Could the closed Greek helmet kill a warrior?

tom hyle · 26th May 2005, 10:37 AM

I don't think I can summon up much belief that European plate armour is descended from Middle Eastern armours encountered in the crusades, both because the use of hard plates in armour in Europe predates this and seems to evolve fairly continuously, without "jumping" to an unrecognizable product; each is a relative of the last, and (more strikingly) because there seem to be significant differences in basic philosophy/design/layout between "Eastern"/Islamic armours and European ones. The shape of the plates is different (the Islamic ones are flatter and more angular/geometric; the European tend toward a more organnic/naturalistic/body-based shape), as is the way they join to each other or to the rest of the harness, as is the way that bodily joints, elbows and knees, are handled (the Islamic ones being markedly similar to only the earliest European ones; ones far predating the crusades.). It seems like two seperate/oposing streams, and if one came from the other directly It must have been very long ago (of course the first crusades were).....I think they are parrallel evolutions from distant common ancestors. BTW, AFAIK there is little or no Islamic equivalent to European full plate armour? Chainmail is said to be a Celtic invention. Is there a competing contention from/for the East?

Aqtai · 26th May 2005, 12:33 PM

I'm not suggesting Western European plate armour is descended from Islamic armours, however I do believe that Islamic armour had a strong influence on the development of European armour. I also believe that the brigandine or 'pair of plates' originated in the Near East and was taken back to Europe by the crusaders. I also think that the basinet with its mail camail is descended from 13th century Islamic helmets that had mail camails.

Although it has to be said that there is another contender for the ancestry of the bascinet. Early basinets have a more conical shape and the visor is attached by a single hinge in the middle of the forehead. This bears a resemblance to the "Kipchaq" helmets worn in Russia and Central Asia in the 10th-13th centuries. This is my own little theory, please feel free to totally disregard it.

With regards to mail, there is very little doubt that it was invented by the Celts, adopted by the Romans who in Turn passed it on the Iranians. However I believe it was the Iranians, specifically the Parthians, who added longer sleeves and skirts to mail shirts. I have also read, please don't ask me where because I can't remember, that it is possible that the Ancient Assyrians invented mail. As far as know there is no evidence for this beyond the fact that the Assyrians were making very fine Iron helmets in the 7th century, and reliefs from the palace of king Ashurbanipal, now in the British Museum, which show Assyrian soldiers wearing some kind of long armoured coat reaching to the knees or ankles with elbow length sleeves and a coif of some kind attached to the helmet. This armour is usually described as being scale or lamellar. But the 'cut' bears a striking resemblance to mail.

Please excuse the atrocious quality of these pictures:

Helmet no. 3 above is the type I'm referring to. You can't see it in the pic, but there is a hinge in the middle of the forehead connecting the visor to the skull.

I'm aware I've gone way off topic here, so I'll put in this pic:

Helmets of this type were the most popular helmet in ancient Greece for about 300 years. If they had been so dangerous, they would not have used. Another point, they were only worn in battle, when not fighting hoplites would push them up to the top of their heads.

Yannis · 26th May 2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aqtai

Another point, they were only worn in battle, when not fighting hoplites would push them up to the top of their heads.

Exactly! Like Pericles in the photo. Although, the sources say that he was wearing it like this mostly because he had a bad form of the head! He was the builder of Athenian Golden Age and maybe his brain was too big

Jim McDougall · 27th May 2005, 03:42 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

Jens Nordlunde · 27th May 2005, 03:15 PM

Hi Jim,

Thank you for the article, as it can hardly be called a mail. It is very well researched as well as written, and the quotes you give are excellent – it must have taken you hours. I have yet to find quotes like that in my books. I am not surprised that finding quotes like that is far apart, as we must not forget, that it was one thing to be killed on a battle field fighting, but it was not a big honour to die of a heat stroke, even if it was on the battlefield, so not many of these stories ended up in the history books – or in any other books for that matter. To die on the battlefield due to the heat, dressed in mail shirt and a helmet or in plates, well oiled at the knees and elbows, and a helmet, was something which happened, no reason to take the honour from the man by talking too much about it – after all, he did show up at the right place to the right time.

Jens

Rick · 27th May 2005, 04:17 PM

With reference to Agincourt , IIRC it was fought after a prolonged period of rainy weather . In this case French knights when unhorsed would have had a horrible time regaining their footing due to the suction of the mud on their plate armor and many may well have suffocated in the mud along with a number of their similarly armored English foe .
The English archers unencumbered were able to fight much more effectively in muddy conditions and once a knight was down he was easy pickings .
I guess that not only heat could have been an enemy of the fully armored man .
I suspect the Duke of York drowned in the mud .

I do not think that any honor is taken from a man in the way he died on the field of battle , unless he was killed running away . York was there facing incredible odds along with the rest of the English and was most likely covered with the enemies of his king .

As you say ; showing up for the fray is what really counts .

Jens Nordlunde · 27th May 2005, 05:37 PM

Hi Rick,

You wrote: ‘I do not think that any honour is taken from a man in the way he died on the field of battle, unless he was killed running away’.

I quite agree with you, but if someone died in real battle it must have been a bigger honour, so why tell the family other than ‘he died fighting’, and so he did – in a way.

Now I am at it, were any orders given during fighting, other than ‘ATTACK’? Be course with a full helmet on, or one with mail it must have been hard/impossible to hear anything in the noise of the battle. Besides, the way some helmets, with or without mail ‘curtains’ were made, it must have been very difficult to look to the sides to see if your ‘neighbours’ had left already, leaving you ‘alone’ on the battle field. As the uniforms were only invented rather late in India, it could have been difficult to judge, if you were surrounded by friends or by not so friendly enemies.

26th May 2005, 10:37 AM	#1
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	I don't think I can summon up much belief that European plate armour is descended from Middle Eastern armours encountered in the crusades, both because the use of hard plates in armour in Europe predates this and seems to evolve fairly continuously, without "jumping" to an unrecognizable product; each is a relative of the last, and (more strikingly) because there seem to be significant differences in basic philosophy/design/layout between "Eastern"/Islamic armours and European ones. The shape of the plates is different (the Islamic ones are flatter and more angular/geometric; the European tend toward a more organnic/naturalistic/body-based shape), as is the way they join to each other or to the rest of the harness, as is the way that bodily joints, elbows and knees, are handled (the Islamic ones being markedly similar to only the earliest European ones; ones far predating the crusades.). It seems like two seperate/oposing streams, and if one came from the other directly It must have been very long ago (of course the first crusades were).....I think they are parrallel evolutions from distant common ancestors. BTW, AFAIK there is little or no Islamic equivalent to European full plate armour? Chainmail is said to be a Celtic invention. Is there a competing contention from/for the East? Last edited by tom hyle; 26th May 2005 at 11:20 AM.

27th May 2005, 04:17 PM	#6
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,293	With reference to Agincourt , IIRC it was fought after a prolonged period of rainy weather . In this case French knights when unhorsed would have had a horrible time regaining their footing due to the suction of the mud on their plate armor and many may well have suffocated in the mud along with a number of their similarly armored English foe . The English archers unencumbered were able to fight much more effectively in muddy conditions and once a knight was down he was easy pickings . I guess that not only heat could have been an enemy of the fully armored man . I suspect the Duke of York drowned in the mud . I do not think that any honor is taken from a man in the way he died on the field of battle , unless he was killed running away . York was there facing incredible odds along with the rest of the English and was most likely covered with the enemies of his king . As you say ; showing up for the fray is what really counts . Last edited by Rick; 27th May 2005 at 04:48 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

26th May 2005, 12:33 PM	#2
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	I'm not suggesting Western European plate armour is descended from Islamic armours, however I do believe that Islamic armour had a strong influence on the development of European armour. I also believe that the brigandine or 'pair of plates' originated in the Near East and was taken back to Europe by the crusaders. I also think that the basinet with its mail camail is descended from 13th century Islamic helmets that had mail camails. Although it has to be said that there is another contender for the ancestry of the bascinet. Early basinets have a more conical shape and the visor is attached by a single hinge in the middle of the forehead. This bears a resemblance to the "Kipchaq" helmets worn in Russia and Central Asia in the 10th-13th centuries. This is my own little theory, please feel free to totally disregard it. With regards to mail, there is very little doubt that it was invented by the Celts, adopted by the Romans who in Turn passed it on the Iranians. However I believe it was the Iranians, specifically the Parthians, who added longer sleeves and skirts to mail shirts. I have also read, please don't ask me where because I can't remember, that it is possible that the Ancient Assyrians invented mail. As far as know there is no evidence for this beyond the fact that the Assyrians were making very fine Iron helmets in the 7th century, and reliefs from the palace of king Ashurbanipal, now in the British Museum, which show Assyrian soldiers wearing some kind of long armoured coat reaching to the knees or ankles with elbow length sleeves and a coif of some kind attached to the helmet. This armour is usually described as being scale or lamellar. But the 'cut' bears a striking resemblance to mail. Please excuse the atrocious quality of these pictures: Helmet no. 3 above is the type I'm referring to. You can't see it in the pic, but there is a hinge in the middle of the forehead connecting the visor to the skull. I'm aware I've gone way off topic here, so I'll put in this pic: Helmets of this type were the most popular helmet in ancient Greece for about 300 years. If they had been so dangerous, they would not have used. Another point, they were only worn in battle, when not fighting hoplites would push them up to the top of their heads.

27th May 2005, 03:42 AM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,951	"...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, 03:15 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Jim, Thank you for the article, as it can hardly be called a mail. It is very well researched as well as written, and the quotes you give are excellent – it must have taken you hours. I have yet to find quotes like that in my books. I am not surprised that finding quotes like that is far apart, as we must not forget, that it was one thing to be killed on a battle field fighting, but it was not a big honour to die of a heat stroke, even if it was on the battlefield, so not many of these stories ended up in the history books – or in any other books for that matter. To die on the battlefield due to the heat, dressed in mail shirt and a helmet or in plates, well oiled at the knees and elbows, and a helmet, was something which happened, no reason to take the honour from the man by talking too much about it – after all, he did show up at the right place to the right time. Jens

27th May 2005, 05:37 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Rick, You wrote: ‘I do not think that any honour is taken from a man in the way he died on the field of battle, unless he was killed running away’. I quite agree with you, but if someone died in real battle it must have been a bigger honour, so why tell the family other than ‘he died fighting’, and so he did – in a way. Now I am at it, were any orders given during fighting, other than ‘ATTACK’? Be course with a full helmet on, or one with mail it must have been hard/impossible to hear anything in the noise of the battle. Besides, the way some helmets, with or without mail ‘curtains’ were made, it must have been very difficult to look to the sides to see if your ‘neighbours’ had left already, leaving you ‘alone’ on the battle field. As the uniforms were only invented rather late in India, it could have been difficult to judge, if you were surrounded by friends or by not so friendly enemies.