Crossed belts with wide beltplates

[Marcus Mummius]

Aren't these a typical wider belt shown as a double set?
[url:2fxxz6w8]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/option,com_imagebase/task,view/cid,15/Itemid,94/[/url]

Annaius Daverzus (as usual, he gets around).

Early 1st C, but ....

Firmus is another one:
[url:2fxxz6w8]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/option,com_imagebase/task,view/cid,142/Itemid,94/[/url]

Why would these be early 1st century AD? Annaius died in 69AD... Wouldn't he be depicted in the style of those days?

[Matthew Amt]

1. Soldier in basic italy in 79 AD? What kind of soldier was he? Belonged to a legion, cohors or cohors urbana, praetoriana....?

Good question! All we have is guesswork. There are no clues to base a firm answer, unfortunately.

2. Which age was he? Were he a tiro, just got his equipment, were a veteran with his old stuff?

Definitely a veteran (though I don't mean a *retired* soldier!). Wasn't his age estimated at 40-ish? But he could be a veteran with new equipment.

But btw i must come again back to the strange use of the words cingulum and balteus i discussed already with Tarbicus (perhaps he knows still where).

From what I've read, "cingulum" isn't really used for a soldier's waistbelt in the first century, but "balteus" is. I don't know if there was a specific word for the shoulder baldric or not. That's why I tend to say "belt" for the one around the waist and "baldric" for the one over the shoulder.

Josephus described how some jews cut the baltei of some soldiers while they weren't at watch and how the fooled them in calling them to get their swords out of the sheets, which naturally wasnt possible, cause they lost them that way.
In fact it would be a much harder thing to cut a cingulum (metallparts, direct contact to the hip) than a balteus (you call it a baldric).

Well, even a plated belt has some exposed leather, such as between the pugio frogs and the narrow tongue that goes through the buckle. And not all belts had plates all the way around.

Tarbicus, I'm not sure if those gravestones are showing narrow belts or wide ones. The motifs could be from either, especially if you interpret 2 squares as making up one plate. Yeah, I know, questioning the answers again...

Matthew

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

I believe part of the problem lies in the terminology. It seems from the referred to previous thread that "balteus" and "baldric" are becoming confused.

[Tarbicus]

I ment our short disuccion in this forum Jim.

I know, and I couldn't find it.

Why would these be early 1st century AD? Annaius died in 69AD... Wouldn't he be depicted in the style of those days?

Did he? Or is his tombstone just dated anywhere between c.CE 14-69 ... ?

Annaius Daverzus, son of Pravaius, soldier of Cohors IIII (!) Delmatarum, 36 years of age, served 15 years, lies here. His heir set (this tombstone) up.

He joined at 21 years old and died aged 36. That don't add up, or he'd be 55 years old if he was born in 14 AD and died in 69 AD. The belts he wears are between those dates, surely?

[Marcus Mummius]

He joined at 21 years old and died aged 36. That don't add up, or he'd be 55 years old if he was born in 14 AD and died in 69 AD. The belts he wears are between those dates, surely?

You are right, of course. I didn't know his age. :oops:

[Crispvs]

One or two small comments.

It is now a good thirteen years since Mike Bishop pointed out that the term used for the military belt during the first century AD was 'balteus' (or in some places 'balteon') and that the term 'cingulum' seems to have been reserved for women's belts at the time. B & C also cites evidence for belts being used in pairs as late as the early second century AD.

As Matthew notes above, not all belts were completely covered with plates. The evidence of the Velson soldier's equipment demonstrates either that the plates on his belt were very widely spaced or that an entire area of the belt (presumably the back) was devoid of belt plates. Therefore the fact that belts could be cut through does not tell us which type of belt is being referred to. It could be a baldric but it could equally be a waistbelt.

Is there any evidence that the Romans used different terms for waistbelts and baldrics? If not, is it not possible that the term 'balteus' could be correctly applied to both?

Unlike many, I do not set much store in the depiction of Annaius's belt plates. I think that they are a formulaic attempt to depict in stone detail which was too fine to be accurately reproduced in stone, despite the otherwise excellent detail of the stone.

Incidentally, I think this is a better example to illustrate wide beltplates in use with crossed belts, as the lower set of belt plates are definitely of type 'B' and can therefore be construed as 'wide'.

http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/
Courtesy of RAcom imagebase.

Crispvs

[Peroni]

Crispvs wrote:

The evidence of the Velson soldier's equipment demonstrates either that the plates on his belt were very widely spaced or that an entire area of the belt (presumably the back) was devoid of belt plates.

Here's a photo of my friend Tim with a very simple belt with widely-spaced plates...

[Tarbicus]

Unlike many, I do not set much store in the depiction of Annaius's belt plates. I think that they are a formulaic attempt to depict in stone detail which was too fine to be accurately reproduced in stone, despite the otherwise excellent detail of the stone.

Incidentally, I think this is a better example to illustrate wide beltplates in use with crossed belts, as the lower set of belt plates are definitely of type 'B' and can therefore be construed as 'wide'.

http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/
Courtesy of RAcom imagebase.

I don't understand your reasoning behind dismissing Annaius' beltplates as formulaic.