In connection with the preparation of the Catalog of European helmets of 9th-12th century, we decided to tackle the problem of patches of historical, especially early medieval helmets, which is a marginal topic in the current academic and reenactor discourse, in the form of a separate article. The goal is to discuss the theoretical starting points as well as physical helmets that will help to better identify reparations in the future. A pilot attempt at patching a modern reproduction is also included, which can serve as a guide for other users. The article is dedicated to academics, reenactors and generally all those interested in historical warfare.
Current reenactment position
Before delving into the depth of the issue, it is worthwhile to state the essence of the modern approach to helmets and their reproductions, which can prevent us from knowing the nuanced historical reality. Crucial is the fact that the vast majority of reenactment helmets are made from rolled sheet of low carbon non-alloy steel. This material is characterized by high quality and homogeneity. For fencing with iron weapons, where the head with the helmet is the main hit zone, a material thicker than 2 mm is typically used, which could withstand regular stress for many years. It is typical for reenactors to look for low price and buy mass-produced pieces that are not made to order. The resulting helmets are usually oversized and do not perfectly follow the anatomy. The free space between the helmet and the user’s head is then lined with a thicker layer of textile padding. Due to the strength and quality of the material, the helmets are relatively difficult to bend and rarely crack. For these reasons, reenactment helmets are relatively heavy (often exceeding 2 kg) and basically do not use more complicated reinforcement elements. In the vast majority of cases, they are equipped with chin straps that are riveted to the dome (Vlasatý – Zbránek 2020). All in all, we can evaluate helmets as more passive protection. For reenactment helmets, there is a huge variance in quality – some are fairly accurate visual reproductions, others deviate from the originals. However, typical representatives are defined by the following points:
- High-quality material with a uniform quality and a thickness of more than 2 mm is used for production. The facial part is not significantly reinforced.
- Helmets are usually serial products, which results in oversized and ill-fitting sizes.
- Typical helmets cost hundreds of euros and everyone can afford them.
- The helmets deform little, which leads to negligible work with reinforcing shaping.
- They are characterized by a higher weight (most often 1.5-2.5 kg without accessories).
- As a rule, they have chin straps and mostly textile padding.
- Helmets tend to avoid decoration in the form of non-ferrous metal or painting.
- Helmets are handled in a more passive manner.
- Helmets are used in combat with a frequency of several times a week to several times a year.
- If a hit to the head is allowed, the helmeted head is the primary hit area.
- The point is perfect absorption of hits.
- The role of helmets is to ensure the safe operation of the hobby.
Fig. 1: An example of a quality reenactment helmet.
Source: archive of Jan Bartošek, Sköll group.
Historical reality
The helmets of the Early Middle Ages are made of material that is created during the processing of a bloom, which is the result of smelting ore, resembling a porous tangle of metal, slag and fuel (for an analyzed piece, see Kucypera – Rybka 2018: 284, 316, 326). This wrought material, called wrought iron, can be characterized as unheated, unalloyed, relatively soft steel with a low carbon content of up to approx. 0.2% (Pleiner 2000; 2006). Due to common, but not correct terminology, the simplistic term “iron” is used to describe this material. Hand-forged sheet metal from this material is naturally characterized by variability in terms of quality and thickness. The standard thickness of the iron parts of multi-part helmets is 1-2 mm (e.g. Macků – Pilná 2021; Vlasatý 2022). One-piece helmets due to the production technology – by hammering from one thick plate – reach a much wider range of material strength: although they are at a similar level of 1-2 mm in the thinnest points, the strongest places can be up to 5 mm thick, and the most common thickness often fluctuates between 2-3 mm (e.g. Bravermanová et al. 2019; Sankiewicz 2018; Vlasatý 2023). The facepieces were normally the thickest parts of the helmet and sometimes exceeded 5 mm.
The thickness of the dome cannot be perceived as an undersized value, it is rather a compromise between defensive potential and weight. Due to the weaker and lower quality material, a number of elements were used that provided better structural strength and prevented bending (overlapping of parts, application of ribs, reinforcements, ridges, dimples, faceting). Furthermore, weapons of the period were made of proportionally similar materials, and helmets may not have been preferred targets, as hitting them could destroy the weapon. It must be added that helmets are not designed to fully absorb hits and are intended to protect against imperfect and rebounded hits. The helmets undoubtedly reflected the anatomical proportions of the owners, they could be made to measure. Only a minimum of helmets had straps riveted to the dome; if straps were present, they had to be attached to the padding or lining of the aventail. The padding was significantly thinner than modern imitations, roughly 5 mm, and usually included leather that protected even in case the helmet was cut through. The resulting helmets were lighter, tighter and allowed their wearers to work more actively (bending, crouching etc.). Early medieval helmets are defined by the following points:
- Material of variable quality and thickness varying between 1-3 mm is used for production. The face part is the strongest part of the helmet.
- The size of the helmets was chosen with regard to the head of the wearer, which it perfectly copied.
- The thin material was compensated by shaping the surface and working with reinforcements, ridges and facets.
- They were characterized by a lower weight, most often between 1-1.6 kg (without accessories).
- They did not have riveted chin straps and the thin padding often had a leather layer.
- Helmets were very often decorated with non-ferrous metal or painting; helmets were luxury items.
- Helmets were used in a more active manner.
- Helmets were used in real combat with a frequency of at most several times in a lifetime.
- The top of the helmet was not necessarily the main impact area, the face or neck could play a greater priority.
- The purpose of a helmet is not to perfectly absorb hits, but to provide help in the event of imperfect hits, hits from blind angles, etc.
- The role of helmets is to increase the chance of survival and visually separate the rich aristocracy.
Fig. 2: Helmet from Pécs – an example of an early medieval helmet.
Given how valuable helmets were at this time, it is likely that people used them until they were completely worn out and then recycled them into smaller items. This also means that they have been repaired and patched over the course of their existence – this fact is evident in a number of other metal products, clothing, shoes and the like. Examining patches is of particular interest to the user because it indicates long-term use of the item and reveals how to solve practical problems.
Early medieval evidence is scant in this regard, as the helmets are in poor condition and little researched. We currently have records of only one banded and two one-piece conical helmets that have patches. The banded helmet is represented by a find from the fortress of Halmyris in present-day Romania, the central band of which is reinforced from the inside with an iron plate. The helmet is dated to the 6th century (Zahariade 2009). The rest are the so-called the St. Wenceslas helmet (Bravermanová et al. 2019; Vlasatý 2019) and the overlooked Continental helmet that is stored in the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford (Ffoulkes 1912: 60; Pitt Rivers Museum 2024; Scott 1994: 21-3). Both patches are elongated, about 10-11 cm long sheets that are riveted with 9-12 rivets. The patch of the St. Wenceslas helmet is located inside the dome near the edge, for the Oxford helmet the patch is located on the outside approximately halfway up the dome. However, it cannot be ruled out that the repairs occurred at any time during the storage of the helmets.
Fig. 3: St. Wenceslas helmet and its patch.
Source: Jan Gloc, Prague Castle Administration; Bravermanová et al. 2019.
Fig. 4: Helmet kept in Oxford.
Source: Pitt Rivers Museum 2024; Scott 1994.
Photograph of the patch was taken by Ian Lewis.
Another remarkable yet similarly problematic case is the helmet from Manvelivka, Ukraine, whose burial can be dated to the last third of the 9th century (Čurilova 1986; Ščedrina 2022). The top of this helmet is covered with an approximately diamond-shaped, flat plate, which takes the role of a more typical socket. The helmet is considerably damaged and it cannot be determined whether it is the original production plan or a repair. However, the plate is shaped with decorative lobes to imitate the socket legs, and is backed by a sheet of copper alloy, from which we can conclude that the production of this component was quite laborious.
Fig. 5: Helmet plate from Manvelivka. Source: Ščedrina 2022.
The closest comparable pieces come from the High and Late Middle Ages. From the corpus published by Goll (2014: ref arm 1349, 1410, 1602, 1839, 2075) and Gosk (2022: Cat. 90) it follows that the vast majority of period patches were inserted from the inside, then riveted (possibly also soldered with brass) and the rivets were polished on the outside, so repairs or strengthening were usually not visible from the outside. If the helmets were covered with paint or other coating, the patches would not be visible at all. Such a solution makes sense because the helmet is reinforced and maintains a smooth surface, which is important both functionally and aesthetically.
Fig. 6: Repaired helmet from the Higgins Armory Museum in Worcester.
Source: Goll 2014: ref arm 1602.
Patches made from the outside are generally rare and the question is whether they only occurred in the recent past as a result of conservation interventions. The outer patch appears to be used at the central band of a 13th-century Lukašovka helmet, Moldova (Kulešov – Abyzova 2011). The only late medieval helmet that shows signs of external patching is on display in the Norwegian Maihaugen Museum, where it is dated to the last quarter of the 15th century (DigitaltMuseum 2024). The patch consists of an approximately square sheet of metal that is attached with four rivets placed in the corners. Generally speaking, medieval helmet patches seem to tend to use a lot of rivets and be big enough to reinforce a larger area. From our overview text, it is essential to pay close attention to the inside of helmets for future patch identification.
Fig. 7: Repaired helmet from the Maihaugen Museum.
Source: DigitaltMuseum 2024.
Experiment
The following chapter is the first attempt known to us to patch a reproduction of an early medieval helmet, made by the Mexican reenactor Jovan Perea, and which is a loose follow-up to the article Modification of an M type axe (Vlasatý 2021) that thematizes a similar reenactor modification.
Fig. 8: Hole in the helmet. Source: Jovan Perea.
During the April 2024 festival, an axe hit cracked the helmet in the area of the crest above the forehead. Although the helmet is not a perfect replica, it is a fairly expensive piece of equipment that deserves repair and preservation. Instead of classic welding a crack, Jovan remembered the example of the Oxford helmet that was repaired with an iron patch and decided to imitate this method. The patch is placed from the outside and modern tools were used, thanks to which the entire repair process at home took only about 30 minutes. The patch consists of a small sheet of mild steel with a thickness of 1.5 mm. After cutting, the edges were slightly rounded and holes were made. 4 mm thick mild steel wire served as rivets. The patch was continuously heated and shaped during riveting. The following tools used were:
- Hacksaw
- C-clamp
- Ball peen hammer
- Vice
- Torch and tank
- Center punch
- File
- Drill
- Chisel
- Gloves
- Sandpaper
Fig. 9: Photo of patch preparation and necessary tools.
Source: Jovan Perea.
Fig. 10: Patch applied.
Source: Luz Flores and Jovan Perea.
After writing the text, we were sent one more patch, created by Jan Novák on Jan Matějka’s four-piece helmet after the original rivets were cut off in 2016. The patch is attached externally to the side of the helmet with four rivets and has an elongated shape.
Fig. 11: Patch on Jan Matějka’s helmet.
Source: archive of Jan Novák and group Aurinko felág.
Acknowledgment
The author’s team would like to thank the armourer Pavel Zátrapa for his help in consulting the material. Tom Betts and Ian Lewis greatly assisted in finding further details of the helmet from the Oxford Museum and provided photographs. We express our gratitude to Jan Bartošek (Sköll group), Luz Flores and Jan Novák (Tyrskygge group) for sharing their photos.
We hope you liked reading this article. If you have any question or remark, please contact us or leave a comment below. If you want to learn more and support our work, please, fund our project on Patreon, Buymeacoffee, Revolut or Paypal.
Bibliography
Bravermanová, Milena et al. (2019). Nová zjištění o přilbě a zbroji zv. svatováclavské. In: Archeologie ve středních Čechách 23, 235–310.
