Animal on head with or without a helmet ?

[Cacaius]

Salvete

I have noticed that ALL re-enactors attach their skins to the helmets.
When on sources ancient artists show something different.

No helmet OR helmet without cheek plates(?)


Do you have ANY sources for using helmets in such situation ?

Please compare on pictures.

[jvrjenivs]

I think that again, you want to take Trajans Column too much as a source.

I'm really looking forward to reading Coulstons new book on TC as it will discuss in depth the pros and conts of such an approach.

Anyway, back on the topic, I would say to me it seems logical to attach an helmet in the skin, as it (a) add protection, you're still in the front rank, (b) add stability to the animal and therefore is less problematic to use.

[Cacaius]

Not only TC.

I have added also two pieces from Arch of Constantine there
I just need ANY SOURCE ... It can be even written.

I understand, that there is always "WHY NOT" argument.

But I am looking for something more.


Answering to your arguments.
ad 1)
For stability, for me it can be leather/felt cap as well.
Or even if helmet ... but why should we use with cheek plates ?

ad 2)
I dont see any need for the additional protection of the head for such guy.

If I were on the opposite side ... facing guy who has both hands on his signum, I could slash him whereever I want to kill him.

Vale
Cacaivs

[Cacaius]

From Column of Marcus Aurelius

[P Sertorius Scaevola]

I think Cezar, that this has more to do with the nature of the depiction than with accurate portrayal of reality. As is clearly visible in the examples you've chosen, these are all about arousing enthusiasm and sympathy from the viewer. Hence the well defined and clearly depicted faces and expressions. The viewer needs to identify himself with the soldiers as is often displayed in relief sculptings. That is why cheek plates are often made smaller as can be seen in the Cancellaria relief. It is important that the viewer recognises real people like himself, not unidentifyable legionaries like robots from the Fifties.This in my view is the main reason that in the cases you have presented us with the soldiers appear without visible cheek plates. However, I wonder if the 'blurred' cheeks of the standard bearers might not have been shown with cheek plates originally, perhaps painted or vaguely hinted to. I couldn't tell really.

As for the photo's you've chosen; the first is my Gemina friend Peter Goedeme sporting my lion, so my opinion on how it would have been worn is represented here. The second is the Praetorian beast from the IInd worn by Rusticus, also influenced by my approach to the subject. My thoughts may just have been found reasonable by other people, who knows.

As for the martial capabilities of Signiferii in general, it is well known that they were often chosen for their proven ability in battle. More often than not they may have been true 'beasts of war'. These people were able swordsman on their own and the well manageable Gladius could be handled with surgical precision with just the one hand. Leaving the other free to either hold the standard or the small round shield with the standard firmly thumped into the ground behind the man. I think you would be in for a treat underestimating the fighting capabilities of Signiferii in general. Not too long ago there was an intriguing article about the origins of the 'men under pelts', tracing their origins back to the well known berserkers. Allthough inconclusive this would enhance the theory that the Signiferii were able to stand their ground well.

Cheers mate!

[M. Demetrius]

I could see both arguments equally well, I think. An animal skin full-pelt headpiece can be just as stable as with a helmet. Amerindians and white fur trappers wore animal skin hats. The shoulder portion and face of the animal skin is fashioned into a cap shape, and a leather strap ties under the chin. I've worn a coyote skin and had no trouble keeping it in place, even while I was running through the woods on quests and scenario events.

The hide would not provide any head protection from blunt trauma, but might help a little with edged weapons. I should think the wearer in a Roman formation would have little trouble enlisting assistance from his brothers to the right and left. He was there for purpose, and his men knew him and honored the office he represented.

[Matthew Amt]

The hide would not provide any head protection from blunt trauma, but might help a little with edged weapons.

I'd guess the other way around. The fur and hide would serve as a good layer of padding, but wouldn't really slow down an edge or point. Maybe better than *nothing*, but nowhere near the protection of a helmet. I tend to think a signifer or aquilifer would want a helmet, but honestly don't know the sources well enough to argue.

Interesting observation, though!

Matthew

[Nathan Ross]

From what I can make out in those reliefs, there's definitely something being worn under the animal skin - you can see a sort of rim or band around the men's foreheads. Perhaps just a headband to keep to skin in place, but more likely a small helmet without cheekpieces is intended.

Why this should be I don't know, but the standard-bearers are certainly not intended be wearing the same helmets as their fellows. This could be the 'artistic license' chestnut (but why?) - then again, is there any actual evidence, literary or pictorial, that these men did wear legionary helmets under the animal skins?

- Nathan

[Forty-One]

I've wondered about this too. The standard bearer on the relief of the "praetorians" in the Louvre also wears an animal skin with no indication of a helmet underneath:



There is certainly a remarkable consistency about the various representations.

Note, however, that Pintaius clearly wears a helmet with cheek-pieces under his animal skin:

http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/o...Itemid,94/

Other standard bearers, of course, are often shown completely bareheaded.

[Magnus]

Nathan is right, on most of those reliefs, there is a straight band of something. Could be a helmet.

Wearing nothing but a pelt on your head going into battle is taking a huge risk. It's not just infantry weapons you have to worry about, but missiles as well. Rocks, javelins, arrows, and who knows what else is being thrown at you. Getting hit in the head is a fight ending injury.

[Nathan Ross]

One of the Angus McBride paintings in Imperial Rome at War (legionaries leaping out of a boat - assault on Anglesey I think) shows a standard bearer wearing some sort of shallow helmet without cheekguards beneath his animal skin, so clearly this has been noticed before!

It's possible, I would guess, that the headgear changed in different places and in different sitiations. On parade, or during a ritual, the standard bearers could perhaps wear the skin over a bare head. In battle, they'd surely need a helmet beneath it. Sometimes this would be the full helmet with cheekguards, as shown on the Pintaius relief, but some reduced version seems to have been used as well.

If the animal skin itself was secured by cords beneath the chin, maybe a simple bowl helmet worn beneath it would stay in place without cheekguards? There may have been some reason why the standard bearers would want to look like they weren't wearing helmets - perhaps a full helmet would detract from the heroic or 'herculean' effect of wearing an animal on your head in the first place? :wink:

- Nathan

[Forty-One]

One of the Angus McBride paintings in Imperial Rome at War (legionaries leaping out of a boat - assault on Anglesey I think) shows a standard bearer wearing some sort of shallow helmet without cheekguards beneath his animal skin, so clearly this has been noticed before!

The second edition of Osprey's MAA 46 "The Roman army from Caesar to Trajan", published in 1984, reconstructs the imaginifer Genialis with this too. In both the Osprey book and the Concord one mentioned by Nathan, they describe it as the skull part of a "sports helmet".

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

I think the OP has a valid point, but also the ones saying there is at least something of a shell rim protruding out of under the animal skin.

Problem is we have no comtemporary written evidence in which a someone writes: "then he took his pelt and helmet off and..."

I think that if the skin wearers have been depicted without cheeckpieces on several monuments which date from several eras, the chances are slightly higher that it is not just an artistic convention.

Why portray only the signiferi, Cornu blowers and higher and highest officers without helmets with cheekpieces ?



And why so many beards ?

M.VIB.M.

[Paullus Scipio]

Magnus wrote:

Nathan is right, on most of those reliefs, there is a straight band of something. Could be a helmet.

I would agree with Magnus and those who take the view that there is a 'liner', probably a helmet visible in many/most of these pictures, and that it is simply cheekpieces that are missing. What should be borne in mind is that on Trajan's column at least, the sculptors were evidently in something of a hurry, and occasionally made careless mistakes - as Jon Coulston hypothesizes, and others have observed ( e.g. helmet types are portrayed innacurately, belts missing, hems of tunics missing and so on) We cannot be certain that helmets were worn minus cheekpieces ( though there ARE precedents for this practise).

This would be in keeping with the practises of other times - 17C cavalry for example wore "secrets", skull shaped simple domed helmets beneath their hats.

However, this cannot have been a universal practise, as the attached photo, probably from a Trajanic frieze , showing a Praetorian standard bearer with lion skin head dress over an Attic/Praetorian helmet demonstrates and which authenticates the portrayal of the first photo....

[Forty-One]

Here's a closer view of the standard bearer on the Louvre relief. There's some indication that he may be wearing a helmet but he has no cheek-pieces. He has a beard.