Roman Officer and/or Praetorian Helmet

[Anonymous]

Exactly. It does look similar. It all looks similar. They were all individually made. Differences in visor size, means of attachment, size and shape of cheekguards, crestboxes... they're all relatively minor variations of the same conceptual design. One simply can't say that if a representation does not conform exactly to the tiny, miniscule amount of evidence actually unearthed, that it did not exist. Not credibly, anyway. There's never been two of the same helmet found of any type, even legionary ones. (And legionary helmets would have outnumbered officer ones roughly 5,000 to 7... a legatus, a senior tribune, and five junior tribunes per legion.)

A scientific friend of mine once told me that when the table of elements was being compiled way back when, there were elements that they could initially find no evidence for. However, they identified unknown factors that were necessary to complete this or that certain formula, so they basically "left holes" in the table, knowing that these elements had to exist in order to make the formulae work, even if they had yet to be identified. Eventually all of the elements we use today were identified, allowing us to peform all scientic functions. Now, had the original team stuck with the concept that there were no missing elements, that the list was complete as is, then formula would have been strictly limited/altered with regards to our understanding of it, and completely inaccurate as well. Science would have gone down the wrong road entirely by sticking to such an exclusionary dogma.

We need to keep our minds open to all evidence. The world is round. The truth is out there.

Severus

[Tarbicus]

The world is round

Well, it's a bit more of an elipsoid (mostly - something to do with spin, gravity and angular momentum, and they change), but that only goes to support what you say - it was flat for a very long time :wink:

(in some cultures)

[FlaviusCrispus]

Methinks that at some point, there will come a time when those who deny the existence of such helmets simply because they have yet to find one [to our knowledge] will appear contrary for the sake of stubborness alone. There is a well-known principle which is proof against all arguments in matters such as these, one and which cannot fail to keep men in everlasting ignorance: contempt in the face of proper investigation and new evidence (co-opted from Mr. Herbert Spencer).

I'm not quite sure who you're directing this comment at-- is there someone out there who "[denies] the existance of such helmets simply because they have yet to find one"? I think everyone I'm aware of agrees that some sort of helmet generally resembling the ones on the Claudian Praetorian relief and countless other monuments existed. We HAVE found examples of "pseudo Attic helmets" with integral browguards (the Vigiles helmet and the Thielenhofen example posted above by Theodosius included). I think the only question here is whether the brow guard is integral (that is, beaten out of the same piece of metal as the rest of the helmet), or separate and attached. I'm not even aware that anyone in print has actually denied the existance of such helmets. So I think you're beating on a straw man, here.

You believe the "separate brow guard" theory, mainly because you'd like such a helmet for your own Tribune impression. You posted the picture from Robinson's book of the supposed Attic helmet brow guard to support this position. Only, as Antonius and others have pointed out, this piece of evidence is not as definitive as it initially appears. The piece only superficially resembles an Attic browguard, has rather naive, provincial decoration, and lacks the distinctive volute terminals found on most monumental depictions of this helmet type. It could just as easily be an applique brow band from a face mask helmet as Antonius Lucretius suggested, or something else entirely.

I repeat, Attic-style helmets are VERY common on Roman monumental sculpture-- probably the most common form of helmet depicted. Some are shown in great detail (the background heads on the Praetorian relief, the Trajanic fragment shown above). They are shown being worn by "officers" (at least fellows in muscle cuirasses), regular infantrymen, and cavalryman alike, in every era of Roman art, right up into the fifth century AD. The problem is, there are very few OTHER types of helmets shown that we would recognize from actual archaeology. True, Trajan's column shows cross-braced helmets of a general Imperial Italic or Gallic pattern, but these do not really resemble (not in a detailed sense, anyway) any of the actual examples found. The proportions are way off-- smaller cheek pieces, "swoopy" neck guards-- in ways that lead one to suspect that the artist took a great deal of "artistic license" to show more of the face, simplify cutting, etc. Similarly, the lorica segs shown on Trajan's column are VERY detailed, and yet they don't match up very well, except in the most general sense, with the real lorica segs we've found. Until we find a real seg that matches exactly the ones on the column, we have to suspect that the artists were providing only an interpretation of a lorica seg, not a rivet-by-rivet replication.

