Help with Helmet Identification

mahratt · 25th January 2015, 12:42 PM

Dear forum members on the Russian forum discussing helmet. I wrote on the Russian forum your thoughts about this helmet. But I would like to hear the opinion of the forum, the dating of the helmet and the region in which it is produced.

mahratt · 26th January 2015, 08:41 AM

No one has any opinions ???

ALEX · 26th January 2015, 10:50 AM

Based on decoration - typical Persian late Qajar period, late 19th century. relatively crude work, and could be 20th c.

kronckew · 26th January 2015, 10:58 AM

parade armour, split ring maille rather than riveted. OK for parades, but would be not as good protection in battle.

interestingly, late 19th c. battle of omdurman, the mahdi's troops had quite a few in older maille armour, it offered little protection against the lances and swords of the british cavalry (and of course none against their firearms). the armour was noted as being brittle with age and it shattered when struck with an edged weapon which just breezed thru and zapped the mahdiist (per churchill's memoirs, he participated in the battle and the charge of the 21st lancers, but used a mauser automatic pistol, not a sword).

estcrh · 27th January 2015, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

parade armour, split ring maille rather than riveted.

Butted mail actually, but you can not use the fact that a helmet has butted mail as the only identifier as mail can easily be added at a later date to an older helmet, you have to look at the workmanship etc.

Quote:

interestingly, late 19th c. battle of omdurman, the mahdi's troops had quite a few in older maille armour, it offered little protection against the lances and swords of the british cavalry (and of course none against their firearms). the armour was noted as being brittle with age and it shattered when struck with an edged weapon which just breezed thru and zapped the mahdiist (per churchill's memoirs, he participated in the battle and the charge of the 21st lancers, but used a mauser automatic pistol, not a sword).

I have not read anything about the armor worn by Sudanese fighters being useless against swords, only that it was not any good against firearms (of course). Most mail that I have seen would have offered questionable protection against a lance being driven into it from a mounted soldier.

kronckew · 27th January 2015, 01:37 PM

i did mean butted maile of course. the rest of my post was a mixed and well mentally edited mix of sources that peculated out of my brain possibly a bit mixed up.

wilkinson steel at the time made reference to egyptians wearing 'split ring' maile which was inferior to riveted maile and would fracture on impact. i assume that that in fact they also were referring to butted maile, a 360 degree ring, rather than the 720 degree spiral 'split rings' used for keys nowadays.

another period ref. notes the sudanese used butted and riveted, of various quality, and also used captured egyptian armour as well as from other arab sources. it mentioned 10 kilos of rings for butted maile would be required for a sudanese hauberk & they cost £25 unassembled.

a small fortune at the time. the split rings used to make butted maile were bought from outside the sudan.

wilkinson also mentioned that they made maile vests for a number of british officers who wore them in the battle and noted that while they would not stop bullets, or a spear or sword thrust they would protect against slashes and grazing cuts and light protection against shell fragments. uniform jackets were also available with hardened steel plates sewn in brigandine fashion up to and including ww1.

another ref. i read from 2005 mentioned some armour captured at omdurman was worn fragile from age, corrosion, cleaning and use, being expensive i imagined it may have been passed down over generations slowly wearing away, and being worn mainly for ceremonial and parades. they referenced robinson's 'oriental arms and armour'. i imagine the padded gambesons worn under the sudanese chain maile armour were more protection, much like the russian great coats the brits found difficult to penetrate with their swords at the crimea.

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 26th January 2015, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mahratt

Dear forum members on the Russian forum discussing helmet. I wrote on the Russian forum your thoughts about this helmet. But I would like to hear the opinion of the forum, the dating of the helmet and the region in which it is produced.

Salaams mahratt~

Please see http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...lmet&FORM=IGRE

It looks like a Qajar Dynasty helmet ...This period covers right up to the 1920s when a lot of this stuff was parade armour...

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

mahratt · 26th January 2015, 07:46 PM

Thank you, my friends. I have no doubt that this late Qajar Dynasty helmet 19- early 20th century. It was important to know your opinion. Owner helmet naively believes that this unique helmet 18th century now, I hope he will understand what is wrong

25th January 2015, 12:42 PM	#1
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	Help with Helmet Identification Dear forum members on the Russian forum discussing helmet. I wrote on the Russian forum your thoughts about this helmet. But I would like to hear the opinion of the forum, the dating of the helmet and the region in which it is produced. Attached Images

26th January 2015, 10:58 AM	#4
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,183	parade armour, split ring maille rather than riveted. OK for parades, but would be not as good protection in battle. interestingly, late 19th c. battle of omdurman, the mahdi's troops had quite a few in older maille armour, it offered little protection against the lances and swords of the british cavalry (and of course none against their firearms). the armour was noted as being brittle with age and it shattered when struck with an edged weapon which just breezed thru and zapped the mahdiist (per churchill's memoirs, he participated in the battle and the charge of the 21st lancers, but used a mauser automatic pistol, not a sword). Attached Images Last edited by kronckew; 26th January 2015 at 11:13 AM.

27th January 2015, 01:37 PM	#6
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,183	i did mean butted maile of course. the rest of my post was a mixed and well mentally edited mix of sources that peculated out of my brain possibly a bit mixed up. wilkinson steel at the time made reference to egyptians wearing 'split ring' maile which was inferior to riveted maile and would fracture on impact. i assume that that in fact they also were referring to butted maile, a 360 degree ring, rather than the 720 degree spiral 'split rings' used for keys nowadays. another period ref. notes the sudanese used butted and riveted, of various quality, and also used captured egyptian armour as well as from other arab sources. it mentioned 10 kilos of rings for butted maile would be required for a sudanese hauberk & they cost £25 unassembled. a small fortune at the time. the split rings used to make butted maile were bought from outside the sudan. wilkinson also mentioned that they made maile vests for a number of british officers who wore them in the battle and noted that while they would not stop bullets, or a spear or sword thrust they would protect against slashes and grazing cuts and light protection against shell fragments. uniform jackets were also available with hardened steel plates sewn in brigandine fashion up to and including ww1. another ref. i read from 2005 mentioned some armour captured at omdurman was worn fragile from age, corrosion, cleaning and use, being expensive i imagined it may have been passed down over generations slowly wearing away, and being worn mainly for ceremonial and parades. they referenced robinson's 'oriental arms and armour'. i imagine the padded gambesons worn under the sudanese chain maile armour were more protection, much like the russian great coats the brits found difficult to penetrate with their swords at the crimea. Last edited by kronckew; 27th January 2015 at 02:01 PM.

26th January 2015, 08:41 AM	#2
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	No one has any opinions ???

26th January 2015, 10:50 AM	#3
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	Based on decoration - typical Persian late Qajar period, late 19th century. relatively crude work, and could be 20th c.

26th January 2015, 07:46 PM	#8
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	Thank you, my friends. I have no doubt that this late Qajar Dynasty helmet 19- early 20th century. It was important to know your opinion. Owner helmet naively believes that this unique helmet 18th century now, I hope he will understand what is wrong