Legionary Development AD43-93

[Tim Edwards]

Did you perhaps mean that the Imperial Gallic helms were used by the legionaries predominately and the coolus (beginning in the second half of the 1st century anyways) predominately used by the auxiliaries?

Nope, and I am well aware this well be heresy to a generation accustomed to popular representations and reenactment portrayals. My argument is not not legionaries would not normally have had Imperial Gallic helms, but that they typically would not have had iron Imperial Gallic Helms.

It is generally accepted that both could wear either helm, but my own theory is that the copper alloy versions were more popular with the legionaries, the iron with the auxilia.

If this theory generally held true, it would explain:

I) Why we see two very different cresting styles on the copper alloy and iron helmets, ie crest knobs often plus side feathers (copper alloy) vs crest slides (iron).

II)Why the habit of applying ownership inscriptions was generally confined to copper alloy helms, and lacking on even well preserved iron issues.

III) Why Augustan military weapons burials typically feature iron rather than copper alloy helms (a legacy of Iron Age weapon burial tradition in the auxilia)

IV) Why Coolus and Imperial Gallic helmets appear on the same sites time and time again, for a span of nearly a century, ie that they are separate lines of development, worn by different troops which were commonly grouped together.

do reliefs not point out that legionaries were the ones depicted wearing the Imperial style helmets?

The Mainz pedestal bases, which may show legionaries, appear to show Imperial Gallic helmets, but were these modeled on copper alloy or iron examples? We do not know!, but I would suggest the latter.

Look at the series of copper alloy Imperial Gallic helms, referred to as the I type. These typically exhibit crest knobs, side feathers and legionary ownership inscriptions, ergo: legionary use!

Consider also the conventional narrative of helmet development, that typical legionary helms went from copper alloy montefortino, to copper alloy coolus, to iron imperial gallic (eh?!), whilst northern auxilia went from agen/port and early imperial gallic to... 'basic' copper alloy helmets??
I think it makes more sense that our legionary helmet lines begin to incorporate more imperial gallic features in the late first century but remain of copper alloy, whilst the average auxiliary type progresses from basic Agen/Port through to developed imperial gallic types.

On detail, copper alloy imperial gallic helmets show about the same level of detail as iron imperial gallic helmets.

Finally, I'm sure that there is an abstract quote from somewhere in Tacitus that implies that legionary and auxiliary helmets were distinct (if you are more inclined to trust history than archaeology!!)

Nathan - on Roman military equipment development (your original topic before I hijacked it with a leftfield theory, the answer will likely lie in comparing and contrasting Claudio-Neronian military equipment assemblages (Hod Hill) with Trajanic assemblages (Corbridge hoard).

I would expect that by the Trajanic era, Coolus helms have generally dissappeared, alongside Imperial Gallic A-H, Mainz swords, anthropomorpic / zoomorphic embossed belt plates, A Type dagger sheaths. Later marks of Imperial Gallic will have developed(I-J, Pompeii swords, predominately B Type dagger sheaths, Corbridge B segmentata will have arrived.