why did helmets develop a worse design between the cone-shaped top and the flat top? why not just give the coned helmet the face protection of a great helm?
>>1260592
It isn't fashionable. Knights gotta impress the ladies as well as put down peasant revolts.
>>1260592
>why not just give the coned helmet the face protection of a great helm
But that's how they started out.
>>1260650
then why change it to be a flat top?
>>1260592
>implying you would want a downward stroke to be deflected to your shoulders
>implying you wouldn't just want your helmet to absorb the brunt of the force.
>>1260655
>downward strike hits top of helmet
>breaks my neck, paralyzes me/kills me instantly
>>1260663
>implying you could generate enough force on a down stroke to break an armoured man's neck
>implying with a flat top it would even be a target
>implying you can miss a fatal spot when striking downwards against a cone shaped helmet
>implying it's easier to deform a square helmet than it is a curved one
>implying you could even dent pic related
>>1260680
Looks dented enough desu
>>1260654
bc it looks baller
>>1260592
>get hit really hard, some of the force transferred into a glancing blow, the rest (of which there is plenty) forcing your head to the side, increasing force on one side of vertebra
>get hit really hard, but force directed more straight down, allowing vertebra and improved padding to absorb stress better
I'm really just talking out of my ass, but maybe?
>>1260680
but a rounded helmet could be thinner and withstand the same downward force if it glanced could it not?
Later great helms had conical tops. Maybe they couldn't construct them strong enough at first.
>>1260592
Only thing I can think of, is that the flat helmets would crumple easier. This ensures the helmet takes more of the impact, instead of transfering the shock to your head and neck.
Like how cars are designed to crumple on impact to absorb most of the shock of a crash.
>>1260592
If I recall correctly knights wore another round skullcap-ish helmet under the great helm, so it almost wouldn't matter unless you got hit with a real crusher of a blow.
Pic related.
>>1261548
Some also wore a chainmail hood under the helmet, with another thick padded headcovering underneath
>>1260592
>why not just give the coned helmet the face protection of a great helm?
they did
Id rather have the second vs blunt weapons.
>>1260592
1. The corner on a flat top helps protect the forehead from some one standing on the same ground as you. It would be an awkward target unless one guy was way taller, fighting on a hill/some stairs or one guys mounted on a horse. However the lower guy would be looking up at the higher one so the corner on his helm would be angled up and still get in the way of a sword cut and a mace to the forehead would fuck your world either way.
2. If you're standing under the battlements and some one drops a rock on you're head you would be kinda fucked but if you're that close to the wall most likely you just put a shield over you're head. If you didn't bring your shield to storm the wall/charge into a breach/ rush a broken gate/climb a ladder you were going to have a bad time with a conical or a flat top helm.
3. in the pic that's a great helm and there would be a smaller helm like the one the Norman looking chap has on under neath that or at least chainmaille. Because you wouldn't want wear your helm in the fray it's to easy to get blind sided. Great helms are great for charges and such because they protect your face from arrows, pikes, spears, lances, and other piony things coming at your face very fast. Taking it off when the melee started was a compromise between vision and face protection.
They had a different priority of protection for a while. It can't have been too terrible if they were used for as long as they were that quite a few generations of fighters, and alot of guys still wore the old conical helm for a long time.
>>1260592
1. The corner on a flat top helps protect the forehead from someone standing on the same ground as you. It would be an awkward target unless one guy was way taller, fighting on a hill/some stairs or one guys mounted on a horse. However the lower guy would be looking up at the higher one so the corner on his helm would be angled up and still get in the way of a sword cut and a mace to the forehead would fuck your world either way.
2. If you're standing under the battlements and some one drops a rock on you're head you would be kinda fucked but if you're that close to the wall most likely you just put a shield over you're head. If you didn't bring your shield to storm the wall/charge into a breach/ rush a broken gate/climb a ladder you were going to have a bad time with a conical or a flat top helm.
3. In the pic that's a great helm and there would be a smaller helm like the one the Norman looking chap has on under neath that or at least chainmaille. Because you wouldn't want wear your helm in the fray it's to easy to get blind sided. Great helms are great for charges and such because they protect your face from arrows, pikes, spears, lances, and other piony things coming at your face very fast. Taking it off when the melee started was a compromise between vision and face protection.
They had a different priority of protection for a while. It can't have been too terrible if they were used for as long as they were(quite a few generations of fighters), and alot of guys still wore the old conical helm and no great helm ever at all. Plus sugarloaf helm would make an appearance before bassinets would arrive.>>1261809
>>1261809
>>1261809
Shit picture. Cunt artist doesn't know that nobs were still wearing extensive armor in the 17th century. Only this time with better articulation.
>>1261795
why? it would take the whole hit, if the helmet is rounded the hit would usually just bounce off.
Reminder that bascinets and burgonets are best
They wore skullcaps under the great helmet! REEEE!!!!
>>1260663
Just tuck and roll behind him and slit his throat with your sidearm when you see him raising his arms for a downward thrust. What's the problem
>>1260592
To make it cheaper to produce. The flat is not as big of a issue was one may think for a few reasons. First the big killers of the late 12th century ( when the early great helm became a thing) was the lance and the crossbow. The flat top does not create much weakness to those weapons. The most common infantry weapon was thrusting spears in the 6 to 8 ft range. Short of hitting the target over the head with the shaft the flat top would not com into play.
Next and likely most importantly the top was at angle, not level. If you do a over head overhead strike the place that you would hit would be the top rim.
>>1261332
After the flat top design they reverted to conical/rounded tops
>>1260654
easier to standardize.
Less difficult to create.
As states arose and professional armies came back into play, equipment standards began to pop up again.
post helmets
Crusader Buckets are cool as fuck
>this knave does not don himself a bucket helm
