Ben, I've just gone back and re-read Tod's post. I'll admit I only skimmed through it the first time. As I said I didn't intend to get into the discussion on how cuir bouilli was made. The method that Tod has come up with is very similar to Chris Dodson's method (from what I can tell from reading forum posts, unfortunately I can't get a hold of his work). The only difference that I can see is that Chris soaks his leather in glue, then heats up the piece in an oven, whereas Tod soaks his leather in hot glue. It could be that these two modern craftsmen have both come to the same conclusion as to how cuir bouilli was made.
| Stephen Curtin wrote: |
| The tests I'm referring to are published in "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" by Alan Williams. AFAIK Mr. Williams doesn't mention how the cuir bouilli he tested was made, so I'll concede that these tests shouldn't be thought of as definitive, but until further testing they are the best we have. |
Exactly! One briefly-described test, of two types of armour which were very diverse and which we don't understand well, does not tell us much. Moreover, even if Williams' results are correct, they don't tell us what the wearers of this armour were looking for. Combinations of armour behave differently than any one alone, and most armour performs differently against different threats.
One of the basic rules in experimental science is that until a result has been replicated, its just interesting. So I would recommend anyone interested in armour to spend as much time with replicas and primary sources as possible, and treat the couple of tests which have been published as first steps not invincible swords.
Good points as usual Sean.
| Sean Manning wrote: | ||
Exactly! One briefly-described test, of two types of armour which were very diverse and which we don't understand well, does not tell us much. Moreover, even if Williams' results are correct, they don't tell us what the wearers of this armour were looking for. Combinations of armour behave differently than any one alone, and most armour performs differently against different threats. One of the basic rules in experimental science is that until a result has been replicated, its just interesting. So I would recommend anyone interested in armour to spend as much time with replicas and primary sources as possible, and treat the couple of tests which have been published as first steps not invincible swords. |
Perfectly said. There's still so much left to learn that even when we start to narrow in on the "how" of cuir bouilli, there's still a great deal left to discover on the "why" of its use.
Also, Tod's and Mr. Williams' tests might be similar, but for all we know -at this time- they could produce drastically different results. There's still so much left to learn, study, and experiment with.
| Dan Howard wrote: |
|
It is pretty simple: if a particular armour did not stop the most common threats, it was augmented till it did or it was discarded completely. The end result is that they all provided similar levels of protection. If any of our modern testing does not come to this conclusion then the test is fundamentally flawed. Either the armour is not layered in the same combination as it was at the time, or the armour material is wrong, or the weapon is not used in a manner that simulates battlefield conditions, or the target .does not properly emulate a moving, flexible, resilient human being. More expensive armour did not provide better protectrion. More expensive armour covered more of the body, was lighter, more comfortable, and more fashionable. |
| Ben Joy wrote: |
| Also, as far as protection goes, if it's being layered with mail on a battlefield, then maybe the mail is meant to protect from the spears and arrows while the cuir bouilli is meant to protect you from the hammers, maces, and other "blunt" implements. If it's being used by itself, then maybe it was actually cheaper -in some cases- then gambeson and thereby more affordable to people who couldn't afford the best. Again, very broad and weak assumptions over something we don't even know if we have the right materials to test . . . or even really documented evidence over how well the stuff performed.. |
Struggling to see the disagreement here ... perhaps it's an interpretation of the word "augmented" that I )as an Englishman) o not understand:
| Alan E wrote: |
|
Struggling to see the disagreement here ... perhaps it's an interpretation of the word "augmented" that I )as an Englishman) o not understand: |
I'll spare you the details and just say that when you look at the context of all of the posts -as a whole- the disagreements are there. Those statements are by no means representative of the points being debated as a whole. Regardless, it's over in that regard and we just disagree at the points being debated throughout the conversation.
The rest of us seemed to come to at least an agreement that there's still much to learn and testing that needs to be done. Regardless, it also seems that we believe that cuir bouilli provided excellent blunt trauma protection (especially given it's prevalence in tournaments), but how it functioned with other armor (in combination and in comparison), what made it desirable in a wartime situation, and other factors (like cost) still need to be researched and/or tested more.
Page 4 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum