Did the Romans have parade armour?

[caiusbeerquitius]

I think that it is widely understood that human beings are subject to universal motivations, and that, as a single species, basic behaviour patterns are also universal. I cannot imagine that this view is either novel or controversial. See for instance Darwin's Descent of Man.

Well, yes, basic behaviour patterns are identical. The question is, where "basic" ends. People have developed different modes of going to the toilet (or not). So, as far as biological things are concerned you may be right (intestine perestaltics, e.g.). However, even each individual in a given society may have its own mode of doing something.

Take a 'for instance' - apotropaic symbols. We have the 'lucky rabbit's foot' , St. Christopher medals etc. other modern cultures have similar devices, Sri Lanka has rings incorporating elephant bristles, China has elaborate knots in silk cord. The Romans used phallus symbols and 'mano-fica' hands to avert the evil eye or bad luck. Interestingly, they also used goat's penis shaped amulets which have survived to today - they are described as "cornucopia" but they are really pointed goat penises. Universal feelings of threat from 'fate', evil wishes from others, or the workings of chance produce universal responses in apotropaic symbols.

You are, IMO, describing a meme which may be rooted back to an ancestor meme, and which itself is probably much older than civilization. I, for instance, do not carry an apotropaic symbol, and I know many who don´t. How would my non-behaviour be described, then? Also, your argument seems rather teleological. It is easy to find evidence for an already given hypothesis, but this is methodologically a no-go.

*edit*
The same is the case for your edited-in example. Also, the flapping birds helmet and the Battersea shield are perfectly usable, as reconstructions by Stefan Jaroschinski have shown. You start your arguments from a theory (as you say, I think "hypothesis"), not from the sources. Erich van Däniken is doing this also. He is very successful in selling his books. A methodologically sound way would be to ask "Is this so-and-so?", then to look at the sources with source-critical method, then draw conclusions. Other ways belong to fairyland. I think.
*/edit*

Visored helmets are a special case, as they are usually designed to deflect attacks, and are made with multiple holes to enable a wide(ish!) field of view, as well as ventilation. Cavalry face masks are not as thick as these visors, nor are they designed for the effective deflection of attacks. Their benefits must have been primarily psychological.

Basically it would come down to how much of a hindrance they would be in combat. Could you wear such a helmet and be aware of what was happening outside of your restricted eyeline? Could you aim javelins and sword blows reliably? Would your breathing be affected? Obviously they could be used for daring military manoeuvres, but in an actual combat scenario would they be more of a liability?

Apparently those face masks were among the most durable pieces of Roman armour. Experiments have also shown their high effectiveness as armour.

Read:
M. Junkelmann, Reiter wie Statuen aus Erz, Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 1996.
and Frank Willer´s articles in:
R. Meijers, F. Willer (eds.), Achter het zilveren masker - Hinter der silbernen Maske, Nijmegen - Bonn 2007.

see also:
http://www.rlmb.lvr.de/museum/forschung/...schung.pdf

Jurjen would be able to elaborate on this.

Apart from that, some of them were found in the context of battles / fights. So it looks like they were there, at least, when fighting took place.