Unknown Centurio Graz museum

[Dan Howard]

Cuir bouilli only works as armour if it is layered over mail

This article seems to imply the contrary:
http://historical-academy.co.uk/blog/201...r-bouille/

----------------------

He cites six examples.

And over all this they put a great helm made all in one piece of cuir bouilli and perforated below, the size of a wooden trencher, and the eyeslot is barred with iron in a grid three fingers square, which is attached in front by a chain to the breast of the brigandine, so that you may hang it from the saddle to refresh youself, and put it on again when you wish.

Greathelms weren't worn by themselves. They were worn over a bascinet or skull cap, which was worn over a mail coif. They were usually worn during the lance charge and removed during melee. Greathelms were suspended from a chain that was attached to the saddle or cuirass so they could be easily retrieved.

“1375 Barbour Bruce xii. 22 On his basnet hye he bar Ane hat off qwyrbolle.

The "hat off qwyrbolle" is being worn over a steel bascinet, which would have been worn over a mail coif.

1386 Chaucer Sir Thopas 164 Hise Iambeux were of quyrboilly [v.r. quereboly].

Worn over mail (FWIW jambeaux is another term for shin greave)

1400 Mandeville (Roxb.) xxvi. 123 ai hafe platez made of coerbuille.

Worn over mail. All rigid armour during the 13th-14th centuries, including steel, was worn over mail. This could be a reference to a coat of plates where the plates are made of cuir bouilli instead of steel, which I've never heard of before. It could simply be a regular coat of plates where the steel plates are attached to a leather foundation instead of the usual textile.

1413 Lydg. Pilgr. Sowle iv. xxx. (1483) 80 A feyned hede formed of playstred clothe other of coerboyle.

No idea what a "feyned hede" is.

1513 Douglas ?neis v. vii. 77 Thair harnes thaim semyt for to be Of curbule corvyne sevin gret oxin hydis.”

This is armour made from seven layers of hide and is how proper standalone leather armour was made. Another example is Villani, who wrote that the Hungarians wore armour made from four layers of cordovan leather.

What I find bizarre is that he apparently doesn't bother to test his constructions. He would have discovered that the leather is ineffective against spears and arrows unless worn over metal or an additional inch of cloth or leather. All the cuirbouilli does is reduce blunt trauma, to which mail is particularly susceptible. The only time it is worn by itself is in tournaments where the weapons are made from wood and baleen. Armour made from parchment was also used in these tournaments.

[Martin Moser]

For those who want to dive yet further into what cuir bouilli may or may not have been and how cuir bouilli of various constructions stands up to impact (or not) see Why Leather? / Edited by Susanna Harris & André J. Veldmeijer (2014), pp 41 - 76. Available to read online for free at http://www.sidestone.com/library/why-leather.

From my personal experience in working with leather: a musculata could have been made in leather, but if it were to show the form (and details) as seen on statues etc. the leather would have to be treated so that it would maintain that shape. Meaning that it would have been stiff as metal again. Finer details (in metal then?) would have needed to be applied. Not really much of an advantage over metal in the first place IMHO.

[Renatus]

If you think that Roman musculata was made from cuir bouill, we'd need a sculpture where it is depicted being worn over mail.

Not if I read the article cited by Martin Moser correctly. A suitable subarmalis (indicated by the presence of ptereges) would do. Of course, certainty is impossible because the same could be said of metal cuirasses.

[Dan Howard]

If you think that Roman musculata was made from cuir bouill, we'd need a sculpture where it is depicted being worn over mail.

Not if I read the article cited by Martin Moser correctly. A suitable subarmalis (indicated by the presence of ptereges) would do. Of course, certainty is impossible because the same could be said of metal cuirasses.

No it wouldn't. Arming garments like the subarmalis provide very little protection by themselves - no more than a regular winter tunic. They have nothing in common with proper armour except that they are made from similar materials. Cuirbouilli was meant to be layered with other armour as your own cited article shows.

Try it. There are a few extant examples from which to make replicas. They are useless against weapons points when worn by themselves. We need more published data. The only decent one I know of is Williams. His 5mm cuirbouilli test piece only needed 20J to be pieced by a lance head and 30J by a bodkin spike. His 16 layers of unquilted linen required 50J and other tests show that proper quilting improves protection considerably.

[Renatus]

Not if I read the article cited by Martin Moser correctly. A suitable subarmalis (indicated by the presence of ptereges) would do. Of course, certainty is impossible because the same could be said of metal cuirasses.

No it wouldn't. Arming garments like the subarmalis provide very little protection by themselves - no more than a regular winter tunic. They have nothing in common with proper armour except that they are made from similar materials.

You misunderstand me. I was not referring to the subarmalis acting alone. The experiments detailed in the article include the simulation of an aketon under the cuir builli. This was shown to inhibit penetration to a harmful degree. The Romans were perfectly capable of constructing a similar garment. Note that I referred to a "suitable" subarmalis.

Cuirbouilli was meant to be layered with other armour as your own cited article shows.

You picked up on the ancient quotations but those are not what I was alluding to. What particularly impressed me was the account by the American Revolutionary War soldier of the making of what seems to be the eighteenth-century equivalent of the steel helmet that was "almost as hard as a sheet of iron". Incidently, I note your comment that "all rigid armour during the 13th-14th centuries, including steel, was worn over mail". Am I to infer from this that steel was as ineffective as armour as you assert cuir bouilli to be?

[Dan Howard]

The hardness is real but its effect is illusory. Try stabbing it. The material is far worse than steel when resisting points.

[Renatus]

The hardness is real but its effect is illusory. Try stabbing it. The material is far worse than steel when resisting points.

Alas, I have neither cuir bouilli nor a point available. What are you trying to say?

[Dan Howard]

It takes 55J for a bodkin spike to penetrate 1mm of low carbon steel. Cuirbouilli that is five times thicker is compromised by half of that energy. Increasing carbon content from 0.1% to 0.5% doubles the energy required to 110J. It doesn't matter what some 18th century soldier says, cuirboulli is nowhere near as hard as steel.

[Renatus]

It doesn't matter what some 18th century soldier says, cuirboulli is nowhere near as hard as steel.

I don't suppose that anyone seriously believes that it is and I don't suppose that the 18th century soldier carried out a scientifically evaluated comparison test to ensure that his statement as to its hardness was 100% factually accurate. Nevertheless, he and his comrades would appear to have believed that it was hard and offered some protection and that it was certainly better than nothing. I would suspect that most impacts were likely to be glancing blows or, at any rate, not 90 degree direct hits, so the sort of impact forces that you cite are, perhaps, not fair tests of the general utility of cuir bouilli.