Helmets - Not Only About Protection
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ย. 2018
- Helmets - ancient, medieval, renaissance, modern - They were not only about protection and even when protection is the main goal, we have to consider many other factors.
/ scholagladiatoria
/ historicalfencing - บันเทิง
![BOWKYLION - เจ้านายคะ (work-life imbalance) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6bFj8G2pOi4/mqdefault.jpg)
"My Fez got attached to my Sallet there..." Now that's a phrase that has likely never been uttered before in all human history.
Armour is often of the yandere kind and is per definition overly attached, especially mail...
Ask any girl or dude with long hair, who tried mail...
edi they call their long hair their fez?
@@danielelseth4106 no, but their hair gets even more entangled...
edi I totally get it. I have shortish hair and it gets caught all the time. I’m just being a pedantic dick because the original comment was about a fez being caught in a sallet, not hair.
Depends on the company you keep ;)
Talking about how easy it is for soldiers to bump their heads, I am reminded of that moment in the first Starwars where the stormtrooper bashes his head on the doorway while boarding the rebel ship.
Great example!
To be fair, he probably bumped his head because he WAS wearing that particular kind of helmet :P
That was a hallway in the Death Star that the guy hit his head on but yes a classic example of the limited visibility of closed helms
I do find myself hitting my head on the ski lift bars alot more since I started wearing a helmet. You're used to your head being a certain size, and then it's not.
@@MrMetonicus Quiet, Luke.
In WW1, a lot of head injuries came from falling gravel, small rocks and the like comming from artillery explosions. Against that, the helmets was brilliant.
And also vicious support beams of underground bomb shelters.
If I remember my history right, the number of head wounds went up after protective headgear was reintroduced in World War One. Not because of ineffective helmets, but because fewer men were dying. Random history fact for you.
Falling rocks, the mortal enemy of humans since the dawn of time, second only to the pointy stick
makes sense if you're in a trench.
Not many people trying to stab you in the neck there!
Well, it was the British *registered* head injuries that went up. If the soldier died from a head injury it wasn't registered as a head injury.
"What do soldiers spend most of their time doing?"
Bitching.
If the soldiers are not bitching, there is a real problem.
Need an open faced helmet for that too.
you read my mind
Haha, yeah bitching and smoking.
What do soldiers do most of the time...................WAITING!
In fact War is 99.9% WAITING.
The best WAITER wins the WAITING......................
I used a foreign service helmet soaked in water for 1 week in the burning sun for archaeological fieldwork, (basically digging treches), it really made me appreciate the pith helmet and its design. Can recommend it to anyone!
Cheapknight didn't help with the rocks from the ass in the pit next to you that wasn't paying attention? that's what I've needed a few times lok
@@tiggytheimpaler5483 I didn't get rocks thrown to my head by incompotent diggers, but I am sure it would help. :p
Totally agree. I wear one when camping in the desert. On long hikes it's just as valuable as water. I'll never go out again without it.
I want my helmet to protect me from successive tactical nukes, but also give me 360 degrees 20/20 thermal vision.
What are my options?
sallet
That would be tactical dreadnaught armour, Justaerin pattern ;)
Your best protection is your everlasting faith in the undying God Emperor of Mankind.
You can go with any headgear that grants you the vision. The only caveat is that it must withstand 10th tier magic enchantments in order to give you protection against nukes...
If you ask me, where to find 10th tier enchantments, now that's a good question!
Most magically inclined persons, won't stop at the *first tier* and learn the *second tier* too and if they devout their life to magic, they manage to master the *third tier* as well. Those that manage to master the *fourth tier* are well renowned and sought after mages and once in a lifetime someone manages to scratch at the *fifth tier.* Such legendary mages are able to turn the tide of battles...
The *6th tier* is reserved for supreme beings as no mortal ever managed to get even close unless the few that kept extending his life with human sacrifices.
The *7th tier* is likely reserved for arch angels and demons.
I once met the prince of darkness himself and he showed me magic of the *8th tier.*
I have never come across any information on artifacts or events caused by *9th tier* magic at all.
The *10th tier* is god level and I'm not talking about run-of-the-mill Kami, but the one and only, all mighty creator of the universe. For all the time I've been around in this world, I have never found any dependable evidence of said god to ever respond to prayers (against common believe) be it from mere mortals or any supreme beings. As an old acquaintance of mine put it that eloquently: you can take your dream and stuff it up your ar$e.
Opt1: Melt a catana and shape/reforge it into a samurai helmet. Caution - Not pommel-proof!
Opt.2: Become a space marine, die, and get a techpriest of your choice to turn you into a dreadnought/dreadnuts.
Your new body will engulf (among other things) your head.
Opt.3: Plotarmor type helmet. Light, indestructable, looks probably really cool. Will protect the wearer regardless of logic. Nothing else to say. 15% Chance to deflect Pommelprojectiles.
This is something artists tend to forget. Very often you see character designs that are only geared toward being badass and fighting, but fall appart as soon as you imagine the characters doing anything else. Even things as simple as walking around, sitting in room or taking a shit can be rendered impossible by excessive amounts of badas looking gear :)
Were you thinking of something in particular? I don't really see that in the stuff I come into contact with. I have always associated bad-ass with utilitarian outfits.
Deviantart is full of good examples. Warriors with spikes-covered armors, steampunk characters with gears everywhere, cyborgs with cables poking out of everywhere...
Warhammer (both 40k and battle) often does this too, as the miniatures don't need to move :)
When you know why medieval armor was designed the way it was, you find out that, even in battle, a lot of fantasy or sci-fi armor simply doesn't work because a person would be completely unable to move while wearing that stuff. Medieval full-plate armor was very easy to move in historically, it's the jousting armor that was excessively heavy, and a knight wouldn't wear that in battle.
Yes, because it’s made for fighting. You just stop using that shit when you are not in a battle.
Warhammer does have fluff for that, I believe. It is because the people wearing them are literally superhuman or literally non human with different physiology. Space Marines, long story short, have pooping either engineered out of them or as merely as an alternative to absorbing less useful matter to their bodies. So, they can afford to ignore those concerns because to them that is not a concern.
Kingdom Come Deliverance made me appreciate helmets that don't cover the face. I like to use equipment that provides the best protection, but I cannot stand the restricted vision that you have with the top-notch helmets in that game. So I settle for less protective ones, so I can see while I fight. :)
That's exactly what I thought about!
The bascinet has great protection, but it gets annoying really fast, especially for someone like me who likes to fight in melee a lot. So I settled for an iron hat instead.
I fought a well armored, well armed bandit who had a good deal of skill. I had on the common bascinet, I parried his hammer and then he deftly redirected and hit my square in the face with it. I had full health, but was killed outright, because he hit me dead in the face with 3-4lbs hammer. Face protection, slightly annoying, but very very important.
+Corazzina Tanner
You were affected by the Headcraker perk - which gives a small chance of KO for head hits - in which case it doesn't matter what head armour (if any) you wear.
Exactly what I wanted to write :) I actually found it much harder to defeat my opponents in the helmets which restrict vision, especially when facing two opponents (more is usually suicidal in K:CD unless you have full plate armour and they are some lowly bandits, especially since I played with a mod which made the enemies in groups attack simultaneously and press their advantage more). I could sort of keep track of one opponent but I had no idea where the other guy was until he bashed me over the head with a mace or a halberd and I was half dead. The kettle hat provides very good protection, looks good and offers perfect visibility.
In real life you can lift the visor up though. In medieval art you see that quite often.
Kettle hats are probably the most comfortable helmets around: optimal hearing, breathing and sight; their large brim protects from downcuts, and allows to block the sunlight and keep the water off.
I have it on quite often when I'm outside and is GREAT.
Theyre a little on the large side, stahlhelms nailed it a bit better methinks.
Makes sense I guess. It's basically just a normal hat made out of metal isn't it :P
Basically, yep. Though hard hats, even if lighter, tend to be worn "higher" and thus make me feel more exposed.
I do larp battles, Stahlhelms can interfear with the hearing, so kettle is for me.
I agree Kettle helms are great. Even the Logging industry standard hard hats and forest firefighter hard hats are patterned after kettle helms as well. They're super practical even world war one era helmets are reminiscent of kettle helms.
Well given the fact that the head is perhaps the most vulnerable part of your body, and not only during combat, a helmet, even a cloth and cork one, is much better than no protection at all.
The secondary effects of high explosive shells is rather interesting when you look at them. A shell on its own can only carry so much fragmentation or shrapnel, which starts to greatly reduce the odds of doing anyone any harm the further you get from the detonation point. Your odds of not being in the way of a flying bit that is still moving fast enough to do you harm drops off more and more. And there is only so much energy in a shockwave to go around before it drops off enough to not harm you.
If however that same shell just happens to toss a load of earth and rocks up in the air to rain down on everyone, in addition to the shockwave and frag/shrapnel, then it can become that much more lethal.
Back in comes the helmet, not to protect from shrapnel/fragmentation/shockwave, but rather to reduce the impact that clods of earth and stone can have, turning deadly blows into stunning hits, and stunning hits into minor annoyances that were quickly overcome. Down goes death rates, up goes numbers of people hospitalised with head wounds.
RealLuckless The opposite was really the case during WW I. Prior to steel helmets becoming standard issue both sides were seeing a large number of head injuries and once steel helmets became the norm they saw the number of head injuries go way down.
Initially there were high numbers of fatalities vs wounded, and the introduction of helmets saw a decrease in fatalities and increase in overall head wounds thanks to the number of men now surviving to make it back to hospitals.
I'm in the US military. That's exactly why our helmets are getting lighter and the padding is getting better. However, there has to be a trade off. My ACH weighs about 3lbs, my SCA helmet weighs about 10lbs. I'll gladly get struck hard with rattan in my 12gauge mild carbon steel SCA heavy combat sallet, but the light weight kevlar helmet, no, no thanks. I have both helmets lined with the same padding, but the 10lbs helmet can absorb a crap ton more kinetic force, because of its weight.
WW2 saw a lot of shrapnel canisters used, ie. flying shotgun shells. Helmets of the day were very much concerned with protecting against projectiles from above.
in terms of shock absorption, yeah, it is the same as recoil with a very light gun, it is overpowering. total velocity it reaches when pushed towards your padding is much lower with a heavy helmet, as the same force accelerates a light thing much faster. And impact force is much more damaging than pressure.
Back in the dark ages, when I went through basic training, we were issued pith helmets during the summer months, just because the San Antonio sun was so fierce. Drilling on an asphalt pad for several hours a day, in 100+ degree heat and 90% humidity, meant that passing out through heat exhaustion was not uncommon. Ah, good times!
In the Marine Corps all Primary Marksmanship Instructors on both MCRDs are issued pith helmets and wear them whenever they're on the range with recruits.
You got me thinking for a moment you're a time traveller from the medieval dark age
That's airforce, army had a steel pot
Incidentally British tankers in ww2 suffered more injuries due to not wearing helmets in their tanks.
WWII tanks were hot as hell inside, totally understandable to remove a metal bowl from your head before entering one.
Probably why we see the Soviets make those leather helmets.
@@insertnamehere001 British tanker helmets were not the steel ones of the ordinary squaddie but more akin to the Motorcycle despatch rider helmet. They weren't worn not because of the heat, but more out of pride in the black beret worn by armoured corps personnel
Every martial culture has understood the importance of keeping the brainium safe.
Yes, because without it, your jist a piece of flesh with some bones and pee attached
I used to play with one of these helmets in my Grandparents house. My grandmother was born and lived on french Algeria, and french people there used to wear things like this on a daily basis ( though is was less and less common among gentry) just because of what you said. Very effective against the sun, and when you are running a farm, you have a lot of things to bump your head on. Plus it was kind of a recognition feature of the colonials. Very cool stuff to see it on your channel!
im surprised that people still get caught up with "that part of your body is exposed, therefor the armor is ineffective"
is a modern soldiers ineffective just because his plate carrier only covers his torso? you don't need to wrap your entire body in metal in order to be protected. in medieval fighting, the best protection is defending yourself with a shield or a weapon. in modern times, the best protection is hiding behind some large object that stops bullets. the things that we wear for protection are meant as *extra* protection in case those initial forms of protection fail. in neither period do people completely cover their entire body in protective material and become invincible.
Well, a knight in full plate is pretty much invincible vs anyone not equipped specifically to deal with him - but that's expensive stuff for really elite guys who aren't going to stand guard duty. A modern version of that would be something like riot cops with full ballistic plates, or bomb disposal guys - those too are only brought out for special occasions.
Anyone else will have to compromise because he's not one of those special guys and his employer needs him to be able to do other stuff. A modern soldier who was allowed to buy his own armor would probably quickly start thinking like medieval mercenaries, picking upgrades that are lighter if at all possible. After all, if I'm only going to get use out of something extra I have to carry every day 0.1% of the time do I actually want to drag it along if not required to? Some guys bring their own handguns (if the unit allows it), those with any sense leave it at home or use the weight for a few spare rifle mags instead.
A modern soldier carries armour only where his life depends upon it, where he really needs it, and nowhere else.
Keeps cost, and more important, the weight down.
Years back when I was in the US Army we kept our chin straps fastened unless were taking them off. Steel pots were heavier than kevlars, but they were more comfortable. Also you could not warm up water to shave in a kevlar. At Infantry AIT in Ft Benning the drill sergeants would go around when we were eating outside and demand we uncover (take our helmets off} when dining in "their dining room". In a combat environment we took them off, or kept them generally as we willed although there at times directions on this. You forget about the "brain bucket" while wearing it all day, though when sitting to rest it most probably would come off directly. I have "been out" for about 23 years but I would imagine it to be pretty much the same.
