04-28-2007, 01:11 AM
Indeed that's a good point Crispvs- we may be inferring a distinction where none exists; for all we know balteus was a word used, at least for some time, for any kind of belt. But as academics and academicly-minded people, many of us have a need to apply terminology and set specifics for things even if they didn't really exist- like Robinson's helmet typology (ha).
Now Rob, I certainly understand your reasoning, but are there not an awful lot of 'ifs' to the argument? If the statue of the general in Republican armor is actually one (and not just a later homage-type depiction), if it can be taken as true to life, if it reflects details of a centurio's gear as well as that of a general (that's a BIG one), if the shoulder baldric remained only in use by higher ranks but for some reason isn't depicted prior to the mid-1st century AD, if Facilis' tombstone shows what you think it does (which I disagree almost completely about)...
I actually see a different and far simpler explanation, which is also an application of Dollo's Law as usedby Koenig: the baldric indeed remained in a transformed form: as the second waist belt that carried just the sword. This explains why two belts were worn when one could have sufficed. Thus the baldric moved from shouler to waist and back to shoulder. Of course if this is true one could make the argument that the text I quoted does in fact show that the 'sword's' belt- whether shoulder or waist- is the balteus and doesn't speak to the name of the other (if it had a different one).
Now Rob, I certainly understand your reasoning, but are there not an awful lot of 'ifs' to the argument? If the statue of the general in Republican armor is actually one (and not just a later homage-type depiction), if it can be taken as true to life, if it reflects details of a centurio's gear as well as that of a general (that's a BIG one), if the shoulder baldric remained only in use by higher ranks but for some reason isn't depicted prior to the mid-1st century AD, if Facilis' tombstone shows what you think it does (which I disagree almost completely about)...
I actually see a different and far simpler explanation, which is also an application of Dollo's Law as usedby Koenig: the baldric indeed remained in a transformed form: as the second waist belt that carried just the sword. This explains why two belts were worn when one could have sufficed. Thus the baldric moved from shouler to waist and back to shoulder. Of course if this is true one could make the argument that the text I quoted does in fact show that the 'sword's' belt- whether shoulder or waist- is the balteus and doesn't speak to the name of the other (if it had a different one).
See FABRICA ROMANORVM Recreations in the Marketplace for custom helmets, armour, swords and more!
