 |
They also said that the strangers brought arms which could shoot fire, wild animals on leashes; that they were dressed and shod in iron, and had powerful crossbows, and lions and ounces [greyhounds, mastiffs] so ferocious that they ate people...
While researching the subject of Spanish Pike
Drill, I was given this information on the Spanish cavalry lance. Although
the source comes from well outside our usual 16th century era, it contains
a number of Spanish terms related to the lance and its use. With the development
of the jinte style of riding the Spanish seem to have been at the forefront
of the transition from heavy armored knight to the light cavalry used in
the gunpowder age.
Subject: Re: SPANBORD Digest - 3 Dec 1997 to 4 Dec 1997 (Jennifer & Tim Burke)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 21:46:48 -0800
From: "hardwic2@ix.netcom.com" <hardwic2@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Reply-To: Spanish Borderlands <SPANBORD@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>
To: SPANBORD@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 08:54:13 -0500
From: Jennifer & Tim Burke <caldron@GTE.NET>
Subject: Pike Drill Reference
Enclosed please find a translation from: Dictionario
Ilustrado de Artilleria, por Coronel de Artilleria D. Luis de Agar,
Madrd, 1866.
LANZA DE CABALLERIA
(CAVALRY LANCE)
Poled edge weapon; composed of an iron lance head (moharra) which is the main part of the weapon and located at the extreme end of a shaft (asta) made of Majagua (Hibiscus tiliaceus wood), Ash (Fresno), Beech tree (Haya) or other light straight-fiber strong wood; at the opposite end it is re-enforced with an iron cap (regaton) which shall balance against the lance head, and at the center of gravity, towards the center of the shaft, the lance sling-strap (correa porta-lanza) shall be wrapped, aiding in the hand action when gripping as friction increases, and comfortably rests the lancer when he hangs it on his arm after placing the end cap (regaton) on the lance carrier (porta-regaton) next to the right stirrup, immediately on the lance head is located the pennant (or streamer) (banderola), whose oscillating movements during charges attempts to cause unrest upon the enemy horses and promoting their disorder. The shape of the lance head (moharra), just as in the hand weapons (armas de puños), is what constitutes the different classes of lances, which has varied greatly according to the times and customs; the invention of this weapon is attributed to the ancient Spaniards, whose nobility used it exclusively, with hand (held) lance heads (moharras), of olive leaf (shaped) (hoja de olivo), of diamond (shaped) tip (punta de diamante) or with other denominations referent to its different configurations; the shafts have also received variations before arriving at their present simplicity, having more or less thicknesses and lengths, flutings to lighten them a bit without weakening as much as if made thinner, or with more notable alterations yet and coinciding with the necessities of the era in which the warriors dressed in full armor, demanded the lances with sufficient power to allow to pass through with their thrusts, in the courts(?) (corteses) or in tournaments, the lance head (moharra) or point(?) (roquete) instead of (having) points and angled edges, would regularly terminate in various smaller projections and rounds (?) (romas), broad or spread so that without damage to the opponent they could easily assert against some part of his armor, with the purpose of dismounting him.
The changes in dress and the almost complete omission of defensive weapons has produced less variations in the lance and of less importance; since its been in use in cavalry lancer regiments, it is most significant to mention the adoption of a cross bar (cruceta) across the head of the lance head (moharra) called the reins-cutter (corta-riendas), discontinued because of the inconveniences it presented in the handling of the weapon and because of not fulfilling in any way the objective of its intentions, which has been separated (detached) from the existing lance heads (moharras) of this class (type), which is why its not represented, nor the small value of the rest of the changes require it, which is only verified (confirmed) by the one in use on the approved day in 1842 as indicated with an M, and the one that is with an A, as example of the variations received in this weapon (arma), which is the ones used anciently and named by the shape of its iron laurel leaf (hoja de laurel).
-Lancè pour la cavalerie.
Hope this helps:
Mike Hardwick
Santa Barbara, CA.
In the past several months I’ve been asked a number of times about helmets appropriate for the sixteenth century re-enactor. The following head gear is typical for the conquistador; the mail coif, the sallet, the cabasset, the burgonet, and finally the morion.
Incidentally, most armor terms, as used in modern English, are French in origin. No doubt a residual effect of the actions of one William the Conqueror in 1066. When in doubt as to how to pronounce the name of one of these objects, say it with a bad French accent, you’re not likely to be too far off. For example burgonet is burr-sha-nay not burg-on-net.
I was surprised when I first came across an example
of a mail head piece being used by a conquistador. I always thought of
coifs as being positively medieval and not likely used in the New World.
I have no illustrations of their use, however there are a number of references
to them in the literature of their use, even into the seventeenth century.
For example, from Diaz’s account of the Cortés expedition of 1521,
“-would take off our mailed caps or helmets...”1
The equipment list of the Coronado expedition c.1540, lists nineteen sets
of “armor for the head” as differentiated from helmets. This quite likely
refers to mail coifs as four sets of native quilted armor for the head
is also listed. The muster list of the Oñate campaign of 1600 refers
to one “helmet of mail”.
|
A type of helmet used during the 15th centuryand into the 16th. The basic form consisted of a rounded skull, curving in and out again at the nape of the neck to form a small tail. As the sallet afforded protection only to the head and upper part of the face, leaving the chin uncovered, a bevor was usually worn with it. Made from a single piece of iron, the sallet was provided with holes, pierced on a line corresponding to the base of the wearer’s skull, for attaching the lining.3 |
| A type of light helmet, worn by infantry and light cavalry in Europe from about 1500 to the end of the 16th century. An open helmet with a pointed, called the fall, and a neck guard, the burgonet was fitted with hinged cheek pieces. The basic shape of the skull was hemispherical, broken only by the comb...Often the burgonet included a buffe piece to protect the lower face and neck.5 |
|
|
A type of light helmet, worn by infantry and light cavalry in Europe from about 1500 to the end of the 16th century. An open helmet with a pointed, called the fall, and a neck guard, the burgonet was fitted with hinged cheek pieces. The basic shape of the skull was hemispherical, broken only by the comb...Often the burgonet included a buffe piece to protect the lower face and neck.5 |
| Also known as the Spanish Morion a type of helmet which originated in Spain in the 15th century but was used in other European countries as well (where it was called the cabasset, from Spanish capacete for pair) It had a deep almond-shaped skull with a very low comb and large curved brims. To protect the lower part of the face, the early cabassets were worn with a bevor attached to the breast plate. In the 16th century this helmet became much lighter and developed into a variant of the morion. Some munition’s grade of helmets were constructed of two halves riveted together, rather than as a single piece. However it preserved its basic original form, its skull terminating on the top in a kind of “spur” instead of a high comb typical for the combed morion.8 |
|
|
A helmet used in the second half of the 16th century mainly by light cavalry and infantry soldiers, particularly musketeers and archers. For common helmets, the skull was made from two plates joined by riveting and hammering overlapping edges of the comb and brims. Broad curved brims met in a point at the center front and back. In better-made and more expensive morions, the skull, comb, and brims were made of one plate even if the helmet had a fairly high comb. Unlike the comb morion, the Spanish Morion and a pear-shaped skull, often with a backward-pointed “spur” on the apex. A row of rivets on the skull along the brims attached triangular laminated cheek pieces and an internal band of leather, to which the lining was stitched.11 |
| The close helmet was meant to worn with a full suit of armor. At an early date close helmets developed a feature that distinguished them from sallets, that is, a bevor shaped to the chin and joined with a front neck guard that overlapped its counterpart on the skull, thus forming a gorget. Certain types of the closed burgonet were so similar to the close helmet that they could be classified as such were it not from their characteristics peaks.13 |
|
Where to get a helmet? The best source of relatively inexpensive helmets, but usable (in the $75-$150 range) that I’ve come across is IMA (International Military Antiques). Although they are not of the highest quality, and probably produced in a third world sweatshop by children working for a bowl of rice a day, these helmets are a deal. Similar helmets made in the U.S. run $350 and up! Their highly amusing sixty page catalog runs three dollars, but only the last three pages will be of interest to 16th century re-enactors.
For more information contact:
International
Military Antiques, Inc.
P.O. Box 256
Millington, NJ 07946
Phone (908) 903-1200
Fax (908) 903-0106
_____________________________
1 Díaz, Bernal. The Conquest of New Spain. (Penguin Books: New York, 1963) p.250.
2 Wise, Terrance. The Conquistadors (Osprey:London 1980) illus. p.10.
3 Tarassuk, Leonid & Claude Blair. ed. The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms and Weapons (Bonanza Books 1986 )p.412.
4 Blair, Claude. European Armor. ( B.T. Batsford LTD., London 1958) illus. p.204.
5 Tarassuk. pp.107-108.
6 Blair. illus.pp.204.
7 Wise. illus. p.12.
8 Tarassuk.p.445.
9 Wise. illus. p.12.
10 Karcheski, Walter J. Jr. Arms and Armor of the Conquistador, 1492 - 1570 (Florida Museum of Natural History : Gainesville 1990) illus.18.
11 Tarassuk.p.412.
12 Wise. illus. p.4.
13 Tarassuk.p.136.
That your captains do not take proper care to keep their men well disciplined and in good order and their arms in proper condition pains me much, as they ought not to permit this; for they are in a land where arms are needed and cost a great deal of money. I am writing them what I think without giving them to understand that you had informed me about this. Luis Daza is taking two hundred helmets covered with tin. I think they will be stronger and last longer than those you took with you. He is also taking one hundred and ten or one hundred and twenty horn flasks which will preserve the powder better in a damp and cold country than wooden ones; they will last longer, and be useful for loading and priming. If they work well let me know, and I will send more. he is also taking I do not know how many arrobas of match cord. it did not turn out as well as I could have wished. It will [need to be] twisted and pulled again there, and if this can be done it will serve. It pained me to learn what you write me about the little care which the men take to conserve their offensive and defensive arms, for, aside from the fact that they are necessary, they cost a great deal and much time and labor is spent making them. You will give strict orders how to care for and preserve the arquebuses which come from Spain. I have ordered that one hundred of them be given to Luis Daza in La Vera Cruz, together with their powder-horns and small flasks and iron helmets. They write me that these are very good munitions. He is also taking four hundred spades and one hundred fifty axes made in Biscay. Please tell me whether more munitions than these are needed, that they may be sent. I am sending no shields, for you write me that the are some there, and that those from Tehuantepec need not be sent.1
____________________________
1 Priestly, Herbert Ingram. The Luna Papers 1559-1561. Vol.I (Florida State Historical Society, 1928) pp.107-109.
I took the liberty of posting Bob Munson’s
queries about “Fregenal leather,” “Arms of Castile” and chain mail in the
west, from last month’s newsletter on SPANBORD. SPANBORD is an electronic
mail list for those interested in studies of the Spanish Borderlands c.1492-1899.
The results are published below.
Subject: Re: fregenal leather, "Arms of Castile"
and chain mail in the west
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 16:37:35 -0800
From: Charles Polzer <cpolzer@U.ARIZONA.EDU>
Reply-To: Spanish Borderlands <SPANBORD@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>
To: SPANBORD@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
Dear Tim,Cheers CharlieIt would help -- at least me -- if you could give the original Spanish of these words and maybe the context of the passage. Translations here are very dangerous and often misleading.
It has long been my opinion that the chainmail of the 16th gave way rapidly because it was too cumbersome, too hot, and there were few armorers around to maintain the links that caught on every tree, rough rock, etc. I have seen nothing formal rejecting the equipment, but common sense I think tells the story. The cuero was every bit as efficient and much more tolerable as well as available.
