creating a \'different\' intercisa helmet

[Razor]

I'm trying to create an alternative/a different version of the intercisa helmet for a late Roman soldier. Now I've come up with a helmet and I'd like to know what you guys think of the whole concept (also looking at the shape, style, decorations).
Do you think this might have been an actual late Roman intercisa helmet? Suggestions are welcome.

[Razor]

[Razor]

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Thijs,

What you have created is a Berkasovo with an Intercisa IV crest (Gutmann variant).

It's the cheek plates that also make the Intercisa - these belong to the Berkasovo-types. Intercisa have smaller ones, plus an earhole.

Nice picture btw.

[Commilito]

Don't know if its just me, but those helmets looks like the styles that the Cavalry wore, especially the Berkasovo.

[Virilis]

I think that this reconstruction is plausible. There is some evidence of "cavalry-style" cheekquards in Intercisa style helmets too:

[Razor]

Hi Thijs,

What you have created is a Berkasovo with an Intercisa IV crest (Gutmann variant).

It's the cheek plates that also make the Intercisa - these belong to the Berkasovo-types. Intercisa have smaller ones, plus an earhole.

Nice picture btw.

I think that this reconstruction is plausible. There is some evidence of "cavalry-style" cheekquards in Intercisa style helmets too:

Thank you Robert and Jyrki. I warned you that it would be somewhat different from the usual intercisa helmets didn't I? You can easily consider this helmet to be a Berkasovo helmet without a noseguard and with a crest like Robert did.
But... I was basing the design on the Iatrus helmet and the intercisa from the Gutmann-collection (the crest). But like I said this helmet is not a real copy of any existant helmet and I would like to know if you think it is an acceptable variant of the known intercisa-styled helmets.

[Robert Vermaat]

I think that this reconstruction is plausible. There is some evidence of "cavalry-style" cheekquards in Intercisa style helmets too:

Ah, the Iatrus helmet:

Well, actually that's a weird one. It has a ridge and a two-part bowl, but no nasal, like most Intercisa helmets.
But since it also has no ear holes and 'long' cheek guards, I would not classify it as Intercisa.
It's not a Berkasovo/Burgh style either (since it seems not to have a nasal), but with all these hybrid elements, it's far closer to the latter.

So, what do we have? Thijs, your helmet would be a similar hybrid, but one step closer to the Intercisa group.

[aitor iriarte]

Sorry,
I was busy trying to finish a book review and now I'm going to 'disappear' again next week for a fortnight (Summer holidays this time! )
Thijs, your helmet is not an hybrid, it is rather an interesting proposal for the Guttmann helmet (Where the Avernus will it be now... ?) On the Iatrus helmets (Hey guys, it looks almost like a different helmet from one pic to the other!) there are many regularly spaced holes running along the lower border of the bowl, ergo there was no frontal/base ring, but on the Guttmann helmet there are only a few ones, ergo there was a ring!!
It is possible that it could have even possessed a nasal too!!
One detail: Those weird-looking four rivets on the narrow side bands should be placed near the upper border if the band was to fulfill its intended duty of protecting the hinge and gap between the ring and cheek-piece (If I were you, I would simply make them disappear from the image, because there would be already lots of flat-hammered rivets like those which you haven't pictured on your reconstruction... :wink: )

Aitor

[Robert Vermaat]

but on the Guttmann helmet there are only a few ones, ergo there was a ring!!

Ah, would that not make the Gutmann a Berkasovo-type helmet, since all Berkasovo-type helmets have a base ring and all Intercisa helmets have no base ring?

[aitor iriarte]

Maybe, Robert... :?
Classifications are very useful for us, but maybe Romans would laugh at them... :?

Aitor

[Robert Vermaat]

Absolutely. But then, that's the only use for classifications - just for us. After all, we only use 'em to make it easier to understand what we are talking about.
As long as we don't lose sight of their actual value, we're OK. :wink: