# Why wouldn't you wear a helmet?



## D. Gray Warrior (Oct 24, 2017)

Something that has been pointed out in many fantasy works is how the protagonist and sometimes other characters are rarely seen wearing helmets, when the head is the most important part of your body you should be protecting. I know this makes identifying the characters easier, but would there be any practical situations where you would not want to wear a helmet in battle? Helmets can restrict vision and hearing, but even then, you could wear an open-face helmet or at least something the covers that top of your head.

I'm reading one novel where it's sorta justified because the protagonist is sent to a world that is an MMORPG and he has an exceptionally high defense stat.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Oct 24, 2017)

This is mostly a thing in visual mediums I think, where identifying the character by their looks is important. In books, I don't believe it's nearly as common. I can't think of a practical reason why wearing an _appropriate_ helmet wouldn't be done. The keyword here being appropriate - it may very well be that there are helmets that are unsuitable to for combat situations and which would be getting in the way.


----------



## CupofJoe (Oct 24, 2017)

In various roles I've worn helmets. And I can tell you one thing they all have in common after about half an hour...
Sweat. Lots and lots of sweat.
They are hot, uncomfortable, and smelly, and they fall off really easily.
Most of the time, you found a good reason not to wear one unless you really had too. The only exception to this is cycling or riding. Yes the helmets are still a pain but things happen to fast for me not to need one.


----------



## Russ (Oct 24, 2017)

I can't think of good reasons not to wear a helmet.   I  have worn helmets for many things (football, cycling, car racing, hockey) including medieval combat.   They can get hot, and uncomfortable, but not wearing one in combat puts you at a much higher risk of death, brain injury, disfiguring injury, loss of teeth or an eye or two.

There are plenty of  helmets that don't cover your face if that is really important.

Also, the vast majority of martial cultures used helmets where they would be useful.  There are some types of warfare where they really were not, but not a lot of them.

There are also social and economic issues you can play with, but a simple helmet I would think would be pretty inexpensive.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 24, 2017)

The fact that most warriors in most eras and in most places have worn helmets would sort of argue in favor of helmets. I'll take sweat over blood, any day.


----------



## Devor (Oct 24, 2017)

I saw a graph somewhere - I should've grabbed it - that showed how helmets evolved based on things like whether soldiers needed to hear shouted orders or see more than what was directly in front of them in a tight shield-to-shield formation. In the real world design choices on all of this stuff really does make a huge difference.

Based on that, I think in some cases you might take no helmet over the wrong helmet.  For instance, if your shield unit breaks up, now you're in a skirmish, and you really need to see and hear what's happening around you... I have no idea about realism, but you've got believability for sure.


----------



## TheKillerBs (Oct 25, 2017)

The only reason I can think of to not wear a helmet where it is needed is if I couldn't afford one. Even then, I'm pretty sure there was less expensive headgear one could wear to reduce the possibility of a lethal head injury that mightn't qualify as a helmet. Like padded or mail coifs. I think turbans were used in lieu of helmets in some places? But generally, some kind of helmet would be the best option.


----------



## wirehead (Oct 25, 2017)

Yeah, being bad-ass and helmet-free is totally a movie trope.  And comic books.  Because you want to see people's faces.

And, I dono, yeah, I wear helmets all the time while I'm biking, but if it was metal, I'd think twice about having all that weight on my head.  Heck, even there, I bike past tons of folks with the helmet helpfully clipped to the handlebars and it's a foam thing.

Most tank battles have gone better for the side where the commander of the tank has his head popped out of the top of the tank, instead of inside and using the periscope.  Especially for a general, having that clunky thing on your head is going to suck.

So, I suspect there's a lot of situations in a battle where the generals would be exposed and somewhat un-armored, people get caught with their helmet off because they didn't expect to be in battle, et al


----------



## pmmg (Oct 25, 2017)

I can think of reasons not to wear a helmet, but I think Joe and Russ covered a few of them. One i might add is they cause neck strain, and they slosh around. They may not be the best reasons, but people are people, and some wont have a helmet. I think if I had a helmet, and I was sure to be in a fight, I would probably want it. But I could also see it getting in the way and taking it off if it just wasn't working out.


----------



## Malik (Nov 6, 2017)

I don't see this in books nearly as much as I see it in movies. It's either artistic license on the part of the director, or maybe the actor has it in their contract that they have X amount of time with their face visible.

Either way, it's idiotic. Human heads are stupidly designed. There are far more places on the body where you can take a hit from something sharp and/or heavy and walk away than there are on the head.

Head wounds are ghastly. Even superficial scalp and face wounds bleed profusely; enough to stop a professional fight, and enough to take you out of a battle for the day.

A moderate blow to the right spot on the head will drop you like you've been poleaxed. I'm thinking here of the side of the neck, the mastoid complex (the knob of bone behind the ear), the temple, the orbital socket (holy shit, hit the orbital socket with the pommel of a sword and you're going to get blood and eye goo all over your nice clean armor), and the old standby, an overhand punch to the chin. This last one is particularly underrated, and the #1 source of boxing knockouts before the invention of the upper-and-lower one-piece mouthguard. A clean, uninhibited, straight punch to the chin will slam the jawbone against the base of the skull, jarring the brain stem, and it's Good night, Gracie. There's also a sweet spot on the side of the jaw, but it's tougher to hit than Hollywood would have you believe.

On top of this, a heavy blow to the head, anywhere, has results that nobody wants to see if the recipient lives through it. Trust me on this one. And goddamn, hit a skull with an axe or a three- or four-pound warsword. Seriously. Go to a butcher shop, get a pig skull, and go to town and then tell me why your hero wouldn't want a helmet. Also, eww.

I CAN'T FIND THE SPOILER TAG SO. . .
*
SPOILER: These aren't even particularly good swords. Also, don't watch if you just ate.*






Given a choice, I'd rather wear a helmet into battle without armor than the other way around.


----------



## skip.knox (Nov 6, 2017)

And, in fact, we see helmets on even very lightly armored infantry.


----------



## pmmg (Nov 7, 2017)

Malik said:


> Either way, it's idiotic. Human heads are stupidly designed. There are far more places on the body where you can take a hit from something sharp and/or heavy and walk away than there are on the head.



I don't think the evolutionary process was thinking it would have to be sword proof. Maybe in the next iteration.

Also, I think the pig has had better days.


----------



## Insolent Lad (Nov 7, 2017)

If I carry the proper magical talisman, I won't need no stinkin' helmet.

It can be noted that from the 17th Century to the early 20th, helmets disappeared from use by most soldiers. They only made a comeback in the First World War.


----------



## pmmg (Nov 7, 2017)

I was going to mention there were not many helmets in the american civil war but i thought that it being due to muskets and canons would seem obvious. But i do wonder. Maybe pickets charge would not have seemed so entirely foolish if more of them wore metal plates of some sort.


----------



## Insolent Lad (Nov 7, 2017)

Trench warfare was somewhat responsible for the return of the helmet. Their heads were soldiers' most vulnerable spot when they were down in a ditch with shells exploding around them.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Nov 7, 2017)

D. Gray Warrior said:


> Something that has been pointed out in many fantasy works is how the protagonist and sometimes other characters are rarely seen wearing helmets, when the head is the most important part of your body you should be protecting. I know this makes identifying the characters easier, but would there be any practical situations where you would not want to wear a helmet in battle? Helmets can restrict vision and hearing, but even then, you could wear an open-face helmet or at least something the covers that top of your head.
> 
> I'm reading one novel where it's sorta justified because the protagonist is sent to a world that is an MMORPG and he has an exceptionally high defense stat.



 so you can feel the wind in your hair


----------



## pmmg (Nov 7, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> so you can feel the wind in your hair



That is exactly why I would not wear one.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Nov 7, 2017)

Helmets make a character seem like the muddy rank and file, aka the jobbers. . Give Aragorn a helmet and suddenly he looks alot less badass.


----------



## Malik (Nov 7, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Give Aragorn a helmet and suddenly he looks alot less badass.



Going into a fight without headgear, given the choice, makes you look like a dumbass.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Nov 7, 2017)

Malik said:


> Going into a fight without headgear, given the choice, makes you look like a dumbass.



Not if you're too much of a billy badass to need it.

By the logic of the practicality nerds, Aragorn also should be leading from the rear, directing his formations. Anduril should be a pole arm because polearms are more useful in war. He should also have a shield. But you know what, Imagery beats practicality in high fantasy,


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Nov 7, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> But you know what, Imagery beats practicality in high fantasy,



There's a balance to strike somewhere, I bet.


----------



## Malik (Nov 8, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> By the logic of the practicality nerds, Aragorn also should be leading from the rear, directing his formations. Anduril should be a pole arm because polearms are more useful in war. He should also have a shield.



I honestly don't know where you get this idea that generals lead from the rear. We debunked the hell out of this some time ago, starting with King David and going all the way through to King Abdullah II of Jordan and Prince Henry.

I don't have time to teach you about basic swordsmanship right now, nor what a longsword was used for on the field and how, to say nothing of what a polearm was used for and why. Neither do I have time to get into the myriad ways to beat the living crap out of a spearman or halberdier with a longsword or greatsword and no shield. Most of it rhymes with "Shmontante" and/or "Shmiore di Battaglia." Both of these schools delve into using a longsword or greatsword as effectively a faster, sharper polearm; when coupled with the Abrazare school of medieval wrestling -- which works spectacularly in armor, and which my sparring partner rightfully calls "Judo for Psychopaths" -- you can make short work of a poleaxe as long as you don't turn it into a fencing match or do something as moronic as "swinging" your sword at him.

Anyway, there are 27 pages on swords and swordsmanship in the Research forum. You should probably get cracking. (Edit: That is, if you're interested in research and accuracy. You may not be, and that's fine, too.)



Annoyingkid said:


> But you know what, Imagery beats practicality in high fantasy.



Hi, I'm Joseph Malik. Apparently, we haven't met.


----------



## Chessie2 (Nov 8, 2017)

Skip or another member with more intimate knowledge of history might be able to correct me here...but didn't the Celts fight the Romans naked? Or was it the Vikings? Both? Anyway, I don't think it worked out so well but I'm not too familiar with that era of history.

Regarding helmets: I'm reminded of an early scene in Saving Private Ryan when the American soldiers landed on Normandy Beach and a soldier briefly took off his helmet. He was shot in the head immediately.


----------



## CupofJoe (Nov 8, 2017)

Chessie2 said:


> Skip or another member with more intimate knowledge of history might be able to correct me here...but didn't the Celts fight the Romans naked? Or was it the Vikings? Both? Anyway, I don't think it worked out so well but I'm not too familiar with that era of history.


I think the Britons were supposed to fight naked or at least covered in Wode but not much else. 
That might just be a Roman bit of poetic licence. 
For me it helps to remind myself that Roman "History" is because they won [most of the time] and then got to tell us what happened. The Celts were a nasty surprise to the Romans and had to be de-civilised [if that is a real word] for public opinion. So it would not shock me to find that the Celts were suddenly eating babies for brunch and running around naked in battle. All that waggling about could put a Centurion off his oatmeal...


----------



## Annoyingkid (Nov 8, 2017)

Malik said:


> I honestly don't know where you get this idea that generals lead from the rear. We debunked the hell out of this some time ago, starting with King David and going all the way through to King Abdullah II of Jordan and Prince Henry.
> 
> I don't have time to teach you about basic swordsmanship right now, nor what a longsword was used for on the field and how, to say nothing of what a polearm was used for and why. Neither do I have time to get into the myriad ways to beat the living crap out of a spearman or halberdier with a longsword or greatsword and no shield. Most of it rhymes with "Shmontante" and/or "Shmiore di Battaglia." Both of these schools delve into using a longsword or greatsword as effectively a faster, sharper polearm; when coupled with the Abrazare school of medieval wrestling -- which works spectacularly in armor, and which my sparring partner rightfully calls "Judo for Psychopaths" -- you can make short work of a poleaxe as long as you don't turn it into a fencing match or do something as moronic as "swinging" your sword at him.
> 
> ...



How does you being Joseph Mailk - whoever that is- debunk the fact that imagery beats practicality in high fantasy?

You didn't debunk the fact that a ruler leading from the rear and providing tactical direction is a more sensible and efficient form of leadership.

I didn't say anything about a greatsword. Anduril is not a greatsword. Nor did Aragorn use it for that purpose.He just charges in and swings it around, usually quite unsupported and outside of any formation. The Samurai used polearms in war, not Katanas, that was a secondary side weapon.  The sword experts on Youtube make clear that longswords were primarily weapons of dueling, ceremony and personal protection.  

No, I'm not interested in reading a bunch of pretentious "research". I'm interested in telling an entertaining story to people who aren't the vanishingly small percentage of practicality geeks.


----------



## Russ (Nov 8, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Not if you're too much of a billy badass to need it.
> 
> By the logic of the practicality nerds, Aragorn also should be leading from the rear, directing his formations. Anduril should be a pole arm because polearms are more useful in war. He should also have a shield. But you know what, Imagery beats practicality in high fantasy,



There is that odd thing about leading from the rear.  Leading and controlling forces from the rear is quite a modern invention.   Many of the great historical generals/leaders were found right in the thick of it.  And while there is significant debate about what the most effective weapon in battle is, swords have been near ubiquitous in history.   But that is just the reality nerd in me.  

I am not suggesting that every character should wear a helmet, but it seems hard to think of a practical reason (as opposed to stylistic or dramatic reason) not to.


----------



## Russ (Nov 8, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> No, I'm not interested in reading a bunch of pretentious "research". I'm interested in telling an entertaining story to people who aren't the vanishingly small percentage of practicality geeks.



If you are not interested in reading pretentious research, than you should not suggest that in pre-modern warfare tactical direction from the rear was most efficient, which seems to be a myth and error you like to keep repeating.


----------



## Malik (Nov 8, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> I'm interested in telling an entertaining story to people who aren't the vanishingly small percentage of practicality geeks.


----------



## Russ (Nov 8, 2017)

Malik said:


> I'm interested in telling an entertaining story to people who aren't the vanishingly small percentage of practicality geeks.



I missed this comment in my first read.   So when you get a novel published and widely disseminated you will find out just how many geeks of various sorts there are out there.  If you make a firearm mistake, you will get flooded with e-mails.  If you make a sword or other mistake, you will get lots of e-mails.  Even if you don't make a mistake and you run afoul of someone's thought on sword nomenclature,  you will get e-mails about it.  Now, this is a good thing, because it means your work is being widely read.  But there are more geeks than ever, and with the internet they are not at all shy about expressing where they think you got something wrong.


----------



## Malik (Nov 8, 2017)

It's a common misconception, to be fair. As many of you know, I was told for nearly 20 years that no one would be interested in a realistic fantasy; that there was no market for a fantasy technothriller series that creates suspension of disbelief in adult readers by digging into the nuts and bolts of mundane worldbuilding.

That "vanishingly small percentage of practicality geeks" bought enough copies of _Dragon's Trail_ last year to qualify me for SFWA. They also paid for the remodel of my garage into a writing space, and will be giving us a very nice Christmas.

It bears mentioning, too, that there are plenty of female-type "practicality geeks" who, judging from the pictures I receive, are REALLY excited about my sequel; it would be fair to say they're somewhat -- ahem -- titillated by my work. I wouldn't have pegged them as my target readership, as many of them appear to know less about practical armor than at least one person on this thread. But hey, you can't have everything.

Don't write any readers off. Write your thing and let the chips fall. Your fans will surprise you.


----------



## skip.knox (Nov 8, 2017)

Here's the thing about leading on *any* battlefield, any time: to lead, you have to be able to communicate your leadership.

Now, in modern times, we have this radio thingie, so generals can be behind the lines (not just generals; the colonels and majors are equally if not more crucial for making battlefield decisions). This is not only so they can issue orders but so they can gather intelligence from the front and make informed decisions.

In pre-modern armies, commanders led from the front in part for socio-political reasons, but there was an extremely practical aspect as well: horns and banners. That's how you knew to engage or to run bravely away. Since armies and war are about life and death, the evolution of combat tended to be a rather pragmatic business.

Then there was a lovely interim period when generals *thought* they could lead from the rear but the communications weren't up to the job. Tolstoy did a fine job taking apart Napoleon (and then-current military thinking) on that count.

Anyway, as authors we are of course free to write as we please. Those of us who want to communicate with our readers, though, had better pay attention to this sort of thing. If my story needs to have a general leading from some rear command post, then I'm going to have crystal balls or magic pigeons or *something* to explain how the devil s/he knows what's going on. Similarly, if I take the historically accurate route, I'm still going to take advantage of the fact that the general does not have the same field of view as the author.

Although it is true that in high fantasy anything at all can be made to happen, it is both liberating and challenging to take real physics, real history, real reality, and try to construct fantasy within that.  Those who wish to build stories entirely of handwavium are of course free to do so.


----------



## ChasingSuns (Nov 10, 2017)

Depending on the helm, I could think of a couple of reasons not to wear one. A Heavy helm isn't very helpful if you want to move quickly and quietly while doing ranger stuff like Aragorn. Some helms offer more protection, but less in terms of field of vision, so that can be a factor as well. Also there are reports of things getting hot under those helms after extended periods of fighting. In some cases it would also cause breathing to become a bit difficult. Could lead to someone removing the helm after fighting for a while. In the end though, helms are generally a pretty good idea. My main character doesn't generally wear one, but once he gets into a big battle he's definitely gonna be putting one on.


----------



## Guy (Nov 11, 2017)

One of my main characters doesn't wear a helmet because she's a sorceress, and in my world wearing a helmet would interfere with psychic abilities. She wants her psychic senses sharp, and a helmet would dull them, slow them down. And she doesn't usually find herself in battles with massive armies. Her fights are generally the ones the lone adventurer finds herself in.


----------



## Guy (Nov 11, 2017)

Chessie2 said:


> Skip or another member with more intimate knowledge of history might be able to correct me here...but didn't the Celts fight the Romans naked? Or was it the Vikings? Both? Anyway, I don't think it worked out so well but I'm not too familiar with that era of history.
> 
> Regarding helmets: I'm reminded of an early scene in Saving Private Ryan when the American soldiers landed on Normandy Beach and a soldier briefly took off his helmet. He was shot in the head immediately.


Some Celts did, not all. It is thought they did so out of some spiritual belief. There were called Gaesetae. I don't know of any accounts of Vikings fighting naked, although beserkers generally eschewed armor.


----------



## Dark Squiggle (Nov 21, 2017)

Many fantasy characters have superhuman speed and strength, and that could explain tossing the helmet. Manfred von Richthofen, Ernst Udet, and Eddie Rickenbakker did not wear helmets; an elf wouldn't either.There is no point in wearing a helmet in anything like aerial combat. Once the speeds get high enough, your opponent will be unable to aim for your head anyway, and if there is enough strength involved, your opponent can probably crush or pierce any helmet anyway.


----------



## Russ (Nov 21, 2017)

Dark Squiggle said:


> Many fantasy characters have superhuman speed and strength, and that could explain tossing the helmet. Manfred von Richthofen, Ernst Udet, and Eddie Rickenbakker did not wear helmets; an elf wouldn't either.There is no point in wearing a helmet in anything like aerial combat. Once the speeds get high enough, your opponent will be unable to aim for your head anyway, and if there is enough strength involved, your opponent can probably crush or pierce any helmet anyway.



While it is true that the Red Baron did not wear a helmet, nor did most other WWI flyers, I think the OP was referring to a land battle.

Also, poor old Manfred perhaps should have worn one.  As you probably know he was hit in the head by a bullet during his flying career and suffered significant injuries that required multiple surgeries to repair.  Despite the fact that after that event he like to joke about his thick skull, there is a good chance that the harm caused by that injury lead to his eventual death.

Your logic on speed and aerial combat only holds true for a very narrow technical band.  Modern fighter pilots fly far faster than the Red Baron ever did and all where helmets.  In Vietnam soldiers often sat on their helmets while inside helicopters to protect themselves from ground fire.


----------



## CupofJoe (Nov 21, 2017)

Russ said:


> Modern fighter pilots fly far faster than the Red Baron ever did and all where helmets.


 Also its is the most comfortable way to hang all the sensors, screens [etal] around a human head.


Russ said:


> In Vietnam soldiers often sat on their helmets while inside helicopters to protect themselves from ground fire.


 The helmet was probably more comfortable than the webbing seat too!


----------



## Dark Squiggle (Nov 21, 2017)

Richthofen may have taken a round to the head, but it was far from common. A modern pilot's helmet does not offer protection - no helmet is going to stop a 20mm cannon round, the smallest thing he can expect to have coming at him, it holds electronic stuff instead. As for the soldiers sitting on their helmets, the helicopters were flying low and slow and they were being shot at with light guns. During WWII many planes carried armor, and if you look at the thicknesses required to make a difference in aerial combat, you'll see why a helmet is pointless.


----------



## Russ (Nov 21, 2017)

Dark Squiggle said:


> Richthofen may have taken a round to the head, but it was far from common. A modern pilot's helmet does not offer protection - no helmet is going to stop a 20mm cannon round, the smallest thing he can expect to have coming at him, it holds electronic stuff instead. As for the soldiers sitting on their helmets, the helicopters were flying low and slow and they were being shot at with light guns. During WWII many planes carried armor, and if you look at the thicknesses required to make a difference in aerial combat, you'll see why a helmet is pointless.



Dark, it strikes me that your view of the function of a helmet is a tad limited.

It does not become "pointless" just because it cannot protect you from a direct hit from a 20mm cannon round (which I suspect is rarer than a WWI bullet to the head).  It has many other protective uses for the modern fight pilot (beyond its use as a visor, com device, stabilization for the oxygen mask, and wind buffer when ejecting).

The modern fighter is subject to violent maneveuring and the head of the pilot can easily strike the inside of the canopy during maneuvering.  In the case of detonation in or near the plane it helps prevent brain injury.  It can prevent direct penetration injuries from shrapnel and debris.  While the modern fighter pilot's helmet has a multitude of uses. those uses  include protection from and prevention of head injury.

Helicopter pilots also wear helmets for (amongst other reasons) protection against head injury.  There are significant studies available in this area.  You should read them.

The design criteria for all western air force helmets require significant ability to withstand and diffuse applications of force, including the $400,000 a pop helmet designed for the F-35 system.

So while you may suggest that the protection aspect of a fighter pilot's helmet is irrelevant to the modern context (which I don't suspect for a moment is what the OP was talking about), all of the current western air forces disagree with you.


----------



## valiant12 (Nov 21, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Helmets make a character seem like the muddy rank and file, aka the jobbers. . Give Aragorn a helmet and suddenly he looks alot less badass.


Not wearing a helmet in the middle of a battlefield make a character look like a poorly trained/untrained conscript.
.


----------



## Dark Squiggle (Nov 21, 2017)

Russ said:


> Dark, it strikes me that your view of the function of a helmet is a tad limited.
> 
> It does not become "pointless" just because it cannot protect you from a direct hit from a 20mm cannon round (which I suspect is rarer than a WWI bullet to the head).  It has many other protective uses for the modern fight pilot (beyond its use as a visor, com device, stabilization for the oxygen mask, and wind buffer when ejecting).
> 
> ...


I see how my assumptions about the purpose of helmet were wrong, but I don't see how I was derailing the thread. I was simply trying to say that combatants with superpowers such as elves, fighter pilots, dragons, etc. may be subject to speeds and forces where a helmet would have to be unjustifiably heavy to be effective. I get your point that the helmet protects you from shrapnel and from being knocked around, not just from blows.  
however, I think I may have some sort of point, because, looking at pictures, WWII pilots didn't wear helmets either. They may be helpful and even lifesaving, but they clearly aern't an overwhelming necessity, or in the 25 years of air combat experience the world had, someone would have thought of giving the most valuable 'soldiers' the protection all other combatants would have had.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Nov 21, 2017)

valiant12 said:


> Not wearing a helmet in the middle of a battlefield make a character look like a poorly trained/untrained conscript.
> .



What an untrained conscript...
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-medi...ogressive,q_80,w_800/vldz6cfocvf4qmrqui5o.png

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2f/46/f0/2f46f0faa00fadf35167e5cdf1eae2b2.jpg
https://static0.srcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/conan-barbarian-video-games.jpg
https://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/imce-images/superman_logo.jpg

So poorly trained...
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/6a57f80d49bdabf1154328b16787410c

It makes a character look like their martial skill is insufficient to protect their head. Or their head isn't magically protected, or supernaturally durable. And in fantasy, the people with a combination of:

- Insufficient martial skill to protect their head.
- Lack of magical protection that would negate the need for a helmet.
- Lack of supernatural durability.

If you lack those things in a fantasy setting that has them, you're a jobber.


----------



## Russ (Nov 22, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> What an untrained conscript...
> https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-medi...ogressive,q_80,w_800/vldz6cfocvf4qmrqui5o.png
> 
> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2f/46/f0/2f46f0faa00fadf35167e5cdf1eae2b2.jpg
> ...



Funny I never thought the question was about superheroes or screen characters.  Perhaps you should check with the OP to see if his character is from Krypton?

But even Xena knew a helmet was a good idea...

and if I recall correctly Superman led from the front.


----------



## Guy (Nov 26, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> What an untrained conscript...
> https://static0.srcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/conan-barbarian-video-games.jpg
> 
> It makes a character look like their martial skill is insufficient to protect their head. Or their head isn't magically protected, or supernaturally durable. And in fantasy, the people with a combination of:
> ...


Read the original Conan stories and you'll see he wore a helmet in quite a few of them, especially when he was in a pitched battle. And he led from the front.

Then, of course, there was this guy: Frank Frazetta Death_Dealer_3
He, too, led from the front.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Nov 26, 2017)

Guy said:


> Read the original Conan stories and you'll see he wore a helmet in quite a few of them, especially when he was in a pitched battle. And he led from the front.
> 
> Then, of course, there was this guy: Frank Frazetta Death_Dealer_3
> He, too, led from the front.



No one lead from the from the front the way it's portrayed in popular media if we're talking realism. Nobody complains the times Conan does not wear a helmet, either in books or movies. Because to most people, fantasy is entertainment, not a history lesson. 



> Funny I never thought the question was about superheroes or screen characters. Perhaps you should check with the OP to see if his character is from Krypton?



There's no distinction between fantasy heroes and superheroes beyond semantics. Both can be human, both can be superpowered through various means. Who complained that Aragorn didn't have a helmet at Helm's Deep? That Legolas didn't? 

The average consumer of fantasy fiction doesn't care. 

Xena didn't wear a helmet in a setting where helmets were common. Hercules, Iolaus, and Gabrielle didn't wear helmets either. Joxer the Mighty, the inept bumbler did have a helmet though. So by the logic in this thread, Joxer by default looks like the most capable and professional of the lot? Ahaha.


----------



## Guy (Nov 27, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> No one lead from the from the front the way it's portrayed in popular media if we're talking realism. Nobody complains the times Conan does not wear a helmet, either in books or movies. Because to most people, fantasy is entertainment, not a history lesson.


But it was you who originally complained about characters wearing helmets:


> Helmets make a character seem like the muddy rank and file, aka the jobbers.Give Aragorn a helmet and suddenly he looks alot less badass.


Conan often wore a helmet, especially when he was a king leading armies into battle. I think we can say he wasn't a mere jobber. Do you think the Death Dealer's helmet makes him look a lot less bad ass? There are plenty of examples where a helmet did not detract from or even added to a character's presence.


----------



## Russ (Nov 27, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> No one lead from the from the front the way it's portrayed in popular media if we're talking realism.



Actually, they did, but you just refuse to acknowledge the real history behind that truth.

There were episodes where Xena wore a helmet, more than one if I recall.

Comics, TV and movies are all every different mediums.  The TV, comic and movie media are all far more visual and thus showing the face is far more important than in a book where the characters is identified through the prose not the image.    Very, very different things.  I would have thought someone like yourself who claims to be a comic artist would be the first one to get that.

I guess you don't like the OP's original question:

*would there be any practical situations where you would not want to wear a helmet in battle?*

Saying "Superman didn't and Xena didn't and sometimes Conan didn't" doesn't really answer the question now does it?


----------



## Chuck (May 28, 2020)

Here are the things I considered. You have issues like obstructing vision or throwing the warrior off balance. You could have issues with comfort. Helmets can get hot and they are heavy and would start to cause neck strain. 

