Could the closed Greek helmet kill a warrior? - Page 2

Rivkin · 29th May 2005, 05:37 PM

I'm sorry, I was a little bit too vicious in my attacks on historical biases, but they do exist.

Jim McDougall · 29th May 2005, 06:38 PM

Hi Jens,
Thank you very much for the kind words on what apparantly did evolve into more of an article! As I've always noted, Im hardly known for brevity

and actually it did take quite a while to find the data I did find on this fascinating subject. What I like is the learning while Im doing it. I always hope that sharing what I find can be shared by others too, so I write...a lot!!!

Rick,
Thanks for the notes on the Agincourt battle, and in reviewing Professor Keegans account. he does note the rain and plowed fields, however his observations focus on the difficulty and slowness of movement of the forces through this. His descriptions and perspective on battles reflect the kind of study done at British military university at Sandhurst, naturally with attention to tactics, but Keegan has a more subjective and psychological approach which was what drew me to his work in the first place.
The references elsewhere that noted the death of the Duke of York of other than wounds, suggesting heatstroke or heart attack seemed very much applicable here, and I hoped that Keegan might offer more detail. Actually he did, noting the Duke was pulled from beneath a significant number of corpses, and it was noted he died of either 'suffocation or heart attack'.
Keegan is an incredibly detailed narrator had already mentioned the rainy, muddy conditions, yet does not suggest drowning, which is as you have suggested is more than entirely plausible.

I think that the lack of attention that prevails in most military history and similar narratives to this less than valorious subject matter is much as has been noted, when documenting heroic events in the most dramatic and tragic circumstance in humanity..that of war...often is biased in degree. Human nature seeks comfort and hope as well as spirit in knowing that the lost lives of thier loved ones were not spent in vain.
It is well noted that a life of a warrior lost in any conflict is profoundly significant regardless of the cause or means in which it occurred. All warriors are, as Rick has said, heroes unless running away. In all regard, it would seem that even in many of those circumstances, a number may be qualified by the less than attended subject we discuss here. The degrees of heat related and exhaustion problems physiologically related to extreme conditions may distort the judgement or ability of a combatant, and cause actions he would not normally consider.

Mark
Im really glad you came in on this as well as we needed some medical perspective here, and yours in handling situational and traumatic medical events is, uh , just what the doctor ordered!!

Really though, it seems this very prevalent and insidious situation is little discussed, often even in general medical references. It seems that way back in my own ancient history, basic training which was unfortunately in southern Texas during the hot humid summer was extremely threatened with this problem of heatstroke. We were cautioned constantly to 'take our salt tablets' and warned of the consequences. Along the course one could see strategically placed ambulances, and I saw more than several unfortunates rushed away in them, presumably most fallen from the heat. Similarly I can recall standing at attention in direct sun for what seemed eternity...the guy on my right was so paranoid about the rest of us passing out. I suddenly realized an emptiness next to me and he was flat on the ground and completely unconscious. Another insidious element..anxiety.

Im sure you are familiar with vaso-vagal syncope, where anxiety or fear however insidious or subliminal, can cause a persons heartbeat to diminish and often stop, sometimes fatally. Could this be another factor in one being overcome by heat or stress exhaustion?

All best regards,
Jim

M ELEY · 30th May 2005, 11:23 AM

Yes, a vasovagal response is very possible under these circumstances,Jim. Gets me to thinking about all of the other plague of problems that these Crusaders must have faced, from water supply (Think water from Mexico!), to food shortages, to the heat. Even something as mild as heat cramps would have proven to be quite debilitating. My question is, did these knights and warriors always go around dressed in armor, or did their pages, helpers, etc, just keep it readily availible prior to battle? I love the Crusades, but need to read up on them alittle more!

