding the ingredients together dry must have made the mixing of all but the smallest quantities extremely hazardous. What may have first been undertaken as a safety precaution would soon have been found to improve the powder considerably. Tout's collection of the English Royal accounts include (for 1373/ 5) a reference to kettles bought for drying gunpowder, suggesting that wet-mixing was al­ ready employed by then 13 . So by the late 14th century, gunpowder had reached the pen­ ultimate stage of its development. Corned powder, of uniform grain size, (corning was described in chapter 7.1) which came into general use during the 16th century, offered a more powerful propellant than uncorned or "serpentine" powder, indeed it may have been too powerful for some guns. Indeed, it is possible that the later success of the gunmaking industry in cities like Brescia which were earlier centres of armour production was due to the use of steel rather than iron for the gunbarrels. Prices for both grades of powder were still being quoted in the 16th century English accounts (8d and 7d a lb respectively).

12 Clephan (1911) 117-8. At the battle of Castagnaro in that year, however, they stuck in the mud, and could not be brought into battle in time to be used, but were captured by the condottiere of Padua, J o h n Hawkwood, together with 24 bombards, which had taken no part in the battle either, and 4000 prisoners. 13 Williams (1974) 114.

854

SECTION SEVEN

Appendix: Table of the dimensions of some handguns' Date

bore barrel length (mm)

early 14Lh c. late 14lh c 14"V15"'c 1400-1410 early 15 th c cl420 1420-50 c.1440 cl450 1480-90 cl500 1537 1548 cl550 c.1550

270 193 214 420 262 250 393 958 748 700 1069 575 724 940 1130

el 600

calibre (mm)

location

31-36 21 23 50 26 20 29 35 22 24 16 16 14.2 14.7 19

7.5 9 9.3 8.5 10 12.5 13.5 26 34 29 68 36 51 64 60

1206

19

64

1607

1380

16

86

Loshult (bronze) Stockholm Stockholm, Linz, Luxembourg (wall gun) Plzen Tabor Plzen, Zittau, Plzen Nurnberg Brunswick, BNM.260 Tojhus B.35 BAM 1449 Royal Armouries, Leeds.X.lI9 Musee de l'Armee, Paris M.10 Paris. M.23

1600-1648

1177 1147 1160 1002 c 1000

19.4 19.3 18 19 19

61 59 65 53 52

Tojhus B.839a B.392 B.393 B.396 "Brown Bess"

1702-1851

BAM = Bavarian Army Museum; then in Munich, but now in Ingolstadt. BNM - Bavarian National Museum, Munich.

14 Most of these dimensions are taken from the series of articles by Sixl. Other sources include Blair (1962) andjakobsson (1943).

855

T H E EARLIEST GUNS IN E U R O P E

T h e dimensions of a large number of Hussite guns in the West Bohemia Museum at Plzen (Pilsen) have been published by Fryda. Bore

barrel length mm

calibre

35 26 29 22 21 21 21 24 36 26

315 290 415 626 943 847 916 675 1070 998

9 11 14 28.5 45 40 44 28 30 38

26 24 24 22 20 16 20 22 20 22

860 935 976 900 747 643 853 853 600 710

33 39 41 41 37 40 39 39 30 32

24 22 24 24

820 974 925 904

34 44 38.5 38

mm

Ratio of barrel length : bore (handguns) change with time + Calibre

64

-

+ +

+

+

+

+ + +

+

+ +

48

+ CO

O

+

■AZ

+

+

+

+

+ +

+

+

16

'

+

+ 1

_J

1300

1400

1500 Date

1600

1700

856

SECTION SEVEN

References Blair, C. "European and American Arms 1100-1850" (19G2) Blair, C. "New light on the early history of the wheellock in Italy", WalTen- und Kostiimkunde, 39, (Munich 1997) 25-37. Glephan, R.C. "The ordnance of the 14th century and 15th century", 68 (Oxford, 1911) 49-138. Fryda, F. "Plzcnska Mestska Zbrojnice" (Plzen, 1988). Hansen, P.V. & Svendcr, J. "Rekonslruktion og skydeforsog med Loshultkanonen" (Nykobing, 2001). Jakobsson, "Ein geschutzfund" (The Loshult gun) Zeitschrift fur Historische Waffenkunde, 8 (1943) 124. Kramer, G.W. " T h e Firework Book" (Das Fcuerwerkbuch) Journal of the Arms & Armour Society, 17 (2001) 21-88. Partington, J . R . "A history of Greek Fire and Gunpowder (Cambridge, 1960). Sixl, P. "Entwickelung und Gebrauch der HandfeuerwalTen", Zeitschrift fiir Historische Waffenkunde, band 2; 116, 163, 264, 310, 327, 386, 4070 (Dresden, 1900-02) Smith, R.D. & Brown, R.R. "Bombards; Mons Meg and her sisters" (1989) 22. Tiltmann, W. "Biichsenwerk - die Kunst aus Biichsen zu schiessen", Waffen- und Kostiimkunde, 42 (Miinchen, 2000) 141-182. Tout, T.F. "Firearms in England in the 14th century" English History Review, 26 (1911) 666 - 702. Williams, A.R. "Some firing tests with simulated 15th century handguns" Journal of the Arms & Armour Society, 8 (1974) 114. Williams, A.R. & Paterson, A.J.R. "A Turkish bronze cannon in the Tower of London" Gladius, 17 (Caceres, Spain, 1986) 185-205.

C H A P T E R 7.3

GUNS IN 15TH CENTURY WARFARE

The utility of guns in siege warfare was undoubtedly apparent from their first appearance and the drawbacks to their use—great weight to transport, inaccuracy, and slow rate of fire—were almost irrelevant against such large, static, targets as castle walls. Their utility on the battlefield however was much less clear, and their drawbacks were of greater moment. Nonetheless, the use of handguns increased steadily throughout the 15th century, at the expense of other missile weapons, and posed new challenges to the makers (and wearers) of armour. The Milanese militia, for example, were being armed with hand­ guns as early as 1449 1 . This chapter will deal with some of the first European soldiers to adopt handguns as their primary weapon, and also some of the last to do so, as two contrasting examples. The first large-scale, decisive, use of handguns was by the Czech peasant armies during the Hussite Wars of the early 15th century. The professional English armies, on the other hand, were perhaps the slowest to adopt handguns, but they were to play a steadily in­ creasing role, at the expense of the well-established English archery, first during the Hun­ dred Years' War and then during the Wars of the Roses. Despite their earlier successes, during the late 15th and early 16th century, the use of their famous longbows was steadily abandoned by the English. T H E HUSSITES

The first large-scale use of handguns in battle took place in Bohemia 2 . The aristocracy was largely German, and conflicts with the Czech peasantry increased after the Black Death. The Church owned half, or more, of the land, and its wealth, privileges and corruption increasingly alienated it from the laity. It was, therefore, not surprising that the reforming creed of J o h n Wyclif should have found widespread support in Bohemia, and a fervent exponent in J o h n Hus (or Huss), then Rector of Prague University. In 1415, Hus was summoned to the Council of Constance, and despite a safe-conduct from King Sigismund, he was burned for his incorrect opinions. There was a violent reaction in Bohemia where Wyclif s teachings had become aligned with anti-clerical and anti-German sentiment. 1 Sismondi (1818). In the course of a war between Milan and Venice, in 1449, the condottiere Francesco Sforza, fighting on the Venetian side, was besieging Marignano. T h e Milanese, and the Visconti widow, assisted by the Gonzagas, sortied with 6000 horse and 20 000 foot ("armed with handguns") but failed to lift the siege, In 1450 Sforza became Duke of Milan. 2 Heymann (1955) passim.

858

SECTION SEVEN

While a Papal Bull of Crusade was being preached against the Hussites, Zizka (captain of the Prague militia) was collecting volunteers. These men were untrained, and poorly armed with farmers' flails, a few crossbows and spears. However, religious and national feelings combined to ensure their fanatical courage and willingness to accept discipline for the furtherance of their common aim. Somehow, they would have to withstand the charge of Sigismund's armoured knights. The Czechs did not have a national weapon like the En­ glish longbow to attack armour, but another weapon was found to do this job. Zizka put his men into wagons, up to 18 in each one, and these became a mobile rampart from which to repel the enemy's attack. The Hussite army, on the move, was always prepared, at a moment's notice of attack, to form its wagons into a circle ("wagenburg"). These were farmwagons stregthened for protection, with a plank between the axles to stop an enemy slip­ ping underneath, and drawn by four horses. They were chained together when stationary and carried two or three handguns each, which could be rested on the sides of the wagon, as well as a larger number of crossbows 3 . If the knights dismounted to try and storm the ring of wagons, they would then be fighting at a disadvantage against men, behind a wooden rampart, armed with flails, axes, etc. He laid much greater emphasis on the use of guns as field, as opposed to siege weapons, than had hitherto been the case, evidently believing that guns would be the most suitable weapons with which to equip an army of novices since so little training in their use was required. Loading was slow and traversing limited, but Zlzka's tactics were to allow the enemy to attack first, and he increased their impact by firing in volleys. It has to be assumed that gunpowder was readily available in Central Europe, but it was certainly well known to the German-speaking world, and as saltpetre planta­ tions ("nitre-beds") were in use in Frankfurt as early as 1388 this seems very probable 4 . Their first skirmish was in 1419 at Nekmer near Plzen (Pilsen). Zizka, having seven wagons mounting guns (described as "those guns with which they destroy walls") managed to beat off an attack by the Royalist Svamberg. Early in the next year, Zizka left Plzen for Tabor with 400 men and 12 wagons. On the way he was attacked by some 2000 Royalist cavalry at Sudomer, but again succeeded in beating them off by forming a defensive circle. Later in 1420, Zizka relieved Prague and forced Sigismund to retreat. Originally perhaps no more than a temporary expedient, these wagons became the basis of a new system of tactics; essentially defensive, but with increasing self-confidence the Hussites were able to adopt more offensive tactics. Cavalry, mounted on captured horses, waited within the "wagenburg" for the psychological moment to sortie and turn a repulse into a rout. In 1421, a second Crusade was preached against the Hussite heretics. Zizka defeated them in several battles before he was to die of plague in 1424, and his army renamed themselves the "Orphans". The tradition that he ordered a drum to be covered with his skin, so that he might continue to lead the Hussites into battle is, unfortunately, no more than a legend. There is more foundation to the story that already one-eyed, he lost the sight of the other, and directed his campaigns while blind. If true, this would be in keeping with the character of a man who was evidently an outstanding innovator.

3 4

Wagner et al. (1958) Kramer (1995) chapter 4.

GUNS IN 15TH CENTURY WARFARE

859

The Hussite army defeated the Catholics in several more battles, and then carried the war to the enemy, ravaging Saxony, Franconia and Bavaria. In desperation the Council of Basel (1431-4) resolved to negotiate with the heretics. The Bohemian nobles were won over with promises of Church land, and eventually the Hus­ sites were defeated in 1437. After the defeat of the Hussites many took service abroad as mercenaries, where they doubtless helped to popularise the use of handguns. A contingent of Bohemian gunners fought in the Hungarian army against the Turks at the second battle of Kossovo in 1448 5 . T H E 15TH CENTURY WARS OF THE ENGLISH

In total contrast to Bohemia, in England, there was a tradition of a paid body of foot-soldiers armed with very effective missile weapons - especially the English, or perhaps originally the Welsh, longbow. Partly for this reason, the English armies were among the slowest to employ handguns on the battlefield, although well provided with them for sieges. Nevertheless guns become steadily more used by English armies during their 15th cen­ tury battles, particularly as they could be used to disrupt bodies of the enemy at ranges beyond those open to archery, no matter how skilled. In the "Hundred Years War" with France which started in the 14th century, the En­ glish kings relied in battle almost entirely on formations of longbowmen mixed with dis­ mounted knights (i.e. fully armoured infantrymen with long spears). While the disciplined bodies of spearmen could withstand the first impetus of a cavalry charge, the bowmen would pour a hail of arrows into the enemy. There were numerous earlier precedents for similar tactics, at Northallerton in 1138, and Arsuf in 1191. But the difference now seems to have been that the archers were employed in greater numbers and better co-ordinated with the knights. At Crecy (1346), the ill-organised knightly host, numbering perhaps 12000, of Philip VI repeatedly charged the smaller (8500) dismounted English army with little success until the French scattered (see chapter 3.2). At Poitiers (1356), the chivalry of John IPs even larger army dismounted, presumably to protect their horses from the arrows, and attacked the (again smaller) English army repeatedly until the English remounted and charged them, capturing J o h n himself in the rout. It is interesting to note that the French chivalry, who took a leading role in the Crusade to defend Hungary against Turkish invasion, exactly repeated these unsuccessful tactics at the battle of Nicopolis (1396). They made a reckless frontal attack upon the Janissary ar­ chers, who, like the English, had protected themselves with a line of stakes. Under a hail of arrows, the knights dismounted to pull the stakes out of the ground, and were caught in both flanks by the counter-charge of the Turkish cavalry. Sigismund (King of Hungary, and later King of Bohemia) seems to have learned little from this experience since the Hussite wars saw him repeating these identical tactics.

5 6

Lot (1949) I, 434. Oman, op.cit. II, 356.

860

SECTION SEVEN

On the other hand, the eldest son of the Duke of Burgundy, John the Fearless, was cap­ tured at Nicopolis, and after being ransomed, built up the Burgundian artillery to be the most extensive in Europe. The army of John the Fearless was said to contain 4000 handgunners as early as 1411 7 . In the 15th century, Henry V revived his claim to the throne of France, and the French war was restarted, but guns were not used in the battle of Agincourt (1415) which was won by essentially similar tactics to Crecy. The English army consisted of lines of dismounted men-at-arms, flanked by wedges of archers, who were protected by stakes. French horsemen attacked the archers, but were repulsed, as a chronicle of 1446 related "archers with strong and numerous volleys dark­ ened the air..an intolerable multitude of piercing arrows, and inflicting w o u n d s on the h o r s e s , either caused the French horsemen to fall to the ground, or forced them to re­ treat" 8 . The French vanguard of dismounted men-at-arms fought in a melee of spears with the English, while attacked from the sides by the archers. After 2 or 3 hours their van­ guard had been broken up; the French rearguard, still mounted, abandoned the field. Since these tactics had met with such success, and used the weapons most familiar to the English, there would seem little reason to change them, although they did depend upon the enemy being foolish enough to charge a prepared position, wherein the French had generally obliged. In 1424, the Duke of Bedford (as Regent) defeated a Franco-Scottish army at Verneuil, repeating the successful tactics of Crecy and Agincourt, but for the last time 9 . These tac­ tics were becoming obsolete although this was not realised at the time, and it was to be more than twenty years before the English were to be defeated in a set-piece battle. It is interesting to note that in 1416 Bedford had led a fleet to relieve Harfleur, which the French, together with nine large carracks hired from Genoa as well as their Castilian allies, had been blockading. After a severe struggle, four of the Genoese carracks were cap­ tured, a fifth wrecked, and the largest, which escaped "was so rent and bored in her sides that she .. afterwards sank,". English Royal ships had been carrying guns since at least 1411 10 and Henry's largest ship in 1415 had been the "Holigost" of 760 tons, which carried 6 cannon but this seems to be the earliest instance of a ship being sunk by gunfire 11 . The English retained the initiative in France, until the siege of Orleans. This was block­ aded by an English force of only 4000 men (smaller than the garrison) until it was relieved by Joan of Arc in 1429. The Dauphin went on to be crowned Charles VII at Rheims, and was reconciled with the Duke of Burgundy in 1435, but no decisive counter-offensives were taken by the French for twenty years. Then in 1449 Charles, with a large train of artillery, directed by the brothers Jean and Gaspard Bureau, set about the reconquest of Normandy. Some 20 castles were taken in 2 months, and in 1450 the last English army in Normandy

7

Brusten (1953) 108. T h e civic artillery of, for example, Bruges, included 155 handguns and 245 larger pieces of artillery. " Curry (2000) 72; this book reprints all the relevant passages from the various 15th century chronicles. 9 Most of the casualties at Verneuil were 6000 Scots, unable to retreat when the French left the battlefield. O m a n (1924). 10 Tout (1911) 275. " Williams, E.C. (1963); Chapter 5 describes the sea-fight off Harfleur.

GUNS IN 15TH CENTURY WARFARE

861

was defeated at Formigny. A detailed account of that battle has survived 12 . Some 4000 English had been drawn up in their usual defensive array, which the French were unable to disturb. Instead, they opened fire with two field guns, and so galled the English ranks that part of the English army rushed upon the guns and seized them. In doing so, howev­ er, they sacrificed their own strong position and firepower, and were defeated by the French counter-charge. In 1453, Talbot was defending Bordeaux when the French approached. Instead of waiting in a defensive position for the French attack, he rashly attempted to storm their fortified camp, defended by many guns, at Castillon and was defeated and killed. The end of the Hundred Years' War brought peace to France, but not to England. The quarrels of the barons, fostered by a long regency for the young Henry VI, and the Duke of York's claim to the throne, led to the struggles generically called the Wars of the Roses. There are unfortunately considerable gaps in the Public Records for this period, and for the most part we do not know crucial details of the forces engaged in these battles. But there are tantalising glimpses of the increasing role that guns played in battle, even in the "land of the longbow". The battles were probably tactically similar to those fought earlier in France, and cer­ tainly there would have been plenty of unemployed archers ready to take service with dis­ gruntled barons and Edward of York (later Edward IV) won the battle of Towton (1461) partly by means of more effective archery. The larger part of the citizens were not involved in the fighting, and there were no formal sieges of walled towns, although artillery was used to attack castles held by the enemy (and London in 1471). For instance, in 1461 the (Yorkist) garrison of Calais attacked the near­ by castle of Hammes, held by a garrison allied to the Lancastrian party. The accounts of John Clay, victualler of Calais, show that before they surrended the defenders used 242 lb of gunpowder to fire 270 gunstones, while their besiegers used 1120 lb of powder and 998 stones 13 . In 1464, Edward IV attacked Bamburgh Castle with a large train of artillery which included the "Dijon" a great bronze bombard captured from Philip, the Duke of Burgun­ dy, at Calais in 1436. This so battered the walls that "great blocks of masonry went flying into the sea and Sir Ralph Grey's chamber toppled down on his head" 14 . After some years, Edward fell out with the Earl of Warwick and fled to his brother-inlaw, the Duke of Burgundy (Charles, the son of Philip). In 1471 he returned to reclaim the throne with a force which included 500 Flemish handgunners. At the ensuing battle of Barnet both the King and Warwick had guns, as the chronicler relates: "bothe parties had goons and ordinaunce but therle of Warwike had many moo than the Kynge, and therefore on the nyght, weninge gretly to have anoyed the Kinge and his hooste with shot of gonnes, the'Erl shotte gunes almost all the nyght.. But they alway overshote the kyng's hoste [because] they lay muche nerrar them than they demyd". Edward did not return this fire so as not to reveal his position. At dawn he attacked "first with shotte..and

12 Stevenson (1863, 1864) and O m a n (1924); in 1449 the French captured English castles at the rate of 5 per month, op. cit. II, 226, 404. 13 Grummitt (2000) 259. 14 Kendall (1972) 239, 291.

CO

pi

o H

5 z

w < w

Galeazzo Maria Sforza, Duke of Milan (d. 1476), is illustrated in a miniature, dated 1475, and shown praying for victory. In the background there is a battle going on, with combats between armoured knights and, in front of them, groups of infantry. T h e group of infantry on the left includes three handgunners, one of whom is reloading his weapon with its stock on the ground, and ramming the gunpowder down. © Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

GUNS IN 15TH CENTURY WARFARE

863

then they joyned and came to hand-strokes" 15 . Warwick was defeated and killed. Edward then headed towards the West country and defeated Margaret of Anjou at Tewkesbury. Meanwhile another Lancastrian force under Falconbridge was unsuccessfully attacking London, in an attempt to release Henry VI from the Tower. He took guns out of his ships and fired them from the south bank of the Thames at the city. The citizens however, re­ plied with their own guns (which therefore must have had an effective range of at least 400 m to shoot across the Thames) and drove the Lancastrians away. They then tried an at­ tack upon London Bridge, burning the houses thereon, simultaneously sending 3000 men to attack Aldgate and Bishopsgate. The Lord Mayor, aldermen and citizens however de­ fended themselves energetically, with "muche shote of gonnes and arrows a great while" and a sortie from the (Yorkist) garrison of the Tower fell upon the rear of the Lancastrians attacking Aldgate, who were routed and driven back to their ships 16 . His period of exile in Burgundy may well have stimulated Edward's interest in guns. There were numerous purchases of guns and gunpowder in the Netherlands, the details of which have been collected by Grummitt, of which three may be mentioned. In 1468 a total of 31 guns were purchased from various merchants, and Robert Potte, the master gunner of Calais, travelled to Brussels to test-fire them before delivery. In 1472 iron balls for guns (these were presumably castings) were purchased for the first time from Peter Gunmaker of Malines. Between 1473 and 1478, the victualler of Calais spent £ 3622 on a total of 211 guns, including the "Great Edward of Calais" an iron bombard which cost £ 414 Flemish, and so must have weighed some 41 000 lb, nearly 20 tonnes 17 . Edward IV lived until 1483, when his brother succeeded him as Richard III. He con­ tinued his brother's policy of building up a substantial arsenal of guns in the Tower of Lon­ don, but does not seem to have used this when Henry Tudor invaded in 1485. The battle of Bosworth opened with an exchange of cannon fire, but without waiting for any conclu­ sion, Richard impatiently advanced, was surrounded and killed. Henry had himself crowned as King Henry VII, married Elizabeth of York, and founded a bodyguard - the Yeomen Warders of the Tower - who were armed half with bows and half with guns 18 . By 1490 there was a flourishing gun-making industry at the Tower of London, employing foreign craftsmen, but controlled by members of the royal household 19 . The last victory of an English army using the longbow was at Flodden (1513) and it was successful there only against the unarmoured part of the Scottish army. The front ranks of the Scots "were assuredly harnessed and abode the most dangerous shot of a r r o w s , which sore them annoyed, but yet except it hit them in some bare place, d i d t h e m n o hurt." 20 .

15 16 17 18 19 20

Halliwell (1839) 13. Bruce (1838) I, 18-24. Grummitt (2000) 263. Clephan (1909) 168. Grummitt (2000) 268. Hall's Chronicle, quoted by Oman (1924) 314.

864

SECTION SEVEN

APPENDIX—PRICE OF GUNPOWDER

The cost of saltpetre (and hence gunpowder) fell during the 15th century, as the English Public Records show 21 . A further fall in real terms in the 16th century, allowing for Eu­ rope-wide inflation, was probably due to the adoption of artificial nitre-beds in England 22 .

Price of gunpowder in England 1330-1550 +

gunpowder (lb)

A

cloth (piece) 120

96

„

1 I 2,

" 1 24

1380

1420

1460

1500

1540

1580

0 1620

date

T h e cost of one pound of saltpetre

1333 1347 1360 1375 1382 1399 1404 1438 1449 1453 1461 1467 1512 1544 1550 1562

gunpowder

N.B. .£ 1 = 240 d (old pence) or 20 s (shillings).

24 d 18 d 18 d 8d 20 d 4d 12 d 6d 8d

8d 12 d 5d 5d

4d 5 1/2 d 6d 7 d*

* corned, but 6d serpentine powder. 21

Tout (1911). The other prices are taken from ffoulkes (1937) Hulme (1930) and Beveridge (1939). Williams (1975) Honrick's recipe is given in full, and the author's attempts to recreate a nitre-bed are described. A mixture of dung and earth was set up in a pile and urinated on daily for several months. Am­ monia (from urea) is oxidised by the air with the aid of various bacteria to form nitrates. Extraction with boiling water yields a very dilute solution of calcium nitrate, which may be treated with wood-ash (containing potassium carbonate) to form potassium nitrate. 22

GUNS IN 15TH CENTURY WARFARE

865

Dukes of Burgundy Philip the Bold d.1404 John the Fearless 1371-1419 murdered at Montereau Philip the Good 1396-1467 an ally of England until 1435 Charles the Rash 1433-1477 killed by Swiss at the battle of Nancy

References: Beveridge, W.H. "Prices and wages in England from the 12th to the 19th century" (1939). Bruce, J.ed. "Arrival of King Edward IV" (Camden Society Series, 1838). Brusten, C. "L'armee bourguignonne" (Brussels, 1953). Clephan, R.C. "An outline of the history of gunpowder and the history of the handgun" Archaeological Journal, 66 (Oxford, 1909) 145-170, vol.67, 109-150, and vol.68, 49-138. Curry, A. " T h e battle of Agincourt" (2000). ffoulkes, C. "The gunfounders of England" (Cambridge, 1937) quotes prices from the Victoria County His­ tory of Surrey, 311. Grummitt, D. "The defence of Calais and the development of gunpowder weaponry in England in the late 15th century" War in History, 7 (2000) 253-272. Halliwell,J. ed. "Warkworth's Chronicle of the first thirteen years of the reign of Edward IV" (Camden Soc. vol.X. 1839) 13 onwards. Heymann, F. G. "John Zizka and the Hussite Revolution" (Princeton, 1955) Hulme, E.W. "German wildfire trials at Oxford in 1438" Newcomen Society Transactions, 10 (1929-30) 8999. Kendall, P.M. "Richard III" (1972). Kramer, G.W. "Gunpowder; the history of an international technology" (1995). idem. "The Firework Book" (Das Feuerwerkbuch) Journal of the Arms & Armour Society, 17 (2001) 21-88. Lot, F. "L'art militaire au moyen age" (Paris, 2 vols, 1949). Martindale, A. "Gothic Art" (London, 1967) 221. O m a n , C. "The art of war in the Middle Ages" (2 vols, 1924); there is also a shorter, one-volume version, of this work (revised ed, 1953). Sismondi, J.C.de, "Histoire des republiques Italiennes au moyen age" (Paris, 1818) IX, 341. Stevenson, J. ed."The Wars of the English in France" (Rolls Series, 3 vols) 1864. I, 407. idem. "Narratives of the expulsion of the English from Normandy" (Rolls Series, no.32) 1863. Tout, T.F "Firearms in England in the 14th century" English History Review, 26,(1911) 666-702. This important paper was reprinted in Tout, T.F "Collected papers" (Oxford, 1932-4) vol.2, 233-275. Wagner, E. D r o b n a , Z. & Durdik, J . "Medieval Costume, armour and weapons 1350-1450" (printed in Czechoslovakia, but published in London, 1958) 137. Williams, A . R . ' T h e production of saltpetre in the Middle Ages" Ambix, 22 (1975) 125. Williams, E.Carleton, "My Lord of Bedford, 1389-1435, a life of J o h n of Lancaster" (1963).

C H A P T E R 7.4

HANDGUNS IN THE 16TH CENTURY CONTINENTAL EUROPE TO

1525

The effectiveness of handguns such as those described in the preceding chapter against armoured knights was evident, but their slow rate of fire meant that infantry using them had to be protected while reloading. This might be achieved by putting the gunners in carts, or by having the gunners take refuge within a hollow square of pikemen; but only a fairly small number could be accomodated this way. Once larger numbers of gunners were in­ volved, they would not be able to move in and out of the square as freely, but would still require the protection of pikemen. Solving this problem by adopting different formations enabled infantry firepower to be increased in the 16th century 1 . The Swiss had acquired the reputation of being the most effective infantry soldiers in the 15th century, having defeated the Duke of Burgundy in three great battles at Grand­ son, Morat and Nancy. A Swiss square of 6000 men would consist of about one-tenth crossbowmen and the rest men armed with pikes (to stop a cavalry charge) and halberds (to fight knights at close quarters). The infantry of the Imperial army in the early 16th century consisted of "landsknechts", modelled on the Swiss, with arquebusiers and pikemen in the ratio of 1:4. If the former were deployed all around the square, then only a quarter could fire to the front, but under the exigencies of the Turkish invasion of Hungary in 1529, some 2400 musketeers were arranged around a square of 2500 pikemen. Using a system of "counter-march" all of these men could then fire to the front 2 . The Spanish army had been largely re-equipped with handguns by Gonsalvo da Cor­ doba before 1494; the ratio of arquebus to pike was 1:6 but from 1521 onwards, the musket replaced the arquebus, and the ratio of musket to pike had become nearer 1:13. Their adversaries in the Mediterranean theatre of war, the Turkish Janissaries, had largely dis­ carded the bow for the handgun by 1500 4 . At the battle of Pavia in 1525, the Spanish had sufficient confidence in their musketeers to place them all in one body in front of the pikes, instead of in thin lines distributed all around the square, for ease of refuge within. Their firepower was thus increased consider­ ably 3 . 1 2 3 4 5

Oman (1937) and Taylor (1921), passim. Laskowski (1959). Taylor (1921) chapter 3. Ayalon (1956) 51. Oman (1937) 186.

HANDGUNS IN 16TH CENTURY

867

The wars in Italy (where the leading military powers of Europe clahed between 1494 and 1559) were the proving grounds for these new methods of warfare. This chapter will not attempt to give a detailed account of those wars, but will simply mention those battles which demonstrated the growing importance of gunfire. King Charles VIII of France, attempting to revive an old French claim to the throne of Naples, had invaded Italy in 1494 with an impressive train of artillery, and conquered Naples. A confederation of Italian states forced him to retire northwards, and then an Italian army tried to stop him. It was scattered at Fornovo (1495) by a successful French cavalry charge made by around 1000 knights. The French infantry, consisting of some 3000 Swiss pikemen and 5000 crosbowmen, was scarcely engaged 6 . King Louis XII raised another army of some 20 000 men (including 8000 Swiss) to in­ vade Italy in 1503. The Spanish, under Gonsalvo de Cordova, managed to outmanoeuvre and defeat them in the hills of Southern Italy, finally capturing Gaeta in 1504. Ravenna Guns were to play a decisive role in the battle of Ravenna (1512). Gaston de Foix was in command of another French army (with German Landsknechts rather than Swiss) in Lombardy fighting an alliance of Spain, The Pope, and Venice. His cannon had breached the walls of Ravenna when a Spanish-led army came to its relief. Having got his troops in line, Gaston halted them and brought up his artillery, which bombarded the entrenched Span­ ish camp for two hours. In turn the Spanish guns fired on the German and French infan­ try, killing 2000 of them in this same period of time. (Fabrizio Colonna, when a prisoner after the battle, said that he had seen one cannonball knock over 33 men-at-arms.) When the French managed to bring more cannon into play, the Spanish cavalry left their camp and charged, only to be defeated by the French cavalry. The first French attack on the Spanish infantry was by 2000 crossbowmen, who met such a withering fire from arque­ buses and swivel-guns mounted on carts, that they "melted away". An attack by the land­ sknechts made little progress until the Spanish were taken in the flank by the victorious French cavalry. The battlefield saw almost unprecedented totals of both French (4000), and Spanish (9000) dead 7 . Novara The Swiss and Venetians, now allied with Maximilan, forced the French to evacuate Milan. Louis XII, although faced with an invasion by Henry VIII in 1513, as well as losing his duchy of Milan, bought off the Venetians and raised another army to invade Lombardy. La Tremouille took 12000 men over the Alps and recaptured Milan, but his army was then attacked by 8000 Swiss pikemen while besieging Novara. The Swiss attacked at dawn, achieving almost complete surprise. The French infantry and landsknechts were routed, only their cavalry allowing them to escape. Nonetheless, the salvos of artillery fired are said to have killed 700 Swiss in 3 minutes 8 . (i 7 8

Oman (1937) 105 Oman (1937), 138 Oman (1937), 151

868

SECTION SEVEN

Marignano King Louis XII paid off his enemies, married Henry VIII's sister Mary Tudor and renounced his claims to Milan and Naples. In 1514 he died and was succeeded by the 21-year old Francis I. He promptly revived those claims and in 1515 he invaded Lombardy again with 30 000 men, buying off about half (12 000) of the Swiss army which opposed him outside Milan. The other half attacked the French at Marignano. The onset of the Swiss columns was repeatedly halted by cavalry charges, which could not break their phalanx but left them a static target for the French guns. Despite their best efforts, the Swiss could not get close enough to silence the guns. This struggle went on until far into the night, and restarted the next day, until the arrival of the Venetians in the rear of the Swiss, who then retreated slowly back to Milan, and then homewards. King Francis wrote to his mother next day that he had charged 25 times with his body­ guard, and received a thrust which went through the buff coat he wore beneath his ar­ mour; nobody would in future call his knights "hares in armour" 9 . Bicocca The deadly rival of Francis was Charles V, King of Spain in 1516 and also Emperor since 1519. In 1521 despite the alliance of Venice with France, Imperialist forces managed to travel from Germany across Lombardy and join a Spanish-Papal army under Prosper Colonna, who recaptured Milan from the French. In the spring reinforcements (including 16000 Swiss) joined the French army. The Swiss who claimed that their pay was in ar­ rears, demanded in lieu an immediate attack upon Colonna, who was entrenched at Bic­ occa, a country house surrounded by a walled park. The walls had been strengthened with earthen ramparts, and guns placed on platforms in them. All Pescara's Spanish arquebusiers, in a line 4-deep, were placed behind this rampart and pikes behind them 10 . The Swiss marched on, ignoring French orders to wait for artillery support, and attacked the wall; when they reached it they were received by four successive volleys, which cut down the first four ranks. Then the German and Spanish pikemen came up, and after half an hour's desperate struggle, the Swiss slowly retreated. 3000 Swiss were dead, their tactics had failed, and they went home the next day. Without them, the French army felt impelled to withdraw.

P A VIA

T H E DECISIVE B A T T L E

Charles of Bourbon (an enemy of King Francis) had defected to the Emperor; he persuad­ ed Pescara to invade the South of France in 1524 to induce a rebellion. The siege of Marseilles was unsuccessful, no rebellion materialised, and Bourbon and Pescara were forced to retrat. Francis outflanked them by crossing the Alps and retaking Milan, going on to besiege Pavia with about 30 000 men. An Imperialist relief force of 18 000 men failed to 9 10

Oman (1937), 166 Oman (1937), 178

HANDGUNS IN 16TH CENTURY

869

break the siege of Pavia. The French remained camped around the city walls and had built lines of countervallation up to the walled park of Mirabello to defend themselves against surprise attack. When 6000 of the Swiss troops (more than half their number) left the French army and went home to defend their cantons from invasion, the Imperialists resolved to attack, and got a message to the garrison of Pavia to attempt a sally and distract the besiegers. A night attack broke down part of the wall of Mirabello, and the imperialist army entered the park and deployed opposite the King's camp. The King immediately led repeated cavalry charges, masking his own artillery in the process, and scattered the Spanish cavalry but failing against the infantry. The French infantry were deployed piecemeal and attacked unsuccessfully. Eventually the King and his knights were surrounded and destroyed. His horse was killed and he was taken prisoner. The French losses were some 8000, the Imperialists a fraction of that 11 . Delbriick quotes a biography of Pescara by Paolo Giovio, who ascribes much of their success to the Spanish gunfire, not only against the Swiss but also the French pikemen; most of all in disabling the squadrons of the men-at-arms. Sheltered in copses or behind hedges, they kept up a rolling fire, which brought down horse and man. "Pescara sent about 800 handgunners to help the cavalry, and who by suddenly pour­ ing out from the rear and sides, sending out a terrible shower of bullets, overthrew a con­ siderable number of men and horses..the Spaniards deployed quickly back [presumably be­ hind the pikes] and eluded the charge of the horse..these had been trained in the new methods of Pescara. It was a new type of fighting, savage and cruel. The attacks of the [French] horse completely failed, nor could any of them advance for a long time, but hemmed in by small groups many noble dukes and knights were overthrown indiscriminately by the baseborn and common foot...from the disengaged Spaniards round about on all sides, lead balls were showered with lethal results. Which were now shot by heavier handguns, and not by the lighter ones customary a little while ago. Not only one man-at-arms, but fre­ quently two 12 , and their horse, would be pierced through." The defeat and capture of the King of France by the Spanish army made a deep and lasting impression. The Spanish tactics were were generally adopted throughout Europe, and with some modifications, lasted until the middle of the 17th century. The proportion of firearms steadily increased - for example, the English army sent to Normandy in 1589 had 60% pikes to 40% firearms, but by 1601 the ratio was 36% to 6 4 % l 3 . Some pikes were still needed for protection against horse, until the addition of the bayonet to the musket around 1690 made pikes redundant. Of course, mounted men would also have wanted to use weapons like the infantry, but they could not easily use matchlock guns. The self-contained ignition system of the wheellock made it possible for them to draw pistols from their holsters and fire immediately. The desire for increased firepower encouraged the cavalry to discard the lance for a pair of

" O m a n (1937) 186-207; Delbriick (1921) III, 58, quotes a Latin biography of Pescara by Paulusjovius (Paolo Giovio) "Vitae illustrium virorum", I, 403. (I am obliged to Dr.Richard Lorch for this translation.) 12 T h e practice of double-shotting muskets was probably responsible for this. See also Barwick (note 38). 13 Cruickshank (Oxford, 1946) 223.

870

SECTION SEVEN

wheellock pistols. This enabled horsemen to fire at the infantry without coming near their pikes, and also outrange the lances of other horsemen. The Thuringian Count Gunther of Schwarzburg has been credited with this development during the middle of the 16th cen­ tury 14 . T H E 16TH CENTURY IN ENGLAND

Insofar as the use of guns was concerned, the practice of warfare in England had lagged well behind that on the Continent, but England started to catch up under the Tudors. Consequently, despite no less than eight attempts, between 1508 and 1542, to revive its practice by statute, the use of the longbow declined steadily in England throughout the 16th century. Despite its obsolescence, some still favoured its use by the militia on the grounds of its low cost. While handguns had increased in effectiveness and tactics had been developed for their efficient use, by contrast, the reputation of English archers on the Continent had fallen drastically by the 16th century. William Harrison's "Description of England" of 1577, relates that during a lull in battle, French and German soldiers "would turn up their tails and cry "shoote English"...If only Edward the Third's archers were alive..the breech of such a varlet should have been nailed to his bum by one, and another [arrow] feathered in his bowels, before he should have turned about to see who shot the first". Shooting for a mere pas­ time would never produce archers fit for battle 15 . After Henry VIII succeeded to the throne in 1509 he found that he had had to hire foreign pikemen and musketeers since there were no Englishmen skilled in the use of these weapons. Furthermore, he had to import prodigious quantities of armaments and gunpowder in order to keep pace with his continental rivals. To quote a few representative examples; in 1511 the Italian merchant John Cavalcanti had 18 great guns cast for Henry in Germa­ ny for £ 311, and in 1515 he imported £ 2400 worth of saltpetre, at 6d a lb 16 ; in 1538 Henry had to order £ 8000 worth of gunpowder in Antwerp. The next year Henry bought 7000 arquebuses, 300 "chamber guns" and 200 bombards in Flanders, together with ar­ mour for 3900 men in Koln 17 . In 1544 Henry set out to besiege Boulogne, buying no less than £ 11,000 worth of gunpowder, but using all of that up by the September of the same year. Indeed, when trying to buy yet more, he said that "the 20 last just sent, will not last the ordnance here for four days' battery" 18 . 1 last = 24 cwt or 24 X 50 = 1200 kg; so this delivery was 24 tons.

'" Krenn (1987) 16. 15 Harrison quoted by Boynton (1967) 65; who also quotes from a sermon of Bishop Latimer, "my father was diligent to teach me to shute [with] bows bought according to my age and strength". He went on to observe that shooting merely as a pastime was insufficient, but nowadays (sadly) immoral pursuits like cards, dice and bowls, had displaced archery in the minds of the young. 16 Letters & Papers of Henry VIII, vol. I, no.3614, 3662, 5099, and II, 1456-1489. 17 Letters & Papers of Henry VIII, vol.XIV, part 1, 535, and part 2, 782. 18 Letters & Papers of Henry VIII, vol.XIX, part 2, 30, 156, 177, 187 and 241. vol. X X I , part 1, 428, and part 2, 72 and 134.

HANDGUNS IN 16TH CENTURY

871

Modern warfare was proving incredibly expensive, but there was now little option to the employment of firearms and artillery. Its cheapness made the longbow seem an attrac­ tive weapon for the militia, but this was more apparent than real, since the hidden cost of the many years of training required for its mastery had to be taken into account. Sunday afternoon shooting for recreation was insufficient training for effective soldiers. By contrast, after allowing for inflation, the cost of saltpetre (and hence gunpowder) did fall during the 15th and 16th centuries, as the English Public Records show (see chapter 7.3). At Henry's death in 1547, an inventory of all his possessions was taken. That part re­ lating to the armour and weapons in the Tower of London, Greenwich and Westminster was published by Dillon 19 and it includes more than twice as many firearms as bows, viz: 7180 matchlocks 275 "short guns" for horsemen [presumably wheellocks] 116 "Italian guns with chambers" [presumably breechloaders] but only 3000 longbows. Three grades of gunpowder are mentioned as being stored at the Tower of London; ser­ pentine (40 lasts), gross corned (46 lasts) and fine corned (2 lasts) powder for priming 15 . The price in 1562 was £ 3 5s a cwt (£ 3.25 for 50kg) for corned powder, and £ 2 16s 8d a cwt (£ 2.67 for 50 kg) for serpentine powder 20 . When Henry's daughter, Mary, became Queen in 1553, her agent in Flanders, Thomas Gresham, was ordered to buy 20 tons of saltpetre to replenish the dwindling stocks in the Tower, and then as well, another 24 tons of "serpentine" powder, which he described as "a weak sort of gunpowder that is not corned and will not keep long at sea". If he met with difficulty in buying the powder, he was to increase his order for saltpetre to 50 tons 21 . Spanish soldiers in the entourage of Mary's husband, Philip II, remarked that English soldiers were so backward in their equipment that England would be an easy conquest 22 . When Queen Elizabeth succeeded to the throne (1558) she also succeeded to the cham­ pionship of the Protestant cause. This rendered her supplies of saltpetre and gunpowder uncertain, as these came mostly via the (Spanish) Netherlands. Sir Nicholas Bacon said that changes in weapons and tactics had left England so far behind her rivals that £ 300 000 needed to be spent on defence 23 . Gresham continued to ship vast quantities of all sorts of munitions under various disguises, bribing King Philip's officials to avert their gaze, or sending them from ports outside Flanders, such as Hamburg and Bremen 24 . Gresham advocated systematic training of the militia in the use of firearms, saying, very significantly, "spare the bows and arrows, for they are of no force against an armed man" 2 5 . 19

Dillon (1888). ffoulkes (1937) and Victoria County History Surrey, 311. 21 Burgon (1839) I, 288. 22 Boynton (1967) 53, 55. 23 Boynton (1967) 56, and see Bovill (1947). 24 Burgon (1839) I, 319 and 329. 25 Boynton (1967) 57 20

872

SECTION SEVEN

In 1560 he wrote that he had already sent home from Antwerp 8000 corselets, but his passports being suspended, he had to send his munitions home via Hamburg, where he had a further 6000 harnesses. He strongly urged the Queen to set up her own gunpowder mills as soon as possible 26 . In response to this two merchants, Philip Cockeram and John Barnes, were given a license in 1561 for ten years to make saltpetre. They were to pay £ 300 to a German captain, Gerard Honricke, for instruction in the art of making saltpetre. His instructions have survived, and the first artificial nitre-beds in England were set up to supply the Queen's gunpowder mills'-7. By the year of the Armada (1588) England seems to have been self-sufficient in gunpowder, and by 1602, it was being exported 28 . From 1570 the Queen's government had encouraged the rearmament of the militia with muskets and arquebuses, and by 1588 the muster rolls for the militia show that some southern counties had only "pikes and shot". Even the northern and midland counties had a minor­ ity of archers. There was still a slight majority of archers in the forest (= poaching ?) coun­ ties of Oxford and Buckingham. But in 1595 the Privy Council encouraged the commissioners of musters in Bucking­ hamshire to replace bows with calivers and muskets "because they are of more use than the bows," and they declared that archers were no longer to be accepted as "trained men" 29 . Despite the efforts of Smythe, and others, this marks the death-knell of English military archery. In his "History of the World" Sir Walter Raleigh (1614) pointed out that the English victories in the Hundred Years' War, to which Smythe kept referring for justification, had been won not by the bow, but by the morale of the invaders. AFTER PAVIA UP TO THE 1 7TH CENTURY

After Pavia, the Wars in Italy continued, but with few setpiece battles until the Peace of Cateau Cambresis (1559) recognised Spanish possession of Milan and Naples and brought the wars to an end. The firepower of guns made assaults upon a prepared enemy very difficult, and so through­ out the 80 Years' War of Independence by the Netherlands against Spain, sieges and block­ ades tended to be the rule and battles the exception. The principal refinement of the tercio was the "Netherlands Brigade" devised by Maurice of Nassau. This consisted of 3000 men arranged in six half-regiments, deployed chess-board fashion; an arrangement fancied to derive from the "acies triplex" of the Roman legion. Each half-regiment had 300 pikemen and 200 musketeers sited on their flanks. Using the countermarch they could fire more shots in a given time than their Spanish opponents. These tactics required drill (rather than skill) to enable large bodies of infantry to change their formations, and it is at this time that the first drill-books appear, frequently invoking Roman models, and debates about tactics and training armies develop. For instance, an English translation of Aelian (a Greek writer on the tactics of the Macedonian armies)

26 27 28 29

Burgon (1839) I, 294. Calendar of Patent Rolls, Elizabeth 1560-63, II, 98, 104. Williams (1975). Boynton (1967) 67, 171; and O m a n (1937) 381.

HANDGUNS IN 16TH CENTURY

873

appeared in 1616, frequently published with descriptions of the tactics of the English troops fighting with Maurice of Nassau in the Netherlands 30 . There was a vigorous debate at the end of the 16th century about the abandonment of the longbow in England (see Appen­ dix). Armoured cavalry charging with lances were still sometimes successful against infantry armed with muskets and pikes, even in the 17th century. The Polish "winged hussars" were victorious in 1605 at the battle of Kircholm, near Riga, against the Swedes. Since Gustav Vasa's time in the mid 16th century, the Swedish army had been organised after the model of the Spanish tercio, with musketeers around squares of pikes, so that each body of 1000 men only had about 33 muskets in its front. This was insufficient to stop the armoured cavalry of the Poles, who still charged with lances, while carrying swords and pistols for the melee. The Swedish cavalry was organised on the German model of "reiters" whereby each line of horsemen advanced at the trot, fired their wheel-lock pistols, and then retired to the rear to reload. In theory this manoeuvre (the "caracole") provided a steady fire upon the enemy out of reach of retaliation, but in practice each line of such horsemen tended to fire before they had advanced quite as far as their predecessors, so the whole formation moved steadily backwards. This pistol-armed cavalry was also swept away by the Polish lancers. The Swedes were defeated with heavy losses, and were forced to completely reor­ ganise their army before they were able to intervene successfully in the Thirty Years' War 31 . The Poles were to use similar tactics successfully against the Turkish army at the siege of Vienna as late as 1683.

T H E OTTOMAN TURKS IN EUROPE

In 1526 the Turks had invaded Hungary, and defeated a much smaller Hungarian army at Mohacs. The core of the Sultan's army was a body of 15 000 Janissaries, drawn up behind 50 fieldguns chained together. The charges made by the Hungarian knights turned out as disastrously as those of the French knights at Pavia the year before. Perhaps half the Hungarian army (25 000) together with the last King of an independent Hungary were killed32 . More than a century of warfare in Hungary and invasions of the Holy Roman (= Austrian) Empire followed, marked by two unsuccessful Turkish attempts to capture Vien­ na, one in 1529, and the other as late as 1683. The Austrian armies, both infantry and cavalry continued to use armour until the mid­ dle of the 17th century. Many examples survive in the Landeszeughaus (Provincial Armoury) of Graz, the most extensive collection of armour in Europe, which includes some 460 ar­ mours for cavalry and 760 armours for infantry. Raids and sieges, where Christian firepower gave defenders the initiative, dominated with few set-piece battles, except for Kerestes (1596, an indecisive victory for the Turks) and St.Gotthard (1664) where after an initial Turkish success, the Austrian C-in-C Montecuccoli had had the leaders of the Imperialist army gathered for a Council of War. In the orders

T h e Tactics of Aelian (1616) Archaeologia, 22, 59 Kujawski (1966). O m a n (1937) 637.

874

SECTION SEVEN

to attack given out after this conference it was stated that "the squadrons attacking on horseback and the batallions on foot should advance on the enemy together but slowly and in good order. The infantry especially should at all times give v o l l e y s o n e rank after t h e other and the first, as soon as that happens, kneel down, load again and close ranks behind; by this the Turks, who themselves use only their sabres and would be mixed in­ fantry and horsemen without mutual order, are more likely to be torn apart and no time will left for them to reform again." 33 These orders, which summarise the new tactics with admirable clarity, were a blueprint for the destruction of a medieval army. The Turkish invasion was overwhelmingly defeat­ ed, and some 12 000 Janissaries were killed. APPENDIX; ENGLISH ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE LONGBOW

In England, there was a lively debate between the advocates of modern warfare with muskets and pikes (especially Humphrey Barwick), and those (like Sir John Smythe) who urged a revival of the English longbow. They are quoted here for the valuable picture they give of contemporary opinions held by professional soldiers about the attack on armour. How valid some of these opinions were is estimated in Section 9. Sirjohn Smythe (1531-1607) spent much of his life as a soldier of fortune. He published in 1590 his book "Certain Discourses Military" which not merely advocated the revival in the use of the longbow with nostalgia, but also criticised government military policy in general, and the book was soon suppressed by the government 34 . Archery had decayed, despite numerous attempts to revive it by statute but it was not too late to revive it - God had made the English skilled above all nations in the use of the bow: "Our new-fantasied men of war do despise and scorne our auncient arming of our selves both on horseback and on foote saying that we armed ourselves in times past with too much armour or peeces of yron as they terme it. And therefore their footmen piquers they doo allowe for verie well armed, when they weare their burgonets, their collars their cuirasses and their backs, without either pouldrons, vambraces, gauntlets or tasses. Their horsemen also and themselves serving on horseback with launces or with any other weapon, they think verie well armed with some kind of head-peece, a collar, a deformed high and long-bellied breast, and a backe at the proofe; but as for pouldrons, vambraces, gauntlets, tasses, cui­ sses and greves they hold all for superfluous. The imitating of which their unsoldierlike and fond arming, cost that noble & worthie Gentleman Sir Philip Sidney his life, by not wear­ ing his cuisses, who in the opinion of divers gentlemen that saw him hurt with a mosquet shot, if he had that day worn his cuisses the bullet had not broken his thigh bone, by rea­ son that the chief force of the bullet (before the blowe) was in a manner past." 35 And on armour Smythe argues about the effectiveness of muskets: "True it is that mus­ kets being in the hands of skilful musketeers are of great effect for divers purposes. And that kind of weapon of that length with rests...was first used in Italy 60 years past... when 33 34 35

Peball (1964). Hale (1964) sets Smythe in his context and discusses his contemporaries. Smythe (1590) 5.

HANDGUNS IN 16TH CENTURY

875

the Duke of Alva came to govern the Low Countries (1568), he greatly increased the num­ ber of that weapon ...the Duke seeing the number of rutters ( = reiters, or horsemen armed with pistols) in all armies increased, & that the most of these rutters, & many captains of footmen were armed at the proof of the harquebus, he to the intent to frustrate the resis­ tance of their armours did increase his numbers of musketeers, the blows of the bullets of which no armours wearable can resist." 36 Also in 1590, "A brief discourse of war" by Sir Roger Williams and "A brief discourse concerning the force and effect of all manual weapons of fire" by Humphrey Barwick appeared in print, taking the contrary view to Smythe 37 . In the preface to his "A brief discourse" Barwick comments on the dispute between the two knights (Smythe & Williams), both with extensive military experience on the Conti­ nent, but taking diametrically opposite views about archery. His description of the performance of guns is especially interesting, and may be com­ pared with the theoretical predictions made in section 9. He states that a musket, properly loaded with good powder, could kill a man through proof armour at 100 yards, in com­ mon armour at 400 yards, and unarmed at 600 yards [sic] far beyond the striking power of an arrow. Indeed, there were few cases of men being killed by an arrow. At the siege of Leith (1559) of 448 English dead, none had been killed by an arrow. The speed of archery was not such a great advantage; a musket can fire several bullets at once, especially at short range, to compensate for slower loading 38 . Finally, as far as the effects of arrows were concerned he says: "When I do march directly upon them and seeing them coming, I do stoop a little with my head to that end m y b u r g o n e t shall s a v e m y face, and seeing the same arrows lighting upon my headpiece or upon my breast, pauldrons or vambraces, and so seeing the same to be of no more force nor hurtful, then do I with less fear than before boldly advance forward to counter with them." He offers to withstand arrow shot himself if he is clad in proof armour: "Whereas it is further set down in the same book (Smythe) that harquebusiers may not give their volleys of shot but within 8, 10 or 12 yards..and archers will wound and sometimes kill at 9,10, 11 scores..to this I say that for trial thereof I will s t a n d at 6 s c o r e y a r d s d i s t a n t f r o m the b e s t o f t h e s e a r c h e r s , and let him shoot 10 arrows one after anoth­ er at me, and I will be armed...pistol proof, and if I be therewith wounded, I am content to take my mends in my own hands." Then, "let me be set in the same place where this lusty archer stood to shoot his 10 arrows, and let there be a whole complete armour set right up where I did stand, and let me have but 2 shootts with a musket or harquebus, and let it then appear what the one and the other is in force.." 39

36

Smythe (1590) 27. Smythe & Barwick; "Certain Discourses" of Smythe and "A breef discourse" of Barwick were reprinted in facsimile as "Bow versus Gun" ed. E.C.Heath (Wakefield, 1973). T h e edition of Smythe used for the fac­ simile has unnumbered pages. I have counted from the start of the main text. 38 Barwick (1594) 17v. 39 Barwick (1594) 20v. 37

876

SECTION SEVEN

References Aelian, " T h e tactics of Aelian, or the art of embattling an army. Englished and illustrated with figures throughout..by J.B. (J.Beale) 1616" Ayalon, D."Gunpowder and firearms in the Mamluk kingdom" (1956). Bovill, K.W. "Queen Elizabeth's gunpowder" Mariner's Mirror, 33 (1947) 179. Boynton, L. "The Elizabethan militia 1558-1638" (1967). Bradbury, J. " T h e medieval archer" (1985). Burgon, J.W. "Life of Sir Thomas Grcsham" (2 vols, 1839). Cruickshank, G.G."Elizabeth's army" (Oxford, 1946). Delbruck, H. "Geschichte der Kriegskunst" (1921) III, 58. Dillon, H.A. "Arms and armour at Westminster, the Tower, and Greenwich, 1547", Archaeologia, 5 1 , (1888) 219-280. ffoulkes, C. " T h e gun-founders of England" (Cambridge, 1937) Hale, J.R. ed. Smythe, J. "Certain Discourses Military" (Cornell, 1964). Krenn, P. "Harnisch und Helm" (Graz, 1987) Kujawski, M. " T h e battle of Kircholm" T h e Polish Review, 11 (London, 1966) 40. Laskowski, O. "Infantry tactics and firing power in the 16th century" Teki Historyczne, 4 (London, 1959) 106. Letters & Papers, Foreign & Domestic, of Henry VIII (21 vols, 1862-1932) Lewis, M. "Armada guns; a comparative study of English and Spanish armaments" (1961) 173. O m a n , C. "The Art of War in the 16th century" (1937). Peball, K. "Die Schlacht bei St.Gotthard-Mogersdorf 1664" (Wien, 1964) Roberts, M. "Gustavus Adolphus" (1958) II, 226. Taylor, F.L " T h e Art of War in Italy 1494-1529" (1921) Williams, A.R. "The production of saltpetre in the Middle Ages" Ambix 22 (1975) 125.

CHAPTER 8.1

FURNACES AND BLOOMS

IRONMAKING IN BLOOMERIES

For the Ancient World, and the early Middle Ages, the only ferrous material available for armour was "bloomery iron". This was the product of heating iron ore with charcoal in a small (perhaps 1 or 2m high) furnace. The iron ore was reduced to iron, but never melted, and therefore never entirely separated from the slag formed by non-metallic impurities. The lump (or "bloom") of iron formed might be forged out into plates which would still be full of slag inclusions. These plates would not make particularly good armour, for two reasons; they would be too small and they would be too full of slag. DRAWBACK (I) T H E SIZE OF BLOOM NEEDED FOR MAKING LARGE PLATES:

Tylecote 1 reported that during his experiments with a simulated Roman "high-bloomery" of 1.75 m height he obtained unforged blooms of variable carbon content from 3.8 to 6.5 kg in weight, and even one which melted (to yield cast iron). The higher the fuel/ore ratio, the more reducing the conditions, and hence the higher the carbon content. To make armour plate, the bloom must have been somewhat larger than the plates desired. How much larger is the proportion which must be estimated. The weight of medieval swords lay in the region of 1 to 1.5kg2. On the other hand, items of armour such as one-piece helmets weighed around 1.8 kg and the breastplates made in the 14th century weighed between 2.6 and 4.5 kg (see chapter 4.1). Horse armour was made of 6 or 8 plates of comparable weight riveted together. So the original blooms were re­ quired to form armour plates weighing up to 3 or 4 kg. In turn, the size of the blooms must have been determined by the wastage in working them. Recent experiments by Crew 3 suggest that working a bloom into an artefact entails a wastage of three-fourths, so plates of 3 or 4 kg must have come from blooms of 9 or 12 kg in weight. But Sim 4 has recently described his experiments with simulated Roman bloomsmithing in which he reduced the loss rate substantially, but only by adopting the tech­ nique of separating the bloom when red-hot into smaller pieces, expelling the slag from ' Tylecote et al. (1971). Mann (1962) Vol.2, passim, gives the weights of some 270 swords in the collection. 3 Crew (1991). + Sim (1998). 2

878

SECTION E I G H T

each of these individually, with the aid of circular tongs, and then recombining the por­ tions into a billet (around 1kg) of wrought iron. This might well a method suited to the mass production of small items, such as nails, pilum heads, and the elements of loricae, but is intrinsically unsuited to making large plates, as each forge-welding to build up a larger billet will result in some loss of material by oxidation. Even though it was lower than in Crew's experiments, the loss rate in Sim's could still be half, and plates of 3 or 4 kg would still have required blooms of at least 6 or 8 kg. In fact, armour plates do not generally show such weld lines, and there is no reason to suppose that such a technique was ever employed in the Middle Ages. On balance, it would be reasonable to assume that making armour plates required starting blooms of around 10kg. The furnaces supplying 14th century Italian armourers must have been substantially larger than Tylecote's "Roman" ones if they could supply blooms of 10 kg (or even more) and this would entail their being capable of making cast iron, although they were evidently operated to make blooms instead. If the weights of excavated blooms in Europe are plotted against time a graph is ob­ tained, which doubtless reflects the general level of economic activity. One peak appears during the early Roman Empire, when the legions employed the "lorica segmentata" for a brief period, and then there is another, larger upsurge during the Middle Ages by the 14th century, when blooms of around 10 kg were available. These, given the appropriate metalworking skills, would have been large enough to make armour plate (see Appendix; bloom sizes).

Bloom weights in Europe and British Isles bloom/lump weight

-400

-200

0

200

400

O

600

date

10kg plate

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

FURNACES AND BLOOMS

879

DRAWBACK (II) OF BLOOMERY IRON PLATE; ITS SLAG CONTENT.

Bloomeries made iron which was full of slag. The inclusions made it ductile in 1 plane, but brittle in 2 planes 5 . It is brittle in the direction of attack; no doubt wrought iron plates were tried as armour, and found to be unsatisfactory; their fracture toughness would be low (see section 9.3) and so prior to the 14th century, most armour would have been made out of small plates of wrought iron rivetted together, or formed into wire and interlinked as mail, the gaps between the units acting as crack-stoppers. An attractive antidote to this drawback is to reduce the slag content by making steel in the bloomery instead of iron. If the bloomery is operated under more reducing conditions, then the bloom will absorb more carbon. Some of the carbon will react with iron oxide, reducing it to iron, and so removing it from the slag; as follows FeO iron oxide

+

C carbon

Fe iron

+

CO carbon monoxide

The volume of slag will become less (but its free-running temperature will rise, so a higher operating temperature will be needed). The products will be a bloom of steel, containing less slag, and a slag of lower iron content 6 . Toughness tests carried out by the author show a close correlation between slag inclu­ sion content and fracture toughness (see chapter 9.3). The best armour would be that made from metal with the fewest slag inclusions, and the best armour WAS made of steel. There would be additional benefits in that the steel would, of course, also be harder and stronger because of the carbon present (as iron carbide). On top of that, the steel would be further hardenable by quenching, if the armourer felt able to undertake this extra heat-treatment 7 . By the 14th century ironmasters who were employing furnaces large enough, and whose output they were evidently able to control, could now supply the armourers with the large pieces of better metal, usually steel, which they needed to make armour plate. T H E CAST-IRON PRODUCING "BLAST" FURNACE

Making the bloomery larger does not simply make a larger bloom. When bloomeries grow in size, they operate at a higher temperature. The temperature of any furnace is the result of an equilibrium between the rate of heat produced, which depends on the volume of fuel being consumed, which in turn is roughly a cubic function of furnace size, and the rate of heat lost by radiation, which depends on the surface area, which is roughly a quadratic function of furnace size. Hence, the equilibrium operating temperature will tend to rise with increasing size. 5 s 7

Hensel & Hengsenberg (1932) Gordon (1988). Williams (1986)

880

SECTION EIGHT

Different reactions will now have a chance to take place. The iron oxide will be reduced to iron earlier in its passage through the combustion zone; the iron will spend longer trav­ elling down the shaft and will absorb more carbon, thus lowering its melting point (the melting-point of pure iron is 1550°C). At the same time, since the ambient temperature is higher, the likelihood of the iron melting will be greater. If it does become liquid, then carbon will be absorbed rapidly, to form a eutectic mixture, containing 2% of carbon, whose melting-point is 1150°C ("eutectic" means that even more carbon may be absorbed but the melting-point will not fall further). Atomic % 7.5

10

12-5

15

17-5

20

1800

Liquid

indling-point of pure iron

Fcrriie

05

+f=e3C

(solid)

J

L

10

1-5

ST£ELS

20

2-5

30

Weight % Carbon

3-5

40

4-5

50

CAS]" IRONS

T h e iron-carbon equilibrium diagram shows that the melting-point of iron/carbon mixtures falls with increasing carbon content from 1534° to a minimum of 1147°C. Ferrite is the room-temperature form of iron. Cementite is iron carbide (Fe 3 C). Austenite is a non-magnetic form of iron usually only stable at high temperatures, but its presence determines the most important property of steel. Because much more carbon will dissolve in austenite than ferrite, sudden cooling of austenite ("quenching") will not form ferrite and cementite but the immensely hard, non-equilibrium constituent, martensite.

Less iron oxide will be present to form slag, so its composition will be closer to calcium silicate than iron silicate, and its free-running temperature will be higher (around 1500° 1600°C). Other elements, such as manganese (Mn) silicon (Si) and phosphorus (P) may also be reduced from their compounds. The overall efficiency of extraction will be higher, since less iron will be left unreduced

FURNACES AND BLOOMS

881

in the slag. The products will be a liquid iron ("cast iron" or "pig iron"), and an almost iron-free slag. This improvement helps to offset the increased fuel consumption, and the capital cost of setting up such a large furnace. The advantages of the blast furnace were based upon its size. The higher temperature meant that inferior ores might be reduced; the output was greater, as it was a continuous rather than a batch process, and a liquid product ("cast iron"), suited to casting, could be obtained. This product could not be forged, but a subsequent process ("fining") might convert cast iron to a forgeable product. There are references to cast iron being found in 14th century (and earlier) contexts. For example, lumps of cast iron (3.1% C and up to 2.5%P) were excavated from 11th - 13th century sites in Schwabische Alb, South-West Germany 8 and it is possible that cast iron was produced at similar dates in the Sauerland-Siegerland areas, West Germany. There are extensive deposits of slag from after 1400 which may be finery slags9. A piece of white cast iron was found in a 14th-15th century ironworking site in Valle delle Forme, North Italy 10 . Iron cannons were being cast in the 15th century in Valcamonica, at Gardone Val Trompia, at Lecco, Como, Brescia, and at Milan itself, so that furnaces large enough to make liquid cast iron were certainly in regular commercial use in Northern Italy by then, and Filarete describes one such (see below). Certainly, there were very large iron-making furnaces in 15th century Italy. Baraldi 11 has found evidence for a furnace of 4.5m height in 1463, at Ferriere di Val Nure near Piacenza; and one of nearly 6m height in 1497 at Fornovolasco. A bloomery of this size will attain such a temperature that in fact it usually operates as a blast furnace, producing liquid cast iron. Whether the ironmasters operated them to produce cast iron, or very large blooms is irrelevant; it is clear that they were capable of doing either, and they must have had predecessors in the 14th century, if not before. These furnaces and their products were the results of applying water power to bellows and, perhaps more importantly for making sheet metal, trip hammers. They also entail the ability to control the output of a shaft furnace; to not produce cast iron in fact, if steel blooms were required for armour. The following description of a 18th century process would in fact fit the 16th century production of Styrian steel very well. The Blast Furnace Museum in Vordernberg (Styria) is based on a furnace 7.7m high built in 1846, but others have existed on the same site since around 1530. Five men op­ erated it, charging it with 170 kg. of ore to each 80kg. of charcoal, and 5 kg siliceous clay. Each day it produced between 8.5 and 11 tons pig iron, using from 7.7 to 10 tons of charcoal. Every three hours pig iron and slag were tapped off and a plate of pig iron weighing up to a ton was obtained. However, when he visited this same town in 1734, Swedenborg described a bloomery 7.2m high in operation, as it had been for many centuries. A larger amount of iron would be obtained if smelting was uninterrupted (to make pig-iron) but on the other hand, "the rare type of iron thus formed could not be obtained by another means." 1 2 Obviously, the "rare type of iron" was steel. 8

H a u p t m a n n (1992) Knau (1992). ' " T i z z o n i (1999). 11 Baraldi (1998). 12 Bjorkenstam & Magnusson (1988).

9

882

SECTION E I G H T

Liquid iron had its own important uses, of course; it was a very much cheaper substitute for bronze in making large castings, especially guns. But another stage, the finery, is need­ ed to convert it into forgeable iron. The two stages together are called the "Indirect Pro­ cess" for ironmaking. T H E FINERY

It may have been developed from the practice, in some bloomeries, of heating the bloom in a second hearth ("string hearth") to remove slag and help consolidate it. An increase in the blast might raise the temperature and (under reducing conditions) carburise and thus melt part of the bloom. If however the conditions were oxidising, then the liquid pig-iron might lose carbon and resolidify. Experience gained with operating large bloomeries and trying to manipulate the size and quality of their products must have led to this discovery. A recent review by Buchwald 13 summarises what is known about the early development of the blast furnace. He believes that it was probably invented in Dalarne Vestmanland in middle Sweden shortly before 1200 AD. Excavations at Lapphyttan have revealed furnac­ es (and forges) which were large units consuming much charcoal and requiring continuous waterpower. Molten pig iron with 3-4% C and almost FeO-free slags were produced. Swedish blast furnaces became more dominant over the centuries, until around 1650, there were about 400 in production, melting haematite and magnetite ores with charcoal as the only fuel. The pig iron however was unforgeable, and no use to the blacksmith, let alone the armourer. The fining process was developed (according to Buchwald) before 1200 AD. In an open hearth, walnut sized nodules of white pig iron were melted (at around 1150°C) in an energetic oxidising blast. The pig iron droplets lost silicon, manganese and carbon as oxides, and coalesced (because the melting-point rises back towards 1550°C as the carbon content falls) on the bottom of the hearth into nodules of solid wrought iron that had to be manipulated into a bloom. The bloom was hammered to consolidate it and shaped into flat, round, cakes, which were cut with hot chisels into pieces of about 300g, the so-called "osmunds." From about 1200 to 1600 AD the osmunds were a major export article from Sweden to all of Europe (but they were not the basis for any armour-making industry in Sweden to speak of). The microstructure of the fined iron was as heterogeneous as that of bloomery iron, and just as likely to be full of slag. The oxidation process, of course, put slag back into the iron. Oxidised Si and Mn from the pig reacted with iron oxide as well as C a O , K 2 0 , MgO and Al 2 O s from the charoal ashes, to form slags which differed only slightly from bloomery slags. But according to Buchwald, the slag inclusions differed from those of the bloomery. "The S i 0 2 / A l 2 0 3 ratios were higher and the A l 2 0 3 / C a O and K 2 0 / M g O ratios lower than the ratios for directly produced irons from the same region." 14 So there is some possibility (but only when the ore source is known) of distinguishing between artefacts made by the two processes. The early blast furnace was less economical of fuel than the bloomery, but more eco­ nomical of ore. Of course, as blast furnaces got larger they became more economical of fuel also. 13 14

Buchwald (1998). Buchwald (1998) 91

FURNACES AND BLOOMS

883

Crossley 15 has shown that the fuehore ratio (not the same as the fuekiron ratio !) of the 16th century blast furnace was about 5:6 and that 1.5 tons of cast iron was needed to produce 1 ton of wrought iron. This fining would need another ton of charcoal so the actual fuel: ore ratio for iron blooms would be about 2:1 by the Indirect Route, compared with 1:2 by the Direct Route. The finery may have been known in principle since the 13th century, but its develop­ ment to enable plates large enough for armour to have been made, rather than 0.3 kg osmunds, was evidently rather later. A cast-iron producing blast furnace and its associated finery were described by the 15th century Italian engineer Antonio Averlino (known as "Filarete"). The liquid cast iron seems to have been poured into water to "granulate" it, or reduce it to small irregular lumps, perhaps easier to handle than pigs 16 . It would certainly have been easier to melt small quantities of cast iron at a time, but this would only have yielded correspondingly small pieces of wrought iron (osmunds, in fact). FILARETE'S DESCRIPTION:

"The place where the iron is made is firstly a square house..which is divided into two by means of a wall some 8 braccia (1 braccio was a variable unit of about 0.5m) high and one part is of similar width, where the bellows are. The other part is not so broad, and in this part was the furnace, into which which one puts the charcoal and also the ore from which, once melted, the iron is made...the bellows stand below this..they are about 6 braccia in height and 4 across, each has an opening where it takes in more air, of the size of 1 brac­ cia. Now there is near these bellows a sort of well, where water continually runs and., wherein they throw the molten iron,..and when they draw forth the molten iron, they "uncork" it [the furnace] with certain iron tools ... below where the pipe from the bellows [= the tuy­ ere] is placed and with great heat and toil they make it come out, and in coming out it flows just as if it were bronze or true bell-metal...The iron they draw out, that is when they have put it in this well, looks like nothing but melted metal., any form whatever could be imprinted on it [= it could be cast into any shape] ... they carry it then to another furnace where it is melted again, and then they beat it out with a hammer." He goes on to describe the "other furnace" that is, a finery hearth, later in the same book. He describes one seen near Rome, where he stayed between 1439 and 1445. "But I will tell you how there was one which I saw, being at Rome, the which was about 12 miles from Rome at an abbey called Grottaferrata where there were monks officiating in the Greek manner... the spot is wild and there are thick woods in it... the place of this large hammer is a little outside the path of the water, which runs through the site, which comes [from] a little way up the mountain ...where this water runs through the valley, adapted by a canal in such a way as to move wheels, one of which blows the bellows and the other makes the hammer beat. The manner of this is not that of the furnace where it is melted 15

Crossley (1966) Smith (1964) The location has been identified as Ferriere in the Val Nure in the Apennines, south of Milan. lfa

884

SECTION EIGHT

[not a blast furnace], but only a pair of bellows like those that smiths use, and there is a hearth ...and in this the iron is remelted, and pieces thrown in such as they wish to do, and with that hammer and the water they beat it, and it comes out almost in that form as one sees it here." 1 7 This description seems to imply that the fining of small pieces of cast iron into the small pieces of wrought iron that probably resembled "osmunds" was widespread. Larger pieces (perhaps more than the 10kg blooms probably needed for armour plate) are mentioned in 16th century descriptions, by which time the finery seems to have become larger. At least, larger blooms are being handled, which suggests a larger size of hearth, or even a second hearth. A more elaborate version of the finery process employed a second hearth (the "chafery") where the malleable iron was heated (or reheated) for welding into larger blooms. This version was called the "Walloon" process, after the supposed area of its development, near Liege. A blast furnace and finery was built near Namur in 1340 18 from which area it probably spread over France. A finery was working at Berry by 1402 and by the later 15th century, it was known over much of France, and from there, spread into England. In 1496, King Henry VII was purchasing "rough iron fined" for his gunners at the Tower of London. The first cast iron guns for the Royal Navy were purchased in 1509. A detailed description of the Walloon process is contained in "Ferraria" a Latin poem composed by Nicholas Bourbon in 1517. The poet relates the operations of the hearth at Vendeuve, near Troyes, where his father was the clerk. He says that the metallic mass obtained from the furnace cannot be called true [= pure] iron. For this reason, a work­ man remelts it and purifies it a second time in a huge furnace and when the iron is flexible [= spongy] he makes it take the form of globules. Then it is reheated by different workers [hammermen in the chafery], the globules consolidated into a bloom with a water-ham­ mer, and forged into bars. The size of the blooms is unspecified, but they were evidently much larger than those lumps mentioned by Filarete. 19 The finery had been developed by the 14th century, but seems to have become steadily bigger in the 16th century. What appears to be a finery is shown in a 15th century "Hausbuch" 2 0 and there are illustrations of finery hearths adjacent to blast furnaces in these 16th century paintings of ironworks, such as that of Herri met der Bles c!535 (National Gal­ lery, Prague, inv.no. 166) which shows blast furnaces producing cast iron. What is proba­ bly a finery hearth is also shown on the left of the picture. In the case of "Landscape with Furnaces" by van der Heck (1571-1649) in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Bonn, (shown here) there are several furnaces and mines; near to the largest furnace, pigs of cast iron may be seen on a bed of sand; this furnace is a castiron-producing blast furnace. The smaller furnaces are probably producing lead or cop­ per. The detail shows a man (the middle of three men) with a long pole tapping slag from the base of a furnace. 17

Filarete ed. Spencer (1965) Schubert (1951) 60. 19 Schubert (1951) 62. m Dickmann (1959) O n p.28 he shows what looks very like a 15th century finery from "Das Mittelalterliche Hausbuch" ed. H.Th.Bossert & W.F.Storck (Leipzig, 1912). 18

FURNACES AND BLOOMS

''Landscape with Furnaces"

(detail)

van der Heck (1571-1649)

Tapping slag by man in middle

Reproduced by courtesy of the Rhineland Museum, Bonn.

885

886

SECTION E I G H T

The workmen have at least five steps to climb in order to load the blast furnace, which seems to be around 4 - 5 m in height. In comparison, the dimensions of Siegerland furnac­ es in 1607 have been quoted as being 4.2 and 5.7m in height 21 . POSSIBLE METHODS OF MASS-PRODUCTION OF ARMOUR

Biringuccio (who was appointed as Procurator of Artillery by the Republic of Florence in 1529) describes in 1540 what might be a form of finery working with much larger blooms of iron, 15 to 20 kg, in fact. In his book, "Pirotechnia" he describes what purports to be a method for steel making: "Steel is nothing other than iron, well purified by means of art and given a more perfect elemental mixture and quality by the great decoction of the fire than it had before. This steel can be made from any kind of iron ore or prepared iron... The best iron to use for making good steel is that which by nature is free from corruption of other metals and hence is more disposed to melt and has a greater hardness than the other. Crushed marble or other rocks readily fusible in smelting [marble is quite infusible] are placed with this iron; these purify the iron and almost have the power to take from it its ferruginous nature, to close its porosity, and to make it dense and without laminations. Now in short, when the masters wish to do this work they take iron that has been passed through the furnace or obtained in some other way and break into little pieces the quan­ tity that they wish to convert into steel [this is presumably cast iron]. Then they place in front of the tuyere of the forge a round receptacle, half a braccio or more in diameter, made of one-third of clay and two-thirds of charcoal dust, well pounded together with a sledge hammer, well mixed, and then moistened with as much water as will make the mass hold together when it is pressed in the hand. And when this receptacle has been made like a cupeling hearth but deeper, the tuyere is attached to the middle so that its nose is some­ what inclined downwards in order that the blast may strike in the middle of the recepta­ cle. Then all the empty space is filled with charcoal and around it is made a circle of stones or other soft rocks which hold up the broken iron and the charcoal that is also placed on top; thus it is covered and a heap of charcoal made. Then when the masters see that all is afire and well heated, especially the receptacle, they begin to work the bellows more and to add some of that iron in small pieces mixed with saline marble, crushed slag, or other fusible and nonearthy stones. Melting it with such a composition they fill up the receptacle little by little as far as desired. Having previously made under the forge hammer three or four blooms weighing thirty to forty pounds each of the same iron, they put these while hot into this bath of molten iron. This bath is called "milk of iron" by the masters of this art. They keep it in this melted material with a hot fire for four or six hours, often stirring it up with a stick as cooks stir food. Thus they keep it and turn it again and again so that all that solid iron may take into its pores those subtle substances that are found in the melted iron, by whose virtue the coarse

21

Dickmann (1959) chapter 3; he gives dimensions of Siegerland furnaces of 1607 as 4.2 and 5.7m

FURNACES AND BLOOMS

887

substances that are in the bloom are consumed and expanded, and all of them become soft and pasty. When the masters observe this they judge that that subtle virtue has pen­ etrated fully within; and they make sure of it by testing, taking out one of the masses and bringing it under a forge hammer to beat it out, and then, throwing it into the water while it is as hot as possible, they temper it; and when it has been tempered [he means quenched] they break it and look to see whether every little part has changed its nature and is entire­ ly free inside from every layer of iron. When they find that it has arrived at the desired point of perfection they take out the lumps with a large pair of tongs or by the ends left on them and they cut each one in six or eight small pieces. Then they return them to the same bath to heat again and they add some more crushed marble and iron for melting in order to refresh and enlarge the bath and also to replace what the fire has consumed. Further­ more, by dipping that which is to become steel in this bath, it is better refined. Thus at last, when these pieces are very hot, they are taken out piece by piece with a pair of tongs, carried to be drawn out under the forge hammer, and made into bars as you see. After this, while they are still very hot and almost of a white color because of the heat, in order that the heat may be quickly quenched they are suddenly thrown into a current of water that is as cold as possible, of which a reservoir has been made. In this way the steel takes on that hardness which is commonly called temper; and thus it is transformed into a material that scarcely resembles what it was before it was tempered. For then it resembled only a lump of lead or wax, and in this way it is made so hard that it surpasses almost every other hard thing. It also becomes very white, much more so than is the nature of the iron in it; indeed it is almost like silver. The kind that has a white, very fine, and fixed grain is the best. The kinds I have heard of that are highly praised are that of Flanders and, in Italy, that of Valcamonica in the Brescian district." 22 (I am indebted to Dr.Wilfrid Farrar for this translation.) Biringuccio talks about converting iron (apparently cast iron) to steel. The process de­ scribed might have been the carburisation of a solid iron bloom (under reducing condi­ tions) by the liquid cast iron to yield a bloom of steel, but it is also possible that the decarburisation of liquid cast iron (under oxidising conditions) to form a bloom of iron or low-carbon steel is being described instead. Such a process would certainly not take the six hours mentioned, since the whole fining process took about one hour or less23. It is quite possible that Biringuccio was misinformed as to the order of events, or the duration of the process. He was told that this was a method of making steel, but the details of trade pro­ cesses were not generally passed on to outsiders in a usable form without some embellish­ ment or emendation. The addition of crushed marble is difficult to understand. It is cer­ tainly not fusible. On heating it would decompose to calcium oxide, whose melting-point is 2580°C - not attainable during the 16th century ! However, if conditions were oxidising, then its presence might serve a purpose. If iron oxide was forming and reacting with the clay container then an iron silicate slag would form. Calcium oxide would dissolve in the slag in preference and reduce the amount of iron lost. There is some evidence that calci­ um oxide was added to medieval bloomeries to increase the yield of iron 24 .

Biringuccio (1540) Chapter 7, 67-70. Schubert (1951) 68. Morton & Wingrove (1972).

888

SECTION E I G H T

If this hypothesis is correct, then the blooms he saw may have been the products rather than the starting material. Once the decarburisation of liquid cast iron by stirring it in an oxidising atmosphere (the "finery") had been discovered, then the halting of the decarburi­ sation at some intermediate stage between cast iron and wrought iron, i.e. at steel, would always have been theoretically possible. But in practice the difficulty of keeping the hearth at exactly the right temperature for steel to solidify (around 1400°C for a 0.5%C steel) and so making the decarburisation to stop at exactly this point, would have rendered steelmaking in the finery an extremely difficult task. In view of the difficulties experienced by 19th century practitioners who tried to make puddled steel by direct decarburisation, one must be rather sceptical about steel having been made by fining, although it cannot be ruled out completely 25 . Modern steelmakers (since the later 19th century) find it easiest to remove all the carbon by oxidation and then add a weighed quantity of solid carbon to the pure liquid iron to give a steel of known carbon content. Whatever was happening in this "Brescian" process, liquid cast iron and blooms of up to 20 kg were involved. Such large blooms would have been admirably suited to making armour. The Brescia-Bergamo area was a centre for iron-making, and Brescia (then under Venetian rule) was an important centre for the production of munition arms and armour, and of course firearms. Sella quotes an official report dating from 1539 which states that the output of iron in the three valleys north of Brescia (Trompia, Camonica and Sabbia) was about 2700 tons a year. By the end of the century annual production from the 17 blast furnaces in the three valleys had risen to over 6000 tons. The Brescian gunmakers assembled the gun barrels, locks and stocks that were made in the villages of Val Camonica and Val Trompia and finished them ready for sale. There was a high degree of specialisation; one little town, Gardone in Val Trompia made nothing but barrels for arquebuses and muskets; as many as 300 in a day 26 . Their wares were exported throughout Europe; King Henry VIII of En­ gland bought 1500 Brescian arquebuses in 1544 27 . The armourers of Milan are said to have used steel plates made in Lecco (40km N of Milan) and Valsassina. In the Valsassina, 7 furnaces produced something like 1000 tons a year 28 . In 1587 the statutes of a Milanese armourers' corporation (or Universita) attempt­ ed to protect the craftsmen of Milan from Brescian competition 29 . Whether this was be­ cause the Brescians did employ cheaper steel or whether they were simply adapting better to a changing market, is a question that cannot yet be satisfactorily answered. When the products of the workshops of Pompeo della Chiesa and the Maestro del Castello are examined then samples from their armours certainly show a steel with a some­ what different inclusion population to most other examples of armour (see Appendix 2).

2: ' Barraclough (1971). Various attempts were made in the 19th century to make steel directly from pigiron by puddling. This process was practised in Westphalia in 1853. 26 Sella (1974) 98. 27 Clephan (1910) 119. 2U Sella (1974) 101. 29 Leydi, in Pyhrr & Godoy (1998) 29.

HARDENING

ARMOUR

But this might be evidence for some other procedure and so no specific steelmaking pro­ cess can yet be identified for their armours. The most compelling evidence for the use of the Indirect Process is that the cost of ar­ mour fell to a remarkably low level in the 16th century (see chapter 8.3). The cost of the cheapest armour becomes so low that the cost of the metal itself is significant. When the metal used in the cheapest mass-produced iron armour of the 16th & 17th centuries is examined, it is found that iron becomes commoner for munition armour, and its slag con­ tent increases. The metal used in the later 16th century for Italian munition armour was of lower carbon content than that used in the 15th century for infantry armour (but still steel rather than iron). Despite the supposedly stringent requirements of the city's Regulations, a large part of the armour made in Niirnberg (or at any rate bearing Ntirnberg marks) after 1560 was iron rather than steel (see section 5). By the 17th century it is unusual to find any Euro­ pean armour made of anything other than iron. Of course, for armour of high quality, the cost of the material was a secondary consid­ eration, and bloomery steel continues to have been used for that, as far as we can tell from the rather ambiguous evidence of slag inclusion analysis 30 . The making of steel in the sizes of blooms necessary, whether by a blast furnace which was operated as a large bloomery or in a large finery fed with pig-iron, would have required an equal mastery of furnace operations by the operators of either process. It should be observed that also tending to reduce the cost would have been the greater use of water-power in forging the armours, and just possibly the use of dies in which to shape them. The very close resemblances of some munition armours in a series to one another may suggest such techniques as the use of dies, and there is a reference to the making of patterns ("Matrizen") for the beating-out of munition armour in quantity, at Annaberg, near Innsbruck, by one Hans Zanger in the early years of the 16th century 31 . However the identity of dies with matrices cannot be assumed, and this question must also remain open.

30

Williams (1991); where all these results are tabulated. ■u Thomas & Gamber "Der Innsbrucker Plattnerkunst" (Innsbruck, 1954) 20; and An anvil with a hemispherical cavity was displayed in an exhibition at Graz in 1988. There is unfortu­ nately no illustration, or other evidence, of such an anvil in use to make armour. Quasigroch (H

890

SECTION E I G H T A P P E N D I X 1 - SIZE O F BLOOMS P R O D U C E D

T h e sizes of iron blooms excavated in the British Isles have been taken from Tylecote 3 date (approx)

bloom weight (kg)

-300 -200 -150 Roman Roman Roman 100 300 1000-1000 clOOO c.1350 1409 1541

0.23 0.34 2.04 1.25 7.7 3.6 0.91 6.8 3.34 5.5 20 87 131

(water-powered bellows) (water-powered bellows)

(Byrkenott, * calculated by Tylecote, not excavated) T h e sizes of iron blooms excavated in Europe have been taken from the biannual bibliographies published by the CPSA 3 3 . The number of the CPSA Communication and the name of the author, or excavator, reporting the bloom are also given. Date (CE) -625 -400 -200 -200

bloom weight (kg) 2.5 2.7 0.23 2.1

CPSA bibliog (number)

author

location

30 55 26 62

Shaw Cunliffe Marechal Feugeres

Crete Hants Namur Montans

Roman Roman

20? 13

51 56

Forrieres Crew

Luxeuil Essex

140 200 200 300 400

5.5 6.5 20 18 ? 11.5

26 53 62 56 57

Marechal Domergues Crew Rehren van Nie

Rhone Martys Laxton U K Saalburg Holland

400 500 700 800 900

1.7 9.3 2 1.7 3.5

46 59 23 29 55

Voss Espelund Souchopova Zaitz Gomori

Jutland Trondheim Moravia Krakow Balaton

30 54 29 43

Donceva Crew Blomgren Mattioli

Bulgaria N.Wales Stockholm Corsica

950 1357 1400 1620

32

3.6 1 0.5 50

Tylecote "Prehistory of metallurgy in the British Isles" (1986). Table 103; 211. "Comite pour la Siderurgie Ancienne de l'union Internationale des sciences prehistoriques et protohistoriques" (CPSA), which has published regular and comprehensive bibliographies since 1967; edited by Prof.Radomir Pleiner, Institute of Archaeology, Prague. 33

FURNACES AND BLOOMS

891

APPENDIX 2: SLAG INCLUSION ANALYSES:

Artefacts made of blomery iron always contain inclusions of trapped slag. If these are identical to the tap-slag from the furnace, then they would consist mostly of fayalite (iron silicate). They would, of course, also contain smithing slag (iron oxide and perhaps iron silicate) as well. Artefacts made of finery iron would not contain slag from the extraction process because the iron would have been entirely liquefied, they but would contain finery slag inclusions. Unfortunately, we cannot be certain of the nature of them, because it would depend on the lining of the finery hearth, but they would contain iron oxide and iron silicate. Buchwald (see above) has shown how these slag inclusions differed from those of the bloomery. The S i 0 2 / A l 2 0 3 ratios were higher and the Al 9 0 3 /CaO and K 2 0 / M g O ratios lower than the ratios for directly produced irons from the same region. So there is some possibility (but only when the ore source is known) of distinguishing between artefacts made by the two processes. Inclusion analysis was undertaken on various samples of armour 3 0 , and the slag inclu­ sions were almost all found to fit into one of four categories. 1 Iron oxide only—probably hammer scale, or corrosion. 2 Iron silicate only—presumably smithing slag. 3 The silicates of iron mixed with other metals, particularly Ca and Al- presumably a bloomery slag. 4 The same as 3 but without Mn. It might be a finery slag, since the Mn (if present) would have been reduced in the blast furnace. Almost three-quarters of the inclusions were of type 3 . The vast majority of high quality armours had inclusions mostly or entirely of type . Munition armour showed a somewhat more varied population. Type 3 still formed the majority but types 2 and 4 featured as well, and some German munition armour had more of type 4 . If the identification of type 4 as a finery slag was correct, then this would be readily ex­ plained by the finery being the source of cheap metal for cheap armour. Uniquely, six armours from Pompeo's workshop contain both types 2 and 3 . This might be explained by Pompeo using a different source for his steel to earlier Milanese armour­ ers, perhaps something like the method described by Biringuccio. Many more analyses will need to be done, on a larger database of samples, before any definite conclusions can be drawn. Note added in proof: Type © Inclusions are now thought to be the product of a finery in Chinese steelmaking. Rubin, H., Chen, J. "Comparative Studies on iron and steel artefacts uneathed from the tombs of Han princes" Sciences of Conservation and Archaeology, 2000, No. 1. 1-8.

892

SECTION E I G H T

References Baraldi, E. "Indirect approaches to iron production in the Late Middle Ages (13th-16th c.)" in the proceed­ ings of the conference "liuropa.isc.he Eisenstrasse" (Sonntagbcrg, Austria, 1998). Barraclough, K. "Puddled steel" Journal of the Iron & Steel Institute, (1971) 785, 952. Biringuccio "Pirotechnia" Translated and Edited by C.S.Smith and M.T.Gnudi (Venice, 1540, English trans­ lation, New York, 1942) Bjorkenstam, N. & Magnusson, G. "Ore as a factor for the development of the indirect process" Sibrium, 35 (Varese, 1988), 83. Buchwald, V.F. "Slag analysis as a method for the characterization and provenancing of ancient iron objects" Materials Characterization, 40 (New York, 1998)73 - 96. Clephan, R.C. "The military handgun of the Kith century" Archaeological Journal, 67 (1910) 109-150. Crew, P. "The experimental production of prehistoric bar iron" Historical Metallurgy, 25 (1991) 21-36. Crossley, D.W. "The management of a 161'1 century ironworks" Economic History Review, 19 (1966) 273288. Dickmann, H. "Aus der Geschichle der Deul.schc Eisen- und Stahlerzeugung" chapter 3. Vora Rennfeuer zum hochofen (Diisseldorf, 1959) 27-58. F'ilarete's "Treatise on architecture" has been published in a facsimile edition, ed. Spencer, J.R. (2 vols, New Haven, 1965). Gordon, R."Strength and structure of wrought iron" Archaeomaterials (1988) 2, 109-137. Hauptmann, A. & Yeicin, U. "Friihc Eiscngewinnung auf der Schwabischen Alb" Heidenheimer Jahrbuch, 1992. Hensel, F.R. & Hengstenberg, T.F. "ElTect ofinclusion streaks on the tensile & Dynamic properties of Wrought Iron" American Institute of Mining & Mechanical Engineers, Technical Publication No.488 (1932). Knau, H.L."Vom Rennfeuer zum Osmund" Der Marker, 4 1 / 3 (1992) 107-111. Mann, J. Wallace Collection Catalogues: European Arms & Armour, 2 vols (1962) Morton, G.R & Wingrove, J. "Constitution of bloomery slags; part 2 - medieval" Journal of the Iron & Steel Institute (1972) 478. " Pyhrr, S.W & Godoy, J.A. "Heroic, armor of the Italian Renaissance"(New York, 1998) Quasigroch, G.(ed.) "Die Werkstatt des Harnischmachers" Landesmuscum Joanneum, Graz (1988). Schubert, H.R. "Early refining of pig iron in England" Transactions of the Newcomen Society, 28 (1951-2) 59-70. Seelig, L. (Bavarian National Museum), personal communication, 16.3.98. Sella, D. "The iron industry in Italy, 1500-1650" Schwerpunkte der Eisengewinnung und Eisenverarbeitung in Europa 1500-1650, ed. Kellenbenz, H. (Kciln, 1974) 91-105 Sim, D. "Beyond the Bloom" British Archaeological Reports, International Series 725 (Oxford, 1998). p.55. The Roman army seems to have been supplied with iron ingots of around 5kg - 7kg. Smith, C.S. "Granulating iron in Filarcte's smelter" Technology and Culture (1964) 5, 386-90, and additional comments up to 397. Tizzoni, M. "La Valle delle Forme" Chapter XII of "La Miniera Perduta" A conference report on five years of research on the territory of Bienno (Bienno, 1999). Tizzoni, M. & Tizzoni, C.C.(ecls.) Tylecotc, R.F. Austin, J.N.& Wraith, A.E. "The mechanism of the Bloomery Process in Shaft Furnaces" Journal of the Iron & Steel Institute, May 1971, 342-363. Williams, A.R. "Fifteenth century armour from Churburg: a metallurgical study." Armi Antiche, (Torino, 1986) 3-82. Williams, A.R. "Slag inclusions in armour" Historical Metallurgy, 24 (1991) 69 -80.

C H A P T E R 8.2

HARDENING ARMOUR T H E THEORY OF METALS IN THE MIDDLE AGES

In the 16th century, Biringuccio thought that steel was "a purer form of iron" (see chap­ ter 8.1). Prolonged heating in contact with carbon would therefore purify it still further. We would describe steel as an impure form of iron, or iron made into an alloy (steel) by the addition of carbon, but his ideas would provide an equally logical basis for converting iron to steel. Did the ironmakers who made and the armourers who handled steel have any theory to guide them ? Even what we would regard as a misleading theory was much better than no theory at all; as long as there was a basis for consistent trial and error then successful procedures could be established. The basic scientific theories of medieval technologists were probably those of Aristotle, if not perhaps derived at first hand. Everything was thought to be made up of four elements, "earth, water, air, and fire", in different proportions. Bodies could be transformed by altering the ratios of these elements. They do not really correspond to our 92 stable chemical elements, but rather to our con­ cepts of "solid", "liquid", "gas" and "energy". A seminal text on ironmaking is "De meteorologica" (Book IV) which was ascribed to Aristotle, but is perhaps by a later pupil of his from the 3rd century BC 1 . "Now of the bodies solidified by cold which are made up both of earth and water,... those which solidify by the departure of heat melt by heat when it enters into them again., [but those] where all the moisture has gone off in vapour with the heat, like iron and horn, cannot be dissolved except by excessive heat, but they can be softened - though manufactured iron does melt, to the point of becoming fluid and then solidifying again. This is how steel is made. The dross sinks to the bottom and is purged away: when this has been done often and the metal is pure we have steel. The process is not repeated often because the purification of the metal involves great waste and loss of weight. But the iron that has less dross is the better iron." 2 Where it is said that iron "melts" this must be considered very doubtful, although if a good deal of carbon was absorbed, it might just be possible. Since steel-making is being described, it is more probable that this refers to the liquefaction of slag. In a bloomery, slag will trickle downwards and leave a solid bloom behind. If this bloom is left in the furnace in a reducing atmosphere for a long time, then parts of it will absorb carbon and become steel. But, if the conditions are not very carefully controlled, then the bloom may be ox1 2

Jaeger (1934) 386. Meteorology, Book IV, chapter 6, (ed.Ross) p.487.

894

SECTION E I G H T

idised back again by the incoming air, and wasted. The author is quite correct to point out that less slag means a better metal. Hardening of steel Although steel is harder and stronger than iron, the principal advantage to be gained from employing steel is the dramatic increase in hardness obtained when the steel is quenched, i.e. plunged red-hot into cold water. This increase is the result of the formation of a new, different crystalline form in the steel (pure iron is unaffected by quenching). As explained above (chapter 1.3) the hardness of a steel might be increased from around 200 VPH to double or triple that by quenching. HARDENING OF ARMOUR IN ITALY

The best Milanese armours were frequently made of steel hardened to 300 - 400 VPH (infantry armour was of lesser quality) apparently by slack-quenching. The numbers (given in detail in chapter 4.2, before 1510) of hardened Italian armours are: quenched (low C%)

slack-quenched (medium C%)

quenched & tempered (medium C%)

Total Heat-treated

(with marks) 21

20

3

45

27

6

0

12

33

(without marks) 6

NOT heat-treated

In view of the improvements in firearms, not to mention the threat that other weapons (like the favourite infantry weapon of the halberd) continued to pose, it is not surprising that armour reached such a high metallurgical standard during the 15th century, but it is very surprising that in the earliest years of the following century there is a marked reduc­ tion in the hardness of Italian armour. After the popularisation of gilding for armour around 1490-1510, only 4 examples of gilded armours (out of 79) and 2 more plain field armours (out of 20) were hardened, the latest about 1530. After this date, Italian armour is apparently never hardened by heattreatment. Hardening and gilding were evidently found by the Italian armourers to be incompat­ ible. The hardening of steel involved heating it to red-heat (800°- 900°C) followed by an accelerated cooling. The decoration of armour by mercury gilding also involved heating the steel (to 250°-350°C), which might well soften the steel again by tempering the martensite formed. For the Milanese armourers of the 15th century, this was not a problem, because they did not then decorate their armours by gilding them. However, as soon as they tried to combine fire-gilding with heat-treatment, they ran into difficulties. The con­ sequence that it was hardening that was abandoned, rather than gilding, suggests that the priorities of their customers were changing. If a customer still wanted extra protection, then his armour could always be made rather thicker than usual.

HARDENING

ARMOUR

895

The fact that there seems to have been an active trade in recipes for the heat-treatment of steel in 16th century Italy (see below) need not be regarded as a contradiction. Crafts­ men who were no longer required to practise a redundant technology would not have felt that they were parting with trade secrets if they were still able to sell the details of that technology. HARDENING OF ARMOUR IN GERMANY

The heat-treatment procedures for South German armour are quite different. Many South German armourers (from Augsburg, Landshut and Innsbruck) from at least the late 15th century and for much of the 16th century, seem to have preferred to harden their armour by the two stages of fully quenching followed by tempering to 400 or even 500 VPH. This could be combined with mercury gilding by applying the amalgam (solution of gold in mercury) after the quenching but before the tempering had been completed. Provided the gilders worked in close co-operation with the armourers, the risk of overtempering by fire-gilding could be avoided. It is surely no coincidence that the two groups of craftsmen involved were closely relat­ ed (often by marriage) in Germany. For example, in Augsburg where these two processes were first harmonised, the etcher Hans Burgkmair was the son-in-law of the armourer Lorenz Helmschmied, and later Jorg Sorg, a famous etcher of armour, worked closely with his uncle, Desiderius Helmschmied, the grandson of Lorenz. In Landshut, the armourer Wolfgang Groszschedel was evidently a close personal friend of the etcher Ambrosius Gemlich, for he appears in the City archives in 1547 as a witness to probate for Anna, the widow of Gemlich 3 . SLACK-QUENCHING

Full-quenching, that forms an all-martensite structure, is paradoxically less liable to lead to warping and cracking. Slack-quenching creates a network of soft, ferritic, areas which can offer a pathway for failure. Slack-quenching, and a cognate process, "time-quenching" (in which the hot steel arte­ fact was dipped into the quenchant and then withdrawn) were still employed as late as the 1940s 4 , but development of the modern theory of hardening has led to their being depre­ cated and they are now largely avoided. Therefore they have been little studied, and their details are difficult to identify precisely 5 . 16TH CENTURY BOOKS ON STEEL

There are numerous printed 16th century accounts of metal technology, such as Biringuccio, Agricola, Garzoni and della Porta and the anonymous "Stahl und Eisen" of 1532 in which both slack-quenching and full-quenching-and-tempering were described. An English 3 4 5

Reitzenstein (1960) 22. Burns (1940). Priestner et al. (1968); and Bellamy & Garber (1972).

896

SECTION E I G H T

translation (1562) of another version of this treatise contains the first such recipes printed in English. A typical recipe is quoted by Smith 5 : "To make yron or steele hard. Take the iuyce of Varuen, cald in Latine varbena, and strayne it into a glasse, and ye wil quenche any yron, take thereof, and put to of men's pisse, and the distilde water of wormes, so mixe altogether, and quenche therein so farre as will haue it hard, but take heede it be not too harde, therefore take it forth soone after, and let it coole of it self, for when it is well seasoned ye shall see golden spottes on your yron." Gianbattista della Porta, in his book (1558) of useful recipes, printed in an English trans­ lation (1658) as "Natural Magick", gives a method for hardening armour: "Take soft iron armour of small price, and put it into a pot, strewing upon it [soot, and organic material to supply carbon], cover it, and make a good fire about it: then at the time fit, take the pot with iron pinchers; and striking the pot with a hammer, quench the whole herness [harness] red hot in water; for so it becomes most hard .. . But, lest the rings of a coat of male [mail] should be broken, and flie in pieces, there must be strength added to the hardness. Workmen call it a return. Take it out of the water, shake it up and down in vinegar, that it may be polished and the colour be made perspicuous; then make red hot a plate of iron, and lay [it] upon the same: when it shows an ash colour, cast it again into the water, and that hardness abated, and it will yield to the stroke more easily: so of a base coat of male, you shall have one that will resist all blows" 7 . In this recipe della Porta describes the case-hardening of mail, its quenching and tem­ pering; but most significantly he shows that the importance of these operations in improv­ ing the quality of the armour was fully appreciated by the armourers who did not proceed in a random way, but methodically, in order to control the quality of their product. He assumes that "soft" armour is cheap armour that might be improved. The author has not yet found any examples of mail that were case-hardened, and quenching and tempering do not seem to have been practised upon armour in Italy after about 1530, nevertheless this is an entirely rational account of the heat-treatment of steel for armour, even if it may represent the practice of an earlier generation of armourers. Of course, the "time fit" is left unspecified, so that it would have been very difficult for any layman to carry out this process satisfactorily. Garzoni describes the importance of knowing how to work iron in the forge and how to join it to steel (by forge-welding) how to soften it by annealing and how to harden it by quenching. He describes different temper colours (identified by rubbing with soap or horn), and the reduction of hardness, evidently by a reheating, although the word "tempering" is used quite indiscriminately. Broken swords can be repaired by silver-soldering. He says "knives, shears,etc are made in Cremona, Brescia, Milan, Venice, Naples, Saravalle in Friuli, and Scarperia. But in Germany such tools are not highly regarded for their appearance, but rather for their temper" 8 . 6 7 8

Smith (1968) 2 della Porta "Natural Magick", Book XIII, Ch.IV. (1957) 308. Garzoni (1585) 465.

HARDENING

ARMOUR

897

Their collections of recipes are often indiscriminate, partly because the authors did not always understand what they were describing, and partly because their interlocutors would have wanted to preserve trade secrets. Sometimes misleading details are inserted, or cru­ cial details omitted. Biringuccio's method "for making steel" (chapter 8.1) is ambiguous and della Porta's method for "strengthening armour" given above is incomplete. Less widely circulated manuscript collections of workshop recipes might perhaps be thought more likely to provide a better reflection of contemporary practice. Indeed, such collections of "secrets of nature" were regularly bought and sold, often for high prices. Several such recipes had been collected by Francesco de' Medici, who sent one to the Archduke Rudolf (of Austria) in 1575 9 . TUSCANY

After he became Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1537, Cosimo dei Medici (1520-74) set about encouraging various arts and crafts. He wished to see a revival of the Roman art of mak­ ing statues in the very hard stone, porphyry, which was thought to demand very hard steel tools, and set up a workshop for its carving; he also wished to have his own court armoury which would employ hard steel in its manufactures. So his metallurgical interests were extensive. His activities have recently been the subject of a detailed study 10 . In 1568, Vasari de­ scribes how Grand Duke Cosimo got his carver, Francesco Ferrucci del Tadda, to carve a porphyry fountain designed by Vasari with the use of tools hardened by quenching into a liquid produced by the distillation of a herbal liquor concocted according to a recipe of Cosimo's. The recipes collected by Cosimo include a collection of 166 quenching recipes from various sources. Ten of these deal with the hardening of plate armour, of which five specifically promise to temper steel so that it will resist firearms 11 . In 1543, Cosimo began to build up his own iron monopoly in Tuscany and soon after invited a maestro from Brescia with his men to build a Brescian style "forno" for produc­ ing molten iron from ore 12 . They evidently did not believe in training any local rivals, since in 1613 Ducal agents had to be sent afresh into Brescia to find more maestri for the "altoforni"(blast furnaces). It is not known for certain when Cosimo managed to establish a court armoury, as a list of businesses of 1561 records only two armourers' shops in Florence, run byjacopo di Matteo da Modena with Andrea di Lorenzo, and Batista di Simone detto Scamorina. Not until 1568 did the Duke manage to entice one of the Milanese family of Piatti to set up shop in Florence. The Prince promised a good salary and offered to supply "hydraulic polishing machines" 1 3 . The workshop of Matteo and his brother had executed a large order for Cosimo just before Matteo's transfer. It is possible that the suits of armour for the knights of San Ste9

Williams (1991 Butters (1996) 11 Butters (1996) 12 Butters (1996) 13 Butters (1996) 10

a) 297. passim. recipe no.7. 233. document 16.

898

SECTION EIGHT

fano were his first Florentine works. Boccia suggests that the armour of Francesco de' Medici, also in the Bargello, was made in Florence about 1570 14 . By 1573 Matteo was working on a gilded festival armour for Giacomo Buoncompagni (a son of Pope Gregory XIII) as a present from the Medici. This was supposedly tempered to resist firearms with a "Medici temper" made from the juices of several herbs and sent to Rome in June 1573 15 . Unfortunately this author has found no evidence that any armour made in Brescia, or anywhere else in Italy at that time, was ever hardened by heat-treatment. The recipes sold to the Grand Duke might perhaps have been those used in the heat-treatment of Brescian armour of a century before. The selling-off of obsolete trade secrets would then make sense of these transactions. APPENDIX 1; EXPERIMENTS ON THE SLACK-QUENCHING OF MEDIEVAL STEELS

Two unusually large specimens from 16th century armours were available for testing. Specimen A: This was part of a vambrace (upper arm defence) made in North Italy, ca. 1570. (supplied by P.Dale, Ltd) As received, this was a pearlitic-ferritic steel, of average hardness 183 VPH. Energy-Dispersive Analysis during the course of SEM gave these bulk percentages of ele­ ments (the carbon content was estimated by metallography). wt.% C 0.5 Si 0.24 Mn 0.02 Ni, P and S negligible.

Specimen B: This was a plate from a pauldron (shoulder defence) made in South Germany, probably in Innsbruck c.1550 (supplied by RATL workshop). As received, this was a uniform tempered martensite, with an average hardness of 514 VPH. A spectrographic analysis gave these bulk percentages of elements: wt.% C Mn S P Si Al Ni

0.49 0.07 0.007 0.049 0.02 0.007 0.03

14 15

Boccia (1983) 61. Butters (1996) document 17.

HARDENING

ARMOUR

899

The author carried out experiments at Reading University on delayed quenches of these two pieces of armour: A: the Italian vambrace c l 5 7 0 delay before quenching

(sec)

hardness (Re)

VPH

56 31 25 30

620 310 266 300

(sec)

hardness (Re)

VPH

5

28

287

B: the Innsbruck pauldron cl550 delay before quenching

and, by contrast, for a modern steel (EN 42) of composition; C 0.70-0.85% S max 0.05%

Si 0.10-0.40% P max 0.05%

M n 0.55-0.75%

Rockwell C hardness (as received) delay before quenching

26

(sec) 10 15 16 17 20

hardness (Re) 60 49 - 52 39 27 23

VPH 720 530-560 400 270 230

Slack-quenching of armours & modern steel +

Innsbruck A

Italian

10

15

°

delay before quench (sec)

EN 42

20

25

900

SECTION E I G H T

It will be observed how much more effect a delay has upon the hardness of a quenched 16th century steel, than it does on a quenched modern steel. The presence of even small quantities of alloying elements in modern steels alters their behaviour considerably. The presence of Mn, Ni, Cr or Mo alters the rate at which martensite forms, and also affects the formation of pearlite. In other words, an alloy steel does not have to be cooled as rapidly to form an all-martensite structure, and it is said to be more "hardenable". The likelihood of cracking and warping is also reduced considerably. The presence of alloying elements also alters the behaviour of quenched steels on temper­ ing. Generally, they do not soften as quickly because the carbide particles do not coarsen as rapidly 16 . APPENDIX 2: EXPERIMENTS ON THE TEMPERING OF MEDIEVAL STEELS

Samples from these two steels were put through the sequence of heatings that were prob­ ably needed for the hardening and decoration of armour. This work was part of the back­ ground for a study of Greenwich armour 17 . A sample of steel from A was water-quenched, tempered for 15 minutes at 450°C, and then "gilded" i.e. heated for 5 minutes at 350°C, and "blued" i.e. heated for 10 minutes at 300°C. Its final hardness was 283 VPH. A sample of steel from B was water-quenched and tempered in the same way and then also "gilded" and "blued". Its final hardness was 339 VPH, which accords reasonably well with observed results for South German armour. Tempering both these specimens of armour at gilding/blueing temperatures for relatively short times seemed to soften them markedly. Further experiments were carried out, to try and clarify this, varying time and temperature, and making hardness readings at intervals. A sample of A which was austenitised for 30 minutes at 850°C and then water-quenched had a hardness of 738 VPH. If this sample was then subsequently tempered at 350°C for 30 min, the hardness was found to be 494 VPH. After 1 hour, this fell to 455 VPH. If this was then "blued" i.e. heated for a further 15min, the hardness fell still further to 385 VPH. A sample of B was austenitised in the same way and water-quenched; its hardness rose to 678 VPH. On austenitising and then water-quenching a sample of B, and tempering at 350°C for 30 min, the hardness was 440 VPH. After 1 hour, this fell to 426 VPH. If this was then "blued" i.e. heated for a further 15 min, the hardness fell still further to 364 VPH.

16 17

Honeycombe (1981) 94 and especially 146-152. Williams and de Reuck (1995).

HARDENING

901

ARMOUR

These results are shown in the graph.

Tempering of steel armours at 350 deg C after quenching +

armour A

*

armour B

800 700

Both these specimens of armour plate show a faster rate of softening on tempering than would be expected from modern steels, presumably because of the absence of alloying elements such as chromium, manganese, nickel, and silicon. Manganese is not generally present in medieval steels at all; at least, the author has never found any in armour, except in slag inclusions 18 . Chromium is also absent. APPENDIX 3; MECHANICAL TESTING OF SAMPLES FROM ARMOUR A: the Italian vambrace of c. 1570, a pearlitic steel, hardness 183 VPH. B: the Innsbruck pauldron plate of c.1550, which was also made of a 0.5%C steel, but a tempered martensite of 514 V P H . Tensile testing of armour Specimen

Yield stress MN.m-2

UTS MN.m-2

Elongation %

Young's

A

107

426

40

105,000

B

132

513

19

130,000

Williams (1991 b, and 1998).

902

SECTION E I G H T

These may be compared with the mechanical properties quoted for a modern plain carbon (0.5%C) steel quenched and tempered at different temperatures' 9 . Temp

VPH

UTS MN.m-2

Elongation %

300°C

470

1600

7

500°C

300

1000

20

References Aristotle: Meteorology, Book IV, chapter 6, trans. E.W.Webster from "The Works of Aristotle" ed. W.D.Ross (Oxford, reprinted Chicago, 1952). Bellamy, G. & Garber, S. "Structure and mechanical properties ol' slack-quenched mild steel strip" Journal of the Iron & Steel Institute, (August 1972) 588-605. Biringuccio: "The Pirotechnia of Vannocio Biringuccio" T h e Classic Sixteenth-Century Treatise on Metals and Metallurgy, Translated and Edited by C.S.Smith and M.T.Gnudi (Venice, 1540, English transla­ tion, New York, 1942) Boccia, L.G. "Arms & armour from the Medici court" Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts (Detroit, 1983) 61. Burns, J.L. & Brown,V. "Time Quenching" Transactions of the American Society for Metals, 28 (1940) 209229. and see also "Slack-quenching" Metals Progress, July 1943, no.44 (Metals Park, Ohio) anon.editorial, p 94-5. Butters, S.B. " T h e triumph of Vulcan; sculptors' tools, porphyry and the prince in Ducal Florence" (Florence, 1996) 2 vols. della Porta, Gianbattista, "Natural Magick", 1658 translation of the 1589 (Naaples) edition; reprinted New York, 1957, ed.Price, D.J. Garzoni, Tomaso "La Piazza Universale" (Venice, 1585) published by Gian Battista Somascho. Honeycombe,R.W.K. "Steels - microstructure and properties" (1981). Jaeger, W, "Aristotle; fundamentals of the history of his development" (Oxford, 1934, repr. 1967). Kapp, L, Kapp, H. & Yoshihara, Y. "The craft of the Japanese sword" (Tokyo, 1987). Priestner, R. Earley, C.C. & Rendall, J . H . "Observations on the behaviour of austenite during hot working of some low-carbon steels" Journal of the Iron & Steel Institute, 206 (December 1968) 1252-1262. Reitzenstein, A.von, "Die Landshuter Plattner, ihre O r d n u n g und ihre Meister" Waffen- und Kostumkunde, 2 (1960) 20-32. Smith, C.S.(ed.) "Sources for the History of the Science of Steel" (Cambridge, Mass. 1968). Williams, A.R. "Experiments with 'medieval steel' plates" Historical Metallurgy 32 (1998) 82-86. Williams, A.R. (1991 a) "Italian armour and Cosimo dei' Medici" Journal of the Arms & Armour Society, 13 (1991) 293-315. Williams, A.R. (1991 b) "Slag inclusions in armour" Historical Metallurgy 24 (1991) 69-80.

19

Honeycombe (1981) 148.

C H A P T E R 8.3

T H E MASS-PRODUCTION OF ARMOUR. SOLDIERS' WAGES IN ENGLAND

In 1281, King Edward I was paying his knights Is (5p) a day, foot-constables (armoured infantry) 6d (2.5p) a day and archers 2d (0.8p) a day. So the private soldier was paid on a par with the skilled workman 1 . In 1347 his grandson while besieging Calais was still paying the same amount to his knights, and to his archers 3d (1.25p) a day, but a new grade of soldier had appeared, the gunner, who was to be paid 6d (2.5p) a day. After the Black Death had caused wages and prices to rise, King Henry V paid his ar­ chers 6d (2.5p) a day in 1415, while the knight remained at Is (5p). So while the wages of the archer (an important soldier in the English army) had kept pace with the skilled la­ bourer, those of the knight had, relatively, fallen behind. In 1492, men-at arms (that is, men who fought as knights whatever their precise social status) were to receive Is 6d (7.5p) daily for the invasion of France and archers 6d. By 1557 rising prices had forced Queen Mary's government to pay foot-soldiers (not necessarily archers now) 8d (3p) a day, but Queen Elizabeth's thrift had still not increased this by 1588. An extra allowance now had to be paid to induce soldiers to wear their armour. Apparent­ ly, many refused to wear it but carried it in carts to the musters to its detriment. Accord­ ingly, an allowance of 1 d a mile was paid for wearing armour to musters and exercising in it. In 1598 an army sent to Ireland was still being paid at this rate, although soldiers' wages had fallen considerably behind those of skilled civilian workmen. The cost of equipping an army and supplying it continually with gunpowder had risen so much that economies had to be made somewhere. Since the new firearms required much less skill than bows in their use, then less skilful men could be employed to use them; and a foot-soldier's wages fell to the equivalent of an unskilled labourer's. Since the cost of any shots fired were deducted from the soldiers' wages 2 , there was little incentive to acquire more skill, and the soldier was becoming just a cog in a machine designed to deliver the maximum firepower.

1

Thorold Rogers (for all wages quoted) I, 322; IV, 524; V, 672. Boynton (1967) passim, and for this reference to the cost of shots, Calendar of State Papers relating to Ireland, 1559; 380.

2

904

SECTION E I G H T

T H E COST OF ARMOUR

Over the long period of time it was in use, the cost of armour varied considerably with quality as well as with other prices in general. A few examples may be quoted. Frankish warriors of the 8th-9th century might have to find 12 solidi (the equivalent of 6 oxen) for a mail shirt, and double that for their complete equipment (chapter 3.1). In 1304 a mail shirt cost 10 pounds(Flcmish), and another, longer one, cost double that. So to buy mail armour would cost between 60 and 120 days' wages for a craftsman (see chapter 3.2). In 15th century England, armours of Milanese origin were popular but expensive. Sir John Cressy (a professional soldier) purchased a complete Milanese armour from Italian merchants in 1441 for £ 8 6s 8d (8.33 pounds) and seven complete Milanese armours for his squires at a cost of between £ 5 and £ 6 each. Nicholas Howard paid £ 6 16s 8d (£ 6.84) for a complete harness "with an ostrich feather" in 1468, and the Howard ac­ counts record another at £ 7 in the same year 3 . These armours would cost between 100 and 166 days' wages to purchase. Assuming that they were made out of steel at 16s the cwt (80p per 50kg) then the cost of the raw material was only about 8s (40p) or less than one-tenth of the total. Reitzenstein has collected numerous references to the prices of Landshut armours. At the upper end of the market, Wolfgang Groszschedel was paid 200 escudos for a gilded armour by Philip of Spain in 1551. His son, and partner, Franz Groszschedel was paid a pension of 50 florins a year by Duke Albrecht V of Bavaria, and in 1568, 1325 florins for 6 boys' armours. He was paid 2550 florins for the Rosenblatt-garnitur ("Roseleaf' garni­ ture) made in 1571. (A garniture was made up of sets of armour for the battlefield and the tournament) 4 . Not all armourers' work was on this princely scale, however. In 1578 Barbara the widow of the armourer Georg Konig received 3 florins for renovating 13 armours for Shrove Tues­ day jousts. In 1583 landsknecht armours for the militia by various armourers were sold at 5 florins each (and also in 1596 and 1599) but the price had declined by 1627 to 4 florins. Paul Vischer (Court Armourer) charged 110 florins for a jousting armour for the Duke in 1607. Prices of Innsbruck armours have been collected by Thomas and Gamber. The price in 1527 for an etched "double armour" (for the field & joust) was fixed at 70 florins, a field armour with a breastplate-reinforce was 50 florins, and an etched light harness at 25 flor■5 Mann (1938) 320, quotes an Exchequer Account for these purchases in 1441; "Ser J o h n Cresy.. i harneys de Meleyn complet 81i 6s 8d. i Squyer.. i harneys de Meleyn complet 51i. a altr' Squyer.. i harneys de Meleyn complet 51i 16s.8d. i peyr legg harneys et 1 peyr gloves... 26s. 8d. ii altr' Squyeres.. ii harneys de Meleyn complet l l l i . J o h n Savyle i harneys de Meleyn complet 61i. i payr glovez 5s 8d." 4 Reitzenstein (1969) for prices of Landshut armour. European traders used the florentine Florin, or Venetian Ducat (both worth about £ 0.23). In Germany the Gulden (guilder) was also used, at first equivalent to the florin, but by 1500 worth somewhat less (about £ 0.2 or fl 0.86) The gold Scudo was worth slightly less than a ducat.

T H E M A S S - P R O D U C T I O N OF A R M O U R

905

ins. In 1547 a record price (1258 florins) was paid for the Adlergarnitur ("Eagle garniture") ordered by Ferdinand for his son Archduke Ferdinand II in anticipation of war. Some armourers made enough money to be able to retire early. For example, Michel Witz the Younger (d. 1588) bought the manor of Narrnholz in 1561, to retire to, for 2500 florins. Hans Seusenhofer, on the other hand, was ennobled (like Franz Groszschedel) and pensioned off in 1537 with 104 florins a year; his brothers salary had been 200 florins, but inflation meant that by 1567, when his sonjorg (d. 1580) was pensioned off, he was to retire with 160 florins a year 5 . Roth has tried to calculate the cost of armours at Graz in real terms. In the late 16th century, an average horse would cost 30 florins, and an ox 15 florins. The average wage in 1600 was about 5 florins a month. A breastplate of "proof' cost 5 florins between 1617 and 1626. A light horseman's ar­ mour cost 7¥>, later 8 florins, between 1578 and 1596 (a knightly armour would cost more, of course, maybe 35 florins). An infantry armour between 1579 and 1630 would cost 7 florins. The plate for an armour might cost 1.5 florins, the rest was the cost of making it. Armour plate was sold by the Sam (of about 140 kg) for 10-12 florins6. To buy an Innsbruck armour would then cost between 150 and 300 days' wages. The Eagle garniture was to cost twenty times the armour of the knight, but did include the com­ ponents for four armours. Thirty years later, the Roseleaf garniture would cost twice that. The more functional Graz armours would cost around 40 days' wages for an infantry ar­ mour and 175 for a knightly one. The production of armour at Augsburg was on a similar timescale to that at Innsbruck. According to the Regulations, those craftsmen wishing to be masters were to make a com­ plete armour, plain and undecorated, for which they would be allowed six months. Of course, their first works would be more slowly completed than later ones, but 150 days' labour was to be allowed for making them; the price would of course be higher than 150 days' wages, because overheads like fuel and profits would have to be allowed for7. In 1542, a mandate to the Lord Mayor of London was issued, fixing the price of ar­ mour 8 . This included An "Almain rivet of the best sort" An "Almain rivet of the second sort" and for a light-horseman, A "Demi-lance" with cuirass, vambrace, poleyns and head-piece with bevor

7 s 6d (38p) 6s 8d (33p)

45s {£ 2.25),

A somewhat better grade of infantry armour was usually available. For example, in 1590 the Armourers' Company unsuccessfully petitioned the Privy Council to place regular orders for munition armours in order to sustain the industry in England while reducing reliance on imports, relieve unemployment and replenish arsenals. The Company offered to sup3 6 7 8

Thomas & C a m b e r (1954) for prices of Innsbruck armour. Roth (1971). Reitzenstein (1960). Letters & Papers of Henry VIII, vol.XVII, 712.

906

SECTION EIGHT

ply 8000 armours over five years, charging for lance armours complete £ 3 6s 8d {£ 3.33), for a cuirass of proof with pauldrons £ 2 (without proof £ 1 6s 8d or £ 1.33) and for a burgonet 4s (20p). These armours would have varied in cost between 26 and 66 days' wages, but were to be considerably undercut by foreign suppliers. Large orders for very cheap armour for the infantry were placed by English governments, who in 1539 bought (carriage paid) 1200 "complete harness" from Koln for £ 454 and 2700 armours at Antwerp for £ 630. In 1560 Sir Thomas Gresham, Queen Elizabeth's agent in Flanders, exported 8000 infantry armours from Antwerp and then bought another 6000 which were exported from Hamburg 9 . These suppliers of armour in bulk to King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth, who were based in North Germany and the Netherlands, were probably those complained about ("Kolnish and Netherlandish") in the archives of Niirnberg and Augsburg, although we do not know for certain where the armour was actually made. The cost of the armour ordered for England works out at close to the regulation price of 1542 (Koln) approximately 7s 6d (0.38p), or 10 days' wages each; (Antwerp) approximately 4s 6d (23p) each, or 6 days' wages. The very low cost of such armour made it attractive to princes with large armies to equip. But none of it can be identified, since it was not marked, at least not with its genuine place of origin. However the extensive iron-making industry in the Siegerland and Sauerland areas (midway between the Netherlands and Niirnberg) coupled with a long-established tradi­ tion of armour-making there suggests Westphalia as a strong candidate (see below). Of course, different considerations applied to Greenwich armour. After the English Royal Armoury was set up at Greenwich, armour was made there virtually regardless of cost. The armourers were paid £ 10 a year, and the master-craftsman £ 26. Their products were not priced as such, since the King paid all the workshop's expenses, but in 1540 Erasmus Kirkener offered to make a complete armour for £ 8 and an undecorated garniture for £ 12. In the next century, the price under William Pickering (1612) had risen to £ 200 for a garniture, together with £ 140 for its decoration 10 . So a Greenwich armour cost 160 days' wages, but a princely garniture might cost twenty times that. Leydi has collected numerous documents relating to the Negroli family of armourers in Milan. In 1543 Giovan Paolo Negroli hired a master armourer at a salary of 40 scudi a year. In the 16th century, an unskilled worker or soldier might be paid 20 scudi a year, and a skilled worker twice that. In 1567 he sold 35 "inlaid" armours at 25 scudi each. By conrast, an armour made in 1547 for Luigi de Leiva cost 220 scudi, while a garniture made for Charles V in 1539 cost 1120 scudi. The Medusa shield made for Charles V in 1541 cost 350 scudi. Another commission for the emperor, a corselet, cost 200 scudi in 1545. Much of this price would have been for the gold used in its decoration. Pompeo della Cesa was not only the Court Armourer in Milan, making costly armours 9 10

Williams & de Reuck (1995) for prices of English armour. Burgon (1839) I, 325.

907

THE MASS-PRODUCTION OF ARMOUR

for princes, but at the other end of the market, he was engaged in mass-production orders with other armourers. In 1567 he contracted to supply a captain of Marseilles with 26 etched and gilt armours for men-at-arms, with matching saddles, chanfrons, etc. at 36 scudi each, and also 42 bowmen's armours, decorated with etching but not gilding, and without lower legs, at 24 scudi each. The entire order, worth some 1944 scudi, was to be delivered in five months. In 1569 a group of 26 armourers including Pompeo, a Piatti and two Negroli, undertook to deliver 1600 corselets within 5 months at a price of 6V2 scudi each. In 1584, Pompeo contracted with others to outfit a regiment; he was to supply 100 corselets "new and etched in the current style" at 11 gold scudi e a c h " . These purchase prices vary between 48 days' wages for a plain infantry armour and 270 days' wages for a decorated horseman's armour. Beyond this, a Negroli piece might cost ten times as much. These are of course only intended to give the most general indication of the time-scale involved in making armours, but it is significant that armour of the best quality does not seem to fall in price in real terms, remaining constantly at a price which entails at least 60 - 90 days' wages, but the cheapest armour falls to a price which can only include as few as 1 or 2 days labour. The garnitures mentioned were vastly expensive, but cannot be re­ garded as typical since a great deal of time and expense was devoted to their decoration. Table of armour costs cost of a foot-soldier 's armour

cost of a horseman's armour

equivalent days' wages

12 solidi

[6 oxen]

Date

Place

9* c

Frankish mail

1304

Bruges mail

£ Flem 10 - 20

1388

Westphalia mail

rg 4.6 (£ 1 .06)

1437

Westphalia

rg4.3

1441

£8.33 £5-£6

")

1468

England (Milanese armour) England (Milanese)

£7

J

1527

Innsbruck

fl 50 fl 25 (light horse)

1539

England (from Westphalia ?)

60 -130

25 100-166

300 150 10 6

£ 0.38 £0.23

1540

England (Greenwich)

£8

160

1547

Innsbruck

fl 1258*

7500

1542

England

£ 2-25

45

1551

Landshut

s 200

1500

1567

Milan

s 36

270

Leydi, in Pyrhh & Godoy (1998), 29-51 for prices of Milanese armour.

908

SECTION EIGHT

1000

1568

Landshut

fl 220

1569

Milan

1571

Landshut

(1 2550**

1578

Graz

fl 35

1583

Landshut

1596

Graz

1599

Landshut

48

s 6.f

15 000 175 25

5 fl fl 8 (light horse)

50

fl 5

25

1579- 1630 Graz

11 7

40

1584

Milan

s 11

80

1590

England (ABC)

£ 3.30

£i

66 26

[ox = 15 fl]

1600 Austria 1627 Landshut

20

fl 4.

* Adlergarnitur ** Rosenblattgarnitur £F = Flemish pound rg = rhenish guilders; fl = florins s = scudi ABC = Armourers' Company of London

Armour prices in Europe compared with wages +

infantry

A

knight

O

carpenter

T H E W E S T P H A L I A N IRON INDUSTRY

The largest deposits of iron ore in Germany, and which were extensively mined until re­ cently, are the Siegerland siderites (containing 29-31% Fe with up to 7% Mn). The reserves in 1960 were estimated at 40 million tons. A similar, but somewhat richer siderite ore on

T H E MASS-PRODUCTION OF ARMOUR

909

the Styrian Erzberg (32-35% Fe with up to 4% Mn) has been mined since Roman times 12 . The metal extracted from this ore was supplied to the workshops making high quality armour at Innsbruck and Greenwich, among other customers. The manufacture of armour in Westphalia is frequently mentioned from the 14th cen­ tury onwards. For example, in 1388 the purchase of 41 mail shirts in Iserlohn for 188 guilders is mentioned in the Niirnberg archives 13 . The Royal Armouries, Leeds possesses a 14th century mail shirt (III. 1320) which is signed on brass links by its maker "Bertold vor Parte to ysern Loen", i.e. Bertolt von Parte of Iserlohn (Iserlohn is about 20km SE of Dortmund). 12

Dunning & Evans (1986) vol.3. Die Chroniken der deutschen Stadte 1.1 (1862). I am greatly indebted to Dr. H.L. K n a u for this ref­ erence, and for those of notes' 4 and 1 5 . li

910

SECTION EIGHT

In 1437, one Gerhard Stacke of Iserlohn a n d j o h a n n Levenicht of Soest received 1300 Rheinische Gulden for 300 armours 14 . It is very interesting to note that these were cheap­ er (4.3 guilders each) than the mail shirts of fifty years earlier (4.6 guilders each). They were also much cheaper than armours available in England. In 1479 King Louis XI of France had recruited 6000 Swiss pikemen at an annual salary of 54 Rhenish florins. So these armours cost about 25 days' wages. According to the German economic historian, Stahlschmidt, in the mid 16th century, armour from Koln was "frequently to be found in Niirnberg", as was mail from Westpha­ lia, that is to say, probably from Iserlohn; and in 1575 a contract was signed in Dortmund for the supply of 1000 plain Landsknechts harnesses 15 .

References Boynton, L. " T h e Elizabethan militia 1558-1638" (1967) Burgon, J.W. Life of Sir Thomas Gresham (2 vols, 1839). Die Chroniken der Stadt Niirnberg (Die Chroniken der deutschen Stadte 1.1), vol. 1, (Leipzig 1862, reprinted Stuttgart 1961) 260 and 271. Dasseler, E. "Sauerlandische Geschichtsquellen und Forschungen", III (Werdohl 1958). Dunning, F.W & Evans, A.M. eds. "Mineral Deposits of Europe" Vol.3. (1986) Feldhugel, P. "Geschichte der Stadt Schwerte" Beitrage zur Geschichte Dortmunds und der Grafschaft Mark, 34, (Dortmund 1927) 18. Letters & Papers of King Henry VIII, part 2, appendix 14. Mann, J.G. "A further account of the armour in the Sanctuary of the M a d o n n a delle Grazie" Archaeologia, 87 (1938) 311-352 Reitzenstein, A.von "Die Ordnung der Augsburger Plattner" Waffen- und Kostiimkunde, new series; 2 (Munich, 1960) 96-100. Reitzenstein, A.von "Die Landshuter Plattner, ihre O r d n u n g und ihre Meister" Waffen- und Kostiimkunde, new series; 11 (Munich, 1969) 20-32. Roth, P.W. "Wieviel kostet ein harnisch ?" in: Der Grazer Harnisch in der Tiirkenabwehr, ed. Krenn, P. (1971) 22-24. Sella, D. " T h e iron industry in Italy, 1500-1650" in Kellenbenz, H. Schwerpunkte der Eisengewinnung und Eisen verarbeitung in Europa 1500-1650 (Koln, 1974) 91-105. Stahlschmidt, R. "Die Geschichte des eisenverarbeitenden Gewerbes in Niirnberg von den 1 .Nachrichten im 12.-13. Jahrhundert bis 1630", Schriftenreihe des Stadtarchivs Niirnberg, vol. 4, page 137. Thorold Rogers, J.E. "A history of agriculture and prices in England 1259-1793" (7 vols, 1866-1902).

14 15

Dasseler (1958) No. 135, 55. Feldhugel (1927) 18.

SECTION NINE

PROTECTION

C H A P T E R 9.1

THICKNESS OF ARMOUR

As well as the measurements outlined on single suits, a general survey of a fairly large number of armours was undertaken to show how average values changed over the period of time when firearms were coming into general use. This survey was carried out mostly in the Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna as well as in the Landeszeughaus, Graz, the Royal Armouries, when it was in the Tower of London and the Wallace Collection, London. A dial-gauge was employed which gave readings directly. The front of the breastplate was measured in four places, and an average taken.

Date approx.

Museum inventory number

Thickness of the breastplate horseman's infantry (mm) (mm)

1470

W C L A.21

upper 1.9 lower 1.9

1490

HJR A.183

2.1

1500 1500 1510

WCL A.209 WCL A.214 WCL A.22

2.2 2.5 1.5

1515 1520 1520 1520 1520

HJR A. 342 Graz cat.2. Graz 1226 Graz 1225A Graz

2.4 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.9

1520 1520 1520 1520 1520

Graz 1229 HJR A.619 RAIII.1085 RAUL 1086 HJR A. 1061

2.2

1520 1530 1530 1530 1530

HJR A.262 RAIII.79 HJR A.350 HJR A.974 HJR A. 1196

2.1

1531 1535 1550

HJR A. 351 HJR A.528 Graz (W)

3.3 3.3

3.5 3.4 2.0 2.5

2.0 1.9 2.4

—

-*■

**■ CM

^f-

^

CM

CM CM CM

^)- 1^-

r-

i n

CD O O CM ^ CO

o

CM CM CO

co en co

O

o

Ln-^<

^ in

cocooor^.

oo o

^

CO —• CO

CM CO

CM CO

--i

—^

— H CM

CO

—■ CM CM CM

CM

~

g 2 z o H O

03 Pin C ^ I

i _ 1

o o

O

LO

iO

UO

LO

■>!

V

<<<<< - j l

O O O O 'vD O O O O i n uO L O

,

1

jl

-,1

-,1

,

>

t ^ "^-

o * * roc» CM o o — —

CM

<<<<< &pZ plaid

<

MH h H H-l l-H

O

to o to o to

O tO

O O O O '■£> '^i t£> m

•

LO LO L O

LO

LO

LO

O

O

I.O

O

LO

LO

LO

H-l

LO

CO

^3

h H M-( h H H-< *l-4

O

CO

£3

O

O

LO

ooo

O LO

O LO

O LO

N _ i N rt P H rt

C3

PJ

J_

S-(

} _

1—-j

5-,

N N

oxooo

O O O O O ri>~ r - . t > - r iO iO iO LO LO

O co ■*

CO CO ^ CD — < CO . t o r^. i > . <^ iO iO iO

N _> Cti t-H

N N N «J C\J c3

OO

o o

CM

i O CO

N

N _ J

N N

i->

1_ 1 1 1 - L ,

<<

r - . r - < o CD CO CD T f CO TJ-

N rt

-T^I

T^H

N Pj

-^J-I

OOffiOO

O

OOO

O O LO r-» r-» r »

LO

LO

r-- r LO LT)

r^-

r - r - t ^ r -

LO

I O

iO r~iO

LO I O iO LO i > . r - r-- r » L O i-O L O LO

LO

LO

LO

LO

I O LO

LO LO

LO LO

CO CO

N N IAI rt

o xooo

LO

<< O) -3-

OO

i O —< CO CM <~6 CM

1214 1117 1279

CO L O IT) LO CD

m

53 1404 1656

^

co <; <

<<<

Graz HJR HJR

S_

co

" ^ T t - CO CO ^

CO CO I T ) CO [ N CM CD O O CM CO ^ -^

C^-

— << !_

CD CO CO CM CO

575 577 WA. 111 593 597

CD

O

COCM

478 A. 1490 1534 1535 432

—'

LOLOLOLOLO

COCCCD

r-- r-- r^- r^- r--.

r-. i>. p-.

L O L O L O UO L O

LO L O L O

THICKNESS O F A R M O U R

915

1580 1580

H J R A. 1283 HJR A.692

1.1 2.4

1580 1585 1585 1585 1585

HJR HJR HJR HJR HJR

A.835 A. 1180 A.1487 A. 1406 A. 1411

2.4 6.0 5.3 7.8 4.9

1589 1590 1590 1590 1590

HJR HJR HJR HJR HJR

A.1715 A.1316 A.1285 A.1710 A.1535

5.5 4.8 4.3 1.9 1.1

1600 1600 1600 1600 1600

HJR HJR Graz Graz Graz

A.1712 A.1529 1519 1517 1515

2.8 1.3

1600 1600 1635 1635 1635

Graz Graz Graz Graz Graz

1513 1511 cat.31 cat.31 cat.31

1635 1635 1635 1620 1615

Graz Graz Graz HJR Graz

cat.31 cat.31 cat.31 A. 1713 45

1615 1615 1615 1615 1615

Graz Graz Graz Graz Graz

44 43 42 41 40

2.4 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.5

1615 1615 1615 1615 1635

Graz Graz Graz Graz Graz

39 38 36 37 cat.32-35

2.8 2.5 2.5 2.4 5.2

1635 1635 1635 1635 1635

Graz Graz Graz Graz Graz

cat.32-35 cat.32-35 cat.32-35 cat.32-35 cat.32-35

6.0 5.5 5.5 5.7 4.8

1635 1635 1682 1685

Graz Graz Graz Graz

cat.32-35 cat.32-35 cat.47-55 cat.56-58

6.3 5.1 4.5 4.3

1.8 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1 4.7 4.4 7.3 5.7 6.3 6.0 3.3 1.9

H J R = Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna Graz = Landeszeughaus, Graz. T h e catalogue referred to is "Harnisch und Helm" Krenn, p. 1987 (some pieces were without inventory numbers at the time of measure­ ment) and makers' initial marks are given in brackets. R A = Royal Armouries. W C L - Wallace Collection, London.

916

SECTION NINE

When the results are plotted two overall trends may be discerned.

Thickness of armour breastplates (average) *■

for horsemen

*

for infantry

"+ + ■

++

4

++

■

A

+ + A.

+

+

s S*' +1

■

.

+*

■

1450

++ +

t

4

1500

+ A

A*

++>*

f*

A A

*+*

1550

1600

1650

date

First of all there is a continuous production of armour from the mid-15th to the mid17th century of fairly constant thickness. Breastplate thickness between 1.5 and 3 mm cor­ responds of course to an armour of comfortable weight. The limbs would have been pro­ tected with thinner armour. For example, most infantry armour comes into this category, except that some is made of thickness up to 4mm in the later 16th century. Secondly, there is a steady rise in the m a x i m u m thickness, from around 2mm in the 15th to around 6 mm which is regularly found by the late 16th century, and even includ­ ing some astonishing examples at 8mm). This suggests that while many customers may have preferred armour of the accustomed thickness and weight, there was a growing market for bulletproof armour, nothwithstanding its greater weight. As a consequence, while 14th and 15th century armour seldom weighed more than 15kg, by the late 16th century this had risen to 25 kg. The armours of Emmanuel Philbert (Turin B.4) and Valerio Zacchei (Turin B.7) both weighed 26 kg. Montaigne (cl580) observed that as many men were lost by the weight of their armour as were saved by its protection. He also observed that the habit of donning armour at the last minute, with valets running around and so forth, was fatal to discipline and order. Lanoue (1587) observed that "armour was made heavier and of better proof than formerly, so that the men-at-arms were much more weighed down by armour then they had been in Henri IPs day" (d. 1559). Such armour was too heavy for foot-soldiers, and consequently they were now reluctant to wear corselets.

THICKNESS O F A R M O U R

Some (average) thicknesses of components of individual armours Wallace Collection A.22 (South Germany, probably Augsburg, c 1510); Breastplate Backplate Helmet skull Legs Shoulders

1.3 1.0 1.5 0.8 1.1

mm mm mm mm mm

cuisses tassets collar

0.7 0.8 1.1

Estonian National Museum AM 5 4 9 2 / R 6 6 3 (Innsbruck, 1563); Breastplate (infantry) 1.9 mm Backplate 1.2 m m Helmet skull 1.4 mm Tassets 0.9 mm

These two armours were both made of hardened steels.

917

C H A P T E R 9.2

ATTACK ON ARMOUR

In this chapter, the energy available from different weapons to attack armour will be dis­ cussed. The kinetic energy of any moving object is given by the expression Energy = lA X mass X velocity X velocity The units of energy are joules (J). So a 100g (0.1 kg) missile travelling at a velocity of 40 m/sec will have a kinetic energy of l

A x 0.1 x 40 X 40 = 80 J.

Throughout the Ancient World as well as the Medieval period, swords, spears and axes would have been employed in hand-to-hand combat, and such blows might deliver any­ thing between 60 and 130 J ' . By comparison, modern police body armour is supposed to resist an attempted stabbing, which may deliver about 50 J or more 2 . Of course, the area of impact is of equal importance to the energy available; the smaller the point, the greater the threat of penetration. Longbows In 1252 by King Henry Ill's Assize of Arms all forty-shilling freeholders were required to possess a bow and arrows. As related in chapter 3.2 the English made steadily increasing use of infantry armed with longbows in their wars against the Scots and the French in the 13th and 14th centuries. Longbows were simply large bows, of heavier draw weight than usual, which required intensive practice. Even after their popularity had waned in the 16th century, the archers had their supporters, such as Smythe (see chapter 7.4). Pope carried out a series of experiments shooting both an English longbow with both bodkin and broadhead arrows, and other bows 3 . He estimated the striking force by shoot­ ing blunt-headed arrows at a block of paraffin wax. A bow of 50 lb draw-weight had a striking force of 20 ft.lbs (170 J) at 10 ft range, and 1

Blyth (1977) 16. Horsfall (1999) 88. For underarm stabbing the maximum energy achieved was 63 J, and for overarm stabbing 1 15 J. 3 Pope (1923) passim. 2

A T T A C K ON A R M O U R

919

one of 75 lb draw-weight had a striking force of 25 ft.lbs (212 J). The larger bow would in fact have offered an initial energy comparable to a crossbow. He noted that broadhead arrows penetrated animals much further because the barbs cut a path through the flesh, thus reducing friction on the shaft of the arrow. Indeed, he claimed to have killed several grizzly bears using broadhead arrows. An arrow with a smaller point would be more suitable for attacking an armoured man. He tried shooting a bodkinheaded arrow from the larger longbow (75 lb draw weight) at a mail shirt hung on a pine box 7 yards away. The mail shirt weighed 251b and consisted of links of approx. 1/2" (13mm) diameter and 22 gauge wire thickness. The arrow went through the mail and both sides of the box. He did not try a broadhead arrow on this target. Nielsen 4 carried out some recent experiments, which included shooting at a (dead) pig clad in mail, which gave it some protection, but unfortunately he did not measure the energies involved. McEwen and others 5 have carried out extensive tests on shooting different bows with accurate measurements, and found that from a yew longbow of 36 kg (80 lb) draw-weight, a 50g field arrow might travel at 53 m/sec, and a 90g broadhead arrow at 43 m/sec. So these would have had an initial energy of 70 and 83 J respectively. They also measured the velocity of a modern target bolt (62 m/sec) shot from a crossbow of 41kg (901b) draw weight. The initial energy of a lOOg bolt would have been 192 J. These energies were somewhat less than those estimated by Pope. The further a projectile travels, the more it will be slowed down by air resistance, and so the less kinetic energy it will possess. After 50 m, for example, the velocity of an arrow might have fallen from 43 to 37 m/sec and so its kinetic energy would have fallen to 61 J; the velocity of a bolt might have fallen to 45 m/sec, and its energy to 101 J. i.e. about half its initial energy. The feathered arrow is not the most aerodynamic of shapes, and loses velocity (and therefore kinetic energy) relatively quickly. The crossbow bolt is shorter and fatter, and therefore generates proportionally even more drag 6 . Crossbows In the Later Middle Ages, hand missile weapons more powerful than the average bow came into use. First the crossbow appeared, which might offer 200J, and the use of which was (quite ineffectually) banned by Pope Innocent II at the second Lateran Council in 1139 7 . Crossbow performance data is scanty but some years ago Payne-Gallwey obtained and repaired a Genoese crossbow (probably from the 15th century) with a steel bow 8 . It re­ quired a windlass to draw its string, as the draw weight at maximum extension was 1200 lb. He used it to shoot a 3 oz (80 g) bolt across the Menai Straits (some 450 yards), al­ though the horizontal range was only 70 yards. This was scarcely a battlefield weapon, since it weighed 18 lb, but probably intended to be used from the ramparts of a castle. He pointed 4 5 6 7 8

Nielsen (1991) especially 141-144. McEwen et al.(1988) 668. Rees, G. (U.of Cambridge) pers.comm. 3.5.01. Norman (1971) 231. Payne-Gallwey, R. (1903) passim.

920

SECTION NINE

out that at Berkeley Castle the bcll-towcr was built separately from the church to prevent hostile archers commanding the castle courtyard 170 yards away. The bolt he used was almost double the weight of an arrow, and was shot a comparable distance, so that it may have had double the initial energy of the arrow, or perhaps 200 J. McEwen's results for bolt velocity would suggest a broadly similar figure (200 J) but accu­ rate measurements still await further research. Handguns Lasson constructed a replica of a 14th century handgun of about nine calibres (200 x 23 mm), loaded it with 38 g of uncorned powder and a 50 g lead ball, and fired it from 30 m when it penetrated a "suit of light armour" of unspecified quality 9 . The muzzle velocity was not recorded, but seems unlikely to have been less than 100 m/sec, which would have indicated a muzzle energy of 250 J. So this early handgun, while possessing scope for considerable further development, was already more powerful than the crossbow. Grancsay shot balls from a wheel-lock musket, arrows from a bow of 30 kg draw weight, and bolts from a crossbow of 330 kg draw weight against various specimens of armour from his private collection at 5 m range 10 . When an arrow or bolt struck the armour a glancing blow, it was deflected; if it struck it straight, it pierced it. Two out of three bullets pene­ trated the helmet, and two out of three the breastplate, but none out of three penetrated a sixteenth century backplate of unspecified but evidently superior quality. This illustrates the advantages that the curved surfaces of plate armour would offer to arrow points com­ pared with mail; it would be extremely difficult to hit them at a perpendicular angle. His missiles were timed and the bullets travelled at 190 m/sec, the arrows at 41 m/sec and the bolts at 43 m/sec. Grancsay did not record the weight of his projectiles, but assuming the weights to have been 50g for the arrows, lOOg for the bolts and 50g for the bullets, then the striking energies would have been 42 J for the arrows, 92 J for the bolts, and 900 J for the bullets. The author used 20g of uncorned ("serpentine") powder to fire 20mm bullets from a "gun" of variable barrel length 11 . The muzzle velocities quoted are averages of a series of results. The muzzle energies quoted assume a 40g bullet. These results are shown graphically. length mm

calibre (length/bore)

254 381 914 1372

13 20 48 72

average muzzle velocity m/sec

muzzle energy J

149 239 255 343

440 1100 1300 2300

Some of Krenn's results are included for comparison (triangles). 9

Lasson (1956) Grancsay (1954) 11 Williams (1974) 117-8; (1994) 110. 10

921

A T T A C K ON A R M O U R

Early Handguns performance with different powders + 600

serpentine

A

corned powder

-

480 "

>. o o

>

360 -

o rj

M

240 "

£ 120 "

0

L

0

20

40

60

80

100

barrel length/bore ratio

Although handguns appeared in the 14th century, the first widespread use of handguns seems to have been in the early 15th century wars of the Hussites (Bohemian peasant rev­ olutionaries) against their (largely German) feudal lords. The dimensions of a number of Hussite guns from Plzen have been published recently by Fryda 12 . (see Chapter 7.2) Most of these are in the range of 30 to 40 calibre, so their muzzle velocities on the ev­ idence of the results quoted above would have been around 250 m/sec. The average muz­ zle energy would therefore have been in the region of 1000 - 1200 J. The handgun, or arquebus (supported with 2 hands) appeared in the late 15th century, and offered around 1300J. From the early 16th century, the musket (properly speaking, a handgun supported by 2 hands and a forked stick) offered around 2000 J. Corned powder (of uniform grain size) which came into general use during the 16th cen­ tury, offered a faster rate of gas production, and muzzle velocities increased by at least a third (which would increase the kinetic energy by half). So an arquebus, loaded with corned powder might be able to offer 2000 J, and a musket 3000 J. Krenn 1 3 carried out extensive tests (see Appendix for summary), using modern, i.e. corned, gunpowder, to load a selection of representative 16th & 17th century guns from the very large number available in the Graz Arsenal, and found that, for example; A 16th cent.matchlock arquebus (760mm barrel) had a muzzle velocity of 449 m/sec, and a muzzle energy of 1752 J. A 16th century musket (1000 mm barrel) had a muzzle velocity of 456 m/sec, and a muzzle energy of 3125 J. An even more powerful weapon was a 16th cent.wheellock wall- musket (1100mm bar-

12 13

Fryda (1988) 7-12. Krenn (1990) passim.

922

SECTION NINE

rel) which had a muzzle velocity of 482 m/sec, and a muzzle energy of 4444 J. At 100m this could put a lead bullet (38g, 19mm) through 2mm mild steel sheet. Even a wheellock pistol had a muzzle velocity of 438 m/sec and offered 917 J.

Performance of Graz guns muzzleloaders +

velocity

A

780

energy

1120

barrel length (mm)

So, in conclusion, we have available to attack armour, these a p p r o x i m a t e energies offered by the weapons available. Table Period

veapon

initial energy

all

sword, axe

60 - 130J

ll-12c

longbow arrow

80 - 100J

crossbow bolt

100 - 200J

handgun + serpentine powder

250 J

Hussite handguns + serpentine powder

500 - 1000J

arquebus + serpentine powder

1300J

arquebus + corned powder

1750J

musket + serpentine powder

2300 J

musket + corned powder

3000 J

14c 15c 16c

later 16c

ATTACK ON ARMOUR

923

A P P E N D I X : K R E N N ' S FIRING TESTS USING GUNS FROM T H E G R A Z A R S E N A L .

average muzzle velocity bore mm

barrel length mm

v8

calibre

average muzzle energy

(J) weapon

m / s e c (m/sec)

date

T h e bullet velocity was also measured at a distance of 8.5rr.i from the muzzle in many cases (called v8 above). 2463

wheellock carbine

17c. (Germany)

917

wheellock pistol

c l 6 2 0 (Niirnberg)

(406)

988

wheellock carbine

1593 Suhl)

(435)

3125

wheellock musket

c l 5 9 5 (Augsburg)

1752

matchlock arquebus

17c.(Styria)

18.1

675

37

392

(371)

12.3

480

39

438

—

13.2

645

49

427

17.8

1000

56

456

15.1

760

50

449

(428)

This velocity diminished to 428 m / s e c by 8.5m, and hence the energy diminished to 1592 J. At 100m this could still put a lead bullet (17g, 15mm) through 1mm of mild steel sheet. 20.6

1655

80

533

19.8

1100

55

482

12.3

480

39

438

18.4

955

52

467

(514) (461) (416) (446)

wheel- + matchlock wall-gun

c l 5 8 0 (Styria)

wheellock wall-gun,

1571 (Styria)

917

wheellock pistol,

c l 6 2 0 (Niirnberg)

3735

flintlock musket,

c l 7 0 0 (Styria)

6980 4444

and for comparison, a modern automatic rifle & pistol, using nitrocellulose powder8.8

114

13

360

518

Glock 9mm.

5.56

508

91

990

1764

Steyr SG77

References Blyth, P.H. unpublished Ph.D.thesis. University of Reading, 1977. Fryda, F. "Plzenska Mestska Zbrojnice" (Guns from the West Bohemian Museum at Pilsen), (Plzen, 1988). Grancsay, S.V. "Just how good was armor ?" True Magazine, (New York, April 1954) 45-48. Horsfall, I. et al. "An assessment of h u m a n performance in stabbing" Forensic Science International" 102 (1999) 79 - 89. Krenn, P. "Was leitesten die alten Handfeuerwaffen ?" Waffen- und Kostiimkunde, 32 (1990) 35-52. Lasson, T. "From hand-cannon to flintlock", Gun Digest, (Chicago, 1956) 33. McEwen, E. et al. "Experimental archery" in Antiquity, 62 (1988) 658-70. Nielsen, O. "Skydeforsog med jernalderens buer" (Shooting experiments with Iron Age bows) Eksperimentel Arkaeologi (1991) 135-148. Norman, A.V.B. "The medieval soldier" (1971) 231. Payne-Gallwey, R. "The Crossbow", (1903). Pope, Saxton. "Bows and arrows", (1974 reprint of 1923). Williams, A.R. "Some firing tests with simulated 15th century handguns" Journal of the Arms & Armour Society, 8 (1974) 114-120. Williams, A.R. " T h e mass-production of armour plate and the blast furnace" in History of Technology An­ nual, 16 (1994) 98-138.

/

C H A P T E R 9.3

EFFECTIVENESS OF ARMOUR ACCORDING TO CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE.

The crossbow Suits of armour were expected to be proof against the crossbow. Mann 1 has related the activities of some of the Milanese armourers working for the Gonzagas of Mantua. In 1436 the Este, lords of Ferrara, are recorded as having bought an armour from Pietro da Milano, armourer of Mantua. In 1464, Borso d'Este was making use of another Maestro Pietro (perhaps the same, or his son ?) loaned from Mantua, he was followed in 1475 by Giovanni da Lodi (presumably a Milanese) and then in 1479 one Maestro Michaletto delle Corazzine from Brescia. In 1498 Bernadino Missaglia became master of the Gonzagas' workshops, although in the early years of the 16th century, they were also to buy armours from the Helmschmied family of Augsburg. In 1521 Caremolo Modrone became master of their armoury, until his death in 1543. In 1503 Nicolao da Azano wrote from Brescia that he could not come to Mantua until he had completed an order from Alfonso d'Este, and that he was "proving every p i e c e w i t h s t r o n g c r o s s b o w s . " In his articles, Buttin 2 showed that the expressions "epreuve" and "demi-epreuve" ap­ pear with plate armour in the late 14th century, the former was more expensive than the latter. The expressions "de toute botte" and "de botte cassee" also appear, which may have been applied to coats-of-plates. Armour proved by the use of a windlass-crossbow was described as "a toute epreuve" while that tested merely with the lighter lever-crossbow was only described as "a demi epreuve"; this definition was given in the Statutes of the Ar­ mourers of Paris in 1451. Buttin then went on to suggest that the degree of proof might be illustrated by the number of armourers' marks struck on the armour. However, examina­ tion of the metallurgy of Italian armour (see Section 4) shows that while there is a definite correlation between the metallurgy and the presence of a mark, there is no particular cor­ relation with the number of marks. The mark(s) were evidently a quality control stamp, and may have indicated a proof (or an expected proof) but multiple marks simply reflected workshop organisation.

1 2

Mann (1939, 1943). Buttin (1901, 1906).

EFFECTIVENESS OF ARMOUR ACCORDING TO CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE

925

Firearms The energies offered by firearms were between five and ten times those offered by the most powerful crossbows, so one might ask whether, after the period of the battle of Pavia (1525) it mattered what quality of armour one wore - would any of it offer protection against firearms? Certainly armour claiming to afford such protection was offered for sale. When Filippo Negroli was commissioned in 1538 to produce a bullet proof armour for Francesco Maria della Rovere he did not attempt to harden the armour but made it somewhat thicker than usual 3 . The cheekpieces which survive in the Wallace Collection (A.206/7) are 2.6 mm. thick and are made of a medium-carbon steel (0.6% - 0.7%, high in carbon by 16th cen­ tury standards and close to the modern 1050 steel) low in slag, with a pearlitic microstructure of hardness 282 VPH. The Archduke Maximilian II is recorded as testing his armour with gunfire in 1561 (see Chapter 5.5) and a similar trial undertaken by Sir Henry Lee (see chapter 6.4) shows that Greenwich armour was expected to be pistol-proof in 1590 4 . Many late 16th/early 17th century armours show indentations on the breastplate from bullet marks which have not penetrated. In the Hofjagd- und Rustkammer, Vienna there is a 17th century Innsbruck armour of Archduke Leopold V (A. 1530) which shows a "proof mark" or dent from a bullet fired at it by the armourer, with a distinctly hemispherical profile. So does the breastplate of A. 1203. Other armours in the same collection (such as the 16th century Brescian armour of Gianettino Doria, A.831) show dents without such a profile. Since lead bullets distort on impact, the hemispherical dent made by an undistorted bullet implies that it was one made from a harder metal. So both iron and lead bullets were used for "proofing" armours. The use of both iron (presumably cast iron) and lead bullets in muskets is mentioned by Garzoni in 1585 5 . Controversy about the effectiveness of armour The penetration of armour by bullets, was blamed for the death of Sir Philip Sidney after the battle of Zutphen in 1584. As his contemporary Sir John Smythe, describes it, Sidney's death was the consequence of his not wearing all of his armour. This seems to have set off a vigorous controversy between Smythe and other military "experts" about the usefulness of armour, and quite detailed claims are made about its performance. These claims were related in chapter 7.4 and may be summarised briefly: 1. Smythe: no wearable armour can resist muskets. 2. Barwick: muskets could kill a man (i) in proof armour at 100 yards, 3

Pyhrr & Godoy (1998) 158. T h e cheekpieces for this helmet are between 2.5 m m and 2.7 mm thick. 4 Williams & deReuck (1995) 36-7. 5 Garzoni (1996) vol.11, 923.

926

SECTION NINE

(ii) in common armour at 400 yards, and (iii) without armour at 600 yards. But (iv) arrows cannot kill a man in "pistol p r o o f armour at 120 yards. 3. Williams: infantry should have armour of proof against the caliver at 240 yards. These claims will be assessed for their probable accuracy in chapter 9.5.

References Buttin, C. "Notes sur les armures a l'epreuve" Revue Savoisienne (Annecy, 1901) 60 - 150 and (1906) 195. Garzoni, Tomaso, "La piazza universale di tutte le professioni del m o n d o " (Venice, 1585); edited by Cherchi, P. & Collina, B. (Turin, 1996). Mann, J.G. " T h e lost armoury of the Gonzagas" Archaeological Journal, 95 (London, 1939) 239-336; and 100 (for the year 1943) 16-127. Williams, A.R. & de Reuck, A. "The Royal Armoury at Greenwich, 1515-1649." Royal Armouries Mono­ graph No.4.(1995)

CHAPTER 9.4

ESTIMATING THE EFFECTIVENESS O F ARMOUR

Since destructive testing of museum exhibits is unlikely to be approved, an indirect approach is called for. Destructive impact tests may be carried out on modern materials, and then allowances must somehow be made for differences in composition. Impact tests Impact tests carried out to date have been largely upon modern mild steel1 or "Victorian" wrought iron 2 . These impact tests to simulate the attack on armour were carried out by the author on modern materials with various simulated weapons. The detailed experimen­ tal results are given in the Appendices to this chapter. The energy needed by missiles to defeat mild steel plates is summarised in the Tables of Resistance below. "Defeat" implies penetration of a point by 40 mm, or a complete hole made by a bullet. Lead bullets might distort before penetrating, and although the impact on the target would undoubtedly be severe, the armour might be described as "undefeated".

1 Williams (1974); A target of 2.5 mm mild steel plate was used at a range of 10 m. Simulated guns of the late 15th century (20 cal) had a muzzle velocity of 930 fps (286 m/sec) and penetrated 5 times out of 8; of the early 15th century (13 cal) had a muzzle velocity of 880 fps (270 m/sec) and penetrated 6 times out of 14, but none with lead bullets. T h e indentation of the plate was considerable, frequently 10 or 15 mm, and the bullet was distorted into a pancake of half its original thickness. 2 Jones (1992); A 70 lb draw longbow was used to shoot bodkin arrows from 10 m at targets of "Victorian wrought iron" (presumably puddled iron). T h e average initial energy of the arrows was 46 J .

Initial energy

(J)

Target thickness (mm)

Angle of attack (deg)

Result

46

1

0

penetrated by 51 mm

46

1

20

penetrated by 43 mm

46

1

40

failed to penetrate

46

2

0

46

2

20

failed to penetrate

47

3

0

failed to penetrate

penetrated by 11 mm

928

SECTION NINE Table of Resistance to

ARROWS

Thickness of plate

1 mm

2 mm

3 mm

4 mm

Normal

55 J

175J

300 J

475 J

striking at 30°

66 J

210 J

360J

570 J

striking at 45°

78 J

250 J

425 J

670 J

Table of Resistance to

BULLETS

Thickness of plate

1 mm

2 mm

3 mm

4 mm

Normal

450 J

750 J

1700J

3400 J

striking at 30°

540 J

900 J

2000 J

4000 J

striking at 45°

630J

1050J

2300 J

4700 J

These results are extrapolated from experimental data with 2 mm mild steel of 0.15%C, having hardness 152 V P H (lOOg load) and toughness 235 k j / m 2 .

The "performance" of armour will depend on its thickness, its shape, and the strength (or hardness) and fracture toughness of the material from which it has been made, as well as the severity of the blow. Improving "performance" in this case is defined as increasing the amount of energy required to penetrate the armour significantly. Firstly, an attempt will be made to show how changing each of the following four fac­ tors might affect the "performance" of armour Factor (i) thickness Factor (ii) shape Factor (iii) hardness Factor (iv) slag content The first two are under the direct control of the armourer; the other two will depend upon the raw material supplied, although the hardness may be manipulated by the armourer to some extent. Factor (i) Thickness. The energy needed by points and edges to penetrate plate increases very approximately with the square of its thickness 3 . Suppose the energy needed to defeat 1mm of plate is E, then The energy required to defeat 2 mm is not twice E but E multiplied by 3 (2 to the power of 1.6 in fact): 3

see Atkins & Blyth (2001) which was being published as this book went to press. The resistance of a metal sheet to a stabbing weapon varies with the thickness raised to the power of 1.6 (Wierzbicki's equation).

929

ESTIMATING T H E EFFECTIVENESS O F A R M O U R

to defeat 3 mm it is E multiplied by 5.8. to defeat 4 mm it is E multiplied by 9.2, etc. For example, to defeat 1 mm of mild steel plate, a bodkin arrow needs to deliver about 55 J. "Defeat" is defined here as penetration by 40 mm or more. For spheres, the relationship is more complex, but in all cases doubling the thickness requires m u c h more than double the energy to penetrate it. (see Appendix 1) The graph below is also for mild steel.

Penetration of flat plate by simulated bullets o

bullets

2500 2000

I

1500

§? ai

1000

u oCD

C ID

500

0 0

1

2

3

4

thickness (mm)

Indeed, the easiest and cheapest way of improving the performance of armour is simply to make it thicker. Changes in the thickness of some of the armour produced were related in chapter 9.1, and it is clear why there is such a steady increase. Factor (ii) Shape. It is evident that the glancing impact of an arrow (or a non-distorting bullet) delivers only a proportion of the available energy, and it was found, to a first approximation, that the proportion delivered depends upon the cosine of the angle of attack with respect to the vertical (Results in Appendix 2). So for an impact at any given angle of attack (A) the energy actually delivered could be calculated by dividing the available energy (E) by a factor as follows: angle of incidence

20°

30°

40°

45°

50°

60°

energy delivered

E

E

E

E

E

E

1.1

L2~

IT

1.4

L6~

~2~

930

SECTION NINE

Conversely, if the flat surface requires energy E to defeat it, then the same surface at angle A to the normal will now require a larger amount of energy E Where E E* = Cos A

Arrow striking curved surface of 1.2mm mild steel angle of attack

16

100 X cosine

24

40

penetration (mm)

For example, striking a globose breastplate, or the cylindrical protection of a limb half­ way between the midline and the side, would be the same as striking it at an angle of 30° to the vertical. So, for defeat, the energy needed now has to be multiplied by at least 1.2. And when the keeled breastplates of the late 16th century are considered, for example, striking midway between the keel and the side is, in effect, the same as striking at plate inclined at 45°. So, for defeat, the energy needed now has to be multiplied by at least 1.4. Factor (iii) hardness: The difficulty of penetrating steel plates increases with their hardness, and in the case of air-cooled steels, with their carbon content, since that determines their hardness; although the relationship is not a linear one (Appendix 3 for results).

ESTIMATING T H E EFFECTIVENESS O F A R M O U R

931

Penetration by arrows of 2mm sheets of different steels +

al 100 J

25 p -

20 ■

\

E

\

— o

15 ■

\ \.

CO

S

^ " v

10 ■

^ \

CD Q.

^

0 ' 0.00

^

^ ^ " % ^ ^

■

'

■

'

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

C % of steel

Increasing the carbon content from 0.1% to 0.5% will halve the penetration of an ar­ row at 100 J and more than double the energy required for defeat of the armour. It should be stressed that hardness alone does not mean that a material will make good armour - glass, for example would be quite unsuitable. It is the highest possible work to fracture (which may be associated with great hardness) that makes a good material for armour. British tanks in the Second World War were protected by quenched and tempered steel armour 4 . The alloying elements in the steel meant that it did not have to be quenched very rapidly to form martensite. Factor (iv) Slag inclusions: Apart from carbon, present in whatever form, the main influence on the mechanical prop­ erties of iron comes from the presence of slag- or non-metallic inclusions. Their impor­ tance has already been pointed out (chapter 8.2), and an attempt to quantify their effect was made by measuring the decrease in fracture toughness which an increase in slag con­ tent brought about. Tests were undertaken with modern wrought irons as well as "Armco" iron (very pure iron from transformer cores) in order to test the effect of varying the slag content without varying the carbon content (the results are given in Appendix 4).

4 Dickie (1968 and 1969). British tank armour was usually a 0.3%G, 1.5%Cr, 0.75%Ni, 0.5%Mo steel. Krupp used 0.3%G, 4%Ni, 2%Cr steel.

SECTION NINE

Fracture toughness and slag content +

(or different irons

300 I 240 ■ + CD

E

►

^

^

130 ■

CD

7 \ *

O

z

^ ^

>v

120 ■

*V \

UJ Q

\

60 ■

\^

0 '

■

■

'

0

2

4

6

-^ 8

10

slag % of cross-sectional area

The slag content of a selection of specimens of armour is given in Appendix 4. It will be noticed that there is a marked correlation between the quality of the armour and the slag content. T h e slag content of Innsbruck armour is generally the lowest. It is not surprising that this was regarded as being the best armour by contemporaries, as it would have had the best mechanical properties. Sir Robert Wingfield, former English Ambassador to the Emperor Maximilian, famously wrote in 1536 "I have sent to my said nephew a complete harness which was made for myself at Innsbruck in Austria, & given unto me by the Emperor Maximilian...wherefore I do warrant your lordship that a fairer, or of BETTER METAL can not be found" (my emphasis) 5 . Compared with modern (virtually slag-free) material the presence of 1% or 2% of slag would have reduced the fracture toughness by anything up to a quarter. Armour with a low slag content like that found in the best products of North Italy and South Germany, might have lost only 10% of the toughness of a modern metal, while mu­ nition armour of high slag content might be diminished by 20% or more. The energy re­ quired to defeat such armour would consequently be reduced considerably. It should be noticed that reduction in slag has a much greater effect than increasing the carbon con­ tent.

5

quoted by Williams & de Reuck (1995) 24.

ESTIMATING T H E EFFECTIVENESS O F A R M O U R

933

Fracture toughness and carbon content *

ferrite/pearlite

BUU

« u> o 1UJ

a

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1,00

carbon content

Under the conditions of the medieval bloomery (see chapter 3.1), an increase in the car­ bon content of the bloom entailed a reduction in the slag content, so by using large fur­ naces for the production of armour plate a virtuous circle could be set up. Large blooms of steel, high in carbon and low in slag, ideal for making armour plate, could be made. The importance of using steel for even armour of modest quality is reinforced. Converse­ ly, the use of iron which was high in slag for the cheapest munition armour endowed it with a poor performance, explaining just why it fetched so low a price. DEFEATING ARMOUR

Defeating armour involves both prior plastic deformation (before cracking begins) a s well a s cracking to form a hole which will assume the shape of the weapon; the large area of a bullet (compared with an arrowhead) will entail far more deformation before failure than an arrow impact, so that a bullet will need to possess far more energy than an arrow to defeat the same armour. Fracture toughness

Fracture toughness measures the resistance of a material containing a flaw to cracking. Unlike the results of impact tests (such as Charpy or Izod tests) fracture toughness is a quantitative property of the material 6 . The fracture toughness of a metal will depend upon a number of factors, including the microstructure, composition, hardness, grain size, and presence of non-metallic inclusions. Fracture toughness may be measured by, for example, the Cottrell-Mai test, in which a 6

Askeland (1996) chapter 6.

934

SECTION NINE

specimen is prepared from a rectangular plate with two notches cut into the longer side edges, and then pulled apart in an extensometer. The total w o r k to fracture (which includes b o t h plastic deformation a n d elastic fracture) should be proportional to the length of the ligament left between the notches 7 . Elastic fracture has taken place when a body fails by cracking, and the fragments can be subsequently fitted back together, e.g. the breaking of a teacup. Plastic deformation is a permanent change of shape, which may not necessar­ ily involve cracking, e.g. pressing sheet metal into a car body panel. RESISTANCE OF ARMOUR

The figures quoted above for the energies needed to defeat mild steel (which is slag free, but very low in carbon, about 0.2%) need to be modified to estimate the resistance of ar­ mour. First, they need to be divided by the cosine of the angle of attack to allow for the shape, and second, multiplied by a coefficient for the type of armour to take account of the different hardness and fracture toughness. Four representative types of armour will be considered (the calculations are given in Appendix 6). The factors quoted are, of course, a p p r o x i m a t e , since only the fracture toughness has been measured. Type of armour

Coefficient (W)

*

Iron munition armour (lowest quality)

0.5

**

low-carbon steel armour (moderate quality)

0.75

*** medium-carbon steel armour (Milanese)

1.1

**** medium-carbon hardened steel armour (Innsbruck)

1.5 (estimated)

Suppose the above Tables gave an energy (E') needed to defeat a given piece of mild steel, then the energy (E") needed to defeat the same thickness of armour would be E"= E'X W So if we carry out tests using (modern) mild steel, we can correct the results for medieval armour materials, by using a coefficient, W, which is the ratio estimated from the results of impact tests Finally, other factors need to be included. Paddings probably increased the energy required. Some tests were done on textile armour-lining made up of 16 folds of linen, which suggest that it adds about 80J to the energy required for a blade to pierce it, and about 50 J for Atkins & Mai (1985) chapter 4, for D E N T tests see p.300.

ESTIMATING T H E EFFECTIVENESS O F A R M O U R

935

a spear-point. About another 50 or 60 J would be necessary on top of these figures to cause serious injury. Causing a flesh wound is unlikely to stop an opponent in the heat of battle. So, conservatively, let us say that 150J should be added to the calculated amount of en­ ergy for defeat of the metal armour itself. So overall, to calculate the a p p r o x i m a t e amount of energy required to defeat a plate of armour, of thickness T, and coefficient W, at an angle of attack A, when the energy need­ ed to defeat a flat plate of mild steel of the same thickness is E, E E (for defeat) = { X W } + 150 J cos A or, for arrows, 55 X T X T X W E =

+ 150 J Cos A

For bullets, 155 X T X T X W E =

+ 150 J Cos A

For blades 80 X T X T X W E =

+ 150 J Cos A

In Chapter 9.5 these three equations will be used to try to assess the effectiveness of some examples of armour. APPENDICES: EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Data was obtained by the author (and some of his students) carrying out impact tests on a variety of modern (and therefore expendable) materials, using a Rosand IFW5 tester in the Department of Engineering at Reading University. They were carried out on a variety of modern steels and "Swedish" (so-called) wrought iron—which is approximately comparable in metallurgy and thickness (1.8-1.9 mm) to munition armour of low quality. Precisely how steel armour of better quality would have behaved is necessarily the subject of hypothesis.

936

SECTION NINE

APPENDIX 1. EFFECTS OF VARYING THICKNESS ON IMPACT TESTS.

(i) simulated bodkin arrows against mild steel plate: 1 mm 30 J (1.5 mm 80 J) just starts to penetrate, but if 40mm depth of penetration is also required to take place, then 1 mmrequires 55 J;

1.5 mm requires H O J ;

2 mm requires 175 J;

The energy needed by simulated arrowheads to penetrate plate increases very approximately with the square of its thickness. In fact, the power is not quite quadratic, but is about 1.6. (See Blyth & Atkins (2001)) So if the energy required to defeat a 1 mm plate is E, then the energy needed (E') to defeat a greater thickness (t) would be found by multiplying E, not by the thickness, but by the thickness enhanced, 1.6 E' = E X (t) Or, if the energy required to defeat a 1 mm plate is E, then the energy needed to defeat greater thickness would be found by multiplying E, by this multiplier thickness (mm) 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

multiplier 1 1.9 2.9 4.1 5.5 7.0 8.6 10.3 12.1 14.1 16.1

(ii) with simulated edged weapons, against 1 mm mild steel plate 30 J (against 1.5mm 81 J) just starts to penetrate. (iii) with simulated bullets against mild steel plate penetration starts at: 0.8 mm 102 J 1 m m 153 J 1.2 mm 162 J 1.5 mm 230 J.

ESTIMATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ARMOUR

937

APPENDIX 2. EFFECTS OF VARYING SHAPE ON IMPACT TESTS.

Further experiments were done with arrowheads impacting on both flat mild steel plate held at various angles, and also on a curved mild steel plate. It might be expected that when a projectile strikes a flat surface at an angle of incidence which differs from the perpendicular by A, then its velocity (and hence kinetic energy, E) may be resolved into two components; E cos A E sin A

perpendicular to the plate, or "normal" and parallel to the plate.

A convenient assumption to make would be to say that only the former is involved in attacking the armour. The latter, of course, is responsible for the arrow glancing off. To put it another way, if E is the energy required to defeat a plate attacked normally, then when attacked at an angle A to the perpendicular, the energy now required would be approximately E cos A or at an impact at a given angle, A, the energy now delivered could be calculated by di­ viding the energy of the projectile by (A)

20°

30°

40°

45°

50°

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.6

60° 2

For example, if 55 J is required to defeat a perpendicular plate, then a missile would be predicted to need 59 J of energy to deliver 55 J when striking at an angle of 20° deg to the perpendicular, since 55

55 =

cos 20°

= 59 0.94

If the results obtained are compared with those predicted (in brackets) then quite good agreement is observed. Angled plates: energy required for 40mm penetration

938

SECTION NINE

Angle of ' plate 0°

10°

20°

30°

4-5°

60°

62 (59)

63 (63)

6 8 (77)

83 (1 10)

1mm

55

59 (56)

1.5mm

110

116 (112)

125 (117)

131 (126)

145 (155)

2mm

175

182 (179)

206 (186)

219 (201)

233 (246)

-

cosine

1.0

0.98

0.94

0.87

0.71

0.5

In fact, the value of the required energy obtained by experiment, is close to the value predicted using the expression above, or generally within 10%. A curved plate was also tested with results similar to those obtained with angled flat plates at the same angle of incidence. Curved plate: 60 J impacts on 1.2mm mild steel; penetration in mm 0°

31

10° 30

20° 26

30° 20

40° 14

45° 11

50° 9

55° 5 mm

APPENDIX 3; EFFECTS OF VARYING HARDNESS ON IMPACT TESTS.

Four modern plain carbon steels were tested (in the form of 2 mm sheets) with simulated bodkin arrowheads, at a constant energy (100 J) of impact. Steels

Mild

1050

1075

gauge-plate

carbon content

0.1 %C

0.55%C

0.71%C

0.85 %C

penetration (mm)

22.3

8.9

6.3

6.1

So increasing the carbon content of mild steel to 0.25%-0.3% reduces the extent of pen­ etration by perhaps a quarter, and increasing it to 0.5% halves the penetration at least. Or, to put it another way, if 175 J was required to completely defeat 2mm mild steel plate, then over 400 J will be required for 0.5% carbon steel. The fracture toughnesses of these four steels were also measured (see graph above) and found to increase with carbon content. This is scarcely surprising, as the hardness, yield strength and tensile strength of steels all increase with an increased carbon content, and hence increased proportion of pearlite present. When the steels have been heat-treated, and martensite or tempered martensite is the main microconstituent, then the picture is less clear, because unskilful quenching can lead

ESTIMATING T H E EFFECTIVENESS O F A R M O U R

939

to cracking, which is not rectified by subsequent tempering. But impact tests on heat-treat­ ed 1050 steel (quenched and tempered to 460 VPH) indicate that the energy required to just penetrate it was increased by between a quarter and a half. This steel in the form of 2mm sheet (as received) was just penetrated by a point with 180 J, but needed 250 J for penetration (and just over 300 J for defeat) after heat-treatment. As received, it almost resisted a ball with 2000 J, although a hemispherical cup of steel was nearly detached. The plate was completely defeated, and split, by 2500 J. But, after heat-treatment, over 2900 J was required to defeat it. APPENDIX 4: SLAG CONTENT OF SOME SPECIMENS OF ARMOUR.

The proportion of cross-sectional area occupied by slag has a direct correlation with the mechanical properties of armour. Slag inclusion content can be measured by optical mi­ croscopy as a percentage of the cross-sectional area, and it varies with different grades of armour. The very small sizes of samples studied mean that the occasional large inclusion can give quite unrepresentative results (e.g.that for A.69). However, certain very general conclusions may be drawn. In the case of Italian armour of the 14th century, slag content is between 1% and 2%; it falls to 1% or less in the 15th but in the 16th century rises again to around 2%. For most of the South German (and Greenwich) armour it is under 1%. These results are much lower than for the modern puddled iron. It will be observed that the slag content of Swedish wrought iron is comparable to that of much armour of munition quality. But that of Inns­ bruck armour is less than half this. (i) Examples of Italian 14th century armour Churburg Churburg Churburg BNM

13 33 16 W.195

bascinet c.1380 upper breastplate c.1385 bascinet c. 1400 breastplate c.1400

0.95% 1.2% 0.80% 1.89%

(ii) Italian 15th century armour Churburg Churburg Churburg Churburg

23 33 34 69

salletc.1450 lower breastplate c.1470 breastplate c.1470 salletc.1500

0.75% 3.6% 1.30% 0.71%

(iii) English (Flemish ?) 16th century Royal Armouries, Leeds. II.5 armet

1.02%

(iv) Italian 16th century Negroli (?) c.1540 Hofjagd- und Rtistkammer, Vienna A693 Italian vambrace, c.1560 (specimen A in chapter 8.2) Italian (?) c.1540 Royal Armouries, Leeds.11.392

2.19% 2.58%

2.55%

940

SECTION N I N E

(v) German 15th century armour Augsburg (L.Helmschmied) 1477 Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna; A.69 peytral

2.64%

(vi) German 16th century armour Innsbruck (G.Seusenhofer) 1514 Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, Vienna; A. 179

0.60%

Innsbruck pauldron, c.1560 (1999, B)

0.42%

Solothurn 4 horseman's c. 1520 Solothum 83 officer's (Nurnberg)c. 1560 Solothurn 100 c.1560 Solothum 145 officer's c. 1580 (vii) English 16th century Hatton bevor (Windsor) c.1585 Hatton right greavc Prince Henry (Windsor) c. 1610

0.78% 0.84% 0.82% 0.29% 0.84% 0.42% 1.40%

(viii) English (?) 17th century Dymoke armour (Museum of London)

0.13%

(ix) Modern materials "svvedish" wrought iron (perpendicular to the direction of rolling) "swedish" wrought iron (parallel to the direction of rolling) puddled wrought iron (perpendicular to the direction of rolling) puddled wrought iron (parallel to the direction of rolling)

APPENDIX

5:

2.18% 1.50% 7.52% 4.7%

E F F E C T S O F VARYING SLAG INCLUSION C O N T E N T O N F R A C T U R E (DETERMINED BY C O T T R E L L - M A I

TESTS).

metal

slag %

carbon %

fracture toughness, R (kj/m2)

"Swedish" wrought iron (parallel to rolling)

1.5

0

228

"Swedish" wrought iron (perpendicular to rolling)

2.2

0

170

puddled wrought iron (parallel to rolling)

4.7

0

120

puddled wrought iron (perpendicular to rolling)

7.5

0

28

modern "Armco" iron

0

0

195

TOUGHNESS

ESTIMATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ARMOUR

941

To a first approximation, it may be said that

R - 200 - 5.S 2 where R is the fracture toughness, and S is the slag content, expressed as a percentage of the cross-sectional area. APPENDIX 6: EFFECTS OF VARYING CARBON CONTENT ON FRACTURE TOUGHNESS MEASUREMENTS (DETERMINED BY COTTRELL-MAI TESTS). metal

slag %

carbon

modern "Armco" iron

0

0

195

modern mild steel

0

0.1

235

modern 1050 steel

0

0.55

320

modern 1075 steel

0

0.71

330

modern "gauge-plate" steel

0

0.85

392

%

fracture toughness R (kj/m2)

To a first approximation, it may be said that R = 200 + 100.C where C is the carbon content, expressed as a percentage (the carbon is present as pearlite). The combined effects of varying both slag and carbon contents, assuming them to be additive, may then be expressed as the empirical relation 2 R = 200 + 100.C - 5.S So it should be possible to estimate the fracture toughness (R) of armour, provided that its slag and carbon content are known. In increasing order of quality, then * Iron munition armour, such as that "from Koln"; high (3 to 4%) in slag, and without carbon; R = 120 to 150 kj/m2 ** low-carbon steel armour, such as Niirnberg infantry armour; low in slag (1%), low in carbon (0.3%); R = 180 to 210 kj/m2

942

SECTION NINE

*** medium-carbon steel armour, such as Milanese armour of the 15th /16th century or Greenwich (before 1530); low in slag (< 1%), high in carbon (0.6%); R = 240 to 260 kj/m2 **** medium-carbon hardened steel armour; from Innsbruck, Augsburg, Landshut, or Greenwich (after 1560); very low in slag (0.5% to 1%), high in carbon (0.6%) but carbides present as tempered martensite rather than pearlite. R could not be directly measured, but is estimated to be at least 300 and might be over 500 kj/m2 APPENDIX 7: IMPACT TESTS WITH VARIOUS WEAPONS ON SIMULATED MUNITION ARMOUR ("SWEDISH" WROUGHT IRON SHEET OF 1.9 MM).

Flat 1.9mm sheet

Blade

Lance

Arrowhead

Bullet

>190J

>100J

80 J (40° point) 75 J (18° point)

900 J steel 1500 J lead

"Defeat" here is defined as leaving a 5mm hole, or the initiation of fracture. Yet more energy might required to pierce padding beneath and disable an opponent (see above). APPENDIX 8: IMPACT TESTS ON MAIL.

Some modern (mild steel) mail, backed by a quilted jack, was tested. A piece of 15th cen­ tury mail 8 was also tested. This was made of a low-carbon steel hardened by quenching. The performance was closely similar, but slightly inferior. Material

Blade

Lance

Arrowhead

Bullet

Modern mail

>200 J

>200J

120J

400 J

140 J

120J

-—

15th century mail

170J

(a) with a simulated halberd (40 mm blade); at 200 J impact, one link was broken, and three dented. So the mail was damaged but by no means defeated. (b) with a simulated lance head (60 deg point); at 200 J impact, two links were broken. So again the mail was damaged but by no means defeated. (c) with a simulated bodkin arrowhead (18 deg point); at 80 J impact, two links were bro­ ken; at 100 J, in addition, the jack was holed completely. At 120 J the mail was completely This was that specimen described in Williams (1980) as a 15th century mail gusset.

ESTIMATING T H E EFFECTIVENESS O F A R M O U R

943

defeated, that is two links were opened out, three others bent, a 5 mm diameter hole put through the jack, and a 35 mm dent in the plastilene behind. (d) A bullet with an impact energy of 400 J defeated this mail. A piece of 15th century mail was also tested. This consisted of a piece known to have been made of low-carbon steel hardened by quenching, and 17 X 22 cm in size. (a) Simulated blade; an impact energy of 170 J defeated the mail completely. Two links were broken, two more opened out, and five bent. The jack was completely penetrated. (b) Simulated lance: an impact energy of 140 J defeated the mail completely. Three links were broken, two more opened out, and one bent. The jack was completely penetrated. (c) Simulated arrow: an impact energy of 120 J broke two links and completely penetrated the jack. APPENDIX 9: IMPACT TESTS ON NON-METALLIC ARMOUR.

Samples of buff leather, horn, cuir-bouilli and a quilted jack were tested with the simulat­ ed halberd, lance, and arrowhead. They were defeated (cut, broken or penetrated com­ pletely) at the following energies of impact. Material buff leather horn

Blade

Lance

70 J

30 J

120J

50 J

cuir-bouilli

90 J

30 J

"padding"

80 J

50 J

jack

Arrowhead

200 J

see mail expts

The jack which was also used in the tests described in Appendix 8 was a quilted linen jack of weight 171 g, and size 12.5 X 15 cm. A simulated blade with these given energies cut through to the layers as follows: 100J 120J 140J 160J 180J

5th layer 9th 16th 23rd 26th

944

SECTION NINE

The "padding" (to simulate that under armour) was made up of 16 layers of linen of weight 60g and size 16 X 21 cm. The cuir-bouilli was in the form of a poleyn, about 5 mm thick. Other specimens of hard­ ened leather armour of 5mm thickness were defeated at 50J (blade) and 20 J (lance). References Askeland, D.R. "The Science and Engineering" of materials" (3rd eel, 1996). Atkins, A.G. & Mai,Y.W. "Elastic and Plastic Fracture" (Chichester, 1985). Atkins, A.G. & Blyth, P.H. "Stabbing" of metal sheets by a triangular knife" International Journal of Impact Engineering (in press, 2001). Dickie, J. "Armour and fighting vehicles, Part 1; British tank development" English Steel Corporation Review, 8 (1968) 10. and "Part 2; Armour Plate Development" Special Steel Review, 1 (1969) 26. Jones, P.N. " T h e metallography and relative effectiveness of arrowheads and armor during the Middle Ages" Materials Characterization, 29 (New York, 1992) 111-117. Williams, A.R. "Some firing tests with simulated 15th- century handguns" Journal of the Arms & Armour Society (1974) 114-120. Williams, A.R. "The manufacture of mail in Medieval Europe: a technical note" Gladius 15 (Caceres, 1980) 105-134. Williams, A.R. with A.de Reuck "The Royal Armoury at Greenwich, 1515-1649." Royal Armouries Monograph No.4.(1995)

CHAPTER 9.5

CONCLUSION - DID IT WORK ?

In one sense, this is a redundant question, since a successful industry would scarcely have flourished for three centuries without some general belief in the efficacy of its products. But to try and decide what the effectiveness of armour was in specific situations, we can only compare the energies needed to defeat armour with the energies available to do this. There are always a great many variables on the battlefield, but at least the probable out­ comes can be assessed. It also has to be borne in mind that a bullet which did not quite pierce the armour might still have delivered enough energy to knock the wearer out of the saddle. It should be stressed that these are not intended to be precise estimates, but merely representative examples. At different dates, weapons might offer the following energies to attack armour (see chapter 9.2) Table 1

Weapon

Energy offered

Ax, sword

60 - 130J

12c longbow arrow

80 J

13c crossbow bolt

100 - 200J

14c handgun (serpentine powder)

250 J

15c Hussite handguns (serpentine powder)

500 - 1000 J

16c arquebus (serpentine powder)

1300 J

(corned powder)

1 750 J

1525+ musket (serpentine powder) (corned powder)

2300 J 3000 J

These of course are the initial energies, which would diminish with range. Krenn's exper­ iments showed that a musket ball lost about 5% of its velocity in the first 8 m of travel 1 .

1

Krenn, (1990) Tables of results summarised in chapter 9.2. Modern ballistic tables compiled for cylin­ drical projectiles are of little use, as the aerodynamic efficiency of spherical shot is far lower.

946

SECTION NINE

In Chapter 9.4 the performance that armour might offer was discussed, and this Table of resistance given. Table 2 1 mm normal striking at 30° striking at 45°

55 J 66 J 78 J

Resistance to 2 mm

4 mm

300 J 360 J 425 J

175J 210J 250 J Resistance to

normal striking at 30° striking at 45°

ARROWS 3 mm 475 J 570J 670 J

BULLETS

1 mm

2 mm

3 mm

4 mm

450 J 540 J 630 J

750 J 900 J 1050J

1700J 2000 J 2300 J

3400 J 4000 J 4700 J

all these energies then need to be multiplied by a coefficient which depends on the type of metal, which may be divided into four representative grades (see chapter 9.4, Appendices 5 and 6). * ** *** ****

metal metal metal metal

by by by by

0.5 0.75 1.1 1.5

and an increment (150 J) added to allow for padding, and the need to disable an opponent. Let us apply these energies to some hypothetical case studies: 1. A 11th-12th century knight who is clad in mail. An edged weapon would need to deliver at least 200 J to defeat the mail. A very strong man using an axe or sword with both hands might just about be able to do this. An arrow­ head, on the other hand, would only need to deliver 120 J to pierce the mail and the padding underneath. An archer would find this difficult, but an exceptional archer, or one armed with a crossbow, could defeat the mail. 2. A knight of the 13th century who wishes to reinforce his mail against the growing threat of crossbows. A cuir-bouilli reinforce might only increase the energy needed by an arrow to about 150 J; which is not enough to stop a crossbow bolt at short range. He might opt to wear a coat of iron plates instead. Such a plate might be 2 mm thick and probably be made of iron (* quality). This would need another 70 J to defeat it, making a total of about 220 J—enough to defy a crossbowman, although making his armour uncomfortably heavy.

CONCLUSION - DID IT WORK?

947

3. A knight in Milanese plate armour of the early 15th century, would be wearing less weight, having discarded most of his mail. The plates might be 2 mm thick and rounded in form. It would be made of mediumcarbon steel (*** or better); it would often be hardened, but for this example an air-cooled steel only will be considered. An arrow would in effect be striking at 30 deg, and would need to deliver 230 J in order to defeat this armour (280 J if padding included), which is unlikely even for a steel cross­ bow. So the vendor could confidently claim to be offering an armour "proof against the crossbow". A bullet (being much larger than an arrow-point) would have to deliver over 990 J. If the knight was facing a Hussite opponent, however, then the latter's handgun might offer 1000 J. The knight should still be safe, but the margin of safety is very small, and by the end of the 15th century, would have disappeared. A knight in North European armour of (**) metal, on the other hand, would be threat­ ened by 680 J and so would not be safe from the Hussite handgunner at short ranges. 4. A landsknecht or Swiss pikeman wearing a Niirnberg infantry armour in the mid- 16th century; this might be 2.5 mm thick, keeled in form, and made of a (**) steel. An arrow striking him at 45 deg would need to deliver 260 J (310 J with padding) in order to defeat this armour. A bullet however would need to deliver 1250 J, but this would be well within the capability of an arquebus at close range. 5. Would Sir Philip Sidney have survived the battle of Zutphen (1584) if he had remembered to put on his cuisses ? We do not know whether he was wearing a Milanese armour, or perhaps a Greenwich armour. A late 16th century armour from Milan might be 3 mm thick, keeled, and made of *** steel. A bullet striking at 45 deg would need 2500 J to defeat this. Muskets (loaded with corned powder) could offer at least 3000 J at short range. If he had, more patriotically, been wearing a Greenwich armour, then that might have been of similar thickness and shape, but made of **** steel, and perhaps needed 3000 J to be defeated. At short range then, it may not then have mattered which armour he wore; at long range, however, a Greenwich or Innsbruck armour might have given him a slight margin of safety. 6. Barwick makes four claims (see chapter 7.4). "Arrows cannot kill a man in pistol-proof armour at 120 yards". Assuming that this meant defeating a 3 mm thick keeled breastplate made of *** steel, then an arrow would have required 470 J, unobtainable from any crossbow. So his claim is correct. A bullet, on the other hand, would require 2500 J, within the capability of a musket (but not a pistol) as discussed above in case 4. So his second claim is correct. "Muskets could kill a man in proof armour at 100 yards, in common armour at 400 yards,

948

SECTION NINE

and without armour at 600 yards". The third and fourth claims are more difficult to assess. For common armour, we may assume a similar breastplate made of * steel, which would require 1150 J to defeat it. But there is little evidence of shooting muskets at such extreme ranges. Charles V seemed to have taken his opponents by surprise at the battle of Miihlberg in 1547 by having his musketeers fire across the River Elbe, 200 yards wide at that point 2 . Barwick probably did not intend any precise measurement of distance, but if the velocity of the musket ball has fallen by half, then its kinetic energy has fallen by a quarter, to 750 J, which might just be resisted by a "common" breastplate. A man without armour would probably be killed or disabled by 100-200 J. A blow of between 25 and 40 J to the head in a car crash may be fatal3. Giving Barwick the benefit of the doubt over range, his other claims are probably valid. 6. A cuirassier's armour of the 17th century; this might be 4 mm thick, rounded in shape, and made of * steel. A bullet would need 2000 J to defeat it, which should be within the capability of a musket, but definitely not that of a pistol. This armour would have offered its wearers extensive protection, but at the cost of considerably reduced mobility. Whether it would be regularly worn would depend upon the soldiers' priorities. It will be seen that the sort of steel armours that Milanese armourers could offer in the late 14th and 15th centuries would offer a good margin of protection against all likely weapons. Their claims about using the crossbow to test armour are amply justified. Munition armour offered the bare minimum of protection at close range. On the other hand, armour of knightly quality could well require more than twice as much energy to defeat it, and so offer at least double the protection—at a price, of course. However, firearms offer a greater order of magnitude of energy, and very soon offer a real possibility of defeating armour. There are two course then open to the armourer: make the armour of better metal, or thicker. The difficulties of heat-treating steel meant that this first solution, although desirable, was expensive. While a few individual centres of metallurgical excellence continued to make princely armour of great elegance as well as metallurgical ingenuity, the great bulk of production had to be made down to a price, and be effective simply through its thickness. The second solution, although crude, was effective. As armies got larger and firepower increased, the demand for armour (even for the infantry) increased; the likelihood of princes paying for large quantities of armour—unless the cheapest solution had been a d o p t e d — was very small. Increasing the thickness from 2 to 3.1mm will double the resistance, and have a similar effect to the use of hardened steel, at a fraction of the cost. The problem then was the stamina of the wearers, and indeed as handgunners replaced archers, less skilful troops were needed and wages fell. But if recruits were drawn from the

2

Oman's account of Miihlberg, op.cit.(1937) p.249 * Gurdjian, especially p.940.

CONCLUSION - DID IT WORK?

949

poorer and less well-nourished strata of society4 then they were even less capable of marching and fighting in bulletproof armour. So the situation arose of leaders with wearable protective armour, while their armies of thousands could no longer wear what might protect them, and armour dropped out of use, despite the well thought-out arguments of military commentators like Maurice de Saxe 5 . The craftsmen turned to other industries like gunmaking or clockmaking, and the centres of armour production became the centres of the Industrial Revolution. Large furnaces had been needed to make the large steel plates needed for armour. When this technology was taken a stage further by the demand for large quantities of cheap armour, large fineries came into use, especially in those areas associated with the arms industry. Western firepower had already done a great deal to conquer the world; its industry would go on to dominate it.

References Gurdjian, E.S. "Prevention and mitigation of head injury from antiquity to the present" T h e j o u r n a l of Trauma, 13 (New York, 1973) 931-945. de Saxe, M. "Reveries, or Memories upon the Art of War" (trans. W.Fawcett, 1757). Wurm, H. "Wie gross waren Ritter und Landsknechte im 16 und 17 Jahrhundert ?" Waffen- und Kostumkunde, 26 (1984) 97-110; 27 (1985) 49-74; 31 (1989) 87-109.

4

Wurm, especially part 2 (of 3 parts) Table 19, p.60. Marshal de Saxe (1757) argued that armour did not have to be bulletproof to be worth wearing. Many casualties were caused by weapons other than muskets, such as swords, bayonets and lances, etc. not to men­ tion spent bullets which would be stopped by light armour. At the battle of Belgrade in 1717, only 32 Turkish horsemen had been brought down by a combined volley from two battalions of Austrian infantry. He added "I am at a loss to know why armour has been laid aside, for nothing is either so useful or ornamental...it was the fashion in Henry IV's reign and since, and powder was introduced long before that time...its disuse was occasisoned by nothing more than the inconvenience of it". :>

INDEX A Adlergarnitur - see Eagle garniture Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria (armour for) 436, 536 Alva, Duke of (armour for) 414 Arboga 827-828 A R B O I S 144 armourers' marks (Italian) 62-64 and 205 arrows - in battles - Agincourt (1415) 860 - Crecy (1346) 47 - Flodden (1513) 863 - Kossovo (1448) 859 - Nicopolis (1396) 859 - and see energy of arrows - and see varying carbon content of steel Augsburg armourers - products listed 361-362 and 366-368, and see Chapter 5.4 B bainite 20 Barbarigo, Agostino (armour for) 319 Barwick, Sir Humphrey, ineffectiveness of archery 875 BE master 130, 132 Bichignola, J a c o p o 116 blast furnace 879-882 - also see finery bloomery hearth (furnace) 4 bloom sizes 877, 888-890 Borromeo family 289 Brescia (armour from) 57, 110, 113, 162, 314, 315, 322, 323 and see Zannetto Ferrari - gunmaking 888 - and see steelmaking bronze, hardness of 6 Brunswick armours 834-837 Buckhurst, Lord (armour for) 792 Bustos, Alfonso de, (armour for) 422 C Carlo Emmanuel, Duke of Savoy (armour for) 308 case-hardening 15 Castle, 140 - and see 296 Charles V, Emperor (armour for) 262, 266, 410, 411, 483 (possibly armour for) 405, 407 Christian, Elector of Saxony (armour for) 445

"coats-of-plate" 54 Corio (family of armourers) 80-85 cost of armour 4 1 , 46, and 904-908 - see also munition (cheap) armour Craft Regulations (Nurnberg) 589-592 Crecy 47 crossbow 48, 919 Cumberland, Earl of (armour for) 797 D Damascus steel 14 Delle Rovere 241 Delle Rovere, Guidobaldo, (armour for) 235 Delle Rovere, Francesco Maria, (armour for) 233 Deutsch, Matthaeus 566-567 divorced carbides - see pearlite Doria, Stefano (armour for) 423 E Eagle garniture 521 Edward VI, King of England (armour for) 765, 766 effectiveness of armour 924 Elizabeth I, Queen of England, gunpowder and nitrebeds 870-872 Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy (armour for) 227, 307, 427 energy of weapons 922 - of arrows 918-919 - of crossbows 919 - of handguns 920-922 - and see firing tests English armour (before Greenwich workshop) 731 Erik XIV, King of Sweden (armour for) 730 eutectic 880 F Farnese, Ottavio, (armour for) 318 Ferdinand I, Archduke and later Emperor (armour for) 397, 406, 512, 523, 579 Ferdinand II, Archduke of Tirol, (armour for) 258, 426, 521, 533, 539, 542 - and Prague armoury 458-460 - and Ambras collection 460 Ferrari, Zanetto 124-126 - Iacopino 128-129 ferrite 19 finery 882-884 firing tests at Graz 923 Fracasso, Gasparo (armour for) 216

952

INDEX

Frauenprciss, Matthacus 416 Fregoso, Giano, Doge of Genoa, (armour for) 150 G garnitures 514, and see Eagle garniture, Roseleaf garniture Genouilhac, Galiot de, (armour for) 229, 750 globular carbides - see pearlitc Gonzaga, Carlo, (armour for) 249 Gonzaga, Gian Francesco, (armour for) 196 Gonzaga, Anna Katherina 460 Giovanni da Faerno 138 Greenwich armours 735, 737-738 and see Chapter 6.5 Greek armour 8 Greek fire 842 Groszschedel, Wolfgang 551 and Chapter 5.8 Groszschedel, Franz 552 and Chapter 5.8 Guild Regulations, (Augsburg) 364 (Landshul) 552 and see Craft Regulations guns - earliest in China 845 - earliest in Europe 850 - pressure inside 844 - attack on London (1471) 861 - in battles - Barnet (1471) 861 - Formigny (1451) 861 - Pavia (1525) 869 - St.Gotthard (1664) 873 gunpowder - in China 844 - in Europe 847 - corning 844 - fall in price 864 - nitre-beds 872 - serpentine 871 GV - see Vimercati H "h" master, armourer to Philip the Fair Haider, J a c o b 552, 737 and see Chapter 6.5 handguns, dimensions of 854-855 -improvements in 851, 855 Hatton, Sir Christopher (armour for) 782-785 Helmschmied, Lorenz - products listed 361-363 and see Chapter 5.4 Helmschmied, Kolman - products listed 363-406 and sec Chapter 5.4 Helmschmied, Desiderius - products listed 364-415, 420 and see Chapter 5.4 Henri II, King of France (armour for) 823 Henry VIII, King of England (armour for) 219 - and Flemish armourers 732 - and Italian armourers 732 - and Almains - products 733, 735, 737-738 - armours for 748-763 - imports of gunpowder 870

Henry, Prince of Wales (armour for) 801, 810 Howard, Sir Geoffrey (armour for) 771 horse armours 92, 371,406, 424, 502, 522-524, Hussites 857-859 hypercutectoid steel 20 I "I" 101, 121 impact tests on mild steel 928 - effects of thickness 928 - effects of shape 929 - effects of hardness 930 - effects of slag 931 "Inosens" Innocenzo da Faerno 92, 94-96 -and see Giovanni da Faerno Innsbruck armourers - products listed 431-462 Innsbruck workshop - see Chapter 5.5 Innsbruck metallurgy -see Chapter 5.6 Iserlohn - see Westphalian iron industry Italian armourers - products listed 62-65 and 205-209 Italian armourers' marks 62-64, 205 Italian metallurgy - see Chapters 4.3 and 4.5

J K Katzmair, Sebastian 538 Kirkener, Erasmus 734 and see Chapter 6.5 Kelte, John 736 and see Chapter 6.5 L Landshut armourers - products listed 554-555 and see Chapter 5.8 Lee, Sir Henry 765, 780-781 Lee's trial of armour 739 Leicester, Earl of (armour for) 775 Leoben 455 also see Styrian steelmaking Lochner, Kunz 594-596 and see Chapter 5.10 M mail - see Chapter 2.1 - effectiveness of, 42 - impact tests on, 942 - reinforcing of, 53-55 marks (Italian armourers') 60, 62-64 and 205 - multiple 66 martensite 21 - hardness of martensite 6 Matsch, Gaudenz von, 478, 483 matrices 455 Maurice of Nassau, tactics 872 - (armour for) 839 Maximilian I, Emperor (armour for) 144, 373-386 - orders for munition armour 392, 490, 608, 698 - in Flanders 7 15 Maximilian II, Emperor (armour for) 416, 418, 580588, 633

INDEX

- firing tests on armour 458, and see proofing mechanical tests on armour 901 Medici, Cosimo I (armour for) 313 Medici, Cosimo II (armour for) 306 Medici, Gian Giacomo (armour for) 320 Medinaceli 278 Meitinger, Paul 534 Merate 103, 106, 142-146 Meraviglia 142 Milan — see Italian armourers Missaglia (family) 57, 96 and see Chapter 4.3 - Missaglia, Antonio 89, 139, - Missaglia, Tommaso 96, 98, 99 - Missaglia, Damiano 142 - Missaglia, Giovanni Angelo 216 - Missaglia, Sebastiano 97 Molteno, Benedetto da, 75 Modrone, Caremolo 247-250 and 252 munition (cheap) armour 596, 656 and see Chapter 8.3 N Negroli (family) 58, 104-105, 124, 135 (armours) 233-241 and 253-266 non-metallic armour 943 Nurnberg armourers 593 - products listed 598-601 and see Chapter 5.10

O overhardened armour 156 overtempered martensite 23 P Pallavicini, Sforza, 316 Pavia, musketry at the battle of, 869 pearlite 20 Peffenhauser, Anton 434, 439-445 Pembroke, Earl of (armour for) 768 Pembroke, second Earl of (armour for) 778 Pfeifcr, Melchior 539-540 Pickering, William 737 and see Chapter 6.5 piling 9 pistol-proof (Negroli) 211 (Sir H e n r y Lee) and see Maximilian II, Philip the Fair, King of Castile (armour for) 387, 477, 718-720 Philip II, King of Spain (armour for) 412 Polish hussars' armours 712-713 - success 873 Pompeo della Chiesa (Cesa) 279, 289, 295, 300-302, 308 "Puffed-and-slashed" armour - see Roggendorf, and Chapter 6.1 Prague workshop 458 proofing armour with crossbows 6 1 , 924 proofing armour with guns 925 - and see Lee's trial of armour

953

proeutectoid ferrite 22 protection in battle (case studies) 946-948

Q. quenching (of steel) 17 and see Chapter 1.3 see also slack-quenching R Ravizza, Jacomino 73, 88 recycled armour in Thirty Years' W a r 711 Rennen (armour for) 386, 426, 566, 567, and see tournament armours Roggendorf "puffed-and-slashed" armour 399 R o m a n armour 34 Rondell, Martin 715 Royne, Martin van 732 and see Chapter 6.5 Rormoser, Stefan 530, 536 Roseleaf garniture 582-566 Rosenblattgarnitur - see Roseleaf garniture Rota 277 S sampling 24 Salimbene, Giovanni 131 Salzburg, Archbishops of, 296-298, 499 Sanseverino, Count of (armour for) 132 Saxe-Altenburg, Duke of, (armour for) 440 Schurff, Wilhelm (armour for) 525-526 Schurff, Karl (armour for) 544 Scudamore, Sir Thomas (armour for) 789, 794 Seusenhofer, Konrad (Conrad, Hofplattner) and see Innsbruck armourers - products Seusenhofer, Hans 456 and see Chapter 5.6 Seusenhofer, Jorg 456 and see Chapter 5.6, especially 504-508 Siegerland furnaces 886 (picture 885) and see Westphalia Siegerstein, von (armour for) 511 slack-quenching 17, 22, 895 - experiments on 898-900 slag content of armour 939 Smythe, Sir J o h n (armour for) 786 - controversial book about archery 874-875 Sonnenberg, Graf von (armour for) 393 spheroidised carbides - see pearlite steelmaking - Styrian 881 - "Brescian" process described by Biringuccio 886 swords 11-13 T tempered martensite 21 tempering 19 tempering experiments 900 - see also slack quenching thickness of armour 913-917 - and see (notes) 296, 925 Topf family, see Chapter 5.6

954

INDEX

tournament armours 381, 542-524, 601, 677-680 and see garnitures, rennen, and tournament armours of Nurnberg-see Chapter 5.1 T r a p p , Jakob (armour for) 518 Treylz family marks 452 U V Vaudrey, Claude de, (armour for) 142 Vimercati (family of armourers) 108, 111, 118 varying carbon content of steel 938

W wages of soldiers 903 Weimar, Duke of, (armour for) 434

Westphahan iron industry 908 Wisby 334 Witz, Michael (the Elder) 460 and see Chapter 5.6 Witz, Michael (the Younger) 460, 496, 534, and see Chapter 5.6 wootz 14 Worcester, Earl of (armour for) 774 X X-ray microanalysis of slag inclusions 891 Y Z Z - see Ferrari Zacchei, Count (armour for) 273 Z O 122

HISTORY OF WARFARE History of Warfare presents the latest research on all aspects of military history. Publications in the series will examine technology, strategy, logistics, and economic and social developments related to warfare in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East from ancient limes until the early nineteenth century. The series will accept monographs, collections of essays, conference proceedings, and translation of military texts. 1. HOEVEN, M. VAN DER (ed.). Exercise of Arms. Warfare in the Netherlands, 1568-1648. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10727 4 2. RAUDZENS, G. (ed.). Technology, Disease and Colonial Conquests, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. Essays Reappraising the Guns and Germs Theories. 2001. ISBN 90 04 11745 8 3. LENIHAN P. (ed.). Conquest and Resistance. War in Seventeenth-Century Ireland. 2001. ISBN 90 04 11743 1 4. NICHOLSON, H. Love, War and the Grail. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12014 9 5. BIRKENMEIER, J.W. The Development of the Komnenian Army: 1081-1180. 2002. ISBN 90 04 11710 5 6. MURDOCH, S. (ed.). Scotland and the Thirty Years' War, 1618-1648. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12086 6 7. TUYLL VAN SEROOSKERKEN, H.P. VAN. The Netherlands and World War I. Espionage, Diplomacy and Survival. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12243 5 8. DEVRIES, K. A Cumulative Bibliography of Medieval Military History and Tech­ nology. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12227 3 9. CUNEO, P. (ed.). Artful Armies, Beautiful Battles. Art and Warfare in Early Modern Europe. 2002. ISBN 90 04 11588 9 10. KUNZLE, D. From Criminal to Courtier. The Soldier in Netherlandish Art 15501672. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12369 5 11. TRIM, D.J.B. (ed.). The Chivalric Ethos and the Development of Military Profes­ sionalism. 2003. ISBN 90 04 12095 5 12. WILLIAMS, A. The Knight and the Blast Furnace. A History of the Metal­ lurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages & the Early Modern Period. 2003. ISBN 90 04 12498 5 13. KAGAY, D.J., VILLALON, L.J.A. (eds.). Crusaders, Condottieri, and Cannon. Medieval Warfare in Societies Around the Mediterranean. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12553 1 14. LOHR, E , POE, M. (eds.). The Military and Society in Russia: 1450-1917. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12273 7 15. M U R D O C H , S. & A. MACKILLOP (eds.). Fighting for Identity. Scottish Military Experience c. 1550-1900. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12823 9 ISSN 1385-7827