Roman helmets: Imperial Gallic/Italic and Ridge - comparisons and sources

[CaesarAugustus]

Here an example of Imperial Italic helmet (type G)


And here an example of Ridge helmet:


The Imperial Italic is the evolution of the Imperial Gallic helmet, heavely reinforced to increase the defensive capacity against the arrows and against the heavy impacts, especially from the top with a protection of the front and a cross to defend the whole cap, following the experience of the Dacian campaigns.

The Ridge helmet is derived from Parthian helmets and has a logistic advantage consisting in its simplified construction, essentially they are two symmetric parts united from the longitudinal ridge.

From what I know, the Ridge helmet is easier to make, so cheaper, but offers less protection compared to Imperial Italic.

Do we have any valuable source that denies this thesis?

[Nathan Ross]

the Ridge helmet... offers less protection compared to Imperial Italic.

What makes you think that? Why would the Roman army have switched to an inferior helmet?

(the 'cheaper' idea is belied by the fact that so many of these late helmets were plated in gold or silver!)

Do we have any valuable source that denies this thesis?

The fact that the Romans continued to use them for 100+ years and never went back to the Gallic/Italic model?

[Creon01]

A legitimate question with a rational answer.

Please though, try not to use a reproduction as an example to illustrate your idea if an artifact is available.

A point should be made that fashion does play a role in what military things look like then as now. Everyone wants to look like a winner and nobody wants to look like a loser on the battlefield. Romans generals are depicted as semi-Greeks for a very long time, ironically after they defeated or absorbed every Hellenistic Greek kingdom they encountered this trend seemed to accelerate.

[CaesarAugustus]

Asking for sources and eventually for quality tests on what has been found.

Opinion are valuable but useless here, I am asking for sources and studies. Also, the images are used to give an idea, if they are wrong, please tell us why they are wrong, but in the topic context this is insignificant.

Is the Imperial Italic helmet structure more resistant or not? Was the related constructive able to create a harder/more resistent helmet?

Replies such as "because they have used after" is not an acceptable reply here. If you really want to know why, you can think to what happened to the lorica segmentata, that followed lorica hamata and after replaced again by lorica hamata. I repeat, no opinions for this thread.

[Longovicium]

Have you read the Seventh part of Cestus by Iulianus Africanus which is reputed to have been written in the 3rd century in the wake of the rise of the Sassanian power in the east? He writes about the arms and armour of the Romans. It is a conundrum to him that the Greeks under Alexander defeated the Persians and the Greeks in turn were defeated by the Romans but that the Romans in his day had never defeated the Persians. He explores this conundrum in terms of Roman military equipment and goes into detail regarding the Roman infantry helmet.

It is within this period that the old Imperial Gallic variants fade out and the newer ridge helmets begin to replace them perhaps echoing Iulianus Afrianus' insights. You should in particular read section F12 onwards, page 35 in my copy for his thesis. It makes interesting reading and would give you a valuable insight into one Roman's thinking in that period regarding helmet design in relation to mounted opponents.

[CaesarAugustus]

Were there any difference in respect to the helmet used by the Parthians in the last decades? For example with the helmets used by Parthians during Septimius Severus time, or under Caracalla, or under Severus Alexander? Do we have any sources that says that they were different helmets? 

Also, Sextus Julius Africanus died in 240, and honestly in that period Sassians were just starting to create problems, that were not so different in respect to the problems ROme had with the Parthians.

I am also interested in understanding when the ridge helmet can be considered as standard equipment in the Roman Army. Not talking about the cavalry but about heavy infantry troops. From the coins of Costantine we know that probably they were used during his time, but when where they started to be widely used?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Yeah Ridge Helmets aren't introduced until the 280's at the absolute earliest. The Cestus is a bit early for that. Still I'm interested in the passage.

[CaesarAugustus]

And, just to conclude, even after Sextus Africanus, Roman army were able to defeat the Sassanians, with Gordian III that was able to take back practically all the Sassian conquests before dying.

Coming back to the helmet, it seems to have been found in Doura Eurpos, in the famous siege, so around 256 probably it was used by Sassians. Do we have any source that it was the same helmet used also by the Parthians?

For what concerns Rome, we know the Richborough helmet, around 280's. I am curios to know if there are others.

[Robert Vermaat]

And, just to conclude, even after Sextus Africanus, Roman army were able to defeat the Sassanians, with Gordian III that was able to take back practically all the Sassian conquests before dying.
[..]
For what concerns Rome, we know the Richborough helmet, around 280's. I am curios to know if there are others.

I don't think that the ability of the Romans to defeat the Persians was resting solely on their helmet types, but the complaint mentioned by Julius Africanus was not just about the helmet but also about the length of the spear - perhaps this is a different discussion best spoken of in another thread.

Back to topic - I didn't know the Richborough was dated that early, but I think i recall that the Augst ridge helmet was dated to c. 275.

Adding a question - I know that segmentata armour was not entirely phased out by the 4th century (some turning up in Spain), but what is the latest dated helmet of the Imperial gallic type?

[Nathan Ross]

what is the latest dated helmet of the Imperial gallic type?

I believe that would be the Gallic J ('Brigetio' helmet), which is assumed to be c.AD100-125.

The latest helmet of the Italic type would appear to be the 'Theilenhofen' infantry helmet, which is post AD189 and probably dates from cAD230, around the time of the fort's destruction; it apparently had one of those big pointed 'Neiderbieber' style peaks.

But it's probably the 'Neiderbieber' style (and perhaps other types that we don't know about...) that filled the gap between the Gallic/Italic and the various later composite helmets. Remains of Neiderbeiber-style skull reinforcements were found at Dura Europos, so c.AD257. This is some time after Sextus Julius Africanus, so either he wasn't complaining about this type of helmet, or nothing was done about his complaints!

The 'Richborough 1' helmet is undated, I think, but is assumed to be early based on the idea that it's a cut-down Neiderbieber type. This seems slightly dubious, mainly as the remains are at best fragmentary... The other three supposed Richborough helmets are completely undated, as far as I know.

Now that the lastest fashion in Spätererömischehelmtheoretisierung is banishing the Deir el Medineh and other 'spangenhelms' to the outer reaches of the 5th or even 6th centuries, there's not much left to bridge the gap between the last of the Neiderbiebers and the earliest composite 'ridge' helmets - whatever they might be!

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Robert Augst is very loosely dated like Burgh Castle. Both probably date to about 330 but they're stated as like 275-350.

I believe that would be the Gallic J ('Brigetio' helmet), which is assumed to be c.AD100-125.

89-104 is the J's dating. Second latest are Aquincum (I) and Wiesbaden (K) which are 68-89 AD.

[Nathan Ross]

89-104 is the J's dating.

How is it possible to be that exact?

We don't have a date for the construction of the fortress (beyond some time Domitian-Hadrian), or dates for the various garrison units, and we don't know which legion used this helmet. The 100-125 approximate date comes from Travis & Travis Roman Helmets, and appears to be largely on stylistic grounds alone.

[CaesarAugustus]

For what I have read, the Niederbieber helmet, derived from cavalry helmets, was mainly used by the new Septimius Severus' legions, and after spread in other legions, but the Imperial Italic helmet (mainly G and H) were still in use after the 200AD.

The Imperial Italic Helmets, which replaced the Imperial Gallic, are considered to be an innovation made mainly for the Dacian wars (cross reinforcement to face dacian heavy weapons), and following evolved to increase the protections against Parthian arrows.

[Nathan Ross]

The Imperial Italic Helmets, which replaced the Imperial Gallic, are considered to be an innovation made mainly for the Dacian wars

Italic helmets didn't replace Gallic ones (the distinction between them might not be that genuine anyway) - the Krefeld Italic D was found in a ditch almost certainly cut in relation to the Battle of Gelduba in AD69. The Hofheim Italic E was probably discarded between AD90 and AD122 - it had been stripped of its ornaments and so would have been an old helmet at that point. The Mainz Italic D was deposited in the Rhine, probably before the bridge was built c.AD83.

So the Italics probably predate the Dacian wars, and were used alongside the Gallics until the end of the 1st century (at least).

We have no firm information about helmet types in use from the mid second century until c.200 - the Italic H Neidermormter probably fits in there somewhere, as do the earlier 'cavalry' Niederbiebers and maybe the 'infantry' Thielenhofen. We have very limited archeological information on infantry helmets in the third century, aside from some Niederbieber bits from Dura, until the first composite helmets appear, probably under Diocletian.

So we should be very wary about assigning fixed dates to particular styles of helmet, or assuming that one type necessarily superceded another. Historians used to believe that the Corbridge style of lorica segmentata was replaced by the Newstead type in the early second century - until pieces of both styles turned up in the same deposits at Leon, dated to the late third century. Archeology is constantly updating what we think we know about the past!

[Flavivs Aetivs]

89-104 is the J's dating.

How is it possible to be that exact?

We don't have a date for the construction of the fortress (beyond some time Domitian-Hadrian), or dates for the various garrison units, and we don't know which legion used this helmet. The 100-125 approximate date comes from Travis & Travis Roman Helmets, and appears to be largely on stylistic grounds alone.

I believe it was a mix of Coin Dating and other contextual evidence.