cingulum/balteus apron straps all wrong?you fools

cingulum/balteus apron straps all wrong?you fools - Printable Version

+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Reenactment (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Roman Re-Enactment & Reconstruction (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: cingulum/balteus apron straps all wrong?you fools (/showthread.php?tid=2236)

Pages: 1 2 3

cingulum/balteus apron straps all wrong?you fools - Anonymous - 04-27-2004

Many re-enactors, when wearing a single belt, have the apron straps looping over the belt covering very attractive (& expensive) belt plates. Why would you cover them? You would want them exposed. I know I'm not the only one who's felt something is wrong here. Could it be that the apron straps were originally designed to hold the older thin belts together in the front when crossed, the apron straps being looped at the top so the belts could fit through them rather than being directly attatched to the belt itself. On page 57 of Dan Peterson's "Legion's in Colour" a grave stele is shown, which at first quick glance looks as if only one belt is worn with pugio at the left and gladius on the right with an extra small strap attached to the bottom rung on the gladius scabbard. But after a closer look, it looks as if it is really two belts crossed (large at that) with one 4 strap apron hanging vertical. If it was part of the belt, it would be canted to the side, following the top line of the pugio belt in front, to which it was attached. Instead 
it falls vertical, and one could easily imagine that both belts are looped through the top loops of the apron straps to hold the two belts in a crossed position in front. And everyone knows that walking around with two crossed belts needs constant re-adjustment and this is the cure! try it out, you'll see. this is why we do this living history stuff anyway. 
The apron straps have a FUNCTION and are decorated to complement the rest of the belt. In later times when wearing one belt, you don't need to support two crossed belts anymore. So, if you like apron straps, please wear two belts so they do something. I understand that styles die hard and after years of wearing two crossed belts with decorated apron straps many soliders may have wanted to continue the "style", even though they are now only wearing one wider belt. So,If you want to wear only one belt don't use them at all (aka signifers/centurions/trumpeters) OR don't attach them to the belt and loop them over the top. Loop the straps FIRST then slide the belt through them like your suppose to (or have them hang from the back as on page 91 of Michael Simkins "Warriors of Rome"). Basically, apron straps make no sense unless your wearing two belts.(Please forgive me my re-enactment brothers)

Re: cingulum/balteus apron straps all wrong?you fools - Anonymous - 04-27-2004

Some good points and interesting thoughts there leemaster. However, it's probably a good idea to look at more than just a few sources when gathering evidence for your argument. While you say the apron straps had more than just a decorative purpose, I disagree. In fact, the apron straps disappear altogether in the late 2nd century - early 3rd likely due to a fashion change, rather than anything practical. Many pieces of Roman equipment, as just about anyone will tell you are holdovers of traditions from greek or early republican times. So are we fools? No, we're just able to see the bigger picture rather than be encapsulated by a few pieces of evidence like some Reenactment newbie. 
 
On to my evidence: 
[url=http://www.romanarmy.com/Content/Imagebase/IMAGEBASE-SHOW.asp?Selectie=3&Naaminvoer=&select1=Ala%20Afrorum&select2=Legionary%20infantryman&select3=Apamea&select4=Portrait&veranderdatum=&ID=31" target="top]Tombstone of Gaius Secundus[/url] 
 
[url=http://www.romanarmy.com/Content/Imagebase/IMAGEBASE-SHOW.asp?Selectie=3&Naaminvoer=&select1=Ala%20Afrorum&select2=Legionary%20infantryman&select3=Apamea&select4=Portrait&veranderdatum=&ID=46" target="top]Tombstone of Quintus Secundus[/url] 
 
[url=http://www.romanarmy.com/Content/Imagebase/IMAGEBASE-SHOW.asp?Selectie=3&Naaminvoer=&select1=Ala%20Afrorum&select2=Standardbearer&select3=Apamea&select4=Portrait&veranderdatum=&ID=9" target="top]Tombstone of Genialis, Standard Bearer[/url] 
 
[url=http://cheiron.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~trajan/images/hi/5.1.h.jpg" target="top]Trajan's Column pic 01 (centre legionary)[/url] 
 
[url=http://cheiron.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~trajan/images/hi/2.36.h.jpg" target="top]Legionarys marching, Trajan's Column (rear legionary)[/url] 
 
[url=http://cheiron.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~trajan/images/hi/2.80.h.jpg" target="top]Trajan's Column, Legionary's working (right legionary)[/url] 
 
As you can see, there is evidence of it's use both ways. I hope this helps you to see the other side of the issue. Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" 
Niagara Falls, Canada

cingulum/balteus apron straps all wrong? - Anonymous - 04-27-2004

Impressive evidence,but all the tombstone reliefs seem show an apron with two belts like I said. 
The Trajan column, on the other hand, shows aprons looped over the plates on the one belt for no other reason other than style/decoration as you mentioned (surprisingly short, though. Did they wear off the sculpture or are they really that short) 
would it be fair to say that maybe, in earlier times when two thin belts were worn, the apron straps (or, as I feel they are BELT straps) secured the two belts in a crossed position in front. 
As the wearing of one thicker belt became "in vogue" for the military, the apron straps then stayed on from the earlier two belt style for appearances sake, having lost their function. 
They eventually became less in number and shorter, eventually disappearing altogether. 
Would you agree to something like this? 
If they looped it over the belt, hiding the plates, well ,that's how they did it, so that's how we'll do it. 
Thank you for the response, and as far as being a newbie, you have to start somewhere.

Re: deductions based on experimentation vs arch record - JRSCline - 04-27-2004

Interesting. (And welcome to the forum, Lee!) 
 
If I understand you correctly, you're making an argument principally on the basis of practical experimentation? 
 
A few thoughts on this... Reconstruction gets you pretty far, but if "common sense" type deductions take you away from what can be verified in the archaeological or textual record, we're no longer practicing living history but have entered the realm of fantasy. 
 
A lot of things "could be." And then again, they might not. And some things "should be," based on what we work out from reconstruction. But when in doubt, it's best to stick with whatever practices one can show archaeological evidence for (and especially so if the contextual record contradicts the apparent results of practical experimentation). 
 
We can certainly find a historical, visual basis for arguments on the proper wear of the belts through careful examination of Roman soldiers' gravestones. Check out the Imagebase at www.romanarmy.com, our parent site. All sorts of soldiers available there to review -- not just rankers either -- signiferi, musicians, aquiliferi, centurions, and cavalry. Not all stones have distinguishable belts, but many do. That's where I'd start looking for a sound basis to any argument on belt wear. 
 
Cheers, 
Jenny 
 
P.S. Matt and Lee: steady on. Use of pejoratives ("you fools" and "some reenactment newbie") are unnecessary to make your points. Keep it clean. Edited by: <A HREF=http://b30.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=jrscline>JRSCline</A> at: 4/27/04 3:40 pm

Re: cingulum/balteus apron straps all wrong? - Anonymous - 04-27-2004

The tombstones are earlier periods, yes, but important because they show a stylistic representation of the apron straps as being just that, style. Not so much a functional purpose. What you suggest is possible (If I'm envisioning it correctly) Though it seems that some of the sculpteral evidence shows otherwise. 
 
In fact, since the belts cross on an angle, the apron straps would hang at different lengths if they wrapped around both belts. This is because the place where the belts cross in the middle would be less wide (or thick) then say where the belts begin to cross each other. As such, the apron straps would have a "farther" distance to travel to wrap around both belts on the outsides, than in the middle, creating the impression of longer apron straps in the middle. All the sculptures and other evidence shows an even length. Which leads me to believe they didn't wrap around both belts. Does that make sense? 
 
The original function of the apron straps were similar to that of the pteryges in greek armour, to stop slashing attacks. As the romans adopted many styles and fashions from the greeks, the apron straps, as you said, became just that. Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" 
Niagara Falls, Canada

Re: deductions based on experimentation vs arch record - Anonymous - 04-27-2004

Not only did the apron looped over the belt --there is ample evidence of that-- but in certain cases I suspect the upper row of pteryges was also looped over a belt worn over the cuirass. Trajan's Column could show that and some later sculptures definitely show that. 
As for experimentation, I walked a couple of miles with a belt and apron --and the rest of the kit-- and I noticed that after a few hundred yards the beating of the apron straps on my thighs became unbearable. So I looped up the thing around my belt a couple more turns in order to shorten it.. 
I wonder if that is not the reason of the progressive shortening of the apron as noticed on TC, until it disappeared altogether. 
I also wonder if our marchers here experienced the same unbearable rythmic beating of the thing on the thighs. 
I don't think I had a silly walk, at that point...

Re: cingulum/balteus apron straps all wrong? - Anonymous - 04-27-2004

When I first saw 50 Legionaries marching i was struck by th e noise which appeared to be enhanced by the cingulum .... was this a factor in their existance ? 
 
A bit like jingle bobs on spurs ? 
Conal

Re: cingulum/balteus apron straps all wrong? - Anonymous - 04-27-2004

This is an awsome thread 
I would figure for the apron straps to offer some sort of protection against a slash they would have to go around the front of your body, at least from hip to hip, not just 4-6 thin straps covering your privates. And besides, when your in a semi-crouch combat position they disappear between your legs anyway. 
I can't imagine some roman waking up one morning and saying lets put these dangling things from our belts, and have everyone else agree. Form usually follows function. If these straps came into use in the early "two crossed belt period" then maybe they had more "function" to them then we currently give them credit for. Granted, your points on the style/fashion aspect I feel are true, but later, when one belt was used. 
About the apron straps hanging at different lenghts. I thought the same thing, but after using only four straps (@4inches wide) it didn't make a noticeble difference. I see many more uneven straps and BELTS falling all over the place when crossed in front with no support. 
By the way, the apron straps are not individual pieces with the tops looped, but cut strips from one piece of leather, held by a disk rivet, with the belt drawn through(See Dan 
Peterson's "Legions in Colour" page 63[sorry Dan]). 
Thanks again for hearing me out, I learn more from these threads sometimes than from my books. If you wear two belts,please try this out, you'll love it and your friends will wonder why they stay crossed in front!

Re: cingulum/balteus apron straps all wrong? - Anonymous - 04-27-2004

I think what leeman was saying though Antonius, was the apron straps would wrap around both belts. If that was the case, given the fact that the belts form an "X" pattern on the body, the apron straps would hang at different lenghts. If the belts where such that they overlapped each other completely, then the apron straps would all be equal, because they'd have an equal distance to wrap around. So I don't think they were wrapped around more than once, and certainly not around both belts. 
 
I've never had my apron straps bother me...how thick are your terminals? Perhaps they're too heavy? 
 
Jasper mentioned to me that Coulston has written an article soon to be out about the "jingling" of the apron straps. It sounds like it was there for a purpose, to identify the coming of a soldier, from what he said. Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" 
Niagara Falls, Canada

Re: cingulum/balteus apron straps all wrong? - Anonymous - 04-27-2004

Whoops! We must have posted at the same time Leeman. 
 
The apron straps no longer had a practical function in Roman use. It was purely decorative. Not unlike the rosettes found on the lorica segmentata or Gallic style helms. They had no function, but served as decoration. 
 
"I can't imagine some roman waking up one morning and saying lets put these dangling things from our belts, and have everyone else agree. Form usually follows function." 
 
Well, I'm sure it was more gradual, but style doesn't necessarily follow practicality. Elaborate shield bosses, greaves, pugio scabbards and such (that I can think of off hand) serve no practical function other than to be decorative. Like any style, it evolves over a period of time and given the longevity of the Roman Army, what worked for one era may not work for the next, for whatever reason. But the romans certainly liked their traditions. We can also see this in their use of other greek armour. 
 
"If these straps came into use in the early "two crossed belt period" then maybe they had more "function" to them then we currently give them credit for. " 
 
But they didn't, they seem to predate roman use, back to the greek's use of ptergyes under their armour. 
 
Belts only having 4 straps Leeman, you're right. The outer strap length would look similar to the inner ones. But what of a belt with 8 straps? The last example I gave of a tombstone has 8 straps, and all are shown hanging even. Naturallly, I can't find any pics of reenactors with the 2 belt configuration, so I don't know if they even find their belts to shift in position. 
 
I was wondering, with the rivets poking through the back of the belts, would these not grip the links of the hamata Thus securing each belt in place? I can only speculate, I don't have one of the double belts nor a hamata... 
 
"By the way, the apron straps are not individual pieces with the tops looped, but cut strips from one piece of leather, held by a disk rivet, with the belt drawn through(See Dan 
Peterson's "Legions in Colour" page 63[sorry Dan])." 
 
I don't have Dan's book, but on Matt Amt's Balteus page it lists a few ways to attach the apron straps: 
[url=http://www.larp.com/legioxx/balteus.html" target="top]www.larp.com/legioxx/balteus.html[/url] 
 
"If you wear two belts,please try this out, you'll love it and your friends will wonder why they stay crossed in front! " 
 
Do you have pics of you and your kit? What legion do you belong to? Where are you from? 
 
Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" 
Niagara Falls, Canada

Re: cingulum/balteus apron straps all wrong? - Vincula - 04-27-2004

Quote:<hr>Coulston has written an article soon to be out about the "jingling" of the apron straps.<hr> 
Another "re-enactment newbie"?

Apron straps - Matthew Amt - 04-27-2004

Avete! 
From what I've seen, the apron developed purely as a decorative item. Some early belts without aprons are shown with the "tongue" end slit into 3 strips, the top one going through the buckle (since even at that time the buckle was often narrower than the belt) and the other two simply left to dangle. It seems that someone thought this was so spiffy that a separate apron was then attached. 
 
While there is precious little concrete evidence on how the apron was constructed and attached, I do not believe that the straps had a loop (or loops) at the top through which the belt passed. That's a detail which has arisen on modern mass-produced belts, apparently to aid in fitting one size of belt to many sizes of reenactors. (Not sure it's necessary, since the apron has to be in the front and the buckle--or tongue--should be right next to it. It's the FROGS that end up farther from the apron on a larger guy!) So from what I'm seeing, the apron straps, whether cut from one piece that is solid at the top (as I do them) or separate straps, are unmovably fixed to the belt. 
 
It is clear that some aprons hung from the bottom of the belt while others hung over the top. The latter might not be hiding plates if there are no plates behind them--can't tell! But having plates there does prevent the belt from rolling and sagging under the weight of the apron. It's actually a handy place to stick the worst of whatever plates you have! And remember that not all plates were very fancy at all, so it's not like hung ceiling in the Sistine Chapel. In addition, some reliefs showing the 2 crossed belts show the apron hanging from the bottom of one, with no indication that the other belt "goes through" anything. 
 
On a couple general notes, form does NOT always follow function, especially among the Romans. The more I study them, the less inclined I am to accuse them of any sense of "practicality", at least from any modern point of view. Remember, we're talking about people who always put hinges on leather belts! An awful lot of what they did can only be ascribed to fashion and style, and they were clearly VERY fashion-conscious! It's fascinating to see a whole page of belt plates, all individually made and different in many little ways, but all following the same style. 
 
I have also wondered about the shortening of the apron straps over time. Doesn't seem likely to me that it is simply being shown as wrapped around the belt to keep it out of the way--why would it take them nearly a hundred years to figure that out? But we don't have much in the way of marching or battle scenes from the early to mid-first century AD, so maybe it was a common practice straight through and we just don't have any surviving depictions of it. 
 
Mike Bishop has an article on "The Imperial Apron" in one of the early volumes of JRMES, don't recall which one. It sums up a lot of the evidence for apron style, width, strap number, and length. I should dig that out tonight and see what else it says. 
 
History's mysteries! Valete, 
 
Matthew/Quintus, Legio XX

Re: Apron straps - Anonymous - 04-27-2004

Good idea about the "Imperia Apron" article,Matt. Put it up so we can download it and all have a good read (if possible) 
Since there is mass consensus that the origins/use of the belt apron is pruely style/decoration, which do you feel was more common, the apron looped over the top or hanging from under the belt? or do both styles exsist 50/50.

straps and aprons and such - Anonymous - 04-27-2004

Interesting points from everyone. 
 
I still do not see how the apron straps, no matter construction, size, attatchment, whichever, has anything to do with being "protective" of anything important behind them....The comment that they are similar to pteryges on Greek armor to prevent slashing cuts to me just doesn't make any sence. Sorry. The belt straps are too dangly and floppy, and if anything sharp however found it's way going up one's crotch, let's say, those straps are going to push off to the sides....I've tried this, not actually hitting myself down there , but against the belt straps to see what they did...Nothing "protective" about it. 
 
A sidewards blow/slash...Maybe...But you're going to be cutting up thigh meat before you hit...um....nevermind. Trying to keep it clean. 
Anyways, I really just don't see the apron straps as anything protective. 
 
Decorative? Yep. The theory that I stand behind is that it's a fashion statement taken probably from Gauls, who would cut the end of thier sword belts down to strips and wrap them around the belt as some sort of decoration. Unfortuntaly the reference for this totally escapes me right now....But, seeing how the Romans loved to copy things, fashions, weapons, re-invent it, and call it thier own, to me seems more like a fashion than anything. 
 
I will agree with the adage that a long apron will bang against the thighs to an obnoxious/painful degree...So, shorten it! I don't think it's supposed to be that long in the first place....Wrapping the apron over the front of the belt makes "practical" sense for me there...But then I'm sure evenutally Romans just made them smaller/shorter. 
 
I'd like to see the snippet on the belt research Matt Amt mentioned. I wonder if the strap length is irrelevant to the racket the belts make [on march] - if that's true, or generally accepted - then that's a good reason why straps were shortened later on. 
 
valete 
ANDY

Re: straps and aprons and such - Anonymous - 04-27-2004

eeeeeh? ................ 
 
strap it on nude and youll discover the true beauty of it 
............... 
 
hehehehehe...... oopsie? 
 
M.VIB.M. 
 
V COH II 
LEGIO X GEMINA 
EX GER INF