Jim McDougall · 30th May 2005, 04:44 PM

Hi Mark,
Thanks for confirming that, it seemed applicable here. I'm with you on the history of the crusades, as well as the armor of these times and ancient times. It seems my focus has always been on swords and edged weapons of course, but it is exciting to see how pertinant the study of related items such as armor is to our study of these weapons.
I think Jens has been very astute in setting us on this course

In looking at the crusades period it would seem to me the number of fully armored knights would have been relatively small, and those knights likely would have had squires and assistants to maintain and transport thier armor. The image of the medieval 'paladin' riding about in full armor seems more a product of illustrators of Victorian period that leaned toward romanticized notions of chivalry. Those monumentally decorated helms were actually for funerary purposes and not worn in battle, let alone any other time.

Returning to the original topic, it would seem the Greeks were more universally equipped with these closed helmets, which was the most prominant item of armor. It is doubtful that they wore them except when battle was imminent. These were most restrictive for hearing and vision so I cannot image the warriors marching or otherwise walking around in them.
Does anyone out there know of possibly these heavy helmets might have been carried in case of some kind possibly worn over the back?
It also seems that virtually until the latter 19th century, battles were pretty much calculated and protocol oriented events. That is, opposing sides would position, organize and prepare for battle for hours in full view of each other. I am not certain what moment or instance would initiate the battle, but would the forces each wait for indefinite periods in armor waiting? We need our scholars of ancient warfare to address this.

All the best,
Jim

tom hyle · 30th May 2005, 09:08 PM

On the subject of hearing and signalling: Some ancient helmets were equipped with hearing ports, but some were not. It certainly can make a difference. Organization was typically by location/clan/etc. so all the people in a given unit dressed much alike, knew each other personally, and trained together, whether as professional soldiers or as militia men. Such a unit can seem to turn and maneuver like a school of fish, with no noticeable signals. Typically the armies were tribal, and the other tribe, their allies, your allies, etc. were all instantly recognizable by their clothing, appearance, equipment, etc. In Europe there was a custom of orienting to a flag bearer. But most signalling AFAIK in traditional European and African warfare was by horns and drums. The Bantus have languages for two-toned trumpets and drums that can be quite sophisticated (I am told). You may notice the bearing and winding of horns as a theme in ancient European stories from time to time. In peace they were used as hunting signals, and no doubt the hunting was part of the duty, delight, and training of early heroes and later noblemen.
Certainly the plate armoured, or even chainmailed warrior was always an elite warrior. In Attic Greece the warriors who wore the full helms were hoplites; free men, mostly landholders, who could afford a hoplon (giant hard-faced roundshield) and longspear, and usually a riding horse. All other equipment was usually optional to designation as a hoplite. Some cities/tribes and wealthy individuals would hire men and arm them as hoplites. The full helm was not universal among hoplites, although a helmet of some kind was AFAIK the next preferred piece of equipage, the sword or dagger being pretty much assumed.

Jens Nordlunde · 30th May 2005, 10:35 PM

Yes Tom, but you must also take in consideartion, that many of the Indian soldiers were not trained at all. As I wrote, many were taking out of the bazares, dressed up and sent to the battle field.

BSMStar · 2nd June 2005, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Rivkin, I don’t know where you read about the diseases, but it is true that it must have been a great problem for them.

If I recall, one of the biggest battlefield killers through WW1 was pneumonia… until penicillin was invented... due to poor living conditions and complications due to wounds.

Here is a site I found that backs up my bad memory...

http://www.amsus.org/MilitaryMedicine/MMabstr.htm

"History reveals a tremendous impact of respiratory pathogens on the U.S. military, dating back to the time of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, during which 90% of casualties were for nonbattle injury, including several respiratory illnesses such as measles, whooping cough, and complicated pneumonia."

Sometimes a military life is just no fun.

Aqtai · 2nd June 2005, 09:20 PM

Please don't flame me on this, because I don't have my books available to make direct quotes.

With regards to disease first, In Egypt during the Mamluk period, 1250-1517 AD, the biggest single killer of mamluks was not battle but 'Ta'oon', the Plague. Goodness knows when the mamluks weren't fighting Crusaders or Mongols, they were busy fighting each other in the countless power struggles of the Emirs. So that was a lot of Ta'oon.