So the real question is, can we really draw any definitive conclusions about the way a type of helmet (or any other type of armor, for that matter) is constructed from its depiction on a Roman monument, or whether the use of a such a helmet was actually as widespread as it appears? Can we get out our calipers and say, "the back of the helmet is just so, and the brow guard looks just like this," and have any real confidence that an actual military helmet (as opposed to one that adorned a model head in a scuptor's studio) looked exactly like this?

Now there's absolutely nothing wrong with basing an impression on sculptural evidence, when that's the only evidence we have. I've done it myself and continue to do it. And since so little "officer" material has survived (we've never even found an undeniably Roman muscle cuirass, although I think one in Guttmann II was identified as such), sculptural evidence is about all we have to go on. So go ahead, make that Attic helmet any plausible way you see fit!

Looking at the Trajanic fragment, I'm struck that we DO have an example of a helmet with a thunderbolt embossed on the cheek guard, very close to the one seen here. Only, this is an Imperial Gallic helmet from the Guttmann collection, not an Attic model at all. Namely this one...

http://www.romancoins.info/imperialgallichelmet.jpg

So we can verify one piece of this helmet, but not the whole thing.

RE. restorations on the Praetorian relief-- I'm currently in touch with someone at the Louvre and will have some information on the actual extent of the restoration on the Praetorian monument shortly.

[Anonymous]

The topic was opened in order to discuss the neo-Attic helmet in general, not to support any individual impression or pre-conceived notion. That I myself am building a Tribune's impression did indeed spur me to find out more; you apparently see this as a bad thing. I'm not clear on just why you have chosen to take general remarks about entire segments of the archeological world as if they are directed at you personally. Some experts do believe that lack of evidence equates to evidence of lack. Perhaps you're one of them, perhaps not. Frankly, no one cares. This discussion was not about you at all, but rather ideas and evidence concerning a piece of equipment. This is the archeology forum, not the reenactment forum. Please confine your remarks to those that positively contribute to the enlightenment of the forum, rather than to personal attacks upon me or anyone else here.

Severus

[Caius Fabius]

I am not actually seeing any specific attacks on any individual, but maybe I am missing something?

Be nice to each other please.

[FlaviusCrispus]

Frater Severus--

I'm not sure how you conclude that I am "attacking" you, or that I believe your building a Tribune's impression is a "bad thing." Nor did I suggest that your comments in your previous post were directed at me-- I wasn't sure exactly who you were talking about, since, as I said, I wasn't aware that anyone in particular was denying the existance of a Roman Attic or pseudo-Attic helmet.

I read back over my post, and I'm still puzzled as to how you perceived it as an attack. However, I may have erred in ascribing certain motivations to you re. opening this thread. And for that, I apologise and ask for your forgiveness. I value you as a friend, a fellow Roman and a first-class reenactor too much to wish to see you upset, nor do I want to discourage you in any way from pursuing whichever impression you want to build.

Amici?

[Anonymous]

I think I mistook the following line as a bit personal:

You believe the "separate brow guard" theory, mainly because you'd like such a helmet for your own Tribune impression. You posted the picture from Robinson's book of the supposed Attic helmet brow guard to support this position.

"You" statements are usually considered to be quite personal, as are presumptions as to the "real" reason someone posts something. If that was not the case here, then I, too, apologize; clearly I was mistaken.

Severus

[FlaviusCrispus]

"You" statements are usually considered to be quite personal, as are presumptions as to the "real" reason someone posts something.

Perhaps, but is it an "attack"? I thought it was pretty evident which side of the issue you stood on, and you yourself have alluded in this forum to your building of a Tribune's impression, as well as your work on an Attic-style helmet. I thought I was just stating a couple of "givens," no negatives intended or implied. But I guess I overstepped, and so repeat my apology.

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi Everybody and a Happy 2009 to you all!

I've currently sunk my teeth into this well-loved topic (resurrected elsewhere in variously-named threads) and am giving it my own "puppy-shaking".

I was delighted to see - at long last - the "one-and-only" brow plate from Robinson's opus. Never had the book, never managed to get it. Want it.

Jasper had, in his post of Thu 28 Apr 2005, 5:54, included some images of the Celate Razboieni helmet.

Is it possible they still exist?

Many Thanks

Howard / SPC

[Celtic505]

Interesting image. In my opinion I believe this certainly came from an Attic helmet or at least a pseudo-attic helmet type. I think the design would certainly be okay to use for an Attic helm reconstruction, and even if this did indeed come from a Wieler type helmet or some other Cavalry helm, I think the brow plate-esque designs on those helms would also be suitable for an Attic reconstruction, such as the brow plate from the weiler auxilary cavalry A or the cavalry sports D from thrace (the one that had embossed cheek pieces and had "considerable traces of silver") these both have clearly attic influences. I think the early cavalry helmets were based on or descended from the Attic helmet, like a spin-off on the design seen worn by officers. Aside from the embossed hair and the ear covering cavalry cheek pieces, many of these helmets certainly look Attic-esque or psuedo-attic in appearance and its easy to imagine that armourers would have been familiar with the appearance and design of the Attic helm from viewing numerous state monuments and sculpture and even copied greek sculptures, statues and mosaics in and throughout the Roman world. Theres numerous greek statues of Athena and Ares wearing attic helmets, so its possible the image was known to most people in the roman world from seeing the images in the temples and on coins, perhaps some even got to see some of the more famous state monuments. So perhaps if the helmet wasnt as common among officers, the image of the distinct brow plate and permanent crest was clearly a popular one amongst ancient artists and perhaps like the artists the armourers took to that image as well and in creating the early cavalry helmets and influenced their designs? I'd like to think they used the influence from seeing the art as well as seeing officers wearing these helmets, who knows, maybe it wasn't like that at all, I'm just speculating any of the numerous possibilities, so I'd be open to anything as long as there is proof. I also wondered perhaps maybe this piece Robinson labeled as attic brow plate really came from a helmet such as this one: http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,96/

It's clearly missing the front piece and the brow plate posted earlier looks like it could easily fit in that spot, it even has nails or some type of screw where the holes would be on the robinson brow piece. I'm not saying that this brow piece belongs to this EXACT helmet, I'm just saying perhaps it came from a helmet such as that. My main reason for believing it comes from an Attic helm it because the piece was found separate, to me that indicates that it was a separate piece added onto the helmet like you might have with an attic helm, but as the helm i posted above shows perhaps these types had separate brow plates as well, made too look as if it was a single bowl with embossed designs on it. Either way whether this belongs to an ordinary cavalry helmet or the elusive Attic helmet, I would say that this brow plate is probably a definitive look of what an attic helms brow plate would look like, slightly sloping upwards and being more round than triangular in appearance, much like cavalry helmets with embossed brow plates and the witcham gravel front portion of the plating, and therefore I would personally say that it would be accurate to use in a reconstruction of an attic helmet. But that is just my personal opinion, not the facts,

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi Dennis

A belated apology for never responding to your post of Jun 12, 2009 (!). No disinterest I assure you. Simply human oversight. June last year was a hectic time in my last year of teaching and I probably overlooked the alert email.

I must admit, I had thought maybe this was a thread no one wished to revisit, so I gave up checking manually after a month or so. As your own thoughts show, it is still a topic worth pursuing. Like the "leather" lorica musculata, we see representations of what may well have existed as we imagine it, we just don't have an archaeological find to confirm things.

I'd like to come back with my own thoughts from time to time - just not tonight. 'm knackered :wink: .

Cheers and again apologies.

Howard / SPC

[Celtic505]

Wow, it seems I overlooked your response to my '09 post as well. I completely agree with you. I think it is definately a topic worth talking about and looking into. I think there is a lot more to the attic helmet than what we think we know. I think there is a rich history to it and that it influenced and evolved its design and use throughout the Roman armys history. Like the early cavalry helmets such as the Weiler and witcham gravel, clearly they were at least influenced by Attic helms, I think there is no way they were designed from the influence of "artistic convention" from a monument or relief. There is some line of equipment it was influenced or descended from. I also think the Etrusco-Corinthian helmets were well in use past what we see in the archeological record. The Autun helmet with its eyes and nose feature on the front and the Heddernheim helmet with its distinct face both must descend from that tradition of helmets.

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi Dennis

I'm also following your "Attic Helmet" thread. Something that's always worried me has been the possibility of Renaissance artists tinkering around with Roman sculptures (the famous example being the Paris Praetorians). I'd love the opportunity to actually physically inspect some of these sculptures and read anything about investigations into them, which I can't seem to find at the moment. Surely someone must have looked at them and tried to determine which sculpting was antique and which later.

You'd think. (You'd hope).