Great Helms
Apr 14, 2007 11:37:40 GMT
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2007 11:37:40 GMT
A discusion was raised in one of the other threads regarding the Historical weight and thickness of Great Helms compared to modern SCA helms. My SCA Helm is 14 guage and weights 9 lbs.
I have contacted some armourers to help answer this question.
...Ours (SCA) are thicker - and we wear them with only padding underneath. Historically, the great helm was worn over a bascinet skull - a helm over a helm.
Mitchell, Bâro et Miles Orientalis
...depends on the type, era and source of the great helm you are
referring to. In some and possibly many cases I believe Mitchell is correct. But for some great helms, at least portions of them were probably quite thick, thicker than typical 16 to 14 or even 12 gauge modern SCA versions in places. We think. Some also had a reinforcing plate in front to make the overall thickness quite substantial. There was also possibly wide variations in weight and thickness from one helm to another (we see this in later
helms, two visually identical armets from the 1400’s may weigh 4 and 8 pounds respectively, a huge variation).
And remember that unlike modern SCA helms which tend to be somewhat uniform in thickness, medieval helms often had areas that were much thicker than other portions of the helm, they tended to work the metal such that they ended up thicker where the armourers needed them to withstand more force or as a result of production methodology.
Unfortunately for much of the era in which great helms existed, we have precious few originals still existing that are in good shape, so a lot of this is guesswork. It also depends on what you mean by a great helm,; some people include bolt on, insanely thick frog mouth and other 15th century joust only helms in that category (I don’t but some do) which were worn without a bascinet underneath. That is not what Mitchell is referring to, he
means true great helms. The bolt on frogs and stechhelms are definitely thicker in many cases than SCA great helms and we have a number of them in museums.
I’m doing the following from memory so don’t shoot me if I’m off a bit.
The 13th century great helm from Deerberg (sp?) weights a little under 6 pounds and despite being corroded, is probably one that would be similar to SCA gauge helms or even lighter. Another more corroded example would be the ‘pot’ great helm excavated from Madeln Castle, which I think is about 5 or maybe 6 pounds but is badly corroded so it probably weighed more originally.
Two later great helm period helms that would match Mitchell’s descriptions would be: a) The black prince’s helm, from the third quarter of the 14th century, it weighs about 7 pounds, not terribly heavy and it does not have a reinforcing plate. B) The Pembridge helm, under 6 pounds, in decent shape; from 1370 or so IIRC. Reproductions for the SCA often weigh almost the exact
same as the originals and are sometimes heavier.
A good example of a heavier/thicker great helm would be the Pranck Helm, German late 14th century, it weighs in about 11 pounds, not all that heavy, but it has a reinforcing plate in front to protect the left side and center. I don’t have the thickness of the plates. Another would be the Lebus helm, probably contemporary with the Pranck, it also has a reinforcing plate and the helm weighs about 10 pounds even in its corroded state and completely missing the rear lower plate.
Then there are great helms that transistion into the beginnings of frog mouth helms, but are still distinguishable as great helms and they don’t bolt rigidly to the breastplate as many later joust only examples do. Though some may still have been really more for jousting than battle. I can’t cite specific examples with certainty or with weights off the top of my head, but they start in the late 14th century. Check out the Henry the V one in Abbey Church, that may be a good one. Also Nicholas Howberk (sp?) might be
another.
A good example of a frogmouth (that I don’t consider a great helm) would be the famous Brocas helm from the late 15th century, the damn thing weighs in at well over 20 pounds. German Stechhelms from around 1500 have been measured at over ¼” thick in parts of their front plates.
Richard Blackmoore
I have contacted some armourers to help answer this question.
...Ours (SCA) are thicker - and we wear them with only padding underneath. Historically, the great helm was worn over a bascinet skull - a helm over a helm.
Mitchell, Bâro et Miles Orientalis
...depends on the type, era and source of the great helm you are
referring to. In some and possibly many cases I believe Mitchell is correct. But for some great helms, at least portions of them were probably quite thick, thicker than typical 16 to 14 or even 12 gauge modern SCA versions in places. We think. Some also had a reinforcing plate in front to make the overall thickness quite substantial. There was also possibly wide variations in weight and thickness from one helm to another (we see this in later
helms, two visually identical armets from the 1400’s may weigh 4 and 8 pounds respectively, a huge variation).
And remember that unlike modern SCA helms which tend to be somewhat uniform in thickness, medieval helms often had areas that were much thicker than other portions of the helm, they tended to work the metal such that they ended up thicker where the armourers needed them to withstand more force or as a result of production methodology.
Unfortunately for much of the era in which great helms existed, we have precious few originals still existing that are in good shape, so a lot of this is guesswork. It also depends on what you mean by a great helm,; some people include bolt on, insanely thick frog mouth and other 15th century joust only helms in that category (I don’t but some do) which were worn without a bascinet underneath. That is not what Mitchell is referring to, he
means true great helms. The bolt on frogs and stechhelms are definitely thicker in many cases than SCA great helms and we have a number of them in museums.
I’m doing the following from memory so don’t shoot me if I’m off a bit.
The 13th century great helm from Deerberg (sp?) weights a little under 6 pounds and despite being corroded, is probably one that would be similar to SCA gauge helms or even lighter. Another more corroded example would be the ‘pot’ great helm excavated from Madeln Castle, which I think is about 5 or maybe 6 pounds but is badly corroded so it probably weighed more originally.
Two later great helm period helms that would match Mitchell’s descriptions would be: a) The black prince’s helm, from the third quarter of the 14th century, it weighs about 7 pounds, not terribly heavy and it does not have a reinforcing plate. B) The Pembridge helm, under 6 pounds, in decent shape; from 1370 or so IIRC. Reproductions for the SCA often weigh almost the exact
same as the originals and are sometimes heavier.
A good example of a heavier/thicker great helm would be the Pranck Helm, German late 14th century, it weighs in about 11 pounds, not all that heavy, but it has a reinforcing plate in front to protect the left side and center. I don’t have the thickness of the plates. Another would be the Lebus helm, probably contemporary with the Pranck, it also has a reinforcing plate and the helm weighs about 10 pounds even in its corroded state and completely missing the rear lower plate.
Then there are great helms that transistion into the beginnings of frog mouth helms, but are still distinguishable as great helms and they don’t bolt rigidly to the breastplate as many later joust only examples do. Though some may still have been really more for jousting than battle. I can’t cite specific examples with certainty or with weights off the top of my head, but they start in the late 14th century. Check out the Henry the V one in Abbey Church, that may be a good one. Also Nicholas Howberk (sp?) might be
another.
A good example of a frogmouth (that I don’t consider a great helm) would be the famous Brocas helm from the late 15th century, the damn thing weighs in at well over 20 pounds. German Stechhelms from around 1500 have been measured at over ¼” thick in parts of their front plates.
Richard Blackmoore
