Tim,
I don't think your comparison pics are at all on point --
The first is quite fuzzy but it looks like there's possibly a standard occularium and either some attempts at shading below it or a few breaths.
I note that these do not seem to be clean dots -- but rough hatched tailed slashes -- so, as far as it may be on point, it rather supports my theory about not being too carefull with the dots.
The second shows an occularium of two small holes (yes, these are clean dots -- but there's only two of them far apart) below which all you have is a wee bit of shading.
This has nothing at all in common with the image under discussion which has alot of very closely spaced dots, or dashes, or lines.
Incidentally,
looking closely at the image under discussion again, I'm noting the curvature of each individual dash.
They are very clearly NOT made to represent single lines crossing (as with the theory of a "bar grill) -- but each forms an individual "circle".
Anyone seen a Gladiator "grill" ??
This is most definitely a "spaghetti strainer" design.
What was the name of that sports armoury that makes the pointy faced piercework helmets?
If anything, this is "documentation" (of a sort) for his style of work.
Roderick,
There is no question that bar-grills were used in pre-modern times (see, I'm far more generous with the criteria than Chef ...happens to be something he flames me on occasionaly).
But for me, there is similarly next to no doubt that this particular set of images does not show one.
------------------
Norman J. Finkelshteyn
Armour of the Silk Road - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505
The Silk Road Designs Armoury - http://www.enteract.com/~silkroad
Jewish Warriors - http://www.geocities.com/jewishwarriors
The Red Kaganate - http://www.geocities.com/kaganate
silkroad@spam.operamail.com (remove "spam" from e-mail to make it work)
Barred visor bascinet
Moderator: Glen K
Ivar here,
Giles and Roderick, you are not mistaken about the visor at Coburg Castle. I've seen it too and have a picture of it in their armour collection catalogue at home. I'll post a translation of the entry tomorrow. If Brian Price or Jeff Hedgecock are reading this, they have copies of the same book and might provide a quicker reference.
If I am remembering correctly, it is a visor for an armet from the early 16th C. The entire visor is a single plate that is pierced with a series of horizontaly-oriented rectangular holes to create a grill-like effect over the entire face.
Ivar Hakonarson
Crosston, West.
Giles and Roderick, you are not mistaken about the visor at Coburg Castle. I've seen it too and have a picture of it in their armour collection catalogue at home. I'll post a translation of the entry tomorrow. If Brian Price or Jeff Hedgecock are reading this, they have copies of the same book and might provide a quicker reference.
If I am remembering correctly, it is a visor for an armet from the early 16th C. The entire visor is a single plate that is pierced with a series of horizontaly-oriented rectangular holes to create a grill-like effect over the entire face.
Ivar Hakonarson
Crosston, West.
-
Vitus von Atzinger
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14039
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Louisville, Ky. USA
-
Stacy Elliott
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4628
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Over your shoulder
-
Rev. George
- Archive Member
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: athens. ga usa
- Contact:
-
Stacy Elliott
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4628
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Over your shoulder
Rev George,
Hmmm, Don't you know that we will not be able to go back in time before the place in time that the time machine was invented? That is why we have not seen time machine travellers visiting us.... Think about it..
Now once the machine has been made, we will instantly start having travellers from other times coming back in time to visit us.
Giles
Hmmm, Don't you know that we will not be able to go back in time before the place in time that the time machine was invented? That is why we have not seen time machine travellers visiting us.... Think about it..
Now once the machine has been made, we will instantly start having travellers from other times coming back in time to visit us.
Giles
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi Roderic,
Considering the diameter of the extant medieval grill barwork, the comparative thiness of the visor frame (going by the thickness of extant houndskul visors), the fact that a hook and staple or spring pin would not be holding that visor ridged to the bowl of the helmet (absolutely no evidence for these types of devises pre 1470), and the narrow cone shape of the grill - yes.
All in all, I think a few solid impacts would warp the frame, or stress the grill - which being in this form would not be as solid as the extant bar grills on Medieval helmets. I don't think it would hold up as a practise helmet. I do have every confidence that a solid visor that was punched all over with large sights would be more solid a structure.
If the grill is forge welded, then it would most likely have been wrought iron, whereas the solid strainer type visor could have been made out of a tempered sheet.
------------------
Bob R.
Considering the diameter of the extant medieval grill barwork, the comparative thiness of the visor frame (going by the thickness of extant houndskul visors), the fact that a hook and staple or spring pin would not be holding that visor ridged to the bowl of the helmet (absolutely no evidence for these types of devises pre 1470), and the narrow cone shape of the grill - yes.
