Equites sagittarii (late 2nd century)

[MVinc]

It was quite exhausting to follow your posts since I was here for the last time. Basically, I believe doctor's opinions which you have posted above caius, but this dont have to mean, that Niederbieber helmets were not used by cavalry (exactly as you said). I must say your opinion is very reasonable, but I think the same about Mr. Horstkotte's one. It seems issue about this type of helmet and especially about the neckguard is really hazy. For now I consider it as infantry helmet with quite possible usage in cavalry. I will wait till someone (or something) change my opinion.

[jho]

Martin,

apologies for highjacking your thread but I believe your post fairly summarizes our discussion. I would love to discuss in more detail in which way Guisborough helmets may be considered "Niederbieber without neck guard" but I will leave that to another thread

[caiusbeerquitius]

I sign what Jens wrote :-)

[MVinc]

Wow, I did not know Im that "powerful" in this thread! It is true that I have just summarized your 2-3 pages of posts to one post of 6 lines , but it was not my intention to stop this discussion. However I noticed the heading of this thread is far different from the present topic! :roll:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, you obviously said what I have been trying to unsuccessfully say!
:roll: mile:
Right, break out the beers, wine and laurels.... :mrgreen:

[Nurglitch]

Have a look at this:



I couldn't find anything about the Arlon collection, I have no clue as to the dating of this thing.

Hamata, segmentata's top, something strange around the necks - ok, weird but to the point: look at the helmets. The one on the left clearly does not cover the ears (this is emphasized by this guy's earlobes protruding over the neck guard). The neck guards are long, but very steep, with pretty much zero protrusion.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Looks very 1st century.

[jho]

This is a fragment of a monumental tomb found in Arlon. Other fragments show the opponents (Hairy Barbarians). I believe that it is dated on stylistical grounds to the first century AD. Fragments from several monuments of this type have survived in the Luxemburg/Rhine area (e.g. Bartringen, Koblenz). For details see H. Gabelmann, Römische Grabmonumente mit Reiterkampfszenen im Rheingebiet, BJb 173, 1973,132-200).

The shoulder armor has been discussed in several works on Roman armor. Some believe it to be segmental. Others see it as a stylized depiction of the leather trimming of normal mail shoulder doublings.

[Nurglitch]

Others see it as a stylized depiction of the leather trimming of normal mail shoulder doublings.

So many?


Btw, a request to moderators - can the discussion about cavalry helmets be split into a separate thread? We have unfortunately hijacked the original one.

[jho]

Some additional comments:

I believe the "strange" things at the neck, shoulders and thighs are generally interpreted as a padded subarmalis.

The visible ear must not necessarily mean that the cheek guards did not cover the ears because ears were often embossed onto the cheek guards. However, cheek guards of this type with ear cut-outs are also known, although they are less frequent than those covering the ears.

Another interesting feature is the scalloped lower edge of the mail shirt of the left hand trooper (unless this is intended as a single row of rounded pteryges).

[Nurglitch]

Embossed - yes. But these are clearly protruding, they are shown over the neck guard.

[jho]

So many?

I believe the maximum number of stripes is four. If you treat the one on the outside as a short sleeve of the mail shirt, three remain of which the central one is the mail and the two others are the leather edging. I do not remember who made this proposition and I will have to look it up to see if I correctly interpret it.

[Crispvs]

It may have been Mike Bishop - Lorica Segmentata volume 1

http://www.jrmes.org.uk/monogs.htm

Crispvs

[jho]

You are right and the whole work is online here (see p. 73):

lorica segmentata

[MVinc]

Finally, I have not read but this thesis which is available online may also be helpful:
the horse archers of the Roman Imperial Army

Hello, I decided to open this topic again, because I have read this thesis and I have a couple of questions. Author thinks (according to known evidence of course), that Roman horse archers probably did not carry swords, because they probably did not need them. When I read this statement, I had doubts about it. Maybe if archers fought in regular battle in the field, they would not have used them, but what about common duty on the Danube limes?

Do anybody know any other reference to the horse archery in Roman army?

If I did not say "thanks" for this thesis then I say it now: Thank you very much Mr. Horstkotte, it was helpful reading.