| Author |
Message |
Craig L.
|
 Posted: Thu 17 Jun, 2010 9:52 pm Post subject: Helmets - "when and where" quiz |
 |
|
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
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
Any information would be most appreciated.
Thanks very much!
Craig
|
|
  |
 |
|
Raino S
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Jun, 2010 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yes, they don't look very historical. but they might be based off of drawings in manuscripts.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Hansen
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Jun, 2010 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael G.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Jun, 2010 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
  |
|
Craig L.
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Jun, 2010 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Marechal
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Jun, 2010 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig L. wrote: | | On the flip side, would it offer enough visibility to be practical? |
Why not? I've seen many people fight in the SCA with pigface bascinets with smaller eyeslots. Sure, visibility is lower, but you can still fight with them. Real helmets had even smaller eyeslots and they managed to fight with that in period.
Have a look at this thread: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...highlight=
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Jun, 2010 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Jun, 2010 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adam Smith wrote: | | Hello Craig L, can I ask where you saw these or do you know who the maker is? |
If you right-click on the images and go to properties (or your browser's equivalent command), you'll see these are from the website: http://www.wikingerschmiede.de .
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Jun, 2010 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 19 Jun, 2010 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adam Smith wrote: | | 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. |
Adam,
Rest assured, my opinions of these helms has nothing to do with any anachronism group; I'm not affiliated with any of them and have no interest in them. My opinions studying period art and books (over 200 of them) on the subject as well as making visits to museums. Does that mean I'm infallible? Of course not.
I don't agree with some of what you say. Armour was designed to stop as many weapons as it could, not just deflect them. Having enormous, over-sized eyeslots defeats one purpose of the helm: protecting the eyes. You simply don't see eyeslots that big on historical helms or in period art.
Some of their items look fairly close. Many on that website (including ones not pictured in this thread), though, suffer from over-sized face and/or eye openings. The barbutes and spectacle helms, for example. Some of the helms get things simply wrong. The Pembridge great helm isn't even close.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sun 20 Jun, 2010 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 20 Jun, 2010 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | 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 |
I'd say 5 isn't too bad, but 4 is.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sun 20 Jun, 2010 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic