Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Roman Helmet and sword.
#16
Salve,<br>
<br>
That there may have been other factors involved for the changes in helmet design besides costs can be derived from such splendid examples of late Roman headpieces like the Deurne helmet, of which the gilded silver cover has survived. It must have represented quite an expense for its owner and suggests that at least some troops could still afford expensive equipment. Some late Roman pieces make the impression of munition grade armour churned out to equip the expanded armies, but there still remain a number of helmets of superior finish. While issue of equipment had become more common in the third century, there are indications that soldiers still could get their kit on their own initiative afterwards. Records from Egypt show that issues in kind were already commuted back to money grants in the reign of Diocletianus and there are late Roman references to allowances for buying equipment and weaponry. This suggests that part of the troops could still be able to acquire kit that catered to their personal tastes and preferences.<br>
<br>
When considering the protection afforded by helmets like Jeff I tend to regard the development of Roman designs more of an evolution than a decline. In some respects the ridge - and spangen helmets had advanced protective characteristics, such as the use of nasals and flexible neck guards. Regarding the possible influences of enemy armament and fighting styles on the types of Roman helmets. In the east the primary threat remained similar with enemy archery being the main threat and close combat weaponry like spears and swords a secondary danger. As far as there can be distinguished a development in Germanic weaponry, and the method used has been criticised, it seems that judging by the weapons finds the proportion of sword armed warriors increased over the centuries, though spears and javelins remained the main arms available. Both the social structure and the relative lack of equipment led to a general preference for short and decisive close-quarter action over stand-off engagement. Tactics appear to have evolved slowly, though the importance of archery seems to have increased with the influx of eastern Germanic peoples.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#17
An interesting, but often unappreciated fact about helmets and head protection:<br>
<br>
It is very hard to penetrate even relatively thin, mild steel. We determined this by using a crow-billed axe on an 18 gauge mild steel helmet, mounted on a short post. The heaviest blow a 250 pound bruiser could deliver barely penetrated, but the force of the blow would have crushed vertebrae.<br>
<br>
The helmet did deform, and had it been as tight fitting as most Roman helmets appear to have been/be, the wearer would have suffered a severe concussion and fractured skull. However, remember the crushed vertebrae! I will return to the deformation item in a moment.<br>
<br>
So it is the neck, not the skull, and the brain that are most vulnerable to a head blow. From the back, it takes less than 10 psi to break a human neck. It takes more from the front because of the structure of the neck muscles and ligaments. Nevertheless, anyone with a severe neck strain is sufficiently wounded to be ineffective.<br>
<br>
There are two possible ways to protect the neck and brain from the force of the blow, one more effective than the other.<br>
<br>
The most effective is MASS. The heavier the helmet, the more force is required to move it, and hence the head, which contains the brain (vulnerable to sudden acceleration which causes concussion) and the skinny neck that attaches it to the body. We tried this, too, on a live person wearing a 15 pound helmet and camail. Hitting a horizontal blow with a 5 pound mild steel bar was merely annoying to the target. We stopped when the bar bent. The helmet was not dented. Now, with accelerometers much cheaper, we would not have used a human guinea pig.<br>
<br>
But what if the current technology does not permit the manufacture of a more massive helmet? Or what if the added weight is deemed to much for a marching soldier to carry? Or it is too expensive?<br>
<br>
Then restrain the sudden backwards movement of the head. The beavertail on the back of the Roman helmets in discussion was not there to keep the sun, or sword slashes, off. It would, very effectively, keep the head from being snapped back too far.<br>
<br>
Roman armor was not modern mild steel, although it may have picked up enough carbon while being worked to be close in its properties. Nevertheless, it may have been softer and more easily deformed. (I saw the metallurgy on one helmet, long ago. Anybody got a reference or a more recent study?) In a closefitting helmet, that is disastrous. I believe that is the reason for the increased reinforcement seen as ridges, raised designs, and additional plates on later helmets.<br>
<br>
<p>Salve,<br>
Triarius<br>
One of the pack, maybe. One of the herd, <i>NEVER!</I></p><i></i>
Reply


Forum Jump: