here is a painting from an Italian artist; the year is 1367. We can see a soldier in the top right corner wearing a basinet with a very simple visor. The visor looks like the one we can usually find mounted on a "sugar loaf helm" (the one in randall moffett's avatar i think http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/images/avatars/...e938.jpg), but the helm might be not of that kind because it seems to be opened on the chin (it's a basinet indeed). Actually, the chin is covered by a mail aventail NOT depicted on the other basinets in the same painting.
Does anybody have proof of the effective existence of this particular helm?
Is this a sugar loaf helm with an extra aventail on it?
Or is it a basinet with a visor?

---

 Attachment: 15.59 KB

Alessio,

To the best of my knowledge, nothing exactly like it has survived. On the other hand, the helmet on the soldier just to the (viewer's) right is a type which is represented be several survivals. Since there is nothing impossible, or even unlikely about the visored helmet, and the artist seems to be trustworthy, I think we will have to consider this painting as the only "proof" we are likely to get.

In short, I believe this is probably a more or less accurate depiction of a real helmet. It's been a long time since 1367, and not much from that time has survived. Sometimes we have to be glad to have even a picture.

Mac

To second Robert's opinion, I would have to say that I think it is more or less a depiction of a real helmet.

This raised a few questions in my head, which I will list along with my answers.

If this is a real helmet, then why is he the only one wearing it?

It would not be illogical to think that he is the first one to visor his helmet in this way. Armour designs/fashions had to start somewhere, so why would it be so far-fetched to think that they experimented with various visors and aventails in 1367? Perhaps the knight depicted in the painting was considered eccentric, or since it was a revolutionary design, it caught in the painter's mind and he depicted it as best as he could remember.

If it is a real helmet, why are there no surviving pieces?

As stated above, if this was a prototype or experimental design, there may have only been a few of this type made before they redesigned it and tried something better. Also, as Robert said, there are precious few surviving relics anyway, so It would not be hard to believe that if there was only a few made that they might have perished, thus being in a sense, "erased from history", except for the painting.


That's my two cents.

Cheers!

Alessio,

I think Robert has said it all basically.

I have no doubts that these types of bascinets were very common. Very, very little armour from pre 1450 exists. The huge bulk of armour that is still around is after this date. The earlier from 1450 the less likely you are to find much about still.

I think if you look at earlier artwork you might find more similar bascinets. There actually appears to be a wide array of bascinet types from the 1360s and before, with a number of different visors as well. This type of helmet is all over artwork and effigies. It would be very unlikely to have such exposure and not have existed. It also fits in very well as a earlier stage in bascinet development as well so I think there little reason to dount it was real.

I use the term sugarloaf occasionally but have slowly gotten away from it. The problem I see between identifying a sugarloaf, which seems to be a conical top great helm to a early form bascinet as many look very similar and can have movable visors. I spent some time doing a small research paper on my MA looking over arms and armour in English artwork of the 14th and especially pre 1320 its a hard task at times. That said in many cases I think it rests entirely on a few random definitions that changes scholar or reseacher to another.

The visored to unvisored helmet question is more complex and I do not know exactly why. All I do know is one can use English MSs from 1300-1400 and find at least one sidemounted visor in each decade with little problem. My guess is that unvisored and visored bascinets have more or less always existed side by side. Vision, breathing, etc. likely the main reason. Even in late 14th and in 15th century art where visors were very popular you see the same situation. Why? Who knows.

If we based history solely on artefacts for arms and armour we'd likely be really representing 5% or less of what really existed. Artwork and literature make up a huge part of our understanding of material culture. They have their pitfalls and issues but so do artefacts.

My avatar picture is based on a few MSs but primarily on the Taymouth Hours a 1325-1335 MS from England.

RPM

Greetings.

I'm doing research on "Sugar loaf helmet" for 13th century and I need some help with period of existence for that helmet and historical references. Some drawings and pictures on first models of sugar loaf helmet would be great .

Currently I found that this helmet lived in period from 1260 to 1320. Found some photos but they all with opening visors, which is for 14th century.

Thanks.

This page, maybe?

http://home.scarlet.be/~klauwaer/helm/

Thank you very much! That is very useful resource, I'm in your debt now :)

My own theory (unsubstantiated as it is) would be similar to the rationale behind the decided lack of surviving falchion examples: they were so prevalent (and therefore useful) that most ended up broken or used up on the battlefields.

It could be that since this was such an early form of visor that they hadn't quite perfected the attachment thereof, and since rivets are a notoriously weak point of any armor, that they were often damaged in the course of battle. Truth is, the visor offered only token protection to the face and were quite a hindrance to breathing, which was an important part of any melee.

Period painters often made one individual in a painting stand out for one reason or another (after all, that's the whole point of crests and coats-of-arms), and it could be that the whole idea of placing a differentiated helm on this individual served no other purpose than to set him apart from those around him. Either way, I can't say that I have seen this type of visor in similar paintings of the same period, and it begs some further research.

Christian

A similar visor almost exactly the same can be seen in a few places but here is the easiest on I could get up from off the top of my head. Philip de la Beche died 1327. His visor is almost exactly the same. Sadly I cannot find a side or top view.

http://www.themcs.org/armour/14th%20century%20armour.htm

The only real difference is that while most visors in art and effigies etc. show a lower wider bottom section while the one you are looking a is much smaller.

RPM

Here's an interesting piece. I'm not convinced that the visor matches the helmet though. It's more of a venetian sallet or barbute of the corinthian style although with a point at the top. It would seem more fitting in the 15th century to me.

---

 Attachment: 41.82 KB

If you look at the Pistoia Alter piece there are lots of bits before they would be expected.

---

 Attachment: 81.85 KB



 Attachment: 53.34 KB

This helmet could be a form between simple helmet with chain-mail collar and bascinet. Such visors are typical fo bascinets. According to knowledge available in Poland there were such forms of helmets. Unfortunately there's no original evidence (for now, this could be chaneed in future), only on paintings from this period.
I don't know exactly what is shown on that painting. But helmets from medieval Russia and nera countiries are very strange. Sometimes you can think that they are fantasy helmets but they are original. In Poland we have found a visor that is human face shaped.