Evidence for legionary vs auxiliary helmet patterns

[Tim Edwards]

I keep hearing an argument that early imperial legionaries wore mostly iron helmets and that auxiliary soldiers wore mostly copper alloy.

I have never seen any obvious evidence for early imperial legionaries wearing iron helmets, anywhere.

There are however numerous copper alloy helmets that are inscribed with legionary ownership marks. Many of these feature crest knobs and often side feather tubes.

Iron helmets meanwhile do not seem to show evidence for legionary ownership marks, and have distinctly different cresting styles. They are more often found in Iron Age style burial contexts than their copper alloy cousins.

I find the supposition of legionaries switching en masse from the copper alloy coolus to iron imperial gallic profoundly odd, when we envisage auxilia switching from iron Agen Port to copper alloy 'auxiliary infantry' types. Surely this is somehow skewed?

There will be exceptions of course, but I suspect there is an overarching trend for most of the First Century AD, of legionaries wearing copper alloy helmets,and auxiliaries wearing iron helmets.

[M. Demetrius]

I have no first hand experience with making a helmet. But in a general sense, brass/bronze are easier to work than steel, and require less heating temperature. That could be a contributing factor.

[Matthew Amt]

I keep hearing an argument that early imperial legionaries wore mostly iron helmets and that auxiliary soldiers wore mostly copper alloy.

Good heavens, you do? Very odd! There was a time when Imperial-Gallic type G and its close brethren were THE helmet used by legionary reenactors, while auxiliaries were all in brass styles, but diversity has long since conquered most of that.

However, I'm not sure we can go the other way, that it was *usually* iron for auxiliaries and brass for legionaries. The answer is most likely somewhere in the middle. The usual firm gray area!

I have no first hand experience with making a helmet. But in a general sense, brass/bronze are easier to work than steel, and require less heating temperature. That could be a contributing factor.

Not necessarily. Iron can be worked hot, and in such a state is very forgiving. Cracks can be forge-welded shut, to a certain extent. Copper alloys, on the other hand, must be worked cold, with frequent annealing to avoid metal fatigue and cracking. In either case, the temperatures needed for either metal are in the same range, easily attained by the forges of the time. Obviously, armorers who worked with brass and bronze were highly skilled, since I have rarely seen any evidence for cracks or patches due to manufacturing on Roman helmets. Same with the iron ones. So they knew what they were doing and it wasn't any inherent trouble for them. Brass and bronze can also be spun on a lathe to make helmets, bosses, and other items, which was not generally practical for iron objects because of slag content.

This is something that I tend to put down to fashion. Italy seems to have retained a tradition of bronze-working well into the late Empire--note the large numbers of bronze domestic items found in Pompeii, for instance. By comparison, Gaul and other provincial areas were known for their iron work, though they were certainly capable of producing copper alloy items as well.

Matthew

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I would go with Matts logic here. There is little evidence to say it is one for one lot, another for another.
A re-enactorism if anything I would say.

[Peroni]

Certainly a lot of this is down to the classification system constructed by H R Robinson. (Simple and brass = auxiliary use - Fancy and iron must be legionary(?))

As you point out Tim, we have grave finds of 'Gallic' iron helmets from provincial burials such as Idria Pri Baci, Verdun etc so iron helmets of Robinson's 'Gallic' type were certainly in use by auxiliary soldiers. Which, makes perfect sense, as this helmet was developed from Gaulish (Port Bei Nidau) type helmets in the first place!

[M. Demetrius]

Is the current theory that a soldier could have any kind of helmet available by the armorers in his area, up to the amount that he could afford to pay?

[jvrjenivs]

Is the current theory that a soldier could have any kind of helmet available by the armorers in his area, up to the amount that he could afford to pay?

No, I think there still is the believe that there is a difference in Cavalry and infantry helmets. But within the infantry helmets I think it's hard to tell which type each type of infantry (legionairy or auxilia) had used, if there is any distinction at all and a legionairy could just use what was available at the 'store', and within his budget.

[M. Demetrius]

Yeah, there were differences between infantry and cavalry, mostly dictated by the needs of the fighting, I'd think. But within those two divisions is more what I was asking. Thanks for the answer.

[Tim Edwards]

I think it is positive that we are moving away from the archetypal 1970s legionary impression as our stock in trade, but I think there is a line where we can overdo diversity.

Matt, if you are moving in circles where the Iron 'Imperial Gallic' helmet is not considered typical legionary issue / legionary issue only for the First Century AD, than I congratulate you on your learned group of friends!

I rather suspect that the average contubernium would have a limited range of suppliers at any point in time, rather than each man having a radically different helmet pattern. Look at the uniformity of the inscribed Adiutrix legion helmets as an example, or the near similar Imp Gallic A's from that med shipwreck.

