Macedonian shield

[MeinPanzer]

Nylander has found several reasons that they cannot belong to Macedonian troops.

Sekunda references Nylander, in particular "C. Nylander, The Standard of the Great King "Opuscula Romana XIV," 1983, Vol. XIV, p. 19-37.

In particular, they are intermingled with a red standard which originally bore a clear eagle and resembled other Achaemenid art. Achaemenid generals each had a personal standard, so one would be a natural element of the mosaic. The mosaic of the banner was less damaged when discovered, and several contemporary drawings show more of the design than is visible today.

I agree that the standard is Persian.

The shafts also appear close,

Which is no indication whatsoever of position in a painting that foregoes most of the rules of perspective.

and there is no particular sign that the Persians are turning to respond to an attack from two sides at once. (They do seem to be milling about in confusion somewhat).

This is a moment of great pathos, and it would be only natural that the Persians would turn to their king as he is driven from the battlefield. I see no problem with them looking to their king being driven away even as the Macedonians bear down on them.

The shafts also face the wrong direction to be Macedonian, although some have developed elaborate theories of a flanking movement or see the spears as a vague, distant symbol of imminent defeat (Sekunda).

Again, considering the lack of real perspective, it seems like this was some sort of artistic addition to emphasize the impending defeat of the Persians. It need not actually reflect the real happenings of the battle.

I agree that there are problems with identifying the shafts with Persian lances (or the spears of some Persian cardaces or other Achaemenid infantry?) but personaly I find the theory to be the most plausible one.

Well, we'll never know either way!

As a side note, one of my professors has mentioned a study purporting to prove that Macedonian sarissas would bend too much if made in one section, and that a sleeve would reduce the bend substantially. Given what has been said above in this thread, I expect the experimenters picked wood grown the wrong way. Does anyone know what study he was talking about?

I think it might have been the one below. There was also an article about Connolly and his appearance in full kit, including sarissa, at a show of some sort in an older Slingshot. I might go look it up, but I don't remember any major revelations coming from that article.

Edit: MeinPanzer, could you give us a citation for that article by Sekunda, if it has been published? I'd be interested in reading it and have access to a university library and interlibrary loan.

Here's the article I'm talking about:

Nicholas Sekunda, "The Sarissa", in Acta Universitatis Lodziensis: Folia
Archaeologica 23, 2001" pp. 13-41.

And this is one recommended to me by Duncan Head but which I couldn't get a hold of (this is the only issue of JRMES that my university library system didn't have!):

Peter Connolly, "Experiments with the sarissa - the Macedonian pike and
cavalry lance - a functional view" in "Re-enactment as research: Journal
of Roman Military Equipment Studies vol. 11, 2000" (ed. A T Croom and W B Griffiths)