Horns on helmets

[SacredStoneHead]

Seriously people, I'm going to propose one thing for you:

Post your theories backed by some serious research, with links, references from the text and etc., and most importantly, why you are defending some point, not just images.

First, because source material alone can render lots of interpretations, and doesn't prove anything. For example:

There are acessments of really big 8 kg heavy Zweihänder swords. If you show only the image and claim "look, people wielded 8 kg swords into battle!" it would be dead wrong, because if you research a little you'll see that they are known to be used in parades, and nicknamed Paratschwert for a reason.

Second, though some of the artistic depictions may be accurate and backed by studies (or sometime source material), most of them are somewhat correct but have a lot of pure imagination and artistic license. And a lot of 'accessible' books illustrations seems to have this issue.

Without a cross reference and a serious study of the matter, this kind of source can be easily misinterpreted, and the wildest claims can be made and the nonsense become rampant.

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

Postscript then, I am quoting (roughly) from Tacitus about the chieftan/warband relationship.

 

[Conners]

What is currently being contested? I thought the thread had broken down to more general discussion?

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

Matmohair typically posts pictures of dubious historical accuracy as "proof" that horned helmets were used throughout history.  Whereas some cultures it is undeniable, he also has argued that they were used by cultures that there simply is no evidence of it ever being used...and does so by using said dubious pictures.

Personally, I have argued against the use of horned helmets by Germanic barbarians (Vikings included) and Teutonic Knights.  Those are the only two groups I feel I am learned enough about to have a solid say in the matter (I know plenty about other groups such as Celts and Homeric Age Greeks, but I am not as thoroughly learned in those topics so I am not finite in my standing).  Matmohair has produced a couple of pieces of evidence that might hint at such helmets but by in large they are lacking.  For example some Scandinavian tapestries that MIGHT have a horned figure on them and a couple panels that obviously do (but the latter are of Odin and the former seems to employ much artistic license).  There is also the Nordic Bronze Age helmet with horns on it (Vikso) but this is almost universally accepted as a ceremonial helmet (being described as far too top heavy for practical use) and from roughly 1000 B.C., about 2000 years before the Viking age which he was using it as evidence for support that vikings used horned helmets.  That is about half as useful a source as the plastic horned helmets people have today to represent Vikings...since we are currently now 1000 years from the Viking period instead of the 2000 years from the Viking period of that Bronze helmet.

 

[matmohair1]

there is a lot of racism & misinformation concerning the modern view about viking era arms & armor.
eccentric helmets are rare & mostly reserved for nobles & chieftains.
all I am explaining is the importance of applying the same logic behind Hellenic archeology
to that of other cultures. 

there is no need to ask archeology for more than it has already offered us.

the reason behind the controversy is the exaggerated image in the modern media. in the 19th & 20th centuries 
the vikings where supposed to be depicted as barbarian savages, while today in the 21st century political correctness
dictates that they are supposed to be peaceful naked farmers.
The truth is ultimately lost in both false narratives.

the reasons for my conclusion that a historical update of our information is crucial is because
horned helmets are depicted in artwork by the Scandinavians themselves
& recorded in the Anglo-Saxon chronicles by those who witnessed the raids of the 9th century.
the criticism that no whole helmet has been found yet
can be countered by the fact that no Sherden horned helmet has been found yet
but we believe they existed because they are depicted in their own artwork & that of the
foes who fought them. history is simple once followed with scientific & sociological understanding beyond
the marketing narratives of modern rhetoric.

What is currently being contested? I thought the thread had broken down to more general discussion?

thanks for reminding us, yes this is a general discussion,
a few participants seem to be taking it a bit too personal for no apparent reason.

Matmohair typically posts pictures of dubious historical accuracy as "proof" that horned helmets were used throughout history.  Whereas some cultures it is undeniable, he also has argued that they were used by cultures that there simply is no evidence of it ever being used...and does so by using said dubious pictures.

everyone here has the right to believe whatever they wish,
no one cares about what you want or dont want to believe in
this is just a archeology debate  not an ideological battle ground
show some respect and try verifying your one claims first
instead of just showing off.

 

[SacredStoneHead]

Listen, this is not an ideologic debate, at all.

I'll have absolutely no problem in accepting that germanic chieftains wore horned/adorned helmets into battle.

The problem is, as far as my knowledge on the matter goes, no source says "the tribe X wore horned helmets" or "the chieftain of the tribe Y wore this adornment in his helmet". If you have this kind of document in your hands, cite the line, the page, the author and the name of the thing, I'll have no problem in accepting it after reading it.

But you're the one who's saying. And I don't believe in you just because you think I'm supposed to agree with anyone that comes making claims without citing sources.

While on it, you can go on, read the Tacitus' Germania , you won't find anything regarding horned/adorned helmets in there.

About your depictions, we already have talked a lot about them in not a distant past. If you need a reminder, go and read one of my last posts on the matter, some interesting readings there, go and read the font, because I'm not asking you to believe me.

Nobody here is claiming vikings were peaceful peasants nor we're believers of this modern day anti-horned-helm conspiracy you talk so much. All this stir is about you claiming something out of your mind and without much solid evidence.

An interesting theory, but a very incomplete one.

 

[Conners]

Ancient drawings are a source.

 

[SacredStoneHead]

Ancient drawings are a source.

Yes, and valuable ones*. But without context, they aren't enough to validate an argument.

If you bother reading some pages ago and the post I linked in my last post, you'll see what I mean.


EDIT: *The ancient drawings. Not modern depictions.

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

The real problem with ancient drawings is that the context is not always easy to gauge.  People now often draw things highly stylized or not accurate to real life, so why do we make the assumption that ancient artists don't have the same tendencies?  Medieval artists, for example, were notorious for being inaccurate...ironically it was the stone carvers for tombs that have proven the most reliable for realism.

Lets take the example of the horned Odin.  So they depict him with horns...that doesn't mean people went around wearing horned headgear.  To make that jump in logic is pure folly.  For example, the Pueblo kachina dolls are supposed to represent gods and spirits...that doesn't mean people wore clothing like that (in fact there is 0 evidence for it).

 

[matmohair1]

There are acessments of really big 8 kg heavy Zweihänder swords. If you show only the image and claim "look, people wielded 8 kg swords into battle!" it would be dead wrong, because if you research a little you'll see that they are known to be used in parades, and nicknamed Paratschwert for a reason.

Zweihänder swords were used in battle by Doppelsöldners
who used them to hack or saw off enemy pikes.
they only became purely ceremonial once tactics changed 

seriously guys if you dont have any sources backing your claims then just
stop showing off about how you dont believe anything ever existed
if you dont accept archeological, literary or witness accounts
&  you dont accept modern studies by capable & worthy historians
then what would do you want ? ironically, we all know Scandinavian warlords wore
helmets such as the Sutton Hoo  & Gjermundbu helmets based on single sources only.
these helmets were never depicted in artwork but we  do believe they existed based on one source.
horned helmets are more often depicted in artwork & mentioned in literary accounts
as well as carved decorations on armor, weapons, vessels & pendants.
the real folly is to ignore all that.

the same holds true with Greek archeology
qualified experts can simply produce accurate
reconstructions based on a single artifact

 

[Oskatat]

It's still completely logical to assume that the more exotic the headgear decorations, the less likely it ever was to see melee combat. A point that hasn't been made yet:

Modern soldiers have dress uniform and war uniform, usually, one for parade, one for business. Why couldn't they have that back then? A suit of armor, with horned helm and shiny weapons with lotsa gold inlay and jewels (if you could afford it ofcourse, just overstating now) which you would never wear to an actual battle, but just to impress people.

 

[matmohair1]

that's why they are reserved for kings, chieftain & wealthy warlords
& I've already pointed out Dr. Raffaele D'Amato's opinion on the matter

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=4439&pictureid=66166

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

There are acessments of really big 8 kg heavy Zweihänder swords. If you show only the image and claim "look, people wielded 8 kg swords into battle!" it would be dead wrong, because if you research a little you'll see that they are known to be used in parades, and nicknamed Paratschwert for a reason.

Zweihänder swords were used in battle by Doppelsöldners
who used them to hack or saw off enemy pikes.
they only became purely ceremonial once tactics changed 

This is a great example of how once again you miss the point.  SacredStoneHead is not implying anything about Zweihander swords not being used in battle, he is saying that people have found 8 kg ceremonial Zweihanders and made the claim that they were used in battle (which those were not).  Those 8kg had a specific ceremonial purpose.  Medieval training swords were also excessively heavy to help training soldiers to exercise muscles so when in battle using (lighter) combat swords they would not get fatigued nearly as fast and might even swing faster.

Also, those two pictures in your last post of the Greek helmet show how stupid modern artists can be.  The actual old source on the right is obviously a profile.  Like many profile depictions they can't be taken literally.  The fact that the artist put one horn on the helmet because it appears that there is one horn in the historical depiction (whereas more likely it is two horns but the one is blotting out the sight of the other when in profile) contradicts the exhumed helmets found from the period that have always had two horns in such a manner.

 

[SacredStoneHead]

Zweihänder swords were used in battle by Doppelsöldners
who used them to hack or saw off enemy pikes.
they only became purely ceremonial once tactics changed 

What is your problem dude? Do you know how to read? I do not say Zweihänders do not existed. I said 8 kg (15 lb) heavy Zweihänders, known as Paratschwert, were used in ceremonial purposes, while the average weight of a Zweihänder used in battle was around 3 - 5 kg. My bad, I don't linked a font, here you are, there you find many lists with measurements, weights, bibliographic sources and a practical note in all this. First, the citation, after, the link, go read the text.


"There were also huge two-handed blades known as "bearing-swords" or "parade-swords" (Paratschwert), weighing up to 10 or even 15 pounds and which were intended only for carrying in ceremonial processions and parades."

-John Clements: The Weighty Issue of Two-Handed Greatswords - link.


Seriously, stop bragging about how everyone is wrong and put some reliable source on the table.

The text you linked is obliterating completely ritualistic/religious uses, as the Vikso helmet is known for, as explicited here.

And it's rather vague, the text follow this logic: "ancient peoples don't have the concept of parade, thus every chieftain of every culture wore things on their helmets". This is an unbased conclusion, not backed by any kind of evidence so far.

About those parades. Well before Napoleonic Times, there was a rather unknown (yes, I'm being ironic) kind of show off known as jousting. Stechzeug, or tournament armour, was known for being heavy and clumsy, absolutely not intended for open combat and rather expensive. Why they were not used in combat? Because they were not made for it.

Do we have a lot of acessments of jousting armours? Yes we do. Does it implies that powerful people wore them in open combat? No.

Paratschwert was intended for parade purposes too, and well before Napoleon:


"Sometime around the middle of the 16th century it (the two-hander) disappeared from war and mutated into a form of guard and ceremonial weapon with a symbolic character."

-(Kamniker and Krenn, p. 130) apud. John Clements - The Weighty Issue of Two-Handed Greatswords - link again


"This final stage in the development of the two-hander, the most impressively fearsome version, was really a different weapon altogether, or rather not a real weapon at all but an eye-catching status-symbol for parades and ceremonies. Two features which can often be noted on these late two-handers imply that they were no longer intended primarily for warfare; the positioning of the lugs so close to the hilt that the ricasso cannot be grasped behind them, and the developing of the counter-guards to cover the ricasso, which has the same effect. In this situation the lugs cannot perform their normal purpose of protecting the hand, and if the ricasso is still grasped, ahead of the lugs, they are liable to injure the user's wrist as he wields the sword. Many swords, like the series of Papal presentation swords, are too delicate and finely worked ever to be considered for combat; others, on the other hand, are too huge and heavy: the largest that I have come across is the "Sempill Sword" in the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, which is 255 cm long and weights over 10.5 kilograms. It was reputedly carried before Mary Queen of Scots at the battle of Langside, in 1568."

Neil H. T. Melville - The Origins of the Two-Handed Sword - Journal of Western Martial Art - link


So the source you cited saying that "Of course the best pieces were displayed in parades and ceremonies, but at the same time they were displayed in front of their enemies and used on the battlefield". That's pure horse****. Ceremonial- and parade-use-only equipment existed. Not every fancy thing gone to battle. Perhaps before battle, but not into it.

 

[matmohair1]

Seriously, stop bragging about how everyone is wrong and put some reliable source on the table.

it seems like your talking to your self again
seriously, no one cares what you dont believe in !

 

[SacredStoneHead]

Fine, go read some of the sources I linked. You don't have to believe me.

 

[FrisianDude]

This condescending **** again? For ****'s sake. Gtfo.