Roman Army Helmet Design & Destructive Testing Plans

[@metatronyt]

I'm really looking forward to your destructive test, I'm not gonna lie. These helmet replicas in particular are actually not bad as a replica for a general legionary of the times of the principate. Differently from the Republican period, where only wealthy people could afford armour, hence the overall quality of single helmets was higher, in the early empire helmets were mass produced, which means quality went down, and Latin writers do mention that. With Montefortino typology, some top knobs started to be placed off centre, showing that the smiths didn't particularly care for precision as much as they did before, probably due to huge orders from the state. Of course if you were re-enacting a successful veteran soldier, perhaps a centurion or a tribune, you should have a high quality, properly made helmet, but if you are looking into generic legionaries, that helmet will do. We again know that soldiers sold their old pieces of equipment to new soldiers often, so second hand might mean not perfect measures, which should again be kept in mind. Since you mentioned the cheek pieces, an interesting thing to note is that enemies of Rome, particularly from the Germanic world or Spain, whenever they would loot dead Roman legionaries, they would take the helmets, but remove the cheek pieces. I know of some historians who said it was because they thought they were useless. I disagree with that. I think it's because they thought it made them look too Roman, but those are just my two cents, I could be wrong. Thank you always for your in-depth analysis of the overall structure of the helmet and combat experience, your videos are always gems of knowledge. PS: I'm gonna send you a vocal on messanger for the proper Classical Latin pronunciation of "lorica segmentata". Your vowel quality is good, but your phonemic vowel length requires a bit of work still :D

[@tommyfred6180]

love your work. i have learned so much from you. thankyou :)

[@johannesmichaelalhaugthoma4215]

Greetings, O winged Master!! I have 1 question which has bothered me about the roman helmet: why didn't the design include a nose-guard or other facial protection along the centerline of the face?

[@wallaroo1295]

*Tis but a lie m'lord! Testing your helm he says - but for a duel, he means!* 🤣

[@lscibor]

@@johannesmichaelalhaugthoma4215 May just be that noone had came up with it yet. Same thing with crossguard - seems like intuitive thing, and if you have metal in your swordhilt, it may protect your hand as well - but it appeared somehow late somewhere in Western Europe.

[@johannesmichaelalhaugthoma4215]

@@lscibor It is possible that you are correct. However, I was thinking of the prominent facial protection on Greek helmets of the classical period, which the Romans certainly knew about as they appear on some statues. I salute a fellow noble one.

[@opesam]

Looking at the alignment of the forehead bar and ear "covers" it looks like it would divert rain away from the face very effectively, and likewise away from the shoulders with the fanned neck piece. Maybe unimportant, but if you're standing or fighting in the rain it might be important!

[@KarmahsQuest]

I had this thought as well.

[@robbikebob]

When the legions came to England they would have been very grateful of their helmets then.....

[@APV878]

Eh, sort of. I've worn my Roman gear in a downpour or two (and not recommended, it sucks...And....Scrubbing off rust for days). But from what we understand and what has been excavated, some of the Roman cloaks w/ hoods may have been capable of (the hood) being pulled over the helmet, depending on the type of helmet. There has also been some excavations of leather fragments that might possibly be some sort of "rain/weather cover" for a helmet, there have also been fragments of leather shield covers, and a "jacket" like piece that might possibly be a leather covering for body armor. So it's possible the Romans, if anything in the Principate, had some leather rain covers. But, they're only fragments found, so jury is still out. it does pose an interesting question to chew on. When I was in one particular rain storm in armor, and was not wearing a cloak, the neck guard did a great job of funneling the water down onto my armor which then of course found its way under the armor (lorica segmentata) and my back got wet in spots. Although it wasn't a downpour, but even a light rain the water accumulated enough. There was another time a friend who wears maille armor and got caught in the rain without a cloak, the rain of course went right past the links in the armor and soaked into the armor padding. he said it was like wearing a wet towel underneath. The helmets do nothing for rain in one's face. Doesn't do anything for the sun on the face/eyes either.

[@franzglock4231]

Didn't help them at Teutoburg Forest...😁

[@APV878]

@@franzglock4231 LOL. Shhhh, we don't talk about it

[@BoomerZ.artist]

The best thing that comes from this video is older civilizations weren't stupid. The helms design has purpose and works for the way it was suppose to be used. I always get so sick of some people thinking they could design better armour, with the same techniques available for the time period, just because they think they know better. That helm came about after trial and error of real people dying on the battle field.

[@Altarahhn]

Amen, my Friend! Preach! 🙏

[@airisbanderlogas]

Yes and no. This is what - 700 years of interrupted trial and error? It is quite legit to assume "you can do better" if you pop up into very beginning of a particular era with a end of an era stuff. Also there is a random factor of somebody simply having (or not) a brilliant idea - for example, bicycle is perfectly possible to make with Roman technology (and taking into account Roman roads - would have been really interesting change in the order of things :D )

[@Murzac]

@@airisbanderlogas The primary reason why we might be able to do better in some things nowadays is mostly because our methods of making stuff has gotten better. Materials science and understanding of physics has also gone forward leaps and bounds since then, so we better know what kind of materials to use or how to reinforce something in a way that's both strong and light. Like consider a bicycle like you pointed out. Could it have been made with ancient roman technology? Yes, feasibly it could have been. But things like the chains might not be as good quality as they are now because the precision required could be a bit iffy. The seat would probably suck compared to what we have now because the materials we use now haven't been invented yet. Also things like Aluminum or carbon fiber or any other materials bikes are made out of these days didn't exist yet so it would either be made out of wood (which would make it easier to break in a crash) or something like steel or iron (which would make it really heavy). So like, yeah. People haven't gotten magically smarter over the last 1000 years. Evolution doesn't work that fast. People were smart back then as well. It's just that they were more limited in the technology that was available. As a result a lot of the designs that they came up with were actually really clever and really if you asked a modern master blacksmith to make something from back in the day and had them only use tools of that time period, they'd probably just look up how they did it back then because that's probably about as good as he's going to get. If you gave them the full arsenal of modern technology, then yeah it's likely that whatever you end up with will be of higher quality than the old ones, and probably manufactured faster as well. Like now you can make a decent sword by taking some sheet metal, laser cutting a suitable shaped piece and grinding it a bit to get it right while back in 100 AD you'd have to shape that thing out of a block of iron or some shit.

[@jamesbparkin740]

@@airisbanderlogas The bicycle is possible but eye-wateringly expensive until cheap steel is available. And without pneumatic tyres, it'd be a lot less useful.

[@MrAranton]

That is based on the assumption the older civilizations actually used the best armour they could make. Which wasn't always the case. The lorica segmentata wasn't used because it provided the best possible protection but because it was cheaper to make and easier to repair than other types of armour, that would have been more effective in combat. But then: Being cheap to make and easier to repair can be an advantage from a strategical perspective. A thousand soldiers in slightly worse armour can be worth more strategically than the 800 soldiers with slightly better armour you can get for the same money. The question is always "better at what?" Every creation, not just armour, is a compromise of goals, and improving one aspect of an object can and often will come at the price of making a different aspect of it worse.

[@joshuaphillips4604]

Don't know if you take requests from comments. Film "the last duel" just came out, hoping to see your comments on the main fight. Seemed well done to me, especially because we get armor actually protecting people as a key element.

[@scholagladiatoria]

I hope to see it, but don't know when that will happen. I resisted the temptation to trash talk the armour from the trailer, because that seemed too easy!

[@beepboop204]

@@scholagladiatoria have you ever ranked what you think are the most accurate/historical films/TV shows?

[@HebaruSan]

"Shield piercing" is definitely a nicer ability than "shield disabling", since even if the latter does work, you've still got the job of defeating the now-shieldless infantry

[@alessandronavone6731]

Not if piercing the shield doesn't then pierce the body armor as well. Although, a shield pierced by such a heavy javelin will kinda "disable" the shield regardless, bent or not.

[@Raz.C]

As for the job of "defeating the now-shieldless infantry," that sounds like the perfect job for a _second_ Pilum. This may have been part of the reasoning behind equipping each Legionary with 2 Pila.

[@alessandronavone6731]

@@Raz.C Hm, I don't know about that one. If I were a Gaul facing a legion, I'd still keep the shield with the pilum into it at least until my arm gets tired, it's still better than nothing.

[@hulking_presence]

Shield piercing IS shield disabling. They were probably thrown at the last moment, so the enemy wouldn't have any time to remove them from their shields.

[@Raz.C]

@@alessandronavone6731 I would also want to keep the shield, however, I believe that it becomes utterly unusable when there's a great big weight sticking out of it. Furthermore, because it's such a close-in weapon, if you've got one embedded in your shield, it means that you're likely 30 meters (about 100 feet) or less from the Legions. You won't have time to stand around and remove it from your shield, so the only thing you can do is to discard the now useless shield, since it really is useless.

[@gerryjamesedwards1227]

I want to know if Obelix could have dented a Roman helmet with one of his massive fists. We could get Joerg Sprave to stand in for Obelix, with a bottle of Schnapps standing in for the magic potion, what do you think?

[@RabbitxRabbit]

The cheek pieces being used to guard against your own shield would also partially explain why they’re hinged, I would think. Where most helmets with face protection are solidly connected to the helmet, if your shield “bonked” that it would knock your whole helmet all wonky. But I imagine that, being hinged, the cheek protection on the Roman helmets would help mitigate that effect.

[@fabiovarra3698]

they were hinged also to be able to carry the helmet suspended against the chest, the cheek pieces bented inside

[@nowthenzen]

@@fabiovarra3698 or was it that since the cheek pieces where hinged that made it easy to suspend the helmet against the chest? The point Matt is making is don't look at practical history and accept facile explanations. Probably the whole thing is habits adapting to equipment and equipment adapting to habits.

[@texasbeast239]

It's so cool looking, I ALMOST don't want to see it get destroyed. Almost.

[@Riceball01]

It's ok, it's only a mass produced Indian made helmet. It's not like he's testing a custom made one that's of really high quality.

[@texasbeast239]

@@Riceball01 Hey, my fave D&D character is a dwarf with a "Viking" horned helm, so compared to that, this is fancy! 😁

[@beckhamhome]

I think you're going to find that the Brim also works as a bumper. Slowing a hacking/slashing weapon from penetrating the helmet. Then a field camp blacksmith replacing it to keep a rather complex helmet still very serviceable.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

Especially since some adversary used heavy weapons, like axes and falx, that could have pierced a brimless helmet.

[@dan_the_dj]

I made myself one after watching your videos on it. Couldnt resist :D It was aimed to exactly replicate it, as best I could without dimensions. It turned out slightly heavier than a kilo, with a 60cm shank forged smaller than the head all the way to the ferrule, as per your suggestion, out of 12mm square (~10mm for the shank) and 202cm long overall. I can say, backed with my own testing, its a fricking scary thing! The courage that must have took to stand there and receive a volley of pila is just unfathomable to me... You could pray for it to hit your shield and spare you, after which you probably wouldnt have time to pull it out due to an eminent clash with the legion, so you had to ditch the shield and proceed bare skinned, only to be greeted by another volley... Yikes! Edit: About the tip, I did try to case harden mine, but my vessel cracked and I was forced to quench after only 10 minutes of soak time in my carburizing mix. After a bad shot by my friend, admittedly into a rock, the tip lost its peak a good 5 or 6 millimeters. I think its safe to say that you wont get anything noticeable by just quenching in carbon reach material. A substantially longer soak time at temperature is required to effectively enrich your mild steel/wrought iron to make it more durable. I intend to make so, when I get the time :)

[@srofv7805]

Interesting detail on the cheek pieces: the flaps only make contact with the bones of your face (cheek bones and jaw), but not the soft flesh underneath which your teeth are. Roman army somewhat concerned about dental care, perhaps? An army marches on its stomach, after all.

[@Uncephalized]

Not just that, losing or breaking a tooth is a good way to get a deadly infection and lose a man.

[@Yellow.1844]

a man that cant eat is an angry man

[@Riceball01]

@@Uncephalized I think that you're overstating the risk of infrection in the past. Despite common belief, people of the past did understand the risk of infection and while they didn't have ant-biotics, they did know how to treat and prevent infections. The Romans were known to have a pretty sophisticated military medical system and they took pretty good care of their wounded. They probably had a pretty good understanding of herbology and had all sorts of natural treatments for various forms of injury and diesease, including infections. For instance, both honey and vinegar are known for their snti-septic properties and were probably used by Roman doctors to prevent and/or treat infections. Obviously, they wouldn't work to the same degeee as penicilin or other anti-biotics, but it would probably be good enough to keep a broken tooth from getting infected.

[@cass7448]

​@@Riceball01 I don't think a tooth, specifically, would be that much of an issue anyway; at least not enough to redesign the helmet. Broken tooth? Pull that sucker out. Mouth wounds heal quickly. I'd be MUCH more concerned about, say, a broken jaw.

[@thomaszaccone3960]

Awesome analysis of helmet function, especially cheekpieces

[@kyletallerdy9739]

Thanks for the discussion. Excited to watch the results of the testing.

[@OutnBacker]

I consider the Roman Imperial Helmet o be the finest example of head protection ever devised for melee combat. A conglomeration of adaptations over the prior two hundred years produced it. Clearly, it is primarily designed for shock deflection in every aspect. The flange at the rear/sides for deflecting blows onto the shoulder pteras, whether segmentata or mail. The open, but deflecting ear apertures, and the large, flanged side-of-face plates with hinges for adjustment of fit. The brow guard is brilliant, and allows the soldier to duck low while not obscuring his forward vision. They pretty much thought of everything. It's too bad we have little to no knowledge of any arming cap or padded headwear that almost certainly must have been worn under the dome to protect against a well delivered blow. Getting clubbed or hit with a solid contact would result in being stunned, or worse.

[@philw8049]

I think you all are onto something with the helmet protecting the soldier from his shield. Especially when you consider the enemy may be being pushed by their troops into you, you may be being pushed by your troops to prevent you from being pushed out of position. I think it’s entirely plausible that your shield could be being shoved into you with quite some force.

[@MasterofOssus]

Looking forward to the Dacian falx testing, particularly. :) Thank you!

[@SteampunkGent]

The Pilum. Speak to an older person who does acetylene gas welding. One I spoke to claimed that a quick and dirty way of carburising the surface of mild steel was to heat to an orange red heat using a smoky (low oxygen) flame and then quenching. Obviously not time period authentic but it possibly help.

[@Testacabeza]

I am pretty sure the Romans glued some foam inside the shield or rubber or bubble wrap sutck with duck tape.

[@paultowl1963]

That destructive test video should be fun to watch! 🙂

[@andyfarrow7337]

Great video, thought-provoking. The falx looks like the sort of weapon that could strike over the scutum and threaten the back of the neck and shoulders, which the back flare of the helmet would protect against.

[@Discitus]

I always love some theorizing. There's so much we don't know. A mix of cultural significance lost to time, and practical adaptation to issues of the day, like getting a big curved sword stuck in your head.

[@benjamindover2601]

I just want to see one movie/Tv series were the main character actually wears a helmet and it saves his life.

[@Xaiff]

The only one I found was a highly controversial Japanese animation called "Goblin Slayer". The premise was that goblins are smart enough to use projectile weapons, like slings & specifically targeting the heads.

[@franciscomoutinho1]

@@Xaiff What's so controversial about goblin slayer?

[@NevisYsbryd]

@@franciscomoutinho1 Mostly the first episode.

[@JjackVideo]

Saving Private Ryan

[@ritgrant]

@@franciscomoutinho1 there's a lot of rape

[@wompa70]

Offense and defense has always been about one-upmanship. When one side makes a bigger leap it’s a dangerous time to live. Look forward to the testing.

[@salavat294]

Yes, but there is the all important lowest common denominator. The lowliest humble Roman legionary grunt was usually equipped on par with the enemy elite, in terms arms and armour. The higher standard lowest common denominator also raises troop moral. Quality equipment would be an indication of the value the particular society holds its soldiery class. The same way that the quality of rations effects troop morale.

[@raphlvlogs271]

the Dacian falx differs a lot on curvature and size in different time periods.

[@franciscomoutinho1]

I'm curious if there was ever one with enough curvature that could hook a shield and follow with a slash.

[@fabiovarra3698]

there were also ones with different grip lenght, maybe to be used two-handed on a second row

[@masterpartyfoot3172]

Matt has amazing ears, he suits a helmet that allows them out

[@maciejcocieto4361]

I was like: "Huh... It looks JUST like Metatron's helmet."

[@svensorensen7693]

haha, me too.

[@pokemon1895]

I was thinking of the Metatron as soon as I saw the helmet so I guess I wasn't far off!

[@jameslightfoot1872]

As a follow-up you should look at how the helmet was modified for the Dacian campaign to deal with the Dacian Falx. The advent of the crown ridge and lobster tail neck guard are a fascinating testament to an ancient arms race.

[@frankharr9466]

This is essentially yhe kind of helmet I imagine X wore in the The Night Land. I'm looking forward to this.

[@lscibor]

As far as hearing goes, Polish helmets (or maybe I only know Polish examples) from 16th and 17th century often come with what seems like hearing holes? I put question mark hear cause I'm not sure if they would really help much with hearing. I would post links but it seems damn YT deletes my posts if I do so. :/

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

Yes. I've seen what look like hearing holes in various photos of Renaissance helmets on museum websites. We know Renaissance armies had lots of soldiers who wore helmets & gave orders through speech & other sounds (fife, drum, trumpet, etc.), so this would make sense.

[@equesdeventusoccasus]

Would it be possible to make a video about sword care? What are the best oils to use, the best types of sharpening stones, etc? You have done some elements of this in the past, but a comprehensive video, would be great.

[@Splodge542]

The Met sent you his Roman helmet year ago and it's been siting in a box? Lockdown yes but I'd have been wearing it.

[@chazmartin8048]

Hey wheres that helmet test at, i cant find it

[@karloswald407]

Roman soldier who forgot to grab one of the fancy new helmets with a neck protector: "Ah for falx sake"

[@Valkanna.Nublet]

I'm a fan of the idea that the wide brim at the back of the Roman helmet is to protect against rain, it's really horrible and uncomfortable when it runs down the back of your neck ;)

[@beepboop204]

rain water or raining blows?

[@stefthorman8548]

@@beepboop204 not mutually exclusive

[@beepboop204]

@@stefthorman8548 indeed, more so primary design function. the general design function is to keep unwanted things way from your back!

[@tamlandipper29]

Wouldn't it be lighter to have a leather flap, or is it just all round more convenient?

[@gearandalthefirst7027]

Someone else in the comments mentioned that it actually does the exact opposite, dumping the rain down your back. They had hoods and cloaks for a reason.

[@0214Bub]

I just saw the movie "the Last Duel". Do you have any plans to do a video discussing the weapons and fight scene?

[@gn1144]

I always wondered why roman helmets never had a square of mail attached to the uncovered front part of the helmet. Does it restrict your eyesight that much?

[@byci]

Reeeaaally good content and explanation. Did you do the test? I couldnt find it

[@beepboop204]

always wanted to see your helmet

[@LuxisAlukard]

Looking forward to new video!

[@Hibernicus1968]

Small correction. That's not a Coolus type helmet. Those were slightly earlier, simpler in design, and I believe most surviving examples are bronze, though there are iron ones as well. This particular helmet is one of the so-called Imperial Gallic type, and one of the middle subtypes by the look of it (its neck guard is too sloped for it to be a type A, and not sloped enough for to be a type H, nor does it have the angled upwards "visor" peak of a type J). I've always thought these were the best looking of all the helmets ever used by Roman legionaries, and their design is quite practical to boot. Even the embossed "eyebrows" were almost certainly not purely decorative, but rather intended to allow a slightly thinner guage (and thus lighter) helmet, to be rigid enough to stand up to hard blows from enemy weapons and adequately protect the legionary wearing it. Ditto the embossing around the neck guard.

