Double hand grips on the aspis

[PMBardunias]

Hey,I do remember speaking about this on the phalax long ago,but it was actually MY idea. I remember you saying this was the only logical explanation(except of your of course ) that one proposed in all that discussion. Please don't make me go back into thousands of posts to find it and post it here! However you must be older than me in the Phalax forum,so perhaps you had thought of it before i came,but i certainly haven't read it from you.

Ok, I conceed its probably yours. It is a good explanation.

In all those vases the ropes are at least somewhat curved,often in the oposite direction of the vase's curvature.

I think there is too much variability on all these features in vase paintings to be sure of either of our points. That's why I liked your idea above back in the days before I came to think of it as a truss. It is a functional explanation based on the mechanics of shield design, not a simple attempt to exlain what we see on the vases.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Paul,I agree,neither can prove their theory at the moment. of course mine is more simple,but againwe ought to have an aspis hung just by two rings to see if there is possibility they will get off of the wodden core or in you case have two aspides made in such a contruction that will look exactly like the Chigi vase and other similar early depictions(i have come across at least one more identical one) and one of the will colapse not having the ropes and on the other the ropes will work like a trush. Agreed? In the meantime,I'm still in the search for a better explanation than both yours and mine. But come on people,where's your creativity? Don't you have any othe ingenious idea?
Khaire
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B. wrote:

Hey! Its not fair to use that on me. I think I proposed that years ago on the phalanx. No fair using my own previous ideas against me

Giannis wrote:

Hey,I do remember speaking about this on the phalax long ago,but it was actually MY idea.

....actually, you are both "johnny-come-lately's" to this particular idea ( that the rope around the inside was a form of 'carrying strap')

Both Philip Blyth and I referred to this over thirty years ago, and probably others too, and it is a commonly held opinion, and likely goes back to Snodgrass......

Also, looking at the two illustrations provided, I note that the lines denoting the rope are curved in both, hence 'slack', and neither looks 'tight' to me.....

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Paullus,my comment was not in that it was me that invented the carrying rope idea. However I have read none explaining the actual positioning and number of the fittings. You may consider it "obvious",yet none has ever mentioned it. None that I am aware of,at least. In fact nor Philip Blyth and you nor Snodgrass have "invented" the theory,snce there are vases showing the shield being carried by the ropes. The question is not if it was practice -i think Paul B wouldn't doubt in that either),it is if carrying was the major purpose,and why the rope had that characteristic shape.
Khaire
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

Giannis wrote:

Paullus,my comment was not in that it was me that invented the carrying rope idea. Sorry, that's the way it read to me...
However I have read none explaining the actual positioning and number of the fittings. Don't the number of 'rings/fittings vary in depictions? Likely because they are the products of individual craftsmen...
You may consider it "obvious",yet none has ever mentioned it. Sorry? you've lost me here. Nowhere have I said anything about this is 'obvious'
None that I am aware of,at least. In fact nor Philip Blyth and you nor Snodgrass have "invented" .....I didn't say that was the case, merely pointing out that the idea is not new among 'modern' commentators.... the theory,snce there are vases showing the shield being carried by the ropes.
Could you post an example??
The question is not if it was practice -i think Paul B wouldn't doubt in that either),it is if carrying was the major purpose,and why the rope had that characteristic shape.
What do you mean by 'characteristic shape'? The fact that it is shown 'slack' and hanging?

[PMBardunias]

there are vases showing the shield being carried by the ropes.

This is hard to be sure of in light of those shields I showed that have a second set of carrying straps inside. I know the vase you are thinking of. I don't have it though or I'd post it for you. It has the strap across the chest laterally like a mongol's bowstring. But it could be that other strap.

[Kineas]

Giannis--I'm going way back up the list of posts here...

First, the "hull" of the current aspis is, according to my theory (not very different from PB's) of "type II" or rather, of the type where wood is laid up and then turned into a stable "salad bowl" on a big vertical lathe. So they need no reinforcement. In fact, we did quite a bit of fighting with them as they came off the lathe.
My projected "hull" or "blank" for a "type one" (little self-mockery here--jargon is always bad... ) would be made by laying steam-bent boards, probably just a centimeter thick, edge to edge in a pattern (not settled on that yet) and putting a biscuit between each pair of boards--rather like tongue and groove, but with the "tongue" a third piece. In other words, I'd construct the shield exactly the way a 6th C. BC boat builder constructed his hull. It, too, would be completely stable--at first. As the steaming of the wood relaxed with age (and cold rain), and as the shield absorbed blows, there would, I suspect (but don't KNOW) be a gradual tendency for the "hull" shape to flatten and deform. This deformation could be fought two ways--with a heavy bronze rim (like the tire on a chariot wheel, and serving the same purpose, and yes, I know that not all wheels had tires!) and perhaps with an internal truss.
Given time and energy, I suspect I could make an argument that the shield rim did all the work, and that occasional boards might deform and jump out of the rim --to be restored by adjusting the truss--but that doesn't seem convincing. It may well be that ALL the ropes did was allow the shield to act as a pack frame. Reenactors have a habit of forgetting that most soldiers spend far more time carrying their kit than fighting in it.

Wow--that's a long post of pure speculation. I need to get back to work--cutting scales.

[PMBardunias]

In other words, I'd construct the shield exactly the way a 6th C. BC boat builder constructed his hull.

I'd like to know more about this technique. Any references? I had a construction of steamed lathes in mind, but my knowledge of woodworking is journeyman at best. The inner face of the Chigi shields seems like strong evidence of this construction.

If the bowl of the shield is at all flexible then a rim alone cannot counter the force unless the shield is deeply and uniformly domed. The shallow domes with "shoulders" we see in even many of the deeper aspis images have two zones of weakness. The rim counters part of this(see A below), but with the rim unable to flex, the strain is transferred to the shoulder section. The fact that the rope and later the metal strip is usually positioned right where a truss should be is what first tipped me off (B). These diagrams are a bit different than those on my blog, not to confuse anyone.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Replying to Paullus:
Haha,you won't let a word pass like that,will you? :lol:
OK,lets see them one by one.
The number of rings are indeed different,as we said above. I mean that there are always more than just two,to hold a single strap for example.
I didn't think you said it is obvious the reason there were many fittings,but if someone accepts that the rope was used only for carrying the shield,then it isn't hard to think why there are many rings.
I can't post an example of a vase but if you read one of my posts above,I have already said a drwaing of such a vase is shown on Osprey Greek Hoplite p.51 . It is Antimachos holding a helmet and carrying a shield in a peculiar way. His chlamis shows that his arm is not passed through the porpax. Note the two antilabes.
"Characteristic shape" I mean just that, slack and hanging and also going around the porpax and not only over or under it.
Khaire
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

To revive this thread for a moment, I had an exceptionally morbid thought about the second handgrip seen on some portrayals of aspises. As Momma always said "come back with your shield or on it!" but how did they carry you on it? What if the second grip was specifically to allow two warriors to carry an aspis between them?

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Wow! Imagine going buy a shield and you have to chose between a plain one and one that has a second grip to allow your comrades carry you dead on it! And imagine if you had to pay extra for this!
Nice thought though :lol:
Khaire
Giannis

[Kineas]

Paul--I kind'a like your thought--first, for itself, and second, for the number of times I find that recreated military equipment is built to do some related but not obvious function.

[PMBardunias]

Thanks guys. No way to prove it of course. Unless perhaps we stumble upon a vase image that shows this usage. Perhaps being fore-armed with knowledge of the possibility we might. I have a somewhat silly notion about the purpose of the tassels inside the aspis as well, but I won't know if it can work until I experiment, so I'll reserve it and avoid ridicule

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Ehmmm,this is a bit unfair,don't you think? Come on now,tell your theory,I won't lough I promise!

[PMBardunias]

Alright, since you asked you can only mock, not ridicule :wink: When I was a kid I had one of those metal shield-shaped sleds. Since we were all wearing gloves, nothing was funnier that watching somebody try to pick up the sled if it fell on a flat surface face-up- like trying to pick up a coin off the floor its hard to grab an edge.

I wondered if the same problem could occur with an aspis that fell flat on its rim. Pretty embarrasing to have to dig your fingers into the soil to get a grip on the rim. Now those tassels are spaced around the rim in such a fashion that no matter how the shield fell it should end up with the rim resting on one of the tassels. Thus you'd never have a problem picking it up.

Beyond the obvious question of would such a feature so commonly seen really be for such a comical purpose, it also requires that they hang long enough to overlap the rim. In art they usually do not. Plus, I'm not even sure it would work reliably in practice.