07-01-2010, 06:12 PM
Great work, Paul. This is exactly the kind of testing which needs to be done to establish some facts. However, I think these have only confirmed what we all already knew or suspected: that a sarissa can be held with both hands while carrying a rimless shield of around 66-70 cm with a porpax; that a similar shield with a relatively small rim can be used in the same way; and that a sarissa cannot be held with both hands while carrying either a deeply-dished rimless shield or a regular Argive shield with a porpax. I am not contesting any of these facts.
What I am postulating is that the difference between a minor rim, like that Paul employed on his shallow shield, and a larger one, like that of an Argive shield, is one of degrees. I think we fundamentally disagree in how we see the evidence: I see a spectrum of shield sizes, shapes, and features, while you see concrete dichotomies. The leftmost phalangite carries a shield with a rim or edge guard of some kind, but it does not stick out like the rim of the rightmost man's shield does, and so the latter seems to be a small rim and not a guard.
If 66-70 cm suited "most men," then why did shields from 62-66 and 70-77 cm in diametre exist?
I agree, but there was nothing to indicate that all men in the Chalkaspides had the same exact shields - they likely had different decoration and different sizes, with the basic requirement that all men be issued with bronze-faced shields.
You know what I mean by contemporary: later Roman. My point was that anyone like Pausanias who was writing about history well before his time would have had access to popular historians through booksellers or even a minor library just as readily as more recent authors. If Plutarch was able to get access to the writings of Polybius and Aratus, which he certainly did, then there's little doubt that Pausanias would have had similar access.
As I have stated before, I never doubted that wielding a sarissa with two hands while carrying an Argive shield with a porpax would be at best impractical, and at worst impossible. My argument, in the beginning of the thread as now, is that in some circumstances, the Argive shield could have been employed by phalangites with some minor adjustment as long as a telamon was used to carry it instead of a porpax. This:
...An Argive shield with a looser strap but no porpax, is what I would like to see tested.
And these tests still do not answer the question of how the deeply-dished rimless shields, like those shown on the Pydna monument and the Pergamon battle plaque, were used with the sarissa. As Paul's test shows, this would not be practical in the least. So how do we account for these deeply-dishes shields?
Quote:The figure on the right certainly does not have an offset rim like an ‘argive aspis’, and this is what I thought you were arguing for. It appears to have a ‘rim/edge guard’ like many shields including the Italian ‘scutum’ – a vestigial rim at best, and a similar one is visible on the Venice example I posted, but I would call such a shield ‘rimless’. Or it may also simply be the decorative raised concentric circles we see on the extant examples.
What I am postulating is that the difference between a minor rim, like that Paul employed on his shallow shield, and a larger one, like that of an Argive shield, is one of degrees. I think we fundamentally disagree in how we see the evidence: I see a spectrum of shield sizes, shapes, and features, while you see concrete dichotomies. The leftmost phalangite carries a shield with a rim or edge guard of some kind, but it does not stick out like the rim of the rightmost man's shield does, and so the latter seems to be a small rim and not a guard.
Quote:I would certainly agree that it is possible there were different sized shields/moulds, to accommodate different forearm lengths, but 66 or 70 cm would suit most men. (“8 palms” ).
If 66-70 cm suited "most men," then why did shields from 62-66 and 70-77 cm in diametre exist?
Quote:As to shield decoration, I think it reasonable that a unit such as the ‘Chalkaspides’(Bronze shields) would be alike – and of course it is only the bronze faced type that has survived the vagaries of time. Others, such as the ‘Leukaspides’/White shields may not have had bronze facings at all, and would certainly have required bronze edging ( to avoid weapons splitting them), as we see on ‘scuta’ and the rims of non-bronze faced ‘argive aspides’.
I agree, but there was nothing to indicate that all men in the Chalkaspides had the same exact shields - they likely had different decoration and different sizes, with the basic requirement that all men be issued with bronze-faced shields.
Quote:Hardly contemporary! Plutarch ‘floreat’ c. 100 AD and Pausanias 75 years later – some 3 generations later, and one might expect that the works of Plutarch would likely have been more accessible than the much older ones, that needed repeated copying to survive…..
You know what I mean by contemporary: later Roman. My point was that anyone like Pausanias who was writing about history well before his time would have had access to popular historians through booksellers or even a minor library just as readily as more recent authors. If Plutarch was able to get access to the writings of Polybius and Aratus, which he certainly did, then there's little doubt that Pausanias would have had similar access.
Quote:....In fact a cross section of what an 'argive aspis' with its rim cut off would be like.... and it would appear that even thus modified, such a shield is not very practical for sarissa use.
As I have stated before, I never doubted that wielding a sarissa with two hands while carrying an Argive shield with a porpax would be at best impractical, and at worst impossible. My argument, in the beginning of the thread as now, is that in some circumstances, the Argive shield could have been employed by phalangites with some minor adjustment as long as a telamon was used to carry it instead of a porpax. This:
Quote:Based on the tests I did I don't think that the aspis could have been used with a sarissa even if held by just the antilabe. The reason for this became apparent fro the tests: that steep curve, all most all of which occurrs near the edge is a problem. Even to use an antilabe, you'd either have to secure it to the outer curve right up near the rim or make it so long and loose that maneuvering the shield would be very difficult even hanging from a strap. You could of course chop a section out like a Boeotian shield, but I've not seen evidence of this. Though Connolly did suggest that Thebans did just this to use sarissa-type spears pre-Phillip- not likely.
...An Argive shield with a looser strap but no porpax, is what I would like to see tested.
And these tests still do not answer the question of how the deeply-dished rimless shields, like those shown on the Pydna monument and the Pergamon battle plaque, were used with the sarissa. As Paul's test shows, this would not be practical in the least. So how do we account for these deeply-dishes shields?
Ruben
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
