The Boiotian Shield

[PMBardunias]

On the other hand, falsifiability of my position can be gained through constructing and experimenting with the Boeotian shield, hence my feeling that its important to be encouraging as opposed to discouraging.

Cole, my theories on the aspis formed as much from the experience of reenactors as from historical or archaeological sources, so there should be no doubt that I value this type of inquiry. That said, recreation can provide exactly the wrong answer because we have to make som many interpretations along the way. I have spent a lot of time over the years sifting through the experiences of reenactors who have come to exactly the opposite conclusions- and that about elements for which we have real models.

For instance, if reconstructions were to tend to demonstrate that the argive shield is superior to a Boeotian in single combat, we would have a very valuable additional datapoint on which to further discuss the theories. Similarly, we could do more than theorize about is impractability in closer formations.

A hand held pelta (or perhaps an animal skin draped over the arm :wink: ) is probably superior to the aspis in single combat, so this will not be too hard. If the boeotian were single/center gripped it would be something like a thureos and everyone I know who has used both aspis and Scutum tell me that the scutum is far superior for single combat. History would seem to bear this out. Held with a porpax in the center, you simply get a more narrow shield covering the body and a wing-like projection out past the elbow. Hard to see and advantage.

For some of the late "boeotians" it is hard to see that they would be any improvement over an aspis, because they are essentially an aspis with cut outs right over the throat and genitals hock: The idea that you would cut the rim within inches of connecting so needlessly weakens the shield that I cannot believe this was done.