RomanArmyTalk

We've all seen these, and immediately know it to be reinforcement cross-bracing.



But...

... we just assume the Montefortinos had plume holders.

I put it to you they are also T shaped reinforcements, doubling up as plume holders.

Made of iron, covering the most vulnerable parts of the head.

A pre-cursor to the brow guard then Jim?

I suggested crests were a useful defense for the helmet once not so long ago, so I would agree with that assessment.

Quote:A pre-cursor to the brow guard then Jim?

It's funny how we see a very late Montefortino (the 'E', if indeed it's not a Coolus) take up the later style browguard, and then the Coolus having one as standard. Most other helmets contemporary to the Montefortino seem to have at least some kind of embossed raised area which would strengthen the whole front and add distance to the skull - the Thracian in particular (although an extended peak, but combined with a raised crest), and even Corinthian derivatives (particularly the Apulo-Corinthian). In fact the line of these Montefortino 'accessories' nearly follows the line of the Corinthian ridge exactly. It's almost as if the rod extending down from the crest knob is designed to put the transverse rod in that position. Let's face it, they could have just added two bars either side of the knob.

I'm not saying all Montefortinos had them, but most found examples may have been decommissioned as spolia by the removal of cheek pieces (their lack is very common), and perhaps also a brow guard? The use of iron is very telling in my mind, where bronze would probably be much easier to fabricate?

Very logical, you seem to have read my mind.....a good defense against a wild hacking longsword!
Also why it took me so long to swing to the montefortino, as I was a fan of the Corinthian long before I knew anything much about early roman gear! At least the later Roman helmets made sense to me.

Tarbicus wrote:-

Quote:I put it to you they are also T shaped reinforcements, doubling up as plume holders.

....a very perspicacious observation,Jim ! The thick iron piece is not necessary to support a crest, particualrly the central crest and side feather tubes type, as can be seen on many other helmets. I think you are dead right, and that the piece is primarily a re-inforcement for the most vulnerable point ( because of it's size and position), particularly against the Celtic sword( as Byron has indicated) - and only secondarily serves to hold feathers etc.....

Cheers Paul. I did have to look up the big word, though. :wink:

I'd love to have one made, as my Republican impression is nearly ready, and this is one of those details to embellish it. I notice the one on the RAT database with five antennae is dated to the 2nd or 1st C. BC.

I also just saw the comment by Mike Thomas notes it may be a brow reinforcement, so, sorry Mike! :?

na it was an early form of headgear for that soldiers braces

Don't you think that those additional head pieces, instead of deflecting the blow, could have caught the hacking weapon in those V-shaped parts and thus undermined the deflective capability of the helmet, actually helping to deliver a full-forced blow to the head and increasing the risk of concussion?

Perhaps not if there was crest material attached to this frame work?

Quote:Don't you think that those additional head pieces, instead of deflecting the blow, could have caught the hacking weapon in those V-shaped parts and thus undermined the deflective capability of the helmet, actually helping to deliver a full-forced blow to the head and increasing the risk of concussion?

That crossed my mind, but the specific placement of the parts, plus the material, plus the unnecessary thickness, all makes me think they're defensive. No matter what, we can't get around the simple fact that they were put on helmets, so you have to consider that the ancients knew something we're not getting.

Could the raised antennae actually stop a side swipe reaching the bowl completely, which could be beneficial regardless of your head being knocked sideways. Let's face it, a blow would have knocked your head sideways anyway, but your helmet could be compromised.

What date are these additions to the helmets ?

From the 3rd, up to the 2nd or even 1st-C BC.

certainly the thinnest part of the bowl would be just where these things are placed. The raising of a bowl from sheet will make the brow the thinnest and most vulnerable part that's why we see the later browguards.

These crest holder pieces could also add strengthening to that vulnerable brow of the bowl.