All in all, I think a few solid impacts would warp the frame, or stress the grill - which being in this form would not be as solid as the extant bar grills on Medieval helmets. I don't think it would hold up as a practise helmet. I do have every confidence that a solid visor that was punched all over with large sights would be more solid a structure.
If the grill is forge welded, then it would most likely have been wrought iron, whereas the solid strainer type visor could have been made out of a tempered sheet.
------------------
Bob R.
-
Rev. George
- Archive Member
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: athens. ga usa
- Contact:
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi All,
Chomping at the bit to actually post a picture of the type of "spaghetti strainer" visor that I am trying to describe, those of you who have AAoMK check out the Henry VIII suit for foot combat that wasn't used at the cloth of gold tourney - the alleged suit NASA studied for a hard suit.Look at the piercework on that visor, and I think you will agree how some of these visors can resemble grills, especially if rendered in a primitive ink sketch.
Let me clarify my point Rodrick, I may have been a little muddled earlier. I am sure you can make a grill like you think you are seeing that will stand up to SCA combat, if you make the elements out of the type of stock and sheet commonly used in SCA helmets. I don't think one made of historical thickness, with historical material, and normal square stock as found on extant pieces would stand up as a practise helmet due to the reasons I have previously described.
At the least, the nose of the visor would be what you term a natural landing pad. More so I think than a normal houndskull.
------------------
Bob R.
Chomping at the bit to actually post a picture of the type of "spaghetti strainer" visor that I am trying to describe, those of you who have AAoMK check out the Henry VIII suit for foot combat that wasn't used at the cloth of gold tourney - the alleged suit NASA studied for a hard suit.Look at the piercework on that visor, and I think you will agree how some of these visors can resemble grills, especially if rendered in a primitive ink sketch.
Let me clarify my point Rodrick, I may have been a little muddled earlier. I am sure you can make a grill like you think you are seeing that will stand up to SCA combat, if you make the elements out of the type of stock and sheet commonly used in SCA helmets. I don't think one made of historical thickness, with historical material, and normal square stock as found on extant pieces would stand up as a practise helmet due to the reasons I have previously described.
At the least, the nose of the visor would be what you term a natural landing pad. More so I think than a normal houndskull.
------------------
Bob R.
I think we are all settling in with the idea that we can not 'know' what is being shown here, but we can theorize. I think that Chef's theory is valid, since collander faced great bascinets exist from the mid-century. The leather club-tourney helm of similar form from Claude Blair's 'European Armour' (figure 78) is of similar dating, so I don't think Chef's theory is more conclusive than any bar-stock one.
There are several points which I do find of interest. Some side hinged bascinet visors have a second hinge which allows the visor to be removed from the helm. This might be merely to aid in cleaning or for ventilation. But perhap--perhaps--this would allow an early form of garniture, with a second visor for tourney use? Also, it is true that later grill/ bar work visors on tourney helm have a rounded face; however, 'war' visors on great bascinets also were of rounded form. Would it be so unusual that a tourney visor of grill work should mimic the form of war gear of the same time frame? This alone would dictate klap-visors of bar work for tourney use in Germany (perhaps the Bohemian example?) while side-hinged bar visors would be more common in France. Rounded visors of either construction would be the norm in 1450, while houndskull forms might predominate in both constructions in 1390. Do not underestimate the importance of fashion and style in the form of armor.
Norman,
I believe you observed exactly what I hoped you would from Tim's postings which I requested. Unfortunatey you do not seem to have grasped the obvious conclusion.
The second postings clearly do not resemble the first. They look like normal houndskull visors with occularia and perforated holes for breaths. They were drawn by the same artist on the same folio pages. Clearly the artist is capable of drawing a normal visor which was in use, and clearly the first postings are not an exmple of same.
There are several other examples of helmets with large rectangular holes cut into their visors. Henry VIII's armor with the articulated arse has large diamonds removed from the visor, giving the appearance of a lattice. Maximillian I had an armet, now in Vienna, which has rectangular holes cut into not only the visor, but also the cheek plates. Both of these are examples of special tourney armor where ventilation took a larger role than full protection. We know that special tourney armor was in use before 1410, and it seems to me from the nature of Fiore's work that the illustration in question does show such specialized equipment.
Finally, I have been tinkering with my earlier proposed construction, and wish to modify it. Perhaps the 'cone' was formed by three plates of 'V' form, with the tops of the V being about 7" across. These three plates could be welded together at the base of the V (or apex of the cone, if you prefer). The central V would be left straight on the vertical axis. The two plates welded to the side would then be bent at 60 degree angles. The tops of the open V's could be folded over and riveted to the visor. The V's could be perforated to allow passage of bar stock (round, square, or twisted if you pefer) through them. This seems like a reasonable assimilation of later construction techniques with early 15th century form.
Now, would someone be willing to try making one?
There are several points which I do find of interest. Some side hinged bascinet visors have a second hinge which allows the visor to be removed from the helm. This might be merely to aid in cleaning or for ventilation. But perhap--perhaps--this would allow an early form of garniture, with a second visor for tourney use? Also, it is true that later grill/ bar work visors on tourney helm have a rounded face; however, 'war' visors on great bascinets also were of rounded form. Would it be so unusual that a tourney visor of grill work should mimic the form of war gear of the same time frame? This alone would dictate klap-visors of bar work for tourney use in Germany (perhaps the Bohemian example?) while side-hinged bar visors would be more common in France. Rounded visors of either construction would be the norm in 1450, while houndskull forms might predominate in both constructions in 1390. Do not underestimate the importance of fashion and style in the form of armor.
Norman,
I believe you observed exactly what I hoped you would from Tim's postings which I requested. Unfortunatey you do not seem to have grasped the obvious conclusion.
The second postings clearly do not resemble the first. They look like normal houndskull visors with occularia and perforated holes for breaths. They were drawn by the same artist on the same folio pages. Clearly the artist is capable of drawing a normal visor which was in use, and clearly the first postings are not an exmple of same. There are several other examples of helmets with large rectangular holes cut into their visors. Henry VIII's armor with the articulated arse has large diamonds removed from the visor, giving the appearance of a lattice. Maximillian I had an armet, now in Vienna, which has rectangular holes cut into not only the visor, but also the cheek plates. Both of these are examples of special tourney armor where ventilation took a larger role than full protection. We know that special tourney armor was in use before 1410, and it seems to me from the nature of Fiore's work that the illustration in question does show such specialized equipment.
Finally, I have been tinkering with my earlier proposed construction, and wish to modify it. Perhaps the 'cone' was formed by three plates of 'V' form, with the tops of the V being about 7" across. These three plates could be welded together at the base of the V (or apex of the cone, if you prefer). The central V would be left straight on the vertical axis. The two plates welded to the side would then be bent at 60 degree angles. The tops of the open V's could be folded over and riveted to the visor. The V's could be perforated to allow passage of bar stock (round, square, or twisted if you pefer) through them. This seems like a reasonable assimilation of later construction techniques with early 15th century form.
Now, would someone be willing to try making one?
I'm going to side with Chef on this one. One illustration does not a case make. Without coroborating evidence (a literary description, further iconographic versions, or an archeological find), there is very little point in pursuing how it might have been done (except for your own enjoyment, of course -- but the applicable historical value would be non-existent).
And like it or not, jumping to reconstruction before gathering further supporting documentation does give your argument the appearance of trying to prove a prejudice. I've been to dozens of museums across the world and viewed hundreds of helmets. Not a single helmet pre- 15th C. had a grill (except for the depiction in the Trebon Alterpiece -- I still can't get over how close I was to the original in Prague last Spring!).
Now, while I won't say I've seen every piece of historical evidence there might be, it would appear that grills really weren't popular before the mid-15th C. No need to stress it, though -- just fight in the SCA and nobody will care if you've got a grill on or not *eg*!
And Chef, you're wrong. I have every reason to believe that a reasonable grill attached to a sheet base could be made sturdy enough with period materials and techniques to withstand a blow in combat. Clearly, though, they didn't use them. Could it be that the grill was simply useless against the thrust, so one might as well go without -any- visor? Many did, according to the accounts. It is disingenuous, though, to suggest that they didn't have the technology. I'm much more inclined to believe they didn't have the -need-.
With respect... -c-
And like it or not, jumping to reconstruction before gathering further supporting documentation does give your argument the appearance of trying to prove a prejudice. I've been to dozens of museums across the world and viewed hundreds of helmets. Not a single helmet pre- 15th C. had a grill (except for the depiction in the Trebon Alterpiece -- I still can't get over how close I was to the original in Prague last Spring!).
Now, while I won't say I've seen every piece of historical evidence there might be, it would appear that grills really weren't popular before the mid-15th C. No need to stress it, though -- just fight in the SCA and nobody will care if you've got a grill on or not *eg*!
