07-21-2011, 01:18 PM
Salve!
A couple of comments:
With respect to the garrison of Iza, I understand that many weapon finds from this site would not normally be associated with horse archers (pilum, rectangular shield boss, segmentata). This indicates a mixed garrison which would be quite normal in this historic context. Therefore a unit of conventional cavalry mixed with a unit of foot archers would be just as likely as horse archers in this case.
With respect to the equipment of horse archers, the evidence we have is inconclusive. Archaeologically the Niederbieber helmet from Butzbach may be connected to a coh. sagitt. eq. in garrison there. Another coh. sagitt. eq. in Jidava, Dacia, apparently also used Nieberbieber helmets but the site also yielded small fragments of Pseudoattic helmets. Finally, the conical helmet from Intercisa is connected to another coh. sagitt. eq.. Based on the turma inscription this helmet will have been worn by a cavalry trooper. Artistic evidence is not conclusive either. You can find some gravestones of troopers in the imagebase but they do not show much detail of equipment. Tiberius Iulius Rufus (Ala Scubulorum, Walbersdorf, AE 1906, 00111; AE 1909, 00198; CSIR Scarbantia Nr. 9) who is shown shooting his enemy in the eye with an arrow appears to wear a regular Pseudoattic cavalry helmet. I am not aware of any artistic evidence of use of conical helmets.
With respect to use of Niederbieber by infantry. First of all, I agree that it is impossible to clearly differentiate between Niederbieber and Pseudoattic cheek pieces, so a find of a cheek piece alone is not sufficient to qualify as a Niederbieber. Re. cavalry use of Niederbieber, I am not sure that the deep neck guard would exclude cavalry use (without ever having personally mounted as horse) as the Bodegraven helmet with its deep neck quard had a turma inscription.
There is ample evidence of infantry use which has been extensively discussed. You may want to search the forum for "Niederbieber". The earliest finds (Newstead) apparently date as early as 145 AD. Several sites from the time of the Marcomannic wars (Eining-Unterfeld, Musov) have yielded fragments. Our evidence is, however, certainly not sufficient to make any conclusions as the statistics of combinations of helmet and armour types.
A couple of comments:
With respect to the garrison of Iza, I understand that many weapon finds from this site would not normally be associated with horse archers (pilum, rectangular shield boss, segmentata). This indicates a mixed garrison which would be quite normal in this historic context. Therefore a unit of conventional cavalry mixed with a unit of foot archers would be just as likely as horse archers in this case.
With respect to the equipment of horse archers, the evidence we have is inconclusive. Archaeologically the Niederbieber helmet from Butzbach may be connected to a coh. sagitt. eq. in garrison there. Another coh. sagitt. eq. in Jidava, Dacia, apparently also used Nieberbieber helmets but the site also yielded small fragments of Pseudoattic helmets. Finally, the conical helmet from Intercisa is connected to another coh. sagitt. eq.. Based on the turma inscription this helmet will have been worn by a cavalry trooper. Artistic evidence is not conclusive either. You can find some gravestones of troopers in the imagebase but they do not show much detail of equipment. Tiberius Iulius Rufus (Ala Scubulorum, Walbersdorf, AE 1906, 00111; AE 1909, 00198; CSIR Scarbantia Nr. 9) who is shown shooting his enemy in the eye with an arrow appears to wear a regular Pseudoattic cavalry helmet. I am not aware of any artistic evidence of use of conical helmets.
With respect to use of Niederbieber by infantry. First of all, I agree that it is impossible to clearly differentiate between Niederbieber and Pseudoattic cheek pieces, so a find of a cheek piece alone is not sufficient to qualify as a Niederbieber. Re. cavalry use of Niederbieber, I am not sure that the deep neck guard would exclude cavalry use (without ever having personally mounted as horse) as the Bodegraven helmet with its deep neck quard had a turma inscription.
There is ample evidence of infantry use which has been extensively discussed. You may want to search the forum for "Niederbieber". The earliest finds (Newstead) apparently date as early as 145 AD. Several sites from the time of the Marcomannic wars (Eining-Unterfeld, Musov) have yielded fragments. Our evidence is, however, certainly not sufficient to make any conclusions as the statistics of combinations of helmet and armour types.
Regards,
Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
