Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Roman helmets: Imperial Gallic/Italic and Ridge - comparisons and sources
#61
(11-05-2019, 01:48 AM)Dan Howard Wrote: Mail was at least as common as segmentata yet it is hardly depicted. On top of that, the legions barely participated in the fighting at all. The auxilliaries did the bulk of the fighting in the Dacian campaign but that is not a subject worthy of propaganda monument. Where is your evidence that praetorians actually wore segmentata? Any texts telling us how they were equipped?
Au contraire, I've seen more pics of mail on monuments than sementata, though most of the details have worn away, resulting in some to assume leather shirts. Rolleyes

Where's the evidence that they didn't?
aka T*O*N*G*A*R
Reply
#62
We are taking about Trajan's column. How much Roman mail is depicted compared to segmentata?

I have no idea whether the Praetorians wore segmentata or not. I'm happy to be persuaded by your evidence but Trajan's column isn't evidence; it is a circular argument: "Trajan's column is accurate because Praetorians are wearing segmenta. The Praetorians wore segmentata because it is on Trajan's column." You need external corroboration.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#63
(11-05-2019, 02:17 AM)Dan Howard Wrote: We are taking about Trajan's column. How much Roman mail is depicted compared to segmentata?

I have no idea whether the Praetorians wore segmentata or not. I'm happy to by persuaded by your evidence.
I thought you were referring to monuments in general...

Praetorians on the Trajan Column

[Image: 4.73.h.jpg]
aka T*O*N*G*A*R
Reply
#64
I see more circular arguments in that thread but no actual evidence. Pictorial sources are useless by themselves. We need some kind of document describing how praetorians were equipped during the time in question.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#65
(11-04-2019, 10:22 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: with a technical explanation, not with soft arguments which are always relative and can not compete with a technical explanation.

As I think we agreed somewhere above, the only way to judge the relative merits of different helmet types would be to test accurate replicas, probably to destruction.

Your 'technical explanation' is not, I would say, objective but based solely on opinion and assumption. So is mine. But why do we need a 'technical explanation' anyway?

Do we have any evidence that the late Roman state needed to produce cheap equipment? Do we have any evidence that anyone at the time considered late Roman arms to be inferior to earlier models? Do we have any evidence that late Roman equipment failed in the the field or that late Roman soldiers or commanders longed for earlier types of arms and armour? Do we have any evidence that the eastern Roman state, which survived for many centuries after the west, changed to a different type of armament production?

We have no evidence for any of this. Ideas that later Roman arms and armour must have been crude or cheap or poor quality are based solely on modern prejudice.

Therefore, there is no 'problem' that needs to be explained, and therefore no need for a 'technical explanation'. Historical analysis must proceed from evidence, not vice versa. [Image: wink.png]
Nathan Ross
Reply
#66
(11-05-2019, 12:34 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:
(11-04-2019, 10:22 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: with a technical explanation, not with soft arguments which are always relative and can not compete with a technical explanation.

As I think we agreed somewhere above, the only way to judge the relative merits of different helmet types would be to test accurate replicas, probably to destruction.

Your 'technical explanation' is not, I would say, objective but based solely on opinion and assumption. So is mine. But why do we need a 'technical explanation' anyway?

Do we have any evidence that the late Roman state needed to produce cheap equipment? Do we have any evidence that anyone at the time considered late Roman arms to be inferior to earlier models? Do we have any evidence that late Roman equipment failed in the the field or that late Roman soldiers or commanders longed for earlier types of arms and armour? Do we have any evidence that the eastern Roman state, which survived for many centuries after the west, changed to a different type of armament production?

We have no evidence for any of this. Ideas that later Roman arms and armour must have been crude or cheap or poor quality are based solely on modern prejudice.

Therefore, there is no 'problem' that needs to be explained, and therefore no need for a 'technical explanation'. Historical analysis must proceed from evidence, not vice versa. [Image: wink.png]
Nope. It is based on applied theory and research. You are continuing not to reply on topic but trying to move the discussion on a field on which we can tell the contrary of the truth without any problem (even that mail is better then plate armor, we may start another topic for this  Tongue ).

I have given an explanation that can be easily verified and can be read in dedicated papers/bookss (I have started with Performance Analysis of Motor Cycle Helmet under Static and Dynamic Loading, Design And Analysis Of Industrial Helmet and SOLID MECHANICS, you can search un other papers/books if you don't trust these). Honestly, this is even better than an on field reconstruction. An explanation based on material behaviour is something that cannot be bypassed. These are the two approaches and evaluate the reaction, is something we can find in stress concentrations and failure modes, solid mechanics. A well assested field. And you will find that the greater is the area without discontinuity, the greater will be the ability to dissipate the power, so to protect the head, that is what is measuring the quality on an helmet. All other "imaginative explanations" are good to write novels and fantasy books Wink
- CaesarAugustus
www.romanempire.cloud
(Marco Parente)
Reply
#67
(11-05-2019, 06:51 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: You are continuing not to reply on topic...

And then you start discussing motorcycle helmets... [Image: wink.png]

Do you have an accurate replica of a ridge helmet? Have you stress-tested it and compared the results to similar tests on a Gallic/Italic type?

If not:

Can you demonstrate why a wealthy, organised and effective Roman state would start producing poor quality helmets to equip its army and continue doing so for 150 years, without anyone noticing or commenting?

If both answers are 'no', then I'm afraid there can be little substance to this debate!
Nathan Ross
Reply
#68
(11-05-2019, 07:12 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:
(11-05-2019, 06:51 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: You are continuing not to reply on topic...

And then you start discussing motorcycle helmets... [Image: wink.png]

Do you have an accurate replica of a ridge helmet? Have you stress-tested it and compared the results to similar tests on a Gallic/Italic type?

If not:

Can you demonstrate why a wealthy, organised and effective Roman state would start producing poor quality helmets to equip its army and continue doing so for 150 years, without anyone noticing or commenting?

If both answers are 'no', then I'm afraid there can be little substance to this debate!
Come on, read better Wink

I have used different sources and the theory can be applied without any issue to military helmets. Discontinuous materials don't transmit forces, they need to be connected somehow and this connection is poorer than a contiguous piece of material. If you take that helmet and make it also monoblock, you'd still have a better helmet than one made by joining two plates. Continuity is a prerequisite for forces to transmit from one molecule onto another molecule at the molecular level. This is purely material science.

This is a problem that prevent the spread of the force on a greater area, so this increase the probability that the soldier is compromise. It is the beauty of mathematics, it is exact and not subject to opinions. Material science, and you cannot deny this, so I am afraid that you don't have any real substance, just useless diversions and theories denied that you don't want to abandon Wink
- CaesarAugustus
www.romanempire.cloud
(Marco Parente)
Reply
#69
(11-06-2019, 06:15 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: I have used different sources and the theory can be applied without any issue to military helmets. Discontinuous materials don't transmit forces, they need to be connected somehow and this connection is poorer than a contiguous piece of material. If you take that helmet and make it also monoblock, you'd still have a better helmet than one made by joining two plates. Continuity is a prerequisite for forces to transmit from one molecule onto another molecule at the molecular level. This is purely material science.

This is a problem that prevent the spread of the force on a greater area, so this increase the probability that the soldier is compromise. It is the beauty of mathematics, it is exact and not subject to opinions. Material science, and you cannot deny this, so I am afraid that you don't have any real substance, just useless diversions and theories denied that you don't want to abandon Wink

Hi Marco,


You seem quite conviced of your point, and even though I can find no original source in your hypothesis (Goldsworthy does not say how he came to his point of view and is, of course, not a source), I understand that you think science tells us that the later Roman helmets are inferior to the Imperial Gallic types.
If this would be the case, perhaps we should wonder why these so-called 'inferior' helmets were not replaced when the Roman Empire was able to spend more time and money on their production? I mean, after the ridge helmet we see centuries of the use of the spangenhelm, which was of similar design. These helmets were even wrapped in gilded silver and sometimes embellished to because truly works of art - which we know were used in battle and not the 'parade helmets' as erroneously thought during the early 20th century. 

Now I am thinking we do not need to discuss the universal wish of any soldier to be protected by the best of what is available. On the other hand I am not following you in your earlier idea that the ridge helmet was supposedly 'proof' of the Roman Empire going down the drain - if only that there is a wealth of evidence that this was not the case for the entire Empire for all the remainder of its history. 

So why, if helmets of a connected plate design are supposedly 'compromise', do we see that very design for centuries on end, and not just in the Roman Empire but also in Japan, China, Persian, Arab, Mongol and Turkish Empires? Were they all backward enough to dismiss the 'superior design' of the single-bowl Imperial Gallic helmet type? Or might we contemplate the thought that the 'science' behing the supposed superior strength of that helmet is not based on actual testing and perhaps incorrect?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#70
(11-09-2019, 01:34 PM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: Hi Marco,

You seem quite conviced of your point, and even though I can find no original source in your hypothesis (Goldsworthy does not say how he came to his point of view and is, of course, not a source), I understand that you think science tells us that the later Roman helmets are inferior to the Imperial Gallic types.
If this would be the case, perhaps we should wonder why these so-called 'inferior' helmets were not replaced when the Roman Empire was able to spend more time and money on their production? I mean, after the ridge helmet we see centuries of the use of the spangenhelm, which was of similar design. These helmets were even wrapped in gilded silver and sometimes embellished to because truly works of art - which we know were used in battle and not the 'parade helmets' as erroneously thought during the early 20th century. 

Now I am thinking we do not need to discuss the universal wish of any soldier to be protected by the best of what is available. On the other hand I am not following you in your earlier idea that the ridge helmet was supposedly 'proof' of the Roman Empire going down the drain - if only that there is a wealth of evidence that this was not the case for the entire Empire for all the remainder of its history. 

So why, if helmets of a connected plate design are supposedly 'compromise', do we see that very design for centuries on end, and not just in the Roman Empire but also in Japan, China, Persian, Arab, Mongol and Turkish Empires? Were they all backward enough to dismiss the 'superior design' of the single-bowl Imperial Gallic helmet type? Or might we contemplate the thought that the 'science' behing the supposed superior strength of that helmet is not based on actual testing and perhaps incorrect?
Hello Robert,

we may consider that all helmets from the first world wars are monoblock (excluding the Farina one, that was immediately replaced by a monoblock, before there were practically no helmets for long time). This can effectively reply to all reasoning based on "why", it is the same reasoning, but on the contrary. This is true for all explanation that is based on a reasoning that we effectively do not know, and we will never know.

So, I prefer to investigate on the "how". And there is nothing better of a study on how an helmet protect, obviously appropriate to what were the constraints and requirements of the Romans. The explanation that comes from materials science is brutal, but in its brutality it is mathematical and verifiable.

And, at that point you can consider that that helmets was well known from the Romans, that did not adopted it for long time. this is perfectly consistent in the context of a helmet that had inferior qualities, but not for one that had superior qualities, otherwise the Romans would have adopted it immediately. So, coming back to the "why", we have another point that confirms Goldsworthy's thesis. The Ridge helmet had a lower quality.
- CaesarAugustus
www.romanempire.cloud
(Marco Parente)
Reply
#71
(11-06-2019, 06:15 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote:
(11-05-2019, 07:12 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: If both answers are 'no', then I'm afraid there can be little substance to this debate!

I have used different sources... the beauty of mathematics... Material science, and you cannot deny this... useless diversions and theories denied...

I'll take that as a 'no', then? [Image: wink.png]


(11-09-2019, 09:26 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: at that point you can consider that that helmets was well known from the Romans, that did not adopted it for long time. this is perfectly consistent in the context of a helmet that had inferior qualities, but not for one that had superior qualities, otherwise the Romans would have adopted it immediately.

The earliest known ridge helmet is the Persian one from the Dura Europos siege mine, dated AD257. The first Roman examples appear about 30-40 years later, which is not terribly long in terms of Roman helmet evolution.

However, once introduced they remained in constant production for well over a century. I get the strong impression that nothing anybody says will cause you to question your assumptions, but once again I'd ask why the Romans kept making these helmets if they were so 'inferior'?
Nathan Ross
Reply
#72
(11-09-2019, 10:31 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: The earliest known ridge helmet is the Persian one from the Dura Europos siege mine, dated AD257. The first Roman examples appear about 30-40 years later, which is not terribly long in terms of Roman helmet evolution.

However, once introduced they remained in constant production for well over a century. I get the strong impression that nothing anybody says will cause you to question your assumptions, but once again I'd ask why the Romans kept making these helmets if they were so 'inferior'?
No Nathan, the problem is that you are not able to confute an explanation based on science and not on dialectics. If you are not able to confute this really simple fact, it is useless to look for explanations to get around the problem.
- CaesarAugustus
www.romanempire.cloud
(Marco Parente)
Reply
#73
This has the makings of a sterile argument. The issue, surely, is not 'quality' but 'adequacy for purpose'. With the technology of the time, the production of a monoblock helmet required time and skill, while (I would suggest) ridge helmets could be turned out of the state arms factories relatively quickly and cheaply with a lower level of skill. Much might depend upon the armament and tactics of the enemy. Neither would be likely to survive a full-blooded blow with a battleaxe but, if the most likely possibility was a glancing blow with a spear, the ridge helmet would probably be entirely adequate. In short, the ridge helmet lasted because it was 'good enough'. A Rolls Royce may be the epitome of motoring excellence but a production-line Ford will still get you about.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#74
(11-10-2019, 10:23 AM)Renatus Wrote: This has the makings of a sterile argument. The issue, surely, is not 'quality' but 'adequacy for purpose'. With the technology of the time, the production of a monoblock helmet required time and skill, while (I would suggest) ridge helmets could be turned out of the state arms factories relatively quickly and cheaply with a lower level of skill. Much might depend upon the armament and tactics of the enemy. Neither would be likely to survive a full-blooded blow with a battleaxe but, if the most likely possibility was a glancing blow with a spear, the ridge helmet would probably be entirely adequate. In short, the ridge helmet lasted because it was 'good enough'. A Rolls Royce may be the epitome of motoring excellence but a production-line Ford will still get you about.
Hello Renatus, honestly I appreciate and essentially I agree with your explanation, that is what I am trying to explain since long time. As a quality, as it is possible to define a quality concept for an helmet, an italic helmet was superior, but other factors have led to the adoption of an helmet that was 'good enough'.
- CaesarAugustus
www.romanempire.cloud
(Marco Parente)
Reply
#75
(11-09-2019, 09:26 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: Hello Robert,

we may consider that all helmets from the first world wars are monoblock (excluding the Farina one, that was immediately replaced by a monoblock, before there were practically no helmets for long time). This can effectively reply to all reasoning based on "why", it is the same reasoning, but on the contrary. This is true for all explanation that is based on a reasoning that we effectively do not know, and we will never know.

So, I prefer to investigate on the "how". And there is nothing better of a study on how an helmet protect, obviously appropriate to what were the constraints and requirements of the Romans. The explanation that comes from materials science is brutal, but in its brutality it is mathematical and verifiable.

And, at that point you can consider that that helmets was well known from the Romans, that did not adopted it for long time. this is perfectly consistent in the context of a helmet that had inferior qualities, but not for one that had superior qualities, otherwise the Romans would have adopted it immediately. So, coming back to the "why", we have another point that confirms Goldsworthy's thesis. The Ridge helmet had a lower quality.

Hello Marco,

What would that WW1 example have to do with our dilemma, other than than someone would construct a reasoning that 'no helmets' would mean that the subsequent armies would have been of lower quality and hence their states would have been of lower quality - this follows the reasoning of Goldsworthy. Ignoring the 'why' is making it easy on yourself.

What I simply cannot believe and you cannot convince me of, is that all the Empires in my example used helmets comparable to the ridge and spangen helmets, and I will not believe for one second that they did so simply out of ignorance. The Romans did not adopt the ridge helmet before, because they did not know them. In fact we are fairly certain that they learned of them from the Sassanid Persians and adopted them afterwards. This practise is not that of an Empire in dire straights adopting a lesser helmet when they still had that - according to you at least - superior helmet available to them. The solution that 'the Romans became inferior so they chose inferior armour' is not a valid argument because (as I mentioned above) they did not remain 'inferior' for the next millennium. And yet they did not return to their supposedly superior armour. Explain that with arguments - so far you ignored that part? 

In fact I still have not seen evidence - talks about motorcycles notwithstanding - that the so-called Goldsworthy btw did not write a thesis but only a theory, which he did not back up with any facts that we could check - for this discussion Goldsworthy is worthless.

(11-09-2019, 11:09 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote:
(11-09-2019, 10:31 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: The earliest known ridge helmet is the Persian one from the Dura Europos siege mine, dated AD257. The first Roman examples appear about 30-40 years later, which is not terribly long in terms of Roman helmet evolution.

However, once introduced they remained in constant production for well over a century. I get the strong impression that nothing anybody says will cause you to question your assumptions, but once again I'd ask why the Romans kept making these helmets if they were so 'inferior'?
No Nathan, the problem is that you are not able to confute an explanation based on science and not on dialectics. If you are not able to confute this really simple fact, it is useless to look for explanations to get around the problem.


Where is the science in this? Real science would be to test Gallic type helmets and Ridge helmets against weapons, not compare them to motorcycle helmets or WW1 helmets who were designed for very different reasons and impacts.

(11-10-2019, 10:23 AM)Renatus Wrote: This has the makings of a sterile argument. The issue, surely, is not 'quality' but 'adequacy for purpose'. With the technology of the time, the production of a monoblock helmet required time and skill, while (I would suggest) ridge helmets could be turned out of the state arms factories relatively quickly and cheaply with a lower level of skill. Much might depend upon the armament and tactics of the enemy. Neither would be likely to survive a full-blooded blow with a battleaxe but, if the most likely possibility was a glancing blow with a spear, the ridge helmet would probably be entirely adequate. In short, the ridge helmet lasted because it was 'good enough'. A Rolls Royce may be the epitome of motoring excellence but a production-line Ford will still get you about.


Indeed, I completely agree with this argument.

(11-09-2019, 10:31 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: However, once introduced they remained in constant production for well over a century. I get the strong impression that nothing anybody says will cause you to question your assumptions, but once again I'd ask why the Romans kept making these helmets if they were so 'inferior'?


Indeed - they did not replace the Gallic helmet after a period of no helmets, nor did they all of a sudden completely replace these. And the ridge helmet was itself replaced by spangenhelmets and the Baldenheim type, which became the standard for Romans as well as their enemies. Not something you expect from a 'cheap failure of an inferior stae'.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Imperial Gallic J - Robinson's mistake? Konstantin Ankilov 6 2,368 01-24-2021, 12:44 PM
Last Post: Militarus
  Imperial Gallic I Moguntiacum Marc 3 1,833 07-16-2018, 08:54 AM
Last Post: drsrob
  Imperial Gallic D Helm Konstantin Ankilov 8 2,682 10-18-2017, 12:24 PM
Last Post: Konstantin Ankilov

Forum Jump: