+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle? (/showthread.php?tid=23877)
Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle? - Luka Borščak - 05-18-2014
I don't have a photo of the label, but I do believe it was dated to 3rd century. Btw, I found another picture.
![[Image: Slika0070.jpg]](http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s236/lukaborscak/Slika0070.jpg)
Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle? - Vindex - 05-19-2014
As said above, the field of view - or lack of it - in my mind is something which needs a lot of practical examination.
My own observations are that:
1. Forward vision is acceptable at all paces.
2. Peripheral vision to right and left - effectively my own line - is sufficient in lower paces but reduces significantly at a faster pace. My glance left or right with minimal head movement becomes more pronounced the faster I get so if I am trying to retain a line - or any formation - with those on my own side, it becomes more of a problem.
3. In the thick of battle (this is an assumption as I haven't fought in one off a horse!) the need for constant checking on my environment is hampered by the helmet. This may be because my borrowed helmet was not made for me and was possibly too big.
As an aside, my horse took GREAT exception to me wearing it until she got used to the idea. I think that was because she could not see my facial expressions or recognise the person in front of her although she knew my voice. The helmet, therefore, affects not only humans but horses too. Perhaps it had a similar effect on the opposing cavalry?
Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle? - PhilusEstilius - 05-19-2014
Moi.
I can understand very much the point about your horse for there is no greater subject about body language than that which animals have, I suppose it is when the horse can recognize you it tends to know it is in good hands.
I worked with ponies 1,000 feet below ground and five miles out under the North Sea and I even used to talk to mine all day long and found it keeps them happy.
Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle? - PhilusEstilius - 05-19-2014
This is not me but it is what I did some 63 years back it is a little off topic but reminds me of my days with horses.
[attachment=9932]441.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=9933]721.jpg[/attachment]
Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle? - Vindex - 05-19-2014
I love that second picture
Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle? - PhilusEstilius - 05-19-2014
It was good to let them have that crash helmet off now and then to let them see the world they worked in.
Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle? - PhilusEstilius - 05-19-2014
The idea of cavalry wearing masks might also raise the question would a soldier have put this onto his horse and dashed off into battle, I would very much think not for it was left at home along with his other very expensive one he wore at other times.
[attachment=9934]100_0456Medium.jpg[/attachment]
Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle? - Vindex - 05-19-2014
That's fabulous
Yes, I think you are right. The reason we find these things is probably because they were left in a store somewhere and forgotten about. (Like the chamfron in Caerleon...which still hasn't appeared in a report yet
)
Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle? - Frank - 05-19-2014
Why should somebody wear a facemask in combat, while his legs and arms are fully unprotected anyways?
Doesn't make sense to me. Well cataphracts are an other story. But thats a later timeframe.
Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle? - PhilusEstilius - 05-20-2014
Here is another interesting point about cavalry helmets and face masks where I was asked to make this Trimontium ( Newstead ) one, I had the great pleasure of being able to handle the original in the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburg.
What I discovered was that it was ultra light weight and when making observations of it I found that there is a small crack near one of the heads of the two cupids, and the area I have marked on the bowl is only in the region of about 5 thousands of an inch thick.
This comes from the fact that the bowl was beaten out and the peek and neck guard are about 0.6 to 0.9 mm thick but it is much thinner at its upper area not the kind of thing that would stand up to much in battle.
It is a situation where such helmets would have had to be worn to be able to use such face masks.
[attachment=9935]Edinburg-061120121Medium.jpg[/attachment]
Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle? - PhilusEstilius - 05-20-2014
Here is an interesting aspect about helmets and face masks where I was asked to reproduce this one for the Trimontium Trust.
I had the great pleasure of being able to handle the original in Edinburg museum and what I found that this helmet is ultra light weight, and between the two heads of the cupids there is a tiny crack that reveals the bowl is only about 5 thousands of an inch thick in its upper area that I have marked.
This is due to the fact the bowl was beaten out and the peek and neck guard are about 0.6 to 0.9 mm then the bowl thins out very much in its centre area.
The only way that a mask could be worn would be with this type of helmet and not very much use in battle I would think.
[attachment=9936]Edinburg-061120171.jpg[/attachment]
Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle? - Vindex - 05-20-2014
It's that sort of detail which adds to the argument, Brian; thank you.
(PS - have you seen the repoussé armour I've linked in the Belgrade thread?)
Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle? - mcbishop - 05-20-2014
Quote:what I found that this helmet is ultra light weight, and between the two heads of the cupids there is a tiny crack that reveals the bowl is only about 5 thousands of an inch thick in its upper area that I have marked.Brian is right, these things are very light.
This is due to the fact the bowl was beaten out and the peek and neck guard are about 0.6 to 0.9 mm then the bowl thins out very much in its centre area.
When we scanned the Crosby Garret Helmet recently we also weighed it and the Ribchester helmet. CGH is slightly under, and Ribby slightly over, 1.3kg. Compare that with the Depeeka replica of the latter which is something like 4kg IIRC (which could pretty much stop a round from an 88, never mind a dummy javelin!).
The argument about field of vision, which I said was the clincher, has to be taken in the context of all the other considerations -- Arrian describing the existence of battle and sports helmets, the two types being found together in grave deposits, and the flimsiness of face-mask helmets. They are all about spectacle and little to do with combat, as the vestigial neckguards make abundantly clear.
Mike Bishop
Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle? - PhilusEstilius - 05-20-2014
Mike .
I might be putting my head on the block to say that I think this particular face mask may have been used in a different context to the Hippika Gymnasia, where it might have been worn by a standard bearer in some sort of battle situation.
It most certainly had been subject to many uses in its life time and in the end might have simply hooked onto an ordinary Legionary style of helmet.
This is where one of my many reproductions show this with a hook that may well have been fitted to its most later kind of use, just a small slot in the brow of any helmet would allow it to be clipped on and just as easy removed.
[attachment=9937]6Medium.jpg[/attachment]
Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle? - caiusbeerquitius - 05-20-2014
Quote:and the flimsiness of face-mask helmets. They are all about spectacle and little to do with combat, as the vestigial neckguards make abundantly clear.Just briefly, again:
The flimsiness: The metallurgical analyses made for these kinds of objects show quite the opposite. See
F. Willer, R. Meyers, Herstellungstechnische Untersuchungen der eisernen Gesichtshelme aus Nijmegen, in: R. Meyers, F. Willer (eds.) Hinter der silbernen Maske, Nijmegen 2007, p. 31-50.
I. Joosten, R. Meyers, F. Willer, Die metallurgische Untersuchung des Eisens der Gesichtsmaske Kat. Nr. 2, in: R. Meyers, F. Willer (eds.) Hinter der silbernen Maske, Nijmegen 2007, p. 57.60.
E. Geiß, F. Willer, Experimentelle Archäologie: Schmiedeexperimente zu den Gesichtsmasken aus Nijmegen, in: R. Meyers, F. Willer (eds.) Hinter der silbernen Maske, Nijmegen 2007, p.61-68.
R. Meyers, H.-J. Schalles, F. Willer, Schussexperimente mit einer rekonstruierten römischen Torsionswaffe auf definierte Metallbleche, in: R. Meyers, F. Willer (eds.) Hinter der silbernen Maske, Nijmegen 2007, p. 69-76.
We know that the helmets were made exactly to measure of the wearer, see Herstellungstechnische Untersuchungen... p. 34.
The weight or thickness alone of the objects cannot be an argument pro or contra wearing them in battle, just as the level of decoration cannot be this. And should we then not first find out how thick (better: stable) such a helmet needs to be for a Roman cavalryman? The thickness of a metal does not exclusively tell how stable it is. Form and composition are just as much important. (Form: If you play WOT you know what I mean... ^^)
Short neck guards: Hm. That would be so, if we base this on the assumption that there is a need for larger neck guards on horseback in battle than in Cavalry Sports. Do we know that this is the case? Aren´t large neckguards actually bad when on horseback? when you fall of your horse backwards you may be very happy about a short neck guard, I suppose.
=>
I still think it is not so sensible to try to establish a normative here. Wearing or wearing these not in battle may have varied from time to time (e.g. before or after Arrian), from unit to unit (Thracian Cavalry vs. Bracaraugustan) or from place to place (Syria vs. Britain). It is impossible to prove that they were exclusively worn in the hippica gymnasia, I think, likewise it is impossible to prove that they were worn in battle alone (a case which none makes, I think). Probably the truth lies, like so often, somewhere in the middle. As Junkelmann shows, one can also make some very good points for the use of these objects in battle.
At that, I do also not see the necessity to establish a normative. I think a teleological approach is bad, though. The sources should be investigated from a rather subjective point of view. What should not be done is to have a fix idea and then to approach the sources in terms of proving one´s idea. That´s a methodological no-go, I learned in History class.