|
The Sallet, like the Celata and Barbuta were all developments from the Bascinet and as such these terms have been used in various works and in a decidedly inconsistent manner. As a result we frequently find them being used interchangeably. However for the purpose of properly separating our collection types, we define the Sallet as follows:
The Sallet was a development from the Celata. It is characterized by the front of the helmet now being entirely closed and extending down to a point even with the nose. This blocked the eyes and necessitated a vision slit at eye level. (At this time we also find the brim of the kettle hat dropping well below the eye level with the same resultant eye vision slits in the upper part of the brim.) The Sallet is also characterized by a backsweeping extension at the nape of the neck. As the sallet developed this back extension becomes longer and more pronounced. The eye slit was first simply an eye slit in the frontal face of the helmet. Next we find the eye slit integral with a separate cusped extension to the skull of the helmet. It this form it acts as a frontal reinforce for the brow. Finally and in the form most often found, it appears in a frontal visor form which would have enabled it to be lifted for better vision without the need to remove the helmet.
The Sallet was normally worn with the bevor. The bevor is a protective plate which extends from the open collar line upwards over and beside the chin and mouth and up to just below the nose level. It was usually attached to the breast plate. The bevor afforded protection for the exposed area between the breastplate and the lower line of the sallet. |
This Sallet is three pounds and 14 1/2 oz in weight. It stands 8 5/8" high, is 7 1/4" wide and 9" deep from front to back. The form of the skull is rounded with the back half of the bottom edge curving over the nape area and extending back about 3/4". It then tapers in lessening degree to almost vertical at the mid cheek area.
The back nape area is further reinforced by an attached neck plate running from the mid cheek point around the back and over the nape swell at the bottom of the skull. This back neck plate is 2 1/4" deep at the back and at the back of the helmet extends out about 2" and then tapering to about a 3/4" swell at the sides. The back plate thus affords excellent protection for the back and sides of the neck.
The front has a full one piece reinforcing plate which extends up over the front of the skull and back to where it overlaps the back neck plate. The bottom of the frontal plate is even with the back neck plate. The bottom edge is rolled and the edges are incised with diagonal marks in a roping manner. The sides of the frontal plate ascend vertically to the point where they reach the top of the back neck plate. Then they sweep forward and up in a wide cusping form to a point about 6 1/8" above the base and at about the midpoint of the helmet fronm front to rear. Then the frontal plate continues in another wide cusping curve forward and up until it meets in a point at the mid front of the helmet about 1" below and 2 " forward of the center of the crown. The frontal plate covers the skull of the helmet down to the eye level in front and over the sides almost to the mid point of the helmet. This frontal plate has a slight medial ridge from the point on the top where the cusps meet down vertically to the top center of the eye slit. The eye slit is about 2 3/4" above the bottom of the helmet at the mid front point. This eye slit is about 1/4" wide at the center and narrows as it moves to the sides. The total length of the eye slit following the curve of the helmet is about 5 3/4" Just below the eye slit the frontal plate protrudes outward in a horizontal shelf which tapers from 5/8" wide at the front of the eye opening and then lessening until it merges with the frontal helmet plate at the point where the eye slit cease on each side. The portion of the frontal plate below the eye slit is then dished inward and then back out to the bottom of the helmet with the degree of dish again lessening until it merges with the overall helmet form at mid point.
A close examination of the helmet in the interior would indicate that the frontal plate and neck plate were probably a very early addition to an even older skull. The form of the skull could have been a 14th or 15th C archers sallet. Many helmets and other pieces of armor were often redone and refurbished in the early armourers workshops as they worked to fill the orders to equip the armies of their patrons. It would appear that this was an early adaptation to conform to the development of the sallet style with a frontal plate extending down over the eyes and with an eye slit for vision. |
|
Of particular interest is that the finely made cusped and dished frontal plate has an unidentified set of armourers marks on the lower left rear of the frontal plate, about 1 1/8" above the rolled lower edge and at about the left side mid point of the helmet. The lower mark consists of a clearly edged shield mark. However the surface wear now makes any surface marks on the shield impossible to discern. The upper mark consists of 3 distinct dots in a trefoil or triangle pattern. Inside is a shape conforming to a helmet with a cross running vertically from just below the bottom of the helmet and the lower 2 flanking dots. The center leg of a cross rises vertically to just below the top cental dot which is at the top center of the helmet. The cross has a longer vertical leg with horizontal crossbar. "Europaische Hieb-und Stich-waffen" 1981, by Heinrich Muller and Hartmut Kolling shows a mark that is similar to this mark but not identical on a double sided 15th C Halberd in a private Dresden collection and which is dated to the 2nd half of the 15th C. That mark is illustrated at page 184, figure 73 and described at page 370. Another example is shown on another halberd as plate figure 77, on page 182 described on page 369 as 2nd half of the 15th C. Although the armourers mark on our sallet may not be by the same armourer, the prescence of an old and authentic armourers mark on our sallet certainly indicates that this frontal plate was the work of an armourer and work which his workshop wished to identify.
The overall pitting of the frontal plate, the skull and the neck plate indicate the identical patination pattern and the same early iron inconsistencies. The only reason to feel that the skull and frontal plate were not made at the same time is that the interior of the helmet indicates that the front bottom sides have been altered in shape to conform to the shape of the frontal plate It should also be noted that the frontal reinforcement plate is also found in the 15th C in the development of the Armet, the predecessor of the close helmet and was a concept familiar to skilled armourers. Accordingly one can conclude that this is an early sallet, developed before or at the same time as the movable visor, and that the armourer at the time probably re-used and adapted the skull of an earlier archers sallet rather than to make a new skull for this sallet. For example we know that the large workshops such as that of the Missaglias would regularly buy back armour at the end of each war and stockpile them for future orders. Hence as styles change there would have been a supply of available skulls and parts and it is only logical that many of these were adapted to the newer styles and desires of the buyers. |
For an excellent discussion and illustrations of the development of the Sallet see "European Weapons and Armour", 1980, by Ewart Oakeshott at pages 109 through 114. In particular not illustration A on page 112 showing what is described as an English/Burgandian style of 1450-1475. This shows a very similar form of frontal plate with cusped form, a horizontal shelf eye slit and a dished form below the eye slit. This illustrated example however has a movable frontal visor and a more sweeping back extension so it would appear that it was probably a slightly later development of the style of our example.
See also "A Record of European Armour and Arms" 1920, by Sir Guy Francis Laking, Volume 2, where Laking describes the development of the sallet, which he refers to as the salade, from page 19 through 32. Various examples are shown of which 3 have fixed visors but different in shape than our example. A number of the movable visored examples exhibit very similar forms to our example. Also not figure 377 on page 32 showing an archers salade very similar in form to our skull. Laking dates it as about 1480 but carefully points out that this style really cannot be dated with any degree of precision and could easily be earlier or later.
For another example of a similar sallet with a similar immovable frontal "visor" plate, see the 1996 supplement to "The Armoury of Churburg Castle, by Mario Scalini. At page 261, plate CH S19 is shown a sallet with a clearly immovable frontal "visor" type plate with similar conformation, described as a "Burgandian" sallet of the amor made for Ulrich IX von Matsch in the workshop of Da Merate, c. 1450.
For illustrations of similar sallets of very similar form but of one piece construction without the separate frontal plate see the "Wallace Collection Catalogue of European Arms and Armour", 1962, by Sir James Mann, Plate 56, Figures A 79 and A80. The first example is described as German, 1450-1460, and the second example as German, probably Augsburg, about 1450-1490.
Finally the readers attention is directed to "Encylopedie Medievale", the great and detailed study of the Medievale period by Violett le Duc, one of the greatest early collectors and authorities on arms and armour and a meticulous detailed architect and engineer who shows in detailed drawings many examples of the construction of early arms and armour. In that regard and as examples with separate frontal reinforce plates rather than movable visors, are a form of sallet which is rarely found, we call attention to page 428, illustration drawing 8 These shows a sallet of very similar form and the manner of attachment clearly shows that it is not a movable visor but a cusped reinforcement plate very similar to our example. He does not date it precisely but places it in the 1st half of the 15th century. |
