Prodromoi Masks unit questions

[Spoofa]

well if thats true, im interested in the facemasks for prodromoi, if you can pm it to me or something if its a big deal

[Watchman]

Isn't that just the extended cheek-guards commonly used in "phrygian" helmets, or a developement thereof ?

[Spoofa]

hm? im no expert on helmets but i think they have a full face mask, not just cheek gaurds.

[Watchman]

The difference can AFAIK be rather hard to tell with some of the more elaborate versions of the extended cheekguard/mask principle. I'm pretty sure they could meet in the middle - and it's obviously not a major design leap from that to a solid one-piece face protector.

[keravnos]

Isn't that just the extended cheek-guards commonly used in "phrygian" helmets, or a developement thereof

exactly.



This was found in Thrace. I understand most people would consider its usage exclusive to the Rhomphaiophoroi or the pezhetairoi, but I don't see a sign or anything on it anywhere that says it cannot be used by cavalry. In fact it had better been, since the cavalrymen of the time went either for the horse or for the face of the rider, as it was the easiest way to get someone off the saddle, aka dead, "go for the eyes". This was one reason why so many Strategoi were one-eyed. (Phillipos and Antigonos I Monophtalmos=the One Eyed are prime examples here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus_I_Monophthalmus

Thus, it stands to reason why some cavalrymen would find it ... safe to cover themselves with the same facemasks that some Pezhetairoi or other infantry that Thracians had to protect themsleves.

A counter arguement to that is that the cav. would have to have a clear field of view as cavalrymen often have been known to need. Yet, knights clearly prove that you can have field of view vision without losing protection to the face. The facemask, if anything, has a better field of view than most knight's visors.

and a reconstruction thereof, this one on an infantry "duud".


From those on to the facemask the Prodromoi use, there isn't much of a quantum leap, or at least I cannot perceive one.

Then of course there is also this helmet, also found in Thrace.



Someone could select this for our Prodromoi, we chose the one with the facemask. People could argue day and night whether a "med" cav. unit like Prodromoi are should have a facemask or if it should be restricted to higher echellon units, aka Kataphraktoi, but I sincerely think that this is something that just makes them more interesting if anything.

We chose the facemask, it is fine, it is ok, it is historical, it is based on actual finds on the ground, it is like a mathematical theorem that has many solutions, and we picked the one that we believe is best.

People like it, personally I love it.

I don't think there is anything written on what a unit should be like, or wear. We all have our pre-conceptions true, but some basics remain true. A peltast, for example, CANNOT wear iron cuirass, because for any bigger level of protection that might be offered, he won't be able to "run and gun" worth a damn, cannot futhfill his role aka he is either useless, or NOT a peltast.

It's Ok, though. I guess every other forthnight someone is bound to ask this sort of questions. Especially one with an agenda. It is up to anyone to figure out who has an honest, legitimate question that we can answer, or starts peppering us with non-ending, self futhfilling arguements we can never answer to their satisfaction.

[keravnos]

The difference can AFAIK be rather hard to tell with some of the more elaborate versions of the extended cheekguard/mask principle. I'm pretty sure they could meet in the middle - and it's obviously not a major design leap from that to a solid one-piece face protector.

wow, same arguments I used. What is this? Mind-Meld or something?

[Watchman]

wow, same arguments I used. What is this? Mind-Meld or something?

I prefer to call it "logic and eruditon".

[Moros]

I prefer to call it "logic and eruditon".

Great minds think alike.

~

[Watchman]

A counter arguement to that is that the cav. would have to have a clear field of view as cavalrymen often have been known to need. Yet, knights clearly prove that you can have field of view vision without losing protection to the face. The facemask, if anything, has a better field of view than most knight's visors.

Truth be told, the way the "close" and "great" helmets crimped your peripheral vision was a problem in a whirling melee, plus they tended to make breathing difficult too. Which is why the hinged visor developed; most people wore it up whenever it wasn't absolutely needed, with the due result that not a few knights caught a stray arrow in the face at some point of their careers.

But the Medieval European stuff can't really hold a candle to the anthropomorphic face-masks of the Asiatic cataphracts when it comes to trading comfort and visibility for protection...

The early extended cheek-guards ain't got nuttin' on that. Heck, most of them don't really even cover the bridge of the nose by what I've seen, and the opening for the mouth is positively gaping.

[keravnos]

But the Medieval European stuff can't really hold a candle to the anthropomorphic face-masks of the Asiatic cataphracts when it comes to trading comfort and visibility for protection...

2 Quick facts...

1. It all started with some wax you put on your face. Then some armourers got that waxmask and made it into an iron/bronze facemask. Then it would suit your face forever. This was started in Hellenistic Greece. I agree that the Iranians have had a great tradition (and so do the Romani writers, especially those covering the withdrawal after Julian's death...hint hint) but hey, let's give credit where it is due. From what I have read, I believe that facemasks were started in some Hellenistic state. Then, especially after the collapse of the Seleukids, their facemask makers were used to great effect by the Pahlavan, and the later Iranian state entities up until/ and including the Kiphaq... bah can't find them right, now but I am sufre you know waht we mean

2. Do check this out...
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=7604

[Watchman]

The Hellenics may have put the ball rolling, true, but that was the eastern branch of them and in any case it was the various "easterners" who made use of such face defences the longest.

And, frankly, having seen pictures of the things, I don't entirely comprehend how you could see much anything through those little peepholes left for the eyes in most designs - or draw much air through the typically equally minimal opening for the mouth and nostrils.

But given how long they were used, they clearly did their jobs.

Side note: while I don't really see the relevance, thanks for the link - I learned something new and nifty again today.

[The Persian Cataphract]

Keravnos is correct, the origin of the facemask, especially in equestrian terms, is profoundly Hellenic. Post-Achaemenid Iranians brought their own flavour to this art, which is at the beginning only slightly distinguished from the Greek "bearded masks" but later leans towards a more local "heroism", featuring exaggerated moustaches, and leading into some very elaborate helmet designs made to fit with the mask. When it came to heavily armed Sassanid cavalry, apart from the open aventail, there was the facemask, veils, and of course "browed masks" which combined the best of both worlds. This had a most significant effect on especially Turkic (Gök and Khazars) tribes, and perhaps more astonishing is that this type of helmet has been found in Sweden dated to the Vendel culture. Rûs and Kipchaqs (Polovtsians) would perpetuate this practice for centuries.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Thread split and opened.

[abou]

The image of the man in the full panoply is really close to our Prodromoi mask; however, there are actual examples of the mask in question. Urnamma (his unit, after all) and Paullus have seen it. Although finding the citation in their notes for it or remembering exactly where it was seen is a different matter.

Examples of masks exist, but it seems that whenever you do a search for them in Google all you get are Roman examples, which is frustrating. I seriously can't help but think that it is published in some German or French article from long ago (and you thought you just needed to know Greek and Latin).

One nice example I found is an bronze, Etruscan, ritual helm. The crest holder up top is bent, but it would have held a truly massive crest.

[Sarcasm]

Thread split and opened.

Respect.

[abou]

Reviving this thread so that it can be answered more thoroughly.

An example of a mask such as the one on the prodromos can best be seen on a relief from Pergamon, which shows a pile of Seleukid military equipment. I'll be damned if I can find it easily online, but you can best see it in a few Osprey publications. For example, the fellow on the far right is wearing not only the helmet and mask, but also the arm protectors, sword, and linothorax from the relief. More importantly, a prodomos could afford a mask with his helmet, and, considering his role to chase down skirmishers and skirmishing cavalry (units which throw things), a mask to protect the face from a thrown projectile would probably be desirable. Plus, it could come handy in a cavalry melee.

So yeah, just didn't want this to go unanswered since I recently came upon the specifics.

[geala]

Maybe the Prodromoi are medium cavalry but they were quite heavily armoured. So a closed helmet is not a contradiction in itself. And I don't see why the tasks of medium cavalry could not be done with such helmets.

M. Junkelmann states when using a Roman cavalry helmet with a face mask that vision and the ability to breath were not reduced unacceptably. And the wearer can act more ruthlessly because he knows his vulnerable face is protected.

I like the Prodromoi too.

[abou]

Yeah, they are pretty sweet.

BTW, could you tell me where to find that article by M. Junkelmann. I have a feeling though that it is in German, and my German is a little rusty... rusty an in I can't read a damn thing of it.

[geala]

I have it from his book "Die Reiter Roms" Teil 3 (Zubehör, Reitweise, Bewaffnung). It is in German as you feared and I think it is not translated in English.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

BTW, could you tell me where to find that article by M. Junkelmann. I have a feeling though that it is in German, and my German is a little rusty... rusty an in I can't read a damn thing of it.

Perfect reason to learn it! It's really easy and very similar to English.

[geala]

Junkelmanns books are very interesting. I don't know why it is not translated in English.

And German is indeed very easy, at least if you are a German (although I doubt even this every time after reading in German forums).

[abou]

Ha, if only it were that easy. I still haven't finished my Latin minor. Although, one of my old professors, who also teaches German, keeps bothering me to take another class with him, and this time in German. It would make listening to In Extremo a hell of a lot easier, but alas, my end goal of being a veterinarian means that Immunology is calling me this fall semester.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Lucky me: I'm Dutch, which means that as long as the German is written and I have a good dictionary on hand to look up a few words now and then, I can read German pretty easily.

[geala]

To be honest and less ironical than normally, I fear German is a very difficult language. Lots of strange grammar etc.. I have great respect for Dr. Junkelmann but the wish to read his books alone ...

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Yes, of course it's not easy. But I often get the impression that the difficulty level of the German language is exaggerated by many, especially Germans themselves. Especially for native speakers of other Germanic languages like norse ones or Dutch or English it's not that difficult as often claimed. For Romance-speakers it may be different I admit, or even for speakers of non-Indo-European languages.

[Tellos Athenaios]

As long as reading it is concerned, yes. Pronouncing isn't to difficult either - but to get your grammar / vocabulary right...

English is peanuts compared to German. Not even peanuts, frankly.

Lucky me, as for grammar rules Dutch is one of the most easy languages in the world. Basically, none of them is important except the inversion, the few related to references, and whether a noun is neuter, feminin, or masculine.

[geala]

Although it's still ot: A certain problem with English is the vocabulary, they have more words than the French and Germans together. And of course the prepositions, that and me are two worlds. Only when I studied a little bit in the Netherlands and had English lessons held by a very clever American lady I was able to get it right. For a few years but now ...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well, I've heard that once this way. The English have at least two words for everything. One local, and one to statisfy their needs for culture and to come across as being somewhat civillized. The latter version was imported from the continent (read France).

Seriously, though: lots of English is distinctly imported language. Basically a new etnic group settles in England (which has happened quite a few times) and their language kinda blends into the local one. So English contains lot's of perfectly redundant leftovers. However, most of it is not something to worry about in your everyday English conversation, be it written or spoken.

[KARTLOS]

So English contains lot's of perfectly redundant leftovers.

there is little redundancy. where there are two words they will usually they have subtley different meaning. the english languages capacity for absorbing new words has made it the richest language in the world.