GodHandApostole 说:
that's actually a modern myth that contradicts archeological evidence 
正在查看此主题的用户
- 状态
that's actually a modern myth that contradicts archeological evidence
No, they didn't. And frankly, it's a bad idea to give your enemy something to grab on to.
matmohair1 说:GodHandApostole 说:
In all of those images except a couple I think it's possible to see that the horns are in separated pieces and/or different materials then the main helm piece. Otherwise, I might as well assume them to be used for parades or ritualistic purposes. At least as far as medieval Europe goes, freak helms with big horns were confined to tournaments. Just look at the Morgan Bible and you'll see nothing like that, likely because the artists were trying to show actual war scenes.
the idea that the vikings wore horned helmets originated from reports describing them in the "Anglo Saxon Chronicles",
illustrations on Vendel period pedants & depictions on the Sutton Hoo helmet and the Oseberg tapestry.
they are depicted both in ceremonial dances and on battle murals,
the real mistake constantly shown in the media is depicting them all wearing them
while in reality they would belong only to high ranking individuals.
the high crests worn by the Greeks didn't cause them any trouble
even samurai helmets with enormous buffalo horns where never a problem
such theories are only based on the idea that we all have fragile neck vertebra like that of a new born baby
regarding medieval horned helmets, there use in battle can be traced between the 12th & 13th centuries
while there use in tournaments is from the 15th to 16th, by then horns where no longer used in battle
after the knight switched on to using bascinets while they where added to tournament frog-mouth helmets.
here are a few 13th to 14th century battle field designs
now can we all go back to discussing the crusades during the 12th century instead of how inaccurate Wikipedia is !
illustrations on Vendel period pedants & depictions on the Sutton Hoo helmet and the Oseberg tapestry.
they are depicted both in ceremonial dances and on battle murals,
the real mistake constantly shown in the media is depicting them all wearing them
while in reality they would belong only to high ranking individuals.
that's a silly argument repeated on 90 % of the websites on the internetSuspicious Pilgrim 说:
the high crests worn by the Greeks didn't cause them any trouble
even samurai helmets with enormous buffalo horns where never a problem
such theories are only based on the idea that we all have fragile neck vertebra like that of a new born baby
regarding medieval horned helmets, there use in battle can be traced between the 12th & 13th centuries
while there use in tournaments is from the 15th to 16th, by then horns where no longer used in battle
after the knight switched on to using bascinets while they where added to tournament frog-mouth helmets.
here are a few 13th to 14th century battle field designs
First off, I am referring exclusively to the mod's timeframe and you're still to provide a single piece of archaeological or primary source evidence for knights of the XII or XIII century wearing horned or even crested helms.
Second, only added to cut on the horns' discussion, none of the images provided suggest those helms to be war helms rather then parade ones. So either I see a source or image mentioning or showing horned helms in an actual fighting scene (again such as the Morgan Bible ones) or I - just like most enthusiast of history - will remain of the opinion that horned helms were mainly for showing and not for actual fighting.
GodHandApostole 说:
GodHandApostole 说:
Alright, I'll play devil's advocate. I'm not entirely convinced and the most of the examples except the belt plate are about a century late. Decorative figurines aren't very helpful either. The only thing that came close is the second last image you linked but there are women watching it, which clearly identifies it as a tournament scene. And even there (in last and second last images) look at the proportions: 1 knight with horns out of hundreds or out of 8. To me, this only proves that sources used horned helms as a distinctive sign, which means they were extremely rare out of tournaments. In all the images you linked in your second spoiler, infact, you see one knight with horns, all the others without. The first is, likely, a battle scene. Though again, there's one man with horns, one with what's likely a wooden crest, the others' armours are all as slick as possible.
The first image of your first spoiler is a very famous helm that I've seen several times but, correct me if I'm wrong (no clue about it, in all honesty), those horns are not of the same material of the helm, nor forged on the same piece; that's something I've been mentioning all along. They probably used lighter materials that could more easily be knocked off then stuff that could set them off balance. In modern reconstructions and drawings in particular, you always see metal horns nearly twice the size of the man's head. That's simply ridiculous as a great helm on its own already weights an enormous amount. Who would add more metal to it? Surely they built their crests with cloth, wood or I think they even used paper mache. But iron? Steel? Why? So that every slash that misses the helm and hits the horns scramble your brain and makes you lose your footing? I just don't see it happening.
There was a tendency to have adorned helms on seals, but again that's hardly a proof if at all. Once again, to me it only means they used the most badass stuff they could come up with when they needed to show off and stand out from the crowd (again, tournaments and probably one's seal). Otherwise, as little target as you can offer works for them as it works for us, I'd guess. This all assuming that XIV century's sources didn't idealize earlier knights and just exaggerated the crests to make them more distinctive and interesting to look at. Art is still a stylized depiction of reality, after all.
Guess I'm just overanalyzing the whole topic, though I need to see the "smoking gun" here to truly believe we'd see plentiful horned or even crested helms on a medieval battlefield. It just sounds far too impractical to be adopted. Reminds me of the argument against mail, stating arrows could puncture it with ease. Then again it lived for about two thousands years in various regions. I'm probably wrong, though I can only see paper mache or at worst wooden crests being in wide use. Beside, most sources show relatively simple helms for the vast majority of fighters, often all of them except one.
The first image of your first spoiler is a very famous helm that I've seen several times but, correct me if I'm wrong (no clue about it, in all honesty), those horns are not of the same material of the helm, nor forged on the same piece; that's something I've been mentioning all along. They probably used lighter materials that could more easily be knocked off then stuff that could set them off balance. In modern reconstructions and drawings in particular, you always see metal horns nearly twice the size of the man's head. That's simply ridiculous as a great helm on its own already weights an enormous amount. Who would add more metal to it? Surely they built their crests with cloth, wood or I think they even used paper mache. But iron? Steel? Why? So that every slash that misses the helm and hits the horns scramble your brain and makes you lose your footing? I just don't see it happening.
There was a tendency to have adorned helms on seals, but again that's hardly a proof if at all. Once again, to me it only means they used the most badass stuff they could come up with when they needed to show off and stand out from the crowd (again, tournaments and probably one's seal). Otherwise, as little target as you can offer works for them as it works for us, I'd guess. This all assuming that XIV century's sources didn't idealize earlier knights and just exaggerated the crests to make them more distinctive and interesting to look at. Art is still a stylized depiction of reality, after all.
Guess I'm just overanalyzing the whole topic, though I need to see the "smoking gun" here to truly believe we'd see plentiful horned or even crested helms on a medieval battlefield. It just sounds far too impractical to be adopted. Reminds me of the argument against mail, stating arrows could puncture it with ease. Then again it lived for about two thousands years in various regions. I'm probably wrong, though I can only see paper mache or at worst wooden crests being in wide use. Beside, most sources show relatively simple helms for the vast majority of fighters, often all of them except one.
horned & crested helmets first appeared during the 12th centurysome knights where wealthy enough to acquire them, especially kings
bishops wore a mitre over their great-helms
while some German knights preferred a large metallic eagle's talon
it's no big deal,
if we go on with these silly random & naive discussions we will end up believing in UFO's, paper armor & that the crusades never happened - l0l !
Ficus can you show Teutonic Knights?
molashkre
Knight
Cutpurse3 说:« Last Edit: Today at 03:34:37 PM by Caba`drin »teun557 说:Silly you believing that the crusades actualy happened
teun557 说:Cutpurse3 说:teun557 说:Silly you believing that the crusades actualy happened
No problem dude
« Last Edit: Today at 03:34:53 PM by Caba`drin »
What happened here?!
Roach XI the Magnificent
Squire
Yes, those silly muslims thinking they can attack knights and live.
don't worry, they can manage
the two infantrymen close to the knights are wearing khazgands (3 layers of cotton & 2 layers of chainmail)
while the others will probably resort to clicking CTRL H !
the two infantrymen close to the knights are wearing khazgands (3 layers of cotton & 2 layers of chainmail)
while the others will probably resort to clicking CTRL H !- 状态
