Posts: 545 Location: Boston
Wed 29 Oct, 2008 7:54 am
Hello Jeff,
The relevant facts that we have at our disposal include:
* Period instruction on fighting a man in armour. These manuals, written by professionals, clearly tell us that penetrating plate armour,
even with a poleax, does not work. A great amount of detail is given on how to attack the parts the not protected by plate.
* Testing of
mail by the Royal Armour at Leeds concluded that, " . . .it is almost impossible to penetrate using any conventional medieval weapon." As described in "Medieval Military Surgery", Medieval History Magazine, Vol 1 is 4, December 2003, and we can expect plate to be at least as strong as mail.
* Contemporary written accounts of battles often speak of how armour protects warriors from any harm. There are descriptions of individual people being struck down despite their armour but accounts of entire battles usually feature armour being highly protective. Note that I'm referring specifically to historical accounts and not sagas, chansons, etc.
The conclusion drawn from these various sources is that the armour was very good at preventing penetration. A person may be incapacitated or even bludgeoned to death in their armour; armour, of course, failed sometimes; but the armour was seldom split by blades.
While you have ventured your opinion to the contrary you have not provided any specific evidence to support this idea besides the art. Multiple reasons for why the artwork would be exaggerated have been put forth and all of them sound reasonable to me. Without other supporting evidence I see no reason to expect swords to split helmets.
Jeff A. Arbogast wrote: |
The rounded helmets you are referring to are the spangenhelms worn by the poorer soldiers, not generally the nobility. They had been around for hundreds of years. And I am sure that they were being cleaved left and right during all that time. Sometimes they weren't even of all iron, but had inserts of different materials, leather or horn, and generally a nasal. Not much protection, but better than nothing. Care to test one against a Danish War Ax? I wouldn't. I have one from Arms &Armor. It has a 4 ft. handle and a thin, hardened head. I have no doubt that it could split a spangenhelm and it's wearer down to his collarbone at least and probably beyond. |
Those not wearing barrel helms are shown in a variety of helmet types including spangenhelms, kettlehelms and single pieces round helms. Spangenhelms with non-metal inserts predate the Mac bible by half a millenium and are not pictured anywhere in the 13th century art; they are therefore not relevant to this discussion.
And again, professional instruction from period disagrees with you on the ability of a 4-5 ft axe to split helmets.
Jeff A. Arbogast wrote: |
Nor would I call the noblemen depicted in the Maciejowski Bible dumb. That is a assumption that you unfairly assign to me. No wealthy lord would use a spangenhelm if something better was available. The noblemen of the day would of course have opted for the pieced-together Barrel Helm shown, which was probably the best that the technology of the time had to offer. And their construction is entirely unknown, so any speculation that they would in fact be stronger than a one piece helm is entirely speculative, although I cannot believe that a helm made up of so many pieces, with so many inherent weak spots, would actually be stronger than a later Sugarloaf helm. Since the Sugarloaf replaced the Barrel Helm, instead of the other way around, I would say that should mean SOMETHING. |
The barrel helms shown are constructed in the same manner as spangenhelms - overlapped metal plates rivetted together.
The artwork and surviving helmets are consistent so we do know how they were constructed. The fact that the sugarloaf style replaced the barrel helm is relevant but it doesn't tell us why. Assertions to why the change was made are simply speculation. Remember we can never deny the power of fashion in armour styles in the Medieval period.
The suggestion that the triangular corner of the barrel helm would be stronger is not speculation at all. It is simply consistent with modern structural engineering principles.
Jeff A. Arbogast wrote: |
I spoke to a welder friend of mine on this subject. He knows his job well, and is aircraft certified, with a deep knowledge of metallurgy. I asked him if a high-carbon blade with a hardness of, say, Rockwell 50 (Like an Albion blade, that some scoff at for a reason I cannot fathom) could split a pieced-together Great Helm like those shown in the Bible. He said that if they were made of a workable iron, they would probably break or be cloven if hit with sufficient force from above with a top-notch sword of sufficient size. He said that if such a helm was hit squarely with my ax (which he has handled) it would probably just explode. I then asked him "Well, what if the helm was made of a mild steel?" He laughed and said "Are you kidding? It would have no carbon content, and that hard wide-bladed sword would split it wide open. And your ax would split it open as well, and crush it in besides." This is a professional welder's opinion, not mine. |
With all due respect to your friend the welder, the professionals from the Medieval era and the professional Medieval archaeologists at the Royal Armoury at Leeds as well as the eyewitnesses to battles disagree with his conclusion. Have you had an opportunity to test his conclusion?
Also note that the Albion blades Rc 50 is far higher than most contemporary swords by 20-30 pts as explained here. So conclusions about what a modern, super-hard, mono-steel blade can do will not be reprsentative of what Medieval swords could do.
Jeff A. Arbogast wrote: |
To me at least, the very fact that the helms that are depicted were later replaced with less squared-off versions speaks volumes. It was done for a reason, more than likely learned on the battlefield. There are no existing examples of this particular style of helmet to my knowledge, so speculation must serve in place of hard evidence. But when one style of helmet is replaced with another, it is not because the helmet replacing it is inferior. That simply flies in the face of all reason. |
The replacement is not necessarily inferior but the change may be due to a variety of reasons including fashion and changing priorities on the battlefield.
Jeff A. Arbogast wrote: |
And yes, mail is hard to get past. But not unheard of. A good cast at the right distance can put the javelin through chain mail, and I know that mail can be cleaved, I have seen it done. Remember, the knights and warriors of those days were hardened killers, trained from youth in the brutal art of arms, with all the tricks and techniques of the trade, most of which are lost to us. Any knight of those days would more than likely make very short work of anyone here who considers himself a swordsman. I am certain that cleaving a helm or mail like that shown in the Maciejowski Bible was not a big deal to these guys. Only to us. |
Again, see the above reference to tests conducted by the Royal Armoury.
Jeff A. Arbogast wrote: |
As usual, I find myself in the minority. But that's fine. I don't mind stirring the pot, especially when nothing has been proven. |
I, and many others here, would prefer that you stir the pot with evidence instead of your own hypotheses.
Respectfully,
Steven