Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Vendelperiod Clothing and armour Reply to topic
This is a Spotlight Topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13, 14, 15  Next 
Author Message
Paul Mortimer




Location: England, Essex
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 285

PostPosted: Fri 16 May, 2008 10:20 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well, who would have thought that such a discussion would have produced so large a response. It all goes to show how much interest there is in this period.

Actually, I believe that there is evidence in the literary sources that such helmets were worn in times of war:

Beowulf (lines 1030-4):

Ymb þæs helmes hrof hēafodbeorge
Wīrum bewunden wala ūtan hēold,
Þaet him fēl lāf frēcne ne meahtē
Scūrheard sceþðan, þonne scyldfreca
Ongēan gramum gangan scolde

Round the helmet’s crown a ridge bound with wires protected the head from without so that the sword, hard in battle, might not cause too grave an injury when the shield warrior went forth against his enemy.
Now this descrition admirably describes the sort of crest (walu) on the Sutton Hoo helmet - which is of iron with inlaid lines of silver. This is not the only quote from Beowulf that could be used here. Other AS poems, such as Elene and Genesis II, also refer to helmets that have features that appear to be similar to the Sutton Hoo.

Another quote from Beowulf:

…..Eoforlīc scionon
ofer hlēorbergan gehroden golde

Above the cheek guards shone the boar images adorned with gold

The Sutton Hoo helm has gilded bronze boars' heads above each cheek guard. The point with these quotes is that they are describing battle helmets worn by the heros when fighting!

The pressbleche have been referred to several times on this thread. It is true that no-one knows exactly what they are a refernce to; they are symbolic and probably have a protectic and amuletic function. The walus too are protective in both a practical and a symbolic sense. Why would the wearer need protection if these hats are purely ritual.
The pressbleche in now way interfere with the fighting qualities of the helmets - they are ornate and decorative - they can be repaired if they get damaged (this appears to have happened on the right side of the Sutton Hoo). It seems, too, that the plates were, often, backed with pitch or some other sticky substance which would have increased their durability.

Then there are the pictures of helmets on the plates -- they are always crested with either a boar or a bird -- these symbols are depicted overlarge, I believe, so that this feature is clearly seen. However, all of the Swedish helmets (including SH) found so far have wyrm (serpent) crests or walus. The only contemporary helmets with boar's heads - the Benty Grange and the Pioneer have been found in England where several detached boars or components have also been found-- one detached boar has been discovered in Uppakra in Sweden.
If you take the helmets from the pressbleche and look at them carefully they could actually be some of the Swedish helmets apart from the crests -- we have also, as an experiment, drawn the SH and other Swedish helmets in the same style; the results look very much like the pictures on the plates. One of the pressbleche helms (Vendel XIV) even has a face plate a bit like that on the SH.

Incidentally, there are only ten different figurative themes discovered so far, on all the known pressbleches.

Personally, I have no doubt that these were battle helms, worn by important warriors, who wanted to be seen and known by both their own side and by their enemies.

However, as Ville says, some of us will have to agree to differ.


Paul
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Chris Gilman




Location: California
Joined: 07 Dec 2007

Posts: 82

PostPosted: Fri 16 May, 2008 11:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

On one of the pressbleches is an image of a man being ridden down by a rider and the horse is being speared. There is almost this exact scene depicted on a roman relief of much finer detail. But if memory serves, the dominance of the scene is reversed from footman to rider. Perhaps a depiction of a specific fight with specific fighters? But with the Roman relief depicting Romans crushing a "barbarian" and a pressbleches depicting the oppressed "Barbarian" defeating a Roman with his last breath?
I will have to find these two images; they were quite striking in their similarity.
The friend I made the silver helmet for had told me he found evidence that the panels on the Vendel 14 helm where in reference to a specific conflict. I will ask him the details of his research.
C. Gadda,
I must agree with all of your points. Well said.

Chris
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
David Huggins




Location: UK
Joined: 25 Jul 2007

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Fri 16 May, 2008 2:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Chris,
Spiedal's book 'Germanic Warrior styles etc' if memory serves me correct also discusses this pressblech plate and the Roman funeral memorial motif as evidence for his theory that certain germanic tribes utilised specific foot warriors in conjunction with their own mounted warriors to run underneath the enemy cavalry and slash at the horse's underbelly with a weapon specifically for this task!!
best
Dave

and he who stands and sheds blood with us, shall be as a brother.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Grzegorz Kulig
Industry Professional



Location: Poland
Joined: 22 Mar 2007

Posts: 98

PostPosted: Fri 16 May, 2008 4:34 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This is going to be a long post, so please prepare. Razz

Chris Gilman wrote:

Perhaps you did not read my reply completely. Yes my helms are spring, but I was not sighting their material strength in comparison to the originals.


But you posted as an argument for your theory that your helmet …

Quote:
My helmets from the first page have been worn in a couple of battles, albeit reenactment battles, but they did provide fine visibility and wear ability and mine was struck with a steel sword at least once and I was unaware I had been struck until I found the resulting damage after the battle. The helm therefore provided good shock protection to a degree. Given their construction, I see no reason they would not protect the wearer from any serious blow, like any helm of the period would.
So I think I would have to agree that these where made to use, not just for show.

I did say I have done test with mild steel and found it near impossible to breach a steel sheet without using the tip of a weapon.


So, you posted this as an argument for you theory of Vendel helmets = battle helmets. Iron helmet can’t be equalized with any steel helmet, even mild steel helmet.

Quote:
I also said, I would be interested to see results with Iron. Do we know the hardness or quality of the metal in these helms? I cannot recall seeing hardness figures for any of the helms of this period. Also, have any tests been done to indicate the quality of the iron?

No, as far as I know, we don’t. But what I wanted to say : we know iron is much poorer quality than any kind of steel. Steel has appeared in Late Middle Ages and before this armours were made of iron.

Quote:
I cannot recall seeing hardness figures for any of the helms of this period. Also, have any tests been done to indicate the quality of the iron?


I am not sure, but I think I have read in book “The knight and the blust furnace” about quality of iron. However, I can’t be certain.

Quote:
I do believe my helmets are close enough for comparison for fit and comfort, because I do not have an exact replica of the head the originals went on, so I don't know how one could judge fit of the originals.


How? By making a replica with the same proportions as original item. One of your helmet has totally different proportions and other is a mix of few different helmets (so, in my opinion this helmet can’t be named a historical replica, sorry Chris). So, how can you put this like an argument, Chris? I don’t want to offend you and I am not writing this cause you are a competition for me. The more craftsmen will be making good, truly faithful replicas, the better for everyone! So, Chris, take this as a advice, not as a reproach. I am just trying to be honest. Many times I saw really horrible made helmets (I am not saying yours are horrible, they are very nice) called by their maker as a “historical replica” and often no one has courage to say it is not replica, everyone was saying “very nice, gorgeus“ etc. You are too skilled so as not to speak with you honestly. Your helmets are very nice looking and have very well made details. You are skilled man. If you only could stay with original proportions and original parts of those helmets, they would be really great and close replicas. Could you add to f.e. bascinet a visor from salade? I think not, so why mix few totally different helmets together?
Someone some time ago told me the same (some time ago I also were doing variation with great number of decoration). It took me some time to stop doing not-historical helmets, because people seem to love that kind of very decorated but not historical pieces. And although I have always been saying to customer „this helmet isn’t historical” people were ordering them. So I just start saying :”no”. Now I make only historical replicas based on archaeological finds or depictions from period. And now I always refuse making not historical items, although I could earn some nice sume of money on “fantasy helmet”. I am very happy that I made this decision.
So, hope you now see this is not a try of insulting you, but an honest advice. But this is free world, everyone can do what he wants.

Quote:
It is also my understanding many of these helms have been severely distorted from being buried.

This is not a problem in making good replica, if yo have good documentation.

Quote:
Oh and I’m also a Pole, just born here. The last name should be Giermanski.


Good to know. Happy Chris, I have written I am Polish, too, cause those phrase about Poles in Wolin looked for me like Poles were some kind of scarry, crazy and dangerous people. Wink That was my point. Wink Just look again how this phrase looks with the exclamation. Wink

[quote="C. Gadda"] In answer to your first question, the answer I believe is largely "no". The only published analysis that is at all relevant was performed on the Coppergate helm, which showed the nose to nape band to be of relatively homogenous low carbon steel, and the left rear infill panel was of much spottier composition, but did show surface carburization (whether deliberate or accidental is impossible to determine). See Tweddle, p. 1021. Really not bad at all for the period, and quite protective (esp. when the browband is upwards of 3mm thick...) But even low grade iron, if sufficiently thick, would provide ample protection. It is to be noted that iron, even streaky iron with slag inclusions, is not exactly tissue paper, either. High carbon, tempered spring steel works very well indeed, but even mere iron isn't worthless.

Who said iron is worthless, Mr Gadda? I can’t remember anyone saying this. I have only said durability of spring steel helmets can’t be an argument for good protection of iron helmets.
The difference in hardness between iron and “steel” used in Coppergate helmet (0,2% of carbon and lower) is really not big. The quality is similar to very poor mild steel.

