To Balteus, or not to Balteus...

[drsrob]

[...]
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)...

You're right, there are a number of if's. The statue is late, but the armour differs widely from other statues. It's a long muscle cuirass without any pteryges. His paludamentum is draped over de left shoulder, but not in imperial fashion. instead it hangs down straight at front and back. In addition the 'general' is mounted. His cuirass looks rather wide below to allow for a seated position.
All in all he looks more like a soldier from the 4th century BC. And in support of this, we have found a long mucled cuirass from this period that is made wide at the bottom to facilitate riding a horse. It looks almost the same as that of the 'general'.
I suspect that this is the dress of the equo publico, before the introduction of Campanian style unarmoured cavalry equipment in the late 4th century BC. It might have survived for some time as an officer dress. This could then have been the origin of the paludamentum as an officer's cloak.

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).

Actually the idea that the baldric first moved to the waist and than back to the shoulder is against Dollo. Biologically, once a body part loses it's original function and has lost a functional form it does not return to that form or function. It can adopt another function. Some other body part might take up this function when it becomes necessary again and might even largely adopt the same shape (form follows function). The changes in shape of the original object are however never traced back.
Uniform and dress are not biological entities. Changes from shouder belt to waist belt and back have occured earlier. Yet the law works here too. In the mid-17th century the armies replaced the 15th century waist belt for the sword by a shoulder belt. By the end of the century these in their turn were replaced by waist belts again. They were unlike the earlier waist belt in that they consisted of the lower portion of a shoulder belt (the 'V'), attached to a straight waist belt.
Late in the 18th century infantrymen started carrying these belts over the left shoulder. Once this became regulation these belts adopted almost the same shape as the original ones (form follows function). They retained however remnants of a waist-belt, such as the buckle. In Britain and the US a large buckle or plate at the breast, for instance. In France the buckle moved to the top of the sword frog, wear it was nearly invisible. In Dutch it was still called a "koppel" (=waist belt).

IMO the Romans adopted the method of attaching the sword to a waist belt and at the right hip at the same time as they adopted the gladius Hispaniensis. Equites (who included at this time all the senior officers) might then have adopted the sword, but not the carrying method.
Crossed belt were IMO adopted when the soldiers started carrying daggers.
In the late 1st Century AD a baldric was adopted that allowed the sword to be carried in the same position as the waist belt did. This belt was normally studded, the older Greek style possibly not.