Armor Between 1000-1250
This article, as the title would suggest, will examine maille between 1000-1250. Why this specific period? Well, for a few reasons, primarily because this period is known as the “Age of Maille.” It is the height of the use of maille. Prior to this period only the ultra rich could afford maille armor and it was not nearly as prevalent after 1250 because maille started to be supplanted by plate armor. Another reason is that this period of armor use is characterized by surprising stability with only minor variations of the same basic armor. This makes it not only relatively easy to give a description of maille for a 250-year period, but proper to give broad brushstroke descriptions of the equipment worn.
Before delving into the nature of maille armor and a typical knight’s kit, it is important to understand why armor in this period was so stable. First, warfare throughout the medieval period was proprietorial. That is to say, warfare was waged for the protection or conquest of land. Now, that may seem obvious, but the nature of proprietorial warfare went deeper than this. Warfare was waged for control of useful land precisely because land was the primary form of wealth. [1] Wealth was derived from the land through the ability of landlords to rent land to peasant farmers. Their payment was often in kind through agreeing to work the lord’s fields and to pay a portion of their crop to the lord. This had the effect of creating a very illiquid economy. Even more, reliance on peasant tribute and work meant that a poor year limited the ability of a lord to liquidate any crop or supply generated from the land. In essence, the land was the lord’s “business” and the workers were the peasants who farmed the land. The lord’s "profit” was the surplus crop.
Second, war was expensive. It drains resources because the commander must feed the army, pay the army, and provide various other logistical elements of war. The illiquid state of the economy necessitated making war as short an endeavor as possible. Standing armies were rare if not non-existent. Even when a lord utilized mercenary soldiers, he did so only so long as was required – and no longer. [2] It was simply too expensive to pay mercenary soldiers if there was not a pressing need.
The proprietorial nature of war combined with the expense of war meant that wars were fought in short windows and often, if possible, decisive battles were avoided. Again, to use the business analogy, waging war to gain more property is like investing all of a business’s money into the stock market. If you are right in your gamble, it can pay off enormously. However, a miscalculation can leave even the original investment in ruins. Lords avoided outright conflict at all costs unless the battle was a “sure thing.” [3]
This, in a very general sense, was the nature of warfare in the medieval period. It was costly, funded by the land the lord derived most of his income from, and often indecisive in its resolution to avoid huge losses. Instead, lords often chose to raid an enemy territory, or, if attacked, to shadow an invading force and prevent resupply and win wars through attrition rather than outright battle. [4]
Because of these factors, military technology developed very slowly. Military infrastructure was not well developed. Lord’s were not truly professional soldiers. Instead, lords were property owners whose possession of the property required warfare. Throughout this period, the most effective means of protecting the land was through the establishment of fortifications. [5] Building a fortified presence helped to protect the land surrounding the fortification. Because of the cost of maintaining an army and the extreme cost in material and manpower to build and operate effective siege equipment, those under siege could often simply wait out the besieging force at little risk or cost beyond pillaged fields. [6] These factors led to the slow development of military technology. Although armor developed, improved, and expanded, it would not change in any significant way between 1000 and 1250.
Survey of Armor: 1000-1250
First, let us note the nature of armor, at the beginning of this period, and then discuss how it changed or remained the same.
To start, the most well known example of Eleventh Century maille is the Bayeux Tapestry. The Tapestry famously depicts both the Norman and the Saxon forces in maille hauberks. These shirts of maille were long, extending to the knee. They were split at the groin to allow ease of movement and riding. The slit was commonly left open, but occasionally it would be tied around the legs like a pair of chaps. [7] Almost universally, the coif was attached to the hauberk. There do not appear to be any aventailles or maille face coverings in the Tapestry. The Bayeux tapestry only shows limited use of chausses, maille leg protection, and those shown do not cover the feet. Moreover, it does not appear that any maille hand coverings were used. The helmet was a conical, spangen-style helm with a nasal guard. Nothing was worn over the maille, but presumably, some sort of padded garment was worn underneath such as a gambeson. The weight of all of this armor was between 40-60 pounds.
Before delving into the nature of maille armor and a typical knight’s kit, it is important to understand why armor in this period was so stable. First, warfare throughout the medieval period was proprietorial. That is to say, warfare was waged for the protection or conquest of land. Now, that may seem obvious, but the nature of proprietorial warfare went deeper than this. Warfare was waged for control of useful land precisely because land was the primary form of wealth. [1] Wealth was derived from the land through the ability of landlords to rent land to peasant farmers. Their payment was often in kind through agreeing to work the lord’s fields and to pay a portion of their crop to the lord. This had the effect of creating a very illiquid economy. Even more, reliance on peasant tribute and work meant that a poor year limited the ability of a lord to liquidate any crop or supply generated from the land. In essence, the land was the lord’s “business” and the workers were the peasants who farmed the land. The lord’s "profit” was the surplus crop.
Second, war was expensive. It drains resources because the commander must feed the army, pay the army, and provide various other logistical elements of war. The illiquid state of the economy necessitated making war as short an endeavor as possible. Standing armies were rare if not non-existent. Even when a lord utilized mercenary soldiers, he did so only so long as was required – and no longer. [2] It was simply too expensive to pay mercenary soldiers if there was not a pressing need.
The proprietorial nature of war combined with the expense of war meant that wars were fought in short windows and often, if possible, decisive battles were avoided. Again, to use the business analogy, waging war to gain more property is like investing all of a business’s money into the stock market. If you are right in your gamble, it can pay off enormously. However, a miscalculation can leave even the original investment in ruins. Lords avoided outright conflict at all costs unless the battle was a “sure thing.” [3]
This, in a very general sense, was the nature of warfare in the medieval period. It was costly, funded by the land the lord derived most of his income from, and often indecisive in its resolution to avoid huge losses. Instead, lords often chose to raid an enemy territory, or, if attacked, to shadow an invading force and prevent resupply and win wars through attrition rather than outright battle. [4]
Because of these factors, military technology developed very slowly. Military infrastructure was not well developed. Lord’s were not truly professional soldiers. Instead, lords were property owners whose possession of the property required warfare. Throughout this period, the most effective means of protecting the land was through the establishment of fortifications. [5] Building a fortified presence helped to protect the land surrounding the fortification. Because of the cost of maintaining an army and the extreme cost in material and manpower to build and operate effective siege equipment, those under siege could often simply wait out the besieging force at little risk or cost beyond pillaged fields. [6] These factors led to the slow development of military technology. Although armor developed, improved, and expanded, it would not change in any significant way between 1000 and 1250.
Survey of Armor: 1000-1250
First, let us note the nature of armor, at the beginning of this period, and then discuss how it changed or remained the same.
To start, the most well known example of Eleventh Century maille is the Bayeux Tapestry. The Tapestry famously depicts both the Norman and the Saxon forces in maille hauberks. These shirts of maille were long, extending to the knee. They were split at the groin to allow ease of movement and riding. The slit was commonly left open, but occasionally it would be tied around the legs like a pair of chaps. [7] Almost universally, the coif was attached to the hauberk. There do not appear to be any aventailles or maille face coverings in the Tapestry. The Bayeux tapestry only shows limited use of chausses, maille leg protection, and those shown do not cover the feet. Moreover, it does not appear that any maille hand coverings were used. The helmet was a conical, spangen-style helm with a nasal guard. Nothing was worn over the maille, but presumably, some sort of padded garment was worn underneath such as a gambeson. The weight of all of this armor was between 40-60 pounds.
Helms:
The helmet is the one piece of armor that changed most drastically over this period; however, its changes are not a simple progression in the sense that one type went out of style and everyone started wearing the new form. Rather, new forms appeared, and some had staying power while others did not. However, the conical helm, usually quite fitted and skullcap in form, was popular throughout this period.
By the early Twelfth Century, the conical helm lost its nasal guard and occasionally had a facemask fitted over the front of the helm. The mask often left the side and back of the head protected by only the coif. [8] However, this development should not be read as universal; instead, it was a new form of protection that was slowly adopted over this period. Throughout this entire period, the conical helm remained highly popular but changed slightly in form and appearance over time. Called a cervelliere or bascinet, this helm had many variations. Typically, after 1100, regardless of name, this skullcap did not include the nasal guard and instead contained a built in camaille or ventaille.
The helmet is the one piece of armor that changed most drastically over this period; however, its changes are not a simple progression in the sense that one type went out of style and everyone started wearing the new form. Rather, new forms appeared, and some had staying power while others did not. However, the conical helm, usually quite fitted and skullcap in form, was popular throughout this period.
By the early Twelfth Century, the conical helm lost its nasal guard and occasionally had a facemask fitted over the front of the helm. The mask often left the side and back of the head protected by only the coif. [8] However, this development should not be read as universal; instead, it was a new form of protection that was slowly adopted over this period. Throughout this entire period, the conical helm remained highly popular but changed slightly in form and appearance over time. Called a cervelliere or bascinet, this helm had many variations. Typically, after 1100, regardless of name, this skullcap did not include the nasal guard and instead contained a built in camaille or ventaille.
By 1200, flat top helms, also known as pot helms, and often incorrectly called the great helm, came into vogue. [9] These helms developed from the conical helm's addition of the face mask. The helm continued to evolve until it covered the entire head. Usually these helms were flat-topped. It is the quintessential medieval knightly helm and is an offshoot of the conical style helm. It would later develop a rounded top and other features to improve its effectiveness. Pot helms had an unbelievable variety. Although we typically see two or three standard versions, many other styles existed. The most obvious area for variation was in the styling of the visor and air holes. Painting the helms was also common. Artwork in the Morgan Picture Bible shows that the helm did not necessarily coordinate or match the colors of the surcoat.
Below are images are various types of pot helms from the Thirteenth Century.
Below are images are various types of pot helms from the Thirteenth Century.
By the end of the Thirteenth Century, the true great helm became popular. The wearer first donned an arming cap, then a maille coif, then a bascinet or other similar plate skullcap, often with a ventaille. Only after all of this armor was in place did he put the great helm on. [10] Unless the wearer was engaged in battle, the great helm was carried by a chain at the saddle or often thrown over the shoulder. This was true as well of the pot helm. Both typically had a cross punched out near the chin of the helm by which the chain was attached, the purpose both talismanic and practical. The true great helm appears in the late Thirteenth century and seems to go out of style relatively quickly, disappearing from artwork by the early Fourteenth Century. [11] The likely reason for this was the difficulty in affixing the helm, especially during the press of battle where a blow to the head would turn or jostle the helm. With the already tiny slit minimizing visibility, any jostling or displacement of the helm would turn it into a blindfold. The great helm did, however, survive in various forms as a jousting helm, where loss of visibility was not so high a price for extra protection.
The Hauberk:
The maille shirt varied little in this period. In 1066, its length was commonly mid-thigh with full-length sleeves. Between 1100 and 1130, the hauberk increased in length, coming just below the knee. [12] By 1250, the hauberk returned to knee length. In 1066, the sleeves of hauberks tended to be wide all the way to the wrist. By 1150, the sleeves were tightened at the forearm. [13] A likely reason for this is that about this same time, it became common to include maille mittens in the sleeves of maille shirts. [14] Mittens, or mufflers as they were called, remained in vogue until the early Fourteenth Century. [15] It does not appear that fingered maille gloves were in use during this period. They do begin to appear on artwork after about 1250, but even then, they are not the norm. [16]
The coif seems to have almost invariably been attached to the hauberk during this period. The first common examples of the detached coif do not occur until the 1270s. [17] The ventaille, or face covering seems to be common from the beginning of the Eleventh Century until the end of the period. [18] Artist routinely depicted the ventaille in any number of configurations. At right are pictured some of the more common types.
The maille shirt varied little in this period. In 1066, its length was commonly mid-thigh with full-length sleeves. Between 1100 and 1130, the hauberk increased in length, coming just below the knee. [12] By 1250, the hauberk returned to knee length. In 1066, the sleeves of hauberks tended to be wide all the way to the wrist. By 1150, the sleeves were tightened at the forearm. [13] A likely reason for this is that about this same time, it became common to include maille mittens in the sleeves of maille shirts. [14] Mittens, or mufflers as they were called, remained in vogue until the early Fourteenth Century. [15] It does not appear that fingered maille gloves were in use during this period. They do begin to appear on artwork after about 1250, but even then, they are not the norm. [16]
The coif seems to have almost invariably been attached to the hauberk during this period. The first common examples of the detached coif do not occur until the 1270s. [17] The ventaille, or face covering seems to be common from the beginning of the Eleventh Century until the end of the period. [18] Artist routinely depicted the ventaille in any number of configurations. At right are pictured some of the more common types.
Leg Armor:
Regarding leg armor, chausses were in use at least as far back as Hastings. However, they were not common. By 1150, chausses were in common use and are seen in general use by the close of the Twelfth Century. [19] Chausses tended to be held up by a strap, which connected to a girdle worn beneath the hauberk. There were two primary varieties in chausses. The first is a strip of maille laced up behind the leg and secured to the foot by a strap under the sole of the shoe. [20] These types of chausses were shaped to match the form of the leg and had a foot covering only. This variety was popular until the close of the Thirteenth Century. However, the second primary style, popular from the late Twelfth Century onwards is the classic, closed leg armor with fully formed feet. [21]
Regarding leg armor, chausses were in use at least as far back as Hastings. However, they were not common. By 1150, chausses were in common use and are seen in general use by the close of the Twelfth Century. [19] Chausses tended to be held up by a strap, which connected to a girdle worn beneath the hauberk. There were two primary varieties in chausses. The first is a strip of maille laced up behind the leg and secured to the foot by a strap under the sole of the shoe. [20] These types of chausses were shaped to match the form of the leg and had a foot covering only. This variety was popular until the close of the Thirteenth Century. However, the second primary style, popular from the late Twelfth Century onwards is the classic, closed leg armor with fully formed feet. [21]
Cuir Bouilli:
Cuir Bouilli is cured, boiled leather. It was worn over knees, shins, elbows, shoulders, the neck, and other vulnerable areas. The development of cuir bouilli can be seen as a precursor to plate armor, especially as it protected the same areas that plate first sought to protect. The extent of its use is hard to gauge because little of the leather has survived and it is often not depicted in artwork.
Coat of Plates:
By the end of this period, the coat of plates was becoming a popular addition to the knightly armament. The coat of plates was typically made of leather and constructed much like a lead jacket worn at the dentist for radiation protection. That is to say, a vest with the primary protection afforded in the front for the chest and stomach area. The vest would then have straps wrapping around the lower back and kidneys. The coat of plates ranged from very simple to very complex. At it's simplest, 10-15 individual plates of metal were riveted into the leather vest to provide additional protection without significantly hampering mobility. Think of it as a precursor to a full breastplate. At its most intricate, hundreds of tiny plates were riveted into place to provide an almost scalely look to the coat. The coat of plates is not typically depicted in period artwork because it was worn underneath a surcoat and thus is not visible. It also quickly gave way to better protection in the form of a breastplate for the elite knightly combatants but did see continued use for men-at-arms and lesser equipped soldiers.
Surcoat:
The surcoat came into use in the early Twelfth Century. The reason for this is uncertain. Some have postulated that it was to protect the maille from the elements, especially the rain. However, the construction of surcoats hardly effectuates such protection. Others suggest they were adopted after the First Crusade because of the heat. This is possible, however, for those who have worn maille in the summer and in the winter can attest, the metal acts as a heat sink. In other words, when worn in the hot sun, the metal itself will heat up, thus keeping the heat off the wearer’s body. In the winter, the maille will get unbearably cold and, in turn, draw heat away from the wearer. That is not to say that Crusaders did not simply adopt the surcoat from the Middle Eastern population because it was fashionable, more comfortable, or for other reasons. However, this author personally doubts that it was solely for heat protection as the surcoat does not cover the entire body.
A final theory is that the surcoat was adopted to carry medieval heraldic blazons for identification purposes. This theory is bolstered by the fact that at this same time, the first use of heraldry comes into its own and surcoats are used to carry the blazons almost as soon as they are in use. Another fact that supports this theory is that helms and aventailles were increasingly obscuring the wearer’s face and some form of identification was needed. However, many mid-12th century depictions of knights universally wearing surcoats lack any type of heraldic markings on the surcoat. However, this lack may be more due to artistic economy or the constraints of the medium rather than actual practice. Whatever the reason, surcoats appear in the Twelfth Century and become common – nearly universal – by the Thirteenth. [22]
They typically consisted of a knee or full-length coat with opened sides. Sleeves are either non-existent or are short sleeved. It is rare to see a full-sleeved surcoat. They would have been made of linen or silk fabric. Most depictions in at work shows that the surcoat had a different fabric coloring on the inside lining than on the outside of the coat. Coats were also often parti-colored vertically with one color on the left side and a different on the right.
Final Considerations:
The primary thing to remember about armor in this period is that the above are only broad brushstrokes of what was common, how it developed, and when. Most of what we know about armor from this period is derived from artwork and literature.
In the 19th century, historians slavishly relied on the art of the Bayeux tapestry and concluded that things like banded maille and other such armor were used. These theories have now been completely discredited. Today, historians believe that what was seen as banded maille was simply artistic license in depicting standard maille. In the same way that those historians were led astray by following too closely to the artwork, we today must be wary of thinking that just because it was not in an illustration until 1250, that there was not use of such armor prior to that time. Specifically to the issue of reenactment, what is commonly depicted my not be the true norm, but may instead be an artistic shorthand, similar to the Bayeux Tapestry. Thus, although the art does depict a clear progression of style and mode of armor, it would be dangerous to conclude that the artistic depictions are the final word.
A maille shirt from the late Fourteenth Century, although past our period discussed here, serves as a great example of this truth. Although in the front, the shirt appears normal, the shirt contains a crotch flap in the back that wraps under the crotch and connects to the front, like a baby’s onesie. [23] This type of maille would not be depicted in artwork because the thing that made it unique would not easily be depicted in most mediums. Even though this shirt dates after our period, also bear in mind that almost no maille examples remain from the period under discussion. Therefore, especially to the reenactor, do not feel as though your suit is “wrong” if it employs a unique feature with some basis in reality. Innovation is not new and if you come up with a unique idea for maille that seems to improve some feature of the armor, do not think that you are “wrong” for running with that idea. It may work, and it may not, but you might just be the first to try it in 800 years.
Notes:
[1] John France, Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades: 1000-1300, (New York: Cornell University Press, 1999), 2.
[2] Ibid. at 3.
[3] Ibid. at 8.
[4] Ibid. at 10.
[5] Ibid. at 3.
[6] Ibid. at 12.
[7] France, Western Warfare, 17.
[8] Ibid. at 16-17.
[9] Michael Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 20.
[10] Dean Bashford, “An Explanatory Label for Helmets,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, Vol. 10, No. 8, (1915), 173-177, 174.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Francis Kelly and Randolph Schwabe, A Short History of Costume & Armour, Vol. I 1066-1485, (Benjamin Blom, Inc.) 50.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Prestwich, Armies and Warfare, at 21.
[15] Kelly deVries and Robert Smith, Medieval Weapons: An Illustrated History of Their Impact (Santa Barbara: ABC CLIO), 127.
[16] Claude Blair, European Armour circa 1066 to circa 1700, (New York: MacMillan Co.), 27
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Prestwich, Armies and Warfare, at 21; Kelly and Schwabe, A Short History of Costume & Armour, 50.
[20] Kelly and Schwabe, A Short History of Costume & Armour, 50.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid. at 54.
[23] William Reid, and E. Martin Burgess, “A Habergeon of Westwale,” The Antiquaries Journal vol. XL (1960): 46-57, 54.
Cuir Bouilli is cured, boiled leather. It was worn over knees, shins, elbows, shoulders, the neck, and other vulnerable areas. The development of cuir bouilli can be seen as a precursor to plate armor, especially as it protected the same areas that plate first sought to protect. The extent of its use is hard to gauge because little of the leather has survived and it is often not depicted in artwork.
Coat of Plates:
By the end of this period, the coat of plates was becoming a popular addition to the knightly armament. The coat of plates was typically made of leather and constructed much like a lead jacket worn at the dentist for radiation protection. That is to say, a vest with the primary protection afforded in the front for the chest and stomach area. The vest would then have straps wrapping around the lower back and kidneys. The coat of plates ranged from very simple to very complex. At it's simplest, 10-15 individual plates of metal were riveted into the leather vest to provide additional protection without significantly hampering mobility. Think of it as a precursor to a full breastplate. At its most intricate, hundreds of tiny plates were riveted into place to provide an almost scalely look to the coat. The coat of plates is not typically depicted in period artwork because it was worn underneath a surcoat and thus is not visible. It also quickly gave way to better protection in the form of a breastplate for the elite knightly combatants but did see continued use for men-at-arms and lesser equipped soldiers.
Surcoat:
The surcoat came into use in the early Twelfth Century. The reason for this is uncertain. Some have postulated that it was to protect the maille from the elements, especially the rain. However, the construction of surcoats hardly effectuates such protection. Others suggest they were adopted after the First Crusade because of the heat. This is possible, however, for those who have worn maille in the summer and in the winter can attest, the metal acts as a heat sink. In other words, when worn in the hot sun, the metal itself will heat up, thus keeping the heat off the wearer’s body. In the winter, the maille will get unbearably cold and, in turn, draw heat away from the wearer. That is not to say that Crusaders did not simply adopt the surcoat from the Middle Eastern population because it was fashionable, more comfortable, or for other reasons. However, this author personally doubts that it was solely for heat protection as the surcoat does not cover the entire body.
A final theory is that the surcoat was adopted to carry medieval heraldic blazons for identification purposes. This theory is bolstered by the fact that at this same time, the first use of heraldry comes into its own and surcoats are used to carry the blazons almost as soon as they are in use. Another fact that supports this theory is that helms and aventailles were increasingly obscuring the wearer’s face and some form of identification was needed. However, many mid-12th century depictions of knights universally wearing surcoats lack any type of heraldic markings on the surcoat. However, this lack may be more due to artistic economy or the constraints of the medium rather than actual practice. Whatever the reason, surcoats appear in the Twelfth Century and become common – nearly universal – by the Thirteenth. [22]
They typically consisted of a knee or full-length coat with opened sides. Sleeves are either non-existent or are short sleeved. It is rare to see a full-sleeved surcoat. They would have been made of linen or silk fabric. Most depictions in at work shows that the surcoat had a different fabric coloring on the inside lining than on the outside of the coat. Coats were also often parti-colored vertically with one color on the left side and a different on the right.
Final Considerations:
The primary thing to remember about armor in this period is that the above are only broad brushstrokes of what was common, how it developed, and when. Most of what we know about armor from this period is derived from artwork and literature.
In the 19th century, historians slavishly relied on the art of the Bayeux tapestry and concluded that things like banded maille and other such armor were used. These theories have now been completely discredited. Today, historians believe that what was seen as banded maille was simply artistic license in depicting standard maille. In the same way that those historians were led astray by following too closely to the artwork, we today must be wary of thinking that just because it was not in an illustration until 1250, that there was not use of such armor prior to that time. Specifically to the issue of reenactment, what is commonly depicted my not be the true norm, but may instead be an artistic shorthand, similar to the Bayeux Tapestry. Thus, although the art does depict a clear progression of style and mode of armor, it would be dangerous to conclude that the artistic depictions are the final word.
A maille shirt from the late Fourteenth Century, although past our period discussed here, serves as a great example of this truth. Although in the front, the shirt appears normal, the shirt contains a crotch flap in the back that wraps under the crotch and connects to the front, like a baby’s onesie. [23] This type of maille would not be depicted in artwork because the thing that made it unique would not easily be depicted in most mediums. Even though this shirt dates after our period, also bear in mind that almost no maille examples remain from the period under discussion. Therefore, especially to the reenactor, do not feel as though your suit is “wrong” if it employs a unique feature with some basis in reality. Innovation is not new and if you come up with a unique idea for maille that seems to improve some feature of the armor, do not think that you are “wrong” for running with that idea. It may work, and it may not, but you might just be the first to try it in 800 years.
Notes:
[1] John France, Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades: 1000-1300, (New York: Cornell University Press, 1999), 2.
[2] Ibid. at 3.
[3] Ibid. at 8.
[4] Ibid. at 10.
[5] Ibid. at 3.
[6] Ibid. at 12.
[7] France, Western Warfare, 17.
[8] Ibid. at 16-17.
[9] Michael Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 20.
[10] Dean Bashford, “An Explanatory Label for Helmets,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, Vol. 10, No. 8, (1915), 173-177, 174.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Francis Kelly and Randolph Schwabe, A Short History of Costume & Armour, Vol. I 1066-1485, (Benjamin Blom, Inc.) 50.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Prestwich, Armies and Warfare, at 21.
[15] Kelly deVries and Robert Smith, Medieval Weapons: An Illustrated History of Their Impact (Santa Barbara: ABC CLIO), 127.
[16] Claude Blair, European Armour circa 1066 to circa 1700, (New York: MacMillan Co.), 27
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Prestwich, Armies and Warfare, at 21; Kelly and Schwabe, A Short History of Costume & Armour, 50.
[20] Kelly and Schwabe, A Short History of Costume & Armour, 50.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid. at 54.
[23] William Reid, and E. Martin Burgess, “A Habergeon of Westwale,” The Antiquaries Journal vol. XL (1960): 46-57, 54.