Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - Could the closed Greek helmet kill a warrior?

Jim McDougall · 27th May 2005, 02:42 AM

"...or art thou but a dagger of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the heat oppressed brain?".
Macbeth II , i, 33, Shakespeare

The original question asked by Jens on this topic was incredibly interesting as
it is regarding a factor seldom, if ever, addressed in historical narratives or military assessments of physiology of the warrior in combat situations.
In particular, his question uses the enclosed Greek helmet as an example to analyze the physical effects of heat on the warrior in adverse weather or climate resulting from such protective armor. This same application would pertain equally to virtually all combat forces in all periods wearing similar protective gear, but in this case we wonder if not only could early warriors have been overcome with heatstroke, but could their effectiveness in combat have been reduced by this deadly combination of heat and armor.

In reading through much of the literature on the history of armor, there is of course considerable discussion on the development of various forms, and most historical data pertains to medieval armor, however there is next to nothing addressing the problem of wearing it in severe climates or seasons.
Apparantly some of the only observation or investigation into the effects of sunstroke in combat situations that are noted are from India concerning soldiers there where this factor proved a considerable item in sickness and mortality. This brings to mind of course the British troops of the Raj wearing kepi type hats with neck covering flaps, and the pith helmets created to provide protection from the deadly sun.

Returning to earlier times and armor, Brittanica (p.392) notes "...it is one of the mysteries in the history of armour how the crusaders could have fought under the scorching sun of the east in thick quilted garments covered with excessively heavy chain mail, for this equipment was so cumbersome to take off and on that it must have been worn frequently night and day, and the very nature of the fabric made it almost impossibleto move the sword arm with more than a wide swinging cut".

This entry notes how heavy and cumbersome the protection was, but only hints at the more insidious threat of the deadly heat. In "Brasseys Book of Body Armor" (Robert Woosnam-Savage, 2000, p.70) it is noted "...the real problem with armor was not its weight, but the way it trapped heat. Body heat resulting from battle exertion COULD PROVE FATAL. At the Battle of Agincourt (1415) the Duke of York seems to have died of a heart attack brought on by 'the heat of battle'".
In checking on this key event further, in John Keegans brilliant work "The Face of Battle", which is the only work I am familiar with that focuses on the psychological aspects of combat, the author notes, "...the Duke of York, who was pulled from under a heap of corpses, dead from either suffocation or a heart attack" (p.112).

It would seem that the use of the poignant phrase 'heat of battle' could have had more meaning than we have realized. It would seem quite possible that the combination of external heat, and the internal heat generated in the intense exertion of combat might well result in debilitating or even fatal situation athough no physical wounds are suffered.
Dr. F. Kottenkamp ("The History of Chivalry and Armor", 1850, p.89) states, "...the heat of summer made the armor insupportible and exposed the wearer to the dangers of suffocation and apoplexy, or produced at least, such a debility as to disable him from wielding his weapons".
* For we lay persons, the term apoplexy = a sudden, usually marked loss of bodily function due to rupture or occlusion of blood vessel , i.e.brain hemorrhage or stroke.

With these references it would seem that either severe heat from either external forces such as climate/sun or extended/dramatic exertion or especially combination of both could well fatally impact a warrior wearing heavy armor, especially closed helmet. Given that these factors were certainly present for those wearing Corinthian helmets as well, it would seem plausible that although not specifically recorded, it may well have occurred.

Regarding the warriors ability to function effectively in combat in severe heat situations in armor and heavy protective gear, it would seem that there may have been much more negative impact on these forces than mentioned in historic accounts.

Not only may combatants have become quickly spent or exhausted during battles, but mental faculties are quickly compromised by heat exhaustion or sunstroke if not exceeded by sickness or respiration difficulty and loss of consciousness.

Although I can claim no medical expertise and my notes on medical and historical comments concern later periods, I hope this might apply to perspective on similar effects that may apply to the Greek helmets.

Best regards,
Jim

27th May 2005, 02:42 AM	#21
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,191	"...or art thou but a dagger of the mind, a false creation, Proceeding from the heat oppressed brain?". Macbeth II , i, 33, Shakespeare The original question asked by Jens on this topic was incredibly interesting as it is regarding a factor seldom, if ever, addressed in historical narratives or military assessments of physiology of the warrior in combat situations. In particular, his question uses the enclosed Greek helmet as an example to analyze the physical effects of heat on the warrior in adverse weather or climate resulting from such protective armor. This same application would pertain equally to virtually all combat forces in all periods wearing similar protective gear, but in this case we wonder if not only could early warriors have been overcome with heatstroke, but could their effectiveness in combat have been reduced by this deadly combination of heat and armor. In reading through much of the literature on the history of armor, there is of course considerable discussion on the development of various forms, and most historical data pertains to medieval armor, however there is next to nothing addressing the problem of wearing it in severe climates or seasons. Apparantly some of the only observation or investigation into the effects of sunstroke in combat situations that are noted are from India concerning soldiers there where this factor proved a considerable item in sickness and mortality. This brings to mind of course the British troops of the Raj wearing kepi type hats with neck covering flaps, and the pith helmets created to provide protection from the deadly sun. Returning to earlier times and armor, Brittanica (p.392) notes "...it is one of the mysteries in the history of armour how the crusaders could have fought under the scorching sun of the east in thick quilted garments covered with excessively heavy chain mail, for this equipment was so cumbersome to take off and on that it must have been worn frequently night and day, and the very nature of the fabric made it almost impossibleto move the sword arm with more than a wide swinging cut". This entry notes how heavy and cumbersome the protection was, but only hints at the more insidious threat of the deadly heat. In "Brasseys Book of Body Armor" (Robert Woosnam-Savage, 2000, p.70) it is noted "...the real problem with armor was not its weight, but the way it trapped heat. Body heat resulting from battle exertion COULD PROVE FATAL. At the Battle of Agincourt (1415) the Duke of York seems to have died of a heart attack brought on by 'the heat of battle'". In checking on this key event further, in John Keegans brilliant work "The Face of Battle", which is the only work I am familiar with that focuses on the psychological aspects of combat, the author notes, "...the Duke of York, who was pulled from under a heap of corpses, dead from either suffocation or a heart attack" (p.112). It would seem that the use of the poignant phrase 'heat of battle' could have had more meaning than we have realized. It would seem quite possible that the combination of external heat, and the internal heat generated in the intense exertion of combat might well result in debilitating or even fatal situation athough no physical wounds are suffered. Dr. F. Kottenkamp ("The History of Chivalry and Armor", 1850, p.89) states, "...the heat of summer made the armor insupportible and exposed the wearer to the dangers of suffocation and apoplexy, or produced at least, such a debility as to disable him from wielding his weapons". * For we lay persons, the term apoplexy = a sudden, usually marked loss of bodily function due to rupture or occlusion of blood vessel , i.e.brain hemorrhage or stroke. With these references it would seem that either severe heat from either external forces such as climate/sun or extended/dramatic exertion or especially combination of both could well fatally impact a warrior wearing heavy armor, especially closed helmet. Given that these factors were certainly present for those wearing Corinthian helmets as well, it would seem plausible that although not specifically recorded, it may well have occurred. Regarding the warriors ability to function effectively in combat in severe heat situations in armor and heavy protective gear, it would seem that there may have been much more negative impact on these forces than mentioned in historic accounts. Not only may combatants have become quickly spent or exhausted during battles, but mental faculties are quickly compromised by heat exhaustion or sunstroke if not exceeded by sickness or respiration difficulty and loss of consciousness. Although I can claim no medical expertise and my notes on medical and historical comments concern later periods, I hope this might apply to perspective on similar effects that may apply to the Greek helmets. Best regards, Jim