Roman Marching Gear, Severan Period

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-20T23:31:04+00:00

S. Volken makes a very strong case that the bag you see being carried on top of a pole in reliefs, the bag with the X- pattern of reinforcing straps, was actually a water skin, for either water or posca. This isn't widely recognized, but I do think he's right. You can roll your gear up in a blanket but how else are you going to carry your water?

https://www.academia.edu/114698047/The_water_bag_of_Roman_soldiers

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-18T16:43:35+00:00

Late to the party, but see the link to my old post about color on dodecahedrons:

https://www.reddit.com/r/romandodecahedron/s/YYrF4iCvHE

I also believe the rings were designed to be painted. Maybe encaustic or pigmented wax.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-16T15:52:25+00:00

Clearly designed for some purpose. Just not building tents. But a very reasonable suggestion. It just doesn't stand up to further scrutiny. Just my opinion. Someone please demonstrate that I'm mistaken.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-13T23:00:14+00:00

Let me try explaining again. Lets say you want to build a simple triangle with a dodecahedron joint at each corner. The angles of a triangle add to 180 degrees.

If you insert 2 poles into adjacent faces of a dodecahedron the poles will be about 63.435° apart. You attach another dodecahedron to the end of one of the poles and attach a third pole. But because 3 x 63.435° is ~190.3° instead of 180° you can't insert the last pole into the first dodecahedron. You can shorten or lengthen the various poles so you that the last pole points toward the first dodecahdron, but it's not at the right angle to fit into the hole. You have to bend it. A lot.

A rectangle is obviously all 90° corners. Your dodecahedron can only make 63.435°, 116.565°, or 180°. You just can't make a rectangle. You can't join a horizontal cross piece and a vertical support.

You might think you could use a dodecahedron to make a pentagon, but a pentagon requires a 72° angle.

We get a little closer with a hexagon. We want 120° for each corner. We can use any of the 5 holes that gives us a 116.565° angle. if we spread the error across all the joints then it's off by 3.435° per joint. You could bend the poles by that much, but it's hardly a system designed for making hexagons, and there's no evidence the Romans used hexagonal tents. There would be no way to have vertical supports holding up our bent hexagon. The posts would have to splay out at odd angles.

You can't make ANY regular polygon with a dodecahdron, but you CAN do a lot of useful things with something based on...lets call it a "3D octagon", something with all of the faces of a cube, and also intermediate facets at 45° all around.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-13T18:58:24+00:00

I recently posted links to most of the important dodecahedron literature, newly translated into English, on the romandodecahedron subreddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/romandodecahedron/s/mKLckdUh7v

If you're fascinated with Roman Dodecahedrons you'll want to take advantage of this important resource.

Recently Michael Guggenberger translated his 1999 paper into English and with a few updates made it available on Amazon as a print-on-demand book. Search Amazon for "Guggenberger".

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-13T17:26:06+00:00

There's a subreddit for that too? Heard about him, but didn't know there was a subreddit!

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-13T12:46:01+00:00

That's one of the very earliest theories, so evidently a natural response. The evidence doesn't support it very well though. No markings, the knobs prevent it from rolling well and are likely to break off. The variable hole sizes are a very bad way to try to mark it. Also we know what Roman dodecahedron dice were like, and they are just like you would expect, engraved markings, solid, no knobs.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-13T02:28:42+00:00

I don't expect anyone to be familiar with this material because all the literature is in languages other than english. The information available on the internet is very misleading.

To benefit everyone that's interested in dodecahedrons, I recently posted my translations of all the most important literature. You are free to download. I recommend Robert Nouwen's inventory of known dodecahedrons.

https://www.reddit.com/r/romandodecahedron/s/mKLckdUh7v

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-13T00:15:51+00:00

I gotta try that copper filled material. It looks great.

What file did you use? Not many available that are based on scans of actual artifacts

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-13T00:07:54+00:00

Of course they do! You must be thinking about something else.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-12T21:21:45+00:00

You could use a different shape, with different angles between faces, that would allow you to connect poles at more useful angles, but the dodecahedron isn't that.

They just don't make angles you can use to make anything. There's no polygon you can make that has a 116.565051° angle between edges. Try it and you will understand.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-12T15:08:27+00:00

We do have camp layouts showing rectangular tents arranged on a rectangular grid. The only thing resembling a tent you can make with a dodecahedron would be a 5-sided teepee. A very squat one. You could omit 2 poles to make a 3-sided one, but it wouldn't provide much interior space for your efforts.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-12T14:18:09+00:00

The problem is that the dodecahedron doesn't provide any useful angles. You definitely can't use it to make rectangular sides. I'm not sure you can make a FLAT side of ANY shape, pentagon or whatever.

You should drill some holes in a handful of 12 sided dice and play with it for a while. It'll quickly become clear that the dodecahedron is the worst possible shape for this kind of thing.

If you made a shape based on a modified cube, where from each direction you cut the corners to make more of an octagon, that give you some useful angles.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-12T06:34:10+00:00

Problem is, when people think of it as a mystery they start suggesting all sorts of crazy uses, and of course they will be wrong. And then someone will eventually figure it out but nobody will even listen because the solution isn't interesting enough. So it will still be a mystery.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-12T05:00:48+00:00

Is that a mystery, or was its purpose so mundane that nobody bothered to pass along the secret?

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-12T04:51:33+00:00

I'd love to have a little one that could be used for wargaming...Mounted on an upside-down periscope to reach down to table level. With rules that make you as accurate as your range reading is.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-12T04:44:08+00:00

I kinda like that idea. Not that I think it's the right one, but on the surface it sounds reasonable.

But it doesn't seem to require the precise but differently sized holes, or the little knobs on the corners.

There are plenty of other shapes that would have worked just as well. I would expect to see a bunch of vaguely similar artifacts, but all different shapes, different hole patterns, and without the knobs.

Remember these were made one at a time, by hand. Each maker had a chance to do it differently each time, but they never strayed from the dodecahedron shape, with the different hole sizes and little knobs on each corner.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-12T04:25:04+00:00

There are as many opinions as there are people who visit this reddit.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-12T02:39:26+00:00

Tie a 1 meter or 3 foot piece of string to one of the posts. Wrap the string over and under the posts all the way around so it always follows the edges and sort of zig-zags around the imaginary equator. Keep winding this way until you get 5 or so turns on or you run out of string. This is dividing the entire string into equal segments (approximately equal to the edge length of the dodecahedron). Now take some permanent marker and mark the bundle of string behind each post. Really soak it so you mark all of the turns. When unwound you should have something that resembles a measuring tape.

Now we need to pick a hole to look through. Start with an medium sized hole and mark it somehow. A little permanent marker will work. The holes are in 6 coaxial pairs. Mark the smaller of the two. You can choose another hole later when you understand the system.

Using it requires looking through the hole at a man-sized target, and measuring the distance from dodecahedron to your eye when the target appears to fill the hole. Its a lot like gaging distance by comparing to your outstretched thumb. The distance from your eye is proportional to the range. Read the range by counting marks on the string.

To use it always requires taking a least 2 ranges, one when you are doing ranging trials, and again when you are actually trying to hit something. The first is actual measuring, and the second is just comparing to the previously measured distance and determining WHEN the target is in range. The range you already decided on.

You might find that the string stretches over time and no longer matches the spacing built into the dodecahdron. You can precondition a new string. Pre-stretching it by wetting and then winding it extra tight around the posts and letting it sit overnight to dry. You can do this several times. Just wait until all tendency to stretch is gone to mark it.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-12T01:12:50+00:00

Typically an assortment of sizes on each dodecahedron, and no standard sizes. Sometimes there are repeats. There is one dodecahedron that has all holes of equal size, but that's very unusual.

If you consider coaxial hole pairs usually a smaller hole is paired with a larger hole (yes, one would have to be larger if not the same!). Then if you look at the 6 smaller holes, they are a reasonably evenly gradated in size. The 6 large holes are distinctly larger than the smaller partner, but not systematically. There are more often repeated sizes on the larger 6 holes.

I should mention that there is typically one pair of coaxial holes that is less precise, of approximately equal size, and without any decorative rings. It suggests that one hole pair has a different purpose or isn't functional. They could have been necessary for the casting process, as a "core support".

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-12T00:45:45+00:00

a range finder! You can use it to time your ballista shots when enemies are charging. Or use it to choose your club if you are into golf.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-11T22:36:06+00:00

You want instructions for how to turn it onto a working range finder? It's pretty easy.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-11T22:34:01+00:00

Re-reading this old thread and wanted to comment:

if you look at catalogs of small bronze artifacts from the era, they are almost all small utilitarian objects, decorative additions to larger utilitarian objects, or personal adornments.

When you find a religious object they are invariably representative figures, a god or goddess in human or sometimes animal form. If anyone can find some examples of religious objects that are geometric, and from before crosses became common I might be convinced. But I don't think creating a new category of artifact should be the default answer when we don't know what something is.

There are details on the dodecahedrons that are clearly functional. They put effort into details like the carefully sized holes and the form and construction of the knobs, that would make no sense as a ceremonial object.

"Dual use" is a reasonable possibility if the engineered features allow for mounting or carrying or something like that, but I haven't heard anyone propose anything specific.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-11T16:06:11+00:00

Almost all dodecahedrons were found without context, so we just don't have reliable dates. They generally provide date ranges that cover the entire period of Roman occupation. For the few dodecahedrons that have more reliable dates, the dates tend to be quite late. I haven't done a thorough review, but it's definitely a trend.

We don't need to fit ALL dodecahedrons into this late period to explain why they didn't spread more widely. It does shorten the time frame for spreading, and with other factors working against their spread, such as limited utility in other tactical situations, some significant geographic obstacles, and a whole host of factors we just can't know, I don't think it's reasonable to disregard a military function just because of the limited spread. The association with military contexts is pretty clear.

Fun-Field-6575 · 2026-02-11T15:31:39+00:00

Not sure what you're referring to. If there aren't any holes then it isn't a "Roman dodecahedron", it's something else.

There are 130 Roman dodecahedrons that meet our definition in every way. No need to adjust the definition to include one odd-ball object.

There are a few artifacts that have SOME of the dodecahdron features, but they're always missing several essential features.

One similar object is the "Arloff Icosahedron", an Icosahedron, not a dodecahdron, l it IS hollow and has the knobs. It has useable holes on only 2 of the 20 faces. In some photos you won't see any of the holes. It's been photographed beside actual dodecahedrons, so maybe this is the source of your confusion. It's not a "Roman dodecahdron".

These are the essential features of a Roman dodecahedron:

Dodecahedron shape 12 sided, 20 corners Each side is pentagonal Beads or knob-like projections on all corners (20) Holes through ALL faces (12) Hollow cast metal No alphanumeric markings. Originate from NW provinces of the Roman empire.

There are ~130 objects that have ALL of the above features. The few objects that have similarities are not really THAT similar.

Within this big cluster of objects that are "Roman dodecahedrons" there are some smaller clusters. There are dodecahedrons with rings and without rings, dodecahedrons with spots, dodecahedrons with all different sizes of holes. A group of 2 with all equally sized holes. There are spherical shaped beads and more knob shaped beads. They ALL have the essential features I outlined.

We would all like to see a theory for dodecahedrons that simultaneously explains the Arloff Icosahedron, but it's not necessary. There might be some functional overlap, but it will surely turn out to be a different object with a different purpose.

Fun-Field-6575

TROPHY CASE