Hoplites of the Archaic Age

[Chris B]

Great use of technology/YouTube to demonstrate your point, Chris....well done and a 'laus' !!

However, I can't recall seeing an ancient depiction that shows the shield in use with that upward position, which kind of militates against your hypothesis..... which btw would also seem practical for a conventional Aspis.....except, again, not shown in ancient deoictions AFIK....

In fact, on the vase illustrations, we see many different ways of holding and grips for the 'Boeotian', which implies to me that the artists were drawing something they did not know, and were using their imaginations.....

Actually, it doesn't negate anything (and yes I know there is a double negative). I offer it as a visual of a shield that not many people have. Actually, not showing it that way on vases doesn't mean much. I am not claiming one argument or another, only that you CANNOT hold it with that grip to the forward of the body without rotating it.

You cannot prove a negative anyways. It doesn't mean it wasn't used that way because it wasn't depicted in art that way. There is one BIG difference between it and the aspis. You don't have to take an upward position with an aspis because there isn't a huge hole in your front. If you held a boeotian in front just like the aspis, I think it would be pretty retarted from any vantage. You have two big holes at your vitals; neck and groin. I also have an aspis and don't see any tactical necessity to change positions like that with it. I can hold the aspis to the side and front without changing arm position.

Evidence,
First of all, when it is held that way, it is drawn close into the body. You can't draw behind it if your body is blocking the view.

Second, the shield is symetrical so a front view makes it impossible to know how they were holding it.

Third, many vases show this set up of grip. How the shield moves around the body is a fact. It is what it is. If you use that grip, there is only one way to hold it in front of you. I am not claiming any preferred stance so to speak, only the positions the shield takes at various angles around the body.

Fourth. I personally agree with Stefanos that if it was used, it probably would have been used in skirmish warfare with a more bladed stance that is more fitted to one on one combat. Most martial arts anywhere in the world take a more side oriented stance when fighting (Most, not all). I seriously, seriously doubt a skirmisher fighting alone would be much different. You present less of a target that way.

Last but not least, I offer it as a visual only whether it existed or not. I am not arguing about existence, use on the battle field, or anything other than the positions with that specific grip. I am seriously not meaning to be rude, but I personally couldn't care less until I see solid evidence one way or another. I really don't place much weight in speculation anyways which would be any of our views outside artistic reference. All my knowledge is based on references you all gave me.

Like I said, feel free to debate it amongst yourselves all you want. I am just fulfilling a promise to a few people for the reference.

Gioi - What is up with the Bruce Lee globes? Apparently you went over my head on that one. No idea what you meant. Well I am back to working on my left greave. I actually think I pulled it off. Now I hope I can do the right. Actually, I think the Greeks only used ONE greave, the left. Yes, Yes, that makes absolute sense to me so it must be so. Now I don't have to make a right one. :roll:

Added: I really do hope this doesn't come off sarcastic or angry or rude. I am taking short breaks while working on my greaves. They are the ONLY thing I am focussed on right now. If my kids came with a missing limb, I would tell them to get the needle and thread out of the sewing kit and fix it when I am engaged in one of "daddy's" projects. :wink:

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Chris,thank you very much for the video. Another laudes from me.
What we see in art is indeed an important factor,since we don't have much more than that. However,this stance with the arm forward is indeed very common in aspis depictions. And what would that mean? That they used to fight in this position? In my opinion they used this position when in loose order,because it protects better the lower part of your body. Apparently,if you hold your shield like this,you can your it offensively plus your opponent can't reach your legs or even feet with an overarm grip.
Khairete
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

However,this stance with the arm forward is indeed very common in aspis depictions. And what would that mean?

This discussion is interesting in that half of us are saying that the boetian shield never existed and was a creation of artists and the other half are trying to discover how it was used- obviously these two points of view are irreconsilable.

I am of opinion that we do not understand what we cannot trust vase images to be accurate depictions of combat any more than some future archeologist could trust "300" or "Gladiator" to represent their combat styles. There are many elements that surely depict accurate contemporary weapons and tactics, but that doesn't mean they were intended to by the artist at the time. The artist was most often portraying scenes from what was to him history. He and his audience knew that the heroes depicted did not fight the way a Hoplite did- they most famously threw their spears.

What does this have to say about what we see on vases? I am convinced that the "arm up and out" position is an artistic convention to portray the action of throwing. When you throw a javelin, you raise the left hand as a counterbalance and fulcrum. Below is a famous statue of Zeus throwing. Add an aspis and he looks exactly like the pose we are discussing.

Also, we can't forget the many problems of translating a 3-D figure to a 2-D vase image. The position that is most commonly seen for moving ranks of men on vases in with the edge of the shield forward. This is NOT a combat position- it has been suggested that they struck with the rim in a bladelike fashion. This could surely be a marching position though, and the ancient greeks who may have valued the moment of tension before combat more than images of combat itself might be showing this.

Then again there is the problem of shield blazons. They are clearly a favorite subject for artists, and this is really the only way to show them off well given the conventional postural restrictions of vase art.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Look forward to viewing this clip, eventually!

[PMBardunias]

Second, the shield is symetrical so a front view makes it impossible to know how they were holding it.

We can tell from the shield blazons, which if held in your manner would be upside down, or upside down all the rest of the time. Either one is unlikely.

[Chris B]

Second, the shield is symetrical so a front view makes it impossible to know how they were holding it.

We can tell from the shield blazons, which if held in your manner would be upside down, or upside down all the rest of the time. Either one is unlikely.

If it wasn't held that way, then there is no physically way possible to hold the shield to the front. Pick up one and try it. If you hold to that, then someone would have to fight with a left handed stance, bladed to the enemy, period. It maked absolutely no tactical sense what-so-ever to hold it with the holes up and down instead of the sides. It leaves too great an opening at two critical, vital areas to the body.

I definately don't have the historical knowledge that any of you do, but I spend days a week fighting hard. I don't mean point sparring, I mean going after it. I would never hold the shield that way. I'd rather not even have it if that was the choice.

[PMBardunias]

I definately don't have the historical knowledge that any of you do, but I spend days a week fighting hard. I don't mean point sparring, I mean going after it. I would never hold the shield that way. I'd rather not even have it if that was the choice.

Chris, I believe you completely. This is because, and I am sad to say this after you made one, but the boetian shield never existed. It cannot be used in battle properly because it was never created for battle. It is simply an artist's way of taking the double grip of the then current aspis and applying it to an oblong shield with cut-outs in imitation of an even older style that might have had religeous significance at the time.

[Chris B]

To add one more point that may strengthen your argument, but to be fair, is something that becomes readily apparent when making one is that the structural strength of the aspis is due to its shape and the rim. The force of a blow would be dissipated by the shape and the thickness of the rim. When you cut two holes out of the shield at its strongest point, you structurally compromise that strength and the shield no longer is as strong. Basically, the hole shield including the heaviest portion of the rim is supported by the center or thinnest section. That really makes no sense from an engineering standpoint.

I am not sorry I made it either way. It was a fun project, and I am still not convinced it never existed. Actually, I think it is pretty pretentious for anyone to say authoritatively that it did not exist. Unless you’re a God, there is no way for you to know that with unequivocal certainty. To sum up my own view, I can see physical reasons why it wouldn't be as intelligent a design as the aspis. If it did exist, then I think it would have more likely been used for more individualized combat. Either way, it doesn't really matter because noone can prove their view. Even mine is just an opinion.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

The 8th century dipylon shield appears to have had two supporting stripes crossing in the center of the shield and ending in either side of the two holes. This is clear evidence that the dipylon shield existed in the 8th century and that what Chris points ut about its strength was indeed discovered by the ancients. However that shield was constructed like a pelte and thus the wooden support would add considerable strength compared to the rest of the shield. But in such a shield construction a porpax was unlikely to have been stable enough.
Khairete
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

The 8th century dipylon shield appears to have had two supporting stripes crossing in the center of the shield and ending in either side of the two holes.

Take a look back a page at the boetian in Gioi's post. You'll see that the crossing "strips" are clearly ropes (they go over his arm!). Based on this I would take the evidence for "strips", as put forward by Connelly for evidence of the shield's continued existance, with a grain of salt. There is no reason to assume that the strips on shields without an arm for context are anything but ropes.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Howver there is a difference. The 8th century clay dipylon does not have a double grip. Further more,the supporting strips are double,meaning either that the strips were two for each support or they just represent the thicknest of the strips. The clay dipylon is much different in construction than the archaic boeotian. And I may be wrong but off the top of my head I've seen argive shields with crossing ropes in the middle.
Khaire
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

Further more,the supporting strips are double,meaning either that the strips were two for each support or they just represent the thicknest of the strips. The clay dipylon is much different in construction than the archaic boeotian.

Quite possible. I only say that I am leaning towards them being indicative of ropes unless we have some clearer example- since the other example is so clear.

And I may be wrong but off the top of my head I've seen argive shields with crossing ropes in the middle.

I have not seen this, though I have seen the criss-cross on one of those "boetians" that are almost exactly an aspis with little cut outs. if you do find an image like this please share it, because it supports my pet truss theory. I would expect an evolution from criss-cross, to straight lines, to the perimeter rope.

The problem of a convex shield of Dipylon shape is that the most vulnerable site to failure, the apex of the shield in the center, is also the thinnest. The old figure 8 shield was figure 8 for exactly this reason- the pinch makes the shield less likely to collapse in the center. The waist on the Dipylon could have been pinched as well, but another way of dealing with this would be trusses that keep the two ends from kicking out as pressure is applied. To achieve this same effect with struts that run along the inner face is quite difficult and requires them to be much heavier than the simple truss.

A good way to envision this is to think of the resistance of a bow to being stretched when unstrung, then comparing that to the same bow when strung. To achieve the same un-stretchability, with an unstrung bow the stave would need to be far more robust and heavy.

[sesdelta38]

I dont mean to sound like a moderator, but can we get back on topic?

__________
Dan Haag

[PMBardunias]

I dont mean to sound like a moderator, but can we get back on topic?

Determining whether the a commonly portrayed shield from this period is fiction would seem rather on point.

Where else would you like to steer the conversation? Any other elements of the panoply you have questions about?

[sesdelta38]

I all want are some modern illistrations of Greek Hoplites from the Archaic period.