Greetings all, I am hoping you could give an amateur historian a little insight into light armor in the high middle ages. Specifically I am trying to find information on the historicity of using cuir bouilli on primary armor pieces, particularly chest protection. For period I am particularly interested in the age of transitional armor in the 13th and 14th centuries, but information for anything medieval as a point of reference would be welcome.

What I have been able to establish so far:

Cuir bouilli was a well known technology for the middle ages, used for a wide range of both civilian and military items. Bottles, boxes, drinking vessels, etc, were made with cuir bouilli.

From the anglo-saxon period wooden shields were covered with cuir bouilli.

In the period I am focusing on there was some armor piece work done in cuir bouilli. There is an extant rerebrace in the Royal Armory made of cuir bouilli, and there is artistic and documentary evidence for the use of cuir bouilli in greaves.

There are numerous forms of leather/metal hybrid armors from my period of interest and later, such as the coat of plates, the later brigandine, the jack of plate of the 16th and 17th century, etc, I find differing opinion as to if the leather in these items was cuir bouilli or supple leather.

I found references to leather jerkins being worn by soldiers of the Tudor period, but again have had difficulty determining if they were cuir bouilli or supple leather. The later buff coat seems to be somewhere in between armor and rugged clothing, and also seems to likely be supple leather rather than stiff.

13th century English statues concerning the requirements for Englishmen to posses arms and armor require certain individuals who can not afford mail to posses as "doublet", a frustratingly vague alternative to heavy armor. Many interpret this to be a heavy aketon or gamebeson.

So, basically I feel like I am peppering the target but just missing the bullseye each time. Cuir bouilli was used in armor, and there are forms of chest protection that involved leather/metal hybrids or soft leather, but I can't seem to hit the nail on the head of find good evidence for a cuir bouilli breastplate/cuirass/jack without the addition of metal elements. In Mythbusters terms, I think I am in "plausible" category, but I can't quite get over the line into "confirmed".

Anyone have any insights here?

Thanks for any feedback.

May I point out to you this topic, just a few days old: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=24855

Thomas

Thanks for the link. Mr. Robson's notes on the middle english text on making a doublet are particularly interesting, as this certainly seems to to indicate that the doublet of the 13th century assize of arms might indeed be something other than a cloth aketon.

[ Linked Image ]

Now this is very interesting. I found it on a Russian Language message board via a link in the thread mentioned above. I am filtering it all through google translate, but from what I gather the image is being attributed to a 13th century french manuscript. To me this looks like a soldier wearing an aketon, topped with a leather cuirie, and a basic skullcap helmet. The lack of a sword, and the fact that he is armed with either a spear or guisarme (the tip is obscured) seems to indicate this is a common soldier and not a knight.

Thanks much, this was exactly the type of information I was looking for.

Edited for spelling.

There must be some ink between torso armour generally and leather in particular. The term "cuirass" has as its root "cuir," the French word for leather. I can't give you any specifics, but there's a clear etymological connection. :)

This "13th century manuscript" is good ol' Maciejowski Bible guys...

Here's the link to full scene:

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images...&b.gif

Appearance of this particular character had been discussed worldwide quite a lot in topics like that, but it's obviously hard to really tell much from it.

Having looked at the larger image, and the other forms of armor present, I think my interpretation still holds. The figure to the left is in mail, which our fellow is clearly not wearing. To me this still looks like a chest protector over an aketon. The fact that he is, to my eye, the most simply dressed and armored (the skullcap helmet, a seeming lack of bracers or grieves) suggest he is of the lowest status, arguing against a metal breastplate. Certainly other interpretations are possible, but combined with the documentary evidence for the existence of leather defensive doublets my money is on a leather chest piece.

Edit: It may be excessive to say he is the "lowest status", as there is a figure in the group to the left that seems to have only an aketon, or perhaps a simple tunic, and a helmet. But he is clearly of a lesser status than the figure to the immediate left in the set of mail, and what looks to me to be grieves as well.

Hi Joseph, above you mentioned that Anglo Saxons may have used cuir boilli to face their shields, you then added that you believe that this hardened leather would have been superior to supple leather for this purpose. Now I have to ask, a) are you sure that the Anglo Saxons were using cuir boilli, is there any evidence or documentation of this, and b) in my opinion a supple leather cover would have been superior, this is speculation on my part, but the combination of a rigid material (wood) and a flexible material (leather) would be better able to absorb an impact than a shield which is made of two rigid materials. As for the figure in this possibly leather cuirass in the image you attached, I dont believe that he is wearing an aketon/gambesson under his cuirass. Elsewhere in this bible we have many clear images of aketons/gambessons, and they do not look like what this man is wearing, so I think that instead of wearing a cuirass over an aketon/gambesson he is wearing one as an alternative to the other.

That guy from Mac Bible may as well wear either a leather cuirass or a multi layered linen armor which would also be relatively stiff because of many layers.

Little more fuel to the fire; a 13th century effigy with a side buckling item under his surcote that looks much like the Maj bible image:

[ Linked Image ]

[quote="Matthew Amt"]

Joseph Jennings wrote:

Quote: Arms ordinances from 13th century England specifically mention "doublets" for men of an income level below that which could afford mail. Ah, now that I had NOT heard! Fascinating! Though it occurs to me that seeing the original text would be helpful, since I'm wondering if "doublet" is simply a word used for "gambeson" or "jack", the usual quilted defense. Matthew

It is from the Assize of arms of 1252. Its hard to find the text online. There is a link here to a Google books page that gives it in translation in (somewhat) modern English.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hdh4Elj-3W...mp;f=false

The original text is latin, which I have lack the skill to decode even if I had it at hand. But the point is that a man with 10 pounds value in land was expected to have a hauberk, and a man with more than 100 shillings but less than the 10 pounds was expected to have this "doublet". From 40-100 shillings of land armor is not specified but a bow, sword, arrows, and dagger are called for.

My original thought when I read the Assize of Arms was that this doublet was indeed probably a cloth armor like a gambeson, but the text we have been looking at for the instructions to make a "defensive doublet" from laminated leather kind of throws a wrench in things. In all probability, based of the majority of the graphic evidence, this likely was a gambeson/aketon type of garment, but I think at least some of the time it may have also been this laminated leather jack. In essence, I think the Assize is saying "ok, if you are in this wealth range, we don't expect you to show up with mail, but you are expected to turn up in some kind of defensive kit if we call out the militia". I think this may have at least occasionally been a leather garment rather than a cloth one.

I don't know how the word cuirasse came into existence, but it surely doesn't come from '' coeur''. The oeu sound in french is way too removed from the ui sound. Think of how the words break down : cuir will come out in two distinct sounds whereas coeur is indivisible. Cu - ir versus Keur. Not even close.