Speaking of neck guards......infantry helmets where a broader neck guard should be......IMHO.......is not the norm. In fact, in the 1st C AD, there was the Gallic C and Italic D with ridiculously large neck guards while the Gallic D and G had really small neck guards both of which were used in battle.
The thin crown on a helmet does not mean is flimsy necessarily. Is that not the way some of the Coolus helmets were......quite thin at the top? Many show just cracks because they were so thin.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Quote:We know that the helmets were made exactly to measure of the wearer, see Herstellungstechnische Untersuchungen... p. 34.
I think 'know' is a little strong there. It's been deduced my modern researchers from a small sample.
Quote:The weight or thickness alone of the objects cannot be an argument pro or contra wearing them in battle
And I have never said that that alone is the argument. It is one of several components which, taken together, persuade me that they were not intended for use in battle.
Quote:just as the level of decoration cannot be this.
And you'll never find me saying that -- I've always argued against the standard art-historical view that pretty things don't get used in battle. :-)
Quote:Short neck guards: Hm. That would be so, if we base this on the assumption that there is a need for larger neck guards on horseback in battle than in Cavalry Sports. Do we know that this is the case?
'Know' or 'deduce'? (see above) ;-) Cavalry helmets of the 1st century (Ely, Xanten) have fairly substantial neckguards on them, presumably to deflect downward blows to the back of the wearer's neck and shoulders. Less of a consideration in the HG when real weapons weren't used.
Quote:I still think it is not so sensible to try to establish a normative here.
On the contrary, I think it is precisely what we should be doing: attempting to establish the Roman view of the normative function of these things. No-one will deny that they may not occasionally have been used as flower pots, ornaments, or somewhere for the cat to have her kittens; that's just part of artefact biography. But what did the smith think he was making a helmet for? That's what matters.
Quote:As Junkelmann shows, one can also make some very good points for the use of these objects in battle.
Yes, but where's the *evidence*? ;-)
Quote:I think a teleological approach is bad, though. The sources should be investigated from a rather subjective point of view. What should not be done is to have a fix idea and then to approach the sources in terms of proving one´s idea. That´s a methodological no-go, I learned in History class.
Well I've certainly never been a fan of an inductive approach, but rather look to what can be deduced about usage from the helmet itself. I see nothing that says these things were intended for use in battle, and I also see no evidence suggesting they were indeed used in that way (and those are of course two different criteria). At that point I deploy Occam's Razor and opt for the simplest and most logical explanation.
Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles
As I said, I do not think that the evidence can positively support either opinion.
As for the normative: It will be quite hard to find out what the smith was thinking. I assume that there were not two smiths thinking exactly the same thing, as humans go. Also, for the normative I actually meant: I do not think it makes much sense to state "All masked helmets were intended for this or that purpose" as a sort of modern rule for the use of these objects. I do not think that that is how history works. In the end it apparently turns out IMO to be a question of belief.
Quote:I think 'know' is a little strong there. It's been deduced my modern researchers from a small sample.
OK. All the samples investigated that were preserved well enough did show the relevant marks, if I understand the text correctly.
Quote:And I have never said that that alone is the argument. It is one of several components which, taken together, persuade me that they were not intended for use in battle.
I understand, but I still think, as I said, that this is not a feasible component.
Quote:And you'll never find me saying that -- I've always argued against the standard art-historical view that pretty things don't get used in battle. :-)
Well, this pops up in the discussion frequently, and since you asked about our thoughts about the subject...
Quote:'Know' or 'deduce'? (see above) ;-) Cavalry helmets of the 1st century (Ely, Xanten) have fairly substantial neckguards on them, presumably to deflect downward blows to the back of the wearer's neck and shoulders. Less of a consideration in the HG when real weapons weren't used.
Then how do we explain the non-mask helmets with very short neck-guards? Doesn´t convince me. See also Doc´s post. Also some of the cavalry helmets predecessors have very short neck-guards, look at many of the attic "samnite" helmets. Maybe different units used different fighting styles, depending on where they originated from. I am not sure if neck and perhaps shoulders are so exposed areas on a rider that he willingly takes the risk to break his neck so easily when he falls of the horse. The thracian cavalry helmet fragment from Augsburg (70ies of the 1st century) has a very short neck guard. Not a mask-helmet, though. An other explanation might simply be style. Wouldn´t come as a surprise either.
Quote:Yes, but where's the *evidence*?
As I said, I cannot see any sound evidence for either opinion. I think, as I have said above frequently, that we need more investigations of several aspects of this before we can draw such definite conclusions.
Quote:I see nothing that says these things were intended for use in battle, and I also see no evidence suggesting they were indeed used in that way (and those are of course two different criteria)
Well, I have named a few points above. Kalkriese would be just one. Of course we can find all kinds of funny explanations for the mask being there, but applying the razor here... well...
Anyway, I don´t think that much more can be said about this at the moment. Time will probably show. If we are lucky, we will find a copy of Pliny´s book about throwings spears from horseback. May have some interesting info in it.
Brian
Leaving expensive things at home... This may seem logical, but it may also seem logical that one wants to have the expensive items with one and not leave them at home.
Christian.
Where I still hold the opinion that face masks were not worn for battle by cavalrymen I must submit to the one I mention earlier and that is the Kalkriese.
However this one and maybe others may well have been converted for such use in battle possibly by standard bearers, who I think could well have been protected from too much direct contact in a fight.
The Kalkriese is of course a very interesting piece as indeed the Vechten where they both I think started life as part of cavalry sports gear with ears that were removed, then they underwent many changes in their time indeed the Kalkriese has 15 holes in it that tell such a story if one takes time to read it and I don't mean read into it.
Quote:As I said, I cannot see any sound evidence for either opinion.
Not even Arrian, Techne taktika 34.3 ('Unlike battle helmets, these defend not only the head and cheeks but, conforming to the faces of the riders, have openings for the eyes which do not hinder the vision and yet offer protection.')? Gosh!
Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles
Some of these recreated helmets are amazing! Doing medieval battle reenactment and working with others who wear full harness mounted, vision is an issue. There is a tendency to ride up with visor down and as things get heated raise it up.
Very interested in the interaction of body language and the horse, I guess training the horse to the helmet was crucial, be it for sport or the field.
One thing though, being as many statues got themselves covered in paint, might some masks also have been painted? I've heard mention of eyes being picked out in white and black, anything other than that? Or would they be kept in their natural finish/and or silvered to represent the forthcoming wrath of a god?
Not just Coolus helmets. Corinthians, and many others, Montefortinos etc, have very thin parts. (and very small neck guards)
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
That would be due to the method of construction. The smaller sections are easier to form than
constructing a helmet from one piece!
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Quote:Unlike battle helmets, these defend not only the head and cheeks but, conforming to the faces of the riders, have openings for the eyes which do not hinder the vision and yet offer protection
No. That would be for Arrian, which may well be the result of a development from face masks used in battle to face masks used exclusively (if) in the hippika gymnasia. The Chassenard grave from he first half of the 1st c. CE contains a complete "battle-set" of armor. The chain mail was rusted into the mask helmet. This helmet actually had a 4mm thick iron mask (not flimsy). Would make sense of some sort to see a battle helmet with mask here. See also Kalkriese. (Junkelmann, Reiter Wie Statuen aus Erz, Mainz 1996, p. 51)
The translation is also not 100% correct, I think. Maybe one of our very-very-good-at-Greek forum members can help us out there:
=> What battle helmets? Is it possible that he speaks of the helmets his upper-class audience knows, e.g. in Rome from the Praetorians or the vigiles? (unlikely, as in 41.1. he says that now the helmets are changed to iron versions:
)
However, this is slightly confusing, and one gets the impression that he perhaps does not fully understand what is going on there, especially in regard of his talks about the material of the helmets / iron, brass)
As far as I understand the greek text, it specifically says that the masks are "on all sides made to fit the face of the wearer" (=> which would support what I said above) and that the "openings for the eyes do not hinder sight". This then should show that what I said above about visibility tests etc. before we draw any conclusions is correct.
Again, these few words are IMO not enough to postulate that throughout the Imperial Period everywhere and at all times masked helmets were used only in the context of the Hippika Gymnasia. At Pergamon the masked helmets are, btw. depicted among regular battle gear. Might be a hint, just like Chassenard. I do not see (again) any sense in a normative like "Roman masked helmets were used only in context of the hippika Gymnasia". Maybe what Arrian describes is something which he saw performed by one specific unit, and other units handled this differently? Maybe there were regional differences, maybe it was handled differently at different times.
We should also keep in mind that we do not know since when the Hippika Gymnasia in that form existed. Ist it the same as the lusus troiae? Probably not, as we have things like the cantabrian attack etc. So possibly what we get presented by Arrian is something rather new which was just installed under Hadrian.
I think the normative "Roman masked helmets were used only in context of the hippika Gymnasia" does actually lead to an acceptance of a construct, where it IMO would be more interesting to make further investigations and to find out more about the details of the context of these fascinating Roman objects.
Brian
yes, of course that is a possibility. However, our first thought should be that it was cavalry mask.
Christian.
It is I think as I have mentioned it was a cavalry helmet in its first phase of use then it looks like where it may well have had the ears removed, for if we look at this side view of it and continue the line of the jaw back and upwards to a point where we are in line with the bottom of the nose.
The lower part of an ear would begin and the top of the ear would be in line with the brow as is the normal for most humans, however unlike the Vechten it had its brow hinge also removed leaving the two holes on the forehead above the eyes.
The Vechten hinge is of course integral with the mask but also that one has the very same four holes two at the top corners and two at the jaw positions as the Kalkriese, however when the ears were removed from it this one had the edge cut flat all the way to the chin.
[attachment=9998]kalk1.jpg[/attachment]
Paolo.
I have put up a picture on page two of this topic to show just how THIN a cavalry sports helmet can be, this was where I had the pleasure of holding the Trimontium helmet in my hands to measure and discovered that in its upper region it is only some 5 or 6 thousands of an inch in the area I have circled.
In fact this is so thin that the relief figures in that area may even have been done by hand worked repousse' whereas the reproduction I did was made from 0.9 mm and all the relief was done by hammering.
The reason for it being so thin is that the bowl has been beaten out and the peek and neck guard are still at around 0.9 mm the bowl of course became stretched.
Also I would say that many face masks could have been made from anything like 0.6 to 0.9 sheet metal iron or copper alloy, therefore this type of equipment was very lightweight indeed.
Quote:As I said, I cannot see any sound evidence for either opinion. I think, as I have said above frequently, that we need more investigations of several aspects of this before we can draw such definite conclusions.
Okay, we're just going to have to agree to disagree, Christian :-)
My training requires proof and I see it for sports use but don't see it for battle use.
Good topic for discussion, though ;-)
Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles
