11-08-2020, 10:45 PM
Hey everyone! Long time lurker, but if registering and jumping on a year old forum and 'beating a dead horse' is not the most fashionable thing to do I don't know what is 
.
I am admittedly biased and surprised by the flak CaesarAugustus has received regarding this problem and frankly a little amused at the defensiveness for a long dead civilization. I am by no means a Roman historian and hardly qualify to even an Armchair level of expertise; however, I have engineering degree and figured I'd chime in.
If we were forced to physically test every problem we came across, I believe engineers would make oodles less money then they do. It is a science by its own right based off of "assumptions" and "educated guesses" to a certain precision. If I drop a ball, I assume rightfully that 100% of the time gravity is going to make it fall. I think CaesarAugustus accurately provides the structural science to a point almost perfectly; it makes perfect sense that a ridged helmet would be inferior in structural strength to a singular bowl (generally speaking). Welding vs Casting for Tanks comes to mind as a suitable analogy; casting turrets maintains a superior structural integrity as oppose to welding, as atomically the fused pieces extend across the whole cross section that would be welded on only either side of the cross section (surface area vs sides). Yet, we see both trended actively in the Second world war, in some cases even for the same model tank (t-34). It would be totally possible to throw some models of a Ridged helmet and a suitable Italic/Gallic counterpart into a FEM program, maybe Solidworks etc, and simulate a Impact force on multiple points of either helmet, but I think it is a totally fair assumption that the ridged helmet would lose out at some point (who knows though, it may be well above any impact force a human could produce reasonably). It is not necessary to test this case.
Why would Rome arm their troops with "Inferior" helmets? This terminology is poisonous to the discussion. Why did Rome arm their troops with "less good" helmets is better. I think it follows suit, why would the Soviets weld tanks instead of cast them? Why did the Germans migrate towards the MG-42 instead of the MG-34?
These could be subjects of discussions in their own right, and my simplification is nearly sin, but they are all heavily associated with cost. Personally, I believe it is for this reason the Lorica segmentata seemed to have phased out too (mail is so standardized in comparison), though this is a can of worms I am ill equipped or educated to handle
. It seems rather clear to me that this is a primary reason for the Ridged helmets appearance and adoption, because they were good enough at a lower cost. Not inferior, just good enough.
It is cheaper in fact to strap 2-4 hemispherical pieces of metal together than to first shape and anneal repeatedly into a full helmet. I am unfamiliar with the Roman construction, but it appears the Italic/Gallic types were fashioned in a similar way to the shaping and annealing methods the greeks used. However, afterwards with the adoption of Ridges helmets, "...helmet-bowls were designed out of two or more different pieces of iron, allowing for increased rigidity and a simplified manufacturing process"(Source below, pg 57). Note, not for increased strength. As for the usage of decorations as a indicator of the wealth of the Romans at the time; Shakos and Pickelhaubes are extremely ornate AND useless. The correlation cannot be mistaken for causation.
Instead of this being the real issue of discussion, the rather repetitive issue in this forum is whether or not the Army of Rome during/after the third century is up to snuff with the expectations we have of them. I simplify it ten fold, but I assume with the title "Crisis of the third century", the luxury of cost was seldom on the minds of those arming troops. That seems to be the real issue.
My apologies for mistakes/inadequacy speaking to anyone's specific points.
Source for more reading and used above:
(HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF ROMAN INFANTRY ARMS AND ARMOR,
https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Avail..._ARMOR.pdf)
.I am admittedly biased and surprised by the flak CaesarAugustus has received regarding this problem and frankly a little amused at the defensiveness for a long dead civilization. I am by no means a Roman historian and hardly qualify to even an Armchair level of expertise; however, I have engineering degree and figured I'd chime in.
If we were forced to physically test every problem we came across, I believe engineers would make oodles less money then they do. It is a science by its own right based off of "assumptions" and "educated guesses" to a certain precision. If I drop a ball, I assume rightfully that 100% of the time gravity is going to make it fall. I think CaesarAugustus accurately provides the structural science to a point almost perfectly; it makes perfect sense that a ridged helmet would be inferior in structural strength to a singular bowl (generally speaking). Welding vs Casting for Tanks comes to mind as a suitable analogy; casting turrets maintains a superior structural integrity as oppose to welding, as atomically the fused pieces extend across the whole cross section that would be welded on only either side of the cross section (surface area vs sides). Yet, we see both trended actively in the Second world war, in some cases even for the same model tank (t-34). It would be totally possible to throw some models of a Ridged helmet and a suitable Italic/Gallic counterpart into a FEM program, maybe Solidworks etc, and simulate a Impact force on multiple points of either helmet, but I think it is a totally fair assumption that the ridged helmet would lose out at some point (who knows though, it may be well above any impact force a human could produce reasonably). It is not necessary to test this case.
Why would Rome arm their troops with "Inferior" helmets? This terminology is poisonous to the discussion. Why did Rome arm their troops with "less good" helmets is better. I think it follows suit, why would the Soviets weld tanks instead of cast them? Why did the Germans migrate towards the MG-42 instead of the MG-34?
These could be subjects of discussions in their own right, and my simplification is nearly sin, but they are all heavily associated with cost. Personally, I believe it is for this reason the Lorica segmentata seemed to have phased out too (mail is so standardized in comparison), though this is a can of worms I am ill equipped or educated to handle
. It seems rather clear to me that this is a primary reason for the Ridged helmets appearance and adoption, because they were good enough at a lower cost. Not inferior, just good enough. It is cheaper in fact to strap 2-4 hemispherical pieces of metal together than to first shape and anneal repeatedly into a full helmet. I am unfamiliar with the Roman construction, but it appears the Italic/Gallic types were fashioned in a similar way to the shaping and annealing methods the greeks used. However, afterwards with the adoption of Ridges helmets, "...helmet-bowls were designed out of two or more different pieces of iron, allowing for increased rigidity and a simplified manufacturing process"(Source below, pg 57). Note, not for increased strength. As for the usage of decorations as a indicator of the wealth of the Romans at the time; Shakos and Pickelhaubes are extremely ornate AND useless. The correlation cannot be mistaken for causation.
Instead of this being the real issue of discussion, the rather repetitive issue in this forum is whether or not the Army of Rome during/after the third century is up to snuff with the expectations we have of them. I simplify it ten fold, but I assume with the title "Crisis of the third century", the luxury of cost was seldom on the minds of those arming troops. That seems to be the real issue.
My apologies for mistakes/inadequacy speaking to anyone's specific points.
Source for more reading and used above:
(HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF ROMAN INFANTRY ARMS AND ARMOR,
https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Avail..._ARMOR.pdf)
