13th century helmet from museum

[cornelistromp]

Hi cesare,

this is a kettle helmet or "chapel de fer", very effective helmet for the foot soldier which could be produced against low costs!
There are kettle helmets known between 1200-1500. Dating however is very difficult.I presume 1250-1350

picture of a similar kettle helmet with flat top:
ca. 1329 - 'Vilardell fights a griffin', Portal de Sant Iu, Catedral, Barcelona, Spain.

regards

Ciao Cesare,

questo è un casco bollitore o "cappella de fer", il casco molto efficace per il soldato di fanteria che possono essere utilizzati a fronte di costi bassi!
Ci sono caschi bollitore note tra 1200-1500. Incontri è comunque molto difficult.I presumere 1250-1350

foto di un casco simile bollitore con la parte superiore piatta:
ca. 1329 - 'Vilardell combatte un grifone', in Portal de Sant Iu, Catedral, Barcelona, Spagna.

per quanto riguarda

[Matchlock]

Hi there,

Before calling this any kind of 'helmet' at all I plead for thinking both logically and analytically.

If this were a helmet:

- Where is the slit for the eyes?
- Where are the rivets (holes) for the wadding and the hauberk?
- Where are the breathing holes?
- The whole thing is of extremely thin iron - how could it possibly have stood a blow by a sword or mace?!

Remember, its height is 26.7 cm. Just imagine putting it on the head, with the wadding and hauberk beneath - how could anyone possibly see and breathe? The illustrative source Cornelis posted clearly shows a much lower type of helmet leaving the sight free.

In the following I attach a broad selection of helmets, from top to bottom, six of ca. 1250, five of ca. 1300 (from the Codex Manesse), two original Topfhelme (pot helmets) of ca. 1300, and Gothic helmets of ca. 1350 (Germanic National Museum Nuremberg), two of ca. 1410 and one of ca. 1440. Please closely compare these on the basis of my arguments.

I have come to the conclusion that whatever this item may have been, some kind of kitchen gadget? or anything, in no case it ever was a helmet. At best, the upper half might be the rest of a helmet.

Please post contradictory sources, though!

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

The rest.

[Cesare]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

(cut).

Ovviamente è quello che noi italiani chiamiamo un "cappello d'arme".
Gli anelli di fissaggio al camaglio lo provano senza dubbio,
Essi sono posizionati a soli 84 mm dal bordo inferiore, quindi, il bordo del cappello si doveva posizionare poco sopra le sopraccila, rendendo inutile le aperture per gli occhi.

Secondo gli esperti italiani è un particolare cappello usato dalla fanteria durante gli assedi. Infatti la sua forma non è propriamente adatta al combattimento, ma è adatta a deviare gli oggetti lanciati giù dalle mura della fortezza,

Cappelli di ferro di questa forma sono molto rari. Pare ne esistano solo 2 o 3 esemplari, oltre a quello del museo Fioroni

Carissimo Michael. Ti ringrazio per le stupende miniature. Sono sempre preziosi ed attendibili documenti.

Un caro saluto a tutti
Cesare

Obviously in Italy we call it "Cappello d'armi" In english "Kettle Hat" ad so....
Retaining rings to camaglio, prove it without a doubt,
They are located just 84 mm from the bottom edge, then the edge of the hat was placed just above the eyebrow, So, openings for the eyes are
unnecessary
According to Italian experts, it is a special hat used by the infantry during sieges. In fact its shape is not really suitable for combat, but is designed to deflect objects thrown down the walls of the fortress,

Hats of iron in this form are very rare. It seems there are only 2 or 3 pieces, in addition to the museum Fioroni


Dear Michael. Thank you for the wonderful miniatures. Are always valuable and reliable documents.

Greetings to all
Cesare

[Matchlock]

Thank you, Cesare,

Again: comparable images of similar objects and sources of illustration would help a lot!

As to your point concerning the shape of the brim deflecting objects from above: I am afraid the actual angle would just direct such objects on the shoulder of the poor guy. Please confer the wider angles of the items I posted.

And: where were the hauberk and wadding fixed? The single existing loop is absolutely insufficient.

Any definite replies to my points in question?!

How thick is the avarage iron?

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

If this were a helmet:

- Where is the slit for the eyes?
- Where are the rivets (holes) for the wadding and the hauberk?
- Where are the breathing holes?
- The whole thing is of extremely thin iron - how could it possibly have stood a blow by a sword or mace?!
- What is the average thickness of the iron?


Please post contradictory sources!

Hi Cesare,

May I expect definite replies on these queries?

Best,
m

[Matchlock]

Cesare?!

[Matchlock]

More 12th-13.th c. knightly helmets in original sources - all either low enough to leave the eyes uncovered, and with riveted hauberks, or with definite eye slits as well as breathing holes!

None of all helmets found in historical illustrations comes in the least close to yours, sorry.

I am still awaiting your precise answers to my queries though, as well as some counter evidence.

m

[fernando]

I know it has nothing to do.
... Just for the shape (slight) similarity

.

[Matchlock]

Right, 'Nando,

But the helmet in the illustration is so low that it only corresponds to the upper half of Cesare's piece and leave the eyes and the nose free.

Michl

[katana]

I have a few observations....
The dimensions and the shape of this helmet do not make sense, to me.
The average human head is around 26cms 'high', the eyes are approx. mid way ...so approx. 13cms below the crown (of the head).

If the lower rim is set level with eye level ...the top of the helmet would be around 13cms higher than the top of the head (nearly 5") ...that seems alot of padding. Plus the fact with a helmet set so high on the head it would be very 'unstable'....especially to a side-ways strike.

If the helmet is placed in a more 'stable' position, closer to the top of the head....the wearer is unable to see forwards....requiring eye-holes .

It is suggested that the helmet was used in siege situations to protect from thrown missiles from above....to deflect these better a dome shape would be more effective, and the 'flared' lower sections made wider....

or am I missing something

Regards David


.