Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Baldric for a late roman spatha?
#1
Salvete Omnes!

I need a baldric for my 4-5th c. CE spatha. I already have a potential buckle and a strap end. I woul like to know how long it should be? I think the width could be quite narrow, something like 3 cm. The baldric would go over my shoulder and once aroung the scabbard (through the scabbard slider). Any good examples? :wink:
Virilis / Jyrki Halme
PHILODOX
Moderator
[Image: fectio.png]
Reply
#2
The thick baldrics went out of use in the early 4th century. Baldrics were thin, generally no more than 2cm thick, or Spathae were hung from the belt beginning in the 5th century.

[Image: romanarmy_gallery_9.jpg]

[Image: SuperStock_1788-31556.jpg]

The famous diptychs of Honorius and Stilicho are excellent examples.

Length... depends. How long are you? You'll have to measure it yourself, but you should be able to place the baldric underneath your belt so the sword doesn't flop around when marching.
Reply
#3
MMFA, I think you are not right. It is wrong to make a general assumption. Balteus buttons, or how do they call them, varied in size. In Hungary (Valeria provinces), 90% of the excavated buttons from the 4th c. are at least 3-4 cm in diameter.
Mark - Legio Leonum Valentiniani
Reply
#4
:???: It doesn't look like the baldric goes under the belt in your two art references but clearly over...
"The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones"

Antony
Reply
#5
Thanks guys! :-)
Virilis / Jyrki Halme
PHILODOX
Moderator
[Image: fectio.png]
Reply
#6
Quote:MMFA, I think you are not right. It is wrong to make a general assumption. Balteus buttons, or how do they call them, varied in size. In Hungary (Valeria provinces), 90% of the excavated buttons from the 4th c. are at least 3-4 cm in diameter.

As far as I know, in the 4th century the thick baldrics died out.

@Jay

Honorius isn't wearing a belt in that image, let me see if I can find one with a baldric and a belt. Not a lot of 5th century depictions of soldiers.
Reply
#7
In Hungary, as far as I know (with the help of two archaeologists), there are no hints of thin baldrics or waist-sword-belts in the 4th c.
Mark - Legio Leonum Valentiniani
Reply
#8
Hmm... I actually have no images from the late 4th/early 5th century that depict swords. They're surprisingly rare in this period of Roman Art.
Reply
#9
I've always sort of assumed that the wide baldric went out of style around the same time as the disappearance of the ring-buckle belt - end of the third century, as far as I know. The new style featured the narrow baldric and the wide waist-belt with metal stiffeners.

Having said that, I've seen a few reconstructions combining the wide belt and the wide baldric - is there any evidence for these two styles appearing together? And is there any consensus on the earliest date for the wide waist-belt?
Nathan Ross
Reply
#10
Hello Nathan,


Quote:I've always sort of assumed that the wide baldric went out of style around the same time as the disappearance of the ring-buckle belt - end of the third century, as far as I know. The new style featured the narrow baldric and the wide waist-belt with metal stiffeners.

Having said that, I've seen a few reconstructions combining the wide belt and the wide baldric - is there any evidence for these two styles appearing together? And is there any consensus on the earliest date for the wide waist-belt?

According to M. Konrad and B. Overbeck, propeller-shaped belt stiffeners ( :-? And thus the belts incorporating them?) appeared during the Constantinian era. During the last third/quarter of the 4th century (not before Valentian) the famous wide chip-carved/stamp-decorated belts appeared (according to H. W. Böhme).

EDIT

M. Sommer states, that the late-antique belts came into use at ca. 310.

The chip-carved/stamp-decorated belts, however, appeared, as already mentioned, not before Valentian's accession to power.
Reply
#11
Quote:Length... depends. How long are you? You'll have to measure it yourself, but you should be able to place the baldric underneath your belt so the sword doesn't flop around when marching.

Which is, as Jay already suggest a re-enactorism, based on 'practical thinking' rather than looking at the sources. Most, if not all, depictions suggest the baldric being worn OVER the belt, not underneath, how unpractical it may seems. (and I've to admit that when being on horseback I also prefer it under my belt to keep my scabbard/sword in place.)
________________________________________
Jvrjenivs Peregrinvs Magnvs / FEBRVARIVS
A.K.A. Jurjen Draaisma
CORBVLO and Fectio
ALA I BATAVORUM
Reply
#12
Quote:As far as I know, in the 4th century the thick baldrics died out.

One of he belt sets found in the Bécsi út Grave 2 is considered as a sword belt. Its widest part (the "Balteus button") is 36 mm wide. Even if the widest part has been wider than the strap, the strap quite probably would have been still as wide as the widest buckle clamp (27 mm; and thus wider as the 2 cm you suggested). As the three buckles of the belt are typical for the 5th century, it is suggested, that said belt might have been used until the turn of the century.
The baldric parts can be seen here: [hide]https://www.academia.edu/1649790/M._Nagy_Zwei_spatromerzeitliche_Waffengraber_am_Westrand_der_Canabae_von_Aquincum._Acta_Archaeologica_ASHung_56_2005_403-486[/hide] (p. 462, Abb. 34, 4).
The Bécsi út Grave 2 as a proof for (about) 36 mm wide baldrics beeing in use until the 5th century?


And: The silver tube found in the grave of the Kemathen Warrior. Said tube, wich is much longer than 2 cm, is considered as a strap end of a sword baldric. If this consideration should be true, it woud prove that wide baldrics didn't disappear in the 4th century, as the grave can be dated to the second third of the 5th century (Miltenberg-type fibula, Vieuxville-type belt, conical glass beaker with thread applications). Have a look (the tubular strap end covers the edge of the end of the baldric): [hide]http://www.landschaftsmuseum.de/Bilder/Reisberg/Fuerstengraeber/Gommern/Vitrinen_Gommern-2.jpg[/hide].
Reply
#13
Interesting, so the thick baldrics lasted until the mid-5th century?

Also, I'm not debating belt thicknesses, Belts I've seen get up to 2-3 inches (roughly 5-8cm) thick in a few cases.
Reply
#14
Actually, Bécsi Grave 2 has a balteus buckle. P. 462/3. In the original hungarian text, there is not even a hint for the smaller buckles belonging to a sword belt.
Mark - Legio Leonum Valentiniani
Reply
#15
Quote:Actually, Bécsi Grave 2 has a balteus buckle. P. 462/3. In the original hungarian text, there is not even a hint for the smaller buckles belonging to a sword belt.

Abb. 34, 3 shows the balteus buckle, Abb. 34, 4 shows the whole balteus set (wich includes the buckle depicted by Abb. 34, 3, so Abb. 34 shows the balteus buckle two times). The balteus set contains the balteus buckle (called the "widest part" in my previous post), three further buckles, a strap end and twelve belt stiffeners.

In the German text the three small silver buckles are described as parts of a sword belt (wich also contains the "Abb. 34, 3 buckle", according to Abb. 34, 4; see the paragraph above) (p 449 f.). Can you read German?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Can the Feltwell Spatha be used for a late 4th c./early 5th c. Roman re-enactment? Lucius_Aelius 19 7,900 12-12-2022, 06:16 AM
Last Post: deepeeka
  Late antiquity spatha question LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS 21 5,604 04-22-2015, 05:13 AM
Last Post: XorX
  Late Roman Spatha- Pattern welded blade markusaurelius 27 9,419 12-24-2014, 07:01 PM
Last Post: markusaurelius

Forum Jump: