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

[CaesarAugustus]

Italic helmets didn't replace Gallic ones (the distinction between them might not be that genuine anyway) - the Krefeld Italic E was found in a ditch almost certainly cut in relation to the Battle of Gelduba in AD69. 

Source?

[Nathan Ross]

the Krefeld Italic E was found in a ditch

Source?

As you can see, my source is a 2006 post by Jens Horstkotte, who mentioned at the time that the find was unpublished. My post also linked to a previous posting by Rob Wolters which has full sources listed (all in German).

[CaesarAugustus]

We are going far from the topic's question. Do we have any evidence that the Ridge helmet was stronger than an Italic H or G helmet?

In which aspect the Ridge can be considered better and in which worse? Do we have any attempt to rebuild and test them?

[Corvus]

The reason for change of equipment is not necesarily because the
new model is better/stronger, but because the type of warfare and the type of enemy is changing.
The Ridge helmet seems to offer more freedom of head movement and would be probably better suited for
the climate in Syrua and Messopotamia.
The Romans always adopted the armor and weapons of their enemies. Fashion is also an important factor.

[CaesarAugustus]

The reason for change of equipment is not necesarily because the
new model is better/stronger, but because the type of warfare and the type of enemy is changing.
The Ridge helmet seems to offer more freedom of head movement and would be probably better suited for
the climate in Syrua and Messopotamia.
The Romans always adopted the armor and weapons of their enemies. Fashion is also an important factor.

Yes and no. Or, better, this is a bit of a contradiction. Probably, one of the reasons for improving the protection of the gallic helmet was to face the parthian arrows. So cheek protection improved and so on. 

For what we know, Romans already knew the ridge helmet, that was already used by Parthian/Sasanians, but Romans did not immediately adopt it. 

Was the adoption related to logistic reasons, regardless the effectiveness and strength of the helmet?

[Marc Byrne]

The reason for change of equipment is not necesarily because the
new model is better/stronger, but because the type of warfare and the type of enemy is changing.
The Ridge helmet seems to offer more freedom of head movement and would be probably better suited for
the climate in Syrua and Messopotamia.
The Romans always adopted the armor and weapons of their enemies. Fashion is also an important factor.

Absolutely agree with this. The reasons for adoption of Ridge Helmets seems to me to be part of a number of complex and intertwined factors but tactical and fashion are two of the predominate one's.

[CaesarAugustus]

Absolutely agree with this. The reasons for adoption of Ridge Helmets seems to me to be part of a number of complex and intertwined factors but tactical and fashion are two of the predominate one's.

I honestly don't believe that fashion has much to do with it, the Romans adopted the enemy's weapons when they believed they gave him an advantage. For example, the spanish gladius was immediately adopted because it fit perfectly with Roman tactics.

The Ridge Helmet no. It was already well known, but not adopted. It was adopted probably around the the peak of the crisis of the third century and following recovery. Around Diocletian the number of legions doubled. Despite the fact that effectively the number of men for each legion was drastically reduced, the global amount of soldiers was increased probably up to 33% (Heather 2005). 

A Ridge helmet is significantly easier to build, this could easily justify its adoption, despite the different kind of structure is conceptually more subject to breakage, especially in a time of constant crisis that led to an increasing preference for the immediacy of the cavalry on the solidity of heavy infantry.

[Condottiero Magno]

A Ridge helmet is significantly easier to build, this could easily justify its adoption, despite the different kind of structure is conceptually more subject to breakage, especially in a time of constant crisis that led to an increasing preference for the immediacy of the cavalry on the solidity of heavy infantry.

While a ridge helmet is easier to build, I'd like to see some evidence for it being "conceptually more subject to breakage."

[CaesarAugustus]

A Ridge helmet is significantly easier to build, this could easily justify its adoption, despite the different kind of structure is conceptually more subject to breakage, especially in a time of constant crisis that led to an increasing preference for the immediacy of the cavalry on the solidity of heavy infantry.

While a ridge helmet is easier to build, I'd like to see some evidence for it being "conceptually more subject to breakage."

For the fact that putting side by side two metal pieces you are creating a breaking point? This is not something similar to Lorica Segmentata where there is a partial overlap and the blow is absorbed by two or even three metal layers without being able to find a breaking point, its two or more metal parts that are flanked, with some sort of junction that will absorb the shock, creating the weak point.

As said, the romans well know the ridge helmet, but they adopted it only late, as they started to adopt the long sword for infantry only late. And, they adopted it in a moment in which they created a big amount of equipments. Considering how that helmet is done, and the context, it is not difficult to think that they sacrificed the quality for the quantity.

[Condottiero Magno]

A Ridge helmet is significantly easier to build, this could easily justify its adoption, despite the different kind of structure is conceptually more subject to breakage, especially in a time of constant crisis that led to an increasing preference for the immediacy of the cavalry on the solidity of heavy infantry.

While a ridge helmet is easier to build, I'd like to see some evidence for it being "conceptually more subject to breakage."

For the fact that putting side by side two metal pieces you are creating a breaking point? This is not something similar to Lorica Segmentata where there is a partial overlap and the blow is absorbed by two or even three metal layers without being able to find a breaking point, its two or more metal parts that are flanked, with some sort of junction that will absorb the shock, creating the weak point.

As said, the romans well know the ridge helmet, but they adopted it only late, as they started to adopt the long sword for infantry only late. And, they adopted it in a moment in which they created a big amount of equipments. Considering how that helmet is done, and the context, it is not difficult to think that they sacrificed the quality for the quantity.

Not how ridge helms and spangenhelms work...

Montefortino helmets were in use longer than Gallic types, so what's your point?

Spatha is just another name for a sword, just like gladius, and earlier gladii could be as long as spathae.

[CaesarAugustus]

Not how ridge helms and spangenhelms work...

Montefortino helmets were in use longer than Gallic types, so what's your point?

Spatha is just another name for a sword, just like gladius, and earlier gladii could be as long as spathae.

No? and how the ridge helms works? It is made by 2 or 4 parts, put togheter with a central ridge. The central ridge is the weak point, it is a matter of fact. In previous roman helmets, there was an additional ridge to reinforce, but it was not part of the main structure. So, it was an addition, not the weak point.

For the montefortino and the gladius... you have not understood the point. I have told you that the ridge helmet was already known by the romans, but not immediately adopted, as instead happened for the gladius, that immediately replaced other weapons as the main weapon of the legions. The romans well knew the ridge helmet, but they adopted it only late...

Why? it is not difficult to test an Imperial Italic H versus a ridge helmet. My interpretation is that it was adopted in the general process of organizational decay, but I would like to see some test on the field.

[Nathan Ross]

it is not difficult to test an Imperial Italic H versus a ridge helmet.

That would involve getting a properly constructed replica of each type (costing, I would think, about €800 each) and smashing them both to pieces. I cannot see many people being very willing to do this!

Logic would suggest that if the Roman state (far better organised than in earlier times) switched from producing single bowl gallic/italic types to composite riveted helmets, the composite ones were better (or just easier to make in large quantities). No state is deliberately going to fit out its armies with a lesser quality bit of armour. So the onus would be on anyone claiming the opposite to produce evidence in support of their suggestion, of which there is none.

I understand that the metal used in ridge helmets commonly tends to be thicker, and the composite construction probably made them stronger and more durable (impact stress absorbed by the rivets and the flexibility of the plates) and considerably easier to repair too - that the older helmets tended to have rather weak bowls is suggested by the reinforcements added in later times.

[CaesarAugustus]

Yes, I know, but there are people that do this on youtube and a similar test would be great

For the logic, romans abandoned progressively the ballista, for what read for a progressive decay of the organization. The same could have been happened for the helmet.

If you have a budget that is roughly constant, and you increase significantly the number of the men you have to equip, it makes sense that a decay in quality is possible and consistent with the scenario.

For the thickness, any source? Instead, it could be true the opposite. The greater thickness could be required because the ridge helmet is easier to break (rivets), so it needs to be more thicker to provide a sufficient strength.

Here we have an example of Ridge helmet (http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquip...html#Ridge):



Are we able to get some information about the thickness and the weight, comparing with the one of an Italic one?

[Crispianus]

Yes, I know, but there are people that do this on youtube and a similar test would be great

For the logic, romans abandoned progressively the ballista, for what read for a progressive decay of the organization. The same could have been happened for the helmet.

If you have a budget that is roughly constant, and you increase significantly the number of the men you have to equip, it makes sense that a decay in quality is possible and consistent with the scenario.

For the thickness, any source? Instead, it could be true the opposite. The greater thickness could be required because the ridge helmet is easier to break (rivets), so it needs to be more thicker to provide a sufficient strength.

Here we have an example of Ridge helmet (http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquip...html#Ridge):



Are we able to get some information about the thickness and the weight, comparing with the one of an Italic one?

Unfortunatly the provenance for the helmet is lacking: "German Private Collection, acquired in the early 1970s"
I would want to see a metal analysis, as far as I know theres nothing further known about it....
Any well made helmet of suitable material if robust enough should work fine against a range of weapons (this doesn't mean it wont take damage).

Since there are hundreds of surviving helmets you'd think it wouldn't be that difficult to get accurate data such as thicknesses but unfortunatly that isnt the case...
Because it hasn't been recorded sufficiently, the materials used are different qualitys, helmets were hand made by different craftsmen/fabrica so thicknesses vary(no standards),  the iron has severly corroded, and helmets no doubt vary a good deal in detail, also edgings for example dont tell how thick the metal is elsewhere....
So its somewhat of a problem.

You could make two replica helmets out of the same type and thickness of steel but what would it prove? that the one piece shell will end up thinner, thus proving weaker then the less stretched and therefore thicker metal of the overlapping plates of the rivetted helmet!.

Some thoughts not written in stone....

[Nathan Ross]

I would want to see a metal analysis, as far as I know theres nothing further known about it....

I don't know if you saw this interesting post about that helmet - a little more information, and even an X-ray!

But yes, we'll probably never know for sure when or where it comes from...

romans abandoned progressively the ballista, for what read for a progressive decay of the organization.

They didn't abandon torsion artillery (if at all?) for some considerable time after the introduction of composite helmets!

As for 'progressive decay', the late 4th century ruling in the Theodosian Code instructing the Antioch armoury fabricae to cover a greater proportion of helmets with bronze and gold sheeting suggests both a wealthy state and a very high degree of organisation.

As I said before (in my opinion!), the late Romans didn't somehow forget how to make old style single-bowl helmets, and did not lack money or expertise, therefore the new pattern composite helmets must have been as good if not better than the old ones!

For the thickness, any source?

Sadly not really - I just picked it up somewhere in 16+ years of RAT posts!

There is this thread here, about thickness and weight, weight being possibly a better comparison as most helmets are corroded to some extent. But we might compare the 1426 grams of the composite 'Christies' helmet mentioned above with the Coolus at 864 grams, the bronze Niederbieber at 576 grams (albeit incomplete) or the 'imperial Gallic' at 1225 grams - however there's the Niedermormter at 1730 grams to contend with, and the early Montefortino at 2204 grams!

I can't find any accurate weights for original intercisa helmets - does anyone know?

greater thickness could be required because the ridge helmet is easier to break (rivets)

Now again this is opinion, as I'm no helmet expert or structural engineer, but I woud expect a riveted multi-part construction would give better stress resistance than a single sheet of metal. The force of impact would be transmitted to the rivets, which would break individually before the helmet bowl itself was ruptured. Rivets, and even sections of bowl, could be repaired or replaced without discarding the entire helmet.

This is indeed the sort of thing that some accurate testing would prove or disprove!