The thickness of the nose

[jvrjenivs]

I know this is probably a silly idea, but perhaps they had a form on which they hammered the mask? Would that not allow them to harden it while giving it the detail required?

For the face mask in the Netherlands we know that they weren't made on a form, and made to the face of the owner. If you look carefully at 'gordon' (the face mask now in the RMO, Leiden, The Netherlands), you can spot a couple of marks on it. Most probably these we set into the metal before the work was starten and were a guidance for the maker, when raising the mask out of the sheet. I'm still sure that face masks were made to measure an raised out of sheet by hand.

And I don't know of a method to harden brass or bronze by heating it.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

You could carve a form to resemble the owners face? of hard wood? covered with a sheet of iron? Or in a variety of ways....make it of bronze then melt it down when you need to make another mask?
Anyway it was only a thought

[Matt Lukes]

Definitely 0.7mm is thick enough to protect well enough- some true copper alloy body armor pieces were only on the order of 0.8mm thick, and many considerably thinner. Remember armor is a last line of defense and is not meant to ever be hit if it can be helped- moving out of the way, blocking with the shield, parrying with one's own weapons, etc. are the primary defenses.

And one thing about the initial question that must be addressed- raising is a very specific form of metalworking, it's the opposite of dishing. Raising actually thickens metal at a high point whereas dishing thins it. Norman helmets, for example, because of their high pointed shape had to be raised in order not to be too thin on top. I'd be surprised if a facemask were acutally raised as opposed to being dished, as raising is rather more difficult, and the exceptional thickness of 2-3mm is very surprising. That's very, VERY heavy armor- iron helmets and breastplates weren't even that thick. I know of some Greek bronze helmets that had sections which were as much as 2mm thick, but that's a helmet, and it's copper alloy, which isn't as strong as iron. Then again such a thickness might serve as evidence of raising if the rest of the mask were thinner...

[Nieczar]

so, what about facemasks with the thickness over 0.7 even 2mm of iron ? ....off course they must be heavy ....but they were


I know a little about raising and dishing process ,but still not enough

I'm interested what is the thickness of the nose in "fat" masks ? ....if the mask was made by raising - so, the nose should to be similar thickness to the edges of the mask or even a bit more(because in raising we start to make extrime high point )....but if the nose is thiner - so it could be made by dishing
...first of my facemask I made this way - all mask is 2-2.5 mm of thick and the nose (on the top) is about 1mm

but it's just free idea of young armorer

[Jona Lendering]

If the Kalkriese mask was found at the accepted site of a battle, then surely that means it was lost in battle?

But I think this is a point we will probably never know for sure. At least the Nijmegen mask has showed to be protective.

I think we can know for sure, simply because the Kalkriese mask wasn't found at a parade ground, but a battle site.

I think this is a non sequitur. At Kalkriese, the archaeologists also found jewelry, hairpins, and a disk brooch. No one will argue that the legionaries were women. (Although, if the soldiers were equipped with hairpins only, that might explain why the Romans lost. :wink: )

[Tarbicus]

I think this is a non sequitur. At Kalkriese, the archaeologists also found jewelry, hairpins, and a disk brooch. No one will argue that the legionaries were women. (Although, if the soldiers were equipped with hairpins only, that might explain why the Romans lost. :wink: )

Changed to:

From Cassius Dio, "The Roman History", Book LVI:20
The shape of mountains in this region was irregular, their slopes being deeply cleft by ravines, while the trees grew closely together to a great height. In consequence the Romans, even before the enemy fell upon them, were hard pressed by the neccessity of felling trees, clearing the tracks and bridging the difficult stretches where ever neccessary on their line of march. They had with them many wagons and pack animals, as they would for a journey in peace-time; they were even accompanied by women and children and a large retinue of servants, all these being factors which caused them to advance in scattered groups.

Since the Romans were not expecting an attack, there were a very large number of camp-followers, accompanying and mixed in with the legions. The number of camp-followers has been estimated by some at between 5,000 and 10,000 men, women and children. During ancient and medieval times, it was not unusual for an army to be followed by a number of civilian camp-followers, including wives and children, servants and merchants either catering to the soldiers or seeking their protection. This was a normal occurrence for an army on the move, but not for an army going into battle. That the army had camp-followers is considered evidence that they were marching blindly, not suspecting that an ambush lay ahead.

http://www.ancient-times.com/articles/v ... rus2a.html

[Marcus Caecilius Avitus]

But as it was a surprise attack doesn't this also pose the possibility that the troops may be carrying items that they would not normally have used in battle. :?

ie the mask could have been in impedimenta or slung on a belt as Jurjenius suggested.

In fact isn't there a quote of legionaries comencing battle without having time to remove their shield covers?

[Tarbicus]

I don't think it was a surprise attack as such, meaning the Roman soldiers would have been taken totally by surprise. The column was so long, and the terrain Arminius led them into so bad, that the column broke up into smaller parts which were more easily attacked. Manoeuvring tactically was also very difficult IIRC because of the marshy ground, and (again IIRC) the Roman shields became soaked through and too heavy to wield (well, maybe not this battle, but there is one somewhere...).