The Medieval Armorer:

While this site is focused primarily on maille armor and all things related to it, this article will take a little bit of a broader view of the medieval armorer in general. That is to say, rather than talking about the particular process of making maille armor or plate armor or other some such, this article will focus on the business of being an armorer in general. This article will not discuss the various theories on armor production methods, rather, it will discuss the nature of the business. For a discussion on the armorer s role in the chain of production of armor see !ron: From "re to Armor. For a discussion about the effect of guilds and labor on the armorer, see #uilds: A $istory. %nfortunately, there is very little known about armorers or the nature of their shops prior to the fourteenth century. After the fourteenth century, more is known largely due to the introduction of plate armor. With the introduction of plate, a number of things changed in the armorer s business. First, the armor they made could be easily stamped or marked as made by a specific craftsman. &econd, the industry itself was e'panding enormously. This was partly because of increased time re(uired to produce an entire kit of armor and partly because of the increased need for speciali)ation in production. With more people in the business, more records and first hand accounts survive. *ven so, there is little known about the day+to+day medieval armorer. ,o specific period documents e'ist that document the particulars of their business in the way that documents cover the business of the smith. - For the armorer of the everyday knight or foot soldier clad in maille, there is almost nothing known about the particulars of their everyday business. What is known is that cheaper armor and e(uipment was often made

by a local armor smith and often not in an industrial setting. This is especially true during the age of maille. We do know that the business was a thriving one. !n a fourteenth century chronicle written by the .ominican monk #lvano Fiamma, he described Milan as bustling with armorers and said that there were over a hundred maille makers shops in Milan alone. / 0ecause the business was a thriving and lucrative endeavor, there was a great degree of speciali)ation. They did not produce a piece from scratch. An armorer would not smith iron ore, nor would the shop handle making wire for maille. &mithies and mills made these raw materials and the armorer would buy these materials for use in the shop. 1 2ust as maille makers typically bought premade wire, it is also likely that they bought premade sheets or strips of iron for punching solid rings. The reason for this speciali)ation in material production is easy to understand. When the man+hours involved in mere assembly time alone take weeks to finish a piece, an armor shop simply would not have the time or tools to make every piece of material from iron ore. &peciali)ation went beyond merely buying premade wire or iron bars, however. "ften, people think of an armorer as one who made various types of armor in his shop. While this is sometimes the case, instead, it was more common for there to be speciali)ed armor shops making specific types of armor. For instance, the fourbor was a polisher, and refurbisher of armor. !ndeed, in 3ologne, the armorers guild split from the maille makers guild in -144. 5 This indicates throughout the Fourteenth century, as plate developed more fully, there were shops dedicated to only making plate, and shops that only made maille, until finally, the two types of armor shops split.

&ome armor communities were so highly speciali)ed that armor shops would literally only make one or two pieces of armor. !n ,uremberg, for e'ample, every master had to (ualify as a master to produce every item he sold. 6 For instance, a master would need to (ualify separately to produce a helmet, a gauntlet, and a greave before he would be authori)ed by the guild to sell that particular type of armor. !n 7ondon, by -158 there was a specific guild formed for helmet+makers. 9 This high degree of speciali)ation led to an overall increased output of armor in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. !n ,uremberg, the high number of very speciali)ed shops meant that large order for low (uality armor fit for foot soldiers could be completed (uickly. For e'ample, in -19/, an order from *mperor 3harles !: re(uired over -,;<< kits of armor. $igh speciali)ation allowed for mass production as shops collaborated with each other to finish the order. !ndividual shops handled the production of gauntlets, breastplates, helmets, greaves, and other pieces and then sent the completed kits off. &imilarly, 3ologne was known, not for its (uality armor, but that it could mass produce armor. &o proficient were the 3ologne armor makers that the city council allowed si' new polishing mills =ust to keep up with demand at the end of the fourteenth century. "n the other end of the (uality spectrum was Augsburg, which produced some of the highest (uality armor between the fourteenth and si'teenth centuries. !t was common for high end armorers to have a patron. That is to say, some rich magnate, king, or lord who helped to support the armorer in e'change for work and product. Much like in the art world where an artist will have a noble patron support their craft, the armorer often had a rich family do the same. A record from the mid+si'teenth century shows that Augsburg

