Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Roman helmets: Imperial Gallic/Italic and Ridge - comparisons and sources
#91
He's fallen for the discredited idea that 4th century Roman equipment was inferior to what was produced previously. In fact the opposite was true. The Diocletian reforms resulted in more standardisation, better quality control, and superior metallurgy in Roman equipment. The equipment that was issued to fourth century legionaries was among the best the Romans ever produced. This coincides, not with a collapse, but with a period of expansion and military success. The Diocletian reforms enabled the empire to survive for another 150 years.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#92
(11-10-2020, 10:54 AM)Crispianus Wrote: "above any impact force a human could produce reasonably"  They would prove to be an effective protection.

Yes, absolutely. Ridge helmets were clearly very effective protection. Their use at every level of the Roman army, from limitanei troops to emperors, virtually unchanged for c.160 years proves that.


(11-08-2020, 10:45 PM)Xenophon Wrote: "...helmet-bowls were designed out of two or more different pieces of iron, allowing for increased rigidity and a simplified manufacturing process"(Source below, pg 57). Note, not for increased strength.

Surely 'increased rigidity' would create 'increased strength'? What would be the purpose of rigidity otherwise?


(11-08-2020, 10:45 PM)Xenophon Wrote: the luxury of cost was seldom on the minds of those arming troops.

That would certainly be the case when the state was poor or needed to cut costs. But the Roman state was richer in the 4th century than it had ever been before, and did not run short of funds until the mid 5th century.

It's surely no coincidence that the introduction of the ridge helmet seems to have come at the time the imperial fabricae were set up. The Roman state needed a helmet model that could be produced in large numbers and to a high standard by a semi-skilled workforce on a production-line (we assume!). It was a need for increased efficiency that led to the change, not cost-cutting.

Incidentally, the Fernpass (or Bieberwier) helmet was made around the same time, with a single bowl. That - together with the much later Sutton Hoo helmet - demonstrates that Romans of this era were quite capable of forging single-bowl helmets if they wanted to. But the additional ridge on both the Fernpass and Sutton Hoo helmets may also suggest that a single bowl was not considered sufficient protection at this point.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#93
(11-10-2020, 01:32 PM)Dan Howard Wrote: He's fallen for the discredited idea that 4th century Roman equipment was inferior to what was produced previously. In fact the opposite was true. The Diocletian reforms resulted in more standardisation, better quality control, and superior metallurgy in Roman equipment. The equipment that was issued to fourth century legionaries was among the best the Romans ever produced. This coincides, not with a collapse, but with a period of expansion and military success. The Diocletian reforms enabled the empire to survive for another 150 years.
Nope, no way. We have already seen that:

Discontinuous materials don't transmit forces. They need to be connected somehow and this connection is almost always poorer than a contiguous piece of material. If you take your medieval helmet and make it also monoblock, say via 3D printing the entire thing in one piece, you'd still have a better helmet still than made by joining two plates. Continuity is a prerequisite for forces to transmit from one molecule onto another molecule at the molecular level. This is purely material science.


And, lately I had also the opportunity to contact Professor Simon James, Evidence from Dura Europos for the origins of late roman Helmets author, and I have asked him directly about the topic, here his reply:

Many thanks for your kind email. More late Roman helmet material has appeared since my paper, but I think it is still true tht later Roman helmets were typically less well made than earlier imperial pieces. I have not published more on this myself, but see:

               
Lyne, M. (1994). "Late Roman helmet fragments from Richborough." Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5: 97-105.
               
Mackensen, M. (2007). "Vergoldete Bronzebeschläge mit Christogramm von spätrömischen Kammhelmen aus dem mittleren und unteren Donauraum." Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 72: 355-365.
               
Oldenstein, J. (1990). "Two Roman helmets from Eich, Alzey-Worms district." Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies(1): 27-37.
               
Ubl, H. J. (1993). "Ein spätrömischer Kammhelm." Mitteilungen des Museumsvereines Lauriacum-Enns, N.F. 31: 19-26.
               
Miks, C, 2008, Spätrömische Kammhelme mit hoher Kammscheibe, RGZM Jahrbuch 55:2, 449–482

 


So, please stop to give for discredited ideas that does not fit with what you want to think.
- CaesarAugustus
www.romanempire.cloud
(Marco Parente)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Imperial Gallic J - Robinson's mistake? Konstantin Ankilov 6 2,368 01-24-2021, 12:44 PM
Last Post: Militarus
  Imperial Gallic I Moguntiacum Marc 3 1,833 07-16-2018, 08:54 AM
Last Post: drsrob
  Imperial Gallic D Helm Konstantin Ankilov 8 2,682 10-18-2017, 12:24 PM
Last Post: Konstantin Ankilov

Forum Jump: