Hello to all,

I've been a lurker on this excellent site for a while, but never posted before. I have interest in history and historic arms but not all that much knowledge of either. :) I have a lot of questions and I'm sure eventually I'll ask them all. :D

One thing, that I was always wondering about, it the changes in arms and armor design from late Roman empire through the Migration period to early middle ages. It seems to me, that in some features, the design was getting progressively less sophisticated. E.g. what I consider to be a typical Roman helmet woudl've had side plates (not sure what the name for them was) protecting the sides of the face of a soldier, a some sort of a metal reinforced bar protecting the forehead, and leave the face open. It would provide seemingly an excellent protection of sides of the face while leaving ears open.

It seems from a picture posted on your site that Migration era helmets went along same lines, although without extra forehead protection..

Now, the typical early medieval helmet, it seems, was a much simpler form, a conical steel helmet with an iron nasal guard but without facial guards. It appears it was often worn over mail, but I'd imagine that mail would not protect against blunt trauma as well as a plated side guard ? This is just one example. Am I right in thinking that there was some de-volution of arms and armor in the dark ages ? What was it related to, then - as it seems the collapse of the Roman empire was more gradual than instant, and there was enough good smiths throughout times ?

I have moved this topic to the Historic Arms Talk forum.

Please note the description for this forum:

"Discussions of reproduction and authentic historical arms and armour from various cultures and time periods"

Thank you.

By the way, welcome! :)

Hi

I agree that during the viking age ( northmen especially ) armour use was in decline. Weather it be for socio economic reasons or armour was not suited to the "hit and run" style tactics of viking warbands is not clear. From the fall of the roman empire to the crusades maile was the predominant armour used. This is interesting as maile is expensive to produce and very time consuming to make.

In defence of late viking age conical helmets the design is very good, the cone shape of the helmet leaves little surface area for a sword blow to "stick". Most overhead blows will connect and slide down the helmet , in effect deflecting the blow and also expending alot of the blows energy before the blade connects with the shoulder ect.

In saying this cheek plates or not a blow to the side of the head will certainly kill or wound the victim? I would think that this would have led to the decline in use of cheek plates?

Just a couple of thoughts

N

There was a decline in metallurgy within central to NW Europe during "migration era" following collapse of the Roman Empire. Wire produced locally (better wire could be imported) is considered to have been hand hammered, not drawn.
This actually made mail very precious in terms of production effort during the migration era. It did exist, and probably was the best form of armour available. But, I would hesitate to claim it was "common" during the migration era.

Some early fragments of mail (Swedish Vendel and Valsgarde finds) are dated to 500 to 700 A.D. A fairly good analysis of cross sectioned mail rings from the Oldsakamlingen collection in Oslo was done and can be found through internet search in a paper "Ring Weave, a metallographical analysis of ring mail at the Oldsakamlingen in Oslo." The results on known early specimens of rings from mail are compelling towards accepting the possibility that each ring was individually hand forged, not formed from pre-made wire. I'll stick my neck out based on seeing what progress is like with mass produced wire and "ready to rivet rings" and say that this looks like the type of process that would have taken a dedicated armourer a couple of years to make a good hauberk!

I am a proponent of the socio-economic explanation. In this case the collapse of the Roman centralized government and infrastructure (eventually) led to a loss in the ability to make lots of big pieces of steel (really 'steely iron'). So the steel was used for the most important part, the top of the head. While softer iron could be used for mail. And so few people can afford to have cheek-pieces put on their helmet. The armourer can charge too much more for using that steel on another skull cap (or something like that).

This theory would be consistent with the increase in the use of plate in the next millenium that coincides with the emergence of the water-powered trip hammer, increased economic output and centralization of government.

It is also consistent with reports of Charlemagne's men having much more armour than was typical for the era. He could afford it.

As another note this era sees the emergence of the kettle helm. The kettle helm provides similar protection to the helm with cheek plates but in a different way.
Now why did that change occur? I have no idea but it stuck around for nearly a thousand years.