And Chef, you're wrong. I have every reason to believe that a reasonable grill attached to a sheet base could be made sturdy enough with period materials and techniques to withstand a blow in combat. Clearly, though, they didn't use them. Could it be that the grill was simply useless against the thrust, so one might as well go without -any- visor? Many did, according to the accounts. It is disingenuous, though, to suggest that they didn't have the technology. I'm much more inclined to believe they didn't have the -need-.
With respect... -c-
Ernst,
As to removing the visor, according to the extant accounts, they were often taken off in combat -- either before the tournament or during an actual battle (after the first pass with the lance, for example). It seems that many knights from the period preferred their visibility over the protection the visor might afford.
Hope this helps... -c-
As to removing the visor, according to the extant accounts, they were often taken off in combat -- either before the tournament or during an actual battle (after the first pass with the lance, for example). It seems that many knights from the period preferred their visibility over the protection the visor might afford.
Hope this helps... -c-
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi Cheval,
I don't think it is disingenuous of me at all. I think that making that form the way it is depicted would be very difficult, especialy at the apex of the cone. I hope someone can make a speculative reconstruction, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. That they could make a functional grill I have no doubt, but I think that the form of the grill shown would be problematic at best.
------------------
Bob R.
I don't think it is disingenuous of me at all. I think that making that form the way it is depicted would be very difficult, especialy at the apex of the cone. I hope someone can make a speculative reconstruction, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. That they could make a functional grill I have no doubt, but I think that the form of the grill shown would be problematic at best.
------------------
Bob R.
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
I spoke with a blacksmith yeaterday and was informed that piercework and forge welding are very, very basic skills in forge work. I think that the grill could have been made with existant technology. However beyond any other arguement, lets not get carried away here. If we keep this up someone is going to try to make it. AND FRANKLY, ITS TOO UGLY! Freinds don't let friends make pig faced grills! ;-P
Chef, Thanks for the clarifications of today and yesterday.
Roderick
Chef, Thanks for the clarifications of today and yesterday.
Roderick
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chef de chambre:
<B>Hi Cheval,
I think that making that form the way it is depicted would be very difficult, especialy at the apex of the cone</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why would it be any more difficult than making the cone on the visor to begin with?
<B>Hi Cheval,
I think that making that form the way it is depicted would be very difficult, especialy at the apex of the cone</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why would it be any more difficult than making the cone on the visor to begin with?
Cheval,
I'm gad to have your input. It's interesting to know that you believe no depictions of bar-facd visors appear before 1500 except the Trebon example. I merely suggest that perhaps we should modify that to read Trebon and Fiore. Fiore does have examples of men practicing with single handed swords who wear great bascinets with the visors removed. (Even as recently as Vietnam, many fatal wounds were received by Army personnel who refused to fasten their M69 flak vests, because comfort in the heat was deemed more important than personal protection from fire. Incidently, the USMC was very strict in the proper use of the M55 vests: their incidence of heat related casualties was much higher, but their KIA percentage much lower.) At any rate, there is nothing magical about the year 1500.Men did not suddenly wake to find themselves full of new ideas and knowledge. The late 13th century Tourney at Windsor Park used specially constructed equipment, and I believe that idea was not lost between Windsor and Renee of Anjou's work. How can one look at the work of Renee and insist that grill faced helmets were not used before 1500? Perhaps an attempted grill houndskull would be ugly, bt what sort of visibility would it provide? If itdid not offer better visibility or breathability, it would have been wothless. Remember, the bars would form concentric rings of smaller diameters down the length of the cone. It might not be possible to see through them at all! (Now I'm playing Devil's advocate against my own theory. Help.)
I'm gad to have your input. It's interesting to know that you believe no depictions of bar-facd visors appear before 1500 except the Trebon example. I merely suggest that perhaps we should modify that to read Trebon and Fiore. Fiore does have examples of men practicing with single handed swords who wear great bascinets with the visors removed. (Even as recently as Vietnam, many fatal wounds were received by Army personnel who refused to fasten their M69 flak vests, because comfort in the heat was deemed more important than personal protection from fire. Incidently, the USMC was very strict in the proper use of the M55 vests: their incidence of heat related casualties was much higher, but their KIA percentage much lower.) At any rate, there is nothing magical about the year 1500.Men did not suddenly wake to find themselves full of new ideas and knowledge. The late 13th century Tourney at Windsor Park used specially constructed equipment, and I believe that idea was not lost between Windsor and Renee of Anjou's work. How can one look at the work of Renee and insist that grill faced helmets were not used before 1500? Perhaps an attempted grill houndskull would be ugly, bt what sort of visibility would it provide? If itdid not offer better visibility or breathability, it would have been wothless. Remember, the bars would form concentric rings of smaller diameters down the length of the cone. It might not be possible to see through them at all! (Now I'm playing Devil's advocate against my own theory. Help.)
