+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Greek Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: making an aspis (/showthread.php?tid=8966)
Re: making an aspis - PMBardunias - 01-03-2008
Quote:..that is quite correct and these shallower, uniform domes without the pronounced curved rim represent an earlier type of Aspis (7-6 century), with a shallow dish some 10 cm deep and a rim of aprox 5 cm. The steep shouldered Vatican/later type, some 15 cm deep, appears circa 550 BC.
I'm not sure the different types can be so tightly linked to dates. The bigger variable seems to be artistic style. In the same period some shields are very shallow with low shoulders, the standard deep shouldered, almost flat fronted type diagrammed above, and a deep almost bowl-shaped shield where even the rim seems less off-set.
My feeling is that these are not real variations, but artistic license, but we cannot know for sure. If anyone has not seen all three types I can post some images.
Re: making an aspis - Giannis K. Hoplite - 01-03-2008
I also tend to think it is mostly due to artistic styles that we see these differences. All the metal coverings I have seen,and there are plenty from the archaic and classical times,have more or less the same shape,similar to the Vatican shield. I have also noted that specific artists usually prefer the one or the other style.
There are some examples of bronze rims that may have belonged to shallower shields,but it's difficult to understand only by the rims.Some of them are in the Olympia museum and some used to be in this link
http://dspace.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/34 ... r&start=40
that I took from M. Amt's site,but I can't find them any more.If interested I can post the images when i return to my computer.These shields had also bronze emblems,and some say they were just votive.
Khairete
Giannis
Re: making an aspis - Giannis K. Hoplite - 01-18-2008
The link above is active again. The greek items are in pages 16-18. You can see the shields.The rims are narrower and indicate a shallower construction.
Khairete
Giannis
Aspis Construction - Paullus Scipio - 01-19-2008
Paul B wrote:-
Quote:My feeling is that these are not real variations, but artistic license, but we cannot know for sure. If anyone has not seen all three types I can post some images....I think that would be a good idea !
BTW artistic variation would not explain both types depicted in one illustration, as is apparently the case I referred to above......and it has been suggested that the 'narrow' rims found belong to the shallow bowled type.
There is ( admittedly slim) evidence for three types of Aspis/construction:-
1 Shallow domed - planks??
2'Shouldered' deep domed ( Vatican type) - planks
3 'Shouldered' deep domed type - ply and supporting struts
...with 2 being the most common 5-4th C BC, although one suspects if we had more examples, there would be yet more variations ( c.f. viking/saxon shields )
Re: making an aspis - Lochinvar - 01-21-2008
OK, chaps (and indeed chapesses),
I am full of respect for all of you aspis builders but can you please advise me of reputable makers from whom I can buy one? (I suggest using this thread if praising a manufacturer and PM'ing me about those makers whom you wouldn't support).
Second question: what paints are suitable and what sort of finish would be right (shiny, eggshell, matt)?
Re: making an aspis - Giannis K. Hoplite - 01-21-2008
I'd suggest manning imperial,gather some money,if you're not ready yet,and get a good piece.The other option is make it yourself,becasue I have yet to find another accurate construction.As for the finish,it should have been bronze,otherwise hide covered.Assuming you won't have a bronze faced one,painted hide-or even unpainted-can give you a clue of how it should look like.
Colors should at least look natural,you could use shades of red,blue,green,yellow,purple,black,white and whatever.
Manning imperial shields are made in a lathe and they don't have a standard thickness.The poplar ones weigh about 4 kgr and the brass faced ones about 8 kgrs. They could be less,probably,if the brass was thinner.
Khairete
Giannis
Re: making an aspis - Lochinvar - 01-22-2008
Thanks matey. I'm chuffed (slang for 'pleased') that the first response is from Greece itself.
I don't yet know Manning Imperial.
Does anyone have any knowledge of makers in Britain or Germany?
Re: making an aspis - Giannis K. Hoplite - 01-22-2008
http://manningimperial.com/
Search for the greek items.
Within the UK I know of these
http://www.4hoplites.com/Aspis.htm
Read the comments. Despite they think their construction is the "most desirable", I can assure you that manning is the most accurate production,with the evidence we have so far. And they have possibly reduced the weight by then,making the shields from poplar planks.
http://www.noricum.de/
This manufacturer usually makes celtic and cronze age stuff,but I know they've made some exccellent greek ones and probably they'd try a greek shield? You'll have to ask.
Khaire
Giannis
Re: making an aspis - Lochinvar - 01-22-2008
Giannis, you are a gentleman.
Thanks.
Re: making an aspis - Marcus Germanicus Ferox - 01-23-2008
Giannis
Your comment is interesting albeit a little defamatory. We in the Hoplite Association take a lot of care over our Aspides and have done a lot of research into the construction.
One of our members does indeed possess a Manning shield which yes is very well made and accurate BUT on a practical level MUCH TOO heavy. We have got the weight right we feel at about 14lbs. I would be most interested to hear how you feel we are going wrong and what we should do to correct our problems.
Ferox
Re: making an aspis - Lochinvar - 01-23-2008
...ducks back into trench.....
Re: making an aspis - Marcus Germanicus Ferox - 01-23-2008
Hi Ewan :lol:
Only making a point, don't worry. :wink:
The page has been updated by the author - but Giannis is mistaken. I am told Manning have improved the build (the original was too heavy and even Craig Sitch said as much I am told - it is the one our member has). I understand they now build to the 'turned plank' style - which has integrity in the shallow bowl but we suspect if they went for a deeper bowl it would not be as good.
Shallow bowls are, I believe, are seen as earlier style shields. Deeper bowls are thought to be later (5th C - as in the period The Hoplite Association re-enact - 490 to 430BC).
"Most accurate production refers", I think, to the wood being poplar (which is another word for pine isn't it??) and built with straight planks which, by its nature, causes a weakness at the two ends. This might well be right (it is conjecture) but is it not 'desirable' as a reenactment shield - so Giannis is crossing terms.
If you want some more details etc.... send me a PM.
Ferox
Re: making an aspis - hoplite14gr - 01-23-2008
I will second Mark in the support of the B. H. A. shields.
I have run hoplitodromy with one of them and I feel the weight is right.
Rembemr we talk of a time where personal funds and taste made the final product. Plus we have only the example of the "Vatikan shield" which is really Etruscan and we really don't know what was really the non metalic components of the shields.
Kind regards
Re: making an aspis - Lochinvar - 01-23-2008
:lol:
Concord reigns again (phew!).
Here, both of you, have a cup of virtual wine....
Re: making an aspis - Giannis K. Hoplite - 01-23-2008
It is fair to answer what I don't see as accurate in the H.A. shields and what needs improvements.
First to point out that I have handled none of the two types.
Mark,you spoke about the deep bowl,and I have read in the HA site that they favour it. However,it's inaccurate in shape,in many(if not most) of the shields I have seen. Even the deep bowls we see in vases(and ONLY in vases,not in wall paintings or sculptures,and not in all vases either) have a different shape. The so deep bowls just don't seem right.they may be convinient to rest them on the showlder,but in the pressure of the battle I don't know how handy they'd be.
Second,the rims in most of them are also inaccurate,in size,shape and angles.Not all of their shields are the same,I know,and some are quite right in shape. Also,the slot that follows the rim and the sircomference of the bowl in not existant in all of them.
The waight.Your shields are about 14 lb. This means about 6,4 kg. And they are not faced with bronze,nor with bronze rims. I remind that manning shields are 4,3 kg. Far less than the H.A. and they became about 8 kgs with the brass facing,mostly because the brass needed to be thinner.And even with this, 8 kg is not out of the estimate many ascholars have suggested.
The construction.I have noted that most H.A. shields are made by triangular planks curved and joined in the center. I have not seen this,not even indicated,ina ny vase,sculpture,ancient term or original find. In contrast,manning make them from planks and turned in a lathe. Planks is the one and only original find we have and is backed up by Aristophanes. Lathe is also backed up by Aristophanes. The Chigi vase is the only one that indicates another construction,but even this can be interpreted in a hundred different opinions,like smaller planks of wood,paint on the interior,small parts of leather to cover the back etc etc.
Fittings. Manning offers a viriety of internal fittings,that are as accurate as it can get. They've made the actual porpax from the Vatican shield,they've made porpax from late vase paintings,they've made the archaic one. And also the rest of the fittings,the rings etc are the most accurate. Even the way they are kept in place,with the long thin bronze nails is the correct one.
Strenght.Are you suggesting that re-enacting needs more heavy constuctions than the real things that were designed for battle? Because even if the Vatican shield is Etruscan and not Greek(that is not much of a poin anyway) it was constructed for battle,and manning akes them based on tha shield,with the same matterials and the same constuction methods.
Shape.Many full covered aspises do not come from the archaic but from the early,middle and even late clasical periods(the Vatican shield among them).All have overall the same shape,no deeper than manning make or anything. So why suppose that they must have had deeper ones?
I agree there may have been many ways of construction,evidence for wich we don't have yet. In contrast,we have the bronze facings of many shield and we have the a single one with the wood almost intact. Why regect this consttuction in favour of another one? I could speculate that some hoplite helmets were made from leather.No one can proove the oposite,but if you're going to buy or make one,will you prefer leather?
At last,even the HA in their site have admitted that their shields are not very satisfactory and they're looking to find better with no big cost. Why deny this?
For all the above reasons I say to Lochinvar,from the two,I'd suggest the manning ones.The cost I don't know,you have to compare and I know that for everything manning makes you have to pay a lot.
To Mark,of course I don't mean to offend anybody,I just wanted to give a fair picture of what is out there. H.A. continues to be one of the most accurate groups,but this doesn't mean that they don't need improvement,or some thing are better from other sources.
Khairete
Giannis
PS. Lochinvar,those long discussions for every bit of detail may become frustrating some times,when you need a clear aswer,but they offer you the ability to decide yourself,and make the best movement.