01-01-2008, 12:17 AM
Paul B. wrote:-
...an attractive theory - until you look at the accompanying diagrams [see attachment to earlier post] There it is clear that Dr J. has 1.9 cm tapering to 1.1cm at the shoulder/rim,and not compatible with Connolly/sekunda's profile - (sadly, your suggestion, becomes difficult, if just about possible! .....if Dr J's diagram is inaccurate, which I find hard to accept given that he has even observed the grain direction)
More particularly still, he says an unambiguous " centre of the bowl"
The identification of the wood as Poplar implies some further analysis/examination of the shield had taken place....does the Sekunda book "Greek Hoplite" give a reference or bibliography?
BTW: I've just tried some practical testing on a 1/4" ( 6.5 mm ) pine plank - a modest underhand thrust with a dory goes through it with ease! A more severe blow split the plank completely! I then put a piece of 1mm sheet copper over it....still penetrated with ease!
An underarm thrust with a kopis/machaira also had no trouble penetrating......
Either there is something wrong with Connolly's figure of 0.5 cm ( perhaps he meant 1/2 an inch (12 mm) ?..... Either that or the shield was designed to be penetrated by a spear, to trap it. A sort of reverse 'pilum' theory? ( i.e. spear trapped in shield is useless and quickly wrenched from owners grasp...Problem! Shield then becomes useless, pilum fashion, so that can't be right! lol: :lol:
Quote:The Jeronimides work has some obvious problems with wording, perhaps due to mistranslation. I think the two descriptions are immediately reconcilable if his
Quote:
At the centre of the bowl the wood thickness is 2.0-2.5 cm.
Should have referred to the center of the acute arching section before the rim- which would have tapered in both directions.
...an attractive theory - until you look at the accompanying diagrams [see attachment to earlier post] There it is clear that Dr J. has 1.9 cm tapering to 1.1cm at the shoulder/rim,and not compatible with Connolly/sekunda's profile - (sadly, your suggestion, becomes difficult, if just about possible! .....if Dr J's diagram is inaccurate, which I find hard to accept given that he has even observed the grain direction)
More particularly still, he says an unambiguous " centre of the bowl"
The identification of the wood as Poplar implies some further analysis/examination of the shield had taken place....does the Sekunda book "Greek Hoplite" give a reference or bibliography?
BTW: I've just tried some practical testing on a 1/4" ( 6.5 mm ) pine plank - a modest underhand thrust with a dory goes through it with ease! A more severe blow split the plank completely! I then put a piece of 1mm sheet copper over it....still penetrated with ease!
An underarm thrust with a kopis/machaira also had no trouble penetrating......
Either there is something wrong with Connolly's figure of 0.5 cm ( perhaps he meant 1/2 an inch (12 mm) ?..... Either that or the shield was designed to be penetrated by a spear, to trap it. A sort of reverse 'pilum' theory? ( i.e. spear trapped in shield is useless and quickly wrenched from owners grasp...Problem! Shield then becomes useless, pilum fashion, so that can't be right! lol: :lol:
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff