+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Pugiones and Cingula (/showthread.php?tid=13578)
Pages:
1
2
Pugiones and Cingula - Caballo - 09-10-2008
I've just been looking at the Adamklissi metopes in preparation for a Hadrianic impression at the BM on Saturday- and noticed that there are (as far as I can see) no pugiones or dangling cingula. I'd value thoughts before Saturday! (And I know that these were Trajanic rather than Hadrianic!)
http://www.romansireland.ie/romanarmy/Adamklissi.htm
Re: Pugiones and Cingula - Peroni - 09-11-2008
You'll notice that in a lot of the metopes there are no belts at all!!
Just baldrics. Doubtful.
Pugiones and cingula - Paullus Scipio - 09-11-2008
"Doubtful" ? Whatever do you mean by this? Surely you don't seriously think/suggest anyone today has a better idea of what these troops looked like than the Adamklissi sculptors!?
I'd suggest sticking with Adamklissi as possibly ( probably?) the most accurate portrayal of legionaries and auxiliaries circa 100 A.D. that is currently known, though it is a pity the Praetorians are invariably shown unarmoured in 'undress' etc.....perhaps that is the impression that might be most accurate....armed and in paenula, but not armoured...(?), as representative of 'typical' troops........or battle equipped, with mail, 'sub-armalis', cross re-inforced helmet, right-arm armour, greaves etc......
At all events, I would agree that as close as possible to the Adamklissi look is the best model for a Hadrianic soldier......
) As to cingula, even Trajan's column has the 'dangulum' much reduced/shortened compared to 1st century....
Re: Pugiones and Cingula - Caballo - 09-11-2008
Well, my plan is to wear a belt on Saturday as a Hadrianic impression(with mail, greaves, Carlisle manica, subarmalis, and Gallic I).
Rather than my usual cingulum with danglium, I was thinking of a Utere Felix belt as found at Lyons ( though dated at 189 AD with Hadrian's being 117 to 138 AD)
![[Image: balteus-Lyonburial-3rd-mcb.gif]](http://www.romancoins.info/balteus-Lyonburial-3rd-mcb.gif)
but with a 1st century spatha rather than the later one as in the drawing. Thoughts?
Re: Pugiones and Cingula - Magnus - 09-11-2008
I don't know how easy it is to draw a sword without it being strapped to your body with a belt though....and why are there belt finds throughout the roman era beyond the 2nd century?
Re: Pugiones and Cingula - Marcus Mummius - 09-11-2008
Quote:I don't know how easy it is to draw a sword without it being strapped to your body with a belt though....
First century depictions with a shoulder baldric and a balteus seem to depict the shoulder baldric not being under the balteus.
Securing it this way may be a reenactor invention...
Vale,
Re: Pugiones and Cingula - Robert Vermaat - 09-11-2008
Quote:I don't know how easy it is to draw a sword without it being strapped to your body with a belt though....That presents no problem when the straps go under the cingulum.
Re: Pugiones and Cingula - Peroni - 09-11-2008
The sword is easy enough to draw without a belt, however wearing a mail shirt without a belt is a total nightmare!
Simply, when you lean forward even slightly in un-belted mail the whole thing droops forward and gets in the way and puts the wearer off balance.
Quote:"Doubtful" ? Whatever do you mean by this? Surely you don't seriously think/suggest anyone today has a better idea of what these troops looked like than the Adamklissi sculptors!?
Are you saying Paul, that because it is carved in stone we should not question it? :wink:
Why do we find belt components from the early second century elsewhere then? I have some original belt plates in my own collection from the area.
I seriously doubt that just for the Dacian wars, they were not used. We see them on the Column as you pointed out earlier. There are depictions on the metopes of cavalrymen not wearing helmets, I don't think for a moment that any cavalryman would go into battle without a helmet do you? or Would you?
Re: Pugiones and Cingula - Caballo - 09-11-2008
Quote: There are depictions on the metopes of cavalrymen not wearing helmets, I don't think for a moment that any cavalryman would go into battle without a helmet do you? or Would you?Though I've always wondered whether that metope actually depicted a rider is a (so called) sports helmet....
And Peronis is 100% about wearing a mail shirt with no belt- not a good idea!
Cheers
Re: Pugiones and Cingula - Robert Vermaat - 09-11-2008
Quote:I might be. However, it's purely practical, not so much for the drawing of the blade (which should of course slide easily from the scabbard) but to prevent the scabbard from dangling against the leg.Magnus:xssn94k5 Wrote:Securing it this way may be a reenactor invention...
Re: Pugiones and Cingula - Magnus - 09-11-2008
I find it's hard enough to draw having one of the back straps through the belt...moves around too much. I find mine tends to ride forwards and the next thing I know it's between my legs...it's worse when it's not secured under the belt.
Maybe it was a personal choice?
Pugiones and cingula -Hadrian impression - Paullus Scipio - 09-12-2008
Adrian wrote:
Quote:Are you saying Paul, that because it is carved in stone we should not question it?:lol: :lol: :lol: ....very droll!! :lol:
...while not wishing to get into a debate about what Hadrian's soldiers looked like ( after all, the evidence is even rarer than for Trajan's reign, and the controversy and uncertainty over the appearance of Trajan's soldiers is ongoing....
) I still think one should try and go with the evidence we do have as far as possible, and this was really my point about the Adamklissi metopes.Quote:Why do we find belt components from the early second century elsewhere then? I have some original belt plates in my own collection from the area.
