Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Late Roman belt
I mentioned the stilicho image as an example where the sword appears suspended from tbe belt, and not across the shoulder. Having the sword suspended from the belt, would likley require the need for a shoulder cross strap to keep the belt from being pulled down. Further more why would the soldiers be wearing balderics without the swords? It seems more likely that they are cross straps as part of the belt.
Markus Aurelius Montanvs
What we do in life Echoes in Eternity

Roman Artifacts
[Image: websitepic.jpg]
Reply
Quote: Having the sword suspended from the belt, would likley require the need for a shoulder cross strap to keep the belt from being pulled down.

Ummm...no. For a start, you're assuming that the scabbard is hung from the wide belt, for which there is, I believe, no evidence?
I (and lots of other early medeival reenactors) wear a scabbard suspended from a narrow waistbelt and have never felt the need to have it supported by a 'Sam Brown' strap.

But then I firmly believe that the norm was not to wear any belt except the sword belt over armour, and certainly not the wide belt set with all your day-to-day crud hanging off it. I think they're 'undress' belts, usually just worn over tunics.

There's an old re-enactor fallacy that wearing a belt somehow helps to relieve the weight of a mail shirt but it's exactly that, a fallacy...unless somebody's invented a magic anti-gravity belt that I'm not aware of.
"Medicus" Matt Bunker

[size=150:1m4mc8o1]WURSTWASSER![/size]
Reply
Quote:But then I firmly believe that the norm was not to wear any belt except the sword belt over armour, and certainly not the wide belt set with all your day-to-day crud hanging off it.

Well the mosaic that Robert posted shows the wide belt with the armor, and really if I was going into battle I would want my knife attached to my belt for obvious reasons. Where would you hang it, if it wasn't attached to your belt?

Quote:There's an old re-enactor fallacy that wearing a belt somehow helps to relieve the weight of a mail shirt but it's exactly that, a fallacy...unless somebody's invented a magic anti-gravity belt that I'm not aware of.

I'm not sure why you think that. A modern hikers backpack has waist "belts" for that very reason. If you have a belt at the waist, it basically holds everything under it up off of your hips, essentially "relieving" the weight off of your shoulders (as it is now supported by the hips). This helps spread the weight out and make it less tiresome on the shoulders. No anti-gravity required.
Markus Aurelius Montanvs
What we do in life Echoes in Eternity

Roman Artifacts
[Image: websitepic.jpg]
Reply
Quote:I'm not sure why you think that. .

Because I've worn mailshirts for up to 8 hours a day on a regular basis for the last 20 years.
For most of that I followed the norm and wore a tight waistbelt over the mail as well as a sword belt. I stopped doing that a couple of years ago when somebody pointed out that it was very, very rare to see depictions of men in mail in the late roman/early medieval period (the fact that every time this debate arises it's just one depiction in one mosaic that gets held up as evidence rather proves that point I think). Having looked into it myself, I concluded that wearing a belt over mail seemed to be the exception rather than the norm, so decided to give it a try.

Not wearing a belt makes no noticeable difference to the weight on the shoulders because, unlike a backpack, mail has no supporting framework so the belt provides no weight carrying suppport except to the very small amount hanging below the belt. On a full length hauberk which comes down to below the knees, it would make a noticable difference, but not on a mid thigh length shirt.

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.
I would imagine that it would also make it more effective as armour as it hangs over the body and can move under impact, rahter than being hold more tightly in place as it is when secured by a belt. That's speculation, and difficult to test but makes sense, to me anyway.

As for the point about wanting to take your knife into battle.... why? I've yet to see a late roman knife that'd was designed to be a side arm rather than a general purpose knife. Certainly nothing like the offensive big knives of the Germanic/Scandinavian cultures. I'll leave it back in the camp/billet, along with my cash and other portable wealth.
"Medicus" Matt Bunker

[size=150:1m4mc8o1]WURSTWASSER![/size]
Reply
Interesting.

Three comments, two of them technical.
1) I'm not wearing my belt over mail, so I can't comment on any positive or negative implications of wearing any belt over mail. My guess would be that a tight narrow sword belt would impede movement as much or less as a wide utility belt would.

2) I don't agree with your conclusion as to the evidence. You always ask for proof, but when it exists you dismiss it out of hand as a single exception.

Besides, it’s incorrect to say that “the fact that every time this debate arises it's just one depiction in one mosaic that gets held up as evidence”. We’ve been over this and on that occasion I presented more that ‘just the one’. I know at least another: the Via Latina soldier, who is wearing mail, PLUS a belt (and a baldric I think) as well. I’ll add an image later, but he’s well-represented in books by Mike Bishop and Graham Sumner.

On the other hand, I've yet to see any proof for the 'belt under armour' theory, apart from images that do nót show such a belt. It's easy to claim that something is there when you do not see it. And Late Roman soldiers are more often shown without armour than wíth armour anyway..
I could, with that in hand, claim that no belts were worn at all, except in camp conditions. I won't do that of course, because I don't think that this was the case. Wink I think they could be worn over armour, and I have at least one piece of proof that confirms it. Or, I could claim that Late Roman troops hardly ever wore armour at all, but that was done before me, by Vegetius I think, and already amply refuted by 'the good dr. Coulston'... Wink
Therefore I cán conclude, that images tell a lot, but not quite all.

To this I can add that belts were also worn over a segmentata. So, why not over other pieces of armour (as a point of principle)?

3) About the bits and pieces that are worn on the utility belt, I can understand you there. It's a different discussion of course, "what did the soldier carry into battle", and I can follow your reasoning. Pouches, purses, cooking knives and stuff would indeed be ‘in the way’ when you’re in battle, and perhaps best left in the camp (hoping that no-one would steal my coins in the meantime). About a knife I’m not so sure. Looking like a side-arm or not, a knife is a blade of last resort, and when lance and sword are lost or thrown away, a soldier would feel naked if nothing remained. So yes, I could agree that the bits&stuff that hang from a wide belt would perhaps not be worn in battle, when armour was worn.

Would that automatically mean that a wide belt was worn only over the tunic and hidden by the armour, AS A RULE? I disagree there. Because this belt was not just a piece of clothing, some practical element to suspend things from, it was also a matter of great personal pride. It was what made you a military man, and therefore they were there to be shown. Not only when off-duty, but when on duty too. That’s how I see it anyway.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
As promised.

Via Latina Catacomb (mail plus a belt):
[attachment=3610]via-latina.jpg[/attachment]

Museo Chiaramoti, Vatican (Scale and mail plus belt):
[attachment=3611]chiaramonti.jpg[/attachment]

Late Roman tomb (armour plus belt with stiffeners):
[attachment=3613]Picture225small.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
           
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
Good points Robert. I certainly would want some type of knife on me going into battle. It not for the simple reason as a last resort weapon, or utility weapon should the battle/encounter get prolonged.
Markus Aurelius Montanvs
What we do in life Echoes in Eternity

Roman Artifacts
[Image: websitepic.jpg]
Reply
Robert, I remember the conversation and I still think that the Via Latina painting shows a man in a decorated tunic, not a mail shirt. You say artistic convention, I say it's got long sleeves that are tight at the cuff and that it seems to hang in drapes like fabric, not mail (although the Chiaramoti figures exhibit the same features and that's definately armour). It's impossible to tell what the diagonal white line across the figure represents. It seems to pass over the belt and terminate some distance below it but passes under the confusing black deocration/detail on the figures chest. Could be a sam brown, could be an attempt to depict a 3rd century baldric. I can't tell, and neither can anyone else.

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.

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?

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).

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).

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.

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.

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:
"Medicus" Matt Bunker

[size=150:1m4mc8o1]WURSTWASSER![/size]
Reply
Perhaps it is my eyesight, but I seem to be seeing on the Via Latina figure both a long scabbard on the right and a shorter scabbard on the left, with a round chape. The latter scabbard appears to be connected to the lighter coloured diagonal strap (for want of a better descriptive term). I seem to be seeing two diagonal straps crossing on the chest. One of these, as I said, appears to be carrying the shorter scabbard whilst the other could be either a guige strap to support the shield or a strap to suspend the sword from. Of these two options the sword suspension option seem more likely, as the other strap passes over it, which would not be practical for a guige strap. Of course, it may just have been de rigeur to wear a diagonal strap across the body for reasons we would not understand and that the sword isto be understood to be suspended from the waist belt.

Of course, the artist may not have been used to depicting soldiers. The sword and shield are both far too small (although this depiction is far from unique in that respect) and the helmet looks a little odd. It could be that he was trying to depict armour but was more used to depicting civilian clothing so used his usual depictional methods and then tried to use patterning to mark it out as armour, or then again i could be that it was always supposed to depict a tunic rather than mail and that some clothing may have been far more decorated than we are usually led to suppose.

I don't really think we can draw any definite conclusions from the figure.

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.

Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers.  :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Reply
Quote:Perhaps it is my eyesight, but I seem to be seeing on the Via Latina figure both a long scabbard on the right and a shorter scabbard on the left, with a round chape.

I can see what you think is a round chape, but can't see the rest of the scabbard to go with it. As it's a 4th century depiction of an Old Testament Egyptian soldier, who knows what the artist was using as inspiration.
"Medicus" Matt Bunker

[size=150:1m4mc8o1]WURSTWASSER![/size]
Reply
First about the Via Latina image:

Matt wrote;
[quote] Robert, I remember the conversation and I still think that the Via Latina painting shows a man in a decorated tunic, not a mail shirt. You say artistic convention, I say it's got long sleeves that are tight at the cuff and that it seems to hang in drapes like fabric, not mail (although the Chiaramoti figures exhibit the same features and that's definately armour). It's impossible to tell what the diagonal white line across the figure represents. It seems to pass over the belt and terminate some distance below it but passes under the confusing black deocration/detail on the figures chest. Could be a sam brown, could be an attempt to depict a 3rd century baldric. I can't tell, and neither can anyone else.[/quote]
I guess one could explain anything away with a personal view on evidence. I would say this:
a) dots like these are a well-known technique in art to show a mail shirt. There is no compelling reason to deviate from such an interpretation in this case. In fact, it’s what all the experts think, and I’ve yet to see other interpretations.
b) a dotted tunic would be something new in late Roman tunic fashion. Talk about a lone piece of evidence – or can you come up with more dotted tunics?

Concluding, I see no reason to go against the current artistic evidence for either the representation of mail, or late Roman tunic fashion.

[quote] Perhaps it is my eyesight, but I seem to be seeing on the Via Latina figure both a long scabbard on the right and a shorter scabbard on the left, with a round chape. The latter scabbard appears to be connected to the lighter coloured diagonal strap (for want of a better descriptive term). I seem to be seeing two diagonal straps crossing on the chest. One of these, as I said, appears to be carrying the shorter scabbard whilst the other could be either a guige strap to support the shield or a strap to suspend the sword from. Of these two options the sword suspension option seem more likely, as the other strap passes over it, which would not be practical for a guige strap. Of course, it may just have been de rigeur to wear a diagonal strap across the body for reasons we would not understand and that the sword isto be understood to be suspended from the waist belt.

[quote="Crispvs" post=310367] Of course, the artist may not have been used to depicting soldiers. The sword and shield are both far too small (although this depiction is far from unique in that respect) and the helmet looks a little odd. It could be that he was trying to depict armour but was more used to depicting civilian clothing so used his usual depictional methods and then tried to use patterning to mark it out as armour, or then again i could be that it was always supposed to depict a tunic rather than mail and that some clothing may have been far more decorated than we are usually led to suppose. [/quote] The patterning of the mail as dots is (as remarked above) very distinctive of mail.
The usual ‘simplification’ that we see in art could be at work here – the soldier is recognizable enough, the helmet type a clear Intercisa IV, the scutum (though small) quite acceptable for the period. I have no doubt that the artist knew what a soldier looked like, and I think his model wore a long coat of mail.

[quote] I don't really think we can draw any definite conclusions from the figure.[/quote]I would like to see a better image of this one, all we have so far is the same image reproduced over and over. But agreed, I would not use it to argue for semispathae or small scuta. Wink
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
About the Chiarimoti image:

Quote: 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.”

Quote: 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…

Quote: 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.

Quote: 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).

Quote: 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.

Quote: 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.

Quote: 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… :-(
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
Quote:a) dots like these are a well-known technique in art to show a mail shirt. There is no compelling reason to deviate from such an interpretation in this case. In fact, it’s what all the experts think, and I’ve yet to see other interpretations.
b) a dotted tunic would be something new in late Roman tunic fashion. Talk about a lone piece of evidence – or can you come up with more dotted tunics?

a)It's brown and looks like it's made from fabric. Are other examples of this technique of depicting mail also brown and fabricy (if that's not a word then it is now)?
b)I've never seen a 4th century depiction of a 14th Century BC egyptian soldier, so I don't know what he's attempting to portray. Whatever it is, I (personally) don't think it's a secure representation of a 4th century Roman.

I don't WANT to argue the 'evidence' away, I was quite happy wearing a wide belt over my mail (they're very slimming Wink ). However, for me, the evidence to support the common wearing of these wide belt sets (and lets limit it to that because the wider debate over what is a belt and what is a sword belt when depicting narrow belts worn over mail is much wider), with their associated dangly bits, on the battlefield (over armour or otherwise) isn't there. I'm not going to stop anyone else from doing it; there are bigger horrors out there than that, I'll just save the wearing of mine for when I'm wearing my finely made tunica (something else I wouldn't wear under armour), drinking wine and eating Imperialist tidbits.
"Medicus" Matt Bunker

[size=150:1m4mc8o1]WURSTWASSER![/size]
Reply
Not to re-open the debate on the belt over the armor, but I came across a few other examples showing belts (all be it narrow ones) worn over armor (in this case scale).

3rd Century examples from Dura

[attachment=5212]DuraSyn-NB1-Eben_Ezer_battle-The_Ark.jpg[/attachment]



This example of scale armor (believed to be Dacian?) on Trajans column

[attachment=5213]180px-Dacian_Scale_Armour.JPG[/attachment]

And the soldier on the left wearing a wide belt over his scale and musculata, clearly 4th or 5th Century based on the two ridge helmets. (unknown what mosaic its from)

[attachment=5214]24966_342823096061_246763221061_4741606_2124159_n.jpg[/attachment]

5th Century Mosaic from The Basilica of Santa Maria, Rome. Harder to see, but the soldier on the right and other clearly have belts over their armor.


[attachment=5215]TheBasilicaofSantaMaria-6.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
               
Markus Aurelius Montanvs
What we do in life Echoes in Eternity

Roman Artifacts
[Image: websitepic.jpg]
Reply
Hi guys, hopefully the rest of you wont mind if I stray off topic for a quick question for Robert Vermaat. I'm interested in the third image you posted above, I remember seeing it before, and I've saved it in a file saying that it is from a town called Sid in Serbia, but do you happen to know when it's been dated to? Going on my VERY limited knowledge of late Roman equipment I'd say it's late 3rd century, would I be right, or am I way off? Thanks in advance.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What goes into a late Roman belt? Boontje17 0 4 11-09-2023, 10:56 AM
Last Post: Boontje17
  Late roman belt set from Traprain Law, Scotland Agraes 25 6,416 10-03-2016, 10:35 PM
Last Post: Flavivs Aetivs
  Late Sword Buttons for Belt Help? brennivs - tony drake 5 2,033 03-13-2015, 09:07 AM
Last Post: brennivs - tony drake

Forum Jump: