Thanks for watching everyone, hope yous enjoyed the video! Be sure to check out my other videos on the Vikings and their history if you found it interesting and give me a thumbs up or considering subscribbling if you're new!
Great video, I had no idea about that last most complete Helmet. You’ve earned my subscribble-ship. But I gotta ask: where’s the rest of the Pict videos? You teased some AMAZING stories in the one on the Pictish Language....where’s parts 2/3/4?
About these helmets. For one thing they they do not always seem to have been proof against arrows and spears. The one from Gjermundbu may have been penetrated by both a spear and an arrow at some point (although the claim is it was penetrated by a sword for more super awesomeness points but realistically the primary weapon of these people was the spear, a sword was a secondary weapon). The helmet mask was very common and the best theory I've seen yet is the these masks were connected to their fear of being persecuted by the ghost of the dead because it gives very little in the way of protection and can actually serve to guide a spear into you eye which is why the closed helmets of the 12th and 13th century quickly developed eye slits rather than eye holes. When the Scandinavians became christian they also passed laws at the insistence of the catholic ecclesiarchs that banned the wearing of masks in cemeteries. These masks seem to have been worn for similar reasons, to keep the ghosts of people you treated badly in life from following you home and tormenting you. So it is entirely possible that the helmet masks was simply 'juju magic' to protect you from haunting by the people you kill. I'm not going to present this as fact but this idea of the people acquiring superpowers to make your life a misery after they die is a very common theme in Icelandic/Norwegian folk beliefs. Finally, these spectacles also disappear around the same time that they are passing these anti-masks laws. Take this with a spoon of salt but it is an interesting idea. By the 11th century most Vikings would have worn helmets indistinguishable from those being worn in Germany, Ukraine and Byzantium at the time and this would have been for the simple reason that they would have been mostly sourced in these same places, most commonly of all Germany and they seem to have been more akin to the Olmutz helmet than the one you showed a picture of. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KHM_Wien_A_41_-_Moravian_nasal_helmet,_11th_century_transparent.png Finally, judging by the surviving examples of these nasal helmets they would have been either raised from one piece of sheet metal like the Olmutz helmet or overlapping plates like the one reportedly fished out of the Thames river since these constitute the overwhelming number of survivals, not the 'spangen' type. Finally, I know there are people who will happily tell one that the Icelandic sagas are literal word for word truth but they were written 300-500 years after the event and should be taken with a large spoon of salt. Some of the ones written in the 13th century definitely describe 10th century people wearing and using 13th century kit specifically kite shields and kettle hats.
@@thescholar-general5975 We have evidence of them being used in the early medieval period but no evidence that the vikings used them though it is likely
@@sirsteam181 We also have evidence of maille being worn without any gambeson, with maybe a few layers of clothing or just a tunic, so it's just as likely that they didn't wear gambesons, I suspect it's a matter of personal preference, also if you tend to already dress in several layers of clothing you already have something that has the same effect as a gambeson so it's not like it's something you can't do without.
Or chainmail being worn by all the mooks who then get absolutely slaughtered despite this. Chainmail should be rare except for nobles and retainers and should be incredibly effective against swords and axes.
Maybe this spike on top of the spectacle helmet is based on a similar idea as the spike on the Prussian Pickelhaube. When you land a downward stroke in the middle of a helmet that is vulnerable exactly there (because it's a riveted multi piece helmet or has a weak spot in a similar fashion) it might be useful to set something on top that might deflect the blow away from the centre point and add some more protective value.
@@historywithhilbert Just an assumption, as several times in history similar solutions pop up for certain problems. Actually I never saw such a spiky spectacle or 'viking' helmet as an archeological piece in a museum and can therefore only assume that the spike is big enough to work in such a way. By the way, really good videos, keep on the good work.
@@Finstha Yeah the angle of deflection seems important. I think strengthening it is also a very reasonable explanation.Things that are considered "Ornamental" on helmets are often there for very practical reasons that archeologists just didn't realize because they weren't martial artists. HEMA has brought alot of this stuff to view. People like Tobias Capwell at The Wallace Collection have brought great strides to understanding the context of historical arms and armor.
Definitely more plausible than "headbutting" suggested in the video... Can you imagine someone actually putting their head and neck so much (or at all) forward of the shield and weapon?! And note that actual combat is not turn based. While you attempt to strike someone with the crown of your head tilted lower than horizontal, you can't see your opponent, who will have a very easy clear shot at your neck... Just no.
My input: Judging from the Icelandic Sagas, helmets certainly weren’t rare, but I can’t recall them ever being mentioned among grave goods, where as swords and spears are often included. This could be why so few are preserved.
Of all the several 1000s of Viking Age graves that have been investigated in Scandinavia by archaeologists, both royal and common, they have only found 1 metal helmet from the Viking Age (Gjermundbu/Norway) and a few small fragments that are possibly believed to come from helmets (but not for sure). On the other hand, lots of swords, shield buckles, spears and arrowheads and other metal objects have been found, but only 1 helmet. Therefore, the vast majority of experts, archaeologists and historians agree that Vikings did not wear metal helmets, but rather leather helmets.
As for the number of men wearing them, to be fair, people often wrongly assume that when historians state that merely the elite wore helmets, that they mean very few or barely anyone. The thing is, battles during this period most often consisted of roughly few thousand men, and the numbers of actual household men fielded by any number of landed "nobles" of whatever sort could easily ramp up into the hundreds. Meaning that the number of men wearing extra gear(armor or helmet) could go anywhere from 10 to 30% of any fielded army at the time. In fact, the Muslim chronicler Ibrahim ibn Yaqub states that the 10th century warlord of Poland, Mieszko, fielded 3000 fully equipped men in his nobles retinues, armored and on horseback. If we assume that a fully levied army of the Poles at the time could reach 6000 to 9000 men, then the amount of men in the kings retinue goes from 30-50% of the possible army. Even if we halve that, it is still a good proportion of men.
Another way to get an idea of the Viking helmets is to look at contemporary images. On these, helmets are often tapered with nose protection. This is what Sigurd Fafnesbane's helmet looks like on Ramsundsberg's rock carving; one can also identify them on Gotlandstones (including one from Lillbjärs in Stenkyrka parish) and in embroidered form on Bayeux Tapestry. Small figures from the Viking Age can also wear helmets, such as the small god image from Rällinge in Sörmland, who is believed to represent the fertility god Frej. In Sigtuna, a carved male head of moose horns was found, where the head is adorned with a conical helmet with nose guard.
6:10 any iron helmet will be effective at stopping sword cuts, chopping trough armor is a fantasy, or just to illustrate the power of the main character. Reminds me of the illustrations in the maciejowski bible, where guys are cut in half while wearing maille armor and such. I've done some testing with armor, and even 1mm mild steel is very capable of stopping crushing blows, sword cuts of course, but also spear thrusts. Overall, even bad quality iron armor is already very good against sword blows (and in fact, i think some swords were made of low carbon steel, wich has no chance of cutting trough iron).
YES! It kinda annoyed me when he said that, even if it is bad iron it will at worst be severely dented, not chopped through. And also yea the maciejowski bible makes it pretty clear that often people just want to show gore and violence and stuff, even back then. Doesn't seem likely that they could chop a great helm in two.
When an author describes individual combat in great detail, centuries after the event, be sceptical. And really, sagas do read like action movies sometimes. For example, a man is fighting multiple opponents, one of whom throws a spear at him. The man catches the spear mid-air, and immediately throws it back - going through the other guy's shield, his maille, his body, comes out the other side and impales him to the ground. Utterly fantastical, completely impossible. I believe this example was from Njål's saga.
I don't think the point of citing that is to show that swords were easily chopping through armor All the Time at the time. I think it was just to show that there is some evidence that some people could believe it was plausible, and that that may also be tenuous evidence that the quality of the armor was worse, and therefore, not worth wearing. I don't think it's a matter of taking literature at face value.
Great vid, but you didn't touch on the notion that the reason we don't find many helmets is due to armour constantly being reused and recycled, rather than buried ceremoniously like swords. We see in Birka for example lames being processed for scrap. The amount of time and effort to make a helm that lasted would mean you'd be loathe to just bury it. As for it being restricted to the upper classes, the Yarm helmet shows that helms of lower quality were in circulation.
There are far too many people wearing them in reenactment, as the lack of evidence for this suggests to me that Chainmail was likely a high-status item and wasting that much of it would be overly costly. I have heard an argument for rough leather skirting around the back of helmets, but again without evidence we can't be sure. Understandably, reenactors want the best protection they can get and the polish viking groups are bloody vicious, but I just wish people would look at the existing evidence and be more honest and authentic.
@@alwayslearning3443 Chainmail probably wanst really THAT expensive so i think if you're a professional warrior you could probably affort that or maybe even do it yourself because they were very likely mending their chainmails themselves
@@ArmaCookie, in the video he actually references the scarcity of good iron in Scandanavia, which is one argument against them being cheap enough and readily available, but there is another consideration you need to take into account. In the modern era, we can go to a hardware store or online supplier and buy the parts we need, but in those times, the only people with the requisite skills to create the small punched rings and rivets required to carry out the repairs would be smiths, so you would need to carry a suppy of spares in order to repair your kit as you went, but making an entire byrnie or full skirt aventail would be beyond most people, either on account of ability, or due to the amount of time which would be consumed by doing this. I really don't see this as something which would be a "cheap enough" option and, unless you happen to know of a few solid examples of helms which have not been publicly displayed or analysed but clearly show full chainmail aventails, then we can't say with any conviction that this was ever done in the viking period. this is also especially supported, in my humble opinion, by the almost regressive style of helmet design evidenced by the very few finds which we have to go on.
@@alwayslearning3443 But remember that during the viking period lots of trading and pillaging was occurring so even though iron was scarce in Scandinavia doesn't mean that it was scare in general to them for many veteran vikings would have some wealth from these expeditions so it is possible
Gjermundbu could have had a mail mask attached to it, this would protect the rest of the face. Something similar to this was found on one of the vendel helmets in valsgärde
I've often heard the "spectacle helmets tend to guide spears towards the eyes" thing. I've never done reenactment fighting, but it seems that if you're taking a spear to that part of the face you're done for either way? Also the bone structure around the eyes would tend to do the same?
It's to deflect arrows more than spears. Helmets don't protect you from heavy melee blows so much. But even a light helmet will do wonders for keeping arrows out of your head.
Yeah kinda weird, a spear to the face is game over anyway. I have two spectacle helmets I use for reenactment, horseback riding. And it is damn nice to have Iron cheekbones taking the inevitable glancing strikes rather than your own.
I have thought about the same thing. It really does not seem to me that the chance of getting hit in the eye is any greater with the helmet than without, but I suppose this is something someone should do some research on
I believe that the implication in this is that, having the helmet protecting your head, the person looking over a shield at you would see the eye sockets as the most obvious target for a spear thrust in the press of a shield wall, as you would struggle to get a serious swing with a sword or axe without potentially leaving an opening for a swift thrust before you can connect. A shortened thrust to the face that hits the helm will likley glance off unless it hits either eye-sockets or manages to slide underneath the face plate and take either the cheek or mouth.
I've long posited that spikes on the tops of helmets were there mostly for a similar function as the shape of conical helmets, and in fact, conical helmets might originate from the design. One of the very few weaknesses of helmet design in general is that a particularly heavy blow straight down on the top of a helmet can still cause significant damage to the wearer's head (as with concussions and the like), neck, and spine. This is true simply because of the way the human body is designed. However, a spike is the perfect design to place on top to redirect a blow away from straight down, and encourage the weapon to glance or slide off the helmet, instead of transferring all its force onto it. This is true of vertical, so called "hammer shots", as well as a variety of angles onto the top of the head. And if you grow this spike bigger and bigger for more coverage, a logical next step would be to just make the whole helmet in a conical shape.
That swords going through helmet part reminds me greatly of Danish royal anthem "His sword was hammering so fast, Through Gothic helm and brain it passed..."
While there are very few finds of Viking era helmets, there are many bronze statuettes and stone carvings picturing helmets and gods wearing helmets. They are all of the conical nasal helmet type. Maybe made perky from thick leather, such decomposed over time. There are theories that the Vendel style helmet was a status symbol even in Viking times so they were inherited for generations. That’s why the few surviving pieces of helmets found in graves are of the Vendel type. Sounds quite reasonable to me.
Maybe there’s a chance we’ll find a helmet in the ship being excavated in Norway? It’s easy to imagine all kinds of things! Did not know we have so few, it makes it easy to be wrong (. Inaccurate when creating a show
I'd add the fact that , since iron was scarce, helmets would be recycled a lot, hence why we have so few, I mean, manuscripts show all the vikings having one I don't think any weapon could penetrate an helmet like described in the saga, if we were to beliveve those than we'd have to speculate about people dying standin proudly with arrows all over them
Just my 2 cents - discussions in reenactment and living archaeology groups lead to the conclusion that there was a change in burial traditions - even very rich burials do not contain evidence of a helmet.
"Gå holmgång" means sort of duel. In school i was taught that when two or a few more Vikings disagreed on something they could "gå holmgång", to fight. A "holme" is a larger-ish rock in the Swedish archipelago, very much smaller than an island but definitely larger than a skär (crystal clear, right...). "gång" means to go or to walk. So the vikings that wanted to fight went to a "holme" and there they fought until first blood or death or whatever was agreed on and last one standing, who was able to walk, "gå", away had won.
Good video and how helmets evolved is also an interesting subject. Early helmets are rare in the archaeological record and it is fascinating how different societies around the Mediterranean adopted, changed and influenced various styles. The Montefortino type helmet, most commonly used by the Romans, was actually a style adopted from the 'Celts'. The evidence for pre-historic helmets use in warfare in also rare and those that survive the archaeological record, appear to have had a function of ritual, ceremonial or high-status. Many actually offering very little protection to its wearer.
I just recently discovered your channel, but it's quickly becoming one of my favourite channels on RUclips! Thanks for the great videos, keep up the good work!
Yes but the roman helmet was developed from an Etruscan helmet which was based on a type of helmet from gaul. Same goes for the origin of chainmail so chances are the Celts and Germans already had helmets with faceplates.
Do people seriously believe that the North Germanic people who produced the vendel period helmets just suddenly stopped producing helmets when 793 hit? When the viking period began. You can see the similarities between the Gjermundbu (Viking) and Broe (Vendel) helmet. Why shouldnt helmets produced in the vendel era be passed down from father to son. Also i am pretty sure armor and helmets would be looted from dead enemies after battles.
Exactly this is what I’m trying to saying, it seems extremely stupid that they wouldn’t use at least the Vendel Type Helmets which are even more ancient than the viking ones. Tv show producers don’t study history and they make garbage representations of Scandinavian warriors all without helmets which is incredibly wrong.
I like that you mentioned that the vikings didn't have a lot of Iron. Cause that's true. However I would like to elaborate on the reason why. It wasn't because "scandinavia didn't have Iron at the time" but because where The huge swedish Iron mines are located is in Norrland, the biggest close to Kiruna. That is in swedish lappland, the lands that north germanic speakers would only come to controll in the 1300s. During the viking age there only lived sapmi there, no vikings. Swedes did however, have control over the areas where massive coppar depisites are today, at Dalarna, like Falun, and other areas. Though I don't know if those mines were opperating before the 11th century.
@@TheSlyngel I am sure it isn't a huge amount of easely accesseble iron though. As I am very sure there is more iron in scandinavia and the world in general than the huge depossits that are mainly being used. Asside from the economic part, that is.
Hilbert question have you ever or would you consider ever sailing on a replica of a Viking longship long distance from say England to Scandinavia or Ireland to Iceland? I'd watch that for sure if you did some vlogging.
Please remember that the term *Vendel Period* only applies to swedish history, not all of Scandinavia. Not 'mostly' Sweden - ONLY Sweden. In Denmark the ages goes like this: (Nordic Bronze Age) *Pre-Roman* (earlier known as the Celtic Iron Age) (500 - 1 BC) *Early Roman Iron Age* (1 - 200 AD) *Late Roman Iron Age* (200 - 400 AD) *Early Germanic Iron Age* (400 - 550 AD), also called the Migration Period *Late Germanic Iron Age* (550 - 800 AD) Viking Age (800 - 1050) (Middle Ages) Source: Nationalmuseet It was the danish antiquarian Christian Jürgensen Thomsen who in the 1820s came up with the three ages-system: Stone age, bronze age, iron age. Swedish archaeologist Oscar Montelius would later sub-divide the ages forther.
Nice video! Lindybeige made a padded hat when he was experimenting with mail coif. It seemed VERY protective. So that would be my guess, organic helmets and as you say, ceremonial / status use of metal helmets. First person I heard who stated the obvious, that Vendel era helmets are pimped up Roman helmets.
It is called the Vendel period as the helmet was found south of Vendel's Church in the municipality of Tierp in Uppland in Sweden in the Region of Uppsala ( Uppsala län)
The "spectacle" portion of the helmet may be for protection against a glancing or slashing blow, the eye-holes are clearly too wide to stop a direct stab, but a slash would slide across the "eyes" without hitting the eyes or face, so long as the metal held up. The same idea is for the Nasal Bar, the spectacle version has a nasal bar built into it naturally, the extra metal could be as you say decoration, to make the face seem more like a "mask", but it could just be an extension of the "nasal bar" to protect the temples and eyes from the side. Imagine a slashing blow across the front of a helmet with nasal bar, without the "spectacle" portion, if the blade is level and even as it slashes the Nasal Bar will catch it and help it slide off, but if the blade comes at an angle, while the front of the face is protected from the slash where the nasal bar is, the side of the face, from your temple to the side of your nose where the nasal bar starts just got cut open, and you just lost an eye(or your temple is split open). Add the spectacle peices to a helmet with a nasal bar and you increased the protection from slashing blows to your face. They can't catch the side of your face and get "around" the nasal bar with a slash.
I haven’t read all of the comments and replies but I think that a factor in loosing the spectacle face protection to the nasal only protection was visibility.
You completely ignored attached chainmail. And the whole thing about projectile defense. Helmets were as much, if not more, about protecting from arrows than sword/spear/axe/hammer blows.