Čurilova 1986 = Чурилова, Л. Н. (1986). Погребение с серебряной маской у села Манвеловки на Днепропетровщине // Советская археология, 4, 261–266.
DigitaltMuseum 2024 = Hjelm. In: digitaltmuseum.no [online]. [2024-11-05]. Available here.
Ffoulkes, Charles (1912). European Arms and Armour in the University of Oxford: Principally in the Ashmolean and Pitt-Rivers Museums, Oxford.
Goll, Matthias (2014). Iron Documents. Interdisciplinary studies on the technology of late medieval european plate armour production between 1350 and 1500, Heidelberg : Universität Heidelberg.
Gosk, Daniel (2022). Średniowieczne kapaliny z ziem polskich na tle europejskim, Malbork.
Kucypera, Paweł – Rybka, Krzysztof (2018). Badania archeometalurgiczne grotów broni drzewcowej i elementów uzbrojenia ochronnego. In: Sankiewicz, P. – Wyrwa, A. M. (eds). Broń drzewcowa i uzbrojenie ochronne z Ostrowa Lednickiego, Giecza i Grzybowa, Lednica, 269-330.
Kulešov – Abyzova 2011 = Кулешов, Ю. А. – Абызова, Е. Н. (2011). Два предмета мамлюкского вооружения с территории Молдовы как иллюстрация путей формирования золотоордынского комплекса вооружения // Военное дело Золотой Орды: проблемы и перспективы изучения. Отв. ред. И. М. Миргалеев, Казань, 92-100.
Macků, Pavel – Pilná, Veronika (2021). An early-medieval helmet of the Stromovka-Gnezdovo-Bojná type from the collections of the Kozel chateau. In: Archaeologia historica 46/2, Brno, 445-466
Pitt Rivers Museum 2024 = 1884.32.8. In: Online Database for Objects in the Collections of the Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford [online]. [2024-11-05]. Available at: https://prm.ox.ac.uk/collections-online#/item/prm-object-146463.
Pleiner, Radomír (2000). Iron in Archaeology. The European Bloomery Smelters, Praha.
Pleiner, Radomír (2006). Iron in Archaeology: Early European Blacksmiths, Praha.
Sankiewicz, Paweł (2018). Hełm stożkowy z jeziora Lednica. In: Sankiewicz, P. – Wyrwa, A. M. (eds). Broń drzewcowa i uzbrojenie ochronne z Ostrowa Lednickiego, Giecza i Grzybowa, Lednica, 123-131.
Scott, Russell (1994). Unearthing the Dark Age Helmet. Unpublished manuscript.
Ščedrina 2022 = Щедрина, А. Ю. (2022). Шлем из погребения у с. Манвеловка: результаты исследования до реставрации // Военная археология 7: Сборник материалов Проблемного совета «Военная археология» при Государственном Историческом музее. Отв. ред. О. В. Двуреченский, Москва, 79-100.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2019). Origins of the “St. Wenceslas Helmet”. In: Project Forlǫg : Reenactment and science [online]. [2024-11-05]. Available at: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/on-the-origins-of-the-st-wenceslas-helmet/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2021). Modification of an M type axe. In: Project Forlǫg : Reenactment and science [online]. [2024-11-05]. Available at: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/modification-of-an-m-type-axe/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2022). The helmet from Pécs, Hungary. In: Project Forlǫg : Reenactment and science [online]. [2024-11-05]. Available at: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/the-helmet-from-pecs-hungary/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2023). The helmet from Nemiya, Ukraine. In: Project Forlǫg : Reenactment and science [online]. [2024-11-05]. Available at: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/the-helmet-from-nemiya-ukraine/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš – Zbránek, Martin (2020). Helmets used in 9th-11th century reenactment. In: Project Forlǫg : Reenactment and science [online]. [2024-11-05]. Available at: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/helmets-used-in-9th-11th-century-reenactment/.
Zahariade, Mihail (2009). Late Roman pieces of military equipment from Halmyris. In: Thraco-Dacica 24, 125-130.
