[Harry Marinakis]

I just figured that out and edited my post

Danke

[Ralph Grinly]

Helm..for sure. One can maybe pick up spare weapon from the battlefield. It's a lot harder to pick up a spare head Admittedly..you can possibly scrounge a spare helmet from field as well. But I'd rather go INTO battle with *some* sort of head protection. Plus..it takes no skill to wear helmet..using a sword effectively takes training

[Mart Shearer]

Henry II's Assize of Arms specifically regulates how arms must be retained as part of the knight's fee upon the death of the knight.

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

Sword ! I would then proceed to check out all the people with my approximate crown size wearing fine helms, but no swords, and try to convince them that their helm would look better on my head, as their bodies look better with heads attached than unattached....after a good discussion, or two, and any luck, I think I should end up with both. I would leave Hessian Horsemen alone though,they seem to do OK without their heads....

[Ryan S.]

wait did you mean a hypothetical situation? I thought you meant as a collector. Either way, I think the sword is the best way to go. Don't get me wrong protecting one's head is important, but is not the sword the first line of defense? I mean with a sword you can parry and strike, with just a helm you will get stabbed in the torso.

[Stephen Curtin]

[Sean Flynt]

If you have a spear, you have a weapon considered by many to be superior to the sword for general fighting. I would say that your secondary weapon is the shield, since it's already in your hand and can be used offensively. A knife is assumed to be part of any man's kit.

If you have a shield, you have your torso and limb protection. The shield also can defend the head to some degree.

A helmet further defends the head and, in theory, improves torso defense by making shield defense of the head less critically important.

Get the helmet--leather, metal, wood, etc.

[Ben Sweet]

I said sword that puts you at 40 votes with now an even split of 20 to 20.... For me it's a tool vs a item that provides a limited protection, just your head... + you would just look silly to some if you were swinging your helmeted head around in the backyard

[Stephen Curtin]

Looking back over this old thread, and the opinions of most people who commented seem to agree with my own thoughts, that a helm was the next most important piece of kit after the spear and shield. At least in Scandinavia, this doesn't seem to be the case. We have surviving laws from this area (linked below) which tells us that a secondary weapon (sword or axe) was required alongside a spear and shield. This was the most basic equipment. Only after these items, are helms and armour required if you could afford them.

http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=32114&highlight=

[Sam Barris]

I do not consider cranial protection to be optional. For a warrior of modest means, I would think that a helm, spear, shield and axe would constitute the most basic starting kit. Stuff like maille and a sword could come later.

[Stephen Curtin]

Sam I agree. If I lived back then, and I already had a spear and a shield, I would think that the next piece of equipment I would buy would be a helm. I could always use a tool, such as an wood axe, as my secondary weapon. This however isn't in agreement with some of the laws on what equipment was required to be owned.

[Sam Barris]

Well, since most of these guys were serving a lord of some sort, I imagine that a gift of kit would have been pretty common when someone signed on and either didn't have that stuff handed down and couldn't afford it right off the farm. Seem to remember that happening in the sagas, though it's been a while since I read them.

[Matthew Amt]

Right, our priorities are not theirs. The *shield* protects the head, probably a good 95 percent of the time (considering casualty rates, roughly).

Probably most folks didn't have to choose, if they could only afford a shield and spear. Those who could afford a sword were likely wealthy enough that they could get the whole kit without stretching their wallets.

For grave finds, I suspect it has less to do with the value of the items or laws governing inheritance, etc., but may simply have been driven by custom and fashion. And we have to remember that the *survivors* had the final word on what went into the ground, not the dead guy. Grave goods might have been as much about them as him.

Matthew

[Stephen Curtin]

[Sam Arwas]

I'd need to know more about how long a spear lasts in battle before it becomes broken or lost before I could answer this question. If it was likely I could use the spear for the whole battle then the helm but if it's probably going to get broken or lost then the sword as I already have a shield.

[Baard H]

In the Norwegian laws of Magnus Lagabøte (as can be seen in the link above) it is stated that if you have none of the weapons required, the first you shall get is the axe, then the shield and then the spear.
Whenever the Norwegian laws (both in viking and middle-ages) says 'axe or sword' I interpret that as meaning the two are equal to the law, disregarding which were more expensive or status giving. Having one meant you could do the job required of you which was all that mattered to the leaders of the army.
The case of gift giving armour and weapons, yes this would happen to get alliances and good, loyal subordinates, but if it had been widespread enough to encompass full armies it wouldn't need to be put in laws that the common people needed to acquire them themselves.
Add to that unless hard pressed the lower classes weren't expected to fight. In Håkon Håkonssons saga a Lord on the way to the kings campaign in Sweden met up with a hundred well armed and armoured men in Oslo, he took them with him and sent a hundred of his least armoured troops back home.
Aparently in the event of fighting it would also be the proffesional troops who would be expected to actually fight with the militia mainly being there to make the army big enough to intimidate the opposition into not wanting to fight and be reinforcements if the battle went the wrong way.

Based on my own experience from reenactment fighting I'd probably go for the laws laid down by Magnus Lagabøte. Aquiring my equipment in the following order:
Axe
Shield
Spear
Helmet
Gambeson or maille

[Jason O C]

[Sean Flynt]

At a guess, it seems more likely that you'd be disarmed than have a weapon broken. Once that thing is out of your hands in a fight, it might be easiest/safest to go to your secondary weapon and worry about picking up your sword/spear/halberd/axe if you manage to survive the immediate threat.

I find this video series to be very interesting for these sorts of questions because it's based on descriptions of actual combat. They often show real-world problems like improvised weapons, asymmetrical arms, poor footing (snow!) and intentional and unintentional disarms (one guy gets his axe caught in a tree). They're especially good at showing how a neat, WMA-style engagement quickly turns into guys rolling around on the ground and stabbing and choking each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLzd74GIko

[Philip Dyer]

Helmet definitely. Shield protects the torso, spear is the offensive weapon, whatever daily use knife is second and the helmet is guarantee against downward trajectory projectiles. Without a helmet, you would have to raise your shield above your head of have your friends do that to cover your head, thus risking exposing your torso. Also, it easier to pull weapons off the ground than rip pieces of armor off a person's body.

[Pieter B.]

A helm.

If something pierces your cranium you're 99% sure to be dead. It's quite telling that the first visible piece of bronze armor in Sumerian depictions is a helmet. In fact it seems helms are always the first piece of protection worn aside from a shield in most of the world for most of the time. Hell even nature decided to beef up our brain defenses