Factoids - has anyone else noticed these?

[ParthianBow]

Of recent days, I've noticed two things, and I wondered if anyone else had too.

1) When dressing as a mid Republican legionary, with a baldric for the gladius, I wear the baldric UNDER the waist belt. This fits it snugly to my hip, and stops it moving around a lot as I march. I've walked many many kilometres using both methods, and the 'under' method is the only one that works. Yet almost every image from my textbooks (see photo below) shows the baldric being worn OVER the waist belt. I notice that in the most recent edition of AW, however, that there's a soldier with his under. So, is this thinking that has changed over the years, or were previous artists not talking to any reenactors? 8+)

2) I bought the replica wine beaker in Xanten, and use it to drink wine. Until last night, I had admired its unusual shape only from an aesthetic perspective. Then I knocked it over, with some wine still in it. I was delighted to see that because of its shape, it didn't entirely tip over, and so the wine didn't spill. There's probably no way of proving this, but I feel that it must have been designed with this purpose in mind. Genius! Has anyone else noticed this?

[attachment=8894]IMAG2784.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=8895]IMAG2783.jpg[/attachment]

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Wow, that is pretty cool with the wine beaker.

As for the swordbelts/baldrics, the common consensus is that it was worn over, but reenactors always seem to wear it under. See the 4th/5th century Baldric thread.

[ParthianBow]

As for the swordbelts/baldrics, the common consensus is that it was worn over.

Really? That makes no sense. Anyone who's worn a baldric over the waist belt will know that it only takes a few kilometres to develop a pain and/or strain in the right hip. If it's worn under, that doesn't happen - at all.

I'll have a look at the 4th/5th century Baldric thread - thanks.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

It's interesting, sort of a case of what the ancients depict versus what we know works.

[ParthianBow]

I've seen the thread you mentioned now, thanks. Crispus says he has no problems marching with his baldric over his waist belt. Crispus, if you're reading this, did you walk Hadrian's Wall with your sword like that?
I've now walked more than 350 km in kit. About 50 km of that was with the baldric over the waist belt. I had major problems with my right hip as a result, and began to wear it under the belt. Problem disappeared. I'm tempted to try it again over, however.

Could it be that officers let soldiers in the field wear their baldrics whatever way they chose? I would wager they did.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I don't think anyone cared what way you wore your baldric, but I agree that it was more sensible and more practical to wear it underneath.

1. Underneath, it doesn't bang around and snag you behind the knee (which it has done for me).

2. Belt takes the weight off your shoulder.

3. It's quieter.

[Graham Sumner]

Hello Ben

Compared to the early and late Imperial periods there is not so much pictorial evidence for the Republican period.

Chiefly as interpreters we rely on monuments such as the altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus for depiction's of Republican soldiers. In that instance the soldiers do not have baldrics at all, the sword is suspended from a waist-belt. In all probability it is tied by using the four suspension rings.

This same method is also seen in the early imperial period in particular with the crossed belts . There are also a number of gravestones which show swords suspended from baldrics as well as a waist-belt. You would have to study them closely to see whether the baldric straps pass under or over the waist-belt. I know many early imperial period re-enactors favour the baldric passing under the waist-belt as it prevents the sword scabbard from moving about. In particular it stops the embarrassment of suddenly finding the scabbard between your legs!

Trajan's column on the other hand does show carefree auxiliaries with swords suspended by a baldric alone, with no waist-belt.

In the third century AD you are dealing with a different beast, The much heavier 'spatha' type swords suspended from a wide baldric. That does appear to be worn over the belt.

In all cases nevertheless we are all at the mercy of relying on the accuracy of the various artists, ancient that is!

Graham.

[A_Volpe]

Yes, there is still a lot we just don't know with absolute, indisputable authority about the Romans, yet too many people seem to be more than eager to jump to certain assumptions and conclusions and then hold onto them like it's a pipe bomb about to go off if they loosen their grip but for a moment.

I tend to see the "worst" factoids where people seem to mash different time periods of the Romans together into one long gray area; like the assumption that at a specific time/year one helmet type stopped being used instantaneously, and the "new" helmet type "replaced" it, when you look at the actual archaeological record, there appears to be a whole lot of overlap and nothing I have ever seen (primary source mind you) says "Us Romans stopped using this style of helmet on this day at this time under the rule of this Emperor and we went to this other type". There are, however, distinctive differences between, say, the Republic the 1st Century Empire, and the Later 4th Century Empire, but when specifically those changes become the New Thing, is only guesswork.

I also see this overlap applied to things like military tactics in use in the 3rd century, "Must Have Been" in use in the 1st Century because, well, it's the Romans, they had to have started doing this at some point so why not some nebulous period 2 centuries before, because they were still using this type of sword that "Hast To Be" used this way or that, etc etc.

So yeah, a lot of Factoids without a lot of primary source materials to back it up, and an awful lot of "gap filling", or another pet peeve is some people still insist on applying Modern (since 18th century) fashions of military organization, etc, to 1st Century Romans when there is very little to support that, if at all.

[Crispvs]

Ben,

I marched Hadrian's Wall in kit before I started looking closely at how belts and baldrics were depicted in sculpture, so no - I didn't march the wall with my baldric over the belt. However, have worn it like that for seven and a half years now, I doubt that I would find it a problem if I were to walk the wall again in kit.

I think one of the major reasons some people have trouble when wearing them over the belt is that their baldrics are simply too long. The comment above about the sword swinging about between the legs would seem to bear that out. If you look at the contemporary depictions, often the part of the scabbard between the suspension rings is more or less level with the belt, indicating baldrics which are somewhat shorter than those of most re-enactors. If your baldric s long enough that you can pass your belt over it, you can be fairly confident that there is a good chance that it is longer than the one being depicted in the sculpture. If you start with the representational evidence and work outwards from there, as I did, you find that the problems tend to sort themselves out without too much recourse to modern assumptions. After all, if we accept that the Adamklissi metopes, despite their somewhat primitive execution, show a fairly faithful representation of real soldiers, then anyone who insists that baldrics need to belted down has to explain the fact that there are soldiers depicted on the metopes who are wearing baldrics but are not wearing belts. There are, admittedly two sculptures which do show longer baldrics (that of M. Favonius Facilis and one of the figures from the Mainz column bases, although this latter example also lacks a belt, so we return to the same point I made about certain figures on the Adamklissi metopes), but these are not necessarily representative of the majority of examples, which indicate shorter baldrics.

Of course, I would be lying if I said I came to the conclusion about the length of the baldric at the same time as I noticed the lack of baldrics passing under belts. It was only a week or two later, when I decided to try wearing my sword 'unbelted' for the first time. It did swing about terribly and if I had been most people I would have simply concluded that it did need to be belted down after all. However, I decided instead to assume that I might have got it wrong rather than assuming that the ancients did not know what they were depicting. I didn't initially see what I was doing wrong but realised that if the sword was that unstable I could not have been wearing it in exactly the way the originals were worn - it was simply too inconvenient. So I went back and looked at the sculptures again and that is when I noticed two things. Firstly, most stelae seemed to show the sword pommel quite high up the body, near the armpit, which would necessitate a shorter baldric, and secondly, I noticed the detail I mentioned above of the position of the locket plates vis a vis the belts. Accordingly, I shortened my baldric so that I came close to achieving a result which matched the sculptural evidence as I could now see it, and immediately found that the problems I had initially encountered with the unbelted baldric had mostly disappeared. It does not shift around much, and when is does move around the body a bit (normally when running), it is the work of a moment to simply pull it back into place. Most of the time I hardly even notice myself doing it. As for interfering with the legs, it simply does not hang low enough to have the freedom to get between the legs, although I have certainly seen this happen to people whose baldrics were far too long, despite being belted down.

So, I can't claim to be doing it in exactly the way the Romans did it (assuming they all did it the same way, which is another debate in itself), but I can say with confidence that I am doing it in a way which is far more in line with the evidence than the way many other people do it is. I hope that is helpful as an answer to your query.

Crispvs

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

Can I add something to this?

Wearing the baldric over the waistbelt allows one to easily remove one's sword and put it aside when doing heavy work. You can compare this with the sword-waistbelt when wearing 2 belts: I think most of the time that it is depicted, it is over the other one (do not quote me on this - there are unclear depictions and depictions of it being the other way round (I think)). This way one can remove his sword, without removing the (primary) waistbelt, which is one of the conspicuous signs of being a soldier.

[Crispvs]

True. On a related note, something I failed to mention in my previous post was that it is far easier to sit down when the belt does not pass over the baldric. When your sword is securely held in place by the belt, you normally have to perch on the edge of a seat or sit at an angle to allow your sword to hang clear of the seat, whereas, when it is not belted over, the sword can simply be lifted into a different, more convenient position to allow you to sit more comfortably. I normally lay mine across my lap when sitting, without needing to take it off.

Crispvs