I want to be a Romano-British warrior (5-6th century Britain

[Steel Bonnet]

Consider lamellar...aluminum..you can treat it with Ferric Chloride and it will come out like iron...weight on the cuirass would be around 10 lbs or so..and the weight would not ride totally on your shoulders..pm if you have any questions..

[Maelgwyn]

"My current body armour is ABS plastic which I wear under a tunic."

For a great many late Roman/early post Roman troops, that look is ideal. Visible armour marks you as a leader or member of an elite troop...most fighters should be in a coptic tunic, helm, oval shield and spear or sword. This isn't dumbing it down at all...it is probably making it more typical.

" I would appreciate suggestions on the most appropriate tunic, pants and shoes."

You will notice that most of the pictures here show folks in white tunics with colored decorative stripes and circles on them. We call these decorations "clavi" and "orbiculi" and they are what makes it a coptic tunic. Make your tunic from linen or, if you live further north, possibly wool. Any simple, basic pants of wool or linen will work. They can be a solid color, woven in stripes, herringbone, or other basic weaves. I like the ones sold here on the archive from the linen tunic store. Use wool leg-windings or winingas to make the pants form-fitting from the knee down and tuck into your Roman boots. The Viking boots you are using are fine for now, but something based on a Roman pattern would probably be more accurate.

"I think I am OK with my shields. One is a 28 inch round with rawhide rim. The other is a 24"x34" aluminum elliptical oval. But, I need suggestion on what to paint on them. With a persona this early it would not be appropriate to use my device even though it is an early style."

I like my 24x36" oval but there is evidence for round shields too.

Look at the artwork on the Notitia Dignitatum (see http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson ... terns.html) for examples of military shield designs. After the collapse/exit of the Empire there are likely to be no rules, and you can paint your shield however you wish unless you sign up with a commander who tells you differently. For use in the SCA I'd suggest using a personal shield design (registered or not) for tourneys and something representing the unit you fight with for wars.

And remember, we are the Romano-British good guys, and the Saxons are the bad guys. All clear?

Maelgwyn

[Jonny Deuteronomy]

I interpret a Romano-British Warrior in the SCA.
I am wearing hockey armour except for my legs which are Alpinestar moto-x.
Tunic is new
Helmet is a simple Roman by Mandrake, mild steel, circa 1993
Mandrake lighweight mitten gauntlets, mild steel, c. 1994
Gorget is COTS, c. 1994
Drawers are awning canvas, c. 1997

[Talorc]

I was wondering if I could get some opinions on this subarmalis? I have heard the depiction of the leather strips is "key". Were the leather strips attached directly to the subarmalis (I believe they were), or were the strips separate from the subarmalis? I am not going for the muscle style, just like how this is set up, nor would I have the leather straps on the sides, I will lace the sides most likely. I will be using a hamata and a Roman ridge helm, everything else will be covered minus my gauntlets which are required by SCA. I will also be using a kidney belt I made, but again it will be under the chain and only if I do not simply pad the subarmalis.

[DamonSriv]

The above post is relevant to my interest. Does anyone have any insight or thoughts?

Im also curious about the time period those pauldrons would of been used and who would of used them?

[Matthew Amt]

Good questions! Unfortunately, bad answers: We don't know! We *think* that in the Roman era the pteruges (flaps) were attached (possibly removably?) to the subarmalis. But by the post-Roman era, all we can do is shrug. We can't even show that there WAS a subarmalis any more! In fact, a lot of people write off the whole Romanesque look with pteruges as an artistic style, not reflecting reality at all, but I don't think that's a safe conclusion. If the ancients were so consistent about showing their aristocrats with these features, it implies to me that the aristocrats would want to actually look like that. Of course, if turns out that pteruges and other Romanesque features only show up in Bible illustrations, for instance, while other depictions do not include them, then yes, that would seem more like an artistic style alone. Don't know! Gotta look at more pictures (pictures with clear captions as to their source!!).

Actual Roman pteruges are always shown in 2 or more dense layers--there is a LOT of them darn flaps, in other words. For the post-Roman artwork that isn't always strictly the case, so a single line like that above may be fine. Either way, yeah, you still have to decide whether to attach them to the armor directly, or to an under-armor thingy. (Easier with scale armor, just attach them to the backing.)

I don't remember how late such neo-Classical features can be seen, but I'm thinking they might go as late as 9th century? Mostly before that, though. It would be interesting to see a geographical analysis of the artwork, too, whether depictions come from southern Europe rather than northern, etc. Don't know!

The warcry of the post-Roman/early medieval researcher: Don't know! Sigh....

Good luck!

Matthew

[Alec]

Here is my late Roman kit. It works for the 4th into the 5th Century. I really need to add pteruges to the rig. I like your observations Mathew.

[Sir Wilhelm]

Here is my late Roman kit. It works for the 4th into the 5th Century. I really need to add pteruges to the rig. I like your observations Mathew.

That is spectacular!

[Matthew Amt]

Here is my late Roman kit. It works for the 4th into the 5th Century. I really need to add pteruges to the rig. I like your observations Mathew.

Thanks! I REALLY like your scale armor! But yeah, even if pteruges do turn out to show up only in Biblical scenes or something like that, to me they just scream "Roman"! With that helmet style and belt, not to mention the tunic with orbiculi, you have a number of distinctive features, immediately placing you in time. So it makes sense to add them.

Matthew

[Len Parker]

6th century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barberini_ivory

[Dan Howard]

Alec's kit is very good and looks beautiful. Lamellar is being bandied about way too often here. If lamellar was worn at all in Britain it would have been a rare exception. Mail and scale are a safer bet for this region.

[Tom Knighton]

Just something to throw on this thread for someone wanting to recreate this era.

I came across a mention of the Shorwell helm last night. It had apparently been misclassified as a pot for some time. It appears to be a simple helm that some have described as a spangenhelm, but has a band running from front to back which is the defining feature of a ridge helm as I understand it.

Here's a sketch from the British Museum. It looks a lot like a Coppergate or Pioneer helm, but also has some features very similar to the Burgh Castle helm as well.

So far, not a lot of physical evidence for other types of spangenhelms at this point. I'm still looking though.

[RandallMoffett]

Tom I think ridge helmets do not have the side arms like this has. So central band and two skull halves instead of 4-8 panels and 2 plus bands.

It is a neat new find however.

RPM

[Tom Knighton]

The Burgh Castle helm has those same side bands, and I've never heard it described as anything other than a ridge helm. Also, Berkasovo I has bands running along the side as well, though those might purely be decorative. I don't have any views inside the helm, so I have no way to actually tell.

Edited to add: There was a discussion here a while back about how technically, even the Coppergate helm was a ridge helm. It's still semantics really though.

[RandallMoffett]

Tom,

Let me clarify what I said a bit. I was under the impression that it is a ridge helmet if there are simply two side plates connected by a central band or the side bands are riveted on the sides first, creating the two side panels as described before, then fit together by the central ridge piece, not the side bars to ridge band. The spangen has a frame with side bands first then panels.

But you are right, in period they simply called them galeae in the late roman world I suspect so both terms are modern inventions. But I think the way I understand them works for me.

RPM

[Tom Knighton]

Actually, both terms are modern inventions. Basically, a ridge helm is just a sub-classification of spangenhelm, but as I understand it the only factor making it a ridge helm is the "spang" running all the way front to back versus falling under a central piece as in most traditional spangenhelms.

In the grand scheme of things though, the people who wore them didn't worry about any of that, like you said. To them, a helm is a helm is a helm.

However, there still seems to be no baldenheim type spangenhelms found in Britain, which is really unfortunate because those freaking ROCK.

[Paladin74]

Hi Maelgwyn,

I do 5/6th C. Cataphractarii/Clibanarii based in nothen England. The shield that I carry is a center grip but with the added straps for mounted work leaving my left hand free for the riens, the sword is a long spartha and I carry the Hasta ( long spear) I can also throw javelins from horseback, the arm and leg defences are based on the ones in the National Museums of Scotland. (the leg armour should be overlapping upward)
The horse barding is based on the gravestones of cavalrymen, Trajan's Column and museum finds, the saddle with stirrips was just comming into use.
The horse armour is based on the Durra Europos finds, each scale has been dished and stapled to the next to form a row of scales and the whole row laced to a backing ( in this I used a horse rug that fitted the horse and cut a whole where the saddle goes)

ok a bit long winded, but if there's anything else you want to know just ask.
...Warren...

I...uhhh...I...am jealous on a level I have never before felt. That is an awesome kit for both man and horse.

[RandallMoffett]

Tom,

You should reread my post. That is what I said more or less, the terms being modern, except I am not sure that is the ridge helmets chief characteristic as not all ridge helmets have a very pronounced ridge. But the fact remains they simply called them helmets probably.

RPM

[Tom Knighton]

Oh, I understood you fine. Unfortunately, I typed my response on practically no sleep and the fact that I was trying to agree with you was completely and totally lost in the process.

My apologies. Not sure WTF was going on in my brain then

[RandallMoffett]

No worries. I do wonder one thing about these types of helmets. It seems the ridge predates the spangen in roman, western areas but seems the spangen originates earlier in the east. Now it is not my area of specialty but it seems likely that the romans simply borrowed tech from the Persians and they also did hybrids. But the real question to me seems to rest on the why. I have always assumed it was because the larger iron production centers went out. And time wise it works. The issue is though in Persia where they were still doing ok and had great iron production why were they making these all along? Just simple economics? Could it be that the Roman's adopted them not so much because shortages on large billets of iron but simple ease of manufacture and this in the end edged out single bowl helmets? Something I have been musing on lately.

RPM

[Tom Knighton]

Sounds as plausible as anything to me.

As for the routes of the traditional spangenhelm, you're right about their origins. I believe the general consensus is that most of the Roman era spangenhelms originated in Persia and were adopted/blatantly ripped off by the Romans.

You pose some interesting questions on the "why", but from what I've picked up, it seems that many high ranking Romans were intrigued by the Persians by that point. If that's correct, it's entirely possible that there was no logistical reason for the change and may have instead been simply a case of style over substance. That's all my own speculation at work there, and probably easily refuted by folks with more reading on the subject than I have. It's definitely an interesting train of thought you've gone on there, and now I'm probably going to be musing on this subject as well.

Of course, then the question arises about the germanic tribes with spangenhelms. Were these derived of from Roman spangenhelms, Persian spangenhelms, or parallel development? I tend towards Roman helms, mostly because of the number of Germanic auxiliaries, but one never knows.

[RandallMoffett]

Persian envy. I know the Byzantines did copy a great deal from them so I'd not be surprised if that happened. That said they already had fabricae all over Europe so the shift would indicate some change that was either huge and affected the mass of soldiers if it were fashion or some type of technological, production or economic change.

As far as the Germanic types. Yes I had always figured there was a great deal of interchange between them in part because they fought with each other in part in their army. Could simply be that Rome was a regional influencer and the Germanic warriors were thinking some Roman stuff seemed better than their own in some way.

RPM

[Tom Knighton]

Persian envy. I know the Byzantines did copy a great deal from them so I'd not be surprised if that happened. That said they already had fabricae all over Europe so the shift would indicate some change that was either huge and affected the mass of soldiers if it were fashion or some type of technological, production or economic change.

Not if the "Persian envy" as you put it (and I'm going to steal that one, btw ) rested at the top. Rome as a bureaucracy, so if a couple of key people decided this was going to be the change, they could have simply decreed that hence forth, it would be so.

Nothing really to base that on, but as we're mostly speculating...

As far as the Germanic types. Yes I had always figured there was a great deal of interchange between them in part because they fought with each other in part in their army. Could simply be that Rome was a regional influencer and the Germanic warriors were thinking some Roman stuff seemed better than their own in some way.

RPM

I pretty much agree.

Of course, while writing this, I happened along a train of thought that might well explain this whole thing.

First, you have the Persian influence. The Sassanid helms are known to Roman military minds. Now you have an Empire that is trying to cut costs. So, instead of raising a helm like they have been doing for centuries, they can throw one together with rivets. Now, I've never raised a helm, but I worked on a couple of spangenhelms (never solo, alas). They're not technically difficult. So, perhaps the ridge helms were simply cheaper to put together, and that's why the shift towards those and later spangenhelms?

Ah, for want of a time machine to go back and find out all the crap we don't know...

[Matthew Amt]

Now you have an Empire that is trying to cut costs.

That doesn't explain the apparent mass production of gilded silver foil for covering helmets!

So, instead of raising a helm like they have been doing for centuries, they can throw one together with rivets. Now, I've never raised a helm, but I worked on a couple of spangenhelms (never solo, alas). They're not technically difficult. So, perhaps the ridge helms were simply cheaper to put together, and that's why the shift towards those and later spangenhelms?

I've always been a little dubious about this. I know modern armorers can raise a helmet in a day, so my usual assumption is that an ancient armorer could do it faster than that. Plus he'll turn it over to assistants for the finishing and fittings. But the whole helmet bowl is basically one operation, to any shape he likes. With a spangenhelm 8 or 10 or more pieces have to be cut out individually, and then shaped so that they all fit together quite well. Then a lot of rivet holes have to be punched, all lining up neatly, and a lot of rivets installed. At some point, probably before assembly, everything has to be shined up. I'm just not sure that whole process is going to be significantly faster than raising the helm from one piece.

