Non-iron Helmets, brass or bronze?

[Daniel S Peterson]

The alloy we know today as "brass" was known to the Romans as Orichulum and is a copper zinc alloy as opposed to "bronze", which is a copper tin alloy. Zinc may have been a "strategic" material controlled by the Roman government, as it occurs commonly in coinage (the big Sesterce coin is made of it) and military equipment, and but much less so in "civilian" contexts. The only generalization one can make in Roman cupric alloy helmet composition is that the earlier helmets (pre-AD) are usually "bronze", and afterwards one must take and analyse each helmet on a case by case basis. To generalize, the Coolus and Montefortino series helmets (the ones I primarily referred to in the book), were probably more common in bronze, and the cupric Imperial Gallic helmets were made of brass. Perhaps the former, simpler helmets were primarily made by civilian contractors who also made assorted bronze pots and other cooking ware, whereas the brass imperial Gallics were probably made by an "Imperial Armoury" with access to brass. Most cupric alloy Roman helmets retain their patina, and if not formally analyzed (most have not), you can never say for sure. I will say though, that far too many cooking pots, patera etc in the Roman hobby are brass, when they should be bronze. I do not know if tests have ever been conducted to determine which material is stronger, though I have found that it is easier to keep a brass helmet shiny. Bronze tarnishes quickly with just normal handling.<br>
Dan <p></p><i></i>