Thanks again for all the replies guys!

Joe,

The comment on the visor is really interesting, I heard that peripheral vision wasn't all that great but that it was okay besides that. What kind of a visor are you talking about, one that covers your full face or only the top bit like a sallet?

John Hardy,

That's a good point I hadn't considered yet. Frankly since I joined this forum I had the impression that plate armor is impervious to sword blows. Perhaps the info in these papers challenges that assumption or perhaps they had more effective cutting weapons that we haven't tested against armor of the day.

If anything I find it quite interesting to see a recurring pattern of healed head injuries in 7th century Angelo Saxons, 8th century Italians, 15th century English and late 15th century Germans. Besides showing us that those types of wound were survivable it might tell us something about the protective capabilities of helmets.

Testing sword and polearms against unarmored heads at various impact energies to simulate weak and strong blows could shed some light on this. If swords and such penetrate the skull even with weak blows and the end result is that near 100% of blows went through the skull than the 40% non penetrative blows on the bodies found in the grave might indeed be ascribed to the protective headgear they had worn.

This definitely deserves some research.


Vasilly,

You are right we shouldn't write off the possibility of cleaving through helmets yet.

The wounds being from a civilian brawl is possible but I doubt the percentage of people having them would be so high. In the Uppsala grave only 2 out of 60 showed healed head injury which according to the author could indicate that these weren't combat veterans. In Towton and Dornach we're looking at a third to a fifth of the soldiers having previous injuries.



Jared,

In Towton many did indeed have puncturing wounds which have been identified as arrow, poleaxe and dagger wounds. In the Dornach grave the vast majority of wounds were cutting/cleaving wounds.
If it is indeed the case that all those blows were on incapacitated victims than the large percentage of soldiers with healed head wounds is difficult to explain.


All in all I think that maybe we should put less effort in test number 105: longbow arrows against plate armor and perform tests on helmets and bare heads, any volunteers? ;)

Vision was more the issue, for me.

This 16th-century account from William Patten of what could happen during a route and pursuit possibly sheds some light on the high prevalence of head wounds from period battlefield graves. Patten described how the fleeing Scottish infantry dropped their weapons, armor, and sometimes even doublets to run as fast as they could. However, some did keep their helmets on during at least part of the flight, and Patten described how these would "shrink their heads into their shoulders, like a tortoise into its shell" when attack by followers from behind.

William Patten wrote:

Soon after this notable strewing of their footmen's weapons, began the pitiful sight of the dead corpses lying dispersed abroad. Some, with their legs cut off; others but hought [ham-strung] and left lying half dead: others, with their arms cut off; divers, their necks half asunder; many, their heads cloven; of sundry, the brains pasht [smashed] out; of some others again, their heads quite off: with a thousand other kinds of killing. After that, and further in the chase, all, for the most part, killed either in the head or in the neck; for our horsemen could not well reach them lower with their swords.

Patten also described how some of the pursuing cavalry broke three or four swords in the engagement. He didn't mention it explicitly, but the fact that he wrote that some fleeing Scots kept on their skullcaps and some horsemen broke multiple swords suggests that the cavalry may have at times penetrated or at least knocked off helmets with repeated blows, which likewise could break their swords.

As far as cuts to the head that didn't penetrate the skull goes, that's plausible enough when thinking about blows against fleeing opponents with completely unprotected heads because of the dynamics of pursuit and flight. On the other hand, 16th-century coroner's roll show that even single-handed swords could deeply penetrate into the skull with one good blow.

Most of us do not have experience in the difference of the power between a mounted and unmounted blow with a weapon. It is colossal. A horseman's mace is a bit of a joke if you try to use it on foot against someone in full plate with a good helmet liner; the real maces are quite light. From galloping horseback, they hit like a bus! :eek:

The cavalry of the Byzantine Empire often carried about several iron bars, which functioned as maces. Lose one? Two? Three? No problem, just grab another.

Is the horseback=extra damage thing due to the increased height, or is it the extra momentum from the running horse, or both? Just curious how one might model this without an horse. If it was height, it would be but a matter of building a platform, but momentum would be more difficult...

I just quickly went through one of the Swiss chronicles detailing the Burgundian wars and it's absolutely full of depictions of dead and fleeing people with blood streaming out of their helmet. And lats of folks having head wounds in general.

http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/bbb/Mss-hh-I...equence-49