13th century helmet from museum

[Matchlock]

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

[katana]

If the thickness stated is indeed 4.5mm all over, it seems extremely heavy.
Most Helms from many periods range from 1.5mm-2.5mm average....when I say average I mean that several parts of a helmet may be thicker say 3mm and other parts (of the same helmet)1mm or so. The thicker plate used to protect more vital areas. A lot of the strength of the helmet comes from its rounded shape.....and seem to typically weigh around 3.5lbs-5.5lbs. I am curious to see what the posted helmet weighs. Afterall a very heavy helmet would be more of an hinderance than an advantage.

Cesare, could you please post the weight?

Regards David

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by katana

If the thickness stated is indeed 4.5mm all over, it seems extremely heavy.
Most Helms from many periods range from 1.5mm-2.5mm average....when I say average I mean that several parts of a helmet may be thicker say 3mm and other parts (of the same helmet)1mm or so. The thicker plate used to protect more vital areas. A lot of the strength of the helmet comes from its rounded shape.....and seem to typically weigh around 3.5lbs-5.5lbs. I am curious to see what the posted helmet weighs. Afterall a very heavy helmet would be more of an hinderance than an advantage.

Cesare, could you please post the weight?

Regards David

Hi David,

the thickness of 4.5MM is mentioned for the fixing rings of the camaglio and not for the plates!
(that is of course not possible)

best,

[katana]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

Hi David,

the thickness of 4.5MM is mentioned for the fixing rings of the camaglio and not for the plates!
(that is of course not possible)

best,

Hi Cornelis,
thanks for pointing out my error .....I misread the thickness, nevertheless, I would still like to know the thickness and weight of this helmet.

Kind Regards David

[cornelistromp]

Gentlemen,

it's very funny but not to my appreciation;

This post began as a serious application, and service to be treated so.
Cesare will not be encouraged to post more interesting medieval articles inbetween the gun-chat if we react like this.
besides this what happens to the credible nature of this forum when later a
"non self Appointed specialist" decleares this piece genuine?

best regards
Jasper

[fernando]

Jasper is right, Gentlemen.
Better forget the last few posts.
... expecting that Cesare didn't feel offended.

[Dmitry]

My posts in this thread have magically disappeared.

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

No eye slit.
CORNELIS:Not needed because the hat stops above the eyeline.


No breathing holes.
CORENELIS:for what purpose? it is only 265mm high (Same hight as an Schuetzenhaube), you can breath freely.


No lining rivets.
CORNELIS:as is the case with a lot of early medieval helmets, the padding was on the head of the wearer!


No sufficing thickness of iron.
CORNELIS:I need the thickness and differences in thickness for saying something meaningful.
the total weight will also help.
cesare can-maybe post something about this.



NO HELMET. CORNELIS:you're right it is not a helmet, but a 13 th century hat if I may judge



Cornelis, instead of creating new theories, could you please answer my queries step by step? CORNELIS: of course

Best,
Michael

Hi Michael,

it is not a new theory, but the sizes seem to me more than acceptable for a kettle hat. Definitely not too large so that the eyes are closed, you can not compare this course with a great helmet because a much larger diameter in its center.
If I find some time I will try to make a paper dummy based on the specified dimensions.



Best regards