The Armour Archive

Neat little article on a metal detector find in Moravia.

Honestly, it's probably the best written and most comprehensive article on armor I've seen in a long while.

Good photos too!

http://www.academia.edu/2909994/A_Uniqu ... in_Moravia

nice read , thanks

Very nice.

I've been thinking about making a 5 piece greathelm for a while.

-Badger-

Very, very cool.

That one they show looks sort of like the MAc Bible helm.

RPM

Awsome, I love the interior pics of the rivets. On page 104 in the upper right figure the great helm in that immage appears to be made of lots of plates (more than I have seen on any other construction). Is this right?

RandallMoffett wrote:That one they show looks sort of like the MAc Bible helm.

It's much more akin to the early Manesse Codex imagery, the Madeln I and Dargen helms, all of which are dated to the earliest decades of the 14th century.

-Gerhard

I don't like the assumption that the owner used it for target practice to explain the number of punctures from battle damage. The author says this even after confirming another helmet was worn under it. I think it is very plausible that the damage was the result of numerous strikes that were not lethal during the same battle. Otherwise, it is a very well written and thorough article.

Aelric

Sadly we will never know, but I appreciate that they didn't look for the stunning awesome effect of saying that the helm was surely damaged in a combat. Archeology, and history should stick to facts, and not to assumptions to raise more interest around it.

Greg,

Not the helm the just found but one in the paper.

RPM

Oh, they show a lot of them... Which one in particular?

-Gerhard

As I look at that helm, I find myself immediately thinking, "Prank, without the wrapper."

The crossbow bolt holes are to deliberate and systematic to be battle damage, one was even shot through the inside of the helm and came out the top.
I suspect testing of outdated/no longer needed armor was fairly common.
The thickness measurements also show how much weight has been lost due to corrosion. Many of these helms probably had weight similar to a SCA helm when they were new.

While that may be Buster there is nothing that proves that damage was done in testing or battle so either way people are guessing. While your theory of testing on outdated armour may be do you have evidence to show it was a common practice?

All I can find indicates this castle did not make it through the medieval period. Any who can read Moravian(?) might be able to find more out about the castle. I'd be unlikely it was that outdated by the 14th to take out and destroy for fun if the castle was indeed on the outs as a fortification by that point. As well being in a fill pit could just as likely mean it was damaged in battle as horseplay or practice...

I agree they likely were heavier but not sure we can be sure of thickness loss unless they did very highly detailed measurements like those of the 17th century breastplates the RA did years ago.

RPM

And this is a largely unschooled person's opinion, but if you wear your great helm over a better fitting, possibly better hardened interior helm, do you even care if you take a bolt to the edges of your barrel? Or do you just laugh maniacally at the archers (Assuming you are close enough) or giggle under your breath and keep on keeping on?

I had the exact same reaction myself. Eff.

-Badger-

Effingham wrote:As I look at that helm, I find myself immediately thinking, "Prank, without the wrapper."

RandallMoffett wrote:While that may be Buster there is nothing that proves that damage was done in testing or battle so either way people are guessing. While your theory of testing on outdated armour may be do you have evidence to show it was a common practice?

All I can find indicates this castle did not make it through the medieval period. Any who can read Moravian(?) might be able to find more out about the castle. I'd be unlikely it was that outdated by the 14th to take out and destroy for fun if the castle was indeed on the outs as a fortification by that point. As well being in a fill pit could just as likely mean it was damaged in battle as horseplay or practice...

I agree they likely were heavier but not sure we can be sure of thickness loss unless they did very highly detailed measurements like those of the 17th century breastplates the RA did years ago.

RPM

It's not really a theory, just a guess.
The crossbow bolt hole that's been punched through the top from the inside can be safely ruled out as battle damage, and proves that at some point, someone shot it at least once while it wasn't being worn.

RandallMoffett wrote:While your theory of testing on outdated armour may be do you have evidence to show it was a common practice?

RPM

It's just speculation but from direct experience from the AA, testing scrapped armour is one of the most funny thing you can do with unsuitable pieces of junk. So, as stated several times on the AA that men didn't change in this shor timespan, we can guess that what is fun today was fun back then.

"The crossbow bolt hole that's been punched through the top from the inside can be safely ruled out as battle damage, and proves that at some point, someone shot it at least once while it wasn't being worn."

Buster,

Not so. If a man falls on the ground or is knocked out of a saddle if his feet face the enemy or is climbing up a ladder to a castle it is possible to be shot from down up like that. A mounted man especially has more of a chance of being shot from someone lower than him as all/most archers would likely be on the ground.

In the end the idea they were destroying this with the bottom opening toward the shooter is rather odd. You'd much more likely sit it down and do it.

My point is it is just as likely either way and any making firm statements on what we have here are out on a limb. I think we can say they are perhaps made by bolt heads as a pole axe would have had more damage along the axis of impact but not much mroe than that.

Sig,

True enough.

RPM

Randall, a guy on a battlement can also be shot from below.

Buster wrote:

RandallMoffett wrote:While that may be Buster there is nothing that proves that damage was done in testing or battle so either way people are guessing. While your theory of testing on outdated armour may be do you have evidence to show it was a common practice?

All I can find indicates this castle did not make it through the medieval period. Any who can read Moravian(?) might be able to find more out about the castle. I'd be unlikely it was that outdated by the 14th to take out and destroy for fun if the castle was indeed on the outs as a fortification by that point. As well being in a fill pit could just as likely mean it was damaged in battle as horseplay or practice...

I agree they likely were heavier but not sure we can be sure of thickness loss unless they did very highly detailed measurements like those of the 17th century breastplates the RA did years ago.

RPM

It's not really a theory, just a guess.
The crossbow bolt hole that's been punched through the top from the inside can be safely ruled out as battle damage, and proves that at some point, someone shot it at least once while it wasn't being worn.

It may be strong evidence that at the time that hole was made there was not a head inside - depending on things like angle of penetration, if it can be determined. It does not at all rule out battlefield damage, as it's entirely possible that after coming off someone's head it was hit by an errant bolt.

As for making assumptions about them doing destructive testing on old armour - that we might think to do that sort of thing today does not mean that they would have considered it then. That sort of presumption really needs to be built on affirmative evidence that they did the thing, and not on the idea that you or I would naturally do it today.

I would not call it "destructive testing" but "Hey let's have fun with this crossbow and/or warhammer on this old junk, or "I bet a beer that I can hit this helm at 100 paces, at least 10 times in a row".

Correct me if I wrong, but were these helmets not tossed off to dangle out of the way after closing? Is it not possible it took an arrow while on its chain?

Possible, not provable, so imponderable.

Bah, didn't realize I was reviving this thread.

RandallMoffett wrote: In the end the idea they were destroying this with the bottom opening toward the shooter is rather odd. You'd much more likely sit it down and do it.

I might shoot the inside and I was doing destructive testing of the material the helm was made of. The interior is concave, and I don't have to worry quite as much about glances.

Resurrection

Now that we've gotten past the holes in the helmet, let's consider the similarities between this helmet from Dalecin Castle and the Madeln I. I think it's the same shop.

If not same shop then close enough to represent transfer of knowledge and style. Could be master and appretice or master and apprentices apprentice or it could just be the current local fashion. If I found 2 tunics with the same cut and style I wouldn't assume same seamstress/tailor.

Form does follow function. Anvils today look a lot like anvils 200 years ago. There are small variations but also small variations in breaths excetera that they aren't direct copies.

Sean

Buster wrote:The crossbow bolt hole that's been punched through the top from the inside can be safely ruled out as battle damage, and proves that at some point, someone shot it at least once while it wasn't being worn.

There was a bascinet find that had been punctured by three bolts,including one from the inside. They speculated that the previous owner had been on the battlements and shot from the ground. I think the article was published by the Met, but it has been a while since I've read it, it might be in Held's A&A Annual.

I feel sure that this is the helmet to which Alcy is referring. This is a page from the Higgins armory catalog.



Mac

Mac wrote:I feel sure that this is the helmet to which Alcy is referring. This is a page from the Higgins armory catalog.



Mac

And that one just sold in the latest dispersal of the Higgins stuff. It was labeled as a fake. I expect Ian Eaves didn't label it that way lightly, it cost the sellers a good deal of money to have to sell a famous piece as a fake.

So I would ignore any "evidence" provided by this piece.

Wade

wcallen wrote:
And that one just sold in the latest dispersal of the Higgins stuff. It was labeled as a fake. I expect Ian Eaves didn't label it that way lightly, it cost the sellers a good deal of money to have to sell a famous piece as a fake.

So I would ignore any "evidence" provided by this piece.

Wade

Thank you, Wade! I should have followed up on that.

If Ian Eaves thinks it's fake, it almost certainly is. I suppose it's too late to say that I always thought the shape of the helmet was a bit to "literal" and its fit a bit too close.

It does tell us something important about faking, though. The "romance" of this piece had carried it without question for a century. It's the little details that make us want to believe. Beware of things that are "too cool"!

Mac

I'd like to know why he decided that. It is not unheard of for things to be cast aside as fake and later found to be wrong.

RPM

RandallMoffett wrote:I'd like to know why he decided that. It is not unheard of for things to be cast aside as fake and later found to be wrong.

RPM

I would like to know that too, Randal. I had the honor to be in the same Met-back-room with Ian some years ago. Toby C, Dirk B and I were looking at some things which were off display and under a haze of doubt. Ian was at the next table looking at some Greenwich stuff, but we periodically asked his opinion on the material we were examining. He has an astonishing ability to just "sense" a fake. Mostly, he can point to the problems and describe them, but other times is is just beyond words for him. Although that is a bit frustrating, I have a great respect for his intuition. If I had to trust someone's judgement on the question of authenticity, I would rather is was Ian Eaves' than almost anyone elses'.

Mac

RandallMoffett wrote:I'd like to know why he decided that. It is not unheard of for things to be cast aside as fake and later found to be wrong.

RPM

Not unheard of, no. But I expect if you did a study of "fakes pawned off as real" vs. "real called fakes and later determine to be real" the first would greatly outweigh the second. There just isn't a lot of money or prestige in the second. There is a lot in the first.

There is the obvious counter example of the Glasgow Kastenbrust. But that isn't this piece.

I didn't actually ask him about this one piece. I got the lucky chance to get Ian as my "man on the phone" at that sale, so I was able to ask followup questions about some of the items I was bidding on right then and there. The most illuminating was the pair of "1460 and later cuisses." He was pretty sure that a lot of the metal was 15th c. He just wasn't willing to to claim that any of the pieces you see looked like you see them now in the 15th c. I was expecting "well, the left cuisse is real, and maybe the right knee, the rest is made up" but he wouldn't go that far. He said that he had seen some of the pieces in Bashford Dean's collection that hadn't finished "restoration" when he died and it was amazing the things they would do. Anyway, he has enough experience with this stuff that I will let him have this one.

Wade

Mac wrote:
If Ian Eaves thinks it's fake, it almost certainly is. I suppose it's too late to say that I always thought the shape of the helmet was a bit to "literal" and its fit a bit too close.

Mac

Actually, when I mentioned to Tom that it was up for sale and fake, he said he never did like the lines of it. I personally hadn't given it a lot of thought either way. Not pretty enough for me to really think about a lot.

Wade