"Niederbieber Helmet: How Late Was it Used by Roman Infantry?" Topic

I'm aware that an example of this design dating to the late 4th century has been found in a cavalry context, but has anyone read of any archaeological evidence of its use by Roman infantry into the 4th century or beyond?

The WA Late Roman boxed set includes this type, and I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to use it for a Late Roman army.

Although it was replaced by cheaper designs for the bulk of the infantry (intercisor; spangenhelm), speculatively I'm thinking that perhaps elite units might have retained it – at least for a time. After all, if most Niederbiebers were recalled when the new designs were introduced there would have been sufficient stocks available to equip a few units at least for many decades. Even if they had to be manufactured from scratch the financial burden would have been small compared to producing them for the entire army.

No baseless speculation please; I can do that for myself. I'm only looking for solid evidence.

I hope this question does not qualify as baseless speculation.

Do we know the Romans did product recalls or did they just replace with newer versions as required?

Cheers,
John

There is absolutely no evidence that old kit was retired just because it was old, as opposed to worn out or damaged beyond economic repair. The only exception might have been praetorians or the later guards units that replaced them, as they had a parade function, but even then, we have no evidence that there was a modern RSM's obsession with uniformity. The fact that individual soldiers sometimes spent their own money on "bling" for their kit in fact suggests the opposite.

Alright; to put it another way, if you turned up for a game set in the Late Imperial era and your opponent's avowedly Late Roman army included a Legiones Palatina unit modelled wearing Niederbiebers would you faint, have a tantrum, experience a nauseus episode, look shocked and surprised, raise your eyebrows, or… not even bat an eyelid?

Alright; to put it another way, if you turned up for a game set in the Late Imperial era and your opponent's avowedly Late Roman army included a Legiones Palatina unit modelled wearing Niederbiebers would you faint, have a tantrum, experience a nauseus episode, look shocked and surprised, raise your eyebrows, or… not even bat an eyelid?

The idea that a whole unit of 4th century Palatina are wearing Niederbieber helmuts seems pretty far fetched to me. I don't think there is any positive source material for this approach that I have ever come across. I thought we are talking about individual kit where that might be possible (although kit does wear out eventually.) But a whole unit, no. My question to you is why? If you want units in the Niderbieber helmet just do Middle Roman Empire.

To reiterate, the WA Late Romans boxed set contains sufficient Niederbieber-clad heads to model every figure in the box in that headgear. This suggests that WA at least believes that it's an historically-plausible depiction. As per my original post, I'm looking for archaeological support for that view.

As to why, well I want to use my box of WA Late Roman infantry which, unorthodoxly for someone involved in this hobby, I admit to having bought on a whim with only the vaguest notion of what I would do with it.

I have a GB Late Roman collection. The WA figures are sufficiently stylistically distinct from GB's version of Late Roman infantry to not mix easily, but I've concluded that they can find a place in my armies as two units of elite Legiones Palatina, thereby rationalising any apparent differences from the GB figures, such as their greater stature and different style of shield.

The WA figures have plumbata sculpted on the inside of their shields. According to Phil Barker, when this weapon was first introduced it was issued only to Palatina units; another historical point in favour of my plan.

As regards helmets, I still have GB figures to build but am running short of 'good' ones (a few of the helmets on every GB sprue have incomplete neck guards), so I need the WA intercisors and spangenhelms to make up the numbers. For this reason it would be convenient for me if I could use the Niederbeibers for my WA legionaries. Additionally, from an aesthetic perspective I think another helmet variant in the army would be a positive, and it would also help these units to stand out from the mass of the army on the tabletop even more.

I hope this answer satisfies your curiosity, Marcus.

I would say fine, use them. Archaeology is turning up new finds all the time. Things can change as new discoveries are made, and a new perception of the Roman army replaces the old. I would use them for cavalry or infantry in the 3rd and 4th century. Besides, they look cool! It's only a game.

It's only a game.

That kind of logic doesn't work for me. Otherwise, I could use my SYW Prussian infantry for Roman legionnaires as it is only a game. I think most of us want our representations in miniatures to have verisimilitude (ie. real and true.)