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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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. <p></p><i></i>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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. <p></p><i></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
