An old Engineering saying ''Simplicity is beauty'' The less part's & complexity a item has then the less chance of something going wrong. Only real necessities & inescapable should be put into a design with convenience second. Aesthetic is far down the list of priorities What is more simple then a sheet of steel shaped into a head shaped bowl yet still is still fit for purpose?
@@FelixstoweFoamForge Raid pays creators pretty well. If this is what is necessary for him to pay the bills and keep making informative videos then it’s worth it.
As a welder and a construction worker I have had to wear welding helmets and hard hats. It gets fatiguing fast. Often one companies hard hats are a popular item to get because they weigh less or are balanced better. In fact even safety glasses are something that people don't like wearing because they interfere with your vision. These are all lightweight modern equipment and they can still cause neck strain and sometimes the effects of limited vision can cause accidents. There are real protections from armor but no one likes wearing it and people are always going to prefer to have as little restriction as possible on their movements and sences. They were probably safer and more effective at times by removing it and at other times there was a risk reward tradeoff.
I agree, I'm an ex forester & we had to wear helmets with mesh visors & earmuffs [as well as other safety gear] when cutting trees. It was all lightweight & modern, but doing something heavily physical in it meant you had to take breaks or you overheated.Also to clear the mesh visor of rain & woodchips, dangerous when you cant see. We all wore it though on pain of being sacked. But you couldn't go all day without having to take a breather & cool off, even in winter. Plus the visor went up every-time you stopped cutting just to get some air & also stop the eyestrain of peering through mesh.
Don't forget how safety goggles can press on your nose and ears and cause headaches. Especially things that are one size fits all irrespective if your colleagues are 5ft women, or a 7ft guy, like me...
Whenever I'm walking on a rebar deck in the middle of summer, the superintendent is always on my ass about safety glasses. I'm always looking down to watch my step, so sweat would always block my vision every 2 minutes. Then I kill another 2 minutes wiping them with my shirt.
I absolutely hate it when I'm really working & my safety glasses fog up. On the other hand I literally know a guy who is currently dealing with vision issues caused by an eye injury when he wasn't wearing safety glasses.
@@warbandplaysAU9178 I assume that it was more like a cartoon than a portrait. Most figures were miniatures and thus couldn't have many details anyway. Portraits only became later a thing. You'll see that especially with the Renaissance, the skills got honed and flourished.
I often wonder how much facial expressions have socially evolved over time - consider some negative Russian attitudes to western levels of smiling for example
As Matt tilts his head toward the camera and states "It's unlikely that an arrow would pierce this type of helmet...", all that I heard was Tod Cutler saying "Lock-down longbow challenge accepted." :) Having fought in large skirmishes, I can attest to the idea that limiting your sight is more limiting to your odds of survival than having an open faced helmet. It's just nuts how fast the world moves when you cannot see it!
A thrust to the face I can see is a thrust to the face I can (hopefully) avoid. A poleaxe that I can't see is going to (definitely) mess me up when it clatters me in the side of the head, visor or not. I also can't fight if I pass out because it's 30c out, I'm wearing a personal sauna, and I'm having to gasp to try and suck some non-recycled air through my breaths. Most importantly however, how else will anyone know I'm the main character? Though it's a FORMIDABLE look when you're fully buttoned up in your harness.
Anyone who thinks fighting in a helmet that covers the face is easy should try wearing a face covering motorcycle helmet for a day of walking up and down unfamiliar stairs, or across uneven fields. We rely on our peripheral vision for judging the ground ahead of us when walking, even though we don't think about or notice it. I wore a Gladiator Halloween costume one year and nearly killed myself a few times on stairs, bumped into counter, stools, etc., all because of the shape of the face protection.
The Corinthian would be the one that epitomises the trade off for me. Hugely protective full face helmet, but invariably depicted in art as tilted back on the head, opening the face, and gradually replaced by more open faced helms.
I imagine that an overarm spear thrust can deliver a lot of energy to even a fully armored head, so the ability to see and parry was considered more important, hence its replacement by things like the Chalcidian. Concussions are no fun.
I have heard that barbute helmets typically had this design philosophy in mind, likely inspired by the Corinthian. Though there is one issue with both, and that is that they limit hearing, though I don’t have enough experience with them to comment on how it would effect you, it seemed enough of an issue that the Roman gallic helmets made certain concessions to give better hearing to their soldiers.
Recently I read, that generals in the hellenistic period regularly complained about troops, only put down those helmets seconds before the phalanxes met.
The Roman helmet is basically alarming, because the cheek-pieces hinge, and a strong strike would hit them in the jaw with their own helmet. Shields are really important.
Absolutely interesting. I can confirm something similar with wearing my motorcycle helmet and a Boba Fett Mandalorian costume helmet. The first gives an almost normal field of vision, the latter causes big visual (you can only see right in front of you and up to your bellybutton), hearing and breathing problems. I have no problems wearing my motorcycle helmet, but am always very glad to take off the fully enclosed Boba Fett helmet. I fear that I might pass out when wearing this thing during a hot summer day.
Having worn both the PASGT and the ACH helmets, I can attest to the effect they have on your hearing. Even wearing them for months on end and getting accustomed to them, it still doesn't alter the fact that your hearing is muffled. The heat is still an issue and wearing a closed-face helm would severely restrict your ability to inhale oxygen during strenuous situations and exercises (How many scuba divers do you see conducting breast stroke competitions under water, swimming as fast as they can? It can't be done -- yet...).
In polish language we even keep one of sayings from medieval time "wystąpić z otwartą przyłbicą" - which means "come out with the visor open". It means to openly stand against something.
I have no fond memories of training in gasmask as a soldier. Its hot, inhibits communication and vision and if doing anything physical it gets you winded and then nauseous fast. If closed helmets is anything resembling that, I can understand. Maybe it would be a thing that people got, because it seemed smart, but used less and less. Lots of modern counterparts for that.
It was smart when you were charging on horseback (a lance in your face can be quite unpleasant, and the horse does all the work) or walking into melee under a storm of arrows. When you were entangled you just lifted the visor or discarded it completely.
It makes sense that a charging knight would have a visor. You're quite exposed, you don't *really* need to see as you're just riding your horse straight ahead, and there's likely going to be pointy things going toward your face. However, if the knight is forced to dismount or fight his way out of the skirmish I have no doubt he would raise his visor to see and breathe more clearly.
I've done larp, battel/festival events. Even in that situation, the extra visibility, ability to hear unimpeded, breath without restriction, even take on water during a lul in the fighting (this is thirsty work). I'm a huge fan of the kettle hat.
Yeah me too. Having an open. Face helmet really helps with basic human things such as breathing, drinking, and not tripping while walking. It's also much easier to anything you've dropped on the ground.
And yet, a full helmet was used for quite some time in the high middle ages. So either these guys felt differently (for whatever reason) or there is something else going on.
@@juanzulu1318 I suspect cost was part of it, also different PPE for different jobs. I mean, there is a LOT of "Hurry up and wait" going on at these events.
You have also mentioned, in a previous video, that soldiers do many other things, even in a battlefield, besides fighting. If the battle is long enough, they would have water brought to them, maybe even a bite. A pike formation would need to hear and shout clearly in battle, especially a Swiss formation, which manouvered very quickly. Archers, crossbowmen, and handgunners needed clear vision to aim and shoot properly. Even if shot at with arrows, a clear, straight shot to the face was not that easy. Arrows and bolts do parables, they fall to the ground when gravity overcomes impulse. You would have to be at point-blank range to be shot straight at the face, likely less than 30m. Otherwise, the shots would be plunging or facing downward when hitting you. It is illustrative that Harold Godwinson got shot when peeking among the ranks of his shieldwall. A sallet, or a kettle hat, with the brim like that, offers more protection from this kind of projectile, while preserving lines of sight. If arrows or bolts began to hit the formation, they only had to lower their heads, without becoming too deaf or blind. I think it is the same logic behind the British frag helmet from the world wars. It seems way to open, but it was designed to protect from artillery shell fragment showering a trench. The danger comes from above, and they would have taken cover after the first blast. In prone position, the helmet covers the face, head, and neck, from fragments, and I bet it could even deflect glancing shots, if the angle and distance to the shooter was right. Thanks for the video, as always!
Pietro Monte included a section on the advantages of having the visor raised: "If someone knows how to parry and the enemy is strongly armed, it is often useful to have a visor which goes upwards, because our breathing endures more and it is also easier to see what must be done, and almost no danger threatens, or will rarely happen, especially if we have iron gauntlets to turn away the other’s weapon."
2020 people: "I see zero reason why a medieval knight wouldn't be wearing a fully enclosed steel helmet. It would be stupid not to!" Also 2020 people: "Ugh, do I really *have to* wear that fabric facemask over my mouth AND nose? I can't breath and it's uncomfortable."
Well, knights needed to protect themselves against actual danger, covid19 isn't nowhere near as dangerous as arrows and blades. It'd probably be safer to use better protection against corrupt governments however.
I think anyone who says an open faced helmet or opening your visor is stupid has never fought in a closed helmet. I haven't done THAT much harness fighting but the first thing I do after a fight is open my visor or take my helmet completely off. If I can raise my visor during a stop or something I will, 100%. Sensory deprivation and oxygen needs are a real thing, as you say.
Wolfrib Bascinet helmets are really popular in Buhurt because they're the closest thing allowed to an open face helmet...Fighting in a full face helmet is exhausting purely from the breathing restrictions, and when you add in the extra mental energy you have to expend into figuring out what the hell is going on past the slits in your full face helmet and it all really adds up very quickly.
*Heavily armoured historical man-at-arms falls out due to heat injury* Modern humans: "What an idiot! why doesn't he keep cooler by dressing or adjusting during the battle!" *also historical man-at-arms lifts visor or removes greathelm to breathe and continue fighting but gets hit in face* modern people again: "What an idiot! Why don't they wear more comprehensive armour?!"
Ok so from an ex-Army person view. I have spent time in units that forced helmets vs ones that did not. Spend months in one then go to a unit that did not require it. And I was willing for injury or death not to wear one. I know the risk, but you get it, or you don't.
@@gravitatemortuus1080 Agreed, after a civilian contractor got hit and killed with falling celebratory fire in Iraq, they required it even within the wire at my FOB... I was mostly highlighting how modern folk consistently want to believe earlier people were stupid and they could and would have made better decisions in the heat of battle over these soldiers with years of training and experience, wasn't even considering uniform rules and regs, good point
@@taianonni there is a reason "modern folk" don't imitate those soldiers from long time ago, their thinking, their styles, etc etc Hitler realized too late his armies actually _cannot actually_ "live of the land" or that wearing RED as a uniform color does _nothing_ for anyone, or that there is no need to stand in straight lines while firing rifles. People in general, but especially the military types, are more than capable of doing something stupid for a very, very long time, centuries even, while fighting progress every inch of the way. Some nations (Japan) are not just able to fight progress to a standstill, but after things have improved, fighting progress BACK and re-establishing old ways. Amazing.
@@Subhumanoid_ The red uniform was a practical result of the price of dyes and needing to quickly recognize your own troops at a distance, and that worked back in the day of muskets when you weren't going to firing at targets longer than 50m anyways, but being able to recognize that a marching formation of troops from a distance is actually friendly or enemy is important. Now the red uniform becomes a big target later on when rifles are introduced and you are starting to engage at distances of 300+ meters. And consequently with the increased accuracy of infantry weapons come more dispersed infantry formations, and thus a need for camoflage to help protect against the accuracy of rifles. Now if you want to criticize someone for using wholly outdated uniforms, talk about the French in 1914 still marching in columns with blazing red trousers and blue coats being seen from a mile away, which the Germans would then blow to bits with artillery and machine gun fire
@@Subhumanoid_ Yes, and the reason for that is that technology changes. The reason longbows and halberds aren't standard issue anymore isn't that we realized they were stupid, it's that we invented better weapons. The reasons we don't line up in formations much anymore is due to both advances in weapons (being able to reload faster, fire further and fire more accurately almost eliminating the need for unit against unit close combat as well as volley fire meaning everyone could be in a skirmish line) and communications technology (telephone and especially radio meaning that commanders could actually communicate with their men without needing to use drums, flags and shouted orders). It had very little to do with people just being stupid and hung up on the old ways of doing things.
That also maybe explains why we see great helms, bascinets, etc attached to the knight with chains on many 12th and 13th c. effigies and brass rubbings -- he could wear the helmet in the charge, but then remove it for the close combat without having to worry about retrieving it later. Full protection at a distance or in the initial crash of lances, and then full visibility in the melee.
I forget the name of the guy, but there was one general in the Thirty Years War who genuinely does deserve a Darwin award for opening his visor- he pushed it open with a loaded pistol, which went off, shooting him in the face and killing him. I've always found it fascinating that by the end of the golden age of plate armour in the 17th century, one of the most popular types of helmet was the 'Lobster-Tailed Pot' which looks almost identical to a Roman Legionary helmet, only with the addition of a sliding nasal or vertical bars to protect the face from sword cuts. Nearly 2000 years of armour evolution later, and the result is basically full circle.
@@MaMastoast Several people have reconstructed e.g. the Dendra suit and found it generally easy to move around in - the shoulder pieces do limit overhand movements, so the wearer might not have been able to throw a javelin or use a sling, but that was the job of the auxiliaries anyway. Later iron plate, articulated plate, also looks very cumbersome but in fact when fitted properly still allows a great deal of movement.
@@laughingdaffodils5450 Obviously I'm no expert on ancient plate armor, but one of the things that makes it stand out to me when compared to medieval plate armor, is that it doesn not seem very fitted to the body... It mostly looks like a metal tube with sections, and then the lower half being split to allow for leg movement
That makes the Hollywood custom of having no helmet at all a double mistake… „can’t see the faces when they wear helmets, let’s have them not wear any“ - forgetting about open face helmets
Hearing things is also miserable in a helmet. Theirs a reason why Roman legionaire helmets didn't cover the ears. But when your enemies have warhammers, pollaxes, and Warpicks getting bashed in the side of the dome is deadly as hell. But it would probably hinder the ability to direct a person wearing a helmet covering their ears.
@@Adam_okaay I remember hearing being a thing that made the germans after WW1 shift around the design of the stahlhelm to make it a bit higher up, or so i remember at least.
I play high level tournament paintball which requires masks that cover the entire face and ears. All fields have that requirement actually for safety as you would imagine. Even with the masks being ventilated (small holes to aid breathing) they still restrict your breathing and your hearing quite a bit, but worst of all of that is it muffles your shouting to your teammates and causes your shouting to echo in your ears. On top of that impedes your hearing as just an obstruction. In a paintball match that's not life and death that's a real liability. I imagine with your life on the line and you depending on direction from your leadership to mount coordinated attacks to maximize the effectiveness of your force as a whole the hearing and communication restriction can't be overlooked.
In modern times with the reintroduction of the military helmet (last 110 years or so) there has been no move towards face protection. Primarily for reasons of visibility and ease of sighting for weapons, I believe, but breathing and hearing are also huge advantages. Try carrying 80lbs or so of kit and breathing with a full helmet.
That, and the reason open faced helmets are common for the military is because of the cheek weld. With any stocked rifle, carbine or smg, you want your cheek on the stock, which makes aiming easier, more comfortable and just all around better. Closed helmets are discouraged because of the lack of cheek weld and you'll have to retrain yourself to aim differently. That, and face protection is not in use because face protection won't stop bullets, and the head is a small target anyways, so covering your face is not a priority, and helmets today are used for the prevention of shrapnel in the head, not to deflect bullets (though they possible could due to the round shape). and the reason why clear visors are used by riot control is to prevent rocks and pepper spray from hitting your face.
In Iraq they experimented with full face helmets for gun emplacement operators. It was abandoned because making a helmet bulletproof is extremely heavy, impedes communication and also doesn't protect you from what is most likely to kill a heavy weapon guy - an IED, rpg or another heavy weapon.
The best helmet is the one being worn. Modern soldiers aren't going to wear something that feels inconvenient for very long. It's bloody hard to get construction workers to keep their safety glasses on even if they are hardly an inconvenience.
@@mrdarren1045 kevlar helmets will protect against glancing shots that would otherwise have sent you back home in a body bag, but i understand your point.
Good job Matt! Anyone asking this question has never worn a helmet of any type for long periods, much less a closed face helmet. Reduced vision and hearing is a tremendous disadvantage in combat and very likely got knights killed but there's no way to track those numbers. As a career soldier, I loved and hated my helmet. I date to the Vietnam to Gulf War era so the old US army steel pot through the kevlar. Both were uncomfortable at best when worn 18-20 hours a day. Many guys got agonizing headaches after 6 hours or so. Yet at least we could hear, speak and breathe. People who get their "combat" training thru video games are clueless about the real world.
Couldn’t it also be that they didn’t have visors in a lot of effigies because they wanted to show the persons face? I know that wouldn’t be the case for all of them but maybe for some of them. Even if so I still agree with you on the overall point.
Well I think his point about the effigies isn't necessarily that they show the person's face, it's that the sculpted helmet is completely lacking in any kind of face protection whatsoever, lifted away from the face or otherwise. The sculptor went to the trouble of carving the effigy with armor and helmet so if the helmet had a visor, he likely would have included it in the upright position even though he was still showing the face.
@@benmoore8809 Isn't it possible that they simply chose a type of helmet that would naturally show the face, if showing the face was a priority? All speculation of course. But if I wanted to honor a knight by showing his face and I had the choice of giving him a fullface helmet with the visor in an upright position, or simply picking a helmet that naturally showed his face, I think I'd take the second option.
@@MaMastoast It's possible. But if we assume that the choice of helmet was up to the sculptor, there are helmet options that are less obscuring of the face than even the ones shown in the video which are nonetheless quite protective otherwise, covering the throat, chin, and ears as well. And let's not forget, the effigies are only one piece of evidence; there's artwork and artifacts too.
As a Buhurt (armored combat) fighter, I completely agree with this. I have had panic attacks due to lack of oxygen after intense fights. It limits visibility and your ability to breath. I ended up buying a nasal bascinet to help fix these issues. I can't imagine fighting in an actual battle with a visor.
My father fought in Vietnam and though he and his men wore M1 pattern helmets, they often preferred to wear no helmet while on patrol in the jungle because they could not hear as well when they did. Instead, they usually wore boonie hats, which give protection from the sun but little else.
At this point I'm quite convinced that, if you asked a XIV-century knight about why some have visor and some don't (let's assume very unrealistic condition of mutual understanding), he would, apart from shrugging his arms and giving you some kind of condescending look, reply something along the line of "everyone wears what they are most comfortable with, or what works best for their task, if they can afford it, of course".
After two years of global arguments about wearing masks... if you don't at least understand why people prefer not to wear one, you're not paying attention! And that's just a piece of cloth. Now, think about enclosing your face in metal, and doing athletic competition. Yikes!
A very similar trade-off exists for modern tank and afv commanders. They can operate hatches closed, but the restrictions on visibility and situational awareness are such that only when people are actively shooting do the commanders close the hatch. They often only partly close up to try and maintain better vision. Lindybeige addressed this in one of his videos I think, and The Chieftan has discussed this as well.
I really liked this in Kingdom Come. The closed helmets or helmets with visors provide the most protection in the game but they severely restrict your vision making it much harder to make sense of what is going on around you. I ended up using an iron hat much more than the closed helmets. Sadly it is not possible to manually close and open the visor in game, Henry (the protagonist) always closes it when in danger and then you can't see very well. But the solution is to use an open face helmet.
Hello Matt. I have recently gone and bought an elder sword from an auction. A Kaskara. The auction didn't know dirt more then the sword was bought from a museum in Bern and estimated to be from the 1960's. Light as hell and with a rather flexible blade it is a neat little thing to have, authentic or not.
Couldn't an explanation for effigies of knights not having visors be that they wanted to show their face and make them more recognizable? Akin to the main characters in movies nowadays not wearing helmets.
Imagine you spent a good chunk of your material wealth to outfit a whole chapel to house your remains, complete with monks and nuns to pray for your eternal soul, just so the effigy on your sarcophagus looked the same as everyone else's. The sculptors could just mass-produce them at that point. LOL
I had the same thought, but realized there's a counterpoint. The purpose of effigies was to give the viewer an accurate, lifelike representation of the individual for the purpose of intercessionary prayer. What we don't see represented are effigies showing once visorred helmets with visors removed completely - they didn't sculpt mounting points, rivets or other features that would show where a visor would attach. Matt even mentions this at 8:12 in the video. We do see examples of raised visors, no helmet at all, or open faced helmets. We can assume two conclusions - first is that the sculptors abandoned an otherwise true-to-life depiction of their subjects by editing out the visors or inventing new visorless helmet types, or that they are portraying the armor as it was in life. Dr. Tobias Capwell has done some great work in the field of effigy study, so I'm really just parroting his research.
Yeah, was thinking this too, even if original helmet did have a visor I don't think the customer (or grieving family) would pay for just a simple helmet reproduction but would have demanded face...
I'd question the statement (about 7:25) that "of course" it makes the most sense to have the visor, bevor, etc. down during the melee. That's when the risk of being stabbed in the side or back is highest, and visibility and situational awareness matter most. All tradeoffs considered, I'd most want full face protection during the preliminary arrow volleys before the armies have closed.
Even though the SCA is not as historically correct as it might like, being in large field melees doing armored combat really shows how you might find yourself in a place to raise your visor. Sometimes the ebb and flow of the battle moves the fighting away, or you are repositioning, but one way or another you find yourself in a position to catch your breath. And then you get an arrow in the face.
Effigies were carved to show the person so they want to have the face exposed. So you can't take them as absolute perfect representation of the way they were commonly armored.
But if you know where going into a situation where long ranged combat is going to be brief, fighting will be very chaotic then open face makes a ton of sense. Being blinded due to vision slits is a thing. The best defense is always a defense you make with your feet and weapon.
My armor wearing is mostly at Renaissance Fairs over the last 15 years. I started with a sugarloaf that I carried much more than I wore. I would put it on during parade or heavy rain. You cannot see much and sound is badly impaired as well. The next helmet I started using was a spangern nasal helm that allowed much better vision and hearing. It was much more wearable but the nasal did get annoying. Trying to develop from medieval to more renaissance I got a comb morion or conquistador helmet and it is by far the most wearable with even a slight bit of sun protection. I currently use a visor sallet but I keep the visor up all the time except for photos. It has more of a 'knightly" look than the comb morion. My next helmet will likely be a kettle with more brim to protect from the hot Texas sun. I liked the spikey sallet you had in this video. At Renaissance fairs wearability, vision, and hearing are more important than actual combat.
I know that samurai in Kabuto would often look down during the final few feet of a charge so that their exposed faces would be looking down, and the incredibly protected top of their heads would be pointed at the enemy, so that is an example of covering for the fact your face is unprotected simply by how you position your body
For a long time I didn't wear any headprotection or just an open faced boxing headguard with a plastic eyeprotection in training. When I first wore a fullface fencing helmet, I didn’t even know where the cuts were coming from. All I heard was the knock of the hits on the side of the metal grid. Vision is perhaps the most important aspect in combat.
So perhaps another use of archers in combat could be to make their targets don great helms, lower visors etc. similar to how small arms were used to make tanks button up?
Having worked in an asbestos protection suit I can vouch for the claustrophobia inducing effect of full enclosure on the face. Goggles, respirator, and hood leave you with very limited vision, little hearing, and the effect of rebreathing your hot exhaled breath before drawing fresh, filtered air does induce panic.
I'm a retired member of the U.S. Army and have never tried to wear or use any armor older than 1994. That said I can still fully understand why open face helms would be used. Even with modern ballistic armor as light as it is a soldier caries a lot of weight into battle. Breathing properly, even without anything covering your face, can be challenging. I could only imagine how hard that would be in a full face helmet.
A gas mask today would be something similar. I've actually worn a gas mask many, many years ago and they are not pleasant to wear for an extended period of time. On the battlefield I can only imagine that people make a call if to use a visor or not. Just look at today with modern soldiers with guns and rifles. The helmets are open by design so clearly it's something we humans have adapted to in war situations. The benefit of being able to communicate, breath, hear and all that are so valuable that we leave the face open.
Hi Matt, very good video. One point I see in addition to all the right points you made is. The face is a very small target, so the chances to hit a soldier are very good, but hitting the face is not that easy when the target is moving and you have done some shooting and the stress is increasing as the enemy is closing in. Thanks for your work.
Yes, it is. You're absolutely right. I live in the central valley region of California, and during the summer's it often gets to above 100 degrees farenheit. I've done some SCA fighting with a full face helmets, and it is not fun. Just putting the damn thing on and standing still is hard enough. Granted all the groups I practiced with met during the evening, but that only means we dint have direct sunlight to deal with.
There is a parallel with modern 'armour', tanks, here. Tank crews are much more vulnerable with their hatches open and heads out, but most of their time is spent like this, because being 'buttoned up' drastically reduces your situational awareness, and, for the vast majority of a tanker's time, that is much more important than outright protection.
The "three-barred pot" lobster-tailed helmet as used in the English Civil War seems to have struck the ideal balance. Vision, breathing, and yelling were essentially unobstructed, but the stout bars could ward off blunt attacks or slashes from a heavy cavalry broadsword. Blocking the tip of a charging cavalry sword that is trying to skewer your skull like a martini olive would require an unreasonably heavy visor. Your obstructed vision would mean you're bound to get hit a lot more as well.
That helmet makes good sense in the age of gunpowder, when you are no long worrying about arrows, because no helmet is going to stop a musket ball (and if they could, would break your neck in doing so) which means that your helmet need only resist melee weapons. However, in a medieval context, helmets could be expected to stop arrows and crossbow bolts, so it's far more reasonable to have the option to close your face off fully, even if said face protection could be raised or removed. I agree that the civil war helmet is a good choice for its time and place, but outside of that I think other helmets outclass it in protection and versatility.
One whack with a club or hammer anywhere on the helmet and you go down from the concussion. Wearing two helmets with padding in-between dampens blows. Grew up in the place where 4000 of the famous longbow Men of Agincourt were slain within 1 hour by a small Swiss contingent carrying flags as blockers for arrows. Man pads were out for 250 years. Of course I played in the armory section of the museum as a kid where a lot of the loot from 700 years ago is still around. The waved blade two handers we're especially impressive. Liked the short ones. The long ones are true reapers.
One thing to mention during the Viking age/normen age is that archery wasn't a major part of warfare. For example yes archers were used in battle but they weren't used as often they were usually fought in shield walls and in close quarters. And most bows at that time weren't probably powerful enough to pierce mail armor unless you were very close. Bows at this time were primary used for hunting animals.
from Jean de Joinville's writings about the 7th crusade. search for "battling the saracens in 1250". the other cool thing was he got hit by a lance from behind and pinned to the neck of his horse and he says he cant reach the sword attached to himself so has to get the one attached to his horse. sidearms. its only a few paragraphs long as well. "During this incident, Hugues d'Ecot received three wounds in the face from a lance, and so did Raoul de Wanou, while Frederic de Loupey had a lance-thrust between his shoulders, which made so large a wound that the blood poured from his body as if from the bung-hole of a barrel. A blow from one of the enemy's swords landed in the middle of Erard de Siverey's face, cutting through his nose so that it was left dangling over his lips. At that moment the thought of Saint James came into my mind, and I prayed to him: 'Good Saint James, come to my help, and save us in our great need.'"
I'm not disputing the point Matt's ultimately making here, but I also suspect artwork may in some cases depict people with their visors up for the same reason we have movies and video games with heroes wearing no helmet at all, or fighter pilots with their oxygen masks off -- so that the audience can see the soldier's/general's/king's face.
if you ever play Kingdom Come Deliverance you'll see a major reason why they liked to keep the visor open/have open faced helmets. i ran around with a prety regular bascinet helmet on then i found a Cuman commanders helmet which has complete face protection. i thought 'cool this has like 2x the armour my current one has' until i went into combat wearing it and the character pulls the face protection part down. your visibility goes down to about a 1x2" block around each eye and that's it..... i very quickly switched over to a kettel helm.
It is still common for MANY motorcyclists to ride with their visor either partly or fully open in 2022 - sometimes to the detriment of getting a bug to the face at high speed! Cheers from Canada!
Playing paintball taught me that. Even though the paintball masks have wholes all over for good respiration, you find out that you start to sweat & gasp for air fairly quick when you start to run or move around, so much so, that I thought of just getting googles & risk getting my face busted by paintballs, so it's really not hard to see why they would use open face helmets, being that a war metal helmet is heavier and can get hotter
The only helmet I have is a WWII era made "Brodie" type helmet. About as open faced as it gets :) but it does what it was designed to do - protect from blows from above.
Great content as usual. Thoughtful and entertaining. If full face protection was ideal our troops would use it now - but we're still rockin' the open face....Covid, stormtroopers, Darth Vader not withstanding. I'll second what others are saying - welding masks and motorbike crash helmets really do approximate the visibility available historically and it's very limited. I'm veggie now but used to hunt - there is a tradition of wearing wide brim hats in Europe when hunting / stalking - they cast a shadow to hide the face but allow a full sight picture and don't mask sounds. More modern approaches to hunting apparel, hoods, camo nets / scrim nets / masks covering the face that are quite popular due to snipers using them really do hinder sight and sound. I can't hunt in them, and I would hate - absolutely hate - having to fight for my life with my vision obscured and hearing impared.
I would guess that tunnel vision and adrenaline also would compound the negative effects of a full face helmet. In militaries you see this thing called acceptable losses in some form or another. Lots of soldiers knew their time was up even if they had full helmets yet fought on for their fellows at their side or for fear of disobedience.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but the best modern analogue would be tanks. They can protect people absolutely from the dangers of the battlefield but the driver and comander have their heads out most of the time. They only "button up" (ducking down, closing the hatches and using the periscopes), in certain situations.
Surely there is a closely analogous choice in modern armoured warfare; frequently tank commanders and other armoured fighting vehicle crew members expose themselves through open hatches. The reason is the same; if they are forced to button up, it instantly degrades their visibility, just when they most need to see their enemy before that enemy can see or attack them. There is also the phrase used in air combat “Lose sight, lose the fight”.
Just offhand open face has several advantages potentially: less material required, less time to make, lighter usually, less restrictive for your senses, and easier to breathe in. Also these small advantages get exacerbated when you're having to make thousands to equip an entire army
I don't think that making helemets for an army would have been an issued back in the Medieval & Ranissance periods when standing armies weren't a thing. Back then, most people would have had to have provided their own arms and armor, at least their own armor. Professionals like knights, men at arms, and mercenaries would already have their own armor. Levies, if they could afford armor, would have had to buy their own right before or during a campaign, but I don't think that would have amounted to thousands and most probably couldn't afford a vsiroed helemt.
Don't have village Levy fiddling around with a visor or walking into a ditch with a armoured bucket on his head. Have you seen how daft the average person is today, I think the medieval peasant might have an extra few IQ point but even that leaves a lot to be desired.
It makes perfect sense to me that people would prioritize vision over protection just like when wearing armor you have to consider mobility vs. protection, and as you've said before you could be completely invulnerable in a metal box but would be useless on the battlefield.
As someone who's just played football wearing only some wire in front of your face I can say that just trying to catch a football in a helmet is so much harder.
Great discussion. Is there a reason though, why the nasal helm went out of favour? It seems that would have had all the advantages of an open face, but also something that protected the face to a greater degree.
I have a nice kettle helmet with an almond-shaped brim. I saw it, tried it on, and bought it because it was everything I wanted in a helmet. I've tried on a Knight's helmet and I can't use them because I wear glasses and lasik isn't something I can get. Contacts constantly fall out so I don't wear them. Also, the very limited vision of a visited helmet drives me nuts.
It is worth noting that king James 1st of Aragon (known as "The Conqueror") preferred kettle hats togreat helms. Since he was a king, you can guess he could get the best stuff money could buy in the 13th century, and he was used to battlefields and sieges. Yes, a matter of preference, but if a king with lots of military experience went for the kettle hat... well, sure it had some virtues.
In Italië we find lose armet visors. After the initial charge you ditch it. The biggest danger is arrows and lances. In the mele it is a lot les likely to incounter one.
9:22 Any particular reason why we see two bois to the right rocking frogmouth helms? Were they ever actually used in battle at some point or was this more of an artistic misinterpretation?
Light cav and skirmishers were the eyes and ears of the army. They needed all the situational awareness for their missions. Heavy infantry worked in tight formations. Being able to see, hear and shout properly was crucial. Missile troops needed unobscured vision to operate their weapons. That leaves us with heavy shock cavalry, the only type of troops to regularly use closed helmets.
I can't seem to find an answer to an question I've been wondering lately and maybe you can help or if someone in the comments can have answers to that: why didn't they use magnets on visors? To help them get up or down in an instant. Were magnets not powerful enough in ancient and medieval times? Great video As always!
Considering that a good overarm spear thrust (nevermind a two handed spear or polearm thrust) can ring a fully armored head pretty badly even without breaking through, the tradeoff of protection for the ability to see attacks coming makes a lot of sense.
I've tried visors and visorless helmets. With glasses, since I'm almost blind without, lol. I would definitely NOT cross a road with my visor down. I've tried wearing a helm at my PC: if I look at my monitors, I can't see my keyboard, and vice-versa. A visor is EXTREMELY hampering. It makes feel protected, though, and in winter it keeps me very warm - I can wander home in armour and feel well even with heating turned off. I wonder how it'd feel in summer though: heatstroke? It's a chance.
My favourite historical helmet is still the kettle helm. Because I wear a modern one today for cutting down trees and using a chainsaw. You can't beat its utility for visibility, air, and hearing. Not to mention my head can move almost anyway while it's on.
I wore a pot helmet once for half an hour. Insight number one was, you can't communicate in a pot helmet. When people talk it's muffeld, and even worse people do not hear you when you talk. Like there were people right in front of me, not event aware that I talked to them, untill I took of the helmet. In any situation where you have to communicate with people around you, those things are a no go.
Having worn riot gear and respirators in the military, the sensory deprivation is huge. Once you start running about and fighting it gets difficult to breathe, hot and claustrophobic pretty quick.
Like being out of your hatch in a WWII tank. More vulnerable? Sure, but it's worse if you can't see what the hell is going on. There's a time to be buttoned up and a time to get the best view of the field. Getting hit by arrows? Visor down if you've got one. In a melee where you need to see and breathe? I would probably want the visor out of the way.
and conversely, my understanding is that one gladiator helmet was so enclosed that the wearer would become exhausted if they couldn't end the fight quickly. Game balance.
That's why I think Mandalorian style helmet can be so cool. If you have the tiny power sources that they have in science fiction, you can not only have sensors in an HD readout that gives you better vision and hearing than you would have without it, but you can also have forced filtered air, possibly oxygen enriched for a time during that battle. I guess what I'm saying is sufficiently advanced helmet could become a no-brainer to leave the face enclosed, but the fancy bucket that is our technology as it exists is not it.
A comparison can also be made with tanks in WW2 and after. Many times a commander would open the hatch to look outside. In some cases 1 man turret tanks it was necessary due to the extremely poor visibility. In the arab israeli wars IDF had a doctrine of the commander opening the hatch to get a better view of the enemy. I have seen statistics that IDF tank commanders suffered increased casualties because of this.
Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID/PC: clcr.me/scholagladiatoria_Mar22_2 and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days
An old Engineering saying
''Simplicity is beauty''
The less part's & complexity a item has then the less chance of something going wrong.
Only real necessities & inescapable should be put into a design with convenience second.
Aesthetic is far down the list of priorities
What is more simple then a sheet of steel shaped into a head shaped bowl yet still is still fit for purpose?
no.
PLEASE STOP with the bloody raid shadow legend stuff A) I skip it and B) it's putting me off
@@FelixstoweFoamForge Raid pays creators pretty well. If this is what is necessary for him to pay the bills and keep making informative videos then it’s worth it.
@@austreborn NOPE.
As a welder and a construction worker I have had to wear welding helmets and hard hats. It gets fatiguing fast. Often one companies hard hats are a popular item to get because they weigh less or are balanced better. In fact even safety glasses are something that people don't like wearing because they interfere with your vision. These are all lightweight modern equipment and they can still cause neck strain and sometimes the effects of limited vision can cause accidents. There are real protections from armor but no one likes wearing it and people are always going to prefer to have as little restriction as possible on their movements and sences. They were probably safer and more effective at times by removing it and at other times there was a risk reward tradeoff.
And respirators... Add some sweat, and you can hardly see or breathe.
I agree, I'm an ex forester & we had to wear helmets with mesh visors & earmuffs [as well as other safety gear] when cutting trees. It was all lightweight & modern, but doing something heavily physical in it meant you had to take breaks or you overheated.Also to clear the mesh visor of rain & woodchips, dangerous when you cant see.
We all wore it though on pain of being sacked. But you couldn't go all day without having to take a breather & cool off, even in winter. Plus the visor went up every-time you stopped cutting just to get some air & also stop the eyestrain of peering through mesh.
Don't forget how safety goggles can press on your nose and ears and cause headaches. Especially things that are one size fits all irrespective if your colleagues are 5ft women, or a 7ft guy, like me...
Whenever I'm walking on a rebar deck in the middle of summer, the superintendent is always on my ass about safety glasses. I'm always looking down to watch my step, so sweat would always block my vision every 2 minutes. Then I kill another 2 minutes wiping them with my shirt.
I absolutely hate it when I'm really working & my safety glasses fog up. On the other hand I literally know a guy who is currently dealing with vision issues caused by an eye injury when he wasn't wearing safety glasses.
It still amazes me how chilled people in those medieval artwork often look while slaughtering each other.
I haven't seen many artworks of the era that show any emotions at all.
@@warbandplaysAU9178 I assume that it was more like a cartoon than a portrait. Most figures were miniatures and thus couldn't have many details anyway. Portraits only became later a thing. You'll see that especially with the Renaissance, the skills got honed and flourished.
it's Tuesday to them.
I often wonder how much facial expressions have socially evolved over time - consider some negative Russian attitudes to western levels of smiling for example
When you’ve done something enough. Emotions are meh.
As Matt tilts his head toward the camera and states "It's unlikely that an arrow would pierce this type of helmet...", all that I heard was Tod Cutler saying "Lock-down longbow challenge accepted." :)
Having fought in large skirmishes, I can attest to the idea that limiting your sight is more limiting to your odds of survival than having an open faced helmet. It's just nuts how fast the world moves when you cannot see it!
A thrust to the face I can see is a thrust to the face I can (hopefully) avoid. A poleaxe that I can't see is going to (definitely) mess me up when it clatters me in the side of the head, visor or not. I also can't fight if I pass out because it's 30c out, I'm wearing a personal sauna, and I'm having to gasp to try and suck some non-recycled air through my breaths.
Most importantly however, how else will anyone know I'm the main character?
Though it's a FORMIDABLE look when you're fully buttoned up in your harness.
I love how he was trying his hardest hide that smirk he had during the slide-in intro
😂
that cracked me up
Anyone who thinks fighting in a helmet that covers the face is easy should try wearing a face covering motorcycle helmet for a day of walking up and down unfamiliar stairs, or across uneven fields. We rely on our peripheral vision for judging the ground ahead of us when walking, even though we don't think about or notice it. I wore a Gladiator Halloween costume one year and nearly killed myself a few times on stairs, bumped into counter, stools, etc., all because of the shape of the face protection.
The Corinthian would be the one that epitomises the trade off for me. Hugely protective full face helmet, but invariably depicted in art as tilted back on the head, opening the face, and gradually replaced by more open faced helms.
I imagine that an overarm spear thrust can deliver a lot of energy to even a fully armored head, so the ability to see and parry was considered more important, hence its replacement by things like the Chalcidian. Concussions are no fun.
I have heard that barbute helmets typically had this design philosophy in mind, likely inspired by the Corinthian. Though there is one issue with both, and that is that they limit hearing, though I don’t have enough experience with them to comment on how it would effect you, it seemed enough of an issue that the Roman gallic helmets made certain concessions to give better hearing to their soldiers.
Recently I read, that generals in the hellenistic period regularly complained about troops, only put down those helmets seconds before the phalanxes met.
Do keep in mind that in many of those works of art, “main character must show his face” syndrome may be at play just like it is in Hollywood today.
The Roman helmet is basically alarming, because the cheek-pieces hinge, and a strong strike would hit them in the jaw with their own helmet. Shields are really important.
Absolutely interesting. I can confirm something similar with wearing my motorcycle helmet and a Boba Fett Mandalorian costume helmet. The first gives an almost normal field of vision, the latter causes big visual (you can only see right in front of you and up to your bellybutton), hearing and breathing problems. I have no problems wearing my motorcycle helmet, but am always very glad to take off the fully enclosed Boba Fett helmet. I fear that I might pass out when wearing this thing during a hot summer day.
Having worn both the PASGT and the ACH helmets, I can attest to the effect they have on your hearing. Even wearing them for months on end and getting accustomed to them, it still doesn't alter the fact that your hearing is muffled. The heat is still an issue and wearing a closed-face helm would severely restrict your ability to inhale oxygen during strenuous situations and exercises (How many scuba divers do you see conducting breast stroke competitions under water, swimming as fast as they can? It can't be done -- yet...).
Ya I wore the PASGT in the US Navy and sometimes we had to scream to here each other above background noise.
Yeah in the books I think Boba had like a 360 camera view inside the helmet instead of the actual view
In polish language we even keep one of sayings from medieval time "wystąpić z otwartą przyłbicą" - which means "come out with the visor open". It means to openly stand against something.
Ja bym powiedział że to znaczy raczej wystąpić otwarcie, z podniesioną głową, tak mi się to przynajmniej kojarzy.
sounds very brave, the open face one would rather take lower protection for advantages of action.
Similiar saying exists in German.
@@1IGG : But the meaning is a bit different. Mit offenem Visier means, he does his work visibe, not secret or hidden.
Pierwszy raz słyszę o takim powiedzeniu xD
I have no fond memories of training in gasmask as a soldier. Its hot, inhibits communication and vision and if doing anything physical it gets you winded and then nauseous fast. If closed helmets is anything resembling that, I can understand.
Maybe it would be a thing that people got, because it seemed smart, but used less and less. Lots of modern counterparts for that.
Training in gas mask is what weak people think ffp2 masks are like.
They're not near as bad as breathing through a gasmask with filters for the amount of air you can take in, but it's still hot and miserable.
It was smart when you were charging on horseback (a lance in your face can be quite unpleasant, and the horse does all the work) or walking into melee under a storm of arrows. When you were entangled you just lifted the visor or discarded it completely.
My fondest memory military respirators is putting mine on in a hurry to find it was full of sand.
It makes sense that a charging knight would have a visor. You're quite exposed, you don't *really* need to see as you're just riding your horse straight ahead, and there's likely going to be pointy things going toward your face. However, if the knight is forced to dismount or fight his way out of the skirmish I have no doubt he would raise his visor to see and breathe more clearly.
I've done larp, battel/festival events. Even in that situation, the extra visibility, ability to hear unimpeded, breath without restriction, even take on water during a lul in the fighting (this is thirsty work). I'm a huge fan of the kettle hat.
Yeah me too. Having an open. Face helmet really helps with basic human things such as breathing, drinking, and not tripping while walking. It's also much easier to anything you've dropped on the ground.
And yet, a full helmet was used for quite some time in the high middle ages.
So either these guys felt differently (for whatever reason) or there is something else going on.
@@juanzulu1318 I suspect cost was part of it, also different PPE for different jobs. I mean, there is a LOT of "Hurry up and wait" going on at these events.
You have also mentioned, in a previous video, that soldiers do many other things, even in a battlefield, besides fighting. If the battle is long enough, they would have water brought to them, maybe even a bite. A pike formation would need to hear and shout clearly in battle, especially a Swiss formation, which manouvered very quickly. Archers, crossbowmen, and handgunners needed clear vision to aim and shoot properly.
Even if shot at with arrows, a clear, straight shot to the face was not that easy. Arrows and bolts do parables, they fall to the ground when gravity overcomes impulse. You would have to be at point-blank range to be shot straight at the face, likely less than 30m. Otherwise, the shots would be plunging or facing downward when hitting you. It is illustrative that Harold Godwinson got shot when peeking among the ranks of his shieldwall. A sallet, or a kettle hat, with the brim like that, offers more protection from this kind of projectile, while preserving lines of sight. If arrows or bolts began to hit the formation, they only had to lower their heads, without becoming too deaf or blind. I think it is the same logic behind the British frag helmet from the world wars. It seems way to open, but it was designed to protect from artillery shell fragment showering a trench. The danger comes from above, and they would have taken cover after the first blast. In prone position, the helmet covers the face, head, and neck, from fragments, and I bet it could even deflect glancing shots, if the angle and distance to the shooter was right.
Thanks for the video, as always!
Pietro Monte included a section on the advantages of having the visor raised: "If someone knows how to parry and the enemy is strongly armed, it is often useful to have a visor which goes upwards, because our breathing endures more and it is also easier to see what must be done, and almost no danger threatens, or will rarely happen, especially if we have iron gauntlets to turn away the other’s weapon."
2020 people: "I see zero reason why a medieval knight wouldn't be wearing a fully enclosed steel helmet. It would be stupid not to!"
Also 2020 people: "Ugh, do I really *have to* wear that fabric facemask over my mouth AND nose? I can't breath and it's uncomfortable."
When I go outside and put my mask on when people approach,I pretend I'm a knight lowering my visor.
@@Blokewood3 i always hear "GAS GAS GAS" in my head.
Well, knights needed to protect themselves against actual danger, covid19 isn't nowhere near as dangerous as arrows and blades. It'd probably be safer to use better protection against corrupt governments however.
A fully enclosed helmet will actually protect you, while paper masks work about as well as a medieval plague doctor mask
Well, there is a big difference between wearing a closed helmet in battle to not get stabbed in the face and wearing a mask for hours every day
I think anyone who says an open faced helmet or opening your visor is stupid has never fought in a closed helmet. I haven't done THAT much harness fighting but the first thing I do after a fight is open my visor or take my helmet completely off. If I can raise my visor during a stop or something I will, 100%. Sensory deprivation and oxygen needs are a real thing, as you say.
Wolfrib Bascinet helmets are really popular in Buhurt because they're the closest thing allowed to an open face helmet...Fighting in a full face helmet is exhausting purely from the breathing restrictions, and when you add in the extra mental energy you have to expend into figuring out what the hell is going on past the slits in your full face helmet and it all really adds up very quickly.
*Heavily armoured historical man-at-arms falls out due to heat injury*
Modern humans: "What an idiot! why doesn't he keep cooler by dressing or adjusting during the battle!"
*also historical man-at-arms lifts visor or removes greathelm to breathe and continue fighting but gets hit in face*
modern people again: "What an idiot! Why don't they wear more comprehensive armour?!"
Ok so from an ex-Army person view. I have spent time in units that forced helmets vs ones that did not. Spend months in one then go to a unit that did not require it. And I was willing for injury or death not to wear one. I know the risk, but you get it, or you don't.
@@gravitatemortuus1080 Agreed, after a civilian contractor got hit and killed with falling celebratory fire in Iraq, they required it even within the wire at my FOB...
I was mostly highlighting how modern folk consistently want to believe earlier people were stupid and they could and would have made better decisions in the heat of battle over these soldiers with years of training and experience, wasn't even considering uniform rules and regs, good point
@@taianonni there is a reason "modern folk" don't imitate those soldiers from long time ago, their thinking, their styles, etc etc
Hitler realized too late his armies actually _cannot actually_ "live of the land" or that wearing RED as a uniform color does _nothing_ for anyone, or that there is no need to stand in straight lines while firing rifles.
People in general, but especially the military types, are more than capable of doing something stupid for a very, very long time, centuries even, while fighting progress every inch of the way.
Some nations (Japan) are not just able to fight progress to a standstill, but after things have improved, fighting progress BACK and re-establishing old ways. Amazing.
@@Subhumanoid_ The red uniform was a practical result of the price of dyes and needing to quickly recognize your own troops at a distance, and that worked back in the day of muskets when you weren't going to firing at targets longer than 50m anyways, but being able to recognize that a marching formation of troops from a distance is actually friendly or enemy is important. Now the red uniform becomes a big target later on when rifles are introduced and you are starting to engage at distances of 300+ meters. And consequently with the increased accuracy of infantry weapons come more dispersed infantry formations, and thus a need for camoflage to help protect against the accuracy of rifles.
Now if you want to criticize someone for using wholly outdated uniforms, talk about the French in 1914 still marching in columns with blazing red trousers and blue coats being seen from a mile away, which the Germans would then blow to bits with artillery and machine gun fire
@@Subhumanoid_ Yes, and the reason for that is that technology changes. The reason longbows and halberds aren't standard issue anymore isn't that we realized they were stupid, it's that we invented better weapons. The reasons we don't line up in formations much anymore is due to both advances in weapons (being able to reload faster, fire further and fire more accurately almost eliminating the need for unit against unit close combat as well as volley fire meaning everyone could be in a skirmish line) and communications technology (telephone and especially radio meaning that commanders could actually communicate with their men without needing to use drums, flags and shouted orders). It had very little to do with people just being stupid and hung up on the old ways of doing things.
That also maybe explains why we see great helms, bascinets, etc attached to the knight with chains on many 12th and 13th c. effigies and brass rubbings -- he could wear the helmet in the charge, but then remove it for the close combat without having to worry about retrieving it later. Full protection at a distance or in the initial crash of lances, and then full visibility in the melee.
I forget the name of the guy, but there was one general in the Thirty Years War who genuinely does deserve a Darwin award for opening his visor- he pushed it open with a loaded pistol, which went off, shooting him in the face and killing him. I've always found it fascinating that by the end of the golden age of plate armour in the 17th century, one of the most popular types of helmet was the 'Lobster-Tailed Pot' which looks almost identical to a Roman Legionary helmet, only with the addition of a sliding nasal or vertical bars to protect the face from sword cuts. Nearly 2000 years of armour evolution later, and the result is basically full circle.
Darwin Award of the century for sure. Yikes. Imagine that being your father. And it gets told for hundreds of years.
Way more than 2,000 years actually. There were full plate suits and helmets with face protection in the bronze age.
@@laughingdaffodils5450 If it's the ones I've seen, they look very difficult to move in ^^
@@MaMastoast Several people have reconstructed e.g. the Dendra suit and found it generally easy to move around in - the shoulder pieces do limit overhand movements, so the wearer might not have been able to throw a javelin or use a sling, but that was the job of the auxiliaries anyway. Later iron plate, articulated plate, also looks very cumbersome but in fact when fitted properly still allows a great deal of movement.
@@laughingdaffodils5450 Obviously I'm no expert on ancient plate armor, but one of the things that makes it stand out to me when compared to medieval plate armor, is that it doesn not seem very fitted to the body... It mostly looks like a metal tube with sections, and then the lower half being split to allow for leg movement
That makes the Hollywood custom of having no helmet at all a double mistake… „can’t see the faces when they wear helmets, let’s have them not wear any“ - forgetting about open face helmets
Hearing things is also miserable in a helmet. Theirs a reason why Roman legionaire helmets didn't cover the ears. But when your enemies have warhammers, pollaxes, and Warpicks getting bashed in the side of the dome is deadly as hell. But it would probably hinder the ability to direct a person wearing a helmet covering their ears.
@@Adam_okaay I remember hearing being a thing that made the germans after WW1 shift around the design of the stahlhelm to make it a bit higher up, or so i remember at least.
@@Adam_okaay OK, I can’t see the connection to my comment though
I play high level tournament paintball which requires masks that cover the entire face and ears. All fields have that requirement actually for safety as you would imagine.
Even with the masks being ventilated (small holes to aid breathing) they still restrict your breathing and your hearing quite a bit, but worst of all of that is it muffles your shouting to your teammates and causes your shouting to echo in your ears. On top of that impedes your hearing as just an obstruction. In a paintball match that's not life and death that's a real liability. I imagine with your life on the line and you depending on direction from your leadership to mount coordinated attacks to maximize the effectiveness of your force as a whole the hearing and communication restriction can't be overlooked.
I imagine all the hot breath inside a full helmet was a nightmare for rust.
In modern times with the reintroduction of the military helmet (last 110 years or so) there has been no move towards face protection. Primarily for reasons of visibility and ease of sighting for weapons, I believe, but breathing and hearing are also huge advantages. Try carrying 80lbs or so of kit and breathing with a full helmet.
That, and the reason open faced helmets are common for the military is because of the cheek weld. With any stocked rifle, carbine or smg, you want your cheek on the stock, which makes aiming easier, more comfortable and just all around better. Closed helmets are discouraged because of the lack of cheek weld and you'll have to retrain yourself to aim differently. That, and face protection is not in use because face protection won't stop bullets, and the head is a small target anyways, so covering your face is not a priority, and helmets today are used for the prevention of shrapnel in the head, not to deflect bullets (though they possible could due to the round shape). and the reason why clear visors are used by riot control is to prevent rocks and pepper spray from hitting your face.
In Iraq they experimented with full face helmets for gun emplacement operators. It was abandoned because making a helmet bulletproof is extremely heavy, impedes communication and also doesn't protect you from what is most likely to kill a heavy weapon guy - an IED, rpg or another heavy weapon.
The best helmet is the one being worn. Modern soldiers aren't going to wear something that feels inconvenient for very long. It's bloody hard to get construction workers to keep their safety glasses on even if they are hardly an inconvenience.
Modern helmets are mostly designed to protect from shell blasts and shrapnel descending on you rather than being shot or from direct frontal attacks.
@@mrdarren1045 kevlar helmets will protect against glancing shots that would otherwise have sent you back home in a body bag, but i understand your point.
Good job Matt! Anyone asking this question has never worn a helmet of any type for long periods, much less a closed face helmet. Reduced vision and hearing is a tremendous disadvantage in combat and very likely got knights killed but there's no way to track those numbers. As a career soldier, I loved and hated my helmet. I date to the Vietnam to Gulf War era so the old US army steel pot through the kevlar. Both were uncomfortable at best when worn 18-20 hours a day. Many guys got agonizing headaches after 6 hours or so. Yet at least we could hear, speak and breathe. People who get their "combat" training thru video games are clueless about the real world.
Couldn’t it also be that they didn’t have visors in a lot of effigies because they wanted to show the persons face? I know that wouldn’t be the case for all of them but maybe for some of them. Even if so I still agree with you on the overall point.
Yea I was thinking the same thing
Well I think his point about the effigies isn't necessarily that they show the person's face, it's that the sculpted helmet is completely lacking in any kind of face protection whatsoever, lifted away from the face or otherwise. The sculptor went to the trouble of carving the effigy with armor and helmet so if the helmet had a visor, he likely would have included it in the upright position even though he was still showing the face.
@@benmoore8809 Isn't it possible that they simply chose a type of helmet that would naturally show the face, if showing the face was a priority?
All speculation of course. But if I wanted to honor a knight by showing his face and I had the choice of giving him a fullface helmet with the visor in an upright position, or simply picking a helmet that naturally showed his face, I think I'd take the second option.
@@MaMastoast It's possible. But if we assume that the choice of helmet was up to the sculptor, there are helmet options that are less obscuring of the face than even the ones shown in the video which are nonetheless quite protective otherwise, covering the throat, chin, and ears as well. And let's not forget, the effigies are only one piece of evidence; there's artwork and artifacts too.
@@benmoore8809 and the artwork shows men wearing both visors up and down, greathelms on and off, etc. Even on foot, even in combat.
As a Buhurt (armored combat) fighter, I completely agree with this. I have had panic attacks due to lack of oxygen after intense fights. It limits visibility and your ability to breath. I ended up buying a nasal bascinet to help fix these issues. I can't imagine fighting in an actual battle with a visor.
My father fought in Vietnam and though he and his men wore M1 pattern helmets, they often preferred to wear no helmet while on patrol in the jungle because they could not hear as well when they did. Instead, they usually wore boonie hats, which give protection from the sun but little else.
At this point I'm quite convinced that, if you asked a XIV-century knight about why some have visor and some don't (let's assume very unrealistic condition of mutual understanding), he would, apart from shrugging his arms and giving you some kind of condescending look, reply something along the line of "everyone wears what they are most comfortable with, or what works best for their task, if they can afford it, of course".
He'd probably say something like, "context is key." :P
After two years of global arguments about wearing masks... if you don't at least understand why people prefer not to wear one, you're not paying attention!
And that's just a piece of cloth.
Now, think about enclosing your face in metal, and doing athletic competition. Yikes!
when I tried on a full-face helmet I didn't even feel comfortable walking.
masks are not that restrictive, you can breath through it just fine, stop being a baby.
A very similar trade-off exists for modern tank and afv commanders. They can operate hatches closed, but the restrictions on visibility and situational awareness are such that only when people are actively shooting do the commanders close the hatch. They often only partly close up to try and maintain better vision. Lindybeige addressed this in one of his videos I think, and The Chieftan has discussed this as well.
Great video! This is a super helpful bit of information that is never talked about!
I really liked this in Kingdom Come. The closed helmets or helmets with visors provide the most protection in the game but they severely restrict your vision making it much harder to make sense of what is going on around you. I ended up using an iron hat much more than the closed helmets. Sadly it is not possible to manually close and open the visor in game, Henry (the protagonist) always closes it when in danger and then you can't see very well. But the solution is to use an open face helmet.
Hello Matt. I have recently gone and bought an elder sword from an auction. A Kaskara. The auction didn't know dirt more then the sword was bought from a museum in Bern and estimated to be from the 1960's.
Light as hell and with a rather flexible blade it is a neat little thing to have, authentic or not.
Couldn't an explanation for effigies of knights not having visors be that they wanted to show their face and make them more recognizable? Akin to the main characters in movies nowadays not wearing helmets.
Yep, that argument is easily disarmed that way. Good point!
Imagine you spent a good chunk of your material wealth to outfit a whole chapel to house your remains, complete with monks and nuns to pray for your eternal soul, just so the effigy on your sarcophagus looked the same as everyone else's. The sculptors could just mass-produce them at that point. LOL
I had the same thought, but realized there's a counterpoint. The purpose of effigies was to give the viewer an accurate, lifelike representation of the individual for the purpose of intercessionary prayer. What we don't see represented are effigies showing once visorred helmets with visors removed completely - they didn't sculpt mounting points, rivets or other features that would show where a visor would attach. Matt even mentions this at 8:12 in the video. We do see examples of raised visors, no helmet at all, or open faced helmets. We can assume two conclusions - first is that the sculptors abandoned an otherwise true-to-life depiction of their subjects by editing out the visors or inventing new visorless helmet types, or that they are portraying the armor as it was in life. Dr. Tobias Capwell has done some great work in the field of effigy study, so I'm really just parroting his research.
Never heared of ,coat of arms'/Wappen or crest (?)/Helmzier to identify a knight ?
Yeah, was thinking this too, even if original helmet did have a visor I don't think the customer (or grieving family) would pay for just a simple helmet reproduction but would have demanded face...
I'd question the statement (about 7:25) that "of course" it makes the most sense to have the visor, bevor, etc. down during the melee. That's when the risk of being stabbed in the side or back is highest, and visibility and situational awareness matter most. All tradeoffs considered, I'd most want full face protection during the preliminary arrow volleys before the armies have closed.
Even though the SCA is not as historically correct as it might like, being in large field melees doing armored combat really shows how you might find yourself in a place to raise your visor. Sometimes the ebb and flow of the battle moves the fighting away, or you are repositioning, but one way or another you find yourself in a position to catch your breath. And then you get an arrow in the face.
Effigies were carved to show the person so they want to have the face exposed. So you can't take them as absolute perfect representation of the way they were commonly armored.
But if you know where going into a situation where long ranged combat is going to be brief, fighting will be very chaotic then open face makes a ton of sense. Being blinded due to vision slits is a thing. The best defense is always a defense you make with your feet and weapon.
My armor wearing is mostly at Renaissance Fairs over the last 15 years. I started with a sugarloaf that I carried much more than I wore. I would put it on during parade or heavy rain. You cannot see much and sound is badly impaired as well. The next helmet I started using was a spangern nasal helm that allowed much better vision and hearing. It was much more wearable but the nasal did get annoying. Trying to develop from medieval to more renaissance I got a comb morion or conquistador helmet and it is by far the most wearable with even a slight bit of sun protection. I currently use a visor sallet but I keep the visor up all the time except for photos. It has more of a 'knightly" look than the comb morion. My next helmet will likely be a kettle with more brim to protect from the hot Texas sun. I liked the spikey sallet you had in this video. At Renaissance fairs wearability, vision, and hearing are more important than actual combat.
I know that samurai in Kabuto would often look down during the final few feet of a charge so that their exposed faces would be looking down, and the incredibly protected top of their heads would be pointed at the enemy, so that is an example of covering for the fact your face is unprotected simply by how you position your body
Think of the fortune a time-traveller could make selling safety glasses to medieval knights and soldiers.
now im wondering... do Matt really loves those new characters in Raid? :P
Of topic, but that first sallet lent a very strong sir Samuel Vimes of the Night watch look.
One could argue that the Brody Helmet from WW2 was a continuation of the English kettle hat, an open faced helmet.
German M16 Stahlhelm is a Schaller/ sallet.
For a long time I didn't wear any headprotection or just an open faced boxing headguard with a plastic eyeprotection in training. When I first wore a fullface fencing helmet, I didn’t even know where the cuts were coming from. All I heard was the knock of the hits on the side of the metal grid. Vision is perhaps the most important aspect in combat.
So perhaps another use of archers in combat could be to make their targets don great helms, lower visors etc. similar to how small arms were used to make tanks button up?
Having worked in an asbestos protection suit I can vouch for the claustrophobia inducing effect of full enclosure on the face. Goggles, respirator, and hood leave you with very limited vision, little hearing, and the effect of rebreathing your hot exhaled breath before drawing fresh, filtered air does induce panic.
I'm a retired member of the U.S. Army and have never tried to wear or use any armor older than 1994. That said I can still fully understand why open face helms would be used. Even with modern ballistic armor as light as it is a soldier caries a lot of weight into battle. Breathing properly, even without anything covering your face, can be challenging. I could only imagine how hard that would be in a full face helmet.
A gas mask today would be something similar. I've actually worn a gas mask many, many years ago and they are not pleasant to wear for an extended period of time. On the battlefield I can only imagine that people make a call if to use a visor or not. Just look at today with modern soldiers with guns and rifles. The helmets are open by design so clearly it's something we humans have adapted to in war situations. The benefit of being able to communicate, breath, hear and all that are so valuable that we leave the face open.
Hi Matt, very good video. One point I see in addition to all the right points you made is. The face is a very small target, so the chances to hit a soldier are very good, but hitting the face is not that easy when the target is moving and you have done some shooting and the stress is increasing as the enemy is closing in.
Thanks for your work.
I would think that in addition to breathing difficulties with closed face helmets, heat management would also be a factor.
Yes, it is. You're absolutely right. I live in the central valley region of California, and during the summer's it often gets to above 100 degrees farenheit. I've done some SCA fighting with a full face helmets, and it is not fun. Just putting the damn thing on and standing still is hard enough. Granted all the groups I practiced with met during the evening, but that only means we dint have direct sunlight to deal with.
There is a parallel with modern 'armour', tanks, here. Tank crews are much more vulnerable with their hatches open and heads out, but most of their time is spent like this, because being 'buttoned up' drastically reduces your situational awareness, and, for the vast majority of a tanker's time, that is much more important than outright protection.
The "three-barred pot" lobster-tailed helmet as used in the English Civil War seems to have struck the ideal balance. Vision, breathing, and yelling were essentially unobstructed, but the stout bars could ward off blunt attacks or slashes from a heavy cavalry broadsword.
Blocking the tip of a charging cavalry sword that is trying to skewer your skull like a martini olive would require an unreasonably heavy visor. Your obstructed vision would mean you're bound to get hit a lot more as well.
That helmet makes good sense in the age of gunpowder, when you are no long worrying about arrows, because no helmet is going to stop a musket ball (and if they could, would break your neck in doing so) which means that your helmet need only resist melee weapons.
However, in a medieval context, helmets could be expected to stop arrows and crossbow bolts, so it's far more reasonable to have the option to close your face off fully, even if said face protection could be raised or removed. I agree that the civil war helmet is a good choice for its time and place, but outside of that I think other helmets outclass it in protection and versatility.
One whack with a club or hammer anywhere on the helmet and you go down from the concussion. Wearing two helmets with padding in-between dampens blows.
Grew up in the place where 4000 of the famous longbow Men of Agincourt were slain within 1 hour by a small Swiss contingent carrying flags as blockers for arrows. Man pads were out for 250 years. Of course I played in the armory section of the museum as a kid where a lot of the loot from 700 years ago is still around. The waved blade two handers we're especially impressive. Liked the short ones. The long ones are true reapers.
One thing to mention during the Viking age/normen age is that archery wasn't a major part of warfare. For example yes archers were used in battle but they weren't used as often they were usually fought in shield walls and in close quarters. And most bows at that time weren't probably powerful enough to pierce mail armor unless you were very close. Bows at this time were primary used for hunting animals.
from Jean de Joinville's writings about the 7th crusade. search for "battling the saracens in 1250". the other cool thing was he got hit by a lance from behind and pinned to the neck of his horse and he says he cant reach the sword attached to himself so has to get the one attached to his horse. sidearms. its only a few paragraphs long as well.
"During this incident, Hugues d'Ecot received three wounds in the face from a lance, and so did Raoul de Wanou, while Frederic de Loupey had a lance-thrust between his shoulders, which made so large a wound that the blood poured from his body as if from the bung-hole of a barrel. A blow from one of the enemy's swords landed in the middle of Erard de Siverey's face, cutting through his nose so that it was left dangling over his lips. At that moment the thought of Saint James came into my mind, and I prayed to him: 'Good Saint James, come to my help, and save us in our great need.'"
I'm not disputing the point Matt's ultimately making here, but I also suspect artwork may in some cases depict people with their visors up for the same reason we have movies and video games with heroes wearing no helmet at all, or fighter pilots with their oxygen masks off -- so that the audience can see the soldier's/general's/king's face.
Yeah, but 99,9% of these paintings are not depicting anyone important, just random generic soldiers.
@@MrPiotrV as far as you can guess.
if you ever play Kingdom Come Deliverance you'll see a major reason why they liked to keep the visor open/have open faced helmets. i ran around with a prety regular bascinet helmet on then i found a Cuman commanders helmet which has complete face protection. i thought 'cool this has like 2x the armour my current one has' until i went into combat wearing it and the character pulls the face protection part down. your visibility goes down to about a 1x2" block around each eye and that's it..... i very quickly switched over to a kettel helm.
It is still common for MANY motorcyclists to ride with their visor either partly or fully open in 2022 - sometimes to the detriment of getting a bug to the face at high speed! Cheers from Canada!
Playing paintball taught me that. Even though the paintball masks have wholes all over for good respiration, you find out that you start to sweat & gasp for air fairly quick when you start to run or move around, so much so, that I thought of just getting googles & risk getting my face busted by paintballs, so it's really not hard to see why they would use open face helmets, being that a war metal helmet is heavier and can get hotter
The only helmet I have is a WWII era made "Brodie" type helmet. About as open faced as it gets :) but it does what it was designed to do - protect from blows from above.
Great content as usual. Thoughtful and entertaining.
If full face protection was ideal our troops would use it now - but we're still rockin' the open face....Covid, stormtroopers, Darth Vader not withstanding.
I'll second what others are saying - welding masks and motorbike crash helmets really do approximate the visibility available historically and it's very limited.
I'm veggie now but used to hunt - there is a tradition of wearing wide brim hats in Europe when hunting / stalking - they cast a shadow to hide the face but allow a full sight picture and don't mask sounds.
More modern approaches to hunting apparel, hoods, camo nets / scrim nets / masks covering the face that are quite popular due to snipers using them really do hinder sight and sound.
I can't hunt in them, and I would hate - absolutely hate - having to fight for my life with my vision obscured and hearing impared.
I would guess that tunnel vision and adrenaline also would compound the negative effects of a full face helmet. In militaries you see this thing called acceptable losses in some form or another. Lots of soldiers knew their time was up even if they had full helmets yet fought on for their fellows at their side or for fear of disobedience.
I would imagine an archer would require an open faced helmet, it would be near impossible to draw a bow and fire accurately with a face mask.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but the best modern analogue would be tanks. They can protect people absolutely from the dangers of the battlefield but the driver and comander have their heads out most of the time. They only "button up" (ducking down, closing the hatches and using the periscopes), in certain situations.
Surely there is a closely analogous choice in modern armoured warfare; frequently tank commanders and other armoured fighting vehicle crew members expose themselves through open hatches. The reason is the same; if they are forced to button up, it instantly degrades their visibility, just when they most need to see their enemy before that enemy can see or attack them. There is also the phrase used in air combat “Lose sight, lose the fight”.
Just offhand open face has several advantages potentially: less material required, less time to make, lighter usually, less restrictive for your senses, and easier to breathe in. Also these small advantages get exacerbated when you're having to make thousands to equip an entire army
Cheaper as well? Less individual (fits more people)?
I don't think that making helemets for an army would have been an issued back in the Medieval & Ranissance periods when standing armies weren't a thing. Back then, most people would have had to have provided their own arms and armor, at least their own armor. Professionals like knights, men at arms, and mercenaries would already have their own armor. Levies, if they could afford armor, would have had to buy their own right before or during a campaign, but I don't think that would have amounted to thousands and most probably couldn't afford a vsiroed helemt.
Open faced designs are probably more durable/amenable to durable builds for helmets of either similar mass or build styles/qualities as well.
Don't have village Levy fiddling around with a visor or walking into a ditch with a armoured bucket on his head.
Have you seen how daft the average person is today, I think the medieval peasant might have an extra few IQ point but even that leaves a lot to be desired.
It makes perfect sense to me that people would prioritize vision over protection just like when wearing armor you have to consider mobility vs. protection, and as you've said before you could be completely invulnerable in a metal box but would be useless on the battlefield.
Yes a friend of mine used to do WoTR reenactment and said full face helmets were good protection BUT you couldn't see or breath!
Hilarious intro! Love the new helmet, looking forward to hear more about it. I suspect its a English style?
As someone who's just played football wearing only some wire in front of your face I can say that just trying to catch a football in a helmet is so much harder.
Great discussion. Is there a reason though, why the nasal helm went out of favour? It seems that would have had all the advantages of an open face, but also something that protected the face to a greater degree.
The most common strike that the nasal guard protects is your own shield being pushed into your face in shield wall type combat.
6:58 - Oh! Hello there, Battle of Aljubarrota!!!
I have a nice kettle helmet with an almond-shaped brim. I saw it, tried it on, and bought it because it was everything I wanted in a helmet.
I've tried on a Knight's helmet and I can't use them because I wear glasses and lasik isn't something I can get. Contacts constantly fall out so I don't wear them.
Also, the very limited vision of a visited helmet drives me nuts.
Could you make video about really high points in helmets? Some helmets have really high almost spear-like points and I just want to know why.
It is worth noting that king James 1st of Aragon (known as "The Conqueror") preferred kettle hats togreat helms. Since he was a king, you can guess he could get the best stuff money could buy in the 13th century, and he was used to battlefields and sieges. Yes, a matter of preference, but if a king with lots of military experience went for the kettle hat... well, sure it had some virtues.
Great work Sir thank you
In Italië we find lose armet visors. After the initial charge you ditch it. The biggest danger is arrows and lances. In the mele it is a lot les likely to incounter one.
Hollywood certainly prefers the open-faced helmets, lol.
9:22 Any particular reason why we see two bois to the right rocking frogmouth helms? Were they ever actually used in battle at some point or was this more of an artistic misinterpretation?
Have you ever seen Knights in Great Helms playing Pin the Tail on the Squire at events?
Lindybeige mentioned of hoplites doing a similar thing with their helmets.
Light cav and skirmishers were the eyes and ears of the army. They needed all the situational awareness for their missions. Heavy infantry worked in tight formations. Being able to see, hear and shout properly was crucial. Missile troops needed unobscured vision to operate their weapons. That leaves us with heavy shock cavalry, the only type of troops to regularly use closed helmets.
Thanks for the video 👍🏻
I can't seem to find an answer to an question I've been wondering lately and maybe you can help or if someone in the comments can have answers to that: why didn't they use magnets on visors? To help them get up or down in an instant. Were magnets not powerful enough in ancient and medieval times? Great video As always!
I find it funny that no one thought of economics? After all money playes a big part in war after all!!!
Considering that a good overarm spear thrust (nevermind a two handed spear or polearm thrust) can ring a fully armored head pretty badly even without breaking through, the tradeoff of protection for the ability to see attacks coming makes a lot of sense.
Also god forbid you don't see that incoming attack and it manages to hit you right in the eye slit, thats a bad day
The best face protection are your allies around you.
I've tried visors and visorless helmets. With glasses, since I'm almost blind without, lol. I would definitely NOT cross a road with my visor down. I've tried wearing a helm at my PC: if I look at my monitors, I can't see my keyboard, and vice-versa. A visor is EXTREMELY hampering.
It makes feel protected, though, and in winter it keeps me very warm - I can wander home in armour and feel well even with heating turned off.
I wonder how it'd feel in summer though: heatstroke? It's a chance.
My favourite historical helmet is still the kettle helm. Because I wear a modern one today for cutting down trees and using a chainsaw.
You can't beat its utility for visibility, air, and hearing. Not to mention my head can move almost anyway while it's on.
I wore a pot helmet once for half an hour. Insight number one was, you can't communicate in a pot helmet. When people talk it's muffeld, and even worse people do not hear you when you talk.
Like there were people right in front of me, not event aware that I talked to them, untill I took of the helmet. In any situation where you have to communicate with people around you, those things are a no go.
weve gotta see a review of the black fencer cutting sword! might turn out to be the best low budget cutter out there!
The barbute seem s like a pretty good compromise.
Having worn riot gear and respirators in the military, the sensory deprivation is huge. Once you start running about and fighting it gets difficult to breathe, hot and claustrophobic pretty quick.
At 6:16 he's holding the sword near the tip of the blade. Is that a one handed mordhau?
Like being out of your hatch in a WWII tank. More vulnerable? Sure, but it's worse if you can't see what the hell is going on. There's a time to be buttoned up and a time to get the best view of the field.
Getting hit by arrows? Visor down if you've got one. In a melee where you need to see and breathe? I would probably want the visor out of the way.
Another example of a helmet from Rome with full face protection would be the various gladiator helmets.
and conversely, my understanding is that one gladiator helmet was so enclosed that the wearer would become exhausted if they couldn't end the fight quickly. Game balance.
That's why I think Mandalorian style helmet can be so cool. If you have the tiny power sources that they have in science fiction, you can not only have sensors in an HD readout that gives you better vision and hearing than you would have without it, but you can also have forced filtered air, possibly oxygen enriched for a time during that battle.
I guess what I'm saying is sufficiently advanced helmet could become a no-brainer to leave the face enclosed, but the fancy bucket that is our technology as it exists is not it.
Nice intro Matt, very reminiscent of Monty Python, lol
A comparison can also be made with tanks in WW2 and after. Many times a commander would open the hatch to look outside.
In some cases 1 man turret tanks it was necessary due to the extremely poor visibility. In the arab israeli wars IDF had a doctrine of the commander opening the hatch
to get a better view of the enemy. I have seen statistics that IDF tank commanders suffered increased casualties because of this.
Very thought provoking video. It made me ask the opposite question: why did they even invent the visor if it was mostly just a disadvantage?
but would a effigies show people without the visor so we can see their face??