Does medieval art LIE about OPEN-Faced Helmets for artistic reasons?

Does medieval art lie about open-faced helmets? Is it just for artistic reasons?
Patreon & Extra Videos: / scholagladiatoria
Facebook & Twitter updates, info and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfightinglondon.com
Matt Easton's website:
www.matt-easton.co.uk/
Easton Antique Arms:
www.antique-swords.co.uk/

[@tonberrytoby]

One thing I always wanted to know about this topic is: What is the earliest documented case of someone complaining that an artist is depicting weapons/battles wrong.

[@Fabianwew]

Hellenic Greece

[@Philistine47]

I suspect that Ugg complained about Oog's cave paintings getting everything wrong. Of course that's not _documented,_ it's just how humans work.

[@badnewsBH]

@@Philistine47 Yep, that Oog was always taking artistic license when it came to the antelope's horns.

[@austintillman8297]

@@badnewsBH and don’t even get us started on how oog always exaggerated the size of his phallic member

[@peters7196]

Whoever it was you can bet he was an ancestor of Shad...

[@robc6391]

To stress another point on the topic of helmeted people being recognizable because of individual design, crest, heraldry etc. They would also be recognizable because people actually, generally speaking, did not know what individual lords, kings, emperors etc. looked like. We come from a modern world with media covering famous faces on a daily basis but from a historical perspective, an armoured knight with a certain crest or heraldry is a lot more recognizable to common folk than someone in general clothing showing their face.

[@SuperFunkmachine]

Kings did put there face on the coins, while you couldn't pick the king out of a lineup from them it told every one what the king looked like.

[@KuK137]

@@SuperFunkmachine It told them what the primitive engraving of king/emperor looked like. Seriously, look at old coins, they are like a child's drawing, not an actual depiction...

[@adamtennant4936]

"How can you tell he's a king?" "He's not covered in shit like everybody else".

[@windalfalatar333]

@@KuK137 Exactly: bloke with the really big, pointy nose (that's generally what sort of thing they used to make the depiction regogniseable, as after all it was totally OK, especially in the Early Mediaeval period to be known as Charles the Fat or Pepin the Short).

[@AnotherDuck]

@@KuK137 Most paintings are also very rough in terms of showing recognisable facial traits. Including the very paintings that are supposedly showing face to show recognition. People don't recognise other people they haven't personally seen enough to remember. In the old days, that meant seeing the actual person, which was probably even less common due to less travel and other things.

[@mikelazure7462]

This was a bit like listening to the question and answer part of the first lecture in "History 101" at University - the students displaying intelligence and imagination in their questions/theories but also a fundamental lack of how to use their imagination in a historical analytical context. I think Matt was patient and gracious and conducted himself the way the better lecturer do.

[@GallowglassAxe]

I totally agree with Matt on this. In Ireland closed faced helms were actually extremely rare. Yes you have Lough Henney Helm but most people wore open face helms when fighting. This is probably because the skirmishing and gurellia tatics plus fighting in forest and bogs requires great vision and a lot of cardio. Even the cavalry would wear open face helms because they they good vision and hearing to keep track of their allies while they did complex flanking maneuvers and running and out of forests.

[@dbattleaxe]

I'd imagine that the same person could choose to wear different helmets for different occasions, too. A soldier on patrol or guard duty would likely find a closed helmet quite annoying. If they were immediately going to a siege or other pitched battle where they knew they were going to get into a fight against archers and other armored opponents, then yeah, a closed helmet might be the pick. Soldiers spend most of their time doing things that aren't active combat against other professional soldiers.

[@riverraven7359]

same in Scotland, burgonets and morions were the "steel bonnets" of the reivers.

[@toncek9981]

One could even argue that open face helmets (including those that are open but still offer some face protection like nasal helmet, kettle hats or even most helmets of antiquity) were actually the norm for most of the history, while full face protection was usually reserved just for some types of soldiers (be it knights/men at arms, samurais or roman cavalrymen) and even then it wasn't used always by them...

[@Lurklen]

I mean it's counter to how people think about things, but it hardly matters how much protection you have if you can't see what the hell you're doing. Nobody wants to take a hit to the face, but it's a relatively small target, and you are less likely to actually get hit if you can see what's going on. Not to say closed faced helms don't have their obvious benefits, but there's so many downsides it seems like people just don't consider.

[@stormiewutzke4190]

If people only knew how hard it is to make people wear PPE in our time it seems absurd that anyone would say that everyone wore closed faced helmets. In a lot of ways I can even see an argument that someone would be safer without a visor or even a helmet at times since they impact the ability to move and see. If someone could afford it it's likely that they would have had both and would balance the need for more protection vs more situational awareness.

[@ret7army]

You have a point regarding PPE however at least some of that rests on the user's perception of need. For example in WW2 soldiers during the Normandy invasion didn't expect to need gas masks and these were quickly discarded. However in WW1 the soldiers kept them close to hand.

[@Zathaghil]

Just look at all the muppets crying murder over breathableCLOTH masks. To protect against a deadly disease. More likely to catch covid in a crowd than an arrow to the face in a battle.

[@jm9371]

.. but my disposable paper medical mask renders me unfunctional. Can i please try a full face bassinette?

[@johnladuke6475]

Pfft, what's gonna happen if I don't wear my safety glasses? Some guy shoot me in they eye with an arrow and forever alters the course of the nation? Yeah right.

[@mnk9073]

Word, my helmet and gas mask spent most of my service strapped to my pack in the back of a vehicle. Laying right next to my rifle...

[@sgregg5257]

The illuminations, done prior to the printing press, were in HUGELY valuable books that only nobility would ever have access to. The illuminations were never meant for mass public consumption. So if you take the readership in mind, only people what would be well versed in heraldic symbolism, and literate, would be exposed to these images. There was no mass media to speak of in the medieval period. (religiously symbolism in churches notwithstanding) Only after the printing press, when the cost of communication dropped dramatically, did the average person get exposed to artwork that they could hold and marvel at. While propaganda was a thing, it was more word of mouth via public proclamation. Or large scale art designed to glorify a king etc. present to said king or his pals.

[@ryddragyn]

Not disagreeing entirely, but some of the high quality artwork was done for an illiterate public. Good example was in churches to help bring spoken Bible stories to life. I remember touring the churches of Meteora in Greece, and this was a big point made about the copious, gorgeous artwork on the ceilings and walls.

[@markfergerson2145]

Commoners during the Medieval period seem to have been pretty well-versed in heraldry as a practical matter and to the point of peasants having favorite knights based on their heraldry. Literacy was also more common than is usually thought today which is why royal proclamations were posted in villages for villagers to read. Your main point stands that much of the art discussed in the video was "marketed" at the elites but I would argue that your average literate peasant would have little trouble with it were they to have access to it, when brought to court for whatever reason where they would see celebratory paintings and tapestries- and then tell everyone about it when they got back home. Also remember the artists who made the art were commoners and/or monks or lay Church scribes/artists/weavers. I doubt strongly that they would have any equivalent of NDAs preventing them telling anyone and everyone what they had made for the nobility.

