Roman helmets: Imperial Gallic/Italic and Ridge - comparisons and sources

[Crispianus]

I would want to see a metal analysis, as far as I know theres nothing further known about it....

I don't know if you saw this interesting post about that helmet - a little more information, and even an X-ray!

But yes, we'll probably never know for sure when or where it comes from...

Exactly by no provenance I mean its has no archaeological data, no find spot or reliable dating etc... unfortunatly this is the case with many such pieces.. In this condition and in the absence of reliable archaeological data I'd want some evidence that the material is consistant with production from the era at least.

Could you fake it... absolutely, like most things it depends on how far your prepared to go....

[CaesarAugustus]

They didn't abandon torsion artillery (if at all?) for some considerable time after the introduction of composite helmets!

They progressively abandoned the ballista, keeping the onager, so they did not abandoned the torsion artillery, just the ballista (and generally the double torsion engine). For what read, they progressively abandoned the field artillery, that field artillery that would have been really useful in Adrianople, for example.

For the progressive abandonment of the ballista, I am mainly referencing Tarver's The Traction Trebuchet: A Reconstruction
of an Early Medieval Siege Engine. We can accept or not all the part related to the trebuchet reconstruction (we have the same issues we have for the helmet, multiplied by 100), but the anlysis concerning the abandonment of the ballista and the reason for this is really interesting:

But by the late 3d century, a shortage of good artificers once again seriously hampered attempts to produce and deploy torsion artillery.
The simpler, one-armed onager became the standard piece of heavy artillery as early as the 2d century, as well as the arcuballista, which
Marsden identifies as a nontorsion device.22 "The artillery legionaries of the fourth century could no doubt maintain their machines in efficient working order, but they were constructed and given major overhauls in imperial workshops (fabricae ballistariae)."23O nly in such workshops could the army maintain the materiel and trained men necessary to produce effective torsion weapons. No such workshops were perpetuated by the barbarians who overran the western Empire.

As for 'progressive decay', the late 4th century ruling in the Theodosian Code instructing the Antioch armoury fabricae to cover a greater proportion of helmets with bronze and gold sheeting suggests both a wealthy state and a very high degree of organisation.

As I said before (in my opinion!), the late Romans didn't somehow forget how to make old style single-bowl helmets, and did not lack money or expertise, therefore the new pattern composite helmets must have been as good if not better than the old ones!

For the army organization in the late empire, apart what just written, and ignoring totally officer gold equipment (that is another sign of the incoming problems), we can read about the social status of the empire in Géza Alföldy's The Social History of Rome. And the effects of this are evident in what happened following Adrianople, with the army unable to reorganize itself.
The organization of an army has not to be searched in the officers' helmet, but in the average quality of the soldiers one. And in the ability to support the army with the siege and field artillery. With the ability to substain the army in its campaigns and so on. Something that has been progressively lost.

[Nathan Ross]

But by the late 3d century, a shortage of good artificers

How do we know there was a 'shortage'? This seems like circular reasoning - we know the late empire was 'bad' because there were fewer skilled men, and of course there were fewer skilled men because the late empire was 'bad'...

imperial workshops (fabricae ballistariae)... maintain the materiel and trained men necessary to produce effective torsion weapons. No such workshops were perpetuated by the barbarians who overran the western Empire.

Who staffed these attested fabricae ballistariae if not 'skilled artificers'? And this is from the Notitia Dignitatum, dating from the very end of the 4th century... Of course the situation after 'the barbarians overran the western empire' was different - but that wasn't for another century still, and nearly 200 years after the introduction of the ridge helmet.

(The ballista is, of course, famously described in Book 23 of Ammianus Marcellinus, in an eyewitness account of the Persian campaign of AD363. Clearly these machines had not fallen out of use!)

ignoring totally officer gold equipment

Nobody is talking about 'officer equipment'. The law I mentioned (quoted below) states that 40-50% of all helmets produced by the fabricae were sheathed in precious metals, which is supported by archaeology. The famous and very elaborate Deurne helmet carries an inscription by a trooper from a numerus of Equites Stablesiani. Soldiers in the late empire were high status individuals, and their state-supplied equipment reflected that.


10.22.1: ARMOURERS (de fabricensibus). Emperors Valentinian, Valens and Gratian Augustuses to Tatianus, Count of the Sacred Imperial Largess.

Since six helmets for each period of thirty days are covered with bronze by each metalworker, both at Antioch and at Constantinople, and the cheekguards are also covered with wrought metalwork, but eight helmets and the same number of cheekguards are covered with silver or are gilded each thirty days at Antioch, and only three at Constantinople, We decree that at Constantinople also each metalworker shall decorate with gold and silver, not eight helmets for every thirty days but six each, with an equal number of cheekguards. (Given March 11, AD374)

following Adrianople, with the army unable to reorganize itself.

Adrianople was at least 75 years after the first introduction of the ridge helmet.

The army did have organisation and recruitment problems after that battle, increasing greatly into the 5th century, but the problems of those years cannot be backdated and used as evidence of a supposed decline in the overall quality of army equipment a century and more beforehand.

[Dan Howard]

The Diocletian reforms led to an improvement in the quality and uniformity of military equipment. It was arguably the best that the Roman army ever used since the inception of the Republic.

[CaesarAugustus]

Nathan, I agree that we will never reach an agreement, but that points are clear. You can reduce the overall organization centralizing the expert smiths in few places, leaving the legions (who were no longer the legions of the past) without smiths specialized in torsion engines and so on. And in fact, the usage of the ballista in battle fields become something not described, and Ammianus complains for the breakages that could affect the ballista... the same torsion engine that had been used in previous centuries with high profit. This highlights the loss of experience and skill. In essence, organization. Now, we are in the same ages, and with all that problems... they are happy to have precious metal on the helmets??? No, come on, this is not serious

And Adrianople is not centuries after the introduction of the ridget helmet, is just around 75 years as you have stated. Enough to see the collapse of the roman army. And we know that in the first ages it is extremely likely that the ridget helmet was not so widespread. After? Near to the collapse in the Rhine sector. The loss of Nisibis and Singara. And finally the collapse of the Danube sector. Really far from being a good period.
Obviously this is not Ridge helmet fault, but that is part of the organizational collapse followed the reforms suffered by the army and on going social transformations.

Anyway, the only way to solve this problem is to compare the two helmets on the field

[CaesarAugustus]

We can compare with what written by Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army, 2003:

The 3rd century saw significant changes in many aspects of the Roman army’s equipment. Whilst some Imperial-pattern helmets continued to be used in the first decades of the century, a new type of infantry helmet, heavily influenced by the design of cavalry helmets, seems to have become common. A good example of this type was found at Heddern-heim in Germany. Unlike earlier infantry helmets, the ears are almost entirely covered and the neck-guard is steeply angled down. [...] In simple designs such as the ‘ridge’ type found at Intercisa in Hungary and elsewhere, the top of the helmet consisted of two halves joined by a ridged strip across the top. Several examples show traces of a lining. Although generally cheaper and quicker to make, some of these helmets are decorated with false eyeholes. 
Many of the Heddernheim-type helmets were exceptionally ornate, and this trend continued with some later designs, most notably the two examples from Berkasovo. The cheaper Intercisa-type ridge helmets or the equally crude spangenhelms - the bowls made from four pieces of iron - were probably infinitely more common in everyday usage, especially by ordinary soldiers. The spangenhelm may well owe its origin to helmets employed by nomadic races from beyond the Danube, such as the Sarmatians and the related Alans. Such simple helmets were not of the quality of earlier types. Nevertheless, the Roman army’s ability to provide all, or virtually all of its soldiers with such gear, continued to give them an advantage over barbarian peoples where helmets were the preserve of only the wealthiest warriors.

Essentially, it is confirming that these new helmets were cheaper, quicker to make, and not of the quality of earlier types. Probably infinitely more common in everyday usage... the discipline was going down.

[Nathan Ross]

Although generally cheaper and quicker to make... probably infinitely more common... confirming that these new helmets were cheaper, quicker to make, and not of the quality of earlier types.

We have no evidence for how much it cost, or how long it took, to make any type of Roman helmet, or how commonly they were used.

So, while I like and respect Adrian Goldsworthy's work (and considering that he is not an expert on the later army!) his opinions about what was 'generally' or 'probably' the case cannot be taken as confirmation of what is essentially a popular sterotype, and I would still refer you to my points above.

[Dan Howard]

Although generally cheaper and quicker to make... probably infinitely more common... confirming that these new helmets were cheaper, quicker to make, and not of the quality of earlier types.

We have no evidence for how much it cost, or how long it took, to make any type of Roman helmet, or how commonly they were used.

So, while I like and respect Adrian Goldsworthy's work (and considering that he is not an expert on the later army!) his opinions about what was 'generally' or 'probably' the case cannot be taken as confirmation of what is essentially a popular sterotype, and I would still refer you to my points above.

Agreed. Goldsworthy's comments in this regard are unsubstantiated nonsense.

[CaesarAugustus]

Although generally cheaper and quicker to make... probably infinitely more common... confirming that these new helmets were cheaper, quicker to make, and not of the quality of earlier types.

We have no evidence for how much it cost, or how long it took, to make any type of Roman helmet, or how commonly they were used.

So, while I like and respect Adrian Goldsworthy's work (and considering that he is not an expert on the later army!) his opinions about what was 'generally' or 'probably' the case cannot be taken as confirmation of what is essentially a popular sterotype, and I would still refer you to my points above.

Agreed. Goldsworthy's comments in this regard are unsubstantiated nonsense.

I am sure he thinks the same about your positions

[Dan Howard]

So tell us what evidence he provides to support his claim.

[CaesarAugustus]

Nope, tell us why is nonsense. And try to convince all armies that are using monoblock helmets that they should use helmets made by flanked pieces united by ridges because they have a better quality

[Dan Howard]

It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. Goldsworthy made the claim. He needs to produce evidence to support it. Look up the meaning of "unsubstantiated".

[CaesarAugustus]

It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. Goldsworthy made the claim. He needs to produce evidence to support it. Look up the meaning of "unsubstantiated".

Nope, you should tell us more about the "nonsense". If it is nonsense, you should be able to justify why an helmet made by flanked parts has the same quality or even more quality than a monoblock helmet. It is logiacl that from a structural point, a monoblock helmet absorb the shots better than one made by flanked parts, because in the ridged one the pivot will offer the breaking point.
And, this is the reason for which today helmets have the main part made as monoblock.

Here you have some examples:





Obviously, you can go to helmets producers and tell them that is nonsense and they can have better quality doing helmets made by flanked pices. Maybe you will start a revolution in the helmets. Or they will tell you it is a nonsense

[Crispianus]

It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. Goldsworthy made the claim. He needs to produce evidence to support it. Look up the meaning of "unsubstantiated".

Nope, you should tell us more about the "nonsense". If it is nonsense, you should be able to justify why an helmet made by flanked parts has the same quality or even more quality than a monoblock helmet. It is logiacl that from a structural point, a monoblock helmet absorb the shots better than one made by flanked parts, because in the ridged one the pivot will offer the breaking point.
And, this is the reason for which today helmets have the main part made as monoblock.

Here you have some examples:





Obviously, you can go to helmets producers and tell them that is nonsense and they can have better quality doing helmets made by flanked pices. Maybe you will start a revolution in the helmets. Or they will tell you it is a nonsense

Are you seriously comparing Kevlar® Composite Helmets with ancient metal working.....  the material would not suit multi piece construction even if it was available in 300AD... 

[CaesarAugustus]

Are you seriously comparing Kevlar® Composite Helmets with ancient metal working.....  the material would not suit multi piece construction even if it was available in 300AD... 

Do you prefer a IIWW helmet?


The concept is the same