Daniel Michaelsson wrote: |
Vikings versus Crusaders? Oh God . . . just no. No, seriously, don't. Really, really don't. Stop. Now.
|
Vikings vs Crusaders is not completely beyond the realm of reality. It is just a matter of expanding a bit on historical facts. Vikings were very well traveled. They traded with all and served as mercenaries to all. Vikings served Emperors of Constantinople and were known as the Varangian Guard. Crusaders sacked Constantinople in the 4th crusade. It is likely the Varangian Guard played some role in the defense of the city, so that puts Crusaders up against Vikings.
A large contingent of Crusaders were Normans, who were decedents of Vikings themselves and settled the north of France. The were given that land by Europeans so that they may defend that access point against other Vikings. The Byzantine sac of 1205 you might even have an element of Vikings vs Vikings (Normans vs Varangians).
Furthermore the Vikings traded with the Muslims. I have not heard of any particular case but it is also possible the Vikings might have been employed as mercenaries for the Muslims. That would put crusaders up against vikings. To make it even more confusing... there was one battle soon after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem (I forge the name), that had Crusaders fighting against Crusaders. Each side of those Crusaders had Muslim alias fighting on their side.
Michale Mann, you came to the right place. Keep following this thread and you will get a ton of ideas. You will also find out that much of history is also not clear.
Regarding Great Helms in the 11th century, I think there would have been some rare cases of flat tops. Not too many, but a few used in mounted charges. They would have been worn over a coif and removed after the initial clash for vissibility. Pieces of plate would have also been worn by a few. Particularly a coat of plates (leather with plated riveted on the inside). On a long campaign I suspect they would have gone as light as possible with just mail.