11-18-2014, 02:38 PM
Some points raised in another thread:
I've wondered before whether the much-maligned ridge helmet, rather than just being a cheap and crude-looking expedient for a decaying empire, in fact offered better protection than the older types of Roman helmet.
The force of a blow to the head, rather than being concentrated in a single spot, as with the older one-piece helmets, would be spread by the segmented construction - the rivets would absorb the initial shock, and if one or two broke the helmet would still hold together and the rivets could be replaced. If a piece of the helmet was buckled, damaged or pierced, it too could be replaced without having to forge a whole new helmet bowl.
I really don't know about the physics of this idea, but could it be that ridge helmets, with the slight flexibility of their multi-part construction, were actually stronger and therefore more effective than single-bowl versions?
Quote:If ridge helmets were easier and cheaper to mass-produce, why did the Romans spoil this effect by sheathing most of them in costly silver or gilt-silver? Or were they produced because they were superior in some functional way to preceding helmet types?
Quote:Or simply is it that we have a biased picture of ridge helmets because gold and silver are statistically more likely to survive than iron, and the reality is that gold and silver sheathes weren't as common as we may think?
Quote:Even if this were the case, why would the people who could afford silver sheathing buy cheap and nasty ridge helmets, when they could have purchased helmets with solid skulls?... This suggests that the ridge helmet had a functional edge over the earlier single-piece skull types
Quote:I'd say that if you rivet part together you'd better make sure that these are protected against rust, as you cast claer your rivets once they're fitted. Tinning is an option but apparentlyly a very (very!) thin sheet of gilded silver works too. Or perhaps better, since they had a special class of workers (barbaricarii) at their fabricae who were under the strictest of orders to add a very limited amout of precious metal to each helmet.
I've wondered before whether the much-maligned ridge helmet, rather than just being a cheap and crude-looking expedient for a decaying empire, in fact offered better protection than the older types of Roman helmet.
The force of a blow to the head, rather than being concentrated in a single spot, as with the older one-piece helmets, would be spread by the segmented construction - the rivets would absorb the initial shock, and if one or two broke the helmet would still hold together and the rivets could be replaced. If a piece of the helmet was buckled, damaged or pierced, it too could be replaced without having to forge a whole new helmet bowl.
I really don't know about the physics of this idea, but could it be that ridge helmets, with the slight flexibility of their multi-part construction, were actually stronger and therefore more effective than single-bowl versions?