Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID/PC: pl.go-ga.me/obthk56v and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days

Great points! With modern helmets, an additional aspect is the focus on ranged weapons as well as using optics. Having as wide a field of view and the ability to aim at various angles is quite important.

The most important reason riot police use visors and other police and military don't is that they face a different sort of threat. For riot police, the primary threat is objects thrown by hand and a visor will typically provide good protection from missiles of that sort. For a soldier any visor currently available doesn't provide significant protection from the primary threat which is bullets or explosive devices. The moment someone comes out with a clear, lightweight visor which will reliably stop bullets soldiers will be clamoring for it.

When you're talking about fiction, like TV and movies, there's also the de/humanizing angle to consider. Storm Troopers in Star Wars look the way they do, and have their faces covered, for symbolic reasons, for example. Think about that first scene in IV, when they are boarding Leia's ship, how we can see the faces of the defenders vs. the faceless attackers in white armour. I think it's also important to take those sorts of elements into consideration when talking about (heroic) fiction. It's not just about having a cool looking suit for Act III, but what that costume will tell you about the character and situation.

Shad’s random rants have slowly become Matt’s greatest source for content.

Interesting fact about modern military helmets, in the mid 2000s the US military redesigned their helmets with foam pads to replace the older web suspension system because it was found that the helmets themselves were causing brain injuries. When the helmets were redesigned, they were also made to sit higher on the head giving slightly less protection but greatly improving hearing and vision

Note on visors in modern militaries. Armored protective visors are used in two kinds of situations: by bomb disposal people and somewhat rarer by special forces tasked with clearing buildings.

One additional reason for open helmets: Roman officers oftentimes had to lecture subjugated people about Roman grammar, especially when certain individuals had the audacity to write threats like "Romanes eunt domus!" on the walls of public forums.

The main reason that modern military helmets don't have face coverings is that a visor or mask will prevent the end user from being able to aim his rifle. This isn't as big of a problem when it comes to handguns or mounted machine guns (see how many helicopter crew chiefs/door gunners will wear a face protecting "mandible"). All of your other points still come into play also, but modern tech such as throat mics, and active electronic hearing protection (which will protect the user from loud sounds and at the same time amplify quieter sounds) do mitigate some of the drawbacks.

Modern soldiers have face-open helmets, because currently there's nothing strong enough to withstand a direct rifle shot, without weighting so much, a quick head turn will give you whiplash.

Getting a cheek weld with a long gun is also important in a modern context.

Speaking of visors and the need to be able to communicate, this is how the modern hand salute first evolved. Lifting your visor/helmet was not only necessary to give or receive instructions, it became a sign of respect to your general/lord/king; it showed that you were watching and paying attention to them while they were issuing orders.

One thing about marching long distances in a gas mask is you have to concentrate so much on breathing you don't even feel the pain in your body.

Well, Juggernaut is only protecting his brain from telepaths.

One thing I've always wondered is why steel cage face coverings weren't more popular. You see them on some helmets from the English Civil War but AFAIK rarely in any other context. They seem to me to be an ideal compromise between solid steel with all the disadvantages you mention and an open face that offers no protection at all. The only real drawback I can think of is that they would be incompatible with a visor, but plenty of historical open-faced helmets didn't have visors. Of course a cage doesn't do much against arrows but apart from that it's a lot more protection than nothing at all - which is of course why no American football player has taken the field without one for the last 40 years or so. One thing I think a lot of people who only spar or practice in a gym or completely open playing field don't directly experience is how incredibly important it is to see where you're putting your feet not just in combat, but just moving around in a cluttered environment like woods or a battlefield. In modern use there's a historical context that still affects helmet designs: metal helmets were reintroduced for trench warfare, and they weren't able to build a helmet that was light enough to be practical but thick enough to stop high-powered rifle or machine gun bullets, so their main use was to stop shrapnel and HE shell fragments. And because the main threat in trench warfare was fragments dropping into the trench from overhead, but you still wanted to wear the helmet when you were fighting, open-faced helmets with some protection for the neck and shoulders made more sense than something like a great helm. Of course the one huge reason Hollywood doesn't put main characters in full-face covering helmets is one you didn't mention: because if they're paying Matt Damon $5 million to appear in their movie, you're damn well going to see Matt Damon's $5 million face in the important scenes. And actors hate them because they interfere with their acting.

It wasn't a problem for Batman until they decided to switch out his acrobatic abilities and impressive perception for armor and power.

I know when I would fight in battles in the SCA they had women going around with jugs of water, gatorade or lemonade, even pretzels and pickles to keep people's electrolytes and sugar up. The weight of the helmet and armor never bothered me, but the heat absolutely murders you. Can't breathe and at some point its hard to even think straight. Head and torso baking/being starved for air is the worst of it.

My 2 cents: heat exhaustion Wearing a thick scarf in winter or the more recent proliferation of face masks during a sweltering summer while working outdoors or shopping leaves one gasping for air. As you labor the heat of each breath cycles back, trapped in the confines of your mask. Now that's just a bit of cloth. Wearing a bunch of metal over your mouth isn't going to leave you crisp and refreshed. It isn't really about how fit you are when you're having a hard time breathing due to any form of obstruction. When that air is constantly hot it worsens the situation. So yeah it never surprised me that open face helmets were a thing on top of the other details added to the video. Yes in some circumstances more protection is great, but the cons are pretty self evident once you start jogging with one of those full face protection hot air traps on.

"They had to keep people hydrated or they'd become dehydrated."

Matt, I'm a long-time subscriber who loves the channel. Thanks for the reams of great content. I notice you rarely mention the burgonet, one of my favorite helmet types. I assume it is because it's more a Renaissance descendant of these medieval helmets. I think burgonets, in all their configurations, are yet another great example of the constant tug-of-war between protection and "livability". Not really much to add, I guess. I just like my burgonets. 😆 It's fascinating how much, and how little, helmets change over millennia. Our materials and engineering skills have improved, but helmets are ultimately armored hats; so we end up seeing fundamental designs appear, fall out of favor, and reappear as context shifts through the ages. It's fascinating.

For more modern helmets I think its also really important for the face to be accessible for optics and masks. Whether it's nightvl vision, gas mask, or a simple scope it it needs to be accessible to multiple kinds of accessories

I've been watching a lot of Matt's older videos recently, and while they're all fascinating, his presentation is so polished now. This channel has become essential viewing for anyone with a casual interest in arms and armour.

You briefly mentioned it but I don't think you emphasized how important cooling from an open face helmet is. I can't imagine how hot it would be wearing a full helmet in the summer sun would be.

In visual media the face is usually exposed to actually identify the different characters. It can be sometimes disorienting as a viewer to try and figure out who said what to who, when everybody wears a similar helmet. That's usually also the reason that in many movies the protagonists don't wear helmets at all, it's so the viewer can distinguish them properly. I recently rewatched The Pacific and when they were properly wearing their helmets I sometimes had trouble keeping up with which person is which, so it does make sense in the medium.

Also, mounted combatants have to be more concerned with strikes from below than a footman who (as you note) is primarily contending with blows striking downward, so a full helm makes even more sense.

Ahh, my semi-weekly check-in to see how Raid Shadow Legends are doing

"Why do you let it be seen!?" "To mock you."

Good points. Yeah… that’s the thing. If I had body armor and I anticipated that I was going to “on purpose” walk into a hail of gunfire or pyrotechnics or whatever then I’d have a switchable visor and activate it. If I busted through a door and was like “oh crap it’s an ambush” I’d do the switch to activate my visor and hope for the best I guess.

Good that you mentioned /seeing/ someone's mouth in communications. When sailing (lots of wind noise), I had to teach people to shout but also to look at each other. It makes a considerable difference to what is heard.

I can see also that as plate armor advanced, people started to use more two-handed weapons like pole-axes and crowsbeaks, so when you forsake your shield, suddenly that part of your face is more vulnerable, so a piece of metal in front of it would make sense. In addition, I could also see maybe an intimidation factor, most full-armored knights look quite scary (especially if they are running at you wanting to crack your skull) with their faces completely covered in angular metal. A lot of these helmets look very predatory compared to the not-so-scary nasal helm.

Regarding Robocop: Shooting small, moving, bobbing targets is much harder than just aiming for a torso. Same reason why aiming at legs or arms is generally stupid.

I think it was mostly references bascinets but I remember Dr capwell talking about quick release visors, where he theorized they wore full visor to cover open terrain for missiles and dropped them (for all your reasons) when they got into the melee. It explained the existence of quick release visors and also the large amount of face wounds reported/found historically/archeologically.

when modern helmets were introduced, during World War I, some came with a chainmail veil, but the ability to have a good gas mask seal soon became more important; and I would say that in modern militaries compatibility with being able to quickly and effectively put on a gas mask precludes helmets with more extensive face protection.

Another reason for full protection on horseback: many, if not most, attack will come from below. Infantry with spears can either aim for the head or hit the chest and glance up, towards the head. Shields on horseback are also more limited (usually restricted to one side of the body) and can't protect the face as effectively as on foot. In some cases full face protection might be used for intimidation. I'm thinking of those helmets with demonic faces and the likes; emphasis on might, because I can't guarantee these were used in actual battle and not just to show off.

Keeping the shield in mind, the Romans effectively used the leading edge of their shields in conjunction with their helmets to achieve frontal face protection as needed.

One thing that needs to be mentioned in a modern military context is ballistic resistant glasses. They provide protection for the eyes from fragments and debris.

As someone that dabbles in martial arts the exposed chin bothers me a lot, its like having a shiny ko button exposed. I get it with medieval settings but Batman is very often in fistfights

For anyone who rides dual sport motorcycles the breathing issue hits close to home. Most road helmets are well sealed and sit close to the face and severely restricts breathing once you start working hard. The chin bar on dirt helmets sit far from the face and have vents, but even still have an affect on breathing, though it may be more psychological than physical. Military helmets, and body armor in general, have been somewhat of a pendulum. Late 90's (US) soldiers would typically wear no body armor and a helmet that had a slightly protruding visor and covered to about the bottom of the ears. As the battlefield threats evolved, and more time was spent in vehicles, the helmet lots the the visor and covered less of the ears. The body armor became very elaborate, hitting its peak with front, back, and side plates, deltoid pads, neck protector, front and back groin protector, and kevlar underwear for the discerning gentleman. It has since been realised that the resulting loss of mobility was causing casualties and the army has begun moving to plate carriers. Basically, enough soft(frag) armor to back up the plates, and little more. Helmets also are getting smaller and lighter, with certain units using plastic bump helmets rather than ballistic helmets due to their lighter weight and better ventilation.

Anyone who has never worn a full face helmet going quite fast down a mountain on a bike clearly does not know how quicky you realize why Ancient Greeks are usually depicted the way they are :D

Anyone who has made military service in modern times knows how well you perform with your gas mask on versus without it. Awareness, accuracy, stamina, everything is affected. That said I would probably still want a helmet with a full face visor on, atleast as a cavalryman charging into lances and hails of arrows and the like. As infantry a iron hat type helmet with some mail would probably be enough.

" *GAZE INTO THE FIST OF DREDD* !" ;) older fans will get it, lol, it's a valid reference to this topic!

Another point on full face protection for cavalry is that one of their most dangerous matchups is against spearman from below. You'd definitely want your face, chin and neck protected from a steel point at gallop speeds.

A riot style vizor on a helmet is usually very well designed with consideration to breathing and speaking, but even that is not immune to fogging when you are very active in the helmet. So a Judge Dress style helmet actually makes a lot of sense in a compromise situation. Especially if you also have a riot shield.

Thank you for your videos, it's got to be the most informative and unembellished historical content I've seen, glad you are getting some sponsorships as well.

I expected matt to pull out a rolling pin when I saw him with a sallet...

I agree with all of your points. I think the cavalry bit may also have the factor of the shield and armor redirecting strikes and missiles up towards the face (we can see a lot of that happening in Tod's cuirass-archery test); arrows and darts skating around may get redirected towards the face, as lance strikes and the like may glance off the rim of the shield toward the face, both in game and war.

It seems the issue is still protection vs practicality. You still need to see.and hear. And humans need to breathe

In GRRM's novella "A Knight of the 7 Kingdoms" a blacksmith recommends a greathelm because "the amount of times I've seen a noble lord take an arrow to the face after raising a visor while they tried to take a drink, or suck in some air." I've always wondered how the hell does someone in a greathelm do those those things without removing the helm?

Imagine Batman taking a sip from a bottle throughout any movies, would have been a cool touch.

Matt, did you see the recent video Zac Evans put up of his conversation with Augusto about the continued (but less frequent) use of great helms on the battlefield, both on horse and on foot, even with the rise of bascinets and sallets and so on. Augusto went through some of the structural differences between a great helm intended for tournament use and one intended for the field.

I feel if you're on horseback, getting hit in the face by another knight's lance is a distinct possibility for most of medieval history. This is why i personally feel the great helm and frog moutg persisted so long and why them coupled with the armet are some lf the most iconic knightly helmets and are inculded in heraldic achievements. Jousting wasn't just a sport, it was practice for war, and a clash of mounted men at arms was probably a very common occurance in war, either in small scale skirmishes(which would be much much more common especially as the more mobile elements of an army(the knightly classes) would likely be the most likely forces to encounter eachother)or much much more rarely on larger scales during battles. Sure the English men at arms preferred to fight their battles on foot, but I'm pretty certain they would be roving the countryside on horseback engaging in these same small scale skirmishing conflicts on horseback with lances. And this would have been the majority of actions that they fought.

Also, about modern helmets: a big reason I don't think you see riot police style visors in the military is that they wont stop a bullet. If you are military, pretty much any threat you face will be at minimum a high velocity riffle which will punch right through a typical riot shield or visor. The strongest transparent materials we have are only about as tough as aluminum; so, unless you want a few centimeters thick of material weighing down the front of your face, don't expect it to stop any military grade weapons. If you are a riot cop however, your main threats are things like bricks, sticks, and improvised incendiary weapons, all of which can be effectively mitigated by just a few millimeters of polycarbonate.

On the matter of "available" resources, the issue of *_priorities_* is probably more relevant regardless of how much resources they could muster. A faceplate or visor and bevor is cutting it really close to using a second helmet's worth of materials. If you can equip two or more men with basic kit instead of having just one maximally-armored man-at-arms, the numerical advantage is generally preferable.

I personally love it when the super small community of Medieval Armour KZfaqrs quibble with each other. Not for the drama, but Its like peer review. The conversation helps.

This is why I’ve thought for a long time that the stereotypical conquistador helmet (the morion, though as I recall it wasn’t actually used by the early conquistadors, coming after the conquest of Mexico) is almost the ideal helmet, providing head and neck protection (though requiring a minimal aventail or gorget to protect the back of the neck), and with the side flares also provides quite a bit of shoulder protection from descending missiles as well as effective sun protection with its flared front acting much like a hat.

Another important point in armour is weight and usability. Foot soldiers have to carry and handle their armour on their own, not only in combat but for weeks and months on marches and war movements. On the contrary a full armoured knight on horseback is only one of a team. He needs assistance to care for his horse and equipment in the long non-combat days of war, he can‘t put on his armour and enter his horse without help and he may even have his squire in battle to help with orientation and communication.

@scholagladitoria I think the best analogous situation to this in modern times are motorcycle helmets. I've switched at a modular helmet (much like a flip-up full face) for: taking a drink while riding, HEAT dissipation and communication with other riders in my group at stops vs. yelling over a muffled full-face helmet. The same is why I wear a 3/4 (open face) helmet on hot days, I'd imagine a metal helmet would be STIFLING on a hot day, it also allows me to drink and communicate clearly. This is a trade-off, but again soldiers in the field would have to trade off getting heat stroke vs. air flow, communication and drinking vs. added protection in a similar way.

I would suggest that the main reason for face protection on horseback is to reduce the probability of injury, not from a direct blow from the opponent, but from a deflected blow. It's certainly probable that a blow would skip off the shield or the body armour and strike the face with injurious or deadly force. The high probability of injury from debris is also why many motorsports drivers and motorcycle riders wear full-face protection, especially when they're going at high speed.

The other reason of not having the full head protection I can think about is the temperature. It gets really hot inside a full closed face protection. And breathing contributes even more with your CO2 that you breathe out being partially trapped inside, it gets even hotter. If it gets hot enough and in a warmer climate I can imagine you could even get a heatstroke.

Just wanted to mention that the modern military even with all the advances will currently stick with open face helmets. The reason being in shock testing it was discovered that closed helmets keep shock waves in causing more damage from blasts.

I knew about all the points you covered already, but I have to say you did an outstanding job at explaining every facet of the topic.

Good example about helmets of different varieties of face and head protection in general is Baseball. The batter wears an open face helmet just to protect the dome, but has the ability to move, and dodge, but the catcher wears a full face helmet, which he will typically remove rapidly when the danger is reduced and he needs to see.

I think a fully closed helmet also offers the advantage of "courage". The idea that you can be a bit more reckless that there is a chunk of metal between your face and any weapon may encourage a warrior to take chances that he would not take with an open-faced helmet

I know it was just an example but Juggernaut doesn't apply to a few of the reasons given. Juggernaut doesn't need to breathe, He can survive in deep space or the bottom of the ocean just fine. He in fact doesn't need the helmet or armor to protect him from most damage it is just an extra layer of protection. The main reason for the helmet in his case is that it blocks Psionic attack. At one point he even wore a skull cap of the same material under the main helmet.

an interesting parallel can be found in armored vehicles over on The_Chieftain moran talks about how they eschewed armored roofs on many tank destroyers as the ability to see the enemy first and therefore shoot first can provide more both for personal survival and operational effectiveness.

Great video and good points. Just want to defend shad a bit since i guess he was at least part of your inspiration for this. The reason shad made his rant about batmans head protection was the scene from the trailer, where he just casualy walks into close range gunfire. I think in that context having an open face IS stupid. And no modern or past day soldier would just casually take projectiles. So its not that batmans outfit is stupid but his tactic was in this scene.

It's also worth noting that in some cases, soldiers facing a rain of arrows or other missiles, would lower their heads such that the top of their helmets would face the incoming projectiles, thus making face protection (mostly) irrelevant for this tactic. When you're approaching a line of archers, but not yet engaged with them, you don't need to see them as much as you need to see the ground below your feet. And then once you're in melee range, you can lift your head up to see the enemy.

You have very good points there. I would like to add a little bit more of my thoughts to this discussion. I found in ancient China, during prolonged battles where both sides can't really see very well due to heavy fog or dust clouds rising from the battle, sounds like a horse galloping on the battlefield made the soldiers believe they lost the battle and caused a commotion in the ranks. Especially during the night, people are a lot more agitated when they heard sounds. Battle experience alone doesn't seem to help offset this problem because it seems that the more battle experience they have, the more likely they are going to panic when they can't see very well. Since having the visors on or having full helmets would hinder foot soldiers' ability to see, breath, and understand what's going on, this will increase their mental strain on the battlefield; therefore, there could be a psychological aspect as to why full helmets are not worn by foot soldiers as well. Another thing is when you have some augmentations on your helmet to deflect incoming arrows, it is actually harder to hit you directly in the face with a missile if you just tilt your head down during a charge.

The (open or raised) sallet and bevor are a perfect option and really represent the ultimate solution to the conundrum of normal vision and breathing versus maximum protection. The sallet and bevor give both with an elegant style that could only have been achieved after many centuries of evolution. I see ancestral roots in the Boeotian cavalry helmets, and through the Rouvray-style Celtic helmets. Regarding the open face, my favorite helmet is a Celtic Montefortino, so I'm biased. P.S.: Sir: it was just great to see you in the black, close-fitted, perfect armor sparring with your friend--- so graceful... unforgettable. I hope if they ever make a movie of the period when that armor was worn, that you are hired as consultant.

Maybe one thing is Personal Identification (PID)? It could be useful so you can possibly recognize friends, commanders, military leaders, etc

A special logic for riot police is that there are in deed “rules” of conflict. Usually both sides agree not to use lethal weapons (especially guns). Otherwise it would not be “riot” but “civil war”. In that rule set protection by a plastic face shield is sensible, when the main threat are thrown objects and blunt striking weapons.

Really clear presentation. Like this. Thank you.

Also cost and complexity. Even with medieval technology it's relatively easy to get an open bowl "close enough", make up the difference with padding, and maybe add some bars or flaps or mail to the sides as you said.

The boeotian helmet is also a great example of a helmet that offered great vision, but flared outwards not unlike kettle helms later on, but I think is a cool ancient example of a very open helmet

Hello, I was thinking about this topic later, and it occurred to me that perhaps another factor in the decision making process for modern helmets, post WWI, would be access for gas masks/respirators to protect against chemical and biological warfare. Anyway, really liked this video. Thank you for continuing to give us great content!

COMMUNICATION The facial expressions and body language of the soldier fighting next to you in combat can end up saving your life at a glance and vice versa. This might sound silly to those that have not been in combat but I can assure you this is a very real factor. The Roman helmet especially shows how important this was, as they were highly verbally communicative in battle with orders constantly coming down from the higher ranks to the legionary. In combat it is often so loud and chaotic that soldiers often just watch their commanding officers mouth in a rough form of 'lip reading' Legionnaires doubled as 'police' and law enforcement, checking paperwork, interrogating people and taking reports and could often spend the entire day patrolling and talking to merchants and citizens. Being able to see the entire face makes this inter personal communication much more effective. It also made identifying each other much easier, the social aspect. Nose guards DO impede vision even if slightly its still a loss and they do impede the ability to view the mouth and even the eyes, so again the loss of communication. The more a helmet impedes a soldiers vision and the heavier and hotter it is the more likely they are to take it off. So a good lightweight 'jack of all trades' helmet on the head does a lot better job of protection than the heavy helmet on the baggage train!

Thought I had when you discussing the Roman Helmet and openings for the ears. I do SCA fighting and was told once the most common injury was and realized it was true in my case, that injury is hearing loss in the left ear. A metal helm that fully covers the ear rings quite loudly when struck and echos right at that ear. For an army like the Roman's where you might be a soldier for 20+ years you want to be able to hear orders the whole time. Don't know if thats specifically something they were thinking of but seems like they may have.

I think it's also worth mentioning that there is directionality to hearing and so having this blocked by having your head fully enclosed would be a distinct combat disadvantage

You pretty much got it as to why the riot gear has a visor later in the video - sometimes you're *gonna* get hit so you must have the protection. Tasks where you only *might* get hit you can trade the protection for function. And having either option depending on the circumstance makes the most sense.

I'm supposed to study Latin. But Matt's video is much more interesting.

I see two further points, partly in old armor, but mainly in modern armor. 1. Psychology. Being a faceless army isn't good for PR. Especially if you are in a foreign country. 2. The modern helmets I know, which are quite old, don't protect against direct fire but against shrapnel and debris. So a faceplate wouldn't give you considerably more protection.

That all makes sense. I've rarely seen it in art, but I am convinced that the correct interpretation of X's armor in the Night Land is with an open face with cheek pieces.

I'd say there's also a "high importance" reason one might have a closed face helmet. Call it a rule of morale. Kings, princes, army leadership, etc, while they might choose to have a helm that is versatile (meaning a visor that opens and closes) would almost certainly wear a closed face one when giving orders is not important. Once the battle has started, or if they end up in melee, or they're on horseback (you forgot to mention exactly how loud even a score of horses is, let alone armor and barding) then don't risk a stray arrow hitting them in the face or neck. Anyone in the army that sees it would have their morale broken. That's almost enough to win a skirmish alone.

A good example of when breathing and communications became a problem is Agincourt. The longbows could, as a rule, not penetrate the armour of the advancing infantry. Certainly not at range in any case. But what it did was to force the advancing infantry to lower their visors and look down to avoid getting an arrow in the face. The second problem was to hear any commands with the visor down and thousands of arrows clattering against you and your army. So when you finally arrive at the enemy line you will be tired and probably disorganized as some parts of your formation have reached the opponets before the others.

An important point is that the face, or anywhere on the head is not an optimum target. Modern armies and, presumably, medieval armies as well are taught that if the enemy is close enough for an aimed shot, you should aim for the center of the chest. it's a bigger target and, if the target moves he must move much further distance to evade getting hit in a vital organ. With a head shot, he only has to move three inches or the shooter only has to be three inches wide of the mark for a complete miss, and he only has to nod his head to bring his helmet down to cover the face. I don't know the statistics, But while they certainly occur, I would bet that facial injuries are pretty rare when compared to chest, arm, or torso injuries.

I think a big reason for the plastic visor is to help protect against pepper spray/foam which is a lot more common in a riot situation (at least in the US) than on a battle field.

I think there is also a simple issue of mechanics involved. Putting a protective "bowl" over your head from above is easy. But if you want protection from below, you need to find ways to attach it to the body of the helmet, which might be fragile or more expensive to produce.

Having worn a face shield on many occasions in the shop, there is not any hinderance to breathing, but ti does get in the way of everything, including making it difficult to hear and even be heard. And of course there is the pain in the butt of them fogging up, or getting covered in stuff. I can't imagine rain is very nice on them either.

My thought is the difference between the Aristocracy who would come out for the major conflicts (Agincourt, Crecy etc.) and the professional soldiery who would do everything; Agincourt, Crecy, suppressing peasant revolts and power struggles against opposing barons. Do not underestimate the power of fashion amongst the wealthy. I absolutely take your point about breathing and vision; I remember doing riot training in "Tin City" in Sennelager prior to deployment to Northern Ireland in 1986. We were holding a shield wall against rioters (Mediaeval warfare personified) and the sky was black with thrown lumps of coal but we still risked raising our plastic visors to the very real risk of a missile in the face to increase visibility (steamed plastic visors) and communication. The Regimental Sergeant Major saw us breaching riot SOP's and raised his visor to berate us for lifting ours and was KO'd by a lump of coal ROLF. Open face every time; It's a dangerous old business the soldiering.

Heat dissipation could also be important depending on the circumstances.

a modern army helmet is not perferable bullet proof, only shrapnel proof. Its for some grade stop or deflect bullets, but intended only to stop shrapnels.

Very good points, but I don't feel like all of them apply 'specifically' to comic book heroes like batman who use modern and high tech/sci-fi technology Visibility: Definitely an issue with mental helmets for sure, however with modern materials (especially with comic book high tech/sci-fi materials) you can easily have a transparent, one way visor that would fully protect the face while also providing full, or at least most of the visibility one would have without a helmet. The visor could be pretty durable too if made from a strong material like ALON Reduced hearing: Simply having a microphone somewhere on the suit which feeds into the helmet would solve this. You would want to be wearing a wire to record criminal confessions, conversations, etc anyways. Another potential solution could be done using a noise amplifier, like a hearing aid, but way more high tech. In a world with people that have super hearing I can see non super-powered individuals wanting to have that kind of advantage too. Communication: This one can very easily be solved with embedded microphones and whatever communications technology you can think of. Pretty much all comic book caped crusaders have this already. For communicating with people around you without coms equipment, a simple speaker system would do. it would also have the dual effect of being able to mute those speakers and the helmet would passively dampen your voice allowing for some amount of privacy when you want to talk to your partners etc. Of course these could be damaged during a fight though, but I would expect someone like batman or green arrow to engineer a system that can take more than a few hits with no issues Also consider that you can incorporate other technologies into a full helmet, such as a gas mask, or HUDs which could display useful information (MCU ironman comes to mind). As for breathing there are ways around this issue but it wouldn't be very practical, so that point is still very applicable, as is eating and drinking. Overall though, I feel like It would still make more sense for a batman type superhero to wear a full visor. The extra protection is far too important, especially when you are potentially going up against super powered individuals, and the benefits far outweigh the costs in my opinion.

The connection to shields was very clever

Great video! There were some very interesting experimentation with face protection during the First World War. The British had a few face protectors consisting of either a rectangular piece of mail attached to the front brim of the Brodie helmet that covered the face. Another version of it had leather goggles with metal eye pieces with vision slits in them to protect the eyes and nose with a piece of mail added to the lower part of it covering the lower portion of the face. These were intended for use during trench raiding and later by the tank crews to protect them from spalling. Accoring to most of what I have read niether of these were popular for neither trench raiding nor by the tank crews. I've even read statements claiming you could easily recognize a veteran tanker by the many small scars due to spalling on their faces because they quickly did away with their face protection. Main gripes seem to have been poor vision and the fact that getting slapped in the face by a piece of mail when you are running through no-man's-land and enemy trenches or getting tossed around inside a moving tank without suspension wasn't very "fun". Similar goggle/mail face protectors were also used by the French. Here's a link to an example surviving in the collection of the Tank Museum Bovington: www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/tank-museum-world-war-one-tank-crews-face-mask-helmet.html The French tried out a version of their Adrian modèle 1915 helmet were the front brim was replaced with a proper visor that could be opened or closed similarily to the sallat seen in this video. Other versions have fixed visors of varios kind. Again the main use would be either by trench raiders or tank crews. Here's a link to photos of one such visored Adrian helmet: peashooter85.tumblr.com/post/624571650520891392/qsy-complains-a-lot-adrian-helmet-with-polack/amp The Americans experimented with a helmet earily similar to a bacinet with visor for tank crews. It was called the Model 8 Experimental Helmet and was apprently made by the Ford company. Here's a link to a site with a good photo of one of these: historical.ha.com/itm/militaria/helmets/rare-us-model-8-experimental-helmet-circa-1918/a/6131-47772.s But probably the best example of First World War face covering armour was the German Gaede hemet (Stahlkappe M1915) and the snipers face mask. The first was manufactured behind the front by Army detachement Gaede in the eastern Lorraine sector of the Western Front. It was a piece of thick armour plate shaped to fit forehead of the soldier an had a large nasal guard to protect the nose. It was the first German attempt at some sort of head protection and only saw limited service, mainly by sentries, snipers and machine gunners in the front line. The snipers mask or face shield as it is also refered to was a realy serious attempt at protecting the entire face. It was a thick piece of armour plate strapped to the face with to small vision holes and a cut-out for the right shoulder so the mask would not interfer with the rifle when shouldered. It was meant to be used, as the name reveals, by snipers standing behind the parapet of a trench and firing their rifle at the enemy. About 1 500 of these face shields were issued to front line troops. The French nicknamed the thing "la plaque eléphant" based on how a German soldier wearing it looked from their positions. Here's a bit of short info on these to aswell as other German helmets: antique-photos.com/en/unidatabase/german-empire/455-stahlhelm.html Besides the examples given above there were many other experimental or limited issue attempts at giving the soldiers, especially on the Western Front, some sort of face protection in addition to the standard issue helmets. Non saw any real widespread use for various practical reasons, especially not with the infantry. The German Gaede helmet and face shield were probably the most widely used. There certainly are alot of photos showing German soldiers wearing the Gaede helmet. But if this is just pure posing for the camera to show the helmet of or if it's an indication of their actual use in combat is up for debate. The British and French goggle and mail maskes were atleast on paper widely used by their tank crews since they were issued gear but in reallity it seems that they were quickly discarded by the tankers. The insides of the British and French tanks were already dark, noisy and dangerous with extremely limited vision through the vehicle vision ports and slits in combat. It was difficult as it was to see outside not to mention spotting, firing and hitting enemy targets as these massive massive vehicles without any sort of suspension , or at best very limited such, crawld over shellholes and trenches. Protecting your face from spalling splinters were the least of the tankers concerns under such conditions! These masks only served to anoy them and limit the already extremely limited vision. As for their use by the infantry they saw very limited service at best. In this role they were also more of an hindrance than the protection they gave was worth. Especially during trnch raiding as these for the most part took place at night and were stealth was important. There are modern military face protection in use today, but it's mainly specialized gear for EOD-teams. The Russians I believe have experimented with face protection for soldiers in general. But as far as I know it's been visors similar in style to what riot police uses but probably of a material with more stopping power. The modern standard is usually just some sort of protective glasses or goggles to prevent smaller stuff getting into the eyes.

Matt, I'm surprised you didn't mention the Viking Goggle Helm, as the similarities between it and the Batman cowl (added protection around the eyes, but open lower half) have really added strength to your argument

One of your best vids this year.

The nasal protection also helps not getting the rim of a shield in your face. And the shield does provide a hella lot of protection for the face too.

About Batman or superheroes in general, a partially open faced helmet, having their lower half exposed, can lead to the being easier to identify, especially with facial recognition software. Facial recognition software might not give you their identity but can greatly reduce the possibility.

Your suit of gothic armor is so cool! I love the color.

"...you cannot over state how important breathing is...!" I completely agree! No, I've never had to fight in full armour, but I have more than once had to push start a large capacity motorcycle wearing a full face helmet, and while breathing may seem easy in such a helmet, which is not all that different to a medieval helm, once you start exerting yourself at all you run out of air very fast!