03-14-2002, 09:43 AM
Salve,<br>
<br>
That there may have been other factors involved for the changes in helmet design besides costs can be derived from such splendid examples of late Roman headpieces like the Deurne helmet, of which the gilded silver cover has survived. It must have represented quite an expense for its owner and suggests that at least some troops could still afford expensive equipment. Some late Roman pieces make the impression of munition grade armour churned out to equip the expanded armies, but there still remain a number of helmets of superior finish. While issue of equipment had become more common in the third century, there are indications that soldiers still could get their kit on their own initiative afterwards. Records from Egypt show that issues in kind were already commuted back to money grants in the reign of Diocletianus and there are late Roman references to allowances for buying equipment and weaponry. This suggests that part of the troops could still be able to acquire kit that catered to their personal tastes and preferences.<br>
<br>
When considering the protection afforded by helmets like Jeff I tend to regard the development of Roman designs more of an evolution than a decline. In some respects the ridge - and spangen helmets had advanced protective characteristics, such as the use of nasals and flexible neck guards. Regarding the possible influences of enemy armament and fighting styles on the types of Roman helmets. In the east the primary threat remained similar with enemy archery being the main threat and close combat weaponry like spears and swords a secondary danger. As far as there can be distinguished a development in Germanic weaponry, and the method used has been criticised, it seems that judging by the weapons finds the proportion of sword armed warriors increased over the centuries, though spears and javelins remained the main arms available. Both the social structure and the relative lack of equipment led to a general preference for short and decisive close-quarter action over stand-off engagement. Tactics appear to have evolved slowly, though the importance of archery seems to have increased with the influx of eastern Germanic peoples.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst<br>
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
That there may have been other factors involved for the changes in helmet design besides costs can be derived from such splendid examples of late Roman headpieces like the Deurne helmet, of which the gilded silver cover has survived. It must have represented quite an expense for its owner and suggests that at least some troops could still afford expensive equipment. Some late Roman pieces make the impression of munition grade armour churned out to equip the expanded armies, but there still remain a number of helmets of superior finish. While issue of equipment had become more common in the third century, there are indications that soldiers still could get their kit on their own initiative afterwards. Records from Egypt show that issues in kind were already commuted back to money grants in the reign of Diocletianus and there are late Roman references to allowances for buying equipment and weaponry. This suggests that part of the troops could still be able to acquire kit that catered to their personal tastes and preferences.<br>
<br>
When considering the protection afforded by helmets like Jeff I tend to regard the development of Roman designs more of an evolution than a decline. In some respects the ridge - and spangen helmets had advanced protective characteristics, such as the use of nasals and flexible neck guards. Regarding the possible influences of enemy armament and fighting styles on the types of Roman helmets. In the east the primary threat remained similar with enemy archery being the main threat and close combat weaponry like spears and swords a secondary danger. As far as there can be distinguished a development in Germanic weaponry, and the method used has been criticised, it seems that judging by the weapons finds the proportion of sword armed warriors increased over the centuries, though spears and javelins remained the main arms available. Both the social structure and the relative lack of equipment led to a general preference for short and decisive close-quarter action over stand-off engagement. Tactics appear to have evolved slowly, though the importance of archery seems to have increased with the influx of eastern Germanic peoples.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst<br>
<p></p><i></i>
