An interesting bunch: Early armets with big wrappers

[Gustovic]

Hello folks.

I wanted to discuss with you all something I've been fascinated about for a while now.

There's a group of early armets that do present often a big huge wrapper, making them look like frogmouth great helms of some sort, but don't have any visor of their own.

NOT Konrad con Landau, from circa 1410.

You think this is a big buckle? Or maybe just some random lines from the stone itself?




Another image from 1414, from Naples as well.




And here's a very late one, that also seems to omit the visor. A tile made in Faenza in 1471-1482.


And here is my interpretation of what might be going on. It would explain that staple slot on some of the early armets such as ex-CH57 (circa 1410) or one at the MET (circa 1440).




What do you people think? It's a viable design? Or just weird representation of great helms/normal armets with visors/normal wrappers?

[John Vernier]

I think you are onto something plausible here. I've been looking a lot lately at representations of early 15th century armets with no visor or half visor only, and the separate wrapper makes sense, and seems to be clearly drawn in several cases as you show.

I'm intrigued by the apparent fashion for wearing a helmet with half visor at this period. Ex-Churburg T57 really seems like it's an attempt to maximize deflection from around the face opening without any additional defense, hence the slope of the forehead and the inward curve of the cheek plates around the eyes. Your idea that the staple is for a wrapper rather than a visor with eye slots is sort of what I've been thinking of as well, and I think it could be the case for Churburg 18 as well, although in that case side pivotted along the lines of the armet from the Salimbenis' 1416 crucifixion at Urbino.

(I seem to have copied this image from your pinterest page, so thanks!)

It almost seems as though the armet began as a form invented to be a visorless helmet, even though visors had been around for quite some time. This one

apparently dates to 1402 (From an archive in Bologna. I lifted this from one of the FB armor groups. More identification would be welcome). The form really resembles (in a cartoony way) the armet you show from the Met, which has both a staple and side pivots, although the pivots could easily be later additions as the style of visor evolved. It seems as though early on the clip-on or strap-on wrapper was the solution for extra protection, before they settled on the idea that a pivoting visor was not something you wanted to do without after all.

[Gustovic]

Thing is the very first armet depiction we know of already has a brow reinforce and visor pivots.

Dated 1396, effigy of Brandolino III Brando.



This predates all the other sources I've shown and has all the features of a "proper" armet.

[Mac]

Thing is the very first armet depiction we know of already has a brow reinforce and visor pivots.

Dated 1396, effigy of Brandolino III Brando.

This predates all the other sources I've shown and has all the features of a "proper" armet.

The thing we need to remember is that helmets do not descend along strict bloodlines. Armorers were free to take inspirations from "unrelated" helmets.

Mac

[Mac]

I built an exchange visor like this for a Ch 18 about 20 years ago.



At the time, I didn't really believe in the interpretation. The thing I felt bad about was how these visors seemed to be veritable funnels for plunging artillery. In the intervening years, the web has revealed so many examples of visors and bevors like this that I can't deny that they were a thing. I guess I was overthinking it, and imagining problems that were not problems in their contexts. There is a lesson in there.

Mac

[Gustovic]

It almost seems as though the armet began as a form invented to be a visorless helmet, even though visors had been around for quite some time. This one

apparently dates to 1402 (From an archive in Bologna. I lifted this from one of the FB armor groups. More identification would be welcome). The form really resembles (in a cartoony way) the armet you show from the Met, which has both a staple and side pivots, although the pivots could easily be later additions as the style of visor evolved. It seems as though early on the clip-on or strap-on wrapper was the solution for extra protection, before they settled on the idea that a pivoting visor was not something you wanted to do without after all.

My comment was more about this, where it seems like the armet came straight away with movable face protection, and alongside it they were experimenting with wrappers only, as well as using both visors and wrappers, like here.

[Mac]

I'm more about letting "the armet" be a wide range of things and not worrying about what came first and what is derivative.

