Did Roman cavalry wear face-masks in battle?

[mcbishop]

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.

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.

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. :-)

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.

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.

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*? ;-)

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