Late Roman Shield Personalization

[aitor iriarte]

Hi Franklin! Vague? Christian and I were kidding
We were talking about Holger Ratsdorf.
His webpage is:[url:32r71s01]http://www.hr-replikate.de/englisch/index.html[/url]
And a dished oval shield recosntructed by him:
[url:32r71s01]http://www.hr-replikate.de/produkte/bilder/schild01.jpg[/url]

Ask him about how should be constructed a planked shield and he will answer you: 'Oh you just need to order one from me!' :wink:

Aitor

[Franklin]

Aha, my apologies. Well then it looks like we've got a challenge on our hands. I love a good mystery!

The ones on Holger's site claim to be faced on the front with rawhide and on the back with linen. Is this based on a certain find or just his conjecture?

At the very least, we need to find out approximate dimensions of the planks. Holger may not be willing to talk, but as you say there's nothing stopping us from researching traditional coopering techniques.

But first of all, are we SURE that later dished ovals were planked? What sources are we basing this on? For that matter, how many extant examples of ovals do we have from the WHOLE of the Roman period? Which brings to mind another question, were earlier ovals planked as well or were they laminated like their rectangular counterparts?

And finally, Aitor, (sorry to question you) I understand your theory that all modern finds have been flattened out by pressure from the earth or from peat bogs, but isn't it a LITTLE troublesome to assert that most/all rounds were dished when we don't have a single surviving example? Are we just basing this on artistic evidence?

[aitor iriarte]

Hi Franklin,
No problem about the planks. We have for the IIIrd century the Dura shields, then the Germanic Thorsberg and Illerup shields; finally, the VIth century Egyptian shields at Trier. I should re-read the published reports to give you plank widths and thicknesses. That will take me some time... :oops:
The planked oval boards from Dura and the Egyptian round ones were dished. The Egyptian boards were covered in painted rawhide. So were some of the Dura boards (IIRW)
The Egyptian boards are very fragmentary but they weren't flattened. Anyway, the best witnesses of the dished condition of nearly all Late shields are the bosses: Their flanges aren't flat. They are sloped to fit a convex board!

Aitor

[Franklin]

Aha, That's my boy Aitor! No rush on the reports, though. I've certainly got more than enough projects to occupy me for a lifetime

Or on second thought, where could *I* get my hands on these reports? One of the things I'm intent on doing is starting to educate myself more from primary documents, rather than running to RAT every time I have a tiny question. I'd like to be one of the RAT's who can weigh in with an educated opinion, instead of being at the mercy of others' knowledge.

[Poftim]

I got the boss on today:

Here's the front:


and here's the back:


I didn't do too hot on a couple of the rivets, I didn't cut them short enough. :oops:

[Franklin]

Very cool. Next time, though, I'd paint your design before attaching the umbo. Regardless, laudes awarded!

[Poftim]

Very cool. Next time, though, I'd paint your design before attaching the umbo. Regardless, laudes awarded!

Thanks!

Well, the background is already painted white. Plus, I figured that hte shields would be assembled somewhere blank and then sent to the units that needed them and tehn the units would paint them to their own insignias. I hope that made sense :?

Anyhow, The design I have in mind is a simple one.

[Franklin]

Plus, I figured that the shields would be assembled somewhere blank and then sent to the units that needed them

No, that actually makes quite a bit of sense. We know that most arms and armor were manufacured in large-scale fabrica. Consider this, though. If you're shipping a large number of shields, you'd need to compress them to save as much room as possible. If umbos are already attached then it becomes impossible to stack them one on top of the other. If I had to guess, I'd say they were probably sent blank, like you suggeset, but with the umbos stacked separately and attached on site.

Just a theory, of course, nothing to back it up.

[Chris B]

Just a thought. I have made the mistake of cutting my rivets too long on bosses before too. You could place some linen around the rivet to protect the white paint and use a dremel with a cutting bit to sand down the dome and then re-rivet those that are too long to pull them in tighter. Just a thought. It has worked for me.

[aitor iriarte]

Oh, folks, you're making me work again on half forgotten projects!
Here go a pair of diagrams for my intended IVth century round dished cavalry shield, ca. 70 cm in diameter.
It is somewhat different from the Dura larger shields, but the basic system is the same.
A detail of the hole for the hand ont he midde plank. The handgrip is carved fom a detached wooden piece. Now I don't agree with the upper cross-section. Then I thought that the board was dished but its upper part was and, therefore, a sloping section was needed to accomodate the sloping boss flange. Now I think that the dishing of the board simply reached evenly the boss' place:

And here an 'assembled' (the rawhide inner cover and border reinforcement are missing) partial view from the inside. Rivets go in red. Planks go in light brown. Iron reinforcement bar, in light blue. Peripherical holes for sewing the rawhide border go in green. The boss outlines are dotted:



The iron reinforcing bar is flattened in the middle and that expansion is folded to both sides of the wooden grip to reinforce it.

Aitor

[Franklin]

I'm having a bit of trouble making sense of the top cross section. Everything above the illustration of the semi-circular cut out. Are you saying that the back of the shield is completely flat? And that only the front is slightly convex?

Also, I'm curious about the handle. On surviving examples, is the handle usually perpendicular to the planks like you've shown here? Seems like it would be stronger if it went *with* the grain of the planks (i.e. planks oriented side to side instead of up and down).

[aitor iriarte]

Franklin,

About your first question, please notice that I've written that I made the sketch when I still thought that the central part of the board was totally flat and, therefore, it isn't totally correct.The inner side should be slightly concave, therefore 8)

Also, the handle is always perpendicular to the planks' grain. That is exactly why it was added as an independent component. Like on the Throrsberg and Illerup Germanic shields or had to be reinforced, like on the Roman Dura shields. What I depict between the cross-section and the back view of the cutout are the views and cross-sections of the 'handle', which should be inserted into the slots at both sides of the cutout. No need to say that with this system a reinforcing bar is also needed.

The shiled-boss with six rivets isn't the only possible solution, of course. :wink:

Aitor

[TheMexican1821]

Really the flag of Catalonia. -_-