Could the closed Greek helmet kill a warrior?

Jim McDougall · 30th May 2005, 03:44 PM

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

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

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

All the best,
Jim

tom hyle · 30th May 2005, 08:08 PM

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

Jens Nordlunde · 30th May 2005, 09:35 PM

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

30th May 2005, 03:44 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Hi Mark, Thanks for confirming that, it seemed applicable here. I'm with you on the history of the crusades, as well as the armor of these times and ancient times. It seems my focus has always been on swords and edged weapons of course, but it is exciting to see how pertinant the study of related items such as armor is to our study of these weapons. I think Jens has been very astute in setting us on this course In looking at the crusades period it would seem to me the number of fully armored knights would have been relatively small, and those knights likely would have had squires and assistants to maintain and transport thier armor. The image of the medieval 'paladin' riding about in full armor seems more a product of illustrators of Victorian period that leaned toward romanticized notions of chivalry. Those monumentally decorated helms were actually for funerary purposes and not worn in battle, let alone any other time. Returning to the original topic, it would seem the Greeks were more universally equipped with these closed helmets, which was the most prominant item of armor. It is doubtful that they wore them except when battle was imminent. These were most restrictive for hearing and vision so I cannot image the warriors marching or otherwise walking around in them. Does anyone out there know of possibly these heavy helmets might have been carried in case of some kind possibly worn over the back? It also seems that virtually until the latter 19th century, battles were pretty much calculated and protocol oriented events. That is, opposing sides would position, organize and prepare for battle for hours in full view of each other. I am not certain what moment or instance would initiate the battle, but would the forces each wait for indefinite periods in armor waiting? We need our scholars of ancient warfare to address this. All the best, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 30th May 2005 at 05:18 PM.

30th May 2005, 08:08 PM	#2
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	On the subject of hearing and signalling: Some ancient helmets were equipped with hearing ports, but some were not. It certainly can make a difference. Organization was typically by location/clan/etc. so all the people in a given unit dressed much alike, knew each other personally, and trained together, whether as professional soldiers or as militia men. Such a unit can seem to turn and maneuver like a school of fish, with no noticeable signals. Typically the armies were tribal, and the other tribe, their allies, your allies, etc. were all instantly recognizable by their clothing, appearance, equipment, etc. In Europe there was a custom of orienting to a flag bearer. But most signalling AFAIK in traditional European and African warfare was by horns and drums. The Bantus have languages for two-toned trumpets and drums that can be quite sophisticated (I am told). You may notice the bearing and winding of horns as a theme in ancient European stories from time to time. In peace they were used as hunting signals, and no doubt the hunting was part of the duty, delight, and training of early heroes and later noblemen. Certainly the plate armoured, or even chainmailed warrior was always an elite warrior. In Attic Greece the warriors who wore the full helms were hoplites; free men, mostly landholders, who could afford a hoplon (giant hard-faced roundshield) and longspear, and usually a riding horse. All other equipment was usually optional to designation as a hoplite. Some cities/tribes and wealthy individuals would hire men and arm them as hoplites. The full helm was not universal among hoplites, although a helmet of some kind was AFAIK the next preferred piece of equipage, the sword or dagger being pretty much assumed.

30th May 2005, 09:35 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Yes Tom, but you must also take in consideartion, that many of the Indian soldiers were not trained at all. As I wrote, many were taking out of the bazares, dressed up and sent to the battle field.