Talk:Close helmet

This page should be deleted

The page has no references and seems confused and confusing. The term smelting is incorrectly used. Armour was usually cold worked once the sheet was formed. The page seems to be describing early helmets with complete face protection, ancestral to the "great helm." These developed from about 1170, but one of the first illustrations of one is on the second great seal of Richard I of England in the 1190s. As far as I'm aware the various forms of "proto-great helm" have no recognised collective name, certainly not "close helmet". Also the illustration most definitely is of a close helm of the 16th century, not an early helmet with face-protection of the 12th century as described in the text! Incidentally "close helmet" and "close helm" are used interchangably in scholarship for the same type of 16th to 17th century helmet where a two-part visor and bevor all rotate from the same two rivet points on the sides of the skullpiece, another cogent reason to delete this article.

It strikes me that the creator of the page should have added a "development" section to the page Great helm rather than usurp a term already in use to describe a different helmet type. Urselius (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

• I have removed the {{prod}} tag which proposed that this article be deleted, because I think that this article has merit and so should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here as notification. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article as that process is only to be used when there is no opposition. Warden (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The article has no merit for the reasons given above, I notice that you give no reasons for your opinion that it has merit. It would be impossible for anyone to find supporting citations for the article under its present title, as they do not exist. The term close helmet is used in scholarly articles and books as an alternative to Close helm to describe the same 16th to 17th century helmet.

This is what is described in the text of the article, please note that it is not called a "close helmet" (I would also take exception to the use of "pot helm" or "great helm" for this type of "proto great helm" myself):

http://www.battlemerchant.com/Helmets/Battle-ready-helmets/Crusader-pot-helm-2mm-MS-with-leather-liner-size-M::2157.html

The ONLY way I see to preserve this page is to remove the erroneous image and re-name the page "Proto-great helms." I do have a extensive knowledge of Medieval warfare - look at Komnenian Byzantine army which is 90% my work and is meticulously referenced. Urselius (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Urselius - agreed. Deletion would have been best here. Unfortunately (just try it! - send it to WP:AFD) WP doesn't like deleting articles for inaccuracy, especially not in niche subjects (everyone can shout "Save!", few understand the distinctions as to why we'd be better rid)

So what do we do instead? Produce one article as Close helmet, with a redirect from Close helm, and try to explain their whole history in one place? This does have the advantage of avoiding name-based confusion.

Alternately, rename the current close helm to close helmet, rename close helmet to close helm, then try to fix each one as covering the helmets of that period specifically, trimming the anachronistic rubbish from the early close helm article.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• There seem to have been variety of styles and names for headgear of this sort. For example, see here, where the terminology of Shakespeare is discussed — the words used there include castle, close helmet and casquetel. Where there is no definitive and exact terminology, we should avoid being too precise in our division of the topic and should bring all these various terms together. Close helmet is used as plain English to describe a fully enclosed helmet and so seems better for the general reader than words which are essentially foreign imports from French or Italian. Warden (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• There are quite a few scholarly works out there, Oakeshott, publications by the Royal Armouries etc., so we are talking about a field which has existing technical terminologies and definitions. In this case as an encyclopedia we cannot just rely on English usage or literary descriptions becasuse they are superceded by technical and scholarly definitions.

If I were going to sort this out I would make "Close helmet" a redirect to "Close helm," then cover the topic described in the text of the existing article by adding a section to the page Great helm covering the early versions which led to the development of the classic great helm. I could certainly write some more cogent text. There are some illustrations of early or proto-great helms:

Urselius (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

External image
http://www.codesmiths.com/shed/armour/helm/greathelm_pair.jpg

Oakeshott is the obvious starter, agreed. Most of WP's armour content would be best deleted and simply replaced with a placeholder saying "Go get a copy".

Just to establish some bona fides, a couple of my own bucket helms. Warden loves this sort of thing - he tries to get you topic-banned if you actually know something about a subject.

I'm uneasy about the great helm article: it confuses buckets, sugarloaves and great helms. I certainly don't think redirecting to it is ideal.

I think we're agreed that the later close helmet (with bevor-like vizor) warrants a stand-alone article, and that close helmet is probably the best name for it.

I think we also agreed that there's the earlier close helm, as a quite distinct piece that warrants coverage but currently is only mentioned in one sentence at most.

However I don't like an article that mixes bucket helms and great helms. What's a great helm? IMHO, it's a secondary outer helmet, worn over a bascinet and specifically for the tourney. Because it was so specialised, it could use the form of the earlier, and now obsolete, bucket helms (only larger). I know that bucket helms are frequently described as "great helms", just because of their shape, but we shouldn't further propagate this confusion.

I don't like "proto great helm". Your Peraldus image here I would agree is a good example of a close helm, exactly as we're looking for. It has some past ancestry through the bucket helm (but with the crown strengthened, the nape cut away for movement, mail added as a flexible bevor), it historically pre-dates the great helm, but it's a practical helm for long combat, not brief tilting. IMHO, the great helm didn't derive from it, that comes directly from the earlier bucket. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I would define "great helm" differently, as a type of helmet 'which covers the face, sides of the head and neck in one piece.' After all the date when a small skullcap, added to the coif, was introduced to be worn under another helm is impossible to pin down, and the outer helmet (great helm) was more or less identical before and after this development. Urselius (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the name "great helm" is a problem.

However we can be clear on a couple of points about them: the "great (bucket) helm" was early, the later "great (tourney) helm" was extra-large. There is no confusion between examples of the two, even though it's not clear in photos. After the development of the sugarloaf, the flat-topped helm (whatever we call it) was obsolete for combat.

What we also know is that the sugarloaf and the close helm (per Peraldus) lie historically between these two patterns. Both are combat helms, with improved strength to the crown, thus obsoleting the early combat bucket.

For this reason I'd actually favour splitting great helm, in clear sections if not to separate articles, and making the very different roles of the same-shaped (but differently sized) helms distinct.

We also know that the close helm (per Peraldus) post-dates the combat use of the flat-topped "great" helm. For this reason I find it hard to see this as a "proto-great helm". It had no influence on the combat bucket (it was later) and no influence on the tourney great helm (that used a regressive design, uninfluenced by the close helm). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Various sources indicated that close helmet is a modern usage and Oakeshott seems to confirm this, "...what is now always known as the close helmet. In the sixteenth century it was known by many names, 'armet' among them ..." He uses the title "THE CLOSE HELMET" so we should merge the article close helm into this current title of close helmet as the latter appears to be the common name. Warden (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Warden: you're talking ignorant bollocks, please stop as it's getting in the way.

If there is any use of both terms, and if there is any distinction to be made between them, it is that WP has them the wrong way round. Close helm is an article on close helmets, as you've just found by Google. Close helmet, this article, as it is today, is about the "close helm", a quite different piece of harness from a few centuries earlier. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• No, we're moving on now. It seems clear that the text which refers to a pot helm style is not appropriate here and so I have started rewriting it. Warden (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, yet again, you've thrown consensus editing and discussion out of the window, ignored any ongoing planning about what to do to fix this, and dived straight in with a copy & paste merge. 8-( I'd throw you a trout at WQA if it was still there. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• There was no cut/paste - I just rewrote the stub myself. Warden (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• What you literally did was to create a duplicate article on close helmets, when we already have one currently at close helm. We could easily have moved that first. You could have improved that article first, then we rename it. Now we have two, and we have to do copy & paste to fix your mess. But that's OK, because it won't be you who has to clean up. It never is. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• No, we couldn't have just moved the current contents of close helm here because cut/paste is improper and you can't move one article on top of another without using admin functions. To get the content together under this title, we should request a move, per WP:RM. Warden (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, we could have done that easily, although it does, as you say, need an admin. It would have been a simple matter at RM. Now it can't be done that way and it requires a merge, not RM. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• And now you've ballocked it up even further by creating pot helm as a redirect to great helm, when "pot helms" are far more commonly a term to describe much later helms worn by the massed grunts, like a brimmed sallet or a kettle. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• If there are multiple meanings of pot helm then we perhaps need a disambiguation page. Until I created the link, there was nothing. Warden (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• So an unsourced and misleading redirect to the wrong place is somehow better? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• The article great helm repeatedly states that is also known as a pot helm. Sources confirm this usage and so the redirect is appropriate. Warden (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yet again, WP isn't RS for WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are two reasonable 12th century helms that could be described as "pot helms", although the second of them (with the faceplate) is actually what we're describing here as the "close helm". Neither of these are in any way describable as a "great helm" or a "bucket helm". Both of those are specific for coming down to the neckline all around.

• http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-max-medieval-pot-helm-helmets/497018
• http://www.getdressedforbattle.co.uk/acatalog/GETDRESSEDFORBATTLE_Crusaders.html#aH_2f1723083902

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Rename close helm to close helmet and vice versa

• Close helmet → Close helm
• Close helm → Close helmet

– Per discussion above. Neither article is quite right (and see the history, as recent changes have made this worse, not better, but the two articles refer to separate, distinct and both notable topics. However they are confused at present. A better start at re-working them would be made (especially as regards their edit history) if they were both re-named to exchange their current names.

