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

[Robert Vermaat]

Hello Robert,

we may consider that all helmets from the first world wars are monoblock (excluding the Farina one, that was immediately replaced by a monoblock, before there were practically no helmets for long time). This can effectively reply to all reasoning based on "why", it is the same reasoning, but on the contrary. This is true for all explanation that is based on a reasoning that we effectively do not know, and we will never know.

So, I prefer to investigate on the "how". And there is nothing better of a study on how an helmet protect, obviously appropriate to what were the constraints and requirements of the Romans. The explanation that comes from materials science is brutal, but in its brutality it is mathematical and verifiable.

And, at that point you can consider that that helmets was well known from the Romans, that did not adopted it for long time. this is perfectly consistent in the context of a helmet that had inferior qualities, but not for one that had superior qualities, otherwise the Romans would have adopted it immediately. So, coming back to the "why", we have another point that confirms Goldsworthy's thesis. The Ridge helmet had a lower quality.

Hello Marco,

What would that WW1 example have to do with our dilemma, other than than someone would construct a reasoning that 'no helmets' would mean that the subsequent armies would have been of lower quality and hence their states would have been of lower quality - this follows the reasoning of Goldsworthy. Ignoring the 'why' is making it easy on yourself.

What I simply cannot believe and you cannot convince me of, is that all the Empires in my example used helmets comparable to the ridge and spangen helmets, and I will not believe for one second that they did so simply out of ignorance. The Romans did not adopt the ridge helmet before, because they did not know them. In fact we are fairly certain that they learned of them from the Sassanid Persians and adopted them afterwards. This practise is not that of an Empire in dire straights adopting a lesser helmet when they still had that - according to you at least - superior helmet available to them. The solution that 'the Romans became inferior so they chose inferior armour' is not a valid argument because (as I mentioned above) they did not remain 'inferior' for the next millennium. And yet they did not return to their supposedly superior armour. Explain that with arguments - so far you ignored that part? 

In fact I still have not seen evidence - talks about motorcycles notwithstanding - that the so-called Goldsworthy btw did not write a thesis but only a theory, which he did not back up with any facts that we could check - for this discussion Goldsworthy is worthless.

---

The earliest known ridge helmet is the Persian one from the Dura Europos siege mine, dated AD257. The first Roman examples appear about 30-40 years later, which is not terribly long in terms of Roman helmet evolution.

However, once introduced they remained in constant production for well over a century. I get the strong impression that nothing anybody says will cause you to question your assumptions, but once again I'd ask why the Romans kept making these helmets if they were so 'inferior'?

No Nathan, the problem is that you are not able to confute an explanation based on science and not on dialectics. If you are not able to confute this really simple fact, it is useless to look for explanations to get around the problem.

Where is the science in this? Real science would be to test Gallic type helmets and Ridge helmets against weapons, not compare them to motorcycle helmets or WW1 helmets who were designed for very different reasons and impacts.

---

This has the makings of a sterile argument. The issue, surely, is not 'quality' but 'adequacy for purpose'. With the technology of the time, the production of a monoblock helmet required time and skill, while (I would suggest) ridge helmets could be turned out of the state arms factories relatively quickly and cheaply with a lower level of skill. Much might depend upon the armament and tactics of the enemy. Neither would be likely to survive a full-blooded blow with a battleaxe but, if the most likely possibility was a glancing blow with a spear, the ridge helmet would probably be entirely adequate. In short, the ridge helmet lasted because it was 'good enough'. A Rolls Royce may be the epitome of motoring excellence but a production-line Ford will still get you about.

Indeed, I completely agree with this argument.

---

However, once introduced they remained in constant production for well over a century. I get the strong impression that nothing anybody says will cause you to question your assumptions, but once again I'd ask why the Romans kept making these helmets if they were so 'inferior'?

Indeed - they did not replace the Gallic helmet after a period of no helmets, nor did they all of a sudden completely replace these. And the ridge helmet was itself replaced by spangenhelmets and the Baldenheim type, which became the standard for Romans as well as their enemies. Not something you expect from a 'cheap failure of an inferior stae'.