Main > The Armoury
My Armor kit - Historical Fiction?
Mike W.:
In regards to painted great helms and spangenhelms, there may be no surviving examples, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I tend to accept the theory that a few helms were painted. The Mac bible seems to be fairly detailed in many other aspects, so I'm inclined to believe it is not artistic interpretation. Additionally, painted helms serve the practical purpose of preventing rust and aiding in identification. Though, I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to say it was the norm, but I do believe it constituted a significant minority. Then again, I'm more of a 19th ce historian than a medievalist, so I am no expert on the topic.
Ian:
--- Quote from: Baron de Magnan on 2014-05-14, 14:16:09 ---...the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
--- End quote ---
Famous last words in the Living History world :)
Sir Wolf:
careful. you tread on heresy with them words. richard the 3 was in fact at a tacobell and not at bosworth field
Sir Edward:
There are also references from around the 13th century to colored armor (such as a particular knight having "red armor", etc). Since most of the armor was mail, there are only a few possible explanations, including painted helms, or the possibility of it being a reference to the surcoat, or both.
One of the problems we run into is that there is very little that survived from this period. Not many great helms survived at all, and practically none from the middle of the 13th, around the time of the Mac bible. Most of the helms and many of the weapons depicted simply have no surviving examples at all.
Sir Martyn:
To me seems quite plausible they would have used paint (when where available of course) for decorative reasons as well as to help ID people - given how crazy things got on the field in a fight, every bit would help - as well as for additional protection from rust.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version