Scope would then become:

• Close helm

The early helm, per Peraldus' illustration

• Close helmet

The later helmet, with the hinged vizor —relisted ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem lies in the fact that "close helmet" and "close helm" are both used for the 16th-17th century helmet with visor and bevor hinged at the same point. This dual usage is found very widely in the relevant literature. If you want an article on early fore-runners of the great helm then you really need to come up with some other nomenclature. However, I don't think that an all encompassing and widely recognised term for those helmets, that from c.1150 incorporated face-plates and increased neck protection, exists as such. Urselius (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Article titles aren't defining of terms (we'd never get anything done if we were that narrow) - we should choose the best title we can do, then expand on the distinctions in the text.

Item naming doesn't matter so much - we can work around this. What we need (and I think we can achieve) is to identify two items that are clearly distinct, to choose the best, distinct names for them (the names don't have to be perfect, they just have to be distinguishable) and to then write paragraph-scale descriptions of each item that do clearly identify and distinguish the two items.

Do you agree the scope as above? - ie the two historically distinct items, with different age and with and without vizor.

Do you agree that the helm/helmet distinction is best as described? - even if there is some overlap about how the names are used, I would contend that the best names are to apply "helm" to the early helm and "helmet" to the late helm.

Once the rename is done, we can work to fix the descriptions and remove the misnomers and overlaps. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at some helmet/metallurgy papers online, which would seem to be the most "scholarly" available, or at least the most scientific. I think that we may have a precedent in these for using the word "helm" for both the fore-runners of the "great helm"" and the "great helm" itself. Thus the great helm would form a subgroup of "helm." This might be a good way out of the mess, then we can employ the distinction "helm" - for anything barrel-like (including the later 'frog-mouthed' jousting helm) and helmet for less massive headgear. If we use "helm" in this way and drop the adjective "close" for anything other than the 16th-17th century helmets it might work. Urselius (talk)

• It might be easiest to simply merge the articles, noting that the terminology inconsistently refers to two similar but distinct types of armor. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to delete them than to merge them. You might as well merge articles on the Ford Model A, because they're the same sort of thing and they're so easily confused by their similar names.

These are two clearly different helms, centuries apart and of visual appearance that's obviously different to anyone who recognises that there can be more than one form of helmet. The problem is the article quality, not the topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If you say so. This and that sure look alike to me (the latter has a pointier visor?), but I'm no medievalist. Or armorer. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the mess that this article has got into 8-(

They're both close helmets. They belong in the same article. The close helm is as pictured above, on the talk page.

At one time we had two articles that represented the beginnings of two correct articles (see Close helmet of September, about close helms, but under the wrong names. A simple rename could have fixed this.

Then Colonel Warden rewrote one. Afterwards confusion reigned.

If by merge you mean "Merge both current versions to close helmet, then paste the old article into close helm" that would work fine. We're not supposed to do cut & paste merges that trash edit histories, but it's how everything seems to work these days. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Difficulties with the new articles

The basic difficulty is that "close helm" is used in the available literature as an alternative to "close helmet" to describe the same 16-17th century helmet with a bevor attached to the same pivot as the visor(s).

To appropriate "close helm" to describe early fore-runners of the "great helm" dating to c. 1170-1220 is a neologism and as such cannot be countenanced in any form of encyclopedia.

The present article "Close helm" has to be renamed, there is no alternative. Urselius (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just searched Google Books and JSTOR, there is no usage of the term "close helm" for the transitional forms of helmet dating to c. 1170-1220. The majority of works call these "great helms" or describe a transition between helmets with nasals and great helms without giving any name to the intermediate forms. I found a single reputable source which called the intermediate form a "barrel helm." I would suggest that if you want to keep a separate article for these helmets that you call the article "Barrel helm". Urselius (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, would you agree that we have at least got the right content under the right articles? If so, then I suggest that we leave close helmet alone and move this discussion to talk:close helm instead.

Secondly, article titles are relatively (relatively) unimportant. Their scope is much more important. Titles are easy to change. The scope of the close helm article is I think now clear, as the type of helm shown in the Peraldus image, and dating to the Crusades period. This is one piece, without bevor, but it is cut upwards around the back of the neck and it does have mail. It's thus distinct from the bucket helm, sugarloaf helm and great helm (whatever that is) as those all have a straight lower edge of solid plate (and thus limited head movement). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Article overhauled

I have re-written most of the article, with greatly increased citation. I hope it makes better reading now. Urselius (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Wikimedia Commons link

It redirects to the category Savoyard helmets, the right one is Close helmets (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Close_helmets). --The real Marcoman (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)