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 17:00:14 -0700
From: "John F. Schwaller" <schwallr@SELWAY.UMT.EDU>
To second what Charles Polzer wrote, we know from the accounts of the conquest of Mexico, that the Spanish abandoned mail and other metal armor when operating along the Gulf Coast because it was too hot, too cumbersone, and in many ways no more protection than the quilted cotton armor worn by the natives. That product, when combined with leather was generally able to withstand most of the offensive weapons the natives used, save perhaps the obsidian bladed club. In New Mexico mail would not be as discomfiting as in the humid Gulf, probably explaining why it remained in vogue longer in the drier interior regions.J. F. Schwaller
John Frederick Schwaller schwallr@selway.umt.edu
Associate Provost 406-243-4722
The University of Montana FAX 406-243-5937
http://www.umt.edu/history/NAHUATL/
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 21:40:46 -0500
From: thomas w kavanagh <tkavanag@INDIANA.EDU>
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, John F. Schwaller wrote:tk
To second what Charles Polzer wrote, we know from the accounts of the conquest of Mexico, that the Spanish abandoned mail and other metal armor when operating along the Gulf Coast because it was too hot, too cumbersone, and in many ways no more protection than the quilted cotton armor worn by the natives. That product, when combined with leather was generally able to withstand most of the offensive weapons the natives used, save perhaps the obsidian bladed club. In New Mexico mail would not be as discomfiting as in the humid Gulf, probably explaining why it remained in vogue longer in the drier interior regions.
In re this latter point, perhaps so.
And, FWIW, there are the various "Ironshirts" among the Plains Indian groups, beginning with a Texas Comanche in 1785 called 'Cota de Maya' [Coat of Mail] and/or 'Camisa de Hierro/Yerro'[Iron Shirt] [Vial and Chavez 1785], often confused with a New Mexican Comanche, Ecueracapa, allegedly also called 'Camisa de Fierro' [Cabello 1786, Thomas 1932], At least one other Comanche was called 'Cota de Malla' or some variant.
Whether their 'iron shirts' were, strictly speaking, 'mail', or the more common brigandine is unclear.
IIRC, I have found mentions of 'Ironshirts' among the Cheyenne, Pawnee, and Blackfeet. IMBW.
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 08:12:14 -0500
From: "Marvin T. Smith" <mtsmith@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>
I suspect the rapid abandonment of chain mail in the Southeast was due to two factors: our oppressively humid climate and Native American rivercane arrows. Cane can split and become razor-sharp. Thus I suspect that southeastern arrows were more effective than their western counterparts. The bow power may not have been significantly different, although period paintings show southeastern natives with very long bows.Marvin T. Smith
Subject: Re: SPANBORD Digest - 31 Jan 1998 to 2 Feb 1998
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 20:06:24 -0800
From: Jack S Williams <jackwill@JUNO.COM>
Subject: Of chain mail and other items
Chain mail was certainly an item that made an appearance in the wars fought in the northern part of the viceroyalty in the sixteenth century. The penetrating power of the bows used by the Indians in the Southwest and northern Mexico were extremely variable. Some were simple constructions of wood. Others were composite horn and sinew affairs of comparable characteristics to asiatic bows, such as those used by the Turkish Peoples. A factor also of note was the size of the projectile point. In the case of the Chichimec peoples of the Zacatecas frontier area, extremely small obsidian points were used. To stop one of these arrows a special kind of mail (double mail), made with half the normal size links, was used. By the way, years ago Art Woodward told me that he could always recognize chain mail that had been made during this period in Mexico, as the rivet used were copper or brass, instead of the traditional iron or steel. I remember seeing a shirt of this type once at the Heard Museum, in Phoenix.Subject: Re: Escopeteros
There is no question that the mail worn in the arid Southwestern deserts was an annoyance, and leather armor, a substance that had been popular as an alternative in Iberia since before the middle ages, was often used. It should be noted, however, that according to Philip Wayne Powell chain mail remained popular (1952:127). No doubt that this was linked in part to the tactics of the Chichimec War presidiales. These men were armed and equipped as escopeteros. Wearing heavy armor in the form of both chain and plate, the men's main weapon was a wheel-lock carbine and sword. Trained to operate in skirmishing actions, in a style similar to the Reiter Cavalry of Germany, the escopeteros were used on the continent and overseas. Wheel-locks (armas de fuego a rueda) were used because they were deemed superior in guerilla warfare ( or the guerra volante as it was sometimes called), since the matchlock arquebus and musquette required a considerable amount of preparation time prior to combat. The escopeteros wore steel helmets. Many equipped with visors (seladas con sobrevistas). leather thigh pieces were also worn. Lilian and Fred Funcken show one of the troops of this type in action in their 1977 study of medieval and Renaissance warfare.
It should also be noted that chain mail is also much in evidence in the expedition of Juan de Onate, as were both escopeteros and lancers (seePeterson 1956:130).
The escopeteros significance on the frontier gradually declined in the seventeenth century, although it would not be until the eighteenth century that a major tactical role would be assigned to the presidio troops as lancers. To an extent, this shift was an echo of continental developments where the use of lance-armed cavalry declined. The preeminence of the Swedish-style shock cavalry, wearing buff-coats that were strikingly similar to the later presidio cueras, placed an emphasis on combined armed attacks with pistols, carbines and swords.
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 21:21:42 -0700
From: Lance Robert Blyth <lrb4@DANA.UCC.NAU.EDU>
I was happy to see Jack William's posting on escopeteros and their tactics, for it supports some conclusions I've come to. Evidence for presidials as skirmishers does exist for the 17th century.Lance R. Blyth
I have a catalog from an exhibition "El Uniforme Militar Europeo, 1594-1794," in Madrid, 5 May 1994. It shows a painting of an "Arcabucero a Caballo" from 1658 with a wheel-lock arquebus, a sword, two pistols, and a cuirass.
Soldiers for the Presidio of Cerrogordo in 1646 are described as "soldados arcabuceros de a caballo" (Naylor and Polzer, _The Presidio and Militia_ vol. 1, 361) which the translator turned into "mounted soldiers with bows and arrows" ? (Ibid., 354).
Apparently, arcabuceros, like escopeteros, were a light skirmish cavalry in Spain and New Spain. Why the presidials became lancers is another question.
Ph.D. Student
Northern Arizona
lrb4@dana.ucc.nau.edu
“This is so cool!” My reaction to trying on an authentic suit of 16th century armor. As part of the remodeling of De Soto National Memorial’s Visitor’s Center the museum designers, Howard-Revis, had requested that a number of photographs be taken. One set was to be a series of five photos illustrating theorder in which a knight is equipped with his armour. Based largely on the 15th C. treatise “How a man shall be armed...” http://www.chronique.com/Library/Armour/armyd1.htm. The other set requested was to depict individual soldiers wearing their typical equipment. The designers wanted examples of a Cavalryman in ¾ armour, a Swordsman, Pikeman/Halberdier, an Arquebusier, a Crossbowman, and lastly a Swineherd.
As seems inevitable in any project that’ll be a year in the making and likely to be on the walls of the V.C. for the next 30 years or so, we had about a month to come up with these pictures. We took stock of the armour and weapons available for the photographs. Between the equipment owned by the NPS and our own stuff the second set looked feasible. The soldier pictures seemed very similar to those we had shot for Hudson’s book several years ago, although unlike those previously lensed these photos needed to be in color. Also Howard-Revis had specific ideas as to how each soldier was to be equipped.
However, the arming of the knight series was clearly going to present a problem. Although amongst ourselves we more than enough armor to equip ourselves several times over we lacked some critical pieces, like sabatons, enclosed greaves, a close helm or armet. Typically we simply wear our armor over our 16th century Spanish clothes, but I did have an old , if badly beat up arming doublet or gambeson from my SCA days. But it seemed to have disappeared along with the dreaded tourney socks, but luckily I found an unfinished one in the sewing room lacking only some buttons and hemming.
The decision was made to use the authentic armor on display for the photos and hence my, “This is so cool!” comment that began this column.
A couple of observations about this armour that I noticed while examining it closely with gloved hands before and after the photography. With the exception of the helmet and chestpieces the various pieces seemed much lighter than my reenactment armour. The greaves on the legs were almost paper, well beer can, thin. In fact evidence of repair of the legs was quite evident on the inside where extensive brazing and patches are visible. Also the waist on the chest piece was tiny as compared to the rest of the suit. The fact that this is a composite suit and not an intact harness may explain this fact.
Anyways the legs were the right height, though we couldn’t quite get the greaves closed. The gorget likewise was tight fitting, but it did close. The arms fit perfect but the gauntlets are lacking attached gloves. Try as I might though, including doffing the mailing shirt and padded arming doublet, and sucking in my gut with but a linen shirt between me and the armour, the cuirasses was not going to fit. Fortunately Larry’s wife Hedi was also there, and graciously stepped forward to be armored up allowing the planned sequence to be completed. With some electronic airbrushing I hope it will all come out okay. Still it was so cool!
I’ll have continue the further adventures of Juan de Santo Domingo, 16th century male model next month.
-Tim -<):{)}
As part of Calderon’s Company’s recent participation
in the exhibit review and design process for the remodeled Visitor’s Center
at De Soto National Memorial, the question of the weight of armor came
up. This is probably one of the most common questions we receive by the
general public during the course of our living history displays. This is
by no means a comprehensive review of the subject but does give some idea
of what is reasonable to quote for the weight of 16th century armor and
our re-enactment versions.
As reported by Larry May (by the way thanks Larry!) the weight of the individual pieces of the armor on display in the Visitor’s Center at the Memorial is as follows:
For an over-all weight of 64lbs. for the plate and 85lbs if the mail shirt is included. It should however be noted that more typical for this period would be seperate mail gussets and skirt attached to an arming doublet rather than an entire mail shirt worn under the plate. I estimate that a skirt and gussets would weigh about one-quarter to one-third the weight of a full shirt, or approximately 5 to 7lbs.Armet helmet...................................................7lbs.
Gorget (neck piece)..........................................4lbs.
Breast Plate (with tasses)...............................11lbs.
Back Plate.(with tasses)....................................9lbs.
Arm Harness [each]..........................................5lbs.
Gauntlets [each].......................................1lb., 5 oz.
Cuisse & Polyen (thigh & knee)[each].............6lbs.
Greave & Sabaton (lower leg &shoe)[each]......4lbs.
Rivited Chain Mail Shirt.................................21lbs.
A few notes about this particular suit of armor
are in order. According to the accession documents from the Park Service,
the suit is a composite armor of Maximillian style dating from c.1515-1525.
The composite nature of this armour perhaps explains why the waist seems
so tiny as compared to the other pieces. Also the flower patterns on the
knee cops don’t quite match, which may indicate either a later repair or
an assembly from other pieces.
For comparison a list of the weight of my various pieces of armor. Mostly constructed from sheets of 16 & 18 gauge cold-rolled steel. c.1984-1998
This results in a total weight for my typical lounging about camp conquistador summer armor (Cabbasett, gorget, long sleeve mail shirt, gauntlets, and 3/4 legs) of ..........................................................49lbs.Cabbaset helmet..............................................3lbs.
Gorget (neck piece)..........................................3lbs.
Breast Plate(with tassets)..................................8lbs.
Back Plate........................................................5lbs.
Arm Harness(with spalders) [each].............4lb.,8oz.
Arm Harness(with paldrons) [each]...................6lbs.
Gauntlets [each]........................................2lbs.,8oz.
3/4 Leg armor [each]........................................5lbs.
Full Legs (but no sabaton)[each]................7lbs.,8oz.
Short Sleeve Mail Shirt( 14ga. 5/16 dia.)........30lbs.
Long Sleeve Mail Shirt (16ga. 5/16” dia.) .....28lbs.
Mail Coif (16ga. 5/16” dia.)..............................5lbs.
And for those photo opportunity cavalryman’s plate-w-mail
skirt & gussets, a weight of .................61lbs.
Also of interest are the weights of the weapons and accessories carried:
Arquebus (.50 cal.).........................................10lbs.I have in my collection a copy of Arms and Armor of the Conquistador, 1492-1600: A Catalog of arms and armor from the exhibit, First Encounters: Spanish Explorations of the Caribbean and United States 1492-1570, text by Walter J. Karcheski, Jr. Published by the Florida Museum of Natural History 1990.Loaded Bandolier -w- 24 lead balls....................5lbs.
Crossbow.......................................................15lbs.
Broadsword-w-scabbard...........................3lbs.,8oz.
Basket hilted sword..........................................3lbs.
Hand axe..........................................................2lbs.
9’Spear.............................................................5lbs.
Halberd............................................................9lbs.
Leather covered wooden shield, 2’dia................5lbs.
The weights of several pieces of 16th century armour, weapons and accessories are listed in this short catalog.
Charles Ffolkes’ The Armourer and His Craft (Dover, New York 1988) p.119 also lists some period armour weights for comparison.Sallet helmet............................................4lbs., 4oz.
Burgonet helmet.....................................2lbs., 10oz.
Cabasset helmet (-w-sections missing)......1lb., 13oz.
Comb Morion........................................3lbs., 6½oz.
Breastplate with tassets..........................13lbs., 4oz.
Breast plate............................................5lbs., 15oz.
Short Sleeve Mail Shirt.............................8lbs., 9oz.
Buckler (wood -w-steel reinforcement)..4lbs., 8½oz.
Sword......................................................2lbs., 1oz.
Halberd..................................................3lbs., 15oz.
One other item of note, an “indication of how much weight one of Pardo’s [1566-1568 Carolinias & Tennessee] comes from an incident in which one of his men lost a sack of lead harquebus weighing 31 pounds when he dropped them in a river.”†A suit for ‘fighting on foot’ c.1530 from Madrid weighed 79lbs.
A listing of War Harness dating between 1514-1612 ranges from a low of 64lbs. to a
high of 92lbs.
†Hudson, Charles. The Juan Pardo
Expeditions with Documents relating to the Pardo Expeditions Transcribed,
Translated, and annotated by Paul E. Hoffman (Smithsonian Institutroion
Press: Washington and London 1990) p.129.
I think its also interesting to compare the weight carried by modern infantry soldiers and his 16th century counterpart. It has been a long time since ROTC so I consulted the website for the US Army Center of Military History and came across the following :
"The machine has made warfare ponderous but has also given it greater velocity. . . it is conspicuous that what the machine has failed to do right up to the present moment is decrease by a single pound the weight an individual has to carry in war."
- - S.L.A. Marshall,
The Soldiers' Load and the Mobility of a Nation
SOLDIERS' GUIDELINES
Guidelines for determining the soldier's combat
load: the fighting load for a properly conditioned soldier should not exceed
48 pounds; the approach march load should not exceed 72 pounds; the weights
include all clothing and equipment, either worn or carried.
In contrast my copy of the Army’s c.1982 FM-90-5 JUNGLE OPERATIONS, Appendix H, listed loads for “fighting in a tropical environment with no NBC threat” * at between 67.19 & 89.16lbs. So maybe at last the weight is decreasing.
* Although
I imagine that few would argue that 16th C. Florida was a ‘tropical environment;’
I suppose that it might well be argued that there was indeed a biological
threat, however unintended.
Please see also Kent Goff’s letter for some
more information and thoughts on this subject.
Kent Goff
MVEP
55 CR 315
Cherry Valley, AR 72324
9 July 98
Dear Tim,
First of all muchas gracias for the package of patterns and armor making information. We have already put it to good use. A late 15thC/early 16th C brigandine may be finished by the time of the Sept. event.
I like the postcard, its a well staged shot.... I liked the French/Spanish way of doing things humor in the last issue.
About equipment weights, I copied down the following total equipment loads from Steve Allie’s book All he could carry, U.S. Infantry Equipment 1839-1917. Each weight includes weapon, ammo, bayonet, haversack, food, pack, and other small items:
1835 Flintlock system...........47lbs. 1oz.M1-1938 system would be a couple of pounds heavier than the 1910 due to the M1 and M1 helmet.1842 Percussion system..........6lbs. 1oz.
1861 system - Springfield.....46lbs.1oz.
1874 sys. (1868-1870 rifles)..46lbs.1oz.
1881 system (1873 rifle)......49lbs.10oz.
1892 system (Krag)...............52lbs.4oz.
1910 sys. (1903 Springfield)..50lbs.6oz.
My kit for the Gulf as a mechanized warrior weighed around 60lbs with M16-A2 rifle, 220 rounds, 2 grenades, 2 quarts of water, kevlar body armor (cuirass?), NBC gear, and medical supplies (we all carried an IV bag and some other stuff.) I know airborne and ranger types jump with 90-110 lbs. not counting parachutes-mostly extra ammo.
I don’t have it at hand, but Infantry magazine has had articles on the planned armor/techno suit for fielding circa 2030 that will weigh 75-100lbs. A recent Army Times article on fitness noted that the fitness of modern American populations were not up to these requirements.
A good book on the Subject is S.L.A. Marshall’s
A Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of a Nation. Marshall has taken some
hits by modern historians, but this work has not taken any criticism I
know of.
There is an intriguing passage in Ewen and Hahn’s
Hernando de Soto among the Apalachee as follows:
“An interesting but enigmatic artifact was a hand-sized
piece of pumice that had been worn perfectly smooth on two surfaces. A
suggestion was made that this had been used to polish the Spaniards’ steel
armor, but no reference to such a usage could be uncovered in the literature.”1
I was sure that I had seen just such a reference years ago. So undeterred by their lack of success I went through some of my old armour books and did indeed find such a reference. It’s not Spanish in origin but does date to the 16th century and lends credence to the stated suggestion. Rather annoyingly pumice is not listed in the index of the turn-of-the-century classic The Armourer and His Craft, which may explain the failure of a literature search. However this work contains chapter entitled, “The Cleaning of Armour,” with the following excerpt:
1513. Earl of Northumberland’s Equipage (see also page 30).
a paommyshe.The pumice was for cleaning off the rust, and the blanket was used for packing the armour when in store or on a journey.”2Eight yards of white blaunkett for trussing of my Lord’s harnes in.
The ‘see also’ reference contains the full text
of a listing of care and repair tools along with spare parts. Also mentioned
in this ‘kit’ is, “Emmery & oile for dressing my Lord’s harnes.”
I’ve along used sand-paper and a wire brush for getting the rust off my armour. But this struck me as an excellent opportunity for a bit of experimental archaeology. Not to mention the promise of a period way of cleaning my harness and the potential of having Park visitors or at least their children, talked into cleaning my armour as a learning ‘living-history' experience.
A quick check of the Yellow Pages revealed a dearth of rock shops in the Sarasota-Bradenton area, so I went to the Internet for a source of pumice. Much to my surprise I discovered that pumice was widely used in the Skin/Foot care industry (as my wife says, “I’m a guy.”) and not merely a geological specimen or an industrial abrasive. it appeared that the Bath & Body Works store in the mall would be a likely convenient source for this material. I steeled myself for a visit to the netherworld of skin care with its minions of basket wielding sales assistants helpful inquiring as to what I was looking for. I spared them and myself a brief discourse on medieval armour cleaning . Rather, I simply found the pumice stone, bought it ($3.75) and removed myself as quickly as possible. Later that afternoon when I regaled my wife with my perilous adventure she informed me that said stones could be purchased at Walmart ($1.80) in the ‘Dr.Schoal's section. I knew I should have sought her counsel first! It should be noted though that the stone from B&B was 3 times bigger and sturdier.
On with the experimental archaeology part of this account. Scraping the pumice stone along the cuisse of a rusty leg harness and an effect very similar to that obtained by using a wire brush or sandpaper. This does erode the stone very quickly though. You can even mold to shape by vigorously rubbing it across the piece of armor.
I stopped using the stone itself before it wore
out and instead used the grit left behind. With some experimentation I
achieved my best results by lightly coating the piece with olive oil, (although
it tends to attract ants!) using the stone, and then rubbing with the remaining
grit in with a piece of canvas, early sandpaper if you will.
1 Ewen, Charles and John H. Hann. Hernando de Soto among the Apalachee: The Archaeology of the First Winter Encampment (University Press of Florida, Gainesville 1998) pp.71-72.
2 Ffoulkes, Charles. The Armourer
and His Craft: From the XI to the XVIth Century. (Dover Publications
Inc., New York 1988 [Original. 1912]) p.80.
Before leaving Spain for La Florida in 1565:
He [Menéndez] contracted to ship five hundred men; one hundred farmers, one hundred sailors, and the rest officers, military and naval men, stonemasons, carpenters, sawyers, blacksmiths, barbers, and locksmiths, all of them to be equipped with weapons, harquebuses, helmets, and bucklers, and everything else necessary for defensive and offensive warfare.
Barrientos, Bartolome . Trans. Anthony Kerrigan.
Pedro
Menendez de Alviles: Founder of Florida (Univeristy of Florida Press,
Gainesville 1965) p.29.
Calderon's Company - Home
Questions, comments, suggestions, bad links, spelling mistakes, grammar errors and the five simple actions that will turn me into a mental wizard overnight can be directed to:
