Balteus Attachments?

[Pointer]

I have recently read to "Non-Historical" Books on Roman Armor that have made me question them deeply. (I am thinking of writing the authors and requesting their sources in the matters below.)

So far in my research of 1 A.D. -90 a.d. I have not been able to find these claims.

If you have information that would support them would you let me know?

1. The Balteus had attachments that would allow the Scutum, Pilum, and Sword (Not just the Pugio)
to hook to it. I know at some point in earlier times there were two separate belts one for the
Pugio and the other for the Sword that were waiste belts.

2. The shoes often times had hobnails that were from 1" - 3" Long. (This seems extremely unreal
to me to even think that, that is possible, but had to post in case I am ignorant.)

Is there any historical truth to the matters above? If so can you please lead me to the information that would confirm them?

Thank you!
Patrick

[Crispianus]

Well I cant comment on the Balteus but the idea of hanging a scutum and pilum from it is surreal.... I think I can comment on the Hobnails though.. can you imagine walking on 3 inch hobnails or even 1 inch?, I have though seen a victorian? illustration of a Caligi/calcai with huge long spiked hobnails :whistle:, a maximum head hieght of much less then 1 centimetre would likely be more realistic though I would suggest around 6-7mm high for a 8-9mm diameter nail head, conical, round or multi-sided...

[Crispvs]

Throughout the first century AD and possibly for some time beyond it appears to have been common to wear separate waist belts for sword and dagger. There were certainly attachments for fixing swords to belts. These are often misidentified as clothing fasteners. I know of no evidence though for a sword and dagger being attached to the same belt in this period. This appears to have been the case for the next couple of centuries as well, although forms of bets and baldrics changed considerably during this time. By the mid third century AD it would appear that pugios were no longer in use.

The idea that either shields or shafted weapons could be attached to waist belts is clearly ludicrous but the authors you have been reading may have been confused by the fact that shields were carried on a strap or harness of some sort during route marches. The details of this piece of equipment are obscure but there are a handful of sculptural images which clearly show a strap passing over the left shoulder to allow the shield to be carried around the soldier's left shoulder. A number of us have tried to reconstruct such harnesses with varying results and amongst the designs tried so far, some have featured hooks which hook around the shield handle. It may be that the author has heard this but misinterpreted what he had heard. As things stand, all such things are simply supposition as we know no more for sure about this than that a strap passed over the left shoulder and that the shield was carried, not on the back, as some would have you believe, but around the left shoulder.

I can't see a shafted weapon being able to be fixed into an equipment harness of any sort, but it must be acknowledged that shafted weapons were apparently carried over the right shoulder on the march.

I would suggest that an author with an imperfect understanding of Roman equipment could have heard (possibly even on this august forum) that a harness was used to carry the shield and not thought sufficiently further about the matter to realise that a shafted weapon could not be carried that way as well. To the eye unused to Roman art, even viewing some of the genuine evidence such as the Mainz column bases could confirm such a mistake, particularly if they had already taken the mistaken idea on board of a weapon carried on a harness.



Crispvs

[Crispianus]

I think what your looking for is "Calceus antiquus et mysticus",Benedictus Balduinus 1677?, apparantly there is a reference to "Caligae Clavata"Pg 115, see page 61 "Studies in Ancient Technology V" for a summary of the evidence or lack thereof....

[Titus Marius Secundus]

Hey Crispvs, is there anything wrong with making my belt to have pugio frogs then? Need I make another belt? :O Flavian period remember, because of the pulls eyes pretty much...

[M. Demetrius]

From what I've read, Sam, if you use two belts, the pugio belt is the one that the "apron" hangs from. I suppose that was so that the apron (a distinctive of soldiers) and the dagger would be belt 1, and the sword belt (when used) was added over the dagger belt. Strictly supposition on the "why" part, though.

We don't know a lot of answers to the question of "why did they --?"