I wear a pith helmet when taking a bath, occasionally when riding my bicycle and always when mowing the lawn.
As in most things it's not how well you fight, it's how good you look...
To add to the points made, some of my thoughts:
-Non-ballistic helmets are very often still in use with various paramilitary and military units today. If any of you have seen the film Black Hawk Down, you may have noticed that the Delta Force operators are wearing hockey helmets instead of a ballistic helmet like the Rangers. That's because their mission for that operation was an HVT capture, and they were expecting to rappel from helicopters, get their man, and get out. In that context, a lighter helmet, used by an elite soldier, would be preferable. These days they're often referred to as 'bump helmets', and several companies produce them specifically for military and police application.
- Even for the more complete head protection worn in the Late Middle Ages by men at arms and knights, heavy helmets like hounskull bascinets and great helms and armets and great bascinets were probably held by a page or squire-- along with the gauntlets-- until the very moment when the fighter expected to either make or receive an attack. Under a summer sun, I don't think it is plausible for a man to exert himself and sweat under a full enclosed helmet for the often hours-long kabuki theater of maneuvering and forming battles that acted as the prelude to actual pitched combat.
the very essence of modern non ballistic helmet is the Soviet-Russian tanker helmet it is made soft and padded to absorb bumps has no other functionality.
Boris Kapchits that helmet has been in use since before WW2
Lots of knights died in great helms in the middle east on crusade from heat exhaustion :P
Yeah man. I totally wouldn't put that bitch on until I absolutely needed it.
The "perfect" helmet will never exist. Essentially, helmets have always, and will always be about compromise.
We can further increase the level of protection provided, such as when the US military switched from the WW1/Korea/Vietnam-era steel helmet to the more modernized PASGT helmet, but such protection always comes at a cost. The sides came down lower over the ears, the front had a brim for sun, rain, and broader incidental protection, and the walls were thicker. Unfortunately, the PASGT was also heavier and more cumbersome. This led to the development of lighter, thinner helmets, such as with the US Army's ACH. Compromising some of their integrity and protection against projectiles and shrapnel, the newest generation of helmet allows for much greater hearing & visual range. It also switched from leather & webbing suspension, to a foam padding system anchored with Velcro, allowing far more comfort and adaptability for different head shapes & sizes.
Excellent video, matt!
This kind of video about the realities of the actual use of the various historical items is my favourite kind of video.
Also: None better than captain context to make this kind of video.
What a nuanced presentation. How nice! No hyperbole or sweeping generalizing statements. Genuinely pleased to have stumbled across this.
This guy is really nice to listen to. He's not too loud and speaks clearly. I appreciate his sense of humor and the topics he talks about.
Honestly love these videos. Currently working on a fantasy video game and love common sensing my world building with the martial knowledge provided here.
Funny how you always end up with the same situation. Some of the most successful guns in history were the most reliable ones, because it meant everyone's always armed. Some of the most successful tanks were the ones designed to be reliable and/or easy to fix, so you don't end up losing half of them before you get into position. And some of the most popular helmets in history were the most comfortable ones that allowed the user to actually breathe and not pass out from the heat, so the men don't feel like deserting after a day or two of marching.
Seems whoever manages to get the most fresh and equipped men to the battlefield tends to win.
TY Matt, it is always nice to learn something from your videos. This one made me consider factors i had never really thought of before. So cleverly efficient to design helmets that can be worn both pushed back or pulled down, without even the need for moving parts! Darn those old craftsmen knew what they were doing! ;)
You have repeated the word "breathing" so much as if it is something important...
I never breathe, but I live in an outhouse with Wi-Fi.
ikr? Weird guy
You just gave me (indirectly) an aswer to a doubt I've had for about a year now concerning the conquistador helmet. Thanks Matt!
Awesome video Matt very insightful as always. It’s amazing how people overvalue having EVERY single part of your body covered and are quick to point out openings in armour, when history tells us otherwise. Between protection and mobility, most soldiers/warriors will go with mobility.
I believe the British flat helmet was there to protect from shrapnel coming from above as one stands IN a trench and NOT from bullets. The German Stahlhelm was designed to protect from both although for heavy protection for example machine gunners who needed to stay above the lip of the trench had extra plates for real bullet protection. Great stuff as usual Matt!
Exactly what I was going to say. The British design has a wide rim to protect the head AND shoulders (and by association the torso) from air burst fragmentation shrapnel. Given the amount of time spent IN the trenches and exposed to artillery fire vs the amount of time out of trenches and exposed directly to gunfire, it was a pretty good design decision.
Where's the rolling pin?
John underrated reference.
Need
Have a like for your obscure comment
Come on, it's not obscure, I bet everyone here knows about the Matt Down Under clip
th-cam.com/video/F87jhNVPX3M/w-d-xo.html
Silk is amazing. Thanks for reminding us again of its importance on the battlefield.
Being modern military I'll totally agree, you see heaps of environmental and accidental injuries, my old helmet has taken a few knocks I'd really really not like to take against my bare head, although I am top to toe in scars from being a bit of a wally/social hand grenade so, for my clumsy self my helmet has saved me a few concussions
1:30 Why is that guy holding that cows tail?
That guy isn't judging how you like to get off, so how about you just give him a break
I wanna know why he's wearing mail underpants while doing it
I asked me that too. Maybe is showen herding catle?
Or maybe he is somehow strangely oriented (as its showen by his mail panthys) and is planning something very wired ;)
The old Reading reach around.
if you do that IRL, its is pretty much the only way to move them in the way you want. Unless you get kicked, but you should keep distance from their legs, if you want them whole. Squeeze their tail to the side and the pain will get them moving. It isnt quite holding, more like 'breaking' what one has to do. Some cows simply refuse to move- And them having a lot more weight than you means you either move them by force or by making them move through causing them some pain. Because some animals, just like people are stubborn. We had those things for some 15 years and parents before had some before, and I saw them do this. It works and you dont need to beat the animal. For example, youre outside, and its late and need to get them back in to the building but for some reason they refuse to move. Either you use force and make them follow or they stand there like dummies. But if you dont want them stolen you need to get them. They dont understand you so thats when you gotta use some pain where it counts.
A small touch but I love the recent thumbnails. Simple and informative!
Finally a well educated and smart youtuber. Great video!👍👍👍
Growing up playing games and such. Never thought about helmets. Joined the SCA, started fighting heavy. Was given a flat top great helm as a loaner. Every shot jaringly stuck to it and the liner smelt as if it had been around since the founding 50 years ago. Nowadays, my helmet costs more then the rest of all my armor combined and has better aerodynamics than an F-22 Raptor. The only thing that can stick on it, is a magnet.
I noticed this a lot when I hosted an "armor as worn" event where we did team battles over lots of wooded ground. I had a sallet with a visor that could be raised. During the times we weren't fighting (maneuvering around the forest, planning things, etc.) I had the visor raised all the time, which was a very nice advantage I had over everyone else who had more encompassing helmets since I could just do things like talking to my teammates and surveying the battlegrounds easier. Even when approaching the enemy team my visor was raised. Sallets forever!
I don't understand this logic either, almost all combat protective gear has some kind of weakness, either it's for the sake of combat effectiveness or just designed to be wore by grunt who spent 90% of their time not being in combat.
Modern body armor/load bearing equipment, aka plate carrier often covers most of the chest area, and sometimes people only put plate in the front. It's for weight reduction, less heat exhaustion, and better mobility in general.
People need to wear those and move about in the real world before commenting.
And the best feature of a military kevlar flak jacket is that it doubles as a wearable bedroll :P
So does a gambeson. Very comfy.
My IBAS (plate carrier is a more specific type, the body armor the US Army uses is called an IBAS, a grunt term is 'full battle rattle') was almost the exact same weight as a medieval breastplate. Had a 'gorget' (we just called it the throat protector, same function), side plates ('sappy' plates), front and back plates, groin protector (the cock flap for shits and giggles), and shoulder guards were also worn if we had to crew the gun on something like a humvee. While the 'plate' section did cover a fair amount of my abdomen and chest, it did not cover all of it, like with the back plate. A thing to consider about the weight and it being about the same as a medieval breast plate - this is not including the 'molly vest' (the thing worn that has all your magazine pouches and such attached to it) when fully loaded up. Honestly I think modern body armor designers need to go learn up on some of the armor from the later medieval period when they come up with the design for the next model of IBAS. Oh, I also had another type of body armor called a 'chicken vest' which was basically something like a stab vest, but it was my body armor when I was in my tank. Weight was about the same as a gambeson. Odd huh? Also not wearing the back plates is fucking stupid.
Yes tankers get issued two sets of body armor, and sadly you wear the heavier of the two more often than the lighter of the two.
I don't think I understand your comment; are you implying that grunt armour had deliberately designed weaknesses?
I'm saying that combat gear designed for most soldiers have the tendency to compromise more protective quality for other things.
When I saw the title I had hoped that this would be a fashion video of Matt putting on different hats and showing off, first minute in its entirety. Good work, Mr Easton.
Regarding the Corinthian helmet being worn on the back of the head, it was commonly done enough that a variant developed called the Italo-Corinthian or Pseudo Corinthian helmet was made and popular in Italy.
