[Jeff A. Arbogast]

[Bill Tsafa]

[Gavin Kisebach]

Dan, as much as I respect you opinion and admire your knowledge there is something disconcerting about someone quoting themself, and then declaring a discussion to be unworthy. Even topics that seem to be beaten half to death (Samurai vs Knight, anyone?) can turn up interesting new angles and bits of trivia once in a while. Ok very rarely, but it is theoretically possible

[Steven H]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Chris Gilman]

Perhaps this has been posted and I missed it. But it seems to me that the reality of a helmet being cleaved is so far from being possible in the way it is depiction, that it is nothing more than an artist/ story teller’s way of visually showing the guy was killed. Perhaps the same way we might say "He knocked his lights out” or “Beat the crap out of him” as a way to describe someone getting hit hard.
The other possibility is perhaps a way of showing superior "technology" By showing how the helmet "failed", not the sword.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

The Mac Bible is not valid evidence of swords splitting helmets. Only the heroes of the illustrations , empowered by God, accomplish this feat. The number of helms split by biblical bad guys is zero, while dozens are destroyed by our heroes. Other illustrations show mail armoured figures cut in half, which is a flat out impossibility, given that cutting an *unarmoured* mounted man in half would be a super-feat.

Less suspect, but still open to questioning are the illustrations of the Manesse Codex. But here again, it's the heroes who are shown splitting helmets. They're not employing the sword arm of God in this case, but we're still being shown just how much prowess they possess.

Were helmets ever split by swords? Sure, I'm sure there were (freak) cases where that happened. But I doubt it's a tactic anyone would rely on.

As for flat helms being superceded by more rounded variants...this needn't be explained by them being cleaved, but rather by the increased blunt trauma you'd experience within the helm. That energy has to go somewhere if it isn't deflected away. I'd argue that a flat helm would be harder to cleave, given the overlap of metal at the crown, because in order to penetrate, you have to cut through three layers: the two right angled pieces of the crown of the helmet and the layer of side panels that it is riveted to.

All the best,

Christian

[Jeff A. Arbogast]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Won't rebut the whole thing but " mild steel " is steel and to be steel it has to have carbon in it otherwise it's iron.

Mild steel doesn't have enough carbon to be hardened by heat treating so it will be softer than a well made sword.

I'm not sure a Danish axe could reliably cut a helm but it wouldn't matter as the weight and concussive power would kill anyway.

Anyway, keep an open mind about it as I don't think we are dealing with facts as much as opposing theories and either some real tests would have to be done or more reliable period testimony be found to support the theory of swords cutting into helms or other plate armour in period.

As to the art the theory that they shouldn't be taken literally has some weight to it, as the art is showing extraordinary prowess in doing what was possibly rare or almost impossible i.e. almost " superpowers " of heroic figures: In modern terms think of movies like the Matrix series and some future historian thousands of years from now drawing conclusions from the actions in the movies.

[Bruno Giordan]

Mild steel iron etc .. as for helms what matters is work hardening. Armor was made hard by hammering it over a stake, it is a calculated compression that causes what prof Veroheven in his book calls residual stress, a phenomenon that imparts a strong resilience to metal.

I remain of my opinion that it is unlikely (until tests would prove otherwise..) that non quenched swords made mainly of perlite (due to non-scientific carburization process) could split so deeply and easily a work hardened helm made of at least 2 mm thick iron.

I think that at more they could make some serious dents, the most damage deriving by the shocking of the wearer because of the impact, especially the neck region.

[Steven H]

Hello Jeff,

The relevant facts that we have at our disposal include:
* Period instruction on fighting a man in armour. These manuals, written by professionals, clearly tell us that penetrating plate armour, even with a poleax, does not work. A great amount of detail is given on how to attack the parts the not protected by plate.
* Testing of mail by the Royal Armour at Leeds concluded that, " . . .it is almost impossible to penetrate using any conventional medieval weapon." As described in "Medieval Military Surgery", Medieval History Magazine, Vol 1 is 4, December 2003, and we can expect plate to be at least as strong as mail.
* Contemporary written accounts of battles often speak of how armour protects warriors from any harm. There are descriptions of individual people being struck down despite their armour but accounts of entire battles usually feature armour being highly protective. Note that I'm referring specifically to historical accounts and not sagas, chansons, etc.

The conclusion drawn from these various sources is that the armour was very good at preventing penetration. A person may be incapacitated or even bludgeoned to death in their armour; armour, of course, failed sometimes; but the armour was seldom split by blades.

While you have ventured your opinion to the contrary you have not provided any specific evidence to support this idea besides the art. Multiple reasons for why the artwork would be exaggerated have been put forth and all of them sound reasonable to me. Without other supporting evidence I see no reason to expect swords to split helmets.

[Elling Polden]

Danish axes, or Broad-axes as they are called in scandinavia, where not made to penetrate armour, but rather to cut lightly or un-armoured men to pieces; the broad blade gives a longer cutting edge compared to the earlier wedge type axes, using the same amount of metal; Many broadaxe blades are only a few millimeters thick.
Tests have also shown that daneaxes did not penetrate mail, while they slice unprotected flesh like butter.

The prime anti-armour weapon of the middle ages, so often ignored in modern debate, was never the less the common spear. A spear thrust, especially with a narrow spearhead, will penetrate mail and padding that would turn even poleaxe blows.
Thus, the prefered way to kill an armoured man would be to spear him in the face or neck, not hit him over the head with a sword.

As the 14th century progresses, this trend is illustrated by the adoption of helmets that cover the sides of the head and steadily increasing neck defences, culuminating in great bascinets with a solid plate that covers the entire neck.

Also bear in mind that armoured combat is not resolved by single blows, but series of blows and moves that let you finish the foe of. In such a series even a blow that does no damage might allow subsequent and eventually fatal followups.

[James R.Fox]

Sirs-I would point out that the men wearing barrel helms and sugar loaf helms oftem wore a one-piece metal cap under it as well as the coif. Maybe they knew something? They were the ones risking their lives on the battle field after all.

[Jared Smith]

[Doug Lester]

I've been wondering about this subject for a while. Reviewing the books that I have on the battles of Towton and Wisby I'm impressed with the reports on the remains where healed bone injuries caused by sharp edged weapons are reported, such as the skull and head reproduction of the man on the cover of "Blood Red Roses". We have no idea when or how these wounds were inflicted but couldn't these give some support to the idea that partial penitration of armour was at least occasionally achieved?

[Nathan Johnson]

Great helms made from many plates seem to have most of there angels directly over the face.
mabye the development this shape has something to do with eastern horse archers riding up close and firing right in the face as well as lance hits in the same area,
If thats one of the reasons for this style it would make more sense than a helm with a flat surface over the face and a round top.
The great helm can be worn over a skullcap, attached to a chain and then cast of when battle conditions change.

I know very little of this era so I'm probably way off.

[Jeff A. Arbogast]

Ah well, this will be my last post on this subject-
Despite all claims to the contrary, and some pretty rude comments by certain individuals, I haven't been pursuaded that the Maciejowski Bible was nothing more than a Medieval Marvel comic book. I fail to see why those who wrote it would even THINK that way. I believe that there IS some truth in it, and the depictions shown have some level of truth, although how much is open to debate. I have no doubt that a top-notch sword would be capable of cutting open a helm like those shown, and mail as well, and a Danish ax would make mincemeat out of anything that approached within range, mail-clad or not. It was good enough for Richard Lionheart.
Modern tests do not tell the whole story either, whatever some believe. My example of an Albion being tested was poo-poo'd, while other modern tests that perhaps made someone else's case were held up as gospel. One cannot discuss a subject politely and rationally with that sort of mindset, along with the unpleasantness of the tone to boot. A friend of mine who has been on these boards in the past told me that I was wasting my time here, and I must regretfully agree that he was correct. It's just no fun.

[Randall Moffett]

I have a hard time seeing a sword cut or slice through a helmet. I suppose if the helmet is less than .8mm/1mm and is of very poor quality material I can see it as more possible though. An average sword on an average helmet the force gets distributed to make it much more difficult. That said the idea that piercing steel with these weapons is a different can of worms completely. As to Steven H's comment... First off these were written not for battle but one on one fights. You have much less to worry about (numerically I assume would exponentially increase attacks made etc.) and I think the targets can be selected with more care one on one. I am sure it was always easier but to say a halberd or the like cannot puncture armour I do not feel is accurate. Not an easy way to go true. Fiori seems to have felt it possible as in verso 35 of poleaxe in armour he states of the Posta Breve la Serpentina it can pass through coraze and panceroni, or cuirass and breastplate. We have tried on low carbon fairly simple globoses on punching bags and got deep penetration, that said the punching bag did not ever attack back, but as it being possible I have no reason to doubt it could happen. So going back to cutting through armour with a sword. I bet for the most part not that easy but piercing perhaps more so.

My 2 cents, or pence if you like.

RPM

[Elling Polden]

Barrel helms give quite poor visibility; thus, it makes sense to use a open faced helmet for melee or ground combat.
It might also be more comfortable to wear the barrelhelm this way, since the cervilet/skullcap fits the head better.

In short, an exceptionally strong blow might cack a helmet, but I would not bet my life on it in combat.

[Josh Warren]

Jeff, you and your friend the welder seem very stuck on the point about the sword being higher-quality steel than the helmet. I don't think a super-hard steel sword would perform much better at helmet-cleaving than a softer sword would. A harder sword will hold its edge longer, but isn't necessarily going to be so much sharper than a mild steel sword that it can cleave helms like butter. The steel sword isn't so much harder than the iron helm that it will make cutting through said helm an easy task.