Are there findings of similar helmets less decorated?
Hi Guys,
just to add to the discussion of these grima helms, of which I own several quality reproductions, my own observations can attest to the imposing nature of the helms, often is the time I have heard remarks from members of the public when wearing one is how frightening they are periceved to be. It certainly scares the pants of small children :lol:
Also fully agree with Paul and Chris in as much as wearing the helmets in reneactment combat on many occasions I have found them to have been no hinderance.
As an heroic culture these fallen warriors also want to enter the afterlife in all of their martial splendour in as much as they appeared and used in life where appearance very much displayed the worth and status of the warrior.
Best
Dave
[/i]
just to add to the discussion of these grima helms, of which I own several quality reproductions, my own observations can attest to the imposing nature of the helms, often is the time I have heard remarks from members of the public when wearing one is how frightening they are periceved to be. It certainly scares the pants of small children :lol:
Also fully agree with Paul and Chris in as much as wearing the helmets in reneactment combat on many occasions I have found them to have been no hinderance.
As an heroic culture these fallen warriors also want to enter the afterlife in all of their martial splendour in as much as they appeared and used in life where appearance very much displayed the worth and status of the warrior.
Best
Dave
[/i]
We must stop using the gjermunby helmet as a reference. It is a product of the vikinga age, when we had totaly different conditions in scandinavia.
Some of you asks: what is the point of adding chainmail to a parade-only helmet?
First of all no one has said this was an parade helmet only. This helmet was part of a religious ceremony and put in a grave. What reseachers say is that this helmet had a symbolic and visual function rather than a strict combat function.
Secondly, why the chainmail? Well, why do we wear chainmail on our helmets. We are certainly not going to use them as protection from cuts in the neck. We want chainmail on our helmet because thats what the helmets looked like.The Valsgärde helmets were not meant to look like fancy hats, they were made to look like functional armour, they were made to give the warrior and impressive and imposing look.
The swords in the valsgärde/vendel /old uppsala/tuna area are not all very practical. Most of them would not be very efficient in battle. Some of the handles are so thin and fragile compared to the blades that they would not likely hold many blows. There is are research saying that the swords evolved from a practial and fully functional sword to a sword more suited as a status object rather than being used in combat. One thing that points in this derection is the simplified stylized "hanger ring" on the swords. A ring that clearly at some point was meant to be functional but later just became a part of the chape of the pommel.
I do not say that warrior did not use helmets of the valsgärde/vendel type (I myself have used google helmets in steel combat and found them to work great), all I say is that the helmets found in some of the graves, due to their impractical nature, probably was not used in combat.
Some of you asks: what is the point of adding chainmail to a parade-only helmet?
First of all no one has said this was an parade helmet only. This helmet was part of a religious ceremony and put in a grave. What reseachers say is that this helmet had a symbolic and visual function rather than a strict combat function.
Secondly, why the chainmail? Well, why do we wear chainmail on our helmets. We are certainly not going to use them as protection from cuts in the neck. We want chainmail on our helmet because thats what the helmets looked like.The Valsgärde helmets were not meant to look like fancy hats, they were made to look like functional armour, they were made to give the warrior and impressive and imposing look.
The swords in the valsgärde/vendel /old uppsala/tuna area are not all very practical. Most of them would not be very efficient in battle. Some of the handles are so thin and fragile compared to the blades that they would not likely hold many blows. There is are research saying that the swords evolved from a practial and fully functional sword to a sword more suited as a status object rather than being used in combat. One thing that points in this derection is the simplified stylized "hanger ring" on the swords. A ring that clearly at some point was meant to be functional but later just became a part of the chape of the pommel.
I do not say that warrior did not use helmets of the valsgärde/vendel type (I myself have used google helmets in steel combat and found them to work great), all I say is that the helmets found in some of the graves, due to their impractical nature, probably was not used in combat.
C. Gadda,
I wouldn't put too much stock in much of what is in Brian Prices book. It is a nice well put together book, but I believe it has many wrong conclusions or incorrect facts about armour making. Padding thickness is just one example of many SCA conventions or untruths that becomes over time, interpreted as period or historic norms. In period a Helmet fit much closer to the head than just about any SCA helmet I have ever seen. I have a Maximillian close helm built by Robert McPherson that has a correct, period linen and Flax quilted suspension lining. (I have never found an original example of horsehair padding as Mr. Price claims.)
The helmet is very close to my head and I have fought in the SCA against great weapons and have been struck numerous times in the helm and have never been "stunned" or felt any greater impact than in my thicker padded helms. My Vendel helms are also very close to my head and fit very comfortably. I have built another style of helm with this same type of suspension lining for fighting with the Poles in Wolin. They use SCA force levels, but use rebated steel weapons! I was feeling a bit off while there, so I let a friend, who is a very accomplished fighter, wear the helm in battle. He was struck in the back of the head with a Dane axe hard enough to dent the 1mm hardened spring steel plate. It rocked his world, but it did not stun him. So I have no doubt that period fighting helms needed or had a great amount of padding as SCA requirement would suggest. (Jousting helms are a different matter.)
I believe the SCA’s use of thick padding and metal standards due to a general lack of construction skill. You can often correct bad engineering by over-building.
I wouldn't put too much stock in much of what is in Brian Prices book. It is a nice well put together book, but I believe it has many wrong conclusions or incorrect facts about armour making. Padding thickness is just one example of many SCA conventions or untruths that becomes over time, interpreted as period or historic norms. In period a Helmet fit much closer to the head than just about any SCA helmet I have ever seen. I have a Maximillian close helm built by Robert McPherson that has a correct, period linen and Flax quilted suspension lining. (I have never found an original example of horsehair padding as Mr. Price claims.)
The helmet is very close to my head and I have fought in the SCA against great weapons and have been struck numerous times in the helm and have never been "stunned" or felt any greater impact than in my thicker padded helms. My Vendel helms are also very close to my head and fit very comfortably. I have built another style of helm with this same type of suspension lining for fighting with the Poles in Wolin. They use SCA force levels, but use rebated steel weapons! I was feeling a bit off while there, so I let a friend, who is a very accomplished fighter, wear the helm in battle. He was struck in the back of the head with a Dane axe hard enough to dent the 1mm hardened spring steel plate. It rocked his world, but it did not stun him. So I have no doubt that period fighting helms needed or had a great amount of padding as SCA requirement would suggest. (Jousting helms are a different matter.)
I believe the SCA’s use of thick padding and metal standards due to a general lack of construction skill. You can often correct bad engineering by over-building.
| Ville Vinje wrote: |
| We must stop using the gjermunby helmet as a reference. It is a product of the vikinga age, when we had totaly different conditions in scandinavia.
Secondly, why the chainmail? Well, why do we wear chainmail on our helmets. We are certainly not going to use them as protection from cuts in the neck. We want chainmail on our helmet because thats what the helmets looked like.The Valsgärde helmets were not meant to look like fancy hats, they were made to look like functional armour, they were made to give the warrior and impressive and imposing look. The swords in the valsgärde/vendel /old uppsala/tuna area are not all very practical. Most of them would not be very efficient in battle. Some of the handles are so thin and fragile compared to the blades that they would not likely hold many blows. There is are research saying that the swords evolved from a practial and fully functional sword to a sword more suited as a status object rather than being used in combat. One thing that points in this derection is the simplified stylized "hanger ring" on the swords. A ring that clearly at some point was meant to be functional but later just became a part of the chape of the pommel. I do not say that warrior did not use helmets of the valsgärde/vendel type (I myself have used google helmets in steel combat and found them to work great), all I say is that the helmets found in some of the graves, due to their impractical nature, probably was not used in combat. |
Now I have not examined these helms first hand. Much of my experience is from Dominic Tweedles book and other photos of these helms. But I am not sure why you think certain things rule these out as being practical. Having an engineering background and having made a few of this style helmet and have fought in them, I do not see why they would be considered impractical.
Mail does offer very good cutting protection. It has been used for this reason in numerous ways in many cultures since it was invented to present day. Some of these hems also had additional plates hanging in the back. In reenactment fighting it will not offer full injury protection, but it will offer severe or lethal injury protection.
Sheet metal has very good resistance to cuts from swords, even thin metal. It is piercing and mass impact that defeats sheet metal. Now I have done this with mild steel, but I have never been able to cut through thin sheet steel with a steel sword, unless I used the tip of the weapon. I would love to see results with good hand forged iron and an equivalent sword. It would also be interesting to see hardness tests on these decorated helmets. So at this point I do not see the material or thickness ruling them out as practical. Are there material thickness and hardness examples of other undecorated helms or thought to be “practical” helms of the period available as a comparison?
If you look at the weight of arming sword of the 15th century and the small sword of the 18th century the small sword must be a decorative, ceremonial weapon right? Or a plain Colt revolver verses a decorated one. In the case of the Colt, I have seen plain ones kept in their box and never fired and I have seen engraved gold plated ones that had been use regularly. It is more based on the culture and fads of the time, not necessarily the perceived practicality of the item.
I am not familiar with many swords and hangers of the period, do you have any example of this “stylized "hanger ring" you refer to?
I have seen these helmets first hand many times.
I have never said chainmail was not good protection.
As a viking reenactor I am very familiar with steel weapon fighting and armour, I don't need to be told how combat works.
There are many swords from this period. Many of them has "hanger rings". Here is a nice reconstruction by Patric Barta:
http://www.templ.net/pics-weapons/103-german_.../a03av.jpg
I have never said chainmail was not good protection.
As a viking reenactor I am very familiar with steel weapon fighting and armour, I don't need to be told how combat works.
There are many swords from this period. Many of them has "hanger rings". Here is a nice reconstruction by Patric Barta:
http://www.templ.net/pics-weapons/103-german_.../a03av.jpg
Sorry, I must have missunderstood your statement .
"Secondly, why the chainmail? Well, why do we wear chainmail on our helmets. We are certainly not going to use them as protection from cuts in the neck. We want chainmail on our helmet because thats what the helmets looked like.The Valsgärde helmets were not meant to look like fancy hats, they were made to look like functional armour, they were made to give the warrior and impressive and imposing look."
"Secondly, why the chainmail? Well, why do we wear chainmail on our helmets. We are certainly not going to use them as protection from cuts in the neck. We want chainmail on our helmet because thats what the helmets looked like.The Valsgärde helmets were not meant to look like fancy hats, they were made to look like functional armour, they were made to give the warrior and impressive and imposing look."
The Sutton Hoo helmet is not uncomfortable to wear, even for quite long periods.
The thickness of the metal on all these helmets is a lttle dificult to guage because of their time in the ground, especially with the Sutton Hoo which was also smashed into about 500 pieces by thecollapsing roof of the funerary chamber.
Ville, I have to disagree with you regarding the practicality of Vendel swords, too. I own the Patrick Barta replica of the Sutton Hoo sword -- I assure you that it is immensely functional as are other Vendel swords made by him and other swordsmiths like Paul Binns. As for ring swords, the rings were only ever functional in a symbolic sense, they were never meant to have straps attached.
There were helmets from this period which were less decorated -- remains of about 20 have been found on Gotland, some of which are published in Nerman's Vendelzeit in Gotland.
There will be a book published, probably in December or January about warfare in northern Europe during the 6th and 7th centuries, it will contain a great deal of information on all these helmets, plus swords, etc.
I have attached a picture of my helmet in use.
Cheers,
Paul
Attachment: 81.9 KB
The thickness of the metal on all these helmets is a lttle dificult to guage because of their time in the ground, especially with the Sutton Hoo which was also smashed into about 500 pieces by thecollapsing roof of the funerary chamber.
Ville, I have to disagree with you regarding the practicality of Vendel swords, too. I own the Patrick Barta replica of the Sutton Hoo sword -- I assure you that it is immensely functional as are other Vendel swords made by him and other swordsmiths like Paul Binns. As for ring swords, the rings were only ever functional in a symbolic sense, they were never meant to have straps attached.
There were helmets from this period which were less decorated -- remains of about 20 have been found on Gotland, some of which are published in Nerman's Vendelzeit in Gotland.
There will be a book published, probably in December or January about warfare in northern Europe during the 6th and 7th centuries, it will contain a great deal of information on all these helmets, plus swords, etc.
I have attached a picture of my helmet in use.
Cheers,
Paul
Attachment: 81.9 KBWell, we can't all agree about everything :)
You are a very lucky man to own such a fine sword, and the Sutton Hoo is just as beautiful.
Regarding the "ring hangers" I would dare to say that the opinion that the simplified ring is a product of an earlier type of sword is quite wide spread. Then again this is just speculation as most theories are.
You are a very lucky man to own such a fine sword, and the Sutton Hoo is just as beautiful.
Regarding the "ring hangers" I would dare to say that the opinion that the simplified ring is a product of an earlier type of sword is quite wide spread. Then again this is just speculation as most theories are.
Hi Guys.
I have finally found some time to write here. However, the topic is really long and I am afraid I will not be able to answer every post - I would want also get some sleep today. ;) So, I will concentrate on most important things.
Ville - I am agree with you with almost everything you wrote here. :) However, it seems there are only we both here who thinks those helmets were too impractical for saying they were made for fighting. I also think depictions on pressblech plates mostly show mythology scenes and have rather symbolic meaning.
Guys, let's stop talking about "processions" or "marching", as nor Ville nor me ever say such a funny thing. We are both just trying to say those helmets had rather a prestigious role than a battle role.
Chris:
You keep trying to prove the battle role of Vendel period helmets by saying your helmets, made of spring steel provides very good protection.
Do you really believe they use spring steel or any other steel in that time???
They were using IRON, most probably of bad quality.
I will be honest with you, now. Please, don't take offence. In my opinion helmets made by you and showed here aren't close enough to original items to call them "Valsagarde or Vendel helmets". I would rather cold them "helmets inspired by Vendel helmets" or "variations of Vendel helmets". If you have stayed with all details and proportions, those could be really fine replicas, as I see you are really skilled.
So, if your argument is that your helmets provide good visibility and protection, well ...for me this argument isn't good enough, because your helmets aren't originals and they are made of other materials. And we are not talking here about replicas, but about original pieces.
Many of you say : in reenactment battle, in SCA fighting etc etc....
You guys usually fight without head shots, right?. Do you really can imagine a real strike with sharp weapon (an axe, as most of weapon used in that time were axes, sword was an elitist weapon) at a bowl of a helmet with many gaps and made of material much poorer quality then nowadays steel? Please, don't compare SCA/reenactment fighting with blunt swords and spring steel helmets to real fight in Vendel or any other period. This isn't good argument.
Would you wear Ultuna helmet or Valsgarde 6 for fighting against archers?
Mikael, I can give you the same naive (sorry) question. We know about practise of making very exclusive and expensive clothing specially and only to buried it in grave with dead people. So, why they were doing this? Why they take the trouble? :P
For me it is even possible those helmets were made with intent to be buried with their owner. That was really very often practise in many cultures and periods.
Bruce:
thank you for your kind words and empathy and trying to understand my point of view.
But, I really don't say my opinions as an armourer who has lots of feelings to his wares. ;) Really. :)
I am saying this as a guy who knows the construction and material of those helmets and as a guy who fought in extremely way with very strong head shots in many kind of helmets. (yes, Chris, I am Polish ;) ).
What is most important for me is impracticality of those helmets:
1) the shape of bowls - rounded. This isn't the best shape helmet.
2) construction: f.e. crests were made of thin plates (they were not casted) and riveted with thin rivets. Let's imagine a strike with anything, even a rock, on the helmet - what will happen? It will rest only a pulp.
Dave, hope you will not be angry with me... ;) Remember, you have chosen casted crest, instead of crest made the same technique as original crest, because you were afraid the crest could get damaged in transporting. (!) ;)
Some of those helmets have openwork construction. I really think it is not most durable construction. ;)
3) whole helmets are covered with a great number of delicate decorations.
I know many highly decorative helmets from X-XII th cent. ,f.e. Gnezdovo helmet, Chernihov (Chernaya Mogila), Tagancha (Korolewino) and all Great Polish helmets. They also had silver/gold plates, silvered/gilded bowls, inlays, engravings etc. etc. But if I had a Valsgarde helmet, let's say Valsgarde 6 and one of those Rus helmets and had to chose a helmet for battle I would certainly not chose Valsgarde one. Why? Cause Rus helmets have conical shape, their construction is hardened by spangens/fluting, they have complete and solid (even 2,5mm, like Korolewino) bowl , without gaps. Conclusion: It was possible to make highly decorated helmet well prepared for fighting. Better than Vendel helmets were. They know so many difficult techniques of decorating, they really could use them and make fully functional and more practical helmets, but as much decorative as Vendel helmets.
(if someone doesn't know about which Rus helmets I am talking, I will post some photos of my replicas together with photos of original helmets in Makers and Manufacturer's Talk, soon).
And in the end:
this whole discussion looks like you would totally reject the idea of existence of "parade" arms and armours...What about silver/gold shield bosses or other similar equipment?
Many of arguments here are reasonable and convincing, but also many of them I cannot accept.
Let me stay with my and Ville's theory. :)
Paul, your Sutton Hoo equipment looks really amazing!
P.S. Please, forgive me errors - I am really overworked and tired...
I have finally found some time to write here. However, the topic is really long and I am afraid I will not be able to answer every post - I would want also get some sleep today. ;) So, I will concentrate on most important things.
Ville - I am agree with you with almost everything you wrote here. :) However, it seems there are only we both here who thinks those helmets were too impractical for saying they were made for fighting. I also think depictions on pressblech plates mostly show mythology scenes and have rather symbolic meaning.
Guys, let's stop talking about "processions" or "marching", as nor Ville nor me ever say such a funny thing. We are both just trying to say those helmets had rather a prestigious role than a battle role.
Chris:
You keep trying to prove the battle role of Vendel period helmets by saying your helmets, made of spring steel provides very good protection.
Do you really believe they use spring steel or any other steel in that time???
They were using IRON, most probably of bad quality.
I will be honest with you, now. Please, don't take offence. In my opinion helmets made by you and showed here aren't close enough to original items to call them "Valsagarde or Vendel helmets". I would rather cold them "helmets inspired by Vendel helmets" or "variations of Vendel helmets". If you have stayed with all details and proportions, those could be really fine replicas, as I see you are really skilled.
So, if your argument is that your helmets provide good visibility and protection, well ...for me this argument isn't good enough, because your helmets aren't originals and they are made of other materials. And we are not talking here about replicas, but about original pieces.
Many of you say : in reenactment battle, in SCA fighting etc etc....
You guys usually fight without head shots, right?. Do you really can imagine a real strike with sharp weapon (an axe, as most of weapon used in that time were axes, sword was an elitist weapon) at a bowl of a helmet with many gaps and made of material much poorer quality then nowadays steel? Please, don't compare SCA/reenactment fighting with blunt swords and spring steel helmets to real fight in Vendel or any other period. This isn't good argument.
