11-12-2002, 07:58 PM
>Mike, how do Roman helmets compare with loricae segmentatae quality-wise in your experience? What about officers' armour, and the other types in circulation, like lamellar and mail - are they similarly low standard?<br>
<br>
Sadly yes. A symmetrical Roman helmet is a rarity, although those that had been spun are better than the later types in this respect. Finish is generally ropey - the reason for all that piping on Imperial-Gallic helmets is as much to cover poorly-finished edges as it is for decoration (possibly even more). Some are better than others, and the IG 'D' was one of the finest I have seen pictures of (only a few fragments remain), but all such judgements are relative and subjective.<br>
<br>
The comparison with T34s is quite good to a point, but (regardless of finish) mass production ensured a consistency amongst them that Roman equipment could not match. The Roman world was capable of mass production and consistency, as the samian industry showed, but it was not practiced in military equipment to any great degree. Nevertheless, the differences between, say, individual cuirasses would be invisible from even a short distance and probably less noticeable than differences between types.<br>
<br>
From my limited knowledge, medieval armour could range from the equally crummy to the exquisite - the problem being that most armour that survives is post-medieval/early modern stuff that was made for show.<br>
<br>
By the way, the modern British analogy to the T34 is the Land Rover... particularly to those of us who have them and wonder why, after 55 years of mass production, they still can't make the doors fit or stop the leaks ;-)<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>
<br>
Sadly yes. A symmetrical Roman helmet is a rarity, although those that had been spun are better than the later types in this respect. Finish is generally ropey - the reason for all that piping on Imperial-Gallic helmets is as much to cover poorly-finished edges as it is for decoration (possibly even more). Some are better than others, and the IG 'D' was one of the finest I have seen pictures of (only a few fragments remain), but all such judgements are relative and subjective.<br>
<br>
The comparison with T34s is quite good to a point, but (regardless of finish) mass production ensured a consistency amongst them that Roman equipment could not match. The Roman world was capable of mass production and consistency, as the samian industry showed, but it was not practiced in military equipment to any great degree. Nevertheless, the differences between, say, individual cuirasses would be invisible from even a short distance and probably less noticeable than differences between types.<br>
<br>
From my limited knowledge, medieval armour could range from the equally crummy to the exquisite - the problem being that most armour that survives is post-medieval/early modern stuff that was made for show.<br>
<br>
By the way, the modern British analogy to the T34 is the Land Rover... particularly to those of us who have them and wonder why, after 55 years of mass production, they still can't make the doors fit or stop the leaks ;-)<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>