Some thoughts:

Why do we have a lack of inscribed iron helmets for the First Century?

Do we have any auxiliary infantry inscriptions on any helmet at all?

Why are we seeing iron imperial gallic helmets in Augustan Roman military graves, but seldom ever copper alloy ones?

If the same troop types are using different helmets, why also a radically different cresting style? I can't think of any iron helmets with applied crest knobs, and only one example with side plumes. Similarly, I can't recall any copper alloy helmet with a straight slot mount as its primary crest support.

I'm aware I'm possibly advancing an overly simpistic agenda here, but I'd like to upset the apple cart of convention and see what emerges!
(I admit I personally would be loathe to relinquish my cherished Gallic D in favour of a Coolus!)

[Peroni]

I can't think of any iron helmets with applied crest knobs,

The Brigetio Gallic J displayed at Caerleon has No crest holder surviving and no vissible holes for a riveted-on type, but the positions of the crest holder retaining hooks can be made out still. This is why we reconstructed ours with a soldered-on crest knob of the 'I' type.

There's also the Gallic A from Eich (now at Worms) which has has a crest knob added - probably not there as part of the original manufacture.

Then we have the Bronze Gallic 'A' types from the Moro Boti shipwreck which have double-tunnel crest holders applied.

Look at the uniformity of the inscribed Adiutrix legion helmets as an example, or the near similar Imp Gallic A's from that med shipwreck.

The two Coolus 'C' bowls from Schaan are also of an extremely similar form showing that, like pottery styles - each legion may have had their own manufacturing patterns/styles.

Their is also another Gallic 'A' in private hands which parallels the Eich example.

[M. Demetrius]

each legion may have had their own manufacturing patterns/styles.

While we can't go too far with this as a base for reasoning, if that were so, then the style would be similar because the immuni (~speculation~) in the "Galea Fabrica" would make them how the head armorer indicated. Same artist, same art, so to speak. The general form would be the same as the helmets being produced anywhere during that time, but the specific details would be unique to the craftsmen. Is that reasonable?

No, I wouldn't tell the public that was so at an outreach event. Too much thinking, too little reference in the record.

[Peroni]

The general form would be the same as the helmets being produced anywhere during that time, but the specific details would be unique to the craftsmen. Is that reasonable?

That's exactly what I meant David. The Gallic 'I' finds demonstrate this very well. Differing shaped bowls and eyebrow excecution, but all have the same basic fittings not seen on other contemporary iron helmets, such as soldered-on crest finials, tubes for pinnae gemina, rear slide-in plate for crest attachment and are all copper alloy.

Similarly, a variety of helmets from the late first - early second century from the Brigetio area show similarities in style such as highly angled brow guards and eyebrows, not just on iron helmets but copper alloy as well. This shows a possible regional trend at the time or speculatively, that the brow guards were raked at a higher angle to combat the use of the falx(?)

Auxiliary B II at Cardiff (all copper)
Auxiliary B III (brass with iron cheek guards and crest finial - private collection)
Gallic J at Caerleon (Iron)
Gallic J at Vienna (iron with cross-bracing)

Another helmet that could well fall into this category is the Theilenhofen cross-braced helmet (iron - from an auxiliary base)

[Tim Edwards]

Thanks for supporting the debate with more evidence.

The Schaan and Brigetio groups are excellent case studies. I do not subscribe to the anyone wore anything school of thought, but rather I think with careful study we will identify that particular battle groups or even individual units displayed certain trends within their ranks.
Whether such commonality is a fluke of procurement, commander's whim, fashion or state of funding may admittedly be more a matter of conjecture.

I still stand by my assertion that I have yet to see an iron gallic helm with crest knob. As you state, the Gallic A's you reference are of copper alloy.
Whilst the J pattern may have had a soldered crest knob, it may equally have had a soldered slide!

I'm still flogging my dead proverbial horse - can anyone show me evidence that First century legionaries wore iron helmets?! There seems more substantial evidence they wore copper alloy helmets, and often side feathers too...

[Matthew Amt]

Well, the Mainz column base reliefs and the Croy Hill relief both show clearly that legionaries were wearing Imperial Gallic (or at least Italic) helmets. But of course those don't show whether they were iron or brass!

Pieces of iron Imperial-Gallic helmets were found in the Boudican destruction level at Colchester, which was a legionary retirement colony.

Part of the problem may be that very few confirmed legionary sites have been excavated. Lots of auxiliary forts, yes, but most legionary fortresses ended up under major cities! So that could be slanting our data.

Matthew

[Doc]

Tim, with respect to one of your questions as to why iron helmets are found more so than brass helmets or copper alloy is because the copper alloy helmets made use of more valuable materials. This is true especially for brass since under Augustus one of the coin types was made from the same material (I believe it was the sest.)