Roman horseman mask

Hi all,

i just wanted to share the MD find with was put on a Dutch MD site were i am a member.

1c AD.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's creepy. I want one so I can put it on and sneak into my kids' room in the middle of the night. Bwhahaha...

 

Wow! That's a heck of a cool MD find.

 

there are about 100 of them and 3 in The Netherlands.

 

hummm time to take my MD out again, where should I go in The Netherlands?

 

oh wow, that's awesome. do you know what it was for? looks like a hinge at the forehead...like maybe for a helmet or something?

 

auxilia would wear them for protection of the face and as a status symbol. Maybe also to distinguish themselves from regular equites.

 

yes something like this

 

Outstanding find!

 

Fantastic!!!

I may be wrong, but I think they found one in Germany where Varus lost several legions to Arminius---among many other discoveries...

I wonder what astronomical figure they sell for, assuming any make it to the marketplace---of course, they should be in a Museum for all to appreciate.

Needless to say, I WANT ONE---or I'll settle for the one used by that Gladiator in the movie of the same name with Russell Crowe--- that's probably somewhere in my annual budget, while the OP original calvary mask(s) are much more within A-N or A-J or I-O-M's budget LOL

 

most people with that much cash to throw around probably go for a monet or sth instead...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...sells-2-3-MILLION--times-estimated-price.html

 

They are talking with land owner and museum

 

Here's another link on the subject, but of different finds...

http://followinghadrian.com/2013/08...roman-cavalry-helmets-from-germania-inferior/

http://www.livius.org/te-tg/teutoburg/teutoburg04.html

And of the Teutoburg Forest where Varus lost those three Legions of Augustus'----Suetonius claims Augustus would walk throughout his 'Palace' screaming.. "Quintilius Varus Where are my three legions" after the news of their annihilation became known to him.

 

Consequences of the germania loss was not limited to just destruction of the 3 legions (17, 18 and 19th), more significantly was that all roman fortification and garrisons were wiped out in the aftermath, so tiberius basically had to start from ground up again. Asprenas had 2 additional legions, plus a lot of scattered troops from the 3 lost legions that had made it to him, but was not able to hold the Rhine.

Arminius orchestrated an ambush over a 10 mile dispersion of roman forces, which was almost an unthinkable task for 30,000 men. There are still ongoing debates over how exactly it had happened. Terrain and weather obviously played big parts, but even then, it wouldn't had been easy to conceal the concentration and deployment of such a large force.

Personally I felt the treatment of Varus (and Tiberius, for recommending Varus) was kinda unfair. Especially Tiberius, after he had gone through such difficult campaign in the balkans to prove himself.
Varus' mistake was basically marching too close to Kalkriese. It was hardly a tactical blunder though, he just didn't anticipate that spies would had exposed that temporary situation/weakness to Arminius, and the later was so quick to act on it.

 

I tend to agree....Blaming Varus for trusting Arminius and his men (and scouts) who were well-known friends and allies of Rome and are stated to have been an Auxiliary unit operating with the Legions for years would be sort of like blaming Washington for the treachery of Benedict Arnold. It's always so easy to assess the 'blunders' of others in 20-20 hindsight...especially as the 'fog of war' dissipates...

A fascinating and incredibly readable treatment of this Roman disaster is in a book of Adrian Murdoch, entitled "Rome's Greatest Defeat"---- the encounter across both sides of the Rhine river of Arminius and his brother still in the service of Rome is utterly fascinating.....and I leave that title assessment (Greatest Defeat) to others since Hannibal certainly had Rome on its knees for many years.

From a Greek-Roman standpoint, I list the following as the Greatest Generals: Alexander the Great, Hannibal and Caesar---although Scipio Africanus would doubtless disagree LOL

 

Teutoburg Forest and the loss of 3 Legions was a terrible defeat. Rome went on for another 450 years in the West, and another 1200 years in the East. However, Trebia 218bc loss 28k, Trasimene 217bc 15k loss, and Cannae 216bc loss of 75k, were total disasters during the Republican era of the 2nd Punic War. A total loss of 120k Roman Legionaires within 3 years. Ultimately Rome was victorious over Carthage. They went on to grow into the world's superpower. Imagine the coins (and the stories they witnessed) found at those battlefields.

 

Commanders are generally evaluated by their tactical abilities these days. They are further divided into specializations because no one seemed to be perfect across the whole tactical level. Someone that excels in certain conditions are usually not so good doing other things, so you have these "great generals" that are known for one thing or another. Guderian and Von manstein good with blitz and using tanks. Walter Model a defensive specialist, Rommel did the unthinkable with artilleries, etc etc.

In ancient warfares there were much less tactics involved. Things more often than not happened on strategical level. Things were generally unpredictable on the tactical level, that plus fog of war (no ways of communicating battlefield situations clearly), I think the most important attribute for a success commanding career was actually luck.

You have these people that were exceptionally lucky, such as Julius Caesar and Lucius Sulla. They knew common sense, trained their troops well and avoided unwindable battles, but a lot of times their victories came from sheer random draws. When Caesar made a mistake by marching his unit too early, the unit got tired, stopped and regrouped. They not only did not arrive too late at the battleline to support flanks of adjacent units, but ended up bringing fresh blood to the fight at the critical time, turning the battle around... Things like these weren't predicted by the commander...

Same with Hannibal Barca. His frontline was routed during the battle of cannae, but happens he had positioned more experienced units on the flanks, which crested inward and ended up enveloping the Romans who were basically chasing routers...
I mean, he was good enough to capitalize on enemy's mistakes, sending in cav to take advantage of rigidity of the encircled roman formations, but the roman mistake was main cause of that loss, not Hannibal's reactions.
In the following years, Roman made tactical adjustments to deal with these shortcomings, and Scopio Africanus took advantage of such adjustments. Hannibal's success ended not because he got worse, but because Romans got better.
During battle of Pharsalus. Pompey's cav (elites, just like Caesar's counter parts) took 15 minutes to regroup and reform after routing Caesar's right flank, allowing Caesar's defeated cavalry to reorganize and re-attack (not to mention with such timing that they attacked right when Pompey's cav were moving out to flank Caesar's line). Meanwhile, the main lines battled for an hour (majority of roman line fights took less than 10 minutes), so fatigues, that the troops couldn't deal with what's left of Caesar's cav after all the mess on the flank.

Outside of luck, I think the way one's army fights makes hell lot of difference. Things are often hard counters in ancient battles. Put it in other words, the way one's army fights was often developed precisely for the purpose of defeating its opponents. This has very little to do with the ability of an individual commander.

Phalanx hoplites better than less organized spear levy, sword shield > phalanx formations. Long reaching armor piercing weapons (halberd and polearms) made sword-shield obsolete, they were then at disadvantages against two handed sword units such as zwandlers. These developments helped unbalancing battlefields, along with many other things, so victory over superior number really isn't a good way to evaluate tactical ability of a general.
I for one, don't really believe Alexander was that great a tactician. He had qualities, whether bravery or sheer madness, he made these crazy charges that turned the tides (chaeronea being a prominent example), but I believe a lot of his later success came from having superior troops. Phalanx hoplite formations were difficult to beat without better trained soldiers.

Some commanders were real tacticians, but can rarely being accounted for successful. Apparently tactical abilities get you some wins, but being lucky lets one go much further.
Gaius Marius and Scipio Africanus were tactical geniuses, but they could only be as successful as the amount of battles available to them Mark Anthony, on other hand, much more famous for doing very little successfully on his own.

 

I would disagree with some of your premises. I believe many of the greats were very skillful tacticians and more importantly were great leaders of men. They were able to inspire their soldiers to accomplish the unimaginable. And, they were lucky. But luck is not always random. Sometimes a commander can make his own luck. Having the ability to anticipate the enemy and adjust accordingly is a form of luck. Yes, I would rather be lucky than skillful; however, in certain historical leaders (Caesar comes to mind), they were both lucky and skillful.

 

I agree with many of Brass' observations, some I do not agree with.
Regarding Tactical Skills, I am more in the camp of the "Illegitimi One".
LEADERSHIP is what makes successful Generals.
I do believe that Hannibal had observed Roman military strategy and tactics after several encounters with the Romans from Spain and several years in Italy. He also understood Roman leadership, and their need to win and impress for glory. I believe at Cannae was a culmination of his brilliant leadership, and seasoned experience fighting the Romans. He specifically placed less seasoned troops into the center and orchestrated the double envelopment, KNOWING that the Romans would chase the routed.
Regarding Alexandros at Chaeronea, he had just turned 19 and was a bit inexperienced and eager to make his mark. Although he had campaigned in Thrace as "training", this was one of his first encounters with a capable Greek Army. I believe that, indeed he had madness, and luck was with him. However, Granicus, Issus, Tyre, Gaugemela, Hydaspes, and various other battles proved his combination of genius and madness. His genius was his ability to SEIZE the opportunity during the madness of the battle and MAKE his luck!
In all cases of all the successful generals: I believe they know luck plays a part in any battle or campaign. However, how they SEIZE the opportunities as luck reveals them, is what makes a brilliant Leader.

 

Further: Would you rather face an army of lions lead by a Lamb; or would you want to face an army of lambs lead by a LION? In my view, each of the great Generals were Lions...