Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Equites sagittarii (late 2nd century)
#31
Quote:During excavations in Iža (smaller Roman military camp in the land of the Quadi on the opposite bank of Danube near Brigetio) there was a great amount of arrow heads found, as well as fragments of composite bows. Besides this there were found also two cavalry spathae and fragment (cheek piece) of Niederbieber cavalry helmet. We dont know the name of the garrison unit, but general opinion points to horse archers.
Iža looks like an exciting site, Martin. However, as regards the garrison, I would advise caution.

John Wilkes has suggested that the ala I Hispanorum Aravacorum was in garrison, but he cited no evidence ("The Roman Danube", Journal of Roman Studies 95, 2005, p. 200). I don't think that this unit has left any epigraphic evidence at Iža, has it? (That ala is certainly known in Pannonia Superior, e.g. at Gyor, Hungary.)

Also, note that your "cavalry spathae" could easily have belonged to infantrymen at the time of the Marcomannic Wars. And quantities of arrowheads are only to be expected in a frontier fort, regardless of the garrison: note, for example, the arrowheads from the Saalburg, which held an infantry cohort (afaik).
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#32
Thank you for valuable respond Mr. Campbell. Now I know that "evidence" which I posted dont have to be right, though it is still one of the oppinions. Now I personally think that there was some kind of mixed garrison.

No I dont know about any inscripture or other epigraphic evidence. And I believe if there was something found I would probably read about that already. We know only about the garrison of Gerulata (Rusovce)- Ala I Cannanefatium - but I remember this you have included also to your book about auxiliary forts! When I read it I was surprised that one of Slovak sites is in Osprey publication.
Martin Vincursky
Trenčín
Slovakia
Reply
#33
Quote:We know only about the garrison of Gerulata (Rusovce)- Ala I Cannanefatium - but I remember this you have included also to your book about auxiliary forts! When I read it I was surprised that one of Slovak sites is in Osprey publication.
I know I can't please all of the readers all of the time, but I try to be inclusive. :wink: (... and thanks for noticing!)
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#34
As this thread has evolved into a helmet discussion, I dare to add a few comments on 3rd century helmets. However, if possible, it may be a good idea to split this thread into two:

First of all I do not see any difference in terms of deepness of neck guard between Niederbieber and Heddernheim style helmets. Both come with shorter, flater and also deeper neck guard variants. Also, the exact form of neck guard is often difficult to establish as only the bronze trimming and/or a few fragments survive.

Secondly, without having ever worn such a helmet, I do not see conclusive reasons why it should not be possible to use it on horseback. First of all, the Bodegraven helmet would have belonged to a cavalry trooper. Secondly, the "Pseudocorinthian" style mask helmets (such as the one found at Heddernheim) have the same deep neck guards and are generally accepted to be cavalry helmets (although this could of course also be untrue). Thirdly, Junkelmann, who has conducted cavalry exercises wearing such helmets found them absolutely suitable and in fact refuted Connolly's assertion that they would force the wearer into a more upright stance and therefore indicate changing fighting styles.

This, however, would be a topic on which comments of people who have actually worn such helmets on horseback (you see a lot of reenactors with such helmets) would be most welcome!

Based on the foregoing, the traditional theory developed by Waurick, that Niederbieber and Heddernheim helmets were "universal" helmet types for cavalry and infantry use (with the Heddernheim helmets likely being the cavalry variant in view of their more extensive decoration) still appears convincing to me.

This does not mean that they were the only helmets worn. Although there is no specimens with a production date securely dated to the third century (unless one accepts the fragments from a 280 AD layer in Regensburg as belonging to this type), it is highly likely that the Guisborough style Pseudoattic helmets were also worn during this period. This is based on their close similarity to the "cavalry sports" which were definitely worn during this period. Petculcescu speculated that those helmets may have belonged to the decurions but in view of the Theilenhofen helmet which clearly belonged to a trooper this is unlikely and the theory may appear too rigid anyway.
Regards,


Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Reply
#35
Quote:But then, where are the Cavelry helmets of this period if not these?

Byron, you have loads of different "Cavalry Sports" helmets, for which we now have evidence that they were also worn in Battle. What all of these have in common are the short neck guards.

Cavalry Sports G
Cavalry Sports H
Cavalry Sports I
Cavalry Sports K
Cavalry Sports D
Cavalry Sports C

The next question is: Of what use would a large neckguard be for a cavalryman? Is this use so important that it waives the danger for your neck when falling backwards from horseback?

@ Jens
Quote:First of all, the Bodegraven helmet would have belonged to a cavalry trooper.
I wrote a bit about that above. Apparently the context is not that clear, as well as the inscription.
Quote: Secondly, the "Pseudocorinthian" style mask helmets (such as the one found at Heddernheim) have the same deep neck guards and are generally accepted to be cavalry helmets
As far as I can see in the pics linked above, the neckguards are considerably smaller.
Quote:Thirdly, Junkelmann, who has conducted cavalry exercises wearing such helmets found them absolutely suitable and in fact refuted Connolly's assertion that they would force the wearer into a more upright stance and therefore indicate changing fighting styles.
Of course it is possible to wear these helmets on horseback, any other suggestion would be silly. The question is: Did the Romans do it? Which cannot be answered by an empiric study at all.

The major problem here is again Robinsons misleading typology. For the relevant discussion check the helmet Database Forum section.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply
#36
I have read once (I think it was Matyszak's book) that infantry neck guards wouldn't work for cavalry because of the danger of them breaking the neck of a cavalryman should he be unhorsed. One can imagine if the neck guard protrudes too much than falling flat on your back might be dangerous. Could this be a reason for small neck guards in gymnasia hippika helmets? Or for a very steep slope and small protrusion?
Reply
#37
Well, this is exactly what I wrote on the previous page.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply
#38
So if I understand, we have now two opinions. Niederbieber as universal helmet and Niederbieber as infantry helmet. Niederbieber seems to me really rather infantry type, but Im confused about this because I saw drawings where are horsemen equipped with Niederbieber (as that one above). And I believe this artists did not include Niederbieber in their pictures just because they wanted. However, they may be wrong of course! Artists are usually not historians.
Martin Vincursky
Trenčín
Slovakia
Reply
#39
Quote:As far as I can see in the pics linked above, the neckguards are considerably smaller.

I was thinking e.g. of the helmet found at Woerden, NL. There used to be a thread with pictures of it on RAT but I cannot find it now.

Quote:Of course it is possible to wear these helmets on horseback, any other suggestion would be silly. The question is: Did the Romans do it? Which cannot be answered by an empiric study at all.

Well, I believe that we agree that empiric study CAN tell us that the deep neck guard does NOT prevent cavalry use and therefore we cannot exclude that some were used by cavalry. Any positive allocation to cavalry or infantry use would require an unequivocal inscription or depiction which we hardly ever have (only the Sivac helmet with the centuria inscription and the Bodegraven helmet with the turm inscription come to mind).

One argument Waurick used to identify these as infantry helmets (long before that idea was even considered by other authors) was connecting find spots with known infantry or cavalry units in garrison but the Roman habit of mixing troops (coh.eq., equites legionis) made that a largely inconclusive exercise. Still, if we could make a catalogue of at least a large proportion of known finds (many more than at Waurick's time) and repeat the exercise there is at least hope that we may find statistical indications for the type of use.
Regards,


Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Reply
#40
Quote:So if I understand, we have now two oppinions. Niederbieber as universal helmet and Niederbieber as infantry helmet. Niederbieber seems to me really rather infantry type, but Im confused about this because I saw drawings where are horsemen equipped with Niederbieber (as that one above). And I believe this artists did not include Niederbieber in their pictures just because they wanted. However, they may be wrong of course! Artists are usually not historians.

I believe that the reason is historical:

Both Lindenschmit for German scholarship and H.R. Robinson for Anglo-Saxon scholarship set the tone by qualifying these as cavalry helmets. The main reasons being the cheek guards which cover the ears, the deep neck and certain other features which are also found on earlier Pseudoattic helmets.

As stated above, Waurick in his own study concluded in the same year in which Robinson's book was published that they were (at least also) infantry helmets. This was largely overlooked in continental Europe and more or less completely overlooked in the Anglo-Saxon world. I believe it was Bishop and Coulston who in the 90s concluded ( I believe independently of Waurick) that this was - also - an infantry helmet (based (a) on representations in art and (b) on the plain fact that otherwise there would be no infantry helmets for the period).

Robinson's work in particular was the basis for many earlier artistic representations of Roman soldiers and even today artists either work based on Robinson or simply copy older artists.
Regards,


Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Reply
#41
Agreed, apart from below.

However, as I said, the turma inscription is hypothetical & just a suggestion. See above.
This is methodologically questionable:
Quote:Well, I believe that we agree that empiric study CAN tell us that the deep neck guard does NOT prevent cavalry use and therefore we cannot exclude that some were used by cavalry.

It can´t. An empiric study would

1. have to be under realistic conditions
2. include 100% realistic helmet reconstructions
3. be published according to the requirements of experimental archaeology

None of this was made by Junkelmann, so his conclusions cannot be regarded as valid for a discussion.
Basically it is not necessary anyway, probably every doctor in Medicine is able to quickly tell what happens to your neck when you drop of a horse backwards wearing one of these helmets.

