Mid 2nd cent. AD shoes questions

[Martin Moser]

Hi Juuso,

I opened another thread to split it from your original question/subject which was somewhat different ...

How thick leather should you use for a calcei or caligae?

For calcei from what finds there are it seems that goat leather was mostly used, but on some sites all the uppers found are calf for example. Deer was used as well. So, goat, calf, deer are all good to use, leather thickness normally being not as thick as caligae uppers. Less than 2mm I think yould be the rule of thumb.

Which ones(calcei or caligae) should I make, because I have got a Newstead segmentata coming up and I need accurate shoes?

The latest finds for caligae we actually have are dated to around 80/90 AD. Probably the caliga wasn't in use anymore by the mid 2nd century, certainly the military sites where shoes dated to that time were found didn't yield any caligae to date. Typical for the mid 2nd century is a low shoe (i.e. not covering the ankle)

Do you have patterns for these?

To make a shoe that actually fits your feet you will have to develop your own pattern. If you PM me your email address I can send you the pattern I created for the 2nd century shoe I made for reference as well as some pics of finds

Where could I acquire good hobnails?

I'd go with the ones Matt Lukes here on RAT is offering (soon, hopefully)

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Martin, what are the waiting times these days?

[Neuraleanus]

If you PM me your email address I can send you the pattern I created for the 2nd century shoe I made for reference as well as some pics of finds

The low calceus looks to me to be lacking the robustness one would expect from a military boot. Wouldn't something more "high-topped" be more appropriate for military wear in the 2nd century. See the calcei on Florentius's site:
www.florentius.com/calcei-main.htm

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I went down the same thought process myself Lee, but martin says no.
Ankle support would be a high priority you would think tho'..... :?

[Magnus]

I don't know Byron...I would think their ankles would be a lot tougher than ours, simply for the amount of walking and general fitness they underwent. Sorry, I should say the muscles surrounding the ankle would be tougher.

[Martin Moser]

The low calceus looks to me to be lacking the robustness one would expect from a military boot. Wouldn't something more "high-topped" be more appropriate for military wear in the 2nd century.

Speculations aside the finds that according to the reports are dated firmly to the mid 2nd century simply tell another story. One could of course always argue that with the few finds we have out of the millions of shoes that were in use at the time there must have been others too, but at the moment and with what information I have, I'll stick with the low ones.

[Peroni]

Wouldn't something more "high-topped" be more appropriate for military wear in the 2nd century. See the calcei on Florentius's site:

The ones on Florentius' site look to be 3rd Century Saalburg boots.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I don't know Byron...I would think their ankles would be a lot tougher than ours, simply for the amount of walking and general fitness they underwent. Sorry, I should say the muscles surrounding the ankle would be tougher.

I wouldn't argue that they were tougher, but they also performed things we cannot manage today, so the need may still have been there?
But Like martin says, not much evidence to support the higher boot idea.

What period were the Newstead Fell boot tho' Martin, I thought they were late second century?

[Martin Moser]

What period were the Newstead Fell boot tho' Martin, I thought they were late second century?

About that shoe Curle wrote in 1911 that it "is probably a second-century type" (p.152) - by now we have the finds from Vindolanda which date the Fell boot to period III there, i.e. around 100 AD.
On a side note, and interestingly I think, the ca. 140-160AD shoe spectrum is missing among the Vindolanda finds, maybe everybody took a good long Antonine hike those 20 years? ;-) )

[Neuraleanus]

The ones on Florentius' site look to be 3rd Century Saalburg boots.

Those are similar, but not quite the same. I believe that the shoes made by Florentius are clearly 2nd century. The last chapter in the book, "Stepping through Time" puts the high top closed boot in the 2nd century. The shoe-boot with the integral laces of the 3rd century is likely a development from the 2nd century boot.

[Martin Moser]

The ones on Florentius' site look to be 3rd Century Saalburg boots.

Those are similar, but not quite the same.
I believe that the shoes made by Florentius are clearly 2nd century. The last chapter in the book, "Stepping through Time" puts the high top closed boot in the 2nd century. The shoe-boot with the integral laces of the 3rd century is likely a development from the 2nd century boot.

That is right and wrong at the same time - we have high boots both at the start and at the end of the 2nd century. Finds are dated up to about 120AD and then again from around 180AD onwards. In the middle there is a gaping hole as far as finds of high boots are concerned. You can even read this from the diagram in Stepping through time (i.e. Fig. 11).
The boot with integral laces indeed seems to first appear in the late 2nd century (but isn't typical for the 2nd century), it is a common shoe through out the 3rd century then with slight variations of style over the decades as it seems (actually van Driel-Murray writes on p. 366 of Stepping through time that this boot "develops after about 200").
Florentinus integral lace shoe is quite similar to the well preserved example from the Saalburg, especially in the vamp area, but differs in the number of laceing holes. The Saalburg shoe has 4, not only 3.
The other one looks like a variation of the Fell boot, which would put it in the time of around 100AD, so could be both late 1st and early 2nd century.
To summarize, both shoes from Florentinus site could be put into the 2nd century, very early and very late, but neither (especially not the integral laces shoe!) is "clearly" 2nd century IMO. Clearly 2nd century are the low shoes from e.g. the Antonine Wall sites, but of those styles you only see one example in Stepping through Time, titled as style Zwammerdam.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

So there was a boot 'similar' to the Fell boot around in 180ad? I have not seen pictures of the

"The boot with integral laces indeed seems to first appear in the late 2nd century (but isn't typical for the 2nd century), it is a common shoe through out the 3rd century then with slight variations of style over the decades as it seems (actually van Driel-Murray writes on p. 366 of Stepping through time that this boot "develops after about 200"). "

So it could be possible ,there was a high(ish) boot used in 180ad? Maybe....possibly?

[Martin Moser]

So it could be possible ,there was a high(ish) boot used in 180ad? Maybe....possibly?

Yes, possibly, maybe. Maybe not. I went through some articles in the meantime and e.g. van Driel-Murray writes once that the eyelet boot so typical for the 3rd century (at Vindolanda titled Ramshaw) appears after 200, once from the very late 2nd century and in a graphical table she has that boot starting at the 180AD line.
In any case it will always be hard to draw a definite line, just as with the Newstead segmentata for example. I'd say if you want to do Antonine period, stick with low shoes, last quarter of the 2nd century and for 3rd century low, medium or high (there's more for the 3rd century than just tose eyelet boots). For the first quarter of the 2nd century also high boots (there are various styles as well). 1st century of course caligae, then there are the calcei from Mainz (and Egypt) as well. For late 1st century boots like those from Vindolanda could be considered also. I don't think there can be clearcut answers at the moment but hope that helps somewhat.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

A little, I can almost see a tree now...through the fog! :?