Roman helmet surface

[Matthew Amt]

I have studied many medieval depictions of battle/siege scenes and they very often show footsoldiers and even horsemen in black armour. This seems to be the blackened surface which you get straight out of the workshop, before any polishing or cleaning-up has been done. Thinking back to my metalworking youth, I also remember that this carbon surface itself prevents rusting. Of course wearing armour would have caused plates to rub together and cause 'shiny' areas, but a wipe over with fat (or olive oil?) could also help prevent rust.

As others have said, medieval armor isn't always a good comparison. Forge-blackening is great for the inside of helmets and armor, but EVERY depiction and description of Roman armor shows that it was brightly finished. They simply were not as concerned with saving as much time and money as we sometimes think they should have been.

Also, if you have to produce many hundreds or even thousands of pieces of armour quickly, you would not have particularly smooth surfaces, which as pointed out would hamper polishing.

They very rarely had to produce large amounts of armor quickly. In fact, at some points such as after the Actium campaign, there was probably a glut of armor in storage or on the market. After that, it would have been simple to produce the relatively small amounts needed for normal growth and replacement.

P.S. I am sure that parade ground and ceremonial stuff was as pretty and shiney as possible, but even today, the poor old grunt in the trenches is filthy within two minutes!

Well, they didn't fight in trenches, of course! Battles WERE parades, rare opportunities to display the whole army in all its colorful, shining, godlike glory. Such display was central to ancient warfare. For the day-to-day drudgery of marching, there is good evidence that there were coverings for armor and helmets, much like the covers for shields, to protect them from mud and dust and weather.

Vale,

Matthew