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

[CaesarAugustus]

with a technical explanation, not with soft arguments which are always relative and can not compete with a technical explanation.

As I think we agreed somewhere above, the only way to judge the relative merits of different helmet types would be to test accurate replicas, probably to destruction.

Your 'technical explanation' is not, I would say, objective but based solely on opinion and assumption. So is mine. But why do we need a 'technical explanation' anyway?

Do we have any evidence that the late Roman state needed to produce cheap equipment? Do we have any evidence that anyone at the time considered late Roman arms to be inferior to earlier models? Do we have any evidence that late Roman equipment failed in the the field or that late Roman soldiers or commanders longed for earlier types of arms and armour? Do we have any evidence that the eastern Roman state, which survived for many centuries after the west, changed to a different type of armament production?

We have no evidence for any of this. Ideas that later Roman arms and armour must have been crude or cheap or poor quality are based solely on modern prejudice.

Therefore, there is no 'problem' that needs to be explained, and therefore no need for a 'technical explanation'. Historical analysis must proceed from evidence, not vice versa.

Nope. It is based on applied theory and research. You are continuing not to reply on topic but trying to move the discussion on a field on which we can tell the contrary of the truth without any problem (even that mail is better then plate armor, we may start another topic for this  ).

I have given an explanation that can be easily verified and can be read in dedicated papers/bookss (I have started with Performance Analysis of Motor Cycle Helmet under Static and Dynamic Loading, Design And Analysis Of Industrial Helmet and SOLID MECHANICS, you can search un other papers/books if you don't trust these). Honestly, this is even better than an on field reconstruction. An explanation based on material behaviour is something that cannot be bypassed. These are the two approaches and evaluate the reaction, is something we can find in stress concentrations and failure modes, solid mechanics. A well assested field. And you will find that the greater is the area without discontinuity, the greater will be the ability to dissipate the power, so to protect the head, that is what is measuring the quality on an helmet. All other "imaginative explanations" are good to write novels and fantasy books