+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Attic Helmet too good to be true? (/showthread.php?tid=8756)
Re: Attic Helmet too good to be true? - Theodosius the Great - 03-23-2007
Hmm...I hadn't considered that narrow cheeks might actually be accurate.
In the specific case of the Attic I base my interpretation of the width of the cheek pieces on early Attics like the Samnite version. It's guess work, I admit, but we have very little to guide us about how accurate our dimensions should be.
~Theo
Re: Attic Helmet too good to be true? - drsrob - 03-24-2007
Quote:I have a frontal view of the Thielenhofen helmet here:Why not?
I never noticed the etching on the brow guard. It sure doesn't look like this was worn in battle or intended to be.
~Theo
Anyway, the multiple names punched/inscribed into it prove that it is a trooper's helmet. And from a cohors equitata to boot.
Re: Attic Helmet too good to be true? - Luca - 03-24-2007
About that helmet here is a reconstruction:
http://www.armatureromane.com/libri/libri.htm
(scroll the page to the bottom)
:o
Re: Attic Helmet too good to be true? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 03-24-2007
Hmmm, perhaps the emperor's parade helmet!? With the eagle ?
Sorry, just had a flash of nero, or comodus, farting about in the arena, or inspecting the legions! :oops:
Re: Attic Helmet too good to be true? - Theodosius the Great - 03-24-2007
Quote:Theodosius the Great:2omhiy1x Wrote:I have a frontal view of the Thielenhofen helmet here:Why not?
I never noticed the etching on the brow guard. It sure doesn't look like this was worn in battle or intended to be.
~Theo
Anyway, the multiple names punched/inscribed into it prove that it is a trooper's helmet. And from a cohors equitata to boot.
Thanks. Didn't know about the etched names.
To answer your question : Given the ornateness of the helmet I thought maybe it would have been used for the hippika gymnasia - another sports helmet. On the other hand, the LR Berkasovo helmet is even more ornate. So, maybe I'm dead wrong about this one.
Quote:About that helmet here is a reconstruction:
http://www.armatureromane.com/libri/libri.htm
(scroll the page to the bottom)
Bizarre :?
~Theo
Re: Attic Helmet too good to be true? - Tarbicus - 03-25-2007
There are those who don't buy the "ornate = parade only" theory, including me.
If you're off to battle and could die what's the point of not wearing it, if it means going to the afterlife wearing boring and dull armour. Literally a case of you can take it with you, and you can't wear it anyway if you're dead so there's no point in leaving it at home. Psychologically on the battlefield there is also the argument that the better the armour then the more successful you've been, ergo, the more dangerous you are.
Re: Attic Helmet too good to be true? - Theodosius the Great - 03-25-2007
That's another way of looking at it, I suppose. And it seems consistent with the mindset of a common soldier. But like I said earlier, I didn't know this helmet belonged to several ordinary troopers. The original owner must have been wealthy and passed his helmet down to a kin.
Though, I suspect an officer would hold a different philosophy about how and when to use ornate armor.
~Theo
Re: Attic Helmet too good to be true? - Robert Vermaat - 03-25-2007
Quote:There are those who don't buy the "ornate = parade only" theory, including me.Me too. Of course, someone could like to have a 'fancy helmet', but too many have been found to seriously consider these helmets to be for 'parade only'.
How many parades do you need to do each year to justify a class of 'parade helmets' anyway?
Re: Attic Helmet too good to be true? - Tarbicus - 03-25-2007
One other thing that also makes me think they were worn in battle is their superstitious significance, both in the relief work and the engraving. The Roman soldier was an extremely superstitious man and the imagery (no doubt in my mind) had an actual practical purpose in protecting and enhancing the man, not a purely decorative one. Why would you leave all that luck at home when you need it most in battle?
Re: Attic Helmet too good to be true? - Cornelius Quintus - 03-25-2007
Quote:There are those who don't buy the "ornate = parade only" theory, including me.