I remember reading somewhere that sniper Chris Kyle wore a ball cap instead of his helmet because "Ninety percent of being cool is looking cool." The warrior might feel that a helmet is a sign of cowardliness. Or it could be to intimidate his enemies. He is such a badass that he doesn't consider his enemies enough of a threat to wear armor on his head.


----------



## Angry Briar Rabbit (May 29, 2020)

It will depend on the world. In Star Wars they stopped wearing armor because the offensive force of blaster bolts over ran any armor at the time. A sniper is a different kind of unit. In the field, a soft hat has been used to blend in with foliage for may decades. A hard helmet would be for the physical altercation types: general grunt, SWAT team member, etc.


----------



## psychotick (May 29, 2020)

Hi,

Maybe you need to go back to the initiating question - why would you wear a helmet? I mean are we talking about an organized army where uniforms and helmets are provided? Or just a bunch of barbarians / villagers who'll fight in whatever comes to hand and which they can afford? 

I mean it's easy to imagine that a villager in a fight or a brigand or what have you will invest all his initial money into some sort of protective vest before anything else. After that maybe gauntlets or a shield. Boots are pretty important too for marching etc. A helmet probably ranks quite low on the items they want to get. It's probably more an item of defensive clothing for those who have full uniforms provided and get trained in swords / melee  and so learn the value of one etc.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## spaced06 (May 29, 2020)

For once, you can have your cake and eat it, too! You can have a world where people are reasonable with helmet use in combat, and where you're mostly accurate on armor and tactics, and still have a character or three who are experienced in combat not use a helmet. Why? Because people have emotions that make them do irrational things that go against their better judgement. For example, I could perfectly see a very well trained, very talented young warrior being so full of himself that he is convinced he doesn't need to wear a helmet. Why would he? Everyone is mediocre compared to him, or so his naivete leads him to think. This is also an obvious possible source of character development and having him wear a helmet at some point, after  going through some terrible ordeal caused by his flaw that humbles him and forces him to smart up, would be a nice way to show growth. 
And you can go even further. For example, maybe Mercenary Company (tm) was founded by this legendary dude who's story is half shrouded in myths and half-truths. And maybe a huge part of that myth was how the dude was such a crazy bastard he would charge into battle without a helmet, because he was just that much of a madman. Now, this might not be true at all, or only partially true. Maybe it was just one battle where he was forced to drop the helm due to some unknown circumstance that did not carry on with the rest of the story. He won against all odds, and so that particular battle fed more into the stories about him than others. Anyways, maybe after 30 years, a small tradition forms in Mercenary Company (tm) where guys start dropping the helm to emulate the myth of venerated founder, putting group belonging and pride before practicality (something humans do ALL THE TIME). Eventually, not wearing a helmet might become part of Mercenary Company (tm)'s group identity, a part of their reputation for being brash and fearless and reckless. Hell, maybe Rival Mercenary Company (tm) jokes about what idiots they are for being so impractical. 
My point is, while it is good to ground your story in realism and practicality, it is also important to note that people are not always rational and sensible, and this can encompass even entire cultures.  I would think that a story where everyone is rational and practical all the time is not a very realistic story, funnily enough.


----------



## Gray-Hand (May 30, 2020)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Maybe you need to go back to the initiating question - why would you wear a helmet? I mean are we talking about an organized army where uniforms and helmets are provided? Or just a bunch of barbarians / villagers who'll fight in whatever comes to hand and which they can afford?
> 
> ...


No way.  

The helmet is more important than any other piece of armour.  The shield will normally do a pretty good job of protecting every part of the body, but if you want to see your enemy, your head has to pop out.  As a result the head becomes the primary target.  And it doesn’t take much of a hit, if the hit is to the head to take someone out of the fight.

If you had to choose between taking a full suit of armour and no helmet, or a helmet and no other armour, it would be a 50/50 call.

Shields are another piece of equipment that are  ridiculously under-utilised by fantasy heroes.


----------



## psychotick (May 31, 2020)

Hi,

Not sure of that. I mean if I was a farmer and bandits were coming, I had my half dozen copper bits to spend at the armourer and I wasn't going to run away, I'm pretty sure the first thing on my shopping list would be some sort of protective vest. Maybe that's just me, maybe it's the wrong choice, but the torso is the biggest target and the one likely to be hit first and most often, and a sword through the guts will likely kill you quickly.

Also, if there's pistols involved, I seem to recall that the first piece of information police get taught about them is shoot for the torso. Body mass center or something. It's the biggest target, the slowest to move if someone's dodging and if you miss the heart you still maim. I'm guessing a lot of melee fighters get similar training. Which sort of adds to the utility of the vest. Next it might well be boots - good boots are vital if you're marching. And after that a shield.

But probably most important, who are we talking about armouring up for a fight? Lets say you're right and a helmet is the best - does the typical farmer, brigand what have you know that? Or will they be like me and go immediately for a vest? Not everybody is trained in melee combat.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Gray-Hand (May 31, 2020)

The order in which you should spend your money as an untrained farmer:
1. Shield:  Protects the whole body, and can be used as weapon itself.  Better at absorbing blows than most armour.
2. Helmet:  Protects the most important, most fragile and hardest area to protect.
3. Torso protection and  Neck protection. Vital organs and arteries. 
4. Hands: Fragile. Need them to hold weapons and defend yourself.  Vulnerable due to being constantly extended towards the enemy.  Not vital to survival.
5. Feet:  Like hands, but usually further away from the adversary, thus harder to hit.  Also, targeted less often because a strike at the feet leaves the attacker vulnerable.
6. Arms and Legs:  Less vulnerable than hands.  Less important than the head, neck and torso.  Wounds to the legs and arms are not necessarily fatal and less likely to be completely disabling.  Weight on the arms slows arm speed.  Weight on the legs slows foot speed.  Good armour design tries to put as much weight as possible on the waist To allow for fast arm movement and good footwork - a good belt is therefore worth spending money on.

Often of course, the one piece of armour would protect several of those areas at once.  Without a shield. Torso armour becomes more important, but shields are so effective and so easy to make (any farmer could make a basic one) that it is unlikely that there would be a scenario where torso armour is available but shields are not.

Pretty much anyone who has ever trained in any form of close combat will tell you that the head is the primary target.  Even a pretty average punch to anywhere on the head is capable of ending a fight in its own right or dramatically tipping the balance one way.  A good punch to the head can easily kill.  For a punch to the torso to have that effect, it eaitger has to be very precisely aimed, or be extremely powerful.  Same applies to blunt melee weapons.  Bladed weapons open up the torso (and everywhere) as a target, but it is still best to protect the head first.

Police and soldiers are trained to shoot at the centre of mass because they are using firearms, which are difficult to aim and are powerful enough to either kill or disable the enemy with one hit to the torso.  It isn’t really relevant to a fantasy scenario or melee fighting.

Anyone who has been hit in the head in a fight knows how important it is to protect the head.  Go and get a hammer and hit yourself in the chest or stomach with it with enough force to not quite injure yourself. Now hit yourself that hard in the head (don’t).  That sort of hit might not kill you, but it will at least leave you open to a killing blow.  Those type of hits are common in a melee fight - they are the hits that happen when you see the hit coming at the last second and partially deflect it.  They are the hit you get from your own shield getting driven back into your face. They are the hit you get when your friend accidentally hits you with his backswing, or when someone else gets knocked into you.  A helmet makes those hits inconsequential.

Similar with bladed weapons.  A two centimetre puncture wound, a 10cm long, 5mm deep slash or cut to the face or skull is an instant fight ender.  If taken to the torso or arms or legs, there is a pretty good chance that you could keep fighting for a while or at least work at getting away.


----------



## psychotick (May 31, 2020)

Hi,

As I said, you may be right, I don't know. But even if you are right - would an untrained farmer, brigand or what have you, know that? The OP is why would someone not wear a helmet? And most people haven't been trained in melee combat. So why would they put a helmet so high up on their shopping list?

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Chuck (May 31, 2020)

I think most of you have gotten away from the point of the post. 

"but would there be any practical situations where you would not want to wear a helmet in battle?"

All of us would agree that a properly trained military would issue helmets and require their troops to wear it. When I was in the Navy, we were issued body armor and Kevlar helmets. The helmets were heavy, didn't fit properly, were secured with a single strap so they would fall over my eyes if I looked down, and were very uncomfortable. I hated wearing it and found every excuse to take it off. I wore my boonie hat most of the time. 

I remember a scene in "Black Hawk Down" where one of the Rangers was telling Ewan McGregor what to take into the battle. He removed the plates from the back of his body armor, explaining that they already carry so much stuff that by removing the rear plates, he can carry more ammo, since he doesn't plan on running away. And of course, he gets shot in the back. 

We are supposed to be finding legitimate reasons why one would not wear a helmet, not trying to talk the troops into wearing one.


----------



## skip.knox (May 31, 2020)

You've provided an excellent reason right there: because I don't wanna!  Certainly for story-telling, having a character simply refuse to wear the helmet is believable. Could be out of vanity. Could be arrogance or a belief in luck or just comfort. 

As for practical reasons not to wear a helmet, I can't think of one, unless the helmet was made so poorly, or was so poorly chosen for this particular character and situation that wearing it would be more dangerous than not.

Oh, here's another: the character has the ability to detect magic and knows this particular helmet is cursed. Or there was a prophesy that he was invincible so long as he went into battle bare-headed.

There ya go, OP. Must be something in there usable.


----------



## Futhark (May 31, 2020)

The OP asked the question 2 and a half years ago, so they may have resolved it by now.

Anyway...I have to go out and get my character a helmet now


----------



## skip.knox (May 31, 2020)

Hail and well met can now become
Wail and hel met.

(which way to the door?)


----------

