When did belt bags come into vogue?
- Thread starter taylorh
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Where? The Scots have been wearing sporrans since coins came into general use.
The belt-bag is certainly medieval at least. "Cut-purse" refers to thieves who would sneak up behind you and snip the purse off your belt and the profession is much older than blackpowder. They adapted into pick-pockets as times changed. But, I'm not so sure how it was used for as relates to firearms. A small one may have been used to carry balls back when powder was on bandoliers. Most, I believe, were small and more likely to carry the strike-a-light and tinder than any gun implements.
The belt cartridge box was used by mounted troops from before the F&I War.
The belt-bag is certainly medieval at least. "Cut-purse" refers to thieves who would sneak up behind you and snip the purse off your belt and the profession is much older than blackpowder. They adapted into pick-pockets as times changed. But, I'm not so sure how it was used for as relates to firearms. A small one may have been used to carry balls back when powder was on bandoliers. Most, I believe, were small and more likely to carry the strike-a-light and tinder than any gun implements.
The belt cartridge box was used by mounted troops from before the F&I War.
If you are talking about a belt type shooting bag that replaces the shoulder slung shooting bag then I have to agree with Mark, they are modern. If you are talking about small bags that hung from the belt to carry small incidentals then they are good for the whole 18th century and probably before.
Randy Hedden
Randy Hedden
ladysmithtrading
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 485
- Reaction score
- 0
BULLPUCKY!Swampman said:
Inventing and using things a person likes is one thing. Documenting them is another thing. That pesky documentation, can be troublesome for those who aren't commited to doing what is correct. You'll never see a serious living historian using one. You'll see reenactors and buckskinners using them.
Hey Texan, can you prove to me that they were never used?
When interpreting historical periods, one must differentiate whether an item is a direct historical reproduction from an existing artifact, or whether it is a logical modification of a an existing artifact. I'm not talking about the old "if they'd of had it; they'd of used it" ploy that sloppy reenactors use, but is a common man likely to have created or modified an object to fit a specific purpose. To say that no one ever used a belt bag as a shooting bag is naive at best.
A Ranger's belt-mounted Cartridge box illustrates that colonials were cognizant of the utilitarian nature belt mounted carriages.
When interpreting historical periods, one must differentiate whether an item is a direct historical reproduction from an existing artifact, or whether it is a logical modification of a an existing artifact. I'm not talking about the old "if they'd of had it; they'd of used it" ploy that sloppy reenactors use, but is a common man likely to have created or modified an object to fit a specific purpose. To say that no one ever used a belt bag as a shooting bag is naive at best.
A Ranger's belt-mounted Cartridge box illustrates that colonials were cognizant of the utilitarian nature belt mounted carriages.
Hey Texan:
I didn't realize I was echoing Stumpkiller so closely when I responded, but he's right on all accounts IMO.
If you consider the carraige, "shooting bags" are probably exclusive to a specific firearm and/or purpose. I'd imagine a man might have one bag for each of his weapons containing items specific to that weapon; thus, when he reached for his long arm, he might grab the coresponding bag. In that theory, I can see the practicality of a shoulder bag.
However. . . if you take any of those bags and shorten the strap, voila, you have a belt bag.
It's a pity, but far too many items did not survive from antiquity; consequently, we must extrapolate at times to create logical representations. This field of our is called "Historical interpretation" so it is up to us and our research to "interpret" the period as best we can. whether you use a belt bag or not, do so on artifactual and documentary evidence. it's OK to make a "Best guess" estimate as long as it's done with careful thought and research.
There's just not enough evidence to back patent black-&-white conclusions.
Proper interpretive displays require the right mix of intellect and imagination more than mimickry.
Whew, I haven't been this high up on my soapbox in a LONG time, anyone got a ladder?:redface:
Good luck on your search, and let us know what you come up with.
Cheers!
I didn't realize I was echoing Stumpkiller so closely when I responded, but he's right on all accounts IMO.
If you consider the carraige, "shooting bags" are probably exclusive to a specific firearm and/or purpose. I'd imagine a man might have one bag for each of his weapons containing items specific to that weapon; thus, when he reached for his long arm, he might grab the coresponding bag. In that theory, I can see the practicality of a shoulder bag.
However. . . if you take any of those bags and shorten the strap, voila, you have a belt bag.
It's a pity, but far too many items did not survive from antiquity; consequently, we must extrapolate at times to create logical representations. This field of our is called "Historical interpretation" so it is up to us and our research to "interpret" the period as best we can. whether you use a belt bag or not, do so on artifactual and documentary evidence. it's OK to make a "Best guess" estimate as long as it's done with careful thought and research.
There's just not enough evidence to back patent black-&-white conclusions.
Proper interpretive displays require the right mix of intellect and imagination more than mimickry.
Whew, I haven't been this high up on my soapbox in a LONG time, anyone got a ladder?:redface:
Good luck on your search, and let us know what you come up with.
Cheers!
"Proper interpretive displays require the right mix of intellect and imagination more than mimickry."
That's the problem we have in this hobby, vivid imaginations. If it can't be documented in the context that you wish to use it, it shouldn't be used.
That's the problem we have in this hobby, vivid imaginations. If it can't be documented in the context that you wish to use it, it shouldn't be used.
If documentation were 100% complete I'd agree, but the historical record is incomplete, so we must extrapolate to flesh out the shadows. Interpreters are walking, talking thesis statements, and as such are held accountable to their research. If you only base your characterization solely on surviving artifacts, you can't go wrong and I applaud your dedication to authenticity, but there's another facet to itnerpretive history, it's a grey area, but it's legit; it involves interpreting artifacts, documents and overall trends, and assembling a theoretical solution to your dilemma.Swampman said:
The sloppy reenactor who just makes or buys whatever he wants without historical regard is easy to spot because he won't be able to explain his item beyond perhaps citing the catalog from which he bought it. these numnuts do us a considerable diservice by their lack of detail and their instance on spouting off historical myth as historical fact, and really detract from the overall credibility of the hobby.
I say, if someone wants to use a a belt bag, it must be constructed in the style of the period with NO embellishments, and should be used with the caveat that it is "historically inspired" ,from whatever source, and may not actually have a historical counterpart.
Hey Skagun,
I think you misinterpreted my last post. My challenge is to those who believe that belt bags were used, to produce the evidence. And in response to you previous post, of course one can not prove a negative. I nor anyone else can't prove that they wern't used. I just want to know if anyone can show that they were and if they were what did they look like. While I enjoy practicing backwoods skills, the goal of my current project is to recreate an early Texan. I have seen pictures of folks with cartridge boxes and Springfields, but I want to look like a person who joined up after the 'supposed' fall of the Alamo :winking: .
Sincerely,
Taylor in Texas
I think you misinterpreted my last post. My challenge is to those who believe that belt bags were used, to produce the evidence. And in response to you previous post, of course one can not prove a negative. I nor anyone else can't prove that they wern't used. I just want to know if anyone can show that they were and if they were what did they look like. While I enjoy practicing backwoods skills, the goal of my current project is to recreate an early Texan. I have seen pictures of folks with cartridge boxes and Springfields, but I want to look like a person who joined up after the 'supposed' fall of the Alamo :winking: .
Sincerely,
Taylor in Texas
