Macedonian Silver Shields

[Paralus]

So Paul, about seventy odd talents you estimate? A reasonable spend but pocket change given the resources of empire.

The point is more silver as armour. How soft is it as a metal? The assumption is that the bronze (insert your favourite alloy here) coverings were to protect the wood that formed the shield. Would silver perform well in this regard? It was perhaps a silver alloy?

My wife is the materials scientist, perhaps I should ask her!

Either way, it was reserved for the picked corps and, one assumes, its agema. It was, most definitely, a mark distinction and differentiation. The members of the unit certainly let no one forget it.

Just on arming - or re-arming - for the Indian invasion, Lane Fox, in his "boys' own" style Alexander, makes the claim that the entire Macedonian infantry dispensed with the sarissa at the outset of this campaign as it was too "unwieldy" for India. He follows this up by boldly claiming that they never (under Alexander) used the sarissa again. He presents no evidence, just the statement and a note referring to a forthcoming article.

This all sits rather at odds with Diodorus description of the Hydaspes where he has the Macedonians dealing with the elephants and their mahouts with "their long spears".

Perhaps, realising the error of their ways, they somehow rivited their hoplite spears together? Anyone know of the article he refers to?

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus/Michael wrote:-

The point is more silver as armour. How soft is it as a metal? The assumption is that the bronze (insert your favourite alloy here) coverings were to protect the wood that formed the shield. Would silver perform well in this regard? It was perhaps a silver alloy?

...two points to make here:-
1.The bronze facing typically varied from 0.5-1.0 mm and as various tests have shown, added little or nothing to the protective element of the shield - some shields were not bronze faced at all - so the bronze was decorative, and replacement with silver the same.

2.Annealed silver has a scleroscope hardness of 6.5, and annealed brass/archaic bronze 10-15, so one would think the silver much softer but this is not so!
Hammered/cold-worked silver has a scleroscope hardness of 20-30, while hammered bronze is 24-25, so little or no difference !! ...the metal facing being hammered on, of course.

A silver alloy, even with less than 10% of 'other metal' could be harder still, of course......

[hoplite14gr]

In the Vergina tomb they found silver amphoras that had golden outer layers.
The gold was not sheets hammered on silver.

Many people belive that mercury was used. (same trick like the Russian Churches golden domes.)
Its an easy way to give a silver layer of the shield's bronze layer.

Kind regard

[Hypaspist]

Paul
I would Like to point out That indeed as I stated earlier, Silver can be quite tough when tool hardened .And quiet easily worked when Annealed , But what a person may not realize , without having worked with these metals before , is Fully Tool Harden metal simply becomes unworkable . and Brittle . Weather Bronze or Silver , You would never be able to get the full hardness potential in something like the Covering of a shield., further more I would , or I say I could not imagine the difficulties these metal workers had to Anneal a large thin Piece of any size accurately .. They must have had great Skill. So My Point is These Numbers do not mean so much as one would think , only the optimum one may be able to achieve technically .
I do not know how accurate it is , But I heard sometime back a typical Corinthian helmet had about 2mm of thickness throughout ?? Wow , I would find it hard to believe that a Approximate 1mm covering of bronze would have no effect or Little effect upon the protective nature of a shield ?? Spreading the Loading of impact even in a small area ,, I would think would have some reasonable effectiveness ??? But This I just speculate .. I would presume That the Covering would of course have a Great effect as a Weather and Moisture Barrier .

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Secunda says the bronze coverings found are 0.5mm or less. This thickness in no real protection.1 mm is real protection.Corinthian helmets had varied thicknesses,with the earlyer ones being very thick and havy. In the same helmet the thicknes could varry from 1.3-4mm(the nose guards and the area around the crown were thicker. Undoubtedly ancient metal workers had skill and knowlege above modern metal workers. Still the efect produced in the shields' rim is unexplicable with what we think was limitated ancient technology. Even manning does not make the back of the rim so perfect as the ancient finds.
Paul,I don't know about 1mm thickness in shield coverings. Secunda says 0.5 or less and I think Hanson agrees in this(I'm not sure,someone who has The Wastern Way of War may check,I don't have it near).But 1mm is real protection,if you add it to the wooden core!And considerable weight,too.
Khaire
Giannis

[geala]

I think also 0,5 mm bronze would have added some protection. Once I read about Irish leather shields with thin bronze coverings which performed very well even against the heaviest sword blows. I will try to find it again. Bronze can be made very ductile (not sure it is the right term) and would so be a good protection from slivering for the wood below at least.

[Paullus Scipio]

Yes, Wolfgang, now that you mention it, I have seen that site and its results too !
We have a figure for the Vatican shield....I wonder where Sekunda got his figure from, or is it a 'guesstimate' based on the knowledge that they were 'thin'?
Any of our greek friends know/can find out the thickness of the 'Sphakteria Trophy' shield cover?( the one in Athens, inscribed 'taken from the Lakedaemonians?) ...or the Aspis covers/facings in the so-called Philip tomb?...or the intact Pelte covers illustrated in this thread?

With several figures one might get some idea of the range ( e.g. O.5-1mm) of thicknesses........

And considerable weight,too

....if silver, 600 odd grams ( see my previous post) Silver has a density of 10.5, to archaic bronze 9 so a bronze facing 1mm thick would be roughly 90% of a silver one.... 8)

[Paullus Scipio]

Hypaspist wrote:-
"They must have had great Skill. So My Point is These Numbers do not mean so much as one would think , only the optimum one may be able to achieve technically .
I do not know how accurate it is , But I heard sometime back a typical Corinthian helmet had about 2mm of thickness throughout ??"

Giannis said:-
"Undoubtedly ancient metal workers had skill and knowledge above modern metal workers."

Greek armour constantly evolved as you are all aware, as did the metallurgy. Early Corinthian helmets were 'softer','thicker' and 'heavier', weighing 1.25-1.6kg in the early sixth century--they mostly conformed to the skull e.g the "milos" type I illustrated in "Warfare in the Classical World". The late Corinthian first appears around 530 b.c., distinguished by it's central peak and offset from forehead and sides by a curving ridge, and tends to weigh around 0.9 kg, and is thinner and cold-worked. (c.f. the U.S WW2 steel helmet at 1.11 kg).....BTW, the Deepeeka Late Corinthian, though of uniform thickness, is about the right weight...

It is also difficult to generalise because these helmets were all individually
made, and differed in thickness in different parts ( like modern tank armour). ….sophisticated ! 8)

A study of several dozen, from Olympia (dedications) revealed the following details of thickness for Late Corinthian helmets........

cheeks : generally around 0.75 mm, but up to 1.25 mm
around the eyes: generally around 1.25 mm, but up to 1.75 mm
Nasal top: around 2.75-3.75 mm but one 5 mm
Nasal bottom: 4.0-5.0 mm but one 3.75 and another only 1.5 mm
forehead: 1.0 mm-2mm
temple: 0.75-1.0 mm
neck: 0.75-1.75 mm, (avge around 0.75 mm-1.0 mm)

It should also be remembered these helmets were worked from a single sheet.

These figures also show that 1-2mm of cold-worked and hardened bronze was considered adequate protection, when added to the ‘new’ more efficient shape, which implies that the 0.5-1mm or so of a shield face, while unable to ‘stop’ a spear thrust or sword slash, may well have added some additional protection.

[Hypaspist]

Paul,
My Hat is Off In thanks For Information. You are able quite quickly to put your Facts up on the board roll: . Was there a difference in the Bronze composition between the early and later Corinthian helmets ??
Cheers ,
Michael Pechacek Sr

[Hypaspist]

Also I have a Question , ? Is there a Boeotian Helmet Know In Iron ?? I thought all examples where bronze ??
M. Pechacek Sr

[Paullus Scipio]

Michael wrote:-

Was there a difference in the Bronze composition between the early and later Corinthian helmets ??

...to the best of my information, not much ( allowing for individual variances)....the bronze was fairly consistently around 8% tin.

The differences came about through use of different annealing temperatures, the degree of cold-working, and the better ballistic shape, all of which combined to allow a thinner helmet to provide much the same degree of protection.

I think the idea of an iron Boeotian helmet comes from the 'silver' coloured one depicted on the Alexander mosaic...which is far more likely to be a 'tinned' or 'silvered' bronze one, though certainty is impossible.....

[Hypaspist]

Paul ,
I saw the Manning International Iron Boeotian , A copy of One in The Oxford Museum ?? and wondered Maybe I missed Something , The Boeotian helmet , to me speaks Volumes on Efficent Use of Bronze and its Inherent Working Qualities .. Iron , just does not work Quite the same .I wonder , is there any evidence one way or other that these where Cavalry only Helmets ??
, Michael Pechacek Sr.

[Paullus Scipio]

AFIK, Boeotian style helmets were not restricted to cavalry...this misconception arises because , in recommending 'ideal' equipment for cavalry, Xenophon recommends the Boeotian.

[Hypaspist]

I Am wondering If The Boeotian helmet would be a type Worn by the "Silver Shields "? Are they shown in Any Art pieces , being Worn By Infantry?? I can Think of two Examples of Ancient Art , Both Show Cavalry ? The " Alexander Sarcophagus" in Istanbul . and in Pompeii , The " Alexander Mosaic " ? Are there any Others ??.. And The Only Example I can Find right Now is in the Ashmolean Museum , Oxford , I thought there is one in The British Museum too ?
Michael Pechacek Sr.

[Paullus Scipio]

It is likely that, as with most contemporary units in Greek and Macedonian armies, a wide variety of helmets, including Boeotian and variations thereof would be worn. Remember the Boeotian was not originally developed ( as far as we know) for cavalry, but rather as a species of Hoplite helmet. When Xenophon recommends its use by cavalry, he implies that it is but one of many choices, and certainly other types were worn by contemporary cavalry too. The strong impression is that Helmet choice in both cavalry and infantry was a matter of personal taste.