RomanArmyTalk

OK, I feel as if I am the one who is asking the rules of Mornington Crescent. OK, I feel stupid. But can someone explain what that famous Toledo helmet -which is a fake, a votive, or whatever- actually is? And why is it so important that people put references about it in their signatures? (For obvious reasons, Google searches or RAT searches do not work.)

It is important because it looks a lot like the helmets with the ring on top of the bowl. It was the only 'supposed' original Roman helmet that closely resembled the ones on Trajan's column.

This helmet is often seen on TV (Rome) or in comic books (Asterix). I think the helmet is made out of silver and would therefore be much too soft to be of any real protective value. It is supposed to be a fake. But I don't know if any detailed metalurgical analysis has been carried out on it...

Vale

A detailed analysis has been made, and the report was sent to me by the Toledo museum after I called them once I'd seen the helmet and just had to know something.

Every now and again the panoply of the TC legionaries is discussed, which at some point leads to someone pointing out how the Toledo helmet is proof that the helmets existed, therefore the armour must have looked like that, and on and on.

After I sniffed out a very vague snippet on the web about a silver helmet at the musuem being found to be a fake, I simply picked up the phone and called them, and was put through to the very helpful curator.

"Hello, I have a question about the silver Roman hel..."

"Fake!" was the reply, before I even finished my sentence.

We had a pleasant chat, and five days later I had the report, and metallurgical analysis from Oxford, put through my letterbox. Highly efficient. I've given a synopsis of the report and analysis here before, but the reason it's in my sig is to constantly remind people that helmet is not genuine. As a clue to how fake it is, the pitted corrosion is chiseled.

Does that answer your question, Jona?

Robinson never thought it was genuine, it was found to be a fake 'not recently', but still it gets used as proof of large scale propaganda pieces depicting armour accurately.

Quote:Does that answer your question, Jona?

Yes, yes, yes. Thanks, it explains all the fuss.

I also have very good experiences with Spanish museums; kind people, efficient, know what they are talking about, and there are "short lines". If you ask something to a guard, and (s)he doesn't know, there's a fair chance that you get into contact with the curator him/herself, as happened to me once in Seville.

Quote:I also have very good experiences with Spanish museums ...

Jona -- it's Toledo, Ohio!

Whoops, sorry, should have made that clear.

http://www.toledomuseum.org/

....BTW, peole often wonder what the 'rings' on the helmets on the column are for, and similarly why weapons are usually missing, even though hands are shown gripping them etc

It is generally considered that crests and weapons were attached separately, to enhance the 3D effect, and hence the 'ring/holes' are attachment points.....

Quote:

Jona Lendering:br1e8svm Wrote:I also have very good experiences with Spanish museums ...

Jona -- it's Toledo, Ohio!

Well, at least that was an unlooked-for opportunity to shower compliments on a Spanish museum!

Does anybody have a pic of thet helmet? Just curious...

Posted by Duncan Campbell:

Quote:Does anybody have a pic of thet helmet? Just curious...

A stack... :wink:

Thanx!

Is there like a compilation of depictions of Roman helmets in ancient artwork and also pictures of real Roman helmets somewhere? Ah hell, is there a compilation of Roman soldiers in general in artwork somewhere?

I have always wondered why if you look at some of the artwork it looks sort of like this guy:


with that i guess "toledo"? helmet with the slim cheekpeices exposing the ear, a small crest like the Martian from the loony tunes (the whole thing looks like that helmet actually) and a neckguard that contours to the neck. It kind of reminds me of renaissance interpretations of Romans or some old reaaly crummy Bible movies with Romans in it.

Well, there's a helmet database on the main site with some 100 examples of the real thing, but we haven't started on Roman soldiers in artwork (yet), that'd be a very ambitious project.

I hadn't heard the metallurgical data.

I asked my prof (who is both an expert on roman items and forgeries) She says the latest thinking is that it is a fake.

sigh.

This vacillates back and forth. I'll have to see the metallurgical data, that's impossible to get around, usually.

For the record, Cornelius Vermuele wrote it up, his article is available on JSTOR. The object, if fake, is a marvelous fake, as it reproduces ancient techniques fabulously. It also has an established provenance, but that can be forged (or it's an ANCIENT fake, which is also possible) It's unsuitable material and odd features make it suspect, but there are a number of verifiable odd pieces that definitely ancient, but are meant as votives.

About the form. Clearly seen on the column of Trajan, and a few other examples. Where does this form come from? It is the opinion of many military historians that artist's just made stuff up, this is just an assumption however. We have plenty of evidence that they don't make stuff up for no reason. If the toledo helmet is a votive, a fabulous object made to be a dedication, it makes the helmets on the column make far more sense.

However, hard to get around the metallurgical analysis.

I have to see it.

Update:

On the whole art historian vs. archaeology battle.

military historians and archaeologists too often rely on the crutch of artist's license to explain away data they don't like. If they see it in art, and it doesn't confirm their expectations, they chock it up to artistic license. This is lazy and easy. We then have to explain why an artist in the w. mediterranean, separated by 100's of miles and dozens of years, renders items exactly identical to an artist in the east. This is usually answered as a slavish form or adherence to a model book (for which there is no evidence) or a master journeyman artist (for which there is no evidence as well). In other words, Artists use their license when it doesn't agree with our data, but can not use it in such a way as to differ from other artists.

I think we can all agree how tennuous that is.

I hate to say it (as it is unpopular among re-enactors) but the helmets on the column of trajan are the way they are for a reason. wishing them away is just silly.