The mamluks also tended to wear relatively heavy armour: mail, lamellar armour, mail-&-plate armour or brigandines and helmets with mail coifs. These were men originally from the Steppes of Central Asia, the Crimea and the Caucasus, having to fight in the Heat of Egypt, Palestine and Syria in heavy armour, yet I don't recall any referrences to men dying of heat stroke. However numerous Egyptian chroniclers like Ibn Iyas, El-Maqrizi and El-Ayni also pointed out that armour was not put on until the men were just about to go into battle. But in at least one battle fought against the Mongols in the early 14th century (it may have been Marg Es-Safar, correct me if I'm wrong) the mamluks remained in the saddle all night, fully armoured, and did not start fighting the Mongols till the morning. The same Egyptian historians are quick to point out when the Mongols and Cruasaders were collapsing from thirst and exhaustion.

Rivkin · 2nd June 2005, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aqtai

Please don't flame me on this, because I don't have my books available to make direct quotes.

The mamluks also tended to wear relatively heavy armour: mail, lamellar armour, mail-&-plate armour or brigandines and helmets with mail coifs. These were men originally from the Steppes of Central Asia, the Crimea and the Caucasus, having to fight in the Heat of Egypt, Palestine and Syria in heavy armour, yet I don't recall any referrences to men dying of heat stroke. However numerous Egyptian chroniclers like Ibn Iyas, El-Maqrizi and El-Ayni also pointed out that armour was not put on until the men were just about to go into battle. But in at least one battle fought against the Mongols in the early 14th century (it may have been Marg Es-Safar, correct me if I'm wrong) the mamluks remained in the saddle all night, fully armoured, and did not start fighting the Mongols till the morning. The same Egyptian historians are quick to point out when the Mongols and Cruasaders were collapsing from thirst and exhaustion.

Actually the ability to not collapse from heat was mentioned as one of the factors of mamluk superiority - al-Jahiz:

"I tell you that I witnessed from them something wonderful and extraordinary. I saw in one of Mamun's wars two lines of horsemen... The line on the right was of composed of 100 turks. The line on the left was composed of 100 other horsemen. All were arrayed in battle order (my comments - probably while wearing armor), awaiting the arrival of Mamun (comments - who was delayed). It was midday and the heat became intense. When Mamun reached the place he found all the turks sitting on their horses, with an exception of three of four, while the others where lying on the ground, with an exception of three of four. I said to a friend - see what happened ! I swear Mamun knew them better than we when he gathered and fostered them."

Aqtai · 2nd June 2005, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Actually the ability to not collapse from heat was mentioned as one of the factors of mamluk superiority - al-Jahiz:

"I tell you that I witnessed from them something wonderful and extraordinary. I saw in one of Mamun's wars two lines of horsemen... The line on the right was of composed of 100 turks. The line on the left was composed of 100 other horsemen. All were arrayed in battle order (my comments - probably while wearing armor), awaiting the arrival of Mamun (comments - who was delayed). It was midday and the heat became intense. When Mamun reached the place he found all the turks sitting on their horses, with an exception of three of four, while the others where lying on the ground, with an exception of three of four. I said to a friend - see what happened ! I swear Mamun knew them better than we when he gathered and fostered them."

Mamluks are probably not a good example then.

Jens Nordlunde · 8th June 2005, 01:46 PM

A few days ago I saw the weather in India on TV - it was very warm, 44C. This seems to suggest, like M Eley wrote, boiled brain.

29th May 2005, 06:38 PM	#32
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,951	Hi Jens, Thank you very much for the kind words on what apparantly did evolve into more of an article! As I've always noted, Im hardly known for brevity and actually it did take quite a while to find the data I did find on this fascinating subject. What I like is the learning while Im doing it. I always hope that sharing what I find can be shared by others too, so I write...a lot!!! Rick, Thanks for the notes on the Agincourt battle, and in reviewing Professor Keegans account. he does note the rain and plowed fields, however his observations focus on the difficulty and slowness of movement of the forces through this. His descriptions and perspective on battles reflect the kind of study done at British military university at Sandhurst, naturally with attention to tactics, but Keegan has a more subjective and psychological approach which was what drew me to his work in the first place. The references elsewhere that noted the death of the Duke of York of other than wounds, suggesting heatstroke or heart attack seemed very much applicable here, and I hoped that Keegan might offer more detail. Actually he did, noting the Duke was pulled from beneath a significant number of corpses, and it was noted he died of either 'suffocation or heart attack'. Keegan is an incredibly detailed narrator had already mentioned the rainy, muddy conditions, yet does not suggest drowning, which is as you have suggested is more than entirely plausible. I think that the lack of attention that prevails in most military history and similar narratives to this less than valorious subject matter is much as has been noted, when documenting heroic events in the most dramatic and tragic circumstance in humanity..that of war...often is biased in degree. Human nature seeks comfort and hope as well as spirit in knowing that the lost lives of thier loved ones were not spent in vain. It is well noted that a life of a warrior lost in any conflict is profoundly significant regardless of the cause or means in which it occurred. All warriors are, as Rick has said, heroes unless running away. In all regard, it would seem that even in many of those circumstances, a number may be qualified by the less than attended subject we discuss here. The degrees of heat related and exhaustion problems physiologically related to extreme conditions may distort the judgement or ability of a combatant, and cause actions he would not normally consider. Mark Im really glad you came in on this as well as we needed some medical perspective here, and yours in handling situational and traumatic medical events is, uh , just what the doctor ordered!! Really though, it seems this very prevalent and insidious situation is little discussed, often even in general medical references. It seems that way back in my own ancient history, basic training which was unfortunately in southern Texas during the hot humid summer was extremely threatened with this problem of heatstroke. We were cautioned constantly to 'take our salt tablets' and warned of the consequences. Along the course one could see strategically placed ambulances, and I saw more than several unfortunates rushed away in them, presumably most fallen from the heat. Similarly I can recall standing at attention in direct sun for what seemed eternity...the guy on my right was so paranoid about the rest of us passing out. I suddenly realized an emptiness next to me and he was flat on the ground and completely unconscious. Another insidious element..anxiety. Im sure you are familiar with vaso-vagal syncope, where anxiety or fear however insidious or subliminal, can cause a persons heartbeat to diminish and often stop, sometimes fatally. Could this be another factor in one being overcome by heat or stress exhaustion? All best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 30th May 2005 at 06:19 PM.

30th May 2005, 11:23 AM	#33
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,100	Good point! Yes, a vasovagal response is very possible under these circumstances,Jim. Gets me to thinking about all of the other plague of problems that these Crusaders must have faced, from water supply (Think water from Mexico!), to food shortages, to the heat. Even something as mild as heat cramps would have proven to be quite debilitating. My question is, did these knights and warriors always go around dressed in armor, or did their pages, helpers, etc, just keep it readily availible prior to battle? I love the Crusades, but need to read up on them alittle more!

30th May 2005, 04:44 PM	#34
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,951	Hi Mark, Thanks for confirming that, it seemed applicable here. I'm with you on the history of the crusades, as well as the armor of these times and ancient times. It seems my focus has always been on swords and edged weapons of course, but it is exciting to see how pertinant the study of related items such as armor is to our study of these weapons. I think Jens has been very astute in setting us on this course In looking at the crusades period it would seem to me the number of fully armored knights would have been relatively small, and those knights likely would have had squires and assistants to maintain and transport thier armor. The image of the medieval 'paladin' riding about in full armor seems more a product of illustrators of Victorian period that leaned toward romanticized notions of chivalry. Those monumentally decorated helms were actually for funerary purposes and not worn in battle, let alone any other time. Returning to the original topic, it would seem the Greeks were more universally equipped with these closed helmets, which was the most prominant item of armor. It is doubtful that they wore them except when battle was imminent. These were most restrictive for hearing and vision so I cannot image the warriors marching or otherwise walking around in them. Does anyone out there know of possibly these heavy helmets might have been carried in case of some kind possibly worn over the back? It also seems that virtually until the latter 19th century, battles were pretty much calculated and protocol oriented events. That is, opposing sides would position, organize and prepare for battle for hours in full view of each other. I am not certain what moment or instance would initiate the battle, but would the forces each wait for indefinite periods in armor waiting? We need our scholars of ancient warfare to address this. All the best, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 30th May 2005 at 06:18 PM.

29th May 2005, 05:37 PM	#31
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	I'm sorry, I was a little bit too vicious in my attacks on historical biases, but they do exist.

30th May 2005, 09:08 PM	#35
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	On the subject of hearing and signalling: Some ancient helmets were equipped with hearing ports, but some were not. It certainly can make a difference. Organization was typically by location/clan/etc. so all the people in a given unit dressed much alike, knew each other personally, and trained together, whether as professional soldiers or as militia men. Such a unit can seem to turn and maneuver like a school of fish, with no noticeable signals. Typically the armies were tribal, and the other tribe, their allies, your allies, etc. were all instantly recognizable by their clothing, appearance, equipment, etc. In Europe there was a custom of orienting to a flag bearer. But most signalling AFAIK in traditional European and African warfare was by horns and drums. The Bantus have languages for two-toned trumpets and drums that can be quite sophisticated (I am told). You may notice the bearing and winding of horns as a theme in ancient European stories from time to time. In peace they were used as hunting signals, and no doubt the hunting was part of the duty, delight, and training of early heroes and later noblemen. Certainly the plate armoured, or even chainmailed warrior was always an elite warrior. In Attic Greece the warriors who wore the full helms were hoplites; free men, mostly landholders, who could afford a hoplon (giant hard-faced roundshield) and longspear, and usually a riding horse. All other equipment was usually optional to designation as a hoplite. Some cities/tribes and wealthy individuals would hire men and arm them as hoplites. The full helm was not universal among hoplites, although a helmet of some kind was AFAIK the next preferred piece of equipage, the sword or dagger being pretty much assumed.

30th May 2005, 10:35 PM	#36
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Yes Tom, but you must also take in consideartion, that many of the Indian soldiers were not trained at all. As I wrote, many were taking out of the bazares, dressed up and sent to the battle field.

2nd June 2005, 09:20 PM	#38
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Please don't flame me on this, because I don't have my books available to make direct quotes. With regards to disease first, In Egypt during the Mamluk period, 1250-1517 AD, the biggest single killer of mamluks was not battle but 'Ta'oon', the Plague. Goodness knows when the mamluks weren't fighting Crusaders or Mongols, they were busy fighting each other in the countless power struggles of the Emirs. So that was a lot of Ta'oon. The mamluks also tended to wear relatively heavy armour: mail, lamellar armour, mail-&-plate armour or brigandines and helmets with mail coifs. These were men originally from the Steppes of Central Asia, the Crimea and the Caucasus, having to fight in the Heat of Egypt, Palestine and Syria in heavy armour, yet I don't recall any referrences to men dying of heat stroke. However numerous Egyptian chroniclers like Ibn Iyas, El-Maqrizi and El-Ayni also pointed out that armour was not put on until the men were just about to go into battle. But in at least one battle fought against the Mongols in the early 14th century (it may have been Marg Es-Safar, correct me if I'm wrong) the mamluks remained in the saddle all night, fully armoured, and did not start fighting the Mongols till the morning. The same Egyptian historians are quick to point out when the Mongols and Cruasaders were collapsing from thirst and exhaustion.

8th June 2005, 01:46 PM	#41
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	A few days ago I saw the weather in India on TV - it was very warm, 44C. This seems to suggest, like M Eley wrote, boiled brain.