A symbolic shape for the roman helmets?

[Goffredo]

Hi Titus. Here goes (you asked for it)...<br>
<br>
I work in an experimental and technical field where hypothesizing is a daily practice. A typical problem in my field is to account for the behaviour of data, supposing that it behaves according to some mathematical model or, better yet, a physical one, when infact the experimental data have a spread (no experiment is free of uncertainty). The best and most honest thing one can do is describe how he made the measurements and how he estimated the uncertainties all while checking for spurious effects (the apparatus could be broken, insensitive, or pick up only noise and the data "meaningless"; i.e. bad experiments abound and I have made a few myself).<br>
<br>
Hypothesizing takes many forms; the problem of interpreting data is the type I come up against most often. But in all cases we have to "confront the world" by taking more data with new and independent experiments (e.g. if the apparatus is broken, insensitive or noisy, then no amount of new measurements will improve matters). Cross checking is the only way for comprehension and I think it actually describes what comprehension is or should be: many apparently independent things acquiring a new unified significance. Connections are made that get reinforced the more the understanding is deeper. But we must never be complacent. Comprehension is at its best when it is used as a tool and one does indeed confront the world, because if the tool breaks we still learn something: e.g. its limitations or how to design a better one. <p></p><i></i>

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

<br>
<br>
Deductive or inductive? This is the question...<br>
<br>
To be serious, I understand and appreciate your rigorous and scientific point of view: it's absolutely necessary. If not, what should we, XXI century men, be?<br>
<br>
I thought you referred to your "spiritual hypothesis" (who has not at least one every day?) especially if related to the roman world...<br>
<br>
I believe that the Romans were more than just a "practical" people: that was just one of the layers of their culture. Perhaps it's not politically correct, but finding traces of the spiritual sphere inside the everyday life and the "normal" objects through "alternative"sources, could be an interesting thing. Time has not suceedeed to delete those traces and we have the luck to can recognize them yet. Looking for them too could improve the design of that magnificent comprehension tool...<br>
<br>
Vale,<br>
Titus Sabatinus Aquilius<br>
<br>
"Desilite, inquit, commilitones, nisi vultis aquilam hostibus prodere" D.B.G. (4.25)<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Daniel S Peterson]

I commend Titus for his efforts in trying to get into the mindset of the real Roman soldier. Too many people in the reenactment hobby tend to ignore the real culture of the soldiers they attempt to depict. Typically they want to believe they were basically "like us" and their main motivation for doing this is merely making/wearing "cool"-looking armor. In reality, the ancient world was filled with what we would today consider bizaare superstitions. Although "western" civilization today has drawn a great deal of its heritage from ancient Rome, we would all likely find it a truly "alien" culture if we could actually be thrust into it.<br>
<br>
Dan. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Suzy mentioned helmets without cheek guards and bronze cast helmets, which are two characteristics of the Coolus-Mannheim type, probably introduced after Marius' reforms. It is a simple hemispheric bowl and comes in two versions: cast bronze, (heavy series) nicely finished with guilloche on the rim, and raised bronze, (light series) very rough. The two types have been found together. According to M. Feugère, "following a tradition that came from numerous greeks and italic models, the Coolus-Mannheim type helmets do not normally have cheek guards". Several of these Coolus-Mannheim hemets have been found with a ring in an inverted figure eight shape instead of cheek guards, decorated with a rosette in the center.<br>
The finds of these helmets are so closely associated with Caesar's gallic campaigns that they are almost certainly associated with the war of the Gauls, according to Feugère and others.<br>
What could pass for a Montefortino (conical/top knob) from this period is actually the Buggenum type, It looks exactly like a Montefortino but is built differently (the top know is hollow, and not solid as in the Montefortino). The Montefortino was used from the 4th to the beginning of the 1st cent. BC, whereas the Buggenum, "probably developed shortly before Caesar's death" (Feugère) was used during the years 50 BC 10 AD. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Look Pa!! No cheek guards!!<br>
<img src="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Mannheim.jpg"><br>
This beautiful Coolus-Mannheim type (heavy series/cast bronze) was found in the Saône river, upstream from Lyon.<br>
The hole in the middle of the double ring held a decorative rosette.<br>
According to M. Feugère, <i> "The multiplication of units during Caesar's wars (the number of legions went from 4 in 59 bc to 12 in 52!) explains without a doubt the repartition of these helmets in Gaul: U Schaaf and G. Waurick were able to follow the tracks of Casar's campaigns through the finds in France, Belgium and western Germany (Rhenany)"</i><br>
The photograph is from the Römisch-Germanische Zentralmuseum at Mainz. I don't know where the helmet is.<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Titus,<br>
<br>
You wrote:<br>
>>>>I see in your opinion the myths and symbols of the ancient peoples are just useless superstitions, because of their lack of material evidences? I think this is a fundamental mistake, etc., etc..<br>
<br>
But before you invoke the furies against me, how on earth did you come to this conclusion? have I ever, ever, expressed any opinion about the value of myths and symbols of the ancient peoples, and a negative one at that?<br>
I'd appreciate it if you would read my messages correctly, and not put such strong words into my mouth.<br>
<br>
Again, then, because you failed to read it properly, my point: I am not convinced that the Romans would shape a helmet primarily after a form decided by a view of their world. I don't deny this could ever have happened, but as this shape was developed by the Celts of Gaul, I suggested you first prove where these based this particular helmet shape on.<br>
<br>
I also kindly rebuked you for explaining this by the common ancestry of their legends. But as most (not all) cultures in Europe at the time had such roots in Indo-European culture, I fail to accept this as evidence, it's much too vague. Where are the Greek or German examples of such helmets? Neither can you say that the Roman and Celtic views of the cosmos were identical, right?<br>
Since you, IMHO, have not come forward with a good explanation why the Celts should have developed this particular shape of helmet, I can't accept this having anything to do with the Romans. YES, they copied it from the Celts for some reason; NO, they did not think of it in this form themselves.<br>
And as the Roman army did, on many occasions (shields, swords, mail, helmets) copy superior weaponry from barbarians or enemy cultures, I still hold on to this explanation why the Romans copied this particular shape of helmet, without looking to the mythical world (which without any doubt had enormous influence on their daily lives).<br>
<br>
Finally, one more point of civil conduct: If you're throwing around quotes in Latin, would you please be so kind and remember not all members of RAT (including myself) are fluent in that wondrous language? Next time, please supply a translation if you want your quote to have any effect besides showing off.<br>
<br>
With kind regards,<br>
Robert<br>
<br>
'Cives Francorum, Miles Romanorum'<br>
('A frankish citizen, but a Roman soldier')<br>
<p></p><i></i>