Belt Research

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Stitching is specifically for limiting stretch- I don't know about stiffening (why would one want a stiff belt?) And the question is why would stitching suggest multilaminar belts instead of simply stitching to prevent stretching of thinner leather? I know for a fact that often enough Roman belts, at least of the narrow 'Augustan' type weren't terribly thick- several of the artifact plates in my collection have rivets intact which suggest the belts they were attached to were only on the order of 2-3mm thick. I'd find it dubious to expect these were really 1-1.5mm leather folded over instead of just plain 2-3mm belts, but the stitching would certainly make sense, particularly given that a heavy sword was carried on one.

Certainly stitching could be decorative as well- the purported apron strap from Germany (now unaccounted for) has holes up each edge and an since an apron strap hardly carries enough weight or is under enough other stress to really require it to prevent stretching, the stiching would seem to be decorative. On belts, however, if one goes by the sculptural evidence, stitching doesn't seem to be visible if plates are present, nor do belts appear any wider than the plates themselves...

The stiffening would prevent stretching...........when you hang the heavy sword on the belt! :mrgreen:

Basically that is what I am refering to..but it was a side effect of sewing thin leather to make a scabbard. That and/or the dye I used anyway.
I found that hanging the sword directly onto the belt aka the ceasarian hispaniensis or a mainz, the leather tends to sag and stretch on an unstitched and undyed belt.
But I will find out soon enough if the stitching changes that,