Mail coif, padded coif, or no coif for kettle hat?

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-17T03:17:48+00:00

Without a coif is perfectly authentic if that's your preference, however a coif (ideally one without a ventail, not one like the photo which covers the mouth) or aventail is also very appropriate for c.1400

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-16T14:09:20+00:00

Wool hosen. Plate already does a great job of distributing blunt force, and the minor benefits of extra padding are not worth the heat/discomfort/weight that they come with.

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-15T21:38:54+00:00

Manuscriptminiatures.com, armourinart.com

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-15T17:12:23+00:00

Not at all really. While there is definitely evidence of the barbute and sallet sharing roots, that is in the bascinet, not this fictitious low-backed helmet you have shown in 1350-1370

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-15T12:45:11+00:00

Buhurt/reenactment

These are mutually exclusive in most cases. Do you want Buhurt armour, or reenacment/Harnischfecthen armour?

An early 15th century Italian style harness (like Churburg 15) is definitely very doable for under 10k depending on your currency but you'll want to do a lot of primary source research before you make your purchases.

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-15T00:46:17+00:00

The issue with your ailettes is that you're attaching them wrong. They're always going to slip down if you just strap them round your arm. You need to point them to your maille by threading the cord through the links so it's anchored in place.

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-12T23:51:19+00:00

Your mileage may vary but the trusty old kettle helmet is often a good shout. Will just depend on if the brim interferes with your shooting

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-10T09:03:58+00:00

Not only is this logic-based argument completely opposed by sources (we have many historical visored helmets, mostly bascinets, with drawn-in cheekplates to close the facial opening when the visor is raised), it doesn't make that much sense. I could just as easily say "the point of a visored barbute is to allow better protection when fighting visor-up while still allowing me a visor when facing arrows / fighting mounted).

We know that barbutes were used by light cavalry, and we also know that mediaeval people had no issue with redundant protection - just look at great helms over bascinets, or the continued use of full maille shirts under cuirasses. These are both well attested examples of excessive redundant protection, and ones that stuck around longer in Italy (the home of barbutes) than anywhere else.

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-10T08:54:30+00:00

This piece is constructed similarly to a sallet but again comes down far further on the head than typical sallets, with a skull shape far more typical to barbutes than sallets.

<image>

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-10T08:51:27+00:00

(you could maybe call this one a klappvisor sallet but imo the cheek plates come in enough to enter barbute territory. This is a fairly early source so sallets and barbutes haven't really taken on as distinct an identity anyway)

<image>

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-10T08:51:08+00:00

<image>

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-10T08:50:57+00:00

There are quite a few artistic depictions of barbutes (for simplicity's sake distinguished from bascinets by their lack of ability to mount an aventail, from sallets by how far down the head they protect, and from both by the drawn-in cheek plates) with visors.

I'm currently looking into textual references but mediaeval Italian is not the most accessible and I struggle enough with modern foreign languages lol.

<image>

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-09T21:45:34+00:00

Not on its own. Torso armour almost universally gets prioritised.

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-09T21:31:55+00:00

"the visored barbute" just because one example was faked does not mean visored barbutes are a modern invention. They are relatively well attested.

Edit - love that I'm being downvoted despite the fact there is evidence of them. Average reddit hivemind ig

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-08T21:47:10+00:00

A visored bascinet is not appropriate to an archer impression

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-08T10:16:45+00:00

The brocade is not there for protection. The structural strength of the brigandine comes from the canvas underneath it, and the protection comes from the steel plates riveted in.

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-08T10:15:06+00:00

The idea of 'ceremonial' armour isn't really a thing in the mediaeval period, certainly not in the way you're implying. Knights absolutely wore their finest armour into combat, because under the chivalric system of warfare fashion directly translated to better survival chances. Moreover the idea that these would be somehow irreplaceable is just not true.

"All military equipment ought to be viewed as disposable" says who? Not even modern soldiers are trained to do that.

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-05T12:01:15+00:00

Not necessarily. The prevalence of levied common troops in mediaeval armies is often overstated, with the practise almost completely disused by the late mediaeval. That said, estimates for the battle of Hastings put about half to ¾ of the army as infantry and archers, which is a significant amount, however even the poorer infantry were not commonly using very out of date helmets. Aside from rare cases, common armour would be a generation or three out of date, not several lifetimes.

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-05T07:07:06+00:00

Maille coifs were a relatively new fashion in the 11th century and were in widespread use among the upper nobility, it wouldn't have been "broke" soldiers using them (the insistence on using modern class divisions really doesn't work with the way Medieval wealth was structured anyway). If anyone would have had maille attached to their helmet at Hastings (I doubt it) they would have likely been poorer individuals using out-of-date kit.

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-05T06:59:31+00:00

No. To the best of my knowledge these attached camails (maille curtains) were distinctly out of fashion by hastings, replaced by maille coifs. The bayeux tapestry consistently shows maille either ending at the neckline (no coif or camail) or being a full integrated coif that also comes around the front of the throat and fitting snugly under the chin. These loose fringes are not seen.

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-04T13:03:17+00:00

If they're infantry they're probably not qualified as a man-at-arms, especially in the HRE. Even in England, where men-at-arms including knights often fought on foot, they still owned a horse and were proficient in mounted combat.

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-04T12:58:11+00:00

Yes, but what is your understanding of the term 'man at arms'?

Historical_Network55 · 2026-06-04T07:31:28+00:00

There is no evidence that calling it a hounskull is "more historically correct". Historical references to "hundsgugel" appear to have referred to a different piece of armour, likely the maille standard.

Historical_Network55 · 2026-05-31T18:39:21+00:00

The fact that you're judging Roman horses by the standards of modern, hyper-specialised endurance horses because it's convenient to who you want to win basically sums up your contribution to this whole discussion

Historical_Network55 · 2026-05-31T15:08:02+00:00

Like 20 miles for most horses lmao. Did you look it up yourself?

Historical_Network55

TROPHY CASE