The Devereux retinue.

Yourselves, events, parties, costumes...

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Simon_Diment
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:48 pm
Location: Nottingham
Contact:

Post by Simon_Diment »

I'm obviously having a senior moment, it's Martins kit I seem to be commenting upon rather than Zachos :roll:
Zachos

and it is Martins choice to wear his sugar loaf for tournament as he feels safer in it.

I probably won't be at lanark by the way. I really do later period, and just dress up in earlier when really needed. I don't even have an early style helmet Sad
He feels safer in it? :shock: wouldn't like to get on the wrong side of you lot then if he feels that way :twisted:

What size head are you Zachos? We have enough spare kettle helms to lend you one if you wanted to go to Lanark I'm sure.

As Paul said you've started out well, it's easier and cheaper in the long run to get the kit right in the first place, the cost difference is minimal in most cases - one thing I never understood about the prevalence for charity shop blankets made into kit when a piece of decent fabric from a trader looks more authentic and costs almost the same.
Bitter and Twisted IS a lifestyle option!
www.angevin.org

User avatar
Zachos
Posts: 424
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:34 pm

Post by Zachos »

Agreed with the higher price thing. Many people I know have loads of kit they don't want to wear anymore because they bought the first thing they saw. I try and avoid impulse buys, and go for something I like and feel comfortable in. Of course it does help that my mother is a proficient sewer who hand sews all my soft kit, giving me more cash to go on the tin foil :D

Martin feels safer wearing his sugarloaf while doing full contact tourneys of the lancaster variety, and so likes his sugarloaf for most things.

As for head size the answer is big, plus I have long hair which increases the size again. Although I had forgotten that kettlehelms are an early design and that one is floating around my house. Just wondering what kind of date kettle helms gained an extended back, making it look like a tear-drop from the top, as thats the style I have?

As for high standards, with you guys around I guess I'll have to go for the very highest :D


Zac
Slowly realizing just how far is still to go.

User avatar
Simon_Diment
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:48 pm
Location: Nottingham
Contact:

Post by Simon_Diment »

I'd have to see a picture of it before making a comment on the design.

Flattery will of course get you nowhere unless there's alcohol involved too! 8)
Bitter and Twisted IS a lifestyle option!
www.angevin.org

guthrie
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: Polmont-Edinburgh

Post by guthrie »

Zachos wrote: Of course it does help that my mother is a proficient sewer who hand sews all my soft kit, giving me more cash to go on the tin foil :D
Jammy git!

If your wanting to de-zincify your mail, I'd like to have a go. I know where i can get some chemicals from as well....

User avatar
Chris, yclept John Barber
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:23 pm
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Post by Chris, yclept John Barber »

lidimy wrote:What's a great helm...?
Although Paul gave you a couple of good examples, a generalised definition of a great helm is one which covers the full head down to jaw height, with a full circumference of steel around most of its height. The full helm is more cylindrical than shaped: it doesn't taper in towards the neck.

So a barbute, for example, doesn't count: that's one of those cylindrical helmets with a T-shape cut out over the eyes, nose, and mouth. (Like the classical Greek helmets.) Because the T-slot extends all the way to the bottom, it's not a full helm.

Nor does the kind of nut-helm (covers the skull) with a facemask but no back.

Bascinets cover the full head, but are shaped to curve inwards, giving you a head-shaped head. They don't count either.

If it looks like you've punched eye-holes in a bucket and put it on your head, that's a full helm. Some have flat tops, others cones, some are rounded. It's the shape and extent of the sides that matters.

And if they are properly padded for your head, you can see out of them surprisingly well. It's like looking through a letterbox: your eyes are close enough to see most of the world beyond.

But you can't hear anything, and everything you say comes out "mumble mumble murfle mrr." That's why I don't use one! :D
Of course he has a knife. He always has a knife. We all have knives - it's 1183 and we're barbarians.

User avatar
Biro
Post Centurion
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:10 pm
Location: North-East

Post by Biro »

Chris, yclept John Barber wrote:
And if they are properly padded for your head, you can see out of them surprisingly well. It's like looking through a letterbox: your eyes are close enough to see most of the world beyond.
It's also surprising how much movement you can see through the breaths (breathing holes) too. Always one of the first things I look at on greathelms (or faceplate helms). My old one wasn't padded at all - I had padding under my coif and just rammed the greathelm on top using the compressed padding and friction to hold it in place - worked surprisingly well. But then it was fairly small sized - as greathelms go...

They were designed to take (and deflect) thristing blows to the face (arrows/lances/spears) but the flat-topped ones were weaker on top.

