Greek Helmets. with or without crests.... ??

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Γειά σου ο καθένας,

A lot of re-enactors these days have Greek helmets which have horsehair crests. Now in the Archeological remains of helmets which are found most helmets do not even have attachment points for horsehair crests.

Can anything be said about the lack of crests or even crest attachment points on original Greek helmets still in existence compared to the "need" of many to have crests mounted on their helmets ? My own helmet for instance does not have a crest nor do I see the need to mount one at this time.

I am very interested in the question if these horsehair crests, which we find so often depicted on vases and several statues compared to the helmets we actually have left which do not have a single attachment point, were actually less often used than we might think.





Any info is welcome.

M.VIB.M.

[John Conyard]

Iconography often shows Gods and heroes using crests, while archaeology suggest that mortals generally did not use have them. Generals, officers and those of high status perhaps, but generally no.

I suspect re-enactors chose crests for all sorts of reasons. Painted helmets would make a pleasant change.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

This question seems to come up quite often.
Yes I seem to recall there are examples of Greek helmets with what could be
fittings for attaching crests. Some Illerians seems to have the ridge and holes to support this.

An intersting link here-

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/Armor.htm

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_d...ID=5321780

Finding a corinthian though seems like searching for hens teeth...
this one looks like a nail hole for display in a temple.

http://www.artsmia.org/viewer/detail.php?v=12&id=45640

[Kyros]

They likely used crest pretty frequently as depicted and mentioned in literature. The lack of physical evidence is not surprising given that the materials used to make them is highly degradable.

Numerous helmets in fact either show attachment points or holes where they had been affixed. For those that show no physical trace of those it is largely due to having mounted the crests with most usually pitch. Pitch is a natural resin adhesive and leaves no physical trace of itself after the patina separates the pitch remains from the helmet's surface. There are 2 helmets that show differential patina where the pitch resin had remained long enough to cause a visible line of coloration on the helmets.

Nails, string and pitch seem to have been the common methods of attachment.

[Nikanor]

They likely used crest pretty frequently as depicted and mentioned in literature. The lack of physical evidence is not surprising given that the materials used to make them is highly degradable.

Numerous helmets in fact either show attachment points or holes where they had been affixed. For those that show no physical trace of those it is largely due to having mounted the crests with most usually pitch. Pitch is a natural resin adhesive and leaves no physical trace of itself after the patina separates the pitch remains from the helmet's surface. There are 2 helmets that show differential patina where the pitch resin had remained long enough to cause a visible line of coloration on the helmets.

Nails, string and pitch seem to have been the common methods of attachment.

Precise question and an excellent answer. To be noted that crests might had been fashion statements but also in practice played the practical role of enhancing visibility for those who were at back (e.g. units of archers, a phalanx waiting to join, officers giving commands etc.).

Does anyone posses evidence (eg. literature reference) that crest shapes/colours were used as tribal indicators or as distinction of own to enemy troops at a time when often colliding armies were armed with very similar material? Chances are that this could be the case as for the shield decoration.

[Gulan]

Regards to all RAT forum members!
Now to get down to business

They likely used crest pretty frequently as depicted and mentioned in literature. The lack of physical evidence is not surprising given that the materials used to make them is highly degradable.

Numerous helmets in fact either show attachment points or holes where they had been affixed. For those that show no physical trace of those it is largely due to having mounted the crests with most usually pitch. Pitch is a natural resin adhesive and leaves no physical trace of itself after the patina separates the pitch remains from the helmet's surface. There are 2 helmets that show differential patina where the pitch resin had remained long enough to cause a visible line of coloration on the helmets.

Nails, string and pitch seem to have been the common methods of attachment.

Why would you say the crest holders were made of degradable aka organic material?

Here is the example of the one, bronze one, from 6th c BC. I noticed the organic crest box theory circles for quite a while among Greek history researchers.

[attachment=2801]7.jpg[/attachment]

Yes not many are found, but, statistically what percent of Corinthian type helmets out of tens of thousands used in at least 3 centuries were excavated at all?

Should we conclude Spartans used organic armor just because no bronze piece of armor was excavated from Sparta? And they were probably most bronzed up city state in all Greece. It does not make sense not to find any bronze armor piece there,does it, but reality is not often very logical...especially if we talk many centuries before Christ.

Now logics suggest me the crests were status symbols of some kind either for rich ones, or for commanders and other important persons, or decorated heroes which were not commanders or kings etc etc...you name it.
Yes fashion is powerfull, especially in ancient times but I would not call crests purely fashion, as I would not call it purely tactical/visibility aid...Probably combination of both.

Now if we analyze Archaic bronze armor and hoplite warfare we would see many faults, many open spaces, many risk factors, many weight factors, sound issues, visibility issues, exposed veins and arteries...etc..many not so practical or not so logical stuff,but none of that means it did not exist just like that, in it's non perfect,faulty form. We should not see ancients as unmistakable people who only used stuff that served it's purpose in the best way possible.

[Kyros]

I notice that people pull up all kinds of singular non representative examples to use in their arguments here. Show me one pottery, art or statuary depicting these crest types.

Of all the hundreds of years of the Corinthian helmets use....only 550 exist intact. No crests. What you are holding up as an example is either trophia, votive or was so unusual it was worth dedicating to a temple and thus it survived. Of the normal common crests depicted.....organic materials like wood and horsehair. Easy to obtain or replace when damaged and relatively cheap. The crests served perhaps many functions. Identification, intimidation, uniformity, organizational and most reasons people do silly things.....it was an aesthetically pleasing cultural thing. They just liked the look!

As to recovering of armor or other organic items....in no city state has such items been found. They just don't survive. I wouldn't say Sparta was the most bronzed up... In fact given their economic model and adherence to a self-reliance I would doubt they had as much bronze as most other states. The fact that no armor or bronze is found there is more likely due to reuse than non existence. Helmets etc have never been found there let alone armor or weapons. The few examples we have are dedicated pieces with an inscription saying it was taken from the Spartans. So yes we could conclude the Spartans used organic armor and other things. The bronze parts being reused into other things. Whereas in wealthy Athens such items could be dedicated or made for dedication without great financial hardship.

The earlier question about evidence of crest colors being used for special groups, yes. We know a commando group from Athens had white crests specifically. The Spartans red more or less uniformly. However there is also mention of disastrous battles due to friendly fire or ambush due to not recognizing the enemy. So.....50-50. I'd imagine the use of shield emblems would be more common for states/tribes. I happen to theorize that Agogic house likely had colors/emblems in Sparta before the Lambda. Thus a commander could see which unit or 'regiment' was where in his line.

[Gulan]

I am not advocating the wide use of crests..So the 550 survivors with fits my point neatly.
Point being very small percent used crests.
Finding one of them certainly means they existed, not finding more again fits the point we both seem to have - they were just rare.

Now when we cleared that...

''Of all the hundreds of years of the Corinthian helmets use....only 550 exist intact. No crests. What you are holding up as an example is either trophia, votive or was so unusual it was worth dedicating to a temple and thus it survived. ''

What about it makes you believe it was singular, votive, trophia, or unusual???
I don't see anything unusual about it other that it chalenges the organic material 'mantra' you support.

I give you real, material proof, a real piece of armor from 6th bc...and you counter me just with the theory that not finding any proof proves the existance of it (organic crest holders)?! hock:

''Of the normal common crests depicted.....organic materials like wood and horsehair. ''


Would you explain to me how is exactly wood and organic material depicted in black style pottery for example, or in bronze or stone figurines?!?


''Easy to obtain or replace when damaged and relatively cheap.''

You can not know that it was of any importance back then.It is just modern logics projected into far far antiquity. Not a fact. Why is bronze irreparable and why do you think someone rich or important enough to carry crest had to worry about repair.After all wars were not waged every weekend, not even every year, and crest wasn't damaged in every conflict right.

By using modern logics such as that, Greek hoplites couldn't have used either heavy bronze armor, nor the sound/vision restricted corinthian helmet... yet they did...for centuries.

Or were all of them just votive or parade pieces? :roll: And in fact only shown in pottery while all of Greece used linen armor - because after all it has much better characteristics than bronze. :roll:

''The fact that no armor or bronze is found there is more likely due to reuse than non existence. ''

Same would be for crests as well, no? By armor I mean panoplia, from crest to toe. Not breastplate alone.

It was also due to the fact it was around two and a half millenia ago, and to the fact we did not raise 5m or Lakonian soil in search of Archaic armor, and to the fact Sparta was always small town / collection of villages, that it was sacked at least a dozen times since then, that same pieces were used and left in many other battlefields long after their production was stopped, and to the fact it was reused as you said etc...

And no, I would not draw the organic armor conclusion because I only see evidence of bronze one, and no single evidence of organic. And I would call it most bronzed up, with the best panoplia quality/quantity because of the system which was not ''every man buys for himself'' like in the most of the Greece at the time.

You should really differ fact from founded assumption, and both from pure speculation drawn from our personal logics, wishes etc...

For example you say as it is a well known fact that Spartans had red crest hair? Why? As seen where? As said by who? Frank Miller?

''Thus a commander could see which unit or 'regiment' was where in his line.''

I would not interfere with your personal work but this is an unfounded speculation with sources only in modern logics projected in the Archaic Greece. Chances are they never ever thought about it. No matter how logical it seems to us today. Again we live in 2012, they lived in far BC.

[Kyros]

I am not advocating the wide use of crests..So the 550 survivors with fits my point neatly.

Point being very small percent used crests.
Finding one of them certainly means they existed, not finding more again fits the point we both seem to have - they were just rare.

No it doesn't. Only 550 metal helmets of this type of perhaps 300,000 made? Only indicative that an extremely small number survived intact. 

Now when we cleared that...

'' Of all the hundreds of years of the Corinthian helmets use....only 550 exist intact. No crests. What you are holding up as an example is either trophia, votive or was so unusual it was worth dedicating to a temple and thus it survived.  ''

What about it makes you believe it was singular, votive, trophia, or unusual???
I don't see anything unusual about it other that it chalenges the organic material 'mantra' you support.

The fact that such ornate or large additions to the helmet would have added perhaps 2-4lbs on the helmet. Also unusual because no depiction of these types of exaggerated crests appears anywhere. 

I give you real, material proof, a real piece of armor from 6th bc...and you counter me just with the theory that not finding any proof proves the existance of it (organic crest holders)?!  hock:

6th century is not 5th century. 5th century Phalanx battles with huge horns would be somewhat....inconvenient. 

''Of the normal common crests depicted.....organic materials like wood and horsehair. ''


Would you explain to me how is exactly wood and organic material depicted in black style pottery for example, or in bronze or stone figurines?!?

Because wood is lightweight, easily carved, tapped and drilled. 

'' Easy to obtain or replace when damaged and relatively cheap.' '

You can not know that it was of any importance back then.It is just modern logics projected into far far antiquity. Not a fact. Why is bronze irreparable and why do you think someone rich or important enough to carry crest had to worry about repair.After all wars were not waged every weekend, not even every year, and crest wasn't damaged in every conflict right.

Modern logistics? I believe the Greeks were just as capable of common sense as we are. Why wouldn't a 10 ounze crest box of wood be more advisable than gigantic bronze horns? 

As to repairing bronze....I'm guessing you don't actually forge or work with it do you? Repairing crests would likely be needed after any engagement or when junior knocked it off the table or it fell. Repair is always a factor for a soldier concerning his equipment. It's about "if I have to fix this...."

By using modern logics such as that, Greek hoplites couldn't have used either heavy bronze armor, nor the sound/vision restricted corinthian helmet... yet they did...for centuries.

The helmets are not as restrictive nor as heavy as assumed. The need to protect the head most as it is always exposed precipitated the form and evolution of the helmet. 

'' The fact that no armor or bronze is found there is more likely due to reuse than non existence.  ''


Or the fact it was around two and a half millenia ago, and to the fact Sparta was always small town / collection of villages, that it was sacked at least a dozen times since then, that same pieces were used and left in many other battlefields long after their production was stopped, and to the fact it was reused...And no, I would not draw the organic armor conclusion because I only see evidence of bronze one, and no single evidence of organic. And I would call it most bronzed up, with the best panoplia quality/quantity because of the system which was not ''every man for himself'' like in the most of the Greece at the time.

Uhm you're not going to see evidence of organic anything. It's usually classed as biodegradable. Hence, nothing remains. 

You should really differ fact from founded assumption, and both from pure speculation drawn from our personal logics, wishes etc...

Yeah I read things that why I can fill in the blanks. 

For example Spartans had red crest hair? Why? As seen where? As said by who? Frank Miller?

Xenophon and Tyrtaeus

'' Thus a commander could see which unit or 'regiment' was where in his line. ''

Again this is an unfounded speculation with sources only in modern logics projected in the Archaic Greece. Chances are they never ever thought about it. No matter how logical it seems to us today.
-----
So encryption of military orders and dog tags are purely modern, NOT invented by the Spartans right? So no reason to believe that the ancient Greeks writing about the different Agoges and their names or fraternal nature is complete bullshit as a joke to us people who would read it later in modern times?

[Gulan]

''The fact that such ornate or large additions to the helmet would have added perhaps 2-4lbs on the helmet. Also unusual because no depiction of these types of exaggerated crests appears anywhere''

I gave you picture not because of the left one - horns, they are from 7th BC and for some different topic... but the right one ,the crest holder.

As seen in...almost EVERY single pottery image or statuette.

"6th century is not 5th century. 5th century Phalanx battles with huge horns would be somewhat....inconvenient."

There was a phalanx in 6th century, much more typical than 5th (5th BC is not just 479-470 BC but also Peloponnesian wars as well, not particularry ''heavy'' phalanxes there). And again, horns are not for this subject as they are from 7th BC, but the crest holder is.

''Because wood is lightweight, easily carved, tapped and drilled.''


I asked HOW do you know they depicted wood. What evidence other than your own logics do you have for it.
So what if it's easier, it is easier to carve wooden shield rims yet the Greeks carved bronze rims and attached it to wood..It is so much harder yet done. If their ways were ideal, we would still be fighting like hoplites today..
You are constantly using modern logics, your logics. It is just logics not common sense. They had plenty of time, and judging by all artefacts found in Ancient Greece easy way out was not their way.

''Why wouldn't a 10 ounze crest box of wood be more advisable than gigantic bronze horns?''

It would..It does not proove they used it. They used so many unadvisable things and principles. Just because something is not advisable does not mean they did not use it or do it.

Would you point me to the lines where either of those poets mentioned red crests...Especially the latter. Or any other color for that matter.

And the last issue,the dogtags etc seems a bit fabricated to me, yes even though Diodorus mentioned it, it is far from fact. Not aware of any real evidence for anything from your last sentence. Just some of your views and ideas.

[Kyros]

No it's not. What is depicted in the pottery is definitely a box with hair mounted within it. Your crest example is a solid bronze one that is meant to mimic the hair crest.

The 5th century is really where the art and tactics of the Phalanx are really perfected as is the equipment and ornamentation of Hoplites. The Pelopennesian War doesn't have heavy phalanx style battles because it is more a cold war. Battles of any kind are rare and when they occur they can display unusual tactics and freer thinking than traditional Phalanxial warfare. The crests factor into this not one bit.

Wood crest boxes, wood shields, wood spears etc is not modern logic or solely my point of view. It's actually widely evidenced in the archeology. You're picking an argument just to have an argument and obviously haven't read or seen as much to move you from a stubborn points of view. The bronze shield rims you mention are not carved bronze, they a extremely thin bronze repousse. It's fairly easy to do and not terribly hard just time consuming. The example of this is singular though about 4 other whole shield faces exist. Out of hundreds of thousands of shield just this handful exist and so they are judged as rare and expensive. Generally such fine equipment was dedicated and the lesser quality equipment kept or distributed so their mere presence is not an argument that all Hoplites had bronze faced shields. In fact the far greater number of bronze shield appliqués makes the point that this was a far more common shield decoration.

To use these artifacts to make statements they the easy way was not what they did or that they used unadvisable is spurious. Above anything if you actually see these objects you realize everything they did was extremely thought out and well engineered. You make them sound unsophisticated and wasteful. A wooden crest box with horsehair is feasible, logical and falls in line with the general practices of everything else they created in the period. You're trying to make the point that because we can't find one or that no helmet in a museum has a crest that therefore they didn't exist. That's about like saying that because we don't have all the corpses of the ancient Greeks that they to we're imaginary.

The references to Spartan dog tags and other military innovation as well as crests in colors are easily found if you read. Even the pottery shows solid, bi and tricolored crests in use. There is nothing contrived or assumed in these notions. They are documented and not things I've assumed or made up with 'my logics' as you say. I'd advise you to read more and argue less.

The point of this thread was to point out whether they used crests or not. They did, no one has ever disputed this. Were they made of wood? I can't think that lumps of terra cotta, or heavy bronze ones were and most any other material would be unsuitable. The 'assumption' of wood is grounded in fact and practicality as many other items in use by Hoplites were also wooden. That contemporary cultures also used wood for military equipment and accoutrements as well as ornamental fixtures like crests.

But I'm sure your response will be just another attempt to further a senseless argument.

[Macedon]

Γειά σου ο καθένας

Hmm... is it supposed to mean "Hello everyone" in modern Greek? If so, it should be : "Γεια σε όλους!" or more politely "Χαίρετε!". Nice try though !

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

http://www.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http:...efurl=http:
//www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/Armor2.htm&usg=__u45JemmxxfCXT1amum58z5WDksY=&h=391&w=385&sz=18&hl=fr&start=51&
zoom=1&tbnid=RkYhe_CTtQ0joM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=121&ei=cdQrT6HiJoyXOpX9wP8N&prev=/search%3Fq%3
Drelief%2Bimages%2Bof%2Bcrested%2Bhelmets%2Bgreek%2Broman%2Bancient%26start%3D42%2
6hl%3Dfr%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:*%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Divns&itbs=1

Just a small percentage of hundreds of examples depicting crested helmets I have found
over the last few nighyts while searching
(unsuccessfully) for one image in particular... :???: :roll: :evil:

[Ghostmojo]

I subscribe to the wooden crest holders as well. They are easy to form, lightweight, easy to paint/decorate and easy to drill to create the holes needed for the horsehair tufts be inserted - as in our our modern paintbrush.

Other cultures besides, and before, the Greeks used the horsehair crests and seemingly not just for officers - unless it is always officers we see depicted upon pottery and bas reliefs? What about the transverse crests we see sometimes? They are generally assumed to have been for specific officers/leaders etc.

We see crests that sit on a stem. That crest would I guess have also been made of wood - but the stem itself a metal vertical support.

I think that crests may have originated as a desire to portray the warrior wearing one as horselike in his demeanour - strong, fast, sturdy - and like many other animals, attractive for a variety of cultural and religious reasons.

[Gulan]

I subscribe to the wooden crest holders as well. They are easy to form, lightweight, easy to paint/decorate and easy to drill to create the holes needed for the horsehair tufts be inserted - as in our our modern paintbrush.

Other cultures besides, and before, the Greeks used the horsehair crests and seemingly not just for officers - unless it is always officers we see depicted upon pottery and bas reliefs? What about the transverse crests we see sometimes? They are generally assumed to have been for specific officers/leaders etc.

We see crests that sit on a stem. That crest would I guess have also been made of wood - but the stem itself a metal vertical support.

I think that crests may have originated as a desire to portray the warrior wearing one as horselike in his demeanour - strong, fast, sturdy - and like many other animals, attractive for a variety of cultural and religious reasons.

Yes, wooden are much more logical choice. But it does not mean they actually used it, get it. What else is there to proove it other than our assumption. Written source? MAterial source? We can not write history on our assumtions.

How can we know Greeks followed the same logics we do. After all it is obvious they didn't go for lightweight logics, or they would not invent the heaviest armor in existance. Also weight of panoplia is a bit exaggerated, so the bronze crest box is not so heavy as to be unusable or it would not exist as it does...I mean we have that kegel's piece with holder being the same piece as helmet and is much heavier than this one..Was it not used then, even though it survived. Just because it chalenges our logics today?!

Why do we assume Greeks always used the best possible option. Just because we do that today does not mean they did. I am sure we could find such faults in design and much better ways for construction in virtually every piece of panoplia. What would happen if we never excavated any armor from that era. We would reconstruct who knows what based solely on our logics...and pottery.