The more I look at those miniatures in Froissart , Chronicles of Hainault, etc., The more I think that what we are seeing is blacked harness, not blued.

I spent 2 hours last night puring over the Biblioteque Nationals http://www.bnf.fr/enluminures/aaccueil.htm "Age of King Charles V" exhibit, at some of the best photos I have seen of the miniatures in question. Quite a few of the men at arms have more of a greyish cast to the harness than a blueish one, and some are positively meant to be white harness (the second miniature shown of "The siege of Brest" springs to mind.)

I think what we may be suffering from in looking at photos in books is the 4 color printing process.

OK everybody, how about throwing in your two cents on Pieters question?

------------------
Bob R.

Linseed oil was pretty common during most of the medieval period. I'm also currently looking for a 16th century painting of a gentleman of Elizabeth's court in blued armor with gilt stars. If I recall correctly, pieces of this armor as still extant in a British museum. It's currently a midnight blue.

Was this the fellow?

That is Mr. Tobias Capwell, who I'm personally dying to meet. (Guys, help me out: isn't he one of the founding members of Destrier?) Anyway, the plate armour was made by Peter Leight except for the sallet, which is a Rob MacPherson piece. Erik Schmidt of Dragonforge Armory made the mail pieces.

A striking picture, to be sure: all the pieces were blued by the respective armourers, and you can see the sheen on it that so closely resembles a lot of period illustrations.

The above info and picture are courtesy of Dragonfire Armory, Erik Schmidt proprietor.

Nice pic, Smashing harness, and the proverbial white horse. The crown doesn't seem to go well with it, I always reckoned they were a piece of embossed sheet snugged down tight around the bowl as with the Charles V helm they dredged out of that well in the Louvre a couple of years back.

I believe finish of harness is a distinct function of station of wearer. From illuminations, tapestries, and larger paintings (and the Charles the V embossed parade helmet c. 1410 ish), we know harness for the nobility could well be gilt "garnished with gold" as in Sir John Howard's account books, and set with jewels, from Philip the Goods accounts. I believe a white harness is a distinct statement of the wealth of the wearer. It is expensive to commission one, and you advertise you have the servants to maintain the equipment. A black harness, be it varnished black (as per that 1490 treatise on painting), or black from the forge, is the sort of thing someone who maintained his own equipment would have owned. A painted sallet may be advertising - "hey, I've got some argent, and can afford decoration". Where blued armour fits into this theory I do not know.

The final polish on a custom harness would remove any heat blueing from the tempering process - would it not affect the temper of a piece to re-exposre it to heat to blue it? We know for a fact from surviving pieces that blueing came into use early on in the 16th c. - did it pre-date this into the mid 15th c.? I think the answer partialy lies in fashion. Finish of harness for the well to do would be a funtion of fashionability. If we could pin down when blued metal became fashionable, then we could answer the question with more certainty. I think the Sword Pieter refers to (found in Oakeshottes "Records of the Medieval Sword")is a reasonably sound piece of evidence for blueing at least being occasionaly used fashionably. I'll have to look at the attributed date on the sword - I know it is 15th c. , but is it last quarte? 1490's ? or earlier?

First of all, nearly all 15th century armour was ground at least enough to remove the hammer marks. Even a large amount of cleaning over the centuries would not remove enough of the metal to take away the hammer marks and make it as smooth as armour appears in museums. Leaving armour “rough from the hammer” or “black from the forge” in the sense of not grinding the armour, seems to be a 16th century (and into the 17th even) convention used on low-grade armour. I can’t think of any examples of 15th century armour I’ve seen that were not ground post-hammerwork. So, I don’t believe that the bluing or blackening was because the armour was just left dark after hammering. Armour isn’t really “dark” after planishing anyway; the scale flakes off as you hammer, and if your planishing hammers are properly surfaced (or polished) so you can see where you hit, it’s not leaving the metal dull or dark anyway. Armour could have been scale blackened after the grinding was complete, but this does not yield an even blackening, but more of a mottled grey finish.

Also, it’s likely that not all armour was heat treated in the way we think of it today. Metallographic analysis reveals that most armour was either not heat treated at all (in the conventional modern sense), or was "slack quenched". Exactly what "slack quenching" is is not exactly specified in the articles I've read, but I believe that it is just cooling off the metal between hot raising passes. That is, when you heat sheet metal enough to work the small area you can hammer before it cools to much to move, eventually the entire piece heats up enough where you can't hold it any more in a gloved hand. You have to cool it down in a bucket of water before you can continue working it. Tongs are very awkward to use when raising, so I don't believe they were regularly used in hot shaping armour.

I believe the key to the process of hardening armour was just that it was higher carbon steel than our “cold rolled” of today and was hot worked and “air hardened” with a little bit of slack quenching here and there. Metallography of medieval armour suggests carbon content of about 30 to 50 points; rather medium to low on the scale by modern standards.

I know from sword blade forging that steel doesn’t necessarily need to be evenly heated and then quenched to be hard and/or springy. You do need steel with a reasonable carbon content to begin with, but you don’t have to be anal about heat treat. Just taking it up to red/orange then letting it cool in the air can make a very good sword blade and you don’t have to worry about the drastic warpage that comes with a quick quench in oil or water. I’ve heated 5160 and cooled it slowly to anneal it and often it still destroys my cobalt drills. And 5160 is usually considered a “medium” carbon steel.

There are several modern ways to get steel to be blue or black-

heating to the proper temp (does not really inhibit rust, but yields a beautiful purple blue on polished steel.)

black oxide coat (a chemical process using heat and electricity)

cold bluing (a chemical process. hard to get an even blue over large surfaces of armour, I’ve tried and hated it. It also doesn’t inhibit rust at all. It may work on guns, but works poorly on armour, besides, guns are hot blued [or black oxided] using commercial processes at the factory, anyway. A little beyond medieval technology.)

My favorite process (and I believe could be very close to a medieval one):

Hot oil blackening- A very simple process involving heating the metal to something below tempering temp and immersing the piece in dirty oil. I use old motor oil with enough diesel to fill up my bucket. This also makes a good knife quenching dip. You often have to reheat and redip the piece several times to get an even finish, but it truly retards rust and doesn’t take the metal hot enough to really affect the hardness. It really leaves a thick “coating” on the metal that doesn’t come off without grinding. It has a true “chemical” bond, as opposed to the mechanical bond you get with paint.

I believe this method is probably closest to what medieval armourers did. Of course they didn’t use motor oil and diesel, but mixing cinders or lamp black with olive oil or some tallow might achieve the same result.

The best part about the hot oil treatment is that it's simple and cheap.

Kirby Wise showed me this when I visited his shop many years ago. I use a rosebud torch for heating, but Kirby used his coal forge. Both work fine.

The above leaves out paint as an option. Medieval pigments and paints are out of my field, but I feel that paint comes off metal a bit too easily. Paint doesn’t like to stick to metal unless high tech polymers are involved. The best you can hope to get with paint is a “mechanical” bond that depends on the paint adhering to surface imperfections to stick. As we all know, cars scratch easily. I know that there are extant painted helmets, but I don’t believe painting was the way the bulk of “blackened” armour was accomplished. Paint takes a long time to dry anyway......

Just some thoughts.

------------------
Cheers,

Jeffrey

Toby Capwell did not found "Destrier". He's purchased riveted mail from me for the Royal Armouries interpretive program and 15th century spurs for himself, and mostly works on entertainment/documentary projects. We've talked a lot by phone about equestrian matters; we seem to share very similar philophies about technique.

He's worked a lot with the jousting program at the Royal Armouries in Leeds and also works regularly with John Waller, who is the head of interpretation at Leeds.

I informed Toby of Destrier a year or so ago (he was unfamiliar with most reenactment groups until recently) and I think he worked a lot with them at a jousting display earlier this year at a castle in England. Toby's originally Canadian, if I remember our conversations correctly, and his family lives in Washington state. He's living in England now while going to school. He lives in Leeds.

I owe much appreciation to Toby for some photocopies of conservation photos he sent me a while back. They're of the saddle on the gothic equestrian armour in the Wallace (A21??) and the saddle on the gothic armour on the cover of Edge and Paddock from the RA. I couldn't have even begun my saddle without them.

Thanks, Toby. Hope to talk to you again soon.

------------------
Cheers,

Jeffrey

It´s is reasonable to assume that kilns of some sort were used for austenizing and tempering of plate. A good even source of heat was neccessary anyway when fire gilding was applied. Any polishing would have been done before final blueing. After this only light buffing is possible. There might have been chemicals used to make the blueing more resistant to wear, but I don´t think there is any surviving proof or written material about this today.
Generally the fit and finish was higher than what is often assumed today, even on simple munition armour. The surface might not have been mirror bright on the most simple breast plates and helmets, but filing, grinding and some polishing would generally have been applied.

Let me be the first to say Welcome to FireStryker !

quote:

---

Generally the fit and finish was higher than what is often assumed today, even on simple munition armour. The surface might not have been mirror bright on the most simple breast plates and helmets, but filing, grinding and some polishing would generally have been applied.

---

I've just done my first bit of hammerwork making a buckler. You just blew my argument out of the water for going no farther than planishing the buckler before heat treating it (it's being used for a workshop on the I.33 manuscript, so it will be taking a beating) as something that simple would probably not have been ground.

He has given information on the carbon content, the hardness of the material (and therefore if it was quenched instead of air cooled). His research has involved looking at the crystaline structure of the metal, using a metalographic microscope. He has gotten permission to do this work on pieces from most (if not all) museums with a substantial armour collection. From what he reported at the letures, the steel was often 0.04% - 0.06% carbon (smack in the middle of the range for spring steel).

Dr. Williams' description of slack quenching was to take a red hot piece, and either:
1) delay the quench until it had cooled somewhat (perhaps to a dull red), or
2) plunge it into the quench, but interrupt the quench by pulling it out then plunging it back in over and over.

Neither of these techniques will give a particularly controlled quench, but it more controlled than doing a full hard quench (and therefore *less* likely to warp or crack your finished piece). There is still a risk that your piece will be damaged or destroyed, so it cost a premium and was done on less than half of the 15th century armour that Dr. Williams has examined.

I hope this helps some.

--James--

quote:

---

Originally posted by hauptmann:
Also, it’s likely that not all armour was heat treated in the way we think of it today. Metallographic analysis reveals that most armour was either not heat treated at all (in the conventional modern sense), or was "slack quenched". Exactly what "slack quenching" is is not exactly specified in the articles I've read, but I believe that it is just cooling off the metal between hot raising passes.

---

That´s another case entirely...
I have seen two 15th C bucklers in the Armeria Royale, Torino, that seems (they are rusty all over now) to have been left rough from the hammer. I have no idea wether they were heat treated...
Another one, also dated to the 15th C, had filed and polished steel/iron fittings on a base of "plywood" covered with velvet. A most luxurious thing, but meant for use, I think. There was padding in the umbos for extra comfort...

This just goes to show how unadvisable it is to seem to proclamate the truth about anything...;-)

But, I still think that armour was, as good as always, surface treated to some extent. Filing/ rough grinding being minimum. Armour from the thiry years war in the armourie of Skokloster show some variation of surface treatment. Many are left with a filed surface. Quite well done, I must say. Some are polished. A few are left rought from the hammer, and these were forged very cleverly. Almost all work being hotwork, I should think. (the hammer marks had impressions of scale particles) Most impressive work, and it would still be labeled "simple" and "rough" soldier quality armour.

I guess I chose well then. I went with my gut instinct and left it planished as well as I could manage. I went for the "black from the forge" look, and we got a decnt firescale on it. Unfortunatly most of the scale came off with the oil quench, but the metal underneath was black, so I'm not displeased with the results. Here is a picture.

I must say after doing this project, I have a completely new appreciation for those of you who swing the hammer for a living - especially those of you who do so and create works of art and functionality. I think it is a decent reconstruction of a fighting buckler used by a 15th c. footsoldier. OK you maistro's - you can start laughing at my humble efforts now.

------------------
Bob R.

I came across a surviving piece of blued armour - MET (23.141). It is a parade sallet c 1460, with an embossed gilt and painted lions head cover. Underneath, the sallet is blued, and from the photo with the cover off, it is rough from the hammer, only having been planished but never ground. Little teeny-tiney hammer marks are clearly visible all over the surface.

One solid bit of evidence at least.

quote:

---

The earliest man's armour surviving with its original finish is a blue and gold field armour c1520 in the Musee de l'armee, Paris. There are numerous other blued bits around, but most or all have been reblued or restored at some point, so they do not tell us very much. There is a famous B and G armour in Vienna c1540 that is accurate in appearance, for example, although the bright peacock blue of the plates is a recent restoration.

Regardless, the material record tells us that by 1520, bluing was a favoured method of beautification for armours of the finest quality. Not only did the blueing make the expensive gilded edgings, borders, and rivet heads stand out more, it was also a statement in itself, since the peacock blue or purple required an exact methodology involving precise temperature and time control. Or just spot on reckoning. This was a process only the best armour decorators would be able to provide; thus it must have been a valuable commodity and an expensive luxury.

Our earliest uncontaminated evidence for fine quality bluing is 1480ish (see below). Now to me that is essentially proof that blueing must have been a subject of research throughout the 15th century, and probably the 14th as well. There is a flanchard and a peytral in Vienna that were probably made by Lorenz Colman around 1485. They are the earliest known examples of etching, this early form of which uses blueing as the background. Since the survival of the blueing went hand in hand with the survival of the etched decoration, 19th century museum people probably appreciated its value more than if it had just been blued only. So the blueing survives when ordinarily it would have been cleaned off or redone.

One of the Italian field armours c1460-80 that were found in the 1930s by Sir James Mann (with help from the Baron de Cosson) apparently had traces of blueing on plates were other plates had overlapped them, thus protecting the finish (on the plates of the faulds for example). More hints of something greater.

We must also remember that the polished, white armour that we all know and love today did not have anything like the monopoly we generally perceive it to have had. Armours were gilded, silvered, tinned, and painted primary colours. Colour as a concept was central to chivalry and the medieval knight's world. The everyday world of the Middle Ages was often dark, lit only by daylight or fire. Bright colours were unearthly, angelic, noble. That's why medieval aristocratic dress was so bright by our standards. Armour wasn't any different.

---

Mac, you are correct that the armourer who blued Toby's harness used a heat blueing method. The process gave it an almost irredescent look. Quite breathtaking to behold actually.

Hope this has been of some help.

EDS.

Who is your source?

I don't agree with your friend on 1485 German armour being the earliest with etching.

Boccia's book on the Curtatone and Mantua armours shows Italian armour of mid 15th century origin with religious mottoes, etc. etched into the hems of cuirass armholes and stop ribs. I know very well the difference between etching and engraving, I've done both where each is appropriate.

It is true that etching was much more common in the 16th century, but it still happened in the 15th, perhaps as early as 1450. Just not very much. I will check my Curtatone book when I'm at the shop today and see exactly what there is of 15th century etching on the pieces I've mentioned.

------------------
Cheers,

Jeffrey

My source wishes to remain anonymous. I hope you will understand.

Jeff,

The armours you are refering to are not etched. Some of them are engraved in simple ways. When examining the original piece the decoration to which you are refering to is actually a type of pseudo-engraving in which the design is formed by lines of punched dots. These designs, often floral or forming the latin mottos you mention, are usually found around the arms-holes of the cuirass and on the pauldron stop-ribs of most fine quality Italian and Italian export armours c1440-1480.

I think that this thread has worn itself out. I believe we can safely say that blueing was period to some extent, but how much we will probably never know, or when it was first used for that matter. Granted there will be differing opinions on this, but I am sure we can reach a common understanding.