I'm wondering about the historical timeframe of the helm linked to below. I've seen it used in various sources but I can't personally find information on exactly when it was used.
[ Linked Image ]
I know I'm posting this in the "historical arms" section, so my apologies if I have posted to the wrong forum. I figured you guys would know something about this.
Not to be to bad... but that one does not look like it was ever used!
The conic form of arming cap worn under a mail coif was seen during the 13th century, possibly earlier. An effigy at Tickenham, Somerset England depicts a knight wearing just such a device. One of the Osprey books has the image showing the appearance of the coif. The effigy is quite detailed, so there is not much mistaking it.
Attachment: 24.94 KB
The conic form of arming cap worn under a mail coif was seen during the 13th century, possibly earlier. An effigy at Tickenham, Somerset England depicts a knight wearing just such a device. One of the Osprey books has the image showing the appearance of the coif. The effigy is quite detailed, so there is not much mistaking it.
Attachment: 24.94 KBWas it never worn over the coif as a helm itself? I realise the above picture I posted isn't the most authentic, but I think you know what I'm getting at ;)
Like I said, I've seen it worn in a variety of sources but I can't pin down its usage historically.
Like I said, I've seen it worn in a variety of sources but I can't pin down its usage historically.
| Pete Vanderzwet wrote: |
| Was it never worn over the coif as a helm itself? I realise the above picture I posted isn't the most authentic, but I think you know what I'm getting at ;)
Like I said, I've seen it worn in a variety of sources but I can't pin down its usage historically. |
Could be an arming cap but it looks way to large for that ?
An arming cap like this could have been worn under a maille coif or over the coif and maybe by itself.
But large in size like in the picture it looks like a huge kettle hat but I've never seen anything " real " like it before.
What is the source of the picture ? It looks like a computer game thing to me ?
They had helmets worn over coids of that nature but I agree that one is very, very large. If the model head is close to an average human's head that is a big helmet. You can find many pictures around 1200-1300 in germans with that ty[pe of helmet, though they fit closer.
RPM
RPM
I'm gonna jump to Pete's defense here. Those model heads are decievingly small. I have seen them used to model other helmets, and they always make the helmets look gianormus. As for the flat-topped cyclindrical, that would be 12th C. Helmets like this would soon have a faceplate and become the "totenkopf" (sp?) There is an illumination in the Martyrdom of St. Thomas a Becket that shows this type of helm.
I like the chinstrap, it is like the one I adopted for my norman.
Design derived from sword belts, however, I think that it might have existed but after having tried it I found that it is not very practical.
As of this helm, it is strange the rpesence of the ousideleather ring.
For me that\'s the really wrong part of this helm.
Correct me if I\'m wrong, it has no apparent purpose being outside but to be cut by enemy\'s blows.
Design derived from sword belts, however, I think that it might have existed but after having tried it I found that it is not very practical.
As of this helm, it is strange the rpesence of the ousideleather ring.
For me that\'s the really wrong part of this helm.
Correct me if I\'m wrong, it has no apparent purpose being outside but to be cut by enemy\'s blows.
The angle of the pic makes it hard to tell all the angles, but between conical Norman helms and early great helms we do see flat-topped helms that taper out as they go up. This one seems to do that a little bit. That would put a hem like this somewhere around the last quarter of the 12th century.
Also consider the model is not wearing a padded arming cap w/ coif.
I'm not concerned with the example in the picture so much as their usage historically. They seem to be used all over the place.
Robin, were you talking about this?
[ Linked Image ]
I can't tell if there is a nose guard there or if its part of his coif. I have no information on this manuscript other than the website author's claim that it is 12th century.
Perhaps this is a better example from Manning Imperial:
[ Linked Image ]
There they label it as 13th -14th century.
Randall,
Could I bother you to post some?
I'm not concerned with the example in the picture so much as their usage historically. They seem to be used all over the place.
Robin, were you talking about this?
[ Linked Image ]
I can't tell if there is a nose guard there or if its part of his coif. I have no information on this manuscript other than the website author's claim that it is 12th century.
Perhaps this is a better example from Manning Imperial:
[ Linked Image ]
There they label it as 13th -14th century.
Randall,
Could I bother you to post some?
| Pete Vanderzwet wrote: |
| Robin, were you talking about this?
I can't tell if there is a nose guard there or if its part of his coif. I have no information on this manuscript other than the website author's claim that it is 12th century. |
That's a face guard. It's colored the same as the helm, not the coif. That is a slightly more developed/later version of what you posted.
A late 12th century date is pretty appropriate for that image.
| Chad Arnow wrote: | ||
That's a face guard. It's colored the same as the helm, not the coif. That is a slightly more developed/later version of what you posted. A late 12th century date is pretty appropriate for that image. |
You think so? Notice the red nasal has one too. Still, it is clearly the same type of helm...
| Robin Smith wrote: |
| You think so? Notice the red nasal has one too. Still, it is clearly the same type of helm... |
What are you asking about? The red nasal has one of what?
Both helms have face protection of some kind and I believe they're attached to the helm because they are colored the same. Both are worn over coifs, though.
According to books I've read on the subject fairly recently, facial protection was reintroduced after the development of the flat-topped helms.
The facial peice. Its so hard to make judgments on armour design from an illumination.... I'm not convinced that its not some artistic depiction of leather lining on the edge of the coif...
[quote="I'm not convinced that its not some artistic depiction of leather lining on the edge of the coif...[/quote]
Thats what it looks like to me too, since its on both sides of the face.
Thats what it looks like to me too, since its on both sides of the face.
| Robin Smith wrote: |
| The facial peice. Its so hard to make judgments on armour design from an illumination.... I'm not convinced that its not some artistic depiction of leather lining on the edge of the coif... |
Well, authors more published and intelligent than me have used that very illumination as evidence of early facial protection. :)
| Chad Arnow wrote: | ||
Well, authors more published and intelligent than me have used that very illumination as evidence of early facial protection. :) |
As for the image we ar discussing, and solely concerning hat, I do not concur, since the colored brim leaves uncoverd exctly the same part of face as it does a coif.
Facial masks did cover more, even when they were partial.
But we are just talking about a possible blunder by the artist, other contemporary art (there is a famous seal at Louvre) shows well what a facial mask could be like.
| Bruno Giordan wrote: |
| As for the image we ar discussing, and solely concerning hat, I do not concur, since the colored brim leaves uncoverd exctly the same part of face as it does a coif.
Facial masks did cover more, even when they were partial. But we are just talking about a possible blunder by the artist, other contemporary art (there is a famous seal at Louvre) shows well what a facial mask could be like. |
Part of the face encircling ring on both figures seems to be seamless with the helm, though there is a seam at the outside.
I agree they don't look like any other face masks I've seen, though. I could be wrong about them, but the lack of a seam in one place is baffling.
See below.
Attachment: 76.66 KB
Could they be chinstraps?
| Pete Vanderzwet wrote: |
| Could they be chinstraps? |
Their chins are cleary below those colored bands, so I'd guess they weren't chinstraps.
| Chad Arnow wrote: | ||
Their chins are clearly below those colored bands, so I'd guess they weren't chinstraps. |
Very difficult to be 100% sure what the intent of the artist was when there is a certain " primitive " sense of perspective involved ?
The loop could be a wide band framing the face: A bit like a face mask leaving the eyes and nose uncovered and acting a bit like protective cheek pieces that are formed into one unit.
Alternatively, there could be a central nasal and seen from the front one might see a UU shape instead of one large U shape.
The part of the loop framing the nose side of the painting/drawing could be either the other side of a face framing plate or the central nasal. I'm just looking at it from memory of how I would draw when I was a kid before I mastered perspective drawing:
There is some similarities between children's drawings and period drawing in the way they deal with difficulty with a 3/4 profile drawing: Full profile or full frontal elements get mushed together in ambiguous ways.
Just a credible alternate interpretation/theory and I 'm not saying that this is in any way certain.
Page 1 of 2
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