13th century helmet from museum

Matchlock · 3rd November 2010, 09:15 PM

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 · 7th November 2010, 01:55 PM

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

.

Matchlock · 7th November 2010, 05:05 PM

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 · 7th November 2010, 05:53 PM

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

.

cornelistromp · 7th November 2010, 07:35 PM

I do not understand why there is so much criticism and suspicion on the sizes of this helmet, it corresponds to what one would expect from a kettle hat, and corresponds also nexactly to the dimensions of a 16thC cabaset (also just above the eye line.)
If you're looking for more convincing evidence, make a cardboard hat and try it yourself.

best regards

Matchlock · 7th November 2010, 09:35 PM

No eye slit.
No breathing holes.
No lining rivets.
No sufficing thickness of iron.

NO HELMET.

Cornelis, instead of creating new theories, could you please answer my queries step by step?

Best,
Michael

katana · 7th November 2010, 10:23 PM

If the thickness stated is indeed 4.5mm all over, it seems extremely heavy.
Most Helms from many periods range from 1.5mm-2.5mm average....when I say average I mean that several parts of a helmet may be thicker say 3mm and other parts (of the same helmet)1mm or so. The thicker plate used to protect more vital areas. A lot of the strength of the helmet comes from its rounded shape.....and seem to typically weigh around 3.5lbs-5.5lbs. I am curious to see what the posted helmet weighs. Afterall a very heavy helmet would be more of an hinderance than an advantage.

Cesare, could you please post the weight?

Regards David

cornelistromp · 8th November 2010, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

If the thickness stated is indeed 4.5mm all over, it seems extremely heavy.
Most Helms from many periods range from 1.5mm-2.5mm average....when I say average I mean that several parts of a helmet may be thicker say 3mm and other parts (of the same helmet)1mm or so. The thicker plate used to protect more vital areas. A lot of the strength of the helmet comes from its rounded shape.....and seem to typically weigh around 3.5lbs-5.5lbs. I am curious to see what the posted helmet weighs. Afterall a very heavy helmet would be more of an hinderance than an advantage.

Cesare, could you please post the weight?

Regards David

Hi David,

the thickness of 4.5MM is mentioned for the fixing rings of the camaglio and not for the plates!
(that is of course not possible)

best,

cornelistromp · 8th November 2010, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matchlock

No eye slit.
CORNELIS:Not needed because the hat stops above the eyeline.

No breathing holes.
CORENELIS:for what purpose? it is only 265mm high (Same hight as an Schuetzenhaube), you can breath freely.

No lining rivets.
CORNELIS:as is the case with a lot of early medieval helmets, the padding was on the head of the wearer!

No sufficing thickness of iron.
CORNELIS:I need the thickness and differences in thickness for saying something meaningful.
the total weight will also help.
cesare can-maybe post something about this.

NO HELMET. CORNELIS:you're right it is not a helmet, but a 13 th century hat if I may judge

Cornelis, instead of creating new theories, could you please answer my queries step by step?

CORNELIS: of course

Best,
Michael

Hi Michael,

it is not a new theory, but the sizes seem to me more than acceptable for a kettle hat. Definitely not too large so that the eyes are closed, you can not compare this course with a great helmet because a much larger diameter in its center.
If I find some time I will try to make a paper dummy based on the specified dimensions.

Best regards

3rd November 2010, 09:15 PM	#1
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	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 Attached Images

7th November 2010, 01:55 PM	#2
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	I know it has nothing to do. ... Just for the shape (slight) similarity . Attached Images

7th November 2010, 05:53 PM	#4
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	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 . Attached Images Last edited by katana; 8th November 2010 at 04:05 PM.

7th November 2010, 05:05 PM	#3
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	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

7th November 2010, 07:35 PM	#5
cornelistromp Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,060	I do not understand why there is so much criticism and suspicion on the sizes of this helmet, it corresponds to what one would expect from a kettle hat, and corresponds also nexactly to the dimensions of a 16thC cabaset (also just above the eye line.) If you're looking for more convincing evidence, make a cardboard hat and try it yourself. best regards

7th November 2010, 09:35 PM	#6
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	No eye slit. No breathing holes. No lining rivets. No sufficing thickness of iron. NO HELMET. Cornelis, instead of creating new theories, could you please answer my queries step by step? Best, Michael

7th November 2010, 10:23 PM	#7
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	If the thickness stated is indeed 4.5mm all over, it seems extremely heavy. Most Helms from many periods range from 1.5mm-2.5mm average....when I say average I mean that several parts of a helmet may be thicker say 3mm and other parts (of the same helmet)1mm or so. The thicker plate used to protect more vital areas. A lot of the strength of the helmet comes from its rounded shape.....and seem to typically weigh around 3.5lbs-5.5lbs. I am curious to see what the posted helmet weighs. Afterall a very heavy helmet would be more of an hinderance than an advantage. Cesare, could you please post the weight? Regards David