04-08-2014, 11:11 PM
Not much is written in the sources about these particular leucaspides (as a term it only says that the soldiers were carrying white shields and was used for many troops other than those employed by Antigonus). However, Plutarch writes that Cleomenes armed 2,000 of his troops in the Macedonian manner (sarisa and pelte) to specifically counter the leucaspides of Antigonos (Plutarch's Agis and Cleomenes 44.1.6.). Under that prism I fail to see how the leucaspides of Antigonos were not of "the phalanx". As far as I know that is the only mention of this contingent we have in Greek.
[edit]
I just read Secunda's theory. For me, the main problem is that he tries to support that there was a long lasting leucaspides regiment in the post Alexandrian Macedonian armies, which in itself is not well supported. I also disagree with his theory that at Sellasia, the Whiteshields were the Illyrians and that Cleomenes used his "Macedonian" phalanx as he proposes... However, as I already wrote, the term was used for any type of troops bearing white shields, so as far as I am concerned, in some battle sometime, someplace, they could be archers on camels.
[edit]
I just read Secunda's theory. For me, the main problem is that he tries to support that there was a long lasting leucaspides regiment in the post Alexandrian Macedonian armies, which in itself is not well supported. I also disagree with his theory that at Sellasia, the Whiteshields were the Illyrians and that Cleomenes used his "Macedonian" phalanx as he proposes... However, as I already wrote, the term was used for any type of troops bearing white shields, so as far as I am concerned, in some battle sometime, someplace, they could be archers on camels.
