[Regia-NA] The Nasal: What's it for?

[Nathan Beal]

If you look at the period illustrations large numbers (i would say a high 
proportion) of conical helms (spangen or single) are depicted _without_ nasals.

Given that period helms were probably not held in place with a cradle and 
chinstrap a nasal is poor defense against a mass impact to the face (the shield-
boss to the face is liable to drive the nasal into your nose and break it 
anyway).

Without cheekplates (or aventail) a solid strike to the side of the head is 
generally not going to be resisted by the presence of a nasal, the strike will 
hit the face anyway (though the nasal won't make the situation any worse.

A nasal is usefull against a shot that would have clipped the nose with the tip 
of a sword, or a direct thrust between the eyes.

Given the nasal is not in the way (as paul abserved) and adds no significant 
weight then it is worth having one for the additional cover it does supply.

Aly,

You may well be right, your theory sounds quite plausable.  However i doubt it 
is the only reason why the nasal persists when the cheekplates are lost.

Kim,

As to why the cheekplates were dropped from the earlier ridge-helm derived 
designs i really don't know.  It must have been decided that the extra cost of 
manufacture didn;t justify thier existance.  As they didn't persist on the 
continent either it probably isn't a cavalry/footman thing.  My guess is that 
due to the increased use of spaers on the battlefield (as opposed to 
angons/pilum) the requirement for cheek protection dropped.

When sharp-spears fight agaianst a shield-wall the attacks will always be 
calculated and direct (otherwose you end up with your spear-head in the other 
guys shield and a good chance the shaft will break, ask the tawney huscarl to 
tell you about what happened at durham a couple of years back).

-oOo-

Tuppence
Kram
N.

SIZE does matter - The UK's biggest *Free* Web based mail - 10 MB Free 
mail.lycos.co.uk