Roman helmet designations

[Lusitano]

This is just something I've always wondered about but seem to find nothing to explain it.

Why do roman helmets always seem to have a letter in the end of their designation ex: "Imperial Gallic H, Republican Monfortino B, etc"

Is this letter a modern designation or does it have some meaning?

[Magnus]

It's a modern thing, going off of H R Robinson's original classification. To me this is a totally flawed way to categorize helmets. I think a more likely explanation is that smiths are given a schematic, or are shown an example, then told to reproduce the helmet. Thus you see the differences in eyebrow shapes, cheek pieces, neck guard styles, etc. etc. Factor in the # of smiths in one area AND their apprentices, it seems silly to me to give a helmet it's own class when it's probably due to stylistic differences in the smithies. This would also explain the larger differences in helmet design the greater the distance between forges over the empire.

I think the smiths were somehow given a rough specification for a helmet type, and perhaps a drawing/plan of what was required, then left to their own devices to produce it. Looking at a Gallic G vs Gallic H vs Gallic F and saying they are different helmet types is absurd.

I think they should broaden the classifications to their main descriptors (Gallic, Itallic, Coolus, etc.), and unless something is vastly different, then give it a different name to show it...like a Gallic Type I, or Type II, like the differences in the Gallic A and Gallic H.

[Lusitano]

Thank you.

Yes, your hypothesis seems very likely, considering that modern day armores that try to replicate originals also come up with slight differences.

[sulla felix]

I think you are ignoring the archaeological context here - the classifications as I understand them attempt to illustrate a time scale for the introduction and development of various helmets. Granted there is a case for regional variation and workmanship (and to a certain extent this is reflected via the Gallic, Itallic etc. tags), but I personally think it is much more useful to attempt some kind of meaningful chronology for these.

[Lusitano]

I think you are ignoring the archaeological context here - the classifications as I understand them attempt to illustrate a time scale for the introduction and development of various helmets. Granted there is a case for regional variation and workmanship (and to a certain extent this is reflected via the Gallic, Itallic etc. tags), but I personally think it is much more useful to attempt some kind of meaningful chronology for these.

So the further it goes down the alphabet, the more "recent" the helmet is?

[sulla felix]

I believe that Robinson was attempting to look at the development of the design of these helmets over time, and I think I am right in saying that that the purpose of sub dividing the types was to demonstrate possible improvements or changes over time.

Others may have a different view of this though?

[Tarbicus]

I believe that Robinson was attempting to look at the development of the design of these helmets over time, and I think I am right in saying that that the purpose of sub dividing the types was to demonstrate possible improvements or changes over time.

Others may have a different view of this though?

Sounds bang on to me, for now. The whole classification of helmets does need a revamp though, as more are found with hybrid features and even ones unseen before.

[sulla felix]

Sounds like a very good subject for a PhD hock:
Lots of discoveries since Robinson 30 plus years ago.

[sulla felix]

Nuno,

The link below has a nice illustartive timeline to demonstrate the point:

http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEqui ... elmet.html

[Tarbicus]

A new classification system has been discussed indepth before here. The greatest hurdle would be to encourage the wider academic community to accept it.

[Magnus]

I agree to a point Barry, but you'd have to investigate the length of usage for particular helmets...even if new models weren't coming into use until every 50 years or so, that to me beckons the need for a different classifcation system. Giving helmets different designations that are less than 50 years apart and look extremely similar is illogical. Or include the era in with the name somehow.

We should work on something like that...then maybe present it in the Ancient Warfare magazine. 8)

[Tarbicus]

The thing is, Matt, that the helmets do actually look starkly different, IMHO. Each variation begs questions which can only currently be answered by hypotheticals, at the moment. Reducing the categories could just mean a quagmire as it was before Robinson did take a cold, hard, objective and analytical look, and came up with something that began to make sense of the whole lot, particularly with reference to the development of these things.

[sulla felix]

Matt,

50 years sounds very arbitrary here. A lot can happen in 50 years of "development", particularly when you consider the wide varierty of experiences that the Roman army gained as the republic/empire expanded. Many external influences are likely to have resulted in minor changes, but they are still changes that were apparently perceived to be necessary from a practical standpoint (or for that matter economics?). I do agree that there are obviously variations within types that are of a seemingly minor nature, but the fact is that there is a very limited amount of evidence that survives upon which to base any hypothesis (compared to the huge number of helmets that must have been manufactured during the Roman era). Such minor variations and categorisation may well be considered unnecessary in reenactment, but I think in archaeological and historical terms it remains a useful framework to be fleshed out as more information becames available.

If we were to divide the history of the Roman era into 50 year timeslots just think of all the amazing history that would be "lost"?

[Magnus]

They're not that different Jim, I just poured over the helmet base looking at the Gallic's and they all share the exact same features. Any variations could easily be explained by my reasons above. Not to mention we don't know if someone with money had a smith do some custom work on a gallic type of helm to suit it to their desires. That type of custom work doesn't in my mind warrant a new helmet type.

Robinson's typology needs to be revised..it's antiquated and no longer efficient. Especially given the helmets being found now.

Barry, 50 years was in fact just an arbitrary number I used as an example, and shouldn't be taken as any more than that.

I'm going to make this into my side project after speaking to Jasper about it...once I start to get somewhere on it, I'll post what I have for comments.

[Tarbicus]

This is relevant:
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 0865#90865