Why didn't the Romans use closed helms?

[Graf Zeppelin]

How do you feel a closed helm would have affected matters?

I had troubles breathing and a closed helmet would have worsened that. Considering I was fighting not to get unconscious it would have given me the rest.

That said Roman formations been looser and situational awareness been more important.


Also for example in spear combat in formations situational awareness is also important since you have naturally to eye the enemy infront of you and the one to the right.

 

[NapoleonComple]

I had troubles breathing and a closed helmet would have worsened that. Considering I was fighting not to get unconscious it would have given me the rest.

That said Roman formations been looser and situational awareness been more important.


Also for example in spear combat in formations situational awareness is also important since you have naturally to eye the enemy infront of you and the one to the right.

Thank you.

That's another account of breathing being difficult, and I was thinking about strikes coming from enemy soldiers not directly in front of you. I've seen groups of re-enactors supporting one another by stabbing at people to their right and left rather than straight ahead.

For soldiers in a looser formation where enemy soldiers potentially getting in between the ranks or ganging up on individual soldiers might be an issue, I can see where a closed helm might cause a problem. Situations where the formation was disrupted or partially breached would have been particularly terrifying.

 

[Kovax]

Having been involved for a while in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism, which holds armored medieval battles and tournaments), and participated in practices for formation fighting (I was already getting too old for it at the time), vision was definitely a major factor. Add heat and ventilation issues (I had to take a break after a while, because my vision was starting to blur out, on the verge of heat exhaustion), and the open faced helmet is pretty close to essential. Put ONE opponent in front of you, seen through narrow eye slits, and it's doable. Put two there, and you're basically dead.

 

[Easy-Kill]

lol fucking HEMA people.

You know HEMA isn't real right? You know how huge a different that makes right? You know it isn't actually "historical" right, if by "historical" you mean "how people actually fought" right?

You put on a helmet and played War Thunder, so now you are a Historical World War 2 Tank Commander. That's "historical fecing."

Of course it's not real - but neither is training in the military with blank or even live fire. even a lot of the concepts we practiced 20 years ago have changed now that the type of enemy we expect to fight has changed. None of us will know what it is like to fight in a formation of armoured foot soldiers and there isn't even a consensus on what actually happened during a foot charge - there are no whitnesses and few records.

So yes, I am sure that @Herbert West knows it isn't real ... But it also helps to provide insight so that we can better understand.

 

[Easy-Kill]

I was part of a shield wall actually.

Until you took an arrow to the knee?

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Until you took an arrow to the knee?

I am not that bad in archery

Nah for tight formations you need strenght and fortitude, being tall helps too.

 

[hkrommel]

Ventilation in particular was key, and was the driving factor in the development of the Bascinet-style helmet from flat faceplate to a pointed (hounskull), then rounded visor to improve air flow.

Another thing, that I'm personally unsure about and therefore am willing to be corrected on but makes sense to me, is that having facial coverage is important if an opponent is firing arrows or other projectiles at you. The Romans, however, already had adequate projectile coverage from their large, rectangular shields, so this wouldn't be much of an issue. That doesn't explain why Roman cavalry usually didn't have face coverage, except of course the cataphracts but that was later on.

 

[NapoleonComple]

Ventilation in particular was key, and was the driving factor in the development of the Bascinet-style helmet from flat faceplate to a pointed (hounskull), then rounded visor to improve air flow.

Another thing, that I'm personally unsure about and therefore am willing to be corrected on but makes sense to me, is that having facial coverage is important if an opponent is firing arrows or other projectiles at you. The Romans, however, already had adequate projectile coverage from their large, rectangular shields, so this wouldn't be much of an issue. That doesn't explain why Roman cavalry usually didn't have face coverage, except of course the cataphracts but that was later on.

Didn't later (imperial era) Roman cavalry carry quite a large cavalry shield? The cavalryman could probably raise that up above his head to provide similar protection to the infantry. It obviously can't protect the horse, but the Romans obviously didn't find horse armour practical during that time period.

I'm not sure what protection the Equites carried. They've been depicted with small, round shields; not exactly ideal for protecting against arrows but serviceable against other melee opponents in melee? The Romans didn't make great use of archers in the Republican era, so maybe they felt a large shield for defence wasn't necessary.

 

[hkrommel]

Didn't later (imperial era) Roman cavalry carry quite a large cavalry shield? The cavalryman could probably raise that up above his head to provide similar protection to the infantry. It obviously can't protect the horse, but the Romans obviously didn't find horse armour practical during that time period.

I'm not sure what protection the Equites carried. They've been depicted with small, round shields; not exactly ideal for protecting against arrows but serviceable against other melee opponents in melee? The Romans didn't make great use of archers in the Republican era, so maybe they felt a large shield for defence wasn't necessary.

To the (small) extent the Romans used Roman cavalry with somewhat standard armament I do think they had sizeable oval-shaped shields, but nothing on the scale of the infantry shield.

 

[Herbert West]

lol fucking HEMA people.

You know HEMA isn't real right? You know how huge a different that makes right? You know it isn't actually "historical" right, if by "historical" you mean "how people actually fought" right?

You put on a helmet and played War Thunder, so now you are a Historical World War 2 Tank Commander. That's "historical fecing."

Show me on this doll where Fiore hurt you.

 

[Cavalry]

I think there is several factors:

- A partially armor suit will have other priority place for armor. because of the limits of weight and cost.
- Infantry with sword may need more visual and light weight than Greek infantry with spear, or knight.
- Roman infantry already have armor advantage against barbarian, so no need more cost.

 

[Kovax]

The Romans didn't make great use of archers in the Republican era, so maybe they felt a large shield for defence wasn't necessary.

Most of Rome's neighbors during the Imperial era used javelins as their principle ranged weapon, placing much less reliance on slings and bows. Range is fairly limited for a javelin, it travels relatively slowly, and you can see it fairly easily to block it with a smaller shield. It's advantages are that it hits really hard and doesn't require a lot of skill and practice to use effectively, ideal for a "soldier-citizen" rather than a professional army. Exposure to javelins was likely to be limited and brief for cavalry, so there may have been little perceived need for a larger shield.

 

[NapoleonComple]

I think there is several factors:

- A partially armor suit will have other priority place for armor. because of the limits of weight and cost.
- Infantry with sword may need more visual and light weight than Greek infantry with spear, or knight.
- Roman infantry already have armor advantage against barbarian, so no need more cost.

Parts 1 and 2 are fair points, but many Gallic warriors would have been just as heavily armoured as the legionaries. A wealthy Gallic tribesman would have a solid helmet similar to the Roman one (the Romans used Gallic-style helms I believe) a good quality shirt of chainmail that might have been better than many of the hastati could have afforded, and a large shield of his own. From what I've read and seen, Gallic equipment seems to have borne many striking resemblances to Roman equipment (at least amongst wealthier warriors). Differences in battle tactics, a lack of uniformly good equipment, and a lack of unity amongst the Gallic tribes seems to have been the reasons the Romans were triumphant over them.

 

[Kovax]

Differences in battle tactics, a lack of uniformly good equipment, and a lack of unity amongst the Gallic tribes seems to have been the reasons the Romans were triumphant over them.

One of the critical factors in Rome's repeated successes was its logistics, giving it the ability to project power and maintain it at a distance. The Romans would build a line of fortified camps as they went, clear a road, build bridges and docks, and supply their army hundreds of miles from the nearest permanent Roman settlement. The Romans could simply park their armies on any important spot, and the Gauls or other enemies would be hard-pressed to remove them. The Romans were often able to choose the time, if not always the place, of the engagement, since attacking them in their fortified camps would be a costly affair. Since their adversaries were usually poorly supplied, Rome only had to wait until the opposition began to desert or break up to head back to their respective home territories, then take on the remaining or scattered forces, rather than fight all of them at once.

