+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Reenactment (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Roman Re-Enactment & Reconstruction (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: Groin guard (/showthread.php?tid=2580)
Groin guard - Ebusitanus - 03-22-2005
A quick question since I seem not to be able to find the propper answer in my available literature.<br>
<br>
I try to set up a late republican early imperial legionaire around the time of Teutoburg. I have noted that most references do not give such legionaires the so typical groin guard hanging from the Cingulum. Apparently troopers from this time just had the two "cowboy style" cingulum and thats it. Then I read during this time the groin guard began to apear. Then I see other sources that show them with groin guards.<br>
<br>
What would be the most generic approach to such an impression? With or without? <p></p><i></i>
Re: Groin guard - Tarbicus - 03-22-2005
One suggestion could be, if you wear hamata don't have the groin guard, but if you wear segmentata have the groin guard. That is if the hamata has the length to help protect the groin.<br>
If it's a shorter hamata then maybe you should wear a groin guard, with the scutum hanging from a baldric?<br>
<br>
Maybe?<br>
<br>
Jim/Tarbicus <p></p><i></i>
segmentata - Marcus Mummius - 03-22-2005
I don't think a segmentata would be the best thing to wear in the period he's talking about<br>
<br>
Vale,<br>
MarcusMummius <p></p><i></i>
Re: segmentata - derek forrest - 03-22-2005
Segmentata was certainly used by Varus and there are stele showing the apron around that period or shortly after. I note that Ross cowan shows Varus without the apron but apron shortly after. <p></p><i></i>
oops - Marcus Mummius - 03-22-2005
of course you are right! my mistake <p></p><i></i>
Re: oops - Crispvs - 03-23-2005
The apron is NOT a groin protector! It is not ridged enough to be protective and the feeling of weighted straps swinging beween your legs when running actually inspires thoughts of the opposite being more likely. It does make a jingling noise as you move however and this may indeed be its entire function. We know that the roman soldier loved to show off with flashy equipment. Perhaps he liked to show off with a flshy sound as well.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i></i>
Re: oops - Tarbicus - 03-23-2005
Quote:</em></strong><hr>The apron is NOT a groin protector!<hr><br>
<br>
Well, given the choice of wearing one or not wearing one before being kicked in the nuts, I know what my choice would be.<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Re: oops - Ebusitanus - 03-23-2005
Thanks for all the answers so far but I can see there is no real concensus about this matter either<br>
<br>
While I have become to know that there are segmentata evidence for around this time, I would say IMHO that this new armor was in its beginings and would rather detract from my proyect for a "generic" Augustus era legionaire. Just yesterday I found again contradicting literary evidence about the apron being in wide use during the first quarter of the first century. Connolly despicts one with the apron and the two crossed cingulums, then in another book about Legio II I saw them despicted 25AC in southern gaul without the apron.<br>
<br>
Apparently the first aprons were just stylish belt endings that were split in four with weights on each end and only later evolved into these elaborate aprons.<br>
<br>
Would it be "farby" to wear one of these with a Hamatta in such an early Imperial persona?<br>
<br>
<img src="http://www.mambri.com/legio%20fabrica.data/cing2.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
<br>
<br>
PS: I´m now also interested in that comment about a "long" and a "short" hamatta covering or not the groin. Were there different sizes in lenght during this specific time era?<br>
<br>
<img src="http://www.mambri.com/legio%20fabrica.data/hama1.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
Differences like these? More like Auxiliary size or generic hamatta size?<br>
<br>
<img src="http://www.mambri.com/legio%20fabrica.data/hama11.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
Would something like this be correct? Only one cingulum but with belt stripes hanging down? <p></p><i></i>
Re: oops - Tarbicus - 03-23-2005
The longer hamata, but with the shoulder doubling, seems to be the most commonly illustrated for your period. I'm finding it difficult to find the apron being used in the illustrations as well (Angus McBride, et al).<br>
<br>
But, who knows? The guy in the white tunic you posted looks good to me, but he really should hitch his tunic up <p></p><i></i>