Login

TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS · 09-25-2002, 10:09 AM

As you all know, roman helmets of all types (Greek, Montefortino, Coolus, Gallic) exept for the late empire "two halves" types, 
had a dome shape, crested with a brush or horse-hair tail mounted on a single pin, wich was inserted into a drill-hole 
in the knob of the top of the helmet crown. 
 
It could be interesting to see that one of the most ancient indo-european tradition is that one about the human head seen like a cosmic link between Sky and Earth. It was believed that the axis between the sun-ray and the crown artery or "sushumna" ended in the "Brahma-randhra" (sanscrit), the orifice at the apex of the skull (whose memory is the babies skull hole) and that through 
this orifice the soul could leave the body after the death (R.Guenon - The narrow door). 
 
Romans kept alive this tradition mainly through the "Capitolium- Caput Mundi" concept. In the Capitolium-Mons Saturni were the "Lapis Termini" or "Saxum ingens" representing the same cosmic link and axis of the human head and the direct connection of Roma with the Sky (R. del Ponte - Gods and Italic myths). 
In fact on the Mons Saturni were found the miracolously intact human head of the legend you all know. 
 
Such cosmic representation is well re-created in the dome of the Panheon and in my opinion also remained in the military helmets of the indo-european people, Romans too. 
 
The dome shape of the helmets could symbolize the skull and the "Caput" (the miracolous human head and the Capitolium), the drill-hole on the top of the helmet the Brahma-Randhra orifice and the crest the soul leaving after the warrior death. This symbolism could be very appreciated by soldiers because of their strict connection with the death-after-death concept. Moreover represented the 
cosmic energy flux so necessary to keep the luck always ready to get in combat, so, the helmet could be an amulet too. 
 
This cosmic indo-european tradition was dispersed in the late Empire, maybe this was one of the reasons allowed the military "magic" background to be forgotten as well as the practical reasons to make simpler helmets. 
 
Valete, 
Titus Sabatinus Aquilius 
 
 
"Desilite, inquit, commilitones, nisi vultis aquilam hostibus prodere" D.B.G. (4.25)

09-25-2002, 10:14 AM

That explains also the wooden apex to which a strand of red wool was attached, at the top of the priests caps...

**Robert Vermaat** · 09-25-2002, 10:49 AM

How would you explain this against the notion that the Roman were principally a very practical people? I'd say this was not a Roman idea at all. There are two problems with that interpretation: 
 
First, you'd have to look for a Celtic origin for this practise, because the helmet-type was 'borrowed' from them by the Romans in the first place. So, can we find this idea among the Celts? If the Romans then continued the shape, I'd say this should be explained rather by the quality of the helmet, rather than the cosmic/theologoical implications. 
 
Second, if this helmet shape was primarily due to a cosmic/theological idea rather than to the quality of the design, I'd say that, IMHO, the Romans would have changed it much sooner. 
 
Or, are you saying that this type of helmet went out of fashion because of the rising of Christianity? 
 
Cheers, 
Robert 
 
'Cives Francorum, Miles Romanorum'

Matthew Amt · 09-25-2002, 11:47 AM

Avete! 
While I gave up thinking of the Romans as "practical" years ago (e.g., hinges on belts?!), I don't think we can read such heavy symbolism into helmet form, either. It really looks like they were shaped that way mostly because that's the way their heads were shaped. True, the Montefortino has a bit of a pointy top, not exactly skull-shaped, but that feature is found in a number of other cultures as well and on Roman helmets it is less pronounced than some. 
 
The hole in the top is only found on Montefortino types, while other styles of the same date have other types of crest attachements. Roman writers tell us the crest served in part to make the soldiers look taller, so it kinda makes sense that they'd mount it at the top of the helmet, rather than on some other part of the body. 
 
The hole in the top of the Pantheon could simply be an architectural feature to let in light. If it were such a strong clue to this sort of "gateway to heaven" thinking, one would expect far more Roman temples and other buildings to have domes with holes, but they do not. 
 
As usual, it is perilous to get into deep theories about WHY the ancients did something unless have they left us their own writings on the subject. It's much simpler, though still plenty complicated enough, to stick with "what", "when", "who", and "where". 
 
Sorry, Titus, don't want to sound like we're beating on you! But I just don't see the evidence for this one. 
 
Valete, 
Matthew/Quintus, Legio XX

TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS · 09-25-2002, 02:24 PM

Robert: 
 
Yes the Romans were very practical people, anyway there was a strong "magic" and "religious"component in their life and actions, whose roots we can find in the ancient indo-european traditions (you can see: G.Dumezil's "indoeuropean marriages" and "the gods of the Germans", 
M. Baistrocchi's "Arcana Urbis", R. Del Ponte "Gods and Myths of Italic People", I. Evola "the Tradition of Rome"). Unfortunately, this side of roman culture is often neglected. 
 
first: The Celts (and the Gauls of the "Gallic" helmets) had indo-european roots like the Romans and the Greeks. The split of their languages dates back just to 3000 b.c. 
They all had common cultural and religious concepts. 
 
second: as you know in the late Empire other eastern religions, not only Christianity, anyway extraneous to our ancient culture swept away (almost?) everything about the ancient spirituality. Things changed... 
 
Matt: 
 
No problems Matt Evidences are important, though the Myths of the ancient people are too! Anyway that's just a theory of mine that I'm glad to discuss. 
 
The other types of crest attachements symbolize the brahma-randhra as well, in my opinion: a real hole is not necessary. 
Why in your opinion the crests were not attached in the front or in the back of the helmets? The visual effect could be the same. Why the conical shape was used so later except for the eastern archers auxiliary troops? 
 
The Pantheon was designed referring to the most ancient model of temple: the "skull" temple with the "world eye" (the orifice at the top) to the polar point. According to an architectural symbolism of the dome, you can see in the 3300 b.c. temple of Ggantija at Gozo, Malta, some memory of that model of cosmic vision was also studied recently in arctic area people like Lappons, Eskimos, Samoyeds. This could be referred to the Tilak's theory ("the arctic home of the Veda") about the presence of the indo-european people settled in the arctic area before the Glaciation of 10.000 years ago. 
 
Moreover, the Pantheon was a planetarium and cosmic clock: it reproduces the heavenly vault. Its original ceiling was a representation of the sky and the sun and at 12,00 on June 21, summer solstice, the sunlight through the hole (called "oculus", the eye...) at the top of the dome creates a disk of sun light that is exactly tangent to the inner walls perimeter. 
 
Valete, 
Titus Sabatinus Aquilius 
 
"Desilite, inquit, commilitones, nisi vultis aquilam hostibus prodere" D.B.G. (4.25)

Goffredo · 09-25-2002, 03:03 PM

I do find these arguments interesting but also very suspicious. 
 
There are tenous threads that tie human affairs across the millenia, but cultures are funny things. They incorporate, interiorize and in many cases expel what was passed onto them in weird ways. I fear that no antropologist, linguist or sociologist can give water tight renderings of what happened in our remote past because we ingore too many things. Hints, clues but no clear cut events. Unfortunately fashions (benign) and ideologies (dangerous) often kick in and gaps are filled. Lets not forget that written history is very recent and even then needs interpretation. I am interested but remain suspicous.

***Praefectusclassis*** · 09-25-2002, 03:49 PM

Goffredo's right. This sounds very much like 'hineininterpretieren', to read more into sources (in this case archeological ones) than there is there. Greets 
 
Jasper

**Robert Vermaat** · 09-26-2002, 07:20 AM

Titus: 
 
>>>first: The Celts (and the Gauls of the "Gallic" helmets) had indo-european roots like the Romans and the Greeks. The split of their languages dates back just to 3000 b.c. 
 
Well, I'm thinking you're casting your nets a little too wide here.. By playing the Indo-European card, you could 'explain' almost everything, but I seriously doubt this angle is viable here. My point was: as the Romans copied the helmet shape, you should explain the origin of that shape from the Celtic point of view, and then prove that the Romans shared that view of the cosmos enough to use the sahape for the shape's sake. Pointing to common indo-European roots here is a bit useless, sorry. 
 
>>>second: Things changed... 
 
Again, Titus, a bit over-general explanation. My point, again: the Romans used the helmets because they were of superior quality, and developed them further. Then, new designs came along, and the Romans used these afterwards (spangenhelm and ridge helmets). Nothing to do with the view of the cosmos.. 
 
>>I do find these arguments interesting but also very suspicious. 
>>This sounds very much like 'hineininterpretieren' 
 
Goffredo and Jasper, this was mainly my point. I agree with you both. 
 
Cheers, 
Robert 
 
'Cives Francorum, Miles Romanorum' Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/uvortigernstudies.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Vortigern Studies</A> at: 9/26/02 9:29:14 am

TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS · 09-26-2002, 08:25 AM

Never denied the functional aspect of the helmets or their functional development: I've a theory referring to a possible memory of the myth in an element of the equipment. After all the roman legions were represented by the eagle not just because the eagle is a beautiful bird... 
 
I see in your opinion the myths and symbols of the ancient peoples are just useless superstitions, because of their lack of material evidences? 
 
I think this is a fundamental mistake, already denounced by G.B. Vico ("PRINCIPJ DI SCIENZA NUOVA" - 1744), Schelling, Bachofen and more recently by Guenon, Otto, Altheim, Kerenyl: the mythic traditions are not arbitrary creations or deformations of historic elements. Symbols and legends really represent the history of the origin of a Nation, of course not the history of the material events, rather the spiritual processes that have led to the born, side by side to the other peoples, of new peoples different by culture and civilization: the history of that pre-born period of the history from wich we cannot leave out of consideration to understand the rest. 
 
As Cicero says (Nat. Deo., II 3,8 and Har. Resp. IX, 19), about sacred knowledge the Romans outclass any people and nation. 
 
"Quam volumus licet, patres conscripti, nos amemus, tamen nec numero Hispanos, nec robore Gallos, nec calliditate Poenos, nec artibus Graecos, nec denique hoc ipso hujus gentis et terrae domestico nativoque sensu Italos ipsos et Latinos; sed pietate, ad religione, atque hac una sapientia, quod deorum immortalium numine omnia regi gubernarique perspeximus, omnes gentes nationesque superavimus." 
 
To understand the complex aspects of the Roman culture, Army too, I think we ought not stop ourselves just to the evidences (of course "cum granu salis"). 
 
Valete, 
 
Titus Sabatinus Aquilius 
 
 
"Desilite, inquit, commilitones, nisi vultis aquilam hostibus prodere" D.B.G. (4.25)

Goffredo · 09-26-2002, 08:53 AM

I am not saying cultures are not to be studied in all their cultural manifestations, quite the contrary, especially because the view of the world of a person and a group is the most immediate reason they decide to behave the way they do. 
 
But then there might be other reasons that individuals and cultures might not be aware of. I personally find these mechanisms more interesting if only because they are more general, but that is another topic for debate. 
 
In any case the only real point I raise is that of the evidence and here we seem to disagree. We must base ourselves on some amount of evidence. But evidence is never perfect and almost always incomplete. So we must be absolutely transparent (honest) and say were we fill in the gaps. And we must then not be suprirsed that some might not agree with our conclusions. No one can be sure but a real step forward in understanding starts from accepting how uncertain we are. 
 
p.s. Bachofen and others in this fascinating field are interesting but sometimes they are fashionable for reasons that go beyond real understanding.

TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS · 09-26-2002, 01:35 PM

"No one can be sure but a real step forward in understanding starts from accepting how uncertain we are." 
 
Absolutely true, but it could be seen from both the perspectives because as you say: "evidence is never perfect and almost always incomplete". 
Surely this about the helmets is not the case, anyway how many discoveries of archeological evidences derive from the study of legends, myths or religious suggestions? 
And then, if we'd discover a letter of a legionary soldier telling us he preferred to die with the helmet on his head, or at the exact center of the Pantheon in Roma, so his soul could exit directly along the axis through the Brahma-randhra orifice to the sky and not from the ears, or from the mouth, or... we'd be sure about a connection between the helmets or the dome shape and the archaic Myths. But that letter could be buried under the grass of your garden for hundreds of years yet...So, again, not of course for the this one about the helmets, I think that after all sometimes hypothesis are welcome because they could help to adjust the fire and suggest new directions. 
 
Valete, 
Titus Sabatinus Aquilius 
 
"Desilite, inquit, commilitones, nisi vultis aquilam hostibus prodere" D.B.G. (4.25)

09-26-2002, 01:51 PM

Titus, I think that theory is valid as far as the priests skull caps with the apex are concerned. They obviously have a symbolic meaning like all religious objects or pieces of clothing. 
And indeed the Pantheon has a very strong cosmologic meaning. 
But stretching that fact to include helmets maybe a bit too far fetched. 
People tend to have a realistic, not symbolic view of things as soon as protecting their heads from harm is concerned. 
Getting struck over the head is no cosmic thing. It's very real. 
Making a metal "dome" to protect a skull which is basically of the same shape is only natural. 
It has been demonstrated that the shape and evolution of armour depends on the shape and evolution of the things developed to break or punch through the said armour. And the other way round as well. 
The conical top-knobbed helmet was very efficient to deflect blows over the top of the heads by the big long slashing swords used at that time. 
Besides, ancient people of originally indo-european origin, who indeed share the same myths, wore head defences of extremely varied shapes and forms. The conical top-knob shape was just one of several. 
I think the religious aspect of weapons and armour was limited to decoration, like apotropaÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¯c medallions and amulets. As far as shape was concerned it was more a matter of regional smithing traditions and changing fashions than religion. 
However, I also suspect that the helmet had indeed a different meaning than just protection for the head. Judging by some examples It was obviously an object of prestige that carried some magical properties.

Goffredo · 09-27-2002, 05:22 AM

Hypotheses are ways to focus in seraching for connections and are certainly helpful tools. Then they either grow into theories because more and more tid-bits of facts and pieces fall into place, like a jig-saw puzzle, or they should fade away. Its easy to make hypotheses! I make many every day. Its difficult to make a good one ("that works"). Its is even more difficult to be honest with oneself and admit that your pet hypotheses is bogus. Hypotheses are great. We [humans] are the problem.

TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS · 09-27-2002, 06:22 AM

Goffredo, why don't you tell us some of your hypothesis? Maybe that a topic just about hypothesis, theories and their discussion could be interesting... 
 
Vale, 
Titus Sabatinus Aquilius 
 
"Desilite, inquit, commilitones, nisi vultis aquilam hostibus prodere" D.B.G. (4.25)

09-27-2002, 01:21 PM

Junkelmann in "Roemische Helme" has some crap about Roman Montefortino helmets representing the "Tree of Life". His evidence seemingly being the fact that the helmet style is (maybe) Celtic, the Celts had a "Tree of Life" and that some Roman Montefortinos have "leafy" designs cut into their crest knobs. 
 
Apart from that (fairy) story, about the only really interesting thing he says about Montefortinos (apart from the fact that some early examples are castings) is that he thinks that many had no cheek-piecces and instead were kept on with a thick chin strap, like the Greek Pilos and the Italic Negau ones (apparently) were. 
 
Susan

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	design/shape of sub-roman swords	lparc	10	2,159	12-23-2019, 10:29 AM Last Post: lparc