Login

Theodosius the Great · 03-26-2005, 01:05 AM

Quote:<hr>Be aware that there are many learned colleagues who are of the opinion that the entirety of representational evidence (centuries of it, actually) is all "artistic convention", and must have somehow never existed because we haven't dug a Roman muscelata up yet (or a Roman army subarmalis, a Roman chariot, et al.). <hr> 
 
Oh, yes. The school that says "absence of evidence [archaeological] is evidence of absence" . 
 
I agree with your philosophy completely, Severus. I don't know how reenactors can sometimes be so closed-minded, especially when there's no other surviving evidence. 
 
Although I can understand accusing someone of being influenced by Hollywood if they wearing those fore arm gauntlets . 
 
Again, I like your reasoned approach . 
 
-Theo <img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/RCasti998/CHI-RO2.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

03-26-2005, 04:56 AM

Funny you should bring that up. The fore-arm guards commonly known as "bracers" actually did exist to some degree, though probably not in their 12" movie incarnation. Here's a recent thread from the Reenactment and Reconstruction forum (where this discussion should probably be as well), complete with pictures: 
 
p200.ezboard.com/fromanar...1424.topic 
 
BTW, please feel free to join the Legio VI encampment for the w/e, we can trade notes, take some pics, etc. Bring a sleeping bag if desired, the nights get rather chilly. We'll have our ballista set up, at least a contiburnium of legionaries, and there'll be several other guest officers there as well: our own Praefectus Julius and his scribe Satorius, Centurio Marcinius of Leg XXII, and Centurio Marcus of Leg X Fretensis. We'll get a few great "staff meeting" shots. 
 
Let's email before then to see how each other's doing on this impression (either here or directly, off-line). Til then, fratre Tribune, take care. 
 
Severus

Theodosius the Great · 04-01-2005, 12:30 PM

Ave, Severus. 
 
Thanks for the kind invitation. 
 
I'd like to update you on my progress. 
 
I WILL have the armor done in Bronze afterall . 
But it won't be finished until August . 
 
On the chest will be an embossed Lion's head instead of a Medusa's. Do you think that's consistent ? Otherwise I'll just leave it blank. 
 
The helmet's going to be done by someone else and I will get it in May. Unfortunately, I can't afford to have it done in bronze so I'm going to go with brass. 
 
I'm not sure how that will look with the armor. Any thoughts ? 
 
I told him to model the helmet after this : 
 
 
<img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/RCasti998/brassattichelmet.jpg" style="border:0;"/> 
 
 
What do you think ? Is there a better image to model the helmet after ? 
 
-Theo 
<img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/RCasti998/CHI-RO2.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

04-01-2005, 12:44 PM

Oh yes, oh yes! 
There are many better images than this one, which is the "classic" interpretation of official sculptures. 
Methinks what the official sculptures like the ubiquitous Louvre relief show helmets of the Guisborough type. 
[url=http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment-Helmet.html#Guisborough" target="top]www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment-Helmet.html#Guisborough[/url] 
This one is the famous Teilenhofen example. Very ornate and late piece, but the greatest proportion --especially the earlier models-- had simpler decoration. Besides, several cheek guards of the "infantry" type (not covering the ears) and of a design associated with attic type helms have been found. They match perfectly a Guisborough type helmet, which is simply an evolution of the attic type. They are actually called pseudo-attic sometimes. 
basically, the big mistake done by Hollywood, and the makers of the helmet shown, is to think that the brow band was a separate piece whereas it was integral with the helmet. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 4/1/05 2:59 pm

Theodosius the Great · 04-01-2005, 12:52 PM

Hi Antoninus, 
 
I'm familiar with the Louvre relief. The only major difference I can detect is that the brow plates are not quite as big as on the helmet I have pictured above. 
 
I told my armorer to just do a simplified version of the helmet with no embossed designs. I don't want something that's too pretty to use in battle .

04-01-2005, 01:08 PM

I don't think you can judge the size of the brow plate by the reliefs since the helmet was cut out in order to show the wearers' face, and that leads to the second mistake: as you can see in the Teilenhofen example the cheek guards were flush with the helmet rim. There was no cut out for the face like in the picture shown. 
Well.. I think..

Theodosius the Great · 04-01-2005, 01:17 PM

Thank you for your imput, Antoninus. 
 
That's a great website . <img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/RCasti998/CHI-RO2.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

04-04-2005, 10:27 PM

I have to respectfully disagree with Antoninus on this point. The older I get, and the more evidence is uncovered, the less I tend to be swayed against something simply because "Hollywood did it first". With regards to this [attic] helmet in particular, Hollywood made it that way because that's what the representational evidence shows it to have been! While we can surmise, as many have, that this or that must have been bigger, smaller, longer, shorter, whatever, the fact remains that you have centuries of evidence almost entirely consistent with what these things looked like. 
 
Now let's consider the Teilhofen helm mentioned earlier. It's a spectacular helmet; one of my favorites, in fact. But of course there's only ever been one found like that. Is it therefore reasonable to say that the centuries of evidence that paints a clear picture of what a certain item must all be invalid because of this one example, especially when (a) the example looks only very remotely similar to what's portrayed in evidence, and (b) oh, look, it's a cavalry helmet, probably worn by sioome German auxilia, and not even Roman at all . 
 
Ironically, anyone who's seen the movie Gladiator will note that the entire Praetorian Guard, resplendent in their black SS-esque uniforms, are all wearing plastic Teilhofen helmets! So now what is one to think? That Hollywood got it all wrong when the helmets looked like what's on the reliefs, but now they got it right when they look like they're all wearing a German auxilia's helmet (and entirely black armor)? 
 
Personally, I'm going with the evidence. There's tons of it. Though my scanners currently busted, I'll start an image base of what's seen on Trajan's Column, the Arch of Antoninus, the Arch of Orange, the column of Marcus Aurelius, et al., and people will have to decide for themselves. Which is what they should be doing anyway. 
 
Vale, 
Severus

04-04-2005, 10:51 PM

I have recently been seeing programs/movies that show Roman's wearing bronze cuirass over shirts of mail. I hate to sound like an idiot, but was this ever done? While it was cavalry that wore this particular combination, wouldn't still have been incredibly heavy and uncomfortable? 
 
P.S. - Something Hollywood sometimes gets wrong is the idea that only the SS wore black, which is totally untrue. The Panzer Corps (regular Panzer and SS Panzer) both wore black uniforms. What's worse, they usually associate the Death's Head (Panzer Corps symbol) with the SS, also untrue.

04-04-2005, 11:09 PM

Oops, I forgot: Theo, your choice is a fine one, I think. Antoni Feldon, who researches things to death, built this helmet a few years back. He calls it a "Praetorian" helmet due to the lion motif, the lion being, along with the scorpion, one of the images more associated with Praetorians than with army legions (who were more apt to use bulls, capricorns, and eagles in their design). 
 
Where the evidence disagrees: (a) the back neckguard is too long; often you actually see the soldier's hairline just below the back rim on many reliefs. (b) The evidence also shows that military/state themes on helmets, such as the Imperial eagle, SPQR, whatever, was not very common, if at all. Floral motifs were most common, as were gods/ goddesses/ figures. © Feather plumes seem far more common than horsehair. I believe this is primarily due to the weight: plumes are quite light, while horsehair adds a lot of weight, and high on your head, where you least want it! Finally, I'll add that, having worn this particular helmet, it is exceedingly heavy, probably 8-10 lbs, and causes neck fatigue fairly early. I have to believe that officers, many of them older men not on the front line, would not have worn something quite this heavy. 
 
Which brings me to my final, cautionary note: beware of the "will this thing protect me from a barbarian ax" mentality. These were either worn by Praetorians, who clearly did not live in the field, fighting on a daily basis, as did some army legions, or by Tribunes, Legatuses, etc, men charged with the maneuver of entire cohorts and legions; and not likely to be found on the foward battle line, holding a scutum and swinging a gladius. That role was aptly filled by the centurions, who of course did wear standard infantry helmets alongside their men. 
 
Anyway, hope some of this helps. 
 
Severus

04-04-2005, 11:14 PM

I'm certain in my own mind the cuirass-over-mail combo is more fantasy than fact. Rarely, you do see some mixes, such as the Alba Julia find, which featured a chain mail hamata fitted with lorica segmentata shoulder guards, but such examples seem to have been quite uncommon (the item in particular was attributed by Dr. Bishop as cavalry armor, though I would personally lean towards it being infantry, the plate atrmor covering the shoulders and all). 
 
Severus

Theodosius the Great · 04-05-2005, 02:37 PM

Thank you for the wealth of advice, Severus . 
 
My helmet will have little or no embossing at all. As I told Antoninus earlier, I don't want something that looks too pretty to have been used in battle. 
 
Since I'll have a Lion's head on my cuirass, I guess I'll be a Praetorian Tribune . I think I'll need an Equestrian tunic for that role. 
 
I'll be sure to have the neck guard heightened and ask about plumes instead of horse hair. Will you be using plumes for your helmet ? 
 
-Theo

Nathan Ross · 04-05-2005, 11:19 PM

Another example of Roman good taste and elegance: 
 
<img src="http://www.sheshen-eceni.com/roman%20cavalry%20helmet1%2001.JPG" style="border:0;"/> 
 
The integral 'visor' is quite obvious on that one, and it looks like an ancestor of the Guisborough type. 
 
I'm not sure about this idea of praetorians wearing 'fancy' armour that wouldn't stand up in battle - that would seem to defeat the object of armour... even when not in the field as the bodyguards of the emperor (when they certainly did fight, often in the front line), they would have been expected to present a suitably martial and imposing appearance - this would hardly have happened if they were wearing flimsy fripperies...

Theodosius the Great · 04-05-2005, 11:54 PM

Wow, never seen that before . 
 
When does it date to ? Republican era ? 
 
Quote:<hr>I'm not sure about this idea of praetorians wearing 'fancy' armour that wouldn't stand up in battle - that would seem to defeat the object of armour<hr> 
 
Well there's the whole idea of 'parade armour' . I'm not sure what I think of that either. 
 
Anyway, thanks for posting that Nathan . 
 
<img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/RCasti998/CHI-RO2.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

Nathan Ross · 04-06-2005, 12:09 AM

It's from Norwich Castle Museum (UK), and is described as a 'Roman copper alloy cavalry parade helmet, found in 1947 at Worthing, Norfolk among dredgings from the River Wensum.' 
 
Again the 'parade' description. Still, it is one of the ugliest looking bits of kit I've ever seen... 
 
Here's another pic of it: 
 
<img src="http://www.mla.gov.uk/images/designation/36_norw/36_2_l.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Shoulder-doublings on muscled cuirass - metal or hide ?	Theodosius the Great	28	4,954	06-23-2006, 10:36 AM Last Post: MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS
	Brass/bronze Vs. Steel/iron helmets	arklore70	18	6,293	02-02-2006, 12:04 AM Last Post: Celt
	Non-iron Helmets, brass or bronze?	Anonymous	3	1,322	05-20-2002, 04:18 AM Last Post: Daniel S Peterson