The Armour Archive

I'm toying with the idea of trying out some SCA combat.

What is the general SCA take on non authentic helms? Or more specifically combing two very different helms into one?

The Archive will tell you don't do that, of course. Regardless of what the SCA might say or not say.

Still, helmets with blends of contemporary features are hardly unknown. Visored barbutes were rare, but existed. Infantry helmets of a description exactly splitting the difference between an Italian sallet and a barbute were more common than that (sort of a barbuta-faced celata, you might say) Frogmouth barbutes, OTOH...

How different is very different? How about you tell us what features you want to assemble together? It may have occurred in history, even.

You still looking at a sallet?

For one, it depends a great deal upon what two helms you choose to combine. A pig face visor on a greathelm ? Probably gonna get some funny looks. A Corinthian and a bascinet ? Could be a nice barbute

Not to mention that to be "SCA legal" any number of period hats have to have features added to them that were lacking in the historic versions.

Spangens, for example, don't typically provide the degree of coverage mandated for SCA fighting. So to make an SCA legal spangen, you might add a skirt for the back of the head like on a great helm, and a bar grill such as found on occasional bascinets.

It also depends on why you're doing it.

What would be the point to mix two styles? And which styles are you thinking about?

Besides all this, I'm questioning myself why I'm even replying in this thread, as I've been trying to help you in the sallet thread and am still waiting for feedback..

My question in the sallet thread was purely out of curiousity.


The two styles I was thinking about was a t-face barbute on a persian conical helm. These two are kinda what I was thinking.

Halbrust wrote:I'm toying with the idea of trying out some SCA combat.

What is the general SCA take on non authentic helms? Or more specifically combing two very different helms into one?

Wear what you want as long as its safe. Its not living history or re-enactment.

Persian conical skull with a barbuta's T face, hmm. Oh, wait...

I get it! You reinvented the spun top! Now with ovalization! I just couldn't resist. But a lot of the spunnies did look rather like the builder was getting tired of building open-and-grilled faced helmets after three or four of those, and thought, Hey, solid cheek coverage and don't need so much round stock for bars. About AS IX, I remember a barbute T-faced-cut Freon can in southern Atenveldt. it was painted bright red.

Now as far as getting hit on your fighters' newb-knob with hard rattan sticks goes, either skull, conical or full barbute with center crease, will feel very much the same.

One reason the SCA favors bascinets so much is that when scratchbuilt bascinets first hit the field back around Anno Societatis One Dozen, they discovered the helmet presented highly effective glancing surfaces with its backsloping conical shape -- remarkable in a field dominated by angular barrelhelms with their catchy-corners and by the rounded Boba Fetts and hemispherical spun tops, where a blow anywhere at any angle really met about the same sort of wallop. The bascinet demanded more precision, else the shot tended to skip off lightly. Made quite the impression at the time.

A Persian conical and to some degree a barbuta also, well, tend to take hits about the way a Boba Fett hat would, as relatively few SCA sword shots come straight down at you from above.

The GDFB barbute has something very odd to its centerline -- seems to have a fin, not a crease, and its T-face design would need some bars inserted to narrow and shorten its openings; they seem rather too wide to meet SCA specs. A barbute is a fifteenth-century hat especially, maybe into the sixteenth. Most commonly infantry headgear, if that's any consideration -- one famous Italian harness notwithstanding. I'm not sure the barbuta it's usually shown with is actually associated with a complete 15th-c. plate harness.

So aside from your liking the look of both hats, I don't see any remarkable set of advantages accruing by this hybridization. And there may be genuine old Oriental editions of a more comprehensively plated, deeper helmet with face coverage, and the conical skull, all in Persian style. If you enjoy both of them so, the Archive consensus would likely shake out to be to take the spendy ($ or hours) road, and get or make one of each.

JvR wrote:
Wear what you want as long as its safe. Its not living history or re-enactment.

Ya, cause rules is fo like pussies an shit!:roll:


(god forbid we actually practice the honor and chivalry that we preach)

Konstantin the Red wrote:Persian conical skull with a barbuta's T face, hmm. Oh, wait...

I get it! You reinvented the spun top! Now with ovalization! I just couldn't resist. But a lot of the spunnies did look rather like that if the builder was getting tired of building an open-and-grilled faced helmet after three or four of those, and thought, Hey, solid cheek coverage and don't need so much round stock for bars. About AS IX, I remember a barbute T-faced-cut Freon can in southern Atenveldt. it was painted bright red.

Now as far as getting hit on your fighters' newb-knob with hard rattan sticks goes, either skull, conical or full barbute with center crease, will feel very much the same.

One reason the SCA favors bascinets so much is that when scratchbuilt bascinets first hit the field back around Anno Societatis One Dozen, they discovered the helmet presented highly effective glancing surfaces with its backsloping conical shape -- remarkable in a field dominated by angular barrelhelms with their catchy-corners and by the rounded Boba Fetts and hemispherical spun tops, where a blow anywhere at any angle really met about the same sort of wallop. The bascinet demanded more precision, else the shot tended to skip off lightly. Made quite the impression at the time.

A Persian conical and to some degree a barbuta also, well, tend to take hits about the way a Boba Fett hat would, as relatively few SCA sword shots come straight down at you from above.

The GDFB barbute has something very odd to its centerline -- seems to have a fin, not a crease, and its T-face design would have some bars inserted to narrow and shorten its openings; they seem rather too wide to meet SCA specs. A barbute is a fifteenth-century hat especially, maybe into the sixteenth. Most commonly infantry headgear, if that's any consideration -- one famous Italian harness notwithstanding. I'm not sure the barbuta it's usually shown with is actually associated with a complete 15th-c. plate harness.

So aside from your liking the look of both hats, I don't see any remarkable set of advantages accruing by this hybridization. And there may be genuine old Oriental editions of a more comprehensively plated, deeper helmet with face coverage, and the conical skull, all in Persian style. If you enjoy both of them so, the Archive consensus would likely shake out to be to take the spendy ($ or hours) road, and get or make one of each.

Because I refuse to admit I'm stupid I'll assume that is full of armoring jargon and scadianisms. I'll make sure to read it again in a few days after a long nap.

Check out this helm:

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... p?t=109000

InsaneIrish wrote:

JvR wrote:
Wear what you want as long as its safe. Its not living history or re-enactment.

Ya, cause rules is fo like pussies an shit!:roll:


(god forbid we actually practice the honor and chivalry that we preach)

sigh.

For a moment, consider that you are absolutely correct - but not right.

For you have chosen to violate the rules yourself in the manner of your response.

Not exactly the way to win hearts and minds, Irish. Quite the opposite.

Halbrust wrote:My question in the sallet thread was purely out of curiousity.


The two styles I was thinking about was a t-face barbute on a persian conical helm. These two are kinda what I was thinking.

It would not look much worse or different than quite a number of other adaptations of helms that historically were only caps without sides or faces.

Dante linked to a thread showing off a very, very beautiful helm that is entirely an SCA hybridized construct, but does a great job of showing historic inspiration and influence while being very ahistoric.

JvR wrote:

Halbrust wrote:I'm toying with the idea of trying out some SCA combat.

What is the general SCA take on non authentic helms? Or more specifically combing two very different helms into one?

Wear what you want as long as its safe. Its not living history or re-enactment.

No, SCA is not living history, nor is it reenactment. It is, however, supposed to be about medieval history. Right there in the rules.

Which makes it improper to tell people to just "wear what they want" with a total disregard for historical accuracy.

SCA fighting gear makes loads of compromises for safety and is not, typically, highly accurate. That's not a license to just ignore the history and pay no attention to whether or not something at least resembles historical precedents.

There was a fair heap of jargon in there, you're right. If you want to PM about it, fine with me!

Kilkenny wrote:sigh.

For a moment, consider that you are absolutely correct - but not right.

For you have chosen to violate the rules yourself in the manner of your response.

Not exactly the way to win hearts and minds, Irish. Quite the opposite.

My Ire was focused at JvR, who should know better. Halbrust is new and does not know better.

.....Personaly I would start with a few pictures of the helm front like you have and a profile or side view and sketch what modifcations need to be made to meet SCA requirments..
Bring back the images and perhaps we can help.

I suspect your looking for something with the decorative persian style on a barbute shape but a few crude sketches would clarify this.


There are a few odd armour blends from period japanes and european armour http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... armour.jpg http://mblog.excite.co.jp/img/?f=200506 ... nobunagain
http://pentagon.mediadogs.net/images/10/NanbanDo.jpg
notice the morion and peascot chest plate.
or some of the greek/roman revival work but blazeing a new style or representing an odd piece usualy leads to discussions like those above.
If you have documentation it goes a lot smoother...


I would sugest finding a basic kit to get on the field then upgrade toward your ideal.

I sketch about as well as I armor (and have never armored), but I will try and sketch up my mixing of the styles over the next few weeks. Maybe you all will be able to see past the horrible artistic ability and see what it is I mean.

The linked to helmet is a beauty. And a much prettier example of my general thoughts. I love the look of simplistic things and I'm sure that is one of the main reasons I like the T-faced barbute.

I don't know if you know I think a barbute (barbuta, same critter) is really a pretty good hat, so allow me to say so explicitly. They work, they don't generally need much if anything in the way of SCA mods such as bars inserted -- maybe just two short ones top and bottom of the vertical part of the T face if the sights pass the Armour Standards. There is a rule about the maximum length the long dimension of a slot/sight/breath can be. So with that type of hat, attend to maximum width and maximum length of all openings. The T faces varied from lean and narrow to really quite broad. Use these widths however you want. An open sort of face layout breathes really well, and you want that. Don't ignore the required chinstrap.

Searching the site on barbute/barbuta should be constructive.

They seem to have their origin in the early Italian Renaissance -- the thing is a fifteenth-century take on a Greek Corinthian-inspired idea, as Classical capital-A Ancient things had become fashionable. The Greeks never came up with a fore-and-aft crease/crest/ridge to give a helmet a better glancing surface, but fifteenth-century Italians seem to have thought a helmet wasn't properly a helmet without it, hence this Middle Ages feature.

One good way to make a sketch look sharp is to draw it really really big -- fill that page! Another, and this one is tougher, is to confine yourself to drawing a single line -- don't make a bunch of scratchy, sketchy lines fumbling around along the actual shape you wish to convey. Just try your goldurndest to put it all in a single line from point A to point B. Don't be afraid either of the eraser, or of starting over, referring to the good parts of the first try you just quit on, while getting the part you messed up right this time. If you can sign your name, you can draw a picture. The rest of it is just details and coaching on technique (there is some). Using a .5mm mechanical pencil means you don't have to worry about your point going blunt and making your lines fat.

Well I played with several different designs and finally decided on the features I liked. I used Paint, because as I said, I can't draw.

So here's a sketch of the helmet I'd like.

That's going to be a lot of time, money and/or effort on something you may regret later.

WHY do you want to integrate features from wildly dissimilar helms?

A mantra often repeated here - "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD..."

Maybe he is thinking about a Gondorian helmet...

The fallacy here is that if A is historical and B is historical, then A and B together are historical. Helmets generally had very specific shapes according to region and time period. I certainly understand when we add features to a helm to attempt to make them SCA-legal, but the change proposed by the original poster is completely aesthetic.

The problem with the Persian helm is that it requires heavy modification to be SCA-legal, requiring big pieces to be added on, anyway. A bunch of grill bars aren't any less distracting than a barbute-face on a conical helm, but the barbute-face does have one problem - you lose the Persianness of the helm altogether. It would just look like a pointy barbute, as if it were made by an armorer who only had a vague idea of how to make that style of helmet.

Custom helms and prototype patterns are generally more expensive than off-the-shelf products or patterns that are fully developed. If you're an expert armorer, go ahead and make it. If not, prepare to pay out the nose for someone skilled enough to turn a simple drawing into reality.

InsaneIrish wrote:

Kilkenny wrote:sigh.

For a moment, consider that you are absolutely correct - but not right.

For you have chosen to violate the rules yourself in the manner of your response.

Not exactly the way to win hearts and minds, Irish. Quite the opposite.

My Ire was focused at JvR, who should know better. Halbrust is new and does not know better.

and ?

It wasn't your focus that made me comment.

If you really don't recognize the problem I can put you over in that box and not bother anymore...

Sasha_Khan wrote:That's going to be a lot of time, money and/or effort on something you may regret later.

WHY do you want to integrate features from wildly dissimilar helms?

A mantra often repeated here - "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD..."

Sasha - what's your view on onion top bascinets ?

I've never looked for an example of an onion top barbute. I can't say one way or another if they ever tried it. I can say it doesn't strike me as being anymore outre than an onion top bascinet - and they're real

Somewhere I think I have seen a faceted (think fluted) barbute like helmet, 15th century time frame. It had very eastern european influences. Maybe Master Magnus will chime in on this one. Or some of the czec armourers.

Halbrust,

Are you gonna make this yourself?
What you designed in the drawing is pretty simple, in a drawing. I would say to make in metal and no experience is gonna be very difficult and frustrating.
Then when you consider for SCA you really dont want anything less than 14 ga.

As far as combining helmets, its your helm do what you want. For sca fighting as long as its safe. To me its no different then fighting in white sneakers.

I suggest that you compromise with your self. If its the Persian style top you like and the tight face of the barbute then maybe go for the Persian with a tight face opening, or even a nasal that drops down covering part of the face.
Also maybe do some more research around Eastern helms. I think if your looking for acceptance combining two helms from the same region with similar styles is better off.

Donngal

AriAnson wrote:The fallacy here is that if A is historical and B is historical, then A and B together are historical.

This.

There's a concept in logic called the principle of noncontradiction.
It states basically that something can not both be a thing and not be a thing.
So replace "something" with "helmet" and "thing" with "historical".
A helmet can not both be historical and not historical.

If it's not historical, there will be people in the SCA who will notice, even if you started with two different helms. But OTOH every single helm on the SCA field of combat has historical anomalies to it. If you really want to get down to it, you would need to bloom your own iron for it to be a true repro.

Everyone draws the line somewhere. Most here on AA draw the line farther on the historical side of the spectrum than the great unwashed masses of the SCA do. There is a rule about approximating pre 1600 gear, but there's no rule against mix-and-match, and the guys who insist on being Kurgan from Highlander are never corrected.

If it is mostly historical but has never been done before or is not widely known through the usual books (doubtful) then you should know everything you can know about it and the people who ask about it on the field will get some free education, and will be grateful.

But I'm going to echo Donngal as well... start hitting some metal with some hammers and then scale back your expectations. Lots of folks here have been doing this for decades and have never attempted an onion top.

Halbrust wrote:So here's a sketch of the helmet I'd like.

That's nifty. If you've got the cash and a dream then go for it. I can't afford the one I really want to do some day (I figure it'll be like $2000) but when I can get an aventail for mine then I'll still be pretty happy.

-Ivan

Halbrust wrote:So here's a sketch of the helmet I'd like.

Yep, you are contemplating a spun-top. This is a helmet in two halves, upper and lower: a circular-section top half which may be gotten in a pointed, rounded-conical bullet shape as well as a hemispherical configuration. Metal Spinning is a forming technique, and has been used to make helmet tops. Barring the spiral fluting you'd like -- and you may need to wait for fluting until you've got that kind of money, while a simpler smooth configuration may be doable right now -- they look exactly like your drawing, right down to being fat side to side, compared with the human head inside them. This is why I mentioned ovalization in the post you found baffling -- squashing the form of the thing into something more conforming with the oval shape of the human head.

The lower half of these helmets is a skirt of sheet metal going around as far as required. With your design, there will be bars inserted to make your helmet openings narrow enough to be legal. Which SCA Kingdom is yours, again? -- the Kingdom site will have its Weapons and Armour Standards page for the aid of local Marshallates, and this page will have your Kingdom's specs on the max dimensions of the holes in your helmet. Your design tells me need to get familiar with these. Barest minimum, you are going to have a crossbar joining the two corners just at the cross of your T face, and another crossbar at the very bottom of the T. More probably, you will also have a bar horizontally across the eyes and a vertical bar dividing the vertical stroke of your T: these bars would form a T themselves. Slanty diagonal bars also work if you don't mind looking a bit like a bridge warning sign, those black and yellow things with the diagonal striping. The "sight" or eyeslit part of the T should be quite long, as you will desire peripheral vision; it is likely your present design is a little short in the sights, so don't be afraid to stretch it some left to right. This helps compensate for one SCA helmet problem: its tendency to muffle your hearing. (which is curable, but let's save it for later)

Now we turn to what's needed to make one: a shop. You need to get access to one, and it has to have the tools to work metal. Most American saw-and-hammer guys are working in wood. Metalwork in the home is rarer, much rarer than hobby auto mechanicking. An anvil won't be all that necessary to armorsmithing, but several hammers, a means of cutting metal by saber saw or bench shear, a means of making holes like a R-W #5 Jr. metal punch or an electric drill and bits. A stout workbench will make all your tasks easier, is made of wood and nails, and may be the FIRST project you undertake. It need not be large -- 36"x36" will do. If you expect to be moving around for the forseeable future -- as a young man, I wasn't any too geographically stable myself; got all the way around the world in segments, been in or through every time zone there is one way or another -- make it demountable for convenient moving, with detachable yet stout legs.

A lot of SCAdians make a little armor from time to time in their garages. Pal around with these guys and pick their brains. What experience with working metal do you presently have?

Kilkenny wrote:
Sasha - what's your view on onion top bascinets ?

I like them, but I also see where they fit in to context. Living in Caid (Luther Anshelm's backyard, I get to see a few of 'em. Almost makes me want to go European... almost...).

Mostly, I really hate to see a new guy get all fired up and make a possible mistake in going for a blatantly, wrongly anachronistic conglomeration of wildly disparate styles that really don't match well.

Piling a lot of (possible) time/money/effort into something like this project and then 'outgrowing' it, with many regrets is something I would like to help others avoid, if possible. I've done it myself, as a new guy.

I don't want to rain on Halbrust's parade, or quash his enthusiasm - but I also would hate for him to possibly waste his money.

Sasha's considerations point to why many new fighters just go for an entry level helm that some pro maker sells. Entry level fixed-grill bascinets go for between 100 and 150 dollars. Money spent, job done, fighting skills begin, money begins to be saved for the fancy hat, fun is had by all -- no frustrating sitting on the sidelines.

And the new chum learns from the inside out what works and what's just not necessary.

Konstantin the Red wrote:Sasha's considerations point to why many new fighters just go for an entry level helm that some pro maker sells. Entry level fixed-grill bascinets go for between 100 and 150 dollars. Money spent, job done, fighting skills begin, money begins to be saved for the fancy hat, fun is had by all -- no frustrating sitting on the sidelines.

And the new chum learns from the inside out what works and what's just not necessary.

This assumes your motivation is the fighting and not so much the historical and/or aesthetic interests. New fighters come in many flavors and pushing them into inexpensive sport helms can drive away those who are primarily attracted to the non-sport aspects of the SCA.

Richard de Scolay wrote:This assumes your motivation is the fighting and not so much the historical and/or aesthetic interests. New fighters come in many flavors and pushing them into inexpensive sport helms can drive away those who are primarily attracted to the non-sport aspects of the SCA.

First of all, I am all for appearance standards. I am also for getting new fighters on the field in their own gear. Covering armour can go a long way to hiding non-medieval sins.

That said, I would think that anyone who's sole interest is the historic component of it, then the SCA would not be a great fit as there are many more historically accurate groups out there. To the same point, anyone who is attracted to only the sport aspects, will likely not be a great fit either, as there are other, less dorky ways of getting to fight.

SCA combat is more likely a fit for people who enjoy the martial competition along with the history. What is most important is really up to them.

The SCA is shades of gray. Very seldom is it black and white.

Sasha_Khan wrote:

Kilkenny wrote:
Sasha - what's your view on onion top bascinets ?

I like them, but I also see where they fit in to context. Living in Caid (Luther Anshelm's backyard, I get to see a few of 'em. Almost makes me want to go European... almost...).

Mostly, I really hate to see a new guy get all fired up and make a possible mistake in going for a blatantly, wrongly anachronistic conglomeration of wildly disparate styles that really don't match well.

Piling a lot of (possible) time/money/effort into something like this project and then 'outgrowing' it, with many regrets is something I would like to help others avoid, if possible. I've done it myself, as a new guy.

I don't want to rain on Halbrust's parade, or quash his enthusiasm - but I also would hate for him to possibly waste his money.

But I don't see you encouraging him to research whether the helm concept he likes is an historically valid one. I just see you pushing him away from it without actually supporting your position that it is not valid.

He could be working toward a really cool helm that would be a fine representation of a style we aren't familiar with yet and that he might be the guy to provide us with the documentation to support it

For all I know, what Halbrust has done in his posts here is repeating a conversation some Italian knight had with his armourer 600 years ago. I like the barbuta, but I saw these helms the Saracens wore while I was in Jerusalem and I would really like a helm that combines these features. It certainly could have happened - of course we can't prove it didn't - and I can't prove it did. But - someone motivated to look for it might find something we've not yet seen...

Richard de Scolay wrote:

Konstantin the Red wrote:Sasha's considerations point to why many new fighters just go for an entry level helm that some pro maker sells. Entry level fixed-grill bascinets go for between 100 and 150 dollars. Money spent, job done, fighting skills begin, money begins to be saved for the fancy hat, fun is had by all -- no frustrating sitting on the sidelines.

And the new chum learns from the inside out what works and what's just not necessary.

This assumes your motivation is the fighting and not so much the historical and/or aesthetic interests. New fighters come in many flavors and pushing them into inexpensive sport helms can drive away those who are primarily attracted to the non-sport aspects of the SCA.

I think it's a mischaracterization to class those entry level fixed grill bascinets as sport helms. Munitions grade, sure. But most historical stuff was munitions grade The bascinet may not be appropriate for the fighter's ultimate target appearance - at the same time, it is the classic helm design for one of the most popular eras of armour.

Pushing someone toward a spuntop with barrel sides and a crappy bargrill - not very productive. Urging them to go for the inexpensive bascinet instead (available at pretty much the same price, often, and undeniably a better helm in every sense) - I can't really see arguing against that.