Looking at original authentic four ring scabbards, it looks as those there was a front side and back, or am I wrong?
On a four ring scabbard, when hanging it with the strap over the shoulder, is the proper way to hang it from just two of the ring on the side? If so, since there is a back and a front, and since the legion as a whole wore it on the same side, what is the point of four rings, not just two?
If one ring breaks, you flip it over?
Did they run a leather strap through all four rings? I know that with thousands of soldiers the there were always exception, but what was the norm?
Another question and maybe the answer, when the scabbard did hang over the shoulder, was it a four ring or just two?
I thought there was a thread on this about six months ago, but I can't seem to find it.
Thanks for any info.
Steve
Quote:and since the legion as a whole wore it on the same side, what is the point of four rings, not just two?
Centurions didn't - they wore them on the left, as did some other officers, but not consistently.
Quote:Did they run a leather strap through all four rings? I know that with thousands of soldiers the there were always exception, but what was the norm?
Run through two rings at the back, one at the front, supposedly.
Quote:Another question and maybe the answer, when the scabbard did hang over the shoulder, was it a four ring or just two?
Three.
Steve, look through the RA Imagebase.
Jim, once again, thanks for your expertise.
I’ll check the RA Imagebase
Quote:Steve Sarak:xuuho0s3 Wrote:and since the legion as a whole wore it on the same side, what is the point of four rings, not just two?
Centurions didn't - they wore them on the left, as did some other officers, but not consistently.
Quote:Did they run a leather strap through all four rings? I know that with thousands of soldiers the there were always exception, but what was the norm?
Run through two rings at the back, one at the front, supposedly.
Quote:Another question and maybe the answer, when the scabbard did hang over the shoulder, was it a four ring or just two?
Three.
Steve, look through the RA Imagebase.
The three-ring suspension method works very well. You have to understand however that it is a method devised by reenactors. There is no Roman sculpture that actually shows this method.
Personally I'm far from convinced that this method was ever used. IMO legionaries attached the shoulder belt to the upper two rings only. The shoulder belt however only came in general use in the late 1st Century AD. During the 2nd Century ring suspension was then replaced by loop-suspension.
Before shoulder belts were introduced all four rings were probably used. an occasional small buckle found with scabbards suggests a cross strap to attach it to the waist belt.
In general the sword at the right hip is suspended strait (at least in the 1st century AD). The soldier occassionally holds the grip in his right hand.
Centurions carried the sword at the left hip. They used a shoulder belt much earlier. Grave Stones show the sword in a slanted position. The centurion rests his left hand on the pommel. This suggests to me that for them the scabbard was suspended in Greek and Hellenistic fashion from two rings at one side.
Republican swords (Delian sword) show that this suspension method was certainly employed at one time.
Quote:IMO legionaries attached the shoulder belt to the upper two rings only.
So did the shoulder belt scabbards have four rings and if so why, if they only used two? unless it was universal for those that chose to wear them at the waist.
Probably for left-handed and right?
I read that everybody in the Roman army was "right handed in practice", regardless of what hand they really favored. It has to be that way in a row of shields and swords, particularly when fighting in close order.
But the left-handed ones would be very useful in the formation in wedge, or defense of the left flank in case of assault for these wings. Besides I believe that there are left-handed enclosures that never learn to use the straight hand with skill. Where leÃste the information on that you comment? I would be interested.
Allowing people to be naturally left-handed is a very modern concept. Even in my parents day children were discouraged from using their left hand to write and were taught right-handed skills. I think this may be from old superstitions as much as anything.
Quite a bit O.T.,sorry
Hello Steve
If you study first century sculpture it is possible to make out that most daggers are suspended by leather frogs however the sword scabbard seems to simply hang over the belt with no obvious means of suspension. Connolly proposed that the scabbard was attached by means of a small strap and buckle system on the back of the scabbard as Rob mentions. The straps form an X shape passing through each of the four scabbard rings and the belt passes between them and the scabbard itself. However you can achieve the same effect by using leather thong instead of buckles and straps.
Graham.
Quote:drsrob:3g1fv7dt Wrote:IMO legionaries attached the shoulder belt to the upper two rings only.
So did the shoulder belt scabbards have four rings and if so why, if they only used two? unless it was universal for those that chose to wear them at the waist.
See Graham Sumner's post above.
In the case of daggers we are certain that only the upper two rings were used, because on occasion the lower ones were made of silver (and the top two of iron).
As I suggested before the legionaries adopted baldrics (shoulder belts) in the late, rather than the early 1st century AD. Ring suspension was abolished during the 2nd century. The period that the lower rings were not used would therefore have been rather short. It can be expected that the lower rings were not immediately removed.
I'm wondering if when on some construction duties it would be impractical to use a baldric, possibly even dangerous? So, keep the choice open for direct belt attachment? Just a thought.