Would you wear Ultuna helmet or Valsgarde 6 for fighting against archers?
| Mikael Ranelius wrote: |
| Just a simple question: if the helms from Vendel and Valsgärde were never intended to be worn in battle, but for show and processions only – why did they take the trouble to forge them out of iron? Why not cast them from bronze or some other metal? |
Mikael, I can give you the same naive (sorry) question. We know about practise of making very exclusive and expensive clothing specially and only to buried it in grave with dead people. So, why they were doing this? Why they take the trouble? :P
For me it is even possible those helmets were made with intent to be buried with their owner. That was really very often practise in many cultures and periods.
Bruce:
thank you for your kind words and empathy and trying to understand my point of view.
But, I really don't say my opinions as an armourer who has lots of feelings to his wares. ;) Really. :)
I am saying this as a guy who knows the construction and material of those helmets and as a guy who fought in extremely way with very strong head shots in many kind of helmets. (yes, Chris, I am Polish ;) ).
What is most important for me is impracticality of those helmets:
1) the shape of bowls - rounded. This isn't the best shape helmet.
2) construction: f.e. crests were made of thin plates (they were not casted) and riveted with thin rivets. Let's imagine a strike with anything, even a rock, on the helmet - what will happen? It will rest only a pulp.
Dave, hope you will not be angry with me... ;) Remember, you have chosen casted crest, instead of crest made the same technique as original crest, because you were afraid the crest could get damaged in transporting. (!) ;)
Some of those helmets have openwork construction. I really think it is not most durable construction. ;)
3) whole helmets are covered with a great number of delicate decorations.
I know many highly decorative helmets from X-XII th cent. ,f.e. Gnezdovo helmet, Chernihov (Chernaya Mogila), Tagancha (Korolewino) and all Great Polish helmets. They also had silver/gold plates, silvered/gilded bowls, inlays, engravings etc. etc. But if I had a Valsgarde helmet, let's say Valsgarde 6 and one of those Rus helmets and had to chose a helmet for battle I would certainly not chose Valsgarde one. Why? Cause Rus helmets have conical shape, their construction is hardened by spangens/fluting, they have complete and solid (even 2,5mm, like Korolewino) bowl , without gaps. Conclusion: It was possible to make highly decorated helmet well prepared for fighting. Better than Vendel helmets were. They know so many difficult techniques of decorating, they really could use them and make fully functional and more practical helmets, but as much decorative as Vendel helmets.
(if someone doesn't know about which Rus helmets I am talking, I will post some photos of my replicas together with photos of original helmets in Makers and Manufacturer's Talk, soon).
And in the end:
this whole discussion looks like you would totally reject the idea of existence of "parade" arms and armours...What about silver/gold shield bosses or other similar equipment?
Many of arguments here are reasonable and convincing, but also many of them I cannot accept.
Let me stay with my and Ville's theory. :)
Paul, your Sutton Hoo equipment looks really amazing!
P.S. Please, forgive me errors - I am really overworked and tired...
Hi Grzegorz,
I must admit you do put forward a persuasive but informed argument for your case.
I am at Daves at the moment and have seen the pics of his new Valsgarde helm, may I say, you have excelled yourself again, beautiful work.
I, myself will be wearing this helm at Marle in June, but I suspect Dave will not be throwing his usual robust head shots, (and he's not even Polish!) :lol:
Best
Bruce
I must admit you do put forward a persuasive but informed argument for your case.
I am at Daves at the moment and have seen the pics of his new Valsgarde helm, may I say, you have excelled yourself again, beautiful work.
I, myself will be wearing this helm at Marle in June, but I suspect Dave will not be throwing his usual robust head shots, (and he's not even Polish!) :lol:
Best
Bruce
Perhaps you did not read my reply completely. Yes my helms are spring, but I was not sighting their material strength in comparison to the originals. I did say I have done test with mild steel and found it near impossible to breach a steel sheet without using the tip of a weapon. I also said, I would be interested to see results with Iron. Do we know the hardness or quality of the metal in these helms? I cannot recall seeing hardness figures for any of the helms of this period. Also, have any tests been done to indicate the quality of the iron? I have found in other periods, that decorative/ display pieces where typically made from very soft or lower quality iron. If the Iron of these helms was of high quality that may shed some light towards their intended use.
I did site an example of a blow to the head with a steel weapon hard enough to dent spring steel, as an argument for minimal padding, not steel strength. I fight all the time in a style that allows blows to the head, in fact I couldn’t find much joy in the “Reenactment” fighting in Moesgaard, because of its lack of realism and ridicules contact rules.
