RomanArmyTalk

Is this belt historicaly auccurate?
http://www.kultofathena.com/product~ite ... alteus.htm
It's kinda expensive, but this one:
http://www.kultofathena.com/product~ite ... r+Belt.htm looks like crap, and doesn't even seem that realistic.
which do you think would be better?
thanks!

Both of them are horrible.

lol if you think that is expensive you are in for a world of pain to get an accurate looking one hehehe...

PM sent

You're going about this the right way: always ask before you buy something. Lots of stuff out there labeled as "authentic" or "realistic" isn't the least bit of either. :lol:

You need to decide what time period your impression is to be, since things changed: belt widths, gladius attachment method, presence or absence of pugio, things like that.

Glad to have you aboard!

Quote:PM sent

You're going about this the right way: always ask before you buy something. Lots of stuff out there labeled as "authentic" or "realistic" isn't the least bit of either. :lol:

You need to decide what time period your impression is to be, since things changed: belt widths, gladius attachment method, presence or absence of pugio, things like that.

Glad to have you aboard!

I beg to differ that is authentic realistic crap

Good point. I should remember to be more specific. :lol:

Could one of you veterans describe the reasons *why* those two belts are crap so newcomers can learn what to look for?

thanks

I don't claim to be an expert, but I'll say a bit. There's some divergent opinions on how the apron straps were to be hung on the front. Some say riveted on with the plates, or under them, then folded over, some say as pictured. I don't recall seeing any with the apron studs as far apart as the second one.

The belt plates on the first don't seem to be common to any of the other sorts I've seen. Can't make out a pugio frog, so can't talk about that. The belt with no plates would be possible, but pretty much all the mosaics and gravestones show plated belts, wider than either of those in some eras, and about the same width in others.

The terminals are vaguely familiar, and would probably jingle nicely when walking. But I don't recall seeing any with rings as large as on the first example. Usually, the terminal tip is fastened by a hook and slot method through the end of the last plate on the apron, which is frequently different in design from the "studs" or small plates on the straps.

Someone who IS an expert can probably correct those statements, or add substantive info to the explanation, but there's my view of things.

Ioten been tempted to get the first one and adjust the straps so the top apron plate is flush with the top of the belt. But then someone'll complain it ain't veg-tanned leather.

The second one? Look for the Camomile Street soldier in the RA.com imagebase. Thin the apron straps, stitch them at the edges with linen thread, change the terminals for lunate ones (you could make your own from brass sheet) and let your sooper-dooper baggy tunic hide the belt - sorted.
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/

A look at the in-set picture of the first belt shows that the belt buckles on the left side. Should it buckle on the right side? And is that hook on the right side for a pugio? Are pugios carried on the left?

Salve Max!

Get your butt over to http://www.larp.com/legioxx/balteus.html and have a good look! The site of legioXX has a wealth of knowledge and will also help you make your own stuff. It's work, but it's also pretty good looking and these guys take authenticity seriously. So, browse around the various items.
A very good point was made urging you to decide on a time period. Over a few hunderd years, the gear of the Roman army went through a vast change. If you buy things at random, even if they are correct in themselves, you will still end up with a crappy impression, as you will be combining thing perhaps seperated by a hunderd years. Stick a Thomson machinegun or BAR in the hands of a WW1 private, add a flackjacket, a K-Bar knife and a WWII helmet and see what I mean.

<-- What Robert said! 8)

Can't go wrong with Leg XX site. Also check out Leg XXIV and V Alaude:

http://www.legionxxiv.org/
http://web.utk.edu/~cohprima/

The first belt you mentioned is a Deepeeka belt. It's not *great*, but, you can use parts on it if you run out of options (like making plates yourself, which is both fun, educational, and sometimes cheaper/easier than buying a made belt)

Also, take a close look at that first belt, on the Left side, that looks like what is supposed to be the Pugio 'frog' - And it's *broken*! So you'd get stuck with a $120 broken belt anyway!

The belt plates themselves are OK, in my book at least. (see if you can instead get individual plates from LaWren's Nest and other vendors, other han making your own, or seeing other vendor's offerings alltogether)

The Danglies/hanging straps/aprons/whatevers, are not accurate from what we know. The finds and studying the surviving sculptures and pieces show that the straps are attached on the back of the belt, and flipped over the top infront of the belt (see Legion sites, more detail there).

And, from what [we] can tell, those "disks" on the straps are not accurate. They ought to be plain disks, not squares with embossed circles. the terminals are just crummy quality. Leg III Cyr members who've gotten this belt to test them find those terminals break and fall apart way too easily. Deepeeka can do better, and they ought to be doing so down the road.

The second belt - Is Just Awful. Don't even bother, avert your eyes! I almost started with this belt way back when. Bad leather, poorly made, and innacurate by nearly every mark.


And, yes, smart to ask first! But the sites we've mentioned will help you out. Good luck!

I would also mention the plates of the first one are to thin. Last time I had one newbie on an event who bought this belt, was very proud of it and within an hour one of the plates bended, and could be trown away.

Maybe you can still get some nice plates at the Albion Moat sale. Clang armory also used to sell his 'mistakes' belt beltplates at reduced costs, as you want to go for a cheap option

Avete!

In short, no detail on either of those belts is a good enough match for the original items, with the possible exception of the buckle on the Deepeeka belt (first one listed).

No, the plates on the Deepeeka belt are NOT good--they are a stamped design that vaguely resembles the "negative" of decoration on a CAST plate. In other words, useless! The studs do not match any known examples, nor do the terminals. The apron straps are made into loops at the top through which the belt is threaded, which does not seem to match Roman practice.

The second belt is from Windlass/Museum Replicas Ltd, a company which serves as a perfect example of how NOT to do everything! Crappy leather with a modern buckle, no plates, and the studs are just washers held on with jiffy rivets. You'd be better off and spending much less by buying any old plainish leather belt at a second-hand store, chopping off the buckle, and replacing it with a Roman style buckle cut from hobby brass. Perfectly good plates can just be plain rectangles of sheet brass, .015" to .032" thick.

Why suggest that new folks should by junk when there are better options? It is true that a good belt is hard to get, in fact there are no ready-made commercial ones that I'll accept without modifications. But yes, the Legio XX Balteus page has a list of suggestions at the bottom for good parts. Also check the page of Things to Avoid:

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/bad.html

And DO keep asking questions!! Vale,

Matthew

Hey guys, two of you have stated that it's wrong to have apron straps looped onto the belt.

This is unsupportable, as we simply don't know they never were and it's all down to how you interpret sculpture. Stating that straps were always attached to the back is not good IMHO.