Showing posts with label Experimental Archaeology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Experimental Archaeology. Show all posts

Thursday, July 10, 2025

Some crossbows and windlasses to fire them with: The Construction Of A 15th Century Windlass Crossbow

Besieged by the Duke of Norfolk's army of 3,000 men, the Paston family's hold of Caister Castle in the summer of 1469 was doomed. Despite preparing the defenses for nearly a year, the genteel East Anglian family were simply no match for the Duke of Norfolk who could bear down on them with all of the power and resources his title came with. Stocked with longbows, crossbows, and even handgonnes, the Pastons had turned the all-brick Caister Castle into a fortress. They had hired four professional mercenaries the previous fall and, by the spring--just a few months before the siege--they showed some signs of training hard as evidenced by John Paston III's request to replace "four or five steel crossbows." On September 26 though--37 days into the siege--surrounded, low on supplies, and having lost a devoted servant to a crossbow bolt, the Pastons were forced to accept Norfolk's terms of surrender.

The letters surrounding the Siege of Caister Castle offer a glimpse into the defenses of an English genteel family's property during what is now called the Wars of the Roses. It should be noted here, however, that the Duke of Norfolk's capture of Caister Castle from the Pastons was the result of a decade-long dispute over land claims, and thus, with only a small exception, had nothing to do with who sat on the throne. The one exception was the timing: Norfolk seized his opportunity to siege the castle when word got out that the Earl of Warwick had captured King Edward IV at the Battle of Edgcote and the kingdom was without a ruler for the next couple months. Regardless, this was just one of several fights that the Pastons found themselves in during the 15th century. As during this siege, the Pastons also recorded the defenses of their castle at Gresham two decades earlier, in 1449 (six years before the traditionally understood start of the Wars of the Roses, at the First Battle of St. Albans). In both instances, the letters highlight the family's reliance on a piece of military technology not normally associated with late-medieval English history: the crossbow. 

While the longbow understandably reigns supreme in the popular history of late-medieval English warfare, it did have its drawbacks. In early 1449, Margaret Paston wrote her husband, John Paston I requesting military supplies to shore up the defenses of Gresham Castle. They rightly suspected that a local rival, Lord Moleyn, had designs on their property, especially after they discovered that he was amassing men and equipment at a nearby manor. In her letter, Margaret requested "crossbows and windlasses to fire them with, together with quarrels, because your houses here are so low that no-one can shoot out with a longbow." Despite the renown of the longbow (Agincourt was only 34 years earlier), they seemed better suited to open battlefields than to defending buildings. While Gresham Castle fell without a single quarrel shot, the Pastons clearly did not abandon the use of crossbows.

Twenty years later, to defend their castle at Caister, they not only relied on them, but they may have been responsible for the two casualties on the Duke of Norfolk's side. Interestingly, to prepare for its defense, Sir John Paston (also referred to as John Paston II) hired four mercenaries whom he described as “experienced men, cunning in war and feats of arms, and they can shoot guns and crossbows well; they can mend and string them; they can build defences or anything else that is needed to strengthen the place.” Sir John did not hire longbowmen, but rather, men with experience with crossbows and guns--weapons better designed to defend their castle with. Despite their expertise, they clearly could not repair the four or five crossbows that got damaged that winter or following spring as the castle's defender, John III, wrote to his brother asking to have them repaired in London by a "maker of steele bowys." It is in this letter that John III describes them as "steel crossbows," and his brother's in particular as a "great bow."
Pétrarque, Des Remedes de l'une et l'autre fortune, traduction rouennaise anonyme en français. Bibliothèque nationale de France. Département des Manuscrits. Français 225. Fol 78v. 1503.

By the 15th century, steel crossbows were catching on in Europe. They had been around for some time already--perhaps as early as the 13th century--but by the 15th century, more reliable steel production had caught up with the demand. While they did not outright replace the more traditional wood or composite crossbows--the latter seem to have remained popular for hunting--steel crossbows were favored for war due to their heavier draw weight, lower cost, and faster production time (compared to composite, in particular). While soldiers clearly favored them by the end of the 15th century for these reasons, they did have some glaring disadvantages. While steel production--notably an understanding of heat treatment--was better, it was not unheard of for a bow to break under pressure. Additionally, while a 1,000 pound (454 kg) crossbow sounds impressive, due to mechanical inefficiency, it performed only marginally better than a top-tier composite bow. Again though, speed of production (not having to wait for the glue to cure in a composite bow) and cost were probably the most deciding factors for soldiers, or those who hired them, to buy steel crossbows.

Pierre Choinet, Le livre des trois âges, en vers. Bibliothèque nationale de France. Département des Manuscrits. Smith-Lesouëf 70. Second half 15th century.

The Pastons were those people who found the argument compelling enough to invest in steel crossbows. While it can't be known if they used steel bows, in particular, at Gresham in 1449, it is clear that they were employed at the defense of Caister Castle in 1469. At Gresham though, the letters offer one more insight into the use of heavy crossbows in England: the spanning device. While contemporary depictions of crossbows show a range of spanning methods (from hand-spanned to goatsfoot levers, cranequins to windlasses), Margaret Paston specifically requested windlasses--a pulley-based spanning device. Her knowledge of crossbows and spanning devices might be explained by the fact that she grew up around them (she was a cousin of the infamous Sir John Fastolf) or perhaps she learned about them while discussing strengthening the defenses of Gresham with a military-minded confidant. Regardless, the fact that she requested them suggests a common knowledge and availability, if not in East Anglia, then certainly around London where her husband primarily worked. In the artwork of the period, windlasses seem most popular around France and the Low Countries (i.e. Belgium and the Netherlands), so it seems probable they were similarly known in England. The only other spanning device that could handle the heavy draw weights of a steel crossbow (800-1200lbs) was a cranequin, but these are more often than not associated with central Europe--German-speaking states in particular.

Rationale

About five years ago, I co-founded a medieval living history group--the Paston Project--with a bunch of friends who have a similar interest in medieval English history. The purpose of our organization is to recreate some of the experiences of the Paston family and the world around them, during the third quarter of the 15th century--some of it military, but the bulk of it civilian. As we only wanted to represent a couple of the actual Paston family members, the majority of our group took on personas related to the household. I started as a cook and a longbowman, but as we already had some longbowmen, I began considering other portrayals to widen our interpretation. Reading the Paston letters, I saw a few solid references to their use of crossbows, and became entranced. As a guy who loves to make stuff, I was intrigued by the challenge of making my own crossbow, so I did just that: I built a 200lb (91kg) steel crossbow. It was truly a joy to learn about crossbows by building one, as it was to shoot it--so much so that I entirely rebuilt it to really perfect the design. That said, I had a little whisper of a thought that kept popping up in the back of my mind: this crossbow isn't really representative of the steel crossbows used by the Pastons. Not only did I compromise a little historical accuracy for safety by making the roller nut out of delrin and keeping the protective rubber sleeve around the center of the bow, but it is still such a low draw weight that I can hand span it (i.e. pull the string back by hand). In the Paston letters, Margaret specifically requests windlasses. This conforms to the broader historical understanding that crossbows meant for war should be very heavy--at least 800lbs (363kg). While hand-spanned crossbows might work for hunting, they're less useful for war as basic armor like padded jacks and maille stand a decent chance of stopping bolts shot from them. While I wouldn't mind making a heavy steel crossbow, my problem was sourcing the bow.


The journey to find a "maker of steele bowys" involved a fair amount of emails, Facebook posts and messages, and plenty of dead-ends: truly the makings of a great story. When I came close to buying a steel bow from Jens Sensfelder himself, our geographic differences posed too great a challenge to complete the sale (for those "not in the know," Sensfelder has not only published a book on crossbows, but the steel bows he makes are considered the gold-standard in the European crossbow building community. He's also one of the only artisans out there who makes reliable, 100% accurate, heavy bows). When my hopes were dashed and I was about ready to give up, I received a message request from someone in a crossbow building group I had posted to on Facebook--he had a spare steel bow made by Sensfelder that he might be willing to sell to me. It's here that I'd like to take a moment to offer my appreciation to this seller as he not only sold me the bow, but he guided me a number of times in the process of building mine. While I had experience in making a crossbow, this one would be five times heavier, so I really didn't want to screw things up. I owe a fair amount of my success in building this crossbow to him. Needless to say, at long last I was able to obtain a proper, heavy steel bow.

(As a side note, for anyone interesting in learning more about my medieval group, the Paston Project, please check out our Facebook page here (website coming soon!). Additionally, if you simply want to learn more about the Pastons, I highly recommend picking up a copy of  A Medieval Family: The Pastons of Fifteenth-Century England. For the actual letters, albeit digitized, check out Paston Footprints here. This is where I obtained quotes of the letters from, in the above paragraphs)

The Crossbow


The crossbow is a fairly basic piece of technology, albeit deadly. It's composed of only a few main parts: the bow (also referred to as a prod), the tiller (or stock), roller nut, and trigger. Some crossbows--usually earlier ones--used linen or hemp cording to lash the bow to the tiller (as in the example below), while others--usually later--used steel bridles and wedges. Put simply, the string is pulled back to the roller nut which holds it in place with its claw-like hooks until it is ready to shoot. The nut stays locked in place due to the trigger bracing against it (see my diagram under "The Trigger Mechanism," below). As soon as the trigger is depressed and is no longer bracing the roller nut, the nut is allowed to rotate, releasing the string, casting the bolt forward.

Crossbow. Object No. H5927. Powerhouse Collection. c. 1470.

For my crossbow, I chose a simple design with steel bridles. My portrayal in the Paston Project is based on Peryn Sale--one of the four mercenaries that Sir John Paston hired in November 1468 to defend Caister Castle. Since I was interpreting a mid- to late-15th century English crossbowman, it made sense to choose steel bridles instead of lashing  the bow with cord. Additionally, since I haven't found anything about Peryn Sale other than his mention in the Paston letters, I figured it would be safer to assume he was a fairly common solder, and not someone with a rich crossbow (especially as the Pastons had to apparently obtain armor for him).

Croniques abregies commençans au temps de Herode Antipas. David Aubert. Bibliothèque nationale de France. Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal. MS-5089 réserve. Fol. 253r. 1476.

Designing the tiller was straightforward as there seem to be few variations in the visual sources or even extants. It's straight and almost sharply-rectangular, with the exception of the neck, which has a curved cutout on the bottom. It's also thinner than I'd like--thinking entirely too much about my safety--at only two inches (5cm) wide at the widest part (at the nut), narrowing to 1.5 inches (3.8cm) at the butt. That said, this is still slightly wider than some extants which are between 1 and 1.5 inches wide at the nut. This also conforms to the surviving windlasses which have sockets that fit a tiller with these dimensions.

Building The Crossbow


While waiting for my steel bow to arrive in the mail, I sketched out my tiller and began the basic woodworking. For a basic design and some useable dimensions, I highly recommend Sir Ralph Payne-Galloway's The Book Of The Crossbow (you can even find a couple digital copies for free online if you look around). I'm not diving that deep in this article as to list all of the measurements, so start with that and then find some extants in museums like the MET, or if you can get your hands on Jens Sensfelder's book, Crossbows In The Royal Netherlands Army Museum, that will provide some excellent details. While much ink has been spilled discussing the merits and faults of Galloway's book, the dimensions he provided for one heavy crossbow are very much real and can be super useful to see what an original crossbow looked like, especially if, like me, you live in the US and don't have easy access to a lot of originals via museums. Alchem's sketches here could be a great place to start from, too, as can the "Crossbow Building Wiki" here. If all else fails, I'd be happy to answer some questions if you message me. While I'm certainly not an expert, I'm always happy to share what information and experience I do have.

La Fleur des histoires, de Jean Mansel. Bibliothèque nationale de France. Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal. Ms-5087 réserve. Fol 383v. 1470-80. Belgium.

For the tiller of my crossbow, I chose to use ash--it seems to have been a common material used in the Middle Ages, and for good reason since it is a hardwood and resilient to splitting. For those interesting in building their own crossbow, I highly recommend buying the ash from Bell Forest. They advertise their ash blanks as a favorite for making baseball bats, if that tells you anything about the wood's strength. Shaping the tiller involved some initial cuts with a table saw and a bandsaw, some with a jigsaw and a belt sander, and all the finer stuff with chisels, rasps, a planer, and old-fashioned hand-operated sand paper. At this initial stage though, I only cut the stock to almost as narrow as it would ultimately end up (minus the final sanding).

The String

During a couple of the evenings after working on the tiller, I also made the string. For this, I used bookbinder's linen thread. I highly recommend Colophon Book Arts Supply's 16/3 linen thread which you can find here. I bought a 250 gms spool of it and have used it to make three crossbow strings and a couple medieval turn shoes and still have a ton left over. Not only has it outperformed two dacron crossbow strings--both of which snapped early into using them on my 200lb crossbow--but it has also held up on my 1000lb crossbow. I truly do not recommend dacron for medieval crossbow strings out of personal experiences with it, but also because it performs differently from linen thread, being significantly lighter. To make the crossbow string, I constructed a jig as recommended in Galloway's book, but also explained in The Modern Armbruster's video here. In fact, if you want to make your own string, just watch his video. Like him, I did not add the auxiliary loops to the ends (which Galloway suggests some had). Not only did the Modern Armbruster not recommend it, but the gentleman who sold me the steel bow advised against it as it just adds weight and reduces the efficiency.


As to the thickness of the string (or more accurately, number of strands in it), Galloway only mentions that the heavy crossbow's string is about 1/2 inch (1.3cm) thick. That's only marginally useful to know, so I did some looking around online and found Hermit's response in the Arbalest Guild's forum to be pretty compelling. His formula accounts for what he refers to as a "safety factor," which is represented by the 4 in the following: Strand Count =  (4 X Draw Weight) / String Breaking Weight. The reasoning is that, you don't want to make a string with a breaking point anywhere close to the draw weight of the bow. So for safety, make the breaking point four times the draw weight. The only variable I didn't know in the formula was the breaking point of the linen thread, so to figure that out, I used a crane scale simply by pulling down on a length of the thread over the scale's hook until it broke. With a fairly consistent 32lbs (14.5kg) breaking point, I plugged the measurement into this formula to get: (4 X 1000) / 32 = 125. So what this all means is that, for a reliable crossbow string for my 1,000lb (454kg) crossbow, I needed to make a string with about 125 strands in it. So, when making this string, I wrapped the jig 62.5 times; the result being 62 strands on one side and 63 on the other, for a total of 125 strands. If you're reading this and plan to make your own string, please do not assume a 125-strand string is what all 1000lb crossbows need. The most important thing is that you measure the breaking point of your thread that you plan to use. All thread is different and there's absolutely no guarantee that the thread you have has a similar breaking point to mine.

In one evening--really about two hours--I made one string and held it up to the bow, only to be disappointed as it ended up shorter than I expected. I think the pegs on either end of the jig just bent too much inwards when I was making the string, so I made a new jig--slightly longer and this time added a board to the top of the pegs so they wouldn't be able to bend in (see picture above). The second string, made on this new jig, turned out perfectly. It was just extra gratifying when I measured the thickness of the string in the middle to be 1/2 inch, just as Galloway recommended.

The Bow


When my steel bow arrived and I had finished drooling over it, I had to do some work on it. Sensfelder sells his bows fresh from the forge (and heat treatment), so this means that they are still fairly rough--they need a bit of sanding to complete them. However, the gentleman who sold me this bow encouraged me to not just polish it up, but to remove a decent amount of steel and thus reduce its power. As it was, Sensfelder measured the bow to be nearly 1200 lbs (540kg) at an almost 7 inch (17.5cm) draw. I took his advice and spent probably 15-20 hours meticulously sanding the bow on my belt sander. Starting with 120 grit sandpaper and working up to 400 grit, I kept a very close eye on the temperature (measured simply by feel with my hand) to ensure it didn't get over 212 degrees (100C) which would ruin the temper and could mean that the steel might break under pressure. Simply put, if it got too warm for my hand--well below 212 degrees--I would pause and run some water over it to cool it back down. I also took the moment, when I wasn't sanding, to measure the height and thickness with digital calipers. Needless to say, this seemingly simple task (sand down the bow) took a long time. Ultimately, I declared it done and decided to test the draw weight.

Testing the draw weight meant that I had to be able to span the bow. Without a windlass (I decided against forging one for myself since I'm still new to blacksmithing, so I ordered one instead), the only way to span the bow was to design a spanning bench using a spare 4x4 piece of pine I had laying around and a 2,000lb (907kg) hand winch. Keeping things simple, I cut out a socket for the bow to imitate that of the ash tiller, drilled out a hole behind the socket and added a thick steel bolt to give the wood some extra strength, and then bolted on the hand winch to the opposite side. Using chains and steel shackles (meant for pulling trailers), I spanned the bow back just enough to string it, then slowly released it to its resting point. Swapping out the long chains for shorter ones and a crane scale, I spanned the bow, taking careful note of how far the string moved. When it reached 7 inches (17.5cm), the scale reported a draw weight of 1,004 lbs (455kg). Happy with this, I slowly released it, removed the string, and moved on to the next stage.



Now that the bow was finished, I measured its height and thickness, which I needed in order to make the socket for it in the front of the tiller. Having also measured the brace height (the distance from the bow to the string while at rest, which for me was 3 inches, or 7.62cm) and draw (7 inches), I calculated the angle of the bow in the socket to be 11 degrees. I then sketched out the socket on both sides and rough-cut it out with a jigsaw. I followed this with chisels and files until everything fit perfectly.

The Trigger Mechanism

Next, it was time to tackle the hardest part: the roller nut and trigger assembly. I started by sketching out the whole internal workings of the roller nut on the left side of the tiller. I determined the placement for the roller nut by measuring out 10 inches (25.4cm) from the bow (since the brace height is 3 inches and the draw is 7, the distance from the bow to the center of the nut is 10 inches). Before I could carve everything out, however, I needed to do some work on the roller nut and trigger.


I had purchased a large steel nut from the Battle Merchant here, but it wasn't quite right. The space between the "claws" was too narrow to fit a proper bolt and my string was too big, at 1/2 inch thick (1.3cm), to fit in the claws. To fix this, I used an angle grinder and a file, and then cleaned it up with a Dremel tool with 400 grit polishing heads. What I did was I widened the gap between the claws by grinding the claws' thickness down, and then removed some steel from the top of the nut in front of the claws as well as deepen the channel between them so that, when the nut is sitting in the tiller, the top of the nut is flush with the top of the tiller (as in the picture below), and the claws easily hold the string. I did also have to cut and grind down the area around the bottom of the nut where the trigger would brace against, so that it was tall enough for the trigger to make full contact with it.


After shaping the nut, I also shaped the trigger and bridles. It's here that I cheated a little. I had originally planned to forge my own trigger, bridles, and stirrup, but between being a little apprehensive of my beginner's abilities with blacksmithing and feeling like I shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel when Alchem sells these parts for fairly cheap, I just bought them (you can find them here). That said, they do arrive "in the rough," so I had to shape them. I roughly shaped the trigger with my belt sander, rounding the main arm. I then used a Dremel tool with grinding heads to shape the tip of the trigger into a little ball. I finally cleaned it all up with some 400 grit sandpaper. For the bridles, I used the Dremel tool and files to open them up a bit to accommodate the thickness of the steel bow. I then reshaped the little fleur-de-lis on the end into a little ball (see picture below), imitating one I saw the Royal Netherlands Army Museum. The stirrup just required some bending to bring it to shape--I didn't do anything to it other than to give it a bit of a polish.


The next step was carving out the socket for the nut and the channel for the trigger. At one point, I had planned to make a steel socket that would be riveted into the tiller and house the nut perfectly, but I decided against it. Some originals seemed to have that (most were made from bone or antler); some didn't. Making one that did have this would mean an even thinner tiller (which, as I mentioned earlier, I was already a little worried about). I chose to leave my tiller on the thicker side, carving out a square socket into the tiller, and leaving almost 1/2 inch (1.3cm) of wood on either side of it. The last thing I wanted was for the nut to rip out of the socket, so I erred on the side of caution and left the tiller thick at the nut. Since I had sketched out the plan for the nut and trigger on the side of the tiller, it was just a matter of removing wood to match the sketch. To start, I added a piece of tape to a drill bit to indicate how deep I would drill out the nut's socket. Using a drill press, I carefully made a few rows of holes to easily remove most of the wood. Once done, I used a chisel to remove the rest of the wood and to create the socket. 