If you really think that viking helmets were ornamental and not for warfare then you are very very misguided. Head protection has been seen as upmost importance to combat going back well into the bronze age. They remind me quite a bit of samurai helmets in some ways. OF COURSE the saga's talk about cutting through helmets. This is very likely to have occasionally happened during combat. And they are talking about super hero's in the saga essentially. Besides the point of a helmet is NOT necessarily to guard you from giant axe swings as those are likely to highly damage you. It does protect from ARROWS and other projectiles. Derp. Of course that's super important. It's also why they try to protect the eyes so much. It's also why being segmented is less of an issue. It would also protect you some from light cuts. Probably why you see such large heavy swords during this period of time. TO SAY THAT THEY HAD NO PROTECTIVE OR COMBAT VALUE IS JUST WRONG.
I think you might have missed my point when I said that. I'm only mentioning that some historians have suggested they were only for ceremonial use rather than that's my own point of view. It's a very good point bringing missiles into the equation actually and something I didn't touch on. In terms of battles at the time we're not sure how much ranged combat (outside of throwing spears etc.) played a role in warfare as there's not that much documentary evidence for them (with notable exceptions mind you).
I argue the viking horned helmet. The Oseberg Tapestry shows a man wearing a horned helmet. My belief is that they wore them during ceremonial purpose. Not war. Just because there not evidence behind glass doesn't mean its not true.
@sneksnekitsasnek better than nothing chum. Plus not you, me, or any "expert" truly know wtf they had none of us were alive back back then. So until you get a time machine I guess well never know
Yes oseberg tapestry does show a horned helm on the leader. Therefore, horned helms were used. Maybe not common, but definitely used. ruclips.net/video/8IUWvk4MuNw/видео.html
From seeing riveted helmets tested it seems they are actually much stronger than a helmet made from a single sheet of metal, and tend not to cave in, but only a plate or two will bend or possibly fall off.
It seems the nasal guard has better visibility than the raptor cover style, it would be interesting if you could compare or test the difference. Better sight can outweigh the extra armor.
There's also another possibility to consider when it comes to the findings of Norse remains that have a lot of damage to the head. It could also be a possibility that warriors who used helmets had more sufficient protection, which is to say that they may have usually been the ones that lived through battles as a result of whatever kind of head protection they were wearing. Like I said, just a possibility.
Interesting video😊 As a Norwegian historian I disagree with the suggestion that there was a small production of iron in all of Scandinavia in viking period. In fact later evidence shows that there was a huge increase in the production of iron in Norway from 9th century and outwards. You are however correct in stating that bog iron is not of the best quality- a specially compared to the Frankish iron at the time (Moseng, Opshal, Pettersen & Sandmo, 2015).
In defense of the spectacle helm, you touch on it, but it provides excellent protection of the upper 1/2 to 2/3 of the face from slashing strokes such as from a sword or axe. Sure, the spear was the king of the battlefield, but in this region, swords were a factor, and axes were common, so there is a notable protective function of them that I suspect was far more of the desirability driver than masking one's expressions, etc.
I respectfully disagree with your point on how Roman Gladiatorial helmets were what influenced helms such as Sutton Who. I am unsure if you have a proper source to back it up, which would make my comment null and void, but I believe that some Roman Cavalry helmets tended to have face masks. So perhaps the sight of these Roman cavalrymen are what many of these Germanic warriors saw and brought back home. Btw I love this video, well researched and good as usual!
Those are Saracen-Persian helmets and armor. When the vikings arrived in northern Spain, the chronicles said Saracens were among the Lordemanni. Also the Vikings and Persians were both called “AlMagus”
Helmets were the first piece of equipment that many warriors would choose to wear beyond their chainmail. it's not a coincidence that large plates came first in the form of helmets.
We really don't know how common they were because of wanting evidence but we can guess that vikingrs would have a better chance at having a decent quality helmet from their expeditions
@@aaronharris1592 i agree with you on this, you can protect your body pretty well with your shield and even take a few hits to the arms/chest but you could get hit in the head once and die or get knocked out, plus helmets are a lot easier to make than byrnies and hauberks.
Well padding shows up in the art work from later periods. And chain mail can be worn over the head as well to keep arrows out. And the viking helmets likely had chainmail attached in parts as well.
To be fair, even the classical Greeks, whose phalanx formation almost 100% relied on spears vs spears action, had helms featuring similar eye sockets than the vendel period or spangen spectacles helmets. At the classical period, the use of spears was general and the corinthian type of helmet was most likely predominant. Yet it doesn't look like the eye socket thing was too much of an issue as they didn't change much during centuries. The similarity of both viking era/phalanx style warfare is that both heavily relied on shields (skjold and hoplon). In these cases, your main defense line is your shield, the helmet would only be a secondary defense. I think that because of this, the eventual little design flaws of the helmets would be rendered negatable in front of craftmanship traditions and stylistic matters. I think that because of shields, the eye injury from a spear point driven in by the spectacle was too rare to be an instant motive of changing the whole design of helmets. As we can see that's something that evolved on more than a century basis. Also, the surface and/or the rim of the eye sockets of both viking era or corinthian style helmets were rarely flat metal. It was either decorated on the surface (with a lot of relief motives or grooves to catch an eventual spear point and deflect it aside), or flared, reinforced on the rims, so that metalic part would stop a drifting spear point. Now if you got stabbed right in the eye, well that would have happened if you hadn't any head protection as well, it's bad luck. I also think that the big, proeminent brows that appear on most vendel period helmets and also viking age spectacle helmets served that very purpose as well. Because when you fight using spear and shield combination, within a formation, you're gonna use upper arm spear thrust in 99% of the cases. That means the spear blows will almost always come from a higher angle, as you defend the lower part of your face behind a shield. So in that case, reinforced brow would deflect aside most of spear blows drifting near your eyes. Now again, if you get stabbed right in the eye, it's just bad luck, no type of helmet offers 100% protection without hindering your senses in return.
So the Romans, native American, japanese, mongols had horned helmets, but a society of pagan traders DEFINITELY did not EVER put horns on a helmet... Got it.
What starts as an item worn only by high-status warriors eventually becomes more common over time, but also more utilitarian and less adorned. This is just speculation of course, but in the later period, a lower status warrior may have had a helmet, but it may have been made of hardened leather or some other material that degrades fairly quickly. Many Vikings also found work as mercenaries in Kiev and Constantinople. Has anyone done a thorough review of their records?
Of all the several 1000s of Viking Age graves that have been investigated in Scandinavia by archaeologists, both royal and common, they have only found 1 metal helmet from the Viking Age (Gjermundbu/Norway) and a few small fragments that are possibly believed to come from helmets (but not for sure). On the other hand, lots of swords, shield buckles, spears and arrowheads and other metal objects have been found, but only 1 helmet. Therefore, the vast majority of experts, archaeologists and historians agree that Vikings did not wear metal helmets, but rather leather helmets.
Don't forget that helmets don't just protect from weapon blows. The method of production and quality of iron honestly are a reason good enough for them not being preserved to our time...
Juan Ferreira Likely no. Saxons, Frisians, and Angles all spoke West-Germanic languages/dialects, and by the 700s there was a clear distinction between at least the North Germanic language and dialects of Scandinavia and the Southern and Western Germanic dialects of Central Europe. There is a lot of North Germanic influence in Anglo Saxon and later English, however, likely from the Jutes or later Scandinavian settlers.
@@lordmidas7279 There was some mutual intelligibility, but not 100%, that's why English has no gender because the children of Danes who married Anglo-Saxons picked up their poor Old English which led to the Modern English we speak today.
Thanks for this video. But it doesn't answer the biggest question I have which is : Why are there so many helmets from the Vendel period? Did they just stop making them in the viking age? It's frustrating that we've found more armor and helms before the viking age even began. I've seen some Vendel period helms in person. One with maille aventails. They seem very practical and strong.
Another interesting thought, the goggles on the viking helmet are used or seen as goggles to look through, a modern assumption. It is very well possible that the helmet was worn with the goggles on the back. It gives the idea that the warrior is so fierce that he or she has eyes in the back of his head. Strikingn fear to the enemy doing that is a possibility
Would it be likely that a lot of them would wear helmets/armour/weapons from the people they killed if they didn't have the resources to make their own? It's what I do on Mount and Blade.
Yeah but a lot of the time they just fought peasants n shit because they preyed on those who were vulnerable, and if they did kill people with armor it might not fit them very well, everyone has different bodies.
5:45 Remember that the Icelandic sagas was written long afterwards; and often exaggerated to make the main characters look spectacular. Cutting through helmets like it's nothing is quite likely an exaggeration (like the mythical katana in modern exaggerated stories). And why would they even mention it unless it was an unlikely feat; and why would they even bother wearing them if they really was that bad?
Oh... I just realized I've actually seen this video before:.. and I've even commented almost the same thing about a year ago... At least I'm consistent, even if I don't remember anything. lol
I wonder, when they switched from the spectacle to the nasal helmet, could they have done the face covering parts in an other material like leather? Makes me wonder about the existence of mixed material viking helmets in general.
That is my guess as well. The Vendel helmet was a remnant Status symbol that were inherited and sometimes it went to the grave with the owner. Those are the funds we have. Looking at stone carvings and statuettes from the Viking time however, the helmets look more like conical nasal helmets. The helmets used were perhaps made of thick leather or a mix between leather and metal. That’s why there are no examples left.
Digital exhibition from the Museum of Cultural History: www.khm.uio.no/english/visit-us/historical-museum/exhibitions/viking-age/index.html Unfortunately only Norwegian narration and close caption, but they show some of the objects, including the Gjermundbu-helmet. It is a short vid lower on the page, only showing some objects. The English Catalogue however can be found here: www.khm.uio.no/english/visit-us/historical-museum/undermappe-utstillinger/handout-vikingr-web-engelsk.pdf Visited this exhibition in the autumn last year.
The scarsity of iron would be a problem in the early viking age, but the amount of trade going on in the later viking age would solve that problem. The amount of wealth accumulated in Denmark must have been staggering! For the last hundred years, we have dug up viking age treasures almost every single year, here in Denmark. The quality of the iron is another matter. Bog iron is not "bad" (iron is iron), its what the smith do with it, thats important. And the Franks were worldclass smiths even in the Roman era, so it makes sense to import from them. Heck some scholars suggest, that the vikings imported iron from Afghanistan!! (see the Ulfberth videos here on youtube).
I feel like the guiding spear shots to the eye is kind of weird because the nasal helm wasn't an improvement because either way a spear is crunching into your face
I always speculate abbout, what if they inharetet helmets, to the next in line until they where totally worn down and the iron got recyceld? That would meen, that a lot of helmets later in time could be reworked helmets from the Viking age. Just a hypotheses.
The Roman equities often wore masks perhaps this was more of an influence rather than gladiatorial masks which aren't particularly similar to Wendel/Norse type helmets.
The spike on the top is to DEFLECT blows that are coming downward to prevent your helmet failing. Both proof that helmets would have failed occasionally in melee combat, and proof that they WERE used for protection. It's all about physics. You want a weapon to be deflected out at an angle so it imparts less force onto the helmet. Same reason plate armor was shaped the way it was later on. with a V in the front of the chest.
The helmet already deflects. What is the spike supposed to deflect from? Protection-wise, the spike has no value. In fact, it is a liability, because if it _does_ catch the opponent's weapon, it will either deflect the blow _to_ the head (not away from it), _preventing_ the blow from glancing off, or it will add a risk of the helmet being knocked off.
Hmmm. I'm thinking that if they had quality steel to make the weapons, then there would also be steel/ iron for armour. Be it by trade or mining, but surely if they could make good swords then the base material must have been available.
honestly that scene you showed at the beginning with no helmets is probably more accurate than ones that show everyone wearing a helmet and a mail coat.
@sneksnekitsasnek yes it is true that most soldiers were farmers, however the Nobility and Veterans of wars often stayed as soldiers or as mercenaries and as such would have used lots of armor.
I didn't finish watching the video. 2 mins in you started talking about people being influenced by the Romans because they had cheekplates on their helmets, even if helmets all over Europe had cheekplates on them during that time and likely inspired the Romans. As if the ancestors to the people of these modern helmet designs weren't wearing helmets with cheekplates.
Gladiatorial helmets would not really have been available to non-Roman societies. It really is the other way around: gladiatorial helmets were inspired by foreign designs. And while good quality ore may have been in short supply locally in Scandinavia, they did trade a lot. Consider Ulfbehrt swords, which are of excellent quality - the vast majority of these are found in Norway. And as you yourself point out, we have numerous examples from Vendel age, but not from viking age - and we know that Scandinavian iron production was much _higher_ in viking age. So scarcity of metal is clearly not the explanation. As for spectacle helmets attracting more spear thrusts to the eyes, that's something I've never heard before. What I have heard is re-enactors worried that spear points be diverted by the spectacle rim _into_ the eyes, but so far that has never, ever happened - because naturally re-enactors do not thrust with sharp spears at each other. In other words, this worry is purely speculative, and the eyes are certainly no _less_ vulnerable _without_ the spectacle guard. In combat, the head is commonly targeted anyway, because the head of your opponent is typically what you look at. And actually, from personal experience, the more covered up the eyes are, the less likely I am to target them. A full mask and I can't see the face, that allows me to focus my eyes on my opponent's shoulders, to try to read him. If I see the eyes, our eyes tend to lock - and the eyes thus become a more attractive target. Of course, in re-enactment, you don't actually want to hurt the opponent, and so one may actually target better armoured parts specifically - either consciously or sub-consciously. But in an actual fight with the enemy, the presence of armour not only reduces injury to the armoured parts, but actually deters attacks from those parts.
Fighting on or from longships I would not wear a chainmail. Getting into the water would mean death. So I have been wondering if they used fur/leather from seals or perhaps walrus. These types of leather have other properties then other types of leather. For example they keep you warm even if wet. But I have never seen how good it would hold up against a sword or spear. If it did well I would guess they also where used as caps/hats/helmets.
@@ArmaCookie Probably true for the battles outside Scandinavia, when the viking raided or tried to occupy areas. But in the sagas the big battles (not raiding) between the different powers in Scandinavia, was usually fought by tying their ships together at strategically important places, and fighting it out there.
It is more likely that they would have used something akin to a gambeson rather than leather or just a heavy coat if we're talking about the poorer vikings
Sir Steam True if you are thinking that they did seldom use chainmail. I think leather from seals could potentally be a very good alternative. It was available for everyone. It is waterproof. It would keep you warm even if wet. You can move around in it, we know it was used for hunting and skiing on land. And I think it may have better properties compared to other types of leather against weapons. It has both a «hard» leatherly side and a soft «furry» side. Which I imagine could give some extra protection against swords or spears. But I have never seen anybody test this against weapons...
I can't see a difference between a nasal and spectacle helmet in regards of "gravitating" spears towards the eyes. I own a Gjermundbu style, Gnezdovo type 2 with a nasal and full aventail and a simple nasal helmet without any aventail and have used all three extensively in both international codex belli reenactment fights and huscarl fights. A helmet has no effect on why strikes gravitate to the face, it is a simple fact that if you are using a shield which covers 70-80% of your body, the only viable options to strike are at the face (especially if you are wearing an open helmet) or the legs (which is only a good idea if you have a spear since diving down with a short weapon is instant death). It is totally irrelevant if you get stabbed with a spear in the eye, mouth or other parts of the face. If a spear connects with any part of your face you are either dead or out of the fight. Therefore I cannot see why a nasal would offer more protection for your face than a spectacle helmet...
Interesting video, very informative. Danish Council for Safe Traffic can add that helmets, as in Viking times (video below), still make good sense in modern times: Copy-paste, RUclips search and enjoy: *_Rådet for Sikker Trafik - "A helmet has always been a good idea"_*
Thanks for watching everyone, hope yous enjoyed the video! Be sure to check out my other videos on the Vikings and their history if you found it interesting and give me a thumbs up or considering subscribbling if you're new!
Great video, I had no idea about that last most complete Helmet. You’ve earned my subscribble-ship. But I gotta ask: where’s the rest of the Pict videos? You teased some AMAZING stories in the one on the Pictish Language....where’s parts 2/3/4?
Late roman cavalry often had face masks. Just saying. I always thought the Sutton Hoo helmet is a copy of those.
Cambridge UK represent (well one of the villages)! It's nice and sunny here too
About these helmets. For one thing they they do not always seem to have been proof against arrows and spears. The one from Gjermundbu may have been penetrated by both a spear and an arrow at some point (although the claim is it was penetrated by a sword for more super awesomeness points but realistically the primary weapon of these people was the spear, a sword was a secondary weapon). The helmet mask was very common and the best theory I've seen yet is the these masks were connected to their fear of being persecuted by the ghost of the dead because it gives very little in the way of protection and can actually serve to guide a spear into you eye which is why the closed helmets of the 12th and 13th century quickly developed eye slits rather than eye holes. When the Scandinavians became christian they also passed laws at the insistence of the catholic ecclesiarchs that banned the wearing of masks in cemeteries. These masks seem to have been worn for similar reasons, to keep the ghosts of people you treated badly in life from following you home and tormenting you. So it is entirely possible that the helmet masks was simply 'juju magic' to protect you from haunting by the people you kill. I'm not going to present this as fact but this idea of the people acquiring superpowers to make your life a misery after they die is a very common theme in Icelandic/Norwegian folk beliefs. Finally, these spectacles also disappear around the same time that they are passing these anti-masks laws. Take this with a spoon of salt but it is an interesting idea. By the 11th century most Vikings would have worn helmets indistinguishable from those being worn in Germany, Ukraine and Byzantium at the time and this would have been for the simple reason that they would have been mostly sourced in these same places, most commonly of all Germany and they seem to have been more akin to the Olmutz helmet than the one you showed a picture of. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KHM_Wien_A_41_-_Moravian_nasal_helmet,_11th_century_transparent.png Finally, judging by the surviving examples of these nasal helmets they would have been either raised from one piece of sheet metal like the Olmutz helmet or overlapping plates like the one reportedly fished out of the Thames river since these constitute the overwhelming number of survivals, not the 'spangen' type. Finally, I know there are people who will happily tell one that the Icelandic sagas are literal word for word truth but they were written 300-500 years after the event and should be taken with a large spoon of salt. Some of the ones written in the 13th century definitely describe 10th century people wearing and using 13th century kit specifically kite shields and kettle hats.
Hey Hilbert I know this is almost a week old video but why are you using the flag of Botswana in the background of some of your images?
Old vikings: HORNED HELMETS!11!
Modern vikings: what are helmets? Does my dreadlocks look good?
What conditioner do you use for your barbaric fullbeard? is it even vegan, huh?
@@nihilisticmonkeydancing9806 well, blood of christians dont seem vegan... unless its from vegans
the huge burial in Salme didn't have any helmet either but more than 30 swords.
No gambeson, no chainmail, no helmets but plenty of shieldmaidens, leather armour and open melee. Gotta love the accuracy.
Gambesons are at least real armor, but we don’t have any evidence for them in the early medieval period.
@@thescholar-general5975 We have evidence of them being used in the early medieval period but no evidence that the vikings used them though it is likely
Open mêlée: when you truly, absolutely must expose your back to every weapon wielded on the field.
@@sirsteam181 We also have evidence of maille being worn without any gambeson, with maybe a few layers of clothing or just a tunic, so it's just as likely that they didn't wear gambesons, I suspect it's a matter of personal preference, also if you tend to already dress in several layers of clothing you already have something that has the same effect as a gambeson so it's not like it's something you can't do without.
Or chainmail being worn by all the mooks who then get absolutely slaughtered despite this. Chainmail should be rare except for nobles and retainers and should be incredibly effective against swords and axes.
Maybe this spike on top of the spectacle helmet is based on a similar idea as the spike on the Prussian Pickelhaube.
When you land a downward stroke in the middle of a helmet that is vulnerable exactly there (because it's a riveted multi piece helmet or has a weak spot in a similar fashion) it might be useful to set something on top that might deflect the blow away from the centre point and add some more protective value.
I think this is very close to the truth in most likelihood.
That's a very good point there which is something I didn't touch on in the video but offers a very good explanation for its presence.
@@historywithhilbert Just an assumption, as several times in history similar solutions pop up for certain problems. Actually I never saw such a spiky spectacle or 'viking' helmet as an archeological piece in a museum and can therefore only assume that the spike is big enough to work in such a way.
By the way, really good videos, keep on the good work.
@@Finstha Yeah the angle of deflection seems important. I think strengthening it is also a very reasonable explanation.Things that are considered "Ornamental" on helmets are often there for very practical reasons that archeologists just didn't realize because they weren't martial artists. HEMA has brought alot of this stuff to view. People like Tobias Capwell at The Wallace Collection have brought great strides to understanding the context of historical arms and armor.
Definitely more plausible than "headbutting" suggested in the video...
Can you imagine someone actually putting their head and neck so much (or at all) forward of the shield and weapon?! And note that actual combat is not turn based. While you attempt to strike someone with the crown of your head tilted lower than horizontal, you can't see your opponent, who will have a very easy clear shot at your neck... Just no.
My input: Judging from the Icelandic Sagas, helmets certainly weren’t rare, but I can’t recall them ever being mentioned among grave goods, where as swords and spears are often included. This could be why so few are preserved.
Could have been a case where helmets were passed down, hence not seething them in graves. Also likely would have been picked as battle spoils.
@@connorrivers798 And or being melted down to make other goods
Of all the several 1000s of Viking Age graves that have been investigated in Scandinavia by archaeologists, both royal and common, they have only found 1 metal helmet from the Viking Age (Gjermundbu/Norway) and a few small fragments that are possibly believed to come from helmets (but not for sure). On the other hand, lots of swords, shield buckles, spears and arrowheads and other metal objects have been found, but only 1 helmet. Therefore, the vast majority of experts, archaeologists and historians agree that Vikings did not wear metal helmets, but rather leather helmets.
As for the number of men wearing them, to be fair, people often wrongly assume that when historians state that merely the elite wore helmets, that they mean very few or barely anyone.
The thing is, battles during this period most often consisted of roughly few thousand men, and the numbers of actual household men fielded by any number of landed "nobles" of whatever sort could easily ramp up into the hundreds.
Meaning that the number of men wearing extra gear(armor or helmet) could go anywhere from 10 to 30% of any fielded army at the time.
In fact, the Muslim chronicler Ibrahim ibn Yaqub
states that the 10th century warlord of Poland, Mieszko, fielded 3000 fully equipped men in his nobles retinues, armored and on horseback.
If we assume that a fully levied army of the Poles at the time could reach 6000 to 9000 men, then the amount of men in the kings retinue goes from 30-50% of the possible army. Even if we halve that, it is still a good proportion of men.
Another way to get an idea of the Viking helmets is to look at contemporary images. On these, helmets are often tapered with nose protection. This is what Sigurd Fafnesbane's helmet looks like on Ramsundsberg's rock carving; one can also identify them on Gotlandstones (including one from Lillbjärs in Stenkyrka parish) and in embroidered form on Bayeux Tapestry. Small figures from the Viking Age can also wear helmets, such as the small god image from Rällinge in Sörmland, who is believed to represent the fertility god Frej. In Sigtuna, a carved male head of moose horns was found, where the head is adorned with a conical helmet with nose guard.
6:10 any iron helmet will be effective at stopping sword cuts, chopping trough armor is a fantasy, or just to illustrate the power of the main character. Reminds me of the illustrations in the maciejowski bible, where guys are cut in half while wearing maille armor and such. I've done some testing with armor, and even 1mm mild steel is very capable of stopping crushing blows, sword cuts of course, but also spear thrusts. Overall, even bad quality iron armor is already very good against sword blows (and in fact, i think some swords were made of low carbon steel, wich has no chance of cutting trough iron).
YES! It kinda annoyed me when he said that, even if it is bad iron it will at worst be severely dented, not chopped through. And also yea the maciejowski bible makes it pretty clear that often people just want to show gore and violence and stuff, even back then. Doesn't seem likely that they could chop a great helm in two.
When an author describes individual combat in great detail, centuries after the event, be sceptical. And really, sagas do read like action movies sometimes. For example, a man is fighting multiple opponents, one of whom throws a spear at him. The man catches the spear mid-air, and immediately throws it back - going through the other guy's shield, his maille, his body, comes out the other side and impales him to the ground. Utterly fantastical, completely impossible. I believe this example was from Njål's saga.
@@Gilmaris yeah, they had fantasy stories too back in the day hehe
I don't think the point of citing that is to show that swords were easily chopping through armor All the Time at the time. I think it was just to show that there is some evidence that some people could believe it was plausible, and that that may also be tenuous evidence that the quality of the armor was worse, and therefore, not worth wearing. I don't think it's a matter of taking literature at face value.
Great vid, but you didn't touch on the notion that the reason we don't find many helmets is due to armour constantly being reused and recycled, rather than buried ceremoniously like swords. We see in Birka for example lames being processed for scrap. The amount of time and effort to make a helm that lasted would mean you'd be loathe to just bury it.
As for it being restricted to the upper classes, the Yarm helmet shows that helms of lower quality were in circulation.
14:04 no mention of chainmail possibly attached to viking helmets
Quite a lot of the reproductions do have aventails and personally I can't see why they wouldn't have had them.
There are far too many people wearing them in reenactment, as the lack of evidence for this suggests to me that Chainmail was likely a high-status item and wasting that much of it would be overly costly. I have heard an argument for rough leather skirting around the back of helmets, but again without evidence we can't be sure.
Understandably, reenactors want the best protection they can get and the polish viking groups are bloody vicious, but I just wish people would look at the existing evidence and be more honest and authentic.
@@alwayslearning3443 Chainmail probably wanst really THAT expensive so i think if you're a professional warrior you could probably affort that or maybe even do it yourself because they were very likely mending their chainmails themselves
@@ArmaCookie, in the video he actually references the scarcity of good iron in Scandanavia, which is one argument against them being cheap enough and readily available, but there is another consideration you need to take into account.
In the modern era, we can go to a hardware store or online supplier and buy the parts we need, but in those times, the only people with the requisite skills to create the small punched rings and rivets required to carry out the repairs would be smiths, so you would need to carry a suppy of spares in order to repair your kit as you went, but making an entire byrnie or full skirt aventail would be beyond most people, either on account of ability, or due to the amount of time which would be consumed by doing this.
I really don't see this as something which would be a "cheap enough" option and, unless you happen to know of a few solid examples of helms which have not been publicly displayed or analysed but clearly show full chainmail aventails, then we can't say with any conviction that this was ever done in the viking period. this is also especially supported, in my humble opinion, by the almost regressive style of helmet design evidenced by the very few finds which we have to go on.
@@alwayslearning3443 But remember that during the viking period lots of trading and pillaging was occurring so even though iron was scarce in Scandinavia doesn't mean that it was scare in general to them for many veteran vikings would have some wealth from these expeditions so it is possible
Gjermundbu could have had a mail mask attached to it, this would protect the rest of the face. Something similar to this was found on one of the vendel helmets in valsgärde
Aren't those actually from before the viking age?
I've often heard the "spectacle helmets tend to guide spears towards the eyes" thing. I've never done reenactment fighting, but it seems that if you're taking a spear to that part of the face you're done for either way? Also the bone structure around the eyes would tend to do the same?
It's to deflect arrows more than spears. Helmets don't protect you from heavy melee blows so much. But even a light helmet will do wonders for keeping arrows out of your head.
Yeah kinda weird, a spear to the face is game over anyway. I have two spectacle helmets I use for reenactment, horseback riding. And it is damn nice to have Iron cheekbones taking the inevitable glancing strikes rather than your own.
I have thought about the same thing. It really does not seem to me that the chance of getting hit in the eye is any greater with the helmet than without, but I suppose this is something someone should do some research on
I believe that the implication in this is that, having the helmet protecting your head, the person looking over a shield at you would see the eye sockets as the most obvious target for a spear thrust in the press of a shield wall, as you would struggle to get a serious swing with a sword or axe without potentially leaving an opening for a swift thrust before you can connect.
