Research Cheater
May. 25th, 2011 09:25 amI come to you with a request for information. A friend has recently been being pestered to produce evidence showing that 16th C German men *did not* wear netted gold cauls under their battle helmets.
My initial thought upon hearing this was, “Are you crazy? Who would wear an item THAT EXPENSIVE under their helm?” I mean… gold…netted…re-embroidered over…? Are you nuts?
My second thought was, “I thought we normally tried to prove that someone *did* wear an item rather than the opposite? I mean, prove to me that 16th C German men didn’t wear fairy wings under their backplates!”
*eye roll*
Then I realized; I have seen dozens of Landsknecht re-enactors wear these things around during the day while in their breastplates over the years. I don’t think I’ve seen any of them smash a helmet down over the top…but maybe that is where this guy got the initial idea. OK, so it may just be an issue of monkey see, monkey do. As for actual evidence of this taking place in the 16th C on the other hand, if there are 16th C images of un-helmed but armored men wearing these in portraiture, my guess would be that the images in question are “I’m Showing Off My Armor” shots; the addition of the “gelbhaube”/caul as a way to enhance the overall look-at-me-and-my-pimp-gear image, rather than to indicate that the caul was part of an armor rig in some way.
Then again, I don’t know that this particular re-enactment-ism has ever been really researched.
So I put it to ya’ll; anyone out there have any details (wardrobe inventory items, images of extant woolen arming caps, narrative descriptions, etc.) that might help clarify this issue with some data?