I think AG was asking about visored great helms a while ago, and I said that I had a pic of one somewhere but my books were on loan.
Well... my books are back and it was the first page I randomly flicked to.
Unfortunately my computer is so stressed for memory that I am having trouble with the scanner working at decent resolutions.
The text died but the pic is visible.
[img]http://www.thenethoster.com/uploads/akharnam@ihug.com.au/greatvisor.JPG[/img]
Notice how the lowest rivet in the faceplate's cross is actually the catch?
Kind of nifty.
According to the text this was a helm that saw some use by the Germanic Crusaders. It was designed to overcome heat prostration without leaving the wearer undefended.
Very German....
The hinge seems to have a cutaway shelf that allows the visor to "lock" open if the visor is raised and slid slightly sideways.
Sliding it back would allow it to drop shut and the little hook could then go through the hole in the rivet which poked through from the "chinplate" beneath.
Hopefully this is THE picture which conclusively demonstrates that these existed.
I can remember seeing a different pic of the same style of helm amongst my books....somewhere.
Sasha
Riverforge.
[This message has been edited by Sasha (edited 12-05-2000).]
Visored greathelm
-
Tom Justus
- Archive Member
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Burlington, North Carolina
Sasha,
I must take exception to your maligning museum curators in this instance (Though I would be more than happy to engage in such behavior on a whole host of other issues). The curators and conservators that I have met in the United States and England would be most eager to display an authentic greathelm in any state of preservation as a trophy. A genuine helm in whatever state of ugliness or decrepitude would be considered a prize because of their rarity and age. This is why the fourteenth century harness at the Met continues to be displayed, despite its large amount of altered and/or fake components, after they removed all the other suspect or replica armours from their galleries in the last renovation.
The Helmet photo that you scanned from _Eyewitness Books Arms and Armor_ by Michael Byam has a caption which declares it to be a 19th century reproduction. I agree with this assessment. This is not to say that crusaders never wore such things, as the surviving sampling is much to small for definitive declarations, however it is important for our fellows to know that this particular example is a 19th century fantasy rather then the genuine article.
Ido hope that you are enjoying your late spring, the weather has turned decidedly inhospitable here in North Carolina.
Best Wishes, Tom Justus
I must take exception to your maligning museum curators in this instance (Though I would be more than happy to engage in such behavior on a whole host of other issues). The curators and conservators that I have met in the United States and England would be most eager to display an authentic greathelm in any state of preservation as a trophy. A genuine helm in whatever state of ugliness or decrepitude would be considered a prize because of their rarity and age. This is why the fourteenth century harness at the Met continues to be displayed, despite its large amount of altered and/or fake components, after they removed all the other suspect or replica armours from their galleries in the last renovation.
The Helmet photo that you scanned from _Eyewitness Books Arms and Armor_ by Michael Byam has a caption which declares it to be a 19th century reproduction. I agree with this assessment. This is not to say that crusaders never wore such things, as the surviving sampling is much to small for definitive declarations, however it is important for our fellows to know that this particular example is a 19th century fantasy rather then the genuine article.
Ido hope that you are enjoying your late spring, the weather has turned decidedly inhospitable here in North Carolina.
Best Wishes, Tom Justus
-
Mad Matt
- Archive Member
- Posts: 7697
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
- Contact:
Actually it was POD who was asking.
------------------
The budding mid 14th century German Transitional guy.
Mad Matt's Armory
------------------
The budding mid 14th century German Transitional guy.
Mad Matt's Armory
-
Olaf Skalle Krossar
- Archive Member
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Freihafen, Ansteorra
- Contact:
Hello all,
I haven't been to the Archive much lately -we've been busy and I don't see any need to duplicate others' (most notably, but not limited to Gundo's) efforts to help the newer armorers in the quest for excellence.
However, I spotted this post and was intriqued enough to take a look. The High Middle Ages is not what I would call my area of historical expertise - my early studies were aimed at Armor from the Dark Ages and Ancient time, and more recently my interest has been the middle to late 15th century. So take what I say with that in mind.
Looking through some of my books, I came across a few visored Great helms.
On page 112 of Ashdown's 'European Arms & Armour', there is a reference to the seal of Patrick Dunbar, 10th Earl of March, which shows his Great helm with a side-pivot visor. There is also another one shown but the text states only that it is one of the earliest examples, not what the source is. Apparently such helms did exist, but to what extent I wouldn't want to guess.
On another note, to clarify the actual caption text of the reference Sasha used above:
"FLAT-TOPPED HELM
A 19th-century reproduction
of a German heaume or helm,
the type of helmet worn by
the Crusaders and other
European knights from the
early 1200s. Its reinforcing
strips are cross shaped."
This is slightly different than either of the other interpretations of the text that were posted. As such, it doesn't prove one way or the other that such helms did or did not exist, but since the caption states that it is a reproduction of a helm from the "early 1200s", that would certainly imply that it was based on some semblance of fact. As such, I wouldn't call the helm that is pictured above any more of a '19th century fantasy' than I would call the "19th century reproduction" of the Pembridge helm on the facing page (page 29 of the same book) a 'fantasy'. While clearly not an exact reproduction, is close enough to be considered an accurate representation of a great helm - not a fantasy.
Best regards,
------------------
Olaf Skalle Krossar
Chieftain
The Armory of Westlig Stjerne
www.armourworks.com
thefolks@armourworks.com
[This message has been edited by Olaf Skalle Krossar (edited 12-05-2000).]
I haven't been to the Archive much lately -we've been busy and I don't see any need to duplicate others' (most notably, but not limited to Gundo's) efforts to help the newer armorers in the quest for excellence.
However, I spotted this post and was intriqued enough to take a look. The High Middle Ages is not what I would call my area of historical expertise - my early studies were aimed at Armor from the Dark Ages and Ancient time, and more recently my interest has been the middle to late 15th century. So take what I say with that in mind.
Looking through some of my books, I came across a few visored Great helms.
On page 112 of Ashdown's 'European Arms & Armour', there is a reference to the seal of Patrick Dunbar, 10th Earl of March, which shows his Great helm with a side-pivot visor. There is also another one shown but the text states only that it is one of the earliest examples, not what the source is. Apparently such helms did exist, but to what extent I wouldn't want to guess.
On another note, to clarify the actual caption text of the reference Sasha used above:
"FLAT-TOPPED HELM
A 19th-century reproduction
of a German heaume or helm,
the type of helmet worn by
the Crusaders and other
European knights from the
early 1200s. Its reinforcing
strips are cross shaped."
This is slightly different than either of the other interpretations of the text that were posted. As such, it doesn't prove one way or the other that such helms did or did not exist, but since the caption states that it is a reproduction of a helm from the "early 1200s", that would certainly imply that it was based on some semblance of fact. As such, I wouldn't call the helm that is pictured above any more of a '19th century fantasy' than I would call the "19th century reproduction" of the Pembridge helm on the facing page (page 29 of the same book) a 'fantasy'. While clearly not an exact reproduction, is close enough to be considered an accurate representation of a great helm - not a fantasy.
Best regards,
------------------
Olaf Skalle Krossar
Chieftain
The Armory of Westlig Stjerne
www.armourworks.com
thefolks@armourworks.com
[This message has been edited by Olaf Skalle Krossar (edited 12-05-2000).]
-
Tom Justus
- Archive Member
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Burlington, North Carolina
Fellows,
Good Olaf has taken exception to my use of the word "fantasy" in describing the 19th century Helm being discussed here. The word reproduction means many things to many people. My Webster's Dictionary lists among others "a copy, likeness, a reconstruction" which I believe to be applicable to armor.. Under a loose application of this definition, any cylindrical Iron construct with sights and breaths could be termed a replica Helm. Under a more strict interpretation, one could reasonably require similarities in shape, number of plates and construction, size and placement of sights breaths etc.
To my knowledge, no helm similar (except in the broadest interpretation of the word) exists. The existent helms are somewhat rare and well documented. By applying the more strict definition of the term replica used by most modern armor scholars the Helm in question just does not measure up. If it is in fact not a replica by modern scholarly standards, then it must be something else. I would suggest that it is a fantasy of what might have been. It is important for all those wishing to make a historically accurate replica to understand this particular helm and it's deficiencies with regard to modern standards. Iconography of the period must be accepted with some suspicion due to the relative simplicity of the artistic renderings. Early scholarship in the field is full of wild inaccuracies not now accepted as fact.
.
This is not to say that other examples of armor in the Arms and Armor book are also to be held with suspicion. As Olaf points out, the Pembridge helm on the facing page, having similar shape and construction details to the existing original helm might reasonably considered a replica. It does not however validate the visored helm on the preceding page. This is not to say that there were no visored helms, but to call the visored helm pictured on page 28 into question as a faithful reproduction of a helm that once existed. As you all know printing it in a book doesn't necessarily make it so.
I am always open to new well founded ideas. Study continues to progresses the body of knowledge in the field. In conclusion I would say that it is for the individual to determine the standards they wish to apply to both their scholarship and their work.
Respectfully Yours, Tom Justus
Good Olaf has taken exception to my use of the word "fantasy" in describing the 19th century Helm being discussed here. The word reproduction means many things to many people. My Webster's Dictionary lists among others "a copy, likeness, a reconstruction" which I believe to be applicable to armor.. Under a loose application of this definition, any cylindrical Iron construct with sights and breaths could be termed a replica Helm. Under a more strict interpretation, one could reasonably require similarities in shape, number of plates and construction, size and placement of sights breaths etc.
To my knowledge, no helm similar (except in the broadest interpretation of the word) exists. The existent helms are somewhat rare and well documented. By applying the more strict definition of the term replica used by most modern armor scholars the Helm in question just does not measure up. If it is in fact not a replica by modern scholarly standards, then it must be something else. I would suggest that it is a fantasy of what might have been. It is important for all those wishing to make a historically accurate replica to understand this particular helm and it's deficiencies with regard to modern standards. Iconography of the period must be accepted with some suspicion due to the relative simplicity of the artistic renderings. Early scholarship in the field is full of wild inaccuracies not now accepted as fact.
.
This is not to say that other examples of armor in the Arms and Armor book are also to be held with suspicion. As Olaf points out, the Pembridge helm on the facing page, having similar shape and construction details to the existing original helm might reasonably considered a replica. It does not however validate the visored helm on the preceding page. This is not to say that there were no visored helms, but to call the visored helm pictured on page 28 into question as a faithful reproduction of a helm that once existed. As you all know printing it in a book doesn't necessarily make it so.
I am always open to new well founded ideas. Study continues to progresses the body of knowledge in the field. In conclusion I would say that it is for the individual to determine the standards they wish to apply to both their scholarship and their work.
Respectfully Yours, Tom Justus
-
mailledfist
- New Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2000 2:01 am