I do believe my helmets are close enough for comparison for fit and comfort, because I do not have an exact replica of the head the originals went on, so I don't know how one could judge fit of the originals. It is also my understanding many of these helms have been severely distorted from being buried.
I am also saying that these helms could be used regularly, not that they were. (Read the point of the colt revolvers.) I’m not sure if I agree with all of you arguments to this question, I will have to reserve judgment until I have more info.
Oh and I’m also a Pole, just born here. The last name should be Giermanski.
I did site an example of a blow to the head with a steel weapon hard enough to dent spring steel, as an argument for minimal padding, not steel strength. I fight all the time in a style that allows blows to the head, in fact I couldn’t find much joy in the “Reenactment” fighting in Moesgaard, because of its lack of realism and ridicules contact rules.
I do believe my helmets are close enough for comparison for fit and comfort, because I do not have an exact replica of the head the originals went on, so I don't know how one could judge fit of the originals. It is also my understanding many of these helms have been severely distorted from being buried.
I am also saying that these helms could be used regularly, not that they were. (Read the point of the colt revolvers.) I’m not sure if I agree with all of you arguments to this question, I will have to reserve judgment until I have more info.
Oh and I’m also a Pole, just born here. The last name should be Giermanski.
Just a quick question.....I thought that the rings on the ring-hilted swords had more to do with oath-swearing than with hanging the sword on something. Or was that a reference to the 'peace tying' theory? Am I mistaken to think the rings on the hilts of Migration Era swords may have had to do with oaths of some sort? I do remember reading this, though now I am not sure how scholarly the source was, as it was a long time ago. These are some of my favourite swords ever so I would hate to have a mistaken view of them (not to mention that I am writing my dissertation partly on oaths and don't want to include erroneous info!). Thanks.....
Shamsi wrote,
"Just a quick question.....I thought that the rings on the ring-hilted swords had more to do with oath-swearing than with hanging the sword on something. Or was that a reference to the 'peace tying' theory? "
Yes, I'll swear I just recently read a note here at myArmoury which said that the rings were for "peace bonding" a sword.
I was rolling that idea around and it occurred to me that a simpler alternative answer is that it was a lanyard so that the warrior could either drop the sword and not lose it or not lose it if it were knocked out of his hand. I would think that the construction of the ring was demanding enough that it had to be there for a reason and not vestigial from some earlier form.
Ken
"Just a quick question.....I thought that the rings on the ring-hilted swords had more to do with oath-swearing than with hanging the sword on something. Or was that a reference to the 'peace tying' theory? "
Yes, I'll swear I just recently read a note here at myArmoury which said that the rings were for "peace bonding" a sword.
I was rolling that idea around and it occurred to me that a simpler alternative answer is that it was a lanyard so that the warrior could either drop the sword and not lose it or not lose it if it were knocked out of his hand. I would think that the construction of the ring was demanding enough that it had to be there for a reason and not vestigial from some earlier form.
Ken
| Chris Gilman wrote: |
| Do we know the hardness or quality of the metal in these helms? I cannot recall seeing hardness figures for any of the helms of this period. Also, have any tests been done to indicate the quality of the iron? I have found in other periods, that decorative/ display pieces where typically made from very soft or lower quality iron. If the Iron of these helms was of high quality that may shed some light towards their intended use.
..... I do believe my helmets are close enough for comparison for fit and comfort, because I do not have an exact replica of the head the originals went on, so I don't know how one could judge fit of the originals. It is also my understanding many of these helms have been severely distorted from being buried. |
In answer to your first question, the answer I believe is largely "no". The only published analysis that is at all relevant was performed on the Coppergate helm, which showed the nose to nape band to be of relatively homogenous low carbon steel, and the left rear infill panel was of much spottier composition, but did show surface carburization (whether deliberate or accidental is impossible to determine). See Tweddle, p. 1021. Really not bad at all for the period, and quite protective (esp. when the browband is upwards of 3mm thick...) But even low grade iron, if sufficiently thick, would provide ample protection. It is to be noted that iron, even streaky iron with slag inclusions, is not exactly tissue paper, either. High carbon, tempered spring steel works very well indeed, but even mere iron isn't worthless.
Arwidsson, in "Valsgarde 6", claims that the helm was comprised of iron bands of about 1mm thickness. However, and this is crucial, no attempt is made to specify where the measurements were taken. Given the limited nature of even the excellent Coppergate analysis, I am remarkably skeptical that they took good frame measurements, and probably confined themselves to the "easy low hanging fruit" of the lattice matrix, and unthinkingly extrapolated it to the entire helm. It is typical of the the sub-par research and thinking I've seen over the years, in a wide range of archaelogical subjects. But, again, I don't know this as fact - it is merely a strong suspicion on my part. But given Arwidsson's wildly inaccurate reconstruction of the Valsgarde 8 harness, I think there is ample precedent to presuppose error. Again, a more detailed investigation is called for.
It is sad that no serious, detailed analyses of the surviving relics (apart from Coppergate) has ever been performed. Done correctly, many of these questions would be settled. You know, Villie, you could perform an enormous service to the arms & armour community by setting up a rapport with the museum curators and perhaps planting a little "bug in their ear" to do some more serious examinations of the extant material, not only to determine metallurgical and thickness details, but perhaps also to look for any textile traces that might be indicative of a lining, and so forth. If you could pull this off, we'd all owe you a great debt of gratitude.
You are correct, Chris, that most of the helms are badly distorted. This is especially true of Valsgarde helms 6, 7, and 8.
I am right now sharply divided as to whether these helms were combat capable, or simply impractical decoration. While there is some comparative evidence with Coppergate that supports a combat role, there is nothing direct to support this conclusion.
Conversely, there is no firm evidence to support the opposite claim. Are the helms too small to allow for padding? Perhaps, but not necessarily, since we know neither the size of the wearer's heads or what would be considered an adequate amount of padding. Impractical design? Not really. Both the Coppergate helm and the Late Roman prototypes the Vendel helms derived from were used in battle, so the design was just fine. Indeed, the lack of a rounded top did not prevent the Dargen pot helm and similar designs from seeing use in battle, so this claim may be dismissed without further debate. Construction too flimsy to allow for use in battle? Impossible at present to say. Until better evidence becomes available, this question remains unanswerable. Too ornate and decorated to be risked in battle? Perhaps, but the similarly ornate Morken spangenhelm shows clear signs of both wear and battle damage.
No firm conclusion can be reached until further evidence is brought to light. I will continue translation relavent books and articles and reporting the results. Hopefully, our friends in Sweden might be able to instigate a bit of curiousity on the part of researchers in that country, and perhaps obtain some concrete results.
If the helmets found was not used in combat, then my question is, what type did they use?
Hi Mr Gadda,
With reference to your comments on helmet liner/padding, in Manhard Vogt's 'Spangenhelm' in the appendix is a photo image of what appears to be a helmet liner, from just the photo it is difficult to say if it is of a thin leather or if it is a textile.
The German language book covers the Late Roman/Early Medieval European spangenhelms contemporary to the helms now in discussion in some depth, but unfortunately as I don't read German I can not give any further information at this time :(
best
Dave
With reference to your comments on helmet liner/padding, in Manhard Vogt's 'Spangenhelm' in the appendix is a photo image of what appears to be a helmet liner, from just the photo it is difficult to say if it is of a thin leather or if it is a textile.
The German language book covers the Late Roman/Early Medieval European spangenhelms contemporary to the helms now in discussion in some depth, but unfortunately as I don't read German I can not give any further information at this time :(
best
Dave
| Anders Nilsson wrote: |
| If the helmets found was not used in combat, then my question is, what type did they use? |
The simple answer is, we don't know. We know the vikings wore helmets, there are numerous finds that depict helmets. Yet we have only found one helmet from the viking era in scandinavia (and it doesn't look a bit like the depictions).
My guess is that the same is true about vendel period helmets. We have yet to discover them. =).
It is a fair guess though, too assume that they wore helmets in the same shape and style as the vendel/valsgärde finds.
The "Gustavianum museum" over here opens a new Valsgärde exhibition in August. I have the fortune of being one of those that will get a sneak preview with the staff. I will be sure to post here if anything new turns up,.
/Ville
| David Huggins wrote: |
| Hi Mr Gadda,
With reference to your comments on helmet liner/padding, in Manhard Vogt's 'Spangenhelm' in the appendix is a photo image of what appears to be a helmet liner, from just the photo it is difficult to say if it is of a thin leather or if it is a textile. The German language book covers the Late Roman/Early Medieval European spangenhelms contemporary to the helms now in discussion in some depth, but unfortunately as I don't read German I can not give any further information at this time :( best Dave |
I have this book, but have had no opportunity to peruse it in detail, though my preliminary look through it showed it to be most useful (though here, again, I saw no detailed thickness measurements on par with what one finds in Tweddle, though I noticed some data was given). I will look into this, perhaps even this weekend, and see if I can't make a rough translation and see if it helps us out here.
| Grzegorz Kulig wrote: |
| Hi Guys.
Guys, let's stop talking about "processions" or "marching", as nor Ville nor me ever say such a funny thing. We are both just trying to say those helmets had rather a prestigious role than a battle role. |
Actually, yes you (or, more specifically, Villie) did. And I quote from Villie towards the bottom of page 2 of this thread:
“In my opinion there is not much dought that the Vendel/Valsgarde helmets were made for parade or ceremonial practise.”
You also use this very word at the end of your post that I am quoting from!!! By simple definition, parades involve “processions” and “marching” – consult any dictionary on the matter, if you do not believe me. If you two did not intend this then do not use this term.
| Grzegorz Kulig wrote: |
| They were using IRON, most probably of bad quality. |
And how, pray tell, do you know this? As I’ve already stated, only Coppergate has undergone any sort of detailed metallurgical analysis. While not at all an unreasonable assertion, you have no documented proof that I am aware of to back this claim up.
In any event, even “bad” quality iron, in sufficient thickness, can provide ample protection. Hence the dire need for detailed research into this matter.
| Grzegorz Kulig wrote: |
| Would you wear Ultuna helmet or Valsgarde 6 for fighting against archers? |
Assuming it were built to the same metallurgy and thickness standards of the Coppergate helm I don’t see why not. Keep in mind that your primary defense, from arrows and other hazards, is really your shield. The helm is really a secondary defense, in the event the primary is bypassed. Thus, even the lattice construction is not too much of a drawback.
Bear in mind also that arrows do not seem to have been the main threat on the Dark Age battlefield, either. Against swords, etc., such openwork designs would have been adequate.
| Grzegorz Kulig wrote: |
| Mikael, I can give you the same naive (sorry) question. We know about practise of making very exclusive and expensive clothing specially and only to buried it in grave with dead people. So, why they were doing this? Why they take the trouble? :P
For me it is even possible those helmets were made with intent to be buried with their owner. That was really very often practise in many cultures and periods. |
While I agree that this is quite possible, I must ask you to cite specific examples of this practice. For example, when we dress someone in a nice suit today to bury them, we don’t necessarily go out and buy new clothes – the usual practice is to find something nice in their wardrobe and put them in it. And even if something is specially purchased, it is simply an ordinary suit or dress; there is no such thing as a special “funeral costume” that you can buy at Macy’s that is intended only for dead people, and never worn by anyone else. Thus, I have doubts that these helms were made “only” for burial, though I cannot disprove such a claim, either.
| Grzegorz Kulig wrote: |
| I am saying this as a guy who knows the construction and material of those helmets and as a guy who fought in extremely way with very strong head shots in many kind of helmets. (yes, Chris, I am Polish ;) ). |
I am skeptical of the claim that you know the “material” of these helms. If you really do, please cite sources – and specifics! As I have previously stated, I know of no serious metallurgical and material analyses apart from that performed on the Coppergate helm – if you know of something else then quit holding out on us! :)
| Grzegorz Kulig wrote: |
| What is most important for me is impracticality of those helmets:
1) the shape of bowls - rounded. This isn't the best shape helmet. |
As I stated in my earlier response, this is not a relevant argument. The Romans went on to conquer most of the Known World with helms of this basic shape. If it was good enough for Julius Gaius Caesar, then it’s good enough for me! Seriously, if the design was that bad, the Romans would have discarded it long ago, and not retained the basic shape for centuries. The evidence for the Romans making detail improvements to their equipment is so overwhelming as to be utterly irrefutable – if it really was bad it would have been discarded. Maybe the conical design is in fact superior, but it is obviously not a vast improvement. Outside of bascinets, the design does not seem to have persisted past the High Middle Ages.
| Grzegorz Kulig wrote: |
| 2) construction: f.e. crests were made of thin plates (they were not casted) and riveted with thin rivets. Let's imagine a strike with anything, even a rock, on the helmet - what will happen? It will rest only a pulp.
Dave, hope you will not be angry with me... ;) Remember, you have chosen casted crest, instead of crest made the same technique as original crest, because you were afraid the crest could get damaged in transporting. (!) ;) |
This is not categorically true. Both the Sutton Hoo and Valsgärde 6 helms had forged iron crests. I seem to recall that while some helms had thin crests (that of Valsgarde 7 – I think – had a 1mm thick crest) others had more substantive ones (up to 3mm thick? Going from memory here). There seems to be some significant variability here.
| Grzegorz Kulig wrote: |
| Some of those helmets have openwork construction. I really think it is not most durable construction. ;) |
As I’ve stated earlier in this thread, the frame is what is of greatest criticality. As for the suitability of a lattice type construction, much also depends on the type of lining, if any. Hardened leather, for example, might be more than adequate to “stop up” the holes in the lattice work, but that is purest speculation on my part.
| Grzegorz Kulig wrote: |
| And in the end:
this whole discussion looks like you would totally reject the idea of existence of "parade" arms and armours...What about silver/gold shield bosses or other similar equipment? Many of arguments here are reasonable and convincing, but also many of them I cannot accept. Let me stay with my and Ville's theory. :) |
I, at least, do not “totally reject” the idea that the Vendel helms were only for display. I do not like such a notion, but I do not reject it. That said, the evidence you have presented is simply insufficient. More research is needed before anything even remotely conclusive can be stated.
Page 4 of 15
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