Quote:
Arwidsson, in "Valsgarde 6", claims that the helm was comprised of iron bands of about 1mm thickness. However, and this is crucial, no attempt is made to specify where the measurements were taken. Given the limited nature of even the excellent Coppergate analysis, I am remarkably skeptical that they took good frame measurements, and probably confined themselves to the "easy low hanging fruit" of the lattice matrix, and unthinkingly extrapolated it to the entire helm. It is typical of the the sub-par research and thinking I've seen over the years, in a wide range of archaelogical subjects. But, again, I don't know this as fact - it is merely a strong suspicion on my part. But given Arwidsson's wildly inaccurate reconstruction of the Valsgarde 8 harness, I think there is ample precedent to presuppose error. Again, a more detailed investigation is called for.

This is really unfair to undermine whole one’s output, because of one mistake!

Quote:
I am right now sharply divided as to whether these helms were combat capable, or simply impractical decoration. While there is some comparative evidence with Coppergate that supports a combat role, there is nothing direct to support this conclusion.


No-one said anything about “impractical decoration”…. In my opionion it is possible those have been worn in battle, but I think they haven’t been made with intent of using them in battle and I still believe those helmets have very poor battle value.

Quote:
Conversely, there is no firm evidence to support the opposite claim. Are the helms too small to allow for padding? Perhaps, but not necessarily, since we know neither the size of the wearer's heads or what would be considered an adequate amount of padding. Impractical design? Not really. Both the Coppergate helm and the Late Roman prototypes the Vendel helms derived from were used in battle, so the design was just fine. Indeed, the lack of a rounded top did not prevent the Dargen pot helm and similar designs from seeing use in battle, so this claim may be dismissed without further debate. Construction too flimsy to allow for use in battle? Impossible at present to say. Until better evidence becomes available, this question remains unanswerable. Too ornate and decorated to be risked in battle? Perhaps, but the similarly ornate Morken spangenhelm shows clear signs of both wear and battle damage.


Why? Why do you equalize Coppergate and Morken helmets with Vendel/Valsgarde helmets??? Coppergate helmet is fully functional, it isn’t so much decorated. It is totally different helmet! And Morken helmet… well it has the same sort of decoration, as previoesly mentioned by me Gnezdovo, Chernichow and Korolewino helmets. Wink
Those helmets, as well as Morken helmet, have totally different decoration and construction. First of all they have “conical” shape. Their decoration are much more durable : gilding/silver plating, engraving, decoration made with stamps, inlays are much more durable than Vendel pressblech panels. So, as you see it was possible to make very decorated and practical helm.
I hope I will see those helmets in real during my trip to Sweden this year. I will write here what I will remarque.

C. Gadda wrote:

Actually, yes you (or, more specifically, Villie) did. And I quote from Villie towards the bottom of page 2 of this thread:

“In my opinion there is not much dought that the Vendel/Valsgarde helmets were made for parade or ceremonial practise.”

You also use this very word at the end of your post that I am quoting from!!! By simple definition, parades involve “processions” and “marching” – consult any dictionary on the matter, if you do not believe me. If you two did not intend this then do not use this term.


Is the words “parade” means in English only “made for paredes, procesions and marching”? In Polish words “parade” (paradny) means “showy, very decorative, non-uncommon, made for special ocasions” etc etc. I was using this word in this sense. I suppose Ville, too. My English isn’t perfect, so I could use this word in wrong sense, but my dictionary says I am right. Besides, haven’t you noticed I have put this word in inverted commas?

Quote:
And how, pray tell, do you know this? As I’ve already stated, only Coppergate has undergone any sort of detailed metallurgical analysis. While not at all an unreasonable assertion, you have no documented proof that I am aware of to back this claim up.


I can tell this because the technology of steel production was invented in 14th cent. and before this they were producing iron and convertion iron to steel was usually by accident. Even if steel appears in armours of that time it is always steel of very poor quality. How tell this? See: A. Williams : The knight and the blust furnace.

Quote:
Bear in mind also that arrows do not seem to have been the main threat on the Dark Age battlefield, either. Against swords, etc., such openwork designs would have been adequate.


Bear in mind also that swords do not seem to have been the main threat on the Dark Age battlefield, either. :P

Quote:
While I agree that this is quite possible, I must ask you to cite specific examples of this practice. For example, when we dress someone in a nice suit today to bury them, we don’t necessarily go out and buy new clothes – the usual practice is to find something nice in their wardrobe and put them in it. And even if something is specially purchased, it is simply an ordinary suit or dress; there is no such thing as a special “funeral costume” that you can buy at Macy’s that is intended only for dead people, and never worn by anyone else. Thus, I have doubts that these helms were made “only” for burial, though I cannot disprove such a claim, either.


I really don’t have time for searching in my books for “specific examples” and for quoting them here. You can ask any archaeologist or ethnologist and he will for sure tell you that making artifacts and clothes in only intent to put them in burial was very often practise in many cultures and time and still is practising by “primitive cultures”. As an example I can give you the book : Thor Ewing, “Viking Clothing”. He do writes there about this.

Quote:
I am skeptical of the claim that you know the “material” of these helms. If you really do, please cite sources – and specifics! As I have previously stated, I know of no serious metallurgical and material analyses apart from that performed on the Coppergate helm – if you know of something else then quit holding out on us!


Yes, none “serious metallurgical and material analyses” has been made, but we know the history of metallurgy. See – “the knight and the blust furnace”.

Quote:
As I stated in my earlier response, this is not a relevant argument. The Romans went on to conquer most of the Known World with helms of this basic shape. If it was good enough for Julius Gaius Caesar, then it’s good enough for me! Seriously, if the design was that bad, the Romans would have discarded it long ago, and not retained the basic shape for centuries. The evidence for the Romans making detail improvements to their equipment is so overwhelming as to be utterly irrefutable – if it really was bad it would have been discarded. Maybe the conical design is in fact superior, but it is obviously not a vast improvement. Outside of bascinets, the design does not seem to have persisted past the High Middle Ages.


Gunpowder has appeared to be genious invention but people needed thousands of years to invent it! We know that longer sword is better than short so why Romans kept using gladius? Etc etc. How can you say something like this about conical helmets? We all know that the development of arms and armour in Middle Ages was so fast, that no wonder conical helmet has been replaced by other forms.

Quote:
This is not categorically true. Both the Sutton Hoo and Valsgärde 6 helms had forged iron crests. I seem to recall that while some helms had thin crests (that of Valsgarde 7 – I think – had a 1mm thick crest) others had more substantive ones (up to 3mm thick? Going from memory here). There seems to be some significant variability here.


Are you sure what you have written here? What I can say from photos of Valsgarde 6 is the crest was made of bronze, not of iron.

Quote:
I, at least, do not “totally reject” the idea that the Vendel helms were only for display. I do not like such a notion, but I do not reject it. That said, the evidence you have presented is simply insufficient. More research is needed before anything even remotely conclusive can be stated.


Please, let me change you words a bit. Wink
I, at least, do not “totally reject” the idea that the Vendel helms were made for battle. I do not like such a notion, but I do not reject it. That said, the evidence you have presented is simply insufficient. More research is needed before anything even remotely conclusive can be stated. Happy
I hope I will see those helmets in real during my trip to Sweden this year. I will write here what I will remarque.

The only arguments that are convincing for me are Paul’s arguments. Well done, Paul. I can’t wait to read your book. Happy

For me everything has been written here. It is truth we can't all agree.

NEW ONLINE SHOP : www.thorkilshop.com

NEW ADDRESS of my web site: www.thorkil.pl

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Thorkil-Grzegor...7530780383
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Anders Nilsson




Location: Sweden
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Reading list: 4 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 145

PostPosted: Fri 16 May, 2008 11:59 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hmm...

I still would like suggestions on what helmets where in use.

Did they use helmets like the Vendel/Valsgarde finds?

Did they use helmets like the Vendel/Valsgarde finds, but with sturdier built and not so much "Bling"?

Did they use another sort of helmet, in that case wich type?

Is the imaged on the pressblachs gibing uan any clues on what type of helmet was in use?


What do you guys think? To recreate a warrior from the Vendelperiod, what type of helmet should i choose?
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
David Huggins




Location: UK
Joined: 25 Jul 2007

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Sat 17 May, 2008 1:57 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Anders,


Hi Anders
What type of helmet to wear? I can only suggest the middle ground that I took for a re-enactment combat helm, where any concerns of damage and cost of repair to the decorative plates was negated.

Basically a helm of the general domed spangenhelm construction, ( but as I'm sure others here will tell you there are a number of different sub pressblech consruction methods on the Vendel/Valsgarde helms) with a half mask; and only the decorative elements of the crest and eyebrows, based on the evidence as Paul stated in the Beowulf epic.

Some times I use the same helm for post migration period Vikingr re-enactment, based on Dominic Tweedle and Kim Siddorn's belief that such crested helms continued in use for longer then what is generally accepted. There does appear to be such evidence on various period artifacts for this.

With the risk of opening a can of worms, given grzegorz aversion to fantasy helms Wink what I would like to see is a conjectural reconstruction of the boar crested helm with halfmask, and the cheek guards and neck protection similar to the Sutton hoo helm, that can be seen on one of the pressblech plates. A fellow re-enactor of the early A-s period has also recently mused on his wish to undertake such a similar reconstruction.

best
Dave

and he who stands and sheds blood with us, shall be as a brother.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Paul Mortimer




Location: England, Essex
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 285

PostPosted: Sat 17 May, 2008 2:07 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Anders,
As I have outlined in all my posts, I believe that the Vendel and Valsgarde helmets were worn for warfare. Poorer warriors may well have worn cheaper versions, but also helmets of the spangenhelm type as Dave says -- parts of such helmets have been found in Sweden amd something very similar in Scotland. They probably also wore helmets like the one in the picture below -- a comparitively cheap and basic iron cap. Then there are helmets like the Pioneer and the Benty Grange. In fact there were many different types of helmet that warriors of this period may have chosen to use.
There was a great variety of helmets available in later medieval times -- some of which only survive in pictures and it must be remembered that in Roman times, too there were many different types around. Why should the period in the middle be different?


Cheers,

Paul



 Attachment: 146.3 KB
[ Download ]
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bruce Tordoff
Industry Professional




Joined: 13 Aug 2007

Posts: 120

PostPosted: Sat 17 May, 2008 3:12 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Anders, here is a pic of Dave in the helm he was referring to in his last post. Having worn this myself I can also concur that this is a very comfortable and practical helm to use.


 Attachment: 65.48 KB
fest7.jpg

View user's profile Send private message
Anders Nilsson




Location: Sweden
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Reading list: 4 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 145

PostPosted: Sat 17 May, 2008 7:44 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Many thanks.

This is the helmet I´m using right now. I intend to replace or rebuild it, hence my questions.

View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Paul Mortimer




Location: England, Essex
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 285

PostPosted: Sat 17 May, 2008 3:40 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gzergorz many thanks for the kind words.

Paul
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
C. Gadda





Joined: 20 Aug 2007

Posts: 135

PostPosted: Sat 17 May, 2008 5:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Grzegorz Kulig wrote:

Quote:
Arwidsson, in "Valsgarde 6", claims that the helm was comprised of iron bands of about 1mm thickness. However, and this is crucial, no attempt is made to specify where the measurements were taken. Given the limited nature of even the excellent Coppergate analysis, I am remarkably skeptical that they took good frame measurements, and probably confined themselves to the "easy low hanging fruit" of the lattice matrix, and unthinkingly extrapolated it to the entire helm. It is typical of the the sub-par research and thinking I've seen over the years, in a wide range of archaelogical subjects. But, again, I don't know this as fact - it is merely a strong suspicion on my part. But given Arwidsson's wildly inaccurate reconstruction of the Valsgarde 8 harness, I think there is ample precedent to presuppose error. Again, a more detailed investigation is called for.

This is really unfair to undermine whole one’s output, because of one mistake!


Well, it is to be noted that very often life is indeed quite unfair. However, it ought to be pointed out that I did not disparage *all* of her work, merely that as pertains to arms and armour. And in all honesty, I can see why she came to the conclusion, at least initially. What I can't entirely forgive is the utter lack of common sense from that point forward - I mean it really should have been blindingly obvious that her initial reconstruction was untenable, and scrapped before ever being published. But because she had literally zero experience in the practical handling or wear of arms/armour, nor the sense to consult someone at, say, the Royal Armouries or Wallace Collection who might have had a bit more knowledge, we are now stuck with the ridiculous reconstruction that was posted earlier on this thread and persists to this day in even fairly current textbooks. Appalling!

For now I'm going to leave off on this, but I may address these concerns in a later post.

Grzegorz Kulig wrote:

No-one said anything about “impractical decoration”…. In my opionion it is possible those have been worn in battle, but I think they haven’t been made with intent of using them in battle and I still believe those helmets have very poor battle value.


Wellllll, now you're kinda splitting hairs here, Grzegorz (and, btw, my name is Charles - good to meet you). Maybe not these precise two words, but come on! I quote Villie from the bottom of page two of this thread: "My guess is that the helmets were made to look good and impressive on the wearers head rather than filling the function of actual protection" And I quote you from your little reply specifically to Villie on page three: "However, it seems there are only we both here who thinks those helmets were too impractical for saying they were made for fighting."

Honestly, I'm not trying to poke you in the eye, Grzegorz. I really do respect you and your viewpoint (after all, I can't disprove it). But how else am I supposed to interpret your own (and Villie's) words? It's pretty straightforward English to me - if I'm misreading this please correct me, but I do not think that I am.

As for their battle value, I withhold comment until better information becomes available.

Grzegorz Kulig wrote:

Why? Why do you equalize Coppergate and Morken helmets with Vendel/Valsgarde helmets??? Coppergate helmet is fully functional, it isn’t so much decorated. It is totally different helmet! And Morken helmet… well it has the same sort of decoration, as previoesly mentioned by me Gnezdovo, Chernichow and Korolewino helmets. Wink
Those helmets, as well as Morken helmet, have totally different decoration and construction. First of all they have “conical” shape. Their decoration are much more durable : gilding/silver plating, engraving, decoration made with stamps, inlays are much more durable than Vendel pressblech panels. So, as you see it was possible to make very decorated and practical helm.
I hope I will see those helmets in real during my trip to Sweden this year. I will write here what I will remarque.


I am not equating them, I am comparing them - there is a difference. This is a perfectly respectible scholarly comparison, and entirely logical. Your protest makes no sense.

As for your first statement, the Coppergate helm is not "totally different" - this is absurd. The construction of the bowl of the helm mirrors that of Valsgarde 7. The cheekplates are similar to those found on Vendel XIV. And, of course, the maille aventail is closely mirrored by many of the Vendel style helms. Obviously they differ in detail, but they plainly belong to a very similar "style" of overall construction. As for the Morken helm, I don't think you were reading very closely. I was simply emphasising as a general statement that mere decoration does not preclude use. The helms you cited, along with Morken, prove this point. And yet, you state that because the Coppergate helm is not so ornate, that it is "fully functional" - thus implying that decoration or lack thereof is critical to determining the battle worthiness of a helm. This is basically what you just said, here, and I'm a bit confused. Again, as Paul has repeatedly stated (and I fully agree) the pressblech can be easily replaced if damaged. Their lack of durability is irrelevant in this context.

Grzegorz Kulig wrote:

Is the words “parade” means in English only “made for paredes, procesions and marching”? In Polish words “parade” (paradny) means “showy, very decorative, non-uncommon, made for special ocasions” etc etc. I was using this word in this sense. I suppose Ville, too. My English isn’t perfect, so I could use this word in wrong sense, but my dictionary says I am right. Besides, haven’t you noticed I have put this word in inverted commas?


Actually, Grzegorz, I owe you an apology both on this and the next paragraph you quote. I thought I had edited these before posting but apparently I did not, and they came across a bit more pointed then I intended. Again, sorry.

To answer your question the usual definition of a parade, in English at least, is "A public procession on a ceremonial or festive occasion." The only alternate definition that even comes close to yours is "An ostentatious display", and this is not commonly used. Now I understand your puzzlement, and why we were all talking past one another! Big Grin I think the best words to describe what you intend are perhaps "martial display" or "ceremonial", though I think the former is closer to the mark.

Speaking of parades, when I went to my storage unit today to retrieve some missing books (including "The Spoils of Victory", one of my Royal Amouries Yearbooks, Weapons and Warfare in Anglo Saxon England", among other titles I hadn't seen in almost a year), I ended up having to take a long detour to get back home because of a HUGE traffic jam owing to the Armed Forces Parade they were doing nearby. I at least could move (even if it was not where I wanted to go) but I really pitied the folks trapped (literally) in the opposite direction. Only the Torrance P.D. could have handled things this badly... Well, as Sgt. Apone once said "A day in the Marine Corps is like a day on the farm. Every meal is a banquet. Every paycheck a fortune. Every formation a parade. I LOVE the corps! " (from the movie "Aliens", just in case you were wondering)

Grzegorz Kulig wrote:

I can tell this because the technology of steel production was invented in 14th cent. and before this they were producing iron and convertion iron to steel was usually by accident. Even if steel appears in armours of that time it is always steel of very poor quality. How tell this? See: A. Williams : The knight and the blust furnace.


Again, I apologize for my pointed manner in addressing this. Keep in mind that Williams' book is almost entirely devoted to 14th century and later armour. I would dispute the point that early steel was accidental or of very poor quality. That's not exactly what Williams says. In any case, we have too little data on early armour - a fact Williams himself makes note of.

Grzegorz Kulig wrote:

Bear in mind also that swords do not seem to have been the main threat on the Dark Age battlefield, either. :P.


Happy True enough, though I did say "etc." and was not trying to limit it to just swords.

Grzegorz Kulig wrote:

I really don’t have time for searching in my books for “specific examples” and for quoting them here. You can ask any archaeologist or ethnologist and he will for sure tell you that making artifacts and clothes in only intent to put them in burial was very often practise in many cultures and time and still is practising by “primitive cultures”. As an example I can give you the book : Thor Ewing, “Viking Clothing”. He do writes there about this.


I am, however, not interested in "many different" cultures, only that of Migration Era Scandinavia. And I have Ewing's book but do not recall any such reference. I know you're busy, but could you provide a page number?

Grzegorz Kulig wrote:

Yes, none “serious metallurgical and material analyses” has been made, but we know the history of metallurgy. See – “the knight and the blust furnace”.