I'm OK with typologies, but not with family trees. With a typology one can make up subgroups within subgroups, and as long as they are well defined, they can be useful for talking about things. On the other hand, as soon as we think of one thing descending from another, we have imposed a system that presupposes a sort of genetics. Even is we know that's not true, the system guides our thoughts and can blind us from seeing the things that don't fit.

Of course I never lurk on Facebook.... but if I did, I would see all together too many people asking things like "is this a great helm or a sugarloaf" and saying things like "that can't be a great helm, 'cause it's got a visor". These helmets existed, whether they fit our categories or not. It's better to have to describe a thing by its features than to try to make it fit in a box with a name.

Mac

[John Vernier]

Exactly. Of course they had pivoting visors before 1400. We all know that. What is more interesting is that they seem to have been trying to develop a form which avoided using a visor, while giving more coverage than the open helmets of the period. What that sort of helmet would have been good for, is an excellent question.

[Gustovic]

I see it in the same way as with bascinets and great bascinets.

Some folks just liked not to have anything covering their face. Both valid options, both used at the same time on the same battlefield.

Also regarding the terminology and definitions, you have no idea how lucky you are in the English language to have a term for everything or having such an easy time with neologism. For example I much more prefer to talk about armour in English rather than Italian, since English has a more precise terminology, and actually whenever I can I use English with other Italian people as well, rather than Italian.

I know that you can get bogged down in minutiae and arbitrary lines, but I don't see anything wrong with being precise in my speech and try to be as descriptive as I can. Of course this needs to start from a place where we all know what the various terms mean, and that's why I try to constantly (and pedantically, I know) correct people on the proper terminology or at least reach a consensus on one. The fact that our ancestors were very loose one the terminology doesn't mean that we can't fix that and avoid confusion when talking about stuff. I'ts very convenient when I can use a single word rather than every time attach a picture of what I'm talking about to clarify that what is I'm trying to describe. That's the whole point of words after all, isn't it ;D?

[Mac]

I'ts very convenient when I can use a single word rather than every time attach a picture of what I'm talking about to clarify that what is I'm trying to describe. That's the whole point of words after all, isn't it ;D?

I'm much more willing to use single words to describe things for which we have enough extant examples that we can come to a consensus. I draw the classic modern distinctions between armets and close helmets. On the other hand, I am unwilling to be pedantic about whether the A-74 helmet in the Wallace is a bascinet, barbute, or sallet. The distinction is more or less meaningless here, as this object exists at the intersection of these three helmets.

It seems to me that things get a lot murkier when we are discussing helmets in art. It has been creeping up on me that we really don't know as much about helmets of the early to mid 15th C as we should. There is a tendency to view what we see in art within the contest of the very few surviving helmets of that period.

The work I'm doing for Toby C's next book has really brought me to a crisis about it. The problem of talking about early 15th C English helmets is hobbled by not really having a sufficient understanding of non English helmets. The truth of the matter is that none of us really understands as much as we would like to think we do. A careful look through the definitive English language book on European armor (Blair 1958) will reveal that there is a lot of hand waving going on for this topic. The intervening decades have not really done much to clear up the vagueness.

Art is full of things that we can't really assign to the categories that are exemplified by our extant examples. There are lots of things that are neither fish nor fowl, betwixt and between what we know. It is easy to just ascribe it to the vagaries of artistic license, and proclaim that that what is meant is just like this or that extant thing. There lies orthodoxy, but not truth. We need to remember that were it not for the chance preservation of the two early armets in Churburg, we would not have anything to compare these images of open faced armets to, and we might interpret them as something else altogether.

Words give us power, but they also constrain out thoughts. Catagories can solidify our understanding, but they can also fossilize it. We need an intellectual framework upon which to hang new information, but that framework must not be the bed of Procrustes.

Mac

I hope we are all enjoying this rant as much as I am

[Gustovic]

I hope we are all enjoying this rant as much as I am

Oh I definitely am .

There always will be outliers, blurry lines, exceptions and so on, but I prefer to start from a place where some structure exists and definitions are clear. Then I'm very willing to open up boundaries, expanding them, changing them, restricting them.

For example to me the one at the Wallace it's clearly a bascinet, even though it does have some elements of a barbute, but I'd be very willing to debate that if that would bring us closer to the "truth" (yeah, I'm one of those that believes in truth).

And to m objects don't have to fill 100% the requirements of a certain category to be part of that category. Like a 70% is enough for me . Like the Wallace bascinet. Pointy skull. Holes to sew the liner. Vervelles. Klappvisor attachment. No rolled edges. Then yes it has a tail and comes down to cover the cheeks too (which are not typical bascinet features), but for me that's not enough to not categorize it as a bascinet.

And that's why I also started this thread. I begin from the assumption that what we are seeing are armets with big wrappers, but I might be wrong about that, and very eager to hear alternative explanations.

[Sean M]

It seems like these may be related to the bascinets with U-shaped plates to protect the cheek and chin that we see in the Grandes Chroniques de France. There seems to have been a feeling around 1400 that the aventail + big pointy visor was not providing enough protection to the throat for the most intense kinds of combat, and armourers experimented with solutions, including solutions that offered better vision and breathing than a great helm.

It would help to hear from a jouster.

The work I'm doing for Toby C's next book has really brought me to a crisis about it. The problem of talking about early 15th C English helmets is hobbled by not really having a sufficient understanding of non English helmets. The truth of the matter is that none of us really understands as much as we would like to think we do. A careful look through the definitive English language book on European armor (Blair 1958) will reveal that there is a lot of hand waving going on for this topic. The intervening decades have not really done much to clear up the vagueness.

I noticed the same thing in the scabbard suspension research: not enough people want to wear what we usually see in the effigies and brasses, and there are some alternatives but they show up in miniatures and leave a lot of room for interpretation.

My impression is that both armet and close helmet are collectors' names and Italians just called them elmetti "helmets, little helms." But its nice to have a name for the ones with two cheekpieces opening outwards and the ones with a solid cheekpiece opening forward and upwards.

[Mac]

For example to me the one at the Wallace it's clearly a bascinet, even though it does have some elements of a barbute, but I'd be very willing to debate that if that would bring us closer to the "truth" (yeah, I'm one of those that believes in truth).

I would default to bascinet, but be ready to add a lot of modifiers to that.

And to m objects don't have to fill 100% the requirements of a certain category to be part of that category. Like a 70% is enough for me . Like the Wallace bascinet. Pointy skull. Holes to sew the liner. Vervelles. Klappvisor attachment. No rolled edges. Then yes it has a tail and comes down to cover the cheeks too (which are not typical bascinet features), but for me that's not enough to not categorize it as a bascinet.

Really, though, bascinet is such a broad term as to need modifiers. There is a seemingly endless variety of them, and they are not interchangeable. If someone said "I want a bascinet", and you handed them a tall, pointy thing with a visor, but what they really wanted was a little round thing that fit under their great helm, they would be pretty dissatisfied.

And that's why I also started this thread. I begin from the assumption that what we are seeing are armets with big wrappers, but I might be wrong about that, and very eager to hear alternative explanations.

All of these helmets feature a scoop-like face plate, and a large sight. As such, they may all be functionally similar, but I'm not at all sure that they are structurally similar. That brings up an interesting point, I think. Should be describe them by function, or structure? If two helmets served the same function, and one was fundamentally an armet, and the other fundamentally a bascinet, would the guys who used them have called the different things? Sure, they would know the difference and probably have preferences; but would they say "I want jousting armet, not a jousting bascinet!", or "I want an armet for the joust, not a bascinet for the joust!"?

In any case, I think we should take them one at a time. Pick one, and well see if we can figure it out.... tomorrow.

Mac

[Gustovic]

In any case, I think we should take them one at a time. Pick one, and well see if we can figure it out.... tomorrow.

Mac

Let's start with this, since we have both side and front view, and what it might look like without the wrapper and with a visor.

[Mac]

Hmmmm.... Have you got a denser image of this? I've searched, but did not find one.

Mac

[Gustovic]

This is all I have, sorry.

[Mac]

It's a shame these guys have those mantlings on their helmets. That really makes it hard for us.



It would be easy to assume that we are looking at the same thing in all of these helmets, but I be a lot safer if we didn't.

The guy in the lower right gives us a pretty clear idea of what's going on. There are vertical lines going from near the pivots down to the neck. This might be a sort of armet; and the hinges might be horizontal, or they might be vertical. Then again, it might be a close helmet or a bickoket*, with a one-piece bevor that hinges up from at or near the visor pivots. We really can't tell. The only thing that is certain is that the helmet must open to allow it to be put on and off.

When we turn out attention to the visor, we see what looks like a "full" visor, with the sights formed by a slit. That's not certain, of course. It might be a half visor and a brow reinforce, but I don't think so. The brow seems to jut out more steeply than those on the other helmets in this image.

The one in the lower left may be exactly the same sort of helmet, but with a big wrapper plate over the visor. There does appear to be a strap, and that is consistent with the idea. On the other hand, the brow plate looks like is hugs the forehead more closely than the corresponding plate on the first helmet. At this scale of drawing, it's a very small thing, and it would be easy for an artist to introduce more variation than he had intended. On the other hand, I feel as though this helmet is likely to be one of the closed verities, (armet, bicoque*, etc. ) with a more or less open face.

The helmet in the upper right seems to be the same sort of thing as the one in the lower left. It might also be a helmet with a full visor and a wrapper; sort of like the Earl of Warwick's hat, but with a bit less pointy a visor. A thing I want to call attention to, though, is the way the mantlings of the helmets in this image lay in back. The line of the back is curved in a way that suggests that the underlying helmet has a swept up tail. The mantlings may be trailing in the wind, but that's not at all a sure thing.

I bring up the specter of a sallet-like tail for two reasons...
--The first is the presence of a barbute (or similar helmet) in the group on the left. Such a helmet could be what's lurking under the mantlings and behind the wrappers. I don't think so, but I don't feel that we can rule it out.
--The second is the swept tails of the helmets in another of the images you posted above.
--The third is the presence of helmets with swept tails in many of the images I have been trying to understand for my illustration project. (I'll try to gather a few of them together and post them later)

The helmet in the upper left shows a very aggressively "v" shaped sight. The other helmets in this image may or may not give us that sort of shape from the front. It depends in part of how much the brow plate (or brow portion of a full visor) protrudes forward. It's also easy to read too much into that "V". It's such a good shape visually that artist might exaggerate it a bit. So... this might be the same sort of helmet as the other, and it might be something more like a "frog mouthed" helm of some construction or another. We see those quite frequently in battle scenes, whether or not we are supposed to take them literally (that's a different argument )

Mac





*I'm going to see if I can spell this differently each time

[Mac]

As promised above, here are some helmets with swept tails. (starting with the one Augusto posted)









My point is that not everything with a swept tail is a sallet or barbute as we know them. It's just another feature that can be tossed into the mix, and the result is muddier water than we are willing to admit.

Mac

[Gustovic]

I think it's the same setup as shown in this one here. No brow reinforce and no visor. I think that the line at the brow is actually the stitching of the liner running through.

[Sean M]

Does anyone else have a source for the Bolognese St. George and the Dragon from 1402 (1407?) or the effigy of Brandolino III? One source for the effigy seems to be https://www.pinterest.at/pin/328622104033811227/

I can't find the illumination with tineye.

Augusto is doing great work collecting images but I like to have sources not just 'a random screenshot from social media.'