I think the reason the early crusader helmets had a flat top was that they were primarily used by cavalry, and so their wearers had less of a chance to get hit from above, and mainly had to worry about lances and arrows.
Weird how you missed out the secret helm, a metal skullcap worn beneath the coif and popular into the 13th century. Also strange how the enclosed helm is dubbed a crusader helmet when the first crusade wouldn't even have seen one. Also pretty sure the great helm comes between the enclosed helm and sugarloaf in development.
Hi George! We were working with the helmets that staff could access during the pandemic. We're hoping to make a video covering the 'family tree' of helmet designs. There were six Crusades which spanned several centuries (though many more smaller crusades - and an extra one if you include Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade) so even though the 'Crusader' helmet wasn't part of the first crusade it certainly was worn during the second, and probably others too. manuscriptminiatures.com/4180/8286 Here's a lovely image of the helmet depicted in the Histoire d'Outremer, 1232 - 1262. You're right though, there are loads of helmets which could be called 'crusader helmets', I guess it could also be called a flat-topped helmet. The secret helm is a fascinating helmet that many people aren't aware of, we would have loved to include it but we don't have one in our collection (both historical and replica). We'll get one and make a video exclusively about it!
Dunno if its possible to get you to answer but. For the sugarloaf, was it possible to just have a arming cap, mail coif and then the sugarloaf or was it too big and needed a skullcap underneath aswell
Hi Mark! No problem. manuscriptminiatures.com/4329/19188 manuscriptminiatures.com/4278/9274 manuscriptminiatures.com/4062/23409 manuscriptminiatures.com/5188/16562 manuscriptminiatures.com/4165/22030 Naturally, helmet design progressed and evolved to incorporate the newest features so there would have been helmets with all sorts of odd or sensible additions.
Working for a museum, our staff are usually up to their shoulders in artefacts! Sadly, this type of artefact was because of poor lighting on the greenscreen while it was being filmed.
Hi Sir Bran - thank you for engaging with us! We’d be happy to help provide some sources. While integrated coifs were the most common, there are certainly examples of separate coifs, including the following: Visible coif (1170) manuscriptminiatures.com/5815/22559 Shirt without mail coif (1175-1200) manuscriptminiatures.com/4185/12082 Mail shirt in the background with no visible coif attached (1175-1215) manuscriptminiatures.com/5833/22747 Separate coif clearly visible here (1200-1299) manuscriptminiatures.com/4195/13151 Again a shirt but no sign of an attached coif (1210-1213) manuscriptminiatures.com/4971/15405 Appears to show a mail coif worn with a tunic and no mail shirt (1225-1250) manuscriptminiatures.com/4679/12382 Separate coif clearly visible (1240) manuscriptminiatures.com/4065/7844 Mail coif visible on the child (1244-1254) manuscriptminiatures.com/4673/7986 Coifs are clearly visible among the dead (1244-1254) manuscriptminiatures.com/4673/8002 Hopefully these sources are the kind of thing you’re looking for!
Hi Robert! As with a lot of historic objects, standardised measurements weren't commonplace and armour would typically be made to the measurements and stylistic requests of an individual. This results in a surprisingly wide range of variety for each type of helmet - in the same way a Dalmatians have different spots, medieval helmets have different ocule arrangements, visor shapes, and visor sizes, etc. Here are some contemporary examples of sugar loaf helmets with larger eye holes: manuscriptminiatures.com/3943/10847 manuscriptminiatures.com/3971/10544 manuscriptminiatures.com/3971/10551 manuscriptminiatures.com/4342/18840 manuscriptminiatures.com/4373/7040 This website ^^^ is an amazing resource and I'd recommend everyone interested in medieval history have it bookmarked on their browser.
norman helms worn with a padded arming cap and a coiffe? faceplate developed because of bodkin arrows?? i dont think so lmao and that sugar loaf helm is a bohurt model and not really applicaple to the real helm.
Hello! Thank you for engaging with us! We’d be happy to help provide some sources. While integrated coifs were the most common, there are certainly examples of separate coifs, including the following: Visible coif (1170) manuscriptminiatures.com/5815/22559 Shirt without mail coif (1175-1200) manuscriptminiatures.com/4185/12082 Mail shirt in the background with no visible coif attached (1175-1215) manuscriptminiatures.com/5833/22747 Separate coif clearly visible here (1200-1299) manuscriptminiatures.com/4195/13151 Again a shirt but no sign of an attached coif (1210-1213) manuscriptminiatures.com/4971/15405 Appears to show a mail coif worn with a tunic and no mail shirt (1225-1250) manuscriptminiatures.com/4679/12382 Separate coif clearly visible (1240) manuscriptminiatures.com/4065/7844 Mail coif visible on the child (1244-1254) manuscriptminiatures.com/4673/7986 Coifs are clearly visible among the dead (1244-1254) manuscriptminiatures.com/4673/8002 Similarly, though we can't be certain what prompted the evolution of face plates on helmets there was a rise in units of archers and crossbowmen on many battlefields, presumably because of various Assizes of Arms or Ordinances during the 12th and 13th centuries which stipulated that men of certain earnings or holdings should bring to battle (bows or crossbows included). You're right about the sugarloaf helmet being a buhurt model! However it's based on an effigy of a knight from the 13th century. Again, we have to remember that helmets were part of a 'family' of that style, with different sized eye slits and features. One of the fascinating (and frustrating) things about medieval history a lack of concrete evidence.
@@NorwichCastle thank you for the reply, the first image more likely shows a ventail than a seperate coiffe, having a hauberk without a coiffe is also not evidence for separate coiffes existing and the ready are 13th century when separate coiffes were completely a thing
@@caradocewing4434 Hi Caradoc. The precise armour from the early medieval era is incredibly difficult to document definitively due to a lack of surviving examples. Similarly, contemporary sources can be interpreted in a range of different ways. There's a piece written by Stephen Lowe about whether there were separate coifs which uses the Bayeux Tapestry as a source. Again, there seems to be indications that there were separate coifs as well as integrated ones. www.angelfire.com/empire/egfroth/HastingsCoifs.htm Difficult to prove, but also difficult to rule out.
“Or as the Normans would say:
*voilà!* “
That’s some really clever writing.
I think the reason the early crusader helmets had a flat top was that they were primarily used by cavalry, and so their wearers had less of a chance to get hit from above, and mainly had to worry about lances and arrows.
I heard that a flat top hairstyle was popular at the time so they had a flat top instead
Weird how you missed out the secret helm, a metal skullcap worn beneath the coif and popular into the 13th century. Also strange how the enclosed helm is dubbed a crusader helmet when the first crusade wouldn't even have seen one. Also pretty sure the great helm comes between the enclosed helm and sugarloaf in development.
Hi George! We were working with the helmets that staff could access during the pandemic. We're hoping to make a video covering the 'family tree' of helmet designs.
There were six Crusades which spanned several centuries (though many more smaller crusades - and an extra one if you include Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade) so even though the 'Crusader' helmet wasn't part of the first crusade it certainly was worn during the second, and probably others too.
manuscriptminiatures.com/4180/8286 Here's a lovely image of the helmet depicted in the Histoire d'Outremer, 1232 - 1262.
You're right though, there are loads of helmets which could be called 'crusader helmets', I guess it could also be called a flat-topped helmet.
The secret helm is a fascinating helmet that many people aren't aware of, we would have loved to include it but we don't have one in our collection (both historical and replica). We'll get one and make a video exclusively about it!
Excellent work!
nice video.
I love this channel
Thank you!
Dunno if its possible to get you to answer but.
For the sugarloaf, was it possible to just have a arming cap, mail coif and then the sugarloaf or was it too big and needed a skullcap underneath aswell
That Norman joke was the last straw. Consider me subscribed 👍
Who used the Sugarloaf helmet? Anyone?
Hi! I didn't know sugarloaf great helms had visors that could be lifted, do you guys have a source for that? Would love to see it if you do!
Thanks!
Hi Mark! No problem.
manuscriptminiatures.com/4329/19188
manuscriptminiatures.com/4278/9274
manuscriptminiatures.com/4062/23409
manuscriptminiatures.com/5188/16562
manuscriptminiatures.com/4165/22030
Naturally, helmet design progressed and evolved to incorporate the newest features so there would have been helmets with all sorts of odd or sensible additions.
That's fantastic, I learned something new! Thanks for that, I've now subscribed!
Great content, but there are some weird artifacts, particularly around your shoulders.
Working for a museum, our staff are usually up to their shoulders in artefacts! Sadly, this type of artefact was because of poor lighting on the greenscreen while it was being filmed.
Would the chainmail coif be weared on the skin or would be a padding still beneath it?
Apart from that: Great Video, thx!
Padding underneath. There would be an arming cap it would be worn over.
without padding it would literally peel your scalp off lol
Separate mail coifs? Hmmm having a hard time finding sources stating or showing that in Crusader Era.
Hi Sir Bran - thank you for engaging with us! We’d be happy to help provide some sources.
While integrated coifs were the most common, there are certainly examples of separate coifs, including the following:
Visible coif (1170) manuscriptminiatures.com/5815/22559
Shirt without mail coif (1175-1200) manuscriptminiatures.com/4185/12082
Mail shirt in the background with no visible coif attached (1175-1215) manuscriptminiatures.com/5833/22747
Separate coif clearly visible here (1200-1299) manuscriptminiatures.com/4195/13151
Again a shirt but no sign of an attached coif (1210-1213) manuscriptminiatures.com/4971/15405
Appears to show a mail coif worn with a tunic and no mail shirt (1225-1250) manuscriptminiatures.com/4679/12382
Separate coif clearly visible (1240) manuscriptminiatures.com/4065/7844
Mail coif visible on the child (1244-1254) manuscriptminiatures.com/4673/7986
Coifs are clearly visible among the dead (1244-1254) manuscriptminiatures.com/4673/8002
Hopefully these sources are the kind of thing you’re looking for!
@@NorwichCastle Ahaha! Destroyed!
@@NorwichCastle What about the Norman invasion of England? There were no separate mail coifs then.
That sugarloaf helmet looks strange… it can’t be authentic. The eye slits seem too large.
Oh i didnt even see that your right
Hi Robert!
As with a lot of historic objects, standardised measurements weren't commonplace and armour would typically be made to the measurements and stylistic requests of an individual. This results in a surprisingly wide range of variety for each type of helmet - in the same way a Dalmatians have different spots, medieval helmets have different ocule arrangements, visor shapes, and visor sizes, etc.
Here are some contemporary examples of sugar loaf helmets with larger eye holes:
manuscriptminiatures.com/3943/10847
manuscriptminiatures.com/3971/10544
manuscriptminiatures.com/3971/10551
manuscriptminiatures.com/4342/18840
manuscriptminiatures.com/4373/7040
This website ^^^ is an amazing resource and I'd recommend everyone interested in medieval history have it bookmarked on their browser.
norman helms worn with a padded arming cap and a coiffe? faceplate developed because of bodkin arrows?? i dont think so lmao and that sugar loaf helm is a bohurt model and not really applicaple to the real helm.
Hello! Thank you for engaging with us! We’d be happy to help provide some sources.
While integrated coifs were the most common, there are certainly examples of separate coifs, including the following:
Visible coif (1170) manuscriptminiatures.com/5815/22559
Shirt without mail coif (1175-1200) manuscriptminiatures.com/4185/12082
Mail shirt in the background with no visible coif attached (1175-1215) manuscriptminiatures.com/5833/22747
Separate coif clearly visible here (1200-1299) manuscriptminiatures.com/4195/13151
Again a shirt but no sign of an attached coif (1210-1213) manuscriptminiatures.com/4971/15405
Appears to show a mail coif worn with a tunic and no mail shirt (1225-1250) manuscriptminiatures.com/4679/12382
Separate coif clearly visible (1240) manuscriptminiatures.com/4065/7844
Mail coif visible on the child (1244-1254) manuscriptminiatures.com/4673/7986
Coifs are clearly visible among the dead (1244-1254) manuscriptminiatures.com/4673/8002
Similarly, though we can't be certain what prompted the evolution of face plates on helmets there was a rise in units of archers and crossbowmen on many battlefields, presumably because of various Assizes of Arms or Ordinances during the 12th and 13th centuries which stipulated that men of certain earnings or holdings should bring to battle (bows or crossbows included).
You're right about the sugarloaf helmet being a buhurt model! However it's based on an effigy of a knight from the 13th century. Again, we have to remember that helmets were part of a 'family' of that style, with different sized eye slits and features.
One of the fascinating (and frustrating) things about medieval history a lack of concrete evidence.
@@NorwichCastle thank you for the reply, the first image more likely shows a ventail than a seperate coiffe, having a hauberk without a coiffe is also not evidence for separate coiffes existing and the ready are 13th century when separate coiffes were completely a thing
@@caradocewing4434 Hi Caradoc.
The precise armour from the early medieval era is incredibly difficult to document definitively due to a lack of surviving examples. Similarly, contemporary sources can be interpreted in a range of different ways.
There's a piece written by Stephen Lowe about whether there were separate coifs which uses the Bayeux Tapestry as a source. Again, there seems to be indications that there were separate coifs as well as integrated ones.
www.angelfire.com/empire/egfroth/HastingsCoifs.htm
Difficult to prove, but also difficult to rule out.