Roman helmet surface

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

Then I think you're unaware of the level of the craftsmen in the period we're discussing. They could easily make perfect even surfaces, also with mirror finsih.

I personally also would say it was shiny. Indeed it helps to prevent rust, but I would add some more evidence, which is in the fact that the Romans (and especially Cavalry) tent to finish all their pieces in Silver (and gold). You wouldn't do this if you didn't fancy the shiny look.

See for instance this famous cavalry helmets mask from Nijmegen:
[url:3p1gt565]http://www.romancoins.info/milit-mask-N.jpg[/url]

Ow, and to add to your last question (about leather armour/helmets). We still have an ongoing discussion about it. Look for instance in the 'reviews' section of this forum for the topic discussion the newest book by D'amato. We've just recently seen that discussion there.

Yes, but it is not because the craftsmen could make the surfaces even, that the soldiers could maintain this look, is it? For example, when a soldier didn't have the time to clean his armour after exposure to wet conditions, and it started rusting all over it, would this soldier have the skills, let alone the "tools", to regain a mirror finish look?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Soldiers are innovative. I'm positive that is not a new quality...I would not doubt they had all sorts of tricks to keep their equipment in good order.

[jvrjenivs]

Yes, but it is not because the craftsmen could make the surfaces even, that the soldiers could maintain this look, is it? For example, when a soldier didn't have the time to clean his armour after exposure to wet conditions, and it started rusting all over it, would this soldier have the skills, let alone the "tools", to regain a mirror finish look?

No, but I didn't intend to say that. I was referring to an earlier reply

But will the technologies back then allow a smooth and shiny armor to be made?
I doubt it was possible to crate so smooth surface http://www.melbar.de/Ruestungen/Helme/H ... TW6053.jpg

Which was about the craftsmen to make the surface, not to maintain it. Then still there is the fact that a high polished item does have less influence to weather conditions, so a soldier would like to keep it at a certain level of polishing to prevent it from oxidation, along with other methods. And really, polishing isn't that hard. The only thing you need is some semolina and a piece of linen cloth (and some time of course).

[Doc]

I use a very fine steel wool sponge on my iron helmet which gives it an in between satin and shiny finish. Then I put a thin coating of oil. This combo gives it a shine without looking like a mirror.

My brass armor, I treat the same except that I do not apply oil. It is more resistant to corrosion than iron. Besides, a little steel wool and it has a nice natural shine.

[Fruitbat]

Hello all,

I am a first time contributer to this site, but this subject does greatly interest me...

I have studied many medieval depictions of battle/siege scenes and they very often show footsoldiers and even horsemen in black armour. This seems to be the blackened surface which you get straight out of the workshop, before any polishing or cleaning-up has been done. Thinking back to my metalworking youth, I also remember that this carbon surface itself prevents rusting. Of course wearing armour would have caused plates to rub together and cause 'shiny' areas, but a wipe over with fat (or olive oil?) could also help prevent rust.

Also, if you have to produce many hundreds or even thousands of pieces of armour quickly, you would not have particularly smooth surfaces, which as pointed out would hamper polishing.

As the medieval depictions are the earliest colour scenes I am aware of, would the same not be applicable to the legions.

P.S. I am sure that parade ground and ceremonial stuff was as pretty and shiney as possible, but even today, the poor old grunt in the trenches is filthy within two minutes!

[jvrjenivs]

I am a first time contributer to this site, but this subject does greatly interest me...

Welcome on RAT.

I have studied many medieval depictions of battle/siege scenes and they very often show footsoldiers and even horsemen in black armour. This seems to be the blackened surface which you get straight out of the workshop, before any polishing or cleaning-up has been done. Thinking back to my metalworking youth, I also remember that this carbon surface itself prevents rusting. Of course wearing armour would have caused plates to rub together and cause 'shiny' areas, but a wipe over with fat (or olive oil?) could also help prevent rust.

Also, if you have to produce many hundreds or even thousands of pieces of armour quickly, you would not have particularly smooth surfaces, which as pointed out would hamper polishing.

As you say yourself, you're talking about Medieval stuff, which isn't Roman and I wouldn't see that as first evidence concerning our period.

As the medieval depictions are the earliest colour scenes I am aware of, would the same not be applicable to the legions.

We have many depictions from Roman times. Some still have colours, many have not. Think about frescos, masaic, mainly.

P.S. I am sure that parade ground and ceremonial stuff was as pretty and shiney as possible, but even today, the poor old grunt in the trenches is filthy within two minutes!

We still don't know the Romans had something like parade gear. This idea still pops up every time, but there is much evidence suggesting the Romans didn't make that differentiation.

[jkaler48]

A lot of reconstruction steel Roman armor uses the "Forge blackened" finish on the inside to help prevent rusting.

[M. Demetrius]

Inexplicably they then paint the inside with some difficult to remove paint, making them very difficult to accept glue. If only they'd degrease them before painting.... Sigh.

[Matthew Amt]

I have studied many medieval depictions of battle/siege scenes and they very often show footsoldiers and even horsemen in black armour. This seems to be the blackened surface which you get straight out of the workshop, before any polishing or cleaning-up has been done. Thinking back to my metalworking youth, I also remember that this carbon surface itself prevents rusting. Of course wearing armour would have caused plates to rub together and cause 'shiny' areas, but a wipe over with fat (or olive oil?) could also help prevent rust.

As others have said, medieval armor isn't always a good comparison. Forge-blackening is great for the inside of helmets and armor, but EVERY depiction and description of Roman armor shows that it was brightly finished. They simply were not as concerned with saving as much time and money as we sometimes think they should have been.

Also, if you have to produce many hundreds or even thousands of pieces of armour quickly, you would not have particularly smooth surfaces, which as pointed out would hamper polishing.

They very rarely had to produce large amounts of armor quickly. In fact, at some points such as after the Actium campaign, there was probably a glut of armor in storage or on the market. After that, it would have been simple to produce the relatively small amounts needed for normal growth and replacement.

P.S. I am sure that parade ground and ceremonial stuff was as pretty and shiney as possible, but even today, the poor old grunt in the trenches is filthy within two minutes!

Well, they didn't fight in trenches, of course! Battles WERE parades, rare opportunities to display the whole army in all its colorful, shining, godlike glory. Such display was central to ancient warfare. For the day-to-day drudgery of marching, there is good evidence that there were coverings for armor and helmets, much like the covers for shields, to protect them from mud and dust and weather.

Vale,

Matthew

[Fruitbat]

Hello all,

Some great responses to my earlier post, and excellent points raised.

A few things really got me thinking though. It was pointed out that colour medieval images of battle scenes were not relevant to the Roman era, as they were not Roman. They may not be Roman, but they were showing the same thing just at different times. If forge-blackened armour was practical for medieval troops, why would it not be just as practical for Romans? Do we have a date when 'shiny' became bad and 'grotty black' became good?

Also another quite rightly raised point was that armour would not need to be mass produced very often in Roman times, and so no excuse for not polishing when it was made. This scenario must also apply to the middle ages then, but still that blackened armour...

The fact that we do have some surviving colour images of Roman armour in frescos and mosaics, well I do feel a bit wary of what we see in those as they tend to show an idealised world of heroes and gods and gladiators etc. No doubt if you wanted to pay for and impress your visitors with your new fresco or floor, you would want Achilles to be in the shiniest armour possible. Imagine if the centre of London was buried and dug up in two thousand years, well they would have many thousands of postcards, T-shirts and mugs with images of British troops on, all showing what they looked like in the year 2010. They would be able to say that British infantrymen wore scarlet jackets and big bearskin hats and the cavalry wore extra shiny armour! (I bet it would impress the Afghans though!) I am probably wrong, but as far as I know, the only images of actual combat troops, such as Trajan's column etc. have lost all colour. So I feel that yes, gladiators would have been as sexy as possible for the viewing public etc, but if, as a member of the tenth legion in darkest Germany, the only people to see your armour were about to be killed, why feel the need.

Lastly, there was a point made about the Romans not fighting in trenches. Well I am sure that I have read that they made extensive use of trenches during sieges and the like, and don't forget that after every day's march through enemy territory, they built marching forts, which had big trenches around them.
I understand that when it comes to re-enactments, the public want to see 'sexy' Romans as they see on TV, but I do think that trying to conceal a body of troops THAT shiny on the battlefield or laying an ambush, well it would be a serious drawback.

[M. Demetrius]

Not to be argumentative, but there were quite a few things that the Romans evidently did that the Medieval folks didn't, and vice versa. Greek soldiers are said to have fought barefoot, but Burgundian knights didn't. It's not always a good thing to project behavior from one time period onto another, and declare that proves one thing or another "MUST HAVE" been true.

Just my opinion, though. I'll leave the details to those with more historical details and footnotes.

[jkaler48]

Shiny says:
We are professional soldiers and are proud of our well maintained and effective equipment.
We are well rested and have plenty of time to shine our helmets.
We have lots of money and resources and the Gods favor us in battle also.
We don't need to hide from you.

[Matthew Amt]

If forge-blackened armour was practical for medieval troops, why would it not be just as practical for Romans? Do we have a date when 'shiny' became bad and 'grotty black' became good?

Our ideas of "practical", and medieval ideas of "practical", are not necessarily the same as ancient ideas of "practical". PLUS, practicality may have had very little to do with it! Even in the Renaissance, munition armor could be shiny, while some incredibly expensive custom armors were black. It's all about FASHION.

Also another quite rightly raised point was that armour would not need to be mass produced very often in Roman times, and so no excuse for not polishing when it was made. This scenario must also apply to the middle ages then, but still that blackened armour...

Well, aside from fashion, which I already mentioned, there certainly were instances in which huge amounts of munition armor were ordered and produced. Henry VIII's campaigns in France, and the Scottish invasion of the Flodden campaign spring to mind, but there were many others.

The fact that we do have some surviving colour images of Roman armour in frescos and mosaics, well I do feel a bit wary of what we see in those as they tend to show an idealised world of heroes and gods and gladiators etc. No doubt if you wanted to pay for and impress your visitors with your new fresco or floor, you would want Achilles to be in the shiniest armour possible. Imagine if the centre of London was buried and dug up in two thousand years...

