Attaching the apron to the belt

[Tarbicus]

It's been touched upon in the Beginners Section, but I came across this drawing of what looks to be a funerary portrait with a nice detail of the belt apron. My first reaction was that it looks like the apron studs are being used to close the apron's loop over and behind the belt, which suggests the apron wasn't 'fixed' by the belt rivets.

A practical use of this occurred to me. When worn over a tunic it might be in the centre above the navel, but when over armour, the added waistline would put it off-centre. If it's freely looped onto the belt (as many do) it could be adjusted easily back to the centre.

The drawing:
http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03410/html/img/okori-0360.jpg


The web page:
http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03410/html/3140.html

[rusty myers]

Interesting thought, solves a host of difficulties with in/out of lorica fits.

[Matthew Amt]

A couple questions spring to mind. First, that drawing looks Victorian--do we know how accurate the details are?

Second, why should the apron be off-center when worn over armor? I always just place it in the middle no matter what I'm wearing. If the buckle or pugio frogs end up in a different place by an inch, so what? I can still reach everything just fine.

Matthew

[Marcus Mummius]

Second, why should the apron be off-center when worn over armor? I always just place it in the middle no matter what I'm wearing. If the buckle or pugio frogs end up in a different place by an inch, so what? I can still reach everything just fine.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. I'd make the belt to have everything in the exact right position when worn withour armour and just live with the slight shift of position when worn over armour...

Vale,

[Tarbicus]

The Victorians could draw just as well as 21st C man, if not better. Omitting 80% of the studs from the apron is stretching the boundaries of laziness, which is more likely from today's Bohemians IMHO.:wink:
(Added: Wrong, and I'm pretty shocked at the studs being omitted)

Clearly, the apron was attached in a number of ways as we see examples of it attaching to the inside of the belt with no return in front. It's been mentioned before that the apron that returns over the face of the belt plates could be a tube arrangement at the top, and this drawing immediately made me think that's the case in this example.

I'm not saying there's only one way to do things, which is just dumb. And as dumb as I may be, I'm not all that dim.

If left mobile, the pugio can be in the same position over armour or tunic, as can the apron. Only a thought, not a prescriptive statement of fact.

[Magnus]

I'm not sure jim, I find proper planning out of your pugio plates and frogs kind of keeps things in place...that and an adjustable belt length. My belt is always in the center, and the pugio is fine. I simply place the belt on going off of the centerline of my apron straps, and it's always good. Though my seggie doesn't make that much difference....but your theory is pretty sound.

[Tarbicus]

Okay, mystery solved, and sorry to waste everyone's time. The stele is Q. Petilius (Bonn), and he has studs all the way down the apron.

[url:1sf4rcgf]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/option,com_imagebase/task,view/cid,46/Itemid,94/[/url]

Eating my words. :roll:

[Matthew Amt]

Goodness, that IS odd! No worries, and I didn't mean to serve you a dish of crow! Yeah, you'd think they'd be a tad closer on that. Mind you, free-sliding loops are not ruled out, I have just never liked the way they were done on Indian-made belts. So I growl a little louder about wanting evidence...

Valete,

Matthew

[Crispvs]

Comparing the drawing to the stele itself serves a useful lesson. As soon as I saw the drawing it looked odd to me - in particular the position of the head, as normally the subject is shown facing the viewer.

I am already quite familiar the stele in question and the fact that I did not recognise it from the drawing (although it did seem slightly familiar) speaks volumes to me about how wary we must be about trusting drawings done by antiquarians in the past. They are not the same as accurate archaeological drawings and can often be seen to have been inflenced by the artist's ignorance or personal artistic preferences.

Crispvs