German belts

[Amalric]

Hello! I've been recently trying to lose all the relatively unauthentic parts of my kit, and the next to go is my cheap braided leather belt from Fossil. I am interested in what types of belts the Germans would have worn during the first century AD. Would they be similar to the thick later Roman belts that the Goths wore during their invasions? Or would they be more like the Celtic toggle belts such as the one on http://www.vicus.org.uk/kitguide/index.htm ? Thanks in advance for you help!

[Hugh Fuller]

The Gothic invasions came during the 4th and 5th Centuries and the Germanic belts were generally wider, 3" - 4" with elaborate buckles and stiffeners as well as attachment points on them. The type is pretty well illustrated in the Osprey Warrior Series Book #17, Germanic Warriors. These belts were also used in the Roman Army of that period as the Germanics made up much of that army.

[Robert Vermaat]

Germanic belts were generally wider, 3" - 4" with elaborate buckles and stiffeners as well as attachment points on them.

Wider belts were only fashionable during the 4th century, they become smaller again during the early 5th or eeven already during the late 4th c.

It's also not correct to describe them as 'Germanic' only, they were also worn by Roman soldiers and created by the army.

[Amalric]

Thanks for the feedback! I was more interested in belts from around the first century AD. I am looking at portraying a Chatti warrior during the first century. I have found a few sources that describe Celtic belts, and others that describe belts from the Gothic invasions, but I haven't had any luck finding sources for German belts in the first century.

[Peroni]

I have a lot of info on the large early Batavian belt hook fittings from Kessel/Lith. PM me for details. (The Batavians were formerly part of the Chatti)

[Hugh Fuller]

Robert, I portray a civilian character around 390 CE in Britannia who wears a wide belt along with a tunic with clavi and orbiculi. My research had indicated that the militarization of Roman society had, by that time, led to the civil types copying the military in dress. As to the wide belts, you may be right about them fading out in the early 5th Century but I suspect that the question of who started the style, the Romans or the Germanics, is rather of a "chicken or egg question" in that it would be rather difficult at this remove to say who was using them first.

[Andreas Gobinius]

Amalric,
Try this link:
[url:3bgv3vvi]http://www.tollundman.dk/toej.asp[/url]
And after that this:
[url:3bgv3vvi]http://www.antiquitas.pl/Antiquitas11_eng.html[/url]
I think that you can find a proper belt for the Chatti warrior from the 1st century in Danish and German publications. I will look for something in my library and let you know, but probably Adrian has more info in English about Batavians...

[Amalric]

Thank you for all your help! I think I have enough info to begin work on my new belt! (^_^)

[Robert Vermaat]

My research had indicated that the militarization of Roman society had, by that time, led to the civil types copying the military in dress.

What militarization? Late Roman society was by no means militarized. The only thing I can think of here is that scholars have been putting too much stress on the fact that civilservants could also have been wearing military belts. ´Militia´, after all, was a word used both for civil servants as well as the military. But civilians never wore military belts, those were the prerogative of the soldiers. And of civil servants in the late empire, but whom we don´t portrayed with them overly much, anyway.

As to the tunics, they weren´t military at all. We see them worn by everybody, from slave to emperor.

So if you are a civilian, you CAN wear the tunic, no problem, but you CAN´T wear the wide belt.

As to the wide belts, you may be right about them fading out in the early 5th Century but I suspect that the question of who started the style, the Romans or the Germanics, is rather of a "chicken or egg question" in that it would be rather difficult at this remove to say who was using them first.

Well, the fashion flow went both ways, but there seeems to have been a liking for barbarian styles in the Roman empire. So my guess is that those scholars who claim it originated among the Germans are probably right.

[Andreas Gobinius]

As the little comment of Robert last post:

those scholars who claim it originated among the Germans are probably right

I can say, that it is possible that the fashion of wider belts could has Germanic origin. In Central - Eastern Europe the first period of such fashion becomes in the 2nd half of the 2nd century. But after about 50 years in 3rd century we notice the fashion of narrower belts anew. However Germanic tribes present on the territory of Central Europe have not direct contacts with Rome, then it is rather impossible that the fashion of wider belts is their inflow. But we should remember about Gothic and Vandal migrations but their fashion had been changed during the wander. In the case of Germanic tribes and their fashion migrations we should consider probable inflows of Sarmatian tribes or even Hunnic. But I am not sure what the most probable direction of the inflow is.

[Hugh Fuller]

My research had indicated that the militarization of Roman society had, by that time, led to the civil types copying the military in dress.

What militarization? Late Roman society was by no means militarized. The only thing I can think of here is that scholars have been putting too much stress on the fact that civilservants could also have been wearing military belts. ´Militia´, after all, was a word used both for civil servants as well as the military. But civilians never wore military belts, those were the prerogative of the soldiers. And of civil servants in the late empire, but whom we don´t portrayed with them overly much, anyway.

As to the tunics, they weren´t military at all. We see them worn by everybody, from slave to emperor.

So if you are a civilian, you CAN wear the tunic, no problem, but you CAN´T wear the wide belt.

I looks as if I need to revise my persona a bit. Would a civic decurion who also holds a position in a local militia-type unit be allowed to wear such a belt? As you remember, the title "decurion" came to be used for a city council member as well as for a cavalry officer. My old persona was as a decurion of a Venta Belgarum (Winchester) around about 407 CE, just as the last of the regular troops were being withdrawn by yet another pretender to the throne, Constantine III.

As to the wide belts, you may be right about them fading out in the early 5th Century but I suspect that the question of who started the style, the Romans or the Germanics, is rather of a "chicken or egg question" in that it would be rather difficult at this remove to say who was using them first.

Well, the fashion flow went both ways, but there seeems to have been a liking for barbarian styles in the Roman empire. So my guess is that those scholars who claim it originated among the Germans are probably right.

[Robert Vermaat]

I looks as if I need to revise my persona a bit. Would a civic decurion who also holds a position in a local militia-type unit be allowed to wear such a belt? As you remember, the title "decurion" came to be used for a city council member as well as for a cavalry officer. My old persona was as a decurion of a Venta Belgarum (Winchester) around about 407 CE, just as the last of the regular troops were being withdrawn by yet another pretender to the throne, Constantine III.

Hi Hugh,

Well, yes and no again. There would not have been any local militia for you to join, as this was forbidden. That some local militias were organised anyway (see North Africa) was a fact, but a person would not have been able to join such a band in any official function.

A decurion would be possible, but at that time the decuriones were the town folk who organised things. Not willingly, because they had to pay for everything themselves and were also responcible for gathering local taxes - and woe to them if they came up short! It was not a function that a rich person would want to have, but as a 'civil duty' it was often next to compulsory. If they could, the rich folks retired to their big country estates and hoped the state would forget about them.

So you would lose much of your fortune, but you get to wear your belt. :wink:

[Hugh Fuller]

Robert, please remember the times of which I am speaking. By 407, there was not really a working provincial government in Britain and there were no regular army troops as they had gone over to Gaul with Constantine III in his unsuccessful bid for the purple The only possible commander in the West who could have withstood not only Constantine but the various Germanic tribes was Stilicho and he was fighting for his survival against his political opponents who finally beat him in August of 408. As for the Western Emperor, Honorius was a feckless fool who oversaw the political murder of his most effective commander. The result was the sack of Rome by Alaric and his Visigoths in 410 and Honorius' message to the Britons that they must look to their own defense. I believe it reasonable that 407 or so would have begun to see the rise of capable people to organize things in lieu of the appointees from Ravenna and/or Mediolanum as well as the beginnings of local militias, imperial policy or not.

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert, please remember the times of which I am speaking. By 407, there was not really a working provincial government in Britain and there were no regular army troops as they had gone over to Gaul with Constantine III in his unsuccessful bid for the purple

That is extremely unlikely and completely unsupported by any evidence. The diocese may have been in disarray after the fall of Constantine III, but when he left he would never have burned his ships behind him - there is no sign that the limitanei troops left for the continent, to the contrary.

That does also mean that provincial governemnt would have remained intact for probably decades at least, and local militias would not have sprung up yet by 407, maybe 10 years later in some areas, or much later in others. I fear you're a bit too hasty in seeing the diocese of Britain go under... :wink:

[Hugh Fuller]

You think that this applies even after 410? After Honorius has told them that their defense is up to their own resources?