Crusader helmets 

So are you telling me that the scene of monty python in wich arthur, the king of the britons, bashed the flat top of the helmet of the black knight and stunned him is somewhat realistic?

2:36 I like when he starts wearing this helmet and braces it with his thumb. It looks like a medieval reporter out in the field. News anchor: "We now go to our reporter out in the field, Alfonsus. Alfonsus." Alfonsus: "Thank you Pierre. As you can see the sun is beating down on us and many of the crusaders are suffering from heat stroke." Pierre: "I can tell. I'm feeling a little parched myself from watching you out there." Alfonsus: "Couldn't agree more. We will be taking Jerusalem fairly soon so hopefully when you hear from us again it will be from Mount Zion. Back to you Pierre." Pierre: "Thank you Alfonsus. I like the enthusiasm. Deus Vult and hope to hear from you soon."

"We will invade Jerusalem at noon" The entire army: 4:53

"The best choice for fighting Saracens and beheading heretics!" -Your friendly neighbourhood crusader

"It doesn't ring like a bell because it's got my head stuffed in it." I want that on a tee shirt now.

I can imagine medieval battles being pretty loud with all the bashing, metal-ringing, screaming and dying, so not being able to hear so well might be of some advantage.

"Hypotesis: the flat helm design was so that they didn't mess up their trendy flat-top haircuts" Every warrior will tell you: style>protection

2:19 - I'll take this one, please. - Anything else? - Jerusalem.

Ah, so you've got a chess piece, Swaggersouls, and the Whiterun guard. Fascinating.

0:57 PRAISE THE SUN

Blacksmith: "if you experience any problems with this design of the helmet, let me know." Crusader: Doesn't tell the blacksmith about his broken neck. Mystery solved.

I can tell you one advantage of the flat top helmets. They look really fucking cool.

" I don't need to look up for my father in heaven looks for me DEUS VULT!!!"

Ever since I was a little kid, these have been my favourite helmet designs from an aesthetic perspective.

In case of a sudden Crusade, which helmet you would advice me to get?

Maybe the flat tops were quicker to produce for the large amounts of soldiers

So... not wearing a helmet in battle appears to be a stupid idea, because any blow to the head is sure to kill you. But... wearing a helmet in battle also seems like a stupid idea, since you can't see or hear properly, and it's hot and heavy, and it hampers your breathing quite a bit, and puts strain on your neck... Huh... I'm lost. Medieval fashion is a lot harder to wrap your head around than I figured...

Instruction unclear. I ended up cooking pancakes on the flat top helmet

All i think of is SwaggerSouls

Could the flat top have been an attempt to mass produce the helmets, and so use less materials? I don't imagine it'd save much, but hey, churn out 10 flat topped helmets, and perhaps you've saved enough metal to make an eleventh one, with all those conical tops you've not been making! Perhaps to the detriment of the troop, but as you mentioned a blow DIRECTLY to the top of the head probably wasn't particularly common.

2:20! so incandescent.

Helmet 1: DEUS VULT! Helmet 2: DEUS VULT! AVE MARIA! Helmet 3: DEUS VULT!! AVE MARIA!! *powerwolf in the name of God intensifies*

LINDYBEIGE! (Triumphant music) - Gotta love that. I currently live in Israel and I did a bit of studies in history and archaeology here over the years. I can tell you that on hot summer days, I never, ever, fail to think about what it must have been like for crusaders wearing full armor in this country. I cannot actually fathom the heat stress they must have been under wearing all that steel. It must have literally felt like being in an oven. What stuns me even more, when I think about it, is how much _more_ of a shock it must have been to the Crusaders who came over from Europe. They had never even conceived of heat and humidity this brutal. It truly must have been a living hell for most of them in the summer (Well, for those in full armor. Most soldiers couldn't afford full armor of course).

The flat top doubled as a drinks tray.

Let's go fight in the desert dressed in chainmail that heats in the sun and with massive toasters on our heads! Huzzah!!

Polnareff approves the final message. I will make a helmet tall enough for his dope haircut.

2:15 "Ah, hello. You don't look hollow, far from it."-Solaire of Astora, Dark Souls

When the Orochi Heavy attacks but you've already charged at him from across the map

no wonder knights had PTSD. you would end up really Claustrophobic in that gear.

Helmets generally are quite bothersome. Try sprinting with a modern military helmet. But ofc having no helmet would kinda suck once you get an arrow stuck in your eye

2:17 my personal favorite

Conical metal is harder to smith. Flat tops were easier and thus cheaper.

DEUS VULT! END THEM RIGHTLY!

Now brothers.... Now we know what kind of helmets we need to retake Jerusalem!!! ✊🏼❤️

Part of this however is simply incorrect. The sugarloaf was just a variant of the Great Helm, it was not the dominant helm, even into the 14th century. So-called bucket helms remained in use for about two centuries, probably the most well documented example of a late Great Helm is the Black Prince's armor. Instead they developed a stacked, staggered skullcap in the 14th century, a slightly conical top that bled into an angle before reaching the main face-plate. Lloyd also forgot to mention that Great Helms, at least the two that he showed, were not primary helmets, but secondary helms. They were worn over a metal skullcap in that era, and typically worn just in the charge. After the charge they'd whisk them off, remaining connected to their bodies by metal chain. Thereby they could properly fight with a sword, and would slap the helmet back on their heads when the protection was needed, such as against arrow fire or spears.

Meanwhile in the distance: *DEUS VULT*

1:17 - it’s probably a advantage to not the ground, imagine while you fighting you accidentally step on the head of you dead friend which few minutes ago he was still alive .

The flat helmet is considerably easier to manifacture than the latter type. So, my speculation is: - they started with a cheap design, but gradually realized that the enemy was strong and investing in better armor was worth it. - Crusades were becoming more frequent, thus the industry to back them up grew as well and made complex designs affordable.

So they were so worried about potential eye injuries that they decided it was best to blind themselves with armour. Clever.

2:15 praise the sun 🌞

Just a quick note for those wondering if these aren't too heavy: It really depends on how long you wear them, and in any case is a risk-reward equation. To a horseman staring a lance in the face would possibly prefer a heavier helmet. My modern example would be a Russian helmet from the early '90s, the Altyn. Designed primarily for breach-and-clear runs by the FSB, it came with a welding-glass like visor and weighed a *ton.* Operatives repeatedly stated they could only wear the damn thing for about an hour. The thing is this; there were two variants, a titanium and an aluminum alloy. Every man given the choice took the heavier helmet, reducing his ability to move and see but at the same time bettering his chances of eating a 7.62 Russian and living to tell the tale. For a lancer, the situation is similar: they don't face constant danger in a melee, they face a short sharp burst of violence and as such a heavier helmet that you can later take off is a small price to pay for increased safety.

0:30 bet they had full blown conversations with themselves.

DEUS VULT

you look badass in these helmets lindy

Lindy pulls out the helmet with the smaller eye slits that prevent a spear or sword from being stuck right into your face "I like this one considerably less, I can't see"

A reasonable guess as to why crusaders used flat top helmets inbetween uses of rounded tops is the rounded tops in many cases had to be hammered into shape which was long hard and expensive work while simply riveting (for lack of a better word) metal to metal at an angle was very easy and cheaper to make

Flat top designs were due to being only afforded by the nobility, who was fighting mounted and a blow to the top was not a concern. Low visibility/hearing as well, as they only needed to ride and the clatters of horse hooves was loud enough to reach them. The pointy-read design evolved as they started to fight dismounted more often, as they found their heavy cavalry often sabotaged by light cavalry of the enemy.

I think a possible large part to explain these design aspects is that these helmets may be primarily ment for cavalry use. Specificly heavy cavalry while charging. So being as protected as possible as you race towards an enemy is the priority, and if they get into a melee, they take them off.

Wife: I wanna put on something sexy tonight you know to make the bedroom more fun Me: I hope it is what I think it is Wife: doesn’t put on armor Me: I want a divorce

Since you generally dont seem to be fond of this helmet type (fully enclosed), could it be for intimidation? Creating fear in the enemy that are unable to see your face? Even in this video i have difficulties seeing your eyes and youre not even moving. I'd like to see the face of my opponent, i mean you can tell a lot about what is going on in your opponents mind aswell, by seeing his face, looking him in the eyes. Does he look exhausted, is he actually intimidated by me fighting him fiercely? I never LARPed, but i would imagine that in fighting (like in playing poker) eyes and facial expressions can tell you a lot about the enemies mindset and it can help predicting his movements (sure his movements alone help with that, too). Or did the Saracens like to shoot a ton of arrows? So the crusaders though, well, we might not be able to move in this stuff, but at least we dont receive critically arrow hits. Plus, on a horse you're movement is quite hindered already... and your horse is probably doing the hard work all alone, anyway (trampling them down). I know that was bit later, but the Teutonic knights also looked very mystical in their helmets. Some wore horns on them (according to pictures that i've seen in books and on google). That might explain the flat top design, as in, it's easier to attach a (3D) miniature of Lord's banner emblem (a bear, a swan, bull head, wings, feathers, you name it), just like the Teutonics did with their horns? I'd rather have a flat top, than having to bend or carve the miniature bottom, in order to fit it on the conic helmet design... just some thoughts, i didnt do research.

2:34 SON ARE YOU STUDYING IN THERE!!!

Now I know why in Game of Thrones they always took off the helmets to speak unless they had one of those open faced helmets.

Flat is easier to make and it will take less materials.

When you add the woven heavy cloth with chain male and plate armor, you have a load. Then you have to fight in it. Modern soldiers trade the weight of armor with as much or more gear, weapons and ammunition. When I was a young man, 29 years ago, it seemed easy.

I keep thinking that the sugarloaf style of helmet would be better at deflecting a blow like you say, but that the deflected blow would likely send the sword down into the wearers shoulder, no?

The 2nd one for swag

It is so fun to watch you just nerd out in these videos!

"Should you ever find yourself in the Middle East battling Saracens in the mid 13th century..." I should hope to be so lucky to.

This video is pretty Vult. Nice job, and keep fighting Saracens!

This guys voice is on point, I would love if he was the narrator it documentaries

deus vult infidels

A couple of things. First off, the eyeslits on the first helmet are actually very inaccurate and were historically made much, much narrower - just about the size of those on the second helmet. Such tall eyeslits are more than enough for an arrow point to fit in. Second, you probably wouldn't find yourself wearing this type of helmet anywhere except for while on horseback in a cavalry charge. It's definitely not an infantry helmet and is very inconvenient for fighting on foot. In a way they are similar to great helms (they're in fact the predecessors of the latter).

That thumbnail instantly reminds me of that "Just a flesh wound" scene

The helmets displayed were mostly used by cavalry, generallly the rich part of mounted soldiers, what we'd call today a knight. There is very little evidence in historical manuscripts and stonework, of foot soldiers wearing those helms. A mounted soldier, did not need an arched top to deviate blows towards the sides, as blows coming straight down from above him were quite rare also, the eye slits, did impair the view, but not by much. While fighting on horseback, the horse takes care of the terrain; the rider needs only to manouver it towards a general direction. Also, cavalry did not usually fight against infantry, its main opponent was the enemy cavalry, though it was used rarely to flank or chase down routing infantry. the face plate, protects a mounted fighter against weapons used by cavalry: maces, spears and swords, as a spear aimed towards the base of the head might get deflected by the helm.

They look so much bigger than the head. Are they supposed to fit snug or be bigger than the head?

I have a flat top. Your very right about blows to the top. Although a blow on the corner/edge or the top is very dampened. Just my 2 bits. Love your show.

Well, I'm French and with you translate literally "chapelle de fer" in English, you have something like "iron church", it's a poetic description, I guess…

2:16 suddenly I have the urge to engage in Jolly Cooperation

I heard (or read) that a lot of knights who were wearing the 'last' type of the great helmet with the top made into a point wore a light helmet underneath the big one. So when they were attacking in a charge, they had their great helmets, but when they get into a classic melee or what not, they put their great helmets off (actually I heard that these great helmets were connected with a mail by a piece of chain, so they couldn't lost it). What do you think about that, Mr. Lloyd?

Deus Vult intensifies

I once read in an osprey book that these helmets were attached to the armor with a chain and were probably only worn during a charge or when being shot at by archers. In a melee the knights would take them of and they would hang on that chain at the back of the knight.

DEUS VULT!

Is it possible that theyd use different hemlets for different stages of a battle ? One for a cavalry charge ? Switch if theyre de-horsed ? One for skirmishing etc etc ? If your in a cavalry charge , your probably gonna get clanked by anything including the horses and weapons beside you and need extreme protection . Then if your squire is still with you , ye chuck away the big helmet and are handed one more suitable for a melee ?????

Now I envision an egg being cooked on that flat top riding thru the desert.

I can't help thinking that Boba Fett style eye slits/opening a would have the best compromise between safety and visibility. I'd think two L shaped openings, being standard eye slits that then angled down and ran along each side of the nose guard would greatly improve vision, you'd be able to see ahead better, down much better, and look across your body. Just a thought. (This is very hard to explain lol )

*"SON...!!! Have you seen my Helmets...!?!?!"*

Swaggersoul's lost helmets

The German Tiger tank was a boxy thing, too, with no sloping angles at all. They rediscovered sloping armour from the Russians, which inspired the Panther tank. So these concepts, clearly, can be forgotten and rediscovered. The flat top helmet may perhaps have gotten in style because not only was it easier to make, but it offered all the protection you realistically wanted - and, after all, like the Tiger tank, you can compensate lack of sloping armour with added thickness. Another point which is perhaps not so important to consider with small objects such as helmets, but which is of great importance for bigger objects such as tanks, is that sloping armour requires more metal due to having a larger surface, meaning if you have two tanks with the same armour thickness, one built like a box and the other with sloping armour, the one with sloping armour will be significantly heavier, and have a lot to say for fuel consumption. For helmets, however, I doubt the weight difference would be noticeable except on a scale.

I'd figure that the flat top experiment was more likely a matter of production thing from various possible reasons. I would go between the need for faster production or lack of means to produce the angled top ones. Which may be a shortage of trained blacksmiths, a shortage of proper tools or even a knowledge availability regarding the technique to do it efficiently in the numbers needed for a war. So basically it's probably tied to the required expenses for a war.

what can you say about phrygian helmets?what's going on with the smurf like thing?

I think there's a crusad meme to be made here

a lot of people said knights only wear armor for looks but no, they were but that was after the creation of guns. the last kinds of armor (gothic full body) were mathematically designed to be angled for melee protection and so that knights would be able to move around comfortably, they were used for protection before guns were made. knights actually used it before for killing enemies and not for looks only.

2:16 *SwaggerSouls enters the chat*

You might look at the weapons arrayed against the Crusader if you wish to understand evolution of the lid piece. Maybe they faced curved swords. Curved. Swords.

Swagger souls face reveal

2:30 Hey swagger.

It bears mentioning that this would not have been a knight's only helmet. He would also have worn a simple steel cap called a _cervellierium_ under his coif, affording him decent head protection with much better vision and breathing. It may be that the great helm was part of a modular system that gave the wearer different levels of protection depending on the needs of the moment. The great helm protects your face in high-risk situations, like a lance charge or an assault during a siege; the coif protects your neck and throat; and the _cervellierium_ works as a standalone helmet if seeing well and breathing well are more important to you than not taking an arrow to the face.

Was it really worth it wearing this helmets? From what I can see you'd be severely handicapped in a fight wearing one of these. Seems to be that wearing an open faced helmet would be far more sensible in any fight

I suspect that flat-top helmets were made of a thicker metal than arched helmets. It’s easier to bend / form thinner metal. Witness, for example, the hulls of early Sherman tanks vs. latter ones, or the turrets of M-1 Abram’s tanks vs. the T-72 (which is cast). Also note that a swung sword will strike either the sharp corner of the flat-top helmet, or make a long contact against the flat face - we’re not going to see any downward thrusts here. That, of course, changes once maces, Axes, and hammers enter the fray.

Hitting the edge of the flat top helmet is also brutal on the neck.

Weren't helmets of these types typically painted with heraldic colours etc? They seem a bit odd bare of such decoration.

2:34 Hey what's up guys Swagger here

I love the flat tops they look so cool. Not that I have a preference... Also nice helmet collection. Edit: Also very interesting points on visibility not something I've ever really considered.

"It lasted a couple of generations so it couldn't have been complete rubbish." Counter Argument: Neckties exist.

I think the flat top were made because it was easier to make.

Who needs to be in the mid-13th Century to battle Saracens!? DEUS VULT! AVE MARIA!

bolivian is a popular type of blow

Or perhaps sugar load helmets promote glancing blows to slide down and take your shoulder or arm or neck while the flat top just makes the force distribute across your shoulders because it wouldn't just hit you right on the head. It was not the solid hit that ended up being the problem but glancing ones that then took your appendages and also life. But by the reintroduction of the sugar loaf the supporting armor was better.

Fighting techniques change because of weapon and armor advances, and it is likely that the flat top was exploited by newer technique whereas before being struck on the very top of the head was least likely. Leg protection at the time of flat tops was minimal so it's likely that with the increased defense of the legs, the head became more worth the risk of getting in closer. Imagine trying to tap someone on the very top of the head while engaged in boxing: it would be much riskier than to attack arms, legs and trunk.

FOR HONOR!!! WARDEN, CONQUEROR, LAWBRINGER!!!