Ah, for want of a time machine to go back and find out all the crap we don't know...

I'm with you there! Just a couple quick snapshots would change our world.

Matthew

[Tom Knighton]

That doesn't explain the apparent mass production of gilded silver foil for covering helmets!

Fair point.

I've always been a little dubious about this. I know modern armorers can raise a helmet in a day, so my usual assumption is that an ancient armorer could do it faster than that. Plus he'll turn it over to assistants for the finishing and fittings. But the whole helmet bowl is basically one operation, to any shape he likes. With a spangenhelm 8 or 10 or more pieces have to be cut out individually, and then shaped so that they all fit together quite well. Then a lot of rivet holes have to be punched, all lining up neatly, and a lot of rivets installed. At some point, probably before assembly, everything has to be shined up. I'm just not sure that whole process is going to be significantly faster than raising the helm from one piece.

I didn't say anything about faster, only cheaper.

As I'm seeing it, and again I have nothing to back it up except for my own limited experience putting a couple of helms together, is that there is more skill needed to raise a helm than to slap together pieces and as such, you need a craftsman with a certain level of skill, which will come with a certain level of cost.

A riveted helm may not require quite so much skill, so you can essentially get a "lowest bidder" kind of thing going.

None of that is to say definitively that this is what actually happened. Just my own ramblings based on admittedly limited experience. Of course, if some records of what the Roman's actually paid for a raised helm versus a riveted helm would probably have some bearing on this. No idea if such records still exist though.

I'm with you there! Just a couple quick snapshots would change our world.

Honestly, I don't know a single reenactor who wouldn't be down with a little time machine action to answer the burning questions

[RandallMoffett]

Matt,

Having done both I think the multi-plate ones are indeed easier. Shaping the helmet skull requires a great deal of skill. I find it much easier to make the smaller plates gently form them and put them together than making a one piece one. I'd love to see what more proficient armourers would say about it though.

First off if you look at what you are saying in regards to lower status, apprentice type men they could do far more of the jobs for a multi-plate helmet, cutting and such than a raised helmet. Far more skill required I think in forming up a one part helmet properly.

That said it can also deal with the fact getting larger billets of iron was more costly.

RPM

[Tom Knighton]

Now you have an Empire that is trying to cut costs.

That doesn't explain the apparent mass production of gilded silver foil for covering helmets!

Matt,

Do we know that there was a mass production of foil for helmets? I've been thinking about this discussion here, and the similar one over at FAR, and it's gotten me wondering if we know that there was a mass production for this kind of helmet.

As I understand it, in the late Roman empire, the troops paid for their own equipment. Perhaps the wealthier equestrian class soldiers purchased gilded helms for themselves, while the rank and file made do with simpler helms. Many of the helms from that era that have survived have done so because of that gilded silver foil (I seem to remember that the Duerne helm was nothing but the foil, though I could be confused). This would make a disproportional number of gilded helms show up in the archeological record.

Now, I'm not pulling any of that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" crap (I hate that phrase), but instead asking if there is any other reference either way. You're more widely read on this topic than I am at the moment

[Matthew Amt]

As I'm seeing it, and again I have nothing to back it up except for my own limited experience putting a couple of helms together, is that there is more skill needed to raise a helm than to slap together pieces and as such, you need a craftsman with a certain level of skill, which will come with a certain level of cost.

A riveted helm may not require quite so much skill, so you can essentially get a "lowest bidder" kind of thing going.

I've never raised a helmet, but mostly because I've never *tried*. It takes a couple tools that I don't have, some training, and some practice. They'd have lots of all of those! Certainly raising a complete helmet is technically more complex than spangenhelm parts, I'm just not sure if either method is significantly less work overall. The decoration we see on helmets and other items convinces me that "fast and cheap" was NOT their main concern.

Of course, if some records of what the Roman's actually paid for a raised helm versus a riveted helm would probably have some bearing on this. No idea if such records still exist though.

Nothing that will allow you a good comparison. There are records that show payroll deductions for certain items, though I don't know if helmets are mentioned specifically, but the problem is that with inflation over time and other economic fluctuations, there's no way to tell if the costs of 2 different helmets are equivalent.

As I understand it, in the late Roman empire, the troops paid for their own equipment.

Nope, that's earlier, through the 2nd century. The 3rd century is when state issue becomes the rule, and that's when the centralized factories begin. But you're right that we still see a range of embellishment, so there must have been some mechanism for wealthier troops to doll up their stuff.

Many of the helms from that era that have survived have done so because of that gilded silver foil (I seem to remember that the Duerne helm was nothing but the foil, though I could be confused). This would make a disproportional number of gilded helms show up in the archeological record.

Sounds like a point to consider! Though I'm not sure I'd give it *too* much weight. Right, the Duerne helmet was just the gilded sheathing, the iron core was gone. And there's a couple Berkasovo types with all the jewels that are gilded. All the helmets from Intercissa were originally foil-covered, but the impression I get is that the iron parts were all found but most of the foil had been stripped? I honestly don't know. It was someone else (probably on RAT) with much better knowledge of the era who said that gilded silver foil was apparently being produced in quantity, not just for particular items as needed.

First off if you look at what you are saying in regards to lower status, apprentice type men they could do far more of the jobs for a multi-plate helmet, cutting and such than a raised helmet. Far more skill required I think in forming up a one part helmet properly.

Ah, now that's another point. I agree that to folks like us, spangenhelms make more sense from a production point of view, requiring fewer highly-skilled craftsmen, or craftsmen with less experience or training. Again, it begs the question, Do we know that was a consideration? For sure we don't know that there was a move to production with fewer skilled craftsmen. Thinking farther, though, while pattern-welded swords and very ornate belt fittings and such imply that the skill was still there, I'm reminded of the whole debate about the demise of lorica segmentata, and the conclusion that mail requires a lot fewer skilled steps to produce in large quantities. It's not a perfect comparison, but it's happening about the same time... HMMMmmmmm......

Matthew

[Tom Knighton]

I've never raised a helmet, but mostly because I've never *tried*. It takes a couple tools that I don't have, some training, and some practice. They'd have lots of all of those! Certainly raising a complete helmet is technically more complex than spangenhelm parts, I'm just not sure if either method is significantly less work overall. The decoration we see on helmets and other items convinces me that "fast and cheap" was NOT their main concern.

Well, we're better off looking to those who have done both. So far, it appears from the couple of people who've commented here and elsewhere, that it appears to be less work. Would they have seen it the same way though? Now that is the question

Nothing that will allow you a good comparison. There are records that show payroll deductions for certain items, though I don't know if helmets are mentioned specifically, but the problem is that with inflation over time and other economic fluctuations, there's no way to tell if the costs of 2 different helmets are equivalent.

Agreed. I was thinking about some of these factors after I had posted this earlier. It could turn out to be an apples to crocodiles comparison.

Nope, that's earlier, through the 2nd century. The 3rd century is when state issue becomes the rule, and that's when the centralized factories begin. But you're right that we still see a range of embellishment, so there must have been some mechanism for wealthier troops to doll up their stuff.

If only we knew what that mechanism was

Sounds like a point to consider! Though I'm not sure I'd give it *too* much weight. Right, the Duerne helmet was just the gilded sheathing, the iron core was gone. And there's a couple Berkasovo types with all the jewels that are gilded. All the helmets from Intercissa were originally foil-covered, but the impression I get is that the iron parts were all found but most of the foil had been stripped? I honestly don't know. It was someone else (probably on RAT) with much better knowledge of the era who said that gilded silver foil was apparently being produced in quantity, not just for particular items as needed.

Possible. Unfortunately, it's one of those factors that really just muddies the water when looking at this period. Did the foil help preserve helms, or was it irrelevant? Honestly, I'm beginning to think I've got a better chance of understanding the inner workings of my wife's mind than to understand this period.

Is it too late to switch to 15th century????

First off if you look at what you are saying in regards to lower status, apprentice type men they could do far more of the jobs for a multi-plate helmet, cutting and such than a raised helmet. Far more skill required I think in forming up a one part helmet properly.

Ah, now that's another point. I agree that to folks like us, spangenhelms make more sense from a production point of view, requiring fewer highly-skilled craftsmen, or craftsmen with less experience or training. Again, it begs the question, Do we know that was a consideration? For sure we don't know that there was a move to production with fewer skilled craftsmen. Thinking farther, though, while pattern-welded swords and very ornate belt fittings and such imply that the skill was still there, I'm reminded of the whole debate about the demise of lorica segmentata, and the conclusion that mail requires a lot fewer skilled steps to produce in large quantities. It's not a perfect comparison, but it's happening about the same time... HMMMmmmmm......

Matthew

It's definitely something to think on. I didn't think about the transition away from segmentata being about the same time, but since they were, it makes sense that the changes could well be related. As both transitions seem to be toward lower skilled labor, then it's not unreasonable to figure that the reasons would be related to that.

Of course, they could just as easily have been because some bureaucrat thought they looked "bitchin'".