alone had forty+five armorers with specific patrons. 8 ,obles from across *urope ordered the highest (uality of armor from Augsburg and found armorers who made product they particularly liked. !n order to ensure ready access to this armor, nobles were willing to grant favors and give financial aid to their favorite armorer. $owever, as with art, admirers of a particular armor style or maker will change over time. The death of 3harles :, one of Augsburg s most loyal patrons, left the armorers of the city without crucial support. !ndeed, by -9/5, the once hub of the high+ end armor business only had four active armorers left. ; &ometimes, instead of supporting an armorer abroad, a noble would hire famous armorers to work in their courts to produce the crem+de+le+cr>me of armor in+house. !nterestingly, these famous armorers were often brought in on a retainer and were to instruct local armorers in their craft so that when they left, their knowledge stayed in the hands of the king or magnate. 4 $owever, not all armorers were famous or hired by kings. Most armorers were engaged in small+scale practice. 0ecause armor was passed down from generation to generation or stripped after a battle, there was a great need for refitted or refurbished armor. Armorers were not simply in the business of creating new armor but were also called upon to repair old armor, to rework it for a son inheriting armor from his father, or to take armor for scrap purposes. -< Master armorer s, like many Medieval craftsmen, tended to pass their trade on to their children. !ndeed, there are numerous known armorer families who passed down the trade for three, four, or more generations. "ne such family was the Missaglia family in Milan. !n the mid+-1<<s a Missaglia went to Milan as an arms+maker. $is son, Tommaso,

entered the armor business instead but worked with his father, the two apparently selling both arms and armor. 0y -51<, Tommaso had had a son Antonio, he followed his father s footsteps to become one of the most famous Milanese armorers of his generation. Antonio made armor for crusading knights passing through Milan on the way to the $oly 7and and for the noble elite of *urope. -- The e'ample of this family can be reproduced hundreds if not thousands of times across *urope, such was the nature of the craft industry of Medieval *urope. $owever, even this was not the only outcome. "f course there were family lines that ended and master often passed their shop to a favorite =ourneyman instead of a child, for instance. $owever, there were also itinerant armorers. Those who could not gain access to a guild could not sell their wares e'cept on market days. These itinerant armorers either worked small =obs, repairing old armor and making pieces as they could, or they would hire themselves out to a master where they could. There is no doubt that the term ?armorer@ is a broad one with range in the (uality of the armor, the type of armor produced, and the scope of the production. 0ecause of this, it is hard to accurately identify how profitable the armor business really was. $owever, there are some clues that give at least an indication of the income of an armorer. !n order to calculate the income of an armorer, one must know A-B e'penses, including labor e'pense, material e'pense, professional e'penses such as guild membership, and e(uipment and facility e'pensesC and A/B The price of the armor that the armorer sold. As far as the e'penses related to the armor craft, one crucial e'pense was wages. Wages did fluctuate with time and varied depending on the region, but there are some records that will give a general idea of what workers received. Decords showing that

=ourneymen in Florence were paid - florin a week while the apprentices received half a florin per week serve well as a guide to the difference in wages based on e'perience and seniority. -/ Also interesting is that many contracts contained provisions for room and board as well as payment in kind. Eayment in kind often took the form of payment in the form of a bolt of fabric to be made into clothing. An !talian contract from -5<9 with a =ourneyman provides that armorer would pay / soldi and -9 imperiali per month and also provide room and board. -1 Along the topic of wages, there was another class of armorer whose income is much easier to calculate F those with salaried wages. These include armorer s working at royal armories and arsenals as well as =ourneymen and apprentices in some instances. The royal armorer s on retainer typically received a set salary for their work. Armorer s working in royal $enry :!!! s royal workshops at #reenwhich were paid as follows: the chief armorer received G-8 per year, =unior armorers received G-6, and the apprentices G4. -5 The time it took to produce armor is important to know because the wages paid to apprentices and =ourneymen factor into the cost of the production. !t is well known that armor took a long time to produce. $owever, it is hard to pinpoint e'actly how long each piece took. This is especially true because different (uality armor would take different lengths of time to make. As stated above, it was relatively easy to produce large (uantities of low (uality armor, but this was made possible by an entire town pulling their work and through high speciali)ation. Another factor that affected production times was that guilds often imposed manpower restrictions, limiting the number of workers allowed

to work in a shop. 0ecause of these restrictions, it was not uncommon for masters to ?loan@ a =ourneyman to meet deadlines in production. With all of this in mind, there are some accounts that relate the relative amount of time it would take to produce a suit. A Earisian armorer working for Ehilip the #ood took three and a half months to make two =ousting suits. -6 !n -118, one master (uoted seven months to forge an etched and guilded suit of complete armor. To make only a breastplate, a back, helmet, gorget, and one shoulder, the same master (uoted only two months. This indicates that the gilding, etching and decoration added to the armor added considerable time to the process of completing a suit F on the order of months. -9 !f a suit took months to produce at wages of - florin a week, G4 per year, or some other employee wage, it is easy to see how costs involved in wages alone would lead to high armor prices. &omething else important to remember is that a (uote for a completion time F which is what is typically given F does not necessarily e(ual actual production time. That is to say that an armorer might already be working on a piece that will take one more week to complete, that he has two more small =obs to finish that will take another three weeks, and that a (uote of two months might actually mean that particular =ob will take one month. %nfortunately, the nature of the records often does not make it clear whether the armorer is (uoting strict production time, or if he is (uoting a completion time. Another cost we know a little about was the price of raw materials. The Doyal Armory in #reenwich used eight bundles of steel per year. Dough estimates indicate that a bundle of steel weighed =ust over /<< pounds. This means that the armory was using about -9<< pounds of steel per year. The total cost for this per year was about G-6. That

is to say, only G/ less than the wage for a master armorer at the same workshop. !n order to forge thirty+two suits of armor at #reenwich, the workshop consumed -,1<< pounds of iron for a total of 5- pounds per suit. -8 &ome basic math will help us figure out the material cost in iron per suit using these figures. At eight bundles of iron per year costing a total of G-6, that e(uals G-.;86 per /<< pound bundle. That means that an armorer would be able to make 5.;8 suits out of that /<< pound bundle assuming 5- pounds per suit and no material waste. !f you divide G-.;86 by 5.;8, you get G<.1;6 per suit in iron cost alone. Moreover, the cost and consumption of charcoal was even higher at 5- loads a year with a cost of G/- per year. 7eather for strapping and padding was another G6 a year. -; &omething to remember is that this is one &i'teenth century e'ample from one armory. This was also an e'ample of a fairly large scale operation. !t is not clear, therefore, if the prices paid, even for that time, were what a smaller operation would have paid. Another thing to consider is the widely varying (uality of iron and that prices would differ accordingly. !n -69/, &panish iron cost G-/ per ton, for e'ample. The price paid for armor varied depending on the period, the type of armor, and the (uality of armor. $owever, we do know the values of some armor of varying (uality, and from this we can e'trapolate some general ideas of its cost. For e'ample, in -1/5 &ir 2ohn .e &wynnerton had a number of his goods stolen and made an inventory of the items with their value. $e indicated that a habergon with an aventail, pisan, and collaret was worth -< marks. -4 A,.0. "ne mark was worth about -1s.5d.B A record of arms and weapons purchased by Thomas de Mehebourne shows that fourteenth century foot soldier

e(uipment need not cost a fortune. Aketons cost 6 shillings each, 0acinets with aventails were 1 shillings each, while gauntlets cost - shilling a pair. Doyal armor in the age of maille was more e'pensive, but not terribly so. !n the early thirteenth century, a hauberk for Hing 2ohn cost G- while a habergon cost only mark at the same time. /< An aketon purchased for Hing *dward !! in -1-/ cost -< shillings, double the lower (uality aketons suited for a foot soldier. /- $ugh de 0ungay paid G/ for a war helm and paid an additional 6 shillings for a painted crestC he also purchased plate gauntlets for 9 shillings, and greaves with burnished fittings for /9 shillings. !n the same transaction, two bacinets cost -1 shillings for the pair.. // !f these prices do not seem astronomical, that is because they are not. *ven the most e'pensive armor in the age of maille seems to have been reasonably priced. This makes sense because to one degree or another, maille is maille. Ies, the si)e of the rings, the (uality of the rivets, and the (uality of construction will all play a very large factor in the final cost. $owever, there does not appear to have been a huge disparity in cost between elite maille and average or low (uality maille. The reason for this, ! think, boils down to time. *ven if an armorer made poor (uality maille, there is only so much time that can be shaved off by cutting corners. "n the other hand, there is a point of diminishing returns where even the finest armorer can only make maille so well. *ven if the armor is better, he will not take e'ponentially longer on that piece than a poorly constructed piece. This has to do with the nature of maille in particular and does not apply in the same way to plate armor which seemed to have had wider (uality ranges. As the nature of armor changed and plate armor rose in prominence, so too did the cost and the ability for an armorer to charge for (uality, for ?brand name@ armor, and for

e'tras like guilding. This change is most notable at the start of the fifteenth century, when maille armor truly fell from its dominance. !n -55-, &ir 2ohn 3recy purchased ready made Milanese armor for G;.9s.;d. /1 Although these price is considerably higher than even that paid by kings only a century earlier, remember that this armor was ready made. To further e'emplify the (uickly rising costs of armor, in -9-5, Erince $enry s suit of armor cost G15<. This difference in price is less because the -6< years separating the two and more because Erince $enry s armor was custom+made and of the highest (uality. As mentioned above, (uality was not the only factor involved in the cost of armor. *ach armorer had his own reputation and could command different prices based on that reputation. For e'ample. Antonio Missaglia was commissioned to make -<< harnesses for the .ucal mercenaries of Milan. $e (uoted /<,<<< lire, or /<< lire per suit. "n the other hand, the less well known, but still respected, Eier !nnocen)o was commissioned to make twelve suits for 1/ lire each. Missaglia, therefore, charged seven times mores than !nnocen)o /5 Further cementing the idea that name recognition could command higher prices, #iacomo da 3antono could command 6< lire for a complete suit in -5;1. /6 The price paid for armor varied widely depending on the (uality of the armor. $owever, high (uality plate armor was typically guilded. As mentioned above, this process often took months. !t also added astronomically to the final price. !n -668, an armorer informed the Archduke of Tyrol that a suit of armor would cost 5<< florins. "f this cost, -<< ducats went into the gilding ++ and the etching itself cost the princely sum of -<< florinsJ /9 Decords indicate that the cost of gilding accounted for one+third to one+ half of the total cost of the armor.

-<

!ndeed, it might be fair to say that the true difference between (uality armor and elite armor worn by kings and the ultra rich was only the degree to which elite armor was decorated. !n other words, it may not be that (uality armor offered substantially different protection, but rather the e'tra e'pense was merely for the status. This is not much different than current fashion, where (uality and name brand do not always have to overlap. !t is probable that (uality armor F albeit plain and unguilded F could be had for reasonable prices. The problem with this is of course that certain nobles needed to portray a certain status regardless of the price of the armor. 0ecause of this, many nobles, both great and minor, accumulated burdensome debts through their armor purchases. For this reason, financing was not uncommon at all among the elite armorers of *urope. ,obles who ordered lu'ury armor often took a very long time to pay back their astronomical armor debts. !t was not uncommon for them to not be able to pay the debts back at all. Tommaso Missaglia, mentioned above, used these debts to his advantage. !n -56<, Tommaso was e'empted from certain ta'es by the .uke of Milan. The .uke owed the Missaglia family around 1,6<< ducats. 0y -561, that debt had risen to /6,<<< lire. /8 A,.0. The lire was valued at slight higher than one ducat.B To help pay off this debt, the .uke gave a portion of Eavia s ta'es to Missaglia. The Missaglia family used these huge debts to their advantage and received the right to erect additional mills, the right to lease and eventually purchase an iron mine. Tommaso had previously been knighted and Antonio purchased a large fief worth -6,<<< lire to became part of the landed class. /; Although this e'ample is e'treme, it is not the only such e'ample of an armorer achieving great social mobility through e'pertise in his craft.

--

While elite armor was often astronomically e'pensive, even the elite had reason to buy unguilded, but (uality armor. For e'ample, in -9/8, *mporer Ferdinand !! paid -6< florins for a suit of armor./4 This purchase can actually be seen as a great e'ample of the idea that the price paid for armor was not always directly associated with protection. *ven with -6< florins as an upper limit on high+(uality but no+frills armor, there is considerable range in cost. 3heap, munitions (uality armor for an infantryman tended to cost around sevin florins. 1< This was =ust about as cheap as armor could get and the level of protection would be commensurate with the price. A full suit of armor suited for a horseman could cost as little as 16 florins and go as high as -6< florins.1Another factor to consider in armor making is that are very few references to mass import or e'port of armor. %sually armor making centers were set up relatively close to at least one of the following: the iron mines, water sources such as rivers in order to power mills, and close to the region of final production. The reasons for this are apparent, first the weight of armor made it difficult to transport large (uantities unless the wearer was himself moving the armor. &econd, the means of production re(uired water power and pro'imity to raw materials to be both cost and time effective. These factors contributed to the average soldier or low ranking knight buying armor made by a local armor smith rather than from a national or international armor production center. 1/ $owever, not all armor stayed local and there were a class of merchants who would travel and trade weapons and armor, buying from the production centers and traveling to more distant cities.11 These merchants also took and transmitted orders for custom orders and transmitted payments between the parties. Also interesting, the

-/

merchants were known to finance orders for buyers, paying the armorer upfront and allowing the buyer F often noble F to pay the merchant back over time. 15

!n closing, one thing we have to remember that trying to give a broad brushstroke idea of an industry that spans centuries and an entire continent is e'tremely difficult. Erices, costs, (uality, geography and many other factors all play a role in the nature of the business. %nfortunately, it is often difficult to isolate which factors are at play and when. This means that even a general idea such as presented here is =ust necessarily a rough guide to understanding the general nature of the business rather than a survey e'ploring the business with particularity. ,evertheless, this rough overview is helpful because through understanding the armor business we can understand armor itself in a better way. %nderstanding that prices varied based on the (uality of armor shows that there were armorers serving all the needs of the culture. We also know that the industry itself was an important and vibrant one. We also know that as the age of maille waned, the armor industry saw rapid e'pansion, speciali)ation, and e'treme changes in the price of goods due to increased time and also because factors like name recognition and guilding.

-1

Matthias Efaffenbichler, Medieval Craftsmen: Armourers AToronto: %niversity of Toronto Eress, -44/B, !bid. at 4. 1 Adam Dobert 7ucas, ?!ndustrial Milling in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds: A &urvey of the *vidence for an !ndustrial Devolution in Medieval *urope,@ Technology and Culture, :ol. 59, ,o. - A/<<6B, -9. 5 Efaffenbichler, Armourers at -<. 6 !bid. 9 7ucas, ?The Armor 0usiness,@ at 9<. 8 Efaffenbichler, Armourers at --. ; !bid. 4 7arson, ?The Armor 0usiness in the Middle Ages,@ 6;. -< !bid. -!bid. at 9-. -/ Efaffenbichler, Armourers at 6-. -1 !bid. -5 !bid. at 6-. -6 !bid. at 61. -9 !bid. -8 !bid. -; !bid. -4 Michael Erestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience, AIale %niversity Eress: ,ew $aven, -449B, /9. /< !bid. at /;. /!bid at /4. // !bid. /1 Efaffenbichler, Armourers at 5;. /5 !bid. at 5;+54. /6 !bid. at 54. /9 !bid. at 6<. /8 !bid. at 66 /; !bid. /4 !bid. 1< !bid. 1!bid. 1/ 7arson, the Armour 0usiness,@ at 6;. 11 !bid. 15 !bid. at 91.