Hi

Im not sure if cheek plates were more expensive to produce ? Or if they just became obselete? Central Asian, western steppe peoples were able to produce plate armours at quite a early stage, yet cheek plates also fell out of use with these
peoples roughly around the same time as they fell out of use in Europe?
I wonder if maille aventails, camails and later coifs were employed simply because no armour at that stage could really counter against a full blow to the side of the head? If the main purpose of the cheek plate was to ward off stray cuts, injuries which were non fatal, yet enough to ensure the warrior was out of the fight or in severe pain, than maille could be just as effective if a padded garment was worn underneath it.
Im not sure it seems they fell out of use with no real revival of the fashion at all in the early middle ages.

A pic of some early steppe armour, roughly 8th 9thc from memory.


cheers

Nick

---

 Attachment: 79.5 KB
[ Download ]

I would say that cheek plates were probably worth having, considering that they were in use for at least 700 consecutive years in one part of the world, but a mail coif probably would have been equally effective. Also, didn't the Sutton Hoo helmet have cheek plates?

Max

Hi

Sutton Hoo is dated to around 5-6thc, Coppergate being later than the sutton hoo helmet is also to early for viking age proper.
If the dating of the helmet is correct than this helmet is old fashioned for that time period. These 2 helmets are also extremely rare finds. The Gjermundbu helmet is also reminiscent of earlier Vendal style helmets, though it is dated to the 9th-early 10thc with not much doubt.

Im just saying from the time period Im interested in ( 7th c to early 11th ) I have never seen any conclusive evidence of cheek plates being used in Viking, Euro, Rus, Magyar, Khazar cultures. The latest find for a steppe nomad helmet with cheek plates is early 7thc from Kerch ,Russia. The equipment is of Bulgar make and may have been a style left over by the Huns?

I could be way off.

cheers

N

At least one of the helmets from Vendel had cheek plates as well.

I think many people tend to overrate roman armour. During the late empire (4th-5th centuries AD) roman armour chiefly consisted of maille or scale shirts and spangen-helms - virtually identical to the equipment worn by their "barbarian" successor in Western Europe up 'til the high Middle ages.

"Overrate"? If you mean to say that segmentata was superior to mail then that is highly debatable. Segmentata was certainly faster to produce and was likely to have also been cheaper than mail. There is no evidence to suggest that cavalry troopers wore segmentata. There is no evidence to suggest that officers or centurios wore segmentata. A convincing argument can be made that segmentata was "peasant" armour - only worn by those who could not afford mail, or musculata, or scale. Mail was more expensive to produce. It offered greater coverage. It was more flexible and comfortable. It offered comparable protection against everything except blunt trauma.

First of all, great thanks to all who replied !

The cheekplates were just an example. I think regardless of who the invading tribes were, the people of the era spent most time fighting with their immediate neighbors, similarly armed and armored. I personally think - although I have no experience to back it up - that a well-designed cheekplate would provide coverage very close to mail aventails, and would be somewhat more protective against blows. A good blow to the side of the face may not kill you or knock you down, but it may stun you enough to give your opponent a momentary advantage. I'd imagine the mail, being flexible, isn't going to absorb the energy of the blow as well as plate.

I also think the degradation of armor was related to the social changes. However, it's hard for me to picture how this would happen, since the decline of Roman empire wasn't as instant and catastrophic as was thought by many. In most areas of the empire the takeover by barbarians was a gradual one. While the overall strength of the empire was certainly gone, the smaller villages / magistrates retained much of their population and their way of life. I'd imagine there was no shortage of blacksmiths, and definitely there was knowledge of what armor used to look like. Also, the Greek states were not as large as the Roman empire, yet they produced pretty decent armor. Could it be that the decline was related to diminished standards, people gradually expecting lesser quality due to worsening conditions, lost knowledge and overall decline ?

I don't think that armour quality dropped. An argument might be made that quantity dropped, but not quality.

Careful experimentation will reveal that a nasal actually protects the side of the head from most sword blows and should greatly lessen the impact of all such blows. I think that once this was discovered, the cheek-flaps, which probably interfere with hearing, were dispensed with.