02-05-2006, 09:56 PM
Avete omnes,
I posted this question in the Archaeology section as well but just to increase my chances of getting replies, I thought I'd post it here too. Does anyone know of the actual archaeological basis for believing that Legionary caligae were constructed by stitching across the back of the heel and up the back of the ankle/ lower leg section? It strikes me as a design with an inherent weakness at a point where there's a great deal of stress on the sandal. Are there actually artifacts that show these seams? The few images I've found don't show this area sufficiently to really tell.
Also, I've noticed that the artifacts all have quite thin straps- quite a contrast to the rather wide ones that most recreation caligae seem to have- does anyone know why? Is everyone just following an old incorrect design not realizing that it's wrong, or is there actually evidence that there were caligae with wider straps? One phenomenal artifact has straps that are barely 3-3.5mm wide, and given the size of other elements of the sandal, I strongly doubt that it's a case of leather shrinkage over time.
To me it actually makes sense that the straps would be thin- the less material there is to rub on the foot on a long march, the less the chance of blisters. Also in very hot climates where sandals (as opposed to shoes) are worn, the straps are usually very minimal, so why would caligae be any different? Really the sole is the important part, and the straps are simply there to hold the sole to the foot- they needn't be any more substantial than is necessary to accomplish this task, yes?
I'd really love to hear of any actual evidence for either side of the question that anyone has
Magna gratias.
Valete!
Matt
I posted this question in the Archaeology section as well but just to increase my chances of getting replies, I thought I'd post it here too. Does anyone know of the actual archaeological basis for believing that Legionary caligae were constructed by stitching across the back of the heel and up the back of the ankle/ lower leg section? It strikes me as a design with an inherent weakness at a point where there's a great deal of stress on the sandal. Are there actually artifacts that show these seams? The few images I've found don't show this area sufficiently to really tell.
Also, I've noticed that the artifacts all have quite thin straps- quite a contrast to the rather wide ones that most recreation caligae seem to have- does anyone know why? Is everyone just following an old incorrect design not realizing that it's wrong, or is there actually evidence that there were caligae with wider straps? One phenomenal artifact has straps that are barely 3-3.5mm wide, and given the size of other elements of the sandal, I strongly doubt that it's a case of leather shrinkage over time.
To me it actually makes sense that the straps would be thin- the less material there is to rub on the foot on a long march, the less the chance of blisters. Also in very hot climates where sandals (as opposed to shoes) are worn, the straps are usually very minimal, so why would caligae be any different? Really the sole is the important part, and the straps are simply there to hold the sole to the foot- they needn't be any more substantial than is necessary to accomplish this task, yes?
I'd really love to hear of any actual evidence for either side of the question that anyone has
Magna gratias.
Valete!
Matt
See FABRICA ROMANORVM Recreations in the Marketplace for custom helmets, armour, swords and more!
