06-30-2010, 05:58 PM
I did some quick and dirty experimentation last night and found some interesting things.
Rims are irrelevent in whether a shield can be used with a sarissa or not. All that matters in the absolute diameter and the depth of the shield as well as porpax placement. The first image below shows my experimental pelta. It consists of an arc representing the right half of a cross section of a pelta of 68 cm diameter, thus it is 34 cm long. This is measured not as the total length of the wood, since this would include the curvature and make it longer than 34 cm, but as a base-line beneath the arc as you would measure the radius of a circle. Yes, that is a PVC porpax.
Edit: I should note that I originally set the porpax in the same position on my arm as on the Pydna monument, but decided to push it up even further. It was position so as to be flush up against my bicep with my arm bent, thus in some images it looks like you could push it further up my arm. You could push the porpax further up to the crook of your arm, but I just figured it would be more comfortable simply to move the porpax to the right.
This first image is a rimless pelta. My apologies to Paul M-S for I could use a 68 cm peltae, but only at the acute angle shown in the left panel. I can move the pelta around in front more if I move the porpax off-center to the right, as in the center panel. The third panel shows that putting the shield in front of me with a centered porpax is impossible.
The next image shows a similar sized pelta whos diameter includes as 4.5 cm rim. The first panel show that it can be used just like the non-rimmed. In fact because the rim turns away from you, it is actually more handy than a shield of the same diameter and curvature without a rim included. The second panel shows the porpax moved to the right. The third shows the problem with attempting to put the shield in front of you with a centrally located porpax again.
The next image is a deep pelta of the type we have been discussing. It cannot be used with a central porpax as seen in the first panel. It can be used if you move the porpax substantially to the right. There is another way I did not test, and that is to make the porpax jut out from the center of the shield on a strut or on top of fill in the center of the deep porpax (as seen to some extent with a Kalkhan shield). This too would change the angle.
In this last image I decided to try and hold a sarissa with an aspis. I happened to have a very shallow aspis section that had a reduced rim. This would be a very uncommon aspis, but could be said to be within the variation seen to exist. It is almost impossible to hold a sarissa with the porpax centrally located. Unlike the deep pelta, you actually do worse if you move the porpax right in this shield, because most of the curve is in the steep shoulder region. If I really force my arm to bend away from the shield, probably flexing the shield unrealistically, I can just grip the sarissa. I don't think you could fight this way, and the angle requires your body to be almost completely side on with the arm thrust forth. The fore arm would be largely useless for anything other than 'pool cuing" the sarissa through in that unrealistic manner SCA types do at times.
Rims are irrelevent in whether a shield can be used with a sarissa or not. All that matters in the absolute diameter and the depth of the shield as well as porpax placement. The first image below shows my experimental pelta. It consists of an arc representing the right half of a cross section of a pelta of 68 cm diameter, thus it is 34 cm long. This is measured not as the total length of the wood, since this would include the curvature and make it longer than 34 cm, but as a base-line beneath the arc as you would measure the radius of a circle. Yes, that is a PVC porpax.
Edit: I should note that I originally set the porpax in the same position on my arm as on the Pydna monument, but decided to push it up even further. It was position so as to be flush up against my bicep with my arm bent, thus in some images it looks like you could push it further up my arm. You could push the porpax further up to the crook of your arm, but I just figured it would be more comfortable simply to move the porpax to the right.
This first image is a rimless pelta. My apologies to Paul M-S for I could use a 68 cm peltae, but only at the acute angle shown in the left panel. I can move the pelta around in front more if I move the porpax off-center to the right, as in the center panel. The third panel shows that putting the shield in front of me with a centered porpax is impossible.
The next image shows a similar sized pelta whos diameter includes as 4.5 cm rim. The first panel show that it can be used just like the non-rimmed. In fact because the rim turns away from you, it is actually more handy than a shield of the same diameter and curvature without a rim included. The second panel shows the porpax moved to the right. The third shows the problem with attempting to put the shield in front of you with a centrally located porpax again.
The next image is a deep pelta of the type we have been discussing. It cannot be used with a central porpax as seen in the first panel. It can be used if you move the porpax substantially to the right. There is another way I did not test, and that is to make the porpax jut out from the center of the shield on a strut or on top of fill in the center of the deep porpax (as seen to some extent with a Kalkhan shield). This too would change the angle.
In this last image I decided to try and hold a sarissa with an aspis. I happened to have a very shallow aspis section that had a reduced rim. This would be a very uncommon aspis, but could be said to be within the variation seen to exist. It is almost impossible to hold a sarissa with the porpax centrally located. Unlike the deep pelta, you actually do worse if you move the porpax right in this shield, because most of the curve is in the steep shoulder region. If I really force my arm to bend away from the shield, probably flexing the shield unrealistically, I can just grip the sarissa. I don't think you could fight this way, and the angle requires your body to be almost completely side on with the arm thrust forth. The fore arm would be largely useless for anything other than 'pool cuing" the sarissa through in that unrealistic manner SCA types do at times.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
