\'Frankhelms\'?

[Anonymous]

<img src="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/IVOIRE.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
VIth century ivory from Egypt. The shields could be the Vth Macedonica.<br>
Roman museum at Trier. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://localhost:1094/Homesteads/_1750094854/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 12/15/03 5:02 pm<br></i>

[Nathan Ross]

Excellent! Thanks Antonius. That relief might also explain what this figure is all about:<br>
<br>
www.histomin.com/lineemi/...emidrk.htm<br>
<br>
Although I'm not convinced by their version of the helmet - the curved brim seems to have been turned into a separate visor. <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Nathan,<br>
<br>
The helmet may be real after all, but your long list, 1st C. BC up to the 5th C. AD makes me doubt very much that all of this would be about the same type of helmet. I mean, the helmets which we know and that are found, show a good deal of evolution. Whereas, in this case, this would be a helmet withan even longer line of descent, yet none have been found and there seems hardly any change?<br>
<br>
Another piece of criticism is the brow. Where the Imperial Gallic series had the rim, and at least some of the later 3rd and 4th C. types had a nasal, this type seems to have no protection for the wearer's nose at all. Why?<br>
<br>
Concluding, even though I still think at least some of the depictions on your list may be from a real helmet, I can't bring myself to believe that one helmet existed throughout 6 centuries (or even longer) without a single one being found.<br>
<br>
Therefore, I think we should also look at artistic problems in sculpting/painting the brow of a helmet, and this type possible representing the artist's failure to do that correctly.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vortigernstudies>Vortigern Studies</A> at: 12/15/03 5:39 pm<br></i>

[Nathan Ross]

Good point about the facial protection - but only some of the later helments have nasals. The brow band of the gallic and italic helmets was surely intended to provide added protection against a downward blow to the head, and wouldn't do much to protect the face - isn't there a note in Tacitus about Germans aiming for the unprotected faces of the legionaries? The 'ridge helmet' has neither nasal or brow reinforcement - in fact, the raised 'brim' of these 'Macedonian' (for want of a better term) helmets would provide quite good protection against a blow to the front of the skull, far better than a 'ridge helmet', while not impeding the visibility of the wearer - therefore I don't think this can be used as a criteria against its use.<br>
<br>
I do not argue that this helmet continued unchanged from the 1st c. bc until late antiquity, nor that all the helmets on the examples are the same - clearly there are major differences. But there does seem to be a sort of 'family resemblance' between them, which surely suggests a continuity of evolution similar to, if different to, that of the gallic/italic helmets over the years. If we take the clearest and earliest depiction of the helmet in Roman military use to be the Dura painting (which I think is pretty unequivocal), from the mid third century then the date range seems a lot more realistic. That the style might have been based on a much earlier 'Macedonian' original seems not too unlikely either. That this development, in whatever form (a ridge helmet seems possible, the two halves of the helmet bowl being divided by a line or band on some representations) paralleled the use of other and more familiar headgear by Roman troops seems far from unlikely.<br>
<br>
My interest in this topic was originally spurred by the two other threads mentioned above, the first about the paucity of information on helmets in the third century and the other regarding the extent to which we should trust pictorial sources (the Arch of Constantine, in this case) for evidence. My view is that, were the pictorial sources limited to one or two indistinct examples, we might well shrug and pass them off as mistakes, 'artistic conventions' or isolated rarities. In the case of these helmets, however, a cursory search has turned up twelve (counting Antonius' relief and the ND, which I'd forgotten!) depictions spread over a wide period. I don't think this can be easily discounted, and over-reliance on what we regard to be the 'canonical' equipment for a particular period might end up being misleading. Archeological proof is the real test for anything being admitted to the 'canon', of course, but it does seem strange that (e.g) the mail coifs mentioned above are now being used by reenactors and illustrated by Osprey on the basis of (correct me if I'm wrong!) two pictorial sources and no physical evidence at all! <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Nathan,<br>
<br>
I believe that nasals, like the brow band, served to protect against a downward blow. Sorry if I was not clear about that. My point was that the ‘Enigma’ helmets (for calling them ‘Macedonian’ would imply they existed) don’t have that. They leave more of the face uncovered than any other type we know, and I have not seen any general detail that would function as either a brow band or a nasal.<br>
Of course, this can be used as a criteria against its use, but it is odd to suppose such a ‘family’ of helmets even existed side-by-side with helmets which all had such protection. Only the later ‘cheap’ or ‘infantry’ helmets of the Intercisa type(s) had neither.<br>
<br>
Another feature is that some of these ‘Enigma’ helmets seem to have cheek plates. See the image above of the VIth century ivory from Egypt.<br>
That’s odd, for you’d suppose that the sides of a ‘Frankhelm' would be low enough to protect the ears. The ones seemingly depicted on the Arch of Constantine do not have them, neither do any of the later illustrations of it. Only the early gladiatorial helmet, of which some say it’s a Coolus, shows cheek plates.<br>
<br>
I would say that this strengthens the case for artistic misrepresentation – I think that in this particular case the artist meant to show a known helmet, but failed to get the brow right. I’ve seen many pictures of helmets, and there are many ways the artist shows the brow. Some are realistically curved, some are straight, and some show the same effect as we see in the ‘Enigma’ helmets.<br>
<br>
Another case is the ‘triconchos’.<br>
<img src="http://www.fectio.org.uk/groep/triconchos.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
I think this shows the Late Roman helmet known as the Intercisa 4, with the metal crest, neck plate, and quite likely cheek plates, too. To qualify this as an ‘Enigma’ would IMHO be a mistake. The 'V-shape' rim does not make an ‘Enigma’ helmet.<br>
<br>
Now, again, I won’t say that the ‘Enigma’ helmets did not exist. However, in my opinion (after all, it’s in the eye of the beholder) the complete lack of these helmets in the archaeological record vs. the seemingly long history reflected by the ‘list’ presented in this discussion weighs against the ‘Enigma’ helmet existing as a separate helmet type/family. I think that ‘artistic misrepresentation’, due to a lack of understanding the material, may well account for several if not most of these helmets.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

<img src="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/ENIGMA_HELM.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
<br>
A hypothetical (very, very...) reconstruction by yours truly... from that egyptian ivory.<br>
I still can't figure out the roundels on the sides. But they don't all have these roundels. <p></p><i></i>

[Nathan Ross]

Robert<br>
<br>
I suspect we've reached a point of ineluctable difference here! Nevertheless, I shall briefly persevere... Thanks for the big pic of the 'triconchos' mosaic, but while you raised some good points I really don't think that these are Intercisa IVs we're looking at here. Going back to the 'Arch of Constantine' siege frieze, one of the defending figures, as has been pointed out, clearly wears an Intercisa-style helmet with a round brim. The others, however, clearly wear something different. I believe that Roman sculptors were perfectly capable of portraying a round brim when they meant to portray one! As for the cheek guards - certainly several of these representations do lack them, but they're shown more often than not - on the Arch, the defenders have cheek-guards on their 'Enigma' helmets, as does the 'centurion' in the attacking group (I think he is a centurion or legionary rather than an officer, as he holds a shield grip in his left hand). Possibly the others had them, but the detail has been worn away (they do seem to have rather 'fat cheeks'!)<br>
What's interesting about these cheek-guards, and which again differentiates them from the Intercisa helmets, is that they seem to be fixed inside the flared rim of the helmet - as, indeed, with much earlier Hellenic helmets and the Gallic 'port' helmets of the 1st bc (which I mention only to demonstrate that this was possible, not to imply that they were the same!)<br>
<br>
In short, then, this is, as you say, a matter of interpretation - however, I am still relatively convinced that we have a quite different and separate set of helmets here, and however much I squint and stare at the Arch friezes, the Egyptian ivory relief, the Constantinian coins or the Dura painting I really cannot see Intercisa helmets, Cavalry E helmets, spangenhelms or anything else that we know from the record being depicted. Instead, what is shown is something that we do not as yet know about - your 'Enigma' tag is quite apposite! - but which clearly existed. I wouldn't like to try and draw one of these things, still less make one (!), but the similarities between the pictured examples far outweigh the dissimilarities, and all lie some distance from other known Roman military helmets.<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Nathan Ross]

Ha ha! Just as I write that I wouldn't like to try and draw one of these helmets, Antonius goes and does just that! Nice work... <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

Good drawings.<br>
A convincing helmet I might add.<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

A few thoughts in bulk:<br>
First of all let me say that I'm pretty sure of one thing: If such a helmet existed it probably did not really look like the one I sketched. This is just a hypothesis.<br>
However, to try and make it more realistic I basically chose an Intercisa type, removed the neck guard, cut the cheekguards to size and slapped a broad brim on it. Simple as that.<br>
I personally think that Triachontos mosaïc represents Intercisa types and I suspect that, like the earlier Imperial Gallic, we still do not have all the Intercisa variants.<br>
What I mean is that maybe some variants had this "V" shape up front.<br>
The question of better or less efficient protection is not a point, I think. In all periods, sophisticated helmets ran concurrently with much simpler ones, like the Corinthian and the Pylos types, for instance.<br>
If there was such an "enigma" helmet, it could have been the final form of the Intercisa, that led to the Merovingian/Carolingian helmet shown on paintings of the period. None of these was found yet either. The only ones we know from these times are the classic spangenhelmen.<br>
I have to add that to make it simpler (for me at least..) I call "Intercisa" only the "infantry" types. I put the "cavalry types" in the "Berkasovo" category, because these two types are clearly of a different construction which probably means they come from different smithing traditions..<br>
I just remember another helmet perpetuating the "intercisa" tradition from a much later period: 10th/11th centuries. I'll have to check at home but if I recall it was found by a 19th century french paleontologist called Boucher de Perthes, who was looking for paleolithic remnants. The helmet he found was made in two riveted halves and had separated cheek guards and neck guard, just like the Intercisa, albeit much smaller.<br>
All the helmets shown by Nathan are not of the same type. I figure the type I tried to reconstruct appeared after the phasing out of the old Imperial Gallic types and derivatives (Niedebeber et al.) that is around the middle of the IIIrd century AD<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://localhost:1094/Homesteads/_1750094854/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 12/17/03 4:02 pm<br></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Antoninis,<br>
<br>
A beautiful reconstruction!<br>
The picture top right looks, when you remove the rim, very much like an intercisa 1 -3.. (which is what you said, when you posted your message 2 minutes before me!)<br>
<br>
But, should the cheek plates not be fitted to the rim?<br>
Nicolle, in his Roman Enemies (5); the Desert Frontier, shows something very similar, but calls it an early Byzantine helmet. Angus Mc Bride, the illustrator, fitted the cheek guards to the rim, a bit like your solution (bottom).<br>
<br>
Mind you, your reconstruction strengthens my idea about the cheek plates. When the rim already completey covers the ears, why would these plates even be fitted? Therefore, I think the artist 'overdid' the rim, with the result that it looks like a medieval infantry helmet.<br>
<br>
If overdone 'in extremis', you'd end up with a Spanish Morion.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vortigernstudies>Vortigern Studies</A> at: 12/17/03 3:49 pm<br></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

I think you are right about the 'Siege of Verona' scene. True, the defender (left) wear something very much alike to an Intercisa 1-3, whereas the attackers wear something different. Yes, they could all have had cheekguards, it's possible.<br>
<br>
However, that some artists were capable of making a correct brow is clear! But, some could not. Like I said, I'm not saying the 'Enigma' helmet did not exist. However, I am of the opinion that the 'triconchos' helmets are probably not 'Enigma' helmets.<br>
<br>
Your point aboit mail coifs is well taken, however there are (a few) more pictures of it, in a study from <em>Helvetica</em> Archaeologia I believe. I'll look it up. Mind you, we don't have may Intercisa helmets, nor other Late Roman ones either, but there are even less pictures of these. But they exist nonetheless.<br>
<br>
If the 'Enigma' helmet existed, what sort of helmet would it be? The cavalry seems to wear it, as do the infantry. I'm not prepared as yet to assign a different family to this concept, the images are too much open to interpretation. Coins are specificly difficult to interpret. In other words, the list shows possible 'Enigma' helmets, but there does not seem to be one type.<br>
<br>
I agree that if these things are real, they are way different from what we know of other Roman helmet types.<br>
Are we looking at a regional type, Syrian or North African maybe? Are the attackers at verona meant to depict a certain unit, like the Blemmyes?<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Right about being a "proto-morion", Vort.<br>
McBride/Nicolle chose to represent the piece as a "proto-bacinet", with the rim close to the skull and hence the cheek guards attached to it.<br>
My interpretation as you can see is more like a "proto-sallet", with the rim flaring out on the sides as well as front and back. In this case you can't attach the cheek-guards to the rim because it's too far from the side of the head. The cheek-guards must be attached to the skull.<br>
And however you try, soon as you draw that thing in perspective at a 45 degrees angle, you get that "triangular" look characteristic of Merovingian/Carolingian pictures (and earlier ones too..)<br>
Another added advantage of this type of helmet is that it allows a better ventilation without sacrifying protection. <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

What I like about your "reconstruction" is that from a basic Intercisa one gets additional protection by riveting on an apron that covers round-about (neck,front,ears).<br>
<br>
The apron would actually be two pieces along the sides of the helmet that join together in the front and back to rivet with the main ridge of the helmet. Additional rivets then ancor the apron to the helmet along the sides.<br>
<br>
Whether this is actually simple to implement is a question that maybe the later-empire re-enactors might be able to answer by actually trying to add-on this drapery.<br>
<br>
Ciao and compliments again<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[aitor iriarte]

Hi all,<br>
I'd promised myself not to get mingled into this fray but the flesh is weak...<br>
I go with Robert, those peaked helmets can be traced from earlier times to Carolingian times as Nathan points out but...<br>
We musn't forget that Carolingian scribes copied eagerly each tiny bit of Classic book that fell into their hands and with them those 'mistery' helmets, which they incorporated to contemporary depictions as an element of prestige. We can find on a good deal of paintings from XVth century onwards more or less armour 'a la Romaine' and those weren't in use for war (except by some fanciful king or noble...)<br>
On the other hand, Roman depictions of armour had no obvious reason for being always accurate. In the following centuries we can see the same phenomen, for instance, you can find on the XVth century book illustrations correct equipment alongside with 'fantasy' equipment, only loosely based on the real one.<br>
I think that the most probable thing (who is sure on anything in this world? ) is that you are chasing a phantom...<br>
<br>
BTW there is no sharp structural difference between Intercisa and Berkasovo helmets: The Budapest and Berksovo 2 helmets have bowls composed of two halves and they are not related with spangenhelme. On the other side, remember that all the helmets recovered at Intercisa had been originally plated with embossed silver and their real look woul have approached more that of the Augsburg-Pfersee helmets, for instance, that the pale replicas seen usually in re-enactment groups!<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>