Groin guard

[Ebusitanus]

Thanks for all the answers so far but I can see there is no real concensus about this matter either<br>
<br>
While I have become to know that there are segmentata evidence for around this time, I would say IMHO that this new armor was in its beginings and would rather detract from my proyect for a "generic" Augustus era legionaire. Just yesterday I found again contradicting literary evidence about the apron being in wide use during the first quarter of the first century. Connolly despicts one with the apron and the two crossed cingulums, then in another book about Legio II I saw them despicted 25AC in southern gaul without the apron.<br>
<br>
Apparently the first aprons were just stylish belt endings that were split in four with weights on each end and only later evolved into these elaborate aprons.<br>
<br>
Would it be "farby" to wear one of these with a Hamatta in such an early Imperial persona?<br>
<br>
<img src="http://www.mambri.com/legio%20fabrica.data/cing2.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
<br>
<br>
PS: I´m now also interested in that comment about a "long" and a "short" hamatta covering or not the groin. Were there different sizes in lenght during this specific time era?<br>
<br>
<img src="http://www.mambri.com/legio%20fabrica.data/hama1.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
Differences like these? More like Auxiliary size or generic hamatta size?<br>
<br>
<img src="http://www.mambri.com/legio%20fabrica.data/hama11.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
Would something like this be correct? Only one cingulum but with belt stripes hanging down? <p></p><i></i>