Loading…
4
Update: My cousin said something about the Sutton Hoo helmet that got me thinking
We were looking at a picture of the reconstruction in a book and he said 'It's weird we call it a helmet when it's basically a metal mask with no real protection.' I'd never questioned why it's presented as battle gear when the gold work seems too fancy and fragile for actual fighting. Does anyone know if there's solid proof it was ever worn in combat, or could it have been just for show?
4 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In4 Comments
kelly.hannah7mo ago
Yeah the "pile with other stuff" point is interesting, but victor_lee has a good thought about the weapons found with it. I got into a similar debate about a fancy dagger at a museum. The expert there said even the showy stuff gets used sometimes, because for a king, showing off your power is part of the fight. A helmet that amazing could be worn in a real battle to make a statement and scare people, not just sit on a shelf. The damage on it might be from a fight or just from being buried, so we can't know for sure, but it's not too fragile to wear.
8
victor_lee7mo ago
Wasn't it found with a bunch of other weapons? That makes it seem like part of a real warrior's kit, not just a show piece. The fancy work could just mean it was for someone really important.
7
karen_sanchez497mo ago
But come on, how many fancy decorated swords actually saw a real fight? Just because it was in a pile with other stuff doesn't mean it wasn't mostly for show. A rich guy could still have a whole set of nice weapons just to look powerful.
1
knight.felix6mo ago
But if it was just for show... why bury it with the guy? Seems like a waste of a good display piece.
-1