Historically, many of them were large enough to go over padding, coif and cervellier (sp?) or a bascinet. Often worn when mounted during the charge or at jousts and then removed for foot combat or close-up - leaving the head still relatively well protected by what was under it. The wearer often risking the chance of taking a thrust to the face for the benefit of good visibility.

User avatar
Zachos
Posts: 424
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:34 pm

Post by Zachos »

What is the concensus on great helms being chained to the knight in some way?
Slowly realizing just how far is still to go.

User avatar
Biro
Post Centurion
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:10 pm
Location: North-East

Post by Biro »

Zachos wrote:What is the concensus on great helms being chained to the knight in some way?
Not toally sure. I havn't seen it in 13thC, but I understand it was reasonably common in the Holy Roman Empire during the 14thC. They were pretty keen on chaining weapons over there too.

I honestly can't speak for outside of the HRE in 14thC or outside of the 14C in the HRE.. if you follow that. It's just a snippet I picked up somewhere.

Maybe someone else can clarify..?

User avatar
PaulMurphy
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:40 am
Location: Cambridgeshire
Contact:

Post by PaulMurphy »

I've often wondered about that, as the examples which are usually quoted don't make any sense to me - the classic example (the reference escapes me at work) has a trefoil or quatrefoil piercing in the plate, through which the chain is threaded. Now, if I was attaching a chain to a helmet, I'd have a hole which was only just big enough for the limb of a link to fit through, rather than having something which is only just capable of holding it. Plus, the thought of having a piece of chain projecting through the helmet just in front of my teeth doesn't fill me with confidence...

Apart from the look of the thing, I'm not convinced that your ability to survive in combat is helped by having your helmet swinging about at kneecap or bollock height after it has been removed/knocked off, especially as the helmet probably weighs 4-5 pounds all in. Doing that on horseback, or having a sword waving around on a chain, is more than likely to get you killed by your horse as it throws you in panic, or by a random blow from the sword as it bounces.

So, my conclusion is that it could be a liability, and I'm inclined to wonder whether some Victorian curator decided that it was a good idea and added the chain to demonstrate his theory...

Paul.
Paul Murphy
Tournée & The Vikings
______________________________________

User avatar
lidimy
Post Knight
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: Flitting between the centuries.
Contact:

Post by lidimy »

Thanks Chris :D
'As long as you have a coif on, you're decent.' Image

User avatar
Greg G.
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: a damn yank - but not by choice

Post by Greg G. »

Zachos,
No need in using a lot of harsh chemicals to rid yourself of the zinc. Soaking the mail in plain white vinager will do the trick. You may have to do it a couple of times to get it all off, but it does work. Just make sure you do it in a place that's open because the fumes that come off will be very nasty. Nice kit from my point of view - with what the others have said. Best of luck!

User avatar
Biro
Post Centurion
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:10 pm
Location: North-East

Post by Biro »

PaulMurphy wrote:I've often wondered about that, as the examples which are usually quoted don't make any sense to me - the classic example (the reference escapes me at work) has a trefoil or quatrefoil piercing in the plate, through which the chain is threaded. Now, if I was attaching a chain to a helmet, I'd have a hole which was only just big enough for the limb of a link to fit through, rather than having something which is only just capable of holding it. Plus, the thought of having a piece of chain projecting through the helmet just in front of my teeth doesn't fill me with confidence...

Apart from the look of the thing, I'm not convinced that your ability to survive in combat is helped by having your helmet swinging about at kneecap or bollock height after it has been removed/knocked off, especially as the helmet probably weighs 4-5 pounds all in. Doing that on horseback, or having a sword waving around on a chain, is more than likely to get you killed by your horse as it throws you in panic, or by a random blow from the sword as it bounces.

So, my conclusion is that it could be a liability, and I'm inclined to wonder whether some Victorian curator decided that it was a good idea and added the chain to demonstrate his theory...

Paul.
Some things do make sense though..

Chaining weapons when on horseback. The sword is probably your last resort weapon - if you drop it, you're probably shafted. The last thing you wanna do in the middle of a battlefield is stop your hoss and dismount to pick it up. The sword would be scabbarded if intentionally not used - so not really a liablility.

On the helm, I think most cases I have saw showed the chain joined at the bottom, front - which means in front of the neck - below the chin. It's not really gonna catch anything there. Also again taking your helm off.. Equiping a knight was expensive - it may just be a case of not wanting to lose it (possibly same with weapons too) - or maybe having it at hand to put on again if you need to face another barrage of arrows... or a bit of both.

But I do think your points have merit, and that it seems to have not been universal may well mean that there were both pro's and cons for it, the cons probably outweighing the pros.

Brian

Post Reply