Weight and grip of sarissa and shield in macedonian phalanx

[MeinPanzer]

I misunderstood you then, I thought you meant that only some shields still had porpaxes.

I do think this!

well, I'm not sure I'd classify that as an off-set rim- more a dubiously complex curve in the shield face- but the shields are definitely in the range of aspis sizes.

Perhaps offset is the wrong term to use. Let's just say that it has a fairly wide projecting rim like Argive shields did.

When we are told that the best peltae are not too deep or large, this implies to me that some were.

I absolutely agree, and I think that's one of the most important pieces of evidence in this debate.

Getting killed for want of a proper grip is not likely to remain in fashion long. Considering that a porpax could be a cheap leather loop, there would need to be a compelling reason to remove it. like it got in the way somehow.

How difficult is it to go from bearing a shield with a strap and a small loop near the rim to only carrying the shield with a porpax and using the loop near the rim as an antilabe when confronted by an enemy in close combat? Seems like it could be a very awkward transition to me, which may have been why some soldiers just fought with their shields as they were.

Iagree with you, but what evidence is there that they didn't hold it that way??? Lack of evidence is a huge problem with this. Why would the artist make such a mistake? Perhaps if the memory of his sources stressed the sight of a phalanx of bronze shields coming forward in front of each phalangite- not off to the side- he drew it in a way that left the ornate shield face unobstructed.

Right off the bat, I am dubious of taking any sort of tactical detail from artistic representations. We have centuries and centuries of art depicting hoplites, and yet how many depictions of the actual phalanx in formation do we have? And of those that we do have, as you have stated, we have many problems with interpreting them. By comparison, we have barely a century and a half of the widespread use of the Macedonian phalanx and only a few scraps of art. Then there is the fact that it would be physically impossible (or at least extremely awkward) to bear a large, round shield and a sarissa in the manner that the foremost phalangite is - despite the fact that he is holding it with his left hand, it runs behind the shield itself.

The most common stance of warriors. As on the plaque, 3/4 forward when standing, and shoulders, toes and hips forward when moving, same as hoplites (who I written before didn't stand in the stylized completely sideways, perpendicular, stance for a variety of reasons). When moving, the left arm holding the sarissa at or near its balance point would be across the front of the torso, the hand just right of the body. The right hand to the rear pivoting the sarissa on the lever of its rear length. The strap greatly aids the front arm in this position. Because the shoulders are more frontal, the shield can be in front of the phalangite.

Try this with any weight: hold it right next to your body and hold it a few feet away- closer is always easier. The reason that some find carrying the weight easier with the hands away from the body is that they make an "A" frame of their arms, the weight hanging on extended limbs as opposed to being held up in bent arms. This works well for holding, but severely limits the range of motion for a strike since the arms are already so extended.

I'm confused, as this is exactly the stance that Connolly takes when testing a sarissa and telamon shield in his article "Experiments with the Sarissa - the Macedonian pike and cavalry lance - a functional view," JRMES 11 (2000): 103-112 (fig. 9 shows him with the full setup).