Why not equip yourself with the best armour?

[Raz]

I've been asking myself this since I got into medieval history. Why does a knight in for example the 12th century buy himself a nasal conical helm if there were far more protecting helms available, like the early great helm?

Take this picture for example. The mounted knight obviously has enough money for a horse, a full mail hauberk and elaborate decorations on both his tunics and shield, yet he still wears a round topped nasal helm.

Why expose your face when there's more protective equipment available? That's basically my question. Same goes for body armour; why didn't they buy themselves some iron lamellar for over their mail?

Some more examples:

Why a kettle helm? Why does the knight on the right take his helm off in battle?

Same here.

 

[Allegro]

In hot climates no one would want to wear full plates but on other occasions it might be because of; he may not have the strenght to carry heavier armours, he may choose maneuver over protection, he may not see around well with a full covered helmet and similar reasons i cant think of right now.

 

[Merentha]

The knight in the last picture may have taken his helm off for increased visibility, as well as to reduce heat.

 

[Kissaki]

Perhaps that's the best they had to offer in the shops he's visited so far

Seriously, though, some might have preferred visibility over the added protection of great helms and others. Also, those are modern illustrations. While accurate, they should not be viewed as photographies.

 

[James]

Price.

 

[Damien]

The answer has already been stated: Visibility and heat.

During the period those images represent, the 'best' helm available was the early and later great helm. It's only real advantage over a conical helm with a nasal is in the face protection. However, the face protection you get forces you to sacrifice peripheral vision, and is extremely uncomfortable.

The 12th and 13th century isn't the only time this happened, either. When bascinets became popular, knights would fairly frequently remove the visor to increase visibility and reduce the stifling feeling helmets cause. To a limited extent, it can be said that comfort and the ability to see clearly sometimes outweighs having protection for a part of the body that isn't the most likely to be attacked.

The kettle helm is the same deal. Nasals aren't very comfortable, and can interfere, slightly, with vision. Certainly some men-at-arms and knights would have preferred the open nature of the kettle helm to the conical helm with nasal, despite having to give up the slight protection to the face that the nasal provides. The knight in that picture paid the price, as that image shows a particular lord (can't remember his name off-hand, but I could look it up in a bit if you like) who suffered a rather nasty gash across his face.

 

[jhmanter]

Visibility above all. Prince of Wales was injured in face in the battle of shrewsbury, and it certainly wasnt that he couldnt afford a decent helm.

Kettle helm offers good protection against falling arrows. I think that the extreme need to protect your face was only beneficial in jousting or when you charged against pikes. In general melee you'd need better vision around.

 

[partizan]

in the first picture: rain.the horse will have hardness to move in mud,with more weight.you should see that the horse is not armored too. the foot knight has a robe on his armor,it can help to keep dry the mail,to protect against rusting. strenght ,or beacause of his master knight. maybe he was not allowed to wear plate.

in the second picture:look at the background.there are saracen desert soldiers. its because of heat.

in the third picture: it's because of dexterity.

 

[Chilly5]

Visiblity, comfortablity, weight, heat, hell even style. 

 

[Damien]

rain.the horse will have hardness to move in mud,with more weight.you should see that the horse is not armored too.

A helmet does not add -nearly- enough weight for this to be a concern. A horse will not feel any difference between a man wearing one kind of helmet over any other kind.

he foot knight has a robe on his armor,it can help to keep dry the mail,to protect against rusting.

Not really. Water soaks through fabric. It will not keep anything dry. The surcoat was likely developed in slight emulation of the flowing garments of the Muslims.

strenght ,or beacause of his master knight. maybe he was not allowed to wear plate.

Strength is not an issue.
And plate armour did not exist at this time.

in the second picture:look at the background.there are saracen desert soldiers. its because of heat.

A half-truth. Full great helms were worn rather consistently during the Crusades.

in the third picture: it's because of dexterity.

That would make sense if you could prove how a helmet inhibits dexterity.

 

[partizan]

^man,i did not mean just a helmet,im talking about the whole armor,as raz asked. i couldn't see anything about date,and even romans wore plate.

Not really. Water soaks through fabric. It will not keep anything dry. The surcoat was likely developed in slight emulation of the flowing garments of the Muslims.

i might be wrong here.

 

[Iguana-on-a-stick]

Of course the date is relevant. These pictures obviously depict warriors from several centuries before the introduction of plate armour. One notes that it's a 13th century knight, the OP said the first is from the 12th century. These people had no choice but wear mail. Only their helmets are anything less than state of the art. (in the case of the best-equipped warriors in the pictures, of course. The guy who isn't wearing mail in the first picture most likely is just too poor to afford it.)

And yes, the romans had plate armour, but of a very different (and much inferior) kind than the knights of the 15th and 16th century.

Anyway, even if plate had been an option I'd disagree with your arguments.

Plate is heavier than mail, but doesn't inhibit movement much more because the weight is distributed better. Depends on the construction and quality, of course, but I doubt that anybody ever chose to wear a heavy mail hauberk instead of plate armour because of "dexterity" problems.

Likewise, "strength" doesn't factor in. It doesn't take more strength to wear plate than to wear mail. Less, if anything.

And "not being allowed to wear plate by his master" makes no sense at all. I've never heard of anyone being forbidden to wear armour of any kind by any of his superiors or liege lords. Why would a lord forbid his men at arms to wear good armour? That'd be doing himself a severe disservice.

 

[Raz]

Well, that about clears it up, yep. I always thought armour was considered more important than vision and never really took heat into account.

Aye, and you can also tell by the helms and shield shapes that it's around 11th - 12th century and that plate wasn't around at that time.

 

[brasidus]

Romans wore plate.

Roman Empire collapsed as did its industrial base, and long before the Empire collapsed its industrial base was waining.

For quite a while after the fall of Rome Chain hauberks were the European norm.  Plate gradually evolved again over time, initially as individual plates covering over already existing chain that was hit more regularly than other areas. Joints and limbs predominantly.

 

[GreySaber]

Plate is heavier than mail, but doesn't inhibit movement much more because the weight is distributed better. Depends on the construction and quality, of course, but I doubt that anybody ever chose to wear a heavy mail hauberk instead of plate armour because of "dexterity" problems.

Actually plate tends to weigh less then the same coverage of mail, because a sheet weights less then several chains. (remember that's the same coverage, so a shirt is less then a full suit, but covers less.) Mail is more three dimentional and overlapping, which accounts for the extra weight.

Second, the tabard was designed to keep the sun in hot areas from being directly on the metal, which could heat up quite a bit.

Mail is somewhat more flexable then plate, but not much IF THE PLATE is TAILORED to the individual. But the weight all hangs off the shoulders.

As to these pictures, they were drawn in the last fifty years, so they are only as accurete as the modern artist's studies.

As for the Romans, the Lorica Segmentata was poorly contructed in the hinges and the leather straps, which caused frequent repair issues, and as such, the Romans didn't like it. Why they did not make the hinges and straps BETTER is a mystery of history, and they went back to mail before the end of their glory.

At the fall of Rome, it was likely no one had seen a segmentata in living memory, and mail was the armor of the day until around 1300, give or take.

 

[Damien]

Romans wore plate.

Not really. 'Plate' properly refers to actual plate armour. Segmentata was not true plate armour, anymore than scale or lamellae is plate armour. They are comprised of plates, but fitted and designed differently from the armour people are usually referring to when they say 'plate.'

Further, the technology required to make 'plate armour' and the technology required to make segmentata were entirely different, so it's a non-issue.

Plate gradually evolved again over time, initially as individual plates covering over already existing chain that was hit more regularly than other areas. Joints and limbs predominantly.

By your definition of plate, this is inaccurate. Coats-of-plates predate limb defenses by about 50-60 years. Could be longer, but we can't prove it yet, due to the existance of the surcoat, it's hard to judge what, exactly, was underneath.

As to these pictures, they were drawn in the last fifty years, so they are only as accurete as the modern artist's studies.

Osprey plates are usually pretty accurate, the drawings being based directly, in most cases, off period pieces. For instance, the artist will compile pictures of different statues, tapestries, etc -- which were made in their era to depict a variety of things in a given year -- and will work from those to create their paintings. With a few exceptions, Osprey books go to pretty decent lengths to get period-accurate imagery and information.

Mail is somewhat more flexable then plate, but not much IF THE PLATE is TAILORED to the individual. But the weight all hangs off the shoulders.

Plate is not flexible at all. I think you mean to say that plate does not inhibit movement because it is articulated. But it's certainly not -flexible-.

Second, the tabard was designed to keep the sun in hot areas from being directly on the metal, which could heat up quite a bit.

