Talk:Boiled leather

Boiled???

Why is this article called 'boiled leather' over cuir bouilli? And what are the sources for the methodology involving boiling?

I only have a reference refuting such a suggestion:

Nicolle, David, 'Jawshan, Cuirie and Coats-of-Plates: An Alternative Line of Development for Hardened Leather Armour', in Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour, edited by David Nicolle; UK: The Boydell Press, p 180:

David Nicolle (an established expert in medieval military subjects) points out that it is not boiled (which would destroy it) or oiled (which would soften it). It was in fact soaked in cold water, then dried (or heated) in a mould. Bouilli, he suggests, might refer to its waterproofing with molten wax.

Nicolle refers to a study by J W Waterer (Leather and the Warrior, Museum of Leathercraft, 1981). Does anyone have access to it? Or any other sources? Gwinva 17:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Use in armor?

The main premise of this article is that boiled leather was used in armor. However, none of the references provide any evidence for this. Either there should be specific citations for the use in armor, or the claim should be removed. — Sam 63.138.152.141 (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly stated in Le Livre des tournois (which is in the sources for this page) that leather can be used for protection of both legs and arms. 194.213.192.9 (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The whole article has been rewritten since this 2913 comment. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Improving

The article needs:

• a few more refs pointing to historical use of the term and material
• clarification of what *historical* sources say about its properites
• what *historical* sources say about its preparation
• only then, some references to attempts are re-creation

Snori (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In the first sentence of the "Military Use" section, there's a phrase that says plate armor is too heavy for infantry to use. This is demonstrably untrue. Any number of contemporary sources depict people fighting in full plate harness on foot. I'm going to remove that phrase unless someone objects. Johnny Wishbone (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Notes

• The Armourer and His Craft, By Charles John Ffoulkes
• Conservation of Leather and Related Materials, edited by Marion Kite, Roy Thomson
• Grove, Leather
• The Knight and the Blast Furnace: A History of the Metallurgy of Armour in ...By Alan R. Williams
• The Archaeological Album; Or Museum of National Antiquities ... Edited by T ...By Thomas Wright
• Dictionary of the Printing and Allied Industries: In English (with ...By F.J.M. Wijnekus, E.F.P.H. Wijnekus
• The Longbow By Mike Loades
• Sheaths and scabbards in England AD400-1100, Esther Anita Cameron
• Helmets
• The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare, By Jim Bradbury
• Wavrin, Agincourt
• Brit Dragoons
• French infantry, 1792
• Crests
• Henry V effigy
• Black Prince crest

Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Copied from the DYK nom

I think that the pronunciation is more like "queer boo-yi" or "queer boo-yee" (Chaucer spells it " quyrboilly", and assorted other pre-standardized-spelling English authors write it in assorted ways none of which seem to involve a "w" sound mentioned in the lede). A sound file would be nice.

How about either the excellent image of the book carrying case which is the lead article image or the following image of a small boiled-leather chest? The Metropolitan Museum of Art says that both are cuir-bouilli, which seems fairly reliable to me. You can see the leather, too, unlike the helmet.

Content suggestions: some more non-military material would be nice. A section on what happens to the leather physically and chemically when it hardens, and the debate about manufacturing methods, would be really interesting. How about a section on cuir bouilli's use in drinking vessels, and all the English pubs named "The Leather Bottle" or some such? Or a section on bookbinding uses, protecting or even substituting for boards? Reliquaries, portable altars, pyxes (pyxides, says Wikipedia...), the replica Carolingian cross and so on might make a section of religious uses.

I've handled cuir-bouilli which the maker said was stuffed with sand and baked, and it was stiff and solid. The shape was characteristic of a tightly-stuffed shaped roundish beanbag with a neck, like some images I've seen of historic cuir boulli (realize that this is OR, but it might be sourcable). HLHJ (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Chest made from cuir bouilli

I based the pronunciation (someone will be along with an IPA version that few can understand soon, no doubt) on the modern French rather than Middle English, which seems appropriate. I will copy this to the article talk, as most of it is not DYK-related. If the hook is on the pickelhaube, then the pic should be, and it is far more striking at the tiny DYK size. You can in fact see the leather grain fine on expansion. The article's main pic would not work at this size at all. More at article talk .... Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I've added IPA according to the French and English Wiktionarries (\bu.ji\, with the sound of the "y" in "yes"), and and changed the pronunciation respelling to try and match Help:Pronunciation respelling key. HLHJ (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok. That seems worse to me, but whatever. If you look at the version before I started expanding, that was entirely military. I have been keen to add stuff on non-military use, & have added a lot, but I'm finding it hard to source, partly because many sources don't specify CB as opposed to just leather even when I'm pretty sure that is meant. Eg, I haven't really seen a source confirming that Leather Bottle pubs refer to CB, though I'm sure they do. Also the 4 or 5 alternative terms slow down things considerably. At the same time, I suspect that the rather high c. 140 hits per day the article gets is mainly because of military uses, even though hardly any examples survive. Apparently there is a lot of boiled leather armour in the Game of Thrones books... So that market needs catering for, and good sources were fairly easy to find. I've avoided details on the physical changes partly because it doesn't seem totally agreed, & partly because the most detailed source, Cheshire, goes rather outside my scientific comfort zone. Feel free to add on any of these matters, but please be sure to reference very fully, especially as it will soon hit the main page. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Not Boiled At All!

According to The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare, the opposite process was used - COLD water - as boiling makes leather permanently soft. The etymology of the "bouilli" part of the French name, cuir bouilli, is unknown, but is speculated to refer to part of the slow drying process with a low heat, and so has nothing to do with boiling.

Also the idea that armour made from stiffened leather is lighter than steel is ridiculous. Effective armour was certainly made from materials such as cloth, padding, and hardened and softened leather, but they were substantial constructions with their own cumbersome bulk. They rely on the density of tightly arranged fibres to dissipate the energy of a weapon, and so thickness and bulk are positive attributes towards their effectiveness.

Lighter layers of armour have been shown to work in combination with heavier armour, especially against missiles, where the lighter layer is used to create an initial retardant against momentum. This can be seen in the Japanese Horo, which has been shown to help against arrows; and in modern slat or standoff armour. But both are only effective in combination with normal full armour.

Nobbo69 (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is well sourced, & explains how various processes, by no means all known to us, were used, but they probably didn't include boiling. But the name has stuck. Your other points are I think covered ok. Sources? Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Plate armour being " too heavy for much to be worn by infantry"?

Not only is this claim just absolutely false, but it is also hard to read with such odd wording, and most importantly, does not even have a cited source? I had to make a whole account to address such a shockingly blatant false claim with nothing to back it up. I mean I know technically anyone can edit Wikipedia but come on, in an article about armour I would not expect to see such a claim like this that is usually relegated to fantasy literature and Hollywood fiction. There are more sources on heavily armoured infantry and dismounted knights fighting in full plate than one could ever list here. Here I will list two contemporary medieval sources.

14th Century, The Chronicles of Froissart, written by Jean Froissart (c. 1337 - c. 1405) depict many instances of infantry in full plate fighting one another. The include but are not limited to: - the Battle of Beverhoutsveld, 1382. - the Battle of Otterburn, 1388. - Battle of La Roche-Derrien, 1347.

15th Century, Hans Talhoffer's Fechtbuch (fight book) written in the 1440s has many depictions of judicial duels being fought in full plate armour, with longswords at half-sword.

Conclusion: Medieval people were not idiots especially when it came to making arms and armour. Plate armour was optimized to accentuate the efficacy of warriors who would have trained in it all their lives. These warriors would have had an intense personal relation with their armour and would have it tailored to be as comfortable and effective for their personal use as possible. Furthermore, many knights would even add their own modifications to their armour, as it was widely seen as a reflection of the identity of its wearer (see Noel Fallows "Chivalric Identity"). This misconception of warriors in plate armour as bumbling, clumsy brutes in heavy and cumbersome armour has been disproven time and time again. Afterall, why would plate armour be used at all if it was so crude, much less for hundreds of years as seen in history. BigManBarrett (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Dismounted knights did not have to march for days either wearing or carrying their armour, as infantry did. Illustrations of Froissart, mostly done in urban workshops in Paris or Flanders many decades or centuries after the events depicted, by artists with no military experience, are pretty useless as references for actual practices. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

True, but claiming that plate armour is too heavy for infantry is just incorrect, is it not? I did not have much time to gather sources so I agree I could have presented some better evidence. Also the issue of the missing citation still stands. BigManBarrett (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

As you quote, the claim is "too heavy for much to be worn by infantry" (my emphasis), which is true. We are covering a huge period and area, with very variable practices, including a gradual reduction in the cost of plate armour. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)