I think you ought to become a professional historian; you certainly have enough knowledge to.
Haha. Thanks. It's not a difficult subject if you buy the right books, sit in on the right lectures, things like that. But even then - the field is impossible to really nail down, since distinguished historians often write contradicting theories and accounts.
Take the slight disagreement with TwoTonic -- a man who also clearly knows his stuff. It could be as simple as he and I having read one or two different books.
If I refer to something as a Norman helmet, it's just a case of I'm not going to tediously state "most similiar to a Norman helmet" all the time.
I completely agree. If I thought the term was well-understood enough, I'd refer to the nasal helm as a 'Norman' helm. But I don't think the term is quite pop-culture enough.
Flared helm seems to work. Like bullet-helm and grill-face helm, etc. They're not historical terms, but they get the point across.
I'm not saying anyone should shy away from assigning certain counterparts to their LEGO pieces. I just said anyone should be careful about presuming some kind of factual basis for the claim. That's all.
I said torso armor and helmet (which is what you were saying was incorrect), not cap-a-pie. And yes, you would see entire ranks of archers armed as such (though perhaps the armor might be covered by a tabard depending on the period and individual lord's tastes and pocketbook).
We simply disagree. Most of the books I can remember made claims that archers in Western Europe, during whatever period, would rarely have the opportunity, reason, or funds to deck themselves in any kind of meaningful armour. As I said to Nick above -- different sources, that's all.
The crossbowmen were often mercenaries
I was referring to levy crossbowmen, of course. There's no question as to why a mercenary would be heavily equipped. That would be a silly thing to wonder about.
You would be incorrect in such a claim, since it was extremely common for bascinets not to have visors.
According to my study -- it would be extremely common for bascinets to be -worn- without their visors, but that visors were available on-hand.
Which would mean that the old pig-face helmet, with its removable visor, represents a good bascinet. Although I have trouble seeing the standard LEGO helmet as a piece of Medieval equipment without an appropriate visor.
A gorget (to use a more familiar term than colletin) would be smooth, not textured, so you can claim such, but I don't think that what is there supports such a claim.
I recall, quite vividly, a description of a helm with -attached- colletin. I remember because I found it odd, since gorgets, properly, are rarely considered an attached piece to a helmet, but rather an undersupport for a cuirass.
I'd be hard-pressed to say which source the material can be found in, however. It's been a long while. I could very well be mistaken.
The grilled helm in history was a tournament helm, so whether one wants to call that a close faced, semi-closed face, or open faced depends on what definition you are choosing to use as "closed". The grilled helmet is more of a burgonet in any case.
I was only giving an opinion to demonstrate how the various "this is this" can change from person to person, which was my entire point all along.
I wouldn't claim certainty about terminology like closed or open-faced. These things are iffy and different historians and archaeologists use the same terms for different items.
If I recall, Stephen Bull refers to the burgonet as a type of barbut, which is a variant type of bascinet, not a sallet.. .etc etc. There's most definitely no certainty in historical terminology.
I'm sure you've seen the arming sword, broadsword, longsword, short sword, debates... whoof.
One could press it into service as such, but the tail is inconsistent with all those, but not a sallet. It's a shame that is ruined by that awful crest.
Quite so. Part fantasy, as I said.
And yeah.. I'm not a big fan of the crest. I can see some situations where it might 'work' -- but meh. I recall cutting it off when I was younger and it first came out. But I haven't tried it again recently. Mostly due to the fact that, since 'The Incident,' I only have one such helmet anyway.
Have you tried cutting and filing the crest off?
Then I'm not quite sure what your point is - you are arguing against a point of view that you say no one is making.
Not quite. I was advising against claiming any certainty of an item's origins. That was all. I really didn't mean to spark up some debate about historical accuracy, or what each helmet can or cannot represent.
They can represent anything you want. I was just saying, just for the sake of it being said, that no one can claim any certainty about where the design actually originated, or what it 'definitely' represents, except to oneself.
That's all.
There is a finite number of ways a "medieval" culture could form a helmet that would protect the body, and most fantasy illustrators tend to draw off of an actual helm design, I should think, though they may distort it beyond the point of actually providing the protection that the original may have provided...
Indeed!
But it can come to a point where the design becomes so distorted that it's impossible to see where the original inspiration came from. Take a Todd Lockwood helmet (a rather prominent fantasy artist for those that are unaware) and you could probably dredge up 10-50 different helmets that his designs 'could' be based on. Or maybe he just thought it up from something he thought he once might have seen in a movie. Who knows.
(Actually with most fantasy armour in D&D, it typically looks more like stuff the artists saw in Road Warrior....)