|
|
|
3rd November 2010, 02:59 AM
|
#1 |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
If this were a helmet:
- Where is the slit for the eyes? - Where are the rivets (holes) for the wadding and the hauberk? - Where are the breathing holes? - The whole thing is of extremely thin iron - how could it possibly have stood a blow by a sword or mace?! - What is the average thickness of the iron? Please post contradictory sources!  Hi Cesare, May I expect definite replies on these queries? Best, m |
|
|
|
3rd November 2010, 09:06 PM
|
#2 |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
Cesare?!
|
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2010, 09:15 PM
|
#3 |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
More 12th-13.th c. knightly helmets in original sources - all either low enough to leave the eyes uncovered, and with riveted hauberks, or with definite eye slits as well as breathing holes!
None of all helmets found in historical illustrations comes in the least close to yours, sorry. I am still awaiting your precise answers to my queries though, as well as some counter evidence.  m |
|
|
|
|
7th November 2010, 01:55 PM
|
#4 |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
I know it has nothing to do.
... Just for the shape (slight) similarity  . |
|
|
|
|
7th November 2010, 05:05 PM
|
#5 |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
Right, 'Nando,
But the helmet in the illustration is so low that it only corresponds to the upper half of Cesare's piece and leave the eyes and the nose free. Michl |
|
|
|
|
7th November 2010, 05:53 PM
|
#6 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,658
|
I have a few observations....
The dimensions and the shape of this helmet do not make sense, to me. The average human head is around 26cms 'high', the eyes are approx. mid way ...so approx. 13cms below the crown (of the head). If the lower rim is set level with eye level ...the top of the helmet would be around 13cms higher than the top of the head (nearly 5") ...that seems alot of padding. Plus the fact with a helmet set so high on the head it would be very 'unstable'....especially to a side-ways strike. If the helmet is placed in a more 'stable' position, closer to the top of the head....the wearer is unable to see forwards....requiring eye-holes  .It is suggested that the helmet was used in siege situations to protect from thrown missiles from above....to deflect these better a dome shape would be more effective, and the 'flared' lower sections made wider.... or am I missing something Regards David . Last edited by katana; 8th November 2010 at 04:05 PM. |
|
|
|
|
7th November 2010, 07:35 PM
|
#7 |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,060
|
I do not understand why there is so much criticism and suspicion on the sizes of this helmet, it corresponds to what one would expect from a kettle hat, and corresponds also nexactly to the dimensions of a 16thC cabaset (also just above the eye line.)
If you're looking for more convincing evidence, make a cardboard hat and try it yourself. best regards |
|
|
|
|
7th November 2010, 09:35 PM
|
#8 |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
No eye slit.
No breathing holes. No lining rivets. No sufficing thickness of iron. NO HELMET. Cornelis, instead of creating new theories, could you please answer my queries step by step? Best, Michael |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