*snap*

It nowadays is also possible to wear a cake on your head while sitting on a horse, but we wouldn´t expect the Romans to have done so.

I mean, there must be a reason for all the helmets coming from clear cavalry context, and they really are many, have the short neckguards, no? Wouldn´t a Roman soldier be aware of this problem? Would he nonetheless wear such a helmet, when knowing about the problem?
We of course cannot exclude that here and there a cavalryman wore one of these helmets, but we should start to accept that this must have been a rare occasion, and certainly not the rule. Also a comparative look at reliefs really helps, IMO.
Quote:Still, if we could make a catalogue of at least a large proportion of known finds (many more than at Waurick's time) and repeat the exercise there is at least hope that we may find statistical indications for the type of use.
Such a study would only be representative if we had larger numbers of objects. For Straubing or Künzing such a case would be clear. But where you have just one helmet from a site this can be hardly used as evidence. The helmet may have been lost by a visitor, e.g. and was thus preserved, because noone else there could use it. It´s a down-scaled Method-Kossinna problem.

It would suffice to collect all data (objects and representations) in form of

Helmet belongs to Infantry
Helmet belongs to Cavalry
Helmet belongs to ?

p.s. there is a larger series of helmets that qualify as "niederbieber" but don´t have neckguards or just short ones. They are in HRR "Cavalry Sports I"
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply
#42
Those will be the ones I have been looking at which are making it hard to follow the previous statments logic... :grin:
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#43
These, Byron:
[/url]
But this is "Niederbieber":
[url=http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/option,com_helmets/task,view/cid,13/Itemid,96/]"Auxiliary Cavalry D"

And the E´s F´s, H´s of course, too.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply
#44
Quote:Basically it is not necessary anyway, probably every doctor in Medicine is able to quickly tell what happens to your neck when you drop of a horse backwards wearing one of these helmets.

*snap*

It nowadays is also possible to wear a cake on your head while sitting on a horse, but we wouldn´t expect the Romans to have done so.

I can agree that we cannot positively establish cavalry use based on the available evidence but EXCLUDING the possibility of cavalry use based on what you think a doctor would think of medical implications of wearing it does not appear to meet the scientific standards for verifying a hypothesis you have upheld in your own post.

Quote:there is a larger series of helmets that qualify as "niederbieber" but don´t have neckguards or just short ones. They are in HRR "Cavalry Sports I"

I assume that there is a typo in your post. These helmets (in continental Europe referred to as the Guisborough type) may qualify as "Cavalry" (?) helmets but they have nothing in common with Niederbieber helmets.
Regards,


Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Reply
#45
Quote:I can agree that we cannot positively establish cavalry use based on the available evidence but EXCLUDING the possibility of cavalry use based on what you think a doctor would think of medical implications of wearing it does not appear to meet the scientific standards for verifying a hypothesis you have upheld in your own post.
Of course you are correct, Jens, and if you read my posting carefully, you will see that I didn´t exclude the possibility of cavalry use. (And it is not what I think a doctor would think, but I had a discussion about this with a doctor from Murnau accident-clinic and a doctor from Enzensberg Rehab-Institute about two years ago. The discussion was mainly about insurance questions, and they both said that wearing such a helmet, which is prone to cause deadly injuries will bring every life-insurance and health-insurance to not to pay a single cent in case of an accident, whatever its consequences. As arguing goes according to the rules of logic: If someone says Niederbieber is a cavalry helmet, he needs to bring sound evidence that it is. It is not my job, having a different opinion, to bring evidence that it is not a cavalry helmet. I just need to hint at bad or erroneous arguments pro, making my contra.)

To quote myself from the very same posting:
Quote:We of course cannot exclude that here and there a cavalryman wore one of these helmets, but we should start to accept that this must have been a rare occasion, and certainly not the rule. Also a comparative look at reliefs really helps, IMO.

Quote:I assume that there is a typo in your post. These helmets (in continental Europe referred to as the Guisborough type) may qualify as "Cavalry" (?) helmets but they have nothing in common with Niederbieber helmets.
No, no typo. The overall skull shape, disregarding decoration, is basically identical. It sometimes makes sense to think outside the typologies. And of course there are again helmets that are half this and half that... As Byron said, he regarded these by appearance as "Niederbiebers" too. That´s why I put the ".."
:-)
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Equites promoti indigenae: creation of a late roman frontier TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS 1 2,240 01-13-2007, 03:45 PM
Last Post: Robert Vermaat

Forum Jump: