Roman Military belt question

[Peroni]

I recently had in my posession a belt plate tentatively dated to the second century. It had a kind of openwork fascia very similar to the later Saxon work using clusonet (spelling) work with cut garnets. Although no stones were extant in the piece, if they were ever there at all!



Also I had some small (40mm x 30mm) cavalry harness pendants which had circular recesses on the face. Theoretically they could have held cabochon decoration, which had been removed(?)

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/ ... CF1777.jpg

But, I too cannot find any other source stating that belts were definately bejeweled.

Regards,

[Carlton Bach]

Was the cingulum the only non-uniform part of the uniform?

Sit down, young man. Take a deep breath. Reöax. THis may come as a shock...

There was no uniform.

Most likely there weren't even uniform colours or types of equipment. The only things that do appear to have been standardised are the basic weapon and armour configuration to make sure the troops copuld operate cohesively (a legionary had to have a helmet and body armour, a curveed shield, a stabbing sword and a pilum, and these were generally understood to conform to certain patterns, hence creating a degree of uniformity) and shield designs to identify units. The rest is just established badges of rank, force of habit and tradition.

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

I recently had in my posession a belt plate tentatively dated to the second century. It had a kind of openwork fascia very similar to the later Saxon work using clusonet (spelling) work with cut garnets. Although no stones were extant in the piece, if they were ever there at all!

Probably that piece were enamelled. Very oftenly the enamel "corrodes" and disappears at all. (at rings, jewells, etc...)

[Cornelius Quintus]

Was the cingulum the only non-uniform part of the uniform?

Sit down, young man. Take a deep breath. Reöax. THis may come as a shock...

There was no uniform.

Most likely there weren't even uniform colours or types of equipment. The only things that do appear to have been standardised are the basic weapon and armour configuration to make sure the troops copuld operate cohesively (a legionary had to have a helmet and body armour, a curveed shield, a stabbing sword and a pilum, and these were generally understood to conform to certain patterns, hence creating a degree of uniformity) and shield designs to identify units. The rest is just established badges of rank, force of habit and tradition.

Ave Volker,

I just woke up after being shocked by this revelation. Should have taken my heart pills before reading… :wink:

But seriously – I did not expect modern kind of uniformity, while thinking about the cingulum as an expression of personal individualism.

As far as I understood Marcus Junkelmann, until 3th century B.C. the Roman Army was a pure milita, so only the ones were recruited, who could equip themselves (and so their kind of service depended on the kind of kit they could buy, the ‘low income’ or ‘low status’ citizen serving as velites perhaps). The gear was made by individual craftsmen. During the Punic wars, it was necessary to recruit also men, who could not afford a personal property kit. So the state started it’s own production of weapons and armour, fitting out these men. Harmonization somewhat increased, but quality decreased, too. Through the Marian reforms, the system changed from militia to a volunteer army. After ending the civil wars, Augustus commanded a permanent army of professional soldiers. According to Junkelmann , quality and quantity of private property and state-run manufactured equipment is controversially debated for that period. Perhaps there were no obliging detailed patterns commanded by a central authority. But mass production by the individual legions themselves, achieving at least a grade of harmonization of the special units gear, which was excelled not before the 2nd half of the17th century. Still being no ‘uniform’ in modern opinion off course - you're completely right.

I thought about modern business suits. Even differing in fabric, colour and cut, they look very similar since 100 years… The only very ‘individual’ part in style or colour is the tie…
Perhaps today’s businessmen are wearing their ‘cingulum apron’ 45 cm higher than the Romans’? :lol:

[Cornelius Quintus]

The decorated apron had no practical value

The theories:

It makes a great jingling sound when walking or on the march, which when multiplied by a few thousand must have been rather impressive and initimidated the enemy as well as boosted Roman confidence.

Ave Jim,

imagine a legion performing 'cingul'e-bells' on Christmas day :lol:

[Crispvs]

I too have never seen any evidence of precious or semi precious stones set into belt mounts prior to the fourth century AD. As has been said above, enamelled belt fitting become quite common from the Flavian period onwards. There is not much evidence of plated belts at all (as far as I am aware) from Caesar's period so really we are only talking about the late first century BC until the third quarter of the first century AD.

Regarding the value of the belts (and apron) plates, Pliny the Elder notes soldiers wearing silver belt fittings and indeed one or two have been found. Quite a number of copper alloy finds show evidence of having been 'silvered' with silver foil, but the majority of those examples known are made from copper alloy and have either been left their natuaral colour or dipped in tin (perhaps the majority were tinned but the evidence has worn away), before (in the case of type 'A' plate) being decorated with niello inlay.

The fact that most plates were not solid silver however, does not render them valueless. Even after the silver foil had been recovered, the copper alloy of the plate itself was literally worth money, given that it was made of the same metal used to mint sestertii. So even if only a few denarii could be made from donated belt plates and apron mounts, an awful lot of sestertii could also have been made. The record of Vitellius's army offering their belts may be shorthand for saying that they offered the valuable metal on their belts.

As for as precious stones go, apart from the example of the Kalkriese scabbard fittings, I would guess that the safest place to keep them would be either buried in a safe place or in the strongroom under the saculum of the fort. If you were on the move and wanted to take them with you I think a small box or bag in your pack would be the best place. Unless you lost your marching pack, you would be unlikely to lose your stones, particularly as you could probably expect the rest of your contaburnium to look out for your gear if you had to sleep or slip behind a bush for a minute.

Crispvs

[Tarbicus]

There's an interesting comment from Aurelian when advising a wannabe tribune:

Their arms shall be kept burnished, their implements bright, and their boots stout. Let old uniforms be replaced by new. Let them keep their pay in their belts and not spend it in public-houses. 7 Let them wear their collars, arm-rings,28 and finger-rings.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... an/1*.html
(copy and paste the entire address)

Even though this would be 3rd C, is it a clue that the military belt also served as a money belt? I've thought before that the 'quilted' rectangles at the top of earlier aprons may be a pouch for valuables, and even though that may be different, the day to day of a soldier and his attachment to his belt might support the idea that the belt was more than purely decorative and bling.

Is there an alternative translation to the Aurelian quote above that may make "in" something else?

[M. Demetrius]

The preposition "in" can mean "in, on, or into" depending. So it might not be a stretch to say, "...let them keep their pay ON their belts", which could perhaps signify a moneybag of some sort. That could also be just my own cerebroflatulence, though.

[Tarbicus]

Thanks David. I tried an Intertran translation of "in balteus" and "in balteum" (just in case) and they both came up with "upon girdle".

[Tarbicus]

Nope, there was definitely a money-belt in use by soldiers. Is this a separate one, or the main one? Who knows.

and he never felt any fear of his troops, for it could not be said as a criticism of his character that his tribunes p285or generals ever took tithes out of the soldiers' pay,217 his motto being: "A soldier is not to be feared if he is clothed and armed and shod, and has a full stomach and something in his money-belt."

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... .html#52.3
Historia Augusta
The Life of Severus Alexander
Part 2

[Crispvs]

Nice find Tarbicus,

Be careful though with the Historia Augusta. The accounts of the lives of the emperors were all supposedly written for Diocletian or Constatine and then collected together later. This would mean that they were written several decades after the actuall events. However, scholars have often noted that the numerous inconsistencies displayed in the Historia Augusta suggest that they were written together as a single work perhaps a century after Constantine, which deliberately pretends to be a collection of individual lives of Roman emperors written at the time of the tetrarchy. It has been suggested that it was written quite quickly as a rival for the history that Magnus Maximus had published in retirement following his unsuccessful bid to become emperor, which I understand was selling well. If this is the case, many of the details contained in the various lives may (a) be details which belong to the time of the writing rather than the periods being written about or (b) deliberate embellishments to produce a 'racier', more interesting account to take advantage of the interest shown by people in obtaining a work of history.
In short, be very wary of the Scriptoria Historia Augusta. Some details may be true but many others may be total fabrications or anacronisms.
It can be very difficult to know which is which.
This does not mean, of course, that what you have found is false - in fact it may well be a very valuable piece of information, but the dross in which it lies compromises its worth somewhat as evidance, which may be very sad.

Crispvs

[Robert Vermaat]

Be careful though with the Historia Augusta.

Crispvs is very right about that!

[Tarbicus]

Thanks for the heads up on the Historia Augusta. I find, though, the specific name "money belt" to indicate there were actual clothing accessories for that particular purpose, rather than "money pouch", or just plain "belt". Whether they were only just invented at the time of the Historia Augusta being written is another debate, though, but I find that just as unlikely as their being used a hundred or two hundred years before.