How To.. wear the Pugio and Gladius (belts, fasteners)

[John Conyard]

Very interesting discussion.

I agree with Crispvs that lots of cavalry swords are worn on waist belts. But we must recognise the ones that aren't. I really don't wish to name them all, and can happily ignore the European examples like Trajan's Column, the Adamklisi momunment, http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/c ... tope01.htm , the Saalberg statuette, Saint -Remy-en Provence etc.
But baldrics are shown in the Bridgensess "distance slab", the Lancaster stone of Vodullus, one of the Chester "Reiter Stones"etc.

I suspect that a proper study may show that baldrics are more popular in the early 2nd century, compared to the late 1st. But they prove a useful alternative to wearing the the sword on the waist belt.

[Magnus]

Then perhaps to close a loculus or something similar?

[PhilusEstilius]

Crispvs I'm not set up yet for pic posting however take a look at a few coins that show Emperors who are draped, it's there you will see a disc brooch on the cloak. Infact many are similar to the one shown in the Miks drawings, and as we can see the side view this clearly shows it cannot be two pieces of bronze held together by a rivet. These things are lost wax bronze castings completely in one piece and there are double ring types like the one shown, also there are single ring and open triangle fixings to them. It is this part of the fastner that is stitched into cloathing or cloaks, and I would suggest that as there was only one found it may well have come from such a garment.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/peter ... z/AF38.jpg

Here is a link to another one with a tilted gladius!

[Tarbicus]

http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/peter....z/AF38.jpg

Here is a link to another one with a tilted gladius!

Or it's just because his hip's leaning out that way.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

[Magnus]

I see 4 angled gladii there...

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

If you hang the sword on a shorter baldric, it will tilt forward.

[Tim Edwards]

Excellent debate so far gents...

Whilst I respect Brian's work, I dont believe his 'Chichester' suspension system is at all valid.
I've seen the belt plate in question up close, and posted an image on this forum some time ago.
It is a highly unusual piece, I've seen no parallels anywhere else I've ever visited.
It is also likely to be second to third century in date, and in my opinion of negligible value for a discussion on first century armaments.
It is also from a civil context, and may not be a military item.
Finally, it is really tiny, and in my opinion unlikely to have supported an item of any weight or bulk.

I am in favour of both the buckle system, and the stud system as proposed by both Miks and Cesar.

I would cite a further two examples of the stud loops found in association with Gladius scabbards:

Burial 17 at Idria pri Baci, Slovenia
Burial (1?) at Verdun, Slovenia

Plus the already cited example from Windisch.

I dont find this suspension system at all surprising, similar (albeit larger) studs were also used in the suspension of late Iron age european swords.

[PhilusEstilius]

Tim. There are many points you raise that appear to try to rule out the Chichester beltplate ie no parallels, there are indeed others that have been found. Then you say likely to be second or third century, is that a definate or a maybe time period. The context of the find may well be civilian, however all the other plates and the beltfrogs in particular would suggest military. Then there is the question of size and weight it would be able to carry, if I remember correctly the late Douglas Arnold who was leader of the II Avg did wear at one time a belt that I copied from the one I found and put into the British Museum. That one was in the region of almost 20mm wide and I have yet another original Ist century one that is even smaller. When we look at the fixings both Cesar and Miks have put forward they are clothes or cloak fasteners, and the gaps between the discs or studs and the curved shanks are in the region of 5mm how many belts are that thick??. Then there is the matter of weight where the rings on these fixing shanks are only around 2 or 3 mm thick, with the swinging and banging around of a 2.5 kilo sword I would doubt if they could last any time at all.

[PhilusEstilius]

Tim. Where you mention about this ring on the beltplate being unable to support any weight, I do hope that you are not assuming that I suggest the ring suspends a sword. That is not what I have said at all it is simply where I have suggested the ring may have been used as an "Anchoring device" for a sword scabbard, where a strap would have come from a bottom ring on the scabbard with a hook that goes onto the ring of the beltplate.

[Tim Edwards]

Brian,

Thanks for the feedback, I'm enjoying this debate!

I like to think I'm open minded, so following your reply I have had another look through my library.

Again, I've found nothing which closely matches the Chichester plates, though I'm sure there must be paralells out there somewhere. The belt set is published in one of the Chichester exacvations series. Godfrey Knight has a complete set, so I wil ask him to send you the salient information if you dont have it already.

I have however found a few more examples of other belt plate plates with rings on, which I'm sure will be of interest to you, although all are second century or later.

The well known 'UTERE FELIX' belt from Lyon exhibits a small ring underneath one of the 'E's. Another type of plate is visible in 'Roman Buckles and Military Fittings' by Appels and Laycock, again exhibiting a ring on the plate.

There will be probably more examples we can come up, but nonetheless, I have still to see any first century belt plates which exhibit this feature, from the hundreds I have already looked at in books ánd museums.

As I said, I'm open minded, but far from convinced. However, I do believe your theory could be valid for second century AD or later belt sets.

We do have isolated finds of complete, or near complete belt and sword sets occurring for the first century AD, e.g, Windisch, Herculaneum, Verdun, Idria etc.
To the best of my knowledge, none of these exhibit belt plates with integral rings. Some do however have associated button and loop fasteners.

Finally, I agree that most such button and loop fasteners excavated are clearly for cloaks/clothing. This does not change the fact that a distinct form of such fastener has repeatedly been found in association with sword and belt sets.

There is some discussion on this specific form of button and loop fastener in both Schlüter's 'Rom, Germanien und die Ausgrabungen von Kalkriese' and the 'Katalog der Militaria aus Vindonissa' by Christopher Unz and Eckhard Deschler-Erb, which shows numerous examples of such fittings.
I have copies of both publications if you want to get hold of this information.

[PhilusEstilius]

Tim. I would welcome any of the info you mention in particular that which referes to the button and loop fasteners, I do of course have my own collection of such fasteners of various types. There is however the situation that the evidence put forward by Miks does not show two of these fasteners, the one which is shown in his drawings looks to be similar to a couple that I have. It looks to be in the region of 30 to 35 mm in diameter and the shank that comes from the back of it looks to be around 20 mm at it's widest. Then as it has a double hole configuration to it these holes cannot be much more than 4-5 mm internal diameter, this is where if we allow for the sides of the holes being 2-3 mm wide which would then only allow leather thongs of about 4-5 mm width to support the sword. Then of course when we look at his drawing that shows the scabbard lifted up above the waist belt with the straps going around the belt, why in the world do we need the stud or anything for that matter. I do believe that any idea of these type of studs being used for weapons suspension would not work for they are much too delicate.

[Tarbicus]

There is however the situation that the evidence put forward by Miks does not show two of these fasteners,

Brian, it's the same with normal plate-attached pugio frogs. Why would these be any different?

[PhilusEstilius]

Jim The frogs on a beltplate are firmly fixed to the plate the plate is firmly riveted to the belt which if we think of cow hide it may be around 3mm thick. This SINGLE cloak fastener that we see in Miks drawings has a shank that comes down some 5-10mm before it turns through a right angle which would flop around all over.