![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 22
|
![]()
What about this helmet?
Here is the description and the measures. Period: 13th century Perhaps from teutonic area It's made with three elements. Two bands of bent sheet metal ring and a bell-shaped upper dome-shaped cone with edges folded down to form a cylinder. The three elements are joined together with rivets of iron loops, clinched so as not to create external protrusions. The upper cap surmounts 9 to 12 mm for the upper edge of the intermediate band. The two pieces are combined with 6 rivets. The distances between the rivets are not regular. The lower edge of the intermediate band for about 16 mm overlaps the upper edge of the lower band. These two pieces are joined together by 8 rivets. Even for these rivets are not regular distances between each other The ends of both bands overlaps and are fixed with rivets. All edges of the joint are shaped so that the outer surface of the helmet has no discontinuities or protrusions. Within the lower band, about 84 mm from the edge, there were 20 rings of iron, placed at irregular distances from each other. Two of them are still together a chain mail, to prove that at these rings was fixed a camaglio. The hat-in-arms (?) of the Museum Fioroni has’nt slits for eyes because, for the low point of connection with the camaglio, the bottom edge of the helmet is placed above the eyebrows. Measures Total height 267 mm Base diameter 344 mm Top Base diameter 193 mm approximately top diameter About 185 mm Height of cylindrical portion About 25 mm Summit of cone 20 mm from the base. Intermediate band Base diameter 236 mm approximately External height: 95 mm approx Lower band Base diameter 344 mm approximately External Height: 127 mm approximately Positioning the inner rings 84 mm from lower edge Fixing ring for camaglio (2) Internal diameter 4 mm Outer diameter 9.3 mm Thickness 4.5 mm NOTES 1) The construction technique - forged elements, joined together with rivets –(not welded) is similar to that adopted in the contemporary Pot Helmets. 2) The 20 rings were fixed to camaglio inserted in through holes in the metal band and secured it with the system of the rivet replied. Three of them are intact. 9 of them has only the rivet securing at the metal band. 8 of them are completely missing; There mounting hole was inappropriately closed with a plastic material during the restoration. Condition. The outer surfaces, highly corroded, have been properly and thoroughly deoxidized. The use of excessively abrasive tools is evident only on the protruding rivets. Less responsible for the restoration of the interior surfaces. All surfaces are protected with acrylic film Such protection is still effective and requires no rework. The restoration has been pushed to the reconstruction of some missing parts with plastic material. Best Regards Cesare |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,057
|
![]()
Hi cesare,
this is a kettle helmet or "chapel de fer", very effective helmet for the foot soldier which could be produced against low costs! There are kettle helmets known between 1200-1500. Dating however is very difficult.I presume 1250-1350 picture of a similar kettle helmet with flat top: ca. 1329 - 'Vilardell fights a griffin', Portal de Sant Iu, Catedral, Barcelona, Spain. regards Ciao Cesare, questo è un casco bollitore o "cappella de fer", il casco molto efficace per il soldato di fanteria che possono essere utilizzati a fronte di costi bassi! Ci sono caschi bollitore note tra 1200-1500. Incontri è comunque molto difficult.I presumere 1250-1350 foto di un casco simile bollitore con la parte superiore piatta: ca. 1329 - 'Vilardell combatte un grifone', in Portal de Sant Iu, Catedral, Barcelona, Spagna. per quanto riguarda |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
![]()
Hi there,
Before calling this any kind of 'helmet' at all I plead for thinking both logically and analytically. If this were a helmet: - Where is the slit for the eyes? - Where are the rivets (holes) for the wadding and the hauberk? - Where are the breathing holes? - The whole thing is of extremely thin iron - how could it possibly have stood a blow by a sword or mace?! Remember, its height is 26.7 cm. Just imagine putting it on the head, with the wadding and hauberk beneath - how could anyone possibly see and breathe? The illustrative source Cornelis posted clearly shows a much lower type of helmet leaving the sight free. In the following I attach a broad selection of helmets, from top to bottom, six of ca. 1250, five of ca. 1300 (from the Codex Manesse), two original Topfhelme (pot helmets) of ca. 1300, and Gothic helmets of ca. 1350 (Germanic National Museum Nuremberg), two of ca. 1410 and one of ca. 1440. Please closely compare these on the basis of my arguments. I have come to the conclusion that whatever this item may have been, some kind of kitchen gadget? or anything, in no case it ever was a helmet. At best, the upper half might be the rest of a helmet. Please post contradictory sources, though! ![]() Best, Michael Last edited by Matchlock; 1st November 2010 at 07:28 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
![]()
The rest.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 22
|
![]() Quote:
Gli anelli di fissaggio al camaglio lo provano senza dubbio, Essi sono posizionati a soli 84 mm dal bordo inferiore, quindi, il bordo del cappello si doveva posizionare poco sopra le sopraccila, rendendo inutile le aperture per gli occhi. Secondo gli esperti italiani è un particolare cappello usato dalla fanteria durante gli assedi. Infatti la sua forma non è propriamente adatta al combattimento, ma è adatta a deviare gli oggetti lanciati giù dalle mura della fortezza, Cappelli di ferro di questa forma sono molto rari. Pare ne esistano solo 2 o 3 esemplari, oltre a quello del museo Fioroni Carissimo Michael. Ti ringrazio per le stupende miniature. Sono sempre preziosi ed attendibili documenti. Un caro saluto a tutti Cesare Obviously in Italy we call it "Cappello d'armi" In english "Kettle Hat" ad so.... Retaining rings to camaglio, prove it without a doubt, They are located just 84 mm from the bottom edge, then the edge of the hat was placed just above the eyebrow, So, openings for the eyes are unnecessary According to Italian experts, it is a special hat used by the infantry during sieges. In fact its shape is not really suitable for combat, but is designed to deflect objects thrown down the walls of the fortress, Hats of iron in this form are very rare. It seems there are only 2 or 3 pieces, in addition to the museum Fioroni Dear Michael. Thank you for the wonderful miniatures. Are always valuable and reliable documents. Greetings to all Cesare |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
![]()
Thank you, Cesare,
Again: comparable images of similar objects and sources of illustration would help a lot! As to your point concerning the shape of the brim deflecting objects from above: I am afraid the actual angle would just direct such objects on the shoulder of the poor guy. Please confer the wider angles of the items I posted. And: where were the hauberk and wadding fixed? The single existing loop is absolutely insufficient. Any definite replies to my points in question?! How thick is the avarage iron? Best, Michael |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
![]()
If this were a helmet:
- Where is the slit for the eyes? - Where are the rivets (holes) for the wadding and the hauberk? - Where are the breathing holes? - The whole thing is of extremely thin iron - how could it possibly have stood a blow by a sword or mace?! - What is the average thickness of the iron? Please post contradictory sources! ![]() Hi Cesare, May I expect definite replies on these queries? Best, m |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
![]()
Cesare?!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
![]()
More 12th-13.th c. knightly helmets in original sources - all either low enough to leave the eyes uncovered, and with riveted hauberks, or with definite eye slits as well as breathing holes!
None of all helmets found in historical illustrations comes in the least close to yours, sorry. I am still awaiting your precise answers to my queries though, as well as some counter evidence. ![]() m |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Lead Moderator European Armoury
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]()
I know it has nothing to do.
... Just for the shape (slight) similarity ![]() . |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
![]()
Right, 'Nando,
But the helmet in the illustration is so low that it only corresponds to the upper half of Cesare's piece and leave the eyes and the nose free. ![]() Michl |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,653
|
![]()
I have a few observations....
The dimensions and the shape of this helmet do not make sense, to me. The average human head is around 26cms 'high', the eyes are approx. mid way ...so approx. 13cms below the crown (of the head). If the lower rim is set level with eye level ...the top of the helmet would be around 13cms higher than the top of the head (nearly 5") ...that seems alot of padding. Plus the fact with a helmet set so high on the head it would be very 'unstable'....especially to a side-ways strike. If the helmet is placed in a more 'stable' position, closer to the top of the head....the wearer is unable to see forwards....requiring eye-holes ![]() It is suggested that the helmet was used in siege situations to protect from thrown missiles from above....to deflect these better a dome shape would be more effective, and the 'flared' lower sections made wider.... or am I missing something Regards David . Last edited by katana; 8th November 2010 at 04:05 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,057
|
![]()
I do not understand why there is so much criticism and suspicion on the sizes of this helmet, it corresponds to what one would expect from a kettle hat, and corresponds also nexactly to the dimensions of a 16thC cabaset (also just above the eye line.)
If you're looking for more convincing evidence, make a cardboard hat and try it yourself. best regards |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
![]()
No eye slit.
No breathing holes. No lining rivets. No sufficing thickness of iron. NO HELMET. Cornelis, instead of creating new theories, could you please answer my queries step by step? ![]() Best, Michael |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,653
|
![]()
If the thickness stated is indeed 4.5mm all over, it seems extremely heavy.
Most Helms from many periods range from 1.5mm-2.5mm average....when I say average I mean that several parts of a helmet may be thicker say 3mm and other parts (of the same helmet)1mm or so. The thicker plate used to protect more vital areas. A lot of the strength of the helmet comes from its rounded shape.....and seem to typically weigh around 3.5lbs-5.5lbs. I am curious to see what the posted helmet weighs. Afterall a very heavy helmet would be more of an hinderance than an advantage. Cesare, could you please post the weight? Regards David |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,057
|
![]() Quote:
it is not a new theory, but the sizes seem to me more than acceptable for a kettle hat. Definitely not too large so that the eyes are closed, you can not compare this course with a great helmet because a much larger diameter in its center. If I find some time I will try to make a paper dummy based on the specified dimensions. Best regards Last edited by cornelistromp; 8th November 2010 at 08:33 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,057
|
![]() Quote:
the thickness of 4.5MM is mentioned for the fixing rings of the camaglio and not for the plates! (that is of course not possible) best, |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,653
|
![]() Quote:
Hi Cornelis, thanks for pointing out my error .....I misread the thickness, nevertheless, I would still like to know the thickness and weight of this helmet. Kind Regards David |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,057
|
![]()
Gentlemen,
it's very funny but not to my appreciation; This post began as a serious application, and service to be treated so. Cesare will not be encouraged to post more interesting medieval articles inbetween the gun-chat if we react like this. besides this what happens to the credible nature of this forum when later a "non self Appointed specialist" decleares this piece genuine? best regards Jasper Last edited by cornelistromp; 9th November 2010 at 08:43 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Lead Moderator European Armoury
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]()
Jasper is right, Gentlemen.
Better forget the last few posts. ... expecting that Cesare didn't feel offended. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 607
|
![]()
My posts in this thread have magically disappeared.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
![]()
OK,
Cornelis is right. On the other hand and in my opinion, each serious discussion should be allowed to get a litlle bit childish now and then, just for the fun. Best, Michael |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,284
|
![]()
That our new contributing member Cesare, has not been offended by your antics Gentlemen .
![]() Please remember; there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers . Over and out . Rick |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 607
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
![]()
Exactly, Dmitry,
This has been and still is the serious question, and Cesare has sadly never replied on my key queries! ![]() m |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 | |
Lead Moderator European Armoury
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
Some posts were deleted ... and signed. You may read post #20. Consider the term "forget" in a broad sense. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 | |
Lead Moderator European Armoury
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]()
Hi Michl,
Quote:
... and so on ! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 607
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 | ||
Lead Moderator European Armoury
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]()
Hi Dmitry,
Quote:
Quote:
![]() ... furthermore, let's avoid raining on the wet. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 607
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|