01-01-2008, 04:01 PM
Quote:In the attachment, I have 'extended' Dr J's fig 1 to show a swelling as the 'shoulder' sharply curves around, with a 'guesstimated' thickness of 3-3.5 cm, tapering back to 2.0 cm for the 'flat' part of the shield going toward the centre.
Make the guesstimate 2.5 cm and you can explain the discrepancy as I said before. I put as much faith in his "center of bowl" designation as I do in the superfluous "no" when it comes to glue.
The fact is that Jermides is the only author I have read who has not commented on the shield thickening toards the edges and thinner in the middle. At least some, if not all of these men have read Blyth's 82 paper. Whether connolly's extreme thinness is correct I cannot say, but the profile would seem to be since Blyth drew it and sekunda redrew it from that diagram.
It is odd that Jeromides did not mention the thickness of the inner arch- which you were forced to guess at- and we both agree had to be more than the rest of the shield reguardless of the nature of the taper.
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!"
