Legate/Tribune helmet hunt

[Paullus Scipio]

It does not at all fit into the Apulo-Corinthian classification system, it is neither a "A" "B" "C" or "D" type. Might be a type "E" at best, but doesn´t really fit, since the eyes are not worked out. It´s missing the neck plate at ~90° angle, and it misses the engraved decoration (especially the one in form of animals / boars, sphinges etc. which is to be found on almost all helmets) And it seems to miss the distinctive upper skull section /
(+ eyebrows)

......that is like saying that an Imperial Italic "H"/Niedermormter is not of the Imperial Italic type because it lacks/misses the features of types "A" "B" "C" or "D" ..... yet it shares the fundamental/basic characteristics; just as with it's 'pushed back Corinthian' basic shape, faux nosepiece, and faux eyeholes the Autun helmet is clearly derived from the 'Debased Corinthian' or 'Apulo Corinthian' type. Certainly Russell-Robinson classified it so. Perhaps German scholars might classify it differently, but if so that would be incorrect, since anyone looking at it can clearly see it's derivation.

Whatever the case, a pedantic debate about classification is not the point. The Autun helmet and the depictions I referred to above prove the continuous use of this type of helmet into the 1st C AD, most likely worn by senior Officers above the rank of Centurion ( i.e. Legates and Tribunes) and from a re-enactors point of view, this type ( also shown on the statue of Drusus - see above) is the obvious candidate for an impression of such an officer.

Clearly, and understandably given that English is not your first language, you have misunderstood what I wrote and assumed a personal meaning that is not there over my use of the word 'pedantic' ( and probably you may not understand the word itself). In doing so, you have done me an injustice.

Firstly, the word itself derives from the greek 'pedagogue'/teacher and means in this context 'laying excessive stress on details' ( as teachers do), or colloquially, 'hair-splitting'. ( see also my use of the word in this post ). Clearly the use of the word itself is not a breach of the rules.

Secondly, the Grammar of the sentence:

To deny that the Autun example is of what we now refer to as 'Apulo Corinthian' is pedantic to say the least.

... refers to an act, not a person. It can be stated in other words as " Were someone to deny that the the Autun example of what we now refer to as 'Apulo Corinthian' is 'hair splitting' to say the least." Even if you (mistakenly) think the word 'pedantic' to be offensive, it was not addressed to you i.e. not personal. Clearly no breach of the rules has taken place.

OTOH this:

This forum has rules which are there for you as well. Some people need to be reminded continuously, of course, because they are special. Or they think to be so.
Just for you, so that you don´t have to go through all the effort of using the link and finding the right section in the text:
Quote:1. No dismissive, hostile, abusive or aggressive negative responses. Malicious behavior (personal insults, "mobbing" or just being a sarcastic thug) is abuse, and moderators will intervene at the first sign of nastiness.

...absolutely reeks of sarcasm, is abusive ( and incorrect),dismissive, aggressive and extremely personally insulting. Not for the first time, you yourself break the rules.In the circumstances, an apology is called for.