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

[Crispianus]

Are you seriously comparing Kevlar® Composite Helmets with ancient metal working.....  the material would not suit multi piece construction even if it was available in 300AD... 

Do you prefer a IIWW helmet?


The concept is the same

The only concept thats relevant here is that a helmet should protect the wearer within reason from the weapons of the time, none of the helmets shown will protect the user against all attacks and are all made using modern machine methods and materials.
To prove your point you'd have to prove that a rivetted helmet construction is less effective then a helmet made from one piece using the techniques and weapons of the period, as most modern helmets are going to outperform their ancient counterparts in many area's but likely fail in others, this would not be a fair comparison.

Ned Kellys bullet proof helmet proved effective but at some cost in weight, The Italian army adopted a similar concept in WW1 for specialist troops the Rivetted Farina helmet :

   

[CaesarAugustus]

Are you seriously comparing Kevlar® Composite Helmets with ancient metal working.....  the material would not suit multi piece construction even if it was available in 300AD... 

Do you prefer a IIWW helmet?


The concept is the same

The only concept thats relevant here is that a helmet should protect the wearer within reason from the weapons of the time, none of the helmets shown will protect the user against all attacks and are all made using modern machine methods and materials.
To prove your point you'd have to prove that a rivetted helmet construction is less effective then a helmet made from one piece using the techniques and weapons of the period, as most modern helmets are going to outperform their ancient counterparts in many area's but likely fail in others, this would not be a fair comparison.

Ned Kellys bullet proof helmet proved effective but at some cost in weight, The Italian army adopted a similar concept in WW1 for specialist troops the Rivetted Farina helmet :

Nope, we were discussing about quality of the helmets. Comparing the monoblock approach of the Italic compared to the ridged, and what brought to such decision, considering that the ridged helmet was already well known by romans, but not used before a certain period by roman legions. Also according to what written by Goldsworthy. He has been accused to have written "Nonsense". 

You have found the farina helmet... yeah, not a ringed helmet, and not a great success. Not at all 
Farina helmet:

it is not made by flanked parts but by partially overlapped parts, no ridge, as far I can see. And, it was uncomfortable and heavy. So its production was stopped and Model 15 and following were distributed. In short, this non-ridged helmet was a failure.

But you can still go to propose this helmet, apart the ridged one, to our armies. I am curious to see what they will reply

[Crispianus]

Nope, we were discussing about quality of the helmets.

Define "Quality"

[Condottiero Magno]

Nope, we were discussing about quality of the helmets.

Define "Quality"

Whatever is good enough for him...

[CaesarAugustus]

Nope, we were discussing about quality of the helmets.

Define "Quality"

You should ask to Goldsworthy, but I can reply with an acceptable margin of error and we can improve the definition.

First of all, we have to consider requirements and constraints. For the constraints, the helmet has not to be heavy, otherwise is not practical and, even worse, in case of impact will create damages to the neck and to the head. For the requirements, Romans gave massive importance to the possibility to listen and to the visual field. Otherwise, a Corinthian helmet would be hardly beatable for the period.

Then, there are aesthetic aspects. For example coppery appearance, gems, trinkets, and generally the shape. These are really relative, for example as a matter of shape I prefer the Attic helmet. And we could discuss about the quality of the finishes, but this is not what we are discussing in this topic.

So, kept in mind the requirements and constraints, finally we move to the real factors that can establish the quality of the helmet.

As a matter of fact, the helmet purpose is understood as head protection, against penetration and shock/brain injuries. Thus, the purpose of protective helmets is to prevent head injury by decreasing the amount of impact energy that reaches the head, reducing the severity or probability of injury. So, the quality of the helmet is given by the ability to reduce the severity or probability of injury.

Besides resistance to penetration, the helmet is the initial shock absorber. We can highlight as follow the helmet responsabilities:
- spreading the impact load over a large area of the helmet, therefore reducing the concentrated stresses during an impact that
reaches the head and increasing the amount of energy absorbed, by having a larger area of effective energy absorbing liner;

- prevent helmet penetration by pointed or a sharp object that might otherwise puncture/penetrate the skull;

- absorbing the initial shock in an impact.



We can consider that ridged and italic cover more or less the same area (we can ignore for a while that the italic offer more protection for the neck), so, more or less, the defense against the penetration is the same. But, there is a little problem near the ridge. The ridged is made by flanked pieces, fixed by rivets. This means that near the ridge there is discontinuity and the impact is not distributed equally in different direction. So, the possibility that the metal is bent between rivets is higher than the probability to bend the metal of an italic helmet.

And, problem related, this discontinuity obstruct a correct spread of the shock on a larger area. One think is the ability of an italic helmet to spread the blow on the entire helmet surface, other is the the flanked pieces that circumscribe the impact area on a smaller area, thus reducing the amount of energy absorbed, that is leaving a greater energy to reach the skull, and finally the brain.

For these reasons, today the helmet are generally monoblock, the continuity of the medium, the helmet, allows to better distribute the impact of a blow, being it composite or metal. This considerations are taken from Design And Analysis Of Industrial Helmet and Performance Analysis of Motor Cycle Helmet under Static and Dynamic Loading, which theory can be applied to our topic without any problem.



So, considered our requeriments and constraint, we can safely agree with Goldsworthy. Ridge helmets were not of the quality of earlier types.



I hope this definition satisfies you (even if it does not reflect your previous ideas) 

[Nathan Ross]

we can safely agree with Goldsworthy.

We might bear in mind Adrian Goldsworthy's particular thesis about the later western empire (laid out in The Fall of the West, 2009), which suggests that the crisis of the third century damaged Roman power irrevocably, and that the 4th century, rather than being a return to strength and stability, was merely an illusory revival before a terminal decline. The supposed poor quality of later Roman arms and armour would fit with this thesis. However, the thesis itself, while very well argued, is by no means uncontroversial, and I would say the majority of scholars on late antiquity would see things otherwise.

As for helmets in particular, I would ask (again) why a Roman state that was well organised (evidenced by the fabricae etc), wealthy (evidenced by laws on gilded or silvered helmets, and in fact many surviving helmets being gilded or showing traces of gold) and effective (evidenced by the record of the later Roman army in winning battles pretty consistently up to Adrianople) would intentionally equip its hundreds of thousands of soldiers with helmets inferior to those used previously - this would include, of course, elite units of palatinae and scholae - and then continue making and using these inferior helmets, apparently exclusively, for around 150 years?

If older pattern single-bowl helmets were 'better' than ridge helmets, the Romans would have made them instead. The sheer number of Montefortino and Coolus types surviving today, for example, indicate that they were not difficult or overly expensive to produce.

[CaesarAugustus]

we can safely agree with Goldsworthy.

We might bear in mind Adrian Goldsworthy's particular thesis about the later western empire (laid out in The Fall of the West, 2009), which suggests that the crisis of the third century damaged Roman power irrevocably, and that the 4th century, rather than being a return to strength and stability, was merely an illusory revival before a terminal decline. The supposed poor quality of later Roman arms and armour would fit with this thesis. However, the thesis itself, while very well argued, is by no means uncontroversial, and I would say the majority of scholars on late antiquity would see things otherwise.

As for helmets in particular, I would ask (again) why a Roman state that was well organised (evidenced by the fabricae etc), wealthy (evidenced by laws on gilded or silvered helmets, and in fact surviving many helmets being gilded or showing traces of gold) and effective (evidenced by the record of the later Roman army in winning battles pretty consistently up to Adrianople) would intentionally equip its hundreds of thousands of soldiers with helmets inferior to those used previously - this would include, of course, elite units of palatinae and scholae - and then continue making and using these inferior helmets, apparently exclusively, for around 150 years?

If older pattern single-bowl helmets were 'better' than ridge helmets, the Romans would have made them instead. The sheer number of Montefortino and Coolus types surviving today, for example, indicate that they were not difficult or overly expensive to produce.

I have given a technical explanation, the only thing that I can do more here is to introduce the equations.
For the reason, it is likely to be the same for which the lorica segmentata has been abandoned after more than two centuries to come back to a previous protection that was offering... less protection. It is quite clear that the army organization was decreasing overall. Centralization is not a good thing, if you lose the ability to operate in the field. It is something that you experiment when you have exceeded the peak of development and you are on the downhill section. And this is a reflection of the social crisis that the empire was experiencing.

[Nathan Ross]

lorica segmentata has been abandoned... less protection.

Why would mail offer less protection? Mail was used for over a thousand years, all across the world. If segmentata was superior, why was it never used again by anyone else after the Romans abandoned it?

It is quite clear that the army organization was decreasing overall.

This is not at all 'clear'. As I say, the Notitia Dignitatum of cAD400 suggests a highly organised military structure.

Centralization is not a good thing, if you lose the ability to operate in the field.

The later Roman army did not 'lose the ability to operate in the field' - until Adrianople (and after it, for the most part) they experienced very few defeats and were highly effective. The record of victory of the tetrarchic army of AD290-305, for example, against all enemies and on fronts, is probably unsurpassed.

We might ask whether, faced with the military demands of the 3rd and 4th centuries, the army and state structures of Trajan or Marcus Aurelius would have fared as well.

you are on the downhill section.

Only with the benefit of centuries of historical hindsight was the empire of Constantine or even Valentinian 'on the downhill section'

We should remember that the eastern Roman empire survived and prospered for hundreds of years after the fall of the west - using the same military equipment!

And this is a reflection of the social crisis that the empire was experiencing.

At what time, and in what way? How would a 'social crisis' cause a wealthy and organised state to abandon effective armour production?

I would suggest that a lot of your ideas on this subject are based on a preexisting notion of 'decline and fall', which cannot be applied equally across the entire period of the 3rd-5th centuries, and in many cases is not supported by available evidence.

[CaesarAugustus]

Mail offer less protection for perforations and impact. It is the reason for which the Romans adopted the segmentata for more than 2 centuries, after the mail chain.

And, before Adrianople, the Rhine sector had been already near to the collapse. A great campaign from Julian emperor was necessary to Re-establish the control. Something similar in the East, where neither Julian was able to restore the border. This is far from being a good position.

For the social decline, Géza Alföldy has well exlained the relation between the social crisis and the impact on the army.

And we can continue.

But, all these are volatile topics.

For the quality of the helmets, there is the technical explanation, that well describe how the ridge helmet is far from the quality of an italic one. Instead of the volatile and soft arguments, try to see if it is possible to refute the technical explanation.
But, with a technical explanation, not with soft arguments which are always relative and can not compete with a technical explanation.

[Condottiero Magno]

Mail does not offer less protection than segmentata! Segmentata is vulnerable to upward thrusts. We don't even know if it was a widespread as depicted on Trajan's Column, as it's absent from the Tropaeum Traiani.

Where is this technical explanation for the quality of the helmets? All I'm seeing is a relative soft argument...

If the single piece helmet was superior to the segmented version, why was it that reinforcing crossbars added to Gallic/Italic helmets?

[Dan Howard]

Mail never stopped being used. The Romans used it before, during, and after the period in which segmentata saw use. Segmentata was peasant armour; the equivalent of munitions plate only worn by those who could not afford anything better such as mail or scale or musculata. There is not a single depiction of an officer or NCO wearing it.  When Diocletian reformed the military, he got rid of segmentata all together preferring to standardise mail armour instead, which is far superior in many respects.

This might help.
https://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

The Diocletian reforms led to an improvement of Roman military equipment, not a degradation of it. The equipment of this time is arguably the best they ever used. The steel used by the military of this time was superior to that of the past as well. Military equipment was completely standardised, rigidly centrally-managed, with strict quality control procedures. Goldsworthy's comments simply can't be substantiated by the available evidence.

[Condottiero Magno]

Segmentata was peasant armour; the equivalent of munitions plate only worn by those who could not afford anything better such as mail or scale or musculata. There is not a single depiction of an officer or NCO wearing it.  When Diocletian reformed the military, he got rid of it all together preferring to standardise mail armour instead, which is far superior in many respects.

If segmentata was "peasant armour", why is it depicted worn by Praetorians on Trajan's Column?

[Dan Howard]

Nothing on Trajan's column is accurately depicted. Look at the Adamclisi monument for an idea of what was really used.

[Condottiero Magno]

Nothing on Trajan's column is accurately depicted. Look at the Adamclisi monument for an idea of what was really used.

I wasn't referring to accuracy, but to ubiquity of segmentata on the column. I know it was a contrivance to differentiate between citizens and non-citizens, but to argue that it was "peasant armour" goes to the other extreme.

I'm waiting for Coulston's  All the Emperor's Men: Roman Soldiers and Barbarians on Trajan's Column ...

[Dan Howard]

Mail was at least as common as segmentata yet it is hardly depicted. On top of that, the legions barely participated in the fighting at all. The auxilliaries did the bulk of the fighting in the Dacian campaign but that is not a subject worthy of propaganda monument. Where is your evidence that praetorians actually wore segmentata? Any texts telling us how they were equipped?

The term "peasant" is not what you think. It simply refers to a person of low social class - the type of person who would be a typical low-ranked legionary. Segmentata was the cheapest metal armour the Romans had and only worn by those who could not afford anything better. It was their attempt at producing munitions plate and, for the time, it was impressive. An ingenious solution.