The Medieval Armorer:

While this site is focused primarily on maille armor and all things related to it,

this article will take a little bit of a broader view of the medieval armorer in general. That

is to say, rather than talking about the particular process of making maille armor or plate

armor or other some such, this article will focus on the business of being an armorer in

general. This article will not discuss the various theories on armor production methods,

rather, it will discuss the nature of the business. For a discussion on the armorer’s role in

the chain of production of armor see Iron: From Ore to Armor. For a discussion about the

effect of guilds and labor on the armorer, see Guilds: A History.

Unfortunately, there is very little known about armorers or the nature of their

shops prior to the fourteenth century. After the fourteenth century, more is known largely

due to the introduction of plate armor. With the introduction of plate, a number of things

changed in the armorer’s business. First, the armor they made could be easily stamped or

marked as made by a specific craftsman. Second, the industry itself was expanding

enormously. This was partly because of increased time required to produce an entire kit

of armor and partly because of the increased need for specialization in production. With

more people in the business, more records and first hand accounts survive.

Even so, there is little known about the day-to-day medieval armorer. No specific

period documents exist that document the particulars of their business in the way that

documents cover the business of the smith. 1 For the armorer of the everyday knight or

foot soldier clad in maille, there is almost nothing known about the particulars of their

everyday business. What is known is that cheaper armor and equipment was often made

1

by a local armor smith and often not in an industrial setting. This is especially true during

the age of maille.

We do know that the business was a thriving one. In a fourteenth century

chronicle written by the Dominican monk Glvano Fiamma, he described Milan as

bustling with armorers and said that there were over a hundred maille makers shops in

Milan alone. 2 Because the business was a thriving and lucrative endeavor, there was a

great degree of specialization. They did not produce a piece from scratch. An armorer

would not smith iron ore, nor would the shop handle making wire for maille. Smithies

and mills made these raw materials and the armorer would buy these materials for use in

the shop. 3 Just as maille makers typically bought premade wire, it is also likely that they

bought premade sheets or strips of iron for punching solid rings. The reason for this

specialization in material production is easy to understand. When the man-hours involved

in mere assembly time alone take weeks to finish a piece, an armor shop simply would

not have the time or tools to make every piece of material from iron ore.

Specialization went beyond merely buying premade wire or iron bars, however.

Often, people think of an armorer as one who made various types of armor in his shop.

While this is sometimes the case, instead, it was more common for there to be specialized

armor shops making specific types of armor. For instance, the fourbor was a polisher, and

refurbisher of armor. Indeed, in Cologne, the armorers guild split from the maille makers

guild in 1399. 4 This indicates throughout the Fourteenth century, as plate developed

1 Matthias Pfaffenbichler, Medieval Craftsmen: Armourers (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992),2 Ibid. at 9.3 Adam Robert Lucas, “Industrial Milling in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds: A Survey of the Evidence for an Industrial Revolution in Medieval Europe,” Technology and Culture, Vol. 46, No. 1 (2005), 16.4 Pfaffenbichler, Armourers at 10.

2

more fully, there were shops dedicated to only making plate, and shops that only made

maille, until finally, the two types of armor shops split.

Some armor communities were so highly specialized that armor shops would

literally only make one or two pieces of armor. In Nuremberg, for example, every master

had to qualify as a master to produce every item he sold. 5 For instance, a master would

need to qualify separately to produce a helmet, a gauntlet, and a greave before he would

be authorized by the guild to sell that particular type of armor. In London, by 1347 there

was a specific guild formed for helmet-makers. 6

This high degree of specialization led to an overall increased output of armor in

the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In Nuremberg, the high number of very specialized

shops meant that large order for low quality armor fit for foot soldiers could be

completed quickly. For example, in 1362, an order from Emperor Charles IV required

over 1,800 kits of armor. High specialization allowed for mass production as shops

collaborated with each other to finish the order. Individual shops handled the production

of gauntlets, breastplates, helmets, greaves, and other pieces and then sent the completed

kits off. Similarly, Cologne was known, not for its quality armor, but that it could mass

produce armor. So proficient were the Cologne armor makers that the city council

allowed six new polishing mills just to keep up with demand at the end of the fourteenth

century.

On the other end of the quality spectrum was Augsburg, which produced some of

the highest quality armor between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. It was common

for high end armorers to have a patron. That is to say, some rich magnate, king, or lord

5 Ibid. 6 Lucas, “The Armor Business,” at 60.

3

who helped to support the armorer in exchange for work and product. Much like in the art

world where an artist will have a noble patron support their craft, the armorer often had a

rich family do the same. A record from the mid-sixteenth century shows that Augsburg

alone had forty-five armorers with specific patrons. 7 Nobles from across Europe ordered

the highest quality of armor from Augsburg and found armorers who made product they

particularly liked. In order to ensure ready access to this armor, nobles were willing to

grant favors and give financial aid to their favorite armorer.

However, as with art, admirers of a particular armor style or maker will change

over time. The death of Charles V, one of Augsburg’s most loyal patrons, left the

armorers of the city without crucial support. Indeed, by 1624, the once hub of the high-

end armor business only had four active armorers left. 8

Sometimes, instead of supporting an armorer abroad, a noble would hire famous

armorers to work in their courts to produce the crem-de-le-crème of armor in-house.

Interestingly, these famous armorers were often brought in on a retainer and were to

instruct local armorers in their craft so that when they left, their knowledge stayed in the

hands of the king or magnate. 9

However, not all armorers were famous or hired by kings. Most armorers were

engaged in small-scale practice. Because armor was passed down from generation to

generation or stripped after a battle, there was a great need for refitted or refurbished

armor. Armorers were not simply in the business of creating new armor but were also

called upon to repair old armor, to rework it for a son inheriting armor from his father, or

to take armor for scrap purposes. 10 7 Pfaffenbichler, Armourers at 11.8 Ibid.9 Larson, “The Armor Business in the Middle Ages,” 58.10 Ibid.

4

Master armorer’s, like many Medieval craftsmen, tended to pass their trade on to

their children. Indeed, there are numerous known armorer families who passed down the

trade for three, four, or more generations. One such family was the Missaglia family in

Milan. In the mid-1300s a Missaglia went to Milan as an arms-maker. His son, Tommaso,

entered the armor business instead but worked with his father, the two apparently selling

both arms and armor. By 1430, Tommaso had had a son Antonio, he followed his

father’s footsteps to become one of the most famous Milanese armorers of his generation.

Antonio made armor for crusading knights passing through Milan on the way to the Holy

Land and for the noble elite of Europe. 11 The example of this family can be reproduced

hundreds if not thousands of times across Europe, such was the nature of the craft

industry of Medieval Europe. However, even this was not the only outcome. Of course

there were family lines that ended and master often passed their shop to a favorite

journeyman instead of a child, for instance. However, there were also itinerant armorers.

Those who could not gain access to a guild could not sell their wares except on market

days. These itinerant armorers either worked small jobs, repairing old armor and making

pieces as they could, or they would hire themselves out to a master where they could.

There is no doubt that the term “armorer” is a broad one with range in the quality

of the armor, the type of armor produced, and the scope of the production. Because of

this, it is hard to accurately identify how profitable the armor business really was.

However, there are some clues that give at least an indication of the income of an

armorer. In order to calculate the income of an armorer, one must know (1) expenses,

including labor expense, material expense, professional expenses such as guild

11 Ibid. at 61.

5

membership, and equipment and facility expenses; and (2) The price of the armor that the

armorer sold.

As far as the expenses related to the armor craft, one crucial expense was wages.

Wages did fluctuate with time and varied depending on the region, but there are some

records that will give a general idea of what workers received. Records showing that

journeymen in Florence were paid 1 florin a week while the apprentices received half a

florin per week serve well as a guide to the difference in wages based on experience and

seniority. 12 Also interesting is that many contracts contained provisions for room and

board as well as payment in kind. Payment in kind often took the form of payment in the

form of a bolt of fabric to be made into clothing. An Italian contract from 1406 with a

journeyman provides that armorer would pay 2 soldi and 16 imperiali per month and also

provide room and board. 13

Along the topic of wages, there was another class of armorer whose income is

much easier to calculate – those with salaried wages. These include armorer’s working at

royal armories and arsenals as well as journeymen and apprentices in some instances. The

royal armorer’s on retainer typically received a set salary for their work. Armorer’s

working in royal Henry VIII’s royal workshops at Greenwhich were paid as follows: the

chief armorer received ₤17 per year, junior armorers received ₤15, and the apprentices

₤9. 14

The time it took to produce armor is important to know because the wages paid to

apprentices and journeymen factor into the cost of the production. It is well known that

armor took a long time to produce. However, it is hard to pinpoint exactly how long each

12 Pfaffenbichler, Armourers at 51.13 Ibid.14 Ibid. at 51.

6

piece took. This is especially true because different quality armor would take different

lengths of time to make. As stated above, it was relatively easy to produce large

quantities of low quality armor, but this was made possible by an entire town pulling their

work and through high specialization. Another factor that affected production times was

that guilds often imposed manpower restrictions, limiting the number of workers allowed

to work in a shop. Because of these restrictions, it was not uncommon for masters to

“loan” a journeyman to meet deadlines in production.

With all of this in mind, there are some accounts that relate the relative amount of

time it would take to produce a suit. A Parisian armorer working for Philip the Good took

three and a half months to make two jousting suits. 15 In 1337, one master quoted seven

months to forge an etched and guilded suit of complete armor. To make only a

breastplate, a back, helmet, gorget, and one shoulder, the same master quoted only two

months. This indicates that the gilding, etching and decoration added to the armor added

considerable time to the process of completing a suit – on the order of months. 16 If a suit

took months to produce at wages of 1 florin a week, ₤9 per year, or some other employee

wage, it is easy to see how costs involved in wages alone would lead to high armor

prices.

Something else important to remember is that a quote for a completion time –

which is what is typically given – does not necessarily equal actual production time. That

is to say that an armorer might already be working on a piece that will take one more

week to complete, that he has two more small jobs to finish that will take another three

weeks, and that a quote of two months might actually mean that particular job will take

15 Ibid. at 53.16 Ibid.

7

one month. Unfortunately, the nature of the records often does not make it clear whether

the armorer is quoting strict production time, or if he is quoting a completion time.

Another cost we know a little about was the price of raw materials. The Royal

Armory in Greenwich used eight bundles of steel per year. Rough estimates indicate that

a bundle of steel weighed just over 200 pounds. This means that the armory was using

about 1600 pounds of steel per year. The total cost for this per year was about ₤15. That

is to say, only ₤2 less than the wage for a master armorer at the same workshop. In order

to forge thirty-two suits of armor at Greenwich, the workshop consumed 1,300 pounds of

iron for a total of 41 pounds per suit. 17 Some basic math will help us figure out the

material cost in iron per suit using these figures.

At eight bundles of iron per year costing a total of ₤15, that equals ₤1.875 per 200

pound bundle. That means that an armorer would be able to make 4.87 suits out of that

200 pound bundle assuming 41 pounds per suit and no material waste. If you divide

₤1.875 by 4.87, you get ₤0.385 per suit in iron cost alone. Moreover, the cost and

consumption of charcoal was even higher at 41 loads a year with a cost of ₤21 per year.

Leather for strapping and padding was another ₤5 a year. 18

Something to remember is that this is one Sixteenth century example from one

armory. This was also an example of a fairly large scale operation. It is not clear,

therefore, if the prices paid, even for that time, were what a smaller operation would have

paid. Another thing to consider is the widely varying quality of iron and that prices would

differ accordingly. In 1562, Spanish iron cost ₤12 per ton, for example.

17 Ibid. 18 Ibid.

8

The price paid for armor varied depending on the period, the type of armor, and

the quality of armor. However, we do know the values of some armor of varying quality,

and from this we can extrapolate some general ideas of its cost. For example, in 1324 Sir

John De Swynnerton had a number of his goods stolen and made an inventory of the

items with their value. He indicated that a habergon with an aventail, pisan, and collaret

was worth 10 marks. 19 (N.B. One mark was worth about 13s.4d.) A record of arms and

weapons purchased by Thomas de Mehebourne shows that fourteenth century foot soldier

equipment need not cost a fortune. Aketons cost 5 shillings each, Bacinets with aventails

were 3 shillings each, while gauntlets cost 1 shilling a pair.

Royal armor in the age of maille was more expensive, but not terribly so. In the

early thirteenth century, a hauberk for King John cost ₤1 while a habergon cost only 1

mark at the same time. 20 An aketon purchased for King Edward II in 1312 cost 10

shillings, double the lower quality aketons suited for a foot soldier. 21 Hugh de Bungay

paid ₤2 for a war helm and paid an additional 5 shillings for a painted crest; he also

purchased plate gauntlets for 6 shillings, and greaves with burnished fittings for 26

shillings. In the same transaction, two bacinets cost 13 shillings for the pair.. 22

If these prices do not seem astronomical, that is because they are not. Even the

most expensive armor in the age of maille seems to have been reasonably priced. This

makes sense because to one degree or another, maille is maille. Yes, the size of the rings,

the quality of the rivets, and the quality of construction will all play a very large factor in

the final cost. However, there does not appear to have been a huge disparity in cost

19 Michael Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1996), 26.20 Ibid. at 28.21 Ibid at 29.22 Ibid.

9

between elite maille and average or low quality maille. The reason for this, I think, boils

down to time. Even if an armorer made poor quality maille, there is only so much time

that can be shaved off by cutting corners. On the other hand, there is a point of

diminishing returns where even the finest armorer can only make maille so well. Even if

the armor is better, he will not take exponentially longer on that piece than a poorly

constructed piece. This has to do with the nature of maille in particular and does not

apply in the same way to plate armor which seemed to have had wider quality ranges.

As the nature of armor changed and plate armor rose in prominence, so too did the

cost and the ability for an armorer to charge for quality, for “brand name” armor, and for

extras like guilding. This change is most notable at the start of the fifteenth century, when

maille armor truly fell from its dominance. In 1441, Sir John Crecy purchased ready

made Milanese armor for ₤8.6s.8d. 23 Although these price is considerably higher than

even that paid by kings only a century earlier, remember that this armor was ready made.

To further exemplify the quickly rising costs of armor, in 1614, Prince Henry’s suit of

armor cost ₤340. This difference in price is less because the 150 years separating the two

and more because Prince Henry’s armor was custom-made and of the highest quality.

As mentioned above, quality was not the only factor involved in the cost of armor.

Each armorer had his own reputation and could command different prices based on that

reputation. For example. Antonio Missaglia was commissioned to make 100 harnesses

for the Ducal mercenaries of Milan. He quoted 20,000 lire, or 200 lire per suit. On the

other hand, the less well known, but still respected, Pier Innocenzo was commissioned to

make twelve suits for 32 lire each. Missaglia, therefore, charged seven times mores than

23 Pfaffenbichler, Armourers at 48.

10

Innocenzo 24 Further cementing the idea that name recognition could command higher

prices, Giacomo da Cantono could command 50 lire for a complete suit in 1483. 25

The price paid for armor varied widely depending on the quality of the armor.

However, high quality plate armor was typically guilded. As mentioned above, this

process often took months. It also added astronomically to the final price. In 1557, an

armorer informed the Archduke of Tyrol that a suit of armor would cost 400 florins. Of

this cost, 100 ducats went into the gilding -- and the etching itself cost the princely sum

of 100 florins! 26 Records indicate that the cost of gilding accounted for one-third to one-

half of the total cost of the armor.

Indeed, it might be fair to say that the true difference between quality armor and

elite armor worn by kings and the ultra rich was only the degree to which elite armor was

decorated. In other words, it may not be that quality armor offered substantially different

protection, but rather the extra expense was merely for the status. This is not much

different than current fashion, where quality and name brand do not always have to

overlap. It is probable that quality armor – albeit plain and unguilded – could be had for

reasonable prices. The problem with this is of course that certain nobles needed to portray

a certain status regardless of the price of the armor. Because of this, many nobles, both

great and minor, accumulated burdensome debts through their armor purchases.

For this reason, financing was not uncommon at all among the elite armorers of

Europe. Nobles who ordered luxury armor often took a very long time to pay back their

astronomical armor debts. It was not uncommon for them to not be able to pay the debts

back at all. Tommaso Missaglia, mentioned above, used these debts to his advantage. In

24 Ibid. at 48-49.25 Ibid. at 49.26 Ibid. at 50.

11

1450, Tommaso was exempted from certain taxes by the Duke of Milan. The Duke owed

the Missaglia family around 3,500 ducats. By 1453, that debt had risen to 25,000 lire. 27

(N.B. The lire was valued at slight higher than one ducat.) To help pay off this debt, the

Duke gave a portion of Pavia’s taxes to Missaglia.

The Missaglia family used these huge debts to their advantage and received the

right to erect additional mills, the right to lease and eventually purchase an iron mine.

Tommaso had previously been knighted and Antonio purchased a large fief worth 15,000

lire to became part of the landed class. 28 Although this example is extreme, it is not the

only such example of an armorer achieving great social mobility through expertise in his

craft.

While elite armor was often astronomically expensive, even the elite had reason

to buy unguilded, but quality armor. For example, in 1627, Emporer Ferdinand II paid

150 florins for a suit of armor.29 This purchase can actually be seen as a great example of

the idea that the price paid for armor was not always directly associated with protection.

Even with 150 florins as an upper limit on high-quality but no-frills armor, there

is considerable range in cost. Cheap, munitions quality armor for an infantryman tended

to cost around sevin florins. 30 This was just about as cheap as armor could get and the

level of protection would be commensurate with the price. A full suit of armor suited for

a horseman could cost as little as 35 florins and go as high as 150 florins.31

Another factor to consider in armor making is that are very few references to mass

import or export of armor. Usually armor making centers were set up relatively close to at

27 Ibid. at 55 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid.31 Ibid.

12

least one of the following: the iron mines, water sources such as rivers in order to power

mills, and close to the region of final production. The reasons for this are apparent, first

the weight of armor made it difficult to transport large quantities unless the wearer was

himself moving the armor. Second, the means of production required water power and

proximity to raw materials to be both cost and time effective. These factors contributed to

the average soldier or low ranking knight buying armor made by a local armor smith

rather than from a national or international armor production center. 32

However, not all armor stayed local and there were a class of merchants who

would travel and trade weapons and armor, buying from the production centers and

traveling to more distant cities.33 These merchants also took and transmitted orders for

custom orders and transmitted payments between the parties. Also interesting, the

merchants were known to finance orders for buyers, paying the armorer upfront and

allowing the buyer – often noble – to pay the merchant back over time. 34

In closing, one thing we have to remember that trying to give a broad brushstroke

idea of an industry that spans centuries and an entire continent is extremely difficult.

Prices, costs, quality, geography and many other factors all play a role in the nature of the

business. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to isolate which factors are at play and when.

This means that even a general idea such as presented here is just necessarily a rough

guide to understanding the general nature of the business rather than a survey exploring

the business with particularity.

32 Larson, the Armour Business,” at 58.33 Ibid.34 Ibid. at 63.

13

Nevertheless, this rough overview is helpful because through understanding the

armor business we can understand armor itself in a better way. Understanding that prices

varied based on the quality of armor shows that there were armorers serving all the needs

of the culture. We also know that the industry itself was an important and vibrant one.

We also know that as the age of maille waned, the armor industry saw rapid expansion,

specialization, and extreme changes in the price of goods due to increased time and also

because factors like name recognition and guilding.

14