Pre- or Post-Dacian Modification of Roman Helmets

The use of ribbed helmets predates Trajan's reign and we can't ascribe it to a result of his dacian campaigns. Furthermore, it's likely that whilst the ribs may have had some beneficial resistance to weapon strikes, it was more to do with manufacturing techniques than defensive design since the Romans had used the gallic-style helmet for some time and had not shown any dissatisfaction with it. Given the traditional conservatism of Roman culture, the slow pace of change in arms and armour, the general spread of the 'ribbed' helmet along the germanic frontier from the m id 1st century, I cannot see any real reaction to the dacian falx however effective it might have actually been.

The use of ribbed helmets predates Trajan's reign and we can't ascribe it to a result of his dacian campaigns. Furthermore, it's likely that whilst the ribs may have had some beneficial resistance to weapon strikes, it was more to do with manufacturing techniques than defensive design since the Romans had used the gallic-style helmet for some time and had not shown any dissatisfaction with it. Given the traditional conservatism of Roman culture, the slow pace of change in arms and armour, the general spread of the 'ribbed' helmet along the germanic frontier from the m id 1st century, I cannot see any real reaction to the dacian falx however effective it might have actually been.

I'm afraid that you are mixing up the use of decorative 'brow' ridges, used notably with several of the Imperial Gallic style helmets, with the battlefield modifications used only on the later Imperial Italic helmets which can be precisely dated as a reaction to the Dacian Campaign.

Unfortunately the Armamentarium website does not appear to have been significantly updated, as it was originally intended to be, since 1997 but is still has a useful link to an article on a museum example of an Imperial Gallic D helmet showing the brow ridges common in this helmet type in the (Pre-Dacian campaign) period and without any cross-helmet reinforcing ridges.

The Legio VI website has a good article on the different types of Roman helmets showing reconstructed examples using the same classification system which is commonly used in English language publications initiated by Robinson back in his 1975 work. Note how it is only the later Imperial Italic types which have any evidence for the cross-helmet added or designed reinforcing.

 

I'm afraid that you are mixing up the use of decorative 'brow' ridges, used notably with several of the Imperial Gallic style helmets, with the battlefield modifications used only on the later Imperial Italic helmets which can be precisely dated as a reaction to the Dacian Campaign.

I'm afraid you're guessing. Had you asked, you would have discovered my information came from the works of Peter Donnelley and that I wasn't referring to decorative brow ridges (which aren't necessarily decorative at all, but designed to prevent blades slipping down across the face or prevent water from doing the same in inclement weather). If you like I'll enquire further with other sources but I don't expect any significant variations - I have after all seen photographs of the helmet concerned.

 

I'm afraid you're guessing. Had you asked, you would have discovered my information came from the works of Peter Donnelley and that I wasn't referring to decorative brow ridges (which aren't necessarily decorative at all, but designed to prevent blades slipping down across the face or prevent water from doing the same in inclement weather). If you like I'll enquire further with other sources but I don't expect any significant variations - I have after all seen photographs of the helmet concerned.

I fully accept that brow ridges could have had both a military as well as more 'decorative' function but as you should have realised from the links I provided I never suggested that they were an 'actual' battlefield modification reacting to the Dacian Campaign which is what we have been discussing.

Having come across him on several occasions in the Classics library and at Roman related conferences I can confirm how much research normally goes into Peter Connolly

Brill. I like it when people agree with me

Brill. I like it when people agree with me

I like it more when people provide verifiable sources for contentions which seem to fly in the face of all accepted evidence.

Accepted evidence is not irrefutable. As we know, interpretation is all important and there's been many changes in how we understand Roman history. Sometimes we also face preconception, urban myth, and sensationalism mostly intended for the authors profit rather than educating the world at large. Would you agree?

Not in this case I would like archaeological evidence of find spot and context.

"The senior armourers from the four legions would have been called in. They must have suggested fitting the two iron braces, one stretching from side to side and the other from back to back, that appear on Roman helmets towards the end of the first century AD. It is not known exactly when this modification was made but it was certainly while the army was on campaign; the examples that have been found show how crudely it was done. It was a mammoth task. No doubt the blacksmiths gave it priority but it must have taken weeks to modify all the helmets."

from Peter Connolly - 1988.

Whether archaeologists still suscribe to this idea on the origin of the cross braced helmet, I don't know.

from Peter Connolly - 1988.

 

Whether archaeologists still suscribe to this idea on the origin of the cross braced helmet, I don't know.

Thanks for that having now checked the reference the problem with allocating the Berzobis and Sz

Not in this case I would like archaeological evidence of find spot and context.

Which is often the aspect of history most open to interpretation and therefore never completely accepted, because we only have the evidence that survives and more than once it's sent researchers on wild goose chases on the basis of flawed interpretation regarding 'spot and context'. Also the need to prove a certain idea sometimes causes people to assign evidence a certain significance. In an extreme example, we have Chretien De Troyes inventing a strange ritual object as a prop in his unfinished story Percival and the christian connection given to it by later authors such as Robert De Boron to complete their own versions of the tale and exploit their christian readers has given rise to a ludicrous industry dedicated to finding the missing piece in real life.

It is worth ointing out the 'Weisenau' gallic helmets are dated as far back as the reign of Augustus and recovered examples have cross pieces fitted.

'Weisenau' (German)/ Imperial Gallic (After Robinson) are two different names for the same types of helmets and yes they do go back to Augustus 'if' you combine all of the variations as one group. However unlike Germany Robinson sub-divided the group and it is only the later variants including one from Theilenhofen which have evidence for the reinforcing cross-bars.

Even in Germany these are normally called Late Weisenau types.

The danger here then is an over zealous need to categorise. Roman helmets were subject to some variety being essentially hand made rather than mass produced. Nonetheless, cross pieces are not unusual before Trajans campaigns.

The danger here then is an over zealous need to categorise. Roman helmets were subject to some variety being essentially hand made rather than mass produced. Nonetheless, cross pieces are not unusual before Trajans campaigns.

I accept the possibility and would like to beleive you but I cannot find anything amongst my sources OR online which really confirm this statement.