Careful, Dave, it really sounds like you are trying to explain away the *evidence* in favor of your own modern concept of how things *should* have been! Bad idea. Aside from the fact that we do have color images of ancient soldiers in battle, you have to remember that ALL of the evidence--artistic, literary, and archeological--agrees that armor was shiny! This isn't something which is dubious or hazy or unknown or debatable, really. Plus, those popular images of gods and heroes were exactly what soldiers were trying to emulate.

Lastly, there was a point made about the Romans not fighting in trenches. Well I am sure that I have read that they made extensive use of trenches during sieges and the like, and don't forget that after every day's march through enemy territory, they built marching forts, which had big trenches around them.

Good point! But there is also evidence for weather covers over armor and helmets, which would keep the mud off. And even without that, not a big deal--mud and dirt can easily be wiped off before turning in for the night. (You'd have to do that with blackened armor, as well, in any case!)

I understand that when it comes to re-enactments, the public want to see 'sexy' Romans as they see on TV

Doesn't matter a bit to me what the public "expects" to see, especially based on TV or Hollywood. I show them what our research shows to be accurate. Everything we know about the Romans indicates that they loved to shine on the battlefield.

but I do think that trying to conceal a body of troops THAT shiny on the battlefield or laying an ambush, well it would be a serious drawback.

On the battlefield, you're talking about lines of troops 4 to 12 men deep in solid formations half a mile long, facing each other on open ground about a hundred feet apart. What's to hide? Even for an ambush, you're talking thousands of troops, but we know that sticking them in a ravine or behind a hill or in a forest was perfectly adequate. Well, usually! There are also accounts of ambushes being given away because of sunlight reflecting off the shiny armor! So even when it was obviously most practical not to have shiny armor, they did anyway.

Vale,

Matthew

[Fruitbat]

Hello Mathew,

You raise some very interesting points there, especially the one about Roman troops wanting to emulate the gods or heroes. I have actually seen for myself some individual modern troops trying to imitate Rambo or whoever, first hand! We used to call it 'being wary'. I don't suppose people change that much over time.

You say that you know of colour scenes of ancient warefare, are they Roman? I would appreciate it if you could point me to the relative books etc.

[A_Volpe]

Fruitbat/Dave

For Roman "color", just research into Mosaics and Frescoes. There are some great images here on the RomanArmyTalk Image Database section

Also look at things like "Roman Military Dress" by Graham Sumner. They have found surviving Roman tunics and clothing, and I hope continue to do so.

It appears that at least in the 2nd - 6th Centuries, Romans liked a lot of colors and intricate patterns. Unfortunately the information for the 1st century (which is what a lot of us research and portray), tends to be confusing if very difficult to find - but from what bits and pieces we've found and researched, it's clear Romans like a lot of color, and were able to produce a fairly wide spectrum.

I also advise caution when trying to compare Medieval and Modern tastes in fashion and in warfare. There are a lot of things that "do not change" over the millennia, but fashions in clothing, armor, and warfare change drastically over time. It does seem to go "back and forth" in some specific instances (ie: Pikes/very long spears in use in the time of Alexander the Great, then it comes "back" into fashion in the 1600's, but partly because people in the 1600's were researching and looking back at ancient history to see what could be utilized in their "modern" time! ~"If it worked so damn well for Alexander, then can it work for us?")

One of the hardest things to do is to "forget" the fashions and thinking of warfare in our modern age, when researching the ancient ways. Wearing of camouflage and purposely obscuring yourself/hiding and misleading your enemy is pretty modern and "new". Keep in mind that brightly-colored, well-made, "fancy" and "show-off" clothing worn on the battlefield is not only a fashion, but a tactic that is in use from as far back as we can tell, until the opening of World War 1. That's what, 6,000 years of people trying to show-off to each other on the battlefield? Yet "Dress" uniforms remain an important aspect of a military's "presence" and "showmanship" (if I can even use such a term, forgive me!) today.

Anyway, back to helmet surfaces. A "mirror" polish may have been possible to the Romans, and even earlier. As had been pointed out, mirrors need to be polished well. But I don't understand this comment about the surface being "un-even" - The Egyptians were able to make the Pyramids "by hand", the early "Brittons" (whomever they were) managed to raise Stonehenge - and in doing so with astonishing precision. Polishing a mirror could have been comparatively easy. The bigger question is how consistent the [Romans] wanted or needed the surface of an object/helmet to be. As much as I personally like the mirror-liquid shine in a brass helmet, that may not have been the "fashion", but after all these years polishing my brass helmets, it's no longer mirror shiny, a tad on the "matte" and scratched look - but it still shines up very brightly in the sunlight. Blindingly so.

IMHO, for what it's worth, from what I've found, I don't need to put the effort into making my helmets "mirror" shiny, but "shiny enough" (or more being "rust and tarnish-free") is certainly obtainable and effective. Had I a mirror or something like a razor - then yes, I would try to put the effort into maintaining a very shiny mirror finish, because it's important for those items to be that level of shininess.