Matthew Amt wrote:
Oh! I hadn't thought of those--there's a pair shown in Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight, if I recall correctly. Something like this?
I've also seen other examples of those, but it bothers me that they are SO similar, and generally very well preserved. Could they be some kind of WWI or WWII helmet, misdated? (I know there is another type of "spangenhelm" which turned out to be an ME-262 pilot's helmet!) If they're all stray finds and not from datable contexts... But even if they are from the 5th century, they actually predate the Valsgarde, Baldenheim, and Coppergate styles. Plus they may have had cheekpieces originally, if those were attached to the lining, as on a Baldenheim helmet.
Yes, those are the ones. They don't look like they might be a WWI or II helmets to my eye, unlike the ME-262 helmet with it's all too perfect plate edges and rivet washers. As you say, they do all look very much alike, I have pictures of two others that are more crude but with the same exact rivet patterns. With your picture that would mean that there are at least 5 of these helmets running around out there. The ones pictured in A&AMK are much more corroded then the others, and they have more/better shape to them as well. I agree these could be fakes or miss-attributed, or they could be later too. As Spangen construction lasted until at least the 14th century.
Drogo Bryce wrote:There is a reason they call them the "dark ages"... only real explanation I can see. How long after the fall of Rome, was it until the coat of plates showed up, the closest thing to a Lorica Segmentata?
Dark Ages refers to the little knowledge we have about the period. Most scholars call it Late Antiquity or the Migration Period. There was plenty of art culture and literature from that period we just didn't know where it was for a long time.
There has been a big shift in our understanding of that period in the last 20-30 years or so.
But as has been discussed in this thread, I think a lot of technological and manufacturing skills, as well as general scientific and engineering skills were lost.
To use an anology with the modern world, it is as if the general contractors still had plenty, if not more work, but were left to their own devices, all the architects had disappeared.
As I said, our understanding of that period has changed a great deal in the last couple of decades. That loss of knowledge and skill so many people go on about did not actually happen. It remained in the world and was made use of in many places, Paris for instance. Constantinople for another. A more accurate analogy of Late Antiquity is if the architects had moved to the major cities, taking their knowledge with them and the general contractors in small towns became subsistence farmers.
I suggest reading The World of Late Antiquity by Peter Brown to get a feel for the current scholarly understanding of that period. The Making of Late Antiquity is another good primer.
Martel le Hardi
black for the darkness of the path
red for a fiery passion
white for the blinding illumination
--------------------------------------
Ursus, verily thou rocketh.
Doesn't the guy on the bottom right look like he's wearing a nasal helm with cheek guards. http://www.heorot.dk/franks-weland.jpg Also I remember in the Gododdin poem helmets are described as being in four parts with red plumes and armoured cheek guards.
Here are the mentions of helmets in the gododdin poem:
William F. Skane translation 1869
xi
"Redder were their swords than their plumes.
Their blades were white as lime, their helmets split into four parts,"
Lxxii
"His cheeks are covered with armour all around,"
There are other translations that don't mention these things.
I find it strange that Oakeshott thought these were "ear-flaps" like the Morken helmet. http://blog.metmuseum.org/penandparchme ... 50ar1_49a/ The men on the ground don't have any guards on their helms. I think the artist might be just portraying long blond hair. Later he describes a soldier in The Gospel of Otto lll as wearing a helmet with a coif of linen. I wonder why he didn't think the same of these.
audax wrote:
I suggest reading The World of Late Antiquity by Peter Brown to get a feel for the current scholarly understanding of that period. The Making of Late Antiquity is another good primer.
I'll look for those. Thanks for the tip.
AKA: Lord Drogo Bryce of Middlefordshire
Gules, a calygreyhound head caboshed, or.
Effingham-Sensei said "The suck is strong in this one."
I know that one of the Lewis Chess piece knights has cheek guards, and it is from the 12th century. I realize that the set is likely representing the earlier warriors, and their armour reflects this.
Pic of the knight I mentioned (lower left in the top pic). http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... essmen.jpg
Squire to Sir Grimbaldus Bacon Nihtgenga Fusleoð: Ærest æt acwallen, ærest æt gecringan!
I suspect that there are a number of reasons conspiring toward the end of cheek plates. It seems that cheek plates wane in popularity about the time that the Frankish central authorities come to prominence. Charlemagne particularly had capitularies dictating the particular armaments required of his soldiers. It may be the case that cheek plates were deemed unnecessary in terms of defense and expense and were left off by armourers making helms for a more general population of mounted soldiers. As the Frankish influence grew and replaced the 'native' populations of barbarian groups that favored cheek plates, it may be that the evolution of armour followed suit simply because there were more Frankish-taught armourers than barbarian ones. Ultimately, the kingdoms that developed in the wake of the Carolingian era took their fashion sense from their forebears. This is just a hypothesis and perhaps a poorly substantiated one, but a possibility I think. This might prove an excellent topic for a research paper
One point I did not see addressed was this: what makes us think that cheek pieces and neck guards necessarily went away? What if they existed but we simply have not had the good fortune to find an example yet? Keep in mind that, prior to the Coppergate excavations, one might have assumed that the Anglo Saxons did not wear helmets in that period, or if they did, that they were perhaps of perishable leather. But now, in a relatively short span of time, we have at least two and probably three examples (including Staffordshire find) of what appears to be a uniquely Anglo Saxon helmet design.
The problem is that iron rusts, cloth and wood rot, etc. What we have now represents much much MUCH less than 1% of everything that was ever made. For example, scores of thousands of helmets, body armours, and so forth were made for the Roman Empire, and yet only a few dozen examples at most survive to present day. It is perilous in the extreme to make sweeping assumptions based on the tiny fraction of a percent that has come down to us.
Worse, in this particular situation, we lack more artefacts than might be the case from earlier times due to the adoption of Christian burial practices, which dispensed with the extensive grave goods found in earlier pagan burials. In later periods this lack was balanced by excellent artwork, which often depicted contemporary details quite well. Art from the late Viking period and earlier, though, is often quite crude and/or highly stylized. It certainly isn't anywhere near the quality of a Durer or Van Eyck work, and often raises more questions than it answers.
Note that there actually IS at least one depiction of a conical helm with cheekplates from c. 900-950 AD on the Middleton Cross monument. It is crude, but it fairly clearly shows a warrior and his panoply, to include the helmet. I suspect that someday we may yet find an example of this helmet. But not today, alas.
Pictures. Look at the pictures. I'm not saying to treat them as photographs, but I do think we can get a decent general idea of what was worn in a particular time and place from the illustrations of those times. The Bayeux Tapestry is simply one source out of many, but it agrees with other Anglo-Norman artwork from around the 11th century in showing helmets that generally lack cheekpieces. That's why we can conclude that they "went away". Sure, there are exceptions. Sure, you might find cheekpieces in Russia or Outer Mongolia, but I don't think those areas were what the original question was about. (Even so, if those areas didn't adopt the full mail coif...)
Archeological remains from the period under discussion are unreasonably scanty, so pictoral sources are essential. And always have been! Not to mention literary sources.
Well there may be something about what Charles is saying. The Lewis Chessman include a few of them with men that have helmets with cheek and neck guards. They appear but not very often and mostly in the same places.
But then we look at the bulk of art and they are lacking. My thoughts on it tend to be they were not seen as useful as mail. To be fair mail had been used contemporarily with cheek pieces for centuries as an alternative, apparently seen as being just as good as. They may even have been seen as being better as they could cover much more of the head without hindering movement and perhaps hearing and breathing as much.
It could also be regional preference for some reason.
It occurs to me that if the Carolingians see the need to arm many more people in a big hurry, that they might skip the cheek plates so that they can produce more helms with the same amount of steel.
Could be. There is similar situations in other periods when they use metal armour more for the key/vital areas and leave the rest protected with other things or not at all.
Baron Alcyoneus wrote:It occurs to me that if the Carolingians see the need to arm many more people in a big hurry, that they might skip the cheek plates so that they can produce more helms with the same amount of steel.
Gonna have to shake my finger at you and say you're speculating wildly! Wasn't most military equipment made and owned on a small scale, at a personal level? Nobles and professional warriors would buy gear from local craftsmen and merchants. And since they were following the long-established custom of keeping themselves equipped at required levels, none of them would need anything in a hurry. In fact, it seems safe to *speculate* that many nobles had stocks of spare helmets and other gear, for emergencies, for gifts, or for regular issue to levied troops--we know things like that were done, right? These military systems and practices had been in use for generations or centuries, so events that necessitated huge amounts of new gear being made "in a big hurry" would have been darn rare! We would probably have some record of anything like that. Heck, if I were in charge and had to equip thousands of new troops in a few days, I'd make shields and spears! That's what most guys used anyway.
In any case, why blame some theoretical Carolingian calamity on how William the Conqueror's helmet was made 200 years later? Pretty sure he had whatever armor he wanted long before he started planning his little hop across the Channel.
Cheekpieces went out of style because an alternative was found which the users found to be good enough for them.
RandallMoffett wrote:Maybe they had some type of cloth armour?
You're just poking a stick at that hornets' nest for fun, right? (You KNOW it was magic reindeer hide, ha!)
Did cheekplates go away? Well, yes. I wasn't really trying to suggest otherwise. The why seems to be covered fairly well in this thread, which was the main thrust of the question that started it - but the "when", which was also touched upon, is murkier, and that is what I am most interested in.