Before I could drill the channel for the trigger, I had to finish shaping the rear of the tiller. While I didn't have to worry yet about narrowing the tiller, I did need to cut out the wood underneath. Using a jigsaw, I rough-cut the tiller, but then used a belt sander to smooth it all out. Having nearly finishing the bottom of the tiller, I was ready to install the trigger. Drilling the hole for the trigger was a little more challenging than drilling for the nut-socket. I still used the drill press, but I had to angle the tiller such that the angle of the drill bit matched my sketch on the side of the tiller perfectly. I drilled almost all the way to the socket, then flipped the tiller right-side up, and drilled the rest of the trigger's channel through the socket. Once I had a hole that connected the trigger opening to the socket, it was just a matter of slow and meticulous chiseling to widen the hole and shape it just enough to accommodate the trigger and its eventual movement within the tiller.

When the nut's socket and trigger hole were carved out, the next step was making the side plates. These are more than simply decorative--they help to reinforce the whole trigger mechanism. As 1,000lbs of pressure is placed on the steel pins holding the trigger and nut, that pressure is dispersed into the wood of the tiller as well as the steel side plates. To further strengthen everything, the plates are also riveted in place with 1/8inch (3.18mm) steel rods. I sketched out the shape of the plates based on where the nut's pin and the trigger's pin would be, as well as the steel rods I'd use to rivet the plates on. For the plates, I used 14 gauge, cold-rolled steel that I cut to shape with a bandsaw and cleaned up with a belt sander. I then traced out the plates on either side of the tiller and carefully carved out the wood to inlet the plates. I specifically chose to inlet the plates because the system of spanning--via a windlass--would require a double-hook pulling the string back to the nut, possibly brushing up against the side of the tiller. If the side plates weren't inletting, there's a chance the hook could catch on the plates. 


The final step for the trigger mechanism was drilling the holes for the pins that held everything in place. I started by drilling holes only in the tiller: 3/16 inch (4.76mm) holes for the trigger and rivet pins, and then a 1/4 inch (6.35mm) hole for the nut. I would drill a hole halfway into the tiller on one side, and then drill halfway on the other, meeting up in the middle. I paused here to test out the trigger mechanism now that the holes were drilled (which required to me to also drill a hole in the trigger). Everything fit perfectly, which was both satisfying to see, but initially utterly nerve-wracking. Happy with how everything was going, I was ready to transfer the holes from the tiller to the side plates. To do this, I simply traced out the holes on the side plates by putting a pencil through the holes. I did screw up one side plate--the last hole I drilled (because of course) must have skipped a little in the drill press because it ended up about 1/16 inch (1.59mm) off. So after making a whole new side plate, I was more careful about drilling the holes and it paid off. Content with the plates, I riveted them in place with some mild steel rods, cut to size with a bandsaw and slowly hand-riveted with a ball peen hammer. Ideally, I would have used high-speed steel rods (hs steel) for the nut and trigger pins, but the hole I drilled for the nut's pin must have been a little too wide as the pin wanted to slip out. So in the end, I used a 1/4 inch (6.35mm) plain steel rod for the nut, but I was able to use an hs steel pin for the trigger (that one fits tightly without any riveting). While I would prefer that the pin for the nut is removable, should I ever need to replace it, I had to rivet it to keep it from popping out. That said, the pin that holds the most weight isn't the nut-pin, but rather the trigger-pin (which is why you sometimes see the nut held in place by a few strands of string). So, in the end, it worked out as that's the pin made from hs steel.


During this whole process, as I was drilling holes and riveting on the side plates, I added one feature that may have appeared in some late-medieval and Tudor crossbows: a spring. In one of his videos about steel crossbows, Tod Cutler refers to the use of a spring to help the trigger lock the nut in place. He mentioned something about how, since he was spanning a powerful bow, he wanted the guarantee that the trigger was truly holding the nut in place, so he added a small spring. This had been on my mind for some time and I just happened to have a small spring I wasn't using--it was a spare I ordered for building an 18th century rifle (specifically the patch box; I think this is the one I used). I decided to try this out as, if it didn't work, no harm done--the small screw that holds the spring in place is inside the socket and not noticeable. It worked better than I expected, so I decided to leave it, happy with the knowledge that the trigger will always lock itself fully into the nut when the bow is spanned, preventing the crossbow from accidentally releasing prematurely.

Attaching The Bow

The hard stuff done, I moved back to the front of the tiller: it was time to install the bridles. Pushing the bow into its socket and holding the bridle up against the tiller, I traced out the hole for the wedges (each side). I then used the drill press to open most of the hole up first, and then finished it with chisels, much as I did with the socket for the nut. After that, it was time for me to cut out the channel for the bolt along the top. This would be 5/8 inch (1.59cm) wide and would run from the nut all the way to the front. The depth of the channel is only as deep as is needed to be level with the nut. I carved it out with chisels, files, and finished with fine sandpaper.

Knowing where the hole for the wedges would be, I then set to work planning the reinforcement pin. On surviving crossbows, you'll notice a thick steel pin, the head imbedded in the bolt-channel on top, the bottom riveted to the bottom of the tiller. This pin helps to reinforce the tiller and prevent it from splitting, especially due to the violent shock as the string is released and yet the bow is locked in place. For my pin, I used a steel landscape spike, which is .28 inches (7.1mm) thick. I first cut it to length and shaved down the diameter of the head a little. I then drilled a 1/4 inch hole into the tiller at the same angle as the bow (through the bolt channel) and widened it somewhat with a round file. Now, if I had paused to really think this through, I would have drilled the hole for the pin halfway from the top and then halfway from the bottom, meeting in the middle, but I didn't, and just drilled straight-through from the top. I was feeling cocky about how well everything had gone so far. All this to say, the hole exited a little to the side of where it should have been (apparently my drill press' rest is slightly angled). Begrudgingly accepting this slight flaw, I moved on and expanded the pin's hole in bolt channel to accommodate the slightly wider head of the pin.


Next, I needed to make some washers for the bottom. Inspired by brass washers I had seen on some armor, I made my own from scrap brass sheeting I had. Since my brass was a little thin, I made two washers: one fancy, flower-shaped one and one simple round washer to add thickness, which I tucked under the former. Using metal chisels, I engraved little petal-shapes on the floral washer. The washers made, I slipped them onto the pin, and riveted the cut-end of the pin. Here's where I'll offer a little advice to anyone struggling to rivet a pin that is set into a stock. I first set a heavy piece of steel plate (like 1/4 inch) under my bench vice. I then took the piece of the landscape spike I had left over from the cut and clamped it into the vice so that the bottom of the spike was sitting on the steel plate. Using this clamped spike as a sort of tiny anvil, I placed the head of the pin (set into the tiller) on the spike, and supported the end of the tiller with some lumber I had laying around. Carefully hammering the end of the pin was slow work, but it paid off as I didn't scratch or dent the tiller at all.


Finishing

At this point, all that was left was final shaping and polishing. I narrowed the rear of the tiller with 80 grit sandpaper in my belt sander, from two inches (5cm) wide at the nut to 1.5 inches (3.8cm) at the butt. While it is three inches (7.6cm) tall at the nut, the tiller thins to just 1.75 inches (4.5cm) tall at the butt. Using progressively finer sandpaper, and by hand, I smoothed out the tiller, ever so slightly filleting the edges. Something I debated doing, but ultimately decided against, was adding steel plating to the butt. In one of Tod Cutler's videos, he explains how the steel plates protect the wood butt from the steel socket of the windlass, but I haven't found a single crossbow or depiction of one with this from the 15th century. This could just be because period artists didn't include that detail, but what really decided it for me was seeing this crossbow from Louis XII (dated to 1499-1514). Despite being a royal crossbow, it clearly never had a metal reinforcement on the butt as evidenced by the obvious lack of the plating, but also the scratch marks from the windlass. If scratches are evident on the original, then I will be content with scratches on mine.

“Armbrust,” Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer. France. 1499-1514.


The final step in building this crossbow was finishing the wood. A long time ago, I filled a mason jar with 50:50 beeswax and walnut oil for the food-adjacent wooden objects I was making (and didn't want linseed oil in my food). Using this stuff, I rubbed it all over the tiller, letting the oil seep into the wood and the beeswax sealing it all up.


What's Next

Shooting it of course! At the time of writing this, I finished building the crossbow, but I haven't received the windlass yet. So stay tuned for the next article which will presumably also contain a video. This could end up a total failure or a rousing success--only time will tell. Thanks for reading and, if you're planning to build your own crossbow and have some questions, send me a message. Again, I'm not an expert, but I'll share what I know and at the very least, point you in the direction of someone who does know.

Friday, December 13, 2024

"Arrayd In Maner Of Werre": Making A 15th Century Pavise

On the 17th of February 1448, a band of around three hundred Englishmen, led by Lord Moleyns, captured the East Anglian fortified manor house of Gresham Castle.¹ This action was not part of any larger conflict, but rather the result of years of disagreements between local families---indeed the next civil war, the Wars of the Roses, would not officially start for another seven years. Defending the castle was 26-year-old Margaret Paston and her twelve servants. Taken by surprise, the defenders were simply ejected, taking up residence with a nearby Paston-friend in Sustead. 

Gresham Castle (from Paston Footprints)

Two years later, Margaret's husband, John Paston, was still fighting in the courts to reclaim their lost property. In a petition to King Henry VI in 1450, he described Lord Moleyns' men as a small army "to the nombre of a thowsand persones... arrayd in maner of werre, with curesse, brigaunders, jakks, salettes, gleyfes, bowes, arows, pavyse, [and] gonnes."² While understood by Paston-historians as a bit of an exaggeration (their estimates are closer to 300), the letter does highlight some of the armaments of the local, East Anglian gentry. Of recent interest to me is the mention of "pavyse" or pavise (if however, like me, you're also interested by the reference to brigandines, please check out my earlier article here). Since I portray a crossbowman in service to the Pastons, I became enticed by the idea of recreating an English pavise. While John Paston described his enemy as possessing pavises, though, I'm using this source to, at the very least, place pavises within the experience of East Anglians in the second half of the 15th century. We don't know for sure if the Pastons' retainers were equipped with pavises, but we do know there were longbowmen, crossbowmen, and hand-gunners. My basic supposition then is that if Lord Moleyns' men had them, there's a decent chance that Pastons' men may have had them as well.

History Of The Pavise


French Siege of Duras in the Chronicles by Froissart (1377)

Pavises seem to have fallen into two main categories by the 15th century: an archer's shield or the hand-held shield of a man-at-arms (or "large and small" pavises as described in the inventory of gifts given by Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy in a 1449 as part of the wedding dowry of his great-niece Mary to King James II of Scotland). Judging based on surviving examples in museums like the Met, a typical archer's pavise may have been around 42 inches tall by around 20 inches wide. Made from wood as the core, it was then wrapped in canvas, glued to the wood with hide glue, then painted with gesso to establish a blank "canvas," whereupon a coat of arms and/or saint were often painted. Medieval historian and professor of history at Loyola University Kelly DeVries defines the pavise in his 2007 article "The introduction and use of the pavise in the Hundred Years War" as 

a large usually rectangular shield that could be held in the hands or propped up by a wooden or iron brace to provide protection for its user. Associated with the northern Italian town of Pavia -- although perhaps only in legend -- it is generally thought that these shields originated there sometime in the early to mid-thirteenth century.

DeVries further explains, referencing a mandement from the French King Charles V in 1365, that at least the French pavises were made from aspen, ideally. 

To help me understand the construction, I relied heavily on The Shieldery's video on YouTube, linked here. If you'd like to make your own, I highly recommend starting there.

Crafting The Pavise



The pavise shape I chose was simple: no "horn" at the top as is sometimes seen in some pavises, but rather, a basic "tombstone" shape that curves slightly back.

While I would have loved to start with aspen, due to cost and availability of materials, I opted to use pine. The process was almost exactly the same as in the video. I started by cutting down the boards to shape and size and glued them together using wood glue. I chose to screw down the two side boards to the center one to help the glue set, then backed the screws out a day later, drilled the holes a bit wider (3/8"), and hammered in 3/8" dowels, also glued. I'll note here that the process of building the shield was definitely not historically accurate. I effectively sped up the process by using modern tools, but also aided the longevity of the shield by using modern wood glue.

After trimming the dowel ends and finalizing the shape by planing and sanding, I then laid out linen canvas on the front, cut it so it overlapped that back a bit, and applied a thick layer of hide glue, spreading it around by hand (wearing latex gloves). Instead of using 100% authentic hide glue that I heated myself, I cheated a little by using Titebond's "genuine hide glue." If I make another pavise, I will gladly do this again as it was super easy to use and, after gluing the back canvas, took only a bottle and a half. Once the glue had cured and was no longer tacky---about two days---I applied gesso over the back in two layers, sanding between the layers.

Before I could gesso the front though, I had to install some hardware: two oversized steel staples and a leather handle, nailed in place with two, proper forged nails. I fired up my forge and, using a 1/4" mild steel bar, I hammered out the two "staples." Lacking a nail jig, I just had to buy proper hand-forged rose-head nails. Before hammering in, I drilled pilot holes to keep the wood from splitting, placing them approximately where they are located on the originals. The staples and nails ended up sticking out about an inch on the front, so I hammered these down and into the wood/canvas a bit---this is why I waited to gesso the front. As a side note, I made the handle from a scrap piece of veg-tanned sole leather (~16 oz) and the sling from 8 oz veg tan. 

After applying two layers of gesso to the front of the pavise, the final stage was painting. This, to me, was the most interesting and rewarding part, mostly because I've never painted before and I discovered that it's almost too easy to do. After consulting the member of our unit who portrays John Paston, we decided that I should paint the Paston coat of arms and griffon on the front and a depiction of the martyrdom of St. Edmund on the back (he, like the Pastons, was from East Anglia, and he was martyred by being shot by archers).

Image from the Paston Footprints
Image from Paston Footprints

Image borrowed from here (painting in Pickering Church)

The paint I'd use is egg tempera which The Shieldery explains in the same video linked above, but is also explained in articles here and here. Essentially, egg tempera is made by mixing equal parts egg yolk with water and then a drop or two of white vinegar as a preservative (apparently, the vinegar extends the life of the egg-mixture to about five days). To extract the yolk, use your preferred method for separating the egg white (I just used my hands), but then gently pinch the yolk with one hand and, while suspended over your collection vessel, poke it with a toothpick or pinch it with your other hand, allowing the yolk to drip out of its sack. The egg yolk mixed with a little water and vinegar is the glue for the paint. The paint itself is a 1:1 mixture of the yolk-glue with pigment. I used non-toxic cinnabar, titanium white, yellow ochre, red iron oxide (brown), black iron oxide, and ultramarine. Mixing the paint is straight-forward: lift some pigment with a scraper onto a palette and drop in egg-glue to the right proportions (I used a little eye-dropper), and then mix with the scraper. Making St. Edmund's pale flesh color, for example, required some yellow ochre, a small amount of cinnabar, and an even smaller amount of titanium white. Less white gave me the correct color for shadows while a little more white gave me highlight color. Having read those linked articles above, I started with dark and background colors first, working towards the front, doing my best to use the cross-hatching method. You can see my progress in the images below, from sketch, to background paint, to final, all over the course of three days. One great thing about egg tempera is that the paint dries fast, allowing you to paint over it fairly soon after. You can also remove mistakes easily by touching a wet Q-tip to the mistake and lifting the paint.

Sketch of St. Edmund
Dark layer painted first (some experimentation
 with glue-pigment ratio)
Lighter paint added
Details and shading painted in

After the paint had dried and cured for about a week, I used Liquitex's professional matte varnish in spray form to varnish the whole shield. While linseed oil may have been used to protect the egg tempera paint on historical shields, I wanted something modern to make this shield last a bit longer. The benefit of using the spray varnish is also that I didn't have to worry about accidentally making the paint run by brushing it.

Overall, I'm pleased with how well it turned out. This project inspired me to paint a lot more with egg tempera now. I do regret not trimming the canvas on the upper corners (you can easily see the folds of excess fabric on the inside top of the shield), but that's my only regret for now. If this post inspires you to make your own, please post in the comments below. As always, I'm more than happy to offer advice if you decide to make your own--just fill out the "contact me" form on the right!


_____________________

¹ Gresham Castle has become a favorite of mine. It's a great example of a local, yet substantial defensive structure. Made of stone with four crenellated curtain walls, four round towers (one at each corner), a moat, drawbridge, and inner-courtyard with the presumably two-story wattle-and-daub manor house, Gresham was no push-over. To see a 3D reconstruction for yourself, check out this link. Today, it's little more than an overgrown copse of trees with a moat, standing in the middle of a farm field. I had the pleasure of exploring the site a little this summer, by means of bushwhacking, and I can definitively say that very little still survives (click here to see pictures from when I visited).

² In modern English: "to the number of a thousand persons... arrayed in [a] manner of war, with cuirasses, brigandines, jacks [of plate or mail?], salets, glaives, bows, arrows, pavises, [and] guns."

Tuesday, August 23, 2022

Making A 15th Century Brigandine

Before starting this post, it is paramount for me to first explain that I am not an armorer and I have only a working knowledge of late-medieval armor; I am therefore not an expert by any means. This was my first foray into crafting armor and I learned a lot along the way. My hope with this article is to share what I learned--after over 200 hours of labor--inasmuch as it is to show off the awesome brigandine I made.


History Of Brigandines

Brigs left to right: 1400-50 at the Met; 1470-80 at the Royal Armouries; 1540-50 at the RA 

"Brigaundiris," "brigaunders," "brigantiens," and "brigandinis" are just four ways John Paston and his associates referred to the same type of upper body armor of the middle- to late- 15th century. A brigandine, within the cultural context of western European history, is a type of late-medieval (15-16th centuries) torso armor characterized by hundreds of overlapping steel plates riveted to an outer material that's backed with canvas, weighing around 20 pounds on average. A brigandine fulfills a similar defensive role as a back and breastplate (cuirass) that many attribute to the men-at-arms of this period. That said, a brig was worn by both "common soldiers" as well as the aristocracy and everyone in between. One major factor for determining the quality of the brigandine--and thus who wore it--was the outer or "covering" material used. In one surviving example at the Metropolitan Museum, velvet was used as the covering fabric; presumably this was owned and worn by someone who was well-off. Other types of material used to cover the brigandine included silk, wool, linen, and leather.

Interior of a brig from 1470-80 in the Royal Armouries

Basic definition aside, the brigandine wasn't a singular type of segmented armor during this period. As has been hotly debated by actual armor experts on numerous forums, the brigandine is often conflated with the contemporary coat-of-plates. A quick comparison of the two would reveal that they are both segmented torso armor, with steel plates riveted to a covering material as well as an inner fabric. The key differences however are the size and number of the plates used. 

Left to right: late-14th early 15th-century coat of plates from the Bayerisches Nationalmuseum in Munich; 1470-80 brigandine from the Royal Armouries

A coat-of-plates (or "pair of plates") normally has one large breastplate with numerous smaller plates for the peplum (skirt) and back. As has been suggested by the earlier referenced armor experts, the coat-of-plates may have been the ancestor for the later brigandine (sometimes referred to as a "pair of brigandines"), though surviving documents show that both were being used at the same time and clearly delineated (at least by the late 14th century). It is tricky to say with absolute certainty what a medieval person precisely meant by "brigandine" or "pair of plates"--notably if they were the same definitions we have attributed to them in the 21st century--and perhaps it's altogether irrelevant. We have a tendency in the modern age to categorize everything, but did those categories even exist 500 years ago or exist as we know them today?


Planning The Brigandine

Early Stages: Choosing A Brig


1480 brigandine at the Musee de l'Armee in Paris

As mentioned earlier, brigandines varied widely in quality. The covering material is one major factor for determining the quality of the brig. As my living history portrayal is that of an archer, I was not looking to recreate the all too common tri-riveted Italian brigandine in the Royal Armouries collection. Yes, while archers are shown in the artwork of the period wearing colorful and high-quality brigs, I wanted one that was clearly of a lower status--something far more for the commoner than the well to do. I originally toyed around with the idea of a wool-covered brig, but since a member of my unit already has one, and for the purpose of showing multiple types of brigs to the public, I wanted to try something else. Most of the surviving examples are understandably covered in rich fabrics (those tend to survive in wealthy families' collections), but in my research, I came across what appeared to be a brig of more common origins: the leather-covered "archer's brigandine" in the Musee de l'Armee's collection. I latched onto this as the brigandine I wanted to copy. Now certainly, it's purely speculation that the brig was used by an archer, and some aspects of the brig look like they were altered at a later date (shoulders, neckline, and maybe the peplum), but the general shape and construction largely matched that of a typical brigandine from the late 15th century. With a model in mind to base my brigandine off of, I began to consider the details.

Aside from the covering material, another major factor in the quality of historical brigandines was the steel plates themselves: quantity, thickness, and hardness. In short, brigandines were made lighter or heavier to suit the wearer's desire. Referenced a few times by Matt Easton and Augusto Bront in their recent video on how medieval armor was tested, brigandines were tested (or "proofed") among plate armor for their defensive abilities, notably rated at "half-proof" or "full-proof." While later armor of the 17th century and on was proofed for pistols and even muskets, the two sources identified by Augusto Bront clearly show proofing based on crossbows and bows. While fascinating, I could not find any sources that connect half- or full-proof brigandines with anything measurable (overall weight, plate thickness, number of plates, etc.). I hope I can eventually find such a source, but when building my armor, I was at a loss. In fact, my only source for plate thickness was this wonderful how-to by Craig Nadler, who offered that the 1050 spring steel plates should be .035" thick (~20 gauge), except for the lung plates which should measure in at .050" (~17 gauge). It was a shot in the dark, to an extent, to just trust a secondary source with the plate thicknesses, but since I couldn't find thickness measurements of the plates in the Met, Royal Armouries, Musee de l'Armee, or the Philadelphia Museum of Art's online collections, I decided to trust Nadler. If final weight can be used to suggest the quality of a brig though, vis-a-vis plate density, Nadler's measurements seem to hold up. My final brig weighs 20 pounds which is comparable to those in the museums' collections that offer a weight in the description. This isn't a perfect correlation since materials used (leather is heavier than velvet) will skew the results, but as the extants that are listed with weights are about the same size as mine (just a couple centimeters off), covering material is really the only major variable. Needless to say, I'm pleased with my albeit imperfect data and Nadler's plate thicknesses.

Patterning The Body


Leather pieces cut out from pattern

I really could not have begun my brig if it were not for Craig Nadler's article. It is the comprehensive how-to article on recreating a brigandine. I referenced this constantly during the initial planning and again during construction. If you plan to make your own, definitely read Nadler's article first. That said, since I was going to copy the Musee de l'Armee's leather brig, I couldn't exactly use Nadler's patterns to make mine. So, the first thing I needed was the overall pattern; for that, I used my doublet. Enlarging it by about an inch (if I remember correctly) at each seam, I also widened the armscye, and slightly lengthened the peplums. The peplums also had to be a part of the main body, not separate like they are on a normal doublet. Additionally, analyzing the pictures of the extant, I had to ever-so-slightly move the side seams. Confident that this would work, I cut out and hand sewed a mockup from the linen canvas that would become the inner fabric of the brig, using waxed linen thread and backstiches. Everything looked good at this stage, so I then moved forward with the leather.

For the covering material, as earlier explained, I chose leather. Specifically, I went with 4-5oz vegetable-tanned leather (procured from Tandy Leather). Using the same pattern, I cut out the pieces of leather, though without seam allowances (so about 1/2" less on the sides and shoulders where they become seams). Before sewing, I needed to dye the leather. Based on the extant and the most common colors for common soldiers I noticed in the artwork, I decided on black. While it's challenging to say what color the extant in the Musee de l'Armee actually was, I feel confident that it was probably black. Part of my confidence stems from the knowledge that it's extraordinarily easy to dye veg-tanned leather black using the historical vinegaroon (made and gifted to me by a friend who apparently made way too much). Made by mixing rust with vinegar (here's a modern how-to), the concoction creates a chemical reaction with the leather that dyes it black. Here's a clip I took to show you how quickly and effectively it works.

Once dyed, I submerged each piece in water mixed with baking soda to balance out the acidity/basicity of the leather. The last thing I wanted was for the vinegar-soaked leather to encourage/speed up rust development on the steel plates. After the leather dried, I sewed the pieces together using heavy waxed linen thread and saddle-stitching the seams, butting one piece against the other (which is why I didn't cut for seam allowances for the leather). After trying this on, however, I was worried that the leather might be too thick. Looking back at the original, though, I was still convinced I chose the correct weight, but I didn't like how stiff it was. I then spent a good hour or so rolling the leather "vest" around and making it much more pliable. The end result--a soft and pliable leather body--looked exactly like the extant in the museum.

Body sewn up

The last part of this initial stage was to sew the canvas lining to the leather. The extant has leather piping around most of the raw edges of the leather (neck, armscye, and front opening), so I used the piping seams to attach the canvas to the body. To make the piping, I cut very long 1" wide strips of 4oz veg-tanned leather (two the length of the fronts, two the length of the armscyes, one the length of the neck opening, and two half the length of the bottom), dyed with vinegaroon. To attach them, I first lined up the canvas lining inside the leather body, matching seams and then temporarily fastening them together with binder clips. Starting with the front opening, I placed one of the piping strips along the front, matching right sides together, and clipping the piping in place with the binder clips. I then used waxed linen thread and whip stitched through all three layers (canvas, body, piping) the entire length of the front. Then, I turned the piping strip inside the body, covering the raw edges of the leather and canvas, and whip stitched it down to the canvas. Once I sewed on all the piping strips, the body was complete.

Piping whipped down onto the canvas along the neckline and front


Patterning The Plates

At about the same time as when I started making the body, I ordered the steel sheets and rivets. Following Craig Nadler's advice, I bought a couple 2' X 4' sheets of 20 gauge steel (procured from All Metals Inc.). Purely out of convenience and knowing that I wouldn't be facing actual combat with my brig, I opted to use exclusively 20 gauge steel (no differentiation for lung plates which Nadler specified as being ~17 gauge). For rivets, I ordered 1,600 solid brass rivets with 1/2" posts (procured from Buckle Guy). This was after ordering a couple different sizes and, comparing the head size on the assembled leather body to the pictures from the Musee de l'Armee, I went with the .31" wide rivets.

To pattern the plates, I couldn't use Nadler's patterns. Since I used my own pattern for the body of the brig and the shape of the plates just looked like they were different than those he used, I had to make my own patterns. To be clear, no pictures have ever been taken of the interior of the Musee de l'Armee brig. When I reached out to the curator, I was told that it was too fragile for them to dismount it and photograph it for me. So, relying on the rivet placements, I endeavored to pattern out each plate. Sketching on the paper pattern pieces for the body of the brig, I essentially outlined the rivets in a sort of connect-the-dots fashion (see the picture below with the light blue showing a chest plate and the red showing a random front plate). 


The problem, I quickly came to realize, was that every single plate seemed unique; there's no way I was going to be able to just cut out 200+ same-size/shape rectangles and be done with it. So, after sketching every plate out on the body pattern, I labeled each one (1A for the top chest plate, 1B for the one beneath it, 2A for the plate beside 1A, etc.), all 260 plates. As I sketched out each plate, I also drew circles indicating rivet placements.

After sketching and labeling them on the body patterns, I of course needed to make patterns of the plates themselves. What you can't see from the outside of the brig though is that the plates overlap each other--they're not just butted up against each other. So the pattern for each plate needed to be extended half an inch left or right and half an inch at the top or bottom (see picture below). To figure out which direction each plate had to be extended, I referred to Nadler's article which helped to make sense of the brig interiors that you can see in the various extants. Using the example above, the light blue chest plate only gets extended half an inch to the top, but the red plate would be extended half an inch to the right and half an inch to the top. The reasoning is that the armorer rivets the top chest plate first (1A in my example), works down that row to the waist, and then rivets the next row back, working from the front to the sides and ultimately center back. Everything below the waist (the peplums) get riveted in reverse order (after the entire upper body has been riveted), so starting from the bottom fronts and working up to the waist and back to the center-back. All this to say, I traced each plate pattern from the body onto another sheet of paper, adding the the extra half inch were needed, and then cut out each pattern piece. I then taped each plate pattern to the sheets of steel and cut them out using a bandsaw with a steel-cutting blade (or two, after I snapped the first).

Overlapping plates in the first two rows: from top to bottom and left to right

260 steel plates later, I removed the paper patterns from the steel, carefully marking each plate with permanent marker the designated letter/number and a dot where a rivet should be placed. I then filed down sharp corners and edges, and finally drilled rivet holes using a 3/32" drill bit in a drill press. The last step for the plates before riveting was tinning. Every brig in museum collections showed steel plates that were tinned to resist rust. Deciding at this point to take a sort-of shortcut (also I wasn't about to invest in tin-plating equipment), I reached out to a friend who works in a university science lab, to have him electroplate my steel plates with tin. Despite his excellent and arduous efforts, the plating wasn't perfect and the plates were still rusting in parts. Not wanting to buy more equipment for this project, I called it "good enough" and was ready to begin riveting.

Riveting The Plates


As previously described, the plates are riveted starting at the top front plates (technically the shoulder) and working down to the waist and back to the center back. For my brig, that meant seven vertical rows each side (five on the fronts and two on each side of the back). Once done, a center-back row (special row #8) is riveted down. Then, I worked the peplums, starting at the bottom of the front row and working up and back, finished off with row #8 to cover the center. Still not quite complete, a row of plates also needed to be riveted along the waist (so a horizontal row), starting at the fronts and working to the center back. The final plates to be added were the collar plates. Starting at the front and working back, the plates are riveted down. That's the general gist of how they're riveted, but of course it's not quite so cut-and-dry.

First five rows riveted on

When both rows of front plates (left and right sides) were riveted, I had to also include buckles and straps: seven buckles and seven straps to be precise. Because I wasn't sure if the buckles on the Musee de l'Armee brig were actually from the 15th century, and not added later, I opted for simple squared bronze buckles (procured from Historical Enterprises). I cut out the leather for the buckles and the straps, dyed them, and for the buckle-straps, I sewed them with waxed linen thread. For a little embellishment, I also pressed lines into the edges of the straps. To attach the straps to the brig, I carefully cut a slit in the brig's leather next to where the rivet will be (just one of the rivets that holds the plate in place), slid the strap into that hole, and punched a rivet through all the layers (brig outer, buckle strap, canvas, and plate). You can see how it works in the picture below from the extant. Note, too, how you can make out the outline of the strap under the brig's leather covering. Of interest, you can also see where additional buckles were riveted at one point based on the cuts in the leather body--perhaps doubling the quantity of buckles or, more likely, indicating an older placement that for some reason didn't work out.


I should also mention briefly how I made the rivets. When I placed the plate where it should go (I traced out the plates from the brig body pattern onto the canvas lining), I hammered finishing nails through the holes of the plate, into the canvas and leather body, and into a chunk of scrap wood. After removing the nails, I pushed the rivets through, from the leather (outside) into the plate. With a 1/2" steel plate as my "anvil," I clipped off the excess post of the rivets, leaving maybe 1/4 of post sticking out above the plate, and hammered the post with a ball peen hammer. After much of the body was riveted, it became fairly tricky to rivet some plates, so I created a tool to help. I ground down the head of a 3" bolt so that it was slightly rounded (no sharp edges), threaded a couple of nuts onto it--one high up by the head and one closer to the end--and then clamped the bolt to the vise on an anvil with the head sticking up about an inch. I then tightened the nuts to the vise so that the bolt wouldn't shift left or right on me. The head of the bolt is what I used as the anvil for attaching tricky rivets--mostly in areas where the brig was heavily curving.

First chest plate being placed with nails

Final Adjustments


I seldom complete a project without something potentially disastrous happening. As it turned out, I couldn't put on my brig because the armscyes were too narrow and the whole thing is quite rigid. Basically, I could get one arm in, but not the other. After researching brigs early on, I had concluded that the most common trend I saw in the historical artwork was complete shoulders--only a couple showed buckled-shoulders. That was one of the biggest changes I made from the Musee de l'Armee extant: not using buckled-together shoulders. I was determined that they should be solid. Needless to say, if I wanted to wear my brig, the shoulders needed to be opened up. So I took out my seam ripper and popped open the shoulder seams. I then very arduously stitched piping over the now-exposed shoulder edges (working around the plates which were now at this point permanently riveted on). The last step was to add buckles and straps. Of course my original buckle-supplier was out of stock of the buckles I used for the fronts, but thankfully Tod Cutler had almost the exact same buckles in stock, of which I bought four (procured here at Tod Cutler). Since the buckles and straps get riveted on using the same rivets that hold the plates in place, I had to cut out some rivets using a hacksaw blade and a lot of patience (thankfully I hadn't finished riveting the collar plates yet, so I only needed to cut out four rivets). Eventually, I was able to rivet the shoulder buckles and straps on using the same method I used for the front buckles.

Shoulder straps added

The last bit of work was oiling the leather. While I do not know if this was done historically, I know that not-oiled leather doesn't last very long, especially if it's been beaten up a lot through the riveting process. I used neatsfoot oil--the same as what I use to conditioning my historical shoes--and was glad to see the dust and dryness vanish as it darkened a little. 

Final Thoughts


I learned a lot through this project. Forced to over-analyze the smallest details in countless images of armor has given me a greater appreciation for 15th century armor. But so has hand-hammering 1,600 rivets. One thing I dislike about this brig now that it is complete is that it doesn't have anything close to the wasp-waist that you see on other brigs. I knew that it wasn't going to have it when I first started because the original at the Musee de l'Armee doesn't have it and you really can't make it without detached peplums, but I still just dislike the shape of the waist. I also kind of wish I made the armscye a little bigger to allow for a bit more movement. In all though, it's very wearable and it looks like the original and that's really what I was going for.

I hope you enjoyed this article or at least the pictures of my brigandine. When my medieval unit--the Paston Project--creates a website, I'll link to it here so that, should you want to see this brigandine in person, you can visit us at an event. Please leave a comment or ask a question below! If you are interested in making your own, I'd be happy to offer advice or at least get you in contact with someone who knows more. Thanks for reading!