Pure conjecture. Frankly, we have no idea what the purpose of a tabard/surcoat was. Many historians have speculated, but they all agree that we don't know for certain what, if any, purpose it served. The most likely rationale that most historians seem to prescribe to, is that the surcoat was, quite simply, European emulation of Eastern garments.

Actually plate tends to weigh less then the same coverage of mail, because a sheet weights less then several chains. (remember that's the same coverage, so a shirt is less then a full suit, but covers less.) Mail is more three dimentional and overlapping, which accounts for the extra weight.

Not at all accurate. You'd -think- this would be true, but it really isn't. Your average full covering of mail (hauberk, chausses, mittens) is only in the 30-pound range, whereas a plate harness is in the 45-50 pound range. Mail may be a bit more layered (only a bit, though), but it's also made of rings that are much thinner than the plates of a harness. Plenty of museums have weighed the armour in their collections, so you can check them out whenever you're in the neighborhood of any good museum.

 

[GreySaber]

Pure conjecture. Frankly, we have no idea what the purpose of a tabard/surcoat was. Many historians have speculated, but they all agree that we don't know for certain what, if any, purpose it served. The most likely rationale that most historians seem to prescribe to, is that the surcoat was, quite simply, European emulation of Eastern garments.

I'll get back to you on the issue of weights, but as for the tabards, even if they were emulations of local clothing, it is known that the locals covered their armor to protect themselves from the sun. It was in some Islamic paper about how to ensure your troops care for their equipment. How one must check their lamallar straps, and that troops were better protected from the heat of the day.........by an additional layer over their armor.

 

[GreySaber]

http://www.mwart.com/xq/ASP.product/pid.2727/qx/riveted-steel-mail-shirt.htm

One rivited mail shirt. 40 pounds.

 

[13 Spider Bloody Chain]

On the segmentata: Granted, its individual plates (lames?) were a bit a larger than that of most other armors of its day.

 

[Damien]

but as for the tabards, even if they were emulations of local clothing, it is known that the locals covered their armor to protect themselves from the sun. It was in some Islamic paper about how to ensure your troops care for their equipment. How one must check their lamallar straps, and that troops were better protected from the heat of the day.........by an additional layer over their armor.

Oh, I don't dispute that it helped. I'm disputed that it was the intention. Especially with Europeans.

http://www.mwart.com/xq/ASP.product/pid.2727/qx/riveted-steel-mail-shirt.htm

One rivited mail shirt. 40 pounds.

Heh.

1.) Avoid trusting any site that uses the term 'chainmail.'
2.) Avoid trusting any site that sells hideous fantasy stainless steel swords.
3.) Avoid trusting any site that is solely intended to sell things.

That mail is not mail. First of all, it's full on steel. Real mail is not made of steel as we understand it -- but rather has more iron to it. This is because, of course, iron is softer, and mail needs to deform with a blow in order to absorb some of its impact. The harder the mail is, the more likely it is to suffer from simply breaking outright, cracking, and all the other fun things that go along with harder steel as opposed to softer iron. (Technically it is steel, mind you, I'm using here 'iron' and 'steel' to differentiate not between metals, but between the carbon content of the metal.)

Further, take a look at the links of the mail: and do some research on the shirt as well - it's an MRL corselet. The links are circular in cross-section, NOT flat. Real mail links are flat. All told - extremely heavy, extremely poor quality. Not worthy of anything but a Renaissance Fair. Which brings up another thing you should avoid -- trusting a website which cannot accurately COPY information. The MRL mail corselet, which WMART is selling there, is 23 pounds, not 40.

The mail is not currently available on MRL's website -- so if you like I could scan a page from one of my catalogs, if you don't believe that I'm telling you the truth.

Historical Enterprises had a mail supplier which used to provide them with excellent quality riveted mail hauberks and haubergeons of proper dimensions and thickness, that were around 15 pounds. Personally, I always thought that was a bit light, but there you have it. You can still find their stuff here: http://www.historicenterprises.com/cart.php?m=product_list&c=25 , but I believe they have changed their mail supplier since I last checked with them (over a year ago).

There was also this one guy that makes mail - -he's pretty well known in the sword and historical communities, but for the life of me I can't remember his name right now. That's going to drive me crazy. I'll see if I can remember later. Either way, he's known to have made some of the most historically accurate mail in the world -- and it's nowhere near 40 pounds for a shirt.

And, once more -- museum pieces don't lie. Manufacturers, however, lie all the time -- in order to make you believe that their stainless steel galvanized 50-pound hauberk is 'historically accurate' and 'just as protective as a historical piece.'