[@KuK137]

Eh, no. Just no. Some of the richest people of the period were merchants and guild masters. Neither were noble but were primary book audience seeing they were much more likely to be fully literate (needing it for the job) than a typical noble. Ditto for fighting art treatises, these were meant for more affluent, but still common men. Also, you're aware mass printing was a thing for hundreds of years before printing press, yes? They just engraved whole page instead of moveable type, mass propaganda was a thing and a pretty common one at that...

[@Walter_Lou_Iggy]

People of the period, even illiterate ones, definitely understood heraldry, for the same reason we immediately understand Apple's logo, for example, or Superman 's symbol, or any famous football team's colours(so, exactly like in a coat-of-arms or a tabard or anything). And not only nobles used eraldry. Merchants, important artisans and guilds used them as well, again basically as logos. And from the signs out of a door you could walk around a town you'd never been to and identify were the farrier was, where the local inn etc

[@bronco5334]

OK, so the assertion that "medieval artists definitely left characters in paintings with faces exposed so people can identify them!" just doesn't make sense to me. A) up until the late 15th century, European artists were quite bad at drawing lifelike faces. Certainly they were not particularly adept at showing people in such detail as to be identifiable as a given individual B) the contemporary audience frequently would not KNOW what the king/individual depicted *actually* looked like. They'd never seen the king, and they'd never seen a particularly good painting of the king. They would generally have only a vague idea what they king looked like, based on word-of-mouth descriptions. So they might know the king had a big, hooked nose and was very tall, but... not a lot more than that. C) the contemporary audience WOULD, however, have seen pretty good representations of what the king's (or other famous individual's) heraldry looked like. And unlike "how someone's face looks", it is easy to communicate the description of a heraldry accurately through word-of-mouth. It's easy to describe "a shield quartered with three gold lions rampant on green in the upper left, a red and white checkerboard in the upper right, a brown european swallow in flight carrying a tan coconut on a field of azure in the lower left, and a badass flaming sword piercing the devil in the lower right" and get the communication of the details correct, than it is to try to describe someone's face. To any that disagree with me: go on, go out to a crowded park/ mall food court, and try to get your friend to pick someone out of the crowd based ONLY on a description you can give them of what the person's face looks like. Tell me how that goes.

[@Helxas]

Definitely agree, but I think their point about identification is more about finding the odd one out. If a medieval painting depicts a hundred soldiers and only one of them has an open face, then it's a fair bet that's the protagonist. Not saying that was the case with most medieval artwork (which as Matt says, generally shows a variety), but I think that's where the point comes from.

[@williamjenkins4913]

"But we need to be able to recognize the king." Looks at the artwork. Every face is the exact same.

[@Axterix13]

I think for B) the intended audience probably often would know, at least roughly. Not in terms of a "Oh, I recognize this clean-shaven face. That's Baron Bob of Bobbington", but rather, enough to say, "That's not Bearded Bob, the Baron of Bobbington." The artwork, after all, isn't going to be in a museum open for the general public, so the people likely to see the art are those that are in some way connected to it. I mean, Baron Bob over in England isn't going to commission some artwork about El Cid. And Baron Bob is probably a big enough deal that he does get around in noble circles a bit. However, I say that with a big caveat. The further past the event you get, the fewer people would know. And this is something that supports your C. The crest of the House of Bob will last through generations. So if you know this is a depiction of the Battle of Some Small Hill, you know Baron Bob played a role in the battle, and you see the Bob crest, you know that's probably Baron Bob. Also, related to A) and the artist. Just how many people from the battlefield would he know? His patron, sure. His patron's father? Probably a painting of that guy around, if the house has enough money to be a patron of the arts. His king? Probably has some rough idea if he gets around in noble circles enough. But some Duke from a foreign country? Not likely. And there isn't going to be a photograph or drawing to use a reference. edit: And with some more thought, I think that, besides heraldry, the events shown would help the viewer identify the subject. Much like if we saw some ancient Greek artwork featuring a guy holding up Medusa's head, we'd probably conclude that it is Perseus.

[@SlothinAintEasy]

Open helms are cool. But I never felt more powerful wearing my bucket helm. Instant confidence booster.

[@Blondie42]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Sadly though I require glasses to see an can't wear them with closed faced helmets. Wye doctors have said I'm too sensitive for contacts, and I don't have the funds/desire for surgery. I have a barbute that I love but can only wear it for very short periods without my eyes getting tired.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

Until you'd have to do things in it.

[@LeapinVenetian]

It's really strange that this is such a disputed point, even modern helmets are basically all open faced. Granted modern combat doesn't involve huge melees, but situational awareness and breathing are probably more valuable than raw protection. You can always guard your face with your hands or arms if needed, but you can't see or breathe with them, and how can you be expected to fight if you can't breathe?

[@rileyernst9086]

On the other hand Henry the Vth apparently survived a hefty blow to the head delivered by a French knight at Agrincourt, because he was apparently wearing a great bassinet AND great helm over the top.

[@rasmusn.e.m1064]

I think it's one of those cases where people overinterpret the points Matt has been making about Hollywood. In this case, their hating helmets.

[@kokofan50]

Modern combat has a lot of explosions, which arguably makes full face helmets more important. You can probably block or avoid a cut or thrust. You can’t dodge and shockwave.

[@VideoMask93]

I would bet a bigger reason for open-face modern helmets is that it’s easier to get cheekweld on your rifle’s stock when shooting.

[@colbunkmust]

@@VideoMask93 Yes, though there are ways around that. You can have the same issues when running night vision or thermal optics or gas masks but there are IR lasers for that. Plus there are some military and paramilitary units that use visored helmets for urban warfare like GIGN's helmets or the users of the Soviet/Russian K6-3, Altyn, Zsh-1, Maska, etc.

[@robbikebob]

I've fought in a closed helmet, but if I'd have had the choice I'd have worn a helm without a visor... After a few minutes of fighting, especially in warm weather, the heat build up is incredible. You can't see, hear, you can't even rub the sweat from your eyes... It would have been an absolute joy to be able to lift a visor in battle...

[@seanbirtwistle649]

I've fought in a motorcycle helmet. It sucks. Its very disorientating

[@wolf1066]

Just running around a paintball or airsoft field with face mask on, you've got sweat running down into your eyes. I can only imagine a metal helmet would be far worse. Can't "lift the visor" in paintball/airsoft either - the referee calls an instant halt to the game if someone takes their mask off on the field.

[@paavobergmann4920]

I loved my wide and low brimmed kettle helmet. Free vision, free breath, good hearing, and greatly reduced danger to the face, save for stabs to the face and points sliding or skidding upwards from the lower arms or breast. Ok for polearms, I´d have been a lot more frightened going against short swords, though.

[@RevRaptor898]

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't medieval artists have standard faces they use on damn near everything. So having a visor up or removed would not really be all that helpful in figuring out who someone is.

[@shorewall]

I completely agree. I look at medieval art, and all the faces are like ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) even if they are getting burned alive or their skull clove in.

[@Tennouseijin]

I suppose it depends on the art piece in question. I know in late medieval art it was fairly common to include the likeness of specific people in the artwork, even if it didn't make sense (like if it was a biblical scene, you could still have someone based on a noble contemporary to the artist). In some art, supposedly antagonists/devils/etc. can resemble the people that the artist had personal squabbles with, like maybe a noble who refused to pay them or something. And then there's the fact that often painters would have someone pose for them while painting. So, the emotionless faces might sometimes be a result of the model not being very emotional. Try keeping a 'being burned alive' face for a few hours while the artist is working xD

[@sgregg5257]

People saying that since illuminations do not prove they wore open faced helmets, then they must have worn them, would be a false argument. As historians we must base our view of the past on the written record. We can conjecture but only via the record that is left to us. Anything else is not history but simply opinion. Clearly the record shows both closed and open faced helms. As users of such helmets, we all know the pitfalls of a closed helm as well as the benefits.

[@adambielen8996]

Exactly, simply disregarding sources because they disprove your point is a cardinal sin of historiography.

[@leonardomarquesbellini]

Cool hat bro 👍🏼

[@daaaah_whoosh]

Medieval artwork is usually pretty bad with faces and facial expressions, I don't buy that they'd want to show more faces to try to convey emotion. I'd wager the era of helmetless heroes comes more from the age of film, where it's more expensive to use the likeness of a famous person so you really want to get your money's worth.

[@AnotherDuck]

And adding to that, emotion is still far easier to show than a recognisable face of a specific individual.

[@MrFarnanonical]

3:04 I think the bigger point is that you won't empathize as much with something that you don't see plainly as human and vulnerable. Seeing a dead knight wearing a full greathelm is one thing, but seeing his face that he's a baby faced 18 year old is another thing entirely.

[@kavemanthewoodbutcher]

Ok Mr.Easton, I've a question for you. As I see your lovely new sallet there has spikes, I'd like to know your opinion on spiked armor in general, both in fantasy/media, and in reality/history. Thanks for your wonderful content! Cheers!

[@Greideren]

That sounds like it would make a fun video. It might not matter much since people won't really attack your armor directly with a cutting weapon which are the ones that would be most affected by the spikes, but if it happens the spikes might give you a split second of advantage.

[@l0rf]

I'm almost certain that is a video Matt has already made. Though that must have been years ago, so perhaps a remake would be in order.

[@johnladuke6475]

I'm completely certain that Matt's addressed spikes/studs on armour in multiple videos. At least one dedicated full video.

[@mirsh2541]

They aren't really spikes, but particularly large brass rivets used for decoration. You can see on his helmet they are placed where you would have rivets for securing the liner either way and we see these a lot on higher status helmets in the second half of the 15th century. Though there are also some examples with additional purely decorative rivets. In fact you can see this on the examples Matt shows for high status open faced helmets in this video. They are not meant to give any advantage in combat.

[@AnotherDuck]

@@mirsh2541 I don't think most spikes you see on historical objects or in fantasy are for any perceived advantage either. They're usually to show how rich, fashionable, badass, or evil someone is.

[@johnn8795]

Why are people putting modern movie culture into medieval art? The paintings weren’t made for the masses like the movies were. Aren’t most of these pieces commissioned by the nobility for the nobility? Matt brings up the point of Heraldry, and honestly, that’s one of the most important aspects of identification for nobility. It’s not like everyone knew the king’s face, or some knight’s face, it isn’t TV. Heraldry, on the other hand can be seen from afar and is easy to remember… but I am not a medieval historian expert, just a hobby historian following a little Occam’s razor

[@Zajuts149]

The golden sallet at 7:24 seems to imitate the look of a sallet with the visor up, even if it has no visor. It reminds me of some of the helmets from the Roman republic era that looks like Corinthian helmets pushed back to show the face.

[@dogmaticpyrrhonist543]

On the topic of "show the face so they are recognized" that itself is coloured by modern ideas. In medieval times, the heraldry is vastly more recognizable than the person's face. Excepting the few people with their faces on coins, the average person only recognizes people they have seen.

[@malacostracus3663]

Even representations on coins are rough abstractions of the real face, so I doubt that this would make an actual difference as well.

[@dogmaticpyrrhonist543]

@@malacostracus3663 Unless it was a radically more recognizable face than normal, yes. But it was a stand-in mention for the various paintings and representations people may have seen for kings etc. But, yes, they were often idealized, stylized, and just not very accurate.

[@eol42]

In addition and in no particular order: - we even have ordonnance texts that enforce archers to wear visorless sallet and specifically argue they need that to handle their weapon (eg French texts on the franc-archers mid-15th c.) ; - art representing the face of "main characters" is only a viable argument when representing likeness is an actual concern, which is the case for tombs, but not for the vast majority of manuscript and other small artworks before the 16th c. ; before that we even see uncoloured templates representing known princes as just generic armed men, waiting to be coloured with their personal heraldry by a separate artist (eg Thomas Holme's Book of Arms, Armorial of Europe and the Golden Fleece...) ; - we have direct anecdotes of people deciding to forgo their visors due to a tactical decision (eg chronicles of Lalaing : opponent's axe is so thin it would pass through his breaths, making it more profitable to leave the face open, in the context of a worship of arms where integral coverage is extremely important!) ; - the majority of Humanity has kept its face open for the majority of History. In Europe, even the evolutionary needs to keep the helm easily discarded, with a secondary helmet under ; and then to construct a movable visor indeniably testify that warriors only needed that integral face protection for very specific and short moments of the engagements - recalled in tournaments rules that involve full helms for security, while specifying that any combattant may remove his helm temporarily to refresh himself, at which point everyone shall stop targetting him (eg René d'Anjou's Book of Tournament).

[@Magey_McMage]

Wait medieval art might lie? You mean jousting from the top of armored snails didn't happen either?

[@ravenlasky5286]

It did not happen in the 15th century. These illustrations were drawn by Christian mystics and they experienced visions because of their spiritual training. The warriors who ride armored battle snails are from the future.

[@Seelenschmiede]

OUTRAGEOUS!

[@TheUncleRuckus]

Honestly I don't think it is a valid point he makes Matt, because he's making it under the False Assumption that the "media" in question was meant for everyone when it was only meant for the very rich. So showing face of ppl that most likely no one has heard of or known for the same reason as Hollywood makes no sense. 🤷 We know for a Fact they existed so why ppl continue to argue about this is beyond me. Enjoyed the video. 👍👍

[@johnn8795]

Not to mention, it’s not like medieval art captures an accurate representation of the person it’s depicting. Most of the faces drawn in that sort of art are all *very* similar, and we can see that in a lot of the examples Matt shows us. So, yeah, I’m also not sold on the idea of comparing the modern movie industry to medieval artwork.

[@captainnyet9855]

the real question is why do these people think humanity preferred open helmets for literal millenia when closed helmets are so much better?

[@lordofuzkulak8308]

To add to your reply to the question of how else people would recognise the important characters in a scene - even if the face is shown, how many people would even recognise who the face belonged to? Most people’s sole reference for a king would be their profile on a coin, which probably isn’t going to be wholly accurate given limitations in the minting process, and even if people could recognise the king from his coinage, once the king is dead, his successors will over time replace his coins with their own, meaning that while the artwork would survive for posterity, the coins that would help put a name to a face would be unlikely to. And that’s just the kings; lesser nobles wouldn’t have that advantage, so even fewer people would know what they looked like, but people probably would’ve heard about their heraldry and thus be able to identify who’s who using that regardless of whether their face is visible or not.

[@thescholar-general5975]

open-face helmets are pretty much the standard across most of the world in history

[@captainnyet9855]

well, they clearly only wore them because they're bad, so the protagonists of history could use better things.

[@QuentinStephens]

Here's a hopefully fun follow-on question for you: in some films (e.g. El Cid) you see helmets knocked off so that the actors' faces can be better seen. In real life, how easy is it to knock off a helmet? And how does that change through the ages? I presume that it was never easy, but you're the expert here.

[@SuperFunkmachine]

It depends on the helmet, some like the great bascinet end up going down to the shoulder, and late closed helms an armets that wrap around the head are impossible to get knocked off.

[@SuperOtter13]

I would very much enjoy a video on this subject

[@GadreelAdvocat]

Sometimes it might depend on the situation. During arrow volleys or during Lances might want the visor on. During a brawl with lots of people might favor visibility over armor. Or briefly cover over the face with a shield or guantlet hand if don't have visor.

[@henryplantagenet219]

Great stuff. Had not time for viewing much recently yet another fine piece of analysis - remember always the CONTEXT;-) keep it up. Hence my name - when weather changes I have always this grim feeling in the left side of me head. Should have put the visor down then.

[@windalfalatar333]

Brilliant as ever, Matt! In Antiquity, open-faced helmets obviously also predominated, e.g., the Phrygian helm (or 'cap', WI forget which term is used). Archeological artifacts from the Ancient world also include (almost certainly) majorly open-faced helmets. When hoplites are shown (or heroes from the Trojan War depicted during the Archaic or Classical periods as hoplites) they are often shown with the traditional Corinthian (or other 'hoplite') helmet worn pushed back and resting on the nape of the neck, so that the face is fully visible. This is certainly the case for many warriors on the Parthenon frieze in the Elgin marbles at the B.M. As for modern movie depictions of historical people not wearing hats or helmets, this is something that really annoys me tremendously. Not wearing any headgear when out-of-doors only ever became popular in the 1950s, and even then very many people wore hats or caps. It was only during the 1960s that not wearing any headgear became relatively commonplace, and even then hats were still common. So having a Victorian gentleman seen out-of-doors in a modern film just because the audience should be able to see the character's face (or the actor doesn't want to use a hat) is to me really the greatest sacrilege. I much prefer Mediaeval people's interpretation of art: there you had no qualms about showing an enormous pair of buttocks in red hose or of a chap with his face fully enclosed in a pig-snouted bascinet. Bring back the pig-snouted bascinet! Bring back the cod-piece!

[@rileyernst9086]

There is plenty of funeral effigies with full face covering helms such as great helms and later frogmouths.

[@Kholdaimon]

As someone with severe ocular nerve damage I can tell you that having limited peripheral vision is extremely detrimental for your spatial awareness and hand-eye coordination. I have very little peripheral vision left, but the thing I look at directly I can see just as well as anyone, but... I used to be a football goal keeper, I had great reflexes and could catch balls that left my field of vision completely just because I knew where they were going because I could track their movement for a long time with my periphery. Now, I can only catch a ball if it is thrown straight at me, I am aware it is coming and doesn't travel to fast. Having a fully enclosed helmet on in a massed fight means you can get attacked a lot from angles that you can't see at all. In a 1v1 fight it will be worth it, because you can keep your 1 opponent in your sight, but in a massed fight? I don't know man, I would rather be able to react to attacks than getting stabbed in the armpit by anyone that approaches me from an odd angle. Ofcourse you are relying on the guys next to you to stop that guy, but if they have equally limited vision and are just struggling to survive themselves?

[@texasbeast239]

But if you ever want to spar in such a helmet at an official HEMA/Buhurt event, then you would need to cover that open face up with some sort of fencing basket, right? The rules don't let you go face-commando, right?

[@SirVilder]

Correct

[@rgseves]

Modern rules tend to prioritize safety.

[@sawyere2496]

Yeah, most SCA guys use face grilles on their bascinets because it’s not as bad as a full visor.

[@asa-punkatsouthvinland7145]

I'd imagine with nobility and nights they can also afford to have more than one helmet. So while mounted and doing a lance charge they may wear a face covering helmet, and if they had time to dismount they may switch to an open face helmet. Advisor helmet is a good compromise between the two but it's a compromise. If you didn't need to immediately have your face open to breathe you may choose to switch helmets

[@joeyvanhaperen7715]

I'm about to buy my helemet and it's going to be a half open faced helemet. It's the type of kettel helm with a viewing slit. I think it's very important to allow for breathing in my case, but a slight disadvantages in eyesight I know I can affort sow that's why I'm picking a half openfaced helemet.

[@lalbus1607]

It is important to remember that a siege could last several months or even a entire year, while a field battle would propably last few hours. Therefore I think it is fair to believe that the open faced helmets was indeed widespred.

[@captainnyet9855]

there's also the part where history simply shows us open faced helmets were preferred in almost every culture not greatly emphasising heavy cavalry.

[@MrBottlecapBill]

I feel like another point people never seem to consider is............you can own more than one helmet and switch them out as needed quite easily depending on your role in he battle. Whether or not you're going to also have a shield (or be able to carry one) would, I expect, also play a huge role in your decision. A great example is fast pitch baseball. If you're the back catcher or umpire..........you have full face, head and more protection. If you're a hitter you have only head protection since the odds of a face hit are low and one body hit may hurt but it's not a big deal......if you're playing out field you wear nothing since you have plenty of time to react and see the ball coming. Give and take based on the situation. Can you imagine every ball player trying to play with the back catchers full gear on for "safety first"? Heck pro hockey players didn't even wear helmets until more recent times!

[@M4TCH3SM4L0N3]

Regarding the question of recognizing the face of the king or hero... I would argue that in a medieval and Renaissance context, most people are more likely to recognize the king or hero by the armor/heraldry than by their faces. Also the assumption that the hero would be perceived as more heroic for having less protective armor than the masses is, I would say, a rather modern concept of heroism. Historically, the person wearing the best armor WAS the most heroic, and I believe that artists would be just as likely to show them wearing MORE armor than less.

[@christiandauz3742]

I recommend Lest Darkness Fall + Aphotheosis of Martin Padway. Alternate History during the Dark Age.

[@derekbrown4227]

My thought: The fall of the Roman Empire essentially "undid" the Marian reforms, making the default once again "You bring what you bought/inherited/found" for most soldiers, in which case, I'd expect arms and armor design (especially considering that these were hand forged/designed/made, and often custom work at higher levels) to be individualized. Until the rise of guilds (and even then) I'd imagine it would be a bit like modern computer coding: A series of generally accepted principles, and a lot of arguments about what compromises and tradeoffs are worth while.

[@bobbybologna3029]

I've always thought closed-helmets were expensive, and only really fit in very specific roles on the battlefield. Being able to see, hear, and BREATHE are pretty valuable in any situation lol.

[@T33K3SS3LCH3N]

That's very conclusive indeed. Individual points could be challenged (painting visor attachments might just be too tedious or look bad, maybe the attachments fell off over the centuries in some manufacturing methods), but there are just too many different points that all support the existence of visorless open-faced helmets.

[@Leftyotism]

I was just thinking, have you ever thought about analizing Adorea Olomouc historical fighting choreographies? And will you eventually review one or two and explain the moves to the broad audience? =) No pressure, just a thought, cheers!

[@paavobergmann4920]

Regarding surviving open-faced helmet with no attachment points: For which times, places and helmets can we suspect they were worn with throat protection, that was worn attached to the upper body armor and could have covered also the chin or the lower face? like beavers, when did they appear? Do I remember right seeing those worn under late kettle helmets, although they were originally more closely associated with sallets? Btw, going after a small book margin sketch I found in one Osprey publication, I tried shooting a longbow wearing a wide brimmed kettle helmet. It works. Feels weird at first, but once I adjusted my draw, it did work not too bad.

[@dougsinthailand7176]

There’s usually a lot of symbolic subtext with medieval and ancient illustrations whose meaning has been lost to time.

[@AnthusFrostwolf]

I suspect that in the Middle Ages or in general hardly anyone knew what the face of, for example, the king looked like, so it is rather unnecessary to paint the face specifically. It is much more important to show the coat of arms, as this has a greater recognition value

[@blackfin2389]

I find it funny that from antiquity up to now we have to show the main characters face in when they are in situations where they would probably really need a helmet. Looking at you Marvel.

[@nektulosnewbie]

The nature of the human form and how we relate to it personally has and will never change. The reverse proves this: want to make a villian sinister and foreboding? Give them a helmet that hides their face, preferably with a guise fixed with something approximating an angry expression.

[@VernonKun]

@@nektulosnewbie That's valid because in real life, your allies are the people you know so you know their faces, and the enemies are only encountered in the battlefields so they often have masked faces.

[@markfergerson2145]

Small quibbles; it's easier to paint steel than faces so the proportion of open-faced helmets in actual historical use is likely under-represented in artwork of the period. How valid is the "dehumanize the enemy by covering their faces" concept in Medieval times?

[@Axterix13]

I'd think it wouldn't be that valid. The dehumanized enemy (or the caricatured one) is for propaganda. You use it as "Beware of X" and "X eats babies". But that isn't the reason you're making artwork in that era. No printing presses, not really trying to mobilize the local population. I'd expect is would be more about the exploits. And that means noteworthy person died here, this king won this fight, it rained arrows, the impact of the cavalry charge, and so on. A sort of story telling in art. So you'd want things to be more recognizable. That said, you'd probably identify people more by heraldry and their actions than their faces. Much like if you see a guy holding up a Medusa head, you know it is probably depicting Perseus.

[@AndrewTheFrank]

I don't see why it would seem odd that a knight might choose to go into battle with his visor up. Lose a little bit of protection for lots more vision. Sounds like a decent trade off. Its not unheard of for troops on modern battlefields to leave helmets or body armor behind. Heck just looking at the recent conflict in the Ukraine when looking at the Chechens many aren't wearing helmets and others that are don't have them strapped. Its like they prefer a warm beanie or a non disturbed beard to head protection.

[@magnuslauglo5356]

Question for Matt - I see a lot of depictions from the second half of the 15th Century (War of the Roses) of men at arms and knights in full plate armor without shields and without surcoats. Do you think that perhaps knights were dispensing with displaying their coats of arms in battle by that time because by the time they came to close quaters they would usually be fighting with their visors up, and be able to recognize friends and avoid blue on blue? Or is there another reason - are many of the men at arms in full plate armor by 1450 simply professional soldiers who aren't knights and don't have coast of arms? Thoughts?

[@duchessskye4072]

In terms of English effigies, in the first half of the 15th century the vast majority of effigies do not have visors or visor hinges. But this is in contrast with other sources of that period and Capwell is of the opinion that visor hinges were not seen as important enough to depict on most of them. In the second half of the 15th century this changes however. Visors on sallets start being depicted as the general norm and so when one finds open faced helmets from that period on effigies it's rather indicative that it is exactly what is being depicted. Which is different to bascinets in the first half.

[@texasbeast239]

My favorite D&D dwarven fighter NPC Bruenor Battlehammer wears a helm with both an open face AND horns. One horn is broken off from some past battle, and he keeps it that way. And yes, he bears scars and a broken nose from the fact that its face is open. He even lost an eye once because of it, but thank goodness for magic!

[@kavemanthewoodbutcher]

Check out the Icewind Dale trilogy by R.A. Salvatore. Thats where King Bruenor's genesis is. One of my favorite characters from my youth.

[@Oooo-bi7bi]

I agree with what you said on a previous video. That it’s a lot easier to breathe and see, with an open faced helmet. The only motorbike sport that don’t wear full face closed helmets, is trials. As they need to have good vision, I think the same goes in warfare. But I couldn’t say for definite that artistic license wasn’t used.

[@ChristianMcAngus]

The art of the time (late medieval) didn't have the capability to realistically depict the face. All the men's faces look very similar. This would reduce the imperative to show the face that you see in films or TV shows.

[@grahamthompson5581]

We're talking about battle scenes, which pay about as much attention to faces as most computer games, or other artworks showing large numbers of people. Portraiture in the late medieval period would include van Eyck, Durer & Holbein, who were pretty good at depicting faces.

[@SilverMe2004]

But it is a good point, maybe the artist only shows the king with a closed face helm, because he is scared of upsetting the king by drawing a bad face?

[@acethesupervillain348]

Did ya see Skallagrim test Murder Striking a helmet for ya?

[@stevewebster5729]

It strikes me, and you can see it in some of the images shown in the vid, that even if you had a visor you'd want it down as you move up to the hand-to-hand zone, in order to protect against missiles. But once in hand-to-hand fighting, for the more skilled warriors peripheral vision (and ease of breathing?) is going to be more important than face protection... hence visor up...

