Yes, Chad is correct. When I said houndskull I intended a pointy visor attached by two side hinges and by klappvisor I intended the shovel faced or globose visor attached by a single hinge front and center. I should have been more precise. But either method of attachment and visor style can be mixed and matched, with different permutations more appropriate for different times and regional combinations.
Thank you Chad and Ian!
Chad,yes I really liked the look of the original helm which I first saw right here in the great helm article. I knew I wasn't alone when I saw your avatar! When I stumbled across the reproduction I knew that had to be the one for me.
I intend to darken the mail so it stands out visually against the coif and add the cross hole on the bottom left for the lanyard chain. I am aware that type of helm was gradually relegated to tournaments but I figured in the mid 1300s you might find them still in use on the battlefield and I love the look. What can I say I'm an old fashioned knight!
As for fighting in it on foot heck no! I would personally prefer the later visored sallets and gothic style if I were beating on people with pointy objects.
Chad,yes I really liked the look of the original helm which I first saw right here in the great helm article. I knew I wasn't alone when I saw your avatar! When I stumbled across the reproduction I knew that had to be the one for me.
I intend to darken the mail so it stands out visually against the coif and add the cross hole on the bottom left for the lanyard chain. I am aware that type of helm was gradually relegated to tournaments but I figured in the mid 1300s you might find them still in use on the battlefield and I love the look. What can I say I'm an old fashioned knight!
As for fighting in it on foot heck no! I would personally prefer the later visored sallets and gothic style if I were beating on people with pointy objects.
[quote="Chad Arnow"]
Well, let me disagree here =).
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/queste-del-sa...ncais/106/
http://armourinart.com/2/4/ (top left with a green surcoat, middle right making a thrust with his sword)
And this, dated 1400-1410 (maybe slightly later, I took it from Manuscript and Miniatures, but everytime I look up for it I cannot find it) http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/23/400xj.jpg/ (guy in the middle with the short-hafted guisarme).
| Brian W. wrote: |
| Howdy folks!
In general, the great helm seems to have fallen out of battlefield use more and more as the 14th century progressed. By 1380, a bascinet of some sort would probably be more appropriate. |
Well, let me disagree here =).
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/queste-del-sa...ncais/106/
http://armourinart.com/2/4/ (top left with a green surcoat, middle right making a thrust with his sword)
And this, dated 1400-1410 (maybe slightly later, I took it from Manuscript and Miniatures, but everytime I look up for it I cannot find it) http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/23/400xj.jpg/ (guy in the middle with the short-hafted guisarme).
| Augusto Boer Bront wrote: | ||||
|
I think you're ignoring the 'in general' part of what I said. There will always be specific counterexamples. I'm looking at things from the perspective that most of the time you don't want to try to represent the obscure examples from a time period, but you certainly could, and those are good sources to use if you want to justify going that route.
Well, I didn't want to anything, and if I did, accept my apology. But I just wanted to show that the misconception about greathelms is wrong. That they lasted longer then most people believe. That by the end of the XIVth century (1380-1400) they were not relegated to tournaments and jousts. That they were used in battle as well.
And these examples aren't that specific. They are three examples of different regions depicting the same object. So they aren't that particular. I don't want to use these to justify the use of a flat-topped great helm in the XVth century or something as fancy, but only to show that the good ol' great helm (in his later forms) still rocked and was a valid alternative to the other contemporary head protections.
For example if our friend used his great helm in with an underneath bascinet in wouldn't be as much as a problem (or not =) ? ).
And these examples aren't that specific. They are three examples of different regions depicting the same object. So they aren't that particular. I don't want to use these to justify the use of a flat-topped great helm in the XVth century or something as fancy, but only to show that the good ol' great helm (in his later forms) still rocked and was a valid alternative to the other contemporary head protections.
For example if our friend used his great helm in with an underneath bascinet in wouldn't be as much as a problem (or not =) ? ).
| Augusto Boer Bront wrote: |
| But I just wanted to show that the misconception about greathelms is wrong. That they lasted longer then most people believe. That by the end of the XIVth century (1380-1400) they were not relegated to tournaments and jousts. That they were used in battle as well.
And these examples aren't that specific. They are three examples of different regions depicting the same object. So they aren't that particular. I don't want to use these to justify the use of a flat-topped great helm in the XVth century or something as fancy, but only to show that the good ol' great helm (in his later forms) still rocked and was a valid alternative to the other contemporary head protections. |
You're misreading what I said and making it a more absolute statement than I did. I said (your quoting tags made it hard to see who wrote what):
| Quote: |
| In general, the great helm seems to have fallen out of battlefield use more and more as the 14th century progressed. By 1380, a bascinet of some sort would probably be more appropriate. |
Falling out of use "more and more" doesn't mean falling out of use entirely. I stand by my statement. It means the great helm was seeing less and less frequent use by the end of the century. It doesn't mean it saw no use. And including the words "in general" means I'm talking about things that are typical/common/average, not some outliers. :)
And I still believe that by 1380 a bascinet would be more common than a great helm and more appropriate for a 1380s impression. There's ample evidence for that statement.
I get what you're saying, Augusto, and I agree with you. There were probably people using great helms around the turn of the 15th century. However, I still believe bascinets to be a more typical helm for the era.
I think you are right Chad. If you compare the great helms to any other helmet in inventories the ones they are in a tiny minority. You see something like this going on as well in most art. In the end in some regions like Italy it seems to have lingered on the field of battle longer but from what I have seen you are indeed right.
From what I have seen of inventories you are dead right by 1380. Heck even by 1360 likely there are far more inventories that have bascinets than great helms hands down. In the end it is just a batter helmet.
RPM
From what I have seen of inventories you are dead right by 1380. Heck even by 1360 likely there are far more inventories that have bascinets than great helms hands down. In the end it is just a batter helmet.
RPM
Here are some pictures of my kit, it is a work in progress. I hope you like it any advice would be greatly received.
The Character is Sir John Greystoke a 14th century English Baron.
Sam
Attachment: 112.02 KB
Front and center. My torney armour. [ Download ]
Attachment: 97.46 KB
My Normal look with my new gauntlets [ Download ]
Attachment: 91.81 KB
Armour with Great helm [ Download ]
The Character is Sir John Greystoke a 14th century English Baron.
Sam
Attachment: 112.02 KBFront and center. My torney armour. [ Download ]
Attachment: 97.46 KBMy Normal look with my new gauntlets [ Download ]
Attachment: 91.81 KBArmour with Great helm [ Download ]
| Sam Blincoe wrote: |
| Here are some pictures of my kit, it is a work in progress. I hope you like it any advice would be greatly received.
The Character is Sir John Greystoke a 14th century English Baron. Sam |
Very nice work Sam! May I ask the maker of your gauntlets in the second photograph (with fabric covered bell)? I really like that look!
| Randall Moffett wrote: |
| I think you are right Chad. If you compare the great helms to any other helmet in inventories the ones they are in a tiny minority. You see something like this going on as well in most art. In the end in some regions like Italy it seems to have lingered on the field of battle longer but from what I have seen you are indeed right.
From what I have seen of inventories you are dead right by 1380. Heck even by 1360 likely there are far more inventories that have bascinets than great helms hands down. In the end it is just a batter helmet. RPM |
I wonder if we are not being to zero one in this conversation. Great helms were never stand alone helmets they are depicted as worn over another helmet starting in at least the 13th century, often a skull cap of some sort over or under the maille coif in the beginning and in the early 14th century over the bascinet.
Visor bascinets come in during the 1340s but great helms over an open face bascinet are seen into at least the 1380s quite regularly in jousting scenes sometimes hanging off the back of the jousters body armor where it is bucked on.
I would say there is a large time frame of overlap but by the turn of the 15th century the houndskull bascinet is the dominate helmet on the battle field.
Scott.
Thanks yeah its getting there. They were made by Graham Ashford of Greenleaf Armories.
he has made a lot of kit for me and will be doing a lot more in the future.
Sam
Thanks yeah its getting there. They were made by Graham Ashford of Greenleaf Armories.
he has made a lot of kit for me and will be doing a lot more in the future.
Sam
James,
I think that is true. Great Helms always were worn with some type of mail or a helmet under it. Do we have direct info on the under helmet for the 13th century? I have seen some for the 14th but cannot think of one for the 13th. I tend to think the mail coif was the most common by looking at how effigies are arranged and from art but not sure.
There are examples of visored bascinets with mail coifs under them into the 1340s at least so this characteristic as a difference between the two will not work securely. As well there are examples in art of visored bascinets by the 1320s at least (Taymouth Hours has dozens of visored bascinets (many with neck lames as well to boot), maybe the 1310s but the art work is sort of hard to tell. So the end of great helms on the battlefield commonly (as Chad and I are saying) largely is taking place during the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the 14th. No one is contending use of great helms in tournaments after this period, largely that it is declining in war.
"I would say there is a large time frame of overlap but by the turn of the 15th century the houndskull bascinet is the dominate helmet on the battle field"
That works for me but I suspect it was earlier than turn of the century this happened.
To me I think what is so often called a sugarloaf helmet is the 'missing' link' that is not so missing. I suspect that as we see visored great helms around the time bascinets are starting in use that it was not long before they saw the potential of breeding them into a truly awesome helmet. I am sure it took time to get the configuration they liked and for one to win out over the other but I suspect the great helm really did not die out in war as much as its good characteristics were transferred to visored bascinets.
RPM
I think that is true. Great Helms always were worn with some type of mail or a helmet under it. Do we have direct info on the under helmet for the 13th century? I have seen some for the 14th but cannot think of one for the 13th. I tend to think the mail coif was the most common by looking at how effigies are arranged and from art but not sure.
There are examples of visored bascinets with mail coifs under them into the 1340s at least so this characteristic as a difference between the two will not work securely. As well there are examples in art of visored bascinets by the 1320s at least (Taymouth Hours has dozens of visored bascinets (many with neck lames as well to boot), maybe the 1310s but the art work is sort of hard to tell. So the end of great helms on the battlefield commonly (as Chad and I are saying) largely is taking place during the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the 14th. No one is contending use of great helms in tournaments after this period, largely that it is declining in war.
"I would say there is a large time frame of overlap but by the turn of the 15th century the houndskull bascinet is the dominate helmet on the battle field"
That works for me but I suspect it was earlier than turn of the century this happened.
To me I think what is so often called a sugarloaf helmet is the 'missing' link' that is not so missing. I suspect that as we see visored great helms around the time bascinets are starting in use that it was not long before they saw the potential of breeding them into a truly awesome helmet. I am sure it took time to get the configuration they liked and for one to win out over the other but I suspect the great helm really did not die out in war as much as its good characteristics were transferred to visored bascinets.
RPM
| Randall Moffett wrote: |
| I think that is true. Great Helms always were worn with some type of mail or a helmet under it. Do we have direct info on the under helmet for the 13th century? I have seen some for the 14th but cannot think of one for the 13th. I tend to think the mail coif was the most common by looking at how effigies are arranged and from art but not sure. |
In the Morgan bible there folios where a knight or king has his coif pulled back hanging over his shoulder and he is wearing a skull cap with a cloth coif under it. Also some wearing the skull cap over the maille coif. Other effigies hint at there being some helmet under the maille with the shape creating a large bulge on top of the head.
| Randall Moffett wrote: |
| To me I think what is so often called a sugarloaf helmet is the 'missing' link' that is not so missing. I suspect that as we see visored great helms around the time bascinets are starting in use that it was not long before they saw the potential of breeding them into a truly awesome helmet. I am sure it took time to get the configuration they liked and for one to win out over the other but I suspect the great helm really did not die out in war as much as its good characteristics were transferred to visored bascinets. |
I think the visored great helm aka the sugarloaf was also worn over a bascinet most of the time. Look at the Luttrell Psalter (http://silkewerk.com/images/luttrell3.jpg) Sir Geoffrey Luttrell is wearing a bascinet and holding a sugarloaf helmet. Transitional armor is all about the layers.
"In the Morgan bible there folios where a knight or king has his coif pulled back hanging over his shoulder and he is wearing a skull cap with a cloth coif under it. Also some wearing the skull cap over the maille coif. Other effigies hint at there being some helmet under the maille with the shape creating a large bulge on top of the head."
The Morgan does indeed show this, textile coif, mail coif and skull cap, under or over. To me the leap is getting from a over or under skull cap with padded coif and mail coif to this with a great helm over them all. I know of evidence in the 13th for mail coif and fabric coif with a helm but what support is there really for the helm over this and the hidden helmet. The issue with the Morgan bible is that they are not show with helms associated with this set up. I'd feel much more comfortable with that assumption if there was one of those people holding a helm or with one that seemed to be there to be worn together. If we had something like the Luttrel it'd make it a bit easier but as far as I know If have not seen anything like it. there are plenty of guys who have helms ripped of not showing anything but mail in the morgan bible.... why do we not see the hidden helmets then?
Coupled with period inventories and accounts I see very little support in literature for this as well. In all of Henry III and Ed I royal records I have never seen a helmet and helm together, although some include objects that are likely COPs and such, even perhaps visored helms, I have not seen these two merged in an inventory as a pair of used in tandem. If common why do we not see this while we see things that are basically brand new. For the most part when guys are getting grants to travel when arms bans are up these give a pretty solid idea of their gear and the same remains true, no helmets and helms for the same man. If common why do we not see them? These were important grants, if you were robbed or arrested you could get reimbursed for really only stuff on that list. That said same is true in the 14th in written accounts, even when they include mail coifs and such, I have never come across these listed in a persons gear for immediate use at war. Granted literature may not be clear enough at times if common it should show up at some point if common.
"I think the visored great helm aka the sugarloafs worn over a bascinet most of the time. Look at the Luttrelluttrellr (http://silkewerk.com/images/luttrell3.jpg) Sir Geoffrey LuttrelLuttrellring a bascinet and holding a sugarlosugarloaf. Transitional armor is all about the layers."
This may be one of the only examples that clearly shows the bascinet worn with a helm or 'sugarloaf" so I'd be skeptical without more evidence that this was a more common system than say padded coif, mail coif and helmet or helm. We can assume that guys with a close fitting bascinet or close fit skull helmet in an effigy with a helm there means they were used together but if that holds true most of these helm effigies of the 1st half of the 14th show men simply in mail coifs. Many are just like the William de Staunton effigy that show a mail coifed knight with a helm. A padded coif, and mail coif with a bascinet or helm is plenty of layers.... We also have the possibility of men wearing a basincet or close fitting skull cap alone, without anything over it, like the de' Creke effigy. He is wearing a bascinet with no evidence of helm or anything else which will alter the use of effigies greatly for how common one system over the other was. And the fact that just because a guy is shown with both a bascinet and helm does not mean they were ever used together, maybe one was for jousts and the other war? It also may have changed over time. Until the 1330s maybe many are knights shown simply in mail coifs, some with no idea what helmet they wore. Assuming they all wore anything is dangerous. That said by the 1330s in England bascinets are by far coming up in inventories and armour reqs far more often than any other helmet.
I am more than willing to say it was done and fairly often. Stating it was the most or more common approach to me is over stretching the evidence far more than I'd concede. As well my view is that the helm was introduced not to be used with a second close fitting helmet until it had been around for sometime. Maybe nearing 75 to 100 years.
RPM
The Morgan does indeed show this, textile coif, mail coif and skull cap, under or over. To me the leap is getting from a over or under skull cap with padded coif and mail coif to this with a great helm over them all. I know of evidence in the 13th for mail coif and fabric coif with a helm but what support is there really for the helm over this and the hidden helmet. The issue with the Morgan bible is that they are not show with helms associated with this set up. I'd feel much more comfortable with that assumption if there was one of those people holding a helm or with one that seemed to be there to be worn together. If we had something like the Luttrel it'd make it a bit easier but as far as I know If have not seen anything like it. there are plenty of guys who have helms ripped of not showing anything but mail in the morgan bible.... why do we not see the hidden helmets then?
Coupled with period inventories and accounts I see very little support in literature for this as well. In all of Henry III and Ed I royal records I have never seen a helmet and helm together, although some include objects that are likely COPs and such, even perhaps visored helms, I have not seen these two merged in an inventory as a pair of used in tandem. If common why do we not see this while we see things that are basically brand new. For the most part when guys are getting grants to travel when arms bans are up these give a pretty solid idea of their gear and the same remains true, no helmets and helms for the same man. If common why do we not see them? These were important grants, if you were robbed or arrested you could get reimbursed for really only stuff on that list. That said same is true in the 14th in written accounts, even when they include mail coifs and such, I have never come across these listed in a persons gear for immediate use at war. Granted literature may not be clear enough at times if common it should show up at some point if common.
"I think the visored great helm aka the sugarloafs worn over a bascinet most of the time. Look at the Luttrelluttrellr (http://silkewerk.com/images/luttrell3.jpg) Sir Geoffrey LuttrelLuttrellring a bascinet and holding a sugarlosugarloaf. Transitional armor is all about the layers."
This may be one of the only examples that clearly shows the bascinet worn with a helm or 'sugarloaf" so I'd be skeptical without more evidence that this was a more common system than say padded coif, mail coif and helmet or helm. We can assume that guys with a close fitting bascinet or close fit skull helmet in an effigy with a helm there means they were used together but if that holds true most of these helm effigies of the 1st half of the 14th show men simply in mail coifs. Many are just like the William de Staunton effigy that show a mail coifed knight with a helm. A padded coif, and mail coif with a bascinet or helm is plenty of layers.... We also have the possibility of men wearing a basincet or close fitting skull cap alone, without anything over it, like the de' Creke effigy. He is wearing a bascinet with no evidence of helm or anything else which will alter the use of effigies greatly for how common one system over the other was. And the fact that just because a guy is shown with both a bascinet and helm does not mean they were ever used together, maybe one was for jousts and the other war? It also may have changed over time. Until the 1330s maybe many are knights shown simply in mail coifs, some with no idea what helmet they wore. Assuming they all wore anything is dangerous. That said by the 1330s in England bascinets are by far coming up in inventories and armour reqs far more often than any other helmet.
I am more than willing to say it was done and fairly often. Stating it was the most or more common approach to me is over stretching the evidence far more than I'd concede. As well my view is that the helm was introduced not to be used with a second close fitting helmet until it had been around for sometime. Maybe nearing 75 to 100 years.
RPM
Lots of effigies show a bascinet worn with a great helm at the feet. The sleeping soldier at Christ tomb in one of the French churches shows him wearing a bascinet with his great helm at his elbow, and another soldier has his helm slipped off behind his head but its chained to his armor. A number of manuscripts show combat on horse back where everyone has on a bascinet or great helm and several great helms fallen to the ground. It seems a fairly common combination
James,
Already mentioned them in effigies in my last post as well as in art. Cannot argue that, though as I said above one could easily argue if they really were used in conjunction because they are on the effigies foot or in MS illustrations on the ground. The issue is that they are not the most common set up in effigies by this standard in the 1st half when this would have gone on, nor shown in other artwork. Not saying it was not done. Only it was not more or most common over other system of head protection. I can show many illustrations with guys with helmets or helms on the ground and only mail coifs. The issue I have is the idea this under helm, mail coif, padded coif with helm was more common when there is spare evidence for it being anything but one choice at the time which to the evidence I have seen was not the more common, not contesting it was done, only this point.
That said it does mean the great helm was not a secondary helm to an under helmet as a rule only a possibility, which was how this got started. Far more evidence for mail coif and padded coif with a stand alone helmet for that to work. Now how accurate the artwork is, well I could not say but the fact it is all but missing in literature is not a good sign either.
RPM
Already mentioned them in effigies in my last post as well as in art. Cannot argue that, though as I said above one could easily argue if they really were used in conjunction because they are on the effigies foot or in MS illustrations on the ground. The issue is that they are not the most common set up in effigies by this standard in the 1st half when this would have gone on, nor shown in other artwork. Not saying it was not done. Only it was not more or most common over other system of head protection. I can show many illustrations with guys with helmets or helms on the ground and only mail coifs. The issue I have is the idea this under helm, mail coif, padded coif with helm was more common when there is spare evidence for it being anything but one choice at the time which to the evidence I have seen was not the more common, not contesting it was done, only this point.
That said it does mean the great helm was not a secondary helm to an under helmet as a rule only a possibility, which was how this got started. Far more evidence for mail coif and padded coif with a stand alone helmet for that to work. Now how accurate the artwork is, well I could not say but the fact it is all but missing in literature is not a good sign either.
RPM
Freshly renewed arm harness
- spaulders by Merc Tailor
- tied point 3/4 arms by St george armoury
- Gauntlets by yours truly
Shown on old arming jack, making up a better fitting and more correct doublet this month.
- spaulders by Merc Tailor
- tied point 3/4 arms by St george armoury
- Gauntlets by yours truly
Shown on old arming jack, making up a better fitting and more correct doublet this month.
Getting ready to do a little Harnischfechten at the Virginia Renaissance Faire.
Attachment: 167.05 KB
Attachment: 167.05 KBI just started into this, and so far I have been able to put together a few costume sets. Nothing fancy, and none of it compares to the BEAUTIFUL custom work on here, but seeing your guy's kits has given me inspiration to get better and more historically accurate pieces :D
Attachment: 135.88 KB
[ Download ]
Attachment: 138.31 KB
[ Download ]
Attachment: 168.85 KB
[ Download ]
Attachment: 135.88 KB[ Download ]
Attachment: 138.31 KB[ Download ]
Attachment: 168.85 KB[ Download ]
Page 76 of 100
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum