Talk:Bascinet

message: I'm curious about why this article is as Bascinet rather than Basinet - my Oxford English Dictionary lists only the latter spelling. Matthew 13:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My copy of the 1968 Encyclopedia Britannica has an article under "helmet" that uses the "bascinet" spelling. Granted the article is by Harold L. Peterson, an American. --Kiyoweap (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of the article

message: As to my recent edit job, sorry I couldn't quite complete the task and had to leave it in a rough-hewn state. The leading image now is lame, I know, but the previous one (:image:Bascinet by Wendelin Boeheim.jpg) with the bretache nose piece was sent lower down, because of a couple of problems. 
The article claims the bretache was the earliest development for facial protection (i.e. predating visors) for the bascinet. But no inline authority was cited for this, and I couldn't google anything to substantiate it, so I'm assuming the contributor just drew his own conclusion (because it just looked cruder).  However,  Boeheim's Handbuch der Waffenkunde itself, where the image is taken from (p.34) says the "Nasenband (bretèche)" appeared c. 1330 and disappeared 1370. That would be after the visor, which arrived around 1300 (accord. to Viollete-le-duc and Peterson). 
Secondly, it may not even be a picture of a bascinet, even. Boehmer's image is a reproduction from Viollete-le-duc's dictionary, but in the original it appears under "Barbut"! (not "Bacinet").  --Kiyoweap (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temp change of lead picture 

message: In the previous incarnation of the article, there were two major sections, /*Development*/ and /*Use*/.  But what the /*Use*/ section did was to redunantly revisit all the major points of the /*Development*/ section, garnishing them with just a bit of historical context. It even had an entire /*Facial protection*/ subsection. 
Perhaps this was the result of trying to accomodate the gallery of the bascinet helm pics the contributor wanted to feature, and in order to layout the pics the way you want it sometimes you are compelled to write some filler or repetitive texts. 
Anyway I retitled /*Use*/ as /*Historic use*/ hoping to have it populated with more instances of knights or monarchs, in real life or in artistic depiction.  I placed all the developement related stuff in the previous section, with the result that there are glaring redundant passages, that still need to be eliminated. 
Also, the repeated portions aren't consistent IMO, and make a confusing read for me. 
According to my source (Harold L. Peterson (1922-1978), under "Helmet" in the 1968 Ency. Britannica), "About the year 1400 this camail was superseded by additional plates, and the so-called 'great bascinet' had appeared".  The old edit to the article had a few passages on this which were not very well reconciled:
* /*Developments*/ "The bascinet up to c. 1390-1410 usually had a neck and throat defence of mail called a camail or aventail" 
* /*Developments*/ "In later versions of the bascinet (from the end of the 14th century onwards) the mail aventail was replaced by a plate defence, termed the gorget." 
* /*Later versions*/ During the first half of the 15th century, more plates were added to protect the throat better, producing a form called the "great bascinet". 
Presumably if you take these three sentences at face value, around perhaps 1390-1410 bascinet had "usually camails" but were paradoxically also being "replaced by a plate defense" around the same period.  And the jaw-plate reinforced types of this period have no business being referred to as "great bacinets", while only "later versions" dating closer to 1450 are called "great bascinet" ??? Pourquoi? --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "At a point early in the fifteenth century, the mail aventail of the bascinet was replaced by plates. This produced a helmet known to its contemporaries as a great bascinet..." Oakeshott, p. 117. Both the French and German sources are very, very old, and while Viollet-le-Duc is useful for illustrations, he made many high quality drawings of armour from original art work or actual examples, he and the German are not useful for typology or dating purposes. Be particularly wary of putting too much reliance on literal translations of terms, as usage may have changed today. Urselius (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The original point was that you gave out 3 different time rangesof when the transition into "great bascinet" occured. Ergo, confusing. If you want to commit to one consistent date based on Oakeshott (over my Peterson) that's fine and I'm glad you're quoting out of the source for verification. (Had you presented three different scholarly opionion which were attributed, that would have been another way to remedy, though more tedious to write up).  But your edits are rife with unbacked claims, to be perfectly blunt. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I gave a number of dates culled from various sources as to different overlapping developments. That is the transition from extremely pointed-skulled bascinets to round-skulled bascinets and from extremely pointed visors to  rounded visors, and the introduction of plate gorgets and the phasing out of camails all happened over different and somewhat overlapping time-frames. I was trying to express these developments within the less than ideal sub-section structure that I found already in existence in the article. Unlike yourself I did not ride roughshod over previous contibutors' work, but tried to subtly improve the article. A process far from complete when you made your intervention. To be blunt your quality of English expression is less than ideal. Urselius (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization of article (reduncancy) 

message: The lead is not usually referenced in Wikipedia articles - certainly not FAs. Urselius (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: has proposed deletiong Hounskull with the following rationale: "The term hounskull does not refer to a type of helmet, it refers to a type of visor attached to a type of helmet called a bascinet. The content of this page is adequately covered in the article "Bascinet". Where it has the advantage of being within a much wider context of helmet evolution. The hounskull visor was made to be completely detachable. If a soldier detached his visor, he would still be wearing a helmet, but would the helmet be a bascinet or a hounskull? This question completely negates the logicality of the concept of a 'hounskull helmet'."
I am WP:DEPRODding so that a merge may be discussed here. ~Kvng (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the merge, the content of the Hounskull article is exactly what I would expect to see if I wanted to read about bascinets. The most common depiction of the bascinet is with the visor, in my limited experience. K.Bog 22:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

text: I strongly support a merge, at best 'hounskull' describes a subtype of bascinet and in any case the term is informal. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[Hounskull]]

message: I removed an image of a sculpture of a warrior wearing a bascinet. I don't think it makes for a reliable depiction of a bascinet.  We should stick to technical diagrams or photographs of bascinets. Kurzon (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A huge, and I mean really huge, proportion of academic work on pre-Renaissance arms and armour is derived from depictions in manuscript illustrations, church brasses and sculpture. This is because there is a scarcity of actual examples. Using contemporary illustrations and sculpture is perfectly acceptable in scholarship (see any scholarly book, for example those by Ewart Oakeshott, who invented the Medieval sword typology in use today) and consequently in Wikipedia articles. Sculpture is therefore admissible in principal, and the sculpture in question is of particular relevance, as it is the only one available on Wikimedia which illustrates the combination of bascinet with a plate gorget to which it is not physically attached. As such it directly illustrates something alluded to in the text. Urselius (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

text: I have just noticed that you had removed the illustration again. This shows either a lack of good faith or an unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia norms. If an edit is challenged then the default is that the page returns to its original state WHILE discussions are held on the talk page. I have once more reverted. Urselius (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Sculpture