Ladies and gentlemen,

I'm afraid my knowledge of cuirbouilli ("boiled" leather) armors is suffering from a considerable gap in regards to the use of thsi material in the 16th and 17th centuries. The material was clearly in use in the Middle Ages and the 18th century, so it's only natural to assume that it was present in the intervening centuries as well. But all I have to prove it is a single modern illustration from a modern source (an Osprey book?). So I'd be grateful if anybody can refer me to books or websites (or pictures) I can use to dispel my ignorance in this respect.

As an aside, I've heard it mentioned that in these centuries (the 16th and the 17th), there were many boiled-leather cuirasses and helmets painted black to look like blacked/blued steel. It seems to be common practice in the late 18th and the 19th century, but I don't know whether it's true as well for the Renaissance/early modern era. Can anyone help confirm or refute this?

There were 3/4 suits with legs and arms of leather made in teh 17th.

RPM

Jean,

I was assitant curator of a collection that ownd a full set. You could not tell them from metal ones unless you were in person, They were buffed black.

RPM

Very interesting, Randall. Are these "buffed black" as in imitating the color and sheen of blacked steel harnesses? If so, it might be exactly the reference I need. It'd be nice, though, if we can get some pictures of it as well.

BTW, you stated "with legs and arms made of leather." Does this mean the cuirass and helmet were steel?

If I remember right there were only two other suits in England that were like the one where I was working (The York CAstle Museum). The Museum has one of the largest collections of English Civil War armour in the country, likely the world then. We had close to a dozen complete 3/4 suits, one being the leather one. I have pictures so if you pm me your email I can send some. It has not been put together in its completeness as the leather bits are quite fragile. The one leg is on display currently to show how similar to the metal one it is.

The helmet is a close helm without visor but with a bill of steel. The cuirass is also steel. All were black. Most think it was to imitate metal armour without the wieght. I just think it was armour and a trade off decision made ny the owner.

RPM

If everyone else in my cornet is in harness, I would NOT apreciate wearing nothing but a buff coat, since EVERYBODY would be shooting at me...
(Bullet magnet, anyone?)

I'm under the impression that the 17th century buff coats where the first propper leather armours made in europe. Otherwise, it would be a substitute for steel in smaller armour pieces, like arm or leg guards.
Another interesting point is that the Buff Coat is the most expensive piece of equipment of a ECW cavalryman, excluding his horse... A munitions grade cursais and helmet would cost 2£, a cheap buff coat 3£, with most examples being much more expensive.
Cloth armour is even more expensive, beeing made of some 20+ layers of high quality canvas.

My theory is that the shift to commercial cattle ranching in the 17th century made full leather amours economically viable, and that prior to this thick leather was rather hard to come by; for instance, most broad belts in the high medevial period are made from laminated deer or sheepskin (and hence are concequently depicted as white on illustrations...)

Anybody have any more info on this?

Well, the buffcoat would seem to be the first armor of soft leather that could be worn on its own. But hardened cuirbouilli came to use long before that, even though most instances of their use that I know of are as part of a bigger combination with mail, plate, and/or quilted/padded cloth. What I'm particularly asking about in this thread is whether it was true that some 16th- and 17th-century commanders tried to deceive their enemies about how well equipped their men were by equipping these men with painted cuirbouilli armor so that they'd look as if they were wearing real metal armor.

That's one hell of a long question, isn't it?

I have located pictures of the cuirass and helmet (It was set up in my room for some time) but not the leather bits yet. I have not used the CD of pictures since the move. PM me you email and I will kepp you posted. The picture I have is off the leather leg beside a metal one for comparison.

I am not sure if it was just to look like metal armour or if it was to have lighter armour than metal for close combat. in a few years the horsemen start dropping the close helmet, gauntlets arms and 3/4 legs for the lobstertail helmet and a large gauntlet to the elbow on the left hand but nothing else on the lombs but a buff coat. I tend to think it was just one short step before abandoning the armour, trying to make it lighter not to look like metal armour but the arguement is good that it could have been. In this period you get leather gauntlets that are made to look like steel ones as well and the concealed helmets inside hats etc.

RPM

Even that picture of just the leg(s) would be great.