Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A Senefelder · 1st December 2012, 02:39 AM

Paul, much of the armour used during the 17th century was not " armour of proof " in fact most of the "armour of proof " made during this period was for use by cavalry, more cuirassiers, but a fair amount of harquebussiers breast plates were as well. Much of the armour used during the 30 Years War was older 16th century armours held in armouries such as Graz and and was not of proof. Infantry armours seldom were ( siege engineers armour being the exception into the early 18th century ) simply put because an entire or even half armour or proof caried by a man on foot wasn't practicle. Cavalry were on horses and this made the 3/4 proof cuirassiers armour more particle as the animal was carrying it. That being said much cavalry armour beyond possibly the breast plate wasn't proof either outside of full cuirassiers harness, the use of edged and pointed weapons being the primary items intended to defend against and relying of the ballistic shape to cause anything but a direct 90 degree hit to be deflected. There are several closed cavalry helmets of tottenkopph type from Graz shown in the book Shiney Shapes ( while a great coffe table book and the pictures do show great contructional detail photos, the author seems to have combine randon elements of harness together for compositions ) with deep dents and square holes of the sort that the back spike of an axe or warhammer of the period would deliver.

The helmet you've shown seems constructionally to be alright. The bowl is made from two halves that over lap and are riveted together, square cut washers, an uneven underside edge to the rolled and counter sunk boarders and what appeares to be beveled exposed plate edges ( this gave a better deflecting angle to cause weapon edged to skip off rather than catch as they would on and unbeveled plate edge which would yield a 90 degree angle to catch on ). The detailed fluting on the skull would indicate that this would be for and officer rather than a trooper, troopers versions often being quite crude in comparison ( not however in function, the distinction is in the finish ). Without the ability to handle the helmet of course this is at best my guess based on photos but the constructional detail seem good. The Victorians would pick up on one or two of these but very seldom picked up on all with the few exceptions of the likes of Ernst Schmidt whos best work was 15th and 16th century reproductions.

1st December 2012, 02:39 AM	#2
A Senefelder Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 214	Paul, much of the armour used during the 17th century was not " armour of proof " in fact most of the "armour of proof " made during this period was for use by cavalry, more cuirassiers, but a fair amount of harquebussiers breast plates were as well. Much of the armour used during the 30 Years War was older 16th century armours held in armouries such as Graz and and was not of proof. Infantry armours seldom were ( siege engineers armour being the exception into the early 18th century ) simply put because an entire or even half armour or proof caried by a man on foot wasn't practicle. Cavalry were on horses and this made the 3/4 proof cuirassiers armour more particle as the animal was carrying it. That being said much cavalry armour beyond possibly the breast plate wasn't proof either outside of full cuirassiers harness, the use of edged and pointed weapons being the primary items intended to defend against and relying of the ballistic shape to cause anything but a direct 90 degree hit to be deflected. There are several closed cavalry helmets of tottenkopph type from Graz shown in the book Shiney Shapes ( while a great coffe table book and the pictures do show great contructional detail photos, the author seems to have combine randon elements of harness together for compositions ) with deep dents and square holes of the sort that the back spike of an axe or warhammer of the period would deliver. The helmet you've shown seems constructionally to be alright. The bowl is made from two halves that over lap and are riveted together, square cut washers, an uneven underside edge to the rolled and counter sunk boarders and what appeares to be beveled exposed plate edges ( this gave a better deflecting angle to cause weapon edged to skip off rather than catch as they would on and unbeveled plate edge which would yield a 90 degree angle to catch on ). The detailed fluting on the skull would indicate that this would be for and officer rather than a trooper, troopers versions often being quite crude in comparison ( not however in function, the distinction is in the finish ). Without the ability to handle the helmet of course this is at best my guess based on photos but the constructional detail seem good. The Victorians would pick up on one or two of these but very seldom picked up on all with the few exceptions of the likes of Ernst Schmidt whos best work was 15th and 16th century reproductions.