constructing and mounting a porpax

[Kineas]

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!

[Paullus Scipio]

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but I thought Paul B. was saying that the rim held the shield together to prevent the massive crushing forces that he postulates for 'othismos', hence needed to be single-piece, and possibly 'shrunk' into place, something akin to the tyre iron on a wagon wheel's rim.......

To me , l didn't think this idea feasible ( consider the thick iron of a wagon wheel tyre) and in any event, the bronze is on the face, not the edge as such....imagine how a tyre iron would work fitted to the side of the wheel?

If a strengthening piece was needed, it is more likely to be the iron circular re-inforcement fitted to the inside of later, probably thinner, aspides.

[Paullus Scipio]

Kineas wrote:

I wonder how many shields were actually covered in bronze.

"...and a brass shield, because it is very soon polished and tarnishes very slowly.." Xen: Constitution of the Lacadaemonians XI.3

It would thus appear ALL spartans, at least, had brass-faced shields.......

[Kineas]

Paul (Scipio) I think (gosh, I hope I have this right) that ALL the rims go "over" the edge from front to back--or are held on with tacks. Either way, they'd stabilize the edge. Possibly not against massive crushing forces, but I'll stand by the comment about duct tape--any rim at all will have some stabilizing effect.
I'm trying to avoid the Othismos part of this debate...
Either way, though, the rim itself will help deflect blows that might otherwise, by shear luck (bad pun there) catch between two strakes and split the shield in the older, multi-strake construction. In the newer "turned bowl" construction (I realize that only I seem to believe this, and expect no mercy from any of you!) splitting the shield becomes much more difficult, but a bronze rim will still help the edge last longer.
And just to clarify (inviting critique) I think that the early aspis was made like a boat--with strakes that were locked together the way ancient ships were planked, and then the rim, face, bronze decoration and/or some internal ropes all helped support the "hull" of the shield.
Then there was some kind of technological change, and shields were (possibly) turned from laid-up blocks of wood--and they became larger and deeper, the internal fittings became decorative because the stresses on the outer edge were totally different. The tech change may even have been driven by societal change--the need for more aspides...
Hey, I'm just rattling on, here, and I accept that these contentions are "edgy." But I have to say that the aspis is a remarkable, fairly high-tech and labor intensive device.

[Kineas]

hey, the Spartans weren't guilty of "lowest bidder" problems, were they?

Pilos caps, even of bronze? bronze faced shields?

[Paullus Scipio]

Kineas wrote:

I['m pretty sure Alcibiades got a spear through his shield somewhere--and I'm not surprised.

Are you thinking of the failure of Brasidas' shield? (Plutarch Moralia 190B)
Certainly the oft-quoted 'Achilles binding the wounds of Patroclus' seems to show that Patroclus was wounded by an arrow penetrating his shield, and there are the examples frequently quoted from Xenphon to show that a shield could not keep out powerful arrows....and at Plataea, crouched behind their shields, the Spartans took many killed and wounded, and the Tegeans could not stand this, stood up and charged...it has been estimated ( Blyth) that around 2% of arrows penetrated shields with sufficient force to wound or kill the man behind.

It is clear that the sources support Kineas' postulation that shields were not 'weapon-proof'.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I imagine even with a bronze tip, which I am sure the ancients knew how to tip harden, would penetrate even the bronze skin of the aspis.....(shield thingy)!

[PMBardunias]

Snodgrass says that a majority of finds are of aspises without bronze faces- but his book is old.

And just to clarify (inviting critique) I think that the early aspis was made like a boat--with strakes that were locked together the way ancient ships were planked, and then the rim, face, bronze decoration and/or some internal ropes all helped support the "hull" of the shield.
Then there was some kind of technological change, and shields were (possibly) turned from laid-up blocks of wood--and they became larger and deeper, the internal fittings became decorative because the stresses on the outer edge were totally different. The tech change may even have been driven by societal change--the need for more aspides...
Hey, I'm just rattling on, here, and I accept that these contentions are "edgy." But I have to say that the aspis is a remarkable, fairly high-tech and labor intensive device

I am very glad to hear someone else say this. The parallels between ship and shield construction interest me greatly. It is from ship construction that I hypothesized that the antilabe was origially a truss. Ships of the day had an internal or external rope truss to hold them together. The most common, the tormentum or Upazomata, kept the hull from "hogging", which is exactly analogous to a shield face collapsing.

I'd be curious to know more about parallels in the actual wood working. I know too little about this to comment.

To me , l didn't think this idea feasible ( consider the thick iron of a wagon wheel tyre) and in any event, the bronze is on the face, not the edge as such....imagine how a tyre iron would work fitted to the side of the wheel?

Have you ever worked with metal packing straps? They can be exceptionally strong. I am here talking just of the rim, by the way, not the face. The face can have a different supportive function, but the rim specifically keeps the wooden rim beneath from failing. The wagon wheel is not a good analogy, a barrel hoop would be better since the pressure is from the insided out. To some extent the thickness and the width of metal are interchangable. Imagine a quarter inch cable and a 3 inch wide strap. I don't know what the conversion is off the top of my head, but you can imagine they approach similar strength.

If a strengthening piece was needed, it is more likely to be the iron circular re-inforcement fitted to the inside of later, probably thinner, aspides.

This piece supports in a different way, and is designed to keep the shoulder section of the shield, not the rim, from failing. All of this, with diagrams is on my blog. The aspis is what is called a "shallow dome". They fail in one of two ways: They "pop" inside out like the top of a jar (the inner band of metal and truss help this) or they break at the rim (the bronze rim helps this).

[Tarbicus]

Grab an aspis with a dagged rim with your bare hand in angry combat, you'll regret it. It'll take off part of your palm or fingers if the shield bearer resists. Too much concentration on defence against weapons - not enough on a real scrap, IMHO. Typical 20th-21st C technophilia. :wink: The dagged rim still went on top of a continuous bronze strip, which would help maintain the integrity of the outer circumference.

Alexander didn't have a beard, and he told us exactly why.

[Kineas]

Well, actually--if I grab the rim of a dagged shield, I'm more likely to break the shield bearer's arm.

We did considerable experimentation with this, but I encourage you to test this yourself. Just don't break anyone's arm! All the mechanical advantage is with the grabber, not with the shield bearer. In fact, we were experimenting with what a trained Pankrationist could accomplish unarmed against a hoplite. Turns out--quite a bit.

not that I disagree with your technophilia comment--far from it...

[Tarbicus]

Well, actually--if I grab the rim of a dagged shield, I'm more likely to break the shield bearer's arm.

Were the dags sharp?

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Were the real dags sharp? Apart from the photo I posted above,I think I have seen no other sharp rims...

[Kineas]

I wouldn't actually grab a bunch of sharp dags...but, if made like the ones in the pictures, they wouldn't do enough damage to matter. Not in real combat.

I should clarify--if, in combat, one were forced to the expedient, sharp dags wouldn't be much of a discouragement. In fact, I can't see what difference they'd make--when my hand closes, as long as I have a grip.

As a comparison, I would, and have, grabbed a sharp blade. Again, when your hand is closed, you have a grip. You may pay later...

Does this matter?

If the idea of the aspis bearer getting his arm broken is what seems odd--we all found it remarkable, too. But if you think about it, the shield bearer is trying to hold the hub of a wheel while the attacker tries to spin the wheel. It's a very one-sided fight--we had our biggest, strongest guy--a weight trainer--behind the shield, and our smallest guy could manipulate the shield any way he wanted. Which is why I don't think the aspis bearer would even manage to injure an opponent with the dags.

[PMBardunias]

But if you think about it, the shield bearer is trying to hold the hub of a wheel while the attacker tries to spin the wheel.

Yet another problem with the double-grip system. The same thing happens when a man grabs a single, central grip shield, but then he does not control your whole body. I once wrote a scene where a hoplite's shield was spun up and back in this way to drop him to the ground. The motion is very similar to one of the most basic Aikido locks. If the hoplite holds the shield tight to his chest by the way it is more difficult for a foe to manipulate.

The lone hoplite was very vulnerable.

[Kineas]

The lone hoplite was very vulnerable.

I think I'm just becoming a disagreeable old curmudgeon who disagrees with everything. For which, apologies...

But I wonder how vulnerable the lone hoplite is. I know that the received wisdom is that hoplite arms and armour evolved to fit the conditions of the phalanx--something about which I think we can only theorize.

At one level, everyone is vulnerable when alone, including a late medieval Cavalier in Cap-a-pied white Milanese plate. Ten peasants with determination will still bring him down. Swiss pikemen, ditto (actually, that's kind'a funny., because Swiss pikemen ARE just ten peasants with determination...).
The aspis is quite a weapons system. Given a full panoply, in period, the hoplite is well-kitted to fight one vs one against almost any opponent. Even against a small swarm of unarmored foes, the hoplite stands a chance of emerging alive, if not unbloodied.
Hanson, for instance, insists on the weight of the panoply as 70 pounds. Well, I have my doubts--my white Milanese plate (hey, I didn't name that armour by chance!) doesn't weigh 70 pounds--why would a hoplite panoply? But even if it DID weigh 70 pounds, it would then be about 6 pounds heavier than the combat load of a British Infantryman in the American Revolution--or the British Light Infantry on the Peninsula. Snodgrass and Hanson think that the hoplite would be exhausted in an hour, and I think there's plenty of people on this list who've worn more armour and for much longer than an hour, even in combat. I concede that real combat is much more tiring than the most strenuous mock combat--but so would the conditioning be more strenuous.
All things being equal, I'd rather go out to face a horde of enemies in a panoply than, say, dressed as a Persian Immortal (according to Herodotus). The bow is nice, but the scale shirt and wicker shield will not keep me alive as long as the bell corselet and the Corinthian helmet and the aspis. Put on a pair of greaves, give me a spear--wow, I'm as invulnerable as the 6th C. can make me and I can still move fast.
So--my point is that it's a truism to say that the lone hoplite is vulnerable. The lone hoplite is, in fact LESS vulnerable than most other fighters of his day.

Or maybe I'm just trying to provoke further discussion....