Yes, and that history also shows that the Romans were capable of making lorica segmentata plates with medium carbon steel (Williams, p. 35). Again, I was responding to this flat statement you made, and I once again quote: "They were using IRON, most probably of bad quality." That's a pretty bald statement, with no direct proof. The Vendel type helms could have been made from quite good material; we just don't know because no one has ever tested it. (btw, I doubt any of them have "medium carbon steel" components... just saying, though...) In any event, as written, it appears to be wrong since the Coppergate helm is not truly iron, but mild steel. I realize I'm splitting hairs, here, but precision is important on this matter.

In any case, there is no direct basis to assert that these helms used iron "probably of bad quality" It may be correct, but there is at present no proof of that assertion.

Grzegorz Kulig wrote:

Gunpowder has appeared to be genious invention but people needed thousands of years to invent it! We know that longer sword is better than short so why Romans kept using gladius? Etc etc. How can you say something like this about conical helmets? We all know that the development of arms and armour in Middle Ages was so fast, that no wonder conical helmet has been replaced by other forms.


All right, Grzegorz, ya lost me here. What does gunpowder have to do with this? As for your comment about longer swords being better than the gladius, I imagine more than a few Roman re-enactors are going to raise their eyebrows on that one. Put another way, hundreds of thousands of long sword wielding Celtic warriors killed by gladius wielding Roman legionaires can't be wrong!

How can I say what I said about conical helms? Simple: I look at the historical record, which tells me that conical helms aren't all that common, but that "rounded" ones, similar in shape to the Vendel helms, were much, much more common. Bluntly, if conical helms were literally as superior as you imply, that shape would have predominated from its origins in the early Iron Age up through the 16th century, but such is not the case. I have no idea why that is, but I expect that the warriors who fought, killed, and died with this equipment probably had their reasons, and I shall not dispute their profound wisdom in this matter.

Quote:
This is not categorically true. Both the Sutton Hoo and Valsgärde 6 helms had forged iron crests. I seem to recall that while some helms had thin crests (that of Valsgarde 7 – I think – had a 1mm thick crest) others had more substantive ones (up to 3mm thick? Going from memory here). There seems to be some significant variability here.


Grzegorz Kulig wrote:

Are you sure what you have written here? What I can say from photos of Valsgarde 6 is the crest was made of bronze, not of iron.


Well, yes! Happy I should point out that Valsgarde 6 is not just a picture book, it does have accompanying text... (even if its in German) Happy Just teasing! Actually, I had completely overlooked the significance of this when I translated it, and it was only when I went through my notes recently (prompted by this thread) that I caught this particular point.

Note, however, that I think I may have erred in stating that some of the crests were of 3mm thickness. I believe that I may have confused some measurements of that top rail that is mounted on the top of the crest with the thickness of the crest itself. I believe Grzegorz is right when he states these are generally 1mm thick.

However, that being said they are not nearly as flimsy as alleged. A lot of the thinner fittings, not just the crest but also some of the thinner eyebrows (which seemed to vary a lot) would be backed with a shaped wood "block" or "form" which would prevent the crest or whatever from being easily crushed. And even if it were damaged, there is nothing to preclude replacement.
View user's profile
David Huggins




Location: UK
Joined: 25 Jul 2007

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Mon 19 May, 2008 2:08 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Mr Gadda & Grzegorz

Thor in his book Viking Clothing, in his discussion on the symbolic colour of wearing ones best clothing with a view to a killing ; does state from the observations of Ibn Fadlan of the funeral of a Russ Chieftain that new clothing had been made for the deceased, Thor however further states that other clothing retrieved from burials does show signs of wear and repair (see page 168)

best
Dave

and he who stands and sheds blood with us, shall be as a brother.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Darrin Hughes




Location: England
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Reading list: 20 books

Posts: 228

PostPosted: Mon 19 May, 2008 10:43 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hello Anders.

As you mentioned possible Anglo-Saxon connections, I wondered whether something like the Wollaston helmet might be of interest. There has been a lot of concentration on the more obviously high-status helmets, but the Wollaston helmet seems to have been a more workmanlike object. It is thought to have been the property of a nobleman, or possibly minor royalty, rather than a chieftain or king, and definitely fits into the whole Valsgarde/Sutton-Hoo timeframe.
I've included pictures of a reproduction and the reconstructed original.

Cheers,
Darrin.

btw, for those who aren't familiar with Wollaston, it is in Northamptonshire, England, and the finds there are dated to the 7th century.



 Attachment: 48.34 KB
5.jpg


 Attachment: 13.74 KB
anghelmet.jpg



Last edited by Darrin Hughes on Fri 23 May, 2008 7:46 am; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Fri 23 May, 2008 5:35 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

C. Gadda wrote:
Bear in mind also that arrows do not seem to have been the main threat on the Dark Age battlefield, either.


Depends on who your enemy was. If you were facing Lombards or Magyars (or, just on the off-chance, Muslims), you'd probably have to brace yourself against their archery. The Vikings in their glory days, too, seemed to have relied a great deal on archery, and it is not inconceivable that their predecessors in Scandinavia also used bows and arrows to a considerable extent.
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Fri 23 May, 2008 5:38 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Huggins wrote:
Hi Chris,
Spiedal's book 'Germanic Warrior styles etc' if memory serves me correct also discusses this pressblech plate and the Roman funeral memorial motif as evidence for his theory that certain germanic tribes utilised specific foot warriors in conjunction with their own mounted warriors to run underneath the enemy cavalry and slash at the horse's underbelly with a weapon specifically for this task!!


I'm not sure about the funeral motif, but the most popular reference to Germanic light infantry being brigaded together with the cavalry for close support of the later seems to be Julius Caesar's commentaries on the Gallic Wars, especially the section on the Romans' conflicts against Ariovistus's Germans. It doesn't mention the foot creeping under the bellies of the enemies' horses, though; the closest I can get to that would be some reference to war dogs (I don't remember where) or maybe Plutarch's account (in the Life of Crassus) of the Gallic auxiliary cavalry's methods of fighting the Parthians during the campaign that included the Battle of Carrhae.
View user's profile Send private message
Myles Mulkey





Joined: 31 Jul 2008

Posts: 250

PostPosted: Fri 01 Aug, 2008 9:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have a question about Vendel era helms. Those crests, are they solid or are they hollow? By that I mean at the most curved part of the crest, is there a gap between the helmet and the crest itself? Or is the crest solid and butted down flush with the helm underneath? I think that I can easily make a hollow one, but a solid one would take a lot more man hours (I'm not very experienced at forging but I try) and add alot more weight to the helm. What does everybody think? And if it is the case that they are hollow, how thick should they be? I want something light enough to not add too much weight, but still heavy enough to not be just thrown up there to get bent. I'd appreciate your input, and by the way I'm new to the forum and would like to say hello to everyone officially.
View user's profile Send private message
C. Gadda





Joined: 20 Aug 2007

Posts: 135

PostPosted: Sat 02 Aug, 2008 11:38 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Myles Mulkey wrote:
I have a question about Vendel era helms. Those crests, are they solid or are they hollow? By that I mean at the most curved part of the crest, is there a gap between the helmet and the crest itself? Or is the crest solid and butted down flush with the helm underneath? I think that I can easily make a hollow one, but a solid one would take a lot more man hours (I'm not very experienced at forging but I try) and add alot more weight to the helm. What does everybody think? And if it is the case that they are hollow, how thick should they be? I want something light enough to not add too much weight, but still heavy enough to not be just thrown up there to get bent. I'd appreciate your input, and by the way I'm new to the forum and would like to say hello to everyone officially.


Without exception they are hollow, about 1mm wall thickness is usual from what I've read. Also, they usually (invariably?) reinforced the crest with a wood block shaped to fit the cavity. In fact, pretty much all of the fittings of this nature were hollow. Most of them seem to have been cast, as well. I know that's the case for the eyebrows, animal head terminals, etc., and may be true for at least some of the crests, too.

However, at least two crests, the ones on Sutton Hoo and Valsgarde 6, were forged from iron. The former was also inlaid with silver wire, I believe.
View user's profile
Myles Mulkey





Joined: 31 Jul 2008

Posts: 250

PostPosted: Sat 02 Aug, 2008 8:34 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

C. Gadda wrote:
Without exception they are hollow, about 1mm wall thickness is usual from what I've read. Also, they usually (invariably?) reinforced the crest with a wood block shaped to fit the cavity. In fact, pretty much all of the fittings of this nature were hollow. Most of them seem to have been cast, as well. I know that's the case for the eyebrows, animal head terminals, etc., and may be true for at least some of the crests, too.

However, at least two crests, the ones on Sutton Hoo and Valsgarde 6, were forged from iron. The former was also inlaid with silver wire, I believe.


Awesome! I happen to have some brass that's about that thick and I think it will do nicely. It's definitely not going to be as ornate, but hopefully it'll work out alright. Thanks for your input.
View user's profile Send private message
James H.





Joined: 03 Aug 2008

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Sun 03 Aug, 2008 10:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote


Where by chance did you see these, I would love to have a pair.
View user's profile Send private message
Ville Vinje




Location: Uppsala
Joined: 20 Apr 2006

Posts: 142

PostPosted: Mon 04 Aug, 2008 1:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Check the very first page of this topic. =)
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Vendelperiod Clothing and armour
Page 5 of 15 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13, 14, 15  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum