+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: To Balteus, or not to Balteus... (/showthread.php?tid=3328)
Re: To Balteus, or not to Balteus... - drsrob - 04-25-2007
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote:But like I wrote this is from Caesar's Gallic War, which was mid-1st century BC Rob- the sword baldric came into use in the latter half of the 1st century AD, 100 years or more later, yes? Or do you know of a precisely-dated tombstone that I don't?There's nothing tentative about the dating of his tombestone. He is described as a centurio of Leg XX. This legion got its epitath of "Valeria Victrix" almost certainly in the aftermath of the Boudiccean Revolt of AD 60. As the stone does not mention these titles it cannot have been set up later dan this. And cross belts are still seen on the gravestones of the two signifers from the Leg XIIII GEM MV in Mainz that cannot be dated before AD 70 for similar reasons.
The only centurio in the Romanarmy.com Imagebase collection showing a baldric is that of Marcus Favonius Facilis, and it's only tentatively dated to the 1st century AD- and for all we know that's because of the baldric.
Quote:There's only one other in the 'legionary officer' section showing a baldric, but it's fragmentary and has no text- the presence of a 'weighted' pilum, however, suggests a rather later date since I believe the earliest-known depiction of these is the Chancellaria Relief, which is from right at the beginning of the 2nd century AD.I assume you refer to the Unknown Centurio Verona in the imagebase. I don't see a weight on the pilum, only the top of a greave. Check the other side of the cuirass.
Quote:The centurio Quintus Sertorius Festus, of Claudian date, wears his sword on his waist belt, as does Minucius Lorarius, whose tombstone is dated to about 43AD.Festus' stone does not show a baldric, but it shows no waist belt either, only the harness for the phalerae. The way the sword is held suggest a suspention method similar to that of Facilis, slanted rather than straight up and down like common legionaries.
Re: To Balteus, or not to Balteus... - Matt Lukes - 04-26-2007
But Rob, those details you've added just support the suggestion that there's no evidence of a shoulder baldric prior to the mid- 1st century AD, right? They don't speak to the issue of your statement about the possibility of a shoudler baldric during the time of the Gallic Wars- what reason have you for that?
Re: To Balteus, or not to Balteus... - drsrob - 04-26-2007
Quote:But Rob, those details you've added just support the suggestion that there's no evidence of a shoulder baldric prior to the mid- 1st century AD, right? They don't speak to the issue of your statement about the possibility of a shoudler baldric during the time of the Gallic Wars- what reason have you for that?Well, that's true in a way. My argument is based on logic and on an theory by Prof. Dr. Otto Koenig on the development of uniform and dress.
In short, this theory holds that Dollo's Law on the development of species works the same way as the development of dress. For instance features are not dropped when they become useless. Instead they survive as embellishments and gradually deform by becoming smaller of larger. They disappear quickly only when they become a nuisance or a liability. Also, once dropped a feature does not simply reappear.
Before the adoption of the gladius hispaniensis the Romans used Greek swords. A statue of a general in republican armour shows just such a sword, suspended from a baldric and carried slanting at the left hip. Both ends of the baldric are attached to one side of the scabbard.
Facilis and other centurions use a gladius hispaniensis like common legionaries, but at the left hip. Also, the scabbard is carried slanting and the front end of the baldric is attached to the top edge of the scabbard. The attachment method is imo the same as that of a Greek sword.
The above theory says that it is impossible that this suspension method suddenly reappears for no apparent reason. Therefore it must have survived from republican times.
The way that can have come about if Knights e.a. or the officer class retained it as a distinction, when the common legionaries adopted the Celtic method of suspension.
Re: To Balteus, or not to Balteus... - Tarbicus - 04-26-2007
Quote:My argument is based on logic and on an theory by Prof. Dr. Otto Koenig on the development of uniform and dress.Interesting Rob, thanks. I just did a quick Google and found this PDF, 'Konrad Z. Lorenz - Nobel Lecture':
In short, this theory holds that Dollo's Law on the development of species works the same way as the development of dress. For instance features are not dropped when they become useless. Instead they survive as embellishments and gradually deform by becoming smaller of larger. They disappear quickly only when they become a nuisance or a liability. Also, once dropped a feature does not simply reappear.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medi ... ecture.pdf
"It is, however, surprising that the same retention of historical features, not only independently of function, but in clear defiance of it, is observable even in that part of human culture which one would suppose to be free of symbolism, ritualization and sentimental conservativism, namely in technology. Fig. 5 illustrates the development of the railway carriage. The ancestral form of the horse-drawn coach stubbornly persists, despite the very considerable difficulties which it entails, such as the necessity of constructing a runningboard all along the train, on which the conductor had to climb along, from compartment to compartment, exposed to the inclemency of the weather and to the obvious danger of falling off. The advantages of the alternative solution of building a longitudinal corridor within the carriage are so obvious that they serve as a demonstration of the amazing power exerted by the factors tending to preserve historical features in defiance of expediency."
Re: To Balteus, or not to Balteus... - Tib. Gabinius - 04-26-2007
Quote:Okay, I know it's strange to dredge this topic up after nearly 2 years, but I was just reading Caesar's Gallic War, the Loeb edition translated by Edwards, which also has the original Latin text, and I noticed that in the story about the centuriones Pullo and Vorenus (yes, our friends Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus from HBOs 'Rome' were real soldiers in Caesar's army, although Pullo was a centurio himself), the statement about how a Gaul's 'dart' pierced Pullo's shield and lodged in his belt and interfering with him drawing his sword, the Latin word used is 'balteo', so clearly balteus was a term used for a soldier's waist belt.
Just for those who are curious, the full statement is:
"Transfigitur scutum Pulloni et verutum in balteo defigitur. Avertit hic casus vaginam et gladium educere conanti dextram moratur manum, impeditumque hostes circumsistunt." translating to: "Pullo's shield was penetrated, and a dart was lodged in his belt. This accident threw his scabbard out of place, and delayed his right hand as he tried to draw his sword, and while he was in difficulty the enemy surrounded him."
Following Hansjörg Ulb and the DkP the evolution of the belts worn by soldiers is to devide in several parts. The cingulum militaris / militiae, which lead to the words like cingi or discingi, belonged to the insigne militiae and followed a gaul tradition. So the pteryges were first the ending of the belt cutted in stripps.
So, it can't be wondering, that the differences between the "sword belt" and the "insigne" weren't present to Caesars times.
In the german science it's mostly common to name the belt cingulum and the baldric balteus.
Take a look to Flavius Iosephus and his Episode about cutting a belt and stealing the swords of soldiers. I'll try to find the passage after this weekend.
Re: To Balteus, or not to Balteus... - Crispvs - 04-27-2007
I was under the impression that the reason most German writers use the term 'cingulum' to mean the military belt is that long ago it got into the lexicon on Roman military terms and was preserved as a technical term in the accademic jargon of Roman militaria. Thus it is not so much a case of what it WAS called but a case of what the established jargon CALLS it.
I see no reason why both belt and baldric could not be called baltei.
Crispvs
Re: To Balteus, or not to Balteus... - Matt Lukes - 04-28-2007
Indeed that's a good point Crispvs- we may be inferring a distinction where none exists; for all we know balteus was a word used, at least for some time, for any kind of belt. But as academics and academicly-minded people, many of us have a need to apply terminology and set specifics for things even if they didn't really exist- like Robinson's helmet typology (ha).
Now Rob, I certainly understand your reasoning, but are there not an awful lot of 'ifs' to the argument? If the statue of the general in Republican armor is actually one (and not just a later homage-type depiction), if it can be taken as true to life, if it reflects details of a centurio's gear as well as that of a general (that's a BIG one), if the shoulder baldric remained only in use by higher ranks but for some reason isn't depicted prior to the mid-1st century AD, if Facilis' tombstone shows what you think it does (which I disagree almost completely about)...
I actually see a different and far simpler explanation, which is also an application of Dollo's Law as usedby Koenig: the baldric indeed remained in a transformed form: as the second waist belt that carried just the sword. This explains why two belts were worn when one could have sufficed. Thus the baldric moved from shouler to waist and back to shoulder. Of course if this is true one could make the argument that the text I quoted does in fact show that the 'sword's' belt- whether shoulder or waist- is the balteus and doesn't speak to the name of the other (if it had a different one).
Re: To Balteus, or not to Balteus... - drsrob - 04-28-2007
Quote:[...]You're right, there are a number of if's. The statue is late, but the armour differs widely from other statues. It's a long muscle cuirass without any pteryges. His paludamentum is draped over de left shoulder, but not in imperial fashion. instead it hangs down straight at front and back. In addition the 'general' is mounted. His cuirass looks rather wide below to allow for a seated position.
Now Rob, I certainly understand your reasoning, but are there not an awful lot of 'ifs' to the argument? If the statue of the general in Republican armor is actually one (and not just a later homage-type depiction), if it can be taken as true to life, if it reflects details of a centurio's gear as well as that of a general (that's a BIG one), if the shoulder baldric remained only in use by higher ranks but for some reason isn't depicted prior to the mid-1st century AD, if Facilis' tombstone shows what you think it does (which I disagree almost completely about)...
All in all he looks more like a soldier from the 4th century BC. And in support of this, we have found a long mucled cuirass from this period that is made wide at the bottom to facilitate riding a horse. It looks almost the same as that of the 'general'.
I suspect that this is the dress of the equo publico, before the introduction of Campanian style unarmoured cavalry equipment in the late 4th century BC. It might have survived for some time as an officer dress. This could then have been the origin of the paludamentum as an officer's cloak.
Quote:I actually see a different and far simpler explanation, which is also an application of Dollo's Law as usedby Koenig: the baldric indeed remained in a transformed form: as the second waist belt that carried just the sword. This explains why two belts were worn when one could have sufficed. Thus the baldric moved from shouler to waist and back to shoulder. Of course if this is true one could make the argument that the text I quoted does in fact show that the 'sword's' belt- whether shoulder or waist- is the balteus and doesn't speak to the name of the other (if it had a different one).Actually the idea that the baldric first moved to the waist and than back to the shoulder is against Dollo. Biologically, once a body part loses it's original function and has lost a functional form it does not return to that form or function. It can adopt another function. Some other body part might take up this function when it becomes necessary again and might even largely adopt the same shape (form follows function). The changes in shape of the original object are however never traced back.
Uniform and dress are not biological entities. Changes from shouder belt to waist belt and back have occured earlier. Yet the law works here too. In the mid-17th century the armies replaced the 15th century waist belt for the sword by a shoulder belt. By the end of the century these in their turn were replaced by waist belts again. They were unlike the earlier waist belt in that they consisted of the lower portion of a shoulder belt (the 'V'), attached to a straight waist belt.
Late in the 18th century infantrymen started carrying these belts over the left shoulder. Once this became regulation these belts adopted almost the same shape as the original ones (form follows function). They retained however remnants of a waist-belt, such as the buckle. In Britain and the US a large buckle or plate at the breast, for instance. In France the buckle moved to the top of the sword frog, wear it was nearly invisible. In Dutch it was still called a "koppel" (=waist belt).
IMO the Romans adopted the method of attaching the sword to a waist belt and at the right hip at the same time as they adopted the gladius Hispaniensis. Equites (who included at this time all the senior officers) might then have adopted the sword, but not the carrying method.
Crossed belt were IMO adopted when the soldiers started carrying daggers.
In the late 1st Century AD a baldric was adopted that allowed the sword to be carried in the same position as the waist belt did. This belt was normally studded, the older Greek style possibly not.
Re: To Balteus, or not to Balteus... - Matt Lukes - 04-30-2007
Quote:Matt L:2si0vr28 Wrote:[...]You're right, there are a number of if's. The statue is late, but the armour differs widely from other statues. It's a long muscle cuirass without any pteryges. His paludamentum is draped over de left shoulder, but not in imperial fashion. instead it hangs down straight at front and back. In addition the 'general' is mounted. His cuirass looks rather wide below to allow for a seated position. All in all he looks more like a soldier from the 4th century BC. And in support of this, we have found a long mucled cuirass from this period that is made wide at the bottom to facilitate riding a horse. It looks almost the same as that of the 'general'.
Now Rob, I certainly understand your reasoning, but are there not an awful lot of 'ifs' to the argument? If the statue of the general in Republican armor is actually one (and not just a later homage-type depiction), if it can be taken as true to life, if it reflects details of a centurio's gear as well as that of a general (that's a BIG one), if the shoulder baldric remained only in use by higher ranks but for some reason isn't depicted prior to the mid-1st century AD, if Facilis' tombstone shows what you think it does (which I disagree almost completely about)...
I suspect that this is the dress of the equo publico, before the introduction of Campanian style unarmoured cavalry equipment in the late 4th century BC. It might have survived for some time as an officer dress. This could then have been the origin of the paludamentum as an officer's cloak.
All this just seems to introduce a whole lot more uncertainty to the issue making your suggestion that shoulder baldrics were used in the mid-1st century BC even more unsupported- there are a whole bunch of 'ifs' in just the evaluation of the 'general' statue. Besides just the simplest issue, that you say his dress is reminiscent of 4th century BC styles, how can it be reasonable to think this was more likely to offer proof of a baldric than tombstones that are a bare 40 or 60 years later, which show swords carried on waist belts?
Just when is the statue dated to anyway? Because if it's much later than the mid-3rd century AD, there's then the issue of whether the details are even historically accurate.
Quote:Actually the idea that the baldric first moved to the waist and than back to the shoulder is against Dollo.
Well that little afterthought, which wasn't part of the suggestion about how Dollo's Law could be applied, was not a comment about the belt, but the method of carrying the sword; it did move from being carried on a shoulder belt to a waist belt to a shoulder belt. Clearly the baldric of the mid-1st century AD is not terribly reminiscent of the earlier form (as I've seen it depicted), so it's clearly not a case of reappearance of the form that was 'lost'.
None of this really has any bearing on the actual question here though- whether or not there's any proper or even compelling evidence that swords were carried on baldrics by centuriones in Caesar's Army in Gaul. This statue you mention that might show 4th century BC details isn't of much help I think, nor is pointing to the clearly very different baldric of Facilis, each being a century or more from the time in question, considerably farther away than the tombstones that show the sword on a waist belt. Also considering the actual event- that a Gaulish dart pierced a scutum and lodged in a belt, displacing the sword so it couldn't be grabbed- which is more likely the case, that it was a shoulder belt that was hit or a waist belt? I just can't see something hitting a shoulder belt interfering with the sword the way it would a waist belt...
Re: To Balteus, or not to Balteus... - drsrob - 04-30-2007
The statue is Augustan, but its subject is a general from the Balbus family. Nick Sekunda thought the statue represented republican dress and I agree with him.
I also agree with you that there's not much proof. My whole idea is based on my conclusion that Facilis carries his sword slung from a greek style baldric. If you disagree with that (which you do if I remember correctly) there is not much to explore or explain.
However there is some proof that this Greek suspension method was actually used: the Delos sword.
Quote:I just can't see something hitting a shoulder belt interfering with the sword the way it would a waist belt...It surely would be much more difficult to hit a baldric then a waist belt. But if you wore the sword Greek fashion I imagine you would not keep it under your left arm when fighting were it would interfere with your shield handling. You would sling it to the back. If so your sword would be entirely out of reach once the baldric was pinned to the spear.
I'm more concerned with how the spearpoint can get stuck without wounding the centurion. That wouldbe more easily explained with a waist belt.
Actually, the reason I think Caesar's centurions already wore baldric has to do with my idea (speculative!) as to the origin of the 1st Century AD practice. I you can convince me that they did not do so - and you're making a decent job of it - , I'll have to come up with a different idea about the origin of the practice. It does not interfere with my identification of Facilis' baldric as a Greek one.
Re: To Balteus, or not to Balteus... - Matt Lukes - 04-30-2007
Quote:The statue is Augustan, but its subject is a general from the Balbus family. Nick Sekunda thought the statue represented republican dress and I agree with him.
I also agree with you that there's not much proof. My whole idea is based on my conclusion that Facilis carries his sword slung from a greek style baldric. If you disagree with that (which you do if I remember correctly) there is not much to explore or explain.
However there is some proof that this Greek suspension method was actually used: the Delos sword.
Do you know of any online photos of the statue? I'd be curious to see it. An Augustan date doesn't exactly make it hard to believe that the dress depicted is Republican- and I'd see it as more recent Republican with respect to details, since that's what the artist and commissioner would have been most familiar with, even if the idea was to depict things centuries older.
As for the Delos sword, is it absolutely certain that there never were rings on the right side, or could they simply be missing? There's a very similar Gladius hispaniensis from Berry-Bouy, France, that is dated to c. 20BC that has 4 rings...
Quote:Matt L:2ondcmrn Wrote:I just can't see something hitting a shoulder belt interfering with the sword the way it would a waist belt...It surely would be much more difficult to hit a baldric then a waist belt. But if you wore the sword Greek fashion I imagine you would not keep it under your left arm when fighting were it would interfere with your shield handling. You would sling it to the back. If so your sword would be entirely out of reach once the baldric was pinned to the spear.
I'm more concerned with how the spearpoint can get stuck without wounding the centurion. That wouldbe more easily explained with a waist belt.
Well I'd think that the armor he was wearing, presumably hamata or squamata at that time, would would have protected him equally in either case; thus far my evidence (artifacts) has shown that Roman waist belts often were made of not terribly thick leather, so I'd be surprised if there was much difference between that of a shoulder baldric and a waist belt.
As for sword interference, I can't say I agree about that- even when on a belt, I've never found any issue with shield handling and an undrawn sword on the left side (although granted I've never fought with Gauls that way :wink: ), and I'd think that somoene rushing into close-quarter battle wouldn't deliberately move his sword where he couldn't easily reach it- especially when the text suggests the move caused by the Gaulish dart was so debilitating with respect to Pullo's ability to fight.
Quote:Actually, the reason I think Caesar's centurions already wore baldric has to do with my idea (speculative!) as to the origin of the 1st Century AD practice. I you can convince me that they did not do so - and you're making a decent job of it - , I'll have to come up with a different idea about the origin of the practice. It does not interfere with my identification of Facilis' baldric as a Greek one.
If the suggestion is that baldrics never went out of use with the higher-ups, I'd certainly say there's no clear evidence of that- all the double waist belt funeral stelae I know of showing them are regular solders, not centuriones- but there seems to be little or no evidence for it either, at least nothing that doesn't have significant issues with its use as evidence.
The problem, however, with pointing to Facilis' as evidence is that he's not alone- there are regular soldier stelae from the late 1st century AD who also wear baldrics. And Facilis' depiction is not the best one to point at very specific details because there's clearly some artistic license taken- just look at the width of his belt, it's HUGE, and his shoulder pteryges go all the way down to this elbows- not the normal length depicted on very high-quality statues, which can more easily be taken as accurate. And the sword scabbard itself is of very low detail in that the suspension rings aren't even shown- just what seems to be a band, which is not the way a real scabbard's suspension elements look, or at least not how any of those yet found look (dozens). The baldric also seems to be split into three near the scabbard- an oddity considering there are only 2 suspension rings on each side of any known scabbard- if it's as you suggest, only attached to the scabbard on one side, then both ends of the baldric should be unsplit, yes? Then again if it's attached as is usually reproduced today, one or both ends would only be split in two, not three. Another issue of the baldric, with respect to reality, is that it's REALLY long- were Facilis not holding the sword up, it'd hang very low, and it would be quite unwieldly. Even on a short baldric, I've found it an issue such that like so many others, I find passing the waist belt over the ends of the baldric to be the only reasonable way to wear it- otherwise it flops around far too much- and that's even a shorter baldric sized to hold the sword high on the hip.
Re: To Balteus, or not to Balteus... - Tarbicus - 04-30-2007
Quote:And Facilis' depiction is not the best one to point at very specific details because there's clearly some artistic license taken- just look at the width of his belt, it's HUGE, and his shoulder pteryges go all the way down to this elbows- not the normal length depicted on very high-quality statues, which can more easily be taken as accurate.Matt, that boxes everything in as if we know all there is to know about Roman military equipment. Besides, the size and shape the sculptor made individual items has nothing to do with which actual items are on the man, only to do with the sculptor's eye for proportions.
Facilis was an individual who had his own tastes and preferences. He may have liked big belts and pteryges, and you can't state otherwise. This wasn't an age of regulation uniforms. We can't go by practicality either. One centurion had a brazier of hot coals on his helmet which is highly impractical, but it scared the crap out of the enemy.
Re: To Balteus, or not to Balteus... - Matt Lukes - 04-30-2007
Quote:Besides, the size and shape the sculptor made individual items has nothing to do with which actual items are on the man, only to do with the sculptor's eye for proportions.
Well that's my point though Jim- that because of the aspects of the sculpture that seem unlikely to be exactly accurate, it's not reasonable to take others as being so. The attachment of the baldric to the sword scabbard may simply be the way the sculptor or whomever commissioned the stela chose to make it, as opposed to it being exactly true to life. It's better than some to be sure, but I'd still take it as being more representational than exact.
Quote:Facilis was an individual who had his own tastes and preferences. He may have liked big belts and pteryges, and you can't state otherwise. This wasn't an age of regulation uniforms. We can't go by practicality either. One centurion had a brazier of hot coals on his helmet which is highly impractical, but it scared the crap out of the enemy.
No, but when details are completely contradictory to what we do know, it's hard to see them as being accurate. No balteus plates have ever been found, and a LOT have, that are anywhere near the size of those shown, so it seems reasonable to me to consider those on the stela to be artistic license.
Re: To Balteus, or not to Balteus... - Tarbicus - 04-30-2007
Quote:Well that's my point though Jim- that because of the aspects of the sculpture that seem unlikely to be exactly accurate, it's not reasonable to take others as being so.But that doesn't address my point. The only unreliability is the proportions, not the content. There's a big difference, and even modern trained artists get proportions wrong. Would we be expected to throw out the work of Holbein as being wrong in the clothes his subject wears, simply because the subject's hands and head are tiny?
Quote:No, but when details are completely contradictory to what we do know, it's hard to see them as being accurate. No balteus plates have ever been found, and a LOT have, that are anywhere near the size of those shown, so it seems reasonable to me to consider those on the stela to be artistic license.Show me a helmet with a brazier attached. Do we have to say it never existed because of that, even though there's a description of it? A tombstone is also a description.
Matt, I'm not saying the belt plates were that big, but I'm not saying they weren't either. But there's no way you can damn everything in the portrait simply based on poor proportions. We don't even know if these portraits were created whilst looking at the living, looking at the dead, or from a description, so definititively saying "it wasn't so" seems to be jumping the gun.
Re: To Balteus, or not to Balteus... - Matt Lukes - 05-01-2007
Who's damning anything? All I said was that using the fine details of the baldric when there are inaccuracies on known things is dodgy Jim...