Continuity of Greek shields

[PMBardunias]

It is common to read of three types of shields in use by the Macedonians. The Greek Aspis as usually portrayed in the use of hoplites was a large flattened dome with a pronounced off-set rim. Macedonian sarissaphoroi appear to add two other types of shields: 1) and exceptionally deep, bowl shaped shield that is rimless and can sometimes be quite large, and 2) a smaller, rimless shield that is dish shaped, but not so deep, and around 60 cm in diameter.

Now if you have read me before, you'll know that the purpose of the rim in the aspis is to prevent the collapse of the flattened dome- either through a strike or due to compression of the whole face of the shield (see the attached image- domes on the left, flattened domes on the right). We have an example of an aspis for instance that is about 85 cm in diameter, including a 5.5 cm rim. If we accept for the sake of arguement that I am correct and the rim occurs because of the need to support a shallow dome, then if the shield were not a shallow dome, but a deep dome, this requirement is eliminated. Subtracting the 5.5 cm from the rim on both side of the shield (11cm total) leaves a now dome shaped shield of same bowl size only 74cm in diameter. This shield would be real small for an aspis and I don't think it beyond possibility that it would be within the range of what we would think of as one of the smaller macedonian types (Label A in the attachment). Interestingly, aspises that were more dome shaped with reduced rims may have been present all along, since many images seem to show them (Label B). I had assumed the artist simply skimped on the rim, but I noticed they are usually the more domed shields that are shown this way.

So to summarize, I am saying that smaller deep-domed shields may be the exact equivalent to larger diameter shallow-domed shields. Why the difference? We'd need to know more about their construction to say for sure. If lathing them out of a block, then shallow equals cheaper for instance. Alternatively building domed shields might be cheaper or more easily gotten since they are less technically complex- perfect for Phillip's requirements.

This is where that quote by the tacticians comes in:

"The best shield (aspis) for use in the phalanx is the Macedonian, of bronze, eight palms in diameter, and not too concave" (Asclepiodotus 5.1)

If he is in fact saying it is the best shields which are shallow, he may be relating to us more than we know. Advances in construction might leave us with a shield that is the diameter of the deep domed shield, which was a reduction in size of the shallow domed, but due to better materials can now be flatter too.

One thing to consider is that the rim can be on the inner edge and still serve the same function. This might be what is shown in some aspis depictions lacking rims- it is very hard to be sure. Our chins are a good example of a butress that juts forth from a curve, while the "chins" of the rest of the apes are supported by bone butressing within the curve of the front of the bottom jaw.

I'll treat this in greater length on my blog:

http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/

[Matthew Amt]

Now if you have read me before, you'll know that the purpose of the rim in the aspis is to prevent the collapse of the flattened dome-

A dome in architecture is supported around its base, and generally bears no more extra pressure (besides its own weight) than air and snow. Failure comes from removal of a significant part of the support (knocking down a few pillars), or by dropping an airplane or bomb on it. It is not designed to withstand such things.

A Greek shield is supported at its center and one point near the edge. It is meant to be beaten on as a dome is not. There is no ordinarily-encountered force which will cause it to fail at the edge as you illustrate, short of running over it with a cart. Blows from weapons may certainly damage it, and we read accounts of shields "crushed" in battle but without seeing those shields it seems silly to compare them to buildings. The kind of force required to squash an aspis as you show would blow the user backwards right out the back of the phalanx.

Advances in construction might leave us with a shield that is the diameter of the deep domed shield, which was a reduction in size of the shallow domed, but due to better materials can now be flatter too.

What advances? What better materials?? The Late Archaic aspis was apparently wood covered with hide or thin bronze. The Hellenistic shield was apparently wood covered with hide or thin bronze. Or am I missing something?

Really, Paul, you are WAY over-engineering this. Different sizes had different advantages and disadvantages to the ancients, as did the presence or lack of a rim, without ever getting to the question of molecular structural differences.

Khairete,

Matthew

[Paullus Scipio]

I would have to agree with Matthew here, as Paul already knows from personal discussion. Much of this theory regarding Greek-style shields ( over elaborate as Matthew suggests) is related to what I consider to be the equally extreme form of 'Othismos' which Paul advocates, citing 'crowd mechanics' theories and pressures. The trouble with this is that 'crowd mechanics/forces' always occur in confined spaces like stadiums etc where the crowd comes up against some solid object such as walls or is funneled through a bottle-neck such as an emergency exit in a fire.Conditions on a battlefield are nothing like this and 'crowd mechanics theory' with it's massive pressures does not, in my view apply generally beyond the extent we read about of bodies being kept upright by the closeness of the press in battle, or the possible crushing/suffocation which may have ( we are not told) taken place at Cannae, and even these examples are extremely rare......certainly not the massive pressures causing mass death that 'crowd mechanics' deals with, as a deliberate part of 'Hoplite Warfare', but one should go no further here on this forum.....the 'Othismos debate' has raged for years, and is no closer to resolution..... and Pauls' theories are at an extreme end of the spectrum.

Whilst I would agree the 'aspis' was made the way it was for structural strength reasons, I do not believe it was designed so that the Hoplite would not be suffocated/crushed whilst deliberately generating the massive crushing forces of 'crowd mechanics......not least because a reading of the ancient accounts/sources does not seem to support Paul's ideas as a deliberate tactic ( debateable, I know,( sigh!). ( ? ?

[PMBardunias]

A dome in architecture is supported around its base, and generally bears no more extra pressure (besides its own weight) than air and snow.

Domes and arches, which are simply slices of domes, are a common solution to weight bearing both in nature and architecture- far beyond supporting their own weight. The whole point of a dome is that is does not need extensive support around its base. A convex shape is commonly found in armor and shields for this reason. The force of any blow is transferred laterally- just as the weight of the center of the span of a bridge is transferred laterally along the arched supports.

A Greek shield is supported at its center and one point near the edge.

I don't think so. It was held in the center, but during othismos it rested on the upper chest, front left shoulder and thighs. But that is a specialized use, any convex shield acts to spread force reguardless of where it is held.

It is meant to be beaten on as a dome is not.

Weight bearing is weight bearing, the differences are largely irrelevent. An arch-shaped bridge that supports a turck moving over the span is directly comparable to a blow on the face of a shield.

There is no ordinarily-encountered force which will cause it to fail at the edge as you illustrate, short of running over it with a cart.

Surely you have seen the common trick where a guy lies down and they drive a car over a board placed on his body? A cart is nothing compared to what could have been generated in othismos. The closest modern experiments were done with very few people pushing, but the forces are impressive:

"Experiments to determine concentrated forces on guardrails due to leaning and pushing have shown that force of 30% to 75% of participant weight can occur. In a US National Bureau of Standards study of guardrails, three persons exerted a leaning force of 792 N (178 lbs.) and 609 N (137 lbs.) pushing. In a similar Australian Building Technology Centre study, three persons in a combined leaning an pushing posture developed a force of 1370 N (306 lbs.). [10] This study showed that under a simulated "panic", 5 persons were capable of developing a force of 3430 N (766 lbs.)."

Extrapolating from this to an 8 rank vs 8 rank clash could bring forces to bear well over 1,000 lbs. Far worse than being run over by a cart.

Blows from weapons may certainly damage it, and we read accounts of shields "crushed" in battle but without seeing those shields it seems silly to compare them to buildings. The kind of force required to squash an aspis as you show would blow the user backwards right out the back of the phalanx.

Funny you should phrase it that way, because this is exactly what Stephanos says happened when they tried to replicate othismos. In crowd situation people have been people have been lifted clear of the grown and propelled 3 meters or more. but this would not have commonly occurred because the force exerted by one phalanx would have been largely balanced by the force from the other. What occurred was a crushing inward.

What advances? What better materials?? The Late Archaic aspis was apparently wood covered with hide or thin bronze. The Hellenistic shield was apparently wood covered with hide or thin bronze. Or am I missing something?

Well, that is why I a bringing this up, to get people thinking about that very question. For instance the deeply domes shields I have seen all seem to have a bronze face, while it is by no means true that all or even most aspises did. This alone could be a possibility. A tight fitting bronze face on a dome shaped shield is structually the same as a series of bronze packing straps run aound the outer curve of the shields at different heights- much like the way you built your aspis. If you have ever worked with packing straps, you'll know how strong even very thin ones can be.

Really, Paul, you are WAY over-engineering this. Different sizes had different advantages and disadvantages to the ancients, as did the presence or lack of a rim, without ever getting to the question of molecular structural differences.

That is a good topic for discussion. I have never seen a likely functional explanation for the rim of an aspis other than my own. Were the shield meant to fight off Falx-weilding barbarians I might be sympathetic to resistance to chopping blows, but they are not. More problematic is that the steep "shoulders" of the aspis, just inside the rim, would perform this function better anyway.

The trouble with this is that 'crowd mechanics/forces' always occur in confined spaces like stadiums etc where the crowd comes up against some solid object such as walls or is funneled through a bottle-neck such as an emergency exit in a fire.Conditions on a battlefield are nothing like this

This is due to a misunderstanding on your part of the physics involved. Simply put, a mass of men pushing against another mass of men is exactly equivalent to a mass of men pushing against a wall. Its a matter of equal and opposite force being applied. If niether the wall nor the mass of men is being pushed backward, then both of them are pushing back on the mass of men in question with exactly the same force. There are crowd incidents where deaths have occured over 30 feet from the nearest wall. This is the result of groups pushing against groups. The walls only serve to set up the situation where panicking people push against one another. Obviously these people are not trying to kill each other and only do this by accident. Hoplites were, or more importantly attempting to break an enemies ranks, and did this on purpose.

[Matthew Amt]

Domes and arches, which are simply slices of domes, are a common solution to weight bearing both in nature and architecture- far beyond supporting their own weight. The whole point of a dome is that is does not need extensive support around its base.

Domes and arches started to be used because larger areas could be spanned with smaller building components. Instead of using a 10-foot timber or monolithic stone to span a less-than-ten-foot space, a much larger space could be spanned with very small bricks or building stones. The goal is a larger open space with fewer supports needed.

A convex shape is commonly found in armor and shields for this reason.

No, *not* for that reason! Armor and shields are curved because the body is curved! The planks of a shield span the entire width or length, so its shape has very little to do with some architectural load-bearing capacity. Plus, curved surfaces help resist weapons penetration by making a glancing surface, and by effectively increasing the thickness of the shield--any weapon not hitting at a right angle has more material to penetrate.

A Greek shield is supported at its center and one point near the edge.

I don't think so. It was held in the center, but during othismos it rested on the upper chest, front left shoulder and thighs.

It CAN rest on the left shoulder, but that is support INside the rim, just the wrong point according as I see your diagram. It cannot rest against the chest and thighs unless you are squashed completely flat against it, in which case you aren't pushing any more. I would love to see any ancient depiction of a hoplite in such a pose.

Weight bearing is weight bearing, the differences are largely irrelevent. An arch-shaped bridge that supports a turck moving over the span is directly comparable to a blow on the face of a shield.

A bridge is built to stay completely still and unmoving while thousands or millions of vehicles and other things pass over it. A shield is built to keep a pointy thing from the flesh of its user, and it moves very freely, deflecting as much as blocking. A spear thrust is not the same as the weight of a structure or vehicle, no matter how a physicist wants to draw vectors and forces on a blackboard.

Extrapolating from this to an 8 rank vs 8 rank clash could bring forces to bear well over 1,000 lbs. Far worse than being run over by a cart.

If that's the definition of othismos, then I have to join the "against" party. There's no way the members of any military system would voluntarily subject themselves to such a crush, with the assumption that the entire front rank--or more--would be squashed to death. Even banzai charges make more sense...

I have never seen a likely functional explanation for the rim of an aspis other than my own.

Huh? It sticks up to protect your face, while the bowl is resting on the shoulder! It's the perfect size, shape, and placement for that. If it were angled more sharply, it would bump your head, and be more likely to deflect spearpoints into your face. The aspis was designed to protect from spears, javelins, swords, and sling bullets. It turned out to do pretty well against arrows (though some guys added the curtain on the bottom), axes, rocks, baked potatoes, and other things. It's wood with a covering, just like any number of shields from other cultures through history, including some sorts of much simpler shields which had to withstand much more devastating weapons.

Why is this keeping you awake at night?

Matthew

[PMBardunias]

Domes and arches started to be used because larger areas could be spanned with smaller building components.

Yes, because they support weight in exactly the manner I describe. They are load bearing structures. Domes did not originate with architects. Domes are found all around us- on top of us in fact since our skulls are domed. Eggs are simply two domes joined at the base. They are this shape not to support their own weight. but to keep from getting crushed!

No, *not* for that reason! Armor and shields are curved because the body is curved!

This speaks ill of flat-chested vikings! All bodies are curved, and yet Not all shields are curved. It is not simply the shape of the body that governs this.

Plus, curved surfaces help resist weapons penetration by making a glancing surface, and by effectively increasing the thickness of the shield--any weapon not hitting at a right angle has more material to penetrate.

Have your read my blog? I cover this in some detail. The "sloped" armor concept is surely one reason why armor would be angled, but not the only. Were it the only, we should see more shields that are acute angles.

It CAN rest on the left shoulder, but that is support INside the rim, just the wrong point according as I see your diagram.

Not inside the rim. The flat of the rim rests right on the chest and the front of the shoulder- the lower rim rests on the front of the thighs. You are standing facing forward, not sideways. The whole concept that hoplites pushed sideways is wrong. It only arose because we see hoplites handing their shields from their shoulders on vases- when not in close combat. You cannot push with multiple ranks in the this manner. With any force from those behind you, you will collapse to my position. Now if you don't believe in the othismos as group pushing, then all well and good. In that case we have no more to argue since we are speaking a different language- one side taking the words of the ancients literally, the other as metaphor. Either could be correct, but people should realize that IF there was a literal othismos, it could not have occurred as currently portrayed.

It cannot rest against the chest and thighs unless you are squashed completely flat against it, in which case you aren't pushing any more. I would love to see any ancient depiction of a hoplite in such a pose.

Exactly. This is the biggest problem I have in getting people to understand what was occurring. "Pushing" is not really what was done. "Leaning" is perhaps a better description. The fact is that a crowd of mutliple ranks simple leaning and shuffling forward will always force back a group of the same size "pushing" in another manner. This is because all of the force from each rank going back is added to the group lean, while ranks pushing do not transfer the force from the rear effectively. No matter how many ranks of men are "pushing" they will still only equal the force of the front few men, while the rest of the force simply dissipates.

Since we have no images of massed close combat or othismos, we will not see an image of this.

A bridge is built to stay completely still and unmoving while thousands or millions of vehicles and other things pass over it. A shield is built to keep a pointy thing from the flesh of its user, and it moves very freely, deflecting as much as blocking. A spear thrust is not the same as the weight of a structure or vehicle, no matter how a physicist wants to draw vectors and forces on a blackboard.

Matt, this is simply untrue. The weight of a truck at a single moment in time on the curve of an arch is exactly the same as the impact of a weapon at the moment of collision. To the arch or dome, all that matters is force X at time T- it does not matter that one is slow and heavy and one is fast and light.

Quote:Extrapolating from this to an 8 rank vs 8 rank clash could bring forces to bear well over 1,000 lbs. Far worse than being run over by a cart.
If that's the definition of othismos, then I have to join the "against" party. There's no way the members of any military system would voluntarily subject themselves to such a crush, with the assumption that the entire front rank--or more--would be squashed to death. Even banzai charges make more sense...

Not squashed to death if they possess the aspis and use it in the manner I describe. Being able to survive a tactic that your foes cannot seems like a recipe for success to me! Within the greeks themselves we would expect a ratcheting effect, where the othismos becomes more and more intense. Not suprisingly this is exactly what we see with the trend toward deeper ranks.

Huh? It sticks up to protect your face, while the bowl is resting on the shoulder!

Holding the shield in this manner derives from the circular arguement that the shield is heavy so it must be rested on the shoulder to support it- when so much of the weight occurs in the thickened section of the curved shoulder of the shield before the rim that rests on the shoulder and not the face of the shield. There are many shields of similar diameter, some much greater, that have single-central grips and do just fine. I find the notion that the rim of the aspis was the equivalent of the shoulder piece of a retarius unlikely at best.

Holding the shield tight on the shoulder in combat is suicidal, as is standing side-on, once inexplicably described by an author as "like a fencer" when the weapon is in the rear hand. To be of any use in spear fencing, the shield has to be moved dynamically. In spear fencing the shield was held up in front of the body, the body in a "natural" combat stance of 3/4 face on- right leg back. Only in the press of othismos did the shield collapse against the body.

Why is this keeping you awake at night?

Because the current depiction of hoplite combat and othismos is obviously wrong when you try to break down the mechanics- sadly no one notices this because both those writing and most of those reading are not well versed in physics and the behavior of crowds. It keeps me up at night because it is the ancient warfare equivent of a scene in a horror movie where you know something is obviously going wrong, but the people on the screen do not. It is frustrating for me because it is very difficult to make the system understandable to fellows like yourself and Paul whose knowledge and opinions I respect. I can tell with both of you that understanding exactly how this could have occurred, when so much of it is counterintuitive to our normal understanding of things like pushing or even moving, is elusive. It surely may not have happened I the way I describe, they may not have pushed in groups in any way after all, but undertsanding that it could have happened in this way, that this scheme should be compared with the old orthodoxy so we can see which is superior is important.

[nikolaos]

Guys,

I see a lot of assertions here.... careful guys

I have difficulty with the dome comparision for a number of reasons. First and foremost we're talking about wood, not stone. and the transmission of force is affected by the compression and expansion of the wood.

Wood failures come from two possible sources:
- delamination of layers of the grain
- Catastrophic breaks in the grain.

And as we don't have an awful lot of evidence for the contruction (carved planks? steam bent planks? bent willow strips? wicker? hide and frame? all of the above?) which makes modelling more difficult.

In either case, whatever the method of construction, a bowl of wood has additional behaviours not well modelled by the arch parallel being employed.

Time to run again, I'll revisit later...

Cole

[nikolaos]

And to follow up...

If the shield is made from wood that has been excavated so that the grain is interrupted on the downslope to the rim, the likely break points are in that downslope. If the wood is planed so that each surface follows a growth ring and steam bent, it will flex like a bow, and bows tend to fail at the anchored point in stress (near the grip).

In the case of an aspis I'd guess that assuming the shield is under pressure outward from the hand and forearm and shoulder, and possibly the knee, you would tend to see failure near the centre.

Of course, this ignores all the other possibilities like hide shields, wicker, willow strips, and what not.

All this said I do buy in to the broad flatter shield being better in a push as it would have more room to deform due to it not having been previously stressed or excavated to change its shape.

There is one more possibility for failure I forgot to list. Wood will fail along a hide glue join as the wood is weaker than the glue, so differential pressure on two planks can snap the wood along the glue joint. So this raises the question of the orientation of planks (assuming planked construction) to avoid this problem.

Have fun!
Cole

[Kineas]

Is this a shield shape debate or an othismos debate?

If the latter, I'd just like a chance to ask Paul B. (whose thoughts on this subject I respect, while,perhaps not agreeing)

Paul, in your othismos idea what is the body of the hoplite doing? Is he standing fore-square to the enemy, with his shield flat against his body while his shoulders are "square on" to the foe? This is the picture I get when you describe your hoplite push.

Do I have this right? And where's his spear? His head? With my aspis, that rim is pressing into my neck and killing me. Am I holding it too high?

Please advise. No mockery here--I want to try this out. Now that we have a bunch fo finsished aspides, we can at least try...

[PMBardunias]

I have difficulty with the dome comparision for a number of reasons. First and foremost we're talking about wood, not stone. and the transmission of force is affected by the compression and expansion of the wood.

The material is irrelevent for the general principle involved, but physical properties will change the manner of failure. The type of shallow dome failure we all have experienced most often is the "pop" top on jars of food. The low pressure inside the jar before opening it is keeping a shallow metal dome in the failed state- poped inside out. When you release the lid, the vacuum effect is lost and the springy steel assumes its original very shallow domed shape with a pop. The second most common is watching an umbrella go inside out in the wind. With both of these the material is flexible enough to survive catastrophic failure, wood or stone would not.

In the case of an aspis I'd guess that assuming the shield is under pressure outward from the hand and forearm and shoulder, and possibly the knee, you would tend to see failure near the centre.

All I can say is try this. Then get a friend to push on your back. If you don't dislocate your shoulder you will see that your body collapses under pressure into the position I describe.

Paul, in your othismos idea what is the body of the hoplite doing? Is he standing fore-square to the enemy, with his shield flat against his body while his shoulders are "square on" to the foe? This is the picture I get when you describe your hoplite push.

In short, yes. But remember that you do not assume this position until the press builds. prior to that you are in what I think most people assume was the combat posture with the shield held up and away from the body, perhaps up high to cover your lower face, perhaps witht he bottom edge kicked up. Trying to fight a man who is not pressed aganst you with the shield in the othismos position will not work out well for you.

Do I have this right? And where's his spear? His head? With my aspis, that rim is pressing into my neck and killing me. Am I holding it too high?

In the confines of the press of othismos, the posture is different, the body is upright because it has no choice but to be. The shield arm lowers and moves a bit to the left. The rim now runs in an arc from your mid left thigh to upper right thigh, then back across your upper right pectoral muscle, left collar bone, and left shoulder. This should be a very natural position if the aspis is fit to your arm size (the porpax slightly right of center so that the elbow is in the center). A bit too high and you take it in the chin and groin :wink: Johnny did a very good illustration of this, though the shield should be a bit lower so that the rim rests on the shoulder more:

http://community.imaginefx.com/fxpose/j ... 47476.aspx

As you see in the image, the right arm is raised and can strike quite effectively over the rim. His head is right over the shield so that his beard is dripping sweat on the face just as Euripides describes. The middle head of this 3 headed giant seems to be a close approximation (see attached, and no the artist is not intending to show this pose. It is an accident of the 3 bodies juxtaposed, but useful.). He should be looking at you and the shield should be a bit more around in front of him and a little lower. As you move it right across the body, you have to lower it to keep the rim on the same spot of the the upper chest.

You can see why you would not choose this position if spear fencing at arms length, but in the press most of the vulnerable areas are lost as targets to your foe anyway.
If you cannot get into this position, it makes me think your porpax might be too far to the left- the widest diameter of the shield should be over the elbow, not the porpax, and it should be very uncomfortable to get this under your chin. Send me a pic of the front of you doing this and I'll give my 2 cents worth.

**EDIT** I just jumped over to that thread that shows your shields. As I feared the porpax is in the geometric center. This was a topic of another thread once and perhaps may need more discussion, but I think evidence shows that the porpax was off-set to the right so that the elbow was in the geometric center of the shield. This could be the problem. And you may have just answered why it is offset!

[Paullus Scipio]

Cole/Nikolaos wrote:

Of course, this ignores all the other possibilities like hide shields, wicker, willow strips, and what not

All the surviving shields/fragments are wood......
In the Thesis of Dr P.H. Blyth, Dr G. Jeronomides examined the so-called 'Vatican Aspis' - actually an Etruscan early 5 c BC example,(contemporary with the Persian Wars) which is fairly intact and reported as follows:-
A report by Dr Jeronomides on the Vatican Aspis/shield gives dimensions as follows:

Shield made of Poplar planks, glued together and then turned on a horizontal lathe. ( Pliny HN 16.2 recommends Poplar or Willow or other trees that grow in water, because their wood swells and closes when pierced).The grain direction of each 'plank', 20-30 cm wide, is not the same. Interestingly, the grain is horizontal, parallel with the arm, on the plank covering the forearm.

Diameter: slightly non-circular 82-81.5 cm ( probably due to play in the bearings of the lathe)

Thickness: 2.0-2.5 cm/0.75-1 inch; estimate of original thickness in centre, tapering through 1.9 cm on the 'shoulder' to 1.1 cm where bowl meets rim.

Width of rim: 3.8 cm ( measured on front/face of shield) - others were 5-5.5 cm, on a shield bronze 84-87 cm(33.5-34.8 inches) diameter
Thickness of bronze cover: less than 0.5 mm( 22-24 gauge)( and probably around 0.1-0.2mm on average - less than 30 gauge)The bronze cover was smooth, and glued on with pitch.The bronze was curved over the rim to a depth of 4 cm and done without leaving a trace of cuts, wrinkles or overlaps. Modern bronzesmiths are apparently baffled as to how this was achieved.
Earlier, archaic aspides frequently had only a rim of bronze facing, with a bronze motif/cutout/blazon on the front, and porpakes/arm-loops were often elaborate. By the Persian Wars, full-faced bronze seems to have been the most common with a presumably painted design.....and porpakes seem to have become much plainer.....

A rough calculation thus shows the wood core should weigh around 4 kg(9 lbs),...this seems pretty correct as the Manning Imperial aspis wooden core with fittings weighs 4.3 kg .....and the bronze sheath about 0.6 kg(1.35 lbs) (based on 0.1-0,2 mm);
2 kg max. (4.5.lbs) based on 0.5mm

Thickness of leather lining 0.25 mm ( the interior and inside of rim both, the joint between bowl leather and rim leather was sewn).....

....this implies an overall weight with fittings lining etc of around 6-7 kg (13.2 - 15.5 lbs) aprox....

[see attached diagram.]

Giannis posted some excellent photos on another thread from which it is apparent there are not one, but two Vatican shields! I have seen no reports on the second shield.......

During the later 5th C BC these shields seem to have got lighter and were re-inforced on the interior, at around the 'shoulder' level with a bronze 'wheel', or sometimes just 'ring'.....

A later aspis from the siege of Olynthus( by Philip of Macedon in 348 BC was described as follows by G.E. Mylonas (A.J.A. 43 (1939) at P.57):
"the interior of the shield was made of crossing pieces of wood (ptuches) probably covered in hide. Within the broad rim were found pieces/strips of charred wood 6 cm wide, 5 small bronze rings, one with a hook attached, 2 bronze nails...."

This suggests a laminated construction very similar to the scutum ( such as the Dura Europos shield).

As can be seen the Porpax of this shield is not offset, and the majority of illustrations seem to have the porpax in the centre, contra Paul B.

[PMBardunias]

As can be seen the Porpax of this shield is not offset, and the majority of illustrations seem to have the porpax in the centre, contra Paul B.

I can't take credit for that one. Giannis and Gio showed that it was offset in one of the shields in a greek museum. Vase images seem to show this was well. Orignally I was taken aback by the idea for I thought my idea required a central porpax- where the shield's weight is balanced at the porpax. But it can be moved a bit either way and not disrupt anything. As I said above it may actually make holding a larger shield in the right position possible if moved left. So now I come down on them most likely being not dead center.

Here are some examples (attached), but I don't recall which shields they are.

Thickness: 2.0-2.5 cm/0.75-1 inch; estimate of original thickness in centre, tapering through 1.9 cm on the 'shoulder' to 1.1 cm where bowl meets rim.

The image you posted shows exactly the opposite taper- thinnest in the middle and thickest at the shoulder. I do not know which is in err, though the thinness of the center has been commented on by other authors.

[Kineas]

You can see why you would not choose this position if spear fencing at arms length, but in the press most of the vulnerable areas are lost as targets to your foe anyway.
If you cannot get into this position, it makes me think your porpax might be too far to the left- the widest diameter of the shield should be over the elbow, not the porpax, and it should be very uncomfortable to get this under your chin. Send me a pic of the front of you doing this and I'll give my 2 cents worth.

**EDIT** I just jumped over to that thread that shows your shields. As I feared the porpax is in the geometric center. This was a topic of another thread once and perhaps may need more discussion, but I think evidence shows that the porpax was off-set to the right so that the elbow was in the geometric center of the shield. This could be the problem. And you may have just answered why it is offset!

Paul, with all due respect, off-center porpakes occur in less than 15% of art. lest we be confuced by art, they also occur in about 15% of culpture to which I have access. Let me be clear--I'm an amateur historian without immediate access to the BM or Greece... although I'll fix that soo. but I do have viratually everyone of Boardman's books and the entire "Greek Sculpture int he Archaic" series and while I see some, I don't see enought o warrant your theory.

I am coming to agree with Giannis that the occasional off-center porpax is there because the man had too short a forearm to support the size of shield he needed to fight. But I have ot say, as the guy in the debate who has fought with an aspis (!) that an off center porpax would be quite painful on the arm--think of the torque.

I'll note without pressing the issue that Boarden and other art-hirtoans suggest that the off center porpax is an artifact of spatial awareness. Myself, i think that that way madness lies--once we start playing that game, there is no "fact" and everything is supposition.

But Paul, you can't be suggesting that all porpakes were off center. You can't. That would be contrary to the evidence, which is pretty widespread, and also contrary to logic. Just by way of being inclusive, I counted porpakes that were on Archaic vases in Boardman. There's two off center for more than forty that are EXACTLY on center. I'd like to note that if an archaic red figure artist wanted to show and off center porpax, he would have--and could. And very occasionally did...

What about the Basel shield? How come that's never mentioned?

I am not anti-othismos. But The off-center porpax is, as Giannis says, the result of a handful of short-forearmed men. It makes sense, for instance, that Athena have one, as she is a tall woman... tee hee.

All this is BTW, because my problem is with the moment of othismos. With my legs planted and my body properly aligned, I can push five--probably all eight--of your "square on" hoplites anywhere I want. Try it as a tug-of-war, Paul--no aspides required. Have ten strong men adopt the stance you've outlined on a rope. Then invite one even modestly strong man to pull. Since the ten "othismos" guys can't exert any force at all because of the alignment of their hips, the one will pull them all over.

[Kineas]

And those photos as evidence--look at the upper one--it is entirely up to the reconstructionist whether that was "off-center" or not, right? Be fair. No evidence there.

Even the lower shield bears investigation. Note that the porpax strap is bent--completely deformed. Now straighten it in your mind--see what happened? I agree that it MIGHT have been off center. Also might have been dead center. I'd have to look at it much closer up. But I'd be suspicious of a curved porpax brace, and you should be too.

[PMBardunias]

I am coming to agree with Giannis that the occasional off-center porpax is there because the man had too short a forearm to support the size of shield he needed to fight. But I have ot say, as the guy in the debate who has fought with an aspis (!) that an off center porpax would be quite painful on the arm--think of the torque.

I think this is correct, but the onus is reversed. Not short armed men, but men who want larger shields. This could be an individual choice, or it could be that the shield dimensions changed over time, requiring a movement of the porpax. Since your shield seemed to be too broad to hold in the position I suggested I brought up the off set porpax. Certainly not all were off-set, as I said above I would have expected none to be. As it stands were I constructing a shield I would place it off-set and thus be free to make a larger shield.

And those photos as evidence--look at the upper one--it is entirely up to the reconstructionist whether that was "off-center" or not, right? Be fair. No evidence there.

Actually this one is the better evidence. The tell is the joint of the porpax strap on the bottom with the reinforcing band. The curve of the band at the joint, seemingly so corroded as to not have been reconstructed, shows that the band does not bisect the ring, and one side is higher than the other. You will see that the inner edge is roughly along the dead center line. The other one is confusing for a variety of reasons and may in fact be upside down, but it does not seem to be inthe middle.

By the way, as the above shows, we are not talking about very far off center. Were I writing more clearly (We just had a baby on Sunday so its a bit hectic. As Pericles said to the Athenians: never start a thread when your wife is close to term) I would have made clear that by "off-set" I mean just like the shield above- one edge of the porpax on the center line. This puts the elbow close to center, while a "centered" porpax, due to its width puts the elbow off by quite a bit. If the majority of the weight is bourne by the upper forearm, the inside edge of the porpax, then being offset may not alter the balance much at all. In fact a "centered" porpax may be balanced too far the other way due to its width. You can test this by just clipping weights onto the left rim of your aspis to change the point of balance since the diameter is irrelevent for such comparisons.

The reason this is important though is that we must ask why off-set the porpax? Since the best balance would be perfect center,there must be a compelling reason. I do not believe there is anything special about the distance of the hand to the rim. Why would an inch closer or farther make a difference? I can think of two reasons to off-set the porpax: 1) The rim has to rest in the position I described above, so the porpax must be moved to facilitate this. 2) The torque can actually make raising the shield easier. The added weight off to the left want to fall, pivoting the shield on your elbow. I doubt that rises to a driving force though becuas the weight differential is minimal.

All this is BTW, because my problem is with the moment of othismos. With my legs planted and my body properly aligned, I can push five--probably all eight--of your "square on" hoplites anywhere I want. Try it as a tug-of-war, Paul--no aspides required. Have ten strong men adopt the stance you've outlined on a rope. Then invite one even modestly strong man to pull. Since the ten "othismos" guys can't exert any force at all because of the alignment of their hips, the one will pull them all over.

This is good, since it is not a problem. The key in understanding why is that your line of standing men can NEVER face a single man or even a small group of men. Othismos can ONLY occur against men who are standing up just like your men. The crowd conditions precede othismos as a precondition. Anything less is coordinated pushing, but not othismos- yes I realize have defined othismos, but since no one else has satisfactorily I felt free too. If one side unpacks and move backwards at anything faster than a shuffle, the other doesn't stand upright like bowling pins, but moves forward in a less packed formation. But this means they are winning and thier foes are moving back. If the foes decide to make a second stand, then the whole packing into a crowd starts over.

There is never a moment where men are standing against more active foes. Just as there is never a time that you can make a stand, immobile and pushing against them, and hold your ground against them without them packing back up on you and pushing you back.

Again this is why othismos is so hard to understand- it needs to be seen to be understood. Hitting it with single men is cheating, but can be fun. If they are packed and transferring force perfectly, you should be able to knock the rear ranker off his feet by hitting the front. You've probably seen that toy with the hanging silver balls that do this on office desks or someplace.