Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

If masked helmets are only for sports use, why is there one, at least with fairly obvious battle damage?

[mcbishop]

If masked helmets are only for sports use, why is there one, at least with fairly obvious battle damage?

Which one are you thinking of?

Mike Bishop

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

There is one at least, which has damage to the face and eye, of a frenzied attack. The wearer probably was unhorsed before being subjected to this while laying on his back on the ground. Cannot for the life of me find the photo. The boffins must have hidden it from plebs like me!

[Vindex]

How can you differentiate between battle damage and sports gone a bit Pete Tong?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Something about the frenzied nature of the multiple stab damage to the same eye opening?

Of course it could have been a bad loser, I suppose.....

[caiusbeerquitius]

Dear Mike,

you wrote:

Okay, we're just going to have to agree to disagree, Christian :-)

Well, I´m fine with that, but I wonder why you were then asking about opinions about this in the first place.. ;-)

My training requires proof and I see it for sports use but don't see it for battle use.

Yes, as does mine, and that of many other historians and archaeologists.
I assume that this is not supposed to be an argument of some kind? You have put up some arguments above, but I think I have shown that none of them can come up to the level of "proof".

Good topic for discussion, though ;-)

Yes, I agree. Hence I think it would be great if you would reply to my arguments.

[Robert Vermaat]

Interesting discussion gentlemen but ALL discussion about who is not picking up on arguments is considered personal and MUST be by PM, not in open forum.

[mcbishop]

I don't know. I go away on holiday for a few days, and look what happens...

I wonder why you were then asking about opinions about this in the first place.. ;-)

Oh, it's a funny old notion. I put forward some ideas, get some back from other people, we all learn something. Is that wrong?

You have put up some arguments above, but I think I have shown that none of them can come up to the level of "proof".

But then I didn't claim any single one of them as 'proof'. I made the point that, taken together, they were sufficient to persuade me that face-mask helmets were not used in battle.

I think it would be great if you would reply to my arguments.

Specifically?

Mike Bishop

[Urselius]

Ammianus (25:1) describes Persian cavalry wearing face-masks in battle. He specifically mentions that the masks had only small holes for sight and breathing. If the Persians found such masks practicable for wear in battle then the Romans are likely to have done so as well. Despite Ammianus saying that Persians had eyes like those of goats, a Persian was a man like any other and if he could cope with the use of a face-mask in combat then logic would suggest that a Roman could as well.

[mcbishop]

Ammianus (25:1) describes Persian cavalry wearing face-masks in battle. He specifically mentions that the masks had only small holes for sight and breathing. If the Persians found such masks practicable for wear in battle then the Romans are likely to have done so as well. Despite Ammianus saying that Persians had eyes like those of goats, a Persian was a man like any other and if he could cope with the use of a face-mask in combat then logic would suggest that a Roman could as well.

A fair point, but these were very clearly heavy, armoured cavalry who could not be expected to perform the sort of manoeuvres Roman cavalry were undertaking in the hippika gymnasia. Moreover, the fact that Ammianus mentions the masks suggest they were not found amongst Roman cavalry.

Mike Bishop

[Urselius]

Julian describes the cavalry of Constantius II:

"Your cavalry was almost unlimited in numbers and they all sat their horses like statues, while their limbs were fitted with armour that followed closely the outline of the human form. It covers the arms from wrist to elbow and thence to the shoulder, while a cuirass made of small pieces protects the shoulders, back and breast. The head and face are covered by a metal mask which makes its wearer look like a glittering statue, for not even the thighs and legs and the very ends of the feet lack this armour. It is attached to the cuirass by fine chain-armour like a web, so that no part of the body is visible and uncovered, for this woven covering protects the hands as well, and is so flexible that the wearers can bend even the fingers." Julian, Orations I, Panegyric of Constantius, 37D (Loeb translation).

Admittedly this was at a parade, but there is no indication that the masks are merely parade pieces. Also the description is so like that by Ammianus of Persians in battle array that there can be little doubt that the descriptions are of the same cavalry type, and that it was found in both armies.

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

Another argument for the use of face-mask is the high number of mask founded. I think there are more cavalry helmets with face mask than another without it, so it's dificult to think there were only for an spectacle. Asuming that hyppika gimnastika is in fact a kind of training, why don't use in battle an aditional protection?

I have tried in my first post to show how an trained cavalryman could fight with a face mask. Nobody have made any objection about that, so if it's proved that you can fight with a mask, and you are trained to do it at hypika gimnastika... why don't use it at battle?

[PhilusEstilius]

If we go back to page two of this topic we find that Luka Borscak has shown a type of face mask that may well have been used with the Heddernheim, then there is also the mask used with the Pfrondorf or cavalry sports F.
Then Matin refers to Julian describing the cavalry of Constantius II but then goes on to add that this was at a parade, these masks are from helmets of later period such as those mentioned and can be removed from their helmets so were they in fact used with a parade then for battle removed to give better vision.
[attachment=10044]Frankfurt-061120161.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=10045]a-2005-helmet2051.jpg[/attachment]

[PhilusEstilius]

I would also agree with Cesar that there have been many such helmets with face masks still on them found, but is this not telling us that these particular helmets were used in battle indeed they were given more care and protection by only being used in the Hippika Gymnasia.

If we try to think of these kind of helmets being used in battle what would be the situation for a cavalryman, when he takes a violent smash against his face mask for most of these were fixed to the helmet permanent with a metal hinge. There would be only one answer to this and that is to take the whole thing off helmet and all and throw it away for it now cannot be used at all.
I think the only cavary sports helmet I can think of where the mask could have been removed quickly would have been the Newstead sports B where the mask was fitted with a leather hinge and not a metal one.

[Urselius]

For what it is worth, my theory for mask wearing.

I suspect that the mask worn by cataphract cavalry was primarily intended to offer protection to the face from missiles. Cataphracts were often intended to attack enemy infantry and could expect to suffer a barrage of missiles as they closed with infantry. They used a contus with both hands, and therefore could not raise a shield to protect the face, indeed they do not seem to have been equipped with shields. The same argument is applicable to standard bearers, both cavalry and infantry. They were intentionally conspicuous and could expect to draw more than their fair share of missile fire, also they were encumbered, like the cataphract, with an object usually requiring two hands. Like the cataphract, therefore, they could not usually deploy a shield effectively in order to protect their faces.