Login

03-06-2002, 11:49 PM

New here, but interested in talking about Roman Equipment. 
 
What do people consider to be the most advanced Roman Helmet and Sword? 
 
For me I'd argue that the Imperial Italic G helmet is the best possible helmet I've seen in ancient history period...... 
 
-Good visability for the protection provided. 
-Long sloping neck guard for slashes from behind(excellent) 
-cheek guards that give maximum protection with visiblity.(may have had "flares" to deflect side hits....) 
-Ear guards that protect side hits and downward cuts, while still providing a high level of hearing. 
-Thick ridge accross the forehead to provide extra protection from heavier weapons on downward facial slashes. 
-And the most important advance over say the Imperial Gallic, would be the cross braces over the cranum to protect the helmet for direct and heavy hits. Hopefully saving the person underneath.... 
 
For the Sword I'd say the Pompeii Gladius. 
 
-short blade good for thrusts and close quarters 
-offsetting hilt weight for balance and offensive strikes. 
-reasonable hand guard for deflecting other sword hits. 
-short point good for overall sword strength and again good for thrusts. 
 
Right off the bat I'll admit I know much less about Roman Swords and how they were used, but look forward to some other views..... 
 
cheers 
 
Markus Aurelius

03-06-2002, 11:50 PM

There's a reason the Romans adopted the gladius hispana from the Spaniards. 
_______________________________ 
MILES CASCA TARQVINIVS GEMINVS 
<a href=http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org> LEG IX HSPA COH V CEN VIII CON III 

VIRES ET VALOR PRO GLORIA ROMAE 
_______________________________

03-07-2002, 12:12 AM

Hmmm...the case of the missing post...Anyway, welcome to the board, Markus Aurelius! <a href=http://pub45.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm6.showMessage?topicID=53.topic>Rules For Posting

03-07-2002, 01:51 AM

Watch out for this one. 
 
I suspect he's a Greek in disguise... 
_______________________________ 
MILES CASCA TARQVINIVS GEMINVS 
<a href=http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org> LEG IX HSPA COH V CEN VIII CON III 

VIRES ET VALOR PRO GLORIA ROMAE 
_______________________________

03-12-2002, 05:57 AM

Hey... Casca, the website for that Legio club.. well their testudo filming looks like the history channel program I saw... were you guys the ones in that one...?

Goffredo · 03-12-2002, 09:53 AM

The problem with the question "what was the most advanced design..." is that the answer is not objective. 
If the helmet you have in mind, or the gladius, were indeed the best then why did the die out? Evidently each weapon or defence system answers specific requests that reflect a certain period, style of fighting and even fashion. Military history is full of examples of weapons that resisted in time because of tradition (a form a crystallized fashio) and then were suddenly brushed away once a brand new threat occurred forcing that weapon or style of figthing into oblivion.

03-12-2002, 11:01 AM

Salve, 
 
Jeff is right. Roman tactics remained essentially similar for several centuries while the appearance of weapons and equipment did change over time. Armoured heavy infantrymen using a combination of missile weapons and swords were the mainstay of Roman battle tactics from republican times to late Roman times. In this period various styles of swords, helmets, body armour, shields and javelins were used, yet whether they wielded the gladius Hispaniensis, a Mainz-Fulham -, Pompeii, ringpommel or long sword it was the quality of the men using them that made more difference than the weaponry. Technology had a far lower impact on fighting than nowadays and the primary advantage of the Roman army in battle lay not directly in any advanced weaponry, but rather in the ability to instill a high morale in their forces. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

03-12-2002, 03:26 PM

Yes, that was LEGIO IX in that "Testudo" episode. 
_______________________________ 
MILES CASCA TARQVINIVS GEMINVS 
<a href=http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org> LEG IX HSPA COH V CEN VIII CON III 

VIRES ET VALOR PRO GLORIA ROMAE 
_______________________________

Gregg · 03-12-2002, 03:36 PM

An interesting question. The helmet seems to have evolved to fit the Roman style of warmaking, and assuming we accept Robinson's clear line of evolution then I would tend to agree that something like the Imperial Gallic D could be held up as a design peak. Maximum protection without sacrificing vision or hearing. Definitely a helmet for a soldier, not a warrior. You can see similar features in the 17th century English and European lobstertail helmets. And in an interesting bit of parallel evolution, you can see almost identical features on the Japanese happuri face defense, which was often added in addition to a helmet. It was a metal plate that followed the outline of the brow and cheeks, like the cheek-pieces on the more advanced Roman helmets, and featuring the same standing flanges on the back of the cheeks as on some Roman helmets like the Imperial Gallic D, F, and H. The happuri was meant to add extra protection to the forehead against downward slashing strikes, as well as protecting the rest of the face without sacrificing vision or hearing. The happuri combined with a (very basic) Japanese helmet would have served an almost identical purpose to that of the Roman helmet. Though the Japanese Samurai obviously never excised the primitive "warrior" spirit from their warmaking, and were obsessed with rich personal style in their armor, their armor and weapons were nevertheless functional and efficient. The common Ashigaru foot soldiers, who were expected to follow orders and execute complex battlefield maneuvers at speed, tended to be armed and armored in a stripped-down style quite reminiscent of the Roman legionary, in function if not form. 
 
Received wisdom regarding the beginnings and end of Roman helmet evolution has always seemed kind of strange to me. It's hard to understand why the early Romans would eschew the superior protection of the Attic helmet for the Montefortino helmet. And why suddenly discard centuries of evolution in helmet design in favor of the poor quality, poorly designed Intercisa "Ridge"-type helmets? I've read a number of theories regarding the final changes in helmet design, which I definitely believe were a clear sign of decline. 
 
Gregg

Goffredo · 03-12-2002, 05:33 PM

I am not sure you can read "decline" into the evolution of the roman helmet (*). I have a big problem with this question too. Part of me would like to see a certain design be an unambiguous answer towards a certain type of threat, but unfortunately the sensation I end up having is that just too MANY factors go into a design and the correlation is at best very weak. 
 
EXAMPLE: Maybe deep neck guards, that helped in close quarter sword fights, dispappered because later romans shunned more and more away that style of fighting and resorted back towards one that resorted more to jabbing with lances. Is this "true"? Truth. Hmmm 
 
WISDOM: I believe a correlation exists but it is a true fact that the neck guards developed very late, well after the romans began their characteristic style of resorting to aggressive sword fighting (I am keeping in mind the missile theory; i.e. that sword fighting was crucial but overall it occupied a short fraction of a battle). BUT why didn't they invent neck guards earlier? This question become embarassing if one believes too much in the threat-response theory. 
 
(*) I suspect that one has a preconception of "decline" in mind, more or less consciously or based on other parameters, and then reads INTO the helmet design that judegment. 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 3/13/02 11:03:37 am

03-12-2002, 06:25 PM

Did anyone get the Greek reference? 
_______________________________ 
MILES CASCA TARQVINIVS GEMINVS 
<a href=http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org> LEG IX HSPA COH V CEN VIII CON III 

VIRES ET VALOR PRO GLORIA ROMAE 
_______________________________

03-12-2002, 06:35 PM

Could it be the "k" in Markus? An imposter, indeed.E EM <a href=http://pub45.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm6.showMessage?topicID=53.topic>Rules For Posting

Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/uthecaesarionsection.showPublicProfile?language=EN>The Caesarion Section</A> at: 3/12/02 7:40:15 pm

03-13-2002, 01:35 AM

Precisely. 
_______________________________ 
MILES CASCA TARQVINIVS GEMINVS 
<a href=http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org> LEG IX HSPA COH V CEN VIII CON III 

VIRES ET VALOR PRO GLORIA ROMAE 
_______________________________

03-14-2002, 06:03 AM

Hey the only reason there's a "K" in there is cause thats how my real name is spelt Its Swiss German. And yes I admire the Greeks for the phalanx and art/literature. 
 
As to the discussion on the Helmet, I believe later roman styles changed because they could no longer afford to produce quality helemts. The rivet together 2 halves helmet of late roman and Medieval helmets were simpley built that way cause they were simple and easy/cheap to make. the knights helmets as well in later European times were also built out of a need for the "Warrior" mentality not a standing organized army. I also believe that earlier many helmets were almost cerimonial more than functional. The Spartan helmet for instance really looks "scary" but IMO is almost usless as a helmet. I mean lets break down what the Imperial Italic helmet had that I personaly wouldn't want to be without. 
 
1.) sloping neck guard.(i'd rather survive a rear neck slash personally) 
 
2.) thick forhead ridge.( i'd rather not have a sword split my face in two....) 
 
3.) crossbraced reinforments( i'd rather not have a Dracian axe/sword cleave my helmet in two with ease) 
 
4.) cheek guards (I'd rather not have a side slash remove my jaw) 
 
5.) ear guards ( I'd rather not be distracted by having an ear nipped off while in battle) 
 
Were helmets designed for the type of wars and armies that used them......yes. But there were many other factors(such as iron working skills) that came into play. 
 
cheers

Goffredo · 03-14-2002, 08:22 AM

A agree that costs might be a factor but I don't believe much the loss of working abilities of smiths. I am not an expert in the later empire economics and status of artisans and sorts but the claim the empire was in decline, although true, can be pushed too far. 
 
But I have real trouble, and here is my main argument, with the claim is that the "best" helmet offered so much while the new and more "decadent" ones didn't. I have real trouble imagining that professional soldiers would buy dangerously uselsess helmets. It doesn't make sense. It might happen for a brief and confusing period but the "best" roman helmet disappeared never to come back (!) even when things calmed down after the mid-third century crises. 
 
I tend to think that every period uses the BEST protection system that is most convenient (costs, mass production) and fashionable (input to fashion coming more from the East) but WITHOUT sacrificing effectiveness respect to certain imagined threats (no more slashing swords as fighting resembles more often a spear thrusting match). 
 
P.s. an analogy from history of music. Every period used instruments that best suited the musicians of that time, in terms of compositional and technical requirements, type of public, size of halls, occasion for concert etc. These things change in time: composers create new effects, players are good at a certain styles in fashion and not ones out of fashion, sociology changes the public composition and tastes and the occassions for playing. Once you see this as a historic process, not necessarily one of "progress", but simply of evolution, then is becomes arbitrary (senseless) to STATE that the instruments of any given period were the absolutely the BEST; i.e. that the ones before your pet period were PRIMITIVE and the ones after are DECADENT.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me