Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Why use cuir bouilli? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next 
Author Message
Iagoba Ferreira





Joined: 15 Sep 2008

Posts: 192

PostPosted: Mon 08 May, 2017 11:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I've found mentions of XVth century "sports" armour used in Iberia made with leather. Adargas were made almost entirely of it, and was still made and used in real combat by Spanish soldiers in the North American presidios...

Peter Spätling wrote:
This development starts in the
14th century, in some areas (for example Spain) not until the 16th century.


There are legal texts about Basque ironworks in wich we read "maços de agua" (water hammers) in 1335 and before.
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Spätling
Industry Professional



Location: Germany
Joined: 07 Nov 2015

Posts: 119

PostPosted: Tue 09 May, 2017 11:43 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Iagoba Ferreira wrote:
I've found mentions of XVth century "sports" armour used in Iberia made with leather. Adargas were made almost entirely of it, and was still made and used in real combat by Spanish soldiers in the North American presidios...

Peter Spätling wrote:
This development starts in the
14th century, in some areas (for example Spain) not until the 16th century.


There are legal texts about Basque ironworks in wich we read "maços de agua" (water hammers) in 1335 and before.


as i thought. the book i got my information from is from 1968 and therefore quite old. I'm still catching up on this topic
View user's profile Send private message
Sean Manning




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 853

PostPosted: Tue 09 May, 2017 1:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Thanks for the replies everyone.

The cuirie seems to have first been used in the late 12th century, right around the same time that we see the the first iron plates defence for the torso (Richard the Lionheart). Apart from plate armour, which was only just beginning to be worn by the highest levels of society, there was also the option of wearing a second layer of iron armour in the form of mail or scale. So most Noblemen could certainly afford, and probably had access, to two layers of iron armour for his torso If he so chose. Even if, for some reason, a second layer of iron armour wasn't available, there was always the option of wearing a gambeson outside one's hauberk. This is why I think wearing cuir bouilli (for the Nobility at least) was a deliberate decision, and not much effected by cost or availability.

Armour in the late 12th and early 13th century would be a great topic for research, with lots of reading sources, handling replicas, and fighting or talking to people who fight! That said, I wouldn't compare something which shows up in one passage worn by a king and his jousting partner (those plates of worked iron) to something which seems to have been in common use. Why there was a 300 year gap between one-piece helmets becoming common, and large pieces of iron armour for other body parts becoming common, is a great question, but hard to answer.

I can't tell you how warriors in the 12th and 13th century chose their kit, because that is not my specialty. I am a specialist in the ancient world who studies some aspects of the later middle ages for fun. But I am pretty confident that as you research, you will notice that armour has many different important aspects, and that choosing which type to wear is rarely as simple as figuring out what gives the most protection against arrows for a given weight.
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Tue 09 May, 2017 1:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Thanks for the replies everyone.

The cuirie seems to have first been used in the late 12th century, right around the same time that we see the the first iron plates defence for the torso (Richard the Lionheart).


It should be cautioned that Guillaume le Breton wrote the Philippidos/Philippide sometime between the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, and his death in 1226. The joust recorded occurred somtime before Richard I's coronation in 1189, but Guillaume might have projected current practice backwards by several decades.

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Tue 09 May, 2017 3:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Helpful as always Mart, thank you. I know that cuir bouilli was a popular form of tournament armour, but I'm not sure if it was predominantly so. Would you say that is the case?


The 1278 Tournament of Windsor has already been mentioned. The Tournament Rules of 'Perceval de Warenne', et al. from c. 1315 is similar, calling for these:
Item, cuisses et poullains de cuir, armoiez de Varennes des armes au chevalier.
Item, cuisses and poleyns of leather, with the arms of the knight of Warenne.
Item, paus et manchez qui sont attachez à la cuirie et la cuirie, à tout ses esgrappes fur les espaules,
Item, a mail paunce and sleeves which are attached to the cuirie and the cuirie, all with the "clusters" for the shoulders,.

The 1322 Inventory of Roger de Mortimer, 1st Earl of March contains j. quirre without specifying it's intended use.

The Modus armandi milites text from c. 1333 mentions various pieces of leather armor for the tournament, but not for war or the joust:
muscylers, in tibiis de ascer ou de quyr boily.....
Limb armor, on the shin of steel or of cuir bouilli....
Deinde loricam quyrée,....
Then the cuirie body armor....

The 1333 Inventory of Jean II de Chalon, Count of Auxerre likewise divides equipment for use in tournament, war, and the joust. No leather armor is specified for the joust, but for war, we find this:
Item ii paire de braceux d'acier et i de cuir.
Item, 2 pair of bracers of steel and 1 of leather.
For the tournament,
Item iiii selles et iiii cuyriées.
Item, 4 saddles and cuiries.

The 1357 Inventory of arms for William of Bavaria, Count of Hainaut contains quite a bit of leather armor, without specifying if it's for war or the tournament. Some seems to be what we would now call splinted armor, with iron, though a good deal of it seems to be decorated. The fact that leather can be tooled and painted might have had some attraction when etching metal was non-existant, and engraving was costly.
Item, une paire de noirs cussuelz de noir cuir aescucés des armes de Haynnau.
Item, a pair of black leather cuisses. escutcheoned with the arms of Hainaut.
Item, ij paires de cussuelz de noir cuir.
Item, 2 pairs of cuisses of black leather.
Item, ij paires de noires grèves à bendes dorées et une paire de noir cuir aescucés des armes de Haynnau.
Item, 2 pairs of black greaves with golden bands, and one pair of black leather escutcheoned with the arms of Hainaut.
Item, vij paires de noires grèves.
Item, 7 pair of black greaves.
Item, encor iij paires de rouge cuir.
Item, again, 3 pairs of red leather (greaves).

There is some question as to whether all these leather armors are also cuir bouilli, or if two techniques are being used.

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Wed 10 May, 2017 4:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks for all the references Mart. Much appreciated.

Mart Shearer wrote:
It should be cautioned that Guillaume le Breton wrote the Philippidos/Philippide sometime between the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, and his death in 1226. The joust recorded occurred somtime before Richard I's coronation in 1189, but Guillaume might have projected current practice backwards by several decades.


This is true, it would be safer to say that William the Breton's account describes the armour of the early 13th century. Though it wouldn't surprise me if Richard wore some form of plate torso armour. After all his seal does show an early proto great helm, so he seems to have been an early adopter of advances in armour.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Wed 10 May, 2017 4:46 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sean Manning wrote:
I wouldn't compare something which shows up in one passage worn by a king and his jousting partner (those plates of worked iron) to something which seems to have been in common use.


Fair point.

Sean Manning wrote:
Why there was a 300 year gap between one-piece helmets becoming common, and large pieces of iron armour for other body parts becoming common, is a great question, but hard to answer.


Indeed.

Sean Manning wrote:
I am pretty confident that as you research, you will notice that armour has many different important aspects, and that choosing which type to wear is rarely as simple as figuring out what gives the most protection against arrows for a given weight.


To my mind the factors which might influence one's decision to buy / wear a piece of armour would be (in no particular order); availability, cost, weight, mobility, protection, fashion. Perhaps this is too simplistic a viewpoint, are there factors that I haven't considered?

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Wed 10 May, 2017 5:20 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Depends on who is paying for it and why. A government contractor is going to look for the cheapest option. A quartermaster wants something that is easy to store, easy to maintain, and can fit a range of body sizes. A chieftain is going to want his underlings have the latest fashion and to all wear the same thing. A commander wants his men to have armour that is functional and doesn't require too much maintenance in the field. He may also want to give his men something to keep them busy after setting up camp for the night. For himself he wants the brightest blingiest armour that is the latest fashion. A veteran wants armour that provides good protection but can be custom-modified to function the way he likes. A recruit wants something that is light and easy to throw away when nobody is watching.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Wed 10 May, 2017 6:32 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Depends on who is paying for it and why


Of course in the time period we are discussing, there were legal requirements for the minimum allowable arms and armour, based on one's income. AFAIK no such law mentioned cuiries or other items of leather armour. So I would imagine that most of the time the people who bought cuiries would be wealthy individuals who already owned the minimum legally required equipment.

Yes there is that reference to a large number of cuir bouilli helmets for the archers before Agincourt, but to this is a late example and might not be representative of what happened in earlier centuries.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sean Manning




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 853

PostPosted: Wed 10 May, 2017 10:32 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
To my mind the factors which might influence one's decision to buy / wear a piece of armour would be (in no particular order); availability, cost, weight, mobility, protection, fashion. Perhaps this is too simplistic a viewpoint, are there factors that I haven't considered?
That is not a bad list, but just for example, there are different kinds of protection. Mail is very flexible, which is great, because it can cover every part of the body and allows free movement. Mail is very flexible, which is terrible, because a hard blow which fails to penetrate can easily break bones. When plate armour was coming back into fashion in the 13th century CE, the first places to be protected tended to be ones where bones are close to the skin and heal badly if broken (like the hands and elbows).

So the answer to "does mail protect better than hardened leather?" is "depends on what the threat is"!
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Wed 10 May, 2017 3:10 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Good point Sean. Yes the flexibility or rigidity of armour may have also been a factor.

I wonder if people in the past would ever perform experiments to test the comparative effectiveness of various types of armour. According to test done by Williams in "The knight and the blast furnace" layered linen protects better against thrusts than cuir bouilli, this is all well and good for us today, but did people in the 13th know this?

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark Moore




Location: East backwoods-assed Texas
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 2,294

PostPosted: Wed 10 May, 2017 4:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I'm pretty sure that people 'in days of old' didn't go into anything blindly. Especially when it came to something to protect the body in mortal combat. I would certainly test something out using the weaponry of the time against it. Not just say--''Here...take this. It'll save your butt." ......McM
''Life is like a box of chocolates...'' --- F. Gump
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Wed 10 May, 2017 4:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

How many modern soldiers test their armour today? Of course some do but but not many. Most simply want to know when they can take it off. Most recruits are in their late teens and early twenties. They don't think they are ever going to get hurt so why should they bother with all this armour nonsense?
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Ben Joy




Location: Missouri
Joined: 21 May 2010
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 122

PostPosted: Wed 10 May, 2017 5:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
How many modern soldiers test their armour today? Of course some do but but not many. Most simply want to know when they can take it off. Most recruits are in their late teens and early twenties. They don't think they are ever going to get hurt so why should they bother with all this armour nonsense?


Cute . . . and where is this experience coming from? Maybe in a garrison situation when you're doing mock training and you *know* that you won't need the armor then sure, you can't wait to take it off and stop sweating. However, being combat arms and being stuck in a warzone, I can tell you that we didn't just take our stuff off as soon as we could; and we were very interested in knowing whether or not our gear was actually going to save our hide when needed. Some got to test that theory first hand . . . some survived . . . some didn't. I witnessed BOTH happen to my comrades first hand. Regardless, being combat arms we were all really interested, even in said garrison situations, that the armor we were issued was actually going to do its job if needed.

To make such crass assumptions, about something you seem to have absolutely zero real world experience in, honestly really ticks me off. Maybe you should do a little more research into the lives of soldiers before you spout off at the mouth; and if you were in the service, then obviously you weren't the one getting shot at or sticking their neck out there.

Are soldiers doing the tests personally? Probably not in most cases. However, the testing is done by the engineers that designed the stuff. In ancient/medieval times, I'm sure the smiths/craftsmen put prototypes of all of their equipment through tests to prove their mettle . . . just like the engineers of today. They're the ones doing all of the testing, developing the rating systems, and saying "This stuff should save your life from XYZ." We do get told that information (hell, it's on the labels of the gear); and I can assure you that we were very keen on hearing it and getting our hands on the best stuff possible.

"Men take only their needs into consideration, never their abilities." -Napoleon Bonaparte
View user's profile Send private message
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin


myArmoury Admin

PostPosted: Wed 10 May, 2017 5:07 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Some of you folks are getting awfully close to crossing the lines with personal attacks.

Attack the issue or the opinion expressed, not the person. Be professional.

Is it really necessary for me to remind you guys of this?

.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Wed 10 May, 2017 11:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well we do know that in later times some armour was tested before it left the workshop. We have bullet "proof marks" as evidence of this. Not that I imagine all armour was tested, but some might have been. The point I was getting at is; although we might do experiments today to determine which kind of armour is "superior", does this information really matter, would the people who bought and wore this armour to battle be aware of this?

The people that I think that probably most often wore cuir bouilli over their mail would be coming from the upper classes. I imagine these men appreciated fine arms and armour. Besides cuir bouilli was an optional extra. Why would they buy it if all they were worried about was when could they take it off?

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mart Shearer




Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Posts: 1,302

PostPosted: Thu 11 May, 2017 4:46 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Besides cuir bouilli was an optional extra. Why would they buy it if all they were worried about was when could they take it off?


While this may have been the case in the late 12th and early 13th century in regards to its use in war, the Windsor and Warrene tournaments seem to be relying on it as the primary defense, though baleen swords or perhaps wooden batons might have been the offensive weapon of choice within the rules. Perhaps this tells us that cuir bouilli was "good enough" against blunt trauma?

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Ben Joy




Location: Missouri
Joined: 21 May 2010
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 122

PostPosted: Thu 11 May, 2017 9:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Curtin wrote:
Well we do know that in later times some armour was tested before it left the workshop. We have bullet "proof marks" as evidence of this. Not that I imagine all armour was tested, but some might have been. The point I was getting at is; although we might do experiments today to determine which kind of armour is "superior", does this information really matter, would the people who bought and wore this armour to battle be aware of this?

The people that I think that probably most often wore cuir bouilli over their mail would be coming from the upper classes. I imagine these men appreciated fine arms and armour. Besides cuir bouilli was an optional extra. Why would they buy it if all they were worried about was when could they take it off?


Even if they're not all tested, I'm sure just about any craftsman worth their salt had at least one prototype or "show-off" model that was tested at any given point in time. I'm sure that anyone wanting protection for any reason -especially nobility that has the money to spend- wanted to know that the stuff worked. Whether they wanted to see that it could stand up to blunt attacks for tournament use, or cuts/slashes on a battlefield, it needed to prove it could work. Besides, the career of any armor craftsman that makes non-functional armor is a short career indeed. People NEEDED (because their life literally depended on it) to know that the stuff worked; and I'm sure the craftsmen put a lot of experimentation into ensuring that it did. This assurance then got passed on to whomever was wearing it. After all, you feel a lot better going into battle knowing that your armor works and should save your life from given threats.

Some of those craftsmen were probably even bankrolled by said nobility/aristocracy and told, "Make me an armor system that can beat or put up to XYZ." After all, there's always been the never-ending-battle-of-the-crafts between weapons and armor.

There's already cited information about these hardened leather armor pieces being in armories for war use (as Mart Shearer already showed), so I'd never consider it an optional extra. Therefore I think it may have been a solid and "cheap" alternative to steel pieces that would put up to blunt trauma well -and at least modest cut resistance- that could do the job well enough for a given soldier's duties and/or value. Leo Todeschini's assessment and experimentation shows that it also could have been significantly more durable and stronger than we give it credit for . . . which could take it from "optional extra" to "primary defense" really quick.

I think Mart hits a solid point. If it's the primary defense in later tournaments as "good enough" blunt trauma protection, then who's to say it didn't make a superior supplemental armor to go with mail as the blunt protection while the mail would protect you from any penetrator weapons that made it through the leather armor. Multilayered mail and hardened leather combinations could have been just as effective as a brigandine or coat of plates by itself; and it could have been a cheaper or more aesthetically pleasing alternative with more expensive but more customizable abilities.

We go into all of these testing and comparisons over individual armor types or an armor with a gambeson underneath, but what about cuir bouilli and mail combinations (possibly with even gambeson under the mail)? Has much testing been done in that front? I'd be very curious to see just how protective such combinations are. Maybe there's a reason it surged in popularity that we just haven't (re)discovered yet?

"Men take only their needs into consideration, never their abilities." -Napoleon Bonaparte
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Moore




Location: East backwoods-assed Texas
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 2,294

PostPosted: Thu 11 May, 2017 10:33 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As far as the testing part goes, I would imagine an armor maker for kings and nobles would have good reason to want his product to be the best. An 'epic fail' of ROYAL armor would probably have pretty dire results for the armorer. Eek! .....McM
''Life is like a box of chocolates...'' --- F. Gump
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Curtin




Location: Cork, Ireland
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Likes: 110 pages
Reading list: 18 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,220

PostPosted: Fri 12 May, 2017 3:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mart. Yes sorry I should have specified. When I said that cuir bouilli armour was an optional extra, I meant in terms of war, not in tournaments.

Ben I stand by saying that cuir bouilli armour was an optional extra. We know from various surviving laws what people were required to own in terms of arms and armour. AFAIK cuir bouilli armour is never mentioned. If it was not legally required, then IMO it was am optional extra.

Éirinn go Brách
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Why use cuir bouilli?
Page 2 of 4 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You 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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum