The Carriage of Weapons

Author: Geddes, P., (2007), “The Carriage of Weapons”, first published in The Imperial Courier, Volume 2, Issue 3, THE RMRS, pp. 2-4.

Introduction  As its name might suggest, the Roman Military Research Society (THE RMRS) attempts to recreate the arms, armour and equipment used by Roman soldiers from the legions’ arrival in Britannia in AD 43 until the mid-second century. Using the methods of experimental archaeological, the Society aims to understand the practicalities of wearing and wielding reproduction arms and armour to better inform historians, archaeologists and those interested in Roman military matters. One significant question is how do we know what Roman soldiers looked like? There are literary sources to draw upon such as Polybius and Vegetius [1][2]. The former provides a wealth of information concerning the Republican period army, but the army had radically changed by the first century AD.  The latter’s work Epitoma rei militaris (“Concerning Military Matters”) contrasts the army of Vegetius’ day with that of earlier Principate. Like many ancient authors, therefore, Vegetius is not contemporary with the events he describes. So, while the literary sources are invaluable, we must look elsewhere to create the most accurate impression from the available evidence.

This article discusses one aspect of how a Roman soldier may have looked like, the suspension and carriage of Roman military side-arms. The evidence presented draws on images portraying Roman soldiers as they wished to be viewed as the best way of interpreting and answering what they actually looked like. They are limits to the conclusions we can draw, however. Should we assume such depictions are accurate?  It would be a very brave scholar who did. Stylistic conventions, making a personal or political statement (perhaps at an unintentional, subliminal level), portraying the individual(s) how they wished to be remembered or viewed, reducing cost by using standard forms - all these factors have a bearing on how we should interpret any given source from antiquity. The reliability of sculptural evidence remains questionable, although with artistic representations of the military so abundant across the Roman world they cannot be ignored. The pictorial sources vary enormously in style and competence of execution and thus should only be used as evidence to support any theory with a heavy note of caution.

For any soldier, or someone depicting the same, the method by which their weapons are carried is an important consideration. Weapons must be reachable, easy to deploy and carried in a position that does not restrict or foul movement. These factors would be no less true for the Romans as it is for soldiers today. It follows that if sculptural examples show a weapon being carried in a particular way, and we accept the depiction to be accurate, then we are looking at a method of carriage used by the Roman soldier and moreover, a method which suited the way they did things. By emulating these examples, we can, by practical experiment, begin to understand the true purpose and thus advance our knowledge. So, for the purposes of this discussion we will focus on two side-arms carried almost universally by Roman soldiers: the sword (gladius) and dagger (pugio).

Sword carriage  For present purposes the provincial sculptures from the Rhineland and Adamclisi in Romania, generally held to be accurate representations, provide the best available evidence of Roman soldiers wearing their swords in a scabbard either suspended from a baldric or attached directly to a belt. What is less well known, and in some cases less well understood, is exactly how scabbards were attached to and hung from the belts and baldrics.

The baldric, a belt or strap passed diagonally across the body, as a method of suspension is less well represented in first century AD sculpture, but there are still several examples showing two things in common. Firstly, in all cases the baldric passes over rather than under the soldier's belt, as shown in the examples of Caius Valerius Crispus and Caius Castricius Victor below. It appears that either Romans soldiers felt it unnecessary to hold the scabbard in place with their belt, or it was simply easier for the sculptor to avoid carving this detail on the stone reliefs.

Significantly, perhaps, baldrics which are not secured by the belt are depicted on the Mainz column base reliefs and a metope from Adamclisi that shows three auxiliaries (below).  In both cases swords are suspended on baldrics but no belts are shown.

Where the baldric passes over the belt or no belt is worn, then the unsecured scabbard and baldric are free to move as the soldier does. In such circumstances movement could be exacerbated when running or in combat leading to worries that the sword might “jump” out of its scabbard or an empty scabbard might entangle and hinder the soldier’s freedom of action. Despite these concerns, practical experiments have not produced any insurmountable problems. For example, a scabbard that had swung round the soldier’s back when he was running could be quickly and easily repositioned.

One way to lessen the extent to which a scabbard might swing about is suggested by many sculptural reliefs, especially those on the Tropaeum Triani at Adamclisi [3]. The images clearly depict baldrics being reasonably short and consistently show sword pommels at a point above the elbow and just below the armpit. This means each scabbard mouth must be at or somewhat above the level of the military belt. Notably, the wearing of swords in such a high position has parallels on cavalry stelae, which illustrate that carriage in this manner is also achievable when the scabbard is attached to a belt. Carrying the sword high on the body may explain why the upper pairs of suspension rings on Roman scabbards were some way below the scabbard mouth. There is a disadvantage to wearing a scabbard on such a short baldric, however. To put it on over armour becomes difficult unless the baldric can be unfastened and refastened about the body.

Those who seek to recreate an impression of a Roman soldiers, therefore, have overcome the problem by attaching a fastener to the baldric. This would be all well and good were it not for two things. Firstly, the reproduction fasteners typically used in such recreations copy surviving examples, but these examples have been identified as strap connectors on horse harnesses and thus inappropriate. Secondly, the exemplar reliefs do not show fasteners in the position most recreations are always placed in, that is, joining the baldric strap at about chest height. It can be deduced that this method of fastening a baldric is incorrect and begs the question that if the Romans did do something like this, then what did they use and how was it done?

To answer the questions, three intriguing pieces of evidence can be cited. Firstly, the scabbard of a sword found on the island of Delos had only two suspension rings, rather than the normal four, and both were on the same side. Found next to each ring was a small buckle. Secondly, the remains of a small buckle, similar to the type used on Corbridge type lorica segmentata, were found with a sword and scabbard, and the parts of a military belt at the site of the Roman fortress at Vindonissa. Significantly, the buckle was neither large enough for it to have been a belt buckle nor of the type associated with armour fastenings. Thirdly, the “dagger” found with the Herculanium soldier, which should not be confused with the sword he was also found with, is unlike any other known Roman dagger (pugio). In most respects it appears to be a very short gladius and is speculated that it may have been a broken sword, resharpened to a new point, and re-used as a pugio. It is perhaps significant that a small buckle, resembling those recovered at Delos, was found adhering to the pugio scabbard.

Taken individually, none of these examples is conclusive proof, but together they present reasonably compelling evidence for scabbards being buckled to their belts or baldrics. Moreover, this has implications of relevance to a short baldric. If a baldric was fastened to the scabbard with a buckle, attached next to the suspension ring of the scabbard, this would allow the baldric to be easily fastened over armour. Furthermore, its position close to the scabbard would make it difficult to see in a sculpture, assuming the sculptor had even attempted to depict this arrangement in the first place.

Although often suspended from baldrics, several reliefs show sword scabbards attached directly to the soldier’s belt. Typically, these are depicted hanging vertically, with the sword pommel at more or less the same height as it would be if suspended from a short baldric as previously described. To attach the sword scabbard to a belt in a vertical position, the most obvious method would be to pass a leather strap or thong through each suspension ring and over the belt to form a 'X' pattern. This could be secured by a knot or a small buckle like the example from Vindonissa. Interestingly, a few of the Rhineland stelae depict scabbards apparently suspended horizontally or at a shallow angle (see below left). Why and how this was done is uncertain, but to achieve the desired look, the example of the two buckles from Delos may be instructive.

Dagger suspension  In nearly all recreations, daggers are suspended on the left hip for ordinary Roman soldiers (centurions seemingly wore their side-arms contrarywise). The dagger scabbard is typically hung from the soldier’s belt by two straps passing through the upper suspension rings and then hooked over two belt frogs. However, the Rhineland stelae normally show daggers suspended from the belt so that they are clearly visible from the front on the left-hand side (see above right). Once again the reasons for this style of carriage are unclear.

One might speculate it was an aid to drawing the dagger more quickly. The right hand would have less distance to travel across the body, thus the dagger hilt would be easier to reach. Yet, the quick draw argument is superfluous at best. The dagger was of secondary (possibly tertiary) importance as a weapon. Moreover, in terms of practicality, wearing a dagger in such a position whereby the scabbard impedes lifting your leg or rubs your upper thigh as you move is, from experiment, less than ideal. Throughout history experienced soldiers have positioned weapons and equipment on their bodies to maximise comfort and utility. From this perspective the wearing of dagger at the hip should continue to be favoured. The simplest explanation for the Rhineland stelae has the sculptor depicting his client in all his finery which is readily visible to the onlooker. A dagger, symbolic of the Roman soldier, if depicted worn as is more likely on the hip would be largely concealed from view thus defeating the object of the whole exercise.

Conclusions?  As with any recreations from the past there is a significant amount of speculation involved. Where the literary sources are silent, we can turn to the surviving imagery: carved reliefs, funerary monuments, individual tombstones and so on. But here a note of caution is warranted. It is not unreasonable to assume that grave stelae represent the deceased in the best light according to what could be afforded. The sculptor might have been instructed to ensure everything looked exact and thus we might have faith in the accuracy of the portrayal. Alternatively, images may reflect the views, choices, and preferences of the commissioner rather than being an accurate or faithful representation. Carved stone reliefs, especially tomb-markers, are often formulaic, almost ritualistic, and thus the veracity of what they reveal remains questionable. Of note, however, despite their relative crudity it is generally agreed that the Adamclisi metopes have a genuine authenticity, perhaps more so than the more stylised reliefs on Trajan’s Column in Rome. With that in mind, the Adamclisi metopes may be among the better images guiding how to recreate the carriage of Roman side-arms.

---

Endnotes:

1.  Polybius (c. 200 - c. 118 BC) was a Greek historian of the Hellenistic period noted for his work The Histories, which covered the period of 264 - 146 BC in detail.  The work describes the rise of the Roman Republic to the status of dominance in the ancient Mediterranean world.  It includes his eyewitness account of the Sack of Carthage and Corinth in 146 BC, and the Roman annexation of mainland Greece after the Achaean War. ▲

2.  Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, commonly referred to simply as Vegetius, was a writer of the Later Roman Empire (late 4th-century).  Vegetius' Epitoma rei militaris (“Concerning Military Matters”, also referred to as De re militari) mainly focuses on military organization and how to react to certain occasions in war.  Vegetius explains how one should fortify and organize a camp, how to train troops, how to handle undisciplined troops, how to handle a battle engagement, how to march, formation gauge and many other useful methods of promoting organization and valour in the legion. ▲

3.  The Tropaeum Traiani is a monument built in AD 109 in Roman Civitas Tropaensium (site of modern Adamclisi, Romania) in what was then the province of Moesia Inferior.  The monument commemorates Emperor Trajan's victory over the Dacians, in the winter of AD 101-102, in the Battle of Adamclisi. ▲