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

[Jon Smith]

Having worn both a cheek flapped and an aventailed helm I have noticed on
thing and used long overarm spear with a small head I have notice one thing
that actually scared me and that was the point of a spear defecting off the
inside of the cheek flap into my face - fortunately pulled so as to do
little damage - but I suspect this is a contributing factor to the whole
replacement of cheekflaps with mail curtains. [Before Pat or Steve or Kim or
anyone panics - IT WASN'T A REGIA EVENT]

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: list-regia-na-bounces at lig.net
[mailto:list-regia-na-bounces at lig.net]On Behalf Of Steve Etheridge
Sent: 17 May 2004 14:16
To: list-regia-na at lig.net
Subject: Re: [Regia-NA] The Nasal: What's it for?


Nathan wrote
>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.

Thanks for saying that, Nathan.  I was trying to find a way of wording it
without setting up a (groundless) "he's going to ban nasals" scare.  Now I
don't have to :-)


>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).

I don't think that they had chinstraps - simple reason, a blow to the top of
an unstrapped helmet knocks the helmet off.  A blow to the top of a strapped
helmet _can_  break the neck.  plus no evidence.

>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.

I think that aventails grew to replace cheekflaps, possibly because it's
easier to hear out of an aventail than it is out of cheeflaps.  Beleive me,
I know :-)

I think that perhaps there might have been a thought that nasals could be
done away with for similar reasons, to make the helmet lighter and easier to
see out of.  Practical experimetation (or the theory of evolution) showed
that the gains were less than the risks, and the nasal was adoped.  All this
based on illustrative evidence, as we don't _have_ too many finds :-(

>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.

The early empire Roman helmets have brims above the face to ward off blows.
they do this quite adequately - sadly, they trasfer the weight of the blow
to the head.  Evolutionary principle again.  "His face ain't cut, but his
neck's boke"

My Thruppence Ha'pny

Steve
(none of this is a ruling.  Hopefully that will be obvious, but I never
underestimate the ability of a Regia member to let the facts stand in the
way of a good rumour)

_________________________________________________________________
Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!
http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/

_______________________________________________
list-Regia-NA site list
list-Regia-NA at lig.net
http://lig.net/mailman/listinfo/list-regia-na