[@rerspss]

Youre good! Thank you for your work!

[@СашаПпп]

Carbonize tip of pilum is really not easy to do. Carbonisation is slow process and it needs relatively high temperature. Weld steel tip is much easer than carbonise part of iron shaft.

[@Immopimmo]

True. You can keep the cheap iron for the shaft and only use a bit of steel for a better penetrating tip. I feel it should be possible to notice a weld in surviving examples though.

[@HeisenStark13]

Love it when you do Roman content

[@hulking_presence]

What amazes me is that there was some kind of a system for the army to report to the armor producers the info on what they need. How exactly were they adapting their armor and tactics? Like "ok we were hit with this new weapon, we weren't ready, we need to adapt" What's next? Who makes these decisions?

[@leppeppel]

"One way or another, I'm gonna destroy this helmet." [later] "So the pila didn't do as much damage as I had predicted, but Skall has sent me this SKS for testing..."

[@arc0006]

Great vid learned a lot.

[@LeVraiPoio]

In my experience of XIIIth century fight with shields, with straps, either with and without a guige, when someone charges you brutally, it is not uncommon to take the shield in the teeth too. Though that's something you learn to mitigate real fast because pain is an excellent teacher.

[@-Zevin-]

Uh oh, we have to wait until the weather is nice and and it is sunny outside in the UK? If the stereotypes are true then that means it could be sometime between next week, and the heat death of the Universe.

[@stormiewutzke4190]

Very cool

[@TheLord0Ice0Wind]

Are you going to do some decent testing with slings using lead shot or large stones? A test indicative of a career soldier having the enemy bounce rounds off their dome?

[@SilverSquirrel]

I was under the impression that the forward one of the two bolts holding the head of the pila in place was a wooden dowel that would snap causing a hinge action. Did I dream that? I'd like to see what a lead sling bullet does to the helmet!

[@wesmatron]

I too thought the pilum was designed to bend... Mind you, with a spike that long it makes operating the shield or charging without withdrawing the pilum something of a danger and withdrawing it could be a dangerous faff

[@jamesmayes4351]

Hey Matt any idea on the hardness of that steel?

[@vikingbushcraft1911]

Can we just say - those Romans were damned clever - great vid 👍

[@AlexanderWernerJr]

I'd like to point to one of ThegnThrand's videos where he tested the Dacian Falx against Roman equipment. It might provide some additional material for comparison's sake: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pIe3mJuroKZ_kK8

[@AlexanderWernerJr]

@Fishy Vagina It seems his most recent videos are only one year old, so he might do more content in the future. Maybe he's just taking a break for a while, let's see. But it's true, his channel is really good and I also hope he'll continue his work again.

[@JD-te6zc]

Was trying to find some stuff out about Irish and Celtic throwing spears/darts, couldn’t find much but I imagine they’d have some similar qualities to Roman ones? Anyone know anything about that?

[@fabiovarra3698]

a difference for the irish ones, would be a string tied to the shaft to throw it longer, Tod made a viedo on it

[@ducomaritiem7160]

I already like this topic!

[@gerryjamesedwards1227]

It seems, looking at the exaggerated flanges around the ears, that the emphasis is on being able to hear shouted orders, martial musical signals and maintain more peripheral awareness, rather than going for our-and-out protection. The wearer of a visored bascinet obviously wasn't used to being given orders in the heat of battle.

[@Zaeyrus]

For the Algorithm! Roma Invicta!

[@esbenskovrasmussen9066]

No Raid commercial i am happy to see that. A casino company that targets children really should not be legal or promoted. I do understand the money is more than enticing that is why I have not complained on the old videos but just celebrate that they seem to be gone.

[@robertl6196]

I wonder what the quality of actual Roman legionary helmets were. I'm sure they varied in quality and materials over time and regionally. As sort-of mass produced items, I'd guess they had the same issues as modern military equipment: made by the lowest bidder?

[@seanpoore2428]

I thought I recognized that helmet!!

[@richardk6238]

So, Dacian Falx?

[@markhatch3737]

'Coolus'? Did you mean 'cassis' or 'gallea' as the word for a helmet? Also, in H Russel Robinson's typology, what you're showing looks very much like a Imperial Gallic H - the type I wear ☺

[@andytopley314]

I wonder if the reduced importance of hearing in the Medieval armies was the presence of gunpowder - after all guns make a LOT of noise so exposed ears leave soldiers deafened so why not keep them covered. You can rely on people hearing the plan when not engaged and so able to remove helmets. If deafened by gunfire they won't hear much for days

[@Raz.C]

I was really hoping you would test the Werewolf-Hide armour that you promised to test over a year ago!! What's the delay on those tests?

[@kaibowman4803]

What manufacturer is that helmet! It may not be super high quality but it looms far nicer than anything i can find online

[@christopherpie8559]

Do you have any footage that you can post of that unmade BBC thing? You mention it occasionally and I'd love to actually be able to see some of what there was.

[@kajlennartsson4234]

Can you do a video about gladiators?

[@scholagladiatoria]

I did several already :-) Have a word search in my videos please

[@jesseshort8]

Patiently waiting for the destruction of said helmet.

[@aureliusverusgaiusmagnus8483]

You are wrong about the pilum because when the romans were about to throw them they would heat up the spear to make it softer at the tip and also to make it lighter so it could reach the enemy quicker

[@ArmouredProductions]

I wonder why cheekplates fell out of fashion. The proliferation of Mail Coifs perhaps? Though they don't look as cool to me, I guess a Mail Coif would provide similar protection plus it has more coverage.

[@stefthorman8548]

@@FeedMeMister it looks pretty protective.

[@stefthorman8548]

@@FeedMeMister pretty sure the cheeks were padded somehow, and it's either feeling uncomfortable or not being protected, because most deadly hits are stabs to the face, and it might deflect an hit to an degree, without obscuring vision or facial expressions. As for the weight, it probably balances the wide neck brim, and it doesn't even look that heavy, for the protection it offers. As for the complexity, they've been doing it for an very long time, its removal is more of an cost thing, not an effectiveness thing, it's an downgrade for the heavy infantry.

[@stefthorman8548]

@@FeedMeMister that's why they have an huge sheld, only the head, arm, or legs are most likely to be exposed, so the enemy should mostly aim for the head, or neck, (which should've been behind the sheld.) for the decisive blow. an stab to the face, even if it's just an non fatal glancing gash, would bring severe pain(which would probably be fatal due to infection, and the soldier being "blinded/into shock/partially incapacitated", makes the soldier an danger to the formation/unit, and has to be taken to safety, which lessens the fighting power of an soldier by 30% if blinded in one eye, and 1-5% for deep gashes to the face, with an 20-50% chance of infection/death, in campaigns the survival of an soldier should be fairly important), and it is far more likely to be slashed to the face, since the sheld is flat on top, which would act as rail towards your face/exposed neck (which is far more complex to armor up), so unless they stopped using their huge shelds and short swords, and transitioned them to light infantry, with longer weapons, I don't see why they would get rid an +15% chance to stop wounds(30% coverage) for the face, unless they were too poor to afford it. I searched it up, the late Roman empire was still using it, even after the collapse and into the dark/medieval/renaissance period, there were still cheek protectors, they even transitioned to full face hemets by the mid medieval period, because face protection was that popular, it's just that an mail coif is an easier, less complex and an cheaper to produce armor, since they had to get their own armor unlike the romans, and it's not like the new kingdoms after the collapse had enough money and power to provide real, maximumly protective armor to every soldier, like the Roman's, so the cheek protectors never went out of style, it's just the elites who wore it, and the levy's wore garbage, since they had to provide their own armor. So the reason it's less used, is that good armor took an steep dive for rank and file infantry, and devolved from plate armor(state provided) to mail armor(self provided), then to back into plate armor(self provided) in the late medieval with the man at arms, and most of the helmets had some degree of cheek/face protection.

[@stefthorman8548]

@@FeedMeMister it's not marginal benefits, it's like saying an medieval full face helm is unnecessary, when they could have just gotten an skull cap, as for the statistics, you can vaguely get the stats, from looking at the design, i did take account of the style of warfare, and yes every design has an trade off, the splintered kingdoms obviously can't field an well armored army like the Roman's anymore, so they got inferior armor, for inferior part time levy soldiers, the benefits are cost, the detriment is not as good and low quality armor. You're making it sound like those splinter kingdoms are successors to the Roman empire, and armor developement was an linear graph, they're not, armor for rank and file fell sharply in quality and quantity, the rank and file soldiers for the new kingdoms didn't even know how to make concrete, make forts, alot of knowledge was lost. As for "lineage to consider" they were basically trying to emulate the Roman's, but without the knowhow. Getting rid of the cheek guards is because the local poor levy can only afford the inferior helmet from his local two bit blacksmith

[@stefthorman8548]

@@FeedMeMister it seems like you're the one who doesn't get it, how does cheek armor limit any of your many examples? It doesn't limit forward vision, hearing, facial recognition, or any of that, I said full face helms are an evolved version, not that it has the same benefits, it just takes face protection an step forward, with the draw backs that cheek armor didn't have, it seems like you didn't even remotely take you're own advice, that different armor has different benefits. I'm also done, since you keep veering the conversation away from the main topic since you can't even refute any of my core statements, and seriously? Your big reason you're right and I'm wrong, is to go for that full helm aren't that good for grunts, (which I never said, I said multiple times, that after the Romans, they couldn't afford to properly armor their solders, and that only in the late medieval period did some of the grunts(like the man at arms), properly armored themselves, and most of their helmets had some form of cheek protectors, I never even said that full helms are for peaent levy's at all(not that they could afford it, since the kingdoms couldn't armor their soldier's and they had to buy their own armor)) instead of the main argument that cheek protectors are necessary, I don't think you're thinking logically, or thinking, at all.

[@Elite-bh6pm]

How historically accurate are the pila you used? I understand from other sources if they are accurate that the pilum's shaft was tempered in a way to make it bend easily after penetrating a shield, perhaps the pila you're using were not tempered in the same way. Just a thought, I have no expertise on the subject, just throwing that thought out there.

[@fabiovarra3698]

You don't need a special temper to make it bend easly, iron would tend to do that naturally instead of breaking, the Romans knew how to made steel, but it would made more sense to them to made the pila's shanks of iron and maybe only the point hardned. It's more probable that the bending was only a secondary result from having such a long iron shanks when someone tried to pry it out a shield very fast.

[@Elite-bh6pm]

@@fabiovarra3698 I see, thanks for the reply.

[@QuentinStephens]

Is there any evidence that the cheek pieces on the helmet were padded? Because that would have eased the hurt when the cheek piece diverted a sword blow.

[@beepboop204]

if they rocked bears it would sort itself out! ive basically always got a fuzzy ski mask on. i look like Gritty

[@NoName-lo9ym]

I hate it when my shank gets bent trying to penetrate, once it ended up in a trip to A&E!

[@robertgross1655]

🎩hi And yes I have lead a pike block of 100 in a fighting wedge.

[@APV878]

The replica you have is missing the "anchor" point for the chin strap, which is on the center of the back-neck/nape guard. It changes the way the helmet is worn and how it's secured on the head. Every single Roman helmet from the earliest "Montefortino" type to the 300s AD/CE that have been found archaeologically, all have this "anchor" ring. It's the first thing to check for "accurate" replicas. But, also one of the easiest modifications to make to a replica, if the rest of the helmet is otherwise accurate. But, I understand it's the "sacrifice". Also, Romans NEVER used drums in military context. That is a Hollywoodism. There are mentions about Legions changing formations, retreating/advancing etc to the sound of trumpets/horns, and in camp the hours and assembly are marked with horns, but there has never been a reference by any of the historical Roman writers that the military used drums, and no solid evidence they marched to a cadence either. That level of mechanical precision and intervals is a fairly modern construct, ironically, what many early-modern period antiquarians and classicists thought the Romans were doing on their own (shoddy) research and interpretation with a modern bias.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Cool info, thanks!

[@rippertrain]

You have to keep in mind how tall he is. That's a big shield

[@extradimensional8818]

I was a right one for the birds in the late 1980s early 1990s so I think I may of had a roaming helmet

[@tamlandipper29]

Can anyone explain why this awesome design gave way to the fancy designs of the late empires which imo look daft?

[@docholiday7975]

I'm guessing you mean the helmets of the Dominate era? The bipartite helmets arose out of a combination of things. First was a reworking of the logistical system with the army supplied various things like armour, weapons and clothes being done in large, imperial manufactories in the major cities with a mix of slaves and skilled workers unlike the old system where it came from professional smiths attached to each legion and other ad hoc means,. Second was looking at designs from outside the empire and copying what worked, nothing new as almost everything the classical legionary wore was the devising of someone other than the Romans. The third was an increase in the size of the army meaning that these manufactories needed simple, cost effective designs that could be churned out en masse by relatively low skilled craftsmen unlike their old legionary counterparts. This bipartite helmets like the ones from Intercisa were the end result. The parts were all made separately unlike the old imperial gallic helmets, so the neck guard, cheek flaps and bowl were all separate pieces meaning they didn't need to be worked as long and hard as raising the bowl and extending the back for the neck guard. The edges were pierced so they could be covered with leather rather than having the edges rolled or sheathed, a much simpler task. This all had its advantages beyond mere cost, as the helmets were thicker, slightly below 18 gauge on average, as the billet of steel didn't need to be worked out in one piece stretching it thinner, parts could be replaced much more simply on campaign as replacing a cheek flap didn't require a hinge to be reworked to accommodate a new one but rather stitch on a new one and some even had a nasal bar for face protection that the older models never had. There were others around, but for the 4th & 5th C, these are clearly the most common and indeed practical.

[@tamlandipper29]

@@docholiday7975 I really appreciate you taking the time to write that out. I bought two osprey books which I thought would cover the topic and they didn't. So I accept your explanation. I suppose my next question is whether this economy and practicality was a sign of mature statecraft, or decadence. The Roman army for much of Rome's history was the heart of political and imperial power. Its appearance as in most empires would be totemic not just practical. So would frontier province X feel like me and start having awkward thoughts when the legion didn't look like the legion of 100 years ago?

[@docholiday7975]

@@tamlandipper29 Personally, I'd say it was a definite sign of mature statecraft than any notion of decadence. Streamlining the logistical situation makes sense both from a practical and economic standpoint as it served better to equip a more reactive military that didn't need to operate for extended periods of time in hostile territory, was more practical from the point of economic rationality and moreover the logistical means of moving equipment stimulated the economy by operating in the same way as the cura annonae did for the Mediterranean, something especially important for the underdeveloped regions of Britain and Northern France. That the legion didn't look the same isn't any great concern. Even during the time of Trajan there was a disconnect between provinces as to what the legion should look like with the differences between Trajan's column in Rome and the Tropaeum Traiani in Civitas Tropaensium in Moesia Inferior with the later having a less uniform appearance with a significant lack of segmentata; this only gets compounded further with the classicising of arts by deliberately trying to ape earlier classical Greek material culture in later works. That even writers like Vegetius who waxed nostalgic about the earlier Principate legions only took issue with the lack of armour, not form (an erroneous belief likely spurred from an increase in light infantry as part of the reactive doctrine) should be noted.

[@ShouVertica]

I like to think the guy who made the helmet got bashed in the face one too many times and decided "yeah i'm going to fix that little issue...."

[@tiagoml-qq5uh]

"They would have hardened up the tip" Matt Easton 2021

[@Cavouku]

Obligatory post here for anyone who just wants to join me in chanting: "FALX! FALX! FALX! FALX! FALX!"

[@jhrykkjutku]

It's a "Gaulish" helmet.

[@elshebactm6769]

🤠👍🏿

[@thomasv2577]

I can see that shield knocking out your front teeth

[@SirNoobz_Alot]

Lmao 😂 sat in the box for a whole year

[@marianconstantindumitriu6062]

*giddy Dacian noises...

[@ak.5620]

Hi

[@ak.5620]

Thank you for hearting my comment!

[@beepboop204]

hey

[@p4radigm989]

an Axe might do most dmg

[@thisffinguy]

Cook In It - Can It Be Used As A Pot ?

[@adwarfsittingonagiantsshoulder]

Cheek-plates on the roman helmet are useless... anyone should know that with a large shield, to stop it bashing agaist the teeth, one should bite the top of the shield as demonstrated by the Lewis chessmen... sorry, it was a small joke !

[@beepboop204]

vikings also did teeth modification: i think they would be a modern dentists nightmare

[@Spartans-bm9vd]

15 min of Nothingness!!

[@rayfraser1773]

Don’t ruin it !

Third!

[@julianshepherd2038]

Video of helmet bashing 😂

[@MarcRitzMD]

Your mild steel plum is just not authentic. No wonder you come to the conclusion that it doesn't bend easily, contrary to period accounts. "Some projectile weapons reported seem to have hardened surfaces, either by working or by carburizing, and softer interiors. Two pila (spears) were dissimilar in composition and construction. One pilum from Vindonissa [17] was mainly ferritic with a cold-worked tip while another had a layered ferritic iron and steel structure (maximum hardness 218 HV). The relatively soft shanks of these weapons would bend easily, making their removal from shields difficult, as described by Caesar [27].

[@johnladuke6475]

Foreign weapons? Destroying Roman helmets? Matt, go falx your hat.

[@manfredconnor3194]

Katzbalgers were meant to bend in cats. Seriously. = @ )

[@brittakriep2938]

Balg is an outdated german word for fur. Also ,balgen' is a word for a not serious fight.

[@manfredconnor3194]

@@brittakriep2938 Ja, wirklich? Erzähl. = @ )

[@brittakriep2938]

@@manfredconnor3194 : A Katzenbalg is in current german a Katzenfell/ cat's fur. Some old people still say ausbälgen , when they mean currently used ausstopfen ( preparing / conserving a dead animal for a museum) . The Katzbalger got its name, because the Landsknecht mercenaries decorated the sheats oft their swords with pieces of cat fur, perhaps an Aberglaube ( a kind of magic believe). The other possibly reason for the name Katzbalger could be balgen or katzbalgen, which means for example when children do a fight, which is not intended for selfdefence, but more as fun and competition. In this case, Katzbalger would be an ironic nickname for a weapon of war.

[@manfredconnor3194]

@@brittakriep2938 Keiner weiß es genau. Ich habe häufiger 50+ Erklärungen gehört warum ein Katzbalger "Katzbalger" heißt. Deiner Erklärung ist mir neu und klingt etwas unglaubwürdig. Warum würden die Landknechts ausgerechnet Katzenfell dafür verwenden wenn hunderte andere Stoffe denen zur Verfügung stunde? Das müssen sie mir belegen bevor ich es glaube. Warum sprechen Sie mit mir nicht auf Deutsch?

[@brittakriep2938]

@@manfredconnor3194 : Ich bin Brittas Freund, benutze nur gerade ihren Anschluß. Habe Asperger, und war unsicher, ob sie deutschsprachig sind, oder nur einige Sätze können, wenn mir etwas unklar ist, reagiere ich für andere Leute oft unverständlich. Ein Balg ist ein altes Wort für Fell/ Pelz , mein Vater ( Jahrgang 1938, Landbewohner) bezeichnet noch heute Tierpräperatoren als Ausbälger. Daher erscheint mir die vor längerer Zeit gelesene Behauptung , der Katzbalger habe seinen Namen von als Zierde an den Schwertscheiden angebrachten Katzenfellstreifen nicht gänzlich aus der Luft gegriffen. Weshalb allerdings Landsknechte Katzenfell zur Dekoration an die Schwertscheide gebunden oder geklebt haben sollen, ist mir allerdings nicht erklärlich. Falls dies stimmen sollte, vermute ich einen uns heutigen Menschen unbekannten Aberglauben, es gibt ja heute noch Leute, die glauben , ein Katzenfell helfe gegen Rheuma !.