Some Aspis Revisionism

[Paullus Scipio]

FWIW, the weight of the Vatican Etruscan aspis illustrated by Connolly can be calculated, knowing the thickness of bronze and the density of the Poplar wood it was constructed from. This gives a maximum of c. 8kg, and a probable weight around 7 kg when new - the uncertainty being due to probable shrinkage of the wood over time. This shield, judging by its style and construction method ( turned from solid wood) would have made it "heavier" rather than "lighter". Equally corrosion means the bronze layer's original thickness can only be estimated ( at "less than 1 mm").

One ventures to suggest that the Olympia examples have suffered from corrosion too, and that the original may have been slightly thicker ?

[Paullus Scipio]

Kineas wrote:

That said, I also agree with Stephanos--I don't think bronze faced shields were common. I think that like the spoils at Olympia, this is the best of 280 shields or more from Pylos, right? The very best!

...whilst we can never know the proportion of fully bronze faced to bronze rimmed shields, it is worth noting that the bronze 'blazons' recovered at Olympia are 7-6 C BC and seem to have gone out of fashion by the Persian Wars ( caveat: we probably don't have enough samples to be sure).

I wouldn't call fully bronze face shields uncommon - again the impression is that these became more popular as time went by - for example Xenophon famously tells us that Lycurgus dictated ( i.e. an old custom) that Spartan shields were bronze faced (L.P.11.3), because they "were soon polished and tarnished slowly", and of course Spartan customs were widely imitated elswhere. Certainly among surviving Aspides, a number have smooth bronze faces e.g. the Vatican Etruscan one, the Macedonian one from the so-called Philip tomb....on the other hand, one would expect that the more expensive ones might survive in greater numbers in tombs, and there can be no doubt that cheaper versions without full bronze facings existed as evidenced by the findings....but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to suggest fittings such as the porpax were leather only.....

Also, that particular 'Sphacteria shield' is unlikely to have been among "the very best" - it had been discarded down a cistern by the 3 C BC,which was then filled in, whilst several/many other examples had been kept and were still on display when Pausanias saw them c. 170 AD

[Paullus Scipio]

Kineas wrote:

but if you look carefully and apply photometrics (I shot it at a 30 degree angle or so), you'll see it is WAY off center.

.....hhhh....mmm, ever the skeptic here, I am having trouble visualising this photo as being shot from an angle of 30 degrees - maybe I've misunderstood, but the shield appears to be completely circular in the picture, and against a flat background.....if it was shot from a 30 degree angle, shouldn't it appear distinctly elliptical ? Obviously, I am missing something..........?

Stefanos' experiments would appear to suggest that an off-centre porpax is not overly practical, and as you rightly say, artist error, and mishandling of perspective and angle can easily account for any impression of 'off-centre' porpaxes........so, in your shoes, I wouldn't be "eating my hat" just yet ! :wink:

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

People,that small shield porpax is off center! Indeed it was Christian that brought it to my attention while rushing into the museum (i had to catch up the bus for Thessaloniki). I agree it doesn't mean that the artist didn't make a mistake in placing the shield on that hand(in most statuettes the shield as missing,so i guess they were not made one piece,even though this one has the arm attached). My problem with this is that it is off center the opposite way! All porpakes are off center up and right. this one is down and left! I can't calculate the difference of the angle the photo was taken,but indeed it seemed off center up close. Measure it with a ruler. In any case,there is most strong evidence for the off centered porpax than this one.
I am indeed a believer of the off centered porpax,and I'm keen to try it. Stefane,i don't know why you found it unsuccessfull in your experiments?
I believe both types existed,but i suspect most of them were off.
Christian,i hadn't understood that you thought all the face was repoused! I wouldn't agree. I think i can see a difference between the rim and the fragments of the face. And I can certainly provide several photos of all covered smoothe faced shields,that have only the rim decorated. And all decorations are the same dotts/waves style.
Something else I'd like to bring to your attention is that this shield also had holes/rivets around the rim,in the joint of the rim and the bowl. I can provide at least one more such example. The vatican shield had only seven rivets around the inner part of the rim. Connolly says the rivets have not been found,only the holes. It is interesting that in none of those shields the tiny rivets have survived.But this is the case with most helmets,too.
In this photo,of the same items that Christian posted, i hope you can estimate that the sheet is very thin,much less than a mm,perhaps less that half a mm. The thickness could not have been much different in antiquity,not in these specific fragments,since there is no much corrossion and the decoration is perfectly preserved.

Khairete
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

Giannis wrote:

And all decorations are the same dotts/waves style.

....this type of pattern is usually referred to in English as "guilloche" - paradoxically from the french word for 'braiding' - and as Giannis says, appears to be almost universal on the rim, though as can be seen in the photo, in a variety of styles. It has been suggested that this tradition indicates 'wickerwork' origins for the aspis as Paul B. referred to ( though I am not the originator of this idea).

[PMBardunias]

The "thin" width of the rim, say 0.25-0.5mm, corresponds quite well with the thickness of modern metal packing straps and should indicate the function. With a tensile strength of 50,000-70,000 psi the bronze rim would greatly aid in keeping the rim from expanding outward and splitting when the face of the shield it hit. For this function it can be quite thin, while to defend from penetration or protect the rim from chopping attacks it cannot.

[hoplite14gr]

Tend to agree that fewer "non full metal cover" shields survived in contrast to the larger number of metal covers that survived.

Our "central-diameter" porpax.
http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t178 ... 0_2563.jpg (initial issue)
http://s254.photobucket.com/albums/hh84 ... 010026.jpg

We found our that "centre set porpax" is better at synnaspismos

One shield was set with the porpax "leaning to left" but all of us had issues with it when we held it ane were "the 2nd hoplite from the right" (meaningto the left of our king who always gets the rightmost position in the phalanx). So we re position ed the porpax as the others.


Kind regards

[PMBardunias]

We found our that "centre set porpax" is better at synnaspismos

I assume you overlapped left over right? As you know I think the other way was proper. I wonder if it works any better that way. If you try it, make sure that your bodies are square to the front withthe aspis tight to your chest for right over left overlap. I does not work as well if you take the sideways stance often used with left over right overlap.

[Kineas]

Paul--Sorry to argue--that's a nice photo, but could you post a single piece of contemporary art to justify it?

warriors fought side on, not square. Or--all period artists lied.

I note these reenactors have incorrect and nearly flat shields, and other anachronisms that encourage an incorrect manner of holding the aspis and the dory--and their aluminum shields don't need to have any weight supported. And so on...

Sorry--that photo gets my goat.

[PMBardunias]

Paul--Sorry to argue--that's a nice photo, but could you post a single piece of contemporary art to justify it?

yes, many in fact. See below

warriors fought side on, not square. Or--all period artists lied.

The short answer is yes they did, but the "lie" is called art. They depicted a scene according to artistic rules and conventions that you or I do not fully understand. Take a look at the two hoplite images facing each other below. The one on the right is squared to the front, while the one on the left is so skewed the other way he is almsot facing backward. We must ask which of these images is more likely to be influenced by artistic convention. To me it is the one where the dude is showing off his abs on the left, for you would have to agree that fighting in that stance is rediculous.

When this topis has come up before I usually see a flood of images posted that purport to show left over right overlap, but none do. the fact that weapons can be seen emerging between supposedly overlapped shields means that what is being depicted is men advancing with their shield rims towards the enemy as in the photo marked "A" below. Surely they did not fight in this stance either.

I note these reenactors have incorrect and nearly flat shields, and other anachronisms that encourage an incorrect manner of holding the aspis and the dory--and their aluminum shields don't need to have any weight supported. And so on...

This is less problematic than it seems because the aspis is a flattened dome, not a true dome, and the face was not angled so steeply. Later Macedonian peltae are much rounder.

Note that the key is that the hips are squared forward, though the right leg may be back and the shoulders are as well, allowing for rearing back to strike. This is no side-on fencer-like stance. When the ranks come together and things get tight, then the men are standing straight up and their shields are pressed tight to their chests. if reenactors don't stand square-on and take up most of the room behind the aspis, they tend to jam the aspis too far right into the bicep of the man to their right when they overlap as I propose. This has led some to discount it. My problem with the aspis above is that it is too big for that fellow.

[Kineas]

Paul--I disagree so strongly that all I can do is agree to disagree. I think you need to hold an aspis and a spear and stand in a line and walk forward... Anyone not standing sideways is--well, dead.

They depicted a scene according to artistic rules and conventions that you or I do not fully understand.

Actually, I have a degree that claims I do understand...Classical Art History (minor) and while I'd never claim to understand cultural artifacts like "intention" I think I have an "okay" understanding of translation of posture.

Anyway, this is one of those things it is pointless to debate. I see different things--even in the art you provided, each shot of which, to me, supports my view.

It's okay. this is one of those things that having a BIG reenactment--like Marathon--should work towards solving. And I may be wrong--

but I don't think so! ) )

[PMBardunias]

Paul--I disagree so strongly that all I can do is agree to disagree. I think you need to hold an aspis and a spear and stand in a line and walk forward... Anyone not standing sideways is--well, dead.

Perhaps the problem stems from a misunderstanding of what I mean when I say "sideways", for I am baffled if you think those figurines above are anything by square to the foe. Below you will see three images. The first two are egyptian and represent the "oriental" style whose conventions are followed by vase painters in the aptly names orientalizing period. I have not marched to battle in a phalanx, but I have swung a hatchet (first image) and held objects up to an altar (second image and Catholic upbringing) and I can tell you that the posture in each image is sub-optimal and obviously conforms more to style than two the ergonomics of the task. Thus when I see an image of hoplites with their bodies twisted sideways in a mirror of the other images and couple this with a knowledge that stabbing over my head or past my cheek is not the most effective way to use a spear, I feel confident that this image too is a victory of style over substance.

There is the additional problem in that when ranks close tight your neighbor's shield is levered into your sternum and your own arm is likely to get dislocated. With the way I have shown, your shield always protects your body, at worst the left flange of the shield is forced forwards, pressing the shield tighter to you. Since man and shield are a single integral unit, with nothing between them, they can all pack together like tetris pieces and no one dies.

Now that I think about it maybe we are conflating two issues, perhaps you are thinking I mean they "stand straight up" which I think we hung up on before. They do when the ranks get packed, but prior to that they are free to move their bodies as they wish as long as the shield is square to the enemy line and nothing comes between them and their aspis. By doing this the aspis is a place-holder, its width ensures that there is alwas a man's width of room for them along the battle-line. I simply believe that standing as in the images below, advancing in a sideways crab-walk, and stabbing over your head is not conducive to survival. My guess is that you don't either, but misunderstood my definition.

[Kineas]

Paul,
I'm going to leave history behind. The current aspis and sarauter discussions have illustrated to me that all of us--me too--stick to our preconceptions even in the face of new evidence. it's the hiuman condition.

So now I speak only as a fighter.

I've been a several dozen big spear fights--mostly in the SCA. Now I'm doing the same SORT of stuff in Greek kit.

The stance portrayed most commonly in art--leg thrust forward, spear overhead--is EXACTLY the way most one-handed spear fightss set tmeselves att he moment of iompact between two sheidl walls. You don't evn have to march in step--every man (and woman) will thrust the shiel dfoot out, all together.

Further, the spear has to be overhead and thrust down, if fighting men with an aspis. Again, I can only say that you have to try it to get it. And the closer packed you are, fron to tback, the BETTER the overhad stance gets, because your spear cannot be trapped against or under your aspis.

Further, the more frontal you orient your body, the worse your balance.

Finally, the aspis is best used 1/3 to 2/3s on to the opponent--more edge on than fron on, in may cases. You parry with the edge--you can thrust with it too, and use the strength of the porpax desgn to get it back on your shoulder.

If the aspis is built too heavy--16 kilos or so--this doesn't seem possible. But at 8 kilos, you can use the aspis actively, and thrust with it, push with the edge, and keep room to fight. One it is "flat on" to the enemy, you make it possible for your oppionent to knocjk you flat with a blow to the surface--something non-fighters rarely think about, but a real problem in spear and shield fighting, as every one of our beginners learns!

Anyway, more later--or perhaps we should take this off line.

[hoplite14gr]

Paul, we perform synaspismos with the left hoplite's shield ovelapin the she shild of the hoplite to his right.
Reason: some hoplites (my self included)had a nasty blow from the shield rim to the elbow. The result is pain, scream, curse (in that order!) So we insist on left shiled ovelaping right shield.

Usually new hoplites who are quick to lock shileds fumble and get "left-under right". Our new recruits usully to that until properly drilled.

I belive that city stated with not so well trained hoplites had the same problem.
The accidents that we have during our drill could have been catastrofic in real battle.
I am almost convinced that the artists replicate the mistake.
Imagine a gpoup of troops executing an order in "a wrong way" and artist who know not of army depicts them at that moment. One eaxmple is Lady Buttler's "Charge of the Scotch Grays".

The last 2 hoplites at the bottom of the image show one gue while stiking and another resting the spear on the shiled rim.
I conclude that from our drill. We use both positios.

When advancing against an enemy phallanx you advance "sideways" Please see our video.
We still working on advansing jogging as the Athenians did in Marathon vs archers.

Kind regards

[PMBardunias]

The stance portrayed most commonly in art--leg thrust forward, spear overhead--is EXACTLY the way most one-handed spear fightss set tmeselves att he moment of iompact between two sheidl walls.

You will need to show me a picture of this for me to believe you fight this way- thrusting across your body and wasting a length of shaft equal to your width between the shoulders while also not gaining any of the torque from twisting your shoulders into a FRONTAL square on position. A proper torquing stab can only be done if you are rearing back from a position with your hips and shoulders squared to the foe. Standing side-on, like a fencer will not allow you to stab effectively, you will always lose reach and power and you will have to stab around your own head. I really think you misundertand me and do not actually stand side on. I think you are describing the same thing I am, but thinking of what the men look like when they are rearing back, twisting their shoulders and to a less extent their hips.

Further, the spear has to be overhead and thrust down, if fighting men with an aspis. Again, I can only say that you have to try it to get it. And the closer packed you are, fron to tback, the BETTER the overhad stance gets, because your spear cannot be trapped against or under your aspis.

Not sure where that comes from because you will not find a bigger proponent of the overhand thrust than I. I think they never used underhand until one side gave way and the other persued.

Further, the more frontal you orient your body, the worse your balance.

Hips and shoulders squared forward, left leg forward, right leg back is a solid as any stance you'll find.

Finally, the aspis is best used 1/3 to 2/3s on to the opponent--more edge on than fron on, in may cases. You parry with the edge--you can thrust with it too, and use the strength of the porpax desgn to get it back on your shoulder.

I have my doubts about this usage in mass combat since it negates the "Wall" effect and makes synaspismos senseless, but it is actually the only thing consistent will all of the images we see and if you can prove that it works in large groups I'd surely consider it.

One it is "flat on" to the enemy, you make it possible for your oppionent to knock you flat with a blow to the surface--something non-fighters rarely think about, but a real problem in spear and shield fighting, as every one of our beginners learns!

Not as easy as it sounds since your shield will be overlapped by another at that point and you will be supported by a man behind you in any case. At some point this devolves into an arguement about spacing, because you can hypothesize all sorts of combat actions for men with a 6' or even 3' spacing that cannot be carried out in synaspismos. I can only caution that I have seen too many reenactors who analyze mass combat fall into the trap of focusing on the combat and forgetting the mass. Where I sin it is in the other direction. Hopefully together a true picture can emerge.