Turkish Stahlhelm

[RobL]

I've come across the Stahlhelm, without the front visor - supposedly this was so the Ottoman soldiers could pray whilst wearing it - is there any truth in this? According to Wikipedia, this idea has been disputed - anyone know the truth of the matter?

[Tom W.]

There were two models of steel helmet associated with the Turks. The M.1917 bears a closer resemblance to the German full-visor version, while the M.1918 has the visor totally removed. Apparently the Turks never actually received the M.1918, and it was worn instead by German members of the Freikorps and Reichswehr.

I read that the purpose of reducing or removing the visor was to adhere to a Muslim stricture against shading the eyes. I haven't been able to corroborate that, but addressing the prayer theory it's clear that the wearer couldn't touch his forehead to the ground when wearing either model of helmet. The front of the helmet always covers the forehead.

[centurion]

I suspect that both explanations fall into the tosh and piffle category. The workers constructing a refinery in Saudi on which I worked wore safety helmets that both shaded the eyes and restricted forehead access to the ground. When praying they simply removed the helmet.

[squirrel]

And FWIW, I've seen many Moslems wearing glasses and/or sunglasses.

[Tom W.]

A Turkish historian tells me that the prohibition against shading the eyes from the sun isn't Muslim but specifically Ottoman. It's supposedly a reaction to the visored helmets worn by Christian knights during the Crusades. Shading the eyes with a visor was considered "infidel" by the Ottoman leadership, which was more religiously hard line than the rank and file. Can you think of any other reason to cut the visor off of steel helmets?

This isn't as extreme as it sounds; in present-day Iran, for example, religious hard liners don't wear neckties because they're considered "infidel." I don't know if this is a formal, nationwide prohibition, but none of the leaders we see on TV wear neckties.

On page 419 of Asia: Journal of the American Asiatic Association, Volume 17 (March-December 1917) there's a photo that has as part of the caption "The Modern Turkish Warriors Cover the 'Infidel' Helmet with the Moslem Turban."

http://books.google.com/books?id=Wa0eAAAAM...met&f=false

The explanation by the Turkish historian makes sense to me, because in the postwar period, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Turkish soldiers began wearing visored steel helmets.

[centurion]

A Turkish historian tells me that the prohibition against shading the eyes from the sun isn't Muslim but specifically Ottoman. It's supposedly a reaction to the visored helmets worn by Christian knights during the Crusades. Shading the eyes with a visor was considered "infidel" by the Ottoman leadership, which was more religiously hard line than the rank and file. Can you think of any other reason to cut the visor off of steel helmets?

Unfortunately this doesn't hold water if you look at Ottoman helmets from the 16th and 17th centuries (long after the crusades) - these have visors and from the jewelled nature of some were worn by those hard line Ottoman leaders.

http://area.autodesk.com/th.gen/?d/mfmjs-j...g7:780x3000.jpg

http://www.turkishculture.org/showpic.php?...s/helmet3_b.jpg

http://www.turkishculture.org/showpic.php?...s/helmet4_b.jpg

[Tom W.]

Unfortunately this doesn't hold water if you look at Ottoman helmets from the 16th and 17th centuries (long after the crusades) - these have visors and from the jewelled nature of some were worn by those hard line Ottoman leaders.

I'm talking specifically about the Ottoman leaders during World War I, not those of prior centuries. I should've been more clear.

Failing authoritarian states often adopt much more restrictive, pious laws on trivial subjects like clothing, in an effort to distract from their failures in the economy, military matters, foreign policy, etc. The Iranian mullacracy has done it, and so did Saddam Hussein.

The Ottoman Empire at the time of World War I was a failing state. It makes sense to me that the leaders would hearken back to their glory days of fighting crusaders. I'm sure they wouldn't be adverse to creating all sorts of restrictions that were not based on historical precedent. As I pointed out before, the Iranians ban neckties. There's no widespread Muslim aversion to neckties; it's something that the mullahs and their lackeys have adopted.

Can you tell me why else perfectly functional helmets would have their visors cut off?

[Tom W.]

Turkish assault troops training in Galicia, spring or summer of 1917. The entire rim on some of the helmets has been removed almost all the way around to the rear.

What possible function could this have, other than some stricture on not having visors?

[centurion]

I'm talking specifically about the Ottoman leaders during World War I, not those of prior centuries. I should've been more clear.

Failing authoritarian states often adopt much more restrictive, pious laws on trivial subjects like clothing, in an effort to distract from their failures in the economy, military matters, foreign policy, etc. The Iranian mullacracy has done it, and so did Saddam Hussein.

The Ottoman Empire at the time of World War I was a failing state. It makes sense to me that the leaders would hearken back to their glory days of fighting crusaders. I'm sure they wouldn't be adverse to creating all sorts of restrictions that were not based on historical precedent. As I pointed out before, the Iranians ban neckties. There's no widespread Muslim aversion to neckties; it's something that the mullahs and their lackeys have adopted.

Can you tell me why else perfectly functional helmets would have their visors cut off?

The lack of ties is not peculiar to Iran it also applies to a number of states and devolves from a long existing Islamic stricture on men wearing unecessary decoration (its the same issue that has caused argument in Saudi and other countries over whether it is permissable to wear cuff links with a dish dashi). You're straining your argument. If it wasn't infidel to wear a visored helmet when fighting the Knights of St John at Rhodes and Malta and laying siege to Vienna one fails to see why in the 20th century it would become so.

As for the design of the helmet - they wouldn't make helmets and then cut the rims off (that would be lunatic) but they might manufacture them that way from the start thus saving several stamping processes not to mention a certain amount of armour steel. The stahlhelm required a very complex manufacturing process and simplifying this would have made sense and saved money

[centurion]

This comes from the Axis forum

"For the record there were two types of helmets made for the Turks.The visorless version as already mentioned,and the Turkish M18 full visor version,said to mimick the soft Turkish service cap....This version was not supplied to the Freikorps:any stocks on hand continued to be supplied to the Turks postwar.Production of this model was low too,say 5,000"

[centurion]

See this photo of Turkish troops in WW1

http://forum.axishistory.com/files/turk_st.jpg

[Tom W.]

If it wasn't infidel to wear a visored helmet when fighting the Knights of St John at Rhodes and Malta and laying siege to Vienna one fails to see why in the 20th century it would become so.

In Iran it wasn't infidel for women to wear western clothing in public prior to 1979. Now it is. How in the world did that happen?

[Tom W.]

The visorless version as already mentioned, and the Turkish M18 full visor version, said to mimick the soft Turkish service cap....This version was not supplied to the Freikorps: any stocks on hand continued to be supplied to the Turks postwar. Production of this model was low too, say 5,000"

The full-visor version is actually the M.1917. My photos above were both taken in 1917.

So, since the Germans supplied the Turks with these helmets, did the Germans modify their complex stamping machinery to create helmets with reduced visors in order to reduce the number of steps and/or to save metal? And they did this for an order of 5000?

If the goal was to reduce the number of steps in the manufacturing process and/or save metal, why did they do it only for Turkish helmets? Why didn't all Germans begin wearing helmets with reduced visors?

[centurion]

In Iran it wasn't infidel for women to wear western clothing in public prior to 1979. Now it is. How in the world did that happen?

I don't know but I do know that its irrelevant to this question

[centurion]

The full-visor version is actually the M.1917. My photos above were both taken in 1917.

So, since the Germans supplied the Turks with these helmets, did the Germans modify their complex stamping machinery to create helmets with reduced visors in order to reduce the number of steps and/or to save metal? And they did this for an order of 5000?

If the goal was to reduce the number of steps in the manufacturing process and/or save metal, why did they do it only for Turkish helmets? Why didn't all Germans begin wearing helmets with reduced visors?

'German Steel Helmets : 1916-1960' shows both versions to have been produced in 1918 (I guess the clue is in the M -18 designation) Given that the Germans supplied the full visor helmet to the Turks as well as the visorless one suggests that the idea that the Turks would only accept a visorless one because of the crusades and strict government rules just has to be pants. One imagines that it was expected that they would be supplying the entire Turkish army and so cost reduction and possibly weight reduction also may have been though worth it.

[Tom W.]

I don't know but I do know that its irrelevant to this question

It's entirely relevant. You say that since the Turks wore visored helmets centuries ago, they wouldn't possibly prohibit them in the 20th century. I pointed out that prior to 1979 the Iranians allowed clothing for women that they currently prohibit.

Centuries ago it was permissible for Muslims to depict Mohammed in art. The prohibition against depicting him came much later.

The answer to my question is that later religious and political leaders (and in Islam they're usually the same thing) can prohibit things that were permissible in the past. The Koran itself is full of verses that contradict each other. The later verses abrogate the earlier in the Koranic doctrine of al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh (the Abrogator and the Abrogated). Mohammed's writings are divided into the earlier Mecca period and the later Medina period. Much of what he said in Mecca is abrogated by what he said in Medina.

It doesn't follow that since visors were permitted centuries ago they would not be prohibited later. In Islam, things that were permitted long ago are quite often prohibited later.

[Tom W.]

'German Steel Helmets : 1916-1960' shows both versions to have been produced in 1918 (I guess the clue is in the M -18 designation)

I know, but that reference is wrong. Both my photos were taken in 1917. The first shows an honor guard greeting Kaiser Wilhelm II on his final trip to Turkey on October 17, 1917, and the second shows Turkish assault troops training in Galicia in 1917. The Ottoman XV Corps formed two divisional assault companies in Galicia in January of 1917, and the Corps returned to Turkey in August. My photo was taken sometime between January and August. Since there's no snow, I assume it to have been taken in the spring or summer.

I'm very lucky to own both those photos, because they prove without a doubt that the full-visored helmet was introduced in 1917, not 1918 as most experts think. Both were private photos taken by single cameramen, so I may own the only copies in existence.

[centurion]

It's entirely relevant. You say that since the Turks wore visored helmets centuries ago, they wouldn't possibly prohibit them in the 20th century. I pointed out that prior to 1979 the Iranians allowed clothing for women that they currently prohibit.

As do the Saudis and many other parts of the Islamic world (and always have) and for quite fundamental reasons) irrelevant

[centurion]

I know, but that reference is wrong. Both my photos were taken in 1917. The first shows an honor guard greeting Kaiser Wilhelm II on his final trip to Turkey on October 17, 1917, and the second shows Turkish assault troops training in Galicia in 1917. The Ottoman XV Corps formed two divisional assault companies in Galicia in January of 1917, and the Corps returned to Turkey in August. My photo was taken sometime between January and August. Since there's no snow, I assume it to have been taken in the spring or summer.

I'm very lucky to own both those photos, because they prove without a doubt that the full-visored helmet was introduced in 1917, not 1918 as most experts think. Both were private photos taken by single cameramen, so I may own the only copies in existence.

Unfortunately all it proves is that some German helmets were acquired and worn in 1917. Both the visorless and the full visored M -18 helmets had not completed production or delivery at the end of the war (hence the issue of some to Friekorps)

[Tom W.]

Unfortunately all it proves is that some German helmets were acquired and worn in 1917. Both the visorless and the full visored M -18 helmets had not completed production or delivery at the end of the war (hence the issue of some to Friekorps)

According to present-day experts. I, however, have two photo of Turks wearing full-visor steel helmets in 1917. These helmets are identical to the 1918 model. Therefore, I submit that they are a single model, the M.1917, and that the M.1918 is the visorless one worn by the Feikorps. I submit that the many authors of books are incorrect, and that the helmet was issued to the Turks in 1917, not 1918.

Unless, of course, you're now saying that the Turks acquired German helmets and cut off the visors, which earlier you said they wouldn't do.

[Tom W.]

As do the Saudis and many other parts of the Islamic world (and always have) and for quite fundamental reasons) irrelevant

So, you agree with me that later Muslim leaders prohibit clothing that was once allowed, but you still claim that this is irrelevant to the discussion, and the Turks would never do that.

I give up. I can't make any sense out of what you're saying. I believe that the helmet was visorless for religious reasons. The Ottomans arbitrarily decreed visors "infidel" and demanded helmets without them. I don't find this a controversial or offensive theory, so I'm going to stick with it until someone can offer me a better reason.

[Steven Broomfield]

This may or may not have relevance.

The history of the 19th (KGO) Lancers (itself the history of the 18th KGO Lancers and the 19th Lancers (Fane's Horse) prior to amalgamation) mentions the introduction of the steel helmet to Fane's in 1916:

"The 'tin hat,' which was first introduced to the Indian cavalry in 1916, was always a difficulty. The Sikhs, of course, said at once that they could not wear them. The officers sympathized, but higher authority merely said, 'Obey orders,' whilst a Staff Officer of the Cavalry Division tried to arrive at a logical conclusion by pointing out that in the old Khalsa Army steel helmets were worn. The Sikhs retorted that there were plenty of Mohammedans in the Khalsa Army, quite forgetting the old Mohammedan curse, 'May Allah put a hat on you!' Perhaps it was this that made the Pathan squadrons fussy about wearing them, but they were dealt with pretty brusquely"

I'm uncertain whether that does contribute much, but it's possibly an interesting sidelight into different religious aspects to the matter.

(Incidentally, the Sikhs ended up carrying their steel helmets attached to the saddle, but on arrival on the Somme, they and their co-religionists of the 6th Cavalry put them all on a returning lorry and never heard of them again. Dogras, on the other hand, loved their helmets so much that when the regiment went to Palestine, leaving the helmets behind, they wanted to replace their usual headdress with the topi.)

[trenchtrotter]

An interesting debate, mainly civilised (as it should be). I shall keep an open mind as this area of helmets of WW1 is not my speciality. Some of Toms comments do make sense though. As he says until the "real deal" answer is available we may never know.

Nice photo of the post war Turk with full German equipment. Explains the Turkish marked German manufactured G98s out there. Supplied during and post war I suspect!

Regards

TT

[centurion]

So, you agree with me that later Muslim leaders prohibit clothing that was once allowed, but you still claim that this is irrelevant to the discussion, and the Turks would never do that.

I give up. I can't make any sense out of what you're saying. I believe that the helmet was visorless for religious reasons. The Ottomans arbitrarily decreed visors "infidel" and demanded helmets without them. I don't find this a controversial or offensive theory, so I'm going to stick with it until someone can offer me a better reason.

make your mind up - are you saying that its a Islamic prohibition (for which there is no evidence) or a Turkish tradition re introduced? (again for which there is little evidence) All sorts of national leaders of all religions or none from time to time have prohibited certain clothing but its irrelevant to the argument. The simple fact that 5,000 visored helmets were ordered would in itself strongly suggest that this was not the reason for the other design. Someone on the Axis forum has in the past suggested that one design was for cavalry and the other for infantry. The not shading ones eyes argument has also been raised in the past but rejected by Turkish contributers

At the time ordering of military equipment had fallen under the control of the clique headed by Enver and Mustapha Kemel neither of whom strike one as aggressively fundementalist.

[Tom W.]

make your mind up - are you saying that its a Islamic prohibition (for which there is no evidence) or a Turkish tradition re introduced? (again for which there is little evidence)

The theory is that it's an Ottoman stricture put forth in the guise of Islamic law. It's just a theory, but it makes a lot more sense than anything else. Clearly the Germans were asked to create two models of special helmet for the Turks, one of which completely removed the protective visor, thus reducing the usefulness of the helmet. On the "full-visor" version the majority of the visor was absent, again reducing the effectiveness of the helmet.

During the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps suffered high casualties from Iraqi gas because the Iranians had grown such full beards that they were unable to create an airtight seal between the mask and their skin. The Iranians grew their beards for religious reasons.

The Turks wanted a steel helmet from the Germans, but they specified that one of the truly effective parts of the helmet not be present in the examples shipped to Turkey. There has to be a reason, and religion is the only one that makes sense.

Pretty basic argument. Nothing controversial in it to me. You're free to reject it if you want.