regulation armour. In the first place, they—the soldiers—had to pay for it (and it was always costly enough); or, which amounted to the same thing, the cost of their armour was deducted from their pay. In the next place, the fatigue occasioned by wearing their armour was intolerable. And then they began to be impressed with the conviction that, if their armour did afford to them a more than questionable protection against hostile blows, it certainly produced (as if to balance the account) some maladies that were incidental to the use of it. Lanoue has affirmed that he has seen many soldiers at thirty years of age, who already had become partially deformed, or in a great measure deprived of their natural physical strength, solely in consequence of having habitually worn their armour. The sentiments of the French soldiers upon this subject were confirmed by the German troopers, who, in their first campaigns in France, appeared equipped in buff leather coats instead of armour. So the French soldiers fell into the habit of arming themselves only at the moment of battle; or they would consider surprise, or anxious haste to appear in their proper positions, to be a sufficient pretext for not assuming their armour at all. On some occasions also, the tabard (a kind of blouse), that was worn by the men-atarms over their armour, was put on without the armour, the absence of which, consequently, could not thus easily be detected; and thus they preferred to go into action armed in their tabards only. The repugnance to armour, accordingly, was generally prevalent; and the modern spirit already protested against what it held to be the obsolete traditions of the middle ages. Nevertheless, kings and princes generally continued to maintain the necessity of armour, as an essential condition of sound discipline; and, therefore, they interposed their authority, and prevented for a while that complete abandonment of armour, which they saw to be both desired and threatened. Louis XIII. in particular, and Richelieu himself

also, took active parts in the controversy, and were zealous defenders of the old system. They even attached the penalty of degradation to every man-at-arms who might appear without his armour in the presence of the enemy.

The principles of Gustavus Adolphus (A.D. 1612 to 1633) were directly opposed to sentiments such as these. He took away from his soldiers-at any rate from the greater number of them-both their cuissarts and their brassarts (all their limb armour) and left them only a light cuirass. Thus reduced, the armour, which was virtually useless against firearms, against bayonets and swords was still effectual for defence, and it caused very slight inconvenience to the soldier, nor did it impede the dexterity of his movements. Commanding officers, even though they might be imbued with the modern spirit, with some appearance of reason might regret that the reformation in military equipment did not stop at the point to which it had been brought by Gustavus Adolphus, and where he left it.

In France the movement was less rapid. At the accession of Louis XIV. (A.D. 1643 to 1715), armour was still worn. About the year 1660, or rather later, all defences for the limbs ceased to be retained in use, and the cuirass alone remainedthe last relic of the old complete panoply. The cuirass then was worn either over or under the uniform tunic. Twenty years later the cuirass itself was laid aside. The last foot soldiers who wore it in France were pikemen; and that arm

was abolished in 1675. After them, that ancient usage of war which equipped the soldier in armour, was retained in the French armies only by the gendarmes, of whom each regiment included in its ranks one troop or company. The deviation from a decided uniformity in each regiment which was occasioned by the presence of this small body of men-atarms, led to the formation of a single regiment of cuirassiers, who enacted a prominent part in the wars of Louis XIV. In

connection with the usages of this period, it must be mentioned that officers and gentlemen, after they had altogether ceased to wear the cuirass in the field, still retained it when it was their pleasure to sit to artists for their portraits.

In siege operations, and in the trenches, the case was altogether different. There the men who were engaged still wore complete armour-breast-plate, leg-guards, metal solerets, and so forth. Armour such as this is very heavy. The helm, too, which accompanies it, is remarkable for its weight; and, indeed, it resembles the head-piece of Philip Augustus, the

massive heaume. It was called the pot-de-fer. The chronicles of that time tell us how Louis XIV., like all other soldiers, went into the trenches in full armour and wearing the pot-de-fer.

This leads us naturally to some further consideration of French military head-gear. The helmet,

or armet remained in use for the cavalry throughout the 16th century, and until the middle of the 17th. It was worn at the battle of Rocroy (A.D. 1643), and in a contemporaneous representation of

that conflict, it is represented with a grated visor, worn by the gentlemen who surround the Prince de Condé. The Prince himself, however, appears wearing a hat, that began to be fashionable, and which in the course of the reign of Louis XIV. rose to higher favour than the helmet. In Fig. 30, the helmet, or armet, with its visor, is represented. The hat (chapeau) that has just been noticed, was made of felt, with a wide brim, and was surmounted by a plume of feathers; in the inside it was fitted with a steel cap, that was either perforated or plain.

This hat, which in pictures appears like a simple hat of felt, in its turn, disappeared; it did not long retain its place in the favourable estimation of men of rank and distinction, but by the soldiery, both horse and foot, it was generally worn for some time. Certain corps, such as the Cuirassiers and the Guards of the King's Household, had iron hats (chapeaux en fer) without any external covering of felt, but broad-brimmed and provided with a nasal. In a short time the iron cap, which was worn as a lining to some other head-gear, was replaced by an armature, or circlet of the same metal, or simply by two iron bands curved and placed cross-wise. At last iron disappeared altogether; and so the gradual change in the head-piece, that had been in progress during such a long period, at length was consummated.

What has just been stated refers only to the cavalry of France. With reference to the French infantry, in the 16th century each corps had a headpiece peculiar to itself; or one, at any rate, which each corps was generally in the habit of wearing. The burgonette, shown in Fig. 32, No. 2. the head-piece of the pikemen, consists of a cap, a neck-piece, and two ear-pieces (calotte, couvre-nuque, and oreillères). The morion, worn by the arquebusiers, is a pointed oval helmet, surmounted by an elongated crest; its rim, which is bent down over the ears, is formed in a curve that causes it to have somewhat the appearance of a boat that has been overturned. In Fig. 31 is represented a morion of the 16th century, which is enriched with most elaborate ornamentation. Helmets of this kind

were frequently the subjects of similar artistic adornment. The cabasset, or common infantry head-piece, is simply a light morion, or iron cap, with a wide brim that is much lowered. The morion and the cabasset were in use only in the 16th century. The burgonette with a nasal was commonly worn by foot soldiers in the time of Louis XIII. (A.D. 1610 -1643).73

The halberd and the pike, from the time of Louis XI. to that of Francis I. (A.D. 1515-1547), enjoyed a reputation which speaks very highly for the skill and gallantry of the Swiss foot soldiers, who used these weapons almost exclusively. After the defeat of Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, by the forces of the Swiss Cantons, for a while no sovereign felt confident of victory without having in his army some of the redoubtable mountaineers. Upon the same principle, the Swiss weapons, the halberd and the pike were supposed to be the only arms which in the hands of foot soldiers were competent to resist the charge of mounted men-at-arms. must be admitted, indeed, that with these weapons, and more especially with the pike eighteen feet in length, the Swiss had brought about almost a complete revolution in military tactics.

It

We have seen how the power of infantry, as a distinct and thoroughly effective arm in warrare, began to be understood and recognised in the 15th century. Before that time, infantry on a field of battle in the middle ages were scarcely, if at all, taken into consideration. In the 15th century, the method adopted for the purpose of successfully resisting the charge of mounted men-at-arms in armour of proof, consisted in opposing to the cavaliers, in the front, the archers or crossbowmen, whose duty it was to break the first rush of the hostile charge by killing as many as possible of the horses; and then in the second line, in rear of the bowmen, the men-at-arms were formed in close order, dismounted, but in their full armour, and with their lances advanced. The Swiss, who had no