I should point out that one can find cheekplates in 12th Cen. Norway, if the evidence of the Lewis Chessmen is to be believed. When you state, "Sure, you might find cheekpieces in Russia or Outer Mongolia...", are you trying to suggest that Scandinavia is not part of Europe? Surely that will be amazing news to the denizens of that region!
As for art, all the Bayeux Tapestry and other Anglo-Norman art proves is that Normans dispensed with cheekplates by about 1066 AD. The Normans do not represent all of Europe, however (provided one acknowledges that Scandinavia is, indeed, part and parcel with Europe). And you say "many" - that is a flexible term. How many is that, exactly? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Or merely a couple dozen? By the by, this is a serious question on my part. Any surviving period art is useful, of course, but I suspect the surviving examples, at least from the 11th Cen. are hardly comprehensive, which is the problem I already suggested in my previous post (though I was really thinking more 10th cen. and earlier). We really don't get as much help from art as we'd like, in terms of quality or quantity, until roughly the 12th cen. and later, where bibles, psalters, books of hours, sculptures, effigies, etc. become much more common and better detailed.
Out of curiousity has anyone attempted to catalogue relevant art from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, in the manner of the Effigy database that has been compiled? While the early art often lacks the detail of later examples, it is an important starting point. It would also give a better sense as to the quantity of such evidence. Perhaps it is more vast then I realize, though simply saying "many" is just a bit vague.
All I'm trying to say is that the evidence is really not that vast. It's there, and leans heavily towards "they went away" but it is hardly the same quantity or quality as post c. 1100 let alone post c. 1300. Maybe an example will help: we know a lot about Viking Age swords simply because there are so many extant examples (certainly hundreds and even low thousands?) along with occasional artwork depictions as well. This allows us to state a great deal about the swords of the period. The same evidence is simply not there for helmets or armour, with really only Gjermundbu and a few other isolated fragments for evidence. Why? Good question. The lack of evidence, though, makes it harder to say much about armour. A parallel question is why we have all sorts of pictorial evidence of proto-great helms (the ones that are basically a helmet with an attached faceplate) and yet not a single physical example has ever turned up. Hence why I ask about cheekplates, given the known gaps in our evidence from c. 800 to c. 1200 AD. Can one understand why a thinking person might at least ask the question (though asking on a different forum where rudeness and snarkiness is less of the norm than here might perhaps been in order...)?
Not sure what you are getting at here? "I should point out that one can find cheek plates in 12th Cen. Norway, if the evidence of the Lewis Chessmen is to be believed. When you state, "Sure, you might find cheek pieces in Russia or Outer Mongolia...", are you trying to suggest that Scandinavia is not part of Europe? Surely that will be amazing news to the denizens of that region!"
I was never saying it was not part of Europe only that it would be a huge mistake to assume that all Europe had similar technologies and developments. The fact that we have so few physical remains of cheek pieces when we have a number of helmets does not help that they show up in art so infrequently as well.
But returning to your Scandinavia question I have no idea where you are going with that. Never said it was not in Europe.
RPM
Russia is also part of Europe.... though not much of the Mongol Empire was.
Last edited by RandallMoffett on Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Periphery, and behind in development compared to the rest of Western Europe during the era, as we know. Denmark/Norway/Sweden spent most of their energies squabbling over who would control which piece of turf throughout most of the High and Late Middle Ages, and lacked the resources and economic power of the great states of Western Europe. I think a not terrible comparison (using broad strokes of the brush, and simplifying) to the Medieval Scandinavian countries in this era would be comparing them to Appalachia post-Civil war. Before, say the 13th century, there was little to choose between Northern European countries other than climate and language. The advances in Europe from the 13th century onwards - the building of towns and a money economy, had less of an impact in the far North than it did in the HRE, France, or England. Yep, they had towns, they didn't have as many, they remained largely rural, industry remained small, which gave less resources to their rulers, etc. They played catch-up right into the late 16th century, their dress was more conservative, older technology lingered, etc.
Sorry, Charles, I really wasn't trying to be snarky! Frankly I have as many questions as you do and agree with most of what you say. I only tossed off "Russia and Outer Mongolia" casually (and a little flippantly!) since my impression of the start of the discussion was that 11th century Normans were the visual image that had sparked the question. I guess I was thinking how often folks will toss in tidbits from very distant times or places that aren't really relevant, and was trying to keep a focus. Shoulda been clearer!
For the same reason I didn't consider the Lewis chessmen, since they are later than 11th century so they didn't seem to be relevant to the Conquest era. BUT now that you mention them, I'm wondering if they might show that cheekpieces and neckguards never really went away in Scandinavia! So they could be very significant, indeed, especially if it seems that (for instance) mail coifs were not common in that area. Hmmm....
As far as Norman artwork goes, geez, ya got me there. I was just under the impression that there was artwork such as church carvings and reliefs, book illustrations, reliquaries, etc., but my research has never been all that deep and most of it was too long ago... And I may be remembering artwork from Spain and other places. But I think we agree that the Bayeux Tapestry hogs the press! I've also seen any number of "Anglo-Saxon" illustrations over the years, but generally poorly identified so I have no idea what any of it dated to. I agree, some sort of *organized* compendium or database of artwork would be incredibly useful! I also agree about the woeful lack of archeology--frustrating as heck. So, yes, we have gaps in the evidence right in this period where there seem to be significant changes. And not only can we not say exactly why these changes are happening, we can't even really prove that they ARE happening! They just seem to be, according to the best evidence we have.
C. Gadda wrote:Did cheekplates go away? Well, yes. I wasn't really trying to suggest otherwise. The why seems to be covered fairly well in this thread, which was the main thrust of the question that started it - but the "when", which was also touched upon, is murkier, and that is what I am most interested in.
Yes, very good reasons (possibly all of them being a part of the actual downfall of cheekplates) have been put forth. When is also a very, very interesting question. The answer to this question would doubtless shed some light (tho not comprehensively) on the "why".
Perhaps cheekplates lived on so long in the cold north because freezing fog is less of a problem for them
Fashion....quite possibly the biggest reason. Who knows? Maybe it was an attempt by the Normans to visually separate themselves from who they were a couple generations earlier? By adding maille rather than cheekplates they didn't look so much like Northmen anymore. Maybe that was the drive behind the "fashion" aspect.
As far as snarky goes, we're a snarky lot of geeks. We typically mean no disrespect by it, (typically, I say), we're just a bunch of people who enjoy snark and sarcasm.
That said, things can get....hot in some debates. you just filter and don't take it too personally. At some point you will, but as good Rosetta Stone for what really hostile AA snark looks like, read threads about combat archery in the SCA.
I'm thrilled to see my ayncient thread has been resurrected good, good stuff.
Thanks!
Christopher
War kittens?!!!
"Born to lose. Live to win."
Historical Interpreter- Jamestown Settlement Museum
Master's Candidate, East Carolina University
Graduate of The College of William & Mary in Virginia
Eltz-Kempenich wrote: As the Frankish influence grew and replaced the 'native' populations of barbarian groups that favored cheek plates, it may be that the evolution of armour followed suit simply because there were more Frankish-taught armourers than barbarian ones. Ultimately, the kingdoms that developed in the wake of the Carolingian era took their fashion sense from their forebears. This is just a hypothesis and perhaps a poorly substantiated one, but a possibility I think. This might prove an excellent topic for a research paper
I don't think this is the case. The Frankish never got north of River Eidern in northen Germany (the Danes stoped them). The finds of helmets with spectacles, neck and cheek pieces are all made in todays Sweden/Norway (Valsgarde, Vendel, Gjermundbu) far out of the reach of Frankish influence.
Ing-Ulf Gustafson
Norse craftsman, blacksmith, and Viking
Sturaesman of Ulfhrafnar
RenJunkie wrote: Maybe it was an attempt by the Normans to visually separate themselves from who they were a couple generations earlier? By adding maille rather than cheekplates they didn't look so much like Northmen anymore.
I think it has more to do with a change in fighting style. In partucular spectacles, and to some extent cheek plates limits your vision to the sides, not so useful for mobile warfare on horseback (not formation warfare on horseback as in the later middle ages).
From personal experience, having used all three types of helmets (spectacle, cheek/neck plate, Norman spangen) I can say they
all have their pros and cons depending on fighting style.
When lign fighting, the spectacle and cheek plates are great, but they are hopeless on an open field unless you are in one-to-one combat. The Norman spangen gives mobility and good vision.
Maybe the fighting style changed from the Vendel/Valsgarde period to the Norman conquest - in fact we know it did - the battle at Hastings was between a new and an old way of warfare.
Ing-Ulf Gustafson
Norse craftsman, blacksmith, and Viking
Sturaesman of Ulfhrafnar
They don't look like they might be a WWI or II helmets to my eye, unlike the ME-262 helmet with it's all too perfect plate edges and rivet washers. As you say, they do all look very much alike, I have pictures of two others that are more crude but with the same exact rivet patterns. With your picture that would mean that there are at least 5 of these helmets running around out there. The ones pictured in A&AMK are much more corroded then the others, and they have more/better shape to them as well. I agree these could be fakes or miss-attributed, or they could be later too. As Spangen construction lasted until at least the 14th century.