-
Norman
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4313
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: East Brunswick, NJ, USA
- Contact:
Ernst
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I believe you observed exactly what I hoped you would from Tim's postings which I requested. Unfortunatey you do not seem to have grasped the obvious conclusion. The second postings clearly do not resemble the first. They look like normal houndskull visors with occularia and perforated holes for breaths. They were drawn by the same artist on the same folio pages. Clearly the artist is capable of drawing a normal visor which was in use, and clearly the first postings are not an exmple of same.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you may misunderstand my position.
I fully agree that the faceplates on the three Bascinets ARE different.
As I said originally, of the two comparison pieces, the first has a standard occularium with a few breaths, the second has two tiny holes for vision and NO breaths at all (if we believe the artist)
But -- this in NO WAY leads to any greater possibility that the one under discussion is a bargrill.
My contention ALL ALONG has been that it is a normal plate defense with many many holes -- a "piercework" as Chef's been suggesting and as you yourself use for "proof" of substantially ventilated face defenses:
"There are several other examples of helmets with large rectangular holes cut into their visors. Henry VIII's armor ...giving the appearance of a lattice. Maximillian I had an armet, ...which has rectangular holes cut into not only the visor, but also the cheek plates. ...special tourney armor where ventilation took a larger role than full protection..."
As per your own "proofs" a "piercework" is FAR FAR more likely on straight grounds of "historical" evidence than a grill.
Further, the "breaths" of the first comparison helmet show that the artist normally used "sloppy dashes" to represent holes (which was my theory in my original posting on the subject),
while the second comparison helmet seems to me so improbable (two small holes instead of occularia, NO breaths) as to indicate that the artist was not incredibly concerned with representing absolute reality.
Finally, as I mentioned in the letter immediately previous to this one --
If you look very closely at the pattern of lines in the illustration under discussion,
you will note that the lines are not straight through in a "grid" pattern.
Best effort at expected pattern for bar grill representation:
<pre>
|_|_|_
|_|_|_
|_|_|_
| | |
</pre>
{Edit}
Another attempt to represent what I should be expecting:
<pre>
^
/_|_\
/__|__\
/_/_|_\_\
/_/__|__\_\
/ / | \ \
</pre>
{End Edit}
Instead, each individual set of lines seems to be drawn independantly in a sort of circular pattern (kinda like drawing "scale" shapes).
Sorry - couldn't come up with an ascii way of representing this...
two attempts at illustrating what I mean:
<pre>
CCCCCCC
CCCCCCC
CCCCCCC
</pre>
<pre>
(_(_(_(_(_
(_(_(_(_
(_(_(_(_
</pre>
So -- there are two main likely possibilities --
Either he meant to represent holes by dots - but got sloppy with all those dots to make (as he did with the breaths of the first comparison helmet)
Or he meant to represent larger holes by outlining them as circles - but got a wee bit sloppy and drew "scale shapes" as shorthand.
But there's no way it can reasonable be believed that he was representing a bargrill type pattern of intersecting straight lines.
...and even had he done it, IMHO comparison helmet 2 gives us reason to think that he wasn't too concerned about representing "realistic" detail.
------------------
Norman J. Finkelshteyn
Armour of the Silk Road - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505
The Silk Road Designs Armoury - http://www.enteract.com/~silkroad
Jewish Warriors - http://www.geocities.com/jewishwarriors
The Red Kaganate - http://www.geocities.com/kaganate
silkroad@spam.operamail.com (remove "spam" from e-mail to make it work)
[This message has been edited by Norman (edited 01-18-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I believe you observed exactly what I hoped you would from Tim's postings which I requested. Unfortunatey you do not seem to have grasped the obvious conclusion. The second postings clearly do not resemble the first. They look like normal houndskull visors with occularia and perforated holes for breaths. They were drawn by the same artist on the same folio pages. Clearly the artist is capable of drawing a normal visor which was in use, and clearly the first postings are not an exmple of same.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you may misunderstand my position.
I fully agree that the faceplates on the three Bascinets ARE different.
