The Armour Archive

Greetings all,

I'd like some advice. Does it stand to reason that cuir bouilli would have spread to Lowland Scotland by the early to mid 14th century? Most of the research I've seen speaks to Scotland being 50 years or more behind the trends of the continent,...however, this is in general a referrance to the Highlands. The southern uplands and lowlands would have had much more contact with the north of england and the continent. And we're not talking a common foot soldier who's just run from his hay field, grabbed his spear and head off with the rest of the "Jimmy's" to fight. This would be a noble.

So, would it be employed as armour, and if so could it have been in a brigandine or coat-of-plate type body armour in place of plate?

Any help would be wonderful.

(time frame 1335-1355)

Possibly used in arm harness, but pairs of plates are made with plate, i.e. sheet metal.

What was more common as a foundation for COPs; textile or leather?

Indeed, why resort to cuirbouilli when you can get and cut steel? What they said: out on the limbs, especially in the middle of those years. Put it, wrap it as one piece, around your lower legs and lace it up the inside.

There's recently been doubt about the entire 50-years-behind thing, though given Scottish economics -- parlous -- while they may adopt a harness about when England did, they seem to hold onto it longer by at least twenty years. This 50-year thing has been much repeated ever since Jean le Bel first penned it way back then, and he was indulging in propaganda, some of us think. We point to documents like wills and inventories that mention up to date stuff to dispel le Bel. However, bargain-basement, army-surplus traffic in used armor and some kinds of weapons was apparently very prevalent in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries at the least, and likely for a long time before then too -- though the market was those who were not magnates.

Kon,

Why do you think this? The only documents I know of show armour reqs that are near the same in the 14th. We have the 1318 in the Scot Parl. Rolls that is near identical to one from Ed II and Ed III run. There are as far as I know 0 MS of this period, precious little art in general or inventories in Scotland until mid 14th and by this point they are identical to English accounts. Now for sure there was variations but I am not sure that this idea of 20 years of gap is right for Scotland to England or anywhere. Likely all over Europe there are likely hold outs for whatever reason. Saying it was endemic of Scotland seems rather unfair and unsubstantiated. Even the effigies seem rather similar to English ones. Now as for second hand markets for sure they existed but the questions should remain if it really applies to Scotland more so than any other place. Some of the SE French art and inventories indicate many squires and knights wore rather old fashioned gear likely out of choice. See the same thing in parts of Germany.

James,

To answer your first question. I know of 0 evidence for this and think you'd be better off using iron/steel. There is one account from London's Letter Books from the 1320s that seems to indicate leather was used as a foundation layer in some pair of plate type armour/splint and we have a remaining pair of plates with canvas still present. I have seen some pair of plates plates with textile impressions in the accumulations on the outside of the metal so I can say only about that much thought we do have ones with velvet covers showing up all over Europe but I suspect leather or canvas was used under the velvet.

RPM

Dan Howard wrote:What was more common as a foundation for COPs; textile or leather?

An excellent question. I originally posted this back on 7/13/2002:

In "Armour from the Battle of Wisby", Thordeman states in Chapter 5 that the coat "...in those cases where it could be proved, was made of leather but may also have been made of, or covered with, cloth...). Leather remnants, usually under the heads of rivets, as well as the length of the rivet shaft protruding past the plate indicate leather. However, armor 2 (Type 1) has round washers beneath some rivets. "These washers were visible on the outside of the cover, to judge from the traces of coarse cloth--very likely from the cover or its lining--which clearly pass beneath the same." Also, "As has already been mentioned there is on the outside of these plates a coating of rust with a distinct fabric pattern. Here and there this coating runs below the rivet-heads, and consequently leaves traces of the cover to which the plates have been riveted...These traces of cloth do not, however, show conclusively that the covering consisted only of cloth, they may also conceivably be the remnants of a cloth lining of a covering of some other material. Actually, some remnants here and there, esecially distinct round a rivet on the left breastplate, show that such had been the case, and that the covering itself had consisted of leather."

Also, armor fragment 33, a back plate of a Type 1 armor, with the iron loop at the top for suspending the side plates from the back, has "traces of cloth on the outside."

Thom Richardson gives examples of fabric and leather coverings for pairs of plate, and seems to assume hemp was used as the foundation as it is commonly done on surviving brigandines.

The pairs of plates were cuirasses formed of iron plates riveted inside textile
coats (figure 7). Evidence from brigandines of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,
where the fabrics survive, suggest that all coats of plate and brigandines had an inner
layer of coarse hemp cloth as a foundation for attachment of the iron plates inside,
with a second layer of higher-quality cloth outside where it would be seen.173 The
cheapest form listed in Rothwell’s account therefore most probably had two layers of
the usual lining fabric, while the more expensive types had inner layers of hemp but
outer layers as described.

In 1353 the Tower armoury contained 144 pairs of plates, in total, one riveted
with silver rivets on red velvet, 18 covered in velvet, the rest with a variety of
unspecified coverings. In the period of the same account, 1353–60, 156 more pairs of
plates were made by the king’s armourer, John of London, and other workmen within
the Tower, at a total cost of £230. Thirty were covered in velvet and other silk cloths
(samaka and tartaryn) of various colours with gilt rivets holding in the plates, at a
price of 40s., while 114 were less expensively covered in white or black fustian at
26s. 8d, and twelve pairs were covered very cheaply with a double layer of hemp,
and had white (metal) rivets, at 13s. 4d each.

Fortunately he also gives the Latin text.

Et in clxj paribus platorum factorum ex
precepto et ordinatione domini nostri Regis per Johannem de London’ (640) vallettum et
armurariorum ipsius domini Regis et alios diversos operarios et armurarios secum
operantes infra Turrim London’ per vices infra tempus huius compoti, unde xxx paria
cooperta de velvetto et panno samaka et tartaryn diversis coloribus cum clavatura
deaurata capientes pro quolibet pari pro omnibus misis et expensis per ipsos inde
apportis ex certa conventione cum eisdem facta et pro maiori commodo Regis xl s.,
et cxiiij paria (641) cooperta de fustiano nigro et albo capientes pro quolibet pari pro
omnibus misis et expendis per ipsius inde apportis ut superius xxvj s. viij d.
et xij paria cooperta de canabo duplicata cum clavatura alba capientes pro quolibet
pari pro omnibus misis et expensis per ipsos inde apportis ut superius xiij s. iiij d.,

Typically, we get a lot of description of the covering fabric or leather and nails, but not of the foundation, so Richardson's presumption of hemp as a base is not explicit. The double hemp (canabo duplicata) seems to indicate a single base layer was not enough. It should be noted that fabric and leather were used to cover bascinets and plate limb defenses as well.

From 1357 of arms for Guillaume III of Bavaria, Count of Hainault., we have this peculiar reference.

Item , ij paires de plattes à jouster, de coy li une est couvierte d'un noir velluiel et l'autre d'un bleu.

We had a group translation effort back on the thread about musekins.

Item, 2 pairs of plates for jousting of coy li one is covered with black velvet and the other one blue.

I offered "coy li" might be cuir bouilli, but no one has confirmed or offered a better translation. If this is indeed a cuir bouilli pair of plates, it is restricted to the joust which makes that translation seem unlikely.

Firmly disagree with the Scots being 50 years behind. They may have been a few years (give or take) behind.

Go to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=43743

Read the entire thread, really good information.

Thanks for all the evidence concerning the different kinds of foundations, Ernst!

Steve

Steve,
The amount of information on foundations is very modest compared to the information on coverings. My personal observation is that fabric outnumbers leather in most inventories, but I haven't taken a hard measure. Velvet, silk, cloth of gold, etc. could all seriously raise the cost of a pair of plates. Perfect for your nobility! The examples from Wisby tend to have come from a poorer sort of folk.

I'm wondering if the coy li could be coi livre -- modest cost -- even when covered in velvet?

Ernst,

Seems to be what I see as well. I see very little evidence for leather besides a few hints here and there and Thordmann.

There is a Italian pair of plates that still has some of its textile foundation.

Is the Latin the entire section? Looks like some is missing. the first number of plates in the Latin is 161 isn't it? Basically saying and 161 pairs of plates were made for the king by John....

RPM

RandallMoffett wrote:Is the Latin the entire section? Looks like some is missing. the first number of plates in the Latin is 161 isn't it? Basically saying and 161 pairs of plates were made for the king by John....

Sharp eye, Randall. Of course there's more text, the next phrase being

una cum c paribus platorum veterum et dcccl ensibus veteribus

together with 100 old pair of plates and 850 old swords

Perhaps the "c" is a scribal error for "v" (the remainder of 5 from 161 and the 156 previously itemized)? Another option might be that the final 5 pair of plates had not yet been fitted out with all the buckles and straps to a stage of completion (therefore not paid for) and that there are an additional old 100 pair?

One of the few leather covered plates Richardson mentions is in the receipt of the armoury of Edward II

Some of it was clearly of royal quality and in good condition, such as the pairs of
plate, one covered in red velvet riveted in silver, one with the arms of England, one
covered in red leather with an inescutcheon of the arms of England, one pair of
vambraces and a matching pair of cuisses embroidered with leopards, decorated with
the arms of England.

Thanks Mart. That helps a lot.

It stands to reason, that accounts written by the English, mortal enemies of the Scots (or at least those Scots who wouldn't bend the knee to the English Crown) would give disparaging information...as mentioned, propaganda et al.

In truth, I was hoping to get away with using hardened leather in a c.o.p. for weight reasons,..but alas, I've committed myself to going as period as I can, and thus, steel it is!...sigh...and here I was hoping for a "oh yeah, those sneaky scots used whatever they could get their little jock hands on". However, as most nobles would have had some form of traffic, either political, economic or military with both the English and the continent, it only makes sense they would have used the same kit.

Thank you gentles, one and all. You have answered my question....off to fetch some steel!

Just use thin, stiff steel. It's covered anyway; why not go two gauge numbers finer in stainless? Cost? Corrosion resistance goes way way up. You needn't be stuck with sixteen gauge steel when you could manage eighteen or even twenty.

Boiled leather isn't magic Cavorite -- similar strength is going to be gotten by greater thickness. Weight climbs. What are your individual considerations for weight of your harness and its control? Back injury? You're 130 pounds or less? I'm saying without being in certain extremities, you're not going to get into a terrible problem bearing armor that actually, well, weighs like armor.

Konstantin the Red wrote:Just use thin, stiff steel. It's covered anyway; why not go two gauge numbers finer in stainless? Cost? Corrosion resistance goes way way up. You needn't be stuck with sixteen gauge steel when you could manage eighteen or even twenty.

Boiled leather isn't magic Cavorite -- similar strength is going to be gotten by greater thickness. Weight climbs. What are your individual considerations for weight of your harness and its control? Back injury? You're 130 pounds or less? I'm saying without being in certain extremities, you're not going to get into a terrible problem bearing armor that actually, well, weighs like armor.

Konstantin makes a really good point.

One thing to add, spend time in fitting your coat of plates correctly. That will go a long way to properly distributing the weight so you will hardly feel it.

Think jacket, perhaps suit-jacket, and not gown, not barrel and straps. A bit of closeness about the waist if you can; helps hold things up and on.

Ernst,

Not too sharp just tend to read the latin when it is there to see what is going on. I saw this account in English and really like the level of detail the scribe put into it. My next pair of plates will be a red velvet with double canvas layer under it. I want to use silver rivets know but I fear that may be far outside my cost estimation to budget.

I think Kon is dead on. If you have leather I doubt you will gain much strength to thickness and weight. Fred's point is key as well. When I do pair of plates sessions I start with how one should design them and pattern them. Just making one off the original may not work depending on the person.

I think I'd also wear an aketon with a par of plates. It looks to be a very common set up.

RPM

In answer to your "Why do you think this?" question up-thread, Randall, the discussion in this thread in Historical Research:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=167095&p=2543101#p2543101

The hard-guy answer to the well hard-shelled chappie who comments "My armor seems a bit heavy," is "Then grow a bit stronger." Be at schleppin' it about a good lot, and doing sets of squats at the gym etc., to put some beef to your hams. You'll get there.

None of that should be construed to actually disparage weight control. It's just a matter of assessing your weight budget for harness -- what poundage went where, and are you getting sufficient benefit for the price.

Mel Gibson's neat-o Braveheart costume-brigandine -- some of the nearest-approach-to-real-while-still-fakeroonie armor in the flick -- looks very little like historical examples of brigandine, which themselves would have been, oh, a couple hundred years after William Wallace anyway. Let's just say historical plausibility turned out to be pretty low on the costumers' priorities, to the point where any piece of an authentic description at all was presented in a wild mix spanning about three centuries of armor development from Crusades to Renaissance, and the entire ambit of Western Europe to boot. Surely they might have done better for the same money/effort. Isn't like their Irish Army extras would have minded in the least.

????

Sounds like this thread ends up more or less with common perception is basically wrong and the evidence is largely based on proto-nationalist propaganda...

RPM

Or that the common perception was itself in need of some refining; that's my takeaway.

RandallMoffett wrote:I think Kon is dead on. If you have leather I doubt you will gain much strength to thickness and weight.

Yep. If you want cuirbouilli to give the same protection as steel, it needs to be a lot thicker and heavier than steel.

Kon,

I'm good with that.

Dan,

How many types of hardened leather have you made Dan? I know people tend to promote heat more now than in the past after wet forming. What is your take on these processes?

RPM

Personally, none. I've been relying on others that know a lot more about the subject than I. The things I usually work with either require vege tanned leather or rawhide.

The whole poiunt of metal is that, pound for pound, it provides more protection than any other material they had available.

For SCA purposes going with hardened leather is "slightly" lighter (typically 14oz hardened is around 1.5lbs/sq ft.) compared to 2lbs/sq ft. for 18 ga steel. That said, the steel is MUCH harder and more protective. So for SCA fighting, yes it would protect you, but it is almost as heavy as steel, and much thicker (over 1/4" thick compared to around 1/16" or less for steel) and it breaks down over time.

RoundTop wrote:For SCA purposes going with hardened leather is ... almost as heavy as steel, and much thicker (over 1/4" thick compared to around 1/16" or less for steel) and it breaks down over time.

So, for a Thrifty Scot . . . steel, laddie, steel

Plus you know...sheep don't make for thick leather. you need cow or bigger. Sheep can be used (and abused) for other purposes.

From the error of the Northmen deliver us O Lord.

I'll do my best Kon.

Okay, now that's just .

Sorry was borderline silly last night

when you guys say "Pair of Plates", are you referring to something akin to a Corrazina, where the breastplate is split, or is this term less literal in the "Pair" aspect?

Pair of plates is the medieval term for what we frequently refer to as a coat of plates or CoP. The word pair simply means a set.

well that is interesting, definitely changes my perception of COPs, I thought the velvet was a bit later development, more of a traditional brigandine thing.

RandallMoffett wrote:Sorry was borderline silly last night

Oh, well -- my blue bonnet is always over that border.

Morrisgunn wrote:well that is interesting, definitely changes my perception of COPs, I thought the velvet was a bit later development, more of a traditional brigandine thing.

Easier to see velvet shell fabric on something that wasn't buried six hundred-odd years, and what with brigandines starting at a hundred years or so after Wisby anyway... circumstances of preservation will affect -- downright skew -- the data.

Welcome and well come.