Number of dagger belt plates 1st half 1st c.

[Crispvs]

I have had the feeling for a while now that most belts used by re-enactors have far too many plates.
Not only do the surviving apparently complete sets only have three to eight plates, but depictions of belts (not including those on 'standing soldier' type sculptures) often show only four or five mounts distributed along the belt.
The 'standing soldier' type stelae from the Rhineland generally show the belt apparently completely covered with plates. However, we cannot see the backs of the men and it is possible that unseen parts of the belts to the men's rear had no plates at all.
To my mind this is supported by the Velson plates. One of them had been shortened by carefully bending one end back on itself. This would make little sense if the plates were distributed evenly around the belt with spaces between them, but if they were grouped together in a defined space (between the buckle and the dagger frogs for instance) this might call for the shortening of a plate which turned out to be slightly too long for the space available.
The velson soldier is particularly valuable here, as he was wearing his belt when he was buried so we can be fairly sure that we have the complete set, allowing that is for the fact that we know from all of the finds of individual belt plates that it was probably not uncommon for belts to be missing a plate or two.

The belt wrapped around the sword from Vindonissa may or may not be complete. The five belt plates (three square, one round and one depicting winged thunderbolts) may well have been the total of the original plates. Similarly, although no belt buckle was found, leading Dreschler-Erb to suggest that the button and double loop fitting was being used as a makeshift buckle, it is possible that the segmentata buckle which was found with it was acting as a replacement belt buckle. This might seem strange, but in fact there is a another belt plate from Vindonissa which does have what appears to be a segmentata buckle fitted to one end, presumably to replace a lost or damaged buckle, so there would be precedent for the small buckle having been used to secure the belt. The button and double loop fitting can be shown from comparison with other sites like Idrea to be for use in sword suspension so it may be that the only item missing from the find is a second button/loop fitting. Then again, if this is missing it leaves open the possibility that other things might be as well.

For my next belt I plan only to cover the front with plates. It is at this point I also seem to recall an incident when thieves cut solders' belts in order to steal them. This would be far easier to achieve if the part of the belt to the soldier's rear was not plated than if it was (I am assuming here that the thief would not be stupid enough to try to cut the belt when standing in front of the soldier).

However, as a corollary to all this, I recall that the Herculaneum soldier had two belts, both plated and totalling something like twenty two plates.

Brian,
The plates from Chicester, which you have mentioned a number of times before, are of a type which would date to the mid to late second century AD. They are not invasion period, despite their findspot.

Crispvs