Technology and the Advancement of Medieval Arms and Armour

Part I

By Jacob Selmer

Last revised 2/13/02

The development of arms and armour in the middle ages is a subject that is overlooked by many individuals. Common perceptions of King Arthur of Camelot and Sir Lancelot riding into battle in full plate armour are more fitting to a 15^th century setting than a time when Arthur could have perhaps existed, in some form, closer to the 5^th century. Modern culture has overlooked a millennium of development and combined everything together in movies, stories, games, and sports. 5^th century armourers could not create the types of armour being produced by the end of the middle ages. So, what is it that happened in between these times to allow for these changes? Looking at the time period in the middle of these two extremes, the age of maille shows the evolution of armour from the fall of the Western Empire to the end of the 13^th century. Armour development increased and advanced due to refinements in metallurgy, new technologies, and the arms race where fighters wanted the best weapon to penetrate the latest armour, and the best armour to protect against the latest weapon.

Ancient:

Armour has been used since ancient times. A natural reaction to being in harmful situations is to want protection. This personal protection comes in three forms: soft padding, flexible, and rigid. The biggest changes in armour have been with the flexible and rigid types. Material type and quality has made the biggest impact on this evolution. Iron was discovered by 2500 BC, but there was extremely little of it used for 1000 years because the temperatures required were too high to work with and maintain. In the Iliad, it is mentioned that only tools are of iron and that weapons are bronze (Gies, 19.) What many people may not realize is that when bronze is made well, it is superior to iron. Bronze is an alloy of copper with tin, both of these ingredients are easier to produce than iron, however iron is much more abundant. Iron ore can be found everywhere, whereas tin in particular could be difficult to come by. As the ability to extract iron increased, it became the material or choice, not for any superiority over bronze. The superior metal is iron with a specific range of carbon content: steel. Lynn White Jr. points out that prehistorians have the habit of “establishing an Iron Age in a region as soon as they turn up the earliest scrap of iron… Iron was long a rare and costly metal, used almost exclusively for arms and for cutting edges.” (40). Iron was more common with the Romans. The Roman army fielded more metal than anyone had previously, but despite their military history, they did not contribute much of their own (Gies, 31.) The advancements in this time were mostly brought to the Romans via the peoples they conquered. Good examples of this are maille, flexible metal armour created by the Celts (Counts), and pattern welding, a superior sword making technique from the Germanic tribes (Gies, 32.)

Dark Ages:

Following the fall of the western empire, and even leading up to it, there was a great decline in mining, technology, and production of arms and armour. The Dark Ages contributed very little to the evolution of these, and there was actually more of a loss than a gain in this time period. One example of this loss leading up to the fall, is the abandonment of the Roman segmented armour (lorica segmentata). This was rigid armour that consisted of metal sheets, bent in a single dimension, and laced together around the body. This armour fell out of use by the 2^nd century (Bishop, 206.) As the number of armourers able to make this armour decreased, and the material supply decreased, logically the cost and maintenance prices would go up. The Roman armies were also increasingly populated by foreign soldiers who would have worn what they could afford or were used to. The segmentata had an overall short period of use. Another example of moving to less armour in the dark ages is on the helms. Helms were made in the spangenhelm fashion, with two helm halves riveted together with a band, or later, six or more sections held together by a frame. Roman helms had cheek plates and plates extending over the back of the head/ neck. Helms of this type, often including a nasal with stylized eyebrows, were found throughout the 6^th and 7^th centuries. By around the late 7^th or early 8^th century, the cheek and neck plates were abandoned. David Edge refers to the armour of this period as “basically a debased form of late Roman armour.” This shows the armour of the time altering because of the loss of resources. The spangenhelm design at this point remained the same until the end of the 13^th century (Edge, 8-9.)

Carolingian Times:

In the Carolingian time period, new mines opened and iron became much cheaper and more available. Lynn White Jr. recounts Notker the Stammerer’s account of the time:

"Writing in the later ninth century, the Monk of St. Gall tells us how in 773 Charlemagne and his host mounted an assault against Pavia, the capital of the Lombard realm. Coming out upon his walls to view the enemy, King Desiderius was overwhelmed by the spectacle of the massed and glittering Frankish weapons: 'Oh, the iron! Alas, the iron!' he cried, and the captain with him fell fainting. While the Monk of St. Gall is notoriously a novelist rather than a historian, nevertheless this episode symbolizes, even if it does not record, Europe's effective transition, under Charlemagne, to the iron age." (White, 40)

There are very few contemporary accounts of the Carolingian armament. Simon Coupland discusses these sources in his work, Carolingian Arms and Armour in the Ninth Century:

“The armament carried by the cavalry was specified in two texts. The Capitulare Missorum of 792-793 referred to benefice and office holders who were able to possess horses and armor, as well as shield and lance, longsword (spata) and sax (semispatum). In the letter sent by Charlemagne to Abbot Fulrad in 806, however, each horseman was commanded to have a bow and several quivers of arrows in addition to the shield and lance, sword and sax.”

“The infantry was not required to be so heavily armed: The Capitulary of Aachen, issued in 802-803, expected the counts to supply each of their foot-soldiers with a shield and lance as well as a bow with a spare string and twelve arrows. The equipment for the royal war carts also included these weapons, doubtless for the driver’s protection. The Aachen capitulary contained a further provision that no soldier should carry a cudgel (baculum), but rather a bow. This presumably related to those free peasants who had no rich lord to equip them.” (30)

Unfortunately, the only remaining capitularies with the armament described are from the reign of Charlemagne. Changes in this time included the abandonment of short swords, or saxes, and others “almost certainly occurred of which we are at present unaware” (Coupland, 30.) The other contemporary account of Carolingian arms and armour is from Notker, who, as noted above, is prone to exaggeration:

Then came in sight that man of iron, Charlemagne, topped with his iron helm, his fists in iron gloves, his iron chest and his Platonic shoulders clad in an iron cuirass. An iron spear raised high against the sky he gripped in his left hand, while in his right he held his still unconquered sword. For greater ease of riding other men keep their thighs bare of armour; Charlemagne’s were bound in plates of iron. As for his greaves, like those of all his army, they, too, were made of iron. His shield was all of iron. His horse gleamed iron-coloured and its very mettle was as if of iron. All those who rode before him, those who kept him company on either flank, those who followed after, wore the same armour, and their gear was as close a copy of his own as it is possible to imagine (Thorpe, 163.)

Obviously, compared to all other reliable sources, this is highly exaggerated for 773. One thing it does point out, however, is that these items are not unheard of. It is possible, and even likely, that rigid armour other than helms were capable of being made, but these would have been very basic forms and extremely rare. Hardly anyone in the Frankish army would have been able to afford such a suit in its entirety, and even if a few could, it would have been far too heavy and impractical in battle. “It is therefore almost certain that the Carolingian army was never equipped with such complete sets of heavy armor, not even in Notker’s own lifetime” (Coupland, 31.) To attest to the armourer’s still at this time, there are a few surviving conical helms from this period that were raised from a single sheet: the helm of St. Wenceslaus of Bohemia, who died in 935, is preserved in the Cathedral Treasury in Prague, and another one of this type in Vienna Waffensammung. While these helmets would likely have been stronger than standard spangenhelms, they are considerably harder to manufacture (Edge, 18-19.)

Dark Ages Body Armour:

The body armour of these early years was usually maille, leather, or simple padding. Blair states that from c. 600- c. 1250 if armour other than soft armour was worn, 99% was maille (19.) Maille itself evolved over time. The tens of thousands of interlinked and riveted rings were made of iron wire. The wire itself was made by hammering out iron rods, which is evident in the early examples because of uneven wire sizes. The maille used by Romans was similar to a modern T-shirt. It was short-sleeved and waist length, called a byrnie. This continued to be used, but the coverage slowly grew to mid-thigh and slightly longer sleeves, called a haubergeon. The metal costs of course play a major role, but the hundreds of hours required to build a single byrnie or haubergeon made the cost prohibitive for most. Coupland says of the Carolingian time period, “Army commanders were encouraged to own their own helmets or body armour, but the high price of a burnia must have put it beyond the means of all but the wealthy” (38.)

Early Metallurgy:

Only very few useful documents survive about the early medieval metallurgy. As Gies points out, some former Greco-Roman techniques were lost, but the smithing trade continued (62.) The production of wrought iron used the same type of reduction furnace as the Romans, though early on they tended to be a bit smaller (Tylecote, 75.) A reduction furnace chemically reduces the metal into its base form. Charcoal is burned beneath the ore and the carbon monoxide released would combine with the iron oxides to form carbon dioxide and the metal. While the chemistry behind the reduction furnace was not known, experience told them it would work. This lump of metal, called a bloom, would have to be hammered to beat the slag inclusions out. This is a very inefficient way to extract iron. Gies claims a typical ratio of pounds of charcoal to pounds of smelted iron to be about 12:1. When everything worked as planned, a few pounds of usable iron could be produced in several hours (63.) Some of the iron came out as brittle chunks that could not be worked, even when hot. This is cast iron and has greater then 2.2% carbon content. At this point it was only thrown away as useless.

Dark Ages Swords:

The swords of this time were pattern welded. David Edge and John Paddock explain this process in their book, Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight.

The finest early blades were made by ‘pattern-welding’, a process probably first developed by Celtic smiths during the early Dark Ages. Obtaining a completely homogeneous length of tempered steel sufficiently free from forging flaws and similar weaknesses so as not to break in use was a serious technological problem; pattern-welding enabled the smith not only to overcome such limitations but also to utilize both inferior and good-quality iron (a necessary expedient when ‘good’ iron was a scarce and valuable commodity). A pattern-welded blade of the highest quality could take a month to make, and involved so much time and skill in the forging that its value in the mid-tenth century ‘heriot’ (the war-trappings due to a lord upon the death of a vassal) was said to be equivalent to 120 oxen or 15 slaves. Such blades were made of many separate parts; a centre bar of complex structure forged into one, and two edges made from a long billet of relatively homogenous steel bent back on itself into a tight ‘V’, which was then hammer-welded into place along each side of the centre bar to give the blade a hard cutting edge and point. To make the centre, several thin rods of malleable wrought iron were first case-hardened in a charcoal fire. Through this process the iron on the surface was carburized (that is, it absorbed carbon) to form a skin of hard steel. The rods were then heated red-hot and tightly twisted together, and finally were hammer-welded at white heat to forge all the constituent parts together. Depending on the way in which the twisting and forging was done, different repeating patters could be formed within the structure of the metal. Once these main bars had been forged together and the blade given its approximate shape, the fuller was put in. This was a broad, shallow hollow forged alone the centre of each side, designed both to lighten and strengthen the blade on the same principal as the modern H-bar girder. Then, after it had been ground and filed to its final shape, the blade was heated and quenched to give the steel edge its hardness” (26.)

This was a long and complicated process. Although it can produce beautiful blades with designs brought out by acid, a misstep at any part of the process could result in failure. A bad weld, an internal fracture, or poor heat treatment could be problems without being seen before breaking. One side of the reason old or ancient swords were sought after and well known may have been the society’s respect for their past. The other side of the issue is that only good swords got to be old swords. Wilkinson dates the production of pattern-welded blades from the 2^nd century till the 10^th (39), while Edge places them to the middle of the 11^th century (27), but when they stopped being produced and when they stopped being used is a far different date. Since the best quality swords were around long after they were made, pattern-welded swords would be found both in literature and in archeology in later periods. Examples of this can be interpreted from numerous 13^th-14^th century works of art, including a c1250-60 initial letter from an illuminated manuscript of William of Tyre, shown by Edge on page 40, and in the c1250 Maciejowski Bible (Cockerell, 63, 77, 89, 141, 161.)

Other Common Weapons:

Swords, however, were not the only weapons used in the middle ages. By no means did every man carry a sword. Take for example the Normans: the basic weapon for both the cavalry and the infantry was the spear (Baker, 10.) Judging by the numbers of spears found in Saxon graves, the spear was also their most common weapon. It makes sense that these would be the most common weapons considering the work involved in making swords. A spear does not have the same requirements that a sword does. While a sword must be flexible, a spearhead can be hard. Therefore we do not see pattern -welded spears; the welding on of a hard edge would be sufficient, and the smaller amount of homogenous material would be easier to come by. Raw material costs play a major factor as well. The only metal involved in the manufacture of a spear is in the head, and the ferrule, or butt-spike, while the haft was made of wood, usually ash. This brings the cost down considerably, since wood was much more abundant than iron. This makes the spear affordable for many people as well as for nobles outfitting large numbers. There are indications that Saxons eventually were normally armed with 2-3 spears (Wilkinson, 40.) The weapon of choice among the Normans was still the sword. The aristocrats who fielded as cavalry still carried a spear, but they would also have a sword. These would be the men who could afford such an expense (Baker, 11.) Similar arguments can be made for both the axe and the bow and arrow. Neither weapon has the same metallurgical problems as the sword. The axe, as well as the mace, relies on mass and inertia. Archery is more centered on the use of wood, which is a material that was abundant and abused until the later centuries depleted the sources in iron producing and working. The fact that not so many swords are found in graves does not say that they were not used, only that they were considered too valuable to be buried. Instead, they were often handed down for generations (Wilkinson, 41-2.)

Medieval Helms:

From the Dark Ages, everything grew. Again looking first more closely at helms, we see significant changes occurring. The spangenhelm continues in modified form into the 14^th century, but more types and modifications also become common. After around 1180, conical, round, and flat-topped helmets were occasionally fitted with face guards. By the 13^th century this becomes popular and the first fully enclosed helm is used commonly. The heaume, or “great” helm, totally enclosed the head, including the back and sides, which are now fixed together as both a return to and an upgrade from the former Roman helmets with hinged plates (Blair, 30.) While these helms were also of riveted construction, they used considerably more and larger sheets of metal than the previous conical helmets. Another type of helm that appears in this time period is the chapel-de-fer, commonly called a kettle helm. The kettle helm is simply a round or conical helm with a brim riveted around the edge. This brim provides extra protection without reducing visibility. These were made in sections riveted together or from single sheets, and had a wide range of shapes. There are many variations over the centuries, but they all originated from the same idea. An early form of kettle helm with a partial brim may be seen as early as the 11^th century in the Roda Bible from Catalonia. “The manuscript clearly reflects a period of experiment and change before the almost universal adoption of conical one-piece helmets with nasals in the late 11^th and 12^th centuries” (Nicolle, 128-129.) Kettle helms were common by the 13th century and variations have been used in modern times.

Medieval Body Armour:

By the time of the Bayeux Tapestry in the 11^th century, maille had extended again from its earlier mid-thigh length haubergeon. The maille is now typically the knee length hauberk. Slits were left open in the front and often the back to allow for easier riding and maneuvering. There is also now a coif attached to cover the head and neck. There are a couple examples of separate hoods in the Bayeux Tapestry, but this is not the norm and seems to have fallen out of fashion until it was revived in the late 13^th century where we next see examples of it. At the end of the 11^th century, the arms lengthen out and become closer fitting on the hauberk. The addition of the ventail, which tied across the face, happened as early as the late 11^th century, when it is mentioned in the Song of Roland (Blair, 27.) Maille leggings, or chausses, are depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry but only in a few cases. These could have only been afforded by the wealthy at this point. Their construction would likely have also been of the early type that only covered the front of the leg while tying in the rear. These, as with everything else, grew and became more common with time. By 1150 chausses become common in illustrations. The full chausses that were used were presumably suspended from the hips on a belt. The long sleeves of the hauberk also continued to grow. By the end of the 12^th century, the sleeves commonly end in bag mittens, called mufflers. A few depictions of individual fingers are found after 1250 (Blair, 29.) The 13^th century is the peak of maille. It is also around this time when the draw plate for wire was introduced. Its invention is often credited to Rudolph of Nuremberg in the middle of the 14^th century, but two corporations drawing wire are mentioned in Livre des Métiers in Paris c1260 (Ffoulkes, 44.) A draw plate has numerous successive holes of decreasing diameter, through which the wire is pulled, thereby stretching and thinning the wire (Gies, 125.) This made wire making considerably easier and more uniform than the old hammer-beating method. This allows for maille to be made slightly lighter, by using thinner wire, and it eliminates the former lumps and unevenness in the wire. The beginnings of plate defenses also slowly emerge in this time period, but their references are rare. Similar to Notker’s time, some of these surely existed, but their occurrences are few and far between. The only non-helmet plate defense in the Maciejowski Bible is worn by Goliath. These appear to be metal shin guards similar to the early chausses; covering the front of the leg and tied at the back (Cockerell, 131-7.)

Medieval Metallurgy:

Metallurgical processes advanced along with the development of weapons and armour. The mechanical action required to move the bellows of a furnace was considered too easy to power any other way for a long time. Grinding grain and similar actions took priority. In 1098 the Cistercian reform movement began setting up waterpowered mills to do many mechanical functions. “The first waterpowered iron mills in Germany, England, Denmark, and southern Italy were all Cistercian” (Gies, 114.) The new overshot waterwheel was mechanically superior to the previous horizontal and undershot waterwheels. The horizontal waterwheel of Roman times achieved approximately more than ½ horsepower, and the undershot 3 HP, while the medieval overshot wheel achieved as much as 40-60 HP (115.) Increased efficiency allowed for less manual labor for greater quantity. The spread of these also spread the knowledge of gearing. Another source of spreading information was trade. Europe went from trading “backward-area” goods such as furs and slaves, to by 1200 trading bar iron, copper ingots, utensils, and arms and armour (107.) This brought on the growth of cities and communication. The circulation of goods and ideas exposed areas to new things before facing them on the battlefield. This sped up the process of evolution overall.

Medieval Swords:

These advances in technology allowed for the production of homogeneous swords. By the late 8^th century, Viking swordsmiths had developed the ability to forges swords out of homogeneous piece of steel (Edge, 27.) Often these surpassed the quality of pattern-welded blades, which were commonly only decorative in design without any actual steel content (Craddock, 271.) The capability to create these swords did not guarantee the influx of the proper materials or the widespread knowledge of anyone else, however. It was not until centuries later when the art of pattern-welding was replaced by the common manufacture of steel swords. As the quality of metallurgy increased, so did the quality of swords. These new swords could then be altered in ways previous ones were not. The common trend throughout these centuries is for swords to get longer. The illustration on page 28 of David Edge’s book shows this occurrence in 3 swords lined up side by side. The material could safely be longer without concern for major problems. A number of methods were used to control the center of balance and keep the blade weight down as they got longer. Fullers remain common, but the taper of the sword also changes. Earlier swords had near parallel sides, which rounded off into a tip at the end. As swords got longer, they were also made pointier. The tip of the blade becomes a more useful thrusting weapon, and the blade becomes less of a hacking weapon. Swords of this time were still primarily used as slashing weapons, but by the time period of the crusades there are sword blades entirely shaped as an isosceles triangle. Blades were not only manipulated in their width, but also their thickness, with the distal taper. The thickness of the blade played an important factor in making a blade long without being weak or unwieldy. Arguably one of the main reasons for the more pronounced point is related to the main defense of the day: maille. Maille is made specifically for protection against slashes, while it does little against thrusts and less against mass weapons. Longer pointier swords became the solution for the attacker as metallurgy allowed.

Conclusion:

Arms, armour, and metallurgy have each progressed in direct relation to the others, with no one being independent or isolated. All decreased with the fall of the Western Roman empire, but by the early middle ages, Europe’s technology had clearly passed that of the ancient Mediterranean world (Gies, 80.) The early examples of raised helmets, homogeneous swords, and plate armours attest to the fact that these skills were not lost, only the practicality in making them standard. As resources and technology increased, weapon and armour development kept up and pressed on. The age of maille gives way to the transitional period (14^th c) and later to the age of plate (15-16^th c), where the relationship with metallurgy still holds.

Bibliography

Baker, Roy (Editor). England Under the Normans 1066-1154: A British History Illustrated Special Issue. London: Historical Times Ltd., 1978.

Bishop, M. C., and J. C. N. Coulston. Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the fall of Rome. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd, 1993.

Blair, Claude. European Armour: circa 1066 to circa 1700. London: B.T. Batsford LTD, 1972.

Cockerell, Sydney C. (introduction). Old Testament Miniatures: A Medieval Picture Book with 283 Paintings from The Creation to the Story of David. New York: George Braziller, 1975.

Counts, David A. Maille Timetable. http://www.armourarchive.org/essays/maille.html, 2001.

Coupland, Simon. Carolingian Arms and Armour in the Ninth Century. Printed in Viator: Medieval and Renaissance Studies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.

Craddock, Paul T. Early Metal Mining and Production. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995.

Gies, Frances & Joseph. Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel: technology and invention in the Middle Ages. New York: HarperPerennial, 1995.

Edge, David and John Miles Paddock. Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight: An Illustrated History of Weaponry in the Middle Ages. New York: Crescent Books, 1996.

Ffoulkes, Charles. The Armourer and his Craft: From the XIth to the XVIth Century. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1988.

Nicolle, David. Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era, 1050-1350: Western Europe and the Crusader States. London: Greenhill Books, 1999.

Thorpe, Lewis (translator). Two Lives of Charlemagne: By Einhard and Notker the Stammerer. New York: Penguin Books, 1969.

Tylecote, R. F. A History of Metallurgy: second edition. London: The Institute of Materials, 1992.

White, Lynn, Jr. Medieval Technology and Social Change. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.

Wilkinson, Frederick. Arms and Armour. London: Hamlyn Publishing Group Limited, 1978.