03-24-2010, 04:45 PM
Brian,
I agree on your point over speculation - I like to think of myself as open minded given the paucity of evidence.
I have yet to see any belt plates with rings on any extant First Century belt plate sets. If you can show me some, I will happily reconsider my opinion.
Until then I am more swayed by extant finds of small buckles in close association with swords, although with the caveat that Byron identified, that these can potentially be for attachement to belts, as opposed to baldrics.
Incidentally, I'm sure I have seen sculptural depictions of buckles on baldrics, I'll chase this up.
I agree on your point over speculation - I like to think of myself as open minded given the paucity of evidence.
I have yet to see any belt plates with rings on any extant First Century belt plate sets. If you can show me some, I will happily reconsider my opinion.
Until then I am more swayed by extant finds of small buckles in close association with swords, although with the caveat that Byron identified, that these can potentially be for attachement to belts, as opposed to baldrics.
Incidentally, I'm sure I have seen sculptural depictions of buckles on baldrics, I'll chase this up.
Tim Edwards
Leg II Avg (UK)
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.legiiavg.org.uk">http://www.legiiavg.org.uk
<a class="postlink" href="http://virtuallegionary.blogspot.com">http://virtuallegionary.blogspot.com
Leg II Avg (UK)
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.legiiavg.org.uk">http://www.legiiavg.org.uk
<a class="postlink" href="http://virtuallegionary.blogspot.com">http://virtuallegionary.blogspot.com