Mock me if you will, but I've often wondered if the narrow slit of the "face guard" was used more as we use sunglasses. It greatly reduces glare on bright days, similar to narrow-slit snow glasses. When not needed for that function, the visor could be lifted out of the way or the helmet tilted back.
Thanks for another great video. And without any innuendos xD (Just came from a re-watch about the Quarterstaff.)
That first steel helmet you wore you can clearly see where the insperation for the Uruk hai helmets got there insperartion form lord of thr rings. Very interesting video thank you. All the best Jim
Good video Matt. Armour - or any other equipment - which is uncomfortable to wear or use tends not get used as often as it should be.
A great video! Although i'm left a bit puzzled over the lack of mentions about debris protection. To my knowledge, that was just about the number one reason for the (re-)introduction of hard helmets.
Back in my time, we already had kelvar helmets. During training we weren't allowed to take them off without explicit permission from instructors/trainers. At that stage of technology, they were pretty comfy and I rarely felt any urgent need to remove it (like you said, _where_ are we supposed to hold it if not on the head? It's quite bulky and cumbersome to sling it around backpack or webbing). I can however imagine the different types of discomfort combatants throughout the eras had to endure when the designs were more about protection and not ergonomics and comfort.
My experience is that soldiers spend most of their time standing around, usually in lines, waiting for something. Transport, training, gear handed out, food, etc.
...Ass chewing.
Thank you, Matt, for the image I will never be able to unsee. Now I'll always see Robocop in every sallet I look at.
The “Conquistador” helmet (I forget its real name) was apparently relatively popular with town guards around the 1600s. I have a friend who owns a helmet collection, and he has a beautiful example from the Munich town guard, if I remember correctly. I can’t say how popular it was or where, but that is one non-Spanish example I know of.
A tour of the shed would make a pretty good video
People always forget about cartridge cases falling from aircraft.
Yeah, it's all fun and games when air cover comes into view...
...until the brass starts falling out of the sky all around you!
Always interesting commentary that covers a topic in essential detail from many angles by M. Easton. One wonders what medieval armour would have looked like had they had kevlar?
I love that dented Morion. Even better than the bright shiny engraved ones you see pictures of. That one has been used. That one has been loved. (It happens to be my favorite helmet for fencing in.)
"How can I..." Put them down on the ground. Unless you're your D&D character, all of these exploitable gaps are much more exploitable if they're not on their feet, with weapons at the ready. Do they have a shield? Then can cover their face a lot better than they can on the ground, trying to roll over, and get back up, with a shield. As long as you're thinking about this, "How can I defeat that?" A good first step has always been getting them on the ground. It's a lot harder to defend yourself from there, and the treatises back this up.
That "Ciao ragazzi" scared me, and I'm italian
Wore a pith helmet as full dress headgear in the Canadian Forces years ago. Thanks for the history on it sir
Knyght Errant did a good video on a quite similar topic as well. His main point though is, that a weakness in armour doesn't render the rest of it useless. That's pretty obvious, but you see so many people saying "this armour ist rubbish, it leaves your *insert bodypart* exposed!!"
Well yeah, it does have these weakspots, but it's certainly better then wearing no armour and as you pointed out it maybe way more convenient then other more protective options.
Good video!:-)
one of my fav. feats in 3.5 D&D was a armor feat that made it so if you have medium or light armor you can sleep in it, travel farther, run faster, do acrobatics easier, stuff like that.
9:12 The "like that!" sounded exactly like Lindybeige.
Good video and nice headgear. Thank you.
That ciao ragazzi made me proud of you almost perfect pronunciation!
this argument kind of reminds me of a post I saw discussing how proud architects will design all these elaborate and beautiful homes, but won't ever think of it as a space that someone needs to live in, they'll put windows really high up that are impossible to clean, they'll make things hard to access purely for the aesthetic. A design is beautiful not only in its aesthetic, there is beauty also in its practicality, its ease of use, its function. A helmet doesn't just have to look good and protect you, it also has to be worn through long campaigns and grueling marches and if we forget that we forget a core aspect of a soldier's experience of war
I had to ware a helmet for football (the American variety) in the 7th grade. I can say with complete confidence that after an hour of wearing it for the very first time, I immediately wanted to take it off. At worst I was expected to wear it for 2 hours, so I cant imagine wearing something like that for a full day or more. I'm not surprised that so many soldiers in the ancient and medieval world preferred comfortable helmets to more protective ones, because just my short experience with the modern football helmet made me envious of the medieval sallet.
I work in the process industry / plants / factory business and the thing about bumping your head still stands to this day and why we wear helmets in the modern era. Kinda interesting point.
As someone who does historically inspired Larp, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I actually started out playing with quite a lot of armor, but the longer I play, the more of it I lose. I just found I hardly ever wear a kit. I got rid of face protection quite quickly so I could breathe, drink and see properly (especially I wanted to be able to see where I put my feet) and I shed more ond more things (greaves, elbow and knee plates, gauntlets) because it is just so uncomfortable carrying this stuff with you all the time. We have a fairly large area for our events and marching to the enemy camp, standing guard, or moving around in formation tires you out really quickly with excess stuff (I also dont train that kind of thing regularly). Yes it´s neat to have in the short moments of battle, but it doesnt tend to change the overall outcome that much and can even be a negative at times when mobility is required. I´d say for anything but for going right into a battle and out, basic protection with decent mobility is much, much more desireable than full on protection with limited mobility, endurance, senses and so on.
A lot of soldiers equipment came down to practicality. There are numerous cool and usefull things, and nice-to-have bits you could carry about, say, as a redcoat, 1770s.
But if you have to bloody march everywhere you go, and have 1, repeat: ONE, knapsack of limited space and convenience, you reall, REALLY apreciate going with less.
One of the great things about reenacting not only the popular battles and stuf, but also doing marches in period gear. You learn, rather quickly, to value a reduction in weight to chug around.
another bit from that timeframe: the bayonet. It would be much more stable if solidly attached to the musket, but it being removable makes it soooo much more convenient.
Armour is meant for protection? I thought it was to make you look really f*ckin’ cool.
No, its to make you dead after one hit.
@@vedymin1 That's what Skyrim taught me.
Fashion soul/hunter ftw
Armour for woman is also to make you look sexy. Don't think 1-dimensional
You guys have obviously no idea.
Armor increases dexterity, strength, intelligence, charisma, Initiative, hp, evade (...) the damage done by your weapon and speed.
Also, you can equip it with gems or random wings in order to increase those stats even further.
In order to protect all of your body (like, the head f.i.) things like boots, gauntlets are more than enough.
Or just keep killing random stuff (ants, mice (...) tons of them) in order to gain combat experience and increase your strength/dexterity which in turn will increase your passive defense. .
If you don',t it's not a problem. just carry around a couple of tons of things like apples, berries hot chicken soup (...) to heal you from severe combat wounds on short notice/while within combat.
"I'm fast and agile, don't need armour to slow me down !"
"Here's a book on medieval head wounds."
"I'll wear a helmet !"
Perfect video for me now as I'm picking out my armor... settled on about 1505, sallet but with a Gorget. Still haven't decided if I need a bevor or something integrated to the gorget.
This is why I like the kettle helmet shape. It looks like it would keep the rain off durring long guard shifts, which soldiers do a lot more of than actual battles.
Great video , most people never wear a helmet , they are hot & heavy even when they are plastic . Wore one on many a construction site , never got used to it , always knew it was there .
I once heard somewhere that visor down was primarily for crossing open ground while under arrow fire. Once the soldiers get close to the enemy and the rain of arrows stops, they would quickly switch to visor up for the actual fighting.
Finally someone makes a video about this. I find that this is an extremely overlooked topic. Even people in the military I served with seem to think helmets are a waste of time.
The logistical and quality-of-life issues you bring up are REALLY important (as you well know). I can't tell you how many times in RPGs, I've had players balk at being restricted when wearing full armor and helm. They think they can walk, run, sleep, etc. in full kit and have no negative effects.
Having been in the Army, I can attest to a lot of that, granted in a modern context, but some things never change
For a short period after suffering a face injury in a fall, I wore a full face helmet when off road cycling. One of the most off-putting things was the way it magnified the sound of my own breathing. All the other stuff applied too: additional weight, limited field of view, temperature regulation, condensation, difficult to hear external sounds, difficult to speak to other people clearly, but the sound of my own breathing is what I remember most about it. I now wear a normal helmet and take the risk.
I prefer my soldiers continue to breathe.
As said by commanders everywhere and everywhen
Please make a video on hats/helmets of the 19th century shakos, czapkas and the beefeater fur hats. I find them weird and I don't get them at all. Awesome video as always.
I remember watching a video by someone (Shadiversity, I think?) about the feasibility of an unarmored Conan-the-barbarian style warrior, and what I remember him saying was that you could actually defend yourself quite effectively with just a shield and a helmet, and no other armor. I think it speaks to the usefulness of a helmet that you'd rather have a helmet than a cuirass (assuming you're already using a shield, otherwise a cuirass might be more important).
I have a m1917A1 helmet (Brodie type to the English) and in many of the ways you desecribe it is a far more useful helmet tactically than the M1 steel or the PASGT kevlar helmets used during my time in the US Army. Interesting topic, Sir. Thank you for bringing it up.
Great information, thanks. You seemed a little more scattered today, but it was very interesting.
I have, and have worn, a Viking spangenhelm, the type with the "spectacle" front rather than a nasal bar. It has studded
leather straps around the rim, which offer some protection for the cheeks and back of the neck. I have no problem with
hearing or breathing while wearing it, though I admit that it IS kind of heavy. You didn't mention that type of helmet, or the more
involved Gjormandu(sp?) type, with the spectacle front and chainmaille suspended from the rim all the way around. This
offered some serious protection without sacrificing vision, hearing, or breathing
I do viking reenactment fighting, i own a fairly basic viking style helmet (kinda like the Gjermundbu helmet). And cut down the part infront/below the eyes, so it became thinner because before it reduced my visibilty downwards quite a bit. So i completely understand this.
I have a Brodie helmet (the iconic WWI British "tin hat") to go with my WWI SMLE and Webley revolver that was actually made as a construction worker's hardhat. And a couple of modern plastic construction hardhats in a very similar style from visiting oil rigs and forgetting to give it back at the end of the tour. The Brodie made sense in WWI, if you're in a trench, your only threats (bumping your head and shrapnel) are from above, if you're going over the top and taking fire from the sides, the helmet ... probably won't help. But yeah, I read somewhere that there was a big jump in head wound cases when the Brodie helmet was adopted -- not because it worked counter to purpose, but because all those helmeted guys with survivable injuries would've been dead on the spot in soft caps due to the bits that didn't make it through the helmet.
And of course, in addition to the somewhat-bullet-resistant Kevlar pot the modern infantry wear, tank crews and jet pilots wear helmets to prevent bonking their heads on bits of the vehicle when maneuvering at speed -- those ain't gonna protect you from a hit from an AT round or the plane crashing.
Also, for that hat you wore for most of the video, you'd have a sword or spear to blok most blows coming from shoulder level, correct?
Great topic, i learn more things today, thx
One thing that I thought of when you were talking about why not to have a faceguard; In fantasy movies it is a regular thing that IF the hero is wearing a visored helmet there will invariably be a dramatic closing of the visor, is actually something that makes sense. I am genuinely surprised to find something that fantasy consistently gets right (If helmets are even a thing)
The sallet does give great coverage in close combat especially when worn in formation and coupled with a shield
Great points, thank for making the video.
There is also the tactic though not commonly used, or allowing for certain exposed or weak areas of armor and then focusing defense around those areas, or a more dangerous gambit of baiting attacks to that area, funneling attacks to a few specific areas taking some of the guessing out where the opponent is likely to attack. Not something recommended for sure, as it is a gamble with your life, but it is a possible tactic.
Another thing I would note is that even the men-at-arms would often not fight with their visors down (or alternatively with close-faced helmets) when on foot. Even if you're _only_ fighting in a formation, having restricted vision and breathing is such a detriment.
I would imagine those helmets (or visors) were mostly against lances and arrows, both threats which you cannot really block. Normal strikes to the head can generally be deflected if you're good at fighting, since it's the part of the body humans naturally and instinctively seek to protect
That sallet without the pivoting visor reminds me of the corinthian helmet where they would wear it raised on their head when not in combat.
I'm a fantasy writer, and I always try to take these factors into account when deciding what kind of gear would be favored by different groups of people. For instance, if one of the biggest advantages your elves have over humans is superior vision and hearing, they would probably be more hesitant to use helmets that severely limit those abilities than a human would be.
Wearing the helmet up is a thing in lacrosse and football here in the US as well. My teammates and I always had our helmets up when we didn't need them because it was limiting to have them down and they were a pain to carry otherwise.
Great points. Thanks for the video :)
I fully agree with what you're saying. I went on a jog with another club member in Norman kit (as you do in your spare time) and I got pretty annoyed with the Nasal directing all my hot breath back onto my face. I've decided to cut it down a bit sometime soon.
i like the choice for a first image. it seems this was some sort of bovine handling protection
This showed me something interesting. The frontal visual of the raised Sallet, pretty much corresponds with a brimless Morion. Now I know that it isn't assumed that the Morion is developed from the Sallet, but converging evolution is also a thing. As we can see the Sallet was made with raising it in mind, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume they also made provisions for it be functional while raised in combat. Such as giving it the same side protection and peaked brow that the Morion later came to have.
This is something the old manuscripts never really could tell since they are invariably profile or half profile.
Loved the Italian intro!
2:53 "The purpose of this helmet, primarily, is to stop you from bumping your head on things."
Now I'm just picturing a group of soldiers fumbling around, walking into trees or walls, and hitting their heads on every tree branch, door frame, and shelf they possibly can.