13th century helmet from museum

fernando · 3rd January 2011, 04:30 PM

So ...
Let us assume for a moment that, these these things were battle accoutrements purposely made for assaulting (climbing) fortification walls; to protect you from whatever is dropped from above ... stones, boiling oil and the like.
The eye slits would be dispensable; you wouldn't wish to look up while climbing your ladder and risk having your eyes burnt by the oil ... or perforated by an arrow.
A wider brim would make too heavy; the shoulders would be protected by its own reinforcement

katana · 3rd January 2011, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

So ...
Let us assume for a moment that, these these things were battle accoutrements purposely made for assaulting (climbing) fortification walls; to protect you from whatever is dropped from above ... stones, boiling oil and the like.
The eye slits would be dispensable; you wouldn't wish to look up while climbing your ladder and risk having your eyes burnt by the oil ... or perforated by an arrow.
A wider brim would make too heavy; the shoulders would be protected by its own reinforcement

Hi 'Nando,
first of all....Happy New Year to you all.

Interesting point, my concern with the helmet is the 'eye level' (as already stated) but, if your assumption is correct, perhaps the helmet had much more and thicker padding (covering the crown) this would raise the level of the 'brim' in relation to the eyes ...... and increase the protection from falling / downward thrown objects

All the best
David

Matchlock · 5th January 2011, 07:05 PM

OK, 'Nando,

This is an argument I cannot confound. Also, David's thought of an unusually thick padding makes sense.

Best,
Michael

fernando · 5th January 2011, 07:15 PM

Well, if this is a helmet to specificaly protect you from falling objects, thick padding or, better say, thick stuffing, is an inherent detail.

Matchlock · 6th January 2011, 04:03 AM

Duly noted, 'Nando,

One argument consequently leads to the other.

Best,
MIchael

M ELEY · 7th January 2011, 11:04 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komus%C5%8D

Just kidding, I think the heavily padded seige helmet theory fits best.

mrwizard · 7th January 2011, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komus%C5%8D

Just kidding, I think the heavily padded seige helmet theory fits best.

OK folks, i really tried to resist but...

i found this while browsing through Thalhofer:

7th January 2011, 11:04 AM	#6
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,141	Not ALL helmets have to have eye holes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komus%C5%8D Just kidding, I think the heavily padded seige helmet theory fits best.

3rd January 2011, 04:30 PM	#1
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	So ... Let us assume for a moment that, these these things were battle accoutrements purposely made for assaulting (climbing) fortification walls; to protect you from whatever is dropped from above ... stones, boiling oil and the like. The eye slits would be dispensable; you wouldn't wish to look up while climbing your ladder and risk having your eyes burnt by the oil ... or perforated by an arrow. A wider brim would make too heavy; the shoulders would be protected by its own reinforcement

5th January 2011, 07:05 PM	#3
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	OK, 'Nando, This is an argument I cannot confound. Also, David's thought of an unusually thick padding makes sense. Best, Michael

5th January 2011, 07:15 PM	#4
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Well, if this is a helmet to specificaly protect you from falling objects, thick padding or, better say, thick stuffing, is an inherent detail.

6th January 2011, 04:03 AM	#5
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Duly noted, 'Nando, One argument consequently leads to the other. Best, MIchael