+- 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: Replica Roman Helmet vs Originals? (/showthread.php?tid=18537)
Pages:
1
2
Replica Roman Helmet vs Originals? - Gaius Colletti - 03-15-2011
How do our modern replica helmets compare to the originals exactly? I mean with our helmets either being symmetrical or at least near symmetrial, having a perfectly smooth and and shiny surface.
All the original helmets (and its not entirely fair to judge, since they've been in the ground for 2000 years), all appear to have a rough, textured, and imperfect surface. Is this due to 2000 years of rust and weathering, or was this how metal work was at the time? Sometimes some of the brass decorations will look slightly different on the same (original) helmets.
Are our reproduction helmets too perfect? A representation of what we want to imagine the helmets looked like then?
I have a few Roman rings, and they aren't perfect, symmetrical, or overly beautiful for that manner which makes me more curious about their extent of blacksmithing. Did the Romans have excellent sculpturing and engineering skills, but their blacksmith craftmanship was limited with their era, or does the iron just age that poorly? Even some of the best and well preserved helmet examples appear to be have an uneven, textured, and imperfect surface.
Any ideas?
Re: Replica Roman Helmet vs Originals? - jvrjenivs - 03-15-2011
Well, I think that is a question which is hard to answer and at least need a lot of discussion.
Let's start with one of the questions you mention in the end. Are craftsman in the Roman times able to make such a finish. I would say that based on all the richly decorated stuff we've found, yes they would be able.
I'm also in the impression our modern re-enactment gear is too perfect. Segmentata pieces are found which seems to be much thinner as we would like to use nowadays, for instance. Surely DPK helmets are too round, which wouldn't fit most heads, also back then, but that's where you pay for. There are much better helmets than cheap Indi examples available, but do cost a bit more. So, for me a too round helmet is just a helmet that either should be reworked or banned from re-enactment.
As for the surface. We know of decorations of brass, silver etc, and also of tinned and silvered pieces. I would say that makes not much sence if the surface wasn't (near) smooth. Especially in facemasks, like this one from Nijmegen, we're now reconstruction, you can just see how good the craftsman was when he worked on the piece.
![[Image: milit-mask-N.jpg]](http://www.romancoins.info/milit-mask-N.jpg)
Although this example is tinned, we also have several masked helmets from Nijmegen where the mask was covered in sheet-silver. Other good samples are late Roman helmets, like the deurne, which had a iron core with golded silver-cover, if I'm right.
![[Image: DE_HELM__1319216b.JPG]](http://www.ed.nl/multimedia/archive/01319/DE_HELM__1319216b.JPG)
So, I would say the Romans could have made them as we use them, but we want a perfect one, where the Roman soldier would be happy with an imperfect helmet (the Deurne has some 'mistakes' on it, for instance). At least the most important imperfection is that in re-enactment you often see more of the same piece used. Not every helmet was the same. Again, looking at the Nijmegen face masks helmets, we can see they are of the same design in general, but the decorations are different on all pieces.
Just my two denary, and hope they are of any help.
Re: Replica Roman Helmet vs Originals? - Matthew Amt - 03-15-2011
I would say yes and no! Certainly the surface finish of ancient helmets was generally quite good--the "crustiness" you see on originals is basically corrosion. Some surviving iron helmets were mostly rust with an attitude when found, and are mostly resin or fiberglass now. Obviously brass or bronze pieces survive better, but even then are often filled in during restoration. Sometimes you can see hammer and tool marks even in photos of a piece, but when it was all buffed up I'm sure that was not a problem. So overall the look could very well be less machined than a modern piece, a little lumpy and crooked, but still perfectly shiny.
Other aspects just don't seem to have worried the ancient craftsman too much. Rivets are sloppy, neckguards are crooked, shapes are asymmetrical, etc. Those guys were good, and they had a huge amount of experience, but they were working fast and didn't sweat the details. Look at all the lorica segmentata pieces you can find, and tell me when you spot a straight edge! At the same time, they could wrap thin brass around the edge of a cheekpiece with hardly a pucker.
They were certainly capable of making helmets to fit the head well, but there are a few spun ones that were left round. I think it's the Nijmegen Coolus G that is 8-1/2" in diameter and perfectly round, not "squashed" into a oval shape like many spun bowls. So it might look big on us, but it looked big on the Romans, too!
What we have to watch out for today are *modern* mistakes and sloppiness. Visible welds, cheekpieces or neckguards that are too big or badly shaped, rosettes where they really shouldn't be, bad proportions, etc. But I'll actually grin when I find something like a crooked brow reinforce--THAT's a ROMAN mistake!
So bad is good, IF it's the right kind of bad!
Matthew
Re: Replica Roman Helmet vs Originals? - Crispvs - 03-15-2011
I would concur with Matthew. I could also point out that skilled metalworkers are quite capable of producing smooth finishes by hand. My own helmet was made by hand and using hammers rather than modern machinery (I have visited the workshop where it was made and seen how they do things) but you would be hard pressed to see any marks on it. I accept that the people at White Rose might wish to produce a finer finish than the Romans might have been concerned with but it does show what can be done with a hammer. I suspect though that most Roman stuff was as smooth as we like to think as (a) the surviving copper-alloy or sliver sheathing tends to support this view and (b) the smoother the finish on an iron item the easier it is to keep it free of rust.
I agree though that many of our modern reconstructions are rather to symmetrical. One thing I like about the way my own was made is that it is quite asymmetrical in places, with the neck guard being slightly skewed to one side and the crest fittings being attached slightly off centre.
One area where our modern helmets do differ strongly from originals is that they tend to be the same thickness throughout, whereas the originals were often made to be thicker on the front and top and comparatively thin at the back, in order to make the most effective use of the metal.
Crispvs
Re: Replica Roman Helmet vs Originals? - markusaurelius - 03-16-2011
If a good reproduction is made by hand, with the tools of the trade from the Roman period (which many that are owned by members on RAT here are), they will look authentic. I have hand made pieces that have all the hall marks of hand work, with slight slips in detail work, the odd dot punch mark slightly out of place etc. I love it! It is not only authentic, but makes each piece unique from the other.
Now the stuff you find on Ebay....well that is a different story!:mrgreen:
Re: Replica Roman Helmet vs Originals? - Peroni - 03-16-2011
Quote:... So, for me a too round helmet is just a helmet that either should be reworked or banned from re-enactment.
I'm not entirely sure why? There are a good deal of original helmets that are round/almost round and not just the spun Cu alloy ones. there are round hammered iron ones too.
Re: Replica Roman Helmet vs Originals? - marcos - 03-17-2011
What marcus Aurelius talks is quite right, up to my opinion. Some modern replicas are 1000 miles far from originals, helmets as well as gladi or pugiones,although they look right. while the general shape is easy to know from images and books, is very more difficult to have exact idea of the wheigt and of the balance of ancient weapons, because those are understable only handling the original artifacts, and that is very difficul, of course.
But this is not an unimportant point. A chinese replica of a Ferrari (the car) is not a Ferrari, also it seems identical.
So a modern gladius is not as a true gladius, also if has the some shape, in the hands they usually are totally different.
The only fair replicas are those made from who knows very well the originals, because he has studied them handling and not only on books, I think this is the only way to understand how a replica must be made.
Re: Replica Roman Helmet vs Originals? - Alexand96 - 03-18-2011
I ask this purely out of ignorance as I am new to re-enacting and RAT.
Quote:The only fair replicas are those made from who knows very well the originals, because he has studied them handling and not only on books, I think this is the only way to understand how a replica must be made.
How many replicators of Roman weapons and armor have actually handled surviving ancient examples? I would guess very few, correct?
Re: Replica Roman Helmet vs Originals? - jvrjenivs - 03-19-2011
Quote:I ask this purely out of ignorance as I am new to re-enacting and RAT.
Quote:The only fair replicas are those made from who knows very well the originals, because he has studied them handling and not only on books, I think this is the only way to understand how a replica must be made.
How many replicators of Roman weapons and armor have actually handled surviving ancient examples? I would guess very few, correct?
Well, that depends on what you call a replicator... Some European craftsman have. Ira Konig for instance worked as a restaurateur in the RGZM for over 10 years. Others have been allowed to handle some originals, as well. Of course Indi people making cheap replica's don't have.
Re: Replica Roman Helmet vs Originals? - marcos - 03-19-2011
Surely, most of the replicators can't have access at original artifacts, of course, but that doesn't change the reality. Btw, also look carefully at those through showcases of museums can be a great help, one can understand a lot of things, not all but a lot. I know several replicators which never go to visit museums, since they think is possible to know a roman weapon from books. I want to mean, is impossible to work as mechanic just studing on books, that's important but you need to touch engines to understand them.
Re: Replica Roman Helmet vs Originals? - Gaius Colletti - 03-20-2011
If the Romans could do some beautiful examples of metalworking, as we have seen with some full face masks, but for the helmets which were mass produced, and blacksmiths worked quickly to crank them out, then why bother with brass decorations on the helmet. In addition to the brass decorations common in the Imperial Gallic and Italic helmet, did the brass edging along the edges of the helmet, or the brass trim above the soldier's eyes (such as the Gallic G & H) serve a particular purpose or were they just decoration. If they were for decoration, it seems strange that they were particular about having decorations, if they were more concerned with rushing them out.
Re: Replica Roman Helmet vs Originals? - Matthew Amt - 03-20-2011
Never underestimate the power of FASHION. Function is a long way second (though obviously these are very well-designed helmets!). Decoration was very important, since combat was very much about personal display. For certain features such as the brass edging, all we can do is shrug and say "That's how they did it!" It was universal on Imperial-Gallic and Imperial-Italic helmets, but practically unknown on Coolus helmets. No reason why, that I can see. That's just how they did it. It's like trying to explain why a modern stylish black suit has pinstripes, but a stylish black car does not--it's just fashion!
While I tend to agree that one can only get a really good feel for the originals by handling them, we should not assume that just because an armorer has handled original equipment that he has the capability of reproducing it accurately. It takes a rare combination of a very good artistic eye along with a great amount of natural talent and skilled experience to really get it right. And it's also just a simple fact that most armorers are never going to be able to handle original items, so even their best work might not be at a level acceptable to certain people even if most of us are happy with it. Not sure what to tell you about that! That's just the way the hobby is going to be, unless you want to ban 90 percent of the participants.
Don't get me wrong, we should always strive for higher accuracy! But if I insisted on a level of accuracy that I would like to maintain, I'd have to throw out everything I own, and would not be able to afford even a tunic much less a helmet.
Interesting study, isn't it?
Matthew
Re: Replica Roman Helmet vs Originals? - markusaurelius - 03-20-2011
Quote:If they were for decoration, it seems strange that they were particular about having decorations, if they were more concerned with rushing them out.
Keep in mind that just as today, I think many helmets were customized or individualized. Perhaps not a good analogy, but I would consider cars today an example of that. Everyone wants to add their own touch or piece to make it different. Soldiers at times got bonuses (when the emperor changed) or spoils from raids, so may have had money to spend on customizing their pieces. I think many of the late Roman helmet sheathing are a perfect example. There is no way IMO that the state Fabrica pumped out Berkasovo/Intercisa helmets with silver/gold plated sheathing on them. The cost would have been astronomical. With that in mind I think that perhaps there were not as many gold helmets as we may expect.
Re: Replica Roman Helmet vs Originals? - john roberts - 03-20-2011
Didn't the Notitia Dignitatum specify certain armories as specialising in "arms decorated with silver and gold"?
Re: Replica Roman Helmet vs Originals? - Buster - 03-21-2011
Every medieval European helmet I've seen has a visibly perfect, smooth looking surface. I'm assuming Roman helmets would have been just as smooth, any dings are likely from being beat up over time, or corossion.