vulnerable spots, with mail worn on the undergarment at
these points.
By the beginning of the fifteenth century, the tran-
sition was complete. An individual wanting the latest in
armor could have full plate—often without the textile
covering, and with surfaces polished gleaming bright—
virtually head to toe. The status of knights saw their
clothing needs increasingly influencing male fashion, and
vice versa. The change to all plate gradually produced a
wasp-waisted appearance. This slim, hard-body look in-
creasingly mirrored elegant male attire at the end of the
century, and each complemented the other. For exam-
ple, tubular arm defenses required slim sleeves on the un-
dergarment, while shoulders broadened to accommodate
extra padding for the load of a cuirass. Some armor ele-
ments were fastened to the aketon with laces called
points. These also appeared on male apparel, to attach
sleeves and hose. The aketon assimilated the new forms
and was worn alone as knightly clothing. The surcoat be-
came the short, form-fitting jupon (overgarment).
The Renaissance and Armor’s Decline
The fifteenth through seventeenth centuries saw both ar-
mor’s acme and nadir. Plate armor remained paramount,
changing with the demands of war, sport, and ceremony,
and the continuing influence of civilian fashion. Centers
in Italy (the term “milliner” originally meant a Milanese
armor vendor) and Germany grew wealthy from the pro-
duction and sale of armor. Master armorers throughout
Europe crafted spectacular suits through the tailorlike
handwork of specialists, including locksmiths (for hinges
and fasteners), artists (Holbein and Dürer provided
themes for armor decoration), and cloth armorers (the
cloth tabs of internal linings were called pickadils, inspir-
ing the name of the London district where makers were
centered). The slim, angular, and rippled form of fifteenth-
century German “Gothic” armor is regarded as the peak
moment, in which pure form blended perfectly with func-
tion. However, in the early part of the sixteenth century,
this gave way in some areas to the rounded, “Maximil-
ian” style whose fluted cuirass imitated a globose doublet
cinched by a waistbelt. The average weight was about
forty to sixty well-distributed, balanced pounds in which
a trained individual could do the same as in everyday
clothing, especially mounting a horse unaided. Aketons
became arming doublets and hose, an affair of durable
material, padded with grasses, wool waste, or cotton es-
pecially at the load-bearing shoulders and hips, with
points and garters to secure components. Some clothing,
such as the kiltlike “base” skirt, gave texture and color to
plain metal. Fashions again changed with the times, as
once-pointed foot defenses (that imitated the poulaine
shoe) became broadly rounded, then narrower and more
contemporary. Breastplates followed doublet changes,
also placing acid-etched decorative bands to imitate em-
broidery, and by the end of the century developing the
grotesquely dipped “peascod” shape. Mail continued as a
secondary defense, or primary for the less wealthy. Tex-
tiles and plate combined in the vestlike brigandine used
by all classes, differing only in the quality of materials
and finish. The jack was similar, but generally of cruder
stuff, and both defenses mimicked the doublet lines. A
wide range of helmets was worn, from visored types that
enclosed the head, to hatlike open forms. Foot soldiers
favored the latter, and wore pieces of munitions-grade
armor, sometimes little more than helmet and breast-
plate, or as much as a half armor to the hips.
Armor was also made for jousts and tournaments.
Formerly training for war, these equestrian events be-
came pure sport during the fifteenth century and required
highly protective equipment that could reach 100 pounds.
These suits have fueled the erroneous stereotype of the
heavy, awkward knight, unable to mount without aid, and
helpless if unhorsed.
From about the 1530s into the second half of the
century, “Roman” and “antique” style armor became
popular for festivals and spectacles. Other types of cere-
monial armors flourished, even for children, as armorers
experimented in fantastic creations, using a range of pre-
cious or fragile media to embellish the products of
wealthy clients. Some were so extravagant as to be mov-
ing examples of decorative art or metal costume and were
built by goldsmiths rather than armorers. Most armor
was embellished to some degree. The entire decorative
arts vocabulary was employed, including plating, enam-
eling, encrusting with gems, but most often acid-etching.
The armorer’s craft culminated in the garniture, a
set of various components together with a basic armor
and creating a versatile ensemble for war, sport, and cer-
emony. While each element had a designated function,
it had to harmonize structurally and artistically with
dozens of others. Such sets were extremely expensive and
available only to very wealthy individuals.
Armor was also used by bodyguards, representing the
patron’s importance, good taste, and artistic refinement.
Guard armor was sometimes limited to helmets, but em-
bellished body armor was worn by those like the Vati-
can’s papal guard.
Throughout much of the sixteenth century develop-
ments in firearms and changing battlefield tactics had an
impact on armor’s use. Powerful handguns required bul-
letproof armor that could weigh some eighty pounds, but
retained its fashion relevance of its form. The lines of
certain armor elements, such as the form of breastplates,
tended to follow those of male civilian fashion. Complete
head-to-toe armor became rare, with protection concen-
trated on the head and torso. By the seventeenth century,
half or three-quarter armor (to the knees) became typi-
cal for horsemen, who now carried firearms themselves.
Some troops wore “buff” leather coats, or padded tex-
tiles, and by the end of the century it was rare to see ar-
mor in war.
ARMOR
70
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CLOTHING AND FASHION
69134-ECF-A_1-106.qxd 8/18/2004 10:06 AM Page 70