04-02-2012, 05:45 PM
Interesting.
Three comments, two of them technical.
1) I'm not wearing my belt over mail, so I can't comment on any positive or negative implications of wearing any belt over mail. My guess would be that a tight narrow sword belt would impede movement as much or less as a wide utility belt would.
2) I don't agree with your conclusion as to the evidence. You always ask for proof, but when it exists you dismiss it out of hand as a single exception.
Besides, it’s incorrect to say that “the fact that every time this debate arises it's just one depiction in one mosaic that gets held up as evidence”. We’ve been over this and on that occasion I presented more that ‘just the one’. I know at least another: the Via Latina soldier, who is wearing mail, PLUS a belt (and a baldric I think) as well. I’ll add an image later, but he’s well-represented in books by Mike Bishop and Graham Sumner.
On the other hand, I've yet to see any proof for the 'belt under armour' theory, apart from images that do nót show such a belt. It's easy to claim that something is there when you do not see it. And Late Roman soldiers are more often shown without armour than wíth armour anyway..
I could, with that in hand, claim that no belts were worn at all, except in camp conditions. I won't do that of course, because I don't think that this was the case.
I think they could be worn over armour, and I have at least one piece of proof that confirms it. Or, I could claim that Late Roman troops hardly ever wore armour at all, but that was done before me, by Vegetius I think, and already amply refuted by 'the good dr. Coulston'...
Therefore I cán conclude, that images tell a lot, but not quite all.
To this I can add that belts were also worn over a segmentata. So, why not over other pieces of armour (as a point of principle)?
3) About the bits and pieces that are worn on the utility belt, I can understand you there. It's a different discussion of course, "what did the soldier carry into battle", and I can follow your reasoning. Pouches, purses, cooking knives and stuff would indeed be ‘in the way’ when you’re in battle, and perhaps best left in the camp (hoping that no-one would steal my coins in the meantime). About a knife I’m not so sure. Looking like a side-arm or not, a knife is a blade of last resort, and when lance and sword are lost or thrown away, a soldier would feel naked if nothing remained. So yes, I could agree that the bits&stuff that hang from a wide belt would perhaps not be worn in battle, when armour was worn.
Would that automatically mean that a wide belt was worn only over the tunic and hidden by the armour, AS A RULE? I disagree there. Because this belt was not just a piece of clothing, some practical element to suspend things from, it was also a matter of great personal pride. It was what made you a military man, and therefore they were there to be shown. Not only when off-duty, but when on duty too. That’s how I see it anyway.
Three comments, two of them technical.
1) I'm not wearing my belt over mail, so I can't comment on any positive or negative implications of wearing any belt over mail. My guess would be that a tight narrow sword belt would impede movement as much or less as a wide utility belt would.
2) I don't agree with your conclusion as to the evidence. You always ask for proof, but when it exists you dismiss it out of hand as a single exception.
Besides, it’s incorrect to say that “the fact that every time this debate arises it's just one depiction in one mosaic that gets held up as evidence”. We’ve been over this and on that occasion I presented more that ‘just the one’. I know at least another: the Via Latina soldier, who is wearing mail, PLUS a belt (and a baldric I think) as well. I’ll add an image later, but he’s well-represented in books by Mike Bishop and Graham Sumner.
On the other hand, I've yet to see any proof for the 'belt under armour' theory, apart from images that do nót show such a belt. It's easy to claim that something is there when you do not see it. And Late Roman soldiers are more often shown without armour than wíth armour anyway..
I could, with that in hand, claim that no belts were worn at all, except in camp conditions. I won't do that of course, because I don't think that this was the case.
I think they could be worn over armour, and I have at least one piece of proof that confirms it. Or, I could claim that Late Roman troops hardly ever wore armour at all, but that was done before me, by Vegetius I think, and already amply refuted by 'the good dr. Coulston'... Therefore I cán conclude, that images tell a lot, but not quite all.
To this I can add that belts were also worn over a segmentata. So, why not over other pieces of armour (as a point of principle)?
3) About the bits and pieces that are worn on the utility belt, I can understand you there. It's a different discussion of course, "what did the soldier carry into battle", and I can follow your reasoning. Pouches, purses, cooking knives and stuff would indeed be ‘in the way’ when you’re in battle, and perhaps best left in the camp (hoping that no-one would steal my coins in the meantime). About a knife I’m not so sure. Looking like a side-arm or not, a knife is a blade of last resort, and when lance and sword are lost or thrown away, a soldier would feel naked if nothing remained. So yes, I could agree that the bits&stuff that hang from a wide belt would perhaps not be worn in battle, when armour was worn.
Would that automatically mean that a wide belt was worn only over the tunic and hidden by the armour, AS A RULE? I disagree there. Because this belt was not just a piece of clothing, some practical element to suspend things from, it was also a matter of great personal pride. It was what made you a military man, and therefore they were there to be shown. Not only when off-duty, but when on duty too. That’s how I see it anyway.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