A shortened thrust to the face that hits the helm will likley glance off unless it hits either eye-sockets or manages to slide underneath the face plate and take either the cheek or mouth.
@@alwayslearning3443 Yeah but you can't have hard protection over the eyes at this period. So spectacles style is more protection than a nose bridge.
I've long posited that spikes on the tops of helmets were there mostly for a similar function as the shape of conical helmets, and in fact, conical helmets might originate from the design. One of the very few weaknesses of helmet design in general is that a particularly heavy blow straight down on the top of a helmet can still cause significant damage to the wearer's head (as with concussions and the like), neck, and spine. This is true simply because of the way the human body is designed.
However, a spike is the perfect design to place on top to redirect a blow away from straight down, and encourage the weapon to glance or slide off the helmet, instead of transferring all its force onto it. This is true of vertical, so called "hammer shots", as well as a variety of angles onto the top of the head. And if you grow this spike bigger and bigger for more coverage, a logical next step would be to just make the whole helmet in a conical shape.
That swords going through helmet part reminds me greatly of Danish royal anthem "His sword was hammering so fast,
Through Gothic helm and brain it passed..."
While there are very few finds of Viking era helmets, there are many bronze statuettes and stone carvings picturing helmets and gods wearing helmets. They are all of the conical nasal helmet type. Maybe made perky from thick leather, such decomposed over time. There are theories that the Vendel style helmet was a status symbol even in Viking times so they were inherited for generations. That’s why the few surviving pieces of helmets found in graves are of the Vendel type. Sounds quite reasonable to me.
Maybe there’s a chance we’ll find a helmet in the ship being excavated in Norway? It’s easy to imagine all kinds of things! Did not know we have so few, it makes it easy to be wrong (. Inaccurate when creating a show
Fingers crossed we will find some more!
I remember hearing that horned Viking helmets were an invention of Wagnerian Opera.
I'd add the fact that , since iron was scarce, helmets would be recycled a lot, hence why we have so few, I mean, manuscripts show all the vikings having one
I don't think any weapon could penetrate an helmet like described in the saga, if we were to beliveve those than we'd have to speculate about people dying standin proudly with arrows all over them
Vendel helms are pretty good looking
t. totally unbiased commentator
They do look badass. No idea why movies/shows set in the Viking Age hardly ever use the spectacle helmets.
Just my 2 cents - discussions in reenactment and living archaeology groups lead to the conclusion that there was a change in burial traditions - even very rich burials do not contain evidence of a helmet.
"Gå holmgång" means sort of duel. In school i was taught that when two or a few more Vikings disagreed on something they could "gå holmgång", to fight. A "holme" is a larger-ish rock in the Swedish archipelago, very much smaller than an island but definitely larger than a skär (crystal clear, right...). "gång" means to go or to walk. So the vikings that wanted to fight went to a "holme" and there they fought until first blood or death or whatever was agreed on and last one standing, who was able to walk, "gå", away had won.
How the Aztec empire effected by the Frisians a HWH documentary
Next up after that: How the Frisians influenced the samurai
Good video and how helmets evolved is also an interesting subject.
Early helmets are rare in the archaeological record and it is fascinating how different societies around the Mediterranean adopted, changed and influenced various styles. The Montefortino type helmet, most commonly used by the Romans, was actually a style adopted from the 'Celts'. The evidence for pre-historic helmets use in warfare in also rare and those that survive the archaeological record, appear to have had a function of ritual, ceremonial or high-status. Many actually offering very little protection to its wearer.
2:23
I was just thinking that the helmets look a lot like the late Roman era helmets.
I just recently discovered your channel, but it's quickly becoming one of my favourite channels on RUclips! Thanks for the great videos, keep up the good work!
Yes but the roman helmet was developed from an Etruscan helmet which was based on a type of helmet from gaul. Same goes for the origin of chainmail so chances are the Celts and Germans already had helmets with faceplates.
Wonder what Hilbert’s opinion on the Yarm helmet being a confirmed 10th century spectacle helm are?
It's almost like rohan's warriors in LOTR have more accurate viking armor/helmet than the vikings in *Viking*
Do people seriously believe that the North Germanic people who produced the vendel period helmets just suddenly stopped producing helmets when 793 hit? When the viking period began. You can see the similarities between the Gjermundbu (Viking) and Broe (Vendel) helmet. Why shouldnt helmets produced in the vendel era be passed down from father to son. Also i am pretty sure armor and helmets would be looted from dead enemies after battles.
Exactly this is what I’m trying to saying, it seems extremely stupid that they wouldn’t use at least the Vendel Type Helmets which are even more ancient than the viking ones. Tv show producers don’t study history and they make garbage representations of Scandinavian warriors all without helmets which is incredibly wrong.
Are you making the drawings yourself?
Is it that obvious ;)
@@historywithhilbert Ignorant me, I had never even thought about it until I saw the Roman character this evening. It's brilliant!
@History With Hilbert your drawings are wonderful!
I like that you mentioned that the vikings didn't have a lot of Iron. Cause that's true. However I would like to elaborate on the reason why. It wasn't because "scandinavia didn't have Iron at the time" but because where The huge swedish Iron mines are located is in Norrland, the biggest close to Kiruna. That is in swedish lappland, the lands that north germanic speakers would only come to controll in the 1300s. During the viking age there only lived sapmi there, no vikings. Swedes did however, have control over the areas where massive coppar depisites are today, at Dalarna, like Falun, and other areas. Though I don't know if those mines were opperating before the 11th century.
Bergslagen also had iron deposits and still do, its just not economically viable to exploit.
@@TheSlyngel I am sure it isn't a huge amount of easely accesseble iron though. As I am very sure there is more iron in scandinavia and the world in general than the huge depossits that are mainly being used. Asside from the economic part, that is.
Hilbert question have you ever or would you consider ever sailing on a replica of a Viking longship long distance from say England to Scandinavia or Ireland to Iceland? I'd watch that for sure if you did some vlogging.
The spectacles are most for deflecting arrows. Even with a nasal helm mail would have been attached to protect you as well by the way.
Fantastic video once again my friend
I really appreciate that thank you!
No problem :)
Please remember that the term *Vendel Period* only applies to swedish history, not all of Scandinavia. Not 'mostly' Sweden - ONLY Sweden.
In Denmark the ages goes like this:
(Nordic Bronze Age)
*Pre-Roman* (earlier known as the Celtic Iron Age) (500 - 1 BC)
*Early Roman Iron Age* (1 - 200 AD)
*Late Roman Iron Age* (200 - 400 AD)
*Early Germanic Iron Age* (400 - 550 AD), also called the Migration Period
*Late Germanic Iron Age* (550 - 800 AD)
Viking Age (800 - 1050)
(Middle Ages)
Source: Nationalmuseet
It was the danish antiquarian Christian Jürgensen Thomsen who in the 1820s came up with the three ages-system: Stone age, bronze age, iron age. Swedish archaeologist Oscar Montelius would later sub-divide the ages forther.
Nice video! Lindybeige made a padded hat when he was experimenting with mail coif. It seemed VERY protective. So that would be my guess, organic helmets and as you say, ceremonial / status use of metal helmets.
First person I heard who stated the obvious, that Vendel era helmets are pimped up Roman helmets.
Great work as always, man. I always look forward to a new video from you. Wes þu hal.
It is called the Vendel period as the helmet was found south of Vendel's Church in the municipality of Tierp in Uppland in Sweden in the Region of Uppsala ( Uppsala län)
Many vikings used the current helms from Frankland and Germany. Spangenhelms and conical helms with nasals.
The "spectacle" portion of the helmet may be for protection against a glancing or slashing blow, the eye-holes are clearly too wide to stop a direct stab, but a slash would slide across the "eyes" without hitting the eyes or face, so long as the metal held up. The same idea is for the Nasal Bar, the spectacle version has a nasal bar built into it naturally, the extra metal could be as you say decoration, to make the face seem more like a "mask", but it could just be an extension of the "nasal bar" to protect the temples and eyes from the side. Imagine a slashing blow across the front of a helmet with nasal bar, without the "spectacle" portion, if the blade is level and even as it slashes the Nasal Bar will catch it and help it slide off, but if the blade comes at an angle, while the front of the face is protected from the slash where the nasal bar is, the side of the face, from your temple to the side of your nose where the nasal bar starts just got cut open, and you just lost an eye(or your temple is split open). Add the spectacle peices to a helmet with a nasal bar and you increased the protection from slashing blows to your face. They can't catch the side of your face and get "around" the nasal bar with a slash.
I haven’t read all of the comments and replies but I think that a factor in loosing the spectacle face protection to the nasal only protection was visibility.
oho mister Hilbert knows of Bjorn, thats awesome, Bjorn is truely great person and talks soo much truth...love his vids :D
Bjorn is great, his videos are very grounding. Long live the chocolate coffee king!
Yeah I really like his videos as Ryan says, incredibly grounding.
One of my fondest memories is looking at the Sutton hoo mask in the British museum
You completely ignored attached chainmail. And the whole thing about projectile defense. Helmets were as much, if not more, about protecting from arrows than sword/spear/axe/hammer blows.
If you really think that viking helmets were ornamental and not for warfare then you are very very misguided. Head protection has been seen as upmost importance to combat going back well into the bronze age. They remind me quite a bit of samurai helmets in some ways.
OF COURSE the saga's talk about cutting through helmets. This is very likely to have occasionally happened during combat. And they are talking about super hero's in the saga essentially. Besides the point of a helmet is NOT necessarily to guard you from giant axe swings as those are likely to highly damage you. It does protect from ARROWS and other projectiles. Derp. Of course that's super important. It's also why they try to protect the eyes so much. It's also why being segmented is less of an issue. It would also protect you some from light cuts. Probably why you see such large heavy swords during this period of time.
TO SAY THAT THEY HAD NO PROTECTIVE OR COMBAT VALUE IS JUST WRONG.
I think you might have missed my point when I said that. I'm only mentioning that some historians have suggested they were only for ceremonial use rather than that's my own point of view. It's a very good point bringing missiles into the equation actually and something I didn't touch on. In terms of battles at the time we're not sure how much ranged combat (outside of throwing spears etc.) played a role in warfare as there's not that much documentary evidence for them (with notable exceptions mind you).
@@historywithhilbert Fair enough sir. I aim my comment at them instead then :P
I do enjoy your content by the way. Keep it coming!
I argue the viking horned helmet. The Oseberg Tapestry shows a man wearing a horned helmet. My belief is that they wore them during ceremonial purpose. Not war. Just because there not evidence behind glass doesn't mean its not true.
@sneksnekitsasnek better than nothing chum. Plus not you, me, or any "expert" truly know wtf they had none of us were alive back back then. So until you get a time machine I guess well never know
Yes oseberg tapestry does show a horned helm on the leader. Therefore, horned helms were used. Maybe not common, but definitely used. ruclips.net/video/8IUWvk4MuNw/видео.html
From seeing riveted helmets tested it seems they are actually much stronger than a helmet made from a single sheet of metal, and tend not to cave in, but only a plate or two will bend or possibly fall off.
It seems the nasal guard has better visibility than the raptor cover style, it would be interesting if you could compare or test the difference. Better sight can outweigh the extra armor.
7:30 my man on the rights been stabbed through the face poor guy
There's also another possibility to consider when it comes to the findings of Norse remains that have a lot of damage to the head.
It could also be a possibility that warriors who used helmets had more sufficient protection, which is to say that they may have usually been the ones that lived through battles as a result of whatever kind of head protection they were wearing. Like I said, just a possibility.
Interesting video😊 As a Norwegian historian I disagree with the suggestion that there was a small production of iron in all of Scandinavia in viking period. In fact later evidence shows that there was a huge increase in the production of iron in Norway from 9th century and outwards. You are however correct in stating that bog iron is not of the best quality- a specially compared to the Frankish iron at the time (Moseng, Opshal, Pettersen & Sandmo, 2015).
Cone shapes are good against more types of strikes which won't impact at a perpendicular most likely.
In defense of the spectacle helm, you touch on it, but it provides excellent protection of the upper 1/2 to 2/3 of the face from slashing strokes such as from a sword or axe. Sure, the spear was the king of the battlefield, but in this region, swords were a factor, and axes were common, so there is a notable protective function of them that I suspect was far more of the desirability driver than masking one's expressions, etc.
I respectfully disagree with your point on how Roman Gladiatorial helmets were what influenced helms such as Sutton Who. I am unsure if you have a proper source to back it up, which would make my comment null and void, but I believe that some Roman Cavalry helmets tended to have face masks. So perhaps the sight of these Roman cavalrymen are what many of these Germanic warriors saw and brought back home.
Btw I love this video, well researched and good as usual!
The Gjermundbu helmet is on display at the Historical Museum in Oslo: www.khm.uio.no/english/
Those are Saracen-Persian helmets and armor. When the vikings arrived in northern Spain, the chronicles said Saracens were among the Lordemanni. Also the Vikings and Persians were both called “AlMagus”
bassicly you confirmed my view that helmets were a rare Thing ammong the Vikings and that most Warriors couldnt afford them
Helmets were the first piece of equipment that many warriors would choose to wear beyond their chainmail. it's not a coincidence that large plates came first in the form of helmets.
I agree with this
I'd think warriors would chose helmet (steel or not) before any other protection.
We really don't know how common they were because of wanting evidence but we can guess that vikingrs would have a better chance at having a decent quality helmet from their expeditions
@@aaronharris1592 i agree with you on this, you can protect your body pretty well with your shield and even take a few hits to the arms/chest but you could get hit in the head once and die or get knocked out, plus helmets are a lot easier to make than byrnies and hauberks.
I'd say a solid wooden hat with padding underneath could function as a helmet, but unsure if something like that has ever shown up.
Well padding shows up in the art work from later periods. And chain mail can be worn over the head as well to keep arrows out. And the viking helmets likely had chainmail attached in parts as well.
How would the very recent find in s. Norway affect your discussion of helmets?
what are the recent findings?
10:49 you actually pronounced Oslo in the Oslo dialect. impressive!
To be fair, even the classical Greeks, whose phalanx formation almost 100% relied on spears vs spears action, had helms featuring similar eye sockets than the vendel period or spangen spectacles helmets. At the classical period, the use of spears was general and the corinthian type of helmet was most likely predominant. Yet it doesn't look like the eye socket thing was too much of an issue as they didn't change much during centuries. The similarity of both viking era/phalanx style warfare is that both heavily relied on shields (skjold and hoplon). In these cases, your main defense line is your shield, the helmet would only be a secondary defense. I think that because of this, the eventual little design flaws of the helmets would be rendered negatable in front of craftmanship traditions and stylistic matters. I think that because of shields, the eye injury from a spear point driven in by the spectacle was too rare to be an instant motive of changing the whole design of helmets. As we can see that's something that evolved on more than a century basis.
Also, the surface and/or the rim of the eye sockets of both viking era or corinthian style helmets were rarely flat metal. It was either decorated on the surface (with a lot of relief motives or grooves to catch an eventual spear point and deflect it aside), or flared, reinforced on the rims, so that metalic part would stop a drifting spear point. Now if you got stabbed right in the eye, well that would have happened if you hadn't any head protection as well, it's bad luck. I also think that the big, proeminent brows that appear on most vendel period helmets and also viking age spectacle helmets served that very purpose as well. Because when you fight using spear and shield combination, within a formation, you're gonna use upper arm spear thrust in 99% of the cases. That means the spear blows will almost always come from a higher angle, as you defend the lower part of your face behind a shield. So in that case, reinforced brow would deflect aside most of spear blows drifting near your eyes. Now again, if you get stabbed right in the eye, it's just bad luck, no type of helmet offers 100% protection without hindering your senses in return.
So the Romans, native American, japanese, mongols had horned helmets, but a society of pagan traders DEFINITELY did not EVER put horns on a helmet... Got it.
ruclips.net/video/8IUWvk4MuNw/видео.html
What starts as an item worn only by high-status warriors eventually becomes more common over time, but also more utilitarian and less adorned. This is just speculation of course, but in the later period, a lower status warrior may have had a helmet, but it may have been made of hardened leather or some other material that degrades fairly quickly. Many Vikings also found work as mercenaries in Kiev and Constantinople. Has anyone done a thorough review of their records?
Though also helmets could have been melted down to make other things which may have happened which may result in little helmet finds
Your helmet kinda reminds me of Griffith’s helmet from Berserk. Those eye holes really really give a bird of prey vibe.
Of all the several 1000s of Viking Age graves that have been investigated in Scandinavia by archaeologists, both royal and common, they have only found 1 metal helmet from the Viking Age (Gjermundbu/Norway) and a few small fragments that are possibly believed to come from helmets (but not for sure). On the other hand, lots of swords, shield buckles, spears and arrowheads and other metal objects have been found, but only 1 helmet. Therefore, the vast majority of experts, archaeologists and historians agree that Vikings did not wear metal helmets, but rather leather helmets.
Don't forget that helmets don't just protect from weapon blows. The method of production and quality of iron honestly are a reason good enough for them not being preserved to our time...
Were the Anglo-Saxons mutually intelligible with the Vikings?
Well they were Saxons which mugrated to britain and Saxons originated in northern Germany/the Netherlands so very close to the Danes and Vikings
Juan Ferreira Likely no. Saxons, Frisians, and Angles all spoke West-Germanic languages/dialects, and by the 700s there was a clear distinction between at least the North Germanic language and dialects of Scandinavia and the Southern and Western Germanic dialects of Central Europe. There is a lot of North Germanic influence in Anglo Saxon and later English, however, likely from the Jutes or later Scandinavian settlers.
@@lordmidas7279 There was some mutual intelligibility, but not 100%, that's why English has no gender because the children of Danes who married Anglo-Saxons picked up their poor Old English which led to the Modern English we speak today.
You forgot to mention the Viking age helmet from Gamla Uppsala
Thanks for this video. But it doesn't answer the biggest question I have which is : Why are there so many helmets from the Vendel period? Did they just stop making them in the viking age? It's frustrating that we've found more armor and helms before the viking age even began. I've seen some Vendel period helms in person. One with maille aventails. They seem very practical and strong.
I really like your content I hope you're reading this
Thank you so much!
Another interesting thought, the goggles on the viking helmet are used or seen as goggles to look through, a modern assumption. It is very well possible that the helmet was worn with the goggles on the back. It gives the idea that the warrior is so fierce that he or she has eyes in the back of his head. Strikingn fear to the enemy doing that is a possibility
Would it be likely that a lot of them would wear helmets/armour/weapons from the people they killed if they didn't have the resources to make their own? It's what I do on Mount and Blade.
of course
Yeah but a lot of the time they just fought peasants n shit because they preyed on those who were vulnerable, and if they did kill people with armor it might not fit them very well, everyone has different bodies.
5:45 Remember that the Icelandic sagas was written long afterwards; and often exaggerated to make the main characters look spectacular. Cutting through helmets like it's nothing is quite likely an exaggeration (like the mythical katana in modern exaggerated stories). And why would they even mention it unless it was an unlikely feat; and why would they even bother wearing them if they really was that bad?
Oh... I just realized I've actually seen this video before:.. and I've even commented almost the same thing about a year ago...
At least I'm consistent, even if I don't remember anything. lol
Maybe a dumb question why did they not use bronze for helmets or was it also in short suply
I wonder, when they switched from the spectacle to the nasal helmet, could they have done the face covering parts in an other material like leather? Makes me wonder about the existence of mixed material viking helmets in general.
That is my guess as well. The Vendel helmet was a remnant Status symbol that were inherited and sometimes it went to the grave with the owner. Those are the funds we have. Looking at stone carvings and statuettes from the Viking time however, the helmets look more like conical nasal helmets. The helmets used were perhaps made of thick leather or a mix between leather and metal. That’s why there are no examples left.
Digital exhibition from the Museum of Cultural History:
www.khm.uio.no/english/visit-us/historical-museum/exhibitions/viking-age/index.html
Unfortunately only Norwegian narration and close caption, but they show some of the objects, including the Gjermundbu-helmet. It is a short vid lower on the page, only showing some objects.
The English Catalogue however can be found here:
www.khm.uio.no/english/visit-us/historical-museum/undermappe-utstillinger/handout-vikingr-web-engelsk.pdf
Visited this exhibition in the autumn last year.
I'm sorry, but the helmet at 19:57 looks a bit odd. the face-plate is very geometrical and looks a bit like a 16bit graphics version.
The scarsity of iron would be a problem in the early viking age, but the amount of trade going on in the later viking age would solve that problem. The amount of wealth accumulated in Denmark must have been staggering! For the last hundred years, we have dug up viking age treasures almost every single year, here in Denmark. The quality of the iron is another matter. Bog iron is not "bad" (iron is iron), its what the smith do with it, thats important. And the Franks were worldclass smiths even in the Roman era, so it makes sense to import from them. Heck some scholars suggest, that the vikings imported iron from Afghanistan!! (see the Ulfberth videos here on youtube).
I feel like the guiding spear shots to the eye is kind of weird because the nasal helm wasn't an improvement because either way a spear is crunching into your face
What about the yarm helmet? It’s literally a fully complete Viking helmet that was dated to the 10th century.
I always speculate abbout, what if they inharetet helmets, to the next in line until they where totally worn down and the iron got recyceld? That would meen, that a lot of helmets later in time could be reworked helmets from the Viking age. Just a hypotheses.
The Roman equities often wore masks perhaps this was more of an influence rather than gladiatorial masks which aren't particularly similar to Wendel/Norse type helmets.
The spike on the top is to DEFLECT blows that are coming downward to prevent your helmet failing. Both proof that helmets would have failed occasionally in melee combat, and proof that they WERE used for protection. It's all about physics. You want a weapon to be deflected out at an angle so it imparts less force onto the helmet. Same reason plate armor was shaped the way it was later on. with a V in the front of the chest.
The helmet already deflects. What is the spike supposed to deflect from? Protection-wise, the spike has no value. In fact, it is a liability, because if it _does_ catch the opponent's weapon, it will either deflect the blow _to_ the head (not away from it), _preventing_ the blow from glancing off, or it will add a risk of the helmet being knocked off.
Hmmm. I'm thinking that if they had quality steel to make the weapons, then there would also be steel/ iron for armour. Be it by trade or mining, but surely if they could make good swords then the base material must have been available.
Why was the CG Roman funny? Other than the Ninja mask, I thought it was awesome. Great style (the outfit), and a cool look.
honestly that scene you showed at the beginning with no helmets is probably more accurate than ones that show everyone wearing a helmet and a mail coat.
no, professional warriors would wear alot of armor actually, especially noble ones (which were shown on that scene)
@@ArmaCookie sorry but no
@@jbussa What? weres the evidence to say that professional warriors wouldn't have lots of armor
@sneksnekitsasnek yes it is true that most soldiers were farmers, however the Nobility and Veterans of wars often stayed as soldiers or as mercenaries and as such would have used lots of armor.
Finally a good video on this controversial topic. Thank you man!
I always thought that the pfp for you channel was a soviet tank helmet with the sunglasses and mask lol
I feel the Benty Grange Helmet needs more love. Good damn Sutton Hoo stealing all the limelight! Any chance you could do a video?
I'm very doubtful about the headbutt theory, if that was the case, the spike would be located more towards the forehead.
I didn't finish watching the video. 2 mins in you started talking about people being influenced by the Romans because they had cheekplates on their helmets, even if helmets all over Europe had cheekplates on them during that time and likely inspired the Romans. As if the ancestors to the people of these modern helmet designs weren't wearing helmets with cheekplates.
Gladiatorial helmets would not really have been available to non-Roman societies. It really is the other way around: gladiatorial helmets were inspired by foreign designs.
And while good quality ore may have been in short supply locally in Scandinavia, they did trade a lot. Consider Ulfbehrt swords, which are of excellent quality - the vast majority of these are found in Norway. And as you yourself point out, we have numerous examples from Vendel age, but not from viking age - and we know that Scandinavian iron production was much _higher_ in viking age. So scarcity of metal is clearly not the explanation.
As for spectacle helmets attracting more spear thrusts to the eyes, that's something I've never heard before. What I have heard is re-enactors worried that spear points be diverted by the spectacle rim _into_ the eyes, but so far that has never, ever happened - because naturally re-enactors do not thrust with sharp spears at each other. In other words, this worry is purely speculative, and the eyes are certainly no _less_ vulnerable _without_ the spectacle guard. In combat, the head is commonly targeted anyway, because the head of your opponent is typically what you look at. And actually, from personal experience, the more covered up the eyes are, the less likely I am to target them. A full mask and I can't see the face, that allows me to focus my eyes on my opponent's shoulders, to try to read him. If I see the eyes, our eyes tend to lock - and the eyes thus become a more attractive target.
Of course, in re-enactment, you don't actually want to hurt the opponent, and so one may actually target better armoured parts specifically - either consciously or sub-consciously. But in an actual fight with the enemy, the presence of armour not only reduces injury to the armoured parts, but actually deters attacks from those parts.
Fighting on or from longships I would not wear a chainmail. Getting into the water would mean death. So I have been wondering if they used fur/leather from seals or perhaps walrus. These types of leather have other properties then other types of leather. For example they keep you warm even if wet. But I have never seen how good it would hold up against a sword or spear. If it did well I would guess they also where used as caps/hats/helmets.
Fighting on Longships was almost non existant
@@ArmaCookie Probably true for the battles outside Scandinavia, when the viking raided or tried to occupy areas. But in the sagas the big battles (not raiding) between the different powers in Scandinavia, was usually fought by tying their ships together at strategically important places, and fighting it out there.
It is more likely that they would have used something akin to a gambeson rather than leather or just a heavy coat if we're talking about the poorer vikings
Sir Steam True if you are thinking that they did seldom use chainmail. I think leather from seals could potentally be a very good alternative. It was available for everyone. It is waterproof. It would keep you warm even if wet. You can move around in it, we know it was used for hunting and skiing on land. And I think it may have better properties compared to other types of leather against weapons. It has both a «hard» leatherly side and a soft «furry» side. Which I imagine could give some extra protection against swords or spears. But I have never seen anybody test this against weapons...
was the spike a sort of Viking pickelhaube?
I didn't know there were so few viking helmets ever found
good show. thank yew.
You going uni in Cambridge ol boy?
I can't see a difference between a nasal and spectacle helmet in regards of "gravitating" spears towards the eyes. I own a Gjermundbu style, Gnezdovo type 2 with a nasal and full aventail and a simple nasal helmet without any aventail and have used all three extensively in both international codex belli reenactment fights and huscarl fights.
A helmet has no effect on why strikes gravitate to the face, it is a simple fact that if you are using a shield which covers 70-80% of your body, the only viable options to strike are at the face (especially if you are wearing an open helmet) or the legs (which is only a good idea if you have a spear since diving down with a short weapon is instant death).
It is totally irrelevant if you get stabbed with a spear in the eye, mouth or other parts of the face. If a spear connects with any part of your face you are either dead or out of the fight. Therefore I cannot see why a nasal would offer more protection for your face than a spectacle helmet...
Imagine thinking an helm wont stop a sword blow
Interesting video, very informative.
Danish Council for Safe Traffic can add that helmets, as in Viking times (video below), still make good sense in modern times:
Copy-paste, RUclips search and enjoy:
*_Rådet for Sikker Trafik - "A helmet has always been a good idea"_*
Here's link: ruclips.net/video/pD-f45TbvEw/видео.html