Late Roman belt

[Robert Vermaat]

About the Chiarimoti image:

EVEN if it we're mail, is that a wide belt set, or is it the waist belt for the scabbard? Could the same could be true of the(hidden?) belts on the Chiaramoti carving.

I said nothing about a wide belt in either case, although the Via Latina could perhaps be a wider one. I added this image mainly because you wrote something about a belt being rarely worn over a mail shirt, indeed that a belt would be a hindering element:
“What I have found is that not wearing a belt allows the mail to move more freely, which seems to make movement overall much easier, especially when moving the arms in combat.”

On the Chiaramoti figures, are we sure that the belts are hidden? The armour appears to be bloused over something (as would a tunic so perhaps here we have another artist trying to depict something he was not personally familiar with) and I fancy I can see two long strap ends hanging down the front of each below the line of the pouching.

I’m sure that they are bloused of something, and I would venture the guess that it’s a belt of sorts. But indeed, perhaps a classic apron?
I see the soldiers themselves as represented quite correct, but the way they hold their shields is odd…

As for the third picture, is it armour, is it a subarmalis with pteruges? It's a tomb, so depicts the man with the symbols of his military life (the belt being the most important?) rather than how he looked in life?

OK, so to you this is a subarmalis. Have you ever seen a Late Roman soldier or emperor shown in a subarmalis, on any artistic representation, instead of armour? IF this were to be a subarmalis this would make it a unique piece of art, rather than one of the many showing armour, with belts over it.

The only evidence I've seen that I beleive shows someone in armour wearing a wide beltset is the depiction from the Piazza Armerina. One example (for me) doesn't provide sufficient evidence that it was anything other than either artistic license or very far from the norm (and therefore not to be encouraged in reenactment).

As I said above, that has nothing to do with the evidence but with explaining it away.
As with the Via Latina, you are apparently happy to explain evidence away by explaining it as something that is unprovenanced anywhere else, rather than accept it as ‘possible’. OK, that’s your prerogative of course, but I fear that, as with the Via Latina image, you are on your own there.

But even IF somehow this would NOT be armour, I could show you many images of belts worn OVER armour, which was one of the questions raised here. The point for this particular image was that it shows a clear example of a wide belt (including the ubiquitous propeller stiffeners) over armour, which is what I see and many with me. There is no question of ‘belts’ being worn over armour in the Late Roman period (as there seems to be no question of ‘belts’ being worn over armour during the Principate).

Just to make it clear, I don't have a 'belt under the armour' theory. I've never said that I thought that these elaborate belt sets were worn under armour (why would you? It'd be decidedly uncomfortable.), I beleive that they were worn over one's elaborately decorated tunic when not wearing armour (when off duty or engaged in military duties away from the battlefield).

OK, that was just a question. Why would I? because I see these belts as such a part of the military identity of the soldiers that I cannot see them without it. they were a badge of honour, to be taken into the grave. They were taken away after convictions of cowardice by Julian. They were either given back upon retirement, or at least worn again when a veteran re-entered the military. That why I think a soldier would not be happy to leave it elsewhere, other than on his body.

Nor do I advocate the wearing of 'tight' sword belts as mentioned in your post Robert. I try to wear mine loosely slung with the scabbard hanging off the hip, as depicted in the Stilicho dyptich. This doesn't impede the movement of the mail.

My mistake, I thought to conclude this from your words about belts (of any sort) impeding free movement when wearing mail armour.

Don't get me wrong, whilst you seem to think that I'm taking an entrenched position on this, it's not the case.
If I see some evidence other than the one example that clearly demonstrates that the wide belt sets under discussion were worn over armour in the 4th or 5th century then I'll happily concede the point.{/quote] I think that the discussion was ‘belts over armour’ rather than ‘wide belts over armour’, but even so I’ll try to dig up more of these. Hopefully you won’t explain them away out of hand as you did so far. :wink:

[quote="Medicus matt" post=310325] And you could just as easily hang your 'last resort' utility knife from your sword belt, for all the good it'll do you. I don't see one (or any other object) hanging from the belt in any of the examples you've presented. :wink:

I immediately concede that, but as with the ‘missing scabbards’ on the Armerina mosaics, I think that has more to do with the fact that all artistic representations of soldiers from the Roman era are, sadly enough, not photographs… :-(