[@erickirsch5290]

I want to add a modern thought to this discussion: I am currently on active duty with the US Army in Germany. I have served in Afghanistan. The Army issued me a load of kevlar body army in Afghanistan. I only used the front and back ballistic plates in a privately bought plate carrier. And of course I wore a helmet (open faced !) at all times. I was willing to give up a certain level of protection for lightness and movability/mobility. I was operating in a high mountain environment (2500m and upwards) were weight was a real issue (ability to move/seek cover/shoot/BREATH!). I'll trade the chance of wounds to my extremities for more quickness and mobility any day. Also, the ability to see and hear is super important then and now. I can see knights/men at arms trading a bit of face protection for the ability to see, hear and breath!

[@Adam_okaay]

well aviators in fighter/attack/e-warfare/multi-role jets do take their oxygen masks off, or at least unclip them and let em dangle while flying, they just can't do it at higher ranges of altitude or during complex maneuvers, they don't during combat but if they're cruising along at a safe altitude they will for sure, those things are tight and it gets sweaty/uncomfortable.

[@barretharms655]

More specifically as far as the common Soldier was concerned he was not even given the option of having a closed face helmet or a visor he was given his helmet and that was that if you wanted a closed faced on it you would have to purchase a second helmet

[@herbertgearing1702]

I would expect that being able to see and hear would be more essential to survival on the battlefield than the protection that a visor provides. It would not surprise me to learn that closed helmets were more often a tournament item than regular piece of battlefield equipment for most soldiers. If you are jousting or dueling you have one opponent to deal with and you know where they are coming from, on the battlefield you need to keep your head on a swivel or you may be blindsided and never see the killing blow coming. Growing up I played a lot of neighborhood football with no pads or helmets and I thought I had really good instincts for running with the ball, but when I started playing organized football I realized that I just had really good vision and hearing once the helmet limited my perception I was very average.

[@captainnyet9855]

closed faced helmets are perfectly sensible for heavy cavalry; but for most infantry they offer a lot of downsides that more than compensate for the benefits; this is alsoprobably why the use of closed faced helmets peaked in the latter part of the high medieval and early part of late medieval times)

[@HoJu1989]

A question maybe for a short video: how common were double edged straight shortswords in the medieval period? I mean the classic concept of shortsword as depicted in fantasy and RPGs, a straight double edged blade noticeably bigger than a dagger but smaller than a regular arming sword, usually carried in fantasy by bandits and bruttish jailers. The closest I can think is something like the cinquedea or some large baselards that could easily qualify as shortswords but that'a about it

[@johnladuke6475]

Shorter messers maybe, or hangers, things like that sound like they might fit the description.

[@HoJu1989]

@@johnladuke6475 I purposely specified "straight double edged" to leave out messers and hangers. I'm curious to know if the concept of a short sword as a scaled down arming sword was even a thing during the medieval period.

[@johnladuke6475]

@@HoJu1989 Whoops, didn't read carefully enough. You're right, I can't think of an example but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[@DGFTardin]

When I saw your last video on the matter, I found weird that you pointed ephigies as an evidence, because that seemed to me like of course they would want to have that person's face on the statue, besides they were lying and praying, not fighting, but it felt like such a minor point in the grand scheme of things that I didn't bother talking about it.

[@dey-sama265]

I have a question, would a barbute be a viable helmet for an archer?

[@nilo70]

What do those spikes do , exactly ?

[@jotnarymir1393]

Ive also seen mail face covers instead of a viser maybe this was a compromise between open face and closed helmet.

[@theswordguy5269]

Another issue would have been cost. A closed helm or visored helmet would likely have been somewhat more expensive than an open faced model. For the average man at arms or common soldier he may have gone with an open faced helmet for that reason. One could also see battlefield commanders using open faced models since they needed to see and to be seen. Just a few ideas.

[@AlecFlackie]

Not having watched the original video yet I would like to throw my ha'penny's worth in and remind people all PPI (using the modern term) is a compromise between protection and practicality. From personal experience in the military when I joined the British Army we were still issued with the old 'tin lid' which we never wore on exercise (always berets) and certainly aren't visibly worn on video and photos of the Falkland War for example. Simple reason, comfort and practicality when you found yourself running around the 'Ulie', for which it was not well designed. Once issued with the Kevlar helmet when were never without it 'in the field' (lamp swinging over). Likewise, a medieval commander is unlikely to wear his best Brocas helm in battle for a number of reasons; comfort, bearing in mind it would be worn for an extended period as opposed to the quarter of an hour(?) it takes to knock or be knocked off a horse; importantly personal and tactical situation awareness, and ability to give commands and receive intelligence, and last (but no means least) the psychological importance of being seen by your troops in battle, look at President Zelenskyy during the current conflict. You must understand just because kit changes, soldiering doesn't. Personally, as a former senior SNCO if I had to choose I would have an open helm (especially that one with spikes :)) every time. Closed helms could give a false sense of security; you should be protecting your head in melee irrespective of your headgear. Finally, I warrant they had their own versions of soldiers who had 'all the gear and no idea' and armorers saw them coming from a mile off "of course mate, if you want to attack that village you'll need a Great Helm"!. I hope these ramblings from a soldier's perspective have provided some interest.

[@graveyard1979]

One can safely assume that unless it's explicitly made to be a portrait piece (like a bust, a tomb effigy, a portrait painting) then showing anybody's facial likeness was not the main goal of the artist. The target audience matters too. Most of Ancient and Medieval art depicting combat was made for the same social group that was depicted in the art. The audience would not have problem telling who's fighting who based on the heraldry alone. There's one detail with both Ancient and Medieval art, the artists were often working from templates and heavily under artistic convention. This is why on an Greek pottery or a Medieval manuscript people in the group often have the same face. Facial likeness was not important.

[@adamyoung6797]

Like me playing videogames now! Taking the helmet off to show someone’s face is common in pretty much every media helmets are represented I suppose

[@MyFriendsAreElectric]

During the pandemic, I had to do some of my archery with a paper mask on... That was horrible and made a mess of my anchor point and aiming... Imagine doing it with your view messed up AND your anchor a couple of inches away from your face... Horrible. All these things are good jumping off points for interesting discussion, but it's getting kind of grating that people who have done no research at all try to counter your thoroughly researched points with their knee-jerk reactions and assumptions.

[@VernonKun]

Would rpofessional archers train with their helmets on and the helmet would be less impactful on performance?

[@MyFriendsAreElectric]

@@VernonKun I wouldn't know... But our English tradition at one point was a law required men and strong boys to gather at the local church for archery practice. I'm guessing very few had any armour. More to the point though... Why does an archer need armour? They're going to stay wayyyyy back as much as possible until the fight is on top of them, forcing them to switch to melee or run. So unless the crunch comes, I can imagine people preferring to leave archers lightly armoured.

