Cavalry Helm question

[Marcus Julius]

I've been looking, quite a bit, at Cavalry Helms in the image gallery lately. More specifically the D and E types. I'm thinking about trying my hand at constructing one, but have a question on the cheekpieces.

How would the cheekpieces have fastened together at the chin. At first, I assumed ties like the infantry, but looking at the photos found here, I'm starting to think there was some kind of lockwork right at the chin. If you look at the last image there, both pieces have holes near the bottom inside edge. Maybe a turnkey such as those on the Newstead seg's?

Can anyone point me in the right direction where to find some more info on this?

[Peroni]

Its' quite possible there was a turnkey fitting, though most modern reconstructions have a simple hook and eye fastening at the chin. Simply because the holes that are punched into the cheek guards aren't large enough or rectangular enough to accept a turn-key fitting.

The helmet you pointed out (from Aalen (Rainau Buch) is (I think) more of the "family" Auxiliary Cavalry "H", like the Snake helmet from Frankfurt Heddernheim, than the E and F styles with their high cruciform reinforcements.

There is an iron skull in Frankfurt with an applied cupric alloy reinforcement, extremely similar to the embossed one on the Buch.

Look closely at the rear of the cheek guard and you will see a hole punched to receive a stud. This would have a leather strap attached that went around the back of the occipital to hold the cheek pieces steady.

Here's the latest Deepeeka version...
http://reenactorreplicas.com/images/Helmets/AH6310N.JPG
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/download.php?id=1454
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/download.php?id=1453
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/download.php?id=1452

[Marcus Julius]

Its' quite possible there was a turnkey fitting, though most modern reconstructions have a simple hook and eye fastening at the chin. Simply because the holes that are punched into the cheek guards aren't large enough or rectangular enough to accept a turn-key fitting.

Hook and eye it is, then. Thanks.

The helmet you pointed out (from Aalen (Rainau Buch) is (I think) more of the "family" Auxiliary Cavalry "H", like the Snake helmet from Frankfurt Heddernheim, than the E and F styles with their high cruciform reinforcements.

There is an iron skull in Frankfurt with an applied cupric alloy reinforcement, extremely similar to the embossed one on the Buch.

I definitely don't know enough to argue typology, but this one is classified E in the helmet database. I can also clearly see the cruciform reinforcement on it, although it does appear that a partial reconstruction was done for the display. The horizontal crosspiece appears authentic, which if I'm not mistaken is what seperates an 'E' from a 'D'.

Look closely at the rear of the cheek guard and you will see a hole punched to receive a stud. This would have a leather strap attached that went around the back of the occipital to hold the cheek pieces steady.

Is that the one near the bottom on the rear? Good to know, I just assumed that was for a decorative piece.
I have seen images of the Deepeeka items, but thanks to a decent marketing crew, they are reflecting too much light (ooh that's shiny, I want to buy it!) to make out much detail.

[Peroni]

I can also clearly see the cruciform reinforcement on it, although it does appear that a partial reconstruction was done for the display. The horizontal crosspiece appears authentic, which if I'm not mistaken is what seperates an 'E' from a 'D'.

The cruciform-bracing is entirely a museum addition. The helmet never actually had this feature. The cross on the original is embossed from the inside - out. The museum spoiled it! :?

They may have indeed used an original find (the side-to-side bar) but;

a. It doesn't fit the helmet

b. The helmet has no holes for such a cross-bracing to attach to.

[drsrob]

One of the most unfortunate thing about the Robinson classification is that he classed a great number of 3rd century infantry helmets as cavalry. This includes the D,E,F and H. These helmets all continue developments already seen in the Imperial Italic H.
The open faced cavalry sports helmets type H and I should on the other hand be considered normal cavalry helmets.
Robinson considered open or covered ears as the deciding difference between cavalry and infantry helmets. A more logical difference is that infantry helmets have wide neckguards (protection against blows from above) and cavalry helmets have no neckguards or only insignificant ones. If we divide the helmets on this criterium we see also a different style in make-up and decoration between the two.

In conclusion: the helmet you chose is an infantryhelmet.

[Marcus Julius]

....A more logical difference is that infantry helmets have wide neckguards (protection against blows from above) and cavalry helmets have no neckguards or only insignificant ones.....

In conclusion: the helmet you chose is an infantryhelmet.

OK, that makes good sense - but furthers another dilemna I'm having about cavalry. It's probably more appropriate for another thread, but since we're arguing logic at the moment this might be the place.
Why does there seem to be such an apparent lack of leg protection in Cavalry? I've searched this forum, as well as a few generic internet searches, and the only thing I can seem to find is a single example of proposed scale used by Sarmatians - and a vague reference from the LegioXX site (which is being covered in another thread.

Now on the logic side of the argument, isn't a horseman's legs more exposed than an infantryman's? So, why would it be more common for infantry to have greaves, than Cavalry? Maybe this isn't the case, but it's the impression I'm getting from both still art, and armor finds that I have found so far.