Detachable Porpax

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Or perhaps an ancient hoplite 6'3'' was such an exception that nobody could stand next to him and looking normal :lol: All the porpaxes in the sculptures above are not only more to the right of the center,but further upand right. I think the shield size had more to do with the individual's preferences and ability to walk and run without the shield interfering with their legs. You can't walk easily with a very wide shield held in front of you,like in the phalanx.
Khairete
Giannis

PS,sorry guys,i still don't have time for the photo I promised.It'll come soon.

[PMBardunias]

Or perhaps an ancient hoplite 6'3'' was such an exception that nobody could stand next to him and looking normal

This is true, I'll bet there was less variation in height back then, especially in a population like that of Sparta which was a bit inbred and had a regimented diet.

I'm sure we've all fantasized about jumping back in time to ancient greece or rome, but now you've ruined it for me! Were I to jump back to 1 A.D., with my size and blue eyes and the fact that the little French, Spanish and Italian I speak would sound like some Germanic pidgeon of Latin, I'd end up in the arena!

more to the right of the center,but further upand right.

I noticed that too, I wonder if it has ever been commented on.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

OK,Here's the shield i promised I'd post. I'm sure you all have seen it before.

You see yet another(but this time real) example of the above statement
Khairete
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

Nice post Giannis !....I'll get around to answering your earlier questions in a bit.......meantime, can you give details of this shield? .....where it is?...where found?....size/dimensions?....time period? etc

[Paullus Scipio]

Given that it is a while back, it is probablybest if I reproduce Giannis post and answer it here, for convenience...
Giannis wrote:-

Wait a minute.Why are you calling these "reconstructions"? Because the fittings have been placed in 'reconstructed' shield shapes, neither of which appears to be correct, and if memory serves, the fittings were not intact, but fragmented and ahve hence been put together or 'reconstructed'..This is the interior of Philip's shield and it's gold!
What do you define "later" aspis,Paul? ...can't be too specific - it is a bit arbitrary - call the seventh- mid sixth centuries'early', late sixth to mid-fifth ( the persian War period) "middle", and mid-fifth to middle third "late", say..... Because Philip's shield is indeed late,but would you call a 500 bc shield "late"? Because the majority of such circular reenforcements appear in pottery in the late archic/early classical period. Do you have a photo of the other example you mentioned? It would be nice to pinpoint this a little more closely - what are the dates for the pottery examples you showed - late fifth century?
What about the detachable porpax?Doesn't it seem to you that this one has hingesto which the porpax is attached/detached? Indeed I would agree.....though despite the experiences of modern re-enactors, I don't believe the 'thin' ringed porpaxes can be used to wield the shield properly even if it could be lifted - but even then, something could be improvised to pad the arm....so something like this would be what is being referred to for removable porpaxes...Yes,the 8-10 kgr is way too much.Modern bronze covered recontructions have shown that they weighted less than 8 kgrs(and they reached such weight because the brass coverwas probably thicker than the ancient one).They also proved that the thin arm band was not inappropriate for heavy shields,and imagine that the ancients put extra padding under the thin porpax,contrary to many modern re-enactors. See above...I would agree ( as does Connolly - see his books - that a felt or leather broader ring fitted inside the thin metal one...Paul,I'd need more data to take it for granted that later aspides were much lighter. After all there is a contradiction here: The idea for laminated aspides came from the chigi vase,one of the earliest representation of hoplites.And yet there is a tendency to believe that the later aspides were actually laminated and lighter.If the laminated construction went through all those centuries,then we can only presume that it was not lighter than the rest,because in all these periods it kept the name "heavy". I would agree more evidence is needed, but it is logical to assume thatlike all aspects of Hoplite equipment, the shield got lighter over time - the most obvious explanation for the re-inforcing ring is that if you look at the Vatican shield, it is thickest at the 'shoulders '( 3 cm aprox - see other thread) and if this became thinner to save weight, then there would be a need for this re-inforcing ring exactly where we see it.....it might also be noted that such a ring is consistent with Paul B's 'extreme shoving' hypothesis about [i]othismos....[/i]

[PMBardunias]

I don't believe the 'thin' ringed porpaxes can be used to wield the shield properly even if it could be lifted - but even then, something could be improvised to pad the arm....so something like this would be what is being referred to for removable porpaxes

Just to be sure I understand you, I have wondered if the "detachable" portion of the detachable porpax is something that fit into the thin ring, which was permanent. Is this what you are saying?

I had never seen these hinged porpaxes before. I agree they are obviously removable, but this does not negate an earlier more primative solution.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Hi Paul. Some of the examples I posed are indeed middle to late 5th century. I don't have exact dates but I do think that the first vase i posted(and a couple more I have-one of them probably from the same artist) are early 5th century.
By the way,the shield I posted is early sixth-late 7th century bc. Unfortunately i don't have further details.
Khaire
Giannis

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

I don't believe the 'thin' ringed porpaxes can be used to wield the shield properly even if it could be lifted - but even then, something could be improvised to pad the arm....so something like this would be what is being referred to for removable porpaxes

Just to be sure I understand you, I have wondered if the "detachable" portion of the detachable porpax is something that fit into the thin ring, which was permanent. Is this what you are saying?

I had never seen these hinged porpaxes before. I agree they are obviously removable, but this does not negate an earlier more primative solution.

This was my first question of this thread. There were obvious detachable parts in those thin porpaxes. The question is were there also completely detachable porpaxes with hinges? But since I'm not the only one whos eyes see those hinges...
Khaire
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B wrote:-

Just to be sure I understand you, I have wondered if the "detachable" portion of the detachable porpax is something that fit into the thin ring, which was permanent. Is this what you are saying?
Yes, absolutely!

I had never seen these hinged porpaxes before. I agree they are obviously removable, but this does not negate an earlier more primative solution.

....no indeed - and on the rather thin evidence we have, I would guess the first 'removable' porpaxes were of this type, but as I said, it would not be a perfect solution because something could be improvised....even cloth wound around the arm would probably suffice.....but perhaps the metal ring was thin enough that it would likely break without support from a thick leather/felt bracer/cylinder which had to fit exactly to be structurally strong enough.The 'hinged ' version would be the perfect solution, though more complex and hence expensive to make....

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Yes,and less strengfull also. The evidence for the felt/leather inner grip is not scarse at all though. Not only it appears in vases and the porpax itself has special placings for the extra padding,but there are also clear sculptures as I said. For instance,this one

http://www.flickr.com/photos/schumata/6 ... 336867030/
At least reconstructions of the Vatican shield porpax show that the thin grip doesn't break even when used alone. Though extra padding would be of much comfort
Khairete
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

as I said, it would not be a perfect solution because something could be improvised....even cloth wound around the arm would probably suffice

Its funny you mention that because the cloak-wrapped left forearm is very common in greek art. Sometimes it is left to drape behind the shield in what I image could serve to protect the legs in the way that the more dedicated and affixed shield-skirts did. I had assumed it might have a cushioning function for the arm in the shield, but never so important a role.

[richard robinson]

I am making a series of porpax and so ended up here for research. On the question on moving the porpax from central position if the user has a shorter fore arm I think this may be a silly idea as the rope (handle) is adjustable if it still goes about the whole diameter of the inner face. Not so silly if you have abandoned this style of "rigging".
Happy that the hinged porpax has been sighted as I had come to this conclusion as a solution for detachable ones. Possibly I have read this 3 years ago and that idea just made its way back to my frontal lobe?
regards
richard

[M. Demetrius]

How would you keep your knuckles from getting skinned up against the shield if only using the circumferential rope for the hand grip?

[richard robinson]

I have a back plate under the handgrip (cupic alloy- read between the lines) and it has never been a problem. I find that I have to hook my thumb in the rope above the "hand grip" guides similar to how I hold my Norman shield and it gives a sort of punch grip purchase. If I had a nice leather liner on the shield internals I imagine it also would be quite comfortable. I had a question about the porpax fittings found with the concentric ring however. What are the knobs/ lobes on either side of the porpax? I can imagine a handgrip guide on one side but the one on the other side in the middle of the plate has got me stumped
regards
richard