[@SirNarax]

Motorcyclists don't all go full face helmets with visor down all the time even though their visibility is not hurt that much. Breathing in a helmet can still be a problem as well as heat. There is also the point, particularly young people are not convinced fully that they will be hurt. "Yeah putting the visor down is safer but it is hot and what are the odds a car kicks a stone up into my face?" Or the medieval equivalent: "Yeah I could put the visor down but what are the odds that an arrow hits me in the face?" A decent amount of motorcyclists also gravitate towards smaller helmets or even no helmets and I don't find it unlikely that people felt any different back then.

[@jacobrigby3172]

see I was always under the impression that knights and retainers with visors had their visors down for either advancing into the arrow storm or in a cavalry charge to prevent a lucky arrow/lance copping them in the face, but once they reached the melee/the charges momentum was stopped, they'd lift/remove visors to fight similar with greathelmets and a cervelie/skullcap underneath

[@edwarddoernberg3428]

the points about some artists choosing to include a raised visor or mounting points meaning other artists that didn't include them were deliberately portraying a fixed open face helm is weak. just because one artist went to the trouble doesn't mean all will. we see parallels today, some media is acuraty, some its not. it is the surviving articles and written accounts (particularly inventory that were written for accuracy, not art/entertainment/propaganda) that show that open-faced helmets were common.

[@nowthenzen]

at Hastings William removed his helmet so his face could be seen to refute rumor of his death. Maybe leaders often exposed their faces for this reason unless forced to cover in the final press?

[@koboldtrans2161]

im not an expert but logically if i would be a medieval soldier and i have opportunity to choose I'd choose the best option for my weapons, the enemy usuall or predictable weapon, the weather etc and i absolutely can imagine a lots of situations were the open helmet has way more advantage than the closed ones. All of these in art is an other subject, mostly up to the artist and their costumers, can be accurate or can be far far away from the truth. But i dont think its a lie anyway just the freedom of the art.

[@malacostracus3663]

Another thought on the comparison with modern " propaganda" or movies, where a protagonistic actor has to have his/her face shown: I very much assume that we tend to overastimate the recognizability of historic people, even kings. Nowadays we are so used to see the faces of famous and important people, due to the technology of photography and filming and the huge abundance of these media in our daily live. I very much assume that to be different (but you might want to correct me on that) for historical times, where even a king would probably not have been recognized by his facial characteristics by a normal peasant or even a somewhat distant nobility. So facial representation in historical artwork would not have the same importance than it has in modern media. The points on making them stand out or more relatable or showing facial expression to demonstrate emotions of course all still stand.

[@caradocewing4434]

I hear a lot of people say there’s some problem with using art as a source, now whilst art may be limited sometimes, it is in ways we can understand, maybe people saying art is an awful source should follow that up by reading some textual sources.

[@SkepticalCaveman]

Of course open faced helmets were popular, they don't give disadvantage on perception checks. On the serious note, perception is actually very important in a fight, so while a visor is great as a passive defense (as all armor), especially against arrows, it also hinders your sight (and hearing too) so you become less effective on the offense and active defense (dodging). It's a trade off and also a preference.

[@beepboop204]

👍: i bet in the medieval times they had the same debates canadians have about playing hockey, with face protection or not

[@rhysthomas2876]

I wonder how many of the open faced helmets that survive (especially the highly decorated ones) are for display purposes rather than combat use? It might indicate why they have survived better than helmets used in combat? I feel that both were used. It makes logical sense for an English/Welsh archer to use an open faced sallet for a wider field of vision. Equally for a knight or man at arms to be able to open or close a visor. I am also sure that some visors would become damaged in combat and turn from a closed visor to an open faced helm. It also might be worth noting the frequency of battle (or, how infrequent they were). Perhaps a soldier of whatever rank would wear a more practical helmet for day to day things, scouting, raiding etc, but would only fight one or two pitched battles where a closed helmet in a melee would suit them better

[@romaliop]

One thing I would question also is the extent to which the illustrator knows and understands what actually happened. Were they there to witness the battle? Did someone who was there describe the scene? Was he drawing based on written accounts? It might be that the truth is as simple as the illustrators not knowing the details and therefore just drawing what he thought would look the best. If both open and closed helmets were commonly used, then you'd expect to see some of both across all the artworks, even though for a specific piece it might not present the truth of what happened. If either of them was particularly uncommon, then it would most often have to signal something to the viewer (maybe bravery/stupidity for open helmet, cowardice for closed helmet etc.). And if there is such a meaning to an artistic choice, then you would rarely see the other alternative at all, especially when it comes to the main hero of the picture. In movie context showing the face is important, because the face is the most important part of the body in acting. The story is told partly through the faces of the main characters. If you hide the faces, then the end result will not be the same. For an illustration, this is typically not the case.

[@MlorenDraymeer]

Probably drawing based on verbal accounts. But this doesn't stop them knowing what the armour looked like, soldiers and knights could be seen in the street, you would see the army leaving to go to war and returning, you would see their equipment in blacksmiths. There was less separation back then between the army and the common people.

[@dronillon2578]

Nice one! I mean the video AND the helmet.

[@alexanerose4820]

I just find it funny that the idea of being able to see and hear in an era where arrows weren't that fast and not everyone was Robin Hood just doesn't register for some people

[@VernonKun]

It does seem weird for people to choose open face helmets without visors over those woth visors. Is there a reason for it? I thought your previous video is more about raising visor in melee.

[@VompoVompatti]

Why even put a quick release for a removable visor on a helmet if you are not meaning to remove it in combat?

[@TheUberguitar123]

They are anything but quick. no one is gonna be fiddling around with the visor hinges in the midst of combat. especially whilst wearing gauntlets.

[@-RONNIE]

Thanks for the video 👍🏻

[@obeastness]

I feel like a lot of modern fans of the close faced helmets are attracted by the looks, and by watching things like M-1. But really I doubt that the open faced visors offered the protection that made them worth all the drawbacks, the face is already a large area to be covered, so if you're going to make it a thick plate, it's going to be heavy, and it's your neck that has to support it. I suspect generally visors weren't very thick at all, you see visors typically being very rounded to make blows glance, but what happens when the lance lands square, or someone lands a hard poleaxe hit to your visor, not a great time for the visor wearer I suspect.

[@IshanDeston]

I never really understood the need for a close faced helmet for the vast majority of people. When you got a shield you only need to protect what is above the eye line, everything below should be covered by the shield. And when wield a big, long weapon you also want to see what is going on around you, to make use of that range. The only people with enclosed helmets should be the ones that potentially get thrust among the enemy and need to have as little exposed as possible. Heavy Cavalry and heavy infantry.

[@juanmolinafernandez3983]

I understand people who argues that things, but... You are right. To doubt about open helmets it's more about haven't studied sources that "artistical conveniences".

[@hjorturerlend]

And regarding 15th century open-faced sallets and kettle hats, it's not like you can't combine them with a bevor and get 80% head protection.

[@MordorXP]

is there any difference between CAMAIL and AVENTAIL ?

[@18IMAMGODINA]

You should watch sensei Seth's video when he tried out buhurt I think it proves your point that they would often take off their helmets for the sake of breathing and hearing each other lol

[@williamjenkins4913]

While I agree with you point 3 doesnt hold up for the simple fact that not every artist has the same attention to detail. By that logic given the frequency a character I draw hides their hands you would conclude that humans dont have hands. No I just suck at hands.

[@schizoidboy]

I'm making the guess that warriors wore their helmets depending on whatever they were comfortable fighting in or with, and whatever they could afford or their side could afford to provide them. The problem with the visor down is it restricts vision and makes it harder to breathe, so some might have worn their helmets open or closed, depending on what they were comfortable fighting in. This a blind guess of course, but when it comes to fighting you're going to fight the way you fight best rather than what is considered fashionable on the battlefield.

[@Axterix13]

I reckon economic factors would figure in as well. A closed helmet would take more time, more expertise, and more metal to make, and one with a visor more still. So it just seems likely that there would be quite a few open faced helmets for the common soldier for that reason alone. Sure, if you're a rich nobleman, you get to pick your gear, and you can probably afford different pieces based on your current needs. A strong mercenary unit, again, sure. But if you're a conscript, some poor boy joining a common mercenary unit looking for adventure/fortune, or some hedge knight? Cost will be a factor.

[@Suillibhain]

For the vast majority of a soldiers time is spent doing non combat duties. This would have been the same for medieval soldiers. Having a closed face helmet hampers yelling orders, visibility, breathing, and overall situational awareness. I would assume, two helmets, or removable visors to be the norm for your aristocracy. I would also assume the open face helmet to be the "daily wear" helmet. I have also seen references to multiple suits of armor. I doubt that would be normal on campaign, but a marching set and a pitched battle set seems reasonable.

[@JCOwens-zq6fd]

I would say that the best way to tell would be to look at the common denominator. The human being. I was a soldier. We wore helmets. Are there versions that cover the face? Yes. Would I choose to wear one in battle? No. Bulletproof/resist or not Its too hard too see & breathe. My chances of not getting hit in the 1st place are higher than the chances of it saving me w/ it. Thats my 2 cents anyway.

[@bjornnilsson1827]

I'd assume that most of the common soldiers recognized the king and other key figures much more.by their heraldry, general "style" and high status clothes and "stuff" as well as demeanor. If Henry V actually walked "incognito" among his troops I think that mostly required "dressing down" rather than disguising his face. In contrast to today where it would be totally impossible for the sovereign or more realistically one of the princes to walk among the people without being recognized unless there was some serious makeup job involved...

[@onbedoeldekut1515]

What does the archaeological record suggest? I'm referring to human remains of people of note/rank who would have been armoured, whose skulls show evidence of trauma to the face. Granted, we'll never have the full picture, as the lion's share of the rank and file would find themselves in (so far) undiscovered mass graves, but one might make assumptions from what HAS been unearthed, as well as remains of nobility, men at arms etc who we know died in battle and had been laid in state or buried and later documented.

[@ChrisMartin-mv9gt]

Matt, you mention at the end of the video that open face helmets continued to be a thing in both world wars. I see where you are going with the point, but the choice of an open faced steel helmet with the reintroduction of them in armies for infantry during the 20th century is largely dictated by battle field conditions, which makes them dissimilar to medieval helmets on a broad strokes comparison (and at the same time not dissimilar for comparison, but more on that in a minute ;) ) The choice of an open faced helmet during the First World War was dictated by the need to protect the head from falling debris while allowing for use in conjunction with gas equipment. These conditions are at play in the lead up to the Second World War, but as we know they didn’t play out the same way and there were some change to helmet patterns during the course of the war. The helmets were, of course, never thought of as an implement to protect from direct weapon strike. That being said, there is an argument to be made in the comparison of the two when looked at from the point of view of the lived experience of battlefield conditions vs the idealized battlefield. In theory it makes sense to completely cover the body in steel, but clearly on field experience dictated when (or in what situations) an individual may have prioritized comfort over protection. As you point out material culture clearly shows a considerable preference for open faced helmets, and written sources provide insight on both the choice and danger of wearing an open faced helmet or keeping the visor raised in battle. I think you do see something similar happening with helmets in both world wars. It being an issue item the individual had little control over the shape or form of the helmet but could and did augment them to be more comfortable to wear. There is a wealth of pictographic evidence of guys not fastening chin straps or looping them over the brims of helmets. Some British and Canadian troops seemed to like wearing their helmets on shape angles, for both comfort and/or fashion reasons. I’m sure you can see similar practices in other nations as well. These choices make the helmet less secure which seems like a bad idea when in combat, but they did it. As you say, the evidence is overwhelming for the open faced helmet in medieval times. We need to guard against the a priori or ahistorical in our interpretations of the evidence on such subjects. What might make sense to us from a practical point of view, ever so divorced from the medieval battle field as we are, is not what might have made practical sense to people of the time. The art work shows the presence of the open faced helmet, the material culture shows many examples, the written record discusses them. They were undeniably a thing. Clearly there were reasons for their choices based on their lived experience of the battle field and/or for fashion reasons (and we must never discount fashion in our understanding) that are at odds with how we view the medieval battle field from a modern point of view.

[@toncek9981]

I definitely understand that in some cases there is artistic/symbolic reason to show characters with open helmet in order to distinguish them from others, to show that they are speaking/giving orders or perhaps to show specific facial feature connected to the character (one eye, red beard, scars whatever). On the other hand I don't really see where are the "muh, propaganda" people coming from. It's not like people are going to recognise faces of characters that were alive/died recently, let alone those that were dead for hundreds of years or never actually existed (with the exception of distinctive facial features that are part character's "lore" - like one eyed/blind Jan Žižka). Also I don't understand, propaganda-wise, what's the point of showing face of Hercules or Alexander the Great. When it comes to actual propaganda of alive/recently deceased kings and nobles, I have a feeling that for medieval people image of king in full, high quality armor recognisable by his heraldic symbols might have been much more important than showing his face...

[@VernonKun]

I dont see why a propaganda would prefer open face helmets anyway

[@toncek9981]

@@VernonKun I guess the idea makes sense from today's propaganda or even Hollywood point of view - everyone knows how the guy looks like so you show his face, because people want to recognise him and be sure it's actually him... On the other hand it doesn't make much sense from medieval point of view.

[@mooncorp212]

What is the very first thing people does in olympic fencing after a duel ? They remove their helmets. And that's combats that doesn't last more than 15m. Medieval battles could last for hours if not days. Behours comabttants have the same reflex : after combat, they remove the helmets first, and their assault last 15m. What if they last 2h ?

[@thalesmoraes1312]

There is some artworks that depict swords cutting plate armour. Could this be done?

[@InSanic13]

I think Skallagrim talked about this in one video, specifically about helmets.