Aaron,

I applaud your effort to reconstruct a Wisby harness. It’s an interesting part of history I wish I had more time to look into.

In an effort to understand more of what your goal is with your harness (and partly to continue in my quest to dispell some of the misconceptions about armour), I'm curious about your statements:

You say you want an historically correct harness for 1380 AD Germany, but you say you’re working on a Wisby reconstruction. Isn’t Wisby from the 1360’s? My research indicates that armour changed steadily through each decade of the late 14th century. Is it appropriate to use the Wisby find as a basis for a 1380’s reconstruction?

"I am making a Great Helm that is correct to the period. Great Helms sat on your shoulders! You couldn’t turn your head."

What has led you to the conclusion that the helmet sat on the shoulder and you couldn’t turn your head? I have one of 'Excalibur Reproductions' replicas of the counterpart to the Pembridge Great helm (a fibreglass replica directly molded off the original) and if it were worn over a demi bascinet with proper padding between the two, as my references tell me was the fashion, it might come close to your shoulders, but probably wouldn't rest directly "on" your shoulders. Also, extant examples weigh in at around 4-5 pounds, which is very light for a helmet . These two factors taken together would perhaps restrict head movement somewhat, but I don't believe they would keep you from turning your head. Are you wearing a demi bascinet under the great helmet and are you using the correct padding between?

"My armour weighs in at ~100 lbs. plus or minus."

The books say that transitional armour was probably the heaviest of all the periods of armour because it combined mail and plate. I wonder if it weighed as much as 100#. I think that 70# or so is probably more likely, which is still “heavy” by weight standards of other periods. For instance, 15th century plate armour weigh about 50 pounds. I estimate that full mail with aketon and conical helmet would be about 45 -50 pounds

Many people today view mail as something that weighed a ton. Not necessarily true. I often cite the examples in the Wallace collection because that's the best reference for mail in my library. The Wallace catalog presents several mail shirts in the 15-20 pound range, which is much lighter than most modern 14 ga butted ring reconstructions, which come in around 35-40 pounds. To properly understand what composed a transitional harness circa Wisby.........

Let's look at the elements:

Undergarments-
clothing (braies, chausses, shirt, aketon, shoes) 5-7 pounds

Armour-
Mail (chausses, byrnie) 30-35 pounds
demi-bascinet with aventail 12-15 pounds
coat of plates 10 pounds
arm harness (brigandine style composite) 6 pounds
leg harness (gamboised cuisses, plate poleyns, gutter greaves) 6-8 pounds

total 69-81 pounds

If you are wearing 100# of armour, maybe you’re punishing yourself unnecessarily. I know from personal experience that SCA combat punishes armour excessively and that you may need to increase the thicknesses to handle the combat style, but perhaps the near 100# weight total of your harness is more than its historical counterpart.

“I’ve made elbows, and I’m working on “locking” gauntlets to protect my hands (concession to the fact I have to use my hands to work).”

God knows, I understand the value of undamaged hands. I’m sure you also understand that “locking” gauntlets were a 16th century invention? I’ve seen reconstructions of Wisby style gauntlets made by Chuck Davis and Brion Price and they seem pretty adequate for SCA combat (depending on how sticky your local marshals are...). Have you thought about reconstructing a pair of these? It seems that with all the work you put into the rest of the rig, you’d want a compatible pair of gauntlets as well.

I reiterate my admiration of you for attempting the Wisby reconstruction and wish you luck with it. My above comments are merely something to spur conversation and further your investigation of the source material. We should always push ourselves.

------------------
Cheers,

As I've been led to understand, wasn't the Wisby harness considered a bit old-fashioned for the 1380's, or even for the period the battle was fought? As I understand, the men who wore the armours were city militia, and the kit was older, more outdated gear from the city arsenal's stores. Perhaps that (in addition to the fact that the soldiers in the armour was presumably ripe after being left in the July sun for days) was one of the reasons the armour was buried with the men in it?

Robert Coleman, Jr.

_______
Actually, the "Knight from Levitic Pew in the Verden Cathedral" is from Germany, cited in Thordeman's reference, and is listed as 1360-70. Some of the Great Helms listed in the effigies are up to 1420 AD. I believe that if I am accurate to within ten years that this would be appropriate. Wisby is 1361, and there were German mercenaries.
___________

"I am making a Great Helm that is correct to the period. Great Helms sat on your shoulders! You couldn’t turn your head."

What has led you to the conclusion that the helmet sat on the shoulder and you couldn’t turn your head?
_________
My tournament book referances that. And, when I measured from the eye slots to the neck on the effigies, the Great Helms came over the neck on both sides, and would have rested on their shoulders. If not, they couldn't see where they were going at all, because their eye holes would be almost two inches too high.
_____________

I have one of 'Excalibur Reproductions' replicas of the counterpart to the Pembridge Great helm (a fibreglass replica directly molded off the original) and if it were worn over a demi bascinet with proper padding between the two, as my references tell me was the fashion, it might come close to your shoulders, but probably wouldn't rest directly "on" your shoulders. Also, extant examples weigh in at around 4-5 pounds, which is very light for a helmet . These two factors taken together would perhaps restrict head movement somewhat, but I don't believe they would keep you from turning your head. Are you wearing a demi bascinet under the great helmet and are you using the correct padding between?

_________
Measuring the helms (I've got only 20 effigies as a sample...not much), GENERALLY there would not be space for the demi-bascinet to be worn. Really.
__________

"My armour weighs in at ~100 lbs. plus or minus."

The books say that transitional armour was probably the heaviest of all the periods of armour because it combined mail and plate. I wonder if it weighed as much as 100#. I think that 70# or so is probably more likely, which is still “heavy” by weight standards of other periods. For instance, 15th century plate armour weigh about 50 pounds. I estimate that full mail with aketon and conical helmet would be about 45 -50 pounds

Let's look at the elements:

Undergarments-
clothing (braies, chausses, shirt, aketon, shoes) 5-7 pounds

Armour-
Mail (chausses, byrnie) 30-35 pounds
demi-bascinet with aventail 12-15 pounds
coat of plates 10 pounds
arm harness (brigandine style composite) 6 pounds
leg harness (gamboised cuisses, plate poleyns, gutter greaves) 6-8 pounds

total 69-81 pounds

________
The COP was so heavy that Knights only used it if they needed to...and sometimes not even then. We're talking CAST IRON instead of mild steel. I believe 50 lbs for the COP would be appropriate.
________

If you are wearing 100# of armour, maybe you’re punishing yourself unnecessarily. I know from personal experience that SCA combat punishes armour excessively and that you may need to increase the thicknesses to handle the combat style, but perhaps the near 100# weight total of your harness is more than its historical counterpart.

“I’ve made elbows, and I’m working on “locking” gauntlets to protect my hands (concession to the fact I have to use my hands to work).”

God knows, I understand the value of undamaged hands. I’m sure you also understand that “locking” gauntlets were a 16th century invention? I’ve seen reconstructions of Wisby style gauntlets made by Chuck Davis and Brion Price and they seem pretty adequate for SCA combat (depending on how sticky your local marshals are...). Have you thought about reconstructing a pair of these? It seems that with all the work you put into the rest of the rig, you’d want a compatible pair of gauntlets as well.

________
There were something like 608 (?) rivets and 105 peices to the gauntlets. And the marshalls told me, "no way" for bringing it on the field. It's a concession I have to make to save my hands.
________

I reiterate my admiration of you for attempting the Wisby reconstruction and wish you luck with it. My above comments are merely something to spur conversation and further your investigation of the source material. We should always push ourselves

_______
Thanks. I'm not up to LH standards, but I'm a nut for the SCA. Middle ground I guess.

______

quote:

---

The COP was so heavy that Knights only used it if they needed to...and sometimes not even then. We're talking CAST IRON instead of mild steel. I believe 50 lbs for the COP would be appropriate.

---

It's also irrelevent to this statement, though - wrought iron and mild steel are (IIRC) almost identical in density, so plates of the same size made of the two metals would weigh in at the same amount.

What is this "cop" piece of armour and how could any piece of plate armour weigh 50 pounds??

The heaviest tilting Stechzeug helmets from the early 16th century were in the 22 pound range and were NEVER used for anything other than specific tilts. They were around 1/4" thick in front to withstand constant and repeated hits from heavy lances. This is not something expected of field armour, so I question your estimated "cop" weight.

Stephen is on track about the metal. Forged iron is the most likely material for armour of your period.

------------------
Cheers,

The weights I will need to referance and get back to you.

Also, I'm not as good at weights as I often think.

Right, it wasn't cast iron, it was wrought (can't spell) iron.

Please be gentle with me here.

I'm not LH, I'm SCA. For most of you, that's one step before the Pit.

And I'm doing my best with what I can find in a scrapyard for free. Quite a bit of the harness I'm making is ....stainless steel.... It's a rainy area in the Pacific Northwest, and for the armour I'm going for "looks correct from the outside" to start. I'm learning with stainless steel, and eventually I expect to be in mild....

I'm Authenticy-Challanged, and Financially-Deficiant. I'll e-mail pictures if people could agree not to shoot me on sight (or site) with a reproduction crossbow.

I'm not a Tuchux, but compared to LH groups, I might as well be.

(Shhh...don't tell anyone...I'm SCA too... )

Anyways, your mixup with the cast iron made me look up the specific weights to double-check myself...here's some interesting stuff from Reade Advanced Materials:

Substance - Specific Gravity (density)
Iron, gray cast - 7.03 to 7.13
Iron, cast pig - 7.2 (difference?)
Iron, wrought - 7.6 - 7.9
Steel, cold drawn - 7.83

The way I read it, this puts modern mild steel at the heavy end of the wrought iron scale. I suppose that makes sense, since the silicon slag in wrought iron is lighter than the iron surrounding it...that might also imply that the better quality (read: purer) medieval steel, the heavier, and more like mild steel. Interesting...

Jenn

Coat of Plates, I understand now.

Stainless, that's ok, you won't see it inside a Wisby coat. I'd suggest using thinner metal than you'd ever think of. Stainless is generally harder than mild, depending on the alloy, so you can use thinner steel and have the same toughness. I usually use 20 ga in brigandines, due to the overlapping plates; they support each other and can be thinner. If I were to use SS (stainless) I'd use 22 or 24, since it's tougher. Wisby coats have less plate overlap than 15th C brigandine coats, due to the fewer number of plates, but you can still get away with 20 ga easily.

All this means you will end up with something that should weigh in at about 10-12 pounds, perhaps less. This is very close to the weight of a cuirass (breast and back plates). This worn over a mail byrnie is heavier than earlier or later armours, but we knew that. Transitional armour is generally considered to be heaviest of all types. But I'm repeating myself.

I still don't agree about the great helmet issues. I put my replica on my head and it is very obiously intended to be worn with an under bascinet and doesn't sit on the shoulders. I can't think of any instances where you'd want to wear a great helmet without the bascinet. It's a helmet with specific purposes, primarily to protect the face when in the lance charge, then shucked off for hand to hand combat, the bascinet protecting the head, etc. Later visors obviated the need for the great helmet.

------------------
Cheers,

Haptmann that's really cool about the 20 pound hauberk. That's exactly what mine weighs. Here's a tip for you Aaron 5/16" inner diameter 16gauge wire will yeild this weight. It's also an excellent weave durability wise for SCA. Which I also do. But what I wouldn't give to find a live steel group around here.

The next really cool thing. It's been a REALLLLY long time since anyone but me started talking about bascinets worn underneath a greathelm.

Another question for you haptmann: What is the correct padding for between a bascinet and greathelm. Also what typically would be worn underneath the bascinet. I'm assuming it would be just an arming cap. But you know what they say about assuming.

Just a note on COP. First generally in net language COP in upper case referrs to a coat of plates. while cop in lower case refers to cops worn on shoulders, elbows and knees.

On to my point. I haven't acutally weighed my COP yet. But a rough guestimate on it's weight is somewhere between 20 and 30 pounds. The plates are all somewhere between 17 and 16ga mild steel although I'm not really sure of the composition of the steel. I get it free from a local auto parts manufacturer.

Hehehe. Yup Chuck makes a mean wisby gaunt. I'm still struggling with the thumb articulations. Once I get that figured out I've pretty much got it though. Guess maybe I should look at his thumb ideas sketches again. Also I could ask about it but I'll struggle on my own a little more first.

hauptmann: Would you mind going to my website and taking a look at what I've done in the german transitional section. I'd like some well educated constructive criticism and you seem like a great person for that.

Here's a direct link: http://www.crosswinds.net/~mad666matt/splinted.html

Man what a cool thread. I'm really glad I came over here. Time to add a new bookmark.

Please allow me to interject something slightly off-topic here in my capacity as someone who wants everyone to be friends and on the same page.

**No one, and I do mean no one, is going to shoot at ANYONE here, for any reason, regardless of your affiliation.

**Members of these forums (regardless of affiliation) are usually interested in producing / reproducing / researching actual historical artifacts. Someone may be able to help you if you’re interesting in making modifications to a historical item for whatever reason, but maybe no one can. Don’t take it as an insult if someone says “I don’t know how to make XX pass your group’s standards”-- they probably just don’t know.

**The historical evidence you use to use to draw a conclusion is often requested to back up statement made in posts. We all get them and we all give them. Please don’t take that as shooting, being insulted or rudeness on the part of the questioner. Take it as a request for a verbal footnote.

**Anticipate that someone may have a different take on the evidence, and be prepared to discuss the evidence calmly with others. History is nebulous, fluid, mostly intangible and most of the tangible items lack context. We do the best with what we’re given and often disagree. We all try to remain open-minded and use these discussions as a way to expand our knowledge and viewpoints. Everyone’s viewpoint is valid, and sometimes we can all agree on something in the middle once everyone has contributed their store of facts.

**To avoid confusion, please note what an abbreviation means. [COP (coat of plates)] You only need to do it the first time you use it, then use the abbreviation. Abbreviations are welcome (except the dreaded "U"- ack), they'll just cause confusion of we don't recognize them (I heard the scream "50# COP????" in the other office)

Now on a personal note:

I’m going to give you the short lesson on Hauptman, so you don’t have to spend 6 months reading post to get to know him. I’m his wife and business partner, so I’m probably the best one to tell you what he’s like. He is brilliant, incredibly talented, fun and has a twisted sense of humor. He is also intense, opinionated and can be terse. When he posts, don’t expect to be molly-coddled, ‘cause it’s not his style. It can be tough to be grilled by him in person when you can see his face, but it can be positively terrifying when it comes through in type. He is not mean, but he can be abrupt. Be forewarned, get used to his style and don’t take it personally- no one else on this board does because they know it’s just his way.

He has been a full time armourer for 12 years, and began seriously studying armour years before that. He is a legitimate authority, but he is not all-knowing. He’ll admit when he’s wrong, but first you’ll have to put hard facts on the table for him to consider.

That having been said, we now return you to the discussion already under way.....

Cool. It wasn't anything in particular. It just that I pride myself in being "period" in the SCA, or at least attempting that....
....I knew I was in for it when I posted here, but I'm ready to take suggestions...
...I was commenting because, I was expecting to get a total broadside on my authenticity, which I take (possibly misplaced) pride in.

Sort of like the embarssment when someone who believes they are well dressed....you know the story of the "King's New Clothes"? Well, sometimes on this list, I will truly feel like a King.

I'll try to e-mail pictures to someone tonight to post. Probably Mad Matt -- I think he has the capacity.

I just pulled out my copy of "Armour from the Battle of Wisby" and they list no weights of the armours found.

But,by comparing the weights of medieval armours from slightly after this period, I feel that 50lbs. for a coat of plates is a little bit excessive. I have a replica Wisby type 1 done in .050" steel that weighs about 15lbs. that is more than adequate protection.

For comparison, the Churburg #13 breastplate only weighs about 6lbs. and the Churburg #14 breastplate weighs about 5.75lbs. (Both circa 1370-1400, though Scalini argues for a date of 1360 for #13)

As for the dating of the Wisby armours, they were considered old fashioned by 1361. If you look at the effigies from western Europe, you find a progression of armours constructed of vertical plates from the early 14th century, to armours constructed of vertical and horizontal plates by the middle of the fourteenth century. Around the middle of the century, the plates that protect the chest are replaced by a single, solid, "demi-breastplate" (to which the gaurd chains are attached). This "demi breastplate" is eventually extended to reach the short ribs. By the time we reach the 1370's, we have a covered globose breastplate with the horizontal plate replaced by a proper fauld, all attached to a fabric cover.

As for great helms sitting on your shoulders, I have to agree with hauptmann. From the scaledrawings I have done of both the "sister" Pembridge helm in the Royal Armouries and the Kornburg helm, it is obvious that they do not touch the shoulders.

This is very obvious if you look at the Von Pranck helm (late 14th cent.), the Aranaes helm (ca. 1300) and the Bolzano helm (a. 1300). These helms appear to only cover to slightly below the chin.

The helm of Sir Reginal Baybrook (ca. 1380) was originally short. It was made taller by the addition of a band of metal around the lower edge, presumably during its working lifetime.

Hope this info helps.

You have the book yourself -- the "Knight from the Verden Cathedral" is 1360-70, with armour very similiar to that at Wisby.

I personally made an Armour 7. It's got five big plates, and four back plates (and another put in to protect my vertebrate...non-period), and articulates quite well. Those old guys knew their stuff! I was really surprised that I had TOTAL freedom in this suit. I could stretch, bend, touch my toes, etc. And, the armour seems to weigh less when you're wearing it.

I'll try to post a picture tonight.

I only have a photocopy of the book. You have the real thing. There are people on this list who would like to see the book. Could you photocopy it for them? My copies are just that...copies. You have the real thing.

Oh, on the time frame of the armour.
Just because it's 2000, not everyone is driving a 2000 car. Some are driving around in 1950's cars. I figure a similiar example could be said for middle ages armour. In the Wisby book (and others) I find that the armour didn't change uniformly over Europe. Some places, like Sweden and Germany, were behind the trends, and then lurched forward ahead of others. If you compare armour of England, Spain, Italy, Germany, Poland, Russia, France and Sweden, you would probably notice "pockets" of stagnation, or a lack of progress. This evolution of armour was not uniform (I will either have to back this up later, or eat my word later... )

Not everyone would be running around with the "cutting edge" of armour technology. I think....

------------------
-Aaron Miaullis
(battle_of_wisby@yahoo.com)

If you *like* armour from 1360, and want to wear armour that's current for 1360, why don't you move your portrayal up a couple of years to be current with the armour, instead if trying to make it work by saying it's just outdated for 1380? Is their any reason that the person you portray would be wearing 20+ year old armour? Is that realistic?

I've seen this same sort of thing happen with clothing- folks find clothes they like and then try to make it fit their existing "persona"- that's how you have Celts wearing Tudor dresses when they find out the Celtic stuff is all shapeless sacks and the later stuff is more shapely. IMHO, they'd be better served to change their portrayal to fit the clothing they wear. Clothing or armour is the stuff people see - if it's inconsistent with the rest of your portrayal I believe it undermines your credibility.

Just my thoughts....

Gwen

It's just a little strange. I think I see a difference between the LH and SCA. LH deals in time based on months and years. SCA deals in time in centuries.

After I bicycle home tonight, I'll try to get my wife to take pictures of my armour, and one with an ugly old troll wearing it .

Who can I e-mail pictures to?

Does this include earlier periods? I'm thinking specifically of ~A.D. 1240, wherein the padded arming cap with that little padded roll going all the way around the head was worn. Of course there's the cervielle (sp?), but I had thought that at the very begining of the "great helm period" it could have been worn without a seperate, smaller type of under helm. Thoughts?

and I will put them in a directory. I will then send you the URL and you can place them in your post at your convenience.

several e-mails should be on the way promptly!

They contain:

Knight from the Levitic pew at Verden Cathedral, About 1360-70 AD.

(if you measure from his eyeslots on his Great Helm to the bottom "chin" of the Great Helm, you will find that it extends down to midchest. If you measure up from the eyeslots, you'll see that the Great Helm could NEVER be used over the basinet he's wearing. This is one of my examples I'm justifying myself with...however how weakly. But to be correct, all I really need is ONE example.)

Armour 7 from the Battle of Wisby. Pattern and Pictures of the Armour. There is also a COP I made based off of Armour 7. It is reasonably accurate (even if it is 16 ga. stainless steel over chrome tanned leather... whimper.... ) The stainless steel and leather were free (and I'm married with two children in a single income household -- financially and chronologically challenged ).

Easiest COP to make by far. I'm a certified incompetent when it comes to metal and working it. And I did. So can just about anyone else.

And it moves like it was part of you. Those old guys knew their stuff!

I also have my Great Helm in its primitive state of construction. I'm still working on it (and I'm waiting for a local armourer to get a slot open to help me out. Sven the Redbeard is a great guy if you ever see him on the tourney field. He's been in the SCA for 25 years). Measure the length from the "chin" end of the Great Helm in the Knight from the Levitic Pew at Verden Cathedral, and you'll notice that it is just about the same distance on my helm. The helm comes down and protects my neck and top of my breastbone. The helm overlaps the COP by 1-2 inches.

Yes, the Great Helm is truly GREAT. My son tried to use it as a fort during early construction. With a stripes painted on it (like my COP), it will look period, even if it's stainless steel.

Sven the Redbeard suggested making a stove out of it. I'm still going forward. I have my middle ages example. It's period (to my view). Forward! Windmills protect yourselves!!

My pauldrons are a poor copy of the pauldrons on The Knight at the Levitic Pew at Verden Cathedral.

I've weighed my gear:

Coat of Plates (COP): 25 lbs.
Wool Gambeson: 1 lb.
Shield: 8 lbs.
Half a Great Helm under construction: 8 lbs. (probably 20 lbs. when done....?)

Gauntlets, elbows, splints, armoured boots, mail: 0 lbs. (not yet done).

Total: something over 50 lbs.

Egg on MY face, eh! You guys were right!

Hauptfrau: Actually he used to post on the Archive too if I remember correctly. And from there I just remember him as being VERY well educated.

I'd be very happy with a super blunt critique of the stuff I've been dooing. It would be interesting to see if all the same concessions I've made are noticed and also what I've missed.

If you want a ctitique, he'll give you one....

It may take until tonight ot tomorrow though- he got a phonecall last night at 7:30PM that the "Planet of the Apes" people want a face-to-face at noon to discuss horse armour for the new movie. He'll be in LA all day and I have a feeling it will be another 2-martini evening when he finally gets back...

He'll get to it though. he wants to answer Glen's question about the padded coif, too but hasn't had time.

It's 3D.

It's not painted.

It's VERY detailed.

And the helms are consistantly longer in front than the chin, and the sides extend down to the shoulders. And, there is not enough room to fit it over the basinet they're wearing.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but there is enough evidence to prove I'm right.

That consistant ratio gives two ideas:
1. Some Great Helms rested on the shoulders and couldn't fit a basinet under them, or
2. Middle Ages artists were uniformly crazy when it came to dimensions. They each individually carved the Great Helms too big (or had some sort of conferance...."Now, we need to confuse future generations about our armour, so EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE make the dimensions on your Helms all askew. Won't this be a good laugh on them! Ha, ha, ha,ha.... ), or,
3. This was a "fashion peice" that was out-of-date. Sort of like burying someone in a Tux. We never wear them unless we're getting married or dead, but previous generations wore them a lot. If you look at coffin viewings to find the "typical" garb for year 2000 men, it would be a Tux.

I choose #1.

If we DON'T use effigies, stonework and carvings, we're stuck with a single surviving helm (Black Prince's). That isn't a good sampling of the period, and may have even been a display model never used.

I say we HAVE to use effigies to do historical work.

Comment?

------------------
-Aaron Miaullis
(battle_of_wisby@yahoo.com)

I'd love a critique. And of course I'm willing to wait. Because I don't intend to pay for it. That means it could be given 10 years from now and I'd still be happy.

Aaron: How many artists do you think ever wore armor? Probably almost none. Also take a look at the shorthand form for drawing maille that led scholars to believe for years that ringmaille existed.

I'm speaking as an artist here. It's what I went to school for and it's what I do for a living. Everything from pencil to sculpture to 3d animation. The thing about artists and art movements is that they are generally inspired by one great person or two who would have started a specific art movement.

Take a look at the impressionists as an example because that's what popped into my head first. It was just a couple people who started the movement. They were revolutionary geniuses. But the thing is that lesser (not necessarily in skill but in vision as well as in social acceptance at the moment) artists tend to try to emulate the style etc. of the artists who are all the rage at the moment.

I know generally people think of artists as independant and free willed and full of creativity and individuality. Artists are especially guilty of this. The majority of artists are just sheep being lead by a greater sheep. And that greater sheep is usually by the standards of mainstream society insane.

Now the other thing you have to consider here is that not all artists are created alike. And also that an artists rendition of something is not like a photograph but is also meant to convey other meanings and makes use of different symbolism and creative liscence in order to convey the message or feeling that the artist wishes to portray. And of course these methods usually have a standardized form of expression. The reason for this standardized use of altered reality is that the art is for the society that exists at the time that the artist creates the piece. And so the artist follows the general psychological preconceptions in which society views things. An example of this is in a modern context a woman who would be considered beautiful would be thin. While in another time period what would be considered beautifull in an artwork of a woman would be what we would now consider to be very overweight and vice versa.

Yet another reason why you can't use artworks as an exact historic reference is that the armor in an artwork didn't need to function. This means that the artist can make the work look more impressive without worrying about wether or not it would actually work.

Another point to consider is that perspective and proportions etc. were not as developed as they are today. This does not mean that things did not seem as realistic to the viewers then. What it does mean though is that your perceptions are different then those of the medieval person. This means that you view medieval artwork (and so does everyone it's unavoidable) in a different way then which it was meant to be viewed. This aspect of the human mind is not really something that is controllable and is on more of a subconsious level.

And just to add one more argument here. Artists are not perfect. Which means you can't use artworks to scale armor from. Just to gain a basic impression.

Basically it takes the mind of an artist to understand the mind of an artist from another time. And even then it's very difficult.

And just to back this up with some evidence I have a picture on an effigy where the guy is holding a greathelm and wearing a demi bascintet. The thing about this effigy is that the greathelm wouldn't fit on the guys head wether he was wearing the bascinet or not. The greathelm is just too small. This is why you need to put that big "NTS" on any historical artworks. Because of what they are. Artworks and not technical scale plans wether they be 2d or 3d or even written description.

The effigies may be based on an artist's ideal like the statues of ancient Greece. The bodies are the ideal, but no human being is proportioned that way. It is artistic license rather than reality.

On the same token, even in a modern sense, many artists have seen armour, good or not-so-good, handled armour, but have never put it on or even wondered about the functionality, weight, and effects on the body, because they are artists not armourers (though some do cross the line or are incredibly detail oriented like Drurer and others) and are interested in form and impression.

Things to consider:
Is the effigy true to life in size or larger?

Is it stylized? If so, measurements based on this stylized work of art will be correct for the statue/effigy, but not for real life applications.

From a personal standpoint, I have tried some great helms on for size. Looks cool, but as they say in New England it is "wicked" uncomfortable to wear, especially if it is too big and heavy (effects balance). I wouldn't want anything resting on my shoulders like that, don't care how much padding I have on, it would still be fatiguing. Like I said this is personal POV (point of view). I am a mobility freak and anything that hampers the turning of my head is like being a claustrophobic in a small, dark, earthen tunnel.