As I said originally, of the two comparison pieces, the first has a standard occularium with a few breaths, the second has two tiny holes for vision and NO breaths at all (if we believe the artist)
But -- this in NO WAY leads to any greater possibility that the one under discussion is a bargrill.
My contention ALL ALONG has been that it is a normal plate defense with many many holes -- a "piercework" as Chef's been suggesting and as you yourself use for "proof" of substantially ventilated face defenses:
"There are several other examples of helmets with large rectangular holes cut into their visors. Henry VIII's armor ...giving the appearance of a lattice. Maximillian I had an armet, ...which has rectangular holes cut into not only the visor, but also the cheek plates. ...special tourney armor where ventilation took a larger role than full protection..."
As per your own "proofs" a "piercework" is FAR FAR more likely on straight grounds of "historical" evidence than a grill.
Further, the "breaths" of the first comparison helmet show that the artist normally used "sloppy dashes" to represent holes (which was my theory in my original posting on the subject),
while the second comparison helmet seems to me so improbable (two small holes instead of occularia, NO breaths) as to indicate that the artist was not incredibly concerned with representing absolute reality.
Finally, as I mentioned in the letter immediately previous to this one --
If you look very closely at the pattern of lines in the illustration under discussion,
you will note that the lines are not straight through in a "grid" pattern.
Best effort at expected pattern for bar grill representation:
<pre>
|_|_|_
|_|_|_
|_|_|_
| | |
</pre>
{Edit}
Another attempt to represent what I should be expecting:
<pre>
^
/_|_\
/__|__\
/_/_|_\_\
/_/__|__\_\
/ / | \ \
</pre>
{End Edit}
Instead, each individual set of lines seems to be drawn independantly in a sort of circular pattern (kinda like drawing "scale" shapes).
Sorry - couldn't come up with an ascii way of representing this...
two attempts at illustrating what I mean:
<pre>
CCCCCCC
CCCCCCC
CCCCCCC
</pre>
<pre>
(_(_(_(_(_
(_(_(_(_
(_(_(_(_
</pre>
So -- there are two main likely possibilities --
Either he meant to represent holes by dots - but got sloppy with all those dots to make (as he did with the breaths of the first comparison helmet)
Or he meant to represent larger holes by outlining them as circles - but got a wee bit sloppy and drew "scale shapes" as shorthand.
But there's no way it can reasonable be believed that he was representing a bargrill type pattern of intersecting straight lines.
...and even had he done it, IMHO comparison helmet 2 gives us reason to think that he wasn't too concerned about representing "realistic" detail.
------------------
Norman J. Finkelshteyn
Armour of the Silk Road - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505
The Silk Road Designs Armoury - http://www.enteract.com/~silkroad
Jewish Warriors - http://www.geocities.com/jewishwarriors
The Red Kaganate - http://www.geocities.com/kaganate
silkroad@spam.operamail.com (remove "spam" from e-mail to make it work)
[This message has been edited by Norman (edited 01-18-2002).]
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi Ernst,
15th century means the years 1401 - 1500 inclusive. 1500's is 16th century.I.E. there is no year 0 on the calander, the "first century" ran from the year 1 - 100.
The Trebant alarpiece is @ from the year 1400, give or take. It is therefore probably 15th century. There are currently NO examples of bargrills from the 14th century (years 1301 - 1400) inclusive.
You know, some things just happened to be invented at a specific time, like the telephone in 1876. Prior to that time, it did not exist. Same thing for the hot air baloon, the automobile, the powered airplane, and every invention you can think of.
The jury is currently debating whether bargrills were introduced in 1410, or 1440-ish. Nobody has any evidence for their existance prior to the Trebant altarpiece.
As I said before, I would love to see a speculative reconstruction of the Fiori faceplate in question. it would be best if we tested both theories (the large number of relatively large preforations, and the grill. As Cheval points out, even then, it won't be conclusive evidence for their existance in 1410.
------------------
Bob R.
15th century means the years 1401 - 1500 inclusive. 1500's is 16th century.I.E. there is no year 0 on the calander, the "first century" ran from the year 1 - 100.
The Trebant alarpiece is @ from the year 1400, give or take. It is therefore probably 15th century. There are currently NO examples of bargrills from the 14th century (years 1301 - 1400) inclusive.
You know, some things just happened to be invented at a specific time, like the telephone in 1876. Prior to that time, it did not exist. Same thing for the hot air baloon, the automobile, the powered airplane, and every invention you can think of.
The jury is currently debating whether bargrills were introduced in 1410, or 1440-ish. Nobody has any evidence for their existance prior to the Trebant altarpiece.
As I said before, I would love to see a speculative reconstruction of the Fiori faceplate in question. it would be best if we tested both theories (the large number of relatively large preforations, and the grill. As Cheval points out, even then, it won't be conclusive evidence for their existance in 1410.
------------------
Bob R.
-
Stacy Elliott
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4628
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Over your shoulder
-
Brennus
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Morganton, NC
- Contact:
I have been told there is a mislabeled basinet with a bargrill in a Torture Museum in Germany. I'm not sure which museum it is but the person who told me hasn't lead me astray. Gile I know you are in the area if i could get the person to tell me the name of the Museum will you go look for us and take pictures?
-
Stacy Elliott
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4628
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Over your shoulder
You are quite correct in pointing out my error concerning dating. I assure you this was a result of not paying attention to Cheval's wording, not due to a lack of knowledge. So, I apoogize to you both. Often I have found that tone or intent is difficult to communicate through this medium, and I hope I have not seemed too adamant in my view. We simply recognize two differing interpretations which may explain this peculiar drawing. I have appreciated the discussion thus far.
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
I've appreciated it too Ernst. You are right, we all tend to read in emotion not necessarily intended by the poster.
One of my buttons is "documentation - what it consists of", and I tend to perhaps overstress the definition as understood professionaly, due to my background. I have unfairly labled the backward documentation syndrome an SCA-isim in this series of posts, when reenactment societies of various eras, military modelers, and armchair historians are all guilty of this sort of behaviour - I've seen plenty of ACW folks strain to justify using gaiters at certain points in the war, or who want to use Rogers & Spencer pistols, or what have you. Modelers who can't for the life of them understand why the Germans weren't producing Tiger tanks in 1939, no matter how patient and detailed an explanation given them, with pictures, graphs and such illustrating German idustrial capability at the time, etc. And of course the Armchair Historians who can't understand how the Germans "lost the big one". Something that might seem an innocuous comment to you gives me flashbacks, and leads to episodes of ripping hair out of my head.
Anyhow, I do not mean to be adamant in this position, I just wanted you, and the others participating on the thread to clearly see that this picture we are all debating can be logicaly interpreted in more than the way it seems at first sight.
I think it would be a jolly good experiment to make up a duplicate visor, one of each theory put forth, and then put them through comparitive tests.
You know, in Denmark, one of the living history associations took a 15th century drawing of an idea for a diving suit, and challenged themselves to make one using nothing but appropriate materials and technique. The bloody thing worked, which just goes to show you they could have had a diving suit in the 15th century, but we know with almost 100% certainty that they did not - it never got beyond the artists fancy.
------------------
Bob R.
One of my buttons is "documentation - what it consists of", and I tend to perhaps overstress the definition as understood professionaly, due to my background. I have unfairly labled the backward documentation syndrome an SCA-isim in this series of posts, when reenactment societies of various eras, military modelers, and armchair historians are all guilty of this sort of behaviour - I've seen plenty of ACW folks strain to justify using gaiters at certain points in the war, or who want to use Rogers & Spencer pistols, or what have you. Modelers who can't for the life of them understand why the Germans weren't producing Tiger tanks in 1939, no matter how patient and detailed an explanation given them, with pictures, graphs and such illustrating German idustrial capability at the time, etc. And of course the Armchair Historians who can't understand how the Germans "lost the big one". Something that might seem an innocuous comment to you gives me flashbacks, and leads to episodes of ripping hair out of my head.
Anyhow, I do not mean to be adamant in this position, I just wanted you, and the others participating on the thread to clearly see that this picture we are all debating can be logicaly interpreted in more than the way it seems at first sight.
I think it would be a jolly good experiment to make up a duplicate visor, one of each theory put forth, and then put them through comparitive tests.
You know, in Denmark, one of the living history associations took a 15th century drawing of an idea for a diving suit, and challenged themselves to make one using nothing but appropriate materials and technique. The bloody thing worked, which just goes to show you they could have had a diving suit in the 15th century, but we know with almost 100% certainty that they did not - it never got beyond the artists fancy.
------------------
Bob R.
I can see that a medieval recreationist should include those things that are typical and common from a specific time period. I can see that to be "on the safe side", it is better to have multiple references to a specific item or event.
However, I can also see that the artist was depicting a bar-faced bascinet.
If bar faces were common enough 30 years later to have multiple references that survived centuries of war, neglect and weather, why is it so difficult to believe that an early example did not exist?
Granted, it is not proof that bar-faced bascinets were actually built c. 1410, just that the concept had appeared in a book illustration. It takes time for an idea to catch on, and 30 years isn't unreasonable given the media of the day.
Nor, do I see that period metal working technology would be unable to produce a workable bar grill as depicted (Hell, I could have made one in my parent's garage in 6th grade)
, though as a concept other set-ups of the bars would be more practical.
I think that it is best to consider this for what it is: an artist's doo-dad c.1410. Whether it depicted a real bascinet or not is impossible to determine. But, the concept is definitely real and documentable.
Did Tiger tanks exist prior to 1939? Only on paper...
------------------
All bleeding eventually stops.
However, I can also see that the artist was depicting a bar-faced bascinet.
If bar faces were common enough 30 years later to have multiple references that survived centuries of war, neglect and weather, why is it so difficult to believe that an early example did not exist?
Granted, it is not proof that bar-faced bascinets were actually built c. 1410, just that the concept had appeared in a book illustration. It takes time for an idea to catch on, and 30 years isn't unreasonable given the media of the day.
Nor, do I see that period metal working technology would be unable to produce a workable bar grill as depicted (Hell, I could have made one in my parent's garage in 6th grade)
, though as a concept other set-ups of the bars would be more practical.I think that it is best to consider this for what it is: an artist's doo-dad c.1410. Whether it depicted a real bascinet or not is impossible to determine. But, the concept is definitely real and documentable.
Did Tiger tanks exist prior to 1939? Only on paper...
------------------
All bleeding eventually stops.
-
Chuck Davis
- Archive Member
- Posts: 785
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA
-
Ian Glenagary
- Archive Member
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: South Dakota
-
Richard Blackmoore
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4990
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bay Shore, NY USA
Hi Chef.
I tend to agree with those that say it is possible that this is an early appearance of an extremely uncommon visor style, perhaps even a one off. I see no reason why it is not technically feasible.
On the other hand, I agree with you that due to it being so early, that without other supporting evidence it is prudent to view this with a certain amount of healthy skepticism.
I am an optimist. I always assume that just because we can't prove they did not do something, that does not mean that they did not do it. At the same token, this particular case does not seem to be enough to me to argue for a pointed bar grill at this time. I do however think that it warrants further research into other supporting examples. Building a grill that looks like that could be accomplished a number of ways. Just because it might not work all that well, does not mean that they would not have tried it, or perhaps it was only for practice with less sturdy blows? History is replete with examples of poorly engineered items. Often they are one offs or uncommon items. This could certainly explain why we don't see a lot of these in illustrations we are familiar with; they may have been expensive to build, difficult to maintain, prone to break - all of which could explain why we don't see more of them. It does not mean they did not exist. There are some really ugly burgonet's out there with facial bars that would only provide so much protection, I can certainly accept that a limited number of bargrills did get used at some point on bascinets, the fish skeleton style being the only other example I can think of.
I absolutely do not think that the SCA should start building this style of grille and claiming that it is authentic without further research.
[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 02-05-2002).]
I tend to agree with those that say it is possible that this is an early appearance of an extremely uncommon visor style, perhaps even a one off. I see no reason why it is not technically feasible.
On the other hand, I agree with you that due to it being so early, that without other supporting evidence it is prudent to view this with a certain amount of healthy skepticism.
I am an optimist. I always assume that just because we can't prove they did not do something, that does not mean that they did not do it. At the same token, this particular case does not seem to be enough to me to argue for a pointed bar grill at this time. I do however think that it warrants further research into other supporting examples. Building a grill that looks like that could be accomplished a number of ways. Just because it might not work all that well, does not mean that they would not have tried it, or perhaps it was only for practice with less sturdy blows? History is replete with examples of poorly engineered items. Often they are one offs or uncommon items. This could certainly explain why we don't see a lot of these in illustrations we are familiar with; they may have been expensive to build, difficult to maintain, prone to break - all of which could explain why we don't see more of them. It does not mean they did not exist. There are some really ugly burgonet's out there with facial bars that would only provide so much protection, I can certainly accept that a limited number of bargrills did get used at some point on bascinets, the fish skeleton style being the only other example I can think of.
I absolutely do not think that the SCA should start building this style of grille and claiming that it is authentic without further research.
[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 02-05-2002).]
-
Richard Blackmoore
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4990
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bay Shore, NY USA