Hi folks,

I'm wondering what date ranges and regions would apply to the following helmets (if any... as I'm doubting historical plausibility for a number of them):

#1[ Linked Image ]
#2[ Linked Image ]
#3[ Linked Image ]
#4[ Linked Image ]
#5[ Linked Image ]
#6[ Linked Image ]
#7[ Linked Image ]

Any information would be most appreciated.

Thanks very much!
Craig

yes, they don't look very historical. but they might be based off of drawings in manuscripts.

[ Linked Image ]
this one for example is based off of the luttrell psalter written 1325-1335 and seems similar in style to the ones you've posted here.
13th-14th century is what i'd guess if any of these are real.

They all look like bascinets. The visors don't look historical though, the bascinets I've seen all have 'pig-face' or round bulbous visors.

I'd say they are barbuta's with visors. But I think that only one visored barbuta exists that might actually be historical.

If they are real, I'd say they belong in the period (approximately) 1450-1475.

They look similar to some of the visored helms from the Holkham Bible (ca. 1327-1335).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...ckburn.jpg

These seem to be attempts at recreating some of the visored great helms/proto bascinets of the early to mid 14th century as seen in art (like the afore-mentioned Holkham Bible).

On many of them, the eye slot is so big as to be nearly useless for protecting the eyes.

Thanks folks, for these valuable replies.

Chad Arnow wrote:

On many of them, the eye slot is so big as to be nearly useless for protecting the eyes.

I wonder if #5 would offer enough eye protection? On the flip side, would it offer enough visibility to be practical?

Thanks for your help!
Craig

Hello Craig L, can I ask where you saw these or do you know who the maker is? In my opinion they are well done and represent renditions of visored barbutas and basinets as mentioned above. As already pointed out these types of helmets did exist , I dont believe they should be dismissed as inacurate because they are not mimmicking a museum piece. Why should we assume that all helmets looked like the very few surviving examples that still exist, these may be the personal interpretations of the armourer. I find this sort of expression quite refreshing, much more so than armour that either apes or mimmics a famous museum piece and is many cases is named after it . In my opinion the term "recreation" is a serious misdenomer, all contemporary works that use famous museum pieces as models are renditions of them.

Thank you Chad, I had a feeling they were European. These helms may be more researched than we know, many of their other helmets seem like fairly good representatives of the types they are modeled after. I sometimes find that criticisems about the protective quality of modern made armour may based on the beliefs , rules and misconceptions of some anachronizm groups. It would be logical to assume that in the day of real and furious battle with edged weapons, some warriors would choose vision, mobility and breathing over extra face protection. It is obvious that in many cases some have forgotten the fact that armour was designed to protect by deflecting weapons not stopping them.

I'd say excluding 1,2 and 5 they are OK for 1st half of 14th, maybe to 1360. A very common visor for bascinets in western europe.

The 1,2 and 5 could have been had not the occular been made so silly. The rounded face visor is shown fairly often mid 14th but not like these.

RPM

Sorry Chad you are right, I meant 4 not 5. 5 is rather good.

Really it is how they finished the eyes on 1, 2 and 4 to me that makes them look off. If they were straight edged along the eyes level of the visor or something it would have made a huge difference. Trying to have the odd half occula is just odd.

RPM