making an aspis

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

OK,and now time for some pics.What do you think?
I hope they're not too many :?
First,late paintings that show shallow,or at least not deeper shields.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Now some deep ones,that I personally don't trust as accurate depictions

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Now some deep ones,that I personally don't trust as accurate depictions

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

And just one of the examples of early paintings with normal(and not too shallow) shields

And may I post some actual finds from various periods that show all in all the same (not too deep) shape

[Lochinvar]

Sorry Giannis, when I poured out that last round of virtual wine I only dispensed a couple. Pull up a stool and let me pour you a cup.

Right lads, lets temporarily put an end to the aspis discussion and, in a spirit of brotherhood, concentrate on what those nymphs are doing in the last photo! 8) :wink:

[Lochinvar]

Aaaargh, you beat me to the punch. I now mean your penultimate message.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

OK.The Greek painters some times used not to paint rocks. I have some exapmles,for example Odysseus sacrifising to Tyresias and sitting oi his cloak wich in its turns rest on the air! So I think it's a safe guess that this Amazon is dead with her back on a rock. Now let me continue with some last photos.
:lol:

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

The above shield in interior view. Notice how shallow the bowl is.

And an Italian.It may be a bit damaged and the actual curve is not that clear

[Marcus Germanicus Ferox]

Ok Giannis - you really have got the bit between your teeth mate haven't you!! :lol:

We (HA) have NEVER claimed - nor ever will in our lifetime - that our kit is perfect and we are always looking for better - your suggestion that we have at last 'admitted' suggests we were not honest before (I actually take exception to that) - you should come to a show and you will see - imperfection is our starting point for any display.

Shields - again you miss the point. You are also crossing old and new manning shields and to a degree, having a couple of discussions in one. The shape affects the way it is carried and there are variations of bowl depth even in statues. Art, we can accept, will mimic but not fully imitate reality. So the starting point for defending detail on a mass level is a bit unstable.

One of our prototype shields is about 17/18lbs - noticably on the heavy side to pick up - but the shape makes it much easier to carry and use than one of 14lbs with a different bowl shape. This is the point of reconstructive archeology - to find out stuff like this and try and make some sense from the variations we see.

Something, incidentally, which costs money - so by default, after investing £800 in a prototype to test something - we continue to use it THUS we have inbuilt innacuracies to our display BUT it gives us demonstration pieces to show the public and explain.

You comments on not being bronze faced - so they all were were they? (Rhetorical question!) Also, the bronze face is thought to have been very thin (like the old ancient brit shields) and thus the weight added would have not been that great HOWEVER, and this is the real point, the general conjecture is that they would have been around (that is an approximation) 14lbs (faced or not) and so we build to 14lbs to get a relatively accurate finished weight.... oh, and that is a finished weight, not just the weight of the bowl. Another point I think you missed.

Finally - and I think this point has been made - there was no such thing as standard issue. There would have been similarities, familiarities, etc - but with scant data and even less chance of getting it, we have to work to something to get it done. It seems reasonable to hypothesise that the build process would have been consistent in any timeframe - but we are looking at 6-700 years worth of building...and technologies do evolve. Sadly there is little to support the process being consitent throughout that period or changing over time.

So - Manning - authentic? Well perhaps a good representation of one variation and build hypothesis, absolutely. The later pattern (we have not examined) certainly looks far better than the early one (we have examined), which is actually - and no offence Craig - very difficult to use for any period of time. However - everyone has to start somewhere and we have an awful lot worse from our first attempts, so no criticisms beyond what has been said in a practical vein.

Personally - I think the bowl price for a manning represents good value for the work involved - albeit very expensive if having it shipped - and I am certain that whoever had one would be pleased with it.

Personally, however, it still seems a bit shallow to me....but what do I know, I only carry them all summer :wink:

I am also intrigued that you do not trust vase painting when it comes to deeper bowls???? You trust it for shallow bowls so what's the difference??

Don't you like the colour??

[M. Demetrius]

I have a question in another direction of aspis manufacture, if that's ok.

How do you get the leather to conform to the shape of the bowl and flanged rim, especially at the point that the two meet? Leather will stretch a certain amount, but that seems like it would take some kind of specialized press or something, and considerable weight to force the leather to conform. After the shape is stable, then it would be time to glue the leather to the wood?

I've stretched and formed leather before for much smaller pieces, holsters, sheaths, etc., but never for something that is a meter in diameter. Ideas?

BTW, I'm not as concerned as to how it may have been done in ancient times, but how it could be done next month or so, using what's commonly available to 21st century humans.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

The whole point of the comparison was to help our friend Ewan to decide what is his best option,since he wants to buy a new one.
As a secondary oportunity,since you asked and since this forum is all for exchanging opinions,I commented on what I think needs improvement in the HA shields.
But again,don't we all wish to see Ewan with the most accurate reconstruction of every bit of his kit? On the shield,I think that mannings offers this.That's all.
The rest of the pohtos I posted because in the past we brought the discussion about the deep/shallow late/early shield.
I don't trust the deep ones,first because the are WAY too deep and usually dishaped.And also because,although we see both types,all the bronze coverings go to the "shallow" category,as you see above.
At least,if there were more than one types of shield,these were 2 and not 3.One could be the very early,that only the rim was bronze and the other was the late archaic/classical one.
Mark,what colour are you asking about?
Khaire
Giannis

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

How do you get the leather to conform to the shape of the bowl and flanged rim, especially at the point that the two meet? Leather will stretch a certain amount, but that seems like it would take some kind of specialized press or something, and considerable weight to force the leather to conform. After the shape is stable, then it would be time to glue the leather to the wood?

The vatican shield was stitched there.So the rim was a separate piece. But I know it can be done with one piece,i have seen it in a reconstruction,and it perfectly suited the bowl.I've no idea on leather working,though,so I can't help you.
Khaire
Giannis

[Marcus Germanicus Ferox]

Giannis

This is the last time I will comment on this to your good self. You clearly a very passionate, knowledgable young man who has done a lot of research on his subject BUT YOUNG is the operative word.

You are right this is a forum for discussion and to give one's opinions but I feel you should temper some of your opinions a little. If I recall correctly Ewan asked if anyone knew if there was a maker of Aspides in the UK or Germany NOT for a diatribe on the failings of the Hoplite Association.

We use pottery as one of our major sources for the re-construction of kit.

You have very kindly provided us with examples from contemporary source material showing both shallow and deep dished aspides YET you deny the existance of the latter?? Is this not a contradictory stance??

There are as many deep in these illustrations as shallow - but you do not trust these? How odd? ... and I think there might be some misunderstanding of the word shallow as well with hindsight. You means less inner depth, I refer to the angle of the bowl slope.

The issue is as much to do with bowl shape as depth - to have the porpax INSIDE the shield you are looking at 16-17cms inner depth. So look at illustrations and look at where the porpax comes to. Ours are around that depth. Shape dictates the degree to which it slides off your shoulder - as in its useability as a shield.

Again you provide us with some wonderful images of some of the few examples of original aspides in existance but this this is just a very small window into the world of 700-800 years of shield construction and therefore not a fair representation of what was in use across the whole of the Hellas.

Bottom line, whatever YOUR opinion of our shields, we don't use plastic!!!! We make 95% of what we use and and have indeed many compliments on what we try to achieve some from very well respected sources/academics/authors. Our patterns were used for Oliver Stone's Alexander (later period I know) and we have have one of our linothoraxs on display in the British Museum. We have also done work for the British Museum and have appeared/been featured in 5, I think, books of reference recently. We must be doing something right eh?? :wink:

So young man before you Damn your peers so vehemently may I respectfully suggest that you take the time to attend/take part in some proper events/displays, take a look at some of the wonderful kit out there that some people who cannot afford the Manning Imperial route, take a lot of time and care in manufacturing as accurately as possible. Also take the time to handle some of the Aspides that you say you have not and maybe try and make one yourself!!

Also, most ironically :lol: if you take the time to have a good look on our website www.hoplites.org click on some of the events you WILL see that we use both shallow and deep dished aspides - one of mine for example, with the Dolphin on is such a shield which I believe if you look, my good friend Stephanos (Hoplite14) has posted pictures of on the "show me your Greek Warrior impression" thread........ :wink:

Happy hunting young Hoplite!!

Kind regards

Ferox


Demetrius - I have seen your thread and will answer when I have a little more time. Best wishes.

[Marcus Ginintonicus]

After doing a lot of reading I'm seriously considering a Manning aspis. Yes, I could make one myself - but on the first try? How many would I mess up before I've exceeded the savings in employing myself? My time is not without value and I am willing to pay for expertise.

But I wonder: how tough are they, really? Where I live we think of pine as a fairly soft wood, pretty for paneling but useless for anything that might take damage. Poplar I don't know very well.

If I shell out the valuta for a Manning aspis, I'd like to know that they're not wallhangers - they're survivable war gear as tough as the originals.

Another question, and this will surely display the depth of my ignorance: all of the DIY methods for making an aspis that I have seen depend on glue. I've also seen opined that there really wasn't a glue that would stand up to five days of rain before the 18th century. So, were the originals glued up or carved from a single trunk, or...what?

Thanks for the help.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Hello.
Manning Imperial shields have reached a new levels of authenticity by now, and i don't only mean shape, but ways of construction, as based on old and new evidence.
I am confident that if you ask Craig to make you the real thing as it would have been made and battle ready, you will get it. Provided you want to pay for it of course...
Poplar is the correct wood to be used. The Vatican shield wood has been identified as poplar, and Pliny says that poplar is the best timber for shields because it is light, flexible and because it grows in wet invironment, its fibers tend to close around the damage caused by a weapon. In the vatican shield no glue has been found, but it has been spotted on other shield speciments from macedonia. What glue was not stated. However, the structural strength of the shield was not comming from the timber or the glue, but by the fact that the wooden core was sandwitched between a layer of linen on the outside that was gessoed, and a layer of leather on the inside. Of course some shields would have bronze on the outside keeping everything together. Even the bronze rim's primary purpose was to add structural strength to the shield, keeping the planks together.
Craig's own experiments showed that when only an outer layer of linen was added to a planked viking shield, it could be shatered to pieces with some well executed strikes, but when a second layer was added on the back of the shield, the result was an undestructable weapon!
The use of stucco or gesso has been attested to a number of 4th century macedonian hoplite shields, and it is logical to suggest that this was common in earlier shields. Linen and gesso have been used till medieval times.
Khaire
Giannis