RomanArmyTalk

Hi folks!
I have been looking for belts found completely. So far I have the two Auerberg belts, and Velsen. The Idria pri Baci finds are BCE. They all seem to have way less belt plates than what we see normally both depicted and displayed by reenactors.
Dagger belts:
Auerberg 1: 1 buckle plate, two frog plates, one plate => 4
Auerberg 2: 1 buckle plate, two frog plates, one plate, one round plate =>5
Velsen: 1 buckle plate, two frog lates, three plates => 6

My question: Do you know of any other *dagger* belt sets from between 9 BCE and 50 which are complete? How many plates do they have? I think in regard of the early tombstones (also the Vindonissa sword belt had not a lot of plates) interpretation of belts in form of being full of plates was quite erroneous. Any thoughts?

There was once here on RAT a picture put up I think by Peroni that showed the Chichester plates, I am not sure if these plates were from maybe the earlier invasion period of Britian 43 AD.
These are made up of a buckle with plate, then four plates, plus a frogplate, which gives us six however there would surely have been yet another frogplate I'm sure giving us seven.
However there is a very interesting feature about these plate where one of the plates has a ring cast as part of the plate, and when these were shown it was regarding a discussion relating to where I suggested the ring was for securing the lower baldric strap of a sword scabbard.

E. Deschler-Erb, "Ad arma" (1999) gives the following numbers:

Camerton (GB) Claudian(?): 1 buckle plate, 3 plates => 4
Chassenard (F) c. 40 AD: 1 buckle, 3 plates => 3
Rheingönheim (GER) Neronian(?): 1 buckle, 6 plates => 6
Velsen I (NL) c. 30 AD: 1 buckle, 2 frog plates, 5 plates => 7
Vindonissa (CH), 2nd half 1st C. AD: 1 frog with double ring, 5(?) plates => 5

Greets

Of course, as I'm prone to do, I'll point out the obvious. :|

The number of plates of a given belt will be determined by the dimensions of the plate. The longer rectangles will allow for fewer than more square plates.

Now, I'll behave and go back to the shadowy corner... :wink:

No, I think you are missing the point Dave. My lastest belt, using 1 x 2" plates has 17 plates on it...if this were the dagger belt, I could have used a lot less. In fact, my dagger belt will have many less on it.

Thanks all!
Andreas: Thanks, I had these, I forgot above to ask again specifically for dagger belt sets. Anyway, It is good to have these all together, for some tendency seems to show.
I can add:
Feldmoching: 1 buckle plate, one small bronze ring => 1

So, Velsen seems to have one more? The pic of the whole find shows only three plain plates... But I guess Eckart would´t have made such a mistake.

Magnus: Also your sword belt should have many less, methinks. Camerton, Chassenard, Rheingönheim and Vindonissa are sword belts.

The Velsen in fact has 8 plates there is the buckle with its plate = 1 then the 2 frog plates = 2 then the plain plates = 5 giving a total of 8 plates in all.
All of these plates had been silvered bronze but then the soldier decided to have the plates up-graded with silver sheet applied to them, this may have been an up-grade when he got his very new pugio for the plates had been removed covered in silver sheet then re-fitted using the very same bellcaps.

Agreed Christian...a bit late now but at least the dagger belt will be correct!

Brian, he counts plates and frog pieces and buckle separately, I just checked the book. That would give us five parts only, but the display in the museum has at least six:



.... confusing.

Christian.

In my copy of Roman Military Equipment Sources of Evidence. Fifth Roman Military Equipment Conference. BAR International Series 476 1989 edited by C. van Driel-Murray.

"An Early Roman Burial In Velsen" by Morel and Bosman there are pictures of 8 plates and each plate is treated separate with all details and measurements of them.

definately 8 of them.

Very good, thank you :-)

Ok...so how are we counting then? Buckle, frog, frog and plates seperate? Or all together?

Also, where should I be putting the plates? I figured one or two beside the buckle-plate...but where else? At the other end of the belt near the strap? Or around the frog plates?

I counted plates in, and so did Eckart.

As far as my thoughts are currently: buckle plate, (plate), frog plate, dagger, frog plate all close together. Then nothing for a while. Then (an) ending plate(s). Also, in the light of the thracian leather finds posted by Rado, I don´t see the stitching as very important any more, rather a possible choice. A thick, but brightly coloured leather strap will do also.

I do think that before we start going off on a tangent by considering that belts only had 4, 6, 8 or such, are we looking at a very small percentage of what has been found.

If we take the sizes of the Velsen plates collectively we have about 41-83 cm of frogs buckle and plates, then allow for the gap for the dagger between the frogs we are looking at around 55 to 56 cm of metal.
Then if we consider a waist size we can work out the gaps between each plate I suppose.

If we consider a respectable waist size of 97 cm/38 inches with the Velsen plates the gap between the plates would work out at around 4 to 5 cm approx' 2 inches.
This would make for a very flexable belt one might think.