If you're off to battle and could die what's the point of not wearing it, if it means going to the afterlife wearing boring and dull armour. Literally a case of you can take it with you, and you can't wear it anyway if you're dead so there's no point in leaving it at home. Psychologically on the battlefield there is also the argument that the better the armour then the more successful you've been, ergo, the more dangerous you are.
Ave Jim,
completely right.
Just imagine the vast amount of mobile changing cubicles belonging to a legion's supplies train... :roll:
Re: Attic Helmet too good to be true? - Theodosius the Great - 03-25-2007
Cornelius, Tarbicus, Vortigern :
Well, since this is all speculation, I'll just cite a piece of literary evidence. I remember reading somewhere that Julius Caesar, during his early career, had to put on public games. So, to out do his rivals he outfitted some 320 pairs of gladiators in silver armor to enhance the spectacle. This suggests, to me, that ornateness was purely for decorative purposes, meant to woo the peasants.
~Theo
Re: Attic Helmet too good to be true? - Cornelius Quintus - 03-25-2007
Ave Theo,
good point!
Perhaps also the production quality might indicate the purpose of using a helmet.
Highly decorated pieces also can be sturdy enough to serve in battle as well as a plain version. Items made for representative purposes or funerals mainly are designed to be an eye-catcher.
The famous Viking spectacle helmet from Gjermundbu is reported to have been of very fragile construction. Therefore some reconstructions for re-enactors use a slightly different, sturdier design concerning the framework.
Silver plating or rich ornaments will be expensive, but won't weaken the armour. Did Caesar issue silvered armour to the gladiators or more a kind of mardi gras equipment ?
Gladiators were expected to be wounded by entertaining the crowd. A high rank Roman officer would have had other intentions when trying to combine fashion and protection concerning himself... :wink:
Re: Attic Helmet too good to be true? - Tarbicus - 03-25-2007
Quote:So, to out do his rivals he outfitted some 2,000 gladiators in silver armor to enhance the spectacle. This suggests, to me, that ornateness was purely for decorative purposes, meant to woo the peasants.There's a difference between all-silver armour, and decorated iron or bronze armour. A fifteen minute search of Lacus Curtius produces:
"O King," said Taxiles, "I could wish that some marvellous thing might fall to your good fortune; but when these men are merely on a march, they do not put on shining raiment, nor have they shields polished and their helmets uncovered, as now that they have stripped the leathern coverings from their armour. Nay, this splendour means that they are going to fight, and are now advancing upon their enemies."
Plutarch, The Parallel Lives
p559 The Life of Lucullus
"And most of all were his cavalry impatient for the battle, since they had a splendid array of shining armour, well-fed horses, and handsome persons, and were in high spirits too on account of their numbers, which were seven thousand to Caesar's one thousand."
Plutarch, The Parallel Lives
p545 The Life of Julius Caesar
"After this interlude, Totila himself, caparisoned in shining armour, adorned with gold and purple trimmings, rode out into the space between the armies, on a huge steed, hurling his spear in the air and catching again as he galloped, and performing other feats of horsemanship."
THE RECONQUEST OF ITALY (II)
(Part 3 of 4)
§ 9. Battle of Sena Gallica (A.D. 551)
p265
Non-Roman, but contemporary:
"The countless helmets and the shining armor of the warriors glowed like the rays of the sun."
A History of Armenia by Vahan M. Kurkjian
Chapter XX
Period of the Marzbans — Battle of Avarair
A 19th C writer's take on the subject:
"The soft or flexible parts of the heavy armour were made of cloth or leather. The metal principally used in their formation was that compound of copper and tin which we call bronze, or more p136properly bell-metal. [Aes.] Hence the names for this metal (χαλκός, aes) are often used to mean armour, and the light reflected from the arms of a warrior is called αὐγὴ χαλκείη by Homer, and lux aëna by Virgil (Aen. II.470). Instead of copper, iron afterwards came to be very extensively used in the manufacture of arms, although articles made of it are much more rarely discovered, because iron is by exposure to air and moisture exceedingly liable to corrosion and decay. Gold and silver, and tin unmixed with copper, were also used, more especially to enrich and adorn the armour."
Article by James Yates, M.A., F.R.S.,
on pp135‑136 of
William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875.
Also:
"OʹCREA (κνημίς), a greave, a leggin. A pair of greaves (κνημῖδες) was one of the six articles of armour which formed the complete equipment of a Greek or Etruscan warrior [Arma], and likewise of a Roman soldier as fixed by Servius Tullius (Liv. I.43). They were made of bronze (Alcaeus, Frag. i ed. Matthiae), of brass (Hes. Scut. 122), of tin (Hom. Il. XVIII.612, XXI.592), or of silver and gold (Virg. Aen. VII.634, VIII.624, XI.488), with a lining probably of leather, felt, or cloth. Another method of fitting them to the leg so as not to hurt it, was by the interposition of that kind of sponge which was also used for the lining of helmets [Galea], and which Aristotle describes as being remarkable for thinness, density, and firmness. "
A description of the contemporary enemy against Sulla (note the effect of the rich armour on the Romans):
"The air could not contain the shouts and clamour of so many nations forming in array. At the same time also the pomp and ostentation of their costly equipment was not without its effect and use in exciting terror; indeed, the flashing of their armour, which was magnificently embellished with gold and silver,"
Plutarch, The Parallel Lives
p377 The Life of Sulla
Nor was Alexander (an admired hero of the Roman military upper classes) averse to putting on rich armour for battle:
"His helmet was of iron, but gleamed like polished silver, a work of Theophilus; and there was fitted to this a gorget, likewise of iron, set with precious stones. "
Plutarch, The Parallel Lives
p323 The Life of Alexander
(Part 2 of 7)
A Roman teaches barbarian allies how to be Roman:
"In consequence of these successes Sertorius was admired and loved by the Barbarians, and especially because by introducing Roman arms and formations and signals he did away with their frenzied and furious displays of courage, and converted their forces into an army, instead of a huge band of robbers. 2 Still further, he used gold and silver without stint for the decoration of their helmets and the ornamentation of their shields,"
Plutarch, The Parallel Lives
p37 The Life of Sertorius
Re: Attic Helmet too good to be true? - ambrosius - 03-25-2007
Quote:One other thing that also makes me think they were worn in battle is their superstitious significance, both in the relief work and the engraving. The Roman soldier was an extremely superstitious man and the imagery (no doubt in my mind) had an actual practical purpose in protecting and enhancing the man, not a purely decorative one. Why would you leave all that luck at home when you need it most in battle?
It's a tricky one, those 'cavalry parade helmets'. The traditional idea
of them only been for 'parade' comes from finds like the Ribchester
helmet, hidden away inside a wooden box under the soil of the fort,
as part of a metal 'hoard'. This gives people the idea that it was of
some particular value, and was hidden away for safe keeping during
normal duty hours. This then leads some to the conclusion that the
reason it was buried and not retrieved by its owner might be that the
particular trooper belonging to the Ala II Asturias was called away
for duty over Hadrian's Wall (for example) was killed in action, and
thus unable to return and dig it up. Then we come along and find it
in almost mint condition.
On the other hand, though, the face plate of another 'cavalry parade
helmet' was found among the armour of the Varian legions slaughtered
by Arminius. And surely everyone would accept that these three legions
were on active duty at the time they were lost.
So if you ask me, ornate helmets were capable of being used both to
impress on the parade ground and to intimidate the enemy. And as
you say, Jim, you cannot take it with you after death, so you might
just as well make use of it in life - if you think it might have some
intimidatory/protective/totemic value in keeping you alive... :wink:
Ambrosius / Mike
Re: Attic Helmet too good to be true? - L C Cinna - 03-25-2007
I too agree with the people who think the so called "parade or cavalry sports" helmets were used in combat.
Another example would be the dialogue between Antiochos and Hannibal where Antiochos asks Hannibal if his soldiers in all their shining, ornamented armour would be enough for the Romans or something like that (don't have the exact quote here a.t.m. maybe someone can privode it)