Philip Dyer wrote:

Quote:

Isn't there also acount of thick cloth jackets stuffed with felt or several layers of linen doing the same thing as Curibolli, dispating shock force before in travels through the mail and person?

A bit of a difference in how it's done though. Regarding blunt trauma, the padding will deform - the hope is a breastplate will not. I think I'd rather have something rigid protecting my ribs and the organs beneath, though padding would be helpful in addition.

Pieter B wrote:

Quote:

I really wish I had the source for this but sadly I cannot find it anymore. Do take this with a grain of salt since I didn't bother looking at the authenticity of the source when I read it. The point it brings forward is that 10-12 oz of leather is almost equal to 18 layers of linen. So pretty much your standard gambeson.

I'd be careful with that. There are a number of factors to both consider and verify about any testing.

A few that I see is there is no mention of how the 10-12 oz lather was tanned, and 18 layers of linen is a bit thin. The most common i have seen is 27 layers, and this was odd number was mentioned in at least two completely separate sources.

Another question is what is the weight and weave of the linen? Linen in the middle ages apparently had a tighter weave than modern linen. Also, were the layers of linen put together with the weave only going one way or did the layers "cross" for reinforcement?

Also, I'd like to put in this excerpt from Dr. William's work, I think most on here agree his testing of armor and weapons seems to be the most accurate of any modern testing:

Quote:

Arrowhead vs. Buff Leather 30 J Lance vs. Cuir-boulli 30-20 J Lance vs. Padding (16 layers linen, 60g for 16 x 21 cm) 50 J

I might mention a buff leather coat is usually in the 8-10 oz weight category, though I'm not sure about the sample listed above, nor the thickness of cuirboilli. But both of these performed a fair amount worse than the 16 layer padding - which again, is a very thin gambeson.

Do we actually have any indication how much did proper hide cost in let's say Scandinavia after the Viking Age? AFAIK we have Anglo-Saxon prices in the vicinity and Late Romans exactly, I'm thinking we could be able to set the approximate cost for a leather armor, may it be leather lamellar or something even worse. That would settle a lot of disputes, and incite a lot more.

In the Edict of Diocletian, the controlled price of an ox hide prepared for using it as shoesole (I'm using this analogy to take some kind of tanning/manufacturing into account) was around 750 denarii, with the avg. soldiers payment of 1000 denarii per month (obviously disposable income was lower since the frequently go their salaries in materials and cloths). I would say, that in a warrior society with no formal salaries, no institutional economy and regulations and a heavily agriculture oriented society, the actual cost of a proper leather armor would be in the skies...

Determining the costs won't really settle anything (though obviously the information itself can be fascinating and revealing). It is already clear that leather armor was very rare at best among these people, if it was used at all. (Basic Viking-era northern and western Europe, that is!) The mention of the fellow "Leatherneck" in the saga strongly implies that his armor made him a freak. The mention of a hero needing to cover himself with cowhides to resist a dragon's venom shows that nothing ready-made was available. The complete absence of leather armor in militia regulations and ship equipment lists, which are otherwise detailed and organized by wealth level, tells me that it just was not common enough to mention.

In other words, there is very strong "evidence of absence". We're not just dealing with "absence of evidence" here.

Matthew

Everybody citate Williams but his test on leather is quite unusefull, buff leather is not boiled leather or rawhide.

IIRC WIlliams tested one piece of buff leather and two pieces of what he specifically called "cuir bouilli" but he doesn't say how the leather was hardened. None of his leather test pieces performed very well against points. FWIW leather used for armour wasn't "boiled". It was sometimes hardened using hot water but not boiling water.

He test buff leather vs Arrow but not for lance and cuir bouilli for lance but not for Arrow, this is not a real scientific
test, again he don't say what kind cuirbouilli.

There are a lot of deficiencies in Williams tests but his data is currently the best available. Produce a test that is peer reviewed and more rigorously conducted and we'll use that instead.

We know that leather can be made into decent armour; leather/rawhide armour was very common in some parts of the world. But, the further west you look the rarer it seems to be. Even in Italy it was more common than further north or west. Just because it was used in one part of the world or one time period doesn't mean that it was used everywhere at all times. For example we know that leather armour was worn in late medieval Italy but there is very little to suggest that the Romans wore it.

I found this http://www.academia.edu/5520314/Arrows_Agains...her_Armour

Excellent paper, it show us that leather covered jack is better against bodkin arrow than leather alone.
Perhaps that's why west medieval warfare don't use full leather armor, too weak against bodkin.
We also see that jack / gambeson / 28+ layers of linen alone is vulnerable vs broad arrows and adding one layer of leather improve nicely protection against broad arrows.