Bronze face mask

[caiusbeerquitius]

I would assume these highly ornamented helmets were display items only, not intended to protect the wearer from direct combat in a meaningful way.

Hi!
Read Junkelmann´s "Reiter wie Statuen aus Erz" Mainz, 1996.

He shows quite clearly that these helmets were combat helmets.

[Robert]

Bit hard to disagree with a well known scholar, I admit, but my comment on a highly ornamented helmet not deflecting blows well holds ground. Unfortunately, I can read German but do not have the book, nor could I find one on Amazone and Ebay. Is his claim based on actual battle damage found in this type of helmets or based on trails using the helmet in mock-combat and finding the visibility sufficient to use? Could you please perhaps scan and mail the relevant section of his book. I WILL try to get my own copy

[Arthes]

Profile view of mask:
http://www.legionsix.org/sidemask.jpg

It depicts a very strong face....largish aquiline nose, high cheekbones and almond eyes...I wondered which culture the face portrayed was from..? Steppes, Middle East..?
The first one looks like a snooty Hugh Grant.... :roll:
regards
Arthes

[Tarbicus]

Perhaps they wore them because they wern't in hand to hand combat as often.

Or perhaps they were very practical, to add protection to one of the most vulnerable soldiers, given they had to carry a large standard in one hand, and hold a sword when necessary without the defensive aid of a large scutum?

Another practical application could be to make sure the standard bearer didn't show any fear to the rest of the unit, maybe.

[Praefectusclassis]

Or to make them look un-/superhuman, as appropriate for a standard with very strong religious connotations.

[Peroni]

Another practical application could be to make sure the standard bearer didn't show any fear to the rest of the unit, maybe.

Apart from the pee running down their legs! :wink:

[Et tu brute]

Perhaps they wore them because they wern't in hand to hand combat as often.

Or perhaps they were very practical, to add protection to one of the most vulnerable soldiers, given they had to carry a large standard in one hand, and hold a sword when necessary without the defensive aid of a large scutum?

Another practical application could be to make sure the standard bearer didn't show any fear to the rest of the unit, maybe.

I completely agree with the last, but the eye holes seem to restrict the line of vision quite drastically which would be a severe disadvantage in combat.

[Caballo]

"the eye holes seem to restrict the line of vision quite drastically which would be a severe disadvantage in combat." Given that the helmet is designed to be flush with the face, the peripheral vision is much less affected than in many medieval helmets. IMHO, some of these face masks may have been tailor made- for example the very different workmanship on the Ribchester face and skull.

There also may have been some strap arrangement on some helmets (eg Kalkriese) so holding the helmet close to the face (btw, there is some disagreement as to whether these are edging holes or to hold straps). This doesn't prove that they were used in combat, merely that the peripheral vision is not worse than later helmets than evidently were used in combat. The originals would also have been beaten out- not cast as per the Deepeeka copy.

And Peronis !!
:lol:

Cheers

Caballo

[markusaurelius]

I always wondered why people were so against these "face" masks being possibly used in combat. It would have been very frightening to see these "ghostly" riders baring down on you in a charge. And in a straight charge there is not much need for good vision as in open combat. Just ask the Knights of the middle ages who had helmets that would have made most of us closter phobic!!

As I.P STEPHENSON states "Roman Cavalry Equipment" (and I agree)

"In terms of vision restriciton, they may well limit the user's field of view. However, no one would conisder the medieval visored sallet as being unfit for the battlefield.......Retruning to the Hippika Gymnasia, such helmets obviously did not impede the cavalryman in the performance of the complex manoeuvres executed in the Hippika Gymnasia; why then should they be an impediment on the battlefield?"

[Et tu brute]

@ Caballo
OK my mistake, that makes perfect sense. And I do think It would be pretty terrifying to see someone charging at you with one of those on! :lol:

[Robert]

I would tend to agree the eye holes are large enough to permit good forward sight, although they do limit peripheral vision. I am not an expert on medieval armor, but would hesitate to compare the use of a medieval harness to the much more "up close and violent" fighting of a cavalry unit. Those spartha's were not for ornamental use, only. The harness used for jousting did have very small eye-slits, but you rode straight ahead along a rail. They were meant to protect the wearer from the splintering effect of the jousting lance on impact. Knights were also use in a somewhat different way, being the tanks of the time, the "heavy horse" smashing through formations, closely followed by infantry to do the infighting.
My comment on ornaments trapping the force of an incoming blade or projectile has been shown repeatedly, the last time I know was when the Dutch army left a brass emblem attached to the front of their infantry helmet and found incoming German bullets were trapped by the brass to pass straight through the steel helmet, killing the soldier outright with a bullet through the head. Removal of the emblem solved the problem, soldiers shot in the front of the helmet often escaped with a fair headache, the bullets glancing off as designed. Most other items attached to the top of a later Roman helmet (as the crossbands, the visor and the earpieces) seem to strengthen the helmet, catching the blow and deflecting the force. This, and not the impaired vision, would in my view make these highly ornamented helmets less ideal for combat as the other, more enclosed types like the Buch.