I was not suggesting for a moment that belts were not worn at all, indeed , on the Adamklissi metopes, belts are depicted more often than not( but no 'dangliums' IIRC) see e.g. metopes XVIII, XX, and the very secure belt-and-baldric combination shown on XXXIII, whom I have suggested on previous threads might be intended to be a centurion.
There are also soldiers shown in mail, beltless, with baldrics only, e.g. metopes XIV and XXII.
This seems to be a point of differentiation/recognition between auxilia, whether pedites or equitati, and legionaries; both on Trajan's column and the Adamklissi monument.
Caballo/Paul B. wrote:
Quote:And Peronis is 100% about wearing a mail shirt with no belt- not a good idea!Belts-and-mail are not universal, though they can assist in supporting the weight of mail.....see above for Trajanic Auxilia both mounted and foot being apparently beltless, as well as other Trajanic sculpture; or the Marcus column.....and there are no belts worn by Normans or Saxon Huscarls in a later era, whether mounted or afoot, and their mail hauberks are much longer and hence heavier than Roman ones.....
) Speaking personally, I have never had difficulty wearing auxilia type mail without a belt, and my son does a Crusader impression, and his knightly sword-belt is worn loosely ( not cinched, and so provides no support) over his long hauberk and he has no problems.....perhaps all a matter of what you are used to.....
Peroni/Adrian wrote:
Quote:Well, my plan is to wear a belt on Saturday as a Hadrianic impression(with mail, greaves, Carlisle manica, subarmalis, and Gallic I).Well, I doubt if anyone here on RAT would play the role of 'authenticity police' and say this or that is impossible,...... we all know the evidence is just too scanty, especially for Hadrian's reign......but again, we are all familiar with the fact that whenever a 'new fashion' came in, with much slower communications then, change occurred more slowly and older styles of equipment continued to be worn, basically until worn out or it's owner could afford a newer piece.
Rather than my usual cingulum with danglium, I was thinking of a Utere Felix belt as found at Lyons ( though dated at 189 AD with Hadrian's being 117 to 138 AD) but with a 1st century spatha rather than the later one as in the drawing. Thoughts?
It would therefore seem that gear that was of a fifty year older style would be more appropriate than belts etc that seem( on the little evidence we have) not to have become fashionable until fifty years after Hadrian.....
So are there differentiations between Trajanic and Hadrianic legionary gear ?
Well, an obvious one is that Beards came back into fashion....see e.g. the Croy Hill relief from a Roman fort on the Antonine wall c.150 A.D.....unfortunately the legionaries are paenula clad so we cannot see much....they might be in unarmoured'undress' like the Praetorians of Adamklissi, or the centre one at least, be wearing a mail corselet over long pteruges......but I don't suppose it is practical to acquire a beard between now and Saturday !! LOL!! :lol: :lol:
Next, as soldiers of any era are wont to do, enemy gear seems to have become adopted, particularly from the Sarmatians, after the Dacian Wars ( e.g. the two-handed Lance dubbed contus in Roman use), or rather more relevantly for you, the slide-suspender on sword scabbards which started to replace the four ringed style...see the Aquincum tombstone, also Paenula clad, but showing that short' dangliums' as per Trajan's column continued to be worn ( see illustration p.112 Bishop and Coulston).......the only items therefore that I might have some doubts about are the belt......a narrow belt, with simply decorated plates seems to be more 'typical' - see e.g. the example from Tekije illustrated as no.3 on p99 Bishop and Coulston....so a narrow belt, with the simpler plate decorations and short 'danglium', or even one of the earlier styles with long 'danglium' ( and Bishop and Coulston point out that 'short' didn't necessarily develop sequentially from 'long' p.98) would most likely be more appropriate than the probably anachronistic 'Uter Felix' belt, and secondly the use of a longSpatha sword by Infantry, which again doesn't seem to have happened until 50 years or so after Hadrian's reign.......
Other than that, I don't think even 'authenticity police' from the B.M. could find anything to quibble with, and much of course depends on what you actually have available !!
Re: Pugiones and Cingula - Peroni - 09-12-2008
Quote:Peroni/Adrian wrote:
Quote:
Well, my plan is to wear a belt on Saturday as a Hadrianic impression(with mail, greaves, Carlisle manica, subarmalis, and Gallic I).
Rather than my usual cingulum with danglium, I was thinking of a Utere Felix belt as found at Lyons ( though dated at 189 AD with Hadrian's being 117 to 138 AD) but with a 1st century spatha rather than the later one as in the drawing. Thoughts?
Not me... Caballo/Paul B wrote that :wink: .
I have both a Hadrianic period belt (from finds made on the Wall. and a beard grown specifically for the event at the BM Saturday!)
Re: Pugiones and Cingula - Tarbicus - 09-12-2008
Quote:and a beard grown specifically for the event at the BM Saturday!)Oh I'm so looking forward to seeing that tomorrow 8)
Re: Pugiones and Cingula - Caballo - 09-12-2008
Thanks for the detailed feedback, Paul.
Utere felix belt or my usual first century belt with danglium......hmmm....
As for a beard, i'll just have to rely on a false one
![[Image: beard.jpg]](http://www.beloblog.com/ProJo_Blogs/shenews/images/beard.jpg)
(No, not really.....)