11-21-2008, 07:24 PM
I'm pretty sure (as the guy currently building these things, and fully willing to accept other points view!) that the rim's primary purpose is binding/support--in all fairness, a strip of duct tape would still help bind a shield. Thickness, as long as the rim is tight, is not much of an issue
But I'll also venture a guess that for the later shields (500 BC and later--deeper, and also larger, unless art lies) the edge served mostly to protect the wood against rot.
I wonder how many shields were actually covered in bronze. I have to say that it would NOT be as effective as cloth impregnated with glue--based on actual tests. Remember that metal deforms under stress--every blow to the face of a bronze shield creates a divot to catch the next blow. if this seems unimportant, let's examine some apparently unrelated contentions about hoplite combat.
1) Whether or not you believe in Othismos, most historians believe that stamina and endurance, NOT martial skills, were the keynote of survival in hoplite battle.
2) Whether or not you believe that at some point the whole action devolved into a scrum, at some point, spear fighting was intense, if only for some seconds or minutes before the othismos happened (again, it may or may not have happened--I'm trying to avoid opening that can)
3) The aspis is a glancing surface, and must have been accepted as such in period.
If you accept these contentions, then the bronze face is problematic. In our tests so far, the spear fighters have found that without much effort, you can fatigue your adversary just by striking his shield hard enough to shift his weight and make him "move the shield." Mind you, against a linen and glue covered shield, you have to be skilled enough to hit a tiny portion of the shield that is "square on", which is usually the point where the "shoulder" and the rim meet that is closest to the opponent. Not easy, but we find that everyone learns this trick about 30 minutes into their spear fighting life, so not exactly martial arts, either... This is hard to describe until you've experienced it, but a mere flick of the spearman's wrist can force his opponent to exert energy. A shield that is consistently dented will tend to channel blows into the dents, making the shield bearer increasingly vulnerable. The guy with several layers of glue and linen is immune.
In fact, since the man with glue and linen is almost always better off, for weight, for strength, etc. I wonder a bit about bronze faced shields. Were they actually common? Or is this a case of archaeological survival trumping other sources?
And, to be a bit Jesuitical (because I'm not a Linothorax believer) if it is the contention of military historians that the bronze cuirass was largely replaced by a compilation of linen and glue--why, then, would this same technology not effect the same displacement in aspis construction?
And finally--I think there's folks who see the aspis as "armour" in that they see it as stopping a heavy blow. I agree that it is pretty solid. But--if you don't build it out of modern plywoods, but instead out of period woods--first, it's is much lighter, and second, it will NOT stop a straight blow. I['m pretty sure Alcibiades got a spear through his shield somewhere--and I'm not surprised. If an aspis is held "square on" to me, I can drive a dory through the center. To be fair, I haven't done it... but I have drive my dory through the steel side of a 55 gallon drum, and through any amount of 16 through 24 gauge bronze backed by 1/2 inch of pine--ALL heavier than most period bronze. A bronze faced shield MUST be a glancing surface, unless it has an INCH or MORE of wood behind it. Three layers of linen and glue will outperform the 16 gauge bronze, but you could still get a dory though with effort and a clear shot.
However, hold that same aspis at even a slight angle, and the game changes radically--rather like modern armor penetration with AT rounds.
Wow, this has gone on longer than I expected. Apologies!
But I'll also venture a guess that for the later shields (500 BC and later--deeper, and also larger, unless art lies) the edge served mostly to protect the wood against rot.
I wonder how many shields were actually covered in bronze. I have to say that it would NOT be as effective as cloth impregnated with glue--based on actual tests. Remember that metal deforms under stress--every blow to the face of a bronze shield creates a divot to catch the next blow. if this seems unimportant, let's examine some apparently unrelated contentions about hoplite combat.
1) Whether or not you believe in Othismos, most historians believe that stamina and endurance, NOT martial skills, were the keynote of survival in hoplite battle.
2) Whether or not you believe that at some point the whole action devolved into a scrum, at some point, spear fighting was intense, if only for some seconds or minutes before the othismos happened (again, it may or may not have happened--I'm trying to avoid opening that can)
3) The aspis is a glancing surface, and must have been accepted as such in period.
If you accept these contentions, then the bronze face is problematic. In our tests so far, the spear fighters have found that without much effort, you can fatigue your adversary just by striking his shield hard enough to shift his weight and make him "move the shield." Mind you, against a linen and glue covered shield, you have to be skilled enough to hit a tiny portion of the shield that is "square on", which is usually the point where the "shoulder" and the rim meet that is closest to the opponent. Not easy, but we find that everyone learns this trick about 30 minutes into their spear fighting life, so not exactly martial arts, either... This is hard to describe until you've experienced it, but a mere flick of the spearman's wrist can force his opponent to exert energy. A shield that is consistently dented will tend to channel blows into the dents, making the shield bearer increasingly vulnerable. The guy with several layers of glue and linen is immune.
In fact, since the man with glue and linen is almost always better off, for weight, for strength, etc. I wonder a bit about bronze faced shields. Were they actually common? Or is this a case of archaeological survival trumping other sources?
And, to be a bit Jesuitical (because I'm not a Linothorax believer) if it is the contention of military historians that the bronze cuirass was largely replaced by a compilation of linen and glue--why, then, would this same technology not effect the same displacement in aspis construction?
And finally--I think there's folks who see the aspis as "armour" in that they see it as stopping a heavy blow. I agree that it is pretty solid. But--if you don't build it out of modern plywoods, but instead out of period woods--first, it's is much lighter, and second, it will NOT stop a straight blow. I['m pretty sure Alcibiades got a spear through his shield somewhere--and I'm not surprised. If an aspis is held "square on" to me, I can drive a dory through the center. To be fair, I haven't done it... but I have drive my dory through the steel side of a 55 gallon drum, and through any amount of 16 through 24 gauge bronze backed by 1/2 inch of pine--ALL heavier than most period bronze. A bronze faced shield MUST be a glancing surface, unless it has an INCH or MORE of wood behind it. Three layers of linen and glue will outperform the 16 gauge bronze, but you could still get a dory though with effort and a clear shot.
However, hold that same aspis at even a slight angle, and the game changes radically--rather like modern armor penetration with AT rounds.
Wow, this has gone on longer than I expected. Apologies!
Qui plus fait, miex vault.