During the Republic period, Roman equipment was likely on par with their opponents overall, but more uniform, since the state began to provide at least minimal equipment for those who couldn't afford their own. That became increasingly uniform and state-provided as time went on, and the percentage of wealthy land-owners in the army declined.

 

[NapoleonComple]

One of the critical factors in Rome's repeated successes was its logistics, giving it the ability to project power and maintain it at a distance. The Romans would build a line of fortified camps as they went, clear a road, build bridges and docks, and supply their army hundreds of miles from the nearest permanent Roman settlement. The Romans could simply park their armies on any important spot, and the Gauls or other enemies would be hard-pressed to remove them. The Romans were often able to choose the time, if not always the place, of the engagement, since attacking them in their fortified camps would be a costly affair. Since their adversaries were usually poorly supplied, Rome only had to wait until the opposition began to desert or break up to head back to their respective home territories, then take on the remaining or scattered forces, rather than fight all of them at once.

During the Republic period, Roman equipment was likely on par with their opponents overall, but more uniform, since the state began to provide at least minimal equipment for those who couldn't afford their own. That became increasingly uniform and state-provided as time went on, and the percentage of wealthy land-owners in the army declined.

A good example of this was during Julius Caesar's campaigns in Gaul, which checks almost all of the boxes you brought up. There was a situation where Julius Caesar was marching to relieve the city of some Gallic allies. After crossing a bridge, he encountered a huge Gallic army. Caesar responded by drawing up on the hostile side of the river atop a hill across from swampy ground. He still had control of the bridge, so the Gauls couldn't starve him out. This blocked a disadvantageous battle. He built a small fort on the other side of the river to protect his supplies.

The Gauls attempted to ford the river, to take control of the crossing, but they could only send a part of their army across due to the rest having to keep Caesar's army pinned. This allowed Caesar, who detected this move, to send his cavalry and skirmishers to oppose the crossing. Inadequately supported, the crossing failed, and the Gauls were thrown back in panic. This shows how the Roman general used his defensible position to dictate the nature of the engagement, attacking a small section of the enemy army in a disadvantageous position with a mobile element.

Finally, the Gauls withdrew, and most of them went home. Only one tribe agreed amongst themselves to remain in the field, and it was this tribe Caesar pursued. He destroyed their army in a later battle despite it starting with a Gallic ambush. It's very questionable whether he could have won such a battle if the whole Gallic army had been present... but Caesar's professional army and proper logistics outlasted them.

I believe this was Caesar's wars against the Belgae, but I forget the exact details. Both Kings and Generals and Invicta cover the conflict in some detail.

 

[Kovax]

A good example of this was during Julius Caesar's campaigns in Gaul,

…...

I believe this was Caesar's wars against the Belgae, but I forget the exact details. Both Kings and Generals and Invicta cover the conflict in some detail.

This is also in Caesar's book, "The Gallic Wars", but Rome already relied on a lot of those principles long before that. Rome's pivotal early war against Veii required a complete re-thinking of logistics and long-term support in the field to successfully conclude, and Rome was well served by that system and its constant improvements for the rest of its history. Few other empires before modern times have paid nearly as much attention to supply and transportation as Rome did.

 

[Gerle]

No body armor for standard issue front line infantry
https://www.bundeswehr.de/resource/...dzBHN0w0NmJtcERnMk5XWlU9/bekleidungsliste.pdf

It's really just the stuff I mentioned above. Many items on the list stay in the barracks.

And yes, I get your point

Front line infantry from a western-style army without ANY sort of body armor? Not a very modern packing list, in my opinion.

I want to say Lloyd or Matt Easton or someone like them have talked about how far in front of them they could see the ground when wearing various types of helmets, on the ones with vision slits the near ground was not visible.

 

[maxstevens]

Close Helmets are not good enough in fast battle. You must be very strong to carry a full helmet.