Iphicratian Pelte & Pelte Sarrisophoron

[MeinPanzer]

I agree with Giannis on this. That appears to me to be a kopis.

And I also agree that with such variation in length within the same kinds of swords (kopides/machairai, xiphoi) within the same time period, if Iphicrates really made a change significant enough to warrant mention by doubling the length of the sword of his troops, it would have to have been significantly longer than the average range of lengths we see on iconographic sources and in actual finds.

[PMBardunias]

if Iphicrates really made a change significant enough to warrant mention by doubling the length of the sword of his troops, it would have to have been significantly longer than the average range of lengths we see on iconographic sources and in actual finds.

I disagree. It only had to be twice as long as whatever sword the hoplites were using at the time by the hoplites he was reforming. I don't think we need to look for a new type of sword. Who would have made these new long swords?

If I am correct in my belief that the short swords were specifically designed for the close-quarters combat of othismos, then these new "hoplites" who by their long spears and lack of aspis must stand off, simply went back to using the older, longer swords.

[sitalkes]

I think it is just a kopis, much like this one
http://forums.swordforum.com/attachment ... 1069862683

I think this one is longer, maybe as much as 70-80cm. The sword reaches from the head to the waist of one of these guys which is about 80cm on me. Could I at least say these swords are longer than average? This is important as the Thracians are suggested as one source for Iphicrates' ideas.

[hoplite14gr]

You are probably right Christopher.
Athenians were in close contacts with the Thracians from the archaic Era either trading or fighting with them.

Kind regards

[sitalkes]

Re: Kyustendil Shield


I have had a further reply to my requests for information about this
shield:

"Hi,

I am writing on behalf of my colleague Lidia Staikova-Aleksandrova,
the archeologist who has examined and studied the Thracian shields.
She gave me the dimensions of both shields. They are as follows:
Oval shield - 90 x 65 centimetres;
Round shield - 80 centimeter diametrically.

Best wishes,

Lidia Staikova and
Miroslava Taskova
Regional History Museum
Kyustendil, Bulgaria "

Dear Christopher Webber,

The shields which you are interested in are from mound grave
inventory from the village of Dolna Koznitsa, Kyustendil Region,
Southwestern Bulgaria. They were found during saving archeological
excavations undertaken in 1989 after been an object of treasure-
hunting intervention. The mound covers a type of works presenting a
grave pit dug into a rock, covered with stone mound. The buried one
is a man, the skeleton isn't in anatomic order. These are important
observations on the funeral rite. The way the corpse has been buried
is a reflection of the Thracian Orphism. The mound inventory is
extremely rich and consists of bronze elements of an armament –
helmet, Chalkid type, a set of plastic greaves, oval shield (the one
that you have used) and a part of round shield with an inscription in
Greece of which some letters have been read. The second shield, the
round one, probably is a trophy. Iron spears' gads were found too.
Were found ornaments – golden necklace pearls, golden ring with an
iron core, a pectoral of silver gold-plated ornamented plastic upon a
metal ground and a burial wreath made of covered with golden foil
clay and bronze elements. The silver and the silver with gilt
applications to three garnitures for horse ammunition, ornamented
with mythological scenes are also of great interest. In the mound
grave also were found black-varnished imported vessels that date the
funeral from the village of Dolna Koznitsa within the period of 300-
285 BC.
The excavations were carried out by Lidia Staikova – Aleksandrova.
The archeological found hasn't been published completely yet and
that's way we haven't given you any photographs.
There is no doubt concerning the Thracian origin of the found. Both
shields are different other in form and structure. The round one,
which its explorer has suggested that is a trophy, has the following
construction – bronze sheet upon wood ground and umbo, which hasn't
been found. The oval shield is made of bronze sheet upon a leather
ground with cross leather lines.
On the armament there are two preliminary publications:
1. Staikov, L., Manov, M. "Signs of An Inscription on a Bronze
Shield from Thrace", published in Numismatics and Sphragistics
Magazine, 1992, 1-2, 23-26.
2. Staikova – Aleksandrova, L. "Ancient Warriors' Arms (after
Materials from the Mound Grave near the Village of Dolna Koznitsa,
Kyustendil Region)", Peace and Conflicts in Southeastern Europe,
2006, 9-14.



Sincerely,

Lidia Staikova – Aleksandrova.
Archeologist
At the Regional History Museum
Kyustendil

[Komanos]

Interesting, thanks for the information! The oval shield is quite interesting, and certainly seems to fit the idea of a symmetrical pelte. The greaves and armor and all make it seem likely the warrior buried there is a Thracian, but I'm not sure we have to think of the Macedonian aspis as a trophy. The site is further west than a couple of small emporia that received Hellenic traffic and had been founded by Hellenic merchants. At at least one of them (Pistiros) they've found Hellenic swords as well as a Thracian rhomphaia as well as large amounts of Hellenic pottery, and that was before they started excavating a possible tomb last year. Then again, an 80cm Macedonian shield would have been used by a big warrior, and so would make an excellent trophy for a Thracian warrior-lord. When you say umbo, does that mean this was one of the spined Macedonian cavalry shields, or are there other Macedonian shields which one would describe as having an umbo?

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Very good info indeed. Though...80cm macedonian shield? :? I mean, some hoplite shields were just about 5 cm bigger!

[Hoplitesmores]

A pelte can't have 80 cm diameter. :? Unless the fella was a giant.


A hoplite shield of 90 cm diameter can be used properly by a 1.75 cm person.If you are taller it doenst protect you enough and if you are shorter it hits on your knees and blocks your neck/head.

[Komanos]

Sure a pelte can have an 80cm diameter. That's what a couple of finds do have. The smallest known finds are around 60cm, the majority are clustered either around 66cm or 74cm, and a couple are in the upper 70's, and as high as 80cm. I agree though, the guy with an 80cm pelte would be a large man...all the more reason for the shield to be either that of a Thracian warrior prince, who may well have been a large man, or the trophy of said Thracian, taken from a large Macedonian man in some small or large war.

But then again, I don't usually think of a Macedonian shield as having an umbo, so perhaps its something else entirely.

EDIT: I checked the finds in Hatzopoulos, and while I remembered an upper range he gave as a little over .8m, I don't see it, so I think I misremembered. The largest ones he describes (aside from guesstimating shield sizes on Agios Athanasios) are .75-.76m. But increasing the radius by 2cm isn't that much of an increase--a large guy, not necessarily a giant. (And I really feel like I'd read somewhere of shields around the 80cm range...if anyone knows, help me out so I don't feel like I'm going senile).

[Duncan Head]

Nick Sekunda, writing recently in the Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, suggests that "peltas summetrous" should be read as "peltai of the same size (as the hoplite aspides previously mentioned"; and that what distinguished the pelte was not so much its size as its being rimless and of light construction. He therefore sees the Iphikratean "peltast" as being the same as his "takabara" Persian peltasts - lightly-equipped close-combat infantry with a large but lightweight shield. He includes a (poor-quality) photo of an Athenian grave-stele with a cavalryman riding down a peltast who carries a large crescent-shaped pelte of this type.

Interesting idea, but I am not completely convinced. Then again, no account of the Iphikrateans has yet completely convinced me!

[sitalkes]

Nick Sekunda, writing recently in the Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare.... includes a (poor-quality) photo of an Athenian grave-stele with a cavalryman riding down a peltast who carries a large crescent-shaped pelte of this type.

Hi, Duncan, it just so happens I took a better quality photo of that carving when I was in Athens, it is attached. By the way, I was bitterly disappointed with that book, I was expecting colour photos, lots of maps, and reconstructions for that price!!!

[sitalkes]

the picture was there, now it's gone? Here it is again, this time with the caption in the museum - which says that it is early 4th century so not so it cold be an ordinary peltast

[Kineas]

At the risk of sounding foolish (never bothered me before) doesn't it sound like Iphacrates invented the phalangite?

Double the dory to the pike

smaller round shield

Asian style armour (He's just back from Persia).

My SENSE (this is opinion!) of reading the quotes in Greek is that this is an "everybody knows" thing--everybody knew that Iphacrates invented the "modern" infantryman. that's the sense I get from the shoes and from a bunch of stuff in Polyaenus, too.

Worth noting that Macedonian infantry could be very light indeed when needed.

But then, so could hoplites. heh...

My sense of history is that there are few revolutions and many evolutions. Before I proposed the above to myself (about ten years ago) I was always wondering--where did the Macedonian infantryman come from? For what purpose was he evolved? Was he there to replace the hoplite, or to conquer Persia?
Athens in 380 and Macedon in 350 actually had some similar tactical problems... the social issue of the post-tyranny of the 30 Athenian world was re-enfranchised men with no hoplite training or skills (if you accept that these came from public training and athletic training--which many people do not accept). If Iphacrates found a way to make these men--psiloi by training but hoplites by enfranchisement--capable of resisting hoplites...
Then why would they not be emulated by Philip, who had a similar problem?

this would answer another one of my little historical issues, which is why Xenophon so disliked Iphacrates. If he felt that Iphacrates was undermining the whole system (and he clearly does)...

Pure speculation, based on insufficient data. I'll go back to making things...

[PMBardunias]

Have you read this?

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson ... ates1.html

In my opinion he underestimates the Thracian contribution to their development (as an anti-cavalry arm?), but its a good overview. I am less than convinced that Iphicratids were ever more widespread than his own experimental troops- though I would be curious to know just how the Thessalian Perioic levy, called Peltasts, were armed. Is there an instance of these troops, as opposed to his old fashioned peltasts, ever actually besting hoplites?

That being said, I could see the lengthened spear as an attempt to directly counter the hoplite phalanx's ability to enter the othismos stage of battle in the normal fashion- daunting to push against a row of spear heads.