Why? it seems like an excellent helm so why?

Bascinet was better. Just one more step in helmet development from Great helms with flat or slightly curved tops to round to the early bascinet.

RPM

I think the bascinet with hounds-face visor is functionally superior to the sugarloaf helm even in cavalry charges. The sugarloaf has a flat top with a rim that swords or other weapons can bite into. The rounded shape and peaked top of the bascinet makes weapons more likely to slide off. I see the hounds-face visor created directly in response to a cavalry charge. The sharp forward face deflects lances and spears much better than the sugar loaf.

No you are right the Sugarloaf is round or actually more of a conical top. Comes from the sugar loaf shape which was used in several instances in the modern period. Here is one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarloaf

It is not a historic term but modern. To be fair the Wiki picture is not the best I have seen but I could not find another.

I was not trying to be rude or terse but to the point. The sugarloaf design was a step from great helm to bascinet.... in my somewhat educated opinion. It was lighter and more advanced.

RPM

Likely a healm of heaume. Depends though as I am wondering if they might have simply considered them bascinets at times...How far along does the helmet progress till it is called something new.

RPM

Okay, well that's my mistake. I didn't realize there was a difference between sugarloaf and great helms. This first link was what I was thinking of. http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/300404.jpg
This second link depicts a sugarloaf helm. http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/ah-3821n.jpg
Still, I stand by what I said about the hounds-face visors on the bascinets. To me, the sugarloaf helm look like bascinets with a flat face. The hounds-face visor will deflect lances better than the flat face on the sugarloaf.

It doesn't look that flat, more angled to me anyway

BTW how good is the breathing, eyesight, and hearing in a 'sugarloaf'

Chad,
I don't think you saw my second post:

Quote:

Okay, well that's my mistake. I didn't realize there was a difference between sugarloaf and great helms. This first link was what I was thinking of. http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/300404.jpg This second link depicts a sugarloaf helm. http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/ah-3821n.jpg Still, I stand by what I said about the hounds-face visors on the bascinets. To me, the sugarloaf helm look like bascinets with a flat face. The hounds-face visor will deflect lances better than the flat face on the sugarloaf.

Yes, I was mistaken in thinking that the sugar-loaf was just another name for a great helm. After looking them up I noticed the difference. However, I do think that the hounds-face visor attached to the bascinet does a much better job of deflecting a lance or spear because of the much greater angle. The sugarloaf is flat in the vertical directed though rounded on the sides, but not very rounded. The angle of a hounds-face visor is just much more extreme. Tournaments are different because the lances are not tipped, sharp, or meant to kill. Again, to me the bascinet just looks like a sugarloaf built to receive a visor.

Quote:

If you look at the timeline of battle tactics and then look at what armour seems to have been popular, the great helm seems to have flourished while mounted combat did.

I think this is because the great helm was the pinnacle of helmet technology for that time. The one advantage I can think of that would make the bascinet more suitable to combat on foot is the ability to lift up the visor. Later helmets for combat on foot either have an open face or a rounded, flatter face while later helmets for mounted combat tend to have a 'pointy nose' shape. This shape is exactly what the sugarloaf and greathelms lacked and which the bascinet added through the hounds-face. The shape does a better job of deflecting a lance. Even tournament helmets eventually adopt this shape.
Helmets for mounted combat:
http://www.myArmoury.com/albums/displayimage....amp;pos=49
http://www.myArmoury.com/albums/displayimage....mp;pos=150
Later jousting helmet (helmet is leaning backwards in the photo)
http://www.myArmoury.com/albums/displayimage....amp;pos=83

I did see your second post, but didn't fully agree with it. :)

Greg Coffman wrote:

Tournaments are different because the lances are not tipped, sharp, or meant to kill.

But a glancing surface was usually important in most forms of the tourney, too, not just on the field. If the lance (tipped or untipped depending on whether it was a joust of peace or not) found purchase, it was still not a good thing. It could damage your armour, knock you off your horse, or at the very least, cause the oncoming lance to shatter and score your opponent points. Obviously some forms of tournament armour were meant to catch lances, but many were designed to deflect.

The late frog-mouth tilting helms were designed to provide glancing surfaces. Even late battlefield great helms are full of curves and glancing surfaces. There usually aren't any completely flat surfaces.

You could even say bascinets are less protective than great helms. Instead of going to (or nearly to) the shoulders like great helms often do, visored bascinets (not great bascinets) usually are shorter and protection of the neck is left to a flexible aventail rather than solid metal. A great helm, even if it didn't reach all the way to the shoulders still usually had an aventail beneath. So you've lost a layer of protection with the bascinet.

Greg Coffman wrote:

Again, to me the bascinet just looks like a sugarloaf built to receive a visor.

I disagree with this for the reasons noted above. Plus, the shapes are not the same.

I do think the bascinet was easier to wear and protective enough to warrant use, but I'm not sure we agree on everything here. And that's okay. :)

In my amateur opinion, once the bascinet got a visor, people simply realized that it's much, much more convenient to lift a visor than to take off an entire helm when they needed extra ventilation. A visor can be lifted with one hand while (I believe) safely lifting a helm